1. I found Spinoza’s definition very helpful at the beginning of Ethics. In defining what he means by substance, attribute, and mode, it seemed to flow smoothly into his definition of God as “a thing that is absolutely infinite i.e. a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes.” More so, his definition of “free” was interesting to think about as well, i.e. a thing – with no input from anything else – makes it necessary for it to exist and causes it to act as it does.
2. I had a question about Spinoza’s 5th Axiom -- as he states, “ If two things have nothing in common, they can’t be understood though one another – that is, the concept of one doesn’t involve the concept of the other.” However, isn’t it possible to know of the other thing through negating the thing that is its opposite, i.e. understanding the concept of infinite by negating finite.
1) By defining everything before stating his claims, made arguing against Spinoza challenging. Each definition was built off the definition before or related in some way. At the very beginning Spinoza defines God as a "thing that is absolutely infinite, i.e. a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, each of which expresses an eternal and infinite essence." I think by giving a clear and organized definition of God, Spinoza makes it easier to agree with the claims that followed. 2) Something i found interesting during in the reading was during his possible counter argument he stated that "these are arguments that i find being used by authors who want to show that corporeal substance in unworthy of the divine mature, and cannot have anything to do with it"(Spinoza8). This is notable because there are many philosophers who basically condemn the physical world because they believe it is wicked.
1) Axiom 7 listed on page 2 says that "If a thing can be conceived as not existing then its essence doesn't involve existence." Thinking about this statement, I related it to the existence of humans where I can think of a world where humans do not exist so that would mean that our essence does not involve existing, so what then does our essence depend on? 2) There was also an interesting distinction on page 15 in proposal 32. Spinoza indicates that acts of the will are not God directly choosing something for us, but are chosen through Divine Nature which is from which God acts, but he is not right there choosing an apple over an orange for us for example.
I found Propositions 14 and 15 very intriguing: "God is the only substance that can exist or be conceived; Whatever exists is in God, and nothing can exist or be conceived without God." Does this imply that everything--the universe--is part of God? This kind of makes me think of pantheism. But it is certainly an interesting notion to think that we are a part of God, and that God is everything.
Axiom 4 ("Knowledge of an effect depends on, and involves, knowledge of its cause") is a very fundamental concept of causality. The principle of cause and effect makes a lot of sense in the world
1. The third proof Spinoza presents for God’s existence in the 11th proposition was my favorite proposal because I could follow his idea without raising doubts about it. Personally, I do believe in an infinite being that has so much power that everything that exists it’s because of his/her/its will. Thinking about us, normal human beings that lack absolute knowledge, and who possess almost no power at all, to be the absolute thing that exists it’s hard for me to believe. Moreover, I cannot accept the idea of ourselves, finite things, existing without the power of something infinite intervening in our existence. 2. When Spinoza talks about freedom of will starting from the 29th proposition and continuing until the 33rd proposition, it is evident that he believes in a causal determinism, as he believes that everything is determined by God. The mind is a finite mode, that is determined by an infinite mode. Therefore, only God possesses some kind of divine will. Whereas humans’ actions possess a cause that has a cause, and it continues until it reaches God.
1. I enjoyed Spinoza's reading very much. In his First corollary, Spinoza states, "God is unique, i.e. (by 6) in Nature there is only one substance, and it is absolutely infinite." (Spinoza 8) Spinoza believes that God is the only substance in which all things come from. I believe this too because in my opinion, God made all living things (humans, plants, ect.) and from that came none living things that were likely to be built by a living thing. Since God created the living thing and the living thing created the non living thing (i.e. a human building a table) then the non living thing (in this case the table) in someway must have come from the original, one and only substance (God).
2. I really enjoy Spinoza's view point on what/who God is. One question I would have for him, although, would be when he states, "If God didn’t exist, then (by A7) God’s essence would not involve existence; and (by 7) that is absurd. Therefore God necessarily exists." (Spinoza 5) I am just confused on the whole "11th" augment and what he is trying to say.
