No. 68 (2024): Enero - abril
Articles

Spinoza, Leibniz and the Debate over the Possibility of Two Substances Sharing the Same Attribute: A Contribution to the History of Logic and Metaphysics in the 17th Century

XML (Español (España)) PDF (Español (España))
  • Juan Vicente Cortés
Juan Vicente Cortés
Universidad Alberto Hurtado
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21555/top.v680.2451

Published 2023-12-07

Keywords

How to Cite

Cortés, J. V. (2023). Spinoza, Leibniz and the Debate over the Possibility of Two Substances Sharing the Same Attribute: A Contribution to the History of Logic and Metaphysics in the 17th Century. Tópicos, Revista De Filosofía, (68), 345–387. https://doi.org/10.21555/top.v680.2451

Copyright (c) 2023 Tópicos, Revista de Filosofía

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Altmetrics

Citas

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

This paper sets out to examine and respond to Leibniz’s objection to E1p2 and E1p5. The objection is well known: it is false, according to Leibniz, that two substances of different attributes have nothing in common (i. e., E1p2) and, consequently, that in nature there cannot be two or more substances of the same attribute (i. e., E1p5). Here I claim that E1p2, and therefore E1p5, resist Leibniz’s objection. To do so, I first address the meaning and function of E1p2 in order to determine two possible contexts in which the demonstration is valid: the context delimited by the Cartesian doctrine of the principal attribute, and the scholastic context of the logical doctrine of essential diversity. Second, I examine Leibniz’s objection, by which I determine more precisely the epistemic framework of both E1p2d and Leibniz’s objection. Third, I propose a critical analysis of Leibniz’s objection to show that, although this objection has some semblance of validity, if we consider only what Spinoza stated in the definitions and axioms prior to E1p2, it entails a contradiction. Finally, I indicate the most difficult point in the proof of E1p2 in order to propose a small rectification that renders it immune to Leibniz’s objection.

XML (Español (España)) PDF (Español (España))

