Philosophy

Instructions
For the definitions, please provide approximately four sentences explaining the concepts, single spaced.

Definitions:

1. Primary Substance (Aristotle).

2. Secondary Substance (Aristotle).

3. Substance (Spinoza).

4. Mode (Spinoza).

5. Attribute (Spinoza)

For each of the essay questions, please provide approximately TWO pages of discussion, double spaced. Each answer is worth up to one hundred points.
Essays:

1. Compare and contrast Aristotle’s account of substance with Spinoza’s account of substance. How do they differ, and might they in some sense agree?

2. Of the two Philosopher’s studied thus far, which do you prefer, and why?

ANSWER

Aristotle and Spinoza on Substance

Primary substance (Aristotle)

According to Aristotle, primary substance is the essence of particular substances. The matter that composes a substance is the formal component which is the primary substance. Primary substance, in other words, is the substantial form of an object or a thing (Robinson). An individual and independent entity is a primary substance. For example, that is Spinoza. Spinoza is an individual independent entity; therefore, a primary substance

Secondary substance (Aristotle)

Secondary substances, according to Aristotle, dependent entities are secondary substances. They exist at a higher level of abstraction but are dependent. For example, humanity is dependent on individuals (Robinson). Substances depend on particulars. Human depends on the individual Spinoza to make a man named Spinoza.

Substance (Spinoza)

Substance is something that needs nothing to exist. It is an independent entity. The definition of substance by Spinoza closely relates to that of Aristotle about primary substance. Substance is an infinite space, according to Spinoza (Waller). Plants, for example, are referred to as regions of this space that are green and juicy. If a cat walks across the room, that region is furry.

Mode

Mode needs property to exist. For example, furry cannot exist without a cat, and green and juicy cannot exist without plants. Mode needs substance to exist. All the substances in the universe possess different modes, and therefore mode does not exist without substance. Orange does not exist without substance, neither does tall or angry or hungry.

Attribute

One substance has infinite attributes. Attribute, according to Spinoza, is the essence of a substance. The kind of thing it is. What is it? Bodies have the attributes of extension while minds have thought. He, however, argues that because a substance is infinite, it also has to have infinite attributes (Waller). Human beings are, however, aware of the two attributes, which are extension and thoughts.

Aristotle and Spinoza slightly differ in the way they define substance. According to Spinoza, substances exist independently, Aristotle on the other hand, divides substance into two, primary and secondary. This division of substance is where the difference between Aristotle’s and Spinoza’s perception of substance differs greatly. Their explanations, however, have a degree of similarity. What Spinoza refers to as mode and attribute, Aristotle describes as secondary substance.

The difference between their perceptions of substance is; Spinoza broke his explanation down better than Aristotle did. Aristotle’s explanation of substance is shallow in comparison to that of Spinoza. The two philosophers, therefore, do not disagree, but one has done deeper research and broken down substance further. Their big difference is the definition of substance, and Spinoza has made up for his definition of substance by adding attribute and mode to his definition. The discussion, however, takes a turn when Spinoza says that the only existing substance is God. He states that every substance has at least one attribute, and two substances cannot share the same attribute. He goes ahead and states that God has all attributes. God exists, and therefore if God exists, no other substances exist (Waller). In short, there only one substance that has all the attributes, and all the other attributes exist because it exists. Spinoza’s theory of substance becomes controversial at this point, especially after he says two substances cannot have the same attribute. Spinoza goes on about substance and deviates further from Aristotle, but the two philosophers agree in some sense. They agree that mode and secondary substance cannot exist on its own. They also agree on the existence of substances and the different attributes of substances.

Aristotle still, takes a different outlook of substance. He has two theories that define substance and one is the categories theory and the other is the metaphysics theory. In the metaphysical theory he describes substance in form and matter (Robinson). That is what it is and what makes the object. The first account of Aristotle on categories is however not complete, unlike Spinoza who had airtight theories of substance, Aristotle did not complete his first explanation of substance. He acknowledges that there are three candidates of substance, which is form, matter and composite of form and matter. Aristotle eliminates matter as a candidate of substance and that leaves form and composite of form. According to Aristotle if there are no primary substances then there would be no life. Without individual things there would be no genetics. Spinoza refutes this by stating that God is the only substance and being the only substance breathes life into all the things that live.

Spinoza referred to God and Nature as the same thing. It is for this reason he talked about substance monism, that is there only exists one infinite substance and that is God or Nature. He defends his theory by stating that two things with nothing in common cannot be the cause of the other, two substances cannot have the same attribute, two substances with different attributes cannot and do not have anything in common, one substance cannot be the cause of existence of another, substances are ether caused to exist by other substance or their existence is by their nature (Waller). His conclusion becomes substances have to exist by their nature. For a something to be a substance it has to exist. His argument leans on the ontological argument of Anselm and Descartes but differs because he does not claim that God exists because we think he exists. He also does not state that existence is perfection. The two philosophers are however trying to drive at the same point and to some degree there is a similarity in their explanations of substance.

I prefer Spinoza because he is a deep thinker. Uses geometry to prove his point and his theory of substance makes more sense to me. A substance supports its mode. Mode cannot exist without substance and neither can attribute. Furry could not exist without cats and other furry animals, and neither can tall or short exist without the substances that are given the attributes. His ethics are also provocative and compelling. His argument that there is no personal God and there is no immortal soul is intriguing. It is also interesting to note that humans are only aware of two attributes while there are more attributes out there. The ethics of Spinoza are especially intriguing. His perception of God as an infinite substance is a geometrical proof of the existence of God. It also proves God is the only existing substance and the cause of all things in the world. For one to grasp his notion of God as an infinite substance one has to deeply think about and that is what make his work interesting. His back story and his excommunication is also another interesting factor about Spinoza. It also is an explanation of his moral atheism.

Spinoza’s theories are also easier to grasp in comparison to those of Aristotle. For example, the theory of categories by Aristotle leaves so much room such that his theory of metaphysics can refute the theory of categories. His work is also complex in comparison to that of Spinoza even though they are trying to drive to the same point. On the other hand Spinoza challenges other philosophers by using their theories to prove his work (Waller). Spinoza was also a virtuous atheist which was interesting in his era. He did not believe in the biblical belief that without the bible one could not lead a moral life. Spinoza disputed this by living according to his teaching and living a morally upright life. There however, arises controversy in his work especially after his notion that the universe exists with no ultimate goal or notion but he goes ahead to live a moral life. His living to his set standards is depiction that the universe does not just exist and that it has a purpose. That life has purpose and that is why humans try to live by their set morals.

He also uses other philosophers’ work to prove his theories, which makes him more interesting and his work intriguing to read through and try to make sense of it. For example on his fourth premise on substance monism he leans on the ontological argument by Anselm and Descartes on the existence of God (Waller). His argument is however airtight because he does not defend the existence of God as an idea and does not claim perfection in existence.  He argues that everything is a mode of one substance that increases the controversy, and one is intrigued to research his work further. His work has been refuted, especially when he says two substances cannot share the same attribute, and Leibniz counters and states that substances can share the same attribute. Still, each differs by having an additional attribute. Spinoza did not give a reply to this objection, but it would be interesting to hear what he had to say about this. In conclusion, Spinoza and Aristotle are interesting philosophers. It is interesting going through their work, but that of Spinoza is intriguing because of the controversies, and it is also provocative.

Works Cited

Robinson, Howard, “Substance”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=substance

Waller, Jason. Benedict de Spinoza: Metaphysics. https://iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/#:~:text=According%20to%20Spinoza%2C%20everything%20that,conceptually%20and%20ontologically%20(E1d3).