Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-p5m67 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-25T02:53:43.029Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spinoza and the problem of other substances

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Galen Barry
Galen Barry*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Iona College, New Rochelle, NY, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most of Spinoza’s arguments for God’s existence do not rely on any special feature of God, but instead on merely general features of substance. This raises the following worry: those arguments prove the existence of non-divine substances just as much as they prove God’s existence, and yet there is not enough room in Spinoza’s system for all these substances. I argue that Spinoza attempts to solve this problem by using a principle of plenitude to rule out the existence of other substances and that the principle cannot be derived from the PSR, as many claim.

Abbreviation: PSR: Principle of Sufficient Reason

Keywords

SpinozamonismplenitudePrinciple of Sufficient Reason

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , June 2019 , pp. 481 - 507
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ariew, R., 1990. “The Infinite in Spinoza’s Philosophy.” In Spinoza: Issues and Directions, edited by Curley, E. and Moreau, P.-F., 16–31. Leiden: E.J. Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, G., 2016. “Reply to Yenter: Spinoza, Number, and Diversity.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 24 (2): 365–374. doi:10.1080/09608788.2015.1116433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayle, P., 1991. Historical and Critical Dictionary: Selections, Translated and edited by Popkin, R. H.. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Bennett, J., 1984. A Study of Spinoza’s Ethics. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Bennett, J., 2001. Learning from Six Philosophers: Volume 1. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blumenfield, D., 1973. “Leibniz’s Theory of the Striving Possibles.” Studia Leibnitiana, 5: 163–177.Google Scholar
Carriero, J., 1991. “Spinoza’s Views on Necessity in Historical Perspective.” Philosophical Topics, 19 (1): 47–96. doi:10.5840/philtopics199119112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curley, E., and Walski, G.. 1999. “Spinoza’s Necessitarianism Reconsidered.” In New Essays on the Rationalists, edited by Gennaro, R. and Huenemann, C., 241–262. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Della Rocca, M. 2002. “Spinoza’s Substance Monism.” In Spinoza: Metaphysical Themes, edited by Koistinen, O. and Biro, J., 11–37. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Della Rocca, M. 2008. Spinoza. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deveaux, S., 2007. The Role of God in Spinoza’s Metaphysics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Di Poppa, F., 2013. “Spinoza on Causation and Power.” Southern Journal of Philosophy, 51 (3): 297–319. doi:10.1111/sjp.12036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Poppa, F., 2009. “Spinoza’s Concept of Substance and Attribute: A Reading of the Short Treatise.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 17 (5): 921–938. doi:10.1080/09608780903339087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donagan, A., 1973. “Essence and the Distinction of Attributes in Spinoza’s Metaphysics.” In Spinoza: A Collection of Critical Essays, edited by Grene, M., 164–181. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Donagan, A., 1988. Spinoza. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, D., 1979. “Spinoza’s ‘Ontological’ Argument.” The Philosophical Review, 88 (2): 198–223. doi:10.2307/2184506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, D., 1991. “Spinoza’s Necessitarianism.” In God and Nature: Spinoza’s Metaphysics, edited by Yovel, Y., 191–218. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Goris, W., and Aertsen, J.. 2016. “Medieval Thoeires of Transcendentals.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Zalta, E. N., https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/transcendentals-medievalGoogle Scholar
Gracia, J. J. E., 1992. “The Transcendentals in the Middle Ages: An Introduction.” Topoi, 11 (2): 113–120. doi:10.1007/BF00774417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, M., 2008. “Necessitarianism in Spinoza and Leibniz.” In Interpreting Spinoza: Critical Essays, edited by Huenemann, C., 71–93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gueroult, M., 1968. Spinoza I – Dieu (Ethique, I). Hildesheim: G. Olms.Google Scholar
Hubner, K., 2015. “On the Significance of Formal Causation in Spinoza’s Metaphysics.” Archiv Für Geschichte Der Philosophie, 97 (2): 196–233. doi:10.1515/agph-2015-0008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulstad, M., 1996. “Spinoza’s Demonstration of Monism: A New Line of Defense.” History of Philosophy Quarterly, 13 (3): 299–316. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27744709.Google Scholar
Laerke, M., 2011. “Spinoza’s Cosmological Argument in the Ethics.” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 49 (4): 439–462. doi:10.1353/hph.2011.0085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laerke, M., 2013. “Spinoza and the Cosmological Argument according to Letter 12.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 21 (1): 57–77. doi:10.1080/09608788.2012.696052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibniz, G. W., 1951. Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man, and the Origin of Evil, Translated and edited by Huggard, E. M.. LaSalle, IL: Open Court Publishing.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W., 1989. Philosophical Essays, Translated and edited by Roger, Ariew and Daniel, Garber. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Lin, M., 2007. “Spinoza’s Arguments for the Existence of God.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 75 (2): 269–297. doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2007.00076.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, M. 2017. “The Principle of Sufficient Reason in Spinoza.” In The Oxford Handbook of Spinoza, edited by Rocca, M. D., 133–154. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lin, M., and Melamed, Y.. 2017. “Principle of Sufficient Reason.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Zalta, E. N., https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/sufficient-reasonGoogle Scholar
Look, B., 2007. “Perfection, Power, and the Passions in Spinoza and Leibniz.” Revue Roumaine De Philosophie, 51 (1–2): 21–38.Google Scholar
Lovejoy, A., 1936. The Great Chain of Being. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
MacDonald, S., 1991a. “Introduction: The Relation between Being and Goodness.” In Being and Goodness, edited by MacDonald, S., 1–30. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
MacDonald, S., ed. 1991b. Being and Goodness. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, C. 2010. “A New Challenge to the Necessitarian Reading of Spinoza.” In Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy: Volume V, edited by Nadler, S. and Garber, D., 25–70. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Melamed, Y., Forthcoming. “‘A Substance Consisting of an Infinity of Attributes’: Spinoza on the Infinity of Attributes.” In Infinity in Early Modern Philosophy, edited by Nachtomy, O. and Wineger, R.. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Newlands, S., 2010. “The Harmony of Spinoza and Leibniz.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 81 (1): 64–104. doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2010.00354.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newlands, S., 2013. “Spinoza’s Modal Metaphysics.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Zalta, E. N., http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/spinoza-modalGoogle Scholar
Newlands, S., Forthcoming. “Evils, Privations, and the Early Moderns.” In Evil, edited by Chignell, A.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schechtman, A. Forthcoming. “Three Infinities in Early Modern Philosophy: Locke, Descartes, and Leibniz.” Mind,Google Scholar
Shein, N., 2009. “The False Dichotomy between Objective and Subjective Interpretations of Spinoza’s Theory of Attributes.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 17 (3): 505–532. doi:10.1080/09608780902986631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shein, N., 2013. “Spinoza’s Theory of Attributes.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Zalta, E. N., http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/spinoza-attributesGoogle Scholar
Shields, C., 1986. “Leibniz’s Doctrine of the Striving Possibles.” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 24 (3): 343–357. doi:10.1353/hph.1986.0043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. D., 2014. “Spinoza, Gueroult, and Substance.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 88 (3): 655–688. doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2012.00611.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strickland, L., 2006. Leibniz Reinterpreted. London: Continuum Publishing.Google Scholar
Viljanen, V., 2011. Spinoza’s Geometry of Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfson, H. A., 1934. The Philosophy of Spinoza, Unfolding the Latent Processes of His Reasoning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar