Leibniz and Spinoza - Hist Exam 2

why does Leibniz think monads have no shape or size and cannot be naturally created or destroyed? why can they not be altered by anything outside itself (except God)?

Composites exist but do not go on forever. In order for composites to have this finite feature, there must be a partless part of them, which are monads. since they are partless, there’s no way for them to be naturally formed or destroyed. also, this is why they can’t be naturally altered by a created thing, so they can only be altered by God

if the universe is made of monads, each of which cannot be changed by any other monads, what accounts for the diversity and change that we see in the universe according to Leibniz?

• there is no open space. in order for one monad to move, another must move out of its way

• but there is no interaction between monads

• diversity and change explained by pre established harmony - monads are predestined to coordinate with each other by God with no interaction

what is pre-established harmony? How does Leibniz’s theory of this account for the fact that things appear to interact? why does Leibniz say that every monad is a mirror of the entire universe?

• God set up everything from the beginning of time, parallel because things are taking place simultaneously.

• interaction: monads move for you, you don’t move for them because you don’t interact with monads, they all move on their own because they don’t interact with each other, they are pre-programmed

• each monad is a mirror of the universe because each one was pre-programmed to coordinate/accomodate all other monads, the universe is full (plenum), no vacuum, so there’s no space between monads

Leibniz’s reasons for holding that we are living in the best possible world. how does he use the example of judas to argue that the universe is better with some evil in it?

1. God is absolutely perfect ( has everything that qualifies as perfect)

2. God made this universe because its good (the best)

3. God’s creation (this universe) could not be better

4. God does everything for the best

5. So by 2,4 this is the best possible world

judas example:

• we must consider the whole and that God works in mysterious ways. judas did something bad, but if we didn’t have Judas in this world, something much worse might’ve happened

suppose you are standing outside looking at a tree. Explain how Leibniz’s account of your sensing the tree differs from Descartes’s account. why would Leibniz say Descartes is wrong. what does his account imply about which of our ideas are innate?

• descartes - there is a tree, the existence of that tree is what causes our sensation of a tree (exists outside of our body)

• leibniz - there is a tree, our sensation of the tree is innate (it is not an effect of the tree’s existence). descartes is wrong because monads do not interact with each other and sensations are innate and not caused by what exists in the outside world

explain the problem of free will.

• we have some sense that we are free

• but we have some sort of evidence that we aren’t free (eg modern science)

• so how do we know whether we are free or not?

how does God’s foreknowledge seem to imply we are not free?

baron’s argument:

1. God knows I shall X tomorrow

2. God’s knowledge is infallible

3. so by 1,2 I must X tomorrow

4. so im not free

How does Leibniz argue that even though God knows what we will do, we are still free?

our freedom is limited. But we can reason and choose by how things appear to us. so our choice comes from us and not from God’s knowledge. God is aware of how we will act but does not control how we will act

how does Euclid-style reasoning show up in Descartes and Leibniz? How does Spinoza differ, especially from Descartes

euclid style starts small and certain to prove bigger stuff

• descartes - 1 get rid of prejudices 2 start with small certainties 3 build upon foundations to get bigger certainties

• leibniz - 1 starts with easy/obvious ideas 2 use small ideas to build to larger ideas

• spinoza - 1 start with definitions and axioms 2 use those to get propositions 3 then to God/Nature 4 refute prejudices

descartes clears prejudices first, spinoza does that last

how does spinoza’s views differ from others regarding (a) whether God is separate from the world (b) whether God is “personal” (c) how many substances there are and (d) whether we are free

(a) God is the world, everything that exists is either God or one of God’s attributes or modes
(b) gets in the way of seeing the truth. God is not personal, does not choose, only one universe is possible
(c) there’s no such thing as a “finite substance” there is only one substance
(d) we are dependent on God, not in the way the table is dependent on the carpenter but the way the table’s shape and color are dependent on the table: our minds and bodies are modes of God

Spinoza’s definition of (a) substance (b) attribute (c) mode and (d) God

• substance - what is in itself and conceived/known through itself

• attribute - what intellect perceives as the essence of a substance

• mode (state or quality) - property of a substance, they exist in and depend on and are known through a substance

• God - a being with infinitely many attributes, no attributes God doesn’t have, and each of God’s attributes are eternal and infinite

Spinoza’s argument for why there cannot be two or more substances with the same attribute (p5)

1. suppose there are several substances with the same attribute

2. we could only tell them apart by their attribute or their modes

3. suppose we try to tell them apart by their modes

4. by D5: modes are known through the substance they are modes of

5. so we can’t tell them apart only by their modes (by 3,4)

6. suppose we try to tell them apart by their attributes

7. P4: to tell them apart by their attributes, they must have different attributes

8. if distinct substances have the same attribute, they’re the same substance

9. so, there cannot be more than one substance with the same attribute

three traditional types of arguments that God exists

• cosmological - observe some X, argue that only God can adequately account for X (Aquinas, Descartes (M3))

• teleological (design) - involves direction, goal seeking, we observe something that seems purposeful and argue God must be the cause (Leibniz coordination argument)

• ontological - purely conceptual. God necessarily exists, you start with some definition of God and argue that it just logically follows that God must exist

spinoza’s argument that God exists

1. God is a substance with infinitely many attributes (there are no attributes God doesn’t have)

2. substances exist

3. So, God must exist

Suppose Spinoza’s proof that God exists is sound. why then would God have to be the only substance

1. God exists

2. there is no attribute God doesn’t have

3. so for any attribute A, God has A (by 1,2)

4. there cannot be more than one substance with a given attribute

5. so there can be no other substance with A besides God (by 3,4)

implications of God being the only substance. how does this view imply that traditional theistic beliefs are mistaken?

• no separation/distinction between God and creation - it’s all God, so God has no will, no passion, and is not “personal”

• whatever is, is in God, and nothing can be or be conceived without God, so everything that exists is either a mode or attribute of God. so we are modes of God. Our minds = modes of God’s intellect. Our bodies = modes of God’s extension

how does it provide a different sort of solution to the mind/body problem?

dual aspect theory - there is only one substance (God). it has all possible attributes, two of those are thought and extension, your mind is a mode of thought, your body is a mode of extension. so there is not interaction between them, mind and body are different and parallel aspects or expressions of God

Spinoza says “things could not have been produced by God in any way or in any order other than that in which they have been produced. how does he argue for this claim

• everything that is or happens, is/caused by God

• for things to be different, God would have to be different

• *but God can’t be any different

• so things can’t be any different than they are

In the Appendix, Spinoza wants to dispose prejudices that keep us from grasping his views and says those prejudices all come from one false but “common supposition.” what is that supposition? where does it come from?

supposition is that all natural things act, as men do, on account of an end and that God directs all things to some definite end. This comes from our human nature that we are ignorant of why we really do things and why things outside us happen, so we think we’re free to do things because we want to. and we do things in order to achieve ends (goal oriented) so we see the world around us as that as well, which makes it look like the world was purposely created for us

what were some in-class prejudices he wants to free us from?

• superstitions about natural events being purposeful

• worry about whether we are pleasing God or not

• religious leaders who exploit our superstitions for power and money