Spinoza english

SPINOZA

THE JEWISH HERITAGE

In many ways Spinoza (1632-1677) stood outside the orthodox tradition of philosophy in the history of modern Europe. His career was surrounded by the atmosphere of isolation and loneliness; aloof, living apart from most religious and political groups, having no cause to defend, Spinoza was among the among cosmopolitan and universal of all thinkers. He, perhaps best of all, exhibited the detachment which philosophers admire so much and practice so little. He was the most religious of all irreligious thinker, not merely because, as Novalis said, he was a god-intoxicated man and conceived of God as the only substance, but because he had so sublime a concept of the universe, so strong a passion for unity, and a love for God based not on the expectation of future reward but on a complete understanding of reality

Spinoza Jewish background is evident throughout his work. As a Jew, Spinoza suffered persecution, ironically enough from his own religious comrades, and yet the Jewish strains of his philosophy are significant and form perhaps the most conclusive and salient part of his thinking. The Jews at the end of the middle age were subject to bitter persecution and suffering. Occasionally there were periods of tolerance, as in Holland, but the danger of persecution was always present. The Jews never knew when the masses would stirred up against them, when pogroms would take place and their property would be destroyed.  At these times thousand would be killed, and again the Jews would be left homeless, wandering desolately along the roads of Europe. The memory of 1492, the persecution in Spain, was strong in the  hearts  of all European Jews, but they could think even further back to the Crusades, which to them had been an ending nightmare. Frequently the Crusaders, instead of attacking the Mohammedans, killed Jews in the hope of pleasing God. Seldom in the history of civilization has mankind seen such inhumanity.  Still, the horrors of the Crusaders were surpassed to some extend by those of the Inquisition, which used torture and other atrocious methods for terrorizing its victim.

    In Jewish philosophy we find, then, a spirit different from that in the philosophy of Christian Europe. First of all, it was more cosmopolitan; it was not so closely tied up with orthodoxy as was Christian thinking. This spirit had been revealed as early as Philo, who had tried to combine Judaism with the fruits of Greek reason. Maimonides in the middle ages had attempted to harmonized Aristotle with Moses and had sought to liberalize conservative Jewish thinking. The same liberal spirit appeared in Spinoza and later in Mendelssohn and in Bergson.

    Another interesting trait in Jewish philosophy is the mixture of mysticism and science. Spinoza and they believed, is to be gained by intuition, not by the categories of analysis. Mysticism, again, is part of the universalism of the Jewish spirit, which has no respect for the narrow barriers of theology and supernatural belief.

    For the Jews of Spinoza’s time the past was full of horrors and nightmares. Superstition meant to them persecution and suffering. This explains why the Jews were among the most progressive representative of the new science and welcomed the new movements in philosophy. No wonder we find the Jews thinkers among the shock troops of capitalism, Marxism, the Newtonian science, and, later on, the theory of relativity. More than their Christian neighbors, the Jews live for the future, for the day after tomorrow.

   Most of the Jews thinkers have fought vigorously for freedom of thought. Spinoza did his share in trying to destroy fanaticism and dogmatism. He emphasize throughout his work that there is not just one way which is valid for all times and for all situations. He did not impose his opinions on anyone; he did not try to convert others. He explained and defined his opinions, but he did not try to coerce anyone. To be free in thinking, not to be bound by the fetters of the past, not to have to bow to narrow theological dogmas, all these things stirred the mind of Spinoza. Mendelssohn, during the enlightenment, fought for the same goal, and in our own time Albert Einstein, who admires Spinoza philosophy above any other, fights for the same kind of freedom.

THE LIFE AND CAREER OF SPINOZA

Spinoza was born in Amsterdam. His father was fairly well-to-do, a merchant who had some influence in the affairs of the Jewish congregation. As a boy, Spinoza showed unusual brilliance in his studies, and the rabbis thought he would become one of their best scholar. But very early he rebelled against the limitations of the scholastic Hebrew education, which was mainly based on memorization and repletion. He wanted to study everything in the world, and so he was instructed by Van den Ende, a famous teacher, in mathematics, philosophy, and natural science. He became a linguist and spoke Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, Hebrew, French, and Italian; he also had knowledge of German, Latin, and Greek.

    But it was the new philosophy, above all, which inspired his thinking and emancipated him from his narrow theological background. He began to have radical views regarding the nature of god and the function of religion.  He did not make any attempt to conceal his ideas but talked about them openly. His friends were shocked, while the rabbis were dismayed. Today his views seem to be rather mild, but in his own period they were almost revolutionary. What did he say? He declared that angles may be merely fictions of the imagination and that god may be a material being, and he pointed out that there is no concept of immortality in the Old Testament.

    These views were dangerous not alone in Jewish circles but even more so among Christians. The Jewish rabbis feared that if these theories of Spinoza were spread and the world outside learned of them, the Jewish community might be blame. This might furnish another reason for persecution. While there was more religious tolerance at that time in Holland than in the rest of Europe, there were storm signals, and persecution might break out at any time. The rabbis tried everything in their power, even bribery, to convert Spinoza back to his old ways, but they failed. His excommunication from the synagogue followed in 1656. The edict of excommunications was harsh indeed; no one was to have any contact with him; no one was to converse with him; no one was ever to help him. The edict read, in part, “… we anathematize, execrate, curse, and cast out Baruch De Espinoza….” As far as his community was concerned, he was dead. A young Jewish man who thought he would please God if he killed Spinoza tried to assassinate him. His own family would have no contact with him, and he was completely alone.

    Spinoza’s reaction to the edict of excommunication was not one of fright or bitterness. To be sure, it was a terrible blow, for it changed his life completely, but still he remained calm. He changed his given name from Baruch to Benedictus, a symbol of his new life. He earned a meager living by grinding lenses. In his spare time, he tried to perfect his philosophy. He was aided by the Collegiants, a Quaker sect with a simple compassionate type of religion, who, unlike the orthodox believers, did not regard him with suspicion and distrust. He moved his residence several time; he lived near Amsterdam, at Leyden, and at The Hague, but everywhere he avoided the public eye.

    After he moved to the Hague in 1670, he became an intimate associate of the brothers De Witt and was visited by Leibniz. He corresponded with Oldenburg, secretary to the Royal Society in London; with the philologist Voss; and with Huygens, who made outstanding contributions in physics.

    In 1673 he was invited to become a professor at the university of Heidelberg. The offer was very flattering; but to accept it, he was expected to conform to the religion of the principality. He declined because he did not want to endanger his independence. He continued grinding lenses till the final day of his life. To the end he was composed, kind in his behavior, and tolerant in his views.

    Spinoza was not an ascetic in any way; he did not believe that the body should be mortified. Yet at the same time he was not hedonist; pleasures to him were not ends in themselves. In everything he showed moderation and simplicity. In vain do we search in him for emotional outbursts and passionate sentiments. He remained restrained and balanced.

   Several times during his life he was offered financial aid which could have made his existence much easier, but he would not compromise with his principles. To be independent, both economically and intellectually, was his foremost goal. Another trait which showed his humanity was his kindness to all. The people with whom he lived were rather simple and very devout. Yet he appreciated their religion, never locked down on them, and was never conceited.  Unlike many Renaissance thinker, he did not believe philosophers have special privileges or special status in the universe.

SPINOZA’S WORKS

Among Spinoza’s works we find the Principles of Descartes philosophy; On the improvement of the understanding, which was unfinished; the Theologico-political treatise and the political treatise, giving his views on social philosophy; and his best-known work, the Ethics, Since the Ethics contains many heretical views, he did not want to publish it during his lifetime. It was discovered in his room after his death; and when it published, it was received with hostility and antagonism by many of orthodox theologians.

    Spinoza’s Ethics is not just a treatise on moral principles; it contains a completely systematized philosophy of the universe, divided into five parts. The first discusses the nature of God; the second, the origin and functions of man’s mind; the third, the nature of emotions, the fourth, human bondage; and the fifth, the climatic part of the book, human freedom and man’s salvation. Undoubtedly it is one of the most notable books in the history of philosophy, not only because of its compact nature and its influence but because of its deep and acute reasoning and of Spinoza’s attempt to give to civilization a unified metaphysical philosophy.

    Like Aquinas in the 13th century, Spinoza tried to present a complete outline of God, nature, and man. Like Aquinas, Spinoza was a master in architectonic construction, in the synthesis of ideas and in the unification of theoretical concepts; but the difference between the two lies in their assumptions. Aquinas believed that truth had been revealed to the Church and that faith is superior to reason. Spinoza, on the other hand, stated that truth is not confined to many institution and that reason is completely adequate.

SOURCE OF SPINOZA’S PHILOSOPHY

The first and foremost source of Spinoza’s philosophy was Judaism. In his early schooling he was exposed to the Talmud, which contains some of difficult commentaries on the old Testament, together with the collected wisdom of the early rabbis ; the cabala; and philosophers like Maimonides, Gersonides, and Crescas. His Jewish background is noticeable especially in his treatment of the problem immortality. As must be remembered, a large section of Jewish thinker never believed that the body is immortal; moreover, Jewish thinker had constantly pointed out the importance of reason in understanding God. They did not believe that god can be found merely through prayers and rituals, but through understanding and intuition.

    Another fertile source of inspiration was Bruno, who in some ways had anticipated Spinoza. Bruno’s concept of infinity, his pantheism, his unorthodox attitude, and his faith in the ability and capacity of the human mind all these factor were reflected in the thinking of Spinoza.

    The influence of Descartes likewise should not be minimized. Descartes treatment of the problem of substance and his mathematical method had a great impact upon Spinoza’s thinking. Although Spinoza’s finally disagreed with Descartes, Cartesian thinking was a prelude to his own system.

    At the same time, Spinoza had a firm grasp of ancient philosophers, especially of Aristotle and the Neo-Platonists. He knew that Aristotle believed in the eternity of matter, and the orthodox Christian interpretation of Aristotle was not the correct one. The Aristotelian concept of the active intellect likewise proved to be very suggestive. As for the emanation of the universe taught by Neo-Platonism, this too had a place in his thinking.

    Spinoza’s imagination was stirred by the new advances in science. Science to him was not merely a method and a technique; it represented a way of life, for the wanted not merely to describe the world but to liberate human being from ignorance and superstition. He thought the new science would be and aid in man’s perennial search for power over nature. This control, however, was to be brought about not by projecting our prejudices on the universe but by understanding it completely and by distinguishing between that which is real and that which is merely an aspect of appearance.

    The paradox in Spinoza is that in spite of his scientific interest he was a believer in the simple virtues of life. The universe, which from the finite standpoint appears so complex, so confused, and so incomprehensible, when seen from the perspective of God appears as a vast interconnected unity. Religion thus had to be simplified, and at the center of it there would be one feeling, one overwhelming impulse the love of God. This love for God was not something which made Spinoza despise man or regard man as essentially depraved; on the contrary, it gave him understanding of the innate dignity of the human race.

THE INTEREST AND METHODS OF SPINOZA

Spinoza used mathematical method in philosophy; his Ethics consequently reads like a technical book in geometry. We find definition, axioms, propositions, proofs, and corollaries. Spinoza believed philosophy can be stated with the same exactness and the same clarity as mathematics. Very seldom did he bring in any personal opinion. Him aim was to show what exists and what necessarily follows, not what should be.

    To some extent the reader may object to the impersonality and the detachment of his exposition. Compared with that of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, the method of Spinoza lacks warmth and human feeling, but it contains a clarity which almost unique in the history of philosophy. In Spinoza there are few digression; he could have said the same things by writing five or six volume; instead, his main work is relatively brief.  

    Spinoza fundamental goal, like Descartes, was a search for comprehensibility in intellectual exposition. No confusion was to be allowed, no play upon words, no multiplication of basic term, instead, a chain of proposition, one following upon the other like the axioms of Euclid in geometry.

    In On the improvement of the understanding, Spinoza explained how he was driven to philosophy by a need for some lasting satisfaction. For him no permanent value could be found in the external goods of society; he could not be attracted by sensuous pleasures, by fame or by riches. Like Descartes, he was seeking for an absolute principle which might sustain him during all the crises of life. Descartes found this principle in his method of doubt, which ultimately because method of faith in the powers of reasoning. Spinoza found this principle in God, for everything in nature that is real and substantial is reduced to the Being of God.

    The order which we see in Spinoza’s universe does not appear in modern science, which pictures the physical world as being discontinuous and dominate by energy and relativity. On the other hand, there is tranquility and serenity in Spinoza’s scheme of things. To some extent Spinoza represents the last twilight of a secure religious order. Ever since his period, change has been the supreme law of life and uncertainty the guide in intellectual matters.

    The propelling motive in Spinoza’s life, as well as in his thinking, was the intellectual love for God. Yet it was not emotional ecstasy which led him to God; nor was it an Augustinian feeling that man must negate himself in order to find god. No, to Spinoza God was the supreme principle of unity; God was reality, and through God man found himself. To understand God, he believed, it is not necessary to give up our human prerogatives, to trust in blind faith. God can be reached only through understanding and trough intellectual penetration beyond the realm of finite illusion.

    Spinoza maintained that the intellect is the most important part of our being. From this it follows:

“… We should make every effort to perfect it as far as possible if we desire to search for what is really profitable to us. For in intellectual perfection the highest good should consist. Now, since all our knowledge and the certainty which removes every doubt depend solely on the knowledge of God; firstly, because without God nothing can exist or be conceived; secondly, because so long as we have no clear and distinct idea of God we may remain in universal doubt it follows that our highest God and perfection also depend solely on the knowledge of God. Further, since without God nothing can be exist or be conceived, it is evident that all natural phenomena involve and express the conception of God as far as their essence and perfection extend, so that we have greater and more perfect knowledge of God in proportion to our knowledge of natural phenomena; conversely (since the knowledge of an effect through its cause is the same thing as the knowledge of a particular property of cause) the greater our knowledge of natural phenomena,  the more effect is our knowledge of the essence God (which is the cause of all things). So, then, our highest God not only depends on the knowledge of God, but wholly consists therein; and it further follows that man is perfect or the reverse in proportion to the nature and perfection of the object of special desire; hence the most perfect and the chief sharer in the highest blessedness is he who prizes above all else, and takes special delight in the intellectual knowledge of God, the most perfect being.”

    In other words, the appreciation of God is man’s highest happiness in life and the ultimate aim of all human actions. From this it follows:

    “… He alone lives by the Divine law who loves God not from fear and punishment, or from love any other object, such as sensual pleasure, fame, or the like, but solely because he has knowledge of God, or is conceived that the knowledge and love of God is the highest Good. The sum and chief precept, then, of the Divine law is to love God as the highest Good, namely, as we have said not from fear or any pains and penalties, or from the love of any other object in which we desire to take pleasure. The idea of God lays down the rule that Good is our highest God in other words, that the knowledge and love for God is the ultimate aim to which all our actions should be directed. The worldling cannot understand these things, they appear foolishness to him because he has to meager a knowledge of God, and also because in this highest God he can discover nothing which he can handle or eat, or which affects the fleshly appetites wherein he chiefly delights, for it consists solely in thought and the pure reason. They, on the other hand, who know that they possess no greater gift than intellect and sound reason, will doubtless accept what I have said without question….”

THE INFINITE SUBSTANCE

To understand Spinoza one must comprehend the definition which we find in the beginning of his Ethics:

    “I. By that which is self-caused, I mean that of which the essence involve existence, or that of which the nature is only conceivable as existent.

   “II. A thing is called finite after its kind, when it can be limited by another thing of the same nature; for instance, a body called finite because we always conceive another greater body. So, also, a thought is limited by another thought, but a body is not limited by thought, nor a thought by body.

    “III. By substance, I mean that which is in itself. And is conceived through itself: in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception.

    “IV. By attribute, I mean that which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance.

    “V. By mode, I mean the modifications of substance, or that which exist in, and is conceived through, something other than itself.

    “VI. By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite that is, a substance consisting in finite attribute, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality.

    “Explanation I say absolutely infinite, not infinite after is kind, for, of a thing infinite only after its kind infinite attributes may be denied; but that which is absolutely infinite, contains in its essence whatever expresses reality, and involves no negation.

