Any Spinoza Scholars?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I want to start a discussion about Spinoza. I had recently started reading Ethics and i found myself very excited over his writings. I was excited because the philosophy seems pretty coherent and in good agreement with modern understanding of the world. I am confused because sometimes i dont follow his arguments very well. In fact sometimes i agree more with his conclusions than his arguments.

His philosophy in part I seems to imply everything must exist. It is sort of close to modern cosmology.

His philosophy if the mind i cant tell. Sometimes he seems very dualist but then he also seems very insistent on the embodied mind. Im pretty sure he thinks the mind and body are the same thing but he does also divide the world in two, thought and extension.

I know something of physics, cosmology, and neuroscience but almost nothing about psychology. I think his philosophy fits very well with what i know of physics, cosmology and modern theory of the mind. Im not sure if his theory of ethics, and human motivation, desire and endeavor is in line with modern understanding.

Do you think Spinoza’s arguments are logical, coherent, sound?

How does Spinoza’s arguments agree or disagree with scientific understanding?

2

I like Spinoza for his idea that one should tolerate other people’s religion, that there is more than one way to believe in God. His idea of tolerance paved the way for secular, democratic societies.

3

there is no scientific understanding with baruch- all is god and god’s plan…

be one with god and grind lenses.

(then again, I am no spinoza scholar… he is a fun read though…)

-Imp

4
5

difficult? how so? all is god and you have no choice- that’s baruch…

(hammering out textual and definitional differences when comparing him -or anyone for that matter - with others is always a challenge)

granted, making heads-or-tales-of-heidegger is a bit of a struggle…

-Imp

6

I’m studying Spinoza right now for a class, thing is, with someone like Spinoza I’d imagine he’d be very hard to understand on your own because unless you know a bit about what substances, modes and attributes are it won’t make a bit of sense. If you’re having problems, read Descartes properly (i.e. NOT just the first couple of Meditations, look at his Principles of Philosophy in particular).

Yes, in the sense that the world couldn’t be anything other than it is, in the strongest possible sense. He holds a strong determinist position, along with the view that the laws governing cause and effect couldn’t have been any different.

Yes, they are the same thing, but its still a dualism. There is only 1 substance, God or Nature, but it has (at least) 2 attributes, Thought and Extension (whoever said Spinoza forgets about these 2 was wrong). Mind is a mode of Thought, body of Extension. Mind is just the idea of the human body, a position that makes no sense if you just say, but a little more when you read what he says in the 2nd Book. So mind is the body, but conceived under Thought, whereas we conceive the body under Extension. This is part of the reason why Spinoza thinks that the mental parallels the physical.

With regard to the modern science thing, you are exactly right. Of course, God as the only substance sounds odd. The thing really is what Spinoza means by this. If this interests you, get a hold of A Study of Spinoza’s Ethics by Jonathan Bennett. Basically, he interprets the doctrine that there is only 1 extended substance in terms of quantum physics. There’s certainly something to it, but he attributes a view of absolute space to Spinoza that clashes with Relativity.

Also,

This is exactly what Spinoza does not think. God has no plan, Spinoza completely rejects any notion of Teleology for God, or for the universe as a whole. Any talk of purposes results from attributing human characteristics to God, which Spinoza completely disagrees with. God isn’t free in any sense apart from not being externally compelled to act. Also, one of Spinoza’s key ideas is that everything, that is absolutely everything, has an explanation. True, we can’t know it all, but there is ultimately nothing mysterious about God’s plans.

7

knowable only to the faithful…

-Imp

8

To be honest, I find it hard to see what role faith, in the usual sense of the world, could play for Spinoza. Faith carries with it a lot of the stuff about religion that Spinoza explicitly rejects. I find myself really, really liking Spinoza. Yes, he has a God, and to say he is an atheist in any usual sense of the term is wrong, but his God isn’t anything like the God of religious philosophers, or most religion in general. To say our knowledge is limited isn’t to say we are like an inferior ‘version’ of God, God doesn’t have an intellect really, or a will.

I don’t understand what you mean by scientific purposes?

9

yes, I was having trouble with his definitions and proofs. I have not read Descartes. Actually i think i understood substance and attribute but i did not understand what he meant by mode. I think i got an idea of it with the examples you were giving. So is each physical body a different mode or are they all the same mode? Is mind the only mode of thought that we know? Does he use a term for what we call accidents? Things like color, shape texture? Are these modes? The tricky part is i don’t quite get how he lets an eternal thing change. What does he mean by modifications of substance? If substance is eternal it can’t change, so how can it be modified? This is my stumbling point.

Also i did not understand what was meant by passive or active nature in (IP29 note). Natura naturata and Natura naturans, I did not understand this; “that which is in itself and through itself conceived” and that which follows from necessity of nature". I think i can give an example for a passive nature that would be like material cause? A cut diamond by necessity of its nature sparkles. Is this right? Now what would be an example of “in itself and through itself conceived”?

