Spinoza
PHIL 2020
Reason, God and the Mind: Take home exam
With Professor David Jopling.
Fall, 2003
Spinoza’s theory of Determinism is more akin to the form of Scientific Determinism we see today as opposed to the Cartesian Determinism common in his time. Descartes saw that something was constrained if its actions were limited by an external cause, and against a person’s desire. Something is free if it is acting from its volitions or desires.
Spinoza takes a very different approach. He explains that it is not our actions that are determined by God, it is our desires that follow necessarily from the nature of God himself.
God exists necessarily because it is in his very essence to exist:
“from God’s supreme power or infinite nature and infinity of things in infinite ways – that is, everything – have necessarily flowed or are always following from that same necessity, just as from the nature of a triangle it follows from eternity to eternity that its three angles are equal to two right angles”. (IP17Sch.)
Another way to interpret this is to say that the laws of nature are universal and causal. In other words, they are unchanging and in a sense almost predictable. One state of nature leads to another in a cause and effect relationship. If you are given a complete atomic state of the universe with the complete causal set of laws, the theory goes that you can read future and past states as if they were fixed. This idea can be further illustrated by examining IP28. Every finite thing is determined to exist and act by another finite cause, which is also determined by another finite cause, and so on ad infinitum.
Things could not have been produced by God in any other way than is the case. This is because nothing in Nature is contingent. As stated above, what exists, flows directly from God’s nature. If things would be different, you would have to attribute to God a different nature. Spinoza addresses the commonly held belief that God acts from will and has the power to change the world. This is an anthropomorphic view of God; a God that desires and has an intelligence like our own and a will similar to ours.
Spinoza has many conflicts with this view. The first is that because God is eternal and exists outside of time, his decrees have been sanctioned for all eternity (IP33.Sch 2). It follows from this that God can never be without decree, they can never be without him and they are eternal and unchanging. This is similar to saying that the laws of nature have always existed as long as nature has existed. Because nature is eternal, the laws have always been. If the laws were different, nature would also be completely different.
The other problem with this is that admitting that God has an ultimate goal is not only are we speaking of him in temporal terms which contradicts with the nature of God, but it admits that there is an imperfection in God. If his will changes, how can his essence remain the same and still attribute to him perfection?
What Spinoza is expressing about people’s misconceptions can be better understood using evolution as an example. People think about evolution as if it were a ladder; they see it as if there were an ultimate goal or perfection that we are trying to attain. But evolution is only a response to the state of the environment at a given time. The response is suitable at the moment and changes, not to strive for an ultimate state, but as the environment changes. If we look at God as if he was a temporal being with an intellect in constant flux, we are misleading ourselves.
It seems that in Descartes’ idea of Determinism or commonly held views of fatalism, a person’s actions are futile. The fate has been established and no matter how hard someone struggles against his fate, it will eventually take its course. This is again misleading: We are determined in the sense that our desires flow necessarily from God’s nature, but we still have the illusion of having free will. There is nothing in nature that would make us think we are not free, but only because we have the conception of having desires. We can control our moderate desires, but in the case of stronger desires, we see the better and do the worse. We might do things or say things that we later regret, because we feel that we acted from free mental decision.
We are conscious of our actions, but ignorant to their cause. Spinoza uses the example of a stone in motion. It is only conscious of it’s endeavor and because of this, thinks that it is free and that it continues for no other reason but that it wants to. This is just as babies feel that they freely desire milk. Spinoza felt that this idea was innate in all men and even though we always see that desires and appetites are the hardest to control, we still remain free.
Following from this anthropomorphic view, we find a way to worship God because we feel he can change our future or bestow us with advantages. Similarly, misfortune comes about when the gods are angry and they use it as a form of punishment. But again, if God acts with and end in view, it is to admit that he is not perfect.
Good and bad do not depend on God. This is similar to David Hume’s idea that good and bad or good and evil are human concepts. We create them in order to judge what is advantageous to us and what is detremental to our survival. But this view is very limited. If we understand the necessity, we can understand that when we act, we are participating in the divine nature. Virtue and the service of God itself is happiness. We should not expect rewards from taking part in nature. Our attitudes towards fortune and things that are outside of our power should be changed. We shouldn’t look at good and bad as if they were opposites, but only two sides of fortune which we should both expect and endure.
