Difference and Unity in God

Difference is possible in two ways “Two or more distinct things are distinguished from one another either by the difference of the attributes of the substances or by the difference of the affections of substance” (1P4). That is, there are two types of difference: formal and modal difference.  I’m just going to address formal difference.  Substances with different attributes are distinct formally, because they possess separate, independent essences. An attribute is what “the intellect perceives of substance as constituting its essence”(1D4). But really, we are saying substance insofar as it is expressed by this attribute. One might wonder why Spinoza distinguishes between substance and attribute at all, since it will turn out that each attribute must be able to be conceived by itself, which is part of the definition of substance.

The answer is that if he cannot distinguish substance from attributes, then there are an infinite number of attributes, possibly, but we have no explanation for that nor for the possibility of God’s existence. In addition to a concept of difference, Spinoza needs one that explains unity.  Otherwise, there will be no reason to believe that there is any relation between different attributes, and, eventually, the world would be separated into an infinite number of possible worlds, each of which possessing an absolutely unique essence. In other words, in order for Spinoza to think unity in “Nature” whatsoever, he has to posit a distinction between substance and attributes, by which attributes are distinct, but this does not mean that substances are different.

In some ways, Spinoza’s proof for the existence of God amounts to an argument that there is no reason to distinguish substances from one another, since they are distinct only in attribute, they could be the same single substance. 1P5, P6 and P10 speak of the irreducibility of the attributes (or substance conceived by the different attributes). P7, P8 and P9 are all premises towards P11, establishing the necessary existence, infinity and “reality or being”.  P9 is especially important, because only on these grounds are we lead to conceive a reason for a substance containing more than one attribute. But the proofs of P11 seem to depend primarily on the necessary existence of God.  The first is simply the ontological proof, that existence necessarily belongs to, or “is involved in”, his essence. The second claims that the absolutely infinite being is not a contradictory notion, or there is no reason contrary to such a being. The third proof is a posteriori, following the supposition that if anything exists, an omnipotent being exists. But P11 is then supplemented by P12, P13 and P14, which go towards establishing not merely that a single substance is a non-contradictory idea, but also that God must be an eminently simple being.

What is "Finite"? What is "Infinite"?

Spinoza offers various definitions, explanations (of certain definitions), axioms and premises in Part 1 of Ethics. The most note-worthy concepts that Spinoza provides are the premises, which serve as foundations for his arguments in establishing certain truths. Before Spinoza starts his arguments, he reinforces the validity of his premises with the provided definitions and axioms lest he wishes for others to accuse him of arguing on pre-supposed premises.

The point here is not so much as to examine and analyze the validity of his Spinoza’s premises, but rather, to point out the ambiguities and confusions that appear in his work. His most outrageous of claims lies with P8 in which Spinoza states that “all substance is necessarily infinite” (p.6). He defends this claim on the ground that everything has its own substance, that is, everything has its own unique essence and with essence comes existence. From there, he elaborates that the existence in question must be either finite or infinite and he rejects the notion of finitude because other substances of the same nature can only limit substances. However, because there are no such substances being of the same nature, then substances cannot fall under limitations and is therefore infinite. As deductively sound as that may be, the mere notion that everything is ultimately infinite is completely baffling. When speaking of substance, do people not automatically assume something of the physical nature? If that is so, how can physical objects such as a human body, an air conditioner, or a bag of Skittles be infinite? For these physical objects to be of the infinite nature, does it not mean that one cannot ever estimate their exact sizes? However, many, if not all, people have a clear idea of just how big their bodies or a bag of Skittles are. The problem here is either that the premise is simply absurd or there is a misunderstanding of the terms “finite” and “infinite”. Since Spinoza does not define such terms, one cannot help but find this premise to be confusing.

Spinoza later uses the same notion of infinity to claim in P11 “God, or substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists” (p.8). Those with a belief in the existence of God will readily agree to His infinite being, but and it is not to say that the existence of all things known to be real ought to be doubted of their realness. The problem here is once again the supposition of these things being of an infinite nature. Once again, the size of a person’s body or a piece of Skittles is of a calculable size, that is, a size of limitations. Why can it not be that certain objects of finitude also necessarily exist as well? The bag of sweet smelling Skittles seated across the room seems awfully real and in existence. Once again, what exactly does Spinoza mean for something to be “finite” or “infinite”?