References

  1. Allison, H. E. (1987). Benedict de Spinoza: An Introduction. Yale University Press.
  2. Aristóteles. (1982). Tratados de lógica (Organon). I. Categorías. Tópicos. Sobre las refutaciones sofísticas. M. Candel Sanmartín (trad.). Gredos.
  3. Aristóteles. (1998). Metafísica. V. García Yebra (trad.). Gredos.
  4. Audié, F. (2005). Spinoza et les mathématiques. Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne.
  5. Bennett, J. (1984). A Study of Spinoza’s Ethics. Hackett.
  6. Beyssade, J.-M. (1996). La théorie cartésienne de la substance. Equivocité ou analogie ? Revue internationale de philosophie, 195(1), 51-72.
  7. Burgersdijk, F. (1640). Institutionum metaphysicarum libri duo. Apud Hieronymum de Vogel.
  8. Burgersdijk, F. (1660). Institutionum logicarum libri duo. Apud Ægidium Valckenier et Casparum Commelinum.
  9. Carriero, J. (1995). On the Relationship between Mode and Substance in Spinoza’s Metaphysics. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 33(2), 245-273.
  10. Curley, E. (1969). Spinoza’s Metaphysics: An Essay in Interpretation. Harvard University Press.
  11. Curley, E. (1988). Behind the Geometrical Method. Princeton University Press.
  12. Deleuze, G. (1968). Spinoza et le problème de l’expression. Éditions de Minuit.
  13. Della Rocca, M. (2008). Spinoza. Routledge.
  14. Descartes, R. (1973). Œuvres de Descartes. VII. Meditationes de Prima Philosophia. C. Adam y P. Tannery (eds.). CNRS-Vrin.
  15. Descartes, R. (1987). Œuvres de Descartes. VIII-1. Principia Philosophia.. C. Adam y P. Tannery (eds.). Nueva presentación a cargo de B. Rochot. CNRS-Vrin.
  16. De Sevilla, I. (2006). Liber differentiarum II. M. A. Andrés Sanz (ed.). Brepols.
  17. Donagan, A. (1989). Spinoza. University of Chicago Press.
  18. Foucault, M. (1969). Archéologie du savoir. Gallimard.
  19. Freudenthal, J. (1887). Spinoza und die Scholastik. En E. Zeller, Philosophische Aufsätze. Eduard Zeller zu seinem fünfzigjährigen Doktor-Jubiläum gewidmet. (pp. 83-138). Fues Verlag.
  20. Garrett, D. (1990). Ethics IP5: Shared Attributes and the Basis of Spinoza’s Monism. En M. Kulstad y J. A. Cover (eds.), Central Themes in Early Modern Philosophy. (pp. 69-108). Hackett.
  21. Garrett, D. (2018). Nature and Necessity in Spinoza’s Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
  22. Gueroult, M. (1968). Spinoza. I. Dieu. Éditions Aubier-Montaigne.
  23. Hallet, H. F. (1957). Benedict de Spinoza: The Elements of his Philosophy. The Athlone Press.
  24. Heereboord, A. (1665) Meletemata philosophica. Apud Johannem Ravesteinium.
  25. Heereboord, A. (1680). Hermeneia logica seu Explicatio Synopseos Logicæ Burgersdicianæ. Ex Officina Joan. Hayes.
  26. Laerke, M. (2018). Leibniz’s Encounter with Spinoza’s Monism, October 1675 to February 1678. En M. Della Rocca (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Spinoza. (pp. 434-463). Oxford University Press.
  27. Laerke, M. (2012). Spinoza’s Monism? What Monism? En P. Goff (ed.), Spinoza on Monism. (pp. 244-261). Palgrave Macmillan.
  28. Leibniz, G. W. (1978). Die Philosophischen Schriften von G. W. Leibniz. I. C. Gerhardt (ed.). Georg Olms Verlag.
  29. Macherey, P. (1994). Spinoza est-il moniste ? En M. Revault D’Allonnes y H. Rizk (eds.), Spinoza. Puissance et Ontologie. (pp. 39-53). Éditions Kimé.
  30. Macherey, P. (1998). Introduction à l’Éthique de Spinoza. La première partie, la nature des choses. Presses Universitaires de France.
  31. Marion, J.-L. (2002). Questions cartésiennes. II. Sur l’ego et Dieu. Presses Universitaires de France.
  32. Melamed, Y. (2009). Spinoza’s Metaphysics of Substance: The Substance-Mode Relation as a Relation of Inherence and Predication. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 78(1), 17-82.
  33. Mignini, F. (1995). L’Etica di Spinoza. Introduzione alla lettura. Carocci Editore.
  34. Spinoza, B. (1677). Opera posthuma. J. Rieuwertsz.
  35. Spinoza, B. (1925). Opera. IV. Epistolae. C. Gebhardt (ed.). Carl Winter.
  36. Spinoza, B. (2020a). Ética demostrada según el orden geométrico. P. Lomba (ed. y trad.). Trotta.
  37. Spinoza, B. (2020b). Œuvres IV. Ethica. Éthique. F. Akkerman, P. Steenbakkers y P.-F. Moreau (eds.). P.-F. Moreau (trad.). Presses Universitaires de France.
  38. Spinoza, B. (1985). Collected Works of Spinoza. I. E. Curley (ed. y trad.). Princeton University Press.
  39. Suárez, F. (1963). Disputaciones metapfísicas. S. Rábade, S. Caballero y A. Puigcerver (eds. y trads.) Gredos.
  40. Van Reyen, J. B. M. (1993). Burgersdijk, Logician or Textbook Writer? En E. P. Bos y H. A. Krop (eds.), Franco Burgersdijk (1590-1635). Neo-Aristotelianism in Leiden. (pp. 9-28). Rodopi.
  41. Wolfson, H. A. (1934). The Philosophy of Spinoza. I. Cambridge University Press.