    “VII. That thing is called free, which exist solely by the necessity of its own nature, and of which the action is determined by itself alone. On the other hand, that thing is necessary, or rather constrained, which is determined by something external to itself to a fixed and definite method of existence or action.

    “VIII. By eternity, I mean existence itself, in so far as it is conceived necessarily to follow solely from the definition that which external.

    “Explanation Existence of this kind is conceived as an eternal truth, like the essence of a thing, and, therefore, cannot be explained by means of a continuance or time, through continuance may be conceived without a beginning or end.

    These definitions are followed by axioms which likewise are extremely important. Everything which exists, Spinoza maintained, exist either in itself in its self or in something else. That which cannot be conceived through anything else must be conceived through itself. Moreover, he stressed the necessity of the causal relationship and pointed out that the effect is proportionate to the cause. He likewise emphasized the relationship between idea and object and the correspondence between essence and existence.

    The first part of Spinoza’s Ethics is taken up by his concept of substance. Substance, he declared, is not produced by anything else; it is own cause. He demolished the universe of Descartes by saying that there can be only one substance.

    Why can there be only one infinite substance, not three as Descartes had suggested? Because, wrote Spinoza, if there were several substance they would limit each other; they would encroach upon each other, and this condition would detract from their independence. Hence the concept of plural substance is logically contradictory. Descartes, it is true, had stressed that only God is an absolute substance, but still he continued to call mind and matter relative substance. In Spinoza, on the other hand, God is the only substance, and substance is identified with God. He goes on to stay that substance is eternal, that it cannot be destroyed; it has neither intellect nor will; it does not teleologically.

    Is God the creator of the universe, as the Bible assure us? Does God’s providence rule the world? Spinoza answered by saying that God is the immanent cause of the universe but not its creator; God does not act with an end in view. The relationship between God and the universe is logical and mathematical, not like the relationship between creator and creation. Moreover, there is no real metaphysical distinction between god and the universe; they are two identical principles seen from different perspective. When seen from the perspective of nature, we call the principle natura naturata; when seen from the viewpoint of God, we term it natura naturans. This is perhaps the most coherent from of pantheism in the history of philosophy.

    Spinoza philosophy demands a complete transvaluation of all concepts of God. We cannot say God is good or evil; we cannot say the universe is determined by final purpose. We cannot speak about moral values, absolute God, absolute beauty, or absolute ugliness. The universe in Spinoza is beyond good and evil, beyond human desires and predication. The same applies to God; we cannot attribute to him any human traits. The great mistakes we make lies in arguing from our own limited perspectives, and so attribute finite traits to the infinite. Yet we can understand truth only by looking at the world from standpoint of the infinite.

    It may be asked if God is self conscious. Does God have a personality Spinoza replied in the negative. Self consciousness and personality are not aspect of reality. God, as infinite substance, does not change. We cannot ascribe any positive quality to God; here the mind reaches a limit. We must be content in saying simply that God’s existence cannot be conceived according to human predication. Some philosophers may object that this negate any rational concept of God, but, like Bruno, Spinoza believed the infinite cannot be explained in finite term.

    Spinoza’s concept of God had important consequence. In the first place it took away, as we have seen, all the personal qualities of God. In the second place it created a concept of metaphysical necessity, which symbolizes the invariable causal relationships of the universe. Third, it attacked any kind of teleological reasoning. Fourth, it proclaimed the reality of infinity. Spinoza thus used such phrase as the infinite substance, infinite attributes, infinite time, and infinite space. Infinity is a positive principle, whereas finite things are only modes of reality.

    Finally, Spinoza’s concept of God implies that the universe must be explained in term of itself, not in term of our own human wishes and desires. God and evil fall both to the righteous and to the wicked.

“… Experience day by day protested and showed by infinite examples, that good and evil fortunes fall to the lot of pious and impious alike; still they would not abandon their inveterate prejudice, for it was more easy for them to class such contradictions among other unknown things of whose use they were ignorant, and thus to retain their actual and innate condition of ignorance, than to destroy the whole fabric of their reasoning and start afresh. They therefore laid down as an axiom, that God’s judgments far transcend human understanding. Such a doctrine might well have sufficed to conceal the truth from the human race for all eternity, if mathematics had not furnished another standard of verity in considering solely the essence and properties of figures without regard to their final causes. There are other reasons (which I need not mention here) besides mathematics, which might caused men’s minds to be directed to these general prejudices, and have led them to the knowledge of the truth.”

    According to Spinoza, there is an infinity of attributes, of which we can know only two thought and extension. To clear away confusion, it should be remarked that we see attributes from an aspect different from God’s, for thought and extension in themselves are infinite, while from our finite viewpoint we see them as limited.

    The attributes in Spinoza mediate between God, the substance, and the modes. A mode never exists by itself; it is always conceived through something else and hence possesses no absolute reality. There are finite modes, like men and women, or the various objects of our sensuous perception, and then there are infinite modes. The attribute of thought is revealed in the infinite modes of intellect and will. The attribute of extension is represented by the infinite modes of motion and rest. Finite modes are merely contingent; the infinite modes, on the other hand, are eternal.

This again is an important distinction. The infinite mode of extension, such as motion and rest, do not originate or decay, but the corporeal, particular forms come into being and pass away and have limit duration. The infinite mode of thought have existed always, but particular human intellect originate and decay. We must make a clear distinction between the substance, which is necessary, absolute, and eternal, and the finite modes, which are mere adjective of the substance and may be conceived as not existing, possessing no reality of their own, and as being purely relative.

