MC Philosophy

Spinoza's Ethics and You

This is the fourth and final entry on Spinoza.  The first is Spinoza: The Ethics, the second Spinoza's Proof of God, the third Features of Spinoza's God

Now that we have discussed Spinoza's view on God and its ramifications on the world, it's time to discuss what effects his theory has on the human being.  Plus, we will discover why this work (presumably focused on a non-personal, uncaring God) is called The Ethics, and what normative instructions this philosopher can give us. 

What are We?

"Hence it follows, that the essence of man is constituted by certain modifications of the attributes of God.  For the being of substance does not belong to the essence of man.  That essence therefore is something which is in God, and without God can neither be nor be conceived"

- It's a nasty trick to start a quote with "hence it follows" so know that this came from addressing how the essence of God necessarily existed, but the essence of man need not have necessarily existed (even though everything in the universe necessarily exists because they could not have been otherwise).  Spinoza is trying to connect the essence of humans with its ultimate cause: God.  But God and humans are not on the same plain because we are in God.  We are merely one modification of God's vast infinity.  Here it seems clear that he is destroying the notion of man as a non-natural being, or special in a "made man in his image" sort of way. 

   

-Spinoza probably would have been just fine with Darwin's explanation of man as an evolutionary animal (on a side note: this pic is a real thing as much as most things for if it can be imagined, its in God). 

- It must be noted how extremely daring it was at that time to support a naturalistic view of human beings.  In the 1600s that would have been like trying to rationally defend Hitler in this day and age, the most far out and blasphemous thing you could do. 

( I don't really know what this means, a better WWII historian might, but in the 17th century, they might have said, "When you forget to pray, you're blowing Spinoza, so get on your knees...and pray!")

- Spinoza doesn't want you to worry about not having an eternal soul, for there are eternal aspects to all of us:

"whence it will come to pass that he will be affected with love towards God, which must occupy or constitute the chief part of the mind; therefore such a man will possess a mind whereof the chief part is eternal"

- It might seem very odd to talk about a "love towards God" considering his conception of God, but Spinoza believed (as will be discussed later) that by understanding God (nature and reason and the like) you therefore are closer to God.  Thus, in the ways in which we understand Nature and God, those thoughts ring eternal.  He even says that because of this we should "scarcely fear death".  Sleep well.

- Thus we see that Spinoza did hold a special place for humans in his theories.  Spinoza had many correspondences with many learned men of the time, most of which wanted to tear him down for his critical attacks on the scriptures.  In a letter to William De Blyenbergh, Spinoza defends against an accusation that his naturalistic approach likens man to rocks,

"You would understand that for the very reason they they (things) depend on God they are perfect; so that this dependence and necessary operation may be best understood as God's decree, by considering no stocks and plants, but the most reasonable and perfect creatures."

-Because humans were the most dynamic creature in mind and body, they were the most elevated creatures and the ones most capable of understanding, and thus becoming closer, to God. 

 

Grandeur of Reason

- As so many of our fine philosophers, Spinoza thought that Reason was the greatest tool for humans.  It was through our correct understanding of Reason that we truly comprehended nature and God.  The reason we use "Reason" in upper case is because this isn't a way of explaining an individual person's reason.  This is a more pervading and objective form of Reason, like the way Kant used it.  Reason has nothing to do with contingent things, but is was the objective means to knowledge. 

- To understand how Spinoza wants us to use Reason, you have to understand his position on emotion.  Basically, if you followed your emotions, you were weak and a pussy...

like Stewart Smalley.

- Spinoza gave a rather harsh name to the control that your emotions can have over the self

Bondage: "Human infirmity in moderating and checking the emotions"

- So people are in bondage when they are prey to their emotions, letting emotions choose their actions and distracting them from using Reason to deliberate upon their actions.  It is these emotions that cause instability in people and make them bound, unable to reach the freedom of reason,

"Emotion, which is called a passivity of the soul, is a confused idea...when a man is prey to his emotions, he is not his own master, but lies at the mercy of fortune"

(I have a feeling Spinoza cried after he masturbated, then hated himself for crying)

- Spinoza believed fully in the power of desire, "Desire is the actual essence of man".  He understood that it was the sway of desires that caused people to act certain ways.  These desires could be swayed by your emotions, or they could be dictated by Reason.  It was those who were able to understand Reason that were "free", all others are bound by emotions and can't reach closer to God. 