If approached with reason, tranquility should come along with this doctrine. As we participate in the divine nature and understand it more and more, our actions become more and more perfect. The knowledge of God urges us to act only with love and piety. We should help our friends and family and everyone, not from pity but simply because reason guides us to.
Emotions such as hatred, anger and envy are considered to have the same necessity and force of nature as all other things, but our attitudes and conceptions of them are wrong. We should hate, despise or envy no one. Each of us should be content with what we have. This is similar to the philosophy of Epictetus and the stoics. We should not wish to change our fate, because it is necessary and unchanging. We should instead be happy with our lot in life, because it is part of the divine plan.
Hatred can never be good. (IVP45) The emotions of hope and fear cannot be good in themselves. (IVP47) Both hope and fear cannot be without pain because even hope cannot be without fear. Pleasure should be maximized because the more we participate in pleasure, the more we participate in the divine nature.
Spinoza’s view of Determinism relies on intention. This is similar to the philosophy of Harry Frankfurt. A wicked man is still to be feared even though he is necessarily wicked. We are responsible for the intentions and actions that we have because it is still our nature that Determines them.
Spinoza would agree with Descartes’ view that if by constrained he meant that we act necessarily but not against our will. But Descartes means we are free if we are not constrained by any external cause. But we are constrained in the sense that our actions are the necessary result of our natures, which are the result of God’s nature. Freedom is not free decision, but free necessity.
So to summarize, nothing in nature is contingent, but all things are from the necessity of the divine nature, determined to exist and to act in a fixed way. Whatever is, is in God but God cannot be contingent (IP11). From this, modes follow necessarily, not contingently (IP16). Things could not have been created by God in any other way than is the case. (IP33). If it were, a completely different nature would have to be attributed to God, (IP11/IP14 Cor 1). He who knows that all things follow from necessity will find nothing deserving of hatred or contempt, not will he pity or envy anyone. (IVP50 Sch.)
Reason, God and the Mind: Take home exam
With Professor David Jopling.
Fall, 2003
Spinoza’s theory of Determinism is more akin to the form of Scientific Determinism we see today as opposed to the Cartesian Determinism common in his time. Descartes saw that something was constrained if its actions were limited by an external cause, and against a person’s desire. Something is free if it is acting from its volitions or desires.
Spinoza takes a very different approach. He explains that it is not our actions that are determined by God, it is our desires that follow necessarily from the nature of God himself.
God exists necessarily because it is in his very essence to exist:
“from God’s supreme power or infinite nature and infinity of things in infinite ways – that is, everything – have necessarily flowed or are always following from that same necessity, just as from the nature of a triangle it follows from eternity to eternity that its three angles are equal to two right angles”. (IP17Sch.)
Another way to interpret this is to say that the laws of nature are universal and causal. In other words, they are unchanging and in a sense almost predictable. One state of nature leads to another in a cause and effect relationship. If you are given a complete atomic state of the universe with the complete causal set of laws, the theory goes that you can read future and past states as if they were fixed. This idea can be further illustrated by examining IP28. Every finite thing is determined to exist and act by another finite cause, which is also determined by another finite cause, and so on ad infinitum.
Things could not have been produced by God in any other way than is the case. This is because nothing in Nature is contingent. As stated above, what exists, flows directly from God’s nature. If things would be different, you would have to attribute to God a different nature. Spinoza addresses the commonly held belief that God acts from will and has the power to change the world. This is an anthropomorphic view of God; a God that desires and has an intelligence like our own and a will similar to ours.
Spinoza has many conflicts with this view. The first is that because God is eternal and exists outside of time, his decrees have been sanctioned for all eternity (IP33.Sch 2). It follows from this that God can never be without decree, they can never be without him and they are eternal and unchanging. This is similar to saying that the laws of nature have always existed as long as nature has existed. Because nature is eternal, the laws have always been. If the laws were different, nature would also be completely different.
