Confused about Leibniz and Spinoza: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Introduction to Philosophy / Factual Issues / Books » Confused about Leibniz and Spinoza » Confused about Leibniz and Spinoza

Confused about Leibniz and Spinoza

Confused about Leibniz and Spinoza

david02
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 31, 2005

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 2

Posted 03/31/05 - 06:10 AM: Subject: Confused about Leibniz and Spinoza	#1
Hey everyone, I've been learning about the rationalists, and I'm confused about Spinoza and Leibniz...I keep getting their arguments for God's existence mixed up. What exactly (in basic terms) are their proofs for God's existence and his nature? Thanks a lot....sorry if it's a dumb question...I'm new to this. -Dave

Morrandir
Ich habe mich aufgehoben

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2004
Location: The Finnest Land

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 2968

Posted 03/31/05 - 06:41 AM:	#2
Spinoza: His definition of God: Definition 6(of the first chapter of Ethics): By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, that is to say, substance consisting of infinite attributes, each one of which expresses eternal and infinite essence. He proves God's existence by first claiming that a substance must by its own nature exist. And if God does not exist, then His essence does not involve existence, which is contrary to God's definition, as God is a substance. (proposition 11) Basically his proof relies on the existence of a substance, and in defining God as a substance (it later follows that there is only one substance and that substance is God). The existence of substance on the other hand hovers on its definition: By substance, I understand that which is in itself and is conceived through itself (def. 3). This sort of substance necessarily exists. This seems to me to fall into the same category of proof as Descartes' proof, where he takes the idea of an infinite, perfect being, and claims that such an idea cannot come from a finite being (himself), but must be due to the existence of God. Also, as the idea of a perfect being must include existence, the idea cannot be perfect without the being existing. In short: if an idea of a perfect being exists, then the being itself must exist, and as Descartes has an idea of a perfect being, then the perfect being must exist. There are of course many problems involved with this view. Summary: 1. Substance exists necessarily, because it is self-sufficient and independent. 2. God is a substance. --> God exists necessarily. (Note that Spinoza's view leads to the fact that it is necessary for God to exist, and that it was necessary for God to create the world - i. e. God's creation was not an act of free will. Spinoza is a hardcore determinist.) I will leave Leibniz to someone better-versed with his proof. Hope that helped. Ask for clarifications, if it didn't EDIT: Leibniz: Seems to me that according to this site Leibniz variates the old ontological and cosmological arguments. The ontological argument being basically that which I presented as Descartes' view. The cosmological argument is often formulized as the "argument of the first cause" - that is, for every effect there must be a cause, and because this chain of causality cannot continue infinitely, there must be a first cause. This first cause is God. You can read more from the site. Edited by Morrandir on 03/31/05 - 06:54 AM
Philosophy is disciplined bewilderment. A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty. http://www.beyondappearances.com

Drizzt Do'Urden
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 01, 2004
Location: Montreal

Total Topics: 27
Total Posts: 183

Posted 03/31/05 - 02:15 PM:	#3
Basically, Liebniz says that because all beings are contingent, there must, by the principle of sufficient reason, be a necessary being. A being who is outside of the world of contingent being who can explain and observe them who requires no explanation or reason aside from itself. But, if the universe were some random arangement of monads then he wouldn't necessarily need to be the cause of it. So then, he says that the universe must be planned out from the beginning. He then makes rather pretentions steps to show that God is perfect and otherwise creates a tradional Christian God. To assert a necessary being is one thing, to attribute to him all these qualities of perfection is another thing I can't remember much more of his deduction of God or his perfect attributes, but I rememebr more of the implication and defenses of such a God. He comes to postulate a more-or-less standard Christian God. In his Theodicy he makes rather convincing defenses of his theology, but I don't remember much of his positive philosophy of God, sadly. I could look it up, my Liebniz books and notes are very close by, but I'm pretty busy.
Each to each a looking glass Reflects the other that doth pass.

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.