Spinoza's Argument for Substance Monism

For Descartes, this means that a substance is really distinct from anything else other than God whom Descartes credits as the creator of such an object. The ramification of such a principle leads Descartes to believe that the mind and body could exist completely separately of one another, allowing that God chose to create them in this particular way. Despite this, the possibility that the two could exist separately does not mean they actually do. This is an issue of its own entirely.

Both philosophers agree that God is the only infinite substance that does not depend on anything else. Spinoza sees God as the only infinite substance with several substances while Descartes indicates that God is the substance, in which we comprehend to be completely ideal, and fully independent. He also illustrates God as the substance that we conceive to be absolutely without any defect in its perfection.

For the Tanakh, for rabbinic literature, and for important strands in Jewish mysticism, God has always been a corporeal

Upon elaboration, Renatus suggests that were he to have an idea that is so objectively real, that its reality is in fact greater than he, than he could not have caused it (42). This implies that a greater being, such as God, must have caused it. Renatus is quick to conclude that, because of God’s characteristics, which are definitely ideas much more objective than himself, God must necessarily exist (45). These traits of God are that his substance is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, and is the creator of all life (45). The necessity of God’s existence is the first proof that Descartes’ meditations. It’s determined to be a “necessity” because it is suggested that it

To apprehend God is akin to apprehending truths of mathematical nature; they are found within the contents of the mind and are ontologically and logically true. Further, mathematical truths have ‘essences’ which necessitate their existence; for example, the fact of three angles equalling two right angles is essential to the existence of the triangle. It is what makes the existing thing what it is. As for the idea of God, Descartes writes, “existence can no more be separated from the essence of God.”. Because God is defined as perfect, it then follows that God must therefore exist, as existence is itself a perfection. In other words, perfection is existence, and to not exist would be less than perfect; therefore, the ontological argument argues for necessity of God’s existence by virtue of his perfect essence.

In this paper, I offer a reconstruction of Descartes argument for God’s existence in the Third Meditation. Descartes tries to prove the existence of God with an argument that proceeds from the clear and distinct idea of an infinite being to the existence of himself. He believes that his clear and distinct idea of an infinite being with infinite “objective reality” leads to the occurrence of the “Special Causal Principle”. I will start by discussing and analyzing Descartes clear and distinct idea of an infinite being and how it the classification of ideas and the difference between formal and objective reality Special Causal Principle. Finally, I will examine the reasons Descartes offers for his belief in Gods existence and I will indicate the drawbacks within the proof. It will be concluded that Descartes arguments are inadequate and don’t clearly prove the existence of God.

From the Excerpts on God from a Neo-Scholastic Theology Book, we learn from its first section that God is a subsistent (continuously existing) being, and that he is existence itself. As written by Reys in the first excerpt "Subsistent Being," "[God's] existence is not an activity distinct from the ultimate being... Its 'nature' and 'existence' are one single eternal fact" (CP2 10). Likewise, we see this same fact in Chapter 3 of CP2, where it says, "With anything other than God, you can distinguish its nature/essence from its existence... [b]ut with God, you can't distinguish His nature from His existence, because they're the same thing" (CP2 6). These both relate to each other as they both say that God's nature and God's existence are one

     Spinoza’s staunch, pantheistic monist view of the world establishes that the mind and body are not separate entities in themselves, but only two of an infinite amount of attributes of the same and only substance in existence – God. One can relate this reasoning to two attributes of a red-hot poker – red and hot. Does this entail that red and hot are always dependent on a poker and that they are in essence the same thing? Although this is not a likely conclusion, Spinoza raises the important question of how far we can analytically separate parts of a world that are always interacting with each other. Try getting a metal poker to glow red without heating it, or heating a poker without eventually having it glow red. This is improbable, albeit possible in theory. The mind and body may be two separately identifiable things, but one will more than likely find the two cooperating with each other as attributes of the natural world.

Most major arguments of God are rooted in the existence, or lack thereof. However there has been a continuous debate regarding the specific characteristics of God. In this debate, Charles Hartshorne, Alfred North Whitehead, and other the processed theologians oppose Anselm, Augustine, and other classic theologians. Although there are many points of disagreement, there are some characteristics for which both sides can agree upon. I will show one strong point of agreement and one strong point of opposition, and allow you the opportunity to decide for yourself how different, or similar, these two camps are.

God however, is a substance that is not finite; God is of the highest level of reality, an infinite substance. There are three levels of reality with properties or modes at the lowest, finite substances such as humans in the middle and an infinite substance, i.e. God as the highest (Thompson, 30).

He wanted to figure out how they functioned together. Spinoza accepted Descartes mathematical model for deducing knowledge. He defends, outside the intellect; there is nothing but substance and its modes or affections. Spinoza establishes the "Fact and manner of [a] divine causality" through careful mathematical deduction. Consequently, God's essence exists through His own active power and necessity. For this Spinoza was considered an atheist (Collins, 1967, p.83).

The concept of God is central to the development of Cartesian and Spinozan philosophy. Although both philosophers employ an ontological argument for the existence and necessity of God the specific nature of God differs greatly with each account. While Descartes suggests a Judeo-Christian concept of God, Spinoza argues a more monistic deity similar to that of the Hindu tradition. The most significant difference however, lies within the basis and structure of each argument itself. Considered from an analytical standpoint through the lens of Gotlobb Frege, Descartes' proof of God possesses both sense and reference and is therefore capable of expressing the

In the Fifth Mediation, Descartes purports his ontological argument for the existence of God. It is simpler than his first and based on God's essence. For anything else that exists, the essence of that thing only implies it's existence. For God, however, essence

While Descartes sought, through the Meditations, to be certain of the truth of his own existence as a ‘thinking thing’ and then prove God’s existence, Spinoza turns Descartes’ argument on its axis. For Spinoza the argument that God exists as the only substance, because as a supremely perfect being he must necessarily exist is the basis of the Ethics.

Many people have wondered if humans have the freedom of human will. Do we have the freedom of making our own decisions and judgements or is our will powerless and our actions and decisions are predetermined by prior causes? Well, there are two philosophers named Descartes and Spinoza that have had some disagreements about the human will and will give you their accounts about why their argument is stronger than the other.