SPINOZA
RATIONALISM (MONISTIC)
Baruch (later
Benedictus) Spinoza was born in Amsterdam of Portuguese-Jewish descent (his
father was a merchant) and educated at the Jewish school there. Suspected of heretical views he was expelled
from the Jewish community in 1656. From
then on he earned his living by teaching and grinding lenses, while deepening
his study of the classics and philosophy with the help of a former Jesuit. He moved to Rijnsburg near Leiden in 1660 and
later to The Hague in 1670 when he published anonymously his Theological-Political
Treatise, which, however, brought him into conflict with the Calvinists and
the civil authorities because of his defence of freedom of conscience. As a result he did not publish his
Ethics. He refused the offer of a chair
at Heidelberg University so as to preserve his leisure for research, but was in
regular correspondence with many of the principal philosophers and scientists
of his day. He was a man of wide
intellectual interests. He died from
pulmonary consumption, probably caused by glass dust.
METHODOLOGY
[1] Spinoza presented his philosophy in the
manner of a geometrical proof (more
geometrico), consisting of logical deductions of
conclusions from definitions and self-evident axioms appertaining to the whole
universe. He regarded these definitions as expressing clear
and distinct ideas and therefore certainly true. And truth for Spinoza is simultaneously and inseparably
logical (conclusions being derived necessarily from supposedly true
definitions) and metaphysical. He was critical of empiricism and nominalism [a]. The derivation of conclusions from premisses is to be understood as
exhibiting how an effect follows from a cause. He therefore
assimilated the causal relation to logical implication and rejected final
causes, arguing that an understanding of efficient causes is all that is
required for an explanation of events [b].
METAPHYSICS / PSYCHOLOGY
[2] [gen.
2] Spinoza's metaphysics parallels his logic;
and his system can be thought of as an attempt to provide an explanation and
knowledge of all reality through pure reason. (He sees no
incompatibility between philosophical reason and the ordinary person's belief,
which may make use of allegory [a], as they have
different purposes: but the intellect
takes precedence.) The starting point is the idea of infinite substance, which he
identifies with "God or
Nature" (Deus sive Natura) [b]. Now substance is "cause of
itself' [Ethics I, def. 1],
that is, it is not caused or therefore explained by reference to any cause
external to itself; it is "in itself and conceived through itself" [I, def.
3]. And since knowledge of an effect
involves knowledge of its cause substance knows itself through itself
alone. There can be only one substance and this must
be necessarily infinite [I, 8]. This is because if it were finite it would be limited by another
substance; and that second substance would have to have different attributes (these being what the
intellect perceives as constituting a substance's essence or nature [I, def.
4]), otherwise the two substances would be indistinguishable [I, 4 and 5]. The infinite substance,
God, must possess infinite attributes (by which Spinoza seems to mean it has
an unlimited number of them), because it has infinite reality or being. Furthermore it must necessarily exist [I, 11]. This is because existence belongs to the
nature of substance [I, 7]. We
can see this in the clear and distinct idea we have of substance and must
include in its definition. Moreover, as
there is only one substance, which is infinite, it would be imperfect if it did
not exist. In it existence
and essence are identical [I, 20]. Spinoza thus subscribes to a version of the ontological argument [c]. The infinite substance, God or
Nature, considered as active, while cause-of-itself is also cause of what
Spinoza calls modes. A mode he defines [I, def. 5], as 'modifications'
(affectiones) of a substance [d], or that which is in something else
through which it may be conceived; it is not self-dependent, ). As cause, the one substance is natura
naturans: the modes as 'caused' constitute natura naturata [I, 29]. He
distinguishes between infinite and eternal modes and finite modes. Infinite modes, which follow from the
"necessity of divine nature", are divided into immediate and mediate modes [I,
21-23]. Thus we have an immediate mode of God under the
attribute of extension. This is
the total amount of 'energy' (or motion and rest) possessed by the infinite
substance [II, 13]. The immediate mode under the
attribute of thought is God's absolute understanding [II, 1 and 3] [e]. As for the mediate modes, these constitute
the totality which makes up Nature, that is, the total system of bodies (under the attribute
of extension Spinoza calls it "the face or aspect of the Universe as a
whole") and the total system of minds (under the attribute of thought though
he does not explicitly say this). Nature/ God does of course have infinite attributes: but Spinoza implies
that thought and extension are the only ones through which human beings can
apprehend the one substance [see II, 7]. Moreover, finite
categories such as personality cannot be applied to God the infinite substance [f].
