Truth, Correspondence, Holist

Descartes' thesis that Will and Understanding are distinct is based on a traditional Correspondence concept of Truth.  For, the divergence of the two is exemplified for him by False Belief, in which Affirmation, a product of Will, does not correspond to its object, and, hence, is lacking Understanding.  In contrast, Spinoza's thesis that Will and Understanding are coextensive is based on a different concept of Truth, which can be called Holist.  According to that concept, a False Belief is, more precisely, one that is only partly True, but, in itself, is a product of an affirmation that combines both Will and Understanding.  For example, according to Descartes, a dream is False because it does not correspond to fact.  But, according to Spinoza, it is True as a datum, but False only insofar as it is a partly True representation of fact, potential complemented by another True datum, e. g. that one earlier fell asleep. The Holist concept is thus applicable to Berkeleyan Phenomenalism, which denies correspondence to any fact, and, so, serves Spinoza as the basis of a criticism of Empiricism. So, his Holist concept of Truth is another example of Spinoza's divergence from both main schools of Modern Philosophy.