Archive | Benedict de Spinoza RSS feed for this section

Classification of Beings

20 Sep

A long necessary thing to be done is to classify the beings of the world. Some choose to set metaphysics aside, but I choose to classify the beings to make this my guide to today’s metaphysics and my further studies in it.  Benedict de Spinoza did NOT  state this classification of beings, and this work is purely of mine. The reason I categorize this with Spinoza is because of how within this classification I use his word ‘creatum’ a lot. Creatum is the world that was created by God, and I take only the word and its meaning from Spinoza. It is an important term because within the classification, the world only He created is necessary to classify apart from the rest.

Beginning this classification, I break all of it down into 3 categories and ways to classify the beings in the world.  Those 3 would include Sort classification, temporal classification, and spatial classification. I feel no need to classify the beings beyond these three things because it would be arbitrary. It could be argued that the sort classification is not necessary, but I feel it is.

Temporal Classification

The temporal part of all this is what I split into 2 things:  the infinite, and the finite. Temporal means time, in case you were not aware of it. Most things in the world are infinite temporally. Lets first discuss what could be finite, since infinite is basically everything else. When I talk about the creatum I split that up into  spiritual, and material. Everything material is infinite (which I’ll discuss later), while spiritual things are either infinite or finite. I talk about finite right now because in the temporally finite category includes non-nous souls. Nous is an ancient term meaning intelligence and being aware of one’s existence. Humans have most nous, while animals have less than half of what a human has. Nous also includes a being not being aware of what happens to them in the future. The notion that all dogs go to heaven is only a story and a myth because all animals (excluding humans), plants, fungi, protista, and monista are all non-nous souls enough to the point that they are called into question as to the finiteness of their souls.  I categorize non/some-nous souls to be finite. When a plant comes into life, and dies, the soul of it goes nowhere, and it vanishes from existence. When a dog or other animal dies, its soul dies and vanishes from existence with it. Therefore, in the temporal classification I include lesser-nous souls. This is the only temporally finite thing.

Temporally infinite includes everything else. This means God, un-ensouled beings ( soulless matter),  the void, and the rest of the creatum and its beings. Beyond this, infinite is divided by whether a being is infinite towards the past, and infinite towards the future. God is infinite both ways, meaning he never came into being, and has always existed (this is a concept no human can understand and that we must accept and wait until Heaven to conceive). The non-ensouled, the void, and the creatum all came into being at some point and will never cease to exist (it will just be relocated). The void is infinite because God created it when he created the world. The creatum includes all ensouled beings, and non-ensouled beings. By ensouled beings I mean humans, and all other non-nous souls (plantae, fungi, monista, protista).  The creatum also includes the non-ensouled beings like the earth, all other planets, and planetary extra matter (asteroids, comets, meteors scattered among the void).  The soul of the nous en-souled beings is infinite temporally because it comes into being, and once the body dies, the soul is relocated to another level spatially. When the body dies it mixes with the rest of the earth. I gave a scenario in a previous writing where a man comes into being, dies at 99 years old, and his soul goes to a higher spatial level (will talk spatial levels next), but his body gets put in a wooden casket. After many years, the body decomposes along with the casket and becomes humus with the earth. Many years after that, carrots are grown in the same humus, and feeds newer life. In this process nothing leaves existence, it is all relocated and still exists in some way or another.

I say that the only thing finite in the universe is non- nous souls/some nous souls because everything else is relocated and does not perish in any form. The only being in the universe that does perish is the soul that lives in a certain body at a certain time (the body is still again relocated and conserved). I have a few rules for the beings in the world that I shall present after talking about beings spatially and by sort.