What then of individual beings? These are the finite modes as modifications or expressions of Nature
under the attributes of thought and extension; and as such must be
regarded as caused immediately by God,
the "indwelling and not the transient cause of all things" [I, 18]. It follows that just as Nature as a whole can
be conceived by us under the two attributes of thought and extension so
individual things are to be considered under the same attributes. Thus far only can we think of humans as consisting of mind and
body [see especially II, 13 and 14]. In reality they are two aspects of the one entity the
'mind' being but the 'idea' of the body (which is its 'ideatum'). "The order and connection of ideas is
the same as the order and connection of things" [II, 7]. Moreover, to each part of
the body there corresponds a particular idea. In this way Spinoza claims to have avoided
the Cartesian problem of interaction [g].
[3] As we have seen, mind and body are for
Spinoza the same thing but conceived under the two attributes of thought and
extension respectively. But whereas in
sense-experience the body may be supposed to be 'passive', he says that every
individual thing also possesses an active capacity. He calls this 'endeavour' (conatus): the
power a thing has "to persist in its being" by virtue of its essence [III, 6 and 7] [a]. By this he means the
tendency or drive all things possess which secures their
self-preservation. Referred to both body
and mind this endeavour is called 'appetite'. Man's consciousness of this tendency is 'desire' (cupiditas). Spinoza also makes use of the concept of conatus to explain the emotions.
[III, 11ff.]. He first supposes that
according as to whether our power of action over our body increases or decreases
(depending on external circumstances) so our awareness of this increases or
decreases the mind's activity, that is, in terms of the degree of logical
connection of its ideas. Consciousness of achieving "greater perfection" is called pleasure; while
awareness of a move to lower perfection is pain. These two terms are used in a wide sense and
include many kinds of
emotions; and Spinoza derives in
turn others such as love and hate, and accounts for them in terms of association [b]. Thus, for example, we are said to love
external things which we have come to associate with pleasure. He makes a
further distinction between active and passive emotions. To the extent that they are affected by
emotions they are passive and inadequate ideas. However, if the mind at the same time understands its body's
modifications it is active its ideas adequate. As soon as we form a clear and distinct idea
of a passion it ceases to be one [V, III]. To the extent that a man fails to scontrol his emotions he is said to be
in servitude.
In so far as individual beings are finite modes of the one infinite
Substance, it would seem that all that occurs (natura naturata) must follow necessarily from the
"necessity of divine nature" [I, 29, note] though individuals are
contingent in that they are dependent on other things and not self-caused. God, however, as natura naturans and
the infinite totality, remains free to the extent that 'It' [c] determines Its own actions. By this Spinoza means that all that God/ Nature does follows
ineluctably from Its own nature: It has
no 'choice' [c] but to create in
the way It has done, and It is not caused to act by anything outside Itself (by
definition there could be no other substances). We cannot therefore attribute final causality to God or Nature. As for our seemingly purposive actions, our
feeling or awareness of motivation, and our belief that we are free all this
is illusory, resulting from ignorance of the causal connections between
ourselves and other parts of natura
naturata, which determine our behaviour and ideas. We are free only in the sense of and to the extent that we can acquire
clear and distinct understanding of our body's modifications [d]. As a corollary Spinoza
places great emphasis on the value of knowledge.
It follows from Spinoza's premisses that
the human mind cannot exist independently of body; and he thus rejects personal immortality [e]. Nevertheless, he also regards the mind as
being already eternal in so far as it is a part of the eternal One Substance,
and it therefore in some sense transcends the body's duration. He says that we feel and know that this is
the case; and as we approach the intuitive level of knowledge it would seem
that this awareness become clearer.
KNOWLEDGE
[4] True ideas correspond
necessarily to their ideata [a]. Spinoza calls this correspondence an 'extrinsic' mark of truth. However, many ideas are 'inadequate' and thus
lack an 'intrinsic' mark of truth. His
account of adequacy in terms of self-evidence [II, def. 4; 43] and error is
central to his theory of knowledge [II, 19; 24-28]. In his Ethics [II, 40, note 2] he distinguishes three levels or degrees of
knowledge (he lists four in the Treatise). The
first is the level of imagination. He
here refers to ideas grounded in sense-experience, that is, the modifications
produced in our bodies as a result of the influence of external bodies
(perception), and to memory images as ideas of such changes continuing when
external bodies are no longer present. Spinoza says such
knowledge is 'confused' and 'inadequate' in the sense that the ideas do
not give us full knowledge of the causes of our impressions and their
relationships to Nature in general. Falsity is thus a kind of privation of knowledge [II, 35]. Thus, while it is indisputable that we have
an impression of the sun as being close to us and of a certain size, it is false to say that it
really is that small and only 200 feet away [35, note]. In addition to impressions of particulars,
Spinoza includes in this level composite images general ideas built out of
sense-experience, for example, man dog, being, thing which vary from person
to person [II, 40, note 1]. Knowledge at this first level, although
'inadequate' is "useful in life". The second level is that of reason and involves knowledge which is
'adequate', that is, it consists of ideas which are necessarily
true. Such ideas are clear and distinct; their truth is
self-evident [II, 39]. (Truth is its own criterion, he says
[43].) Spinoza is thinking here not only
of 'common notions', such as extension
and motion, but also of any fundamental and self-evident proposition. They would seem also to include the idea the
mind has of itself as idea without
reference to the body [II, 23], that is, self-consciousness an idea of an idea. These general concepts and propositions
provide the foundation for mathematics, the sciences, and indeed his own
deductive system of philosophy. When we
grasp the causal relationships of particular things (as perceived at the first
level of imagination) to the system of God/ Nature as a whole (logically deduced
at the second level), we ascend to the third level that of intuition. We then achieve adequate knowledge of the
essence of things, that is, we see their causal dependence on the One Substance their
place in the scheme of things, as it were though complete knowledge lies beyond human capacity. (This is because, according to Spinoza all determination is negation [b] (omnis
determination est negatio [in a letter to J. Jellis, 1674]: in determining
something we limit it; clearly the One Substance is unlimited). Knowledge of the second and third kinds is necessarily true [41][c]. It follows that for Spinoza error is to be regarded as a
privation of the understanding rather than to be attributed to any fallibility
of will [d].
ETHICS
ETHICAL HEDONISM
[5] Spinoza's ethics follows from the assumptions and conclusions of his
general metaphysics. There are no imperfections in
Nature; what we regard as 'evil' is a reflection of our limited point of view [a]. He defines
good and bad in terms of pleasure and pain respectively [III, 39, note] [b]. We call something good because we desire it. His ethical ideal is thus is to eliminate
pain and seek pleasure, that is, perfection. This involves essentially release
from the servitude of passive emotions and conversion of them into active
emotions: the elimination of confused
ideas and the acquisition of adequate ones. His ethics is therefore fundamentally intellectualistic. The virtuous man is he who,
acting under the guidance of reason, seeks self-preservation,
though in Spinoza's system this is not inconsistent with a recognition of
others as seeking the same end. He calls this "the intellectual
love of God", "pleasure
accompanied by the idea of God as eternal cause". [See V, 15ff; especially 33-36.] This love of God he sees as "our salvation,
blessedness or liberty". It is also the
same thing as the love of God for men. Spinoza's ethical ideal seems therefore
to be the acquisition of
virtue through wisdom, as a result of the attainment by reason of a complete
knowledge of Nature sub specie aeternatis (under the aspect of eternity) [c]. The individual will then be able
thereby to achieve a state
of imperturbability [d] in the face of all
that life brings to his existence .
