Any Spinoza Scholars?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Introduction to Philosophy / Factual Issues / Books » Any Spinoza Scholars? » Any Spinoza Scholars?

Any Spinoza Scholars?

Mr. J
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 01, 2007

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 11

Posted 12/01/07 - 01:17 PM: Subject: Any Spinoza Scholars?	#1
I would like to start a discussion about Spinoza. I had recently started reading Ethics and I found myself interested in his writings because the philosophy seems pretty coherent and in good agreement with a modern understanding of the world. I am confused because sometimes i don't 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 all possible things must exist. It seems close to some forms of modern cosmology. As to his philosophy of the mind I have some confusion. Sometimes he seems very dualist but then he also seems very insistent on the embodied mind. I'm pretty sure he thinks the mind and body are the same thing but he does also divide the world in two, thought and extension. His idea of free will seems to be modern compatabalist? I know some 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. I'm 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? Does anyone have any critiques? Errors? How does Spinoza's arguments agree or disagree with scientific understanding?

Shae
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 01, 2007

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 12/02/07 - 12:36 AM:	#2
I am not a Spinoza scholar (yet) but a philosophy student currently studying Spinoza. I just finished a paper on his necessitariansim, and currently writing a final on his ethical theory. So maybe I can help you. 1. "His philosophy in part I seems to imply all possible things must exist. It seems close to some forms of modern cosmology." Ip16 is his commitment to necesstarianism: the doctrine which says the universe and everything in it is governed with absolute necessity by one set of natural laws. Everything that exists (Y) follows necessarily from God's essence (X). Which just means, in short, that everything that is had to be that way and, by Ip33, could have been in no other way and in no other order. As for similarities between other modern cosmology--what do you have in mind? 2. "As to his philosophy of the mind I have some confusion. Sometimes he seems very dualist but then he also seems very insistent on the embodied mind. I'm pretty sure he thinks the mind and body are the same thing but he does also divide the world in two, thought and extension." Spinoza is no dualist. There is only one substance: God/Nature. Everything either is God or is an attribute of God. By God he means the natural world as an extended thinking thing (or what you call "embodied mind"). This is a move against Descartes who said there are three substances which interacted with each other: God, mind (thought) and body (extension). So in doing this Spinoza has no problem of interaction as Descartes does. Also, Spinoza identifies thought with extension in Ip7s. He says thought and extension are one and the same thing but expressed in two different way. As for his division of reality--that would be what he calls "Natura naturata" and "Natura naturans." Consult the text. 3. "His idea of free will seems to be modern compatabalist?" To be sure, while Spinoza is what you call a compatibalist (sp?) in that we can still participate in freedom while being determined to act in a specific way, there is no such thing as "free-will" on his picture. In IIp48 Spinoza denies this, that we have a (separate faculty of) will and that it is free. Moreover, as he says in Ip17c2, God alone is a free cause. And by freedom he only means acting from the necessity of your own nature. 4. "I know some 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. I'm not sure if his theory of ethics, and human motivation, desire and endeavor is in line with modern understanding." Einstein says Spinoza is the single most philosopher who influenced his world-view. Nature as "Spinoza's God." As for his ethical theory (rational self-interest), it is grounded in the doctrine of psychological egoism which says it is a FACT of human nature that we act from self-interested motives. I happen to agree with him in many respects--though it is questionable when he says in part V that the free man never lies. Anyway, does it matter that his ethical theory is contra our "modern understanding" of how we should live our lives? Isn't the question whether YOU agree with him or not? If something about his theory appeals to you, benefits you, makes sense to you--as something you could possibly live your life by? And not if he is "right" according to popular opinion--which is, more often than not, wrong in my view. As for the last three questions: it is easy to pick someone apart, the difficulty often lays in building them up. Try sifting through the pile to find the jewels--because there ARE jewels in Spinoza.

Mr. J
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 01, 2007

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 11

Posted 12/02/07 - 09:42 AM:	#3
Thank you, this was what I was looking for. I probably overstated my title a bit. I just wanted a conversation from somone familiar with the topic. Two things I want to mention, an amature in philosophy, I have only done a small amount of reading so far. Now somone might say go take some classes or read this than come back. But I find it helpful and enjoyable to learn by engaging in conversation as long as my partner will put up with some ignorance. I don't mean to say references to study material are not helpful, they are and I appreciate any directions to material. (1) Definitions My greatest difficulty was with the terminology. You brought up the Natura naturata and Natura naturans, (IP29 note) I did not understand this; "that which is in itself and through itself conceived" and that which follows from necessity of nature". I draw a blank here. I think I'm missing some historical foundation. Is there somone I should read here? Can I get examples for these instances of active and passive nature? A cut diamond by necessity of its nature sparkles. Is this right? Now what is an example of "in itself and through itself conceived"? I think I understand substance, and attribute but what is mode and 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. He starts with something one and eternal and he gets it to change by specifying modes. But how does this work? At the end of IP15 he has an example of water. I don't even begin to understand this example and I feel its key. (2) Free will Yes to IP17c2 (only that which is determined by its own nature is self determined (God)) and yes to IIP48 (the human mind is caused and so is not free) but than I can't find it now but I think it's in IV he talks about how we are free by being ego determined and he talks about being self determined by any action that comes from the preservation of ego and that we can cultivate this by acting by reason and not by passion. How does this relate to IIp48 where he says we don't have free will because those latter parts sound like free will? (3) Ethics, your point is well taken. I would like to come back to this but I already wrote enough above. (4) Critiques I often like to know something's weak points in evaluating it. For movie reviews I usually look for the negative reviews and see if I agree with them or not! :-) Edited by hyena in petticoat on 12/02/07 - 05:51 PM. Reason: Yes, it's bad.

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.