1) I like hopw Spinoza starts off his argument by explaining how god exists and that God is indeed infinite. By being inifite that mean god has infinate knowledge so he does not need an input to create. While we do not have this infinte knowldge we do need an input, showing how our free will is limited compared to god.
2) The input that we need are causes. To make an action we need to see something before hand that makes us belive or act in a certain way. This is how our free will is limited because God is in every action or object so he is the focus of the causes.
1) Perhaps one of the most important developments in the history of liberalism emergence out of the feudal order is the move from the medieval metaphysical ontology of the great chain of being to a more materialistic ontological view point. Spinoza's metaphysics is an example of the move towards this development in bourgeois thought. Specifically the idea that the universe was self caused, stripping away the power of the divine order in favor of an appreciation for that of nature.
2) While this may seem as though it is an a-political piece. The very act of stripping God of all his power as the sole maker of the universe and the divine arbitrator of all affairs lets one give up the superstitions that come from the old ontology of the aristocracy. Without the chains of superstition to bind them, the bourgeoisie can directly challenge the aristocracy and use their material advantage to secure a world where they have class control over the state apparatus.
1)My criticisms of spinoza is the same as my critique of Rene Descarte. There logical rigor and desire for truth is admirable, but they both fail to notice the hypocrisy of their religion. I have no qualms with those who hold a religious belief even if it isn't total justified. Faith is in some ways admirable and so is the desire for absolute truth, but when both these urges are combined, both cease to mean anything. Descrate and Spinoza both seem to want to restart, to throw out all of their beliefs and begin from scratch as to get rid of any untrue beliefs, but they never begin from a place where God doesn’t exist. Sure they have their own logic as to why they think god is real but they never even ponder the possibility that god doesn't exist. If it wasn't for religion and scripture telling them of this ‘infinite’ they would have never considered it. They don't truly restart, they still hold there judeo-cristian biases. 2)Spinoza’s logic seems to go to far for me. I don't think it is a coincidence that empirism would emerge around the same time as Spinoza because often while reading him I couldn't help but cringe as how sure spinoza though he was. The world simply doesn't follow our logic as closely as these rationalists believe.
1,) I enjoyed how Spinoza discussed God’s perfection in terms of never needing to change anything in existence because it would mean that God made a mistake during creation. Also, the notion that God does things as a means to an end is false because it would mean that God wants and lacks something which would go against God’s perfection.
2.) I also enjoyed how Spinoza says that “whatever we conceive to be in God’s power, necessarily exists” meaning whatever humans can imagine as God’s power exists because the thought did not come from nothing and must have came from God since we are God’s creation.
I like the way the ethics are broken down, almost like a formula or algorithm. The idea of breaking the definition of God down made his argument very digestible. The idea that I find very interesting is that for him it is either God or Nature. Reading Spinoza it seems as he is a monist. I can get behind Spinoza's thought process that thinking things and extended things are of the same substance.
The idea that the universe made of substance that is indivisible, self-caused, infinite and eternal is very interesting. Seems like a very radical thought to have that the essence of the universe is essentially the necessity of its own nature, caused itself.
1. In the definitions, Spinoza describes nature cannot conceived except as existing. What I couldn't understand was, what does he mean when he states "A thing is said to be finite in its own kind if it can be limited by something else of the same nature", What is the thing he is referring to? He then goes on in D7 definitions and states again "A thing is called free if its own nature - without no input from anything else makes it necessary for it to exist and causes it to act as it does". It is not really clear what mean in this definition.
2. In Proposition 11, Spinoza talks about God and the infinite essences that exists. What I thought was interesting when he states, "From them it follows that a thing necessarily exist if there is no reason or cause that prevents from existing. So if there is no reason or cause that prevents God from existing or takes God existing away, it certainly follows that God exists". Spinoza goes back to the "thing" that he is not clear what it is. Spinoza explains that God must exist because there is no other reason otherwise.