Riches, Honour, Sensual Pleasure.... The Evil Trinity of Our Existence

The title of this blog references Spinoza's revolutionary ideology of finding a "true good" among his surroundings and dominant influences. Spinoza believes we are brain washed into thinking what is important in our lives. This "Evil Trinity" of riches, honour and sensual pleasure is presented to our society as the answer to our question of what this life is all about. As students, about to embark into our next stage of life, many options are presented to us. The question is how strong we are to conjure for ourselves a meaningful path and existence. To break apart from what we know and enter into the unknown. Looking into the abyss, we are frightened but excited, willing but afraid. It is hard to break apart from our past and present condition and accept and embrace an unknown path and ideology. As Spinoza writes "Losing a certain good for the sake of an uncertain good"( The Essential Spinoza, pg.165). Spinoza believes that thinking for ourselves and creating our own method of living is crucial, regardless of the risk . Spinoza believes that our very existence is depended upon grasping the unknown, dissataching ourselves from comfort and leaping in to the great abyss of the unknown and uncertain.

Reading poetry at home, working at our church or temple on the weekend, meditating at our lunch break. These are all ways of finding meaning situated between our normal existence of work and daily habituation. Is this enough though? Spinoza believes not as he writes " I therefore debated whether it might be possible to arrive at a new guiding principle-or at least the sure hope of its attainment -without changing the manner and normal routine of my life.This I frequently attempted but in vain"(The Essential Spinoza, pg.164). The "true good" that Spinoza believes is above all else requires a leap of faith into a new world that is without the three elements of honour, riches and sensual pleasure. But this new world is an abyss that can be pierced at but not truly understood until one is truly enmeshed within it.

The truth is that most of us are consumed by sex, money and status on a daily level. It constricts our perception of the universe and ourselves. "With these three the mind is so distracted that it is quite incapable of thinking of any other good"(pg.164). We must extract ourselves from this life to understand ourselves. It is not enough to insert periodically our most importamt beliefs into daily monotonus existence. We must extract ourselves and leap into another sphere of existence that suppourts our most cherished beliefs and ideologies.

Mind/Body Dualism: Two Together or One in the Same?

Descartes proposes that his mind and body are seperate entities that are in independent of each other but united in him. The body uses the faculties of sense and imagination to interact with the external world while the mind understands and makes judgments, which is to affirm or deny ideas. He reasons the two are separate in that: 1) mind is indivisible whereas the body can be divided into parts 2) The mind can operate independent of most body parts (with the brain as an exception) 3) The body has an interface that communicates with the mind (nervous system). It is this mind/body union that Descartes uses to restore the credibility of the physical world. The body uses its senses to inform the mind of bodies that must exist, since they indeed produce a sensation, and the mind wills which bodies should be desired or avoided. The cooperation of body and mind to pursue pleasure and avoid pain is the work of God's goodness, according to Descartes, and must be true.

This account of Mind/Body dualism is very alluring. Based on experience, it makes sense. One learns not to touch a stove by burning their hand. One knows when to eat when hunger is felt. In terms of thinking, forming ideas, judgments, etc. one doesn't necessarily use his/her entire body to do so. But can Mind and Body really be separate entities? Can one exist without the other? Or is it that the mind is simply a sophisticated feature of humans, but still bound by mortal flesh? The mind, as powerful as it can be, cannot live beyond the body because it is part of the body (the brain); it is not a separate entity.

The sciences have observed just how much the mental lives of people are tied to the brain. Different parts of the brain serve different functions. Sensation, perception, judgments, all the aspects of the mind, have been tied to parts of the brain. It has been shown how damage to the brain affects the performance of the mind.

How, and where, can a mind exist without a body? There has yet to be a credible account of someone having ideas and making judgments after their body has perished. Would that be the equivalent of a ghost? Descartes says he exists because he is a thinking thing, which is true. His body IS the thinking thing.

One the most important questions man has had to ask is his purpose, his own being (reality), and the existence of God. It is safe to say that most people believe in God and /or an afterlife but the proof of Gods existence still escapes us. To the average person, to believe in something is reason enough not to call into doubt Gods existence. Obviously science and philosophy does not go by mere here-say and dogma. If that were the case I could quote a statistical survey that says, >80% people on the planet believe that there is a God and we can all pack our books and call it a day. Just because a few billion people believe in something doesn’t always make it true. Let’s look at this question two ways, both scientifically and philosophically. I want to emphasize Descartes argument since this is a PHILO blog.

First scientifically. Using a null hypothesis, the ‘there is nothing until you show me something method’, we see by nature that one thing whether it be mass or energy must be preceded by another thing IE a wave in the ocean must have been created the currents and these currents were created by a force and the force came about means of another force etc…In this way it safe to reason that everything in the known universe must have a supreme being setting this in motion and that great mover being God.

