What Is Spinoza's View Of Substance Dualism

Baruch Spinoza’s geometric structured view on the universe, and everything in general, is beautifully broken down for present and future thinkers to ponder in his work, Ethics. Although complex at times, his method of demonstrating each discoveries of proved proposition aids readers to conceptual God-Nature. At the base of these propositions are definitions and axioms (truths) Spinoza accounts as certain truths and are critical to understanding God-Nature (substance). I will here provide an account of Spinoza’s substance monism and attribute pluralism, along with strengths and weaknesses in his arguments for this picture of reality. This essay will argue that Spinoza’s claims are successfully supported in a manner that effectively utilizes

Substance dualism is a particular philosophy which Descartes takes a stance on. Descartes argues that two substances (mind and body) exist separately and it is evident from great distinction between the two. Spinoza agrees mind and body are different, but not to the extent that they are two separate substances (Def. 3). He explains that if mind and body were two existing substances, they would be so different that they could not interact (Prop.2). This interaction of thought to body or vise versa couldn 't exist since no common ground resides. But may believe even Descartes isn’t exactly clear on the inner working of the relationship (Robinson, Howard). Spinoza’s substance monism cleverly dissolves this issue by labeling mind (thought) and body (extension) as attributes to a common and singular substance. Other substance pluralist philosophies are also denied when we truly capture the infinite extent of

Arguing his terms and ideas as unclear and vague will prove this theory weak in the sense that Spinoza isn’t entirely confident on what substance and the other elements are. By being general, Spinoza leaves room for ‘error’ and this can be considered cowardice. Empiricist John Locke targets this reliance of innate ideas as one that rationalist, like Spinoza when using to explain substance. (QUOTE) Locke agrees all the universe is dependent on this idea of substance; substance which comes from the latin of Substantia, which means ‘one which is relied upon’. But the rationalist 's claim to know this, substance, without explanation of its workings is a flaw Locke argues lies in rationalistic thought. Indeed substance helps hold the universe together and is an unavoidable idea which we can’t do without, but to say we innately know the complex mysteries of substance cohesion (including attribute, mode, etc.) isn’t justifiable according to