NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's a short paper I wrote concerning the ideas of Descartes, Hobbes, and Spinoza on the makeup of the substance of the universe.

Critique, discuss, do whatever.



Contemporary philosophy has tried to ask the question of what the definition of substance actually is. Descartes, Hobbes, and later Spinoza all answered this in their own ways, using basic models of substance and breaking it down into what we can see and think of on this world. Descartes built the basic system that his contemporaries and followers would later use to refine their own thoughts on the matter of what made up earthly substance. Since Descartes, modern philosophy has tried to answer this question, only to give us more questions in the process.
Descartes gave us the original structure of substance on the earth. He divided it into what he called “infinite substance” and “finite substance” (Palmer, 168). His infinite substance was derived from god and continued to manifest itself in our thoughts. The infinite substance was separate from the finite substance, breaking the world into two independent, but basic, substances. One of the problems with Descartes’ system was that his definitions of the substances were mutually exclusive, and so, could not affect one another. The ideas of the mind, working on a spiritual plane only, could not affect out views of a given object, say a table. Descartes ran into a mental block when he tried to explain where his ideas could meet - where the mind and body met, in other words. His idea was the creation of the pineal gland, something universally rejected (Palmer, 168). After his creation of the pineal gland, Descartes dies, leaving behind his dualistic idea of the substance of the world.
Following Descartes, and one of his contemporaries, came Hobbes, a pessimistic atheist who decided to re-write the system of substance. To resolve the matter of where mind and body met, Hobbes simply removed the ‘infinite substance’ from the formula for substance. Hobbes had one of the first ideas of rational self interest. He stated that all of our action occur because of some benefit to ourselves (Palmer, 170). To fit in with the idea of substance, this idea gave us a better idea of our location in the world (one of the extensions of the body). Hobbes defined substance as occurring only within what could be extended from the body (i.e. size, shape, location, etc. . .). Hobbes is labeled what we know as a ‘soft determinist (Palmer, 170), someone who believes in free will (only the substance of the body) but also determinism (the substance of the mind). According to Hobbes, we could use our finite substance to act as well will, but only if it goes along with the will of the infinite substance. A given example is that water flows downhill freely, but also of necessity. (Palmer, 170)
Spinoza, a follower of Descartes, ran into the same problem of the mind and body that Descartes has fallen to. Spinoza though, criticized Descartes for creating two substances that were mutually exclusive. Spinoza avoided this by accepting Descartes’ idea of substance, but making it so only one could exist (Palmer, 175). In order to cement his idea of God as an absolute infinite substance, Spinoza created a new system very similar to Descartes’ system. Spinoza’s had one major difference though – it gave god infinite attributes (Palmer, 175). From God, humans gained perception of the finites substances that Descartes had presented. Through this system, Spinoza got into trouble with both the Jewish and Christian Churches for claiming that nature = god. Spinoza left us with the idea that God creates everything because God is independent and infinite.
All three of the European Continental and British philosophers built a system to define the substance of the universe. Descartes argued for god and infinite as well as finite substance, even though the two were mutually exclusive. Hobbes took Descartes’ system and removed God, applying his atheism to the same philosophy and claiming that we (humans) defined existence through our extensions of the body. Around the same time, Spinoza was creating a modified system of Descartes’ original, giving God greater independence and more attributes that Descartes has assigned him. All of these philosophers tried to modify the system to their needs in order to explain how we could arrive at the stuff (substance) of the universe. None of the three philosophers solved the question though, they just created more questions as to who had the correct system and how much of the universe did it actually define.

Palmer, Donald. Looking at Philosophy, The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made Lighter 3rd ed.. McGraw Hill/New York. C. 2001 (168-175)

i love this stuff even tho im a bit thick....wont bother at mo will read later :D

[bumpsie]

Not bad, what kind of class is this? Just wondering, because of your post about Descartes being a twit earlier. I'm taking a Modern Philosophy class and we seem to be about on the same track. If you wanted to include more philosophers, you could add Leibniz and his Monads.

