Spinoza on conatus, inertia and the impossibility of self-destruction

Suicide or self-destruction means in ordinary language “the act of killing oneself deliberately” (intentionally or on purpose). Indeed, that’s what we read in the Oxford dictionary and the Oxford dictionary of philosophy , which seems to be confirmed by the etymology of the term “suicide”, a term introduced around mid-17th century deduced from the modern Latin suicidium, ‘act of suicide’. Traditionally, suicide was regarded as immoral, irreligious and illegal in Western culture. However, during the 17th century this Christian view started to change as a consequence of the rise of modern science . Generally speaking, Spinoza does not write much on death. His name does even not occur in the Oxford Philosophy of Death, although he had had very particular ideas on the nature of death. However, he even had much more particular ideas on suicide. Moreover, he states in the fourth proposition of the third part of his masterpiece, the Ethics, that self-destruction is simply impossible: Nulla res, nisi à causâ externâ, potest destrui

Inherence of False Beliefs in Spinoza’s Ethics

In this paper I argue, based on a comparison of Spinoza's and Descartes‟s discussion of error, that beliefs are affirmations of the content of imagination that is not false in itself, only in relation to the object. This interpretation is an improvement both on the winning ideas reading and on the interpretation reading of beliefs. Contrary to the winning ideas reading it is able to explain belief revision concerning the same representation. Also, it does not need the assumption that I misinterpret my otherwise correct ideas as the interpretation reading would have it. In the first section I will provide a brief overview of the notion of inherence and its role in Spinoza‟s discussion of the status of finite minds. Then by examining the relation between Spinoza‟s and Descartes‟ distinction of representations and attitudes, I show that affirmation can be identified with beliefs in Spinoza. Next, I will take a closer look at the identification of intellect and will and argue that Spinoza's identification of the two is based on the fact that Spinoza sees both as the active aspect of the mind. After that, I analyze Spinoza‟s comments on the different scopes of will and intellect, and argue that beliefs are affirmations of the imaginative content of the idea. Finally, through Spinoza‟s example of the utterance of mathematical error, I present my solution to the problem of inherence of false beliefs

Spinoza’s Social Sage: : Emotion and the Power of Reason in Spinoza’s Social Theory

Artigo sobre a emoção e o poder da razão na teoria social de Spinoza.&nbsp

Essence, Existence, and Necessity: Spinoza’s Modal Metaphysics

“In thought, as in nature, there is no creation from absolute nothing.” I have taken on the daunting project of giving an account of Spinozaʼs metaphysics, and laying out the reasoning behind his doctrines. In a letter written in December 1675, barely over a year before his death, Spinoza told Henry Oldenburg that the fatalistic necessity (which was disturbing readers of his philosophy) was in fact the “principal basis” of his Ethics. Since all of his metaphysical doctrines are entwined with this necessity, it is my task to piece this puzzle together. In this thesis, I will begin by discussing his definitions and axioms, and proceed to unfold his substance monism. I will then discuss his proofs of the existence of God, followed by his doctrine of Godʼs simplicity, causality, and eternality. I will then examine the relation of modes to substance, and the classifications of modes. From all of this I will conclude with an account of Spinozaʼs necessitarianism. There are a number of objections that have been raised against Spinoza: that he arbitrarily defines his basic metaphysical terms, “stacking the deck” in favor of his system, that he assimilates the causal relation to the relation of logical implication, that there is a problem of divine attributes, that he does not adequately show that substance must produce modes, and that he does not show how the infinite mediate modes are deduced from the infinite immediate modes, or how motion follows from extension. In my discussion of Spinozaʼs metaphysics, I will touch on all of these issues. Contents Definition and relation of substance and mode, the definition of attribute, relations and causality between substances, the identity of indiscernibles, the no-shared attribute thesis, Leibniz\u27s objection to 1p5, the unity of substance, essence and existence, infinity of substance, misconceptions about substance, the relation between substance and attribute, Spinoza\u27s proofs for God\u27s existence, the indivisibility of substance, God\u27s conceptual priority, the impossibility of a vacuum, infinity of extension, psychology of the division of quantity, causality of God (universal cause, efficient cause, cause through himself, first cause, principal cause, free cause, immanent cause, proximate cause), duration and time, eternity, immediate infinite modes, motion and extension, dynamics, the absolutely infinite intellect, mediate infinite modes, finite modes, acosmism, causality and logic, necessitarianism, the problem of attribute (subjectivism and objectivism)

A study of the mind-body theory in Spinoza

This thesis investigates Spinoza's mind-body theory starting with the discussion of the diverse interpretations of his mind-body theory such as hylomorphism, idealism, epiphenomenalism, and materialism. From the critical comments on inadequacies of these interpretations, it turns out that Spinoza's argument of the relationship between the mind and the body should be understood as holding that there is a non-causal relationship between the mind and the body and that they have equal weight. Although the parallelistic interpretation is compatible with the above understandings, we cannot ascribe traditional parallelism to Spinoza. His parallelism is derived from his argument of identity between the mind and the body, which is based on his substance monism and attribute dualism. We should therefore understand Spinoza's mind-body theory as an identity theory which leads to a parallel relationship between the mind and the body. Since the double aspect theory argues both identity and parallelism between the mind and the body, the doctrine we should ascribe to Spinoza is the double aspect theory. Furthermore, owing to the fact that Spinoza maintains substance monism and attribute dualism (assuming an objective view of the attributes of thought and extension, which are distinct), there is, in Spinoza's theory, an identity between mental and physical events while there is no identity between mental and physical properties: the mental and the physical events are one and the same event described under mental and physical properties, respectively. From the fact Spinoza finds identity in individuals or events, but not in properties, it follows that his theory should also be understood as a kind of token identity theory

Intentionality and God’s Mind. Stumpf on Spinoza

In his Spinozastudien Stumpf dismisses the commonplace interpretation of Spinoza’s parallelism in psychophysical terms. Rather, he suggests to read Ethics, II, Prop. 7, as the heritage of the scholastic doctrine of intentionality. Accordingly, things are the intentional objects of God’s ideas. On this basis, Stumpf also tries to make sense of the puzzling spinozian doctrine of the infinity of God’s attributes. In support of this exegesis, Stumpf offers an interesting reconstruction of the history of intentionality from Plato and Aristotle to the late Scholastics. Besides its intrinsic value, Stumpf’s confrontation with Spinoza is illuminating in explaining his own position concerning a crucial phenomenological question such as intentionality. Actually, Stumpf avoids defining the mental in terms of intentionality and maintains, rather, a moderate but professed dualistic position, thus deeply diverging from both Brentano and Husserl

A Materialist Education:Thinking with Spinoza

Spinoza never wrote the ‘science of education’ he refers to in the Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect. But I will argue that an ethical education can be deduced from his philosophy, which proposes a materialist education in the sense that it aims at a transformation of the affective sensibility of the body. Such an education should be understood as a re-education or counter-education, instead of what we ordinarily understand as education, which is a moral education

The Concept of Affectivity in Early Modern Philosophy

Version of recor