I appreciate Spinoza’s structure in this piece, as it reminds me a lot of the analytical and organized style of medieval philosophers like Thomas Aquinas for example. Although I think Spinoza is a more sophisticated in the particulars of his arguments. The inclusion of definitions and axioms prior to the arguments/proofs gives a really clear sort of glossary to reference while reading.
Spinoza’s arguments, as far as I can tell, are not particularly novel but they are very clearly articulated. By this, I mean much of what he says seems to me to be drawn from an earlier source, but he is attempting to tighten up these theories and proofs and respond to previous objections to them.
1. Reading Hobbes proved a lot less challenging than Descartes. Hobbes' perspective on imagination is particularly interesting to me. I like that he called it "the decay of sense" from the idea that the mind obscures things after they are received by the senses. I thought his writing was sort of poetic and enjoyable to read. Spinoza's argument was well organized and easy to follow as well. He came to a clear conclusion at the end; while the human body is finite, the human intellect is infinite. This seems to be a theme in what we've read so far, this idea that the human mind/intellect is a powerful entity limited by the bounds of the human body.
2. A few questions that come to mind: Why during this time is there a tendency to separate the mind from the body? Where did the original idea of a 'soul" come from?
1. Perhaps one of them most important things about Spinoza's conception of God is not to have Him conflated with Nature. In regards to monotheistic images of a supreme deity, Spinoza regards God as immanent within the world, but not intervening. The cool, indifferent God he formulates marks a sharp contrast to the personal, humanlike Creator found in the Abrahamic scriptures.
2. I found Spinoza's hyper-abstract argument to be fascinating in its virtual irrefutability. As opposed to the objections posed to Descartes, Spinoza disposes of conflicting objections to other theories with relative ease.
1. I found Spinoza’s definition very helpful at the beginning of Ethics. In defining what he means by substance, attribute, and mode, it seemed to flow smoothly into his definition of God as “a thing that is absolutely infinite i.e. a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes.” More so, his definition of “free” was interesting to think about as well, i.e. a thing – with no input from anything else – makes it necessary for it to exist and causes it to act as it does.
ReplyDelete2. I had a question about Spinoza’s 5th Axiom -- as he states, “ If two things have nothing in common, they can’t be understood though one another – that is, the concept of one doesn’t involve the concept of the other.” However, isn’t it possible to know of the other thing through negating the thing that is its opposite, i.e. understanding the concept of infinite by negating finite.
1) By defining everything before stating his claims, made arguing against Spinoza challenging. Each definition was built off the definition before or related in some way. At the very beginning Spinoza defines God as a "thing that is absolutely infinite, i.e. a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, each of which expresses an eternal and infinite essence." I think by giving a clear and organized definition of God, Spinoza makes it easier to agree with the claims that followed.
ReplyDelete2) Something i found interesting during in the reading was during his possible counter argument he stated that "these are arguments that i find being used by authors who want to show that corporeal substance in unworthy of the divine mature, and cannot have anything to do with it"(Spinoza8). This is notable because there are many philosophers who basically condemn the physical world because they believe it is wicked.
1) Axiom 7 listed on page 2 says that "If a thing can be conceived as not existing then its essence doesn't involve existence." Thinking about this statement, I related it to the existence of humans where I can think of a world where humans do not exist so that would mean that our essence does not involve existing, so what then does our essence depend on?
ReplyDelete2) There was also an interesting distinction on page 15 in proposal 32. Spinoza indicates that acts of the will are not God directly choosing something for us, but are chosen through Divine Nature which is from which God acts, but he is not right there choosing an apple over an orange for us for example.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI found Propositions 14 and 15 very intriguing: "God is the only substance that can exist or be conceived; Whatever exists is in God, and nothing can exist or be conceived without God." Does this imply that everything--the universe--is part of God? This kind of makes me think of pantheism. But it is certainly an interesting notion to think that we are a part of God, and that God is everything.
