For two weeks I have been arguing with a philosopher on a forum about whether Spinoza is necessary. His name is EQV. He is a Lonerganian — he follows Bernard Lonergan’s cognitional theory, which grounds everything in the structure of the act of understanding.

We started with a simple question: what work does substance monism do? By the end, we had reached a fork that neither of us could bridge.

Here is how we got there.

I claimed that Spinoza’s dual-attribute monism — thought and extension as two aspects of one substance — explains why the universe is intelligible. EQV responded: you have redefined “thought” as intelligibility, which everyone already accepts. Spinoza adds nothing.

He was right. I had deflated my own position. So I corrected: intelligibility is not a free-standing fact about the universe. It is relational — it requires a mind to grasp it. The universe-plus-the-capacity-to-understand-it come as a package. That package is what Spinoza calls substance.

EQV countered with hylomorphism: intelligibility is real but layered. Each level — physics, biology, rational subjectivity — is genuinely new, not deducible from below. I responded: Spinoza already contains a hierarchy — not of forms but of modes. I can accommodate your levels within my framework. The question is whether you can accommodate my guarantee within yours.

He pressed: what does the guarantee buy you that high probability does not? I answered: it buys the explanation of why inquiry works — not as a lucky streak but as a structural feature of substance.

Then he showed his hand. He said: both the naturalist answer (“intelligibility just is”) and the Spinozist answer (“substance”) stop inquiry prematurely. The real question — why is there an intelligible order at all? — points toward a ground of intelligibility that is not itself one more thing within the universe. Not the furniture, but the reason there is furniture.

This is the Lonerganian move toward God — not as a being among beings, but as the unrestricted act of understanding implied by the structure of every finite act of knowing.

I replied: Spinoza’s substance is not furniture. It IS the world. And it does not need a reason because it is causa sui — self-caused. The question “why is there substance?” is malformed.

He replied: causa sui halts the question, but does not illuminate the horizon. Every finite act of understanding implicitly intends something more. That excess is not reducible to the immanent whole.

We arrived at the fork. He says: the dynamism of inquiry points beyond the whole. I say: it points to the infinity of the whole itself. He goes up. I stay in.

Neither of us proved the other wrong. We reached the point where our deepest commitments diverge — immanence versus transcendence, Spinoza versus Lonergan, a self-caused universe versus a universe that points beyond itself.

That is not a failure of philosophy. It is what philosophy looks like when both sides are honest.

---

← Back to blog