"I call free him who is led solely by Reason"

Ethic

- Here we come to what many view as the weakest part of The Ethics.  His views on ethics did lay the foundation for many later philosophers on ethics, like Kant and Mill.  He starts by laying out this assumption

Good = that which brings pleasure   Bad = that which brings pain

- Of course, knowing nature is pleasurable, and giving way to passions is painful.  This is supposed to be true across the board. 

- He thought that the only way for people to have knowledge is through the knowledge of their body first.  In this, you can't separate the body from the mind, for our mind only understands things though the body. 

"Prop. 23 The mind does not know itself, except in so far as it perceives the ideas of the modifications of the body"

- But our knowledge through our bodies is tainted by feelings and emotions.  He actually goes through and tries to define all the relevant emotions.  Believe me, it's painful to read, and they are really basic, for the most part. 

- Once we know all the emotions, we have a good guide for what not to feel, to know what we should suppress. He goes on to define a type of utilitarian ethic.  It isn't very impressive, so I won't get into it greatly, but it looks something like this:

Spinoza

Since his work, many people have picked up the ax and really filled and improved upon many of his ideas.  He is essential to understand, however, as a basis for all the work that came after him.  His thoughts on God and the mind influenced countless philosophers, especially men like Leibniz, and Locke .  His ethic really was the primer for future ethicists like Kant and Mill.  And his attack on the organized religion at the time was bold, dangerous, and a definite catalyst for the Enlightenment thinkers and many future thinkers.  His geometrical proof of God is very interesting and still taught everywhere.  Basically, he's interesting and its a great place to start. 

 

Features of Spinoza's God

This is the third entry on Spinoza's "Ethics", the first is Spinoza: The Ethics, the second Spinoza's Proof of God

Will and the Anthropomorphic God

-There seems to be no doubt that Spinoza was attempting to logically destroy the traditional and oppressive nature of God in the 17th century.  Many credit him with beginning the Enlightenment's refutations of the doctrines and practices of the Church and Synagogue, changes that would forever alter those religions (It seems that Modern Islam effectively suppressed such voices, probably by tearing out their larynx.  Let me assure you, the Church wishes it could've done the same).

 

(what you don't see in this picture are the fire ants that the Ayatollah ordered released on the tree)

- Spinoza's most significant attack was on the notion of any God being anthropomorphic, which he considered the utmost ridiculousness,

"As they look upon things as means, they cannot believe them to be self-created;  but, judging from the means which they are accustomed to prepare for themselves, they are bound to believe in some ruler or rulers of the universe endowed with human freedom, who have arranged and adapted everything for human use.  They are bound to estimate the nature of such rulers (having no information on the subject) in accordance with their own nature, and therefore they assert that the gods ordained everything for the use of man...Hence it also follows, that everyone though out for himself, according to his abilities, a different way of worshiping God, so that God might love him more than his fellows, and direct the whole course of nature for the satisfaction of his blind cupidity and insatiable avarice."

- For Spinoza the idea of God, the ultimate substance, taking human form, or being a personal God in any way was complete absurdity, or as he put it "insatiable avarice". 

-Furthermore, he dealt a blow to the longstanding idea of an omnipotent God who could also have a will and an end to which He strives.  This is an interesting attack, for it seems logical that such a God would have the power to will whatever He so wished, He is GOD, you know. 

Plus if God didn't have a will, how did this douche-bag become President?

-Spinoza's attack is brilliant, however,

"This doctrine (of God's Will towards an end) does away with the perfection of God: for, if God acts for an object, he necessarily desires something which he lacks.  Certainly, theologians and meta-physicians draw a distinction between the object of want and the object of assimilation; still they confess that God made all things for the sake of himself, not for the sake of creation...therefore driven to admit (as they clearly must), that God lacked those things for whose attainment he created means, and further desired them."