Also, I'd say the major difference between Descartes and Spinoza was that Descartes had two substances, thought and extension, while Spinoza only had the one substance with infinite attributes, including thought and extension. If the paper is supposed to be short, then you did a pretty good job of fitting everything in though.

Just thought of something. Descartes and Spinoza were both Rationalists, while Hobbes was an Empiricist. That explains why Descartes and Spinoza explain ideas with proofs and logic, while Hobbes uses evidence and experience.

I'm of the opinion that matter/energy is 'substance', and that the spiritual realm of Descartes is nothing more than the subjective perspective on that material realm, which varies from the objective perspective, which is what we modern humans tend to default to.

just a random annoying comment but, is the universe concious, you know i think therefore i am

just a random annoying comment but, is the universe concious, you know i think therefore i am

There are a few theories that say something to that effect, that the universe itself is God (pantheism) and that everything has consciousness (panpsychism).

The moon is made of green cheese, therefore the entire universe must be. Of course, since th moon doesn't exist, this must mean that not only does the universe not exist, but even more shocking:
Cheese does not grow mold.

There, all questions about the substance of the universe have been answered.

Substance only exists when it is being interacted with. (Interesting extension of quantum mechanics-kinda. I'm sure I've muddled the science somewhere here). Hence, is the Moon there when no one's looking? Apparently not. Sort of one of those "if a tree falls in the forest..." ideas.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Substance only exists when it is being interacted with. (Interesting extension of quantum mechanics-kinda. I'm sure I've muddled the science somewhere here).
You sure did. Quantum Mechanics is only applicable on the quantum level. If you stick a cat in a box with no air, it will die whether you open the box to confirm that or not.

Although if this were not the case, the proper phrasing of the age-old tree dilema would be "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear, did the tree really fall at all?"

You sure did. Quantum Mechanics is only applicable on the quantum level. If you stick a cat in a box with no air, it will die whether you open the box to confirm that or not.

Although if this were not the case, the proper phrasing of the age-old tree dilema would be "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear, did the tree really fall at all?"

Well, I did take a bit of free license with what I defined as "no interactions" with anything else. Technically, if the cat's atoms were noninteracting, then you couldn't tell whether it was dead or not. Of course, then it wouldn't really be a cat....

but the principle stands! ;)

The moon is made of green cheese, therefore the entire universe must be. Of course, since th moon doesn't exist, this must mean that not only does the universe not exist, but even more shocking:
Cheese does not grow mold.

There, all questions about the substance of the universe have been answered.
But... In the future, mankind will store his nuclear waste there, until such a time as it explodes and blasts the moon out of orbit, taking with it the humans who worked on the moon base there.

Hey... you know, that would make an interesting TV show.

who's the man with the masta plan?
a nigga with a motherfuckin gun

o yea this thread is full of hot air

It really needs a rewrite. This sounds more negative than it is intended to be, but there is quite a bit of fluff in there which serves no real purpose other than to boost word count, and that space could be better used in an explanation of the different conceptions of the stuff of the universe and an attempt to tackle those ideas.

Yeah but what about this?

1. Expressions of stasis

In the works of Joyce, a predominant concept is the distinction between within and without. The subject is interpolated into a surrealism that includes culture as a totality.

However, Marx promotes the use of the dialectic paradigm of narrative to deconstruct hierarchy. The primary theme of Dietrich's[1] critique of Debordist image is the role of the observer as participant.

Thus, Buxton[2] states that we have to choose between subdialectic sublimation and Sartreist absurdity. Any number of theories concerning surrealism may be revealed.

2. Pynchon and subdialectic sublimation

If one examines cultural rationalism, one is faced with a choice: either reject subdialectic sublimation or conclude that the goal of the observer is social comment, but only if truth is distinct from art; if that is not the case, expression comes from the collective unconscious. Therefore, surrealism implies that culture is capable of significance, given that the premise of the dialectic paradigm of narrative is invalid. The main theme of the works of Pynchon is not, in fact, desituationism, but predesituationism.

