This paper argues that the notion of Substance propounded by Baruch Spinoza can be studied and put forward to a panentheistic, expressive structure of Trinities, in which each triad of concepts is unified into a single idiosyncratic divine nature of God. By dissecting the expressionism in Spinoza’s writings, which is at variance with the philosophy of his predecessors (Descartes, Aquinas and Scotus), one can map out his thinking in analytic and synthetic logic to understand his revolutionary rationalist ontology in Ethics that impacted Europe in the seventeenth century.
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. A solemn prayer always begins and ends with this invariably enthralling phrase which, incontrovertibly, reverberates
…show more content…
The Trinities of Power and Modification re-expresses Substance within itself through production of natura naturata (attributes and modes). Spinoza continues to build his proof of God’s necessary existence to prove that God is causa sui, a self-caused immutable being on Descartes’ absurd argument of quantities of reality. The Cartesian hypothesis claims that if I have the power to create myself, it would be much easier to give myself properties of which I have an idea; and it would be less difficult to preserve myself than to create myself. What can do more can do less. So if it is more difficult to create or preserve a substance than to create its properties, substance would have more reality than the properties themselves. God, consequently, is realer than us, its properties. Spinoza criticizes Descartes for his confusion with what is relative as absolute, just like he takes infinite perfection as absolute infinity. Absolute infinity is the sufficient reason of infinite perfection and power is the sufficient reason of the quantity of reality. The Cartesian axiom declares that there is as much formal reality in the cause of an idea as the objective reality of the idea itself. Spinoza debunks the idea with his axioms of powers: “The power of Thought to think about or to comprehend things, is not greater than the power of Nature to exist and to act.” Spinoza’s emphasis on power in the Short Treatise and the Correction of the Understanding has proven a thorough argument. He expounds his thought in an array of syllogisms, they can be encapsulated in the following: The more reality something has, the more existence it involves. The possible existence Descartes proposes has finite degrees of perfection while necessary existence has infinite perfection. Whatever has the power
(1) Read “God: The Villanelle”. Research the structure of a villanelle to understand how the poem works and post a comment on its structure. Next, consider the title and the message conveyed throughout the poem, as it pertains to God. Finally, listen to the reading of Marvin Klotz - "An Open Letter to the One True God, Whoever She, He, Or It May Be" and post a comment.
Descartes gave a few arguments that God exists and is real. Desocrates believed our idea of God is that God is a perfect being, he believed he is more perfect to exist than not to exist. Desocrates also believed that God is a infinite being. Descartes idea would be that God gave us this idea to type this paragraph about him so he must be real. When he thinks negative of an idea or thought he wonders if an evil demon plotted those thoughts.
The human mind’s ability and innate desire to justify and explain the world and its phenomena has led to some of the most significant and world-altering discoveries and inventions, illustrated throughout the renaissance, enlightenment, scientific revolution, and industrial revolution. Logical pursuits comprise a significant capstone of human nature and progress. However, according to Rudolf Otto in The Idea of the Holy, these tendencies have created different dimensions of religion; the rational and non-rational, with the latter often times overlooked. The most significant difference between the rational and non-rational aspects of religion deal with their respective emphasis on reason and feeling. Rudolph Otto prioritizes the non-rational as offering a truer understanding of religion because he claims the core of all religious life revolves around experiences and feeling, not simply rational thought.
Scrutinizing the most fundamental blocks of Spinoza’s monism In this paper, I will outline Spinoza’s first five propositions which are essential for the legitimacy of his later arguments for monism. Then I will scrutinize his definitions of the most fundamental building blocks of his argument (substance, attributes, and modes) and various axioms he offers in order to further inspect these propositions and hence evaluate their validity. First, it is crucial to define these most fundamental building blocks according to Spinoza.
The existence of God has been presented by a multitude of philosophers. However, this has led to profound criticism and arguments of God’s inexistence. The strongest argument in contradiction to God’s existence is the Problem of Evil, presented by J.L Mackie. In this paper, I aim to describe the problem of evil, analyse the objection of the Paradox of Omnipotence and provide rebuttals to this objection. Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil.