ReplyDeleteAxiom 4 ("Knowledge of an effect depends on, and involves, knowledge of its cause") is a very fundamental concept of causality. The principle of cause and effect makes a lot of sense in the world
1. The third proof Spinoza presents for God’s existence in the 11th proposition was my favorite proposal because I could follow his idea without raising doubts about it. Personally, I do believe in an infinite being that has so much power that everything that exists it’s because of his/her/its will. Thinking about us, normal human beings that lack absolute knowledge, and who possess almost no power at all, to be the absolute thing that exists it’s hard for me to believe. Moreover, I cannot accept the idea of ourselves, finite things, existing without the power of something infinite intervening in our existence.
ReplyDelete2. When Spinoza talks about freedom of will starting from the 29th proposition and continuing until the 33rd proposition, it is evident that he believes in a causal determinism, as he believes that everything is determined by God. The mind is a finite mode, that is determined by an infinite mode. Therefore, only God possesses some kind of divine will. Whereas humans’ actions possess a cause that has a cause, and it continues until it reaches God.
1. I enjoyed Spinoza's reading very much. In his First corollary, Spinoza states, "God is unique, i.e. (by 6) in Nature there is only one substance, and it is absolutely infinite." (Spinoza 8) Spinoza believes that God is the only substance in which all things come from. I believe this too because in my opinion, God made all living things (humans, plants, ect.) and from that came none living things that were likely to be built by a living thing. Since God created the living thing and the living thing created the non living thing (i.e. a human building a table) then the non living thing (in this case the table) in someway must have come from the original, one and only substance (God).
ReplyDelete2. I really enjoy Spinoza's view point on what/who God is. One question I would have for him, although, would be when he states, "If God didn’t exist, then (by A7) God’s essence would not involve existence; and (by 7) that is absurd. Therefore God necessarily exists." (Spinoza 5) I am just confused on the whole "11th" augment and what he is trying to say.
1) I like hopw Spinoza starts off his argument by explaining how god exists and that God is indeed infinite. By being inifite that mean god has infinate knowledge so he does not need an input to create. While we do not have this infinte knowldge we do need an input, showing how our free will is limited compared to god.
ReplyDelete2) The input that we need are causes. To make an action we need to see something before hand that makes us belive or act in a certain way. This is how our free will is limited because God is in every action or object so he is the focus of the causes.
1) Perhaps one of the most important developments in the history of liberalism emergence out of the feudal order is the move from the medieval metaphysical ontology of the great chain of being to a more materialistic ontological view point. Spinoza's metaphysics is an example of the move towards this development in bourgeois thought. Specifically the idea that the universe was self caused, stripping away the power of the divine order in favor of an appreciation for that of nature.
ReplyDelete2) While this may seem as though it is an a-political piece. The very act of stripping God of all his power as the sole maker of the universe and the divine arbitrator of all affairs lets one give up the superstitions that come from the old ontology of the aristocracy. Without the chains of superstition to bind them, the bourgeoisie can directly challenge the aristocracy and use their material advantage to secure a world where they have class control over the state apparatus.
1)My criticisms of spinoza is the same as my critique of Rene Descarte. There logical rigor and desire for truth is admirable, but they both fail to notice the hypocrisy of their religion. I have no qualms with those who hold a religious belief even if it isn't total justified. Faith is in some ways admirable and so is the desire for absolute truth, but when both these urges are combined, both cease to mean anything. Descrate and Spinoza both seem to want to restart, to throw out all of their beliefs and begin from scratch as to get rid of any untrue beliefs, but they never begin from a place where God doesn’t exist. Sure they have their own logic as to why they think god is real but they never even ponder the possibility that god doesn't exist. If it wasn't for religion and scripture telling them of this ‘infinite’ they would have never considered it. They don't truly restart, they still hold there judeo-cristian biases.
