Theodor Adorno’s Dream: Frankfurt, 10 September 1954

From reading and skimming some of the dreams in Theodor Adorno’s Dream Notes (published in 2005 in Franfurt am Main Germany by Polity Press),  an overcoming macabre feeling overcame me.  Adorno is quoted in a preceding page in the book ” Dreams are as black as death.”  He had some screwed up dreams that were recorded and published in this book. He states often waking up to certain overcoming feelings and thoughts. I dont know about anyone else, but I have never had dreams this overpowering and influential that they effect my daily or even momentary activities and events. The dream I have had that is closest to Adorno’s dreams in this book, is the dream where I am falling infinitely and immediately wake up and jump or spasmodically twitch because I still feel like I am falling and want to do something about it (a few times I jump or move so far I fall off the bed onto the ground and sometimes hit my head on the nightstand). This falling dream is nowhere in comparison to Adorno’s horrific, thought provoking, or weird dreams.

Adorno notes each dream by its date and where he was. The dream I want to talk about occurred to him in Frankfurt (not sure am Main or an der Oder) on the tenth of September 1954. I choose this dream to discuss and analyze because he wakes up with an overcoming urge to prove something. By discussing and analyzing Adorno’s dreams recorded in this book, I am not analyzing and discussing these dreams psychologically. Psychology is not  a field of study I have any knowledge or expertise in and frankly, I dislike psychology. If Im going to analyze the brain and its thoughts, philosophical epistemology is the way I would do it.

This dream is not something I want to relate to epistemology however. The dream ends in an argument over what he says is theology, but I think it is more metaphysical. The dream begins where Adorno is in a philosophical argument with a man named Tillich.  Adorno says that Tillich is saying that there is a distinction between equilibrium and equibrium. He says that equilibrium is defined as balance on the outside. Equibrium is defined in this dream note as balance on the inside. Adorno feels the need to tell Tillich that there is no such thing as equibrium and that balance is all equilibrium. Adorno ends the note by saying he woke up and began  to attempt to prove that there is no such thing as equibrium. I find it fascinating that Adorno had this dream and woke up having the need to prove something immediately.

So, is there such a thing as equibrium? Is there a difference between equibrium and equilibrium?

In this universe (cosmos I should say), do things go out of balance on the outside? We all know things go out of balance on the inside. Psychological illness, stress, anger, sadness, fear, lethargy and other things are the inner imbalances. The key to finding out if there is distinction between inner and outer balance (equilibrium and equibrium) is to find out if the outside goes in and out of balance. It is given that the inside goes in and out of balance, but does the outside? If the outside does kind of go out of balance, are those imbalances from the inside or do they relate to the inside? If a possibility of outer imbalance can occur without having relation to the inner balance, then there is a distinction between equilibrium and equibrium.

I did not wake up from a dream feeling the need to discuss and prove my argument on this issue, but from reading Adorno’s dream note, I feel the need to justify my argument. Adorno believes that no distinction between the inner and outer balance exists. I feel the same way and agree with Theodor Adorno’s dreamed argument.

To prove that no outer imbalance/balance can exist, think about possible outer imbalances. An example that I think is a possible outer imbalance is something like a skin condition (psoriasis, chicken pox, acne, bleeding areas etc). I am merely thinking about imbalances (outer and inner) in people. People have outsides and insides. Particles I do not think could be debated about inner and outer balances, because due to their size and configuration, what is on the inside is the same thing that is on the outside. People are a little different. Our soul/self/mind is different from our physical body. If an outer imbalance occurs where does it come from? How does it get there? A person’s body is operated by the brain and the mind (also soul and self), therefore, it is my premise that because all outer imbalances are directly related and come from the inner imbalances, there is no distinction between equibrium and equilibrium.

P1   All outer imbalances come from/are directly related to the inner imbalances

P2  Outer imbalances are equal to inner imbalances

__________________________________________

∴\  Equibrium and equilibrium and its distinction does not exist

I say this without further consideration because I cannot think of any outer imbalance in the cosmos/universe that is not directly related to/caused by inner imbalances.

For example, if there is mutation of cells that mutate to become abnormal cells, this is an inner imbalance because a problem with the cells cause them to mutate to become harmful cancerous cells. These abnormal cells multiply in the skin’s cells.  These abnormal cells build up and become skin cancer or a melanoma. This melanoma can be viewed to be an outer imbalance. This is not an outer imbalance distinct from inner imbalance. The inner imbalance is the mutation of cells to become abnormal and live in the body causing inner and outer problems. One of the outer problems is the skin cancer melanoma that can be seen on the skin. One may view this to be a disturbance on the outside, but this is just another sign of the disturbance of inner balance.

All imbalances are from the inside in the bodies of this universe.

Its amazing that a huge involved argument was attempted just because Theodor Adorno had a dream. This argument influenced Adorno to disprove his dream’s theory and it also is influential to others to further analyze this argument.

Neutral Monism in Wittgenstein

In the paper I posted on this site about Spinozistic substance monism, the case was argued that only one substance/material that makes up the universe exists. This one material makes up everything that exists everywhere. Spinoza did not however mention the mental and physical monism that exists. Wittgenstein does this in the Tractatus. In Spinoza’s monism, he still states that mental and physical parts exist within that substance and are represented as attributes of the substance. If you say that physical and mental monism exists you are saying that the physical world around us (the earth, the objects) are made of a variation of the substance and the mental thoughts and sensations are a different variation of the same substance. Wittgenstein and others in his same time period thought that this was not true. This includes that sensations/perceptions/thoughts and body versus mind are all of the same exact kind of substance, therefore there is no division between them. The fact that a mental and physical monism do not exist is neutral  monism. This type of monism states that all of the things around us are neutral things all made of the exact same kind of substance/material. Specific things are only differentiated from other things because of how they relate with other things; the differentiated things do not differ from each other any more or any less. Being in Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, neutral monism supports solipsism because this form of monism does not state what this substance/material is, therefore it could be any self/soul that perceives the physical world. If monism has a mental form and a physical form, solipsism is much harder to prove. I disagree with neutral monism and endorse Spinoza’s form of monism. I will explain my opinions later.

Wittgenstein, Berkeley, and Hume provide justifications for eliminating certain things in this material/substance monism. First, justifications are made to allow matter to be eliminated from neutral monism because of its lack of neutrality. Berkeley mainly was he who justified this elimination but Mach’s view was a big justification

” the world consists only of our sensations”

Think about that. Are sensations coherent with today’s definition of matter? No (this view of Mach is a big contributor to solipsism). We perceive things around us, and the only perceivable living entity that we can for sure know about is ourselves and our perceptions. Therefore, Wittgenstein and others say that perceptions/sensations are the only components of the universe. This allows Berkeley to eliminate the presence of matter because of its lack of neutrality and because it is not for sure known to exist because our perceptions cannot confirm it.

Hume also helps confirm an elimination when he questioned the entity of the self. It is known that the soul is an entity because of our perceptions and those perceptions create the world around us (according to Mach and Wittgenstein, I disagree with this). The self is also an entity that lacks neutrality and poses problems in philosophy. Hume uses Mach’s propositions like Berkeley did for the elimination of matter. Mach states a big idea that helps cut to the chase to eliminate the self:

” The I is not an object”

If ‘I’ is not an object, then what is it? The ‘I’ is not an object because it exists in relation to the soul that perceives and senses. The ‘I’ is basically the self. If the self is not an object and not just a component of the soul, it is not neutral. In solipsism, only the soul exists and perceives/senses things, creating the only known world. In solipsism’s case, the soul is the only substance and its perceptions creates the known world. The soul is a large entity according to solipsism and governs everything we see and do. Where does the entity of the self come into place? It doesn’t. If it would be put into existence with the soul in the solipsist state, it would be a useless entity that would hold no water for proof of a reason for existence. It would also cause a lot of problems for philosophers. Therefore, Hume and Mach state that the self cannot exist because of how neutral this monism is.

Wittgenstein himself helps eliminate the presence of inner and outer worlds in neutral monism also using Mach’s statements.

“There is no rift between the psychical and physical, no inside and outside, no “sensation” to which an external “thing” different from sensation, corresponds…….”

When Wittgenstein talks about the distinction of inner and outer worlds, by inner he means sensations, perceptions, and thoughts. By outer worlds, he means the physical world we perceive and try to understand. In solipsism, the perceptions are the only world that can possibly exist. Solipsism is obviously governing Wittgenstein’s thoughts when he eliminates outer and inner worlds and when he advocates neutral monism. Matter is able to be eliminated because of how sensations/perceptions from the substance of the self are what make up the world around us. If there is a psychical and physical world in any sense, no distinction between both of them is possible or necessary because of how both worlds are of the same substance and in the same world. This prevents any possible distinction of inner and outer worlds.

Wittgenstein also helps eliminate the possibility of private objects. Private objects are objects/ sense-impressions that belong to a certain thing/being. A private object example might be if one person gets horrific hallucinations that he cant tell from reality. Because he is the only person who has this, this schizophrenia may be a private object because of how it belongs to him because he is the only one who has it.  Wittgenstein states that the existence of a private object is not possible because of solipsism and the neutrality of things in this form of monism. In solipsism, all things are from the same thing, perceived by one soul (that one knows of). If there is a possibility in the perceived world by the soul, it is possible in all relations of things perceived. If one relation of things or state of affairs has this object/sense-impression, the sense-impression does not belong to the relation of things/state of affairs because of how possible this sense=impression is upon the entire existence that is perceived. A private object in existence is not neutral and would cause philosophical problems to be solved. In a solipsist existence, a private object like this is impossible which gives Wittgenstein some of his justification for this elimination.

Wittgenstein does not eliminate the possible existence of other minds, but he does condone the fact that their presence cannot be known in neutral monism and solipsism.

Since Descartes, the distinction between mind and body existed and cause(s)(d) many philosophical problems. Mind and body are the two things that can possibly be differentiated between each other. Neutral monism defeats this problem because of how the soul is the only substance/material that makes up the universe. In this case, soul includes the relations/states of affairs of mind and body.

It is also stated in neutral monism that appearances of things in the world are the reality at that state of time. If appearances were different from the reality in any state of time, neutral monism could not be the case  and solipsism’s theories would fall apart on the spot.

