Spinoza's Argument For Substance Monism And Common Objections

1551 Words 7 Pages
Register to read the introduction… This objection is based on the fact that Spinoza didn’t make it clear as to if two substances cannot share every one of their attributes or if two substances cannot share even a single attribute. Their argument is as follows. If it were that no two different substances can share every single attribute, it would intuitively make sense that there can be no two distinct substances that have everything in common. This would not provide any argument for Spinoza’s claim for substance monism, because a substance besides God sharing just some attributes can exist, and thus substance monism must be false because it is based on faulty premises. On the other hand, at first glance, it seems only logical to have two different substances with a single same attribute. For instance, imagine that there could be two different substances A and B with attributes {a, b, c} and {c, d, e} respectively. These would share one attribute, but still be distinguishable as A and B from their other attributes. Thus, Spinoza’s claim that these two substances cannot share even a single attribute must be false. However, I find both of these claims to be false, based on the reasoning that will …show more content…
Also we have proven that an essence containing infinite attributes exists, and defined this to be God. Following from these two arguments is the fact that God is the only substance, and thus there can only be one substance in this universe. We have also seen one of the most common objections to the previous arguments, and refuted this argument based on Spinoza’s definition of attributes. Indeed, Spinoza’s claim for substance monism holds.
Ariew, Roger, and Eric Watkins. "Baruch Spinoza, The Ethics (1677)." Readings in Modern Philosophy: Volume I. N.p.: Hackett, n.d. 158-165.
Brown, Curtis. Classical Modern Philosophy. Course home page. Dept. of Philosophy, Trinity University, San Antonio. 23 Apr. 2008 .
Nadler, Steven, "Baruch Spinoza", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2006 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =

Related Documents