Spinoza tried to mediate between the concepts of idealism and materialism. He asserted that matter and mind both explain the essence of God. They are not opposed to each other, they are merely two different way, two parallel ways of looking at things. Thus, wherever we find mind in the universe, we find matter; the universe is both material and spiritual. In fact, there may be other worlds in existence with an infinity of attribute of which we have no understanding nor experience.

THE NATURE OF THE HUMAN MIND

Spinoza made an important distinction between the mind of man is dominate by personality and self consciousness , God as infinite substance is not subject to volitive thought and desires. To ascribe personality to him would be to limit his being. Spinoza’s philosophy remind us of Buddhist thinking, indeed, of entire spirit of Indian philosophy, which teaches that personality is a subordinate category of Being and that goal of life is the negation of selfhood. The Western world, on the other hand, generally regards personality as the highest achievement of the human being and represents heaven as the complete fulfillment of our personality.

    To understand God in the system of Spinoza we must get away from the limitation of personality. We must understand the universal in its essential attribute, not in its human modifications; we must identify ourselves with the infinite intellect of God. To do this, we must overcome error and passion and the false notion that own status in the universe is ultimate, since we are nothing but modes of the infinite substance.

    Just as we find a parallelism in the universe between thought and extension, Spinoza wrote, so we find in the microcosm, in man’s world, a parallelism between body and mind. Corresponding to each modification of the body is a modification of the mind. The modifications of the body we know only in a confused way, but the modification of the mind we know clearly and distinctly. We must understand the nature of the union between mind and body, Spinoza claimed.

    We thus comprehend, not only that human mind is united to the body, but also the nature of the union between mind and body. However, no one will be able to grasp this adequately or distinctly, unless he first has adequate knowledge of the nature of our body. The propositions we have advance hitherto have been entirely general, applying not more to men than to other individual things, all of which, though in different degrees, are animated. For of everything there is necessarily and idea in God, of which God is the cause, in the same way as there is an idea of the human body; thus whatever we have asserted of the idea of the human body must necessarily also be asserted of the idea of everything else. Still, on the other hand, we cannot deny that ideas, like object, differ one from the other, one being more excellent than another and containing more reality, just as object of one idea is more excellent than the object of another idea, and contains more reality.

    “Wherefore, in other to determine, wherein the human mind differs from other things, and wherein it surpasses them, it is necessary for us to know the nature of its object, that is, the human body. What this nature is, I am not able here to explain, nor is it necessary for the proof of what I advance, that I should do so. I will only say generally that in proportion as any given body is more fitted than others for doing many action or receiving many impression at once, so also the mind, of which it is the object, more fitted than others for forming many simultaneous perceptions; and the more the action the action of one body depend on itself alone, and the fewer bodies concur with in action, the more fitted is the mind of which it is the object for distinct comprehension. We may thus recognize the superiority of one mind over others, and may further see the cause, why we have only a very confused knowledge of our body….”

    Vigorous arguments were advanced by Spinoza against the Stoic doctrine that the mind can occasionally act independently of the body. He also denied the interaction theory of Descartes; nowhere in the human body can there be found a gland which unities the mind and the body, as Descartes had suggested.

    In our knowing process, according to Spinoza, we advance from opinion, which is based on hearsay and has no adequate truth and stands for purely relative standpoint, to reason, which give order and unity, and ultimately to intuition, which gives and immediate understanding and a complete grasp of the universe.

    As a rationalist, Spinoza scorned opinion based on sense experience, for he considered opinion part of an inferior type of knowledge, dependent on memory, words, and symbols. Reason, on the other hand, he considered more important that opinion, because it is the foundation for all mathematical knowledge; through reasons we understand the necessity of the world. Error arises because our ideas are unclear, because often they are based upon the confused notions of sense experience rather than upon realizations of larger whole. There can be no error in our intuition; it is spontaneous, completely adequate, and through it we understand God. Yet at the same time, Spinoza pointed out, intuition is very rare type of knowledge. Whereas Descartes had believed that there are many aspects of science which can be grasped by intuition, Spinoza remarked that very few things in life can be known through this avenue of knowledge.

SPINOZA’S RADICALISM

Let us pause for a moment and see why Spinoza was attacked so bitterly by his contemporaries. What where his innovations? How did his philosophical concepts distinguish him from other thinker? In the first place, Spinoza’s God, as we have seen, lacks personality. He is not a Being who is moved by the desires of the world, to whom one can pray, and who answers prayers; God is beyond human predication. In the second place, in Spinoza’s system the world is not dominated by final purposes; it was no made for the salvation of man. There can be no miracle in the universe, for it is dominate by infallible necessity. Not only does causality hold true in the explanation of finite events; it is just a valid in the explanation of the infinite. Determinism thus is the keynote to the thinking of Spinoza.

    According to the conventional concept of religion there is an immense distinction between God and the world. God is in his heaven and through his providence determines the course of history. According to Spinoza, God and the world are one; hence theism is replaced by pantheism.

    The traditional theological interpretation holds that mind is superior to matter. Thus the soul is the principle of the body and is independent of the senses. According to Spinoza, the nature of the universe is at the same time both mental and material; neither one affects the other. Psychophysical parallelism stands in direct contrast with the occasionalism of Malebranche, who believed that neither mind nor matter are metaphysically real, but both are contained in God, who is the efficient cause of the world. To some extent, Spinoza approached the viewpoint of hobbes: everything which exists has also a mental side. We cannot reduce the mental to the physical, nor can we reduce the physical to the mental; both are independent. This theory involves a new description of reality. Reality, instead of `limited by definite attributes, is conceived as being infinite. The universe of man is depersonalized. It expands to such an extent that our imagination is unable to grasp it completely. 

