Philosophy of Spinoza From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Portrait of Benedictus de Spinoza Spinoza lived from 1632 to 1677. This article is about the philosophy of Spinoza. For Spinozas biography, see Baruch Spinoza. For the following that developed around Spinozas ideas, see Spinozism. Spinozas philosophy encompasses nearly every area of philosophical discourse, including metaphysics, epistemology, political philosophy, ethics, philosophy of mind and philosophy of science. It earned Spinoza an enduring reputation as one of the most important and original thinkers of the seventeenth century. Samuel Shirley, who translated Spinozas complete works into English, summed up the significance of Spinozas philosophy as follows: To my mind, although Spinoza lived and thought long before Darwin, Freud, Einstein, and the startling implications of quantum theory, he had a vision of truth beyond what is normally granted to human beings.[1] Spinozas philosophy is largely contained in two books: the Theologico-Political Treatise, and the Ethics. The former was published during his lifetime, but the latter, which contains the entirety of his philosophical system in its most rigorous form, was not published until after his death in 1677. The rest of the writings we have from Spinoza are either earlier, or incomplete, works expressing thoughts that were crystallized in the two aforementioned books (e.g., the Short Treatise and the Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect), or else they are not directly concerned with Spinozas own philosophy (e.g., The Principles of Cartesian Philosophy and The Hebrew Grammar). He also left behind many letters that help to illuminate his ideas and provide some insight into what may have been motivating his views.[1][2] Contents [hide] 1 Philosophy of religion 1.1 Ontological argument 2 Political philosophy 3 Philosophy of mind/psychology 3.1 The human mind 3.2 The emotions 3.3 Human freedom 4 Metaphysics 4.1 Substance 4.2 Attributes 4.2.1 Thought 4.2.2 Extension 4.3 Modes 4.4 Substance monism 4.5 Causality and modality 4.5.1 The principle of sufficient reason (PSR) 4.6 Parallelism 5 Epistemology 5.1 Truth and falsity 5.1.1 Adequate and inadequate ideas 5.2 Three kinds of knowledge 5.2.1 The first kind of knowledge 5.2.2 The second kind of knowledge 5.2.3 The third kind of knowledge 6 Ethics 6.1 Good and Evil 6.2 Blessedness 7 See also 8 Further reading 9 Notes 10 References Philosophy of religion[edit] Spinozas philosophy of religion is largely contained in the Theologico-Political Treatise. In that work he argues for the view that we should interpret scripture solely on its own terms by carefully studying it, not with any concepts or doctrines that cannot themselves be derived from the text. If we do this, he thought, it would turn out that many things we believe or are told by religious authorities about God and the universe could be shown to be false (e.g., miracles).[1] Spinozas view is exemplified in the following sentence from the Preface to the Theological Political Treatise: [It] is further evident from the fact that most of them assume as a basic principle for the understanding of Scripture and for extracting its true meaning that it is throughout truthful and divine--a conclusion which ought to be the end result of study and strict examination; and they lay down at the outset as a principle of interpretation that which would be far more properly derived from Scripture itself, which stands in no need of human fabrications.[1] Ontological argument[edit] Spinoza has a version of the ontological argument that takes place in the first eleven propositions of his Ethics, by which he purports to establish the necessary existence of an absolutely infinite substance. This version of the argument differs somewhat from that of Anselm. The most significant difference is that it is not a straightforward move from conceivability of the being that which no greater can be conceived to the existence of the Christian God, but rather, it is a deductive argument from the definition of God as an absolutely infinite substance to the fact that such a substance must necessarily exist.[3] Political philosophy[edit] Tractatus Theologico-Politicus was published anonymously. Spinozas political philosophy is deeply influenced by both the turbulent time period in which he lived, and by the fact that he happened to live in a comparatively liberal place in Europe, which allowed him freedoms he wished to preserve and defend, as he says in the Preface to the Theological Political Treatise: Now since we have the rare good fortune to live in a commonwealth where freedom of judgment is fully granted to the individual citizen and he may worship God as he pleases, and where nothing is esteemed dearer and more precious than freedom, I think I am undertaking no ungrateful or unprofitable task in demonstrating that not only can this freedom be granted without endangering piety and the peace of the commonwealth, but also the peace of the commonwealth and piety depend on this freedom.[1] For further reference, see Spinozas Political Philosophy.[4] Philosophy of mind/psychology[edit] The human mind[edit] Spinoza argues for a distinct conception of the human mind in Part Two of The Ethics. He says the following: The first thing that constitutes the actual being of a human Mind is nothing but the idea of a singular thing which actually exists.(E2P11[note 1])[3] He then argues that it follows that the human Mind is a part of the infinite intellect of God.(E2P11c)[3] Further, Spinoza says: Whatever happens in the object of the idea constituting the human Mind must be perceived by the human Mind(E2P12)[3] From this we get a clear rejection of Descartes mind/body dualism: The object of the idea constituting the human Mind is the Body, or a certain mode of Extension which actually exists, and nothing else.(E2P13)[3] The emotions[edit] One thing which seems, on the surface, to distinguish Spinozas view of the emotions from both Descartes and Humes pictures of them is that he takes the emotions to be cognitive in some important respect. Jonathan Bennett claims that Spinoza mainly saw emotions as caused by cognitions. [Though] he did not say this clearly enough and sometimes lost sight of it entirely.[5] Spinoza provides several demonstrations which purport to show truths about how human emotions work. The picture presented is, according to Bennett, unflattering, coloured as it is by universal egoism[6] Spinozas treatment of the emotions in Part Three of The Ethics, On the Origin and Nature of the Affects, utilizes a broad set of terminology, clearly intended to cover the whole of human experience. He tells us in the Preface: The Affects, therefore, of hate, anger, envy, etc., considered in themselves, follow from the same necessity and force of nature as any other singular things. And therefore they acknowledge certain causes, through which they are understood, and have certain properties, as worthy of our knowledge as the properties of any other thing, by the mere contemplation of which we are pleased.[3] Human freedom[edit] Whether there is any meaningful kind of freedom which humans may genuinely have is, in Spinozas picture, at least contentious. He certainly claims that there is a kind of freedom, namely, that which is arrived at through adequate knowledge of God, or, what is the same: the universe. But in the last two propositions of Part Two of The Ethics, P48 and P49, he explicitly rejects the traditional notion of free will. In E2P48, he claims: In the Mind there is no absolute, or free, will, but the Mind is determined to will this or that by a cause which is also determined by another, and this again by another, and so to infinity.[3] So from this we get a strong sense of Spinozas Naturalism, that is, that the natural and human orders are contiguous. With that being the case, human freedom of a kind which would extricate us from the order of physical causes is impossible. However, Spinoza argues, we still ought to strive to understand the world around us, and in doing so, gain a greater degree of power, which will allow us to be more active than passive, and there is a sense in which this is a kind of freedom.[3] For more, see: Stanford.edu Metaphysics[edit] Main article: Ethics (book) Spinozas metaphysics consists of one thing, substance, and its modifications (modes). Early in The Ethics Spinoza argues that there is only one substance, which is absolutely infinite, self-caused, and eternal. He calls this substance God, or Nature. In fact, he takes these two terms to be synonymous (in the Latin the phrase he uses is Deus sive Natura). For Spinoza the whole of the natural universe is made of one substance, God, or, whats the same, Nature, and its modifications (modes). It cannot be overemphasized how the rest of Spinozas philosophy—his philosophy of mind, his epistemology, his psychology, his moral philosophy, his political philosophy, and his philosophy of religion—flows more or less directly from the metaphysical underpinnings in Part I of the Ethics.[7] Substance[edit] Spinoza defines substance as follows: By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself, i.e., that whose concept does not require the concept of another thing, from which it must be formed.(E1D3)[3] This means, essentially, that substance is just whatever can be thought of without relating it to any other idea or thing. For example, if one thinks of a particular object, one thinks of it as a kind of thing, e.g., x is a cat. Substance, on the other hand, is to be conceived of by itself, without understanding it as a particular kind of thing (because it isnt a particular thing at all)... Attributes[edit] Spinoza defines attribute as follows: By attribute I understand what the intellect perceives of a substance, as constituting its essence.(E1D4)[3] From this it can be seen that attributes are related to substance in some way. It is not clear, however, even from Spinozas direct definition, whether, a) attributes are really the way(s) substance is, or b) attributes are simply ways to understand substance, but not necessarily the ways it really is. Spinoza thinks that there are an infinite number of attributes, but there are two attributes for which Spinoza thinks we can have knowledge. Namely, thought and extension.[8] Thought[edit] The attribute of thought is how substance can be understood to give rise to thoughts, or thinking things. When we understand a particular thing in the universe through the attribute of thought, we are understanding the mode as an idea of something (either another idea, or an object). Extension[edit] The attribute of extension is how substance can be understood to be physically extended in space. Particular things which have breadth and depth (that is, occupy space) are what is meant by extended. It follows from this that if substance and God are identical, on Spinozas view, and contrary to the traditional conception, God has extension as one of his attributes. Modes[edit] Modes are particular modifications of substance, i.e., particular things in the world. Spinoza gives the following definition: By mode I understand the affections of a substance, or that which is in another through which it is also conceived.