Contrast Spinoza And Descartes

According to Descartes the natural world is based on the existence of a benevolent God; Descartes’ argument discusses the natural world by using doubt, which then hones into the works of mind and body dualism. In comparison to Descartes view of the natural world, Spinoza’s work is solely based upon one ‘Universal Substance’ which is otherwise known as ‘Nature’ or ‘God’. This substance is also regarded to hold all attributes and essences in the whole world, thus making it infinite. I argue that both philosophers share certain similarities in which their arguments on the natural world corresponds to their accounted beliefs in God having all “perfections”. Although, through viewing both Descartes and Spinoza’s philosophy I feel Locke would debate in responding that both philosophers lack ’experiences’ to prove their works on the natural world and God; especially Spinoza’s debate. Furthermore I believe that Locke would applaud Descartes use of knowledge and abstraction in sorting out his ideas on identities, God, and the link between existence and the truth.

Used as a foundational point to build knowledge, …show more content…
Additionally one can learn that their views on the natural world impacts their respective views on God by showing that both philosophers conform to a rather religious view on the natural world rather than a scientific or non-religious viewing point. However in saying so I feel that Descartes argument has a more radical and deeper mind set in reassuring himself that God is in fact a truthful existing figure in the natural world. It is through this that Descartes works has impacted his reliance and trust towards God in being an honest idea in his world of thinking; thus leaving him doubt free when it comes to