If modes ultimately follow from Substance's own nature (Ip16), the causal chain terminates in immanent self-causation, not in another mode—making 'something else' ambiguous enough to undermine the claim's scope.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Ip16(as used in academic citations): This is a reference notation meaning 'Part I, Proposition 16' from a philosophical text (usually Spinoza's Ethics). It's a shorthand way philosophers use to cite a specific argument or claim from a book.
causal chain(Avicenna's cosmological argument in Ilāhiyyāt VIII): An ordered series of causes within a given causal type (formal, material, efficient, or final) that Avicenna argues must terminate in a First Cause
immanent self-causation(as used in causation and metaphysics): When something causes itself or arises from its own nature, rather than being caused by something outside of it. 'Immanent' means 'coming from within' rather than from outside.
modes(Spinoza's ontology distinguishing substance, attributes, and modes): Modifications of substance under an attribute; what appear to be individuated bodies are modes of substance under the attribute of Extension, not independently existing things
substance(Spinoza's metaphysics; criteria include (i) necessity and (ii) self-subsistence): The fundamental existent that is wholly necessary and self-subsistent, not depending on anything else for its existence

1 linked claim · 2 topics