-Think about all the stories of the Bible and of God telling people what he wants from them, such that His desired end could be achieved.  Job is a great example or even Abraham and his son.  Why would an omnipotent and all-powerful and infinite God need anything from man?  It implies that he "desired" some end to which he needed humans to help achieve.  Even if it was only to have humans "assimilate" to His plan, it still relies on the (usually conceded) free will of humans to bring about God's end.  Any desire that a God has is a chip in His omnipotence, for it implies that he lacks something that his desire must fulfill. 

And now for my dose of Hellfire:

Determinism

-Another ramification of God's ultimate infiniteness is that the universe must be ruled by determinism, for everything that exists or will exist is in God.  God's creation cannot be otherwise than it is. 

"Prop. 26. A thing which is conditioned to act in a particular manner, has necessarily been thus conditioned by God; and that which has not been conditioned by God cannot condition itself to act."

- Thus, because God is the cause of all things, his infiniteness accounts for everything, including human action.  There is no way that a human could "condition" themselves to act in a way, because that would be usurping the infinite power of God. 

"Prop. 29. Nothing in the universe is contingent, but all things are conditioned to exist and operate in a particular manner by the necessity of divine nature."

-Here he destroys the hope, under his theory of God, for free will.  Nothing can be contingent on anything else, for God's omnipotence already has accounted for everything that can and will happen.  Contingency is the heart of free will.  Something happens and I react to it, my act is contingent on the first occurrence.  But all of our nature and essences have been determined by God's conditioning, such that we act only in the way in which this formed nature determines us to act. 

- Free will is like our friend the Unicorn...

Beautiful ideas (that are within God, because all thought is) that just aren't real    

-This leads nicely into our next feature:

Time

- The notion of time being an integral factor in philosophy and science has really come to the forefront since Heidegger  and especially Einstein.  Later, we will look at Martin Heidegger's brilliant and continually influential views on time, but for now just know that  he proposed that time was the determining factor in our Being, that humans and the universe alike change through time and are always dynamic.

-Spinoza doesn't have such a friendly view of the effects of time, however. 

"For it is the nature of substance that each of its attributes is conceived through itself, inasmuch as all the attributes it has have always existed simultaneously in it" and...
"We thus see, how a composite individual may be affected in many different ways, and preserve its nature notwithstanding."

-Here, Spinoza is saying that God has given an individual its nature and that experience cannot affect that true essence, for it was already given by God. 

- So how your essence is here

is the same as it is here

-Spinoza would say that his nature was caused by God and that it cannot change.  Certain things might happen to him that change the way he views himself or others view him, but his nature will stay constant, for there is no contingency in the world. 

Next Up: Spinoza's Ethics and You

Spinoza's Proof of God

MC Note:  This is the second entry on Spinoza, the first is Spinoza: The Ethics  

-Spinoza writes his philosophy like a geometrical proof, which is hard and difficult to read, but makes it easier to lay out his path to proof.  It should be noted that his final goal will be a God that is not material or anthropomorphic in any way, but is the Original Essence of all things and the cause of all material things or essences.  I will lay out important elements of his proof first, before explaining how they fit into his larger idea of God. 

First: He lays out definitions of his terms (this should always be done by philosophers, because language is so important, though Spinoza's definitions aren't terribly helpful)

Important Definitions:
Substance - That which is in itself, and is conceived through itself
Attribute - That which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of nature
Mode - The modifications of substance, or that which exists in, and is conceived through, something other than itself
   
This leads to our first alert (yellow): Don't  think of attributes as the term is sometimes used, like the attribute of having blond hair.  For Spinoza attributes only relate to essences.