    In Spinoza’s system no revelation is needed. No church has a monopoly of virtue, and no prophet has an exclusive possession of God. Reason and intuition are universal. Moreover, man’s position expands. It is true that man is merely a mode of the infinite substance and that his existence is limited, contingent, and relative; and yet, by seeing the universe under the aspects of eternity, man participates in the perfection of God. Herein, said Spinoza, lies man’s emancipation; herein lies his source of greatness.

FREEDOM vs. BONDAGE

One of the most interesting aspects of Spinoza’s philosophy is his distinction between human bondage and human freedom. The concept of human bondage is the theme of an outstanding novel by Somerset Maugham, in which a young man cannot get away from his attachment to a thoroughly wicked and unscrupulous young woman. Human bondage in Spinoza means our enslavement to external circumstances and transitory things. As long as we are slaves of our emotion, as long as we cherish inadequate ideas and regard the finite as lasting and neglect the infinite, we are treasuring things which are illusory and part of the world of appearance. Spinoza did not for a moment believe in the freedom of the will. According to him, we are part of a universal causal necessity, yet this realization should not create a pessimistic attitude, nor should it make fatalists out of us. On the contrary, this determinism is the source of man’s enduring freedom and salvation.

    Most people are subject to emotional instability because they do not understand the chain of causation. They do not see that whatever is created must pass away. They are dominated by egocentric wishes and create a philosophy of life not by looking at the universe as a whole but by projecting their own hopes upon the world. Their ideas consequently are confused, inadequate, and derived from the changing pattern of the external world. But when we think clearly, when we look at the universe from away from all that is fragmentary, we have achieved real freedom.

    In all of this intuition plays an important role, for intuition has not only an intellectual meaning but also a moral function. The human mind, according to Spinoza, “has an adequate knowledge of the eternal and infinite essence of God.” Having this power, we can achieve a profound vision of the wholeness of the world. Not being subject to the limitations of experience and time, such a viewpoint exhibits to us the necessity of universal determination. Once we see this inevitability, we are not tortured by fear and remorse, nor do we worry about death.

    Spinoza himself was able to rise above the turmoil of his time and the isolation which he suffered because of these concepts of inevitability and determination. Human freedom, in a word, is the ability to see things under the aspect of eternity and to understand the causal chain which characterizes reality.

THE ETHICS OF SPINOZA

The ethical system of Spinoza correspond to the theoretical aspects of his thinking. The lowest stage of his ethics is characterized by self preservation; virtue thus means the same thing as in Hobbes man must increase his power. To some, this appears as an egoistic foundation for ethics, but in Spinoza human beings and God are not antithetical, for man’s real greatness lies in the understanding of deity. Spinoza made a fundamental distinction between activity and passivity. Most of our emotions are passive, he wrote, and are determined by external circumstances. The active emotions, on the other hand, are within our power, and only they deserve to be called good. When we are passive, we are lethargic and weak. When we are active, we are virtuous and strong. Man is emancipated by his rational understanding, he declared; and so wisdom plays an important part in the ethical system of Spinoza. Like Socrates, he identified virtue and knowledge: Virtue is based on intellectual perception; to understand the universe is to be delivered from it.

    Before man can realize his destiny he must overcome certain obstacles. Above all, he must overcome hatred and the dread of death. The wise man, according to Spinoza, thinks of nothing less than death; he is concerned with the problem of this existence instead of turning to the beyond. Spinoza did not believe in fear and hope, in anger and envy, not even in pity and repentance. All these traits contribute to our weakness. For example, repentance make us conscious of our lowly stature; pity and sympathy are associated with pain and contribute to a diminution of our power. The wise man will never be conquered by external circumstance. No misery will overcome him; no reverses will deter him, for he knows that everything follows from the necessity of the infinite substance.

    It would be a mistake to regard Spinoza as a puritan. To understand the nature of reality, he averred, it is not necessary to mortify the flesh or desert the world. Pleasure in itself is not bad, but good. Spinoza dislike people who had a sour outlook on life; he enjoyed laughter. In every way he protested against medieval supernaturalism. The wise man will not neglect the function of his body, he declared. Are not the body and mind correlated? Do they not always go together? To starve the body in order to gain intellectual excellent is pure foolishness.

    Spinoza’s system consequently is not based on the expectation of supernatural rewards. In this problem again he departed from orthodox religion. For it pictures a God of fear and terror who demands absolute obedience. He felt that superstition produces a universal state of wretchedness, and that those who are constantly afraid are overwhelmed by their fears and ultimately mastered by them.

    Spinoza preached an ethics of love: The man who lives the life of reason show no anger or envy, never exhibits contempt, and is never subject the pride. Such a man uses the dictum of Christ, for he does not respond to evil by hatred but by love. Once we understand the nature of the universe, we can never hate God. “The man who really loves God, “ he said in a famous phrase, “does not expect to be loved in return.” Love for God is completely disinterested. It brings about a state of tranquility and calm serenity. Man identifies himself with the infinite substance, and in this manner realizes his destiny.

