Spinoza proposes the following for substance:
a.\"that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself: in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception\"(Pg.179 [defn. III]).
b.\"Substance is by nature prior to its modifications\"(Pg.180[Prop. I]).
c.\"There cannot be granted several substances, but one substance only\"(Pg 181[In Proof of Prop V]).
d.\"One substance cannot be produced by another substance\"(Pg.181 [Prop. VI]).
e.\"Existence belongs to the nature of substance\"(Pg. 182) [Prop VII]).
f. \"Every substance is necessarily infinite\" (Pg 182 [Prop. VIII]).
Leibniz puts forth the following for substance:
l.\"The Monad is nothing else than a simple substance, which goes to make up composites\"(Pg. 455 #1).
m. \"where there are no constituent parts there is possible neither extension, nor form, nor divisibility\"(Pg. 455 #3).
o. \"there is no way conceivable by which a simple substance can perish through natural means\"(Pg. 455 #4).
p. \"there is no way conceivable by which a simple substance can come into existence by natural means\"(Pg. 455 #5).
q. \"Each Monad must be different from every other\"(Pg. 456 # 9).
Analysis:
Spinoza: \"That which is in itself, and is conceived through itself: in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception\" seems to say that that which is self contained and able to be thought of independently of any other ideas is a substance. One must wonder how one can think of only one thing without being crowded with other ideas. It seems impossible to be able to think of substance without keeping in mind that there must be one to be thinking about substance. Before anything can be thought, it must be known that there is one who thinks. Like Descartes, if one stops thinking, one goes out of existence. \"Substance is by nature prior to its modifications\" appears to say to me that substance can be looked at as a blank canvas. Adding colors and making designs on it does not change that it is only a canvas with modifications. That colored canvas can always be repainted white. \"Substance is by nature prior to its modifications\" must also be saying that if one takes away all the modifications, one still has something left, namely just the simple substance. \"There cannot be granted several substances, but one substance only\" could be thought of as saying all that is is one big substance decorated with modifications. The universe or God is the substance upon which all the features are contained. That there is only one ultimate makes sense. Everything must be contained in one thing. The universe must have an all encompassing that is not itself encompassed. \"Existence belongs to the nature of substance\" states that substance is not substance if it does not really have existence. One can think of a unicorn, but that does not make it real; substance has to be real, if it can be thought about. This goes to show that existence is part of the nature of substance. \"Every substance is necessarily infinite\" goes back to saying that everything must be contained in one thing. For everything is contained in an infinite. This substance is then infinite.
Leibniz: \"The Monad is nothing else than a simple substance, which goes to make up composites\" shows that the monad is the simple building block of all and that all is made up of monads. The Monad is the part of all composites that cannot be broken up into anything smaller. \"Where there are no constituent parts there is possible neither extension, nor form, nor divisibility\" appears baffling. A monad does not have constituent parts and yet all that is appears to have extension and form and can be divided. The question is, how can something that does not take up space make up space. If it does not have dimensions, how can it make up a universe that does have dimensions? \"there is no way conceivable by which a simple substance can perish through natural means\" and \"there is no way conceivable by which a simple substance can come into existence by natural means\" seems to point at there being a God that can work above the physical laws of the universe and is a rephrasing of matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed but only change forms. This shows the influence of the New Science. If there is a universe which has certain laws that must be obeyed, and yet for this universe to come about these laws must be broken, there must be one who can break these laws. \"Each Monad must be different from every other\" points out that there are a multitude of Monads and that they are all different from each other. But yet one cannot enter into a Monad to seem if they are different or the same. Leibniz states that the \"vibrations\" inside the Monads do make them different and yet they are also same. This seems to be what String Theory states. That the strings are themselves the same but yet they are give off different rhythms.
Comparison: It is possible that Spinoza has gone one step ahead of what Leibniz has done. These Monads could be making up the one substance. The different vibrations could be the modifications of the one substance. The interesting part about Leibniz is that Monads seem to be immaterial and almost spiritual, and yet make up all that is physical. One must then ask where we get the spiritual aspect in life. Is this also from the Monads? The Monads seem to have to be more that geometrical points. For points have no dimension and the universe appears to have at least three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. An important question is how can the Monads jump from being the building blocks of space to being a part of time. For time is immaterial as far as we know. Time just spaces out what happens on the geometrical cube. One can move up/down, right/left and back/forth. But this action needs time to happen. Spinoza would have to explain if his one substance is constrained by time or not. For if its modifications are restrained might also it be constrained? What exactly fills a vacuum? It would seem there are places without any Monads. It is interesting how this can exist.
