imascholar

"That eternal and infinite being we call God, or Nature, acts from the same necessity from which he exists"
"Freedom is acting in accordance with one's own nature" B. Spinoza

Why all this? To find true, basic, firm, fundamental happiness.

He starts with axioms and definitions (geometrical/synthetic method)

"By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself"; "By attribute I understand what the intellect perceives of a substance, as constituting its essence"; "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence."

The definitions of Part One are, in effect, simply clear concepts that ground the rest of his system. They are followed by a number of axioms that, he assumes, will be regarded as obvious and unproblematic by the philosophically informed ("Whatever is, is either in itself or in another"; "From a given determinate cause the effect follows necessarily"). From these, the first proposition necessarily follows, and every subsequent proposition can be demonstrated using only what precedes it.

Proposition 1: A substance is prior in nature to its affections (modes).

By definition 3 & 5

Proposition 2: Two substances having different attributes have nothing in common with one another. (In other words, if two substances differ in nature, then they have nothing in common).

Attributes are exclusive properties of substances

Proposition 3: If things have nothing in common with one another, one of them cannot be the cause of the other.

Axiom, to understand effect you have to understand it in terms of its cause, meaning, is that substance can’t be understood as an effect because in this case it would be understood in terms of something else and wouldn’t be a substance.

Proposition 4: Two or more distinct things are distinguished from one another, either by a difference in the attributes [i.e., the natures or essences] of the substances or by a difference in their affections [i.e., their accidental properties].

Proposition 5: In nature, there cannot be two or more substances of the same nature or attribute.

Proposition 6: One substance cannot be produced by another substance.

Proposition 7: It pertains to the nature of a substance to exist.

Substances are causa sui, their nature involves existence because they can't be caused by anything.

Proposition 8: Every substance is necessarily infinite.

If it were finite it would have to be limited by something of same nature. Finite substance involves a contradiction.

Proposition 9: The more reality or being each thing has, the more attributes belong to it.

Follows from Definition 4, "by attribute I mean that which the intellect perceives of substance as constituting its essence", so if God is a substance of infinite attributes, then he must exist.

Proposition 10: Each attribute of a substance must be conceived through itself.

Proposition 11: God, or a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists.

The proof of this proposition consists simply in the classic "ontological proof for God's existence". Spinoza writes that "if you deny this, conceive, if you can, that God does not exist. Therefore, by axiom 7 [‘If a thing can be conceived as not existing, its essence does not involve existence’], his essence does not involve existence. But this, by proposition 7, is absurd. Therefore, God necessarily exists, q.e.d."

Proof #3, "To be able to not exist is weakness; on the other hand, to be able to exist is power, as is self-evident. So if what now necessarily exists is nothing but finite entities, then finite entities are more potent than an absolutely infinite Entity - which is absurd".

Proposition 12: No attribute of a substance can be truly conceived from which it follows that the substance can be divided.

Proposition 13: A substance which is absolutely infinite is indivisible.

"If it were, its possible parts will either retain the nature of absolutely infinite substance, or not. In former case, there would thus be several substances of same nature, which is absurd. In the latter case, absolutely infinite substance will cease to exist, which is also absurd".

Proposition 14: Except God, no substance can be or be conceived.

So it, “It follows’ that the thing extended, extended sub and thing thinking, mental substance are either attribute of god or affection (modes) of attributes of god."

Spinoza was excommunicated for begin against anthropomorphic conception of God. In short, God is the infinite, necessarily existing (that is, uncaused), unique substance of the universe. There is only one substance in the universe; it is God; and everything else that is, is in God.

This proof that God -- an infinite, necessary and uncaused, indivisible being -- is the only substance of the universe proceeds in three simple steps.

First, establish that no two substances can share an attribute or essence (Ip5). Then, prove that there is a substance with infinite attributes (i.e., God) (Ip11). It follows, in conclusion, that the existence of that infinite substance precludes the existence of any other substance. For if there were to be a second substance, it would have to have some attribute or essence. But since God has all possible attributes, then the attribute to be possessed by this second substance would be one of the attributes already possessed by God. But it has already been established that no two substances can have the same attribute. Therefore, there can be, besides God, no such second substance.

Two Sides of Nature

There are, Spinoza insists, two sides of Nature. First, there is the active, productive aspect of the universe -- God and his attributes, from which all else follows. This is what Spinoza, employing the same terms he used in the Short Treatise, calls Natura naturans, "naturing Nature". Strictly speaking, this is identical with God. The other aspect of the universe is that which is produced and sustained by the active aspect, Natura naturata, "natured Nature".
By Natura naturata I understand whatever follows from the necessity of God's nature, or from any of God's attributes, i.e., all the modes of God's attributes insofar as they are considered as things that are in God, and can neither be nor be conceived without God. (Ip29s).

