Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Passive extension is entirely inert and not active — Carmelics
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Passive extension is only matter, not substance

    Passive extension is entirely inert and not active

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

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Personal IdentityCausation

    Related

    All genuine substances are activePassive extension is only matter, not substance

    Similar

    Matter is entirely inert and passive.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Personal Identity
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    76%
    Everything extended follows from the attribute of extension alone.71%
    Passive extension is only matter, not substance71%
    A mode of extension cannot exist without an extended substance.69%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: continental-rationalism
    View source passageHide passage
    Leibniz’s insistence that every individual substance has a complete concept entailed that, unlike Spinoza, he regarded Cartesian thinking substance and not Cartesian extended substance as paradigmatic of substance. Descartes’s extended substance (like Spinozistic substance) is, on Leibniz’s account, not a substance at all since it does not afford a principle of individuation. Leibniz argued that, whereas a real substance has a complete concept, the Cartesian notion of extended substance is an ab

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective