Leibniz's Concept Of Substance Essay

Superior Essays
The search for the truth of the world has been a highly debatable topic for many philosophers. The concept of ‘substance’ have differed throughout the years, as many philosophers have established contrasting perspectives on it. G.W Leibniz and John Locke were two prominent philosophers whose discussions offered a very unique lens to the the question of what is substance. This essay will focus on philosophers, Leibniz and Locke, and their contrasting perspectives on the concept of substance.
Leibniz’s perspective of substance was centered on the God, and His importance. Substances are dependent on God, since He is the ultimate creator. In his Discourse, section 14, he says, “God produces various substances according to his different views he has of the universe and through God’s intervention the proper nature of each substance brings it about that what happens to one corresponds with what happen to all the others, without their acting
…show more content…
Locke introduces his idea of the substance.In his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, he says, “the idea then we have [of substance, which is nothing], but the supposed, but unknown support of those qualities, we find existing, which we imagine cannot subsist” (Locke:II, xxiii, 2). Substances are particular things that exist by themselves. His idea of substance is, specifically, involves his idea of the substratum for qualities. An idea of the general substance does not exist, but rather suppositions, as he says. In turn, simple ideas are made, which are very weak ideas, and not sufficient to explain the general substance. Substances are empty, and lack their substratum. We cannot know the properties of substances by experience. We only have clear ideas of the qualities. Our ideas of the qualities belonging to substances are simple and “though it be certain, we have no clear, or distinct idea of that thing we suppose a support” (II, xxiii,

Related Documents

  • Great Essays

    As scientific experimentation and observation are only a fraction of the spoken and written word, this reveals a glaring irregularity between the theory and application. Verificationism can be said to encompass and encourage only one kind of meaning, as it ignores all that is not dealing with the logical and the empirically testable. (Misak, 1995, p. 78) Outside of a scientifically quantifiable scope, it is not possible for this theory to logically be pertinent, and most all non-scientific discussion is therefore meaningless. (Misak, 1995, p. 66) A sentence of poetry, say, may have no applicable relation to experience, and may simply be describing an action or a thought process, containing no facts or testable claims. This then means such a sentence is, by definition, meaningless.…

    • 1867 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    George Berkeley argues that an objective reality does not exist. He argues for idealism, the belief that the external world does not exist and only the mind and ideas do, by arguing against materialism, that an objective reality does exist. Berkeley believes that an objective reality does not exist because of issues that come with materialism. However, his points do not make much sense as he relies on faulty ideas. He presents his argument by mentioning how materialism is unverifiable; that we cannot verify there is an objective reality, pointless; there is no need to posit an external world, and incoherent; our senses cannot be external objects.…

    • 1136 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Since concepts are not substantial, that is, incorporeal, the ideas do not have their existence in themselves; rather, concepts are similar to substance and qualities and we, ourselves, take part in the establishment of concepts. Zeno denied not only the existence of the intelligible transcendent…

    • 886 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    He also attacks the backing of abstract ideas by language, by denying the existence of abstract general ideas. This is done by claiming that general ideas mentally stand as signs for all particulars. He also appeals to the ease of thinking of particulars and the mentally difficulty of thinking of abstract ideas. These combine into his claim of them being inconceivable and unnecessary, and he thus denies the basis for abstract thinking. From this, Berkeley begins his contentions against the existence of material substance.…

    • 1539 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Descartes Rationalism claims that we have a priori knowledge of matters of fact that does not depend on experience. He argues that we gain knowledge from the fact that we know certain truths innately partly by our rational nature and we have rational intuition, which allows us to grasp certain truths logically. Descartes argument cannot be significant because self-evident concepts provide no knowledge about the world. Yet sense experience may not be sure, it offers us evidence that is as reliable as we need. Hume’s Empiricism claims that we have a posteriori knowledge and that ideas are simply a weaker version of sense of impressions.…

    • 1404 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    1. Part A In 1p7 Spinoza asserts that “existence belongs to the nature of substance.” He had clarified the notion of substance earlier as, “that which is in itself and is conceived through itself.” In this conceptualization of substance Spinoza primarily implies that, the conception of substance does not require reference to something else from which a substance must be created. The implication here is that, Spinoza is highlighting an internal derivative in which all the features of a substance are self-referred as opposed to drawing inferences from outside the substance. He goes further and clarifies that, the only substance truly in existence is God. Such is the case owing to the fact that, as a substance, God does not look to another thing from outside his existence to understand his essence.…

    • 1253 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Thus, the classical analysis of the theory of the knowledge of Hume is: his critique to the concept of causality and its criticism of the identity of the self, or the human spirit. Led by this procedure, Hume is occupies of the problem metaphysical, discovering that certain things dyed as realities by Locke and Berkeley as the substance thinking (the I) and the substance infinite (Dios); Similar to the extensive; not exist because its ideas do not correspond to any…

    • 827 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    The concept of noumenon is non-contradictory as it cannot emphasize sensibility by demonstrating it is the only possible kind of intuition. Sensibility has no ways of reaching noumena, it is purely an analytical concept, and this knowledge is necessary in considering the necessity of the concept of noumena in itself. Sensible intuition cannot be extended to things in intuitions and the rationality in sensible cognition is limited. Cognitions cannot extend their domain to everything that the understanding thinks. Due to this, the concept of noumenon is purely epistemological, a concept by means of specific modes of cognition and is rendered an intellectual…

    • 1787 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He establishes that he is included in the category of finite beings. Because of the relationship he established between formal reality and objective reality, he concludes that he and can conceive of other ideas outside of himself because they are finite as well. With this same reasoning, he should not be able to conceive of something infinite—such as God--because he is finite. This leads him to believe that the idea of God is an innate idea—an idea we have by nature. Once Descartes establishes his innate understanding of God, he searches for the possible cause of his idea.…

    • 986 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Inductive Argument

    • 1811 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Hume argued that the strength of an anaological argument (like the Teleological Argument) was dependent on the similarity of the things being compared - though both are complex, besides this there is little similarity between the two, therefore any conclusion drawn from the argument is considered weak. Hume also presented a second criticism: at best, the Teleological argument only proves the world was designed, not necessarily that God was the designer. Hume said “just because it looks designed, it doesn’t follow that it really was designed, nor does it follow that God was the…

    • 1811 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays