An Eastern Perspective on Spinoza’s Monism
As a scientist, I felt quite unsatisfied by the traditional definition of God and religions. For a long time, I considered religion to be a purely arbitrary belief, a fantasy, almost, that gives an easy way out for people with limited intellectual and critical abilities. However, Spinoza’s substance monism argument, helped me develop a deeper definition of God in our increasingly nihilistic world. His argument is the first step for my current modern Islamic belief. Nonetheless, the aim of this essay is to provide a short reconstruction for this argument. The argument requires three conceptual ingredients and three logical steps.
*All definitions and propositions are from W.H.White’s translation of Spinoza’s Ethics. (for example: [d1] = Definition 1, [p1]= Proposition 1). I will write the definitions within this essay. Visit the link to read the original Propositions.
The three secret ingredients for ‘We are God’ recipe: Substance, Attributes, and Modes
Substance:
The monism argument starts with the definition of Substance. The substance is what can be conceived independently from anything else. Its existence is enough in itself to make it distinguishable [d3].
[d3]: By substance, I mean 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.
The definition of substance seems very vague at this stage, yet it is the building block of the argument. A substance is an abstract concept that can be perceived with no need for any additional definition. For example, let’s consider “Wood” and “Steel” to be substances. Wood and steel can be perceived and be distinguished from one another even when they are not put into shape yet. In the mind, they are two different conceptual constructs with no need to elaborate on how they look or feel. In the animation here, we see two gears. One made of wood while the other made of steel. Even though they both have the same shape at the moment, the mind can perceive that they are two different substances. The fact that they both are taking the shape of gears does not imply that they are similar in essence.
Modes:
However, it is impossible for a substance with no additional characteristics to be perceived or described. For example, the concept of wood exists clearly in our mind, yet it needs to take a form to be visualized or characterized as shown below. Those are instantaneous presentations, called modes, of the concept of wood.
[d5]: By mode, I mean the modifications [“Affectiones”] of substance, or that which exists in, and is conceived through, something other than itself.
Attribute:
We cannot consider the nature of the substance’s essence to be a mode of the substances [p1]. As we saw in the example of wood and steel gears, they both had the same form but are different in essences. Therefore, there should be a definition for a certain conceptual construct that can describe the essence of a substance that is the attribute of a substance [d4]. While modes are temporary presentations of substances, attributes are unique and permanent descriptions of the essence of the substance.
[d4]: By attribute, I mean that which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance.
Substance: Triangle
Attribute: Every Triangle can be inscribed in a circle
Mode: A triangle with side lengths: a, b, and c
First, we are aware that there is a conceptual creature that can be called “Triangle”. Let’s assume it is a substance of its own. We can directly notice that the sum of the triangles is 180 degrees; or that it can always be inscribed in a circle. These attributes flow instantaneously from constructing the concept of a triangle. Then, the mode of the triangle can be a right or an isosceles triangle. It is relevant to the concept of a triangle, It is simply a temporary representation of the concept.
Properties:
Two different substances with different attributes, meaning different essences[d4], will be completely different; because it is enough to perceive a substance through its essence[d3]. Then, two different substances will have certainly nothing in common[p2]. Therefore, it is impossible for them to influence each other[p3]. A good analogy would be the standard model of nature developed by physicists. There are four Fundamental Forces of Nature that exit. If there is an entity that does not interact with any of these forces, it can not be detected. It simply exists in an entirely different realm.
Based on the definition of modes and attribute, It can be established that whenever substances share one or more attribute they are ought to be one substance regardless of their modes[p5]. Because attributes are unique to the essence of the substance.
Therefore, the example of wooden and steel gears might be slightly misleading. The two cannot be considered to be different substances. They are simply a different temporary arrangement of atoms. Thus, they are different modes of the same substance. Then at this point, every physical thing that exists or can exist has to be considered one entity. On the other hand, substances with different attributes cannot interact with one another and cannot physically nor conceptually limit one another[p3]. The physical world exists in its own realm, while the conceptual world is in another realm. As different substances can never limit another substance or stop it from existing. It can keep on expanding non-stop. A substance can only be its own producer and nothing but itself can bring it to existence and it can produce no other substance as two sentences can never interact. Then, every substance has to be infinite[p8]. Finally, If a substance can be conceptually perceived, having an attribute, this implicitly dictates the substance’s existence. In other words, any substance exists because its essence is sufficient to guarantee its existence[p7].
Step 1: God necessarily exists.
This set of propositions and definitions is enough to prove that God, a single substance of infinite attributes, has to exist. Even if God (her nature yet to be defined) lives only in the abstract world still, she surely includes the attribute of existing[p7]. These attributes belong to both the conceptual and physical substances. Therefore, God has to be a substance with a set of attributes that unites the physical and conceptual substances. Unless there is another substance of the same exact attributes that can interact with A to hinder its existence[p3]. However, the new substance will end up having the same attributes, must be the same as God[p5]. For God not to exist, there must be a substance which includes all the attributes of God to hinder God’s existence. This results again in a substance that is God. Therefore, God necessarily exists[p11].
Step 2: God is one and has no sub-parts.
The most arduous premise of monism argument is proven now. The rest of the premise almost directly follows. For example, there exists no attribute that indicates that a certain substance A can be divided into different sub-parts [A1, A2, …, AN ], or that there are various components that can add up to make a substance A=ΣAi (i: 1→∞). For such attribute implies that every Ai has its unique set of attributes that is different from the other Aj and A. This violates [p3] as there is causality between substances of different attributes. Moreover, the substance A cannot be divided to other substances Ai even if each Ai has the same attributes as A. This means that all Ai are identical to A because they all share the same attributes [p5]. This would be copying A, N−times which is again A (N*∞=∞). Therefore, a substance is absolutely infinite and cannot be divided in any way [p12, p13]. However, we proved that a substance with infinite attribute necessarily exists [p11]. Based on this, it can be concluded that God is the only substance that can exist [p14]. Each other substance necessary has a subset of God’s attributes because there can exist only one infinite set of attributes. Finally, the monism argument is complete.
Step 3: We are God.
A direct consequence of Spinoza’s monism is the union of ‘‘everything”, literally everything including God, things, and people. The distinction between us and God becomes irrelevant. We are some sort of parts of a larger being, “God”. However, God has no parts as proven before. Thus a better statement would be that: we are simply other modes of the same substance. And as established before, having different forms or modes does not change the essence of a substance. So in essence, we are God.
To learn more about this great philosopher. Please check School of Life’s video on Spinoza.