Spatial Classification

The spatial classification of beings is where I choose to classify everything as to where they exist into high, middle, and lower space. Here I classify this to link the levels of space to what beings exist there, therefore creating the spatio-temporal metaphysical field, that is discussed yet not formally clarified. In the higher spatial includes heaven, the upper void, and the upper planetaries.  By the heavens I mean where God exists, and that must be far away from the middle space (and from evil), even if the heavens is a spiritual space field. By the void, I mean the space without any beings other than some air particles not forseeable by anyone.  By upper planetary (and by planetary I mean all bodies of the universe), I mean the stars that exist above the middle spatial. All things in the high space are infinite in every way possible. Second, is the middle space, which includes the solar system as a part of the middle planetary. Around the middle planetary is the middle void, also being the space without beings around the middle planetary. All beings in the middle space are not all infinite, because the non-nous beings live in the middle space, and the non-nous souls are finite.  Third, and finally, the lower space is where the lower void, and lower planetary (excess matter, and stars) exist. Not only this, there exists Hell, where Satan and those cast away live.  Here I encounter a problem in that it could be understood that 2 lower spaces exist, or my old definition of space of hell must be redone. It is a biblical statement that hell exists within the depths of the earth where it is extremely hot. This makes ambiguous the lower space definition.  The lower space could include the lower void, and other planetary. So, because of the biblical statement of the spatial location of hell, I find I must include within the lower space the hell, and the lower void and planetary. So, my definition of lower space is the lower void, and planetary, along with the inner cores of bodies of solar systems. This seems to qualify as all low enough to work well with the definition. Dividing space up makes it necessary to further sort the actual beings to understand where each beings exist.

Sorting Classification

By sorting classification, I mean dividing the beings up by nous ensouled, and the non-nous ensouled. As I described before, nous is the intelligence and awareness of the soul of its own state and existence. Man has nous, plant has none, animal has some.  I divide beings by this nous because beings with complete nous, are beings that their spirit is infinite, while some to non-nous beings’ spirits are finite in nature. The nous ensouled beings of course include God and man. The non nous and even ensouled beings include animals besides man, plantae, fungi, protista and monista, along with all unensouled beings like earth, and planet matter.

The sort, spatial, and temporal classifications I have set forth compel me to state some postulates about the beings and spaces in the world, hence the below:

*

__________________

Another way to sort out the beings is by how they came about: God, who did not come about, and will never perish, and the creatum which was created by God, some of which is infinite and some finite.

The creatum can be further divided into spiritual and material. Spiritual includes the man’s soul which is infinite, and the some animal, plant, fungi, monista, protista beings which are finite. Material includes all planetary bodies, planetary stars, planetary excess and material a part of each body. All of the material is infinite, because it is merely relocated when it seems it ceases to exist (water in a cup disappears, it does not cease to exist, it evaporates and relocates itself to the higher atmosphere).

The term infinite can be defined either by spatially or temporally. Temporally, as I said before, all things are infinite except for the spirits of some animals besides man, plants, fungi, monista and protista. Spatially, the void is infinite, God, and His Heaven is infinite, while all other things are spatially finite.

The lower space can be characterized as space below the planetary systems, but when it is said to include hell, the definition is said to include the inner parts of the larger planetary (not stars or excesses) bodies because of the place Satan’s lair is located.

Without Him having created the creatum, there would be nothing, not even the void, except for Him. He created the void, all spaces, and all beings, including therefore the creation of temporal sense.

God Himself is said to be an unmoved mover by Descartes and Aristotle, and I too endorse this statement. He is infinite spatially and temporally (whether or not the notion of time is noted). He exists at all times in all spaces in one way or another, and is in all places at once.

Spiritual matter of the man is generated in the middle space, and is later relocated to the higher or lower space, and with man’s spirit, no spiritual matter is ever discarded. (* note that any other spiritual matter beside God’s and man’s is discarded on a daily basis because of lack of presence of nous).

Material matter is never discarded, again, only relocated to other spaces. Like the chemists say, no matter is created or destroyed, but I revise their standpoint to say that beyond the Genesis when the creatum was first made no matter is created (creation of new beings by sexual or asexual reproduction is not creating new material matter, only spiritual matter. When a sperm fertilizes an egg in sexual reproduction, the fertilized egg in its spot has only to grow into another human being, therefore material matter is conserved). This leads to further laws and theories.

Conservation Law: (An extension of the chemist’s law of conservation of mass)  After the creatum was created by God during the Genesis, no material matter is created or destroyed, only relocated (or changed to different beings, like also the chemists say that during a reaction two elements change totally by composition and physical qualities, and are completely different from what they were after the reaction. This shows that not only can matter be relocated, but it can be changed without the creation or destruction of matter).

