In this essay, I outline two similarities of Descartes and Spinoza—belief in apriori knowledge, and God as the infinite substance—as well as two differences—contrasting conceptions of God’s relation to the world, and mind-body relations.
Both Spinoza and Descartes subscribe to the rationalist epistemology which claims that knowledge must be self-evident and derived from reasoning, rather than experience. As such, both philosophers believe in apriori knowledge, in which true knowledge is derived prior to experiences as experiences can be deceiving. Descartes claims that knowledge drawn from sensory faculties are mere representations of the true thing, being “obscure and confused” due to our limited sensory faculties (Meditation VI). Only ideas …show more content…
In Descartes’s third meditation, he writes that God is a “substance that is infinite, eternal, immutable”, while Spinoza, a believer in immanence, claims in Ethics that “Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived” (Part I, Proposition XV). Hence, both conjecture that the idea of a perfect being could not have been conceived from our imperfect minds and must thus originate from another source. Both philosophers ascribe this to the one infinite, perfect substance—the divinity, …show more content…
Descartes proposes that we are finite, imperfect thinking substances created by God, and that God exists separately from us. He claims that finite thinking substances are dependent on God for their existence, implying at the substances’ dependency and independency at the same time as Descartes defines a substance as something that does not require any other thing to exist, except for God (Meditation III). Hence, existence of multiple finite substances are allowed. For example, a human can be thought to be a finite substance, with the modes of being four-limbed and etc. Spinoza, subscribing to monism, claims that thoughts and bodies are merely facets of God’s perfection; they are one of the infinite extensions and modes of the one true substance, because if anything exists outside of God, God cannot be said to be perfect for He would be limited. Since Spinoza defines an infinite substance as “which is in itself, and is conceived through itself” (Part I, Definition III), having a finite substance would thus be a contradiction. Everything else are hence, modifications As such, while Spinoza and Descartes designate God as the one infinite substance, they have different conceptions of the God’s relation to things due to their dissimilar ontological
Both Spinoza and Descartes subscribe to the rationalist epistemology which claims that knowledge must be self-evident and derived from reasoning, rather than experience. As such, both philosophers believe in apriori knowledge, in which true knowledge is derived prior to experiences as experiences can be deceiving. Descartes claims that knowledge drawn from sensory faculties are mere representations of the true thing, being “obscure and confused” due to our limited sensory faculties (Meditation VI). Only ideas …show more content…
In Descartes’s third meditation, he writes that God is a “substance that is infinite, eternal, immutable”, while Spinoza, a believer in immanence, claims in Ethics that “Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived” (Part I, Proposition XV). Hence, both conjecture that the idea of a perfect being could not have been conceived from our imperfect minds and must thus originate from another source. Both philosophers ascribe this to the one infinite, perfect substance—the divinity, …show more content…
Descartes proposes that we are finite, imperfect thinking substances created by God, and that God exists separately from us. He claims that finite thinking substances are dependent on God for their existence, implying at the substances’ dependency and independency at the same time as Descartes defines a substance as something that does not require any other thing to exist, except for God (Meditation III). Hence, existence of multiple finite substances are allowed. For example, a human can be thought to be a finite substance, with the modes of being four-limbed and etc. Spinoza, subscribing to monism, claims that thoughts and bodies are merely facets of God’s perfection; they are one of the infinite extensions and modes of the one true substance, because if anything exists outside of God, God cannot be said to be perfect for He would be limited. Since Spinoza defines an infinite substance as “which is in itself, and is conceived through itself” (Part I, Definition III), having a finite substance would thus be a contradiction. Everything else are hence, modifications As such, while Spinoza and Descartes designate God as the one infinite substance, they have different conceptions of the God’s relation to things due to their dissimilar ontological