From Proposition 21 onwards Spinoza reaches one of his most important claims, that God is the cause of both the existence and essence of everything. Everything lives inside of God, he has determined the particular ways in which nature functions; he is the one and only infinite substance from which everything we know of stems from. Does this mean finite things are made out of an infinite substance? How is that possible? Even things that have a designated start and finish still have to, in some way, come from God. It’s within the proof of Proposition 28 that Spinoza addresses my question. His answer: finite things must have been caused by other finite things which had to be caused by other finite things etc etc. I’m not necessarily satisfied with this answer. He goes on to then bring up the concepts of “Natura Naturans” and “Natura Naturata” as a mode of explanation, in which he describes “Natura Naturans” as something conceived through itself, and “Natura Naturata” as things that come out of necessity of God’s nature.
While reading through the appendix of Part I, the adage “Perspective is reality” kept running through my mind. Such is true on an individual level concerning man, but also on a much broader scale. In the quest to figure out final causes, humans constantly have to come to believe that the world was created for their own advantage, and that man is meant to worship God in hopes to stay within his good graces, and receive the benefits of these graces. Spinoza states that this is far from the case. Ultimately, things were not created with human standards in mind; they were not made in attempts to fit into our fabricated ideals of beautiful and ugly, good and bad, but for their sole purposes alone. “Nature has no fixed goal and that all final causes are but figments of the human imagination.” (Pg. 26) Within this one statement he discredits teleology, his discredits the idea that we can explain things through their purposes, for their purpose has nothing to do with us, it is something all in its own. Ultimately, the perfection of things in nature cannot be measured on a human scale, but in terms of themselves, and nothing else. It’s the same as disregarding a genre of music or cuisine because we don’t personally like it, that would just be absurd.
Just a brief comment:
ReplyDeleteI think this boils down to my recurring objection that Spinoza has not adequately given an account of limitation within his conceptual framework of substance, modes, and attributes. That issue seems critical to the relationship between the infinite and the finite, which is what it seems to me like you are struggling with here.
Did you mean "perfection is reality"?
ReplyDeleteOscar, aim your objection at D2. What happens then?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYour title “Existing Inside of God” resonates very strongly within me because of its theoretical implications and how we relate to our particular notions of “God”. When praying to God, does one truly believe they are embedded within him, embedded in a “substance”? When praying and talking to “God”, we look towards the sky, over a hilltop or a sunset. Although we don’t believe God rests in the clouds, we don’t for the most part believe he exists so close to our being that we exist within him. We say “God” is all around us but to think we are embedded within this substance is a very strong and difficult thought to grasp and ingest. But this thought, however extreme is a major element of Spinoza’s philosophy of substance and modes. Although the thought of us as simply “modes” can be seen as an alienating thought, the notion of us being “one” with the universe and God can be a path leading us towards a certain enlightenment and fulfillment, at least for those who are searching for it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCarissa, I can definitely see the ambiguous and confusing nature of Spinoza’s handling of finite things. Looking at P28, he states that “anything whatever which is finite and has a determined existence, cannot exist or be determined to act unless it be determined to exist and act by another cause which is also finite and has a determinate existence…”. My understanding of all this from our coverage in the class and also from the readings (I could be in error of course) is that God, infinite in his essence, is still the cause of the existence of finite modes. Spinoza doesn’t actually deny the existence of finite things, matter of fact he acknowledges the existence of the finite intellect in P30 and P31. He instead shows the linear rules of causality for finite things, without necessarily specifying first cause, in P28. It is through these finite modes, that finite things are perceived. What I do find interesting is that Spinoza ends P28 with ‘ad infinitum’, suggesting infinite application of causality rule for finite things. This is contradictory, how can we show causality and subsequent actions of finite things…infinitely??
ReplyDeleteThe second part of your blog made me think of why it was so important for the major religions to attack and banish Spinoza ideology. In the appendix, Spinoza completely decimates humanity’s egocentrically driven perception of human priority in God/Nature’s existence. Given this information, the possibility of humanity reflecting on ideas that (wo)man is not created in God’s image, and that there probably isn’t an afterlife created for humanity’s benefit, can have severe impact on just about every aspect of civilization (psychologically, socially, economically, morally, etc.) As a result, he has been labeled an atheist, excommunicated by his own faith, and placed on the Catholic Church’s banned books list (Index Librorum Prohibitorum). Pretty stinky stuff!