Spinoza believed that God is the only substance that exists, and that the mind and body are two of God's attributes expressed in different ways. As attributes of God, the mind and body do not actually interact or affect each other, but only appear to due to being reflections of the same divine substance. When the mind thinks about moving the body, it is not truly causing the body to move, but both are just expressions of God's will. This view addressed how mind and body could seemingly interact despite being fundamentally different according to Spinoza's monist metaphysics.
Spinoza believed that God is the only substance that exists, and that the mind and body are two of God's attributes expressed in different ways. As attributes of God, the mind and body do not actually interact or affect each other, but only appear to due to being reflections of the same divine substance. When the mind thinks about moving the body, it is not truly causing the body to move, but both are just expressions of God's will. This view addressed how mind and body could seemingly interact despite being fundamentally different according to Spinoza's monist metaphysics.
Spinoza believed that God is the only substance that exists, and that the mind and body are two of God's attributes expressed in different ways. As attributes of God, the mind and body do not actually interact or affect each other, but only appear to due to being reflections of the same divine substance. When the mind thinks about moving the body, it is not truly causing the body to move, but both are just expressions of God's will. This view addressed how mind and body could seemingly interact despite being fundamentally different according to Spinoza's monist metaphysics.
Summary: Spinoza, being a monist, possesses a unique idea regarding the relationship between mind and body compared to the philosophies of Descartes. Spinoza believed that there existed only one substance, God, and it is through the modification of Gods infinite attributes that everything else exists. The two of Gods distinct attributes that are noticeable to humans are thought and extension (mind and body). While Spinoza rejects that widely regarded notion that mind and body are two distinct in kind and can interact with one another and instead posits that if the two can interact with one another then they must share some common the means by which they interact. For example when a person sees an object, say an apple, the persons body (through the eyes and visual sense organs) and the apple interact, sharing the same external light and thus having something in common. In this way, humans body and external bodies have in common that they are both made up of matter. This is not true however, for the mind, which is not comprised of matter and therefore cannot interact with matter. To illustrate better, imagine two physical objects, A and B. A can affect B through physical contact, gravitational pull, etc. and vice versa. Now imagine that B were a metaphysical object. Can A still affect B? How? Spinoza posits that A can no longer affect in B since the two no longer have anything in common. Given this assertion, how is it that the mind can clearly affect and interact with the body as seen every time one has the thought to raise their hand and then promptly raises said hand? Spinoza answers this through God. Imagine for an instance that God is standing in a room full of curved mirrors so that each reflection of God is slightly different from one another. Obviously the reflections are unable to interact with one another yet still possess the commonality that they are all of God. One of these reflections would be the entire physical universe (body). Another would be the mental universe (mind). Therefore, the relationship, or more appropriately lack there of between the mind and body occurs because the two are distinct attributes of God expressed in different way with nothing in common, thus preventing one from being change about in the other. Objection: Spinoza, early on in the Ethics asserts that substance cannot be produced by anything else. My objection is why not? There are numerous cases in the world in which one thing produces another: childbirth, ore smelting, etc. Spinoza rests the foundation of his philosophical belief on this groundwork and yet there are many counter examples ready to be observed in the world. Another critique comes from the assertion that the essence of substance is to exist. What if the essence of a substance is to produce? Say, in the case of factories, hammers, pencils, musical instruments, etc. These objects would have no purpose if there were not other object that could be made from/with them as that was the reason for their creation. Similarly, many hold the belief that humanities purpose is the creation and preservation of humanity. In this manner, Spinozas assertions come across as hypothetical and lacking realization.