(E1D5)[3] Substance monism[edit] The argument for there only being one substance in the universe occurs in the first fourteen propositions of The Ethics. The following proposition expresses Spinozas commitment to substance monism: Except God, no substance can be or be conceived.(E1P14)[3] Spinoza takes this proposition to follow directly from everything he says prior to it. Spinozas monism is contrasted with Descartes dualism and Leibnizs pluralism. It allows Spinoza to avoid the problem of interaction between mind and body, which troubled Descartes in his Meditations on First Philosophy. Causality and modality[edit] The issue of causality and modality (possibility and necessity) in Spinozas philosophy is contentious.[9] Spinozas philosophy is, in one sense, thoroughly deterministic (or necessitarian). This can be seen directly from Axiom 3 of The Ethics: From a given determinate cause the effect follows necessarily; and conversely, if there is no determinate cause, it is impossible for an effect to follow.(E1A3)[3] Yet Spinoza seems to make room for a kind of freedom, especially in the fifth and final section of The Ethics, On the Power of the Intellect, or on Human Freedom: I pass, finally, to the remaining Part of the Ethics, which concerns the means or way, leading to Freedom. Here, then, I shall treat of the power of reason, showing what it can do against the affects, and what Freedom of Mind, or blessedness, is.(E5, Preface)[3] So Spinoza certainly has a use for the word freedom, but he equates Freedom of Mind with blessedness, a notion which is not traditionally associated with freedom of the will at all. The principle of sufficient reason (PSR)[edit] Though the PSR is most commonly associated with Gottfried Leibniz, it is arguably found in its strongest form in Spinozas philosophy.[10] Within the context of Spinozas philosophical system, the PSR can be understood to unify causation and explanation.[11] What this means is that for Spinoza, questions regarding the reason why a given phenomenon is the way it is (or exists) are always answerable, and are always answerable in terms of the relevant cause(s). This constitutes a rejection of teleological, or final causation, except possibly in a more restricted sense for human beings.[3][11] Given this, Spinozas views regarding causality and modality begin to make much more sense. Parallelism[edit] Spinozas philosophy contains as a key proposition the notion that mental and physical (thought and extension) phenomena occur in parallel, but without causal interaction between them. He expresses this proposition as follows: The order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things.(E2P7)[3] His proof of this proposition is that: The knowledge of an effect depends on, and involves, the knowledge of its cause.(E1A4)[3] The reason Spinoza thinks the parallelism follows from this axiom is that since the idea we have of each thing requires knowledge of its cause, this cause must be understood under the same attribute. Further, there is only one substance, so whenever we understand some chain of ideas of things, we understand that the way the ideas are causally related must be the same as the way the things themselves are related, since the ideas and the things are the same modes understood under different attributes. Epistemology[edit] Spinozas epistemology is deeply rationalist. That is, unlike the empiricists who rejected knowledge of things as they are in themselves (in favour of knowledge merely of what appears to the senses), to think we can have a priori knowledge, knowledge of a world external from our sense perceptions, and further, that this is tantamount to knowledge of God.[3] The majority of Spinozas epistemological claims come in Part Two of The Ethics. Truth and falsity[edit] Spinozas notions of truth and falsity have to do with the relation between ideas and their objects. He thinks that: Every idea that in us is absolute, or adequate and perfect, is true. (E2P34)[3] Falsity consists in the privation of knowledge which inadequate, or mutilated and confused, ideas involve.(E2P35)[3] Adequate and inadequate ideas[edit] From this it is clear that the notions of adequate and inadequate ideas are important for understanding how Spinozas view works. This may be explained in the following way. Spinoza argues that All ideas, insofar as they are related to God, are true.(E2P32)[3] Since by God, he means the one substance which exists necessarily and absolutely infinitely, it follows that an idea (a particular mode under the attribute of thought) as it is without reference to knowledge a particular person has, is necessarily true, since it just is a particular instance of Gods essence. That is, true ideas are true because they agree entirely with their objects(E2P32)[3] These ideas are, then, perfectly adequate. On the other hand, Spinoza argues: All ideas are in God; and, insofar as they are related to God, are true, and adequate. And so there are no inadequate or confused ideas except insofar as they are related to the singular Mind of someone.