Conservation Law: After the creatum where all things besides God were created by God, only non-nous souls are destroyed. All nous souls are never destroyed, only relocated from the middle space to the lower or the higher space based on certain commitments while within the middle space. God’s soul is never destroyed or created. His supreme soul never came into being, but has always existed, and will never cease to exist. The fact that a being within the universe has the ability to always exist for all eternity but never actually come into being is an impossible concept for us to understand, but something we must still accept as truth (This is something we are able to understand if our soul is relocated to the higher space).

The beings of the world are classified by three main categories, and therefore many sub-categories because we must understand where we are, who we are, and what we discuss and look at, before we declare metaphysical and theological statements to be truths. The logical positivists and the empiricists (and the empirical positivists) did not assess the beings of the universe in a correct way, leading to their rash decision to discard metaphysics and theology.  My statement for them is that there are solutions coming to their problems by metaphysicians and theologians. They have not yet become mature theories to be introduced among all branches of philosophy for understanding and application.

The above is a precedent to further defenses of metaphysics and theologies.

Advertisements

Gilles Deleuze Logic of Sense: Pure Becoming

21 Jul

In Deleuze’s book the Logic of Sense, there are 3 series in the book that discuss paradoxes. The first one discusses the paradox about pure becoming.

First Series of Paradoxes of Pure Becoming

The first one is the First Series of Paradoxes of Pure Becoming. I love how Deleuze uses in this book (and other writings too) the story of Alice in Wonderland. Especially the scene where she gets huge, and incredibly small to fit through the doors. After reading a few blogs about Deleuze, and reading his actual work, and finally writing about it, I feel a little cautious because of the fact that I do not feel able to understand his philosophy to the fullest degree. I feel like the First Series of the Logic of Sense is easy for me to understand, but the other 2 series I want to talk about, I worry about. If anything I say, and if I misconstrue Deleuze’s philosophy, go easy on me, and correct me, because I really want to grow to learn and understand his philosophy.  I feel I can understand this first series because of having seen and read Alice in Wonderland many times. Deleuze also explains well his meaning. Again, if I misconstrue, and misunderstand Deleuze’s meanings in any way, please say so (comment below, @reply on twitter, or email at cosmosuniversez@yahoo.com).

Deleuze uses Alice to proceed into Plato’s distinction between things that are measured and limited in what they become, and things that are of pure becoming. Pure becoming is what he wished to expound upon and explain. Before going into the issue of pure becoming, he does very well in defining the nature of paradox:

“…paradox is the affirmation of both senses or directions at the same time” (Deleuze).

The affirmation of both senses/directions at the same time, he explains, is not meaning that both occur simultaneously. When Alice grew she got larger than she was, and at the same time was smaller than she became (Deleuze). He explains that things that are of pure becoming go in both directions at the same time, and avoids the present. If something is of pure becoming, the present is avoided, because if something of pure becoming becomes something in its entirety, it stops becoming. The only things that end up becoming something are not things of pure becoming. The things not of pure becoming are finite in their nature. Things of pure becoming are infinite in their nature because they are always becoming something at all times in one direction or the other. Pure becoming avoids the present. Deleuze further explains the different between the limited becoming things, and the pure becoming when he introduces the model, copy, and the simulacrum. Simulacrum is the being of copies of copies. The copy is created after the model, and the simulacrum are created from the copy. The things of limited becoming are referred to as the copy because they stop becoming at a certain point and remain with a stagnant existence. The simulacrum is referred to as the pure becoming because of the fact that the pure becoming evades the present, and makes different versions of the copy at non-simultaneous existences. The pure becoming and the simulacrum have infinite identities.

Thinking about this pure becoming is a difficult thing (especially for me) to understand, but Deleuze does well to explain it when he says that “one becomes larger than one was, and smaller than one becomes.” This shows the non simultaneous eluding of the present. This is very paradoxical in its nature but, the paradox of the pure becoming is very true. Many things in the world are of pure becoming in one way, and not so in the other. My opinion about things of pure becoming is complex in a way.

