According to Leibniz, God is the supreme creator of everything. God is perfect in nature and everything that exists is in existence because of God. He argues that God has made everything perfect in nature and that they are considered perfect not because God made it but due to the fact that everything that comes from God is perfect and is created for a distinct reason. He argues that it would not be Godlike to create things that don’t have purpose because through God’s infinite wisdom and knowledge he knows that creating things with a purpose is necessary. Like Spinoza, Leibniz believes that God has infinite power and that nothing exists outside of Gods nature. He also believes that there is only one God and that everything that is in existence has to exist. …show more content…
Leibniz argues that there does not exist two of the same substances. Instead, he argues that each substance it like an individual world with everything that it will do or become already existing in its nature. He maintains that individual substances contains all predicates true of it past, present, and future. For example, he argues that humans encompass everything that it needs to exist in their being. As a result, it seems that the essence of the human is the human itself. He suggests that humans have a unique ability to make choices because they have a mind and are able to rationally choose between doing A or B. He notes that animals do not have this choice because there is no evidence that they make choices based on rational thought and mental processes. Thus, humans already encompass an ability that this different from everything else in
This poster was published in 1943 and created by Maurice Bramley to encourage women to help and support the national service office for the war. The words, ‘join us’ clearly explains how they are recruiting people to conduct a certain type of activity. When men were at war, women were encouraged to fill in the traditional jobs roles that men carried on before. Hence, posters of recruitment quickly filled the streets and roads encouraging women to help.
In the novel, Zeitoun, Kathy tried many times to convince Zeitoun into evacuating, when hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. Unfortunately she was unsuccessful, and therefore he stayed in the city through the hurricane. The novel, explains Zeitoun’s obstinate refusal to evacuate from New Orleans with his wife and children during the hurricane. “[Zeitoun's] grandmother had stayed put during countless storms in her home on Arwad Island, and he planned to do the same. A home was worth fighting for.”(Zeitoun, 70, Eggers). Despite the fact that a house is may seem replaceable, this is actually symbolic of assimilation in the United States, just like Zeitoun’s grandmother refused to leave her house during many storms on Award Island, Zeitoun's has now settled in New Orleans and he is not planning on leaving.
A significant aspect in Leibniz’s Monadology and Discourse on Metaphysics, is his conception of simple substance and interaction. Leibniz assigns the term Monad to all simple substances. Monads are beings without parts, for which “neither extension, nor shape, nor divisibility is possible” (M3). Monads can exist as determined, necessary, finite, or infinite beings. For Leibniz, God exists as the only one necessary and infinite Monad, who is the sole causer of the infinity many determined, independent and finite Monads in the universe, all of which are contingent on God for their existence (D14). Leibniz claimed that all created Monads “have within them a certain perfection; there is a kind of self sufficiency which makes them the source of
For years, philosophers have debated the mind-body problem, the issue of what mental phenomena are and how they relate to the physical world. Philosopher Descartes believed in substance dualism, the belief that the mind and the body are two different things. In this essay, I will examine Descartes’ substance dualism theory. First, I will review Descartes’s theory and reasons that support it. Then, I will review objections with Descartes’s argument. After that, I will imagine how Descartes would respond to these objections. Finally, I will conclude with an overall assessment.
God created the universe and all parts thereof. God is separate from his creation. God rules over his creation. The creation of the universe is a gift from God, ruled by God. God is transcendent.
For him to say that there could possibly be more good than evil in absurd because how could he know this. Then to assume that the goodness will be infinite we have to assume there is an afterlife that we will be conscious for. These arguments are based on the fact that someone already believes in god so they do work in favor of the argument he is trying to provide. Both Leibniz and Anselm offer arguments that only work if you already believe and do nothing for people who do not believe in the
First, the only proper method to distinguish the difference between two substances would be attribute and mode. If we were to go about Leibniz way of having two substances share a similar attribute but a different second attribute, the definition of having the same nature or attribute does not follow which then makes one of the two ways of identifying a substance useless. Second, the definition of substance itself is that it is in itself and conceived through itself without needing others for it to be formed.Focusing on the essence rather than its alteration, two substances with a similar attribute would still have the same essence. (possible different modes) Which then, by putting the alteration aside would mean that the two substances are similar. Finally, with the fact that the two substances with similar attributes thus cannot be distinguished, and there are only two methods in which it can be distinguished, the conclusion comes to that two substances cannot have the same
As we have discussed, Aristotle separated the souls into four categories (nutritive, movement, perception, and understanding). Aristotle believed that it is the understanding soul separated humans from their animal counterparts who possessed the three other souls. He thought that because humans possessed the ability to understand their perceptions as well as their own self, they should be granted a higher distinction. Although Midgley does not talk about her ideas on the soul or the self, this example still shows another instance where intelligence was used as the basis for comparison and distinction. However, Charles Taylor had viewpoints that mirror Midgley’s ideas. Taylor used the consciousness as representation as one of his technique to separate persons, agents and mere things. In this instance, consciousness was the defining factor between persons and agents. It could easily be argued that animals have a conscious, thus putting them in the persons category. Taylor’s ideas are the first steps to new ideas on how to classify and categorize persons, agents, and mere things.