There is No Purpose & Everything is necessary the way it is

To see God or Nature as acting for the sake of ends -- to find purpose in Nature -- is to misconstrue Nature and "turn it upside down" by putting the effect (the end result) before the true cause. Thus, things do not exist for a purpose and there is no problem of evil as such, question occur only when we think of thing in reference to us, which his false and stupid.

Spinoza's God is the cause of all things because all things follow causally and necessarily from the divine nature. Or, as he puts it, from God's infinite power or nature "all things have necessarily flowed, or always followed, by the same necessity and in the same way as from the nature of a triangle it follows, from eternity and to eternity, that its three angles are equal to two right angles" (Ip17s1). Everything is absolutely and necessarily determined.

If you want to listen to this lecture (I strongly recommend it) you can download an mp3 file here http://rapidshare.de/files/6812530/phl_7.mp3.html just click it, scroll down and choose “Free” then wait and follow instructions. The file is about ~35mb and 74 minutes in length, so you’ll need a fast Internet connection.
-------------------------------------

Nicholas Stenner disproved Descartes assertions about human body. Voetius criticized Descartes a lot; he argued that Descartes must be an atheist. Descartes has a lot of influence on future of philosophy, his Meditations became canonical. Big guys after Descartes are Spinoza, Malebranche and Leibniz. Spinoza was Jewish, excommunicated from Synagogue for his views. One work published in his time was Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, argument about how religions can get along, religious tolerance.  

Spinoza’s masterwork “the Ethics” was published after he died. Analytic vs synthetic method: latter proceeds geometrically, former proceeds by a way of discovery, you don’t start but you try to come up with fundamental principles. He preferred synthetic method.

Secret is, this really is ethics. S said, at some point in my life I looked around and recognized that lot of thing we do in life are trivial, thus I set out to find a good so great and stable that it would be possible on this basis to build everlasting happiness. Everything in his work contributes to understanding of true, eternal happiness. Descartes used God as a bridge b/w Cogito and World, but Spinoza looked for firm goodness and found it in God as his core, God is central to Spinoza’s philosophy.

1st most important thing in his argument, he starts with conception of Substance, def3p1, by substance I mean that which is in itself and is conceived thought itself; that is , that the conception of which does not require the conception of another thing. When Spinoza thinks of substance, he looks for something that does not require anything else to understand it. You think of genuine substance on its own in two ways: attribute of substance, that is something that intellect understand to constitute the essence of the substance; and mode, anything that is conceived thru something else. To understand the substance you need to grasp the attributes, the mode has to be understood either in terms of substance or another mode, every mode is a modification of substance or mode, it’s a way in which substance or another mode exists. (yeah, right, whatever)

Proposition one, substance by nature prior to its affections (mode). This follows from definition, substance you understand by itself and mode you understand in terms of a substance.

P2, two substances having different attributes have nothing in common. It follows from definitions. Each sub has 2 be understood in its own terms and the attribute is what you are understanding of a substance when you are understanding it, then if you had two substances with same attribute, it means that you’d have to understand one in terms of another or conceivably in terms of something else. Attribute belongs to one and only one substance so they are necessarily completely distinct. Axiom, to understand effect you have to understand it in terms of its cause, meaning, is that sub can’t be understood as an effect because in this case it would be understood in terms of something else and wouldn’t be a substance, so no substance is a cause of another substance, they are not caused by anything, they are not effects.

What does it mean that you have a substance that can’t be caused by anything but have to be understood in terms of itself? He said, substance necessarily has to be understood as causa sui, cause of itself. Cause of itself is whose essence involves existing, they exist by nature, it’s their necessary feature, b/c they have to be understood in terms of themselves alone.

Every sub is necessarily infinite, because if it were finite it would have to be limited by something of same nature. Finite substance involves a contradiction.

He argues that the more reality something has the more attributes something has, infinite substance will have to have infinite attributes. B/c of this God, understood as infinite sub, necessarily must exist. If you deny this, conceive that god does not exist then his essence does not involve existence, but its absurd so God necessarily exists, similar to Descartes ontological argument but radically distinct.

In Descartes’ ontological argument you start with infinite & completely actual being, its absurd if it doesn’t exist. His argument relies heavily on Descartes technical meaning of perfection. Spinoza’s argument is in the same family (ontological) of arguments but it is very different nonetheless, it relies crucially on his understanding of substance, proposition 7, about nature of substance, existence belongs to the nature of substance. Spinoza’s argument is that, if there were no infinite substance that would have to be both sub and not-sub. If there is no substance at all then all things has to be understood in terms of other things, so notion that there is no substance in Spinoza’s sense would be advocating irrational. If there is a substance, then a world is fundamentally intelligible, but substance has to be infinite.