At the end of IP15 he gives an example with water. I don’t understand this example and I feel its key.

I’m just going to have to read Descartes like you said, unless you feel like commenting on something there.

His idea of the mind does seem very subtle, i have to re-read that after i understand the definitions. It seems like it is not like separate from the body like in dualism, but is it contingent? I do not think so, i don’t think he says that one causes the other. Its neither separate nor causal but something else.

Thanks, that does sound really interesting i will have to look into it. I really like his idea that all possible things must exist because its very similar to the multiple worlds theory of QM. And i do like where he said there were infinite attributes of which we only know thought and extension. The infinite seems silly there, i mean we cant even imagine what another attribute will be and yet there are an infinity of them? But i think it makes sense. If you are going to say that everything exists by necessity why not a whole lot of things we cant even begin to conceive?

Imp, i do think you are way off on this conception of God, he was in no way dogmatic. Check this out, i really liked the clarity here (emphasis added by me):

Wow! I think thats the clearest and most devastating critique i have EVER read on the subject of religion.

10

Isn’t it?! You know I’d give my left arm to resurrect Spinoza, register him here, and lock him in the religion forum. If that didn’t shut those idiots up once and for all…I don’t think anything could.

11

it critiques more than religion…

-Imp

12

Yes, that passage really is excellent. I can see why Nietzsche saw a forerunner in Spinoza based on that passage alone. Certainly better than Hume’s somewhat restrained attacks on religion.

Another book I can thoroughly recommend is Spinoza’s Ethics by Steven Nadler, it doesn’t assume any background knowledge and is very well written. The Bennett book is maybe best read after you get a better understanding of it all because its not meant as an introduction. I can give you a bit of help, but really, just get a hold of the Nadler book. It should explain the background you need. Its hard because all of these terms have meanings in Scholastic philosophy that I certainly had no idea about beforehand.

Each material thing is a different mode (actually, bodies have parts, which are also modes). The modes of Thought, I think, are all ideas. Our mind is just 1 idea, the idea of our body (of course, each of us is a different idea). Modes are all accidents, in the sense that it is not in their nature to exist. Of course, there are no true accidents in Spinoza. Colours etc are all modes.

In general the sort of thing Spinoza thinks is as follows: substances exist independently of everything else. Modes are in substances, like the colour red is in my jacket (of course, a jacket isnt a substance for Spinoza, but its the same principle). Modes can’t exist without the substance. The point about change is a good one, and its a famous objection to Spinoza. But, the modes don’t constitute the substance. The modes of the 1 substance do change, but the substance doesn’t. A substance can exist in potentially infinite ways (my jacket can be many colours). A mode is a determinate way of being, but the substance itself, that which is determined, never changes. Thats how Spinoza answers that problem anyway.

[quote]
Also i did not understand what was meant by passive or active nature in (IP29 note). Natura naturata and Natura naturans, I did not understand this; “that which is in itself and through itself conceived” and that which follows from necessity of nature". I think i can give an example for a passive nature that would be like material cause? A cut diamond by necessity of its nature sparkles. Is this right? Now what would be an example of “in itself and through itself conceived”? [/quote

This is complicated. Simply put, Natura naturans is the substance, God or Nature. Natura naturata is the substance expressed in a determinate way, i.e. all of the modes, the particular things.

The water example is key, the Bennett book says this is a key passage for the interpretation he gives. The problem with the Ethics is that its very, very hard to figure out what Spinoza means. You do need to do a lot of secondary reading really, its how I’ve managed to make sense of it.

He is a dualist, because he has the 2 attributes. Mind and body are modes of 1 substance, but under different attributes. This is a dualism because we can only conceive of a mode through a particular attribute, so you can conceive of mind through Thought, body tnrough Extension, but not mind through Extension. You’re right, there is no causal relationship, but there is a complete parallelism between the 2. The reasons for this aren’t simple, but they’re in Bk2.

Lastly, by infinite attributes he clearly means ‘all’ i.e. God has all atrributes. He does seem to think there are more, but doesn’t say which. Also, the many worlds thing, I wouldn’t read too much into that. Everything that can exist, exists, but all within this world. For Spinoza there is no other possible world in any sense, so everything exists in this world. The QM thing is a different point. Basically, you know how fundamental particles aren’t really particles, rather just a conceptual creation to explain interactions at the quantum level? Bennett takes this as the view that there are no material substances i.e. ‘building blocks’ of the world. Rather, there is 1 material substance, 'space, which has no parts. So, a particular object, say a mountain, isn’t a substance, ‘space’ just appears mountain-like i.e. manifests the properties of a mountain in this region. Its better than this, but thats the basic idea.

