Spinoza's Twenty Men Argument Analysis

Spinoza was a post-Cartesian philosopher whose major work, “Ethics,” has been very highly regarded. He has been viewed as one of the most significant Rationalists alongside Descartes and Leibniz. In “Ethics,” Spinoza unfolds a monistic view of ethics, talking about God and Nature. His main argument is that a personified infinite being is not the transcendent creator of the universe, but it is Nature that determines and governs the system of our existence, hence, nature necessarily means God. Owing to the fact that Spinoza stands against the traditional conception of God, he is regarded as an atheist. However, Spinoza believes that there exists a God and it is the only substance. Hence, everything else that exists besides God is a mode of God and everything that happens is not in God’s hands but rather, it follows from God’s essence. Spinoza’s monism belief that there exists only one substance brings up certain concerns, especially his “Twenty Men Argument.” I will be arguing that Spinoza’s “Twenty Men Argument” fails to capture the existence of abstract objects that independently exists and retain their own true definitions. Spinoza’s Proposition 5 in Part I of “Ethics” states: “In the universe there …show more content…
Something that has a true definition implies that we are able to understand it without referring it to anything or anyone else. Additionally, a substance with a true definition exists in and through itself, meaning that it is able to conceive through itself. Humans, animals, and inanimate objects in this universe have no such ability. Most, if not all, of the things we know of do not satisfy these criteria of being a substance. Macroscopic bodies with parts cannot be substances, only unity can be substances – we are not self-caused nor do we have a true