Through all of the things that have been eliminated in the world to neutralize everything to make a better monism theory and to fit solipsism, hopefully you are able to get a mental picture of what this neutral monist solipsist world is thought to be. Go back to my paper on this website on Spinozistic substance monism where I explain Spinoza’s thoughts about substance, mode and attribute http://tinyurl.com/39xxq2w and compare that Godly substance monism with this solipsist neutral monism. In Spinoza’s monism, God is the only substance and it is more complicated because more than just your own perceptions matter to metaphysical existence. In this neutral monism mentioned above, all of the things above are eliminated by philosophers to fit solipsism and neutrality of things. This involves your own soul as the only substance, where only your perceptions are stated to cohere with reality. Nothing beyond your perceptions and sensations can be understood. Comment below which monism you think is correct

Which one is correct in your opinion?

A) Spinozistic Godly substance monism

or

B) Solipsist neutral monism.

I vote A.

I’d like to propose these things to disprove neutral monism because of what is beyond our own soul’s perceptions. I feel that saying that your own perceptions are all you can know and they are all that can be comprehended is a cop-out in logic and philosophy. Don’t we have logic and philosophy and its fields to explain the world around us beyond our perceptions? What good is philosophy if we cant understand anything beyond our own minds? Also, God is the substance that the universe is made up of and governed by. The soul is  a small tiny being that is a part of the creatum God made. Those who believe in neutral monism do themselves injustices because if we live here, we have the right to find out the realities beyond what we see and understand every day. I crave to understand things I don’t every day. If I was a neutral monist (and probably a solipsist), I would not care to know things outside my own perception unless they had a big relation to my own perceptions.

Post your thoughts below about whether you think monism is neutral like Wittgenstein’s or Godly like Spinoza’s

Go back up on this page to read over Wittgenstein’s justifications for neutral monism and what neutral monism is.

Go to http://tinyurl.com/39xxq2w to read about Spinoza’s substance monism. Please vote which monism you think is true.

~F Logic: Logicians Guide to Philosophy

~F Logic is another page on this site where  I plan to put all of the symbols used in sentential and predicate logic. In posts in the future and a few already done, sentential and predicate logic is used to logically perceive arguments philosophers make. I want to create a guide on this website to the symbols of logic and what things mean when they are logically laid out. After this is posted, its going to go on the ~F Logic page on this site. There is a link for it above ^.

Symbols of Logic I am going to show the truth table to each connection because to do truth tables, you have to know how each connection gives truth and false values between letter variables.

1)   ~      this squiggly symbol means the negation of something. So if  P is true  what is ~P?  False. Here is the truth table for propositions just containing the ~ symbol.

P                  ~  P

T                 F T

F                T F

Looking at this truth table, the ~ symbol just reverses the truth of falsity of the object/thought discussed. I call this ~F Logic page    ~F because this reads “the negation of falsity”. In philosophy and logic, we want to negate falsities to get to the truth right? That is my reasoning for calling this logicians guide  ~F.

2)  If…then Symbol(s)-  –>  or  ⊃

The arrow or the sideways u signifies that if theres something, the next thing concludes. If this then that. Whenever you are doing a truth table, fill in all the T’s and F’s of the letter variables themselves, then decide what the connection symbol truth is. Heres the truth table for the if/then.

P       ⊃          Q

T       T T

T       F F

F      T T

F      T F

The only time the inference is false in a if/then proposition is when the first variable is true and then the second is false.

*Side note*

Heres a truth table of the first two symbols explained here, combined. Read: If P then not Q.

P    ⊃     ~      Q

T    F F      T

T    T T      F

F     T F      T

F    T T      F

And also, sometimes people use 1 and 0 for T and F. I dislike that method. It confuses me.

3)   Or –     v (for either one)      v (for one of the two)

v is hard to do a truth table for because it requires that only one of the two things be true. v is easy to do truth tables for because if there is two variables and one is true, the inference will be a true statement. The only time the or connection will yield falsity is when both variables are false. Truth table:

P       v        Q

T     T T

T      T F

F      T T

F      F F

Think about this in terms of the algebraic connection of Union. This is just like that but this is logic.

4)  And-    .    or &

Think about this in terms of the algebraic connection of Intersection. This is also like that. Truth table:

P        .         Q

T       T T

T       F F

F       F T

F       F F

The and and or logic connections are similar because, if its or, one truth in the bunch makes the whole proposition true, while if its and, one falsity in the bunch makes the whole proposition false.

Heres a truth table of everything so far:

P       v       ~Q           ⊃          ~P       .     Y

T        T F T           F F T      F T

T       T T F          F F T      F T

F      F F T          T T F      T T

T      T F T          F F T     F F

F      T T F          T T F      T T

F      F F T          T T F      F F

T      T T F          F F T     F F

F      T T F          F T F      F F

5) If/Then  both ways – ↔

If you have P –> Q you know what is if and what is the then.↔ indicates that this if then relationship can be used both ways   so    P↔Q  signifies:   P –>Q and/or  Q –>P. Truth table:

P       ↔      Q

T       T T

T       F F

F       F T

F       T F

6) Therefore- ⊢

This symbol of a turnstile signifies that theres this, therefore, theres this too. The turnstile does not have a truth value, and cannot be represented for its truth or falsity in a truth table. It just says this therefore this.

these are often put back to back the vertical parts facing each other to represent two turnstiles. This back to back turnstile represents that P therefore Q and/or Q therefore P. I dont use this symbol much in logic.

On the ~F Logic page, I will  do a lot more examples of truth tables like the big one above.

Predicate based Logic

This form of logic involves expressions where the existence of objects and their tendencies are shown.

Two kinds of quantifiers begin each expression

A universal quantifier is shown by the symbol ∀ and a variable is next to it, then the expression follows. This upside down A signifies the word ‘every’.

An existential quantifier is shown by the symbol ∃ and a variable next to it, then the expression follows. This backwards E signifies the word ‘some’.  ∃!   signifies that exactly one thing in existence qualifies in this expression.

Heres some examples of this predicate based logic:

∀xPx              read  all things are P

∀x(Px –>Qx)      read  All P’s are Q’s/  Every P is a Q/  If its a P, its a Q/  Only P’s are Q’s/ Any P is a Q/ Everything that is                                            P is Q

∀xAx(Dx . Cx)      All A’s are D’s and C’s

∀xAx(Dx v Cx)   All A’s are  either D’s or C’s

∃xAx               Some things are A/ Something is an A

∃x(Bx . Cx)  Some B’s are C’s

∃x(Bx –>Cx)    Some B’s are C’s

x is put by the existential quantifier and the upper case descriptive variables because x signifies the actual object in discussion.

∃x(Bx v Cx)      Some things are B’s or C’s

∃!x(Bx –>Cx)  Exactly 1 B is a C

∃!xFx              Exactly one thing is an F

Predicate based logic is best learned by learning to take English and turning it into a predicate based logic expression and taking the expressions and making scenarios to fit them.

Heres a few from English to predicate logic:

1)   All people are good or bad

2) All things are created.

3)   All whales are not fish.

4)  Some people are schizophrenic

5)  Most people are men or women

6) Exactly one reptile has white scales and a blue tongue

7) If some things are good, then some things are bad

8) Some things are finite, therefore at least one thing is infinite

9) If all things come into existence, then all will come out of existence.

10) All birds are blue, therefore a jaybird is blue.

Do n0t scroll down anymore if you want to figure out the above 10 questions. All of the answers are below this sentence.

Answers: random variables are assigned to random things

1) ∀xPx(Gx v Bx)

2) ∀x(Ex –> Cx)

3) ∀x( Wx –> ~Fx)

4) ∃x( Px –> Sx)

5)  ∃xPx( Mx v Wx)

6) ∃!xRx( Wx . Bx)

7) ∃x( Gx ⊃ Bx)

8) ∃x( Fx ⊢ Ix)

9) ∀x( Ix ⊃ Ox)

10) ∀xBx(Blx ⊢ Jbx)

I think In logic that you should be able to put lowercase letters next to your uppercase variables so thats what I did for #10. B signifies birds, Bl signifies blue  and Jb signifies jaybirds and blue.  The variable B was already used so I picked variables with extra letters. Is that okay  to do ? I think so.

Lets do that process vice versa

I will give a predicate logic expression and  you  figure out some scenarios that fit the expression.

1)  ∀xMx( (Px v Qx)⊃ ~Zx)

2) ∃!x(Px –> Yx)

3)∃xAx( (Bx . Qx) ⊃ ~( Bx . Px))

Okay so 1 and 3 might be a little difficult but 2 is easy. Heres my scenarios for these logical expressions:

1) If all men (Mx) are either stupid (Px) or shallow (Qx), then all men are not compassionate ( ~Zx ).

2) Exactly one North American colubrid snake (Px) is venomous (Yx).

3)  In some shoes (Ax), if a shoe is sporty (Bx) and girlie (Qx), then the shoe cannot be sporty (Bx) and high heeled (Px)

More examples of truth tables, sentential logic, predicate logic, and going from English to logic expressions coming to the ~F Logic page on this site.

Wittgenstein: Tractatus Logico Philosophicus 5.6 and 5.61

Still pondering the thoughts of Ludwig Wittgenstein in his  Tractatus Logico Philosophicus. And I want to eventually research the idea of solipsism for awhile and write a symposium (and shorter colloquium version) about Wittgensteinian solipsism and other forms of it. 5.6 and 5.61 are propositions that precede Wittgenstein’s solipsist propositions in the Tractatus. 5.62 and further is where he introduces the solipsist idealism. 5.6 and 5.61 are conditions that lead up to the inference that  the self is the only entity of existence and perception of the universe, hence solipsism.

For now, I feel that 5.6 and 5.61 are really important and should be argued.

5.6  The limits of my language, mean the limits of my world

5.61 Logic pervades the world: the limits of the world are also its limits.

So we cannot say in logic, “The world has this in it, and this, but not that.”

For that would appear to presuppose that we were excluding certain possibilities, and this cannot be the case since           it would require that logic should go beyond the limits of the world; for only in that way could it view those limits             from the other side as well.

We cannot think what we cannot think; so what we cannot think we cannot say either.

5.6

What do you think of when you hear “language”? We use it every day to speak to each other. It governs the manner that we think thoughts. If you are thinking about something, you are using words to think things and this is the use of language. Think about how language relates to the world around us.  Language governs how we understand and explain the things around us. But, Wittgenstein is stating that language limits the world around us because of its limits.