    In the last part of his Ethics Spinoza again emphasized the belief that God is beyond hatred. He is not moved by our appeals, Spinoza declared; he does not show favor to any part of the universe, for he is everywhere. Some might say this is a very abstract concept of God, which takes the very substance out of religious belief. But Spinoza would have replied that it stands for the worship of a free man, who now loves God because he understands the essential nature of life, since he has found a principle which is change and beyond all human failings.

    Unlike the Neo-Platonists, however, Spinoza stressed the fact that this experience of god is not emotional. It is not based upon a sudden illumination or a divine light; love for God is rational. It does not create two opposite realms, one of mind and one of matter; it does not represent any type of duality; rather, it gives us a more profound appreciation of the unitary structure of the world and greater confidence in the powers of human knowledge.

THE SEARCH FOR IMMORTALITY

In his theory of immortality, Spinoza again exhibited independence in his opinions. According to the Christianity of his time, the virtuous man was to be rewarded by going to heaven, while the wicked was to be punished by hell fire. The theologians pointed out that if man did not have this faith in personal immortality, morality would suffer and chaos would reign in our social system. All this is absurd, according to Spinoza, for morality consists in doing things not because we expect certain result but because these things are intrinsically good. Moral values aid in our liberation.

    “…Most people seem to believe that they are free, in so far as they may obey their lusts, and that they cede their rights, in so far as they are bound to live according to the commandments of divine law. They therefore believe that piety, religion, and, generally, all things attributable to firmness of mind, are burdens, which, after death, they hope to lay aside, and to receive the reward for their bondage, that is, for their piety and religion; it is not only by this hope, but also, and chiefly, by the fear of being horribly punished after death, that they are induced to live according to the divine commandments, so far as their feeble and infirm spirit will carry them.

    “If men had not this hope and this fear, but believed that the mind perishes with the body, and that no hope of prolonged life remains for the wretches who are broken down with the burden of piety, they would return to their own inclination, controlling everything in accordance with their lusts, and desiring to obey fortune rather than themselves. Such a course appears to me not less absurd than if a man, because he does not believe that he can by wholesome food sustain his body for ever, should wish to cram himself with poisons and deadly fare; or if, because he sees that the mind is not eternal or immortal, he should prefer to be out of his mind altogether, and to live without the use of reason; these idea are so absurd as to be scarce worth refuting.”

    In a notable sentence Spinoza wrote, “Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself.” Blessedness consists “in love toward God.” In this state we control our emotions, and we see the world as one. At the end of his ethics Spinoza wrote that he had set forth everything concerning the mind’s powers over the emotions.

    “…Whence it appears, how potent is the wise man, and how much he surpasses the ignorant man is not only distracted in various ways by external causes without ever gaining the true acquiescence of his spirit, but moreover lives, as it were unwitting of himself, and of God, and of things, and as soon as he cease also to be.

    “Whereas the wise man, in so far as he is regarded as such, is scarcely at all disturbed in spirit, but, being conscious of himself and of God, and of things, by a certain eternal necessity, never cease to be, but always possesses true acquiescence of his spirit.

   “If the way which I have pointed out as leading to this result seems exceedingly hard, it may nevertheless be discovered. Needs must it be hard, since it is so seldom found. How would it be possible, if salvation were ready to our hand, and could without great labor be found, that it should be by almost all men neglected? But all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare.”

    Did Spinoza believe in immortality? No unqualified answer can be given. He certainly did not accept the orthodox doctrine of the Resurrection and the Last Judgment. The body is mortal, he said, but something in the mind persists which is eternal; consequently he spoke of the deathlessness of reason.

   Immortality, according to Spinoza, is not condition of existence; it is a condition of existence; it is a condition of understanding. When we look at the world as a finite manifestation, when we are subject to our passion, we exhibit our mortality; but when we see things under the aspect of eternity, death itself has no error and no meaning. For the infinite is indestructible and no subject to the limitations of time and space.

    Some will say this doctrine leaves no room for personal immortality at all, because Spinoza emphasized the fact that there can be no individual survival after death, that our mind, which corresponds to the body, will perish just as certainly as the body does. Like Averrhoes, then, Spinoza believed in an impersonal type of immortality. As a finite mode, man is subject to decay; as part of the infinite substance, man is not subject to death. When we see the universal from the standpoint of our longings, we see everything as transitory; everything endure for only a short time and then passes out of existence. But when we see thing from standpoint of the infinite substance-God-everything has it place; all event are interconnected; and we understand that philosophical truth transcends the limitation of our existence. Spinoza said again and again that this vision does not take place after death. It is a condition which we can comprehend right here and now. We can free ourselves of illusion and error; we can escape from the bondage of our passion, we can become part, in short, of a deathless reality.

SPINOZA’S SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY

The keynote to Spinoza’s social thinking is his insistence upon intellectual freedom. In his religious view, he pointed to the many contradiction in the Old Testament.  He became the forerunner of the modernist movement by his demonstration that the bible does not contain absolute truth but is to be interpreted allegorically. There can be no validity, he wrote, in the miracles reported in the bible, and he tried to explain them according to scientific principles.

    In his discussion of the prophets and other great religious leaders, Spinoza explained how their emotions influenced their thinking. Religious faith does not depend upon definite dogmas and principles, he declared. Religion can be simplified to a few ideals, such as love for God and love for our neighbor.