Second philosophically. Descartes, after abandoning all his senses and doubting everything that the might tell him come the conclusion that his being, being the one true and constant that cannot be disproved must have a creator. This does not prove or disprove that God exists, only say that since he is real and not imaginary that he must have been constructed by someone or something greater than him, a master craftsman or artist for example. He states “ Hence it follows that something cannot come into being out of nothing, and also that what is more perfect (that is, what contains in itself more reality) [41 cannot come into being from what is less perfect.” By this reasoning Descartes concludes that himself, his world, whether real or not must have been made and guided by the invisible all seeing all knowing hand of God

Meditations I

The First meditation of Descartes establishes his doubt of sense, body, the world around him and god. His doubt is methodical, he does not doubt every single thing he sees, but like a house of cards once the base is destroyed everything else crumbles down. The senses are unreliable, however, only for certain things like the process of burning wood or the nature of light, even on the size of the sun relative to earth. We see the sun as a tiny ball in the sky when in reality it is thousands of times bigger than the earth. How often do you doubt that your heart beats or that you feel the clothes on your skin? Descartes considers that only the insane could doubt their senses, but given that he was sure he was not insane, he considers dreams instead. But how did he not know he was insane as well?

If we do not know whether we are awake nor asleep, can we be certain that even our most basic senses are not fooling us? First, we must ask the question of whether we have the knowledge to tell dream from reality. Since we cannot, and if we accept that premise, then we can doubt all our senses. Let's turn towards the physical world and extended objects. Even in our dreams, shapes and colors are based from real true colors and basic shapes. People on acid claim to have seen snakes growing from their fingers, or humanlike aliens with eyes, ears, noses and mouths take them on trips to other galaxies. The Minotaur, unicorn and every other myth is something cut and pasted from a real animal. But, even if taken from reality, in our dreamlike state we do not know what is real and what is not. Everything that is extended can be doubted. That is why, as he describes here.

…arithmetic, geometry, and other such disciplines, which treat of nothing but the simplest and most general things and which are indifferent as to whether these things do or do not in fact exist, contain something certain and indubitable. For whether I am awake or asleep, two plus three make five.

Moreover, even these disciplines can be wrong if we can imagine that a supreme being is deceiving us. Let us suppose that god has fooled us of even our own thoughts. Is there nothing then that can be trusted? If that were true then we couldn’t come up with that idea. An all powerful god would see that we do not ever have that idea. Then our thoughts are our own, and god can’t control them. The only thing that is true is then that I can think, I can’t doubt that I am thinking because thinking about my own doubt proves that I DO think. This does not explain if others exist or if the universe exists. Neither does it answer if I have a body or a sense. From here, Descartes continues on his meditations and onto proving the existence of god based on his “I think, therefore I am” premise.

Perception and Object Perceived

For us particularly the empirical view that sensations resemble their causes is perhaps more common sense than it had been for Descartes. That is, it is common for most people to understand the general path of the object perceived to the sensation of a perception, in terms of the objects, light and machinery of the eye involved.  We learn about this in grade school.  Yet the question is why we come to believe that our perceptions resemble the things which cause them. To see the difficulty here, we must first acknowledge that perceptions are non-extended, to use Descartes’ language, beings purely of thought.  Moreover, every part of conscious existence is non-physical, to use our language.  And yet physical or extended things have an existence completely separate from our thought. The chair does not require my perception or consciousness in order to exist, whereas without my consciousness, there can be no perception. That is our first clue that the perception and the thing perceived are different in kind.

Once we grant that premise, we must ask why a conscious perception must resemble the object perceived. Let us say, for simplicity’s sake, that we believe there is a causal relation between the perception and the thing perceived.  The question remains why these things different in kind should have a relation of resemblance. Since they are different in kind, it seems doubtful that such a relation should exist. This would require us to explain why something that is different from another thing is transformed in kind, but in such a way that it may still resemble the original.  For that matter, how do we even explain resemblance between differences in kind?  Why would we say that the portrait of a person resembles that person? The portrait is two-dimensional and presents that person from a single point of view. Whereas the person is three-dimensional, by no means limited to the place in which the portrait is set and visible from a practical infinite points of view.

These are the matters than concern Descartes when he shows that a tickle does not resemble the feather than causes the sensation, nor a word the thing that is signified by it (“The World …”, 31). Given these purely conventional and non-essential relations, why do we cling to our common sense notion that perceptions resemble the objects perceived?