Substance is itself and also conception through itself. It's not just no other conception, but the conception of itself too. — TheWillowOfDarkness

:up:

It has to since there's nothing else but Substance to conceive of Substance. Apparently, an ouroboros or Möbius loop confuses some of the slower kids.

There’s nothing else but substance to conceive of substance, sure, but the point is that there’s nothing else but substance to be conceived of as being independent of everything else, i.e., as being that which is in itself. Derp. This all went right over your head.

There’s nothing else but substance to conceive of substance, sure, but the point is that there’s nothing else but substance to be conceived of as being independent of everything else, i.e., as being that which is in itself. Derp. This all went right over your head. — aRealidealist

More equivocation of the term "conceive"...

This all went right over your head. — aRealidealist

"Right." "Over." "Your." "Head."

(Ah, yeah, projection - the last refuge. :lol: )

There’s no equivocating, I’m using the word how it’s commonly understood; even how Spinoza understands it (in a general Cartesian sense). Moreover, you have no point, after claiming that “substance” & conception are no different for Spinoza.

Strawman.

Be well .

All that is needed for you to correct your (mis)understandings has been expressed heretofore...

:up:

I'm not the "pom-poms" type, son. — 180 Proof

Right. You already have a cheerleader. You don't need to be one, too. :kiss:

Descartes is a platonist, for whom the world is in constant flux and to us is Maya

Marx, a better mathematician than Hegel, accepted his philosophiy but substituted energy and matter for spirit in the system. Marx immersed himself in Cartesian flux