ReplyDelete2)Spinoza’s logic seems to go to far for me. I don't think it is a coincidence that empirism would emerge around the same time as Spinoza because often while reading him I couldn't help but cringe as how sure spinoza though he was. The world simply doesn't follow our logic as closely as these rationalists believe.
1,) I enjoyed how Spinoza discussed God’s perfection in terms of never needing to change anything in existence because it would mean that God made a mistake during creation. Also, the notion that God does things as a means to an end is false because it would mean that God wants and lacks something which would go against God’s perfection.
ReplyDelete2.) I also enjoyed how Spinoza says that “whatever we conceive to be in God’s power, necessarily exists” meaning whatever humans can imagine as God’s power exists because the thought did not come from nothing and must have came from God since we are God’s creation.
I like the way the ethics are broken down, almost like a formula or algorithm. The idea of breaking the definition of God down made his argument very digestible. The idea that I find very interesting is that for him it is either God or Nature. Reading Spinoza it seems as he is a monist. I can get behind Spinoza's thought process that thinking things and extended things are of the same substance.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that the universe made of substance that is indivisible, self-caused, infinite and eternal is very interesting. Seems like a very radical thought to have that the essence of the universe is essentially the necessity of its own nature, caused itself.
1. In the definitions, Spinoza describes nature cannot conceived except as existing. What I couldn't understand was, what does he mean when he states "A thing is said to be finite in its own kind if it can be limited by something else of the same nature", What is the thing he is referring to? He then goes on in D7 definitions and states again "A thing is called free if its own nature - without no input from anything else makes it necessary for it to exist and causes it to act as it does". It is not really clear what mean in this definition.
ReplyDelete2. In Proposition 11, Spinoza talks about God and the infinite essences that exists. What I thought was interesting when he states, "From them it follows that a thing necessarily exist if there is no reason or cause that prevents from existing. So if there is no reason or cause that prevents God from existing or takes God existing away, it certainly follows that God exists". Spinoza goes back to the "thing" that he is not clear what it is. Spinoza explains that God must exist because there is no other reason otherwise.
I appreciate Spinoza’s structure in this piece, as it reminds me a lot of the analytical and organized style of medieval philosophers like Thomas Aquinas for example. Although I think Spinoza is a more sophisticated in the particulars of his arguments. The inclusion of definitions and axioms prior to the arguments/proofs gives a really clear sort of glossary to reference while reading.
ReplyDeleteSpinoza’s arguments, as far as I can tell, are not particularly novel but they are very clearly articulated. By this, I mean much of what he says seems to me to be drawn from an earlier source, but he is attempting to tighten up these theories and proofs and respond to previous objections to them.
1. Reading Hobbes proved a lot less challenging than Descartes. Hobbes' perspective on imagination is particularly interesting to me. I like that he called it "the decay of sense" from the idea that the mind obscures things after they are received by the senses. I thought his writing was sort of poetic and enjoyable to read. Spinoza's argument was well organized and easy to follow as well. He came to a clear conclusion at the end; while the human body is finite, the human intellect is infinite. This seems to be a theme in what we've read so far, this idea that the human mind/intellect is a powerful entity limited by the bounds of the human body.
ReplyDelete2. A few questions that come to mind: Why during this time is there a tendency to separate the mind from the body? Where did the original idea of a 'soul" come from?
1. Perhaps one of them most important things about Spinoza's conception of God is not to have Him conflated with Nature. In regards to monotheistic images of a supreme deity, Spinoza regards God as immanent within the world, but not intervening. The cool, indifferent God he formulates marks a sharp contrast to the personal, humanlike Creator found in the Abrahamic scriptures.
ReplyDelete2. I found Spinoza's hyper-abstract argument to be fascinating in its virtual irrefutability. As opposed to the objections posed to Descartes, Spinoza disposes of conflicting objections to other theories with relative ease.