   Spinoza did not accept the belief that the Jews are chosen people. This infuriated the Jewish rabbis, but it was in line with the universalism of Spinoza’s thinking. To him no nation had a divine destiny, no religion an exclusive monopoly on truth, no individual an exclusive knowledge of God. Like Hobbes, Spinoza insisted that religious authority should be subordinate to the state. In this view he was influenced by the contemporary condition in Holland, where the Calvinist preacher tried to set themselves up as absolute arbiters of religion. The state, however, cannot determine the sphere of private belief and private opinions; it cannot legislate regarding philosophical and religious truths. Spinoza pointed out that freedom of thought is absolutely imperative if progress is to be made.

    To some extent, Spinoza had too much faith in the national state, and he did not realize that the gigantic power of statehood can be even more dangerous than the influence of organized religion. In his own period the dogmatic theologians were resisting freedom of thought; at the same time, some sects like the Quakers were fighting for freedom of opinion. Spinoza had great sympathy for some of the more liberal sects of Protestantism. When one of his followers became a Catholic and urged him to join Catholic Church, Spinoza resisted strenuously. Nevertheless, he respected the faith of the individual. For instance, he assured his landlady at The Hague of her salvation provided she lived a virtuous and pious life.

    It is a mistake to see Spinoza the implacable opponent of religion. He was opposed to dogmatism and theological arrogance, not to real religious inwardness. His attempt was to simplify religion and ethics and to expel the influence of bigotry and superstition.

   In his political theory, Spinoza accepted with Hobbes the idea that state of nature is brutish and violent. He too, spoke about the social contract, but to Spinoza the social contract did not mean a form of absolutism. The rule should be guided by the interests of the subject, he advised; and he emphatically preferred democracy to other forms of government, since in democracy rational laws prevail, and this system of government we have the best chance of realizing liberty.

    Spinoza, unlike Hobbes, understood the importance of constitutional laws, which are binding upon both the subject and the sovereign. In this view he anticipate Montesquieu, who likewise was interested in the problems of law and based his concept of democracy upon a belief in supremacy of the legal structure.

    What is the purpose of the state? According to Spinoza, its main function it to advance peace and security. Peace is a Good in itself. Power does not mean physical and external strength; it is best represented by reason.

    There is a Machiavellian tone in Spinoza’s political theory. He said that alliances are to be adhered to only so long as they are to the interest of the state, but he was probably thinking of alliances which led to useless wars and threatened the peace of Europe. But Spinoza, it must be understood, was not unqualified idealist in politics. He had seen too much of society, and he had a shrewd knowledge of the real motives of man.

    Most important from the standpoint of contemporary history was Spinoza’s insistence that the state is never an end in itself. It must not make slave out of the people, he claimed, nor are the people ever to be regarded as means to an end. On the contrary, the state must respect the dignity of the individual and must give free play to man’s intellect and moral capacities. Hence the state, if it is to endure, must expand man’s rational powers, for a political system based on slavery and intellectual intolerance cannot endure. Spinoza pointed out that if tyranny prevails, the best and noblest mind are turned against the government, in which case revolution becomes practically inevitable.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SPINOZA

For century after his death, Spinoza was attacked vigorously by almost all philosophers. The Dutch clergy regarded his view as the climax of heresy. Even David Hume attacked his thinking. His theories were called hideous and atheistic and were regarded as being subversive to true morality and religion. Nevertheless, in the period of the enlightenment, Lessing, Goethe, and Novalis appreciated his greatness. Goethe, for example, admired Spinoza’s resignation and the disinterestedness conspicuous in his every sentence. From then on Spinoza’s fame grew. Not even the Marxists were immune from his spirit, and some Marxian theorists maintained that many ways he had anticipated their materialistic doctrines.

    From a historical standpoint, Spinoza is not so important for his method, which remains unique, as for the spirit of his thinking. Few thinkers today would try to explain the principles of philosophy according to Euclidean demonstrations. Few would accept Spinoza’s belief in the absolute validity of the causal principles. We have become much more modest regarding the validity of definitions. Many of us believe knowledge is best expanded by the experimental use of science. The physical universe of Spinoza, which was so orderly, so coherent, and so systematic, has been vastly complicated by discoveries in the natural sciences. From the perspective of the 20th century, Spinoza’s orderly world almost looks like Paradise Lost, for the old certainty has disappeared, perhaps never to be regained. Spinoza tried to exclude emotions from his thinking and to make it follow the laws of mathematical necessity. We know how impossible such as procedure is. We may admire him for his impartiality and logical consistency, but we know that our mind is not an end itself and that life cannot understood in merely intellectual terms. We have learned too much about the physiological nature of the emotions.

    In spite of its limitations, Spinoza’s system remains one of the most remarkable in the history of philosophy: a tribute to man’s search for knowledge, a monument to man’s capacity for t of truth, and milestone in man’s longing for freedom. Perhaps the answer of philosophy are less important than the questions we ask, and Spinoza asked many penetrating and thought provoking questions. If we want to understand the essential nature of the universe, he believed, we must not be bound by dogmas and opinions of our time. We must survey all of history, a difficult task, in a way a superhuman task.

   To those who would like to read Spinoza’s works, the study of his Ethics is imperative. But a word caution: This book is not to read all at once. Only a few page at a time should be read and then contemplated slowly in order to get meaning of his thought.

    The same procedure should be followed in studying other great thinker. It is a mistake to memorize all their opinion and analyzed all their concepts. This method leads only to an encyclopedic spirit and ultimately to great confusion. Rather, it is necessary to understand the substance of their doctrines, not read too much, to think more, always critically, yet with appreciation, all the time relating their thoughts to our own experiences and our own philosophical needs.

October 2015