This is a bit cynical, but while reading Spinoza I was really struck by the prevalence of the following implicit line of philosophical argument, not just in Spinoza:
- My theory cannot handle Xs.
- So, there are no Xs.
It seemed obvious to me that the thing for Spinoza to do was not to conclude that there is no contingency, but to conclude that his theory was inadequate to handle contingency.
I use this form of argument myself. Perhaps too much. It takes wisdom to know when the thing to say is that the theory is inadequate to handle Xs and when to conclude that there are no Xs.