(E2P36d)[3] So inadequate ideas, or falsehoods, are a feature of finite beings. That is, even though ideas considered objectively as elements of the universe are always adequate (meaning their relation to their object is total), when a particular individual has an idea of something, such an idea is necessarily incomplete, and therefore, inadequate. This is the source of falsehood. Three kinds of knowledge[edit] Spinoza discusses the three kinds of knowledge in E2P40s2.[note 2] The first kind of knowledge[edit] Spinoza thinks there are two ways we can have the first kind of knowledge: 1.From random experience: from singular things which have been represented to us through the senses in a way that is mutilated, confused, and without order for the intellect; for that reasons I have been accustomed to call such perceptions knowledge from random experience.[3] 2.From imagination: from signs, e.g., from the fact that, having heard or read certain words, we recollect things, and form certain ideas of them, which are like them, and through which we imagine the things.[3] He calls these two ways knowledge of the first kind, opinion or imagination.[3] The second kind of knowledge[edit] Spinoza argues that the second kind of knowledge arises: from the fact that we have common notions and adequate ideas of the properties of things.[3] He goes on to explain what this means in the propositions which immediately follow. The third kind of knowledge[edit] This can be referred to as Intuition, but it means something rather technical for Spinoza. The third kind of knowledge is a particularly important part of Spinozas philosophy because it is what he thinks allows us to have adequate knowledge, and therefore know things absolutely truly. As he says: there is (as I shall show in what follows) another, third kind, which we shall call intuitive knowledge. And this kind of knowing proceeds from an adequate idea of certain attributes of God to the adequate knowledge of the essence of things.[3] Ethics[edit] The opening page of Spinozas magnum opus, Ethics Spinozas ethical views are deeply tied to his metaphysical system. This is evident from the following claim: As far as good and evil are concerned, they also indicate nothing positive in things, considered in themselves, nor are they anything other than modes of thinking, or notions we form because we compare things to one another.(E4, Preface)[3] It is also apparent from this that he is a kind of subjectivist about moral values. That is, he does not take good and evil to be real properties/facts in the objects we attribute them to, but rather, they are simply thoughts we have about the comparative value of one thing to another for a particular person. Good and Evil[edit] Spinoza gives the following definitions of Good, and Evil: By good I shall understand what we certainly know to be useful to us.(E4D1)[3] By evil, however, I shall understand what we certainly know prevents us from being masters of some good.(E4D2)[3] From this it is clear that Spinozas view of moral value is in some sense instrumental. That is, the goodness or badness of a particular object or action is measured not by some intrinsic property, but by whether we certainly know it to be useful to us or not. The emphasis on certain knowledge is important, given Spinozas view of what epistemic certainty amounts to, i.e., adequate knowledge of God (a notion which is briefly elaborated on in this article). Blessedness[edit] Spinozas notion of blessedness figures centrally in his ethical philosophy. Blessedness (or salvation or freedom), Spinoza thinks, consists...in a constant and eternal love of God, or in Gods love for men.(E5P36s)[3] And this means, as Jonathan Bennett explains, that Spinoza wants blessedness to stand for the most elevated and desirable state one could possibly be in.[12] Here, understanding what is meant by most elevated and desirable state requires understanding Spinozas notion of conatus (read: striving, but not necessarily with any teleological baggage) and that perfection refers not to (moral) value, but to completeness. Given that individuals are identified as mere modifications of the infinite Substance, it follows that no individual can ever be fully complete, i.e., perfect, or blessed. Absolute perfection, is, as noted above, reserved solely for Substance. Nevertheless, mere modes can attain a lesser form of blessedness, namely, that of pure understanding of oneself as one really is, i.e., as a definite modification of Substance in a certain set of relationships with everything else in the universe. That this is what Spinoza has in mind can be seen at the end of the Ethics, in E5P24 and E5P25, wherein Spinoza makes two final key moves, unifying the metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical propositions he has developed over the course of the work. In E5P24, he links the understanding of particular things to the understanding of God, or Substance; in E5P25, the conatus of the mind is linked to the third kind of knowledge (Intuition). From here, it is a short step to the connection of Blessedness with the amor dei intellectualis (intellectual love of God
Posted on: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 10:40:03 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015