Hey, everyone!
I was looking over my old work on refuting Spinoza from a few years back, and decided that a stronger case could be presented for the circular nature of his argument for monism/pantheism in The Ethics.
Here’s what I’ve come up with this time: an outline providing his own justifications of his propositions, and my using of his own metaphysical system and writing to back up his premises, which as I hope I’ve shown beg the conclusions.
Keeping an eye on the text in brackets will be key to following the circularity here. I apologize in advance for any lapses in logic—this was drawn up from conception to publication in less than two hours.
Feedback and critique would be great:
- A substance is [Definition III] “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.”
- An Attribute is [Definition IV] “that which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance.”
- Therefore, a substance is defined by its attributes.
- But, only two (2) attributes exist—extension and thought [Des. Meditations]—which interact.
- But, [Proposition III] “things which have nothing in common cannot be one the cause of the other.”
5a. “If they have nothing in common, it follows that one cannot be apprehended by means of the other…”
5ai. [Axiom V] Things which have nothing in common cannot be understood, the one by means of the other; the conception of one does not involve the conception of the other."
5b. [Axiom IV] “The knowledge of an effect depends on and involves the knowledge of a cause.”
5bi. To have complete knowledge of an effect is to comprehend its essence.
5bii. An Attribute is [Definition IV] “that which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance.”
5biii. Only two (2) attributes exist—extension and thought.
5biv. [Proposition III] “Things which have nothing in common cannot be one the cause of the other.”
- Therefore, thought and extension must inhere in the same substance.
6a. If this were not so, the substance defined by the attribute of thought could not interact with the substance defined by the attribute of extension, because they would have nothing in common and therefore could have no causal relations.
- Therefore, there is only one substance.
7a. A substance is defined by its attributes [∵(1∧2)].
7b. Only two (2) attributes exist—extension and thought—which inhere in the same substance [∵(4∧5)].
- Therefore, there is only one substance. ≡ [Proposition XIV] “Besides God no substance can be granted or conceived.”
8a. [Definition VI] “By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite-that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality… I say absolutely infinite, not infinite after its kind: for, of a thing infinite only after its kind, infinite attributes may be denied; but that which is absolutely infinite, contains in its essence whatever expresses reality, and involves no negation.”
8b. There are only two attributes which express reality—extension and thought.
8c. These attributes inhere in the same substance [∵(4∧5)].
8d. Therefore, this substance “contains in its essence whatever expresses reality…”
8e. Therefore, this substance is God.
8f. There is only one substance, in which extension and thought inhere [∵((1∧2)∧(4∧5))].
- [Proposition XIV] “Besides God no substance can be granted or conceived.” ≡ [Proposition VI] “one substance cannot be produced by another substance.”
9a. If besides the one substance, God, no substance can be granted or conceived, then another substance cannot be produced by that one substance, thereby granting or conceiving it.
- [Proposition VI] “one substance cannot be produced by another substance.” ≡ [Proposition III] “Things which have nothing in common cannot be one the cause of the other.”
10a. [Axiom IV] “The knowledge of an effect depends on and involves the knowledge of a cause.”
10ai. To have complete knowledge of an effect is to comprehend its essence.
10aii. An Attribute is [Definition IV] “that which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance.”
10aiii. Only two (2) attributes exist—extension and thought.
10aiv. [Proposition III] “Things which have nothing in common cannot be one the cause of the other.”
The contested conclusions need to be invoked in order to defend the contested premises on which they rest, and therefore the argument is circular.