POLITICAL
PHILOSOPHY
SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
[6] [See Theologico-Political
Treatise.] Spinoza's political
philosophy is grounded in the
concept of natural law or right [a], which he understands in terms of our
conditioning by Nature to behave in particular ways. We are what we are whether we are led by
desires or by our reason. Spinoza believes the former are dominant but that it
should be our aim to bring them under reason's control. Thus to act in accordance with the laws of
one's own nature is to act in conformity with the natural law. While he argues that the achievement of the end of self-preservation
justifies the means and defines natural justice for the individual [b], he recognises that if one's power and
natural rights are to be secured agreement with others in an organized society
will be required. He therefore says that a social compact is needed through which the natural right of
individuals is handed over to a sovereign power to whose laws they agree to
submit. The sovereign legislates for
right and wrong but with a view to ensuring individuals' freedom to hold
different opinions [c]. The concepts of 'just' and 'right' thus come
to be redefined as 'extrinsic notion' in the context of society's norms, as
laid down by the sovereign. However, the
sovereign clearly cannot command that people should not love what they
desire. And Spinoza allows that the sovereign may be overthrown
if he fails to govern fairly or rationally [d]. The purpose of civil society being to ensure
"peace and security of life", Spinoza sees democracy as the form of commonwealth or society most in accord with Nature and
reason, and "most consonant with individual liberty", in which all men are equals as they were in
the state of nature [e].
CRITICAL SUMMARY
An original thinker in his
own right, Spinoza can, however, also be seen as attempting to improve on and
complete the Cartesian programme by undertaking a more extensive and
thoroughgoing treatment of the concepts of substance, adequacy and knowledge,
clarity and distinctness, and not least the problem of interaction. Moreover, his uninhibited presentation of his
own philosophical system as a quasi-mathematical or logically ordered structure
consisting of axioms, definitions, inferences, and conclusions exhibits his total commitment
both to a rigorous rationalism and to the "geometrical method". At the same time this is the Achilles' heel
of his philosophy. A false assumption or
an invalid argument could well undermine the whole system. And there are certainly a number of major
difficulties with it.
(1) There are problems with his proofs of the 'One Substance' God or Nature (a
concept which led to accusations by some orthodox critics that he was an
atheist, while he was seen by others, for example, the Romantic poet Novalis,
as being 'God-intoxicated'). He either appeals to the principle of sufficient reason [a], which is
questionable when applied to the totality of things, or assumes existence to be
a perfection (although he uses the arguably more acceptable concept of
necessary existence). His concept of
substance also has what some philosophers would see as the undesirable
consequence that individual things are reduced to but modes of the One.
(2) On the other hand his
assumptions do offer a possible solution to Cartesian dualism. Mind and body for Spinoza are no longer seen
as 'essences' or types of substance but have instead become attributes of the
One Substance. The question of an
interaction therefore no longer arises; the attributes operate in parallel, as
it were: mental 'ideas' correspond to
material 'ideata'. It can be argued that we still have a
residual dualism in that we have two kinds of attributes. But as against this Spinoza argues that what
occurs in either realm can be accounted for ultimately by the One. This, however, gives rise to further
difficulties concerning freedom.
(3) Freedom and determinism. Spinoza is committed to assimilating causality to logical
implication. Does this not entail
determinism? How is this consistent
with his ethics? He argues that we are
free in relation to the degree that we have clear and distinct, or adequate
knowledge of God. This is attained in so
far as we move away from emotion or passion which confuses our
understanding. We are totally free as
soon as we become aware of the necessity of all things; and this is achieved in
the intellectual love of God. Whether
this is a sustainable position is questionable.
(4) Similarly one might question Spinoza's view that while personal
immortality has to be ruled out in his system, a rational element might remain
timelessly in the mind of God after the body has disintegrated.
(5) As for Spinoza's political philosophy, he allows for the possibility
that human desires may be transformed and overcome, and also that the social
contract may be broken. He thus
suggests a more 'open' and less authoritarian society than Hobbes.
CONNECTIONS
Spinoza