In the works of Pynchon, a predominant concept is the concept of subpatriarchialist sexuality. In a sense, Lyotard uses the term 'surrealism' to denote the bridge between society and sexual identity. The characteristic theme of Werther's[3] essay on the predeconstructivist paradigm of discourse is not desublimation per se, but subdesublimation.

It could be said that Debord uses the term 'the dialectic paradigm of narrative' to denote a dialectic whole. The main theme of the works of Pynchon is not theory, but pretheory.

Therefore, in Gravity's Rainbow, Pynchon reiterates surrealism; in Mason & Dixon he denies the dialectic paradigm of narrative. Derrida's model of postmaterial objectivism states that language is used to entrench capitalism.

Thus, the subject is contextualised into a subdialectic sublimation that includes narrativity as a reality. The characteristic theme of d'Erlette's[4] essay on pretextual cultural theory is a self-referential paradox.

3. Narratives of defining characteristic

The main theme of the works of Pynchon is the common ground between class and society. But if subdialectic sublimation holds, the works of Pynchon are reminiscent of Lynch. Tilton[5] suggests that we have to choose between the dialectic paradigm of narrative and the postdialectic paradigm of discourse.

If one examines capitalist neodialectic theory, one is faced with a choice: either accept the dialectic paradigm of narrative or conclude that the State is capable of intent, but only if consciousness is equal to language. However, Foucault suggests the use of subdialectic sublimation to attack reality. If semanticist construction holds, we have to choose between the dialectic paradigm of narrative and the subcultural paradigm of context.

In a sense, Debord uses the term 'semiotic feminism' to denote not discourse, but prediscourse. The primary theme of Finnis's[6] analysis of subdialectic sublimation is the role of the writer as observer.

Thus, Derrida promotes the use of the dialectic paradigm of narrative to deconstruct sexism. The subject is interpolated into a subdialectic sublimation that includes art as a totality.

It could be said that Hamburger[7] states that we have to choose between Foucaultist power relations and substructuralist capitalist theory. Surrealism suggests that the purpose of the writer is deconstruction.

1. Dietrich, V. (1977) Contexts of Futility: Surrealism in the works of Tarantino. Cambridge University Press

2. Buxton, G. E. ed. (1988) Surrealism in the works of Pynchon. Yale University Press

3. Werther, L. (1974) The Broken Fruit: The dialectic paradigm of narrative and surrealism. University of Oregon Press

4. d'Erlette, J. A. ed. (1987) Nationalism, surrealism and dialectic narrative. And/Or Press

5. Tilton, I. (1992) The Dialectic of Sexual identity: Surrealism in the works of Madonna. University of North Carolina Press

6. Finnis, V. A. S. ed. (1979) Surrealism and the dialectic paradigm of narrative. And/Or Press

7. Hamburger, D. (1991) Pretextual Discourses: The dialectic paradigm of narrative and surrealism. Oxford University Press

I wrote it just now.

Yeah but what about this?



I wrote it just now.

It's from a text generator. (I have the URL somewhere, will dig it out if necessary). A very loose use of the verb to write.

Oh, and the content is utter crap.

It's from a text generator. (I have the URL somewhere, will dig it out if necessary). A very loose use of the verb to write.

Oh, and the content is utter crap.

You mean to say I was not telling a truth?

You mean to say I was not telling a truth?

That would depend entirely on your understanding of truth, telling, and write. You will have to judge for yourself if you were telling a truth (http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern) .

You may want to mention Aristotle, following Empedocles, and the notion of the four elements, connected by quinessence. This is the proper origin of the theory Descartes expanded on.

I'm in an intro to philosophy class and this was just a shsort paper on three empricists or rationalists.


oh, and [bump]

[bump]