How Can There Be More Than One Substance

Spinoza states, “there cannot be more than one substance of the same nature”. I want you to realize that we would repudiate the meaning of substance if there were more than one with a similar trait. Since if there were more than one with a similar quality, at that point one would impart a trademark to another, which implies that reasoning one includes pondering another, which repudiates the meaning of substance as self-caused. We realize that substance must exist, since it is characterized as self-caused. There exists just a single substance and it has a place in its inclination to exist, it will in this way have a place with its tendency to exist either as a limited substance or as an interminable substance. Be that as it may, it can't exist
So when we have an unmistakable and particular (genuine) thought of substance, we would need to realize that it exists, since its certainties respect what is basic to substance, and what is basic to it is that it exists. Also, in light of the fact that substance is self-caused, we can't state of it that something unique caused it.
To prove why there cannot be more than one substance of the same nature, Spinoza offers proof through four premises. The first being, “The true definition of each thing involves and expresses nothing beyond the nature of the thing defined.” True definition of something defines its own nature and nothing other than its own nature. For example I define socialism, which is any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. This definition of socialism only defines its own nature and nothing other than that. The second being, no definition involves or expresses a fixed number of individuals, since it expresses nothing but the nature of the thing defined. The definition for something does not stipulate what number of things falls under
Spinoza claims that there cannot be more than one substance in the same nature. Spinoza does not critically demonstrate that one substance can't be created by another substance or that there can't be two self reason-unending substances. Our thoughts of characteristics speak to genuine portrayals of substance, and are not just mental develops which are unequipped for uncovering any obvious data about a substance. As Spinoza expresses, a substance is a thing that is free of some other thing and is considered without the assistance of the origination of some other thing. At the point when some other thing is rounded out it is found that it must mean some other substance, and subsequently he has a roundabout definition. At the point when Spinoza characterizes a substance as that which is considered through itself alone, the test is to indicate how this is conceivable given that it is important to imagine the ascribes with a specific end goal to imagine the substance. Ultimately, from Spinoza it appears substance needs credits to exist it can't exist without it, so at that point in what capacity would substance be able to be without anyone else's input in nature and furthermore your going in hovers for substance since what is free of a substance with its properties is another substance with its