The picture of a universe of infinitely many wholly unrelated substances is at least as hard to understand as the monism of Spinoza, and far less easy to reconcile with appearances.
This quote invites us to contemplate two contrasting metaphysical views: one of a universe composed of countless distinct, unrelated substances, and the other of Spinoza's monism, which posits a single, unified substance underlying all reality. The notion of a universe filled with infinitely many separate substances is conceptually challenging because it demands an acceptance of profound multiplicity and independence among entities. Understanding how these numerous substances coexist, interact, or even relate without infringing on each other's separateness stretches our cognitive and philosophical capabilities. It also clashes with our everyday experience, which tends to interpret phenomena as interconnected parts of a single reality. On the other hand, Spinoza’s monism offers a more cohesive framework, positing that everything is a manifestation of one substance—God or Nature. While appealing in its unity, monism also raises difficult questions about the nature of individuality and diversity within this singular substance. Scruton emphasizes that the pluralistic view is not only harder to comprehend, but also less compatible with our intuitive perception of a coherent, interconnected world. Ultimately, the challenge lies in balancing metaphysical plausibility with experiential coherence. Reconciling seemingly disparate substances with appearances requires us to question our assumptions about the nature of substances and the universe itself, prompting ongoing philosophical debate about the fundamental constituents of reality.
