Spinoza's argument begins with ultimate explanation
his work is a demonstration that the world is a demonstration of his definition
his definition of substance
Spinoza does not reach for the ultimate - he begins with it
his argument is that existence is all that there is
it is therefore without limit
his argument for infinity is an argument against limit
for if there is a limit there is something on the other side of it
and such a view could not function as a comprehensive view of what is
what is assumed here is that reality is a unity
could there be other realities?
not on Spinoza's watch
whatever exists - however it exists is an expression of existence
existence is the universal
hence on this view it makes no sense to speak of the absence of existence
there is no void - as in non-existence
this knowledge is not gained from the senses
rather from reasoning
from logic
it depends for its success on the argument that we can conceive oneness -
that we can conceive totality - limitlessness
and that this conception - corresponds to what is
so the logic of one - the conception of oneness
the flaw in this argument is that such a conception has no existential content
it is to conceive nothing
this is the great paradox of Spinoza's argument
his grand conception of existence
the totality - is a conception of no thing
this is the first point
the second point is this -
you begin with the concept of oneness
and then move to define it in terms of limitlessness - and hence totality
it is to universalize the concept of one - to take it out of all contexts
against this can be put
if the one - is not limited - as it is when defined for example as a
member of a sequence then it makes no sense to speak of one at all
one in relation to what?
therefore the universalization of one is to misconstrue it - to effectively to make it meaningless - such an argument is to the destruction of the concept of one
this is to question the argument at the level of conception
the next move - the ontological argument is beyond the pale
it is to assume that we can say from our limited perspective - what the ultimate nature of the world is - simply on the basis of our conception - what we conceive
that we can know that this conception corresponds to reality
it is the supreme argument for supreme vanity
and I say on meta / moral grounds it should be - must be rejected as rubbish