Substance dualism is the belief that the mind and the body are separate entities, consequently, an argument for dualism is that i. minds can experience anger, ii. Nothing physical can experience anger and therefore, minds are not physical. In this examination my goal is to show that minds are physical. I will argue against the second premise, showing that the mind is the brain, which is physical. I will do so by referring to the functionalist school of thought and additionally, by examining the functioning of the brain with regard to research on neuroscience. Furthermore, I will exhibit that substance dualist Rene Descartes’ work on non-human animals is inconsistent with research that shows the existence of mental states in non-human animals, thus confirming that minds are physical.
Conway contributes that all created substance is living, capable of motion and perception. Conway denies the existence of material body, while arguing that inert corporeal substance would contradict the nature of God. These two theories of substance are very different from each other; Conway uses the existence of God as her “backbone” to the argument, while Leibniz uses more a scientific approach to this
From Leibniz comes Leibniz’s law, which states: if X and Y are identical, then they have all properties in common. As previously mentioned, a property is a tangible, quantifiable attribute of a substance. Therefore, Leibniz’s law is stating if Substance X and Substance Y are to be deemed identical, then Substance X and Substance Y must share all the same properties. So if the variable, Substance X, is identified as material substance and the variable, Substance Y, is identified as physical substance, then according to Leibniz’s law, it would logically have to follow that mental and physical substances share all of the same exact properties. But this is not the case. Mental substances and physical substances do not share the same exact properties. Therefore, mental substances and physical substances are not the same substance. This is Leibniz’s argument for substance
Spinoza claims that in order for God to act in the world for a specific end, it must be that he is trying to bring about something which he lacks in himself. This is because God created all things for himself and on his own behalf, for to act on behalf of anything else would be impossible since nothing else existed at the time of creation by definition. As such God must have lacked these things and have desire them. It then follows that he no longer has all perfections. Instead, Spinoza wants to maintain that nature acts of its own reasons according to principles of necessity and not according to a specific end appointed by God (Spinoza 112). Furthermore, Spinoza asserts that things which exist as direct causes from God are more perfect than their effects. This is due to the premise that
I understand now what you have stated, Nathan. I agree with what you have said: God is immutable and evil does not derive from Him. What I was trying to convey with the theodicy of Leibniz's theodicy is that I affirm that whatever God does or permits is with pure reasoning. Therefore, He temporarily allows evil because of His pure reasoning. Simply, I affirm the quote I stated, not his full theodicy (i.e.,“God will not do something without sufficient reason (discernible by pure
He also believes that the only way for God to provide thought to a substance is if that substance can already think, or if it were a miracle. Though it makes sense for immobile substances to be granted with the gift of thought, any living, breathing, substance has that ability by default, as it has a mind to tell it to eat, hunt, sleep, drink, and move. Without the ability to think, actions would be robotic, meaning there would be no need for a preference of food or drink consumption, because we would mindlessly be compelled to refuel –like a car. Instead, Leibniz takes the Occasionalist notion that thoughts are formed from a different substance, with the exception of animals who Leibniz believes can potentially have the ability of thought. That is because Leibniz defines a substance as something containing a body and a mind. If something physically resembles another thing, they can be modified to become each other. Leibniz refers to this as “modifications” and “attributes”, in order to highlight the differences between something that can be modified but remain the same, and something that is characteristically different that it is impossible to be similar. If these things are not physically alike, their modifications are too different to be shared. Leibniz defines this as a “real kind” and a “logical kind” because there is a stark difference between the appearances of the
Leibniz argues that the source of all substances is God, and that God ensues whatever interactions they may have. God being sole substance, it enfolds the ability to will interactions on all other substances. From this, it can be noted that Leibniz is purposing that each self-contained monad multiplies infinitely, unlike Spinoza who argues that all things are composed of and directed by a single substance. Though they contrast in ways, both arguments are rational in