Lets first examine language in itself. The earliest inventors of language saw all of the physical things around us, the people around that could not be communicated with, and the feeling that there is a supreme being above. They proposed a symbol for each thing; the symbols had words invented for them to communicate with others, explain the world around us and explain some of the unexplainable.

When you think about it, there is a limited number of symbols that can transfer into words. Symbols express a lot of what reality is while when a symbol is converted into language, words to speak are created. When these words of language are created,  corners are cut in expressing reality. When symbols are converted into language realism and closeness to the way things really are decrease considerably. This poses the limits in language that Wittgenstein says there are in 5.6

In summary, reality that is perceived is all real. When one wants to express this reality, symbols are invented. The symbols express most of the reality of the way that item/phenomena really is. When one wants to speak these symbols, language is created. The creation of a language from symbols distorts the expression of reality and of the way things are. Language tries to express reality as well as symbols do, but it fails miserable because of how language cannot measure up on closeness to reality like symbols do. I say this because I feel that language does not by any means express the entire reality of the world around us. Wittgenstein however felt that language is the only means of perception and its limits are the worlds limits. Wittgenstein states in 5.6 that what language perceives is what the world’s reality is.

I disagree with 5.6. The limits of language only mirror the unseen, unexpressed, imperceivable part of reality that exists. God created this world and our minds and bodies are infinitesimally and exponentially smaller than the infinite gargantuan macrocosmic mind and spirit of God. Language is the only thing God allowed humanity to create because language can only perceive things that the small human mind can understand. The limits of language mean the limits of my world is an untrue statement. ‘My world’ includes God and his infinitely gargantuan spirit and mind. The limits of language do not apply to God and the wonders He does every day.

So, 5.6 is wrong.

5.61

5.6 says that language limits your own world. I  highly oppose that  thought because language is only a means for communication and expression of the world around us and ‘ my world’ is very complex beyond the possible perception of language.

5.61 on the other hand talks about logic. Logic is used in this world to explain proposition and thoughts that explain the world. Logic is linked to language because language is used to express logic. The first statement in 5.61 is that logic pervades the world and that the limits of logic are the limits of the world. ‘the world’ and ‘my world’ are 2 different things. ‘the world’ is the physical explainable world around us. ‘the world’ adheres to the limits of language and logic while ‘my world’ involves the complexity of God and does not adhere to any limits of logic or language (logic may be able to express things that language cannot  along with other unexplainable things. This may occur in the future when variables are assigned to imaginary and/or unexplainable things  —> limitless logic).

So when Wittgenstein says “logic pervades the world: the limits of the world are also its limits” he is right because logic  adheres to the limits that ‘the world’ has.

The next statement where Wittgenstein says that we cant say ” the world has this and this in it, but not that” is also correct. He states that this is true because if we were able to say this, we would be excluding possibilities of the world (again ‘the world’ being the physical world we live in and touch) in logic. If something can possibly exist in logical space, it does so somewhere in ‘the world’.

Wittgenstein ends 5.61 by saying “we cannot think what we cannot think; we cannot think what we cannot say either”. By ‘we’ he means all the humans with small minds in the world. In ‘the world’ of people like me and you,  thinking something that cannot possibly be thought is impossible. We cannot think what we cannot say either. The fact that we cant think what we cannot say brings us back to language and its limits.  A person that is a part of ‘we’ is a part of the pool of people that live here that all have tiny small brains that cannot comprehend the slightest bit of the things God can. Like I said before, we think in words of language, and in our small tiny minds we cant think what we cant say.

God on the other hand is not a part of ‘the world’ and he succeeds logic, language and their limits. He can think what we cant think. He can say what we cant think.

Heres an example of not being able to think/say something:

If you look at all the colors in existence on the wheel of colors that artists use, you think that there has to be another color not present on this wheel. You try to think of what it is, but every color you think of applies as a shade of a color on that wheel. You continue and continue to do this but you always come back to another original color on that wheel.

This thought process is redundant because a color not present on the color wheel that has all colors in existence is not possible in language, logic and our infinitely small minds. Its hard to even think of mentioning language in this situation because you have to have a thought established along with a symbol before you want to assign a word in language to it.

So in ‘the world’  5.61 is true. In ‘my world’ 5.61 is false because of Gods involvement and His complexity.

Comment below how you think language is different from initial symbol-less thoughts. Do you think language distorts our thoughts and perceptions? Why?

Thanks for reading. Go to http://twitter.com/cosmosz or email me at   cosmosuniversez@yahoo.com

Wittgenstein: Tractatus Logico Philosophicus Proposition 4.023

4.023 – A proposition must restrict to two alternatives: yes or no.  In order to do that, it must describe reality completely.                A proposition is a description of  a state of affairs……………………etc……

In Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, his statement 4.023 beings by stating that a proposition itself must restrict reality into 2 alternatives: yes or no- given that a proposition describes reality completely and that a proposition is a description of a state of affairs. It goes on in that same proposition to explain its justification further.

That statement or statements after that do no justify why/how reality is restricted to the alternatives of yes and no. I dont feel that I can write a whole paper about why this is a somewhat false statement, but I felt it needed addressing as I was reading the Tractatus.

Think about things that go on every day in your life.  Contemplate upon the problems you deal with on a daily basis and how you solve those problems. In retrospection on the previous issues you have dealt with, are those issues simple ones? Are the truths and falsities easily recognizable between each other making it easier for you to react accordingly? If you are able to understand what things are true and false and you are able to sort through them and recognize their distinctions, the issues of daily life would not really be issues. They would be momentary discrepancies that you immediately address. Wittgenstein states in statement 4.023 that propositions in reality have only 2 possible answers of yes or no. My opinion is that if this were true, life would be a lot easier.

Propositions of reality differentiate in truth and falsity in variations of time, perception, and in existence. These 3 variations are ones that I think exist. There may be more, but these 3 are what I immediately understand.

First, I think that propositions of reality are going to vary in truth and falsity (yes or no) by variations in time. What may be true one second/month/year/decade may not be true the next and vice versa. For example, ” if the economy is prosperous, then technology will advance leading to better computers”. Logically read:

E –> ( T –> C)

or

∀xEx–>∃x(Tx–>Cx)

Reiterated, if all of the economy gets prosperous then some technology will advance leading to better computers.

Thinking about time itself, do you think that in any time in the whole existence of the universe that a better economy will lead to a technology advance and better computers? No. In most of the existence of the world and the universe, computers did not even exist. Yes technology can advance, for example, human precursor Olduvan tools get more advanced leading to Acheulian tools. If the proposition was just that better economies lead to better technology, that would lead to a truth without exceptions, but what Wittgenstein says in 4.023 is that all propositions of reality lead to a yes or no (truth/falsity) answer. In E–> (T–>C) a full truth or full falsity cannot be inferred due to the inconsistency of time.

I think also that 4.023 is wrong because of the inconsistency of perception. First, looking at it from Spinoza’s modes of substance, different interpretations and perceptions of the same existence can be inferred. A substance of any kind has infinite macrocosmic and microcosmic modes that modify and perceive the same substance. If each mode perceived the substance in the same fashion, only one mode would exist, but many inferences and interpretations of the same existence can be concluded. Looking at it in another way, a radical conservative would view a senate bill and its effects way differently than a left liberal would. Conservatives and liberals have beliefs and values that govern and even possibly distort their perception of the surrounding world. Their beliefs and ideas are going to cause them to have their own take on a bill or anything else in discussion.

For example, a senate bill is proposed and is going to be voted on soon. It involves creating a new income tax category that would take  money out of your pay check that would go to governmental environment agencies.  Before I even lay this out logically, think about the controversy this would spark and how each political side would react to something like this. Proposition: If we create a new income tax category to give money to governmental environment agencies, the world will be a cleaner better place for us to live. Logically:

I –> (C & B)

I represents the environmental agency income tax category and C and B meaning cleaner and better world.

or

∀xIx –>∀x(Cx & Bx)

When I use the examples of liberals and conservatives having different perceptions, this is not the only way modes or people could have different perceptions of the same thing. Liberals and conservatives are just a good example because they are 2 opposite sides of the political spectrum. Perceptions of the same existence are infinite in manner and fashion.

Thinking about the perspective of the liberals, this proposition would be true. Liberals think that the environment should get more money to improve and this would be a good solution to environmental problems. Thinking about the perspective of the conservatives, this proposition would be false because conservatives do not think that the environment is important and they also do not think  that the government would distribute that income tax money to the environment and its purposes. Two existences/people are interpreting the same proposition/thought and infinite variations of conclusions are inferred. A moderate view of this might look at this proposition and think it to be true in some ways and false in others: government would take some of that environmental income tax, but the money that would go to environmental agencies would make the world a tiny bit cleaner and better. These are just 3 examples to an infinite number of inferences to the truth of this proposition. Most inferences do not lead to full truth or full falsity.

The variation of existence relates fully to the time variation because at the time of existence of a being, a proposition of reality may be true and then the next moment that certain existence may vanish from existence making that entire proposition half true or totally false.

Gray Areas

If you have a proposition that says one thing is another or any other proposition, do you really think that every inference will fall either into the category of truth or falsity? In any proposition, is every answer going to be true or false and not sometimes true/sometimes false   and not  some true/some false?

Here is a good example to determine if you can eliminate all possibilities of half/some truths or falsities. “All Libertarians are potheads”. A very simple proposition. Logically:

∀x(Lx –> Px)

All L’s are P’s.

Looking at this logically and keeping in mind 4.023, do you think this is an all true or all false statement. Here are the conclusions I think cannot be left out when contemplating upon the truth of this proposition:

C1:  True, they are only in politics to get pot legalized

C2: False, they just feel that pot should not be a substance that the government should control use of.

C3: Some true/false,  some are potheads and the rest just feel that pot should not be illegal

C4: Sometimes true/false, they were potheads back in the seventies, eighties and early nineties, but not anymore.

Conclusions 1 and 2 fall into place with 4.023 because they condone all truth or all falsity to that proposition. But when looking at this proposition, can C1 and C2 be the only possible conclusions to this argument? If you want to correctly use critical reasoning and logic, you cannot blatantly state that all truth or all falsity are the only inferences of all propositions of reality.

C3 and C4 are gray areas. In my opinion, opposing Wittgenstein’s 4.023, all propositions of reality have gray areas in time, perception and existence. If you agree with 4.o23′s beginning statement, you need to study logic and critical reasoning further. Reality is way too complex to restrict its propositions to two possible answers.

