The Nature of Substances: Spinoza vs. Leibniz

Paper Summary:

This paper first outlines Baruch Spinoza's argument in Part 1 of the "Ethics" for "substance monism" - the position that there exists only one substance. It then explains how Spinoza's position differs from that of Gottfried Leibniz in the "Discourse on Metaphysics". The paper concludes with the assertion that Leibniz's account for the nature and number of substances is superior since accepting Spinoza's conclusions leads to a number of logically troublesome consequences.

From the Paper:

"Leibniz's account for the nature and number of substances differs significantly from Spinoza's. For Spinoza, there is only one substance in the world: God. Leibniz essentially agrees that there is only one true substance. However, to Leibniz this substance is the monad, comparable to a soul or spirit, which "is nothing but a simple substance that enters into composites" (Monadology, p. 484). For Leibniz, God exists external to the world of monads, and might be best thought of as a type of "supersubstance" or "supermonad." It was God who set the world in motion; therefore, substances depend on God for their existence. Since Leibniz's God possesses the will to create or destroy substances "in accordance with the principle of the best" (M., p. 487), God is the only necessary being. All other monads, then, depend on Him for their existence, and as such, are non-eternal contingent beings. Spinoza's pantheism forces the conclusion that all substance is eternal; if it were not eternal, then it would have to be created, which would then violate his definition of substance as something "that the conception of which does not require the conception of another thing from which it has to be formed" (E., p. 416)."

More papers on The Nature of Substances: Spinoza vs. Leibniz:

• Book Review # 112429 : "'The Nature of Leadership'"
• Book Review # 112874 : "The Nature of Leadership"
• Narrative Essay # 96249 : "The Nature of Light"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: