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
    The one substance is indivisible — Carmelics
    Home/Divine Attributes
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Extension cannot imply divisibility in the one substance

    The one substance is indivisible

    ?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

    Divine Attributes

    Connections

    1 topic

    Natural Theology1 linked

    Related

    Extension cannot imply divisibility in the one substance

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Divine Attributes
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    No attribute of the one substance can imply divisibility in that substance
    There is only one substance (established in 1P12 and 1P13)

    Similar

    There is only one substance and it is indivisible96%A substance which is absolutely infinite is indivisible (1P13)89%Applying Extension to an indivisible substance does not introduce real...85%Extension as an attribute applies to that single indivisible substance85%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: spinoza-attributes
    View source passageHide passage
    Spinoza is aware that this will be received with great resistance. The possible objection he imagines is that since Extension is divisible by its very nature then, if Extension were an attribute of God, God would be divisible. God, of course, cannot be divisible, for then he would not be infinite. In the Scholium to 1P15 he shows the ensuing contradictions if one holds Extension to be by its very nature divisible. It is important for him to show that Extension cannot imply divisibility in answer

    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