So in opposition to Wittgenstein, there are gray areas and other inferences than true and false (yes or no).

Comment below your thoughts and opinions.

Le Chatelier Braun Principle

Im not one to love to talk about chemistry, but this principle has points in it that correspond to the way people react to every day occurrences.

Equilibrium

In chemistry, a solution or compound in a solution achieves an equilibrium when there  is less change and things even out. Equilibrium basically  means that everything in that solution evened out making things level. Equilibrium is disturbed when changes occur. But, when there is no change and there has not been change for a period of time, equilibrium will stay in place.

Stress

The Le Chatelier-Braun principle is all about stress. When a solution is in equilibrium, stress has not been placed on it in awhile. Stress comes from things like a chemical reaction from incoming elements, pressure, heat, and even a change of state. This is described as stress because when something occurs to a solution, it is effected greatly. Changes to a solution in equilibrium causes stress, making the solution want to change to make the changes not cause stress.

Ultimately,  stress leads to a change in the equilibrium to lessen the stress and effects of the stress.


In chemistry, causes of stress include the following:

• Pressure
• Heat
• Change in chemical composition
• Effects of chemical reaction
• Change in state

Equilibrium and stress not only apply to chemistry and compounds but it also applies to people and their lives.

Le Chatelier-Braun Principle of Life

Equilibrium can be described in a human life perspective by saying that if we feel that we dont need any change at the moment and that we are doing okay, we are at equilibrium. If things start to happen and we feel we need to change things or we are not happy with our lives, this is the action of stress starting to be placed upon your life. The things that cause stress in your life and in you, are what drive us to change or do things in our life every day. Because of this, stress being enacted in our life, causes us to change to get back to equilibrium just like in chemistry and all the compounds within solutions.

For example, if someone was in a class and felt fine with not going every class period feels totally fine with that and thinks he or she is doing fine, until a test grade gets back that is a relatively bad test grade. This bad test grade  makes the person feel like the current situation of not going to class all the time is NOT fine. This disturbs the equilibrium of the whole situation by the stress that is enacted upon the person’s life by the bad test grade. This stress from the bad test grade inevitably causes the person to change in some way shape or form to get back to equilibrium or get back to when things were fine. The stress causes change. When the person goes to class on a regular basis and does good on the next test, he or she feels that equilibrium is justified now because things are fine and dandy again.

This bad test grade in a person’s life can be compared to pressure on a chemical compound causing stress making the solution want to get back to equilibrium.

Shay Carl’s Pain vs. Pleasure

Along with stress and equilibrium, pleasure must also be taken into account. Shay Carl said this on one of his vlogs on youtube and I thought I would adopt those views. Stress being enacted upon one’s life is going to cause pain of some form if change does not occur that will return the person’s life back to equilibrium. Stress can be linked to cause pain if it is not checked. Shay basically said that the only way that change can happen is if the pain is greater than the pleasure. He said this concerning his Shay Loss weight loss competition he took upon himself to lose all the weight he could. He  stopped doing it and focused on his other 2 channels which I have no problem with, but when he was explaining this, he spewed this pain vs. pleasure idea that I  loved and have never thought of life that way. He said that eating good food and being kind of fat had a certain level of pleasure in it and the pain from being fat was not that big, therefore, he did not do the weight loss challenge because he didn’t care if he was fat or not.

Relating this to Le Chatelier-Braun,  stress of any kind will cause pain if it is not in check. For a lot of problems and other things in life, there is pain and pleasure that come with it. This is going to disturb the equilibrium regardless, but no change will occur unless the stress causes enough pain to succeed the pleasure. If the pain from the stress exceeds the pleasure, a change will occur reestablishing equilibrium. If the pleasure is greater than the pain from stress, no change will occur, but a new equilibrium will still be reestablished because of how the person will live with some degree of pain.

G.W. Leibniz: Philosophy Leading up to Monads

Leibniz’s Law of Contradiction consists of propositions and predicates and what kinds of propositions do not follow suit with which. Kinds of propositions are things like analytic to synthetic propositions and the phenomena of necessity and contingency.

Propositions

Analytic Propositions

Propositions that say something about logic, arithmetic or geometry are analytic. Logic, arithmetic and geometry involve analyzing some sort of mathematic phrase or term that is analyzed. Therefore it is analytic.

Synthetic Propositions

Propositions that concern existential or metaphysical ideas of philosophy are synthetic mostly because those ideas are mostly of opinion so they are deemed synthetic unless otherwise observed. God is not considered by Leibniz to be a synthetic proposition. God is the only existential metaphysical idea that is not synthetic.

God is only considered synthetic if it is also considered analytic. God is either considered synthetically analytic or God falls in neither category of propositions.

Law of Contradiction

Because of the contradiction that may occur in a premise and proposition, this law states that no conclusion will follow suit in a contradictory statement.
This law can only have one possible conclusion. The conclusion from a contradictory statement, the conclusion is either that there is truth   or that the proposition is false.

Finally, under this if there is a contradiction in an analytic proposition, no possible conclusion will follow suit.

Necessity

Leibniz never really explains it fully as an entity but in a way that there are 3 kinds of necessity: metaphysical necessity, hypothetical necessity and moral necessity. Analytic proposition must always have metaphysical necessity. Metaphysical and moral propositions apply to the law of contradictions where contradictions take place in the premises and propositions. Analytic propositions in themselves are necessary. Necessity in propositions are ultimate and undefinable.

Contingency

Synthetic propositions are usually ones that state existential or metaphysical properties. Synthetic propositions are always contingent. Contingent in this case normally means dependent on other things for existence. Synthetic propositions are different from necessary propositions in that necessary propositions are independent in their existence and other things depend on the necessary things. Synthetic propositions are contingent because of how opinions about existence and other metaphysics are usually dependent on other things. While things that are analytic in things like mathematics are necessary because they are independent and other things usually depend on them.

Considering judgments (a different form of opinions), they are necessary in that they have moral necessity and they are synthetic in that they involve existentialism or other metaphysics.

Contingency is relating more to the Law of Sufficient Reason just as necessity relates more to the Law of Contradiction.

Contingency

Contingency basically is talking about anything with severe generality. If your argument of reason is very vague, it is within the use of contingency. Generality relates to being contingent because if you are general in something, it is dependent upon other ideas to fully explain something. Contingency also involves time or smaller parts of time. The use of time is contingent because it is dependent on other things to explain why the time of something matters to the overall argument of reason. Necessity would never involve any sense of time. God and simply the idea of a higher superior deity is not contingent according to Leibniz. Necessity would involve God and all ideas concerning superior deities. God being an eternal truth involves no idea of time because of the fact that no eternal truth has a sense of time. God falls in the eternal truth category so necessity keeps the idea of God while contingency does not because of how an eternal truth is independent in itself.

On another subject concerning contingency, a  notion of species involves a whole certain group of beings that is usually very large. Notions of species either are or can be an eternal truth. If the notion of species is an eternal truth, they are necessary and contingency has no part in it. Notion of species also involves no time.

Another notion called the notion of an individual or sub ratione possibilitatus refers to only 1 existence and involves much time. This notion also involves fact about that individual that cannot be solid because of the many individuals there are. Because of the vaguness that is a part of sub ratione possibilitatus, the notion of the individual is itself contingent.

Contingency has dependence on other ideas and things and has ambiguity and vagueness in it. Because of the dependence and vagueness of contingency, existence itself cannot be a part of it. Existence of 1 or many is a part of necessity only. One might ask what part existence has in contingency if existence in its pure form belongs to necessity. The essence or main idea of existence (kind of like the form of existence by Plato) does not need to be referred to by a tangible form. The essence or main idea of existence is dependent on tangible things to actually verify a concept of existence, therefore the essence/main idea of existence belongs to contingency. The essence of existence here is described as assertion. Essence discussed in another manner of the word can be discussed as essence of existence belonging to necessity.

Law of Sufficient Reason

There are 2 kinds of existents that are bounded within this law.

1. Possible Existents- An existent (cause) that is itself possible in any way are only desires and appetites (sometimes of the flesh).
2. Actual Existents- An existent (cause) that is itself actual in any way are only desires for good. The idea of good here can be rooted all the way back to Plato’s form of the good.

There is reason that people try to use to carry out daily tasks. In the things that people do every day, there are two existents and by existents I mean causes that drive the choices of people. Starting with the Actual Existents, the desire for good does drive people to decide certain things. You see this fact in many philosopher’s ideas. For example, Plato’s line at the top just under dialectic, shows the Form of the Good. The good includes assisting others, having greater knowledge and serving the higher deity. The actual existents enforce the decisions of the better people of the society. The actual existents shows necessity

Possible existents is something different because it reflects items of contingency. Desires and appetites lead people to do something that may feel better to them than doing things toward good (actual existents). Doing things to advocate your desires and appetites lead nowhere towards a God within necessity. The actions in the possible existent lead to synthetic propositions and contingency. Because of the causes the possible existents have shown to cause, Leibniz directs the best option in reason to be sufficient reason in the actual existent.

Leibniz’s biggest known philosophy was Monadism. The concept of substance and activity are concepts of his that lead up to monads.

Substance

Lets first understand what a subject and predicate is in logic and reason. A subject is pretty much a premise of an argument. It is the main thing discussed in a sentence of logic. A predicate is the denial or confirmation in a sentence of logic of the subject
Lets define substance:

1) Recognizes of only the subject of logic and not the predicate(s).
2) Consists of many predicates.
3) Goes through constant change

To shortly sum this up, it is the changing form of a subject. In substance alone, time is a contradiction.

Activity

This is the metaphysical necessity of substance. This is how substance exists metaphysically in things discussed. This is a phenomenon that is the biggest quality of substance. This is where substance shows itself. Without this, substance would be contingent. Leibniz introduces this idea and does not thoroughly explain it until a whole new phenomena is introduced. Activity is necessary. It is especially necessary for substance to be necessary.

Force

This is an essence that constitutes substance. Force in this case creates activity in substance. This is the biggest principle of activity. This must change and pass in and out in activity. Virtue comes in and out of substance through force

Activity with force is not causation. However, activity with force is an attribute corresponding to the relation of causality. Force is causal to activity. Activity is causal to the appearance of substance.

This is the introduction of Leibniz’s ideas posted because they directly play into monadism.
Leibniz’s Monadism will be explained later. The  concepts of substance, activity and force are the elements of Monadism.

Laws of Continuity

There are 3 laws and the 1st law has 2 laws inside it. Continuity means simply that what is discussed never ceases to continue.

1) Spatio- Temporal Continuity
This breaks down into 2 continuities
- Continuity of Space
- Continuity of Time

2) Continuity of Cases
This applies mainly for laws of nature and reason/logic. If the difference between 2 cases continue to decrease without limit, the result itself will also decrease in difference without limit. For example. if a marsupial mouse and a normal mammal mouse are very different, evolution becomes divergent and the 2 cases without limit become more and more the same, the result will be the same mouse even though they are of different genus.

3) Continuity of Actual Existents/Forms
If 2 substances differ finitely, there is a continuous series of intermediate substances, each differing infinitesimally from the next one in the series (Russel, 1900). The substances that differ and create the intermediate series are actual existents. By Leibniz, ever spot in a series is filled with all certainty. Each spot in a series is not filled twice either.
Continuity is never always equal to actual existents.

Possibility versus Compossibility

If there is a series of existents, the series is possible if none of the existents in the series contradict each other.

Compossibility

If there is a series of existents and 2 of the existents belong to the same possible world, the existents are compossible. Another way to explain this is that if 2 existents coexist in the same possible world, they are compossible.

Being compossible can be confused with when 2 existents fall into the same possible world/category. If this occurs, the 2 existents are contradictory  not compossible. Things cannot coexist if they contradict each other.
There are an infinite number of possible worlds whether or not compossibility exists within them. All worlds respond to each other in one way or another with the existents within them.

Necessity

There are 3 types of necessity concerning the possible worlds and the compossibility within them.

1) Metaphysical or Geometrical Necessity
-This basically covers the parts of necessity that have been proven past hypotheses. Metaphysics and mathematics that are known to be true are in this category of necessity. The opposite of this necessity is self contradictory.

2) Hypothetical Necessity
- In some ways, hypotheses can have contingency, but some have necessity and those that do are what this discusses. Those existents that are valid concepts that have not been accepted to be metaphysical or mathematical are hypothetically necessary.

3) Moral Necessity
- There is only necessity in morals because morals are only from the good. The good existents are chosen by God and His angels according to Leibniz.

Leibniz’s philosophy of matter/monads should be the next post on Leibniz.
If you did not understand some terminology like the word existents or contingency there are 3 previous posts on Leibniz. Go there to understand all the interwoven concepts within these higher understood concepts.

This is still leading up to the theory of monads as these concepts lay foundation for it. This is one of 2 parts of Leibniz’s Philosophy of Matter.

before the Theory of Dynamics and other concepts can be explained, there are 5 different definitions of matter and body.
1) Materia Prima- this is matter that is known to exist because of extension. Extension is then known as repetition. The translation is primary matter. It is purely passive as defined by Leibniz.
2) Materia Secundus- this is matter given by force. It translates to secondary matter.
3) Primary matter as an element of every monad.
4) Secondary matter described as an aggregate of monads. When secondary matter is described as so, it can also be described as mass. Mass as defined by chemistry is what has matter and takes up space.
5) The organic body of a monad.

Secondary matter and secondary matter as an aggregate of monads is what makes up mass and body. Body is something that is a part of explanations throughout the philosophy of matter.
Corporeal substance is created with the organic body of a monad and a dominant monad.

The aforementioned material may not mean much now, but they are only defined to assist in explanation of later principles.

The Law of Dynamics

As explained by Leibniz, dynamics shows that the essence of matter is not extension (remember that extention is repetition). Also, the total quantity of matter in the universe is not constant, but the quantity of matter in a given direction is constant.

Force

As explained in previous posts, force is a key phenomenon in activity itself and activity is the main principle of substance. In relation to dynamics, force is an ultimate entity that is and remains constant. Force is proportional to the quantity of another phenomenon in energy. Different kinds of force will be explained later.

Where is Dynamics derived?

2) Dynamics is derived from the nature of the extended. Materia prima is the matter that is extended under dynamics.
3) Dynamics is derived from the fact that materia prima is supplemented by force.

Materia Prima

As stated above, dynamics is derived by the fact that force is its supplement. Force is primary matter’s supplement through resistance.
There are 2 types of resistance that materia prima acts upon through force.
1) Impenetrability- other forces or beings cannot penetrate it if the materia prima has sufficient resistance.
2) Inertia- The materia prima resists motion that it endures.

Materia prima has 2 properties:
1) The property of bodies, matter and mass in virtue of which they are in places.
2)  The property of virtue in which they resist any effort to make them change places.

The above 2 properties relate to the 2 kinds of resistance. The first property relates to impenetrability because  of how the bodies, matter and mass attempt to remain in the same places. The second property relates to inertia because of how the materia prima bodies attempt to resist motion in between places.

The materia prima also shows in dynamics to have 2 kinds of power.
Power- according to dynamics, power involves force and energy all inside activity
1) Passive power- power that constitutes matter/mass therefore contains resistance.
2) Active power- power that constitutes form.

The idea of power in dynamics contains passive force. In all power, force is involved so passive force is also involved.

Passive Force

there are 2 kinds of passive force in dynamics.

1) Primitive Passive Force- this kind of passive force always involves ressitance. Primitive force itself resists materia prima.
2) Derivative Passive Force- this kind of passive force resists materia secundis.

to clarify inertia.

Law of Inertia


The fact that a body will not engage in motion when a force acts upon it. The body or mass will remain stationary when the force acts on it and is one of the resistances involved in force.

There are 3 theories of dynamics that surfaced in Leibniz’s time that Leibniz refuted because these 3 principles  contradict his idea of the law of dynamics and through this, he explains what dynamics really is. Leibniz is kind of difficult in how he explains his ideas.

The Doctrine of Hard Extended Atoms


By Leibniz, all atoms are extended/repeated and elastic. This doctrine of these atoms state that even though the atoms are elastic and extended/repeated, they are also hard. Leibniz refutes this because it is not possible for the atoms to be hard while at the same time being elastic and extended/repeated.

The Doctrine of the Plenum


This is a doctrine basically explaining about the possible existence of a vacuum in Leibniz’s dynamics of atoms.
This is getting a little bit into physics and that is not what my aim really is but I think that the doctrine of the plenum does well to explain the philosophy of matter by Leibniz. If you do not know what a vacuum is, it is not the device that sucks up dirt to clean your house. A vacuum in physics is a spot in space/time where there are no atoms or particles of any kind. If a person was in a vacuum, you would suffocate because there is no air in vacuums.
The argument is whether or not a vacuum in space is possible under dynamics of atoms. Leibniz refuted the possible existence of any vacuum because he says that when God made the universe, he took every opportunity there was to create atoms and life to occupy every area within the universe. Leibniz is basically saying that there is no real reason to determine the proportion of filled space to vacuums in the universe so he concludes in this doctrine that an existence of a vacuum anywhere in the universe of atoms is not possible.
Plenum has a clear definition by Leibniz. Plenum is where all matter is connected together. Everything that has atoms is a plenum.

The Doctrine of Unextended Centers of Force


The topic of this doctrine that Leibniz refutes is force actions of atoms upon other atoms. The presupposition is that whether or not atoms act upon each other far away from us. Leibniz concludes that because atoms never act upon each other through force near us, they cannot possibly do so far away. The issue here is merely if or not atoms can act upon each other anyway. It is first determined whether or not they can do so and then it is determined to what lengths they do those force implied actions. Leibniz’s verdict on this is that atoms cannot act forcibly upon each other anyway so the lengths that they do so does not matter in this case.

There are 2 kinds of force that act upon the atoms in this universe.

1) Primitive Force- First of all, this force corresponds to the soul and the substance of atoms. This force consists in every body always. At the beginning of this post when I laid out the 5 definitions of matter, I also included that corporeal substance is the organic body of matter and a dominant monad. This kind of force exists primarily in corporeal substances.

2) Derivative Force- This kind of force is more simple. This force is the result only of conflict between bodies with each other.
Derivative force is also defined as (called impetus) a tendency (called conatus) to some determinate motion by which the primitive force is modified. This shows that both kinds of force are always connected to each other in some way.

This next category is not really a force in its own but it is something that is important to force itself in activity of
atoms. Vis Viva is the sum of the derivative forces throughout the universe’s constance. Vis Viva being a sum of forces is really important to the substance and activity of the atoms in dynamics because this sum is always equal to kinetic energy.

Before the idea of a point can be explained, 2 kinds of beings must be introduced:
1)Simple- Entities consisting of one part and consists of no other parts.
2)Compound- Entities consisting of many parts. Each part of this is a simple entity.

Extension- Regardless of the changes something may go through inside time and space, the extension/repetition of the thing never changes. The time and space the entity extends itself in does not belong to the entity but the extension that is created will always exist and belong to the entity that was extended.
Extension is a plurality because of the ownerships and properties that are involved in the act of extension.

There are 3 points in space and time that Leibniz categorizes things in space and time.

1)Metaphysical Point- first characterized as atoms of matter, Leibniz re-explained metaphysical points as atoms of substance because substance gets more basic than matter. Monads are defined within these points.

2) Physical Point- this is clearly defined as the compressed corporeal substance. If you do not know what corporeal substance is, go to the beginning of this post.

3) Mathematical Point- these points coincide with mathematical relations of space and time and matter.

Monad-an existing substance that is a member of the actual and is of the best possible world. It is of the actual best possible world.

Monads have a few properties that explain nature of monads and how they unite.

Perception- at any moment, each monad/substance perceives all other monad/substance in different degrees of clarity. Every monad is omniscient but confused because of the varying degrees of clarity that monads perceive other substances. Monads perceive other monads on a basis of similarity to themselves.

Representation- or showing. This is the inverse of perception. B perceives A as A is represented in B.
In monads, sometimes a monad represents what they are perceiving.

How do monads differ

Appetition- this causes changes in perceptions of monads (or representation) leading towards appetites of good or evil. This causes more differences and diffusion between similar monads.

Monadic Phenomenon- phenomenon occurs in a monad when something appears to a monad so that it is represented in its perceptions.

• Well Founded Monadic Phenomenon- a well founded phenomenon is when the thing that appears to the monad has well rooted perception.
• Mere Phenomenon- if something appears to a monad and has little root in its perception showing  little to no adequate monadic basis, it is mere phenomenon.

