Unpacking Spinoza 's Ontological Argument

can be the cause of something else and so on and so on. Yet nothing can be the

The two philosophers, however, had some differences in regard to the number of substances and their attributes. In spite of the fact that Descartes’ definition presents God as absolutely faultless; this presentation does not see him as more of a substance than every other finite substance. Descartes does not show God as the only substance, but he holds that there are other finite substances. Accordingly, the term ‘substance’ is not applied universally to God but as well as, to all other creatures. While some created things need only the normal concord of God to exist (in that case substances), others can only exist with the help of other created things. Such things are referred to, as per Descartes, attributes of substances.

come from possession of at least one indivisible input that is specialized to this attribute,

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

Property dualism proclaims the existence of a single, physical substance (unlike Cartesian dualism), but argues that this single

The ontological argument made by Anselm was criticized by one of his contemporaries, a monk named Gaunilo, who said, that by Anselm 's reasoning, one could imagine a certain island, more perfect than any other island, tf this island can exist in the mind, then according to Anselm, it would necessarily exist in reality, for a 'perfect ' island would have this quality. But this is obviously false; we cannot make things exist merely by imagining them. Anselm replied, upholding his argument by saying that Guanilo is essentially comparing apples and oranges. An island is something that can be thought of not to exist, whereas the non-existence of "that than which a greater cannot be conceived is inconceivable," Only for God is it inconceivable

     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.

Primary qualities, however, are objective and include aspects such as an object’s height and weight (Paquette 212). Through this, Locke claimed that the existence of objects can be made certain due to the primary qualities it possesses (Paquette 212). Similar to Descartes, Locke believed in a sense of existence. However, in his view, the facts from the primary qualities proved the object exists because the object exists within itself (Paquette 212).

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

Aristotle’s understanding of the four causes begins with the assumption that is present in all Greek philosophy, the notion of pre-existing matter. He observed the world around him and noticed that it was in a state of constant motion, a movement from potentiality to

First, in order to consider the advantages of Spinoza’s substance monism over Descartes’ dualism it is necessary to show how each philosopher demonstrates their substance dualism or substance monism.

A: Anaximander theory about the different substances explains how he believes that they came from more simple form that just water. He thought the basic substance must be ageless, boundless and indeterminate. He knew things were made from smaller particles that we were not visible. His interest in the fundamental substance that constitutes everything or in determining what the most important feature of reality was. He though what happen in the universe came from natural powers and processes for example how the seasons changed from heat,cold,wetness,dryness it all alternate to create our seasons.

The theory of the Four Causes refers to an influential Aristotelian principle whereby the causes of movement and/or change are categorized allowing us to have knowledge of our existence and everything around us. Aristotle wrote that "we do not have knowledge of a thing until we have grasped its ‘why’, that is to say, its cause." He provided an account of the operation of various individual substances in the universe. Distinctions were made between things of two sorts: those that are contingent on something else’s movement and those that necessary in their own movement. Aristotle not only suggested a proper description of these but also attempted to answer particular questions such as ‘Why does this event happen?’ and ‘Why is this object as

Act and potency and their distinction are an important and fundamental theory in philosophy. It helps approach questions in metaphysics concerning substance, essence, and causation. In this essay, I will be using this theory of act and potency to show how the four causes and the theory relate to each other. Thus, the four causes: formal cause, material cause, efficient cause, and final cause are related to each other and can be explained through the theory and concepts of act and potency.