13

Oh, if any actual Spinoza scholars happen across this thread, a question:

Prop 5 in Bk 1 says that there cannot be 2 substances of the same nature. Those familiar with this will know Spinoza’s demonstration is laughably brief. I’ve not found an interpretation in the literature that really works, I can piece together some kind of argument from other propositions but I am having trouble seeing what exactly Spinoza himself meant. Anything I’ve found, as I said doesn’t really work, and those that look best are way too complicated to be what he meant. Any ideas?

(This is for an essay btw).

14

it critiques more than religion…

-Imp
[/quote]
and again what you emphasized there with the large font is what Brauch is refuting. thats why i posted this. He goes on further after what i have quoted just beating in the point that God does not act with a plan or end in mind. With God there is no end towards which things were created. It was just all created by nature of necessity. Not with and end, not with a purpose, not with a plan. Most specifically he rejects God having a plan.

i think your letting his use of the word God through you. The way he uses words and he talks about perfection of god here and causes, it sound slike the things you hear from St. Augustin or other theologians. But he is not a theologian and what he writes disagrees with them. He does use the same sort of language. Really if you want i think you can replace his use of God with the word nature

15

and again what you emphasized there with the large font is what Brauch is refuting. thats why i posted this. He goes on further after what i have quoted just beating in the point that God does not act with a plan or end in mind.

how could baruch know this? did god tell him? or is it as he suggests, men’s madness? all is god…

With God there is no end towards which things were created. It was just all created by nature of necessity. Not with and end, not with a purpose, not with a plan. Most specifically he rejects God having a plan.

again, how could he know that? how could he differentiate one aspect of god? all is god…

but all is god.

i think your letting his use of the word God through you. The way he uses words and he talks about perfection of god here and causes, it sound slike the things you hear from St. Augustin or other theologians. But he is not a theologian and what he writes disagrees with them. He does use the same sort of language. Really if you want i think you can replace his use of God with the word nature
[/quote]

you can replace god, nature or whatever with the name X14. it is not consistent.

god is all.

there is nothing that is not god.

but as I said, I am no spinoza scholar…

-Imp

16

I have to leave and im going to come back and read this more carefully but i just want to make a physics comment.

that problem of change or differences coming out of one thing is always going to be hard to answer. Physics looks at these things with symmetries basically turning one thing into many. Its how the forces are unified using lie groups. The math is not bad, its just matrices but it is really hard to understand whats meant by these things. You have one particle and its written in a matrices and you rotate the matrices and you get another particle. But whats that mean physically? Anyway, whats neat is that it was recently proposed that the group E8 can unify EVERYTHING. So one particle makes everything else when looked at using this symmetry group. This leads to the possibility that everything really is made from one thing. Kind of neat!

here is the video showing how this works E8 unification

17

Ah I get it now. Well, Spinoza thinks we can have an adequate knowledge of what God is (i.e. his nature) (some proposition in Bk2). And God just isn’t the sort of thing that can have a plan, or a purpose. God doesn’t act. God doesn’t will. To say God has a purpose is equivalent to saying the fundamental laws of nature have a purpose, i.e. nonsense. In a very real sense, God just is the fundamental laws of Nature. The laws of nature aren’t what they are because God chose them, God is such that he couldn’t have chosen any other laws. So they weren’t chosen for any reason. There is no goal because there isn’t anything to have a goal.

Spinoza does think we can know all of this. Of course, his various demonstrations commit numerous fallacies, but Spinoza, more than any other similar thinker I’ve read, thinks we can know about God. He most definitely thinks that we can know God to have no plan, and he does give reasons, the main reason being that God just isn’t something that can have a plan. Like I said, a plan requires some kind of will, some kind of goal. God has none of these things, and we only think he does because we see ourselves in him, when in actual fact God isn’t in any normal sense of the word a being. There is a reason why its God, or Nature. Does Nature have a goal? No, and for the same reasons, God doesn’t. Spinoza does elevate Nature, but he de-elevates God too.

18

So what is the problem? It does seem to follow from the principles that two substances had the same accident (edit: i meant attribute)they would not be distinguished one from the other. I am missing something? What?

19

He does make assumptions, if your going to do metaphysics you have to. But once he makes an assumption he trys to follow it through using reason and logic. What surprised me is that at the end he gets something that seems very modern. The all is God does not bother me because what he means by God is not the same as what any modern person would mean by saying God. It is best replaced by the word nature.

if i say:
“Nature is one thing and everything has a cause. From this everything else follows.”

Do you have a problem with that statment? I think that is a more accurate understanding of what Spinoza is saying rather than trying to identify Spinoza’s use of the word God with some modern conception of theology.

20

I think this is a confusion of definitions. Everything that can exist, exists and if you take ‘world’ to mean ‘all that is’ than everything that can exist does exist in this world. For the Schroedinger’s cat example both the live cat and the dead cat exist as a part of the ensemble of everything that exists. The universal wavefunction is the wavefunction or quantum state of the totality of existence, regarded as the “basic physical entity” or “the fundamental entity, obeying at all times a determinstic wave equation”