Ultimate Conclusion Comparison: Spinoza states that everything is one and Leibniz states that little \"ones\" make up everything.
a.\"that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself: in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception\"(Pg.179 [defn. III]).
b.\"Substance is by nature prior to its modifications\"(Pg.180[Prop. I]).
c.\"There cannot be granted several substances, but one substance only\"(Pg 181[In Proof of Prop V]).
d.\"One substance cannot be produced by another substance\"(Pg.181 [Prop. VI]).
e.\"Existence belongs to the nature of substance\"(Pg. 182) [Prop VII]).
f. \"Every substance is necessarily infinite\" (Pg 182 [Prop. VIII]).
Leibniz puts forth the following for substance:
l.\"The Monad is nothing else than a simple substance, which goes to make up composites\"(Pg. 455 #1).
m. \"where there are no constituent parts there is possible neither extension, nor form, nor divisibility\"(Pg. 455 #3).
o. \"there is no way conceivable by which a simple substance can perish through natural means\"(Pg. 455 #4).
p. \"there is no way conceivable by which a simple substance can come into existence by natural means\"(Pg. 455 #5).
q. \"Each Monad must be different from every other\"(Pg. 456 # 9).
Analysis:
Spinoza: \"That which is in itself, and is conceived through itself: in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception\" seems to say that that which is self contained and able to be thought of independently of any other ideas is a substance. One must wonder how one can think of only one thing without being crowded with other ideas. It seems impossible to be able to think of substance without keeping in mind that there must be one to be thinking about substance. Before anything can be thought, it must be known that there is one who thinks. Like Descartes, if one stops thinking, one goes out of existence. \"Substance is by nature prior to its modifications\" appears to say to me that substance can be looked at as a blank canvas. Adding colors and making designs on it does not change that it is only a canvas with modifications. That colored canvas can always be repainted white. \"Substance is by nature prior to its modifications\" must also be saying that if one takes away all the modifications, one still has something left, namely just the simple substance. \"There cannot be granted several substances, but one substance only\" could be thought of as saying all that is is one big substance decorated with modifications. The universe or God is the substance upon which all the features are contained. That there is only one ultimate makes sense. Everything must be contained in one thing. The universe must have an all encompassing that is not itself encompassed. \"Existence belongs to the nature of substance\" states that substance is not substance if it does not really have existence. One can think of a unicorn, but that does not make it real; substance has to be real, if it can be thought about. This goes to show that existence is part of the nature of substance. \"Every substance is necessarily infinite\" goes back to saying that everything must be contained in one thing. For everything is contained in an infinite. This substance is then infinite.
Leibniz: \"The Monad is nothing else than a simple substance, which goes to make up composites\" shows that the monad is the simple building block of all and that all is made up of monads. The Monad is the part of all composites that cannot be broken up into anything smaller. \"Where there are no constituent parts there is possible neither extension, nor form, nor divisibility\" appears baffling. A monad does not have constituent parts and yet all that is appears to have extension and form and can be divided. The question is, how can something that does not take up space make up space. If it does not have dimensions, how can it make up a universe that does have dimensions? \"there is no way conceivable by which a simple substance can perish through natural means\" and \"there is no way conceivable by which a simple substance can come into existence by natural means\" seems to point at there being a God that can work above the physical laws of the universe and is a rephrasing of matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed but only change forms. This shows the influence of the New Science. If there is a universe which has certain laws that must be obeyed, and yet for this universe to come about these laws must be broken, there must be one who can break these laws. \"Each Monad must be different from every other\" points out that there are a multitude of Monads and that they are all different from each other. But yet one cannot enter into a Monad to seem if they are different or the same. Leibniz states that the \"vibrations\" inside the Monads do make them different and yet they are also same. This seems to be what String Theory states. That the strings are themselves the same but yet they are give off different rhythms.
Comparison: It is possible that Spinoza has gone one step ahead of what Leibniz has done. These Monads could be making up the one substance. The different vibrations could be the modifications of the one substance. The interesting part about Leibniz is that Monads seem to be immaterial and almost spiritual, and yet make up all that is physical. One must then ask where we get the spiritual aspect in life. Is this also from the Monads? The Monads seem to have to be more that geometrical points. For points have no dimension and the universe appears to have at least three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. An important question is how can the Monads jump from being the building blocks of space to being a part of time. For time is immaterial as far as we know. Time just spaces out what happens on the geometrical cube. One can move up/down, right/left and back/forth. But this action needs time to happen. Spinoza would have to explain if his one substance is constrained by time or not. For if its modifications are restrained might also it be constrained? What exactly fills a vacuum? It would seem there are places without any Monads. It is interesting how this can exist.
Ultimate Conclusion Comparison: Spinoza states that everything is one and Leibniz states that little \"ones\" make up everything.
No comments:
Post a Comment