Thus:   Attribute = types of essences             

            Mode =  the more material aspects of nature

Second:  He presents logical axioms based off his definitions 

Important Axioms:
1. Everything which exists, exists either in itself or in something else
2. That which cannot be conceived through anything else must be conceived though itself
3. From a given definite cause an effect necessarily follows

Third: He builds propositions and their proofs logically based on the definitions and axioms (this is especially fun when you determine your own definitions and axioms)

I am going to list his first 8 propositions (without the proofs) so an idea can be formed as to his plan here.  Remember that they all build upon one another. (you'll notice "God" is never mentioned):

1. Substance is by nature prior to its modifications
2. Two substances, whose attributes are different, have nothing in common
3. Things which have nothing in common cannot be the cause of the other
4. Two or more distinct things are distinguished one from the other, either by the difference of the attributes of the substances, or by the difference of their modifications. 
5. There cannot exist in the universe two or more substances having the same nature or attribute
6. One substance cannot be produced by another substance
7. Existence belongs to the nature of substance
8. Every substance is necessarily infinite
 
Now at first, this being a proof of God may seem about as intelligible and practical as the Healthy Forest Initiative, but Spinoza will actually make some sense soon.

Here is a visual of how he is trying to establish his substance/God

1. Propositions 1, 2 and 4 are working towards the primacy and uniqueness of substance (or essence).  This can become clearer if we do a little self-reflection.  What is more primary, more a part of who we are, our body or soul?  I would think many people think their essence (call it soul, if you like) is more a determiner of who they are than their body.  That is Prop. 1.  Now think about your soul/essence compared with others'. 

Ponder how unlike your essence is to say,

There may be some similarities, but you essence is all your own, as MJ's is totally his own

This is a good way to think of Prop. 2 and 4, if our attributes and/or modifications aren't the same, then we aren't the same.   

2. Spinoza establishes his primary substance through cause and effect in Prop. 3 and 6.  One substance can't make another if their attributes are different, like how a child must necessarily have genes in common with the parent.  Now abstract that idea into essences. Two things with no attributes the same must be completely different substances, since we saw that substance/essence is the primary determination.  Now, if everything must either exist because of itself or because of its proximate cause, then by cause and effect, there must be an original substance that exists only because of itself and caused all other substances.  The Original Substance had to cause all attributes because there had to be an original cause and that original cause could not make anything with different attributes.   

3. In proving that there can only be 1 substance based on the primacy of essences and cause and effect, it is a good time to show one of Spinoza's proofs :

Prop. 5. There cannot exist in the universe two or more substances having the same nature or attribute
"Proof - If several distinct substances be granted, they must be distinguished one from the other, either by the difference of their attributes, or by the difference of their modifications (Prop. 4).  If only by the difference of their attributes, it will be granted that there cannot be more than one with an identical attribute.  If by the difference of their modifications - as substance is naturally prior to its modifications (Prop. 1) - it follows that setting the modifications aside, and considering substance in itself, that is truly, (Def. 3 and 6), there cannot be conceived one substance different from another, that is there cannot be granted several substances, but one substance only."

Pretty clear!!!  Now a short picture-respite:

-Now that the beautiful sunset has calmed us down (the physics of light reflecting are in God, by the way), let's investigate his claim.  This is where how sums it up:

1. If there cannot be two substances with identical attributes ->
2. and if a substance with certain attributes can't create another with different attributes (like how a woman can't give birth to a dog) ->
3. then since we know substance exists, there must be only 1 substance that exists only in itself (not caused)
4. Because everything must exist only in itself or be caused by something (Axiom 1), this One Substance must be the cause of all further essences ->
5. and therefore all things' essences are in the Original Substance.   

The logic here doesn't seem so bad, does it?

4. In Prop. 7 and 8, Spinoza solidifies that this abstract idea of primary substance/essence actually must exist and must be infinite.  This is done rather simply.  If the One Substance can't be created by anything external, and we know things exist, then this One Substance must exist.   And lets assume there can only be two different types of substances, finite and infinite.  The One Substance must be infinite for nothing else can limit it (create it). 

-There you have it, God has been proved, except that we haven't even mentioned "God".  "God" doesn't come into the picture until Prop. 11, "God, or substance, consisting of infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality, necessarily exists."  So Spinoza kind of deceptively just slipped that little point in there, "Oh yeah, that substance I've been talking about is...God!" 

