Spinoza’s Metaphysics of Substance: The Substance-Mode Relation as a Relation of Inherence and Prediction

In his groundbreaking work of 1969, Spinoza's Metaphysics: An Essay in Interpretation, Edwin Curley attacked the traditional understanding of the substance-mode relation in Spinoza, which makes modes inhere in the substance. Curley argued that such an interpretation generates insurmountable problems, as had been already claimed by Pierre Bayle in his famous entry on Spinoza. Instead of having the modes inhere in the substance Curley suggested that the modes’ dependence upon the substance should be interpreted in terms of (efficient) causation, i.e., as committing Spinoza to nothing over and above the claim that the substance is the (efficient) cause of the modes. These bold and fascinating claims generated one of the most important scholarly controversies in Spinoza scholarship of the past thirty-five years. In this chapter I argue against Curley’s interpretation and attempt to reestablish the traditional understanding of Spinozistic modes as inhering in God and as predicated of God. I also criticize Curley’s philosophical motivation for suggesting this interpretation. I do believe, however, that Curley is right about the existence of an intimate connection between the substance-mode relation and causation in Spinoza. In the next chapter I will study the notion of ‘immanent cause’, which merges efficient causality and inherence. I will clarify the relation between immanent, efficient and material causation, and show where precisely Spinoza diverged from the traditional Aristotelian taxonomy of causes. In the second chapter I also discuss the German Idealists’ view of Spinoza as an ‘acosmist’. Under this interpretation Spinoza was a modern reviver of Eleatic monism, who allegedly asserts the mere existence of God, and denies the reality of the world of particular things. Spinozistic modes - according to this reading - are nothing but passing and unreal phenomena. Though this view of Spinoza as an ‘acosmist’ can be supported by some lines in Spinoza’s thought, I believe it should be rejected since it is not consistent with some of the most central doctrines of the Ethics. In the final part of the second chapter I discuss the relation between modes and the attributes under which they fall, and suggest a terminological distinction between a ‘mode of God’ (i.e., a mode under all attributes) and a ‘mode of an attribute’ (i.e., a mode under a specific attribute), a distinction which can help us avoid some common confusions in the treatment of the issue

The Causes of Our Belief in Free Will: Spinoza on Necessary, ‘Innate,’ yet False Cognition

This chapter will discuss Spinoza’s critique of free will, though our brief study of this topic in the first part of the chapter will aim primarily at preparing us to address the main topic of the chapter, which is Spinoza’s explanation of the reasons which force us to believe in free will. At times, Spinoza seems to come very close to asserting the paradoxical claim that we are not free to avoid belief in free will. In the second part of the chapter I will closely examine Spinoza’s etiological explanation of how we come to form the belief in free will. In the third part, I will raise and respond to a crucial objection to Spinoza’s explanation of the formation of our belief in free will. I will then turn to examine Fichte’s intriguing claim that Spinoza’s position on the issue of free will suffers from an internal contradiction, as evinced in Fichte’s suggestive remark: “Spinoza could not have been convinced of his own philosophy. He could only have thought of it; he could not have believed it [Er konnte seine Philosphie nur denken, nicht sie glauben].

Effect of isobaric breathing gas shifts from air to heliox mixtures on resolution of air bubbles in lipid and aqueous tissues of recompressed rats

Deep tissue isobaric counterdiffusion that may cause unwanted bubble formation or transient bubble growth has been referred to in theoretical models and demonstrated by intravascular gas formation in animals, when changing inert breathing gas from nitrogen to helium after hyperbaric air breathing. We visually followed the in vivo resolution of extravascular air bubbles injected at 101 kPa into nitrogen supersaturated rat tissues: adipose, spinal white matter, skeletal muscle or tail tendon. Bubbles were observed during isobaric breathing-gas shifts from air to normoxic (80:20) heliox mixture while at 285 kPa or following immediate recompression to either 285 or 405 kPa, breathing 80:20 and 50:50 heliox mixtures. During the isobaric shifts, some bubbles in adipose tissue grew marginally for 10–30 min, subsequently they shrank and disappeared at a rate similar to or faster than during air breathing. No such bubble growth was observed in spinal white matter, skeletal muscle or tendon. In spinal white matter, an immediate breathing gas shift after the hyperbaric air exposure from air to both (80:20) and (50:50) heliox, coincident with recompression to either 285 or 405 kPa, caused consistent shrinkage of all air bubbles, until they disappeared from view. Deep tissue isobaric counterdiffusion may cause some air bubbles to grow transiently in adipose tissue. The effect is marginal and of no clinical consequence. Bubble disappearance rate is faster with heliox breathing mixtures as compared to air. We see no reason for reservations in the use of heliox breathing during treatment of air-diving-induced decompression sickness