Phenomena are just perceptions are just like any other perception that could appear to a monad. Phenomena are just more complex and are able to be distinguished between those that are mere and well founded.

In previous posts where materia secundis was explained, aggregates are those that correlate with that kind of matter. An aggregate is a unity of 2 monads there are 2 unproven possible kinds of aggregation but a for sure kind of aggregation will be explained later.

Monadic Aggregation

Monads do not usually easily unite. The below are 2 possible forms of aggregation.

1) Mere Aggregate- not being a real aggregate, it is confused for a simple collection of similar monads. The monads have similar perceptions of one another showing that it may be a real aggregate. It is classified as a mere aggregate because all the monads within the ‘aggregate’ have similar perceptions, representations and appetitions.

2) Real Unities- Unity of the monads is questioned in the first place because of the lack of similarity in form, perception, representation etc. between the monads. It is classified as a real unity because it is possible that the monads could be an aggregate because similarity is sometimes seen internally and sometimes externally.

*None of the above aggregates are real mutual possible aggregates. These are merely possible aggregates without having another component explained later.

Well Founded Phenomena Aspects

Excluding mere phenomena, well founded phenomena have 2 aspects that correlate them to monads.

• Subjective- perceiving the monad as a phenomenon unit
• Objective- seeing similarity of monads in phenomena

Phenomena are aspects that are used to help unite monadic aggregates. That is the big reason why phenomena matters to aggregation.

Ways for Monadic/Aggregate Unity

• Externally (Merely)- This is not really unity in an aggregate, but monads try to unite as an aggregate through perception. When a monad tries to unite with an external monad, you only have fake unity because you see similarities in perception, representation and appetition, but that is not the way that aggregates are made so unity externally creates only mere aggregates.
• Internally (Real)- Monads are united by general similarity of mutual perceptions of different monads, so outright similarity is not seen here, but in this case there is a larger chance for a bond between monads.

Monadic Perceptions

1)Simple Delusion- for example, a hallucination

2) Disjointed Aggregate- like a herd of livestock or a mere or a real unity/aggregate

3) Unified Aggregate- like a stone or a real unity without a dominant monad

4) Structural Aggregate- like a plant or animal or a real unity with a dominant monad

Substantial Link between Monads and the Dominant Monad

A Dominant Monad is a monad amongst many other monads that has the best perception with the highest degree of clarity above all the other monads. This high monad has the highest good and has the highest amount of  strength and knowledge. A Substantial Link is created when the dominant monad observes all other monads within an aggregate below it.

This diagram does not put one point above others but the dominant monad would be B towards the furthest right because of how all other axioms are leading toward it. The substantial link is made because B perceives all the other monads.

Vinculum Substantiale

As explained in one of the previous posts about Leibniz, a simple substance is one that has no parts. And a compound substance is one that has many parts and each part is of a simple substance. In the beginning of this post I explained why the mere aggregate and the real unity aggregate are not REALLY  true aggregates, because a real aggregate is one that unites well enough that after it is united in the aggregate, it is no longer perceived as 2 monads/substances, but it is perceived as 1. Vinculum Substantiale is where an aggregate is that much of a true aggregate that it is perceived as a quasi-individual. Correlating this to monadic perceptions, aggregates without V.S. are disjunctive aggregates because of how they are not united into quasi individuals. The V.S. aggregate is the monadic perception of unified aggregate or even a structured aggregate because of how they are unified to the utmost extent.

How do monadic aggregates get from disjointed aggregates to unified aggregates with V.S.?

You get unified aggregates with V.S. with dominant monads and substantial links between the D.M and the other monads. Because of the high degree of clarity that the D.M. perceives the other monads, the monads and the D.M. are able to have a unified or even a structured aggregate with vinculum substantiale.

Mild Anarchy

A few examples of bad lawmaking. I do not think that government should have a say in the smaller things that we do in our lives

• Smoking indoors (Nebraska)- was done because the nonsmokers do not like the smoke. They should go somewhere else if they do not like it. Smoking is a small event and there should be no law preventing it anywhere.
• Slander (USA)- In the USA, it is unlawful to say something false about any person, especially the president. I think that slander should be a part of the First Amendment to free speech. Saying something false(libel/slander) could be something used for comedy or art and should be lawful in case one wanted to say something about another. Libel cases should not have any profit in it.
• Any crime that is executed over the internet-   I do not condone predators online or pedophilia, but in my mind, the person does nothing unless something is done outside of a computer. If one sees kiddie porn online, the person needs mental help but did no crime at all. If a person abused a child, severe punishment is needed. If a predator talks to a child online, he has done nothing wrong, but if the predator had relations or abused the child, severe punishment is needed.
• Gambling anywhere-  Nebraska does not legalize gambling in this state, so a lot of money is directed across the river to Iowa where gambling is allowed. That is not the issue but because of how Nebraska doesnt like gambling, a lot of money is lost. I think gambling should be allowed everywhere because, the person should have discretion on what he or she spends gambling. The person has total discretion over what he or she does.

Actions Requiring Legal Involvement

I think that there are a few actions that one can do that require legal action. Other than the below, no action or sin requires legal involvement by government.

1) Murder- in any possible sense. by accident or on purpose.

2) Rape/Sexual Abuse/Sexual abuse of children/sexual harassment

3) Assault- This basically meaning hurting others (use of a gun to hurt others is attempted murder) without actually killing them.

4)Theft- Taking anything from anyone. Robbery, burglary, id theft, fraud, embezzlement, purse snatching etc.)

5) Terrorism- Including hijacking a plane, carjacking, bombing etc.

6) Societal Abuse- a citizen themselves cannot commit this crime. If a financial company, bank or any other financial institution charges the citizens excessive fees, its societal abuse. If the government overtaxes the citizens its societal abuse and the leader(s) can be impeached. Any tyrannical act by a leader is also societal abuse.

Each of the 6 crimes are somewhat vague because there are lots of kinds of theft, terrorism, murder, sexual abuse, assault and societal abuse. This is not really anarchy, it is just much less government. The idea of capitalism would still be in place and free enterprise would still follow suit. Anarchy is the opposite of socialism. If anarchy itself had a type of economy it would be capitalism because anyone is allowed to start a business and make any financial moves.

Societal abuse is something that I think should be  a crime because my idea of SA occurs on a daily basis in USA. The country is in a recession because of SA. People are taking and taking and there ends up not being enough to keep the citizens afloat. That is societal abuse. There will be a further post on further detail of societal abuse and what the enforcement of it would aim for.

On a last note, the second category, sexual abuse, would not involve public nudity unless the person was directing their nudity towards someone to try to get something. For example, here in Nebraska, a guy kept appearing to a few different women naked and jacking off saying “Hey baby, want some?” That would be illegal in my limited government. If the person was just walking around naked or just flashing a crowd or if the whole crowd was naked, it would be perfectly lawful.

I know my views are weird but I just think that today, government has become somewhat tyrannical and should be limited to the 6 above laws to enforce. EVERYTHING ELSE should not be enforced because it is lawful.

Soul, Self and Body

this is a post I did a long time ago on another blogging site.

The self is a complex emotional and sensitive being that has many things tied into it that gives it its identity. My interpretation of the self has 6 components.

1) Desire- This component of the self is very large and covers a lot of territory and a

lot of things that occupy our thoughts. Desire is broken into two catergories

A. Good Desire- These two areas also cover the soul (not to say that the

soul is only made of desire). Good desire includes all of

our wants that contribute in a good way to our life and to

the lives of others. Good desire being fulfilled does not

commit sin. Examples: leading a successful life, pursuing real and true (not lustful) love (most likely marriage related), maintenance of life (safety, hygiene, enough food and water and shelter being acheived legitimately).

B. Sinful Desire- Includes all of our wants that contribute badly to our own life and to the lives of others. Fulfilling this desire is usually comitting a sin. Examples: lusty sexual unwholesome actions, drug use, alcohol use to extreme levels, bad habits, decisions to sleep rather than go to work or school, murder, lies etc.).

All humans have both types of desire obviously.

2)God- I use God/Jesus because He is the only real Supreme Being. It represents some sort of Supreme Deity that the self holds onto for comfort and spiritual satisfaction. This part of the self exists even if it is not God/Jesus because people who worship Allah/Ahura Mazda/Brahma etc. still make the deity a part of them to use for any concern they may have.
About atheists and agnostics, I do not believe that they have never had any desire for a deity to hold onto to comfort them. They may feel that way for extreme long periods of time but i think that some point in their life, they feel this part of the self.

3)Satan/Evil Demon- People during Rene Descartes’ time were skeptical of God because they thought that God deceived them until Descartes gave the Evil Demon hypothesis. It is not a hypothesis. The bad desire comes from this demon. anyone being turned against the God, has experienced decpetion by this evil demon. Lies and bad desire are basically what comes from this demon and our self usually has some connection to it and we have to choose to cast it out and embrace God. Usually this part of the self is extremely small. The fact that we are sinners keeps this small part within us.

4)Family- The famliy includes relatives you have known all or most of your life that if you did not have those people your life would be very different and very lonely. It is often said that the only thing we love more than family is God. Family includes blood relatives, children and spouses.

5)Common Knowledge- One might think I am referring to Descartes’ innate ideas but I am not. I do not really believe in innate ideas from Descartes’ viewpoint unless innate ideas would be God’s comfort. Common Knowledge grows as one goes through life. Common knowledge example would be the fact that we know not to cross the street when a bus is driving on it because we would get hit right? or that we should not stop breathing because we would lose oxygen and die.
Enculturation teaches some common knowledge and as one finishes life under a parent common knowledge is even bigger and as one goes through college, it might be common knowledge that the Greeks conquered the Persians. .. etc….. Common knowledge usually refers to the knowledge that prevents you from doing things that could harm yourself or others.

6)Compassion/Emotions- This varies upon the person but everyone has enough to care about others. Usually if you see a person drop his or her papers and books you might help the person pick them up. Some would not which is why this part of the self varies from person to person. If your friend’s mother died you would feel sad for that person and would maybe comfort them. that is compassion. Compassion includes the feelings toward animals that are abused. Anything that is hurting/having a hard time and you feel emotion for that person is compassion and this occupies a part of the self. Relationships with other people especially intimate ones are fueled by this part of the soul along with a few other components.