-Spinoza attempted to prove God that is infinite and exists in the primary essence of all future effects.  Thus, the descriptions in the earlier post about everything being in God.  God's ultimate and infinite essence must necessarily contain all other attributes, and it can be thought that God's influence on modes in the material world is through being the essence of natural laws of nature and the mind.  This original substance is infinite in the greatest sense of the word, everything that exists, essences and material things, whether we can comprehend them or not, are in God's essence.

-Take it all in, Next is Features of Spinoza's God   

Spinoza: The Ethics

  Benedict De Spinoza  (1632 - 1677)
    - Born to exiled Portuguese Jews in Holland
    - Expelled from Synagogue at Amsterdam at 24 (Those diaspora Jews loved to get
        their own shot at hereticing people after all the shit they got)
    - Work to be examined: The Ethics  (1677)

Positions Defended: Pantheism, Naturalism, exalted status of Reason
Those who are Definitely Wrong: Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, People who respect "feelings" 

GOD

This term is tricky to use while discussing Spinoza, for by "God" we certainly don't mean:

or

or

                                                                                                      
 

-Furthermore, Spinoza uses terms translated as "substance"  to describe his conception of God.  He writes of God as the Original Substace, but this can be deceiving, for "substance" should not be confused with "matter" or anything wholly material.

- "Absolute", a Hegelian term, might fit better for Spinoza's conception, for it would imply an Absolute Spirit or Essence.  But the translations say "God", and I can't quibble about translations; I can barely speak Spanish, which I studied for the better part of a decade, so "God" it is

Essence of Spinoza's God

-At the root of his theory is a cause-effect relationship:  Everything has a cause, so what is the Original Cause? If "everything which exists, exists either in itself or in something else" then everything must either be caused by something or exist only because of itself, therefore there must be an Original Cause that started all further effects and exists only in itself, caused by nothing.

-This sounds a lot like Aristotle's idea of the Prime Mover, the source of all movement

(Except without the fatty angels, and without Rafael's anthropomorphic God, actually, not much like this at all, but you get the idea)                                                                                                                                                                                       

-Once we dispell the notion of an anthropomorphic God, we can begin to understand the idea of God as the Original Essence, or as we shall see it, "substance".  Spinoza tries to lay proof for a God that is the infinite, all-encompassing essence of the universe.  Anything that has existed, will exist, can be thought of, anything in the domain of the universe, is attributable to God's essence. 

-Such that you could say that everything is in  God

- This is not to say that everything is God.  This is a common misconception with Spinoza.  Things are not God, they are only caused by God's essence and in God's domain, such that everything is from God and nothing could ever be that didn't have God's attribute in it.  So the enlightened person claiming, "This stone, that tree, the bubbling spring, it's all God, man" can't lay claim to Spinoza having his back.

To Elaborate:

Not God

Not way to understand God

Not God

Not God

 

- An easy and naturalistic way to think of Spinoza's God, especially if you are a scientist, is as the underlying formula to the universe.  The laws of nature are God's essence necessarily determining the world. 

- I like how Bernard Mollenhauer puts it:  "God has written his all-pervading character in the changeless laws of matter as well as in the laws of the mind", and to let his metaphors continue..."His (God's) nature is like an infinite sacred scripture that is endlessly translated into many languages, or a cosmic symphony that is endlessly transcribed for different instruments and players"

-This thought of a naturalistic God, one that is the essence of the universe is not so far out as it may seem on the surface.  Some very smart people have believed in such an idea

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings" (Einstein, 1949)

- This God is more than just a math equation of the natural laws, though that is included in its domain.  Spinoza's God is the epitome of infinity.  Anything in our universe, including thoughts not yet thunk or the idea of unicorns, claim their being from the essence of God.   It is an unusual thought for us to grasp after being raised in the world of a personal God.  But think about what is more likely, a God who talks to humans and had desires and hatred and love (all human emotions), or a God that is the original substance, that is so grand and full that our mere thought of infinity cannot grasp everything that exists in it.

-Next up SPINOZA'S PROOF OF GOD