Medieval but not Christian

In 1989, Cambridge University Press announced the publication of a new, three-volume book series: The Cambridge Translations of Medieval Philosophical Texts. The first volume – edited by Norman Kretzmann and Eleonore Stump, and dedicated to logic and the philosophy of language – contained 15 medieval texts, of which 15 were composed by Christian authors. The second volume in the series, this time focusing on ethics and political philosophy, appeared in 2000. Seventeen of the 17 texts included in this collection – edited by Arthur S McGrade, John Kilcullen and Matthew Kempshall – were authored by Christian writers. Late-medieval Jewish or Islamic texts on ethics or politics? Not in our school

“Spinoza’s Metaphysics of Substance”

‘Substance’ (substantia, zelfstandigheid) is a key term of Spinoza’s philosophy. Like almost all of Spinoza’s philosophical vocabulary, Spinoza did not invent this term, which has a long history that can be traced back at least to Aristotle. Yet, Spinoza radicalized the traditional notion of substance and made a very powerful use of it by demonstrating – or at least attempting to demonstrate -- that there is only one, unique substance -- God (or Nature) -- and that all other things are merely modes or states of God. Some of Spinoza’s readers understood these claims as committing him to the view that only God truly exists, and while this interpretation is not groundless, we will later see that this enticing and bold reading of Spinoza as an ‘acosmist’ comes at the expense of another audacious claim Spinoza advances, i.e., that God/Nature is absolutely and actually infinite. But before we reach this last conclusion, we have a long way to go. So, let me first provide an overview of our plan. In the first section of this paper we will examine Spinoza’s definitions of ‘substance’ and ‘God’ at the opening of his magnum opus, the Ethics. Following a preliminary clarification of these two terms and their relations to the other key terms defined at the beginning of the Ethics, we will briefly address the Aristotelian and Cartesian background of Spinoza’s discussion of substance. In the second section, we will study the properties of the fundamental binary relations pertaining to Spinoza’s substance: inherence, conception, and causation. The third section will be dedicated to a clarification of Spinoza’s claim that God, the unique substance, is absolutely infinite. This essential feature of Spinoza’s substance has been largely neglected in recent Anglo-American scholarship, a neglect which has brought about an unfortunate tendency to domesticate Spinoza’s metaphysics to more contemporary views. The fourth section will study the nature of Spinoza’s monism. It will discuss and criticize the interesting yet controversial views of the eminent Spinoza scholar, Martial Gueroult, about the plurality of substances in the beginning of the Ethics; address Spinoza’s claim in Letter 50 that, strictly speaking, it is improper to describe God as “one”; and, finally, evaluate Spinoza’s kind of monism against the distinction between existence and priority monism recently introduced into the contemporary philosophical literature. The fifth and final section will explain the nature, reality, and manner of existence of modes. We therefore have an ambitious plan; let’s get down to business

Salomon Maimon e a falência da filosofia judaica moderna

Argumento neste artigo que Salomon Maimon é o único filósofo judeu moderno digno deste nome. Diferentemente de outros, eu não considero que um filósofo judeu seja alguém que é (a) judeu e (b) um filósofo, mas assumo que por filósofo judeu entende-se a tentativa de oferecer um relato bem argumentado e informado das crenças e práticas judaicas religiosas e culturais. A exigência de um relato documentado tem um papel central neste artigo. Argumento que, da mesma maneira que um filósofo de matemática precisa ter um bom conhecimento de matemática, um estudioso de filosofia judaica necessita ter um bom conhecimento do mundo literário judaico. Pelo que sei, este não foi o caso da maioria dos filósofos judaicos modernos. Argumento também que a maioria dos autores modernos que escreveram sobre o Wesen des Judentums ignorava assuntos judaicos. Além disso, indico duas características da filosofia judaica moderna que provocaram esse fracasso: (1) sua internalização da visão antissemita da cultura judaica como um particularismo oposto ao universalismo cristão; e (2) seu biblicalismo, i.e., sua tentativa de construir uma versão protestante do judaísmo que imita o luteranismo alemão, para assim justificar a inclusão do judeu na alta sociedade alemã. Salomon Maimon and the failure of modern Jewish Philosophy - Abstract: In this paper I argue that Salomon Maimon is the only modern Jewish philosopher worthy of the name. Unlike many others, I do not take a Jewish philosopher to be someone who is (a) Jewish, and (b) a philosopher, but rather suggest that by Jewish philosophy we understand the attempt to provide a well-argued and informed account of Jewish religious and cultural beliefs and practices. The demand for an informed account will play a central role in this paper. Arguably, in the same way that a philosopher of mathematics needs to have a good grasp of mathematics, so does a scholar of Jewish philosophy need to have a good grasp of the Jewish literary world. To the best of my knowledge, this has not been the case with the majority of modern Jewish philosophers. Also arguably, the majority of modern authors who have written about the Wesen des Judentums have been ignoramuses in respect of matters Jewish. I further indicate two characteristics of modern Jewish philosophy which have been crucial in bringing about its failure: (1) its internalization of the anti-Semitic view of Jewish culture as a particularism that is opposed to Christian universalism, and (2) its biblicalism, i.e., its attempt to construct a Protestant version of Judaism that imitates German Lutheranism, and hence justify the inclusion of the Jew within German high society