All personality traits of the self contribute to either 1, 2, 5 or 6.
Things like hobbies and other entertainment activities the self enjoys is occupied by the Desire component.
It is quite possible for certain components of the self to overcome or even minimize other components. for example: Adolf Hitler, Nazi criminal who started the Final Solution to exterminate the Jews. It is obvious within him that the Bad Desire (and maybe the Satan/evil demon part) part of his ‘self’ overcame his compassion/emotion part. His desire to kill tons of people (murder, included in Bad Desire) pretty much killed off his compassion/emotion part because he did not care about how much they suffered.

This set amount of components for the self can change a lot as observed in Hitler. Mental health issues can deteriorate parts and other incidents can happen such as multiple personality disorder where balance of their self changes drastically. More on this self/soul change in a later post of Soul Self and

My favorite interpretation of the soul is from Plato. He describes the soul as having two horses: one horse being white representing Good, another horse being black representing Evil. There is another figure guiding the horses. I think of this as they show it in the movies with an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other shoulder trying to convince you to do what is best/ what you want. Below are the way I think about the soul

1) White Horse- As talked about in the Self, there is Good Desire. In my opinion, this white horse represents the voice inside you sometimes influenced by God, telling you the best thing to do that is best for everyone. In my opinion God does not directly affect this part of the soul.

2)Black Horse- This horse in my opinion is directly influenced by the Evil Demon/Satan. In National Lampoons Animal House, a guy was with a girl when she passed out, the demon on his shoulder told him to do her even though she was passed out (doing so would be very very wrong). I think that someone being really in this situation having this voice inside them telling him to do her is a voice fueled by evil and sin because it would be evil to do that to a passed out girl. That might have been a bad example but heres a better one: I was tired this morning and wanted to skip class and almost did because a strong influence was over me to just lay back down in bed but I didnt and i went to class. I think that is what the black horse part of the soul really is.

3)Guide- Plato described this part as leading the horses towards the extreme best option.
I think that this guide represents God in our life. Usually the Guide makes the white horse’s wants happen. This guide’s wants must be served.

If the Guide’s wants are not served, the balance and order in the soul will turn upside down.

Soul Satisfaction: Being a follower of God, I have had periods of time where i have turned away from Him for awhile. I have done some sinful things that i usually restrain myself from doing but sin took some power for those periods. People need God in life. Without God in life, things do not go right. You will be blessed a lot less. Great things happening in life will decrease. Depression due to distance from God may occur. God has a plan for everyone and distancing yourself from Him does not satisfy the soul. If the two horses just do what they want, those actions will conflict and pure chaos will exist without the horses allowing the Guide to moderate their actions.
The way the soul is satisfied is when the two horses stop doing things for themselves and allow the Guide to step in (letting God be in you and bless you). The way one does this is to

• strive to be like God
• serve God (carry out his plan for you, serve Him by serving others)
• achieve salvation if havent already
• read scripture
• obey His word (obey Ten Commandments and other commands)
• worship/pray alone and with others
• trust Him

This the anatomy of the soul because this is what is necessary to satisfy it. If the soul is not satisfied, the self will change for the worse. Subconsciously the Satan component of the self will take power along with Bad Desire over the other ones that nurture the soul.

The soul sits on top of the self because the soul is as Descartes states res cognitans.

The self sits below the soul because the self will die with the body (res extensa).

Descartes states the body to only be the extension of the soul.

With this proclamation, if the soul is not satisfied and healty, the self will collapse under it and it will change for the worse.

Soul and Body- As stated above, the body is an extension of the soul. The soul is immaterial. The soul will never die. We have a body because we are here to serve God. we were placed here to achieve entrance to Heaven. God just gave us this body to live here for a short time. The body is material and when it dies the material decomposes and it is no more. During death, the soul is only moved to another location.

Before going into the possible changes of the self, I must state that the soul itself cannot change.
The core of the entity that is you cannot change. Sometimes the white horse or the black can be strong for periods of time or sometimes the Guide may not be allowed to take part in decisions but, essentially the soul cannot change. The soul shifts only change the self

The Unchangeable Self

• God- The feelings towards a deity that you have always loved cannot ever change in you. You may distance yourself for awhile but the roots you have planted from that deity can never be uprooted. Any mental health issue that you ever get may change your personality and make you do things that your God does not approve of but once symptoms pass, the roots of God remain.
• Family- As I stated in the first post of this series, most people say they only love God more than they do their family. whatever changes happen in health or whatever else may happen, you will always love your family. My great grandmother passed away from Alzheimers disease and I understood something about her: when she saw me, my dad and my other relatives she did not have a clue who we were (she thought I was my dad), but you could tell that she had extreme love for all of us. She was stricken with a terrible disease and she still held onto God and family. This shows that even if other parts of the self change and if the body changes, family never ceases to exist for you.

Ever Changing Self

• Satan/Evil Demon- The constant struggle with sin keeps this part of the self within us allowing the evil demon to do certain things. The constant struggle means that sometimes we can be strongly resisting sin (keeping this part to a minimum) or we may be distancing ourself from God (allowing this part to run rampant). This means that this part of the self always changes.
• Desire- this always changes because of our greedy nature. Another example of this change would be a guy wanting meaningless one night stands (bad desire) and then later wanting a true love relationship and later marriage (good desire) or a married man starting to cheat on his wife because he leans toward bad desire. Most of the change within this part pertains to switching back and forth between Good and Bad Desire.
• Common Knowledge- As stated in the first post of this series, our common knowledge increases as we continue through life. From enculturation to seniority, common knowledge changes. This part of the self very rarely changes with decay. Most people say “You learn something new every day”.
• Compassion/emotions- This part changes with health also. If there is someone you used to like but you now hate that person, compassion has changed. Change exists here. With relationships and contact with people, this always changes. The biggest way this changes is through severe mental illness.

Changes in Self Due to Mental Illness

First example is Multi personality disorder: if someone mentally ill this way has 3 or 4 or more personalities and constantly switches, this is change of self. Next example is schizophrenia: These people see and hear things that concerns them and the severe mental illness makes their changeable self change. Antisocial disorder: These are the people who are cons. They can trick you into giving them something and they can trick you into believing their lies. Their illness makes them do this to hurt other people or better themselves without care for others. Here, the compassion part basically disappears. I doubt it but if there was any change in family self, it would be here. Their Good Desire would disappear and Bad Desire would prevail. The Satan part of the self would run rampant. Lastly with older people who have deteriorated mentally whether it being Alzheimers or any other one: Their brains deteriorate so much that all of the changeable self fades drastically. As said before God and Family even fade but they are the ones that still remain strong with them.

Depression: Common Knowledge, Compassion/emotions are the parts that fade. Their extreme sadness changes the self. Personality departs from the person during this illness. A lot of self changes occur here but this is the mental illness with the least amount of self change.

Time

Time is something that always changes the self in the changeable parts. For example the war criminals that finally came to trial in 1987, it was debated on whether or not to punish him because he had changed. People change all the time and if at one time a person places their values in one part of the self, those values may be relocated in a long period of time (I still dont think they should let him go for the war crimes just because he changed. He should pay for it).

If anatomy of the body is not enough to prove our existence, I suggest reading Rene Descartes’ meditations and make sure you read “I think, therefore I am”. I believe this along with the fact the God created all of us.

The soul never dies. The soul is only relocated. These are the two locations. There is no such thing as purgatory. This is pure dualism.

1)Heaven- This can be compared to the Greek Elysium or the Best existence but I prefer to use the non pagan description. On Soul Self and Body II of this series I stated all of the things you must do to satisfy the soul. Those things also admit one into this Best existence. Heaven is where one will be closest to God. The self will be mostly gone and you will have eternal life there. You will not have desire or pain or suffering. Gender will also be anonymous but one will not care because you will be in eternal life with God. Those who are saved go here after death.

2)Hell- A few people have been allowed to experience hell. They woke up screaming. There is a video called 23 Minutes in Hell. I have it in DVD but it might be on Youtube or somewhere. the man describes what was there. You are burned and are tortured. You beg for water but you do not get any. You beg for light but there is none. You are as distant from God as possible. this is really heartbreaking for the person. It is the worst existence. Those who are not saved go here after death.

Judgement Day/Revelation- The bible book of Revelation tells the stories of what will happen when the world ends. Beasts willl run across the earth. those who are saved will disappear and those not saved will remain for when Satan takes over this earth. The Left Behind books tell this story really well. People can die and still go to Heaven or Hell but very soon Jesus will come back and take all his children back to heaven before Satan takes over.

The soul does not die. The soul goes to another place. The immaterial body dies and decomposes.
Make the new home for you soul the right one.
Refer to Soul,Self, and Body II to see what is to be done to get to the Best Existence.

Spinozistic Substance Monism: God as the Only Substance

What experiences cause a person think such sophisticated thoughts? What trials and hardships must one go through to inspire them to want to explain the world around us? I am not saying that trials and hardships create philosophers, but the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza had to come from somewhere. Spinoza was born in 1632 into a family of exiled Portuguese Jews in Holland. He was born into a time when Jews were persecuted in Europe, and his childhood cannot have been an easy one. His Jewish upbringing and education along with his brilliant mind lead to his groundbreaking philosophical propositions. I feel his philosophy about substance and mode is most important and should be clearly understood. Keeping in mind the Spinozistic definitions of substance, mode, and attribute along with causation, I feel the only logical inference is that God is the only substance of the universe.

Baruch Spinoza was raised to know and believe the Jewish religion. He studied under rabbis and in synagogues. He did so until he was excommunicated from the synagogue for having some slightly heretic ideas. He still maintained his Jewish faith and he let it be the foundation of his philosophies. This became the root of his philosophies because of how he believed that God is the main reason and source of existence in the entire universe. His belief in monotheism helped him develop his philosophy about the world. Spinoza also had other philosophical roots. He studied some of his philosophical precursors like Rene Descartes and Bruno. Rene Descartes presented dualist philosophy causing Spinoza to have the need to disprove his theories. Along with Spinoza and other deep thinkers, the philosophy of Cartesianism spread. Cartesianism was the popular medieval philosophies that had problems with Rene Descartes’ dualist philosophy. The Cartesianists maintained the eternal goal of disproving dualism and publishing the philosophy they thought was right. This anti-dualist attitude lead to the idea that God makes up the only one standard material for the universe. From this attitude, the Spinoza presented monism.