The other problem with this is that admitting that God has an ultimate goal is not only are we speaking of him in temporal terms which contradicts with the nature of God, but it admits that there is an imperfection in God. If his will changes, how can his essence remain the same and still attribute to him perfection?
What Spinoza is expressing about people’s misconceptions can be better understood using evolution as an example. People think about evolution as if it were a ladder; they see it as if there were an ultimate goal or perfection that we are trying to attain. But evolution is only a response to the state of the environment at a given time. The response is suitable at the moment and changes, not to strive for an ultimate state, but as the environment changes. If we look at God as if he was a temporal being with an intellect in constant flux, we are misleading ourselves.
It seems that in Descartes’ idea of Determinism or commonly held views of fatalism, a person’s actions are futile. The fate has been established and no matter how hard someone struggles against his fate, it will eventually take its course. This is again misleading: We are determined in the sense that our desires flow necessarily from God’s nature, but we still have the illusion of having free will. There is nothing in nature that would make us think we are not free, but only because we have the conception of having desires. We can control our moderate desires, but in the case of stronger desires, we see the better and do the worse. We might do things or say things that we later regret, because we feel that we acted from free mental decision.
We are conscious of our actions, but ignorant to their cause. Spinoza uses the example of a stone in motion. It is only conscious of it’s endeavor and because of this, thinks that it is free and that it continues for no other reason but that it wants to. This is just as babies feel that they freely desire milk. Spinoza felt that this idea was innate in all men and even though we always see that desires and appetites are the hardest to control, we still remain free.
Following from this anthropomorphic view, we find a way to worship God because we feel he can change our future or bestow us with advantages. Similarly, misfortune comes about when the gods are angry and they use it as a form of punishment. But again, if God acts with and end in view, it is to admit that he is not perfect.
Good and bad do not depend on God. This is similar to David Hume’s idea that good and bad or good and evil are human concepts. We create them in order to judge what is advantageous to us and what is detremental to our survival. But this view is very limited. If we understand the necessity, we can understand that when we act, we are participating in the divine nature. Virtue and the service of God itself is happiness. We should not expect rewards from taking part in nature. Our attitudes towards fortune and things that are outside of our power should be changed. We shouldn’t look at good and bad as if they were opposites, but only two sides of fortune which we should both expect and endure.
If approached with reason, tranquility should come along with this doctrine. As we participate in the divine nature and understand it more and more, our actions become more and more perfect. The knowledge of God urges us to act only with love and piety. We should help our friends and family and everyone, not from pity but simply because reason guides us to.
Emotions such as hatred, anger and envy are considered to have the same necessity and force of nature as all other things, but our attitudes and conceptions of them are wrong. We should hate, despise or envy no one. Each of us should be content with what we have. This is similar to the philosophy of Epictetus and the stoics. We should not wish to change our fate, because it is necessary and unchanging. We should instead be happy with our lot in life, because it is part of the divine plan.
Hatred can never be good. (IVP45) The emotions of hope and fear cannot be good in themselves. (IVP47) Both hope and fear cannot be without pain because even hope cannot be without fear. Pleasure should be maximized because the more we participate in pleasure, the more we participate in the divine nature.
Spinoza’s view of Determinism relies on intention. This is similar to the philosophy of Harry Frankfurt. A wicked man is still to be feared even though he is necessarily wicked. We are responsible for the intentions and actions that we have because it is still our nature that Determines them.
Spinoza would agree with Descartes’ view that if by constrained he meant that we act necessarily but not against our will. But Descartes means we are free if we are not constrained by any external cause. But we are constrained in the sense that our actions are the necessary result of our natures, which are the result of God’s nature. Freedom is not free decision, but free necessity.
So to summarize, nothing in nature is contingent, but all things are from the necessity of the divine nature, determined to exist and to act in a fixed way. Whatever is, is in God but God cannot be contingent (IP11). From this, modes follow necessarily, not contingently (IP16). Things could not have been created by God in any other way than is the case. (IP33). If it were, a completely different nature would have to be attributed to God, (IP11/IP14 Cor 1). He who knows that all things follow from necessity will find nothing deserving of hatred or contempt, not will he pity or envy anyone. (IVP50 Sch.)
posted by jessalauren @ 10:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home