Spinoza and Crescas on Modality

The first section of the chapter will address the philosophy of modality among Spinoza’s medieval Jewish predecessors, and, primarily, in Hasdai Crescas (1340-1410/11), a bold and original, anti-Aristotelian philosopher. This section should both complement the discussion of modality in medieval Christian and Islamic philosophy in the previous chapters of this volume and provide some lesser-known historical background to Spinoza’s own engagement with modal philosophy. Following a section on Spinoza’s definitions of his main modal concepts and his understanding of contingency, I will turn, in the third section, to discuss the extent of Spinoza’s commitment to necessitarianism. The recent debate about whether Spinoza was a strict necessitarian has resulted in quite a few insights about Spinoza’s modal philosophy, but it has also detracted attention from some basic questions about Spinoza’s modal philosophy, and in the fourth and last section of the chapter, I will attempt to chart the foundational questions that still have been barely explored. The primary aim of this chapter it to provide a survey and outline of the chief elements of Spinoza’s modal philosophy. Still, beyond the mere overview of Spinoza’s arguments (and some major scholarly debates), I will also advance two original theses. First, I will show that Spinoza makes a distinction between two notions of contingency, and that once this important distinction is observed, Spinoza’s various assertions about contingency turn out to be consistent. Secondly, I will discuss the text (E2a1) which is commonly taken to be the strongest and most stubborn proof against the reading of Spinoza as strict necessitarianism; I will show that the basic meaning of this text has been widely misunderstood, and that E2a1 is perfectly compatible with strict necessitarianism

Spinoza’s Labyrinths: Essays on His Metaphysics

Spinoza’s recognition of the unpredictable fortunes of individuals, explicable through the interplay between their intrinsic natures and their susceptibility to external causes, informs his account of political success and – what for him is the same thing – political virtue. Thus, a state may thrive because it has a good constitution (an internal feature), or because it was fortunate not to be surrounded by powerful enemies. Normally, however, it is the combination of both luck and internal qualities that determines the fate of things. What is true about the fate of states holds equally of the fate of other types of individual, both human and non-human. In a sense, even the fate of a theory is determined by the interplay between its intrinsic virtues, and mere historical luck. A quarter century ago, shortly after I began my graduate studies in philosophy at Yale, I started thinking about writing a dissertation on Spinoza’s philosophy. A good and caring friend in my graduate cohort advised me against the idea, which he believed was tantamount to “professional suicide” given the oddity of Spinoza’s thought. Indeed, the environment of analytic philosophy in the mid- and even late-1990s was not particularly auspicious for the academic study of Spinoza. Spinoza was – rightly – considered as having little commitment to commonsense, and commitment to commonsense – the most stubborn of prejudices – was (and still is) considered by many a minimal requirement for entry into the club of “decent” philosophers. Yet, things have changed over the past twenty-five years. So much so, that recently a (non-Spinozist) early modernist colleague of mine complained to me about the futility of changing the description of an event he planned from a ‘Spinoza workshop’ into an ‘early modern philosophy workshop,’ since “one way or another, most of the submitted abstracts are going to deal with Spinoza.” Indeed, in many ways, the interest and intensity of the study of Spinoza’s philosophy in the Anglo-American world has eclipsed that of almost all other early modern philosophers, and we seem to be facing a circumstance in which Spinoza is gradually competing with, if not replacing, Kant as the compass of modern philosophy. One can list many reasons for these dramatic developments: from Spinoza’s radical naturalism, to his dismissal of the fairytales of anthropomorphic and anthropocentric religion – while Kant on these issues could at best be said to kick the ghosts from the front door while inviting them back as ‘ideas’ or ‘postulates of practical reason’ through the back door –- to his unequivocal rejection of the illusions of humanism. Still, we lack a full explanation of the recent Spinozist upheaval in North American philosophy