He doesn’t need to prove that God exist, but only that there is substance and its infinite.

In third proof he said, “To be able not to be is a weakness, to be able to be is power”. Its self-evident, he thinks, if there is nothing but finite entities, it would imply that finite things are more potent than infinite being/sub b/c they would have the power that infinite being doesn’t have. So either nothing exist or there is an infinite being.

Conclusion, all sub must be infinite, they necessarily exists, and so he argues, there can be no substance except god b/c every substance has to be infinite which means it can’t be understood in terms of any other sub and infinite sub is what god is, so there is no substance but god. “It follows’ that the thing extended, extended sub and thing thinking, mental substance are either attribute of god or affection (modes) of attributes of god.

If you conceive of god in any unorthodox sense than you can be called an atheist. If you believed that god exists but doesn’t interact with his creation, you’d be called an atheist. Spinoza identified god with universe, there is only 1 sub, and everything else is understood in terms of God and is either an attribute or a modification of an attribute of god. Everything else is an expression of god.

He is describing nature, natura in part 1 of Ethics. There is disctinction b/w natura naturans and natura naturata. Nature naturans is nature itself insofar as it is expression, nature expressing nature; natura naturata is nature insofar as it is expressed insofar as it is the object. Natura naturata is world and everything else and it too is just nature itself but. World is nature itself, God itself, insofar as God is an object of his own causation.

Nature has two aspects, expressive and an expressed aspect, causal and effective. Natura naturans is nature expressing itself, God. Natura naturata is nature being expressed, the world. In fact both world and god himself insofar he causes himself to exist, his essence includes existence and things follow from his nature. For Spinoza everything is God. Nature expressing and nature expressed, everything is God. There is only one substance, and (from Descartes) every substance has two attributes, thought and extension. Since there is only one substance it means that two attributes of God’s substance are that he is a thinking and an extended thing. Spinoza did not think that god is a body, which is a particular modification of extended sub. God is extended sub himself. There is only one substance, and that is infinite substance, and then what are each of you? God, if you considered under aspect of naturans, you are a particular human being if considered under aspect of naturata. Strictly speaking, you aren’t identifiable with divine sub, b/c you are each simple modification of divine attribute of a thinking thing or God in a particular way. “Your mind is God’s idea of your body”, every thought you have is modification of this modification which is the idea of mind that god has of you and that is modification of divine attribute of god (Oh My Fucking God!).

How natura naturata related to natura naturans? Everything that exists logically follows must exist given that god exist. It means that everything that happens is necessarily determined, strictly follows from logical necessity. Everything is a (expression) modality of divine attribute, and divine attributes are necessarily. Everything that is caused by God, naturata follows from divine nature in the same way that it follows from the nature of triangle that a sum of its angles must be equal to two right angles; everything ends up being a matter of logical necessity.

How Spinoza sees it to be ethically relevant. It’s deliberately abstract. It should be understood by pure reason alone. What practical application? Everything has to necessarily be conceived in terms of god. Spinoza rules out a number of approaches to world by his arguments.

One of them is that idea that things have a purpose, for instance, take argument from design, because there is design in the world, than world has to have a designed, its nonsense, since everything follows from strict logical necessity, b/c everything that exists has to necessarily exists. We, stupid being, want to comprehend all in terms of us. World doesn’t exist for us, it follows by necessity from the nature of god. There is no need for design, no purpose, no functions. Another argument from design - the problem of evil. How god exists, if there are evil things in the world? Stupid, universe doesn’t exist for us, it just the way it is because it has to be that way. If we look at world rationally we see that everything exists because it has to exist exactly the way it is. So, those attitudes to the world are limited, don’t look at the world in terms how it relates to you, world is not out to get you.

The will is necessary; everything we will necessary follows from divine nature and could not be otherwise. This allows us face adversities in the world and be tolerant of others. Because God is necessary and everything that follows from him also, then we can have intellectual love of God – we see everything in terms of natura naturata and we rejoice in that, everything expresses God, me, him, that guy, intellectual love of god is happiness, most stable and objective happiness. By recognizing that world is natura naturans expressing itself as natura naturata, god expressing himself as the world, we are able to take everything we learn about natura naturata and see it in light of natura naturans, everything we learn about the world we see in light of God and that why we need things like science, the more you learn about natura naturata the more occasions you have for intellectual love of god, nature itself.  He is advocating a particular way of looking at the world. Everything is part of the whole, of everything. Spinoza was very influential. Many scientist took his view of god, its not messy anthropomorphic, it’s the universe insofar as it is created. By learning of the world you participate in God. To learn about the world around you is to learn about the creative potential of the whole, the everything, the world, and god.