1.1.1 Definitions. 1D1: By cause of itself I understand that whose essence involves existence, or that whose nature cannot be conceived except as existing. This first definition provides us with Spinoza’s sense of ’cause of itself’. The impor- tance of this cannot be over-emphasized.

What is in itself and conceived through itself?

Def. 3: “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.” D’s view of substance in the Principles (I,51-2): Substance is that which is causally self sufficient.

What is Spinoza’s argument?

Spinoza’s Ontological Argument, once unpacked, is as follows: When two things have nothing in common, one cannot be the cause of the other (Premise 1, E1p3). It is impossible for two substances to have the same attribute (or essence) (Premise 2, E1p5).

What does Spinoza mean by self caused?

In Id1, Spinoza defines self-causation (causa sui) as “that whose essence involves existence or [sive] that whose nature cannot be conceived except as existing.” (Spinoza’s sive should not be read in a disjunctive sense, nor is it usually stating a mere equivalence.

What does the word Spinoza mean?

British Dictionary definitions for Spinoza



Spinoza. / (spɪˈnəʊzə) / noun. Baruch (bəˈruːk). 1632–77, Dutch philosopher who constructed a holistic metaphysical system derived from a series of hypotheses that he judged self-evident.

How does Spinoza prove God exists?

Spinoza attempts to prove that God is just the substance of the universe by first stating that substances do not share attributes or essences, and then demonstrating that God is a “substance” with an infinite number of attributes, thus the attributes possessed by any other substances must also be possessed by God.

Does God have free will Spinoza?

Spinoza denied free-will, because it was inconsistent with the nature of God, and with the laws to which human actions are subject. … There is nothing really contingent.

What are Spinoza’s Ethics?

Spinoza’s Ethics : Knowledge



Our feelings, our love, our anger, our hatred, our desires, our pride, are governed by the same necessity. Our affections are divided into actions and passions. When the cause of an event lies in our own nature, more specifically, our knowledge or adequate ideas, then it is an action.

What religion is Spinoza?

Spinoza was considered to be an atheist because he used the word “God” (Deus) to signify a concept that was different from that of traditional Judeo–Christian monotheism.

Did Spinoza believe in afterlife?

Spinoza held a robust doctrine of postmortem survival, he sums up this general line of interpretation nicely: “The transcendent-religious idea of an afterlife, in which our existence will be modified in proportion to what we have done in this life, is foreign to [Spinoza].”9 There is, in other words, no personal …

What is Spinoza most famous for?

Among philosophers, Spinoza is best known for his Ethics, a monumental work that presents an ethical vision unfolding out of a monistic metaphysics in which God and Nature are identified.

How does Spinoza define God in Part 1 of the ethics?

Spinoza argues that there can be only one substance—it consists “of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence”—which he calls God.

Was Spinoza a pantheist?

For centuries, Spinoza has been regarded—by his enemies and his partisans, in the scholarly literature and the popular imagination—as a “pantheist”.

What should I read Spinoza?

The best books on Spinoza

  • The Collected Works of Spinoza (Volume I) …
  • Behind the Geometrical Method: A Reading of Spinoza’s Ethics. …
  • A Study of Spinoza’s Ethics. …
  • The Explainability of Experience: Realism and Subjectivity in Spinoza’s Theory of the Human Mind.

How do you read Baruch Spinoza?

Quote:
Our nature. Means that we'll always be divided between the two sensual. Life pulls us towards a time bound partial view but our reason and intelligence.

Why should I read Spinoza?

Spinoza aspires to explain the psychological basis of our attachment to histories with a teleological flavour. At the same time, he insists that such histories are epistemologically flawed. To study the history of philosophy in a properly philosophical fashion we must overcome our Whiggish leanings.

Adblock
detector