Before explaining what I think is of pure becoming, and what is not, I want to make the distinction within the creatum between physical tangible things, and things of spirit. The physical tangible things I mean to explain as the earth, things humans have created from the earth, suspended particles, human/animal bodies, extra-planetary physical things etc. Things we can see, touch, feel, taste, hear, smell etc. While on earth, everything we perceive is of physical and tangible nature. These physical and tangible things in the world are all of pure becoming. Our bodies, buildings, appliances, plants, animals, and human bodies are all becoming in both directions at all times. They all elude the present because each thing is of pure becoming infinitely.

For example, a man eats food grown in the ground, allowing him to be healthy enough for sexual activity and maintain sperm, and engages as such. A baby conceived in a womans womb starts as a sperm from the man entering the egg. The fetus grows within 9 months. The fetus grows larger than it was before, and was smaller than it is at the spontaneous moment. The baby born into the world ages and grows larger, and ends up being smaller than before in all instances. At age 75, the body decays, and becomes lesser than it was before, and was larger and more complex than it is at a specific instance. When the soul leaves the body, no life is left, and the body is left to decompose into the ground. The body being more decomposed, is more decomposed than before, and was more complex and not decomposed at a specific instance before. The soul having left this body, allows the body to decompose altogether into humus in the soil. As the decomposed body becomes a part of the ground as collective hummus, is at a later date used in a garden, where a sundry of vegetables and fruit are grown such as tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, potatoes, watermelon, rhubarb, etc. The person growing the garden harvests the crop, and eats the food allowing him to have more maintenance of sperm from nutrition, and engages in sexual activity with another woman, the sperm entering the egg, conceiving another fetus, to be born, grow old, die, and decompose in the soil for the cycle to occur again. All of the things except for the people’s souls are of physical tangible nature, and therefore, of pure becoming. The physically tangible particles of the creatum are always becoming both ways without simultaneity. This long repetitive (although grossly disgusting) cycle shows why physical and tangible particles of the creatum are of pure becoming.

Likewise, soil and rocks in the ground and seas gather together as sediments, and sedimentarily form together as one rock to be deposited as strata in the ground. Humans finding this sedimentary rock, cut it from the ground, and use it to form bricks (not all that sure how bricks are formed however). These bricks are used to create buildings for us to live, work, and be educated in. The building going through long periods of time, either is abandoned, imploded, naturally decays from weathering and erosion, or something else happens taking the building down, making it subject to the soil it falls upon. The ruins of the building (maybe relocated) lay upon the soil, as further weathering and erosion decay it to silt and therefore hummus. The sediment and soil used to make the building is now back where it started, and there to become something else by means of pure becoming because sediment and soil is of physical and tangible creatum.

Hopefully these two examples explain why physical and tangible things are of pure becoming, and are always becoming something and eluding the present. If you may think what these physical and tangible things will be of when Satan rises to the earth in the Revelation, the earth and its tangible beings will all still be here, and the processes they go through will most likely keep them of pure becoming. If Satan’s rise to the earth will end the pure becoming of the physical and tangible beings, that is not able to be seen at this point, and the truth of this possible action cannot falsify the state of pure becoming of these physical and tangible beings.

I believe that the things of spirit are not of pure becoming because of the fact that their state of becoming ends at a point. The soul of a person has a finite time of becoming because the soul is born when it is born inside a tangible body on earth, and soon later that physical tangible body dies, and that soul either goes to Heaven or Hell. When that soul goes to Heaven or Hell, the time of becoming ends. This falsifies the possibility of pure becoming in spiritual beings. Note that the physical tangible body is totally separate from the spiritual soul. The body is only a place for the soul to exist during the short duration of life on the tangible earth. When the soul goes to Heaven or Hell, the soul stays there fore eternity, and nothing else changes possibly putting that soul into becoming.

God, is also not a being of pure becoming because He has always existed , and always will exist. This calls for a new category of becoming: non-becoming. God is incredibly holy, and perfect, and His existence in the universe is never having the necessity to become anything.

This distinction between pure becoming, and finite becoming shows by my understanding the separation there is between the physical body, and the spiritual soul. This does so because of the fact that physical and tangible bodies are of pure becoming, and that spiritual bodies are of finite bodies. Not only are they both separated, but the soul is the only thing that really exists that is a part of the soul. This advocated Spinoza’s substance monism.

Again, if anything I talked about was misinterpreted from Deleuze’s text please say so.

Spinozistic Substance Monism: God as the Only Substance

20 May

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.