Monday, October 3, 2016
Of > About
What is the main similarity I have noticed between Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz? They sure do seem to like arguing over the topic of substances. What is my stance? Do I believe in three, one, or infinite substances? I believe such questions are a waste of time, perhaps even morally wrong to a certain extent. After all, who is edified by such philosophical queries? How does the question of substances affect one’s treatment of fellow man? If I believe in three substances, and am later convinced there are in fact infinite substances, will my behavior be altered? I by no means agree with the philosophies of Machiavelli or Hobbes, but at least, to my limited knowledge, they stuck to practical issues. I would rather ardently disagree with those knuckleheads than listen to Leibniz’s strenuous proofs for infinite substances any day. When your audience is vast, and you use your stage to chitchat about substances and the like, you are wasting everybody’s time, and hindering true, societal progress. Yes, other philosophers as far back as Plato devoted thought to similar topics, but from our study in class, I still felt most of their work had potential implications for humanity’s everyday conduct, and is therefore worthwhile. In small amounts, discussion of non-essentials can be pleasant and amusing; in the large amounts we find in the writings of Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz, however, it breaches into the realm of nonsensical insanity. This material, in my opinion, is best left mostly untouched by any who study philosophy for purely practical applications, lest they disappear into the abyss of trivial philosophy forever: never to reappear. I look forward to leaving these arguments about substance behind, in exchange for arguments of substance.