In the sixth meditation, Descartes postulates that there exists a fundamental difference in the natures of both mind and body which necessitates that they be considered as separate and distinct entities, rather than one stemming from the other or vice versa. This essay will endeavour to provide a critical objection to Descartes’ conception of the nature of mind and body and will then further commit to elucidating a suitably Cartesian-esque response to the same objection. (Descartes,1641) In the sixth meditation Descartes approaches this point of dualism between mind and matter, which would become a famous axiom in his body of philosophical work, in numerous ways. To wit Descartes postulates that he has clear and distinct perceptions of both
We know clear and distinct perceptions independently by God, and his existence provides us with a certainty we might not possess otherwise. However, another possible strategy would be to change Gods role in Descartes philosophy. Instead of seeing God as the validation of clear and distinct perceptions, rather see him as a safeguard against doubt. This strategy, however, is a problem since it re-constructs the Meditations – Philosophical work of Descartes –.This is because it would not be God, who is the ultimate foundation of knowledge, but the clear and distinct
CHAPTER III Comparison and Analysis of the Other Competitive Conceptions of a Triune God This chapter has two major concerns. The first concern is to present the arguments in favour of Swinburne’s concept of a triune God as well as to make a reasonable response to the challenges posited to Swinburne by two all time great Philosophers of the Christian world, namely Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. The second concern is to compare and analyze Swinburne’s concept of a triune God with other competing conceptions of the selected Christian philosophers of the present era. This second part examines only the three-self theories which advocate that three centres of self consciousness in the Trinity.
However, Descartes does not provide enough proof for his claim of its possibility. This shows that Descartes’ evil demon argument fails to prove absolute doubt, which he
In this paper, I will deliver a reconstruction of Descartes’ Cogito Argument and my reasoning to validate it as indubitable. I will do so by justifying my interpretations through valid arguments and claim, by showcasing examples with reasoning. Rene Descartes is a French Philosopher of the 17th century, who formulated the philosophical Cogito argument by the name of ‘cogito ergo sum,’ also known as “I think, therefore, I am.” Rene was a skeptic philosopher amongst many scholastic philosophers of his time. To interpret his cogito argument as indubitable and whether it could serve as a foundational belief, he took a skeptical approach towards the relations between thoughts and existence.
In this essay, I will set out to prove that Thomas Aquinas’ First Cause Argument does not show that God exists and the conclusion that God exists does not follow from the premises of the first cause argument. I do think that the conclusion is valid and could be sound/or has the potential to be, but the premises fail to provide the basis upon which to reach such a conclusion. Hence, I will be raising some objections to the premises and will try to disprove any counter-arguments that could be raised in its defense. This would be done by examining Aquinas’ First Cause Argument and trying to disprove it whilst countering arguments in its defense.
Rene Descartes statement, “I think, therefore, I am” laid the foundation for his Cogito Argument in the Mediations. Throughout his groundwork we come to interpret that “I think, whatever thinks, must exists, so I exist, and whatever exists is a thing, so I exist as a
Baruch Spinoza 's view on God 's existence explains God as a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence. God is by definition “substance consisting of infinite attributes” as explained by Spinoza in his proposition 11. But there is something to be noticed here. God has been defined as “substance with infinite attributes” and if there necessarily is a substance, it needs to lie within existence with finite limits. If it were that easy to prove the existence of things, we could prove the existence of a lake a thousand miles long by defining it as “substance consisting of fresh water and extending for a infinite area of spread.”
It embodies the insight that there is a serious muddle at the centre of the whole of Descartes theory of knowledge. He says that we do not hold a clear idea of the mind to make out much. ‘He thinks that although we have knowledge through the idea of body, we know the mind “only through consciousness, and because of this, our knowledge of it is imperfect” (3–2.7, OCM 1:451; LO 237). Knowledge through ideas is superior because it involves direct access to the “blueprints” for creation in the divine understanding, whereas in consciousness we are employing our own weak cognitive resources that
Thomas Aquinas has a distinct, and unique understanding of what gives objects the form they posses. Aquinas writes about how two different things, such as “x” and “y”, can share characteristics. Through sharing traits, or forms they both take on what Aquinas calls “f-ness”. Although by definition both x and y have a make up of F, it is still a question if x is, and if y is. In Selected Philosophical Writings by Thomas Aquinas, he writes, “Because forms make things actual, forms are called actualizations, or acts” (page 68 par. 1).