So how did the Cartesianists get from monotheism to monism? Monism must be thoroughly understood before questions about its origin are asked. Monotheism is the relatively modern belief that there is only one supreme deity that rules and governs the world we live in. People began to divert from their pagan polytheism when Jesus came to earth and people argued his position. Spinoza and the Cartesianists believed in monotheism and thought that if there is only one God present ruling this universe, there must only be one material that the universe is made up of. This material includes God, human spirits and everything that was physically created.  The souls we have, the holy spirit of God, the ground below us, the sky above us, and all the formations and items that surround us are all of one material according to Spinoza and monism. In Spinoza’s Ethics, all of the components of the universe are explained along with how those things came into existence. The point he makes in every proposition either states or leads to the statement that the universe is made of one material or, as he calls it, substance.

The Spinozistic universe consists of three basic components. The component that makes up the bulk of all of the material in the world is substantia or substance. Substance is understood as the things that are “perceived through itself, unique in its existence, and conceived in itself” (Spinoza, 1677). Substance is connected to God by Spinoza and brings up more arguments for discussion. The next component that is inferior to substantia is attributum or attributes. Spinoza defines attributes as “what is perceived by the intellect as the constitution of the essence of a substance”, (Spinoza, 1677). Attributes are understood as bodies or even as spaces, but space or body, the attribute shows the essence of the substance of which it resides. The next component which is inferior to attributes is modus or modes. Modes are defined as that which is perceived through another, created through another, and often understood as modifications of substance (Spinoza, 1677). Modes are less difficult to classify when compared to attributes because they are explained as the bodies and spaces that show the many variations, perceptions, and modifications of the large substance it represents. Using the definitions of substance and mode is one way to define the components of the universe. Different explanations of substance and mode spark the involvement of God as a substance.

The two biggest entities that make up the universe are explained in three ways that are often recognized in Spinozistic monism. First of all, substance and mode is the first and most known definition of the two components. Another representation of the two components perceives the substance as the creator. The creator is the cause of everything in the universe and all the spirits and physical materials are designated as the creatum. The creator is the cause for the creatum and the cause for the creature. The creature is related to the modes and is understood as the living beings that are created by the creator. This is an interesting connection but should be implied if the creator is recognized as the substance. Finally, substance and mode are understood as natura naturans and natura naturata. These ancient definitions relate purely to nature and describe substance and mode according to nature. I find these explanations helpful because they bring into discussion the notion of causation. Natura naturans is defined as the “unmoved mover” and natura naturata is defined as the beings that are moved (Hallett, 1973). I understand causation to be related to these definitions because Spinoza describes natura naturans as the potency or potentiality of nature. Natura naturata is defined as the actuality of nature. Actuality is the current active state of a being while potency is the inactive stored state of action in a being. Because of what actuality and potency are, it can be inferred that natura naturans is the cause of natura naturata and the things it accomplishes. The fact that natura naturata is the actuality of natura naturans presents the question: what justification makes this fact so?

Substance and mode are components only present when existence is within the topics of debate. Certain things happen if and only if they are within a certain state of existence. These states include the free state and the necessary or compelled state. The free state (libera) is defined as when a thing determines the nature of its own existence. The being with this state is not required to remain in any position for any reason. The only one that benefits from this thing’s existence is itself. The necessary state (necessaria) is when a being exists under another and another being determines its existence and actions. Most things exist in the necessary state. Very few items exist in the free state and all the other beings exist in the necessary state because they are determined by and depend on the one or few beings in the free state. Beings in the necessary state comply with causation. Causation states that in an event or action a cause occurs and the resultant action is the effect. The being in the necessary state is obviously the effect because the cause determines its actions. In Spinoza’sEthics, he founds six axioms in the first part of the book to refer to in his propositions. I along with most others feel that these axioms are important in inferring that God is the only substance because of how the main substance must be the cause of all the effects that are the bodies and space that occupy this universe. These axioms govern Spinozistic arguments. Here are the ones I feel are most important:

I.                   All things which are, are in themselves or in other things.

II.                Things which cannot be conceived through another thing must be conceived through itself.

III.             From a given determined cause and effect follows of necessity, and on the other hand, if no cause is granted, it is impossible that an effect should follow.

IV.             The knowledge of effect depends on the knowledge of the cause, and involves the same.

These axioms of The Ethics state the properties of existence and cause and effect in the necessary state. Axiom II refers to things that cannot be conceived through another thing. If this is the case of any existence, the necessary state no longer applies. The state of existence monism is most concerned with is the free state. Any substance and the Godly substance is a part of the free state and the argument is whether or not God is the only being a part of the free state. There are things that make God different from the beings under Him and there are things making a substance unique. The question is whether or not God is the only substance.

In substance monism, God is the ultimate question. Proving His existence is not necessary when trying to understand His place around the creatum of the universe. The creatum (or everything that was created under God) presents a diversity of beings that occupy the space of the universe. It is known that God was here before the creatum was created and He will still be here when the creatum vanishes from existence, therefore God is above the entire creatum in existence. Naturally, metaphysics will cause philosophers to want to classify the beings of the universe and when a notion of substance, attribute and mode were presented along with causation, the problem of substance monism must be addressed. The definers of the term substance created this problem when they said that substance is infinite, unique, and indivisible. These three words immediately make one think of God. When Spinoza says that anything is infinite he means infinite in time and space. If something is infinite in time, that being will exist throughout eternity. If something is infinite in space, that being exists in all parts of the universe and is never absent. Spinoza says that substance is infinite; God is also infinite according to Christian churches of the world and Spinoza’s definition of infinity. Spinoza also describes substance as unique. Substance is very different compared to all other beings in existence. According to Christian churches of the world, God is different in every possible way. Spinoza also defines substance as indivisible. Substance cannot be divided into individual parts and God cannot be divided into parts either. I feel it is necessary to present these stipulations about substances and God Himself because problems with substance monism might not be understood unless substance and God are clearly understood. Considering these definitions of substance and God, there are three solutions that I think solve the substance monism problem in different ways.

Finally, I would like to begin to drive a largely involved point home. All of the previous material has only been understood as support for the argument I would like to make for one of three possible truths to the substance, modes and attributes of the universe. One of three of the arguments about substance is substance monism. The other two are substance pluralism. In the process of arguing a stance on this argument, if a being is not going to be classified as a substance, it must be classified as an attribute or a mode. All beings in this universe must fall into one of these three categories. Again the definition of the Spinozistic substance is all the beings in the universe that are created by itself and is conceived through itself. Substances will generally exist in the free state. Its existence is not dependent on any other being. An attribute is defined as the being that constitutes the essence of the substance it resides in. Attributes live in the necessary state because they rely on the substance for a purpose. Modes are defined as the beings that are understood through another being (substance or attribute). Modes also live in the necessary state because they depend on the existence of an attribute which depend on the existence of the substance. These definitions are to be understood to understand the arguments for and against substance monism and the reasons why a rhetorician would advocate or oppose one or more propositions.

Spinoza himself advocated the proposition that only one substance exists and he directly related that substance to God. Other philosophers in the past and present have and will advocate and oppose this monism. If monism is not correct God as a substance must still have a place inside or outside the creatum. Substance pluralism is more ambiguous to argue, so I would like to present two possible scenarios of substance pluralism. One possible solution against monism would bring God out as a being superior to the many substances. This first of two pluralist solutions places God above the substances but also adheres to the Spinozistic substance definition. I like using this specific pluralist scenario because this reflects the Christian belief that God is complex beyond our abilities to perceive Him. One may advocate this pluralism because a Spinozistic substance must be too simple to represent God. A super-substance must exist above all the other substances according to this pluralistic scenario. In this scenario, God created the substances. Those substances were created in God and have existed as long as God has existed and each one makes up the entity that is God. The attributes constitute the essence of each of God’s substances as well as the modes perceive the substance and attribute in different ways. Monists may oppose this solution by saying that all the beings under God are simple enough to exist as attributes or modes and a super-substance is not necessary. This form of pluralism can be easily rejected. More forms of pluralism can also be exemplified against monism.

A more pure form of pluralism can also be argued in saying that many substances exist and a possible creator exists as an equal to all other substances. Agnostics would support this view because other substances represent huge creative forces in the universe and a possible (if any) godly deity exists. Other substances like evil, good, dialectic knowledge and others created themselves according to this view. These substances are creative forces in this universe because of how they affect the decisions people make in the universe. In any substance pluralism, it is granted that no attribute exists in any two substances. If any attribute exists in two substances, those two beings are the same substance. This would require that many attributes and modes exist making the universe very complicated. Pluralists may argue that the universe we live in is extremely complicated. In this particular pluralist view, little water would be held for the argument because no creator or creators exists in the scenario, causing eventual failure for any argument like this. It is not possible for any more than one substance to exist in and out of the creatum.

Substance monism must be the only way an extremely complicated creatum could exist today. A super-substance is not necessary because attributes and modes represent God the creator in every way necessary. Pure pluralism cannot exist because no creator is identified. With the many substances of this pure pluralism, attributes would exist in multiple substances making all of the substances combine into one. Pure pluralism falls apart in every way it possibly can. Only a certain amount of attributes exist in this universe. Each attribute constitutes the essence of God Himself. For example, a wise well rounded cultural human constitutes the essence of God because that human was made in God’s image according to scriptures. The wisdom and culture of the man represents all of the knowledgeable and cultural beings God created. God lives in the free state. He does not depend on any other being and all other beings depend on Him. He never came into existence and he will never come out of existence. He is infinite, indivisible, and unique in His nature. He is the potency of the creatum that he created. The creatum is His actuality. Every characteristic of a substance correlates with every characteristic of God. Therefore, it is not possible that any other substance exists in this universe. The creatum includes all of the attributes and modes that are the actuality of the main substance God and represent every being under God in the universe. No other explanation of the state of the universe is necessary. Substance monism defeats any form of pluralism in every way possible.

Trying to explain the universe and how it was created is a difficult and laborious task, but Baruch Spinoza did it using some of the simplest ways of explaining its parts. The complexity of the universe may lead one to believe that many ambiguous components govern its nature. This increased complexity of the universe leads to the argument for substance pluralism. Spinoza takes the drive right out of that argument with his arguments of substance causation and qualities. After being influenced by his Cartesian philosophical roots, he strengthened many arguments for the existence and continuous involvement of God. Substance monism is the strongest argument for the quantity of substances for the past, present, and future.