Spinoza on Composition and Priority

In Philip Goff (ed.), Spinoza on Monism. Palgrave-Macmillan (2011)

Authors
Abstract
This article has two goals: a historical and a speculative one. The historical goal is to offer a coherent account of Spinoza’s view on mereological composition. The speculative goal is to show that Spinoza’s substance monism is distinct from versions of monism that are currently defended in metaphysics and that it deserves the attention of contemporary metaphysicians. Regarding the second goal, two versions of monism are currently defended and discussed in contemporary metaphysics: existence monism according to which there actually exists exactly one concrete entity; and priority monism that is famously defended by Jonathan Schaffer and according to which there exists exactly one fundamental concrete being, the cosmos, and several derivative concrete beings that are the parts of the cosmos. In this article, I argue that substance monism is neither an existence nor a priority monism because, while Spinoza’s monist is committed to the existence of a unique fundamental individual—the substance—and to the existence of several derivative individuals—the bodies or modes of extension—, Spinoza denies that the substance is mereologically complex. Regarding the first goal, the paper solves several interpretative puzzles by arguing that Spinoza distinguishes between three kinds of composition and that his talk of composition between the substance and its modes is by his own light not to be interpreted as literally true.
Keywords spinoza  monism  mereology  fundamentality
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

On the Common Sense Argument for Monism.Tuomas E. Tahko & Donnchadh O'Conaill - 2012 - In Philip Goff (ed.), Spinoza On Monism. Palgrave-Macmillan. pp. 149-166.
Monism.Jonathan Schaffer - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Acosmism or Weak Individuals?: Hegel, Spinoza, and the Reality of the Finite.Yitzhak Y. Melamed - 2010 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 48 (1):pp. 77-92.
Spinoza and the Stoics on Substance Monism.Jon Miller - 2009 - In Olli Koistinen (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza's Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
Monism and Intrinsicality.Kelly Trogdon - 2009 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (1):127 – 148.
Spinoza: Metaphysical Themes.Olli I. Koistinen & John I. Biro (eds.) - 2002 - Oxford University Press.
Against Monism.Theodore Sider - 2007 - Analysis 67 (1):1–7.
From Nihilism to Monism.Jonathan Schaffer - 2007 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (2):175 – 191.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2012-07-03

Total views
409 ( #10,043 of 2,318,903 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
11 ( #83,144 of 2,318,903 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature