The metaphysical argument put forward by Spinoza has several interesting and different approaches than many other philosophers of his time. One of the main interesting points he raises concerns his view of the monist metaphysics of God/Nature. In a brief overview this argument serves to state that there is only one substance with infinite attributes and finite modes and that is God/Nature. Spinoza's substance monism argument takes place in his "Ethics I" writings. In this argument Spinoza sees God and Nature as one and uses no previous arguments in favor of the existence of God/Nature. This raises several questions that will be addressed later in this article. According to Spinoza, everything in the universe exists as substance or modality. Spinoza therefore defines both manner and substance with a very interesting method. For Spinoza, a substance is that which is independent and does not need anything else to be conceived or exist. He then explains that a modality is something that needs a substance to exist. This means that without substance there cannot be a way. This then leads Spinoza to explain that there is only one substance in the universe and describes it as God/nature. Another important definition to define is what Spinoza defines as God. God in Spinoza's mind is a substance that has infinite attributes, or an infinite being. This substance must have the qualities of being absolutely eternal and absolutely infinite. Spinoza does not advocate a God specific to any religion, but instead defines God and nature as the same thing. With all this, according to Spinoza, all animals, plants, humans, etc. they are not substances, as many other philosophers maintain, but are instead modes of this one substance (112). This idea was l...... of paper......te to each other. This is important because you should be able to explain the multiple essences and account for the possibility of a single attribute being repeatedly perceived the wrong way, thus creating multiple incorrect essences that actually refer to a single essence. Both of these elements would cast many doubts about the validity and clarity of Spinoza's argument. Ultimately, Spinoza's argument lacks the support and clarity necessary to truly make his argument concrete in his assertions. If the arguments clearly explained what an attribute is and its relation to other attributes and the essence of the substance, it would gain a lot of ground. The idea that a single substance can exist only because two substances cannot share attributes also lacks logic and leaves much to explain. Overall it's an interesting but flawed argument.