The World Apart Doctrine By Leibniz

Throughout the history of metaphysics the question, What is? has always been answered in an incomplete,unsatisfactory or complicated manner, but Spinoza tried to answer this question in an exceptional way simply by describing God and His essence. Based on Spinoza’s views, God’s qualities can be referred to as attributes and modes are merely affections of a substance. This paper will provide a detailed view of Spinoza’s key ontological definition of God as the only substance, his attributes, and their co-relations. The study goes further to explore the major scholarly argument between Spinoza and Descartes, in regard to their view of substance, and its attributes.

What is the mind-body problem? The mind-body problem asks the question, are the mind and body separate substances of elements of the same substance? In this paper I wish to propose, and try to provide support for Descartes notion of the immaterial mind, by critically discussing the view of substance dualism, pertaining to the relationship between the mind and body. The two arguments of which I will provide in this paper to support this view are divisibility and disembodied existence. There are two fundamentally different substances in this universe, physical and mental properties, this paper will explore both of these substances (8).

‘Cogito Ergo Sum,’ - ‘I think therefore I am ‘ one of the most famous and well known quotes or arguments in all of modern philosophy; a phrase instantly recognizable to all those studying in the field of philosophy. This phrase refers to an attempt by Descartes to prove with absolute certainty his own existence; a systematic way to philosophize. The argument, while first proposed by ancient philosophers such as Aristotle and Saint Augustine, was utilized as an argument by French philosopher Rene Descartes in his influential text “Meditations on First Philosophy“. This argument appears in the books second meditation and provides the cornerstone for Descartes argument in the following five meditations and serves as the basis for Descartes overall metaphysical thesis, without which Descartes reasoning system would collapse. Throughout this paper I will

Leibniz’s argument is credible in the following ways. Leibniz’s argument gives the idea of Utilitarianism meaning in that evil resides in the world in order to create the idea of a greater good. At its core, good acts are nothing without evil acts being present in order to balance one another. An objection to this point of view, however, might be that the existence of evil proves that “Whoever does not choose the best is lacking in power or in knowledge, or in goodness” (Perry, 95). Yet, Leibniz counters this

   Leibnitz emphasized, in his Discours de Metaphysique (Discourse on Metaphysics) (1686) the role of a benevolent creator. He called the constituent components of the universe monads, and while the philosophy of monads is of little concern to readers of Candide, the conclusion which Leibnitz drew from these monads is crucial to an understanding of optimism.

In Daniel Garber’s article, “Descartes against his teachers: The Refutation of Hylomorphism”, the metaphysics of the early scholastics is presented to show the similarities and differences between what Descartes was taught through scholasticism and what he came to refute. Through analysis of the article I will present what Descartes considered to be the central ideas of scholastic metaphysics, as well as show what he chose reject from that doctrine, why he chose to reject it, and what he chose to retain, in the development of Cartesian metaphysics.

In order to embark on his quest for truth, Descartes first devises his four rules which should serve as a solid foundation for all else that he comes to understand. Those rules are here evaluated in terms of what they fail to take into consideration. The rules are examined individually and consecutively, and are therefore also reiterated in order to be clear about them. Furthermore, the approach of using these rules is also analyzed to some degree. Ultimately, however, it is my conjecture that Descartes’ four rules are not as solid a foundation as he claims, but fail to consider key issues which are noted herein.

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

Leibniz's “Pre-established Harmony” refers to a philosophical theory relating to causation whereby every substance affects only itself, but every substance interacts casually with each other because God has programmed them to complement each other. Leibniz's uses the Pre-established Harmony to explain how the mind interacts with the body. With regard to the Pre-established Harmony, Kant would have termed it an unjustified fantasy.

result, they contain within them the potency to make possible even the represent one's mind, thereby giving shape to a green, triangle-shaped object in the itnaginatii,n. l; same way, the causality implied in the ontological argument means that our v .,‘ ideahu , most basic grounding in reality. That which representative reality parallels is referred to Descartes as a "higher form." This "higher form" may give us further insight into the character of God. (Fifth Meditation)

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

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

This essay will highlight the advantages of Spinoza’s monism over Descartes’ dualism by looking at Spinoza’s response to these issues.

In On Nature Itself, Leibniz rather explicitly identifies himself as a steadfast opponent of occasionalism. His critique that occasionalism inevitably leads us to Spinozism stems from his observation that without the forces that are attributable to substances, no thing could persist through time. Leibniz’s main worry here lies in that if things lost their capacity to persist there could be no individuation of substances possible—all things would be reduced to being instantaneous, perishable modes of a single divine substance. In an effort to preserve the existence of individual substances, Leibniz moves to establish a concurrentist account of causation, endowing substances with real causal powers, even though limiting their causal efficacy to intrasubstantial causality . Leibniz’s solution, however, is not without its problems. It seems that Leibniz is going to have a difficult time in reconciling his notion of substances as causally active beings with the theological doctrine that claims that conservation is but continuous creation (hereafter, the CCC thesis)—a doctrine that he nevertheless intends to maintain. But, in the midst of this seeming contradiction, Sukjae Lee’s work in Leibniz’s Concurrentism (which I will be focusing on extensively in this

Causation was a very important topic of philosophical reflection during the 17th century. This reflection centered and focused around certain particular causation problems. Among those problems was the problem between the mind and the body. The doctrine of Pre-established Harmony, is Leibniz’s response to the problem of causation between mind and body.