DOCSLIB.ORG

Deus, Sive Natura: Substance and Determinism in Spinoza's Ethics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Deus, Sive Natura: Substance and Determinism in Spinoza's Ethics Deus, sive Natura: Substance and Determinism in Spinoza’s Ethics by Joshua DeJoy But the fact is that Spinoza is made a testing-point in modern philosophy, so that it may really be said: You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all. —Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Lectures on the History of Philosophy, 1825-1830 Baruch Spinoza’s posthumously published and God, “an absolutely infnite being” (Spinoza Ethics is one of the most infuential and systematic 217). Spinoza also provides, at the beginning of works of modern philosophical thought. In it, he Part I of his Ethics, several axioms that are self- details his thoughts on various subjects, including evident based on his defnition of these preceding substance, causal necessity, and determinism. terms—for example: “All things that are, are either Spinoza, through establishing that there is only one in themselves or in something else” (Spinoza substance—namely, God/Nature—arrives at the 217). Crucially, Spinoza’s Axiom 5 says, “Tings conclusion that humans do not actually exercise which have nothing in common with each other free will, that our actions are determined. Spinoza cannot be understood through each other; that begins with monism, establishes that God and is, the conception of the one does not involve the Nature are identical, and then concludes from this conception of the other” (Spinoza 218). Based on that actions ostensibly chosen freely are actually the defnition of substance, Spinoza arrives at Part determined by external causes. Tis conclusion, the I, Proposition 2—“Two substances having diferent process used to reach it, or both, are critiqued by attributes have nothing in common”—because diferent philosophers, including Jonathan Bennett the conception of one substance cannot involve and Georgi Plekhanov. Ultimately, while Spinoza’s the conception of another, and commonalities in monism relies on somewhat dubious or superfuous attributes necessarily invoke multiple substances theological justifcations and his determinism is (Spinoza 218). Due to Proposition 2 and Axiom 5, insufciently elaborated and suggests some dubious Spinoza concludes, “When things have nothing in consequences, his argument is compelling and common, they cannot be the cause of the other” historically signifcant. While not perfect, Spinoza’s (Spinoza 218). Terefore, there cannot be more than thoughts are a remarkable and systematic exposition one substance—substances must be conceived of in of determinism that cannot be fully dismissed. and of themselves, and invoking one substance as the Tis essay summarizes Spinoza’s arguments for a cause of another violates this defnition (Hampshire pantheistic monism and determinism, examines 38). Tis single substance, according to philosopher three critiques of Spinozism, and fnally concludes Stuart Hampshire, “is therefore to be identifed with by assessing Spinozism’s staying power today. Nature conceived as a whole or as the totality of Spinoza’s argument for determinism—indeed, things” (Hampshire 38). Spinoza thus establishes a his entire metaphysics—begins with monism, or the monist view of reality made up of one substance. belief that the world is made up of one substance. Along the way to establishing monism, To begin Part I of Ethics, he defnes several terms, Spinoza makes something of a detour to prove most crucially substance, “that which is in itself and the existence of God (“or substance consisting of is conceived through itself;” attribute, “that which infnite attributes, each of which expresses eternal the intellect perceives of substance as constituting and infnite essence”), which reinforces his monism its essence;” mode, “the afections of substance;” (Spinoza 222). Curiously, he begins with a version of Aisthesis 22 Volume 8, 2017 Deus, sive Natura: Substance and Determinism in Spinoza’s Ethics the ontological argument developed by St. Anselm determined to exist and to act in a defnite way” and employed in a modifed form by René Descartes (Spinoza 234). Only substances are determined by (Allison 59). Tis argument, however, especially themselves, and God/Nature is the only substance, its reliance on existence as a perfection (although so all other things must be determined, in the fnal Spinoza does not expressly state this part of the analysis, by God/Nature—that is, by natural laws, argument), was already discredited in Spinoza’s time without contingency (Spinoza 234). Everything (Allison 59). Spinoza’s real goal is to establish an within Nature is determined. Will itself—divine or identity between God and the “substance consisting mortal—is constrained by this, and, according to of infnite attributes” (Spinoza 222), or between God Proposition 32, “cannot be said to be a free cause, but and Nature, “with [N]ature considered as an infnite only a necessary or constrained cause” (Spinoza 235). … and necessary system of universal laws” (Allison Te frst corollary to this is the radical position “that 35). Te practical efect of this position is to render God does not act from freedom of will” (Spinoza the idea of God as a being incoherent and, in reality, 235). Humans are, of course, a part of Nature (and reduce God to Nature, or “a demonstration of the of nature), and are likewise constrained by the lack nonexistence of God—at least of the God of the of “freedom of will.” It should be noted here that Judeo-Christian tradition” (Allison 60). Tis attack one of the results of Spinoza’s subversive pantheism, on the Judeo-Christian idea of God is somewhat whereby God is more or less depersonalized, is that concealed in the phrase Deus, sive Nature [God, or there is no Judeo-Christian God to protect humans’ Nature] (Spinoza 321), which nevertheless shocked free will, in part because the problem of theodicy public opinion and was branded as heresy and is no longer an issue when God is constrained as pantheism (Hampshire 39). Other early modern much as he is in Spinoza’s philosophy. In Part III, philosophers saw in Spinoza’s philosophy a radical, Proposition 2, Spinoza causally collapses the mind even atheistic aim. George Berkeley, opposing and body—that is, he notes that they are both caused Spinoza, said, “Spinoza [is] the great leader of our by God (or Nature)—and thereby removes a place modern infdels, in whom are to be found many for the will to exercise any independent role in schemes … such as undermining religion under the determining human action (Spinoza 279). Human pretence of vindicating and explaining it” (qtd. in actions are now “completely explicable by purely Melzer 253, emphasis added). Similarly, Pierre Bayle physical laws and in terms of physical equilibrium claimed, “One calls Spinozist all those who hardly and of the recent disturbances of this equilibrium” have any religion, and who do not hide this fact very (Hampshire 129). We are thus lef with humans much” (qtd. in Melzer 253, emphasis added). Given governed by the laws of Nature, not by free will. the circumstances in which Spinoza wrote—he was Of course, not everyone will accept that excommunicated from the local Jewish community, human behavior is entirely law-governed and that attacked by both conservative theologians humanity has no free will. Spinoza anticipates some and Cartesians, and then Ethics was published objections to this deterministic position in Ethics, posthumously and subsequently censored—an beginning with the fact that there was not, at the esoteric reading, through which one attempts to time, a scientifc explanation of human behavior and “read between the lines,” in this section in particular that language suggests that humans have free will. is warranted (Melzer xii; Nadler; Spinoza 213). Te reliance on words that appear to describe free Spinoza thus removes the personal qualities of God choice, especially in vernacular writing, proves an and reduces the God/Nature concept to an ordered obstacle for acceptance of determinism, especially Nature. for non-philosophers. In the Scholium to Part III, Spinoza draws radical conclusions from his Proposition 2, Spinoza dismisses discussions of monist thesis that there exists a single substance, the ordinary senses of the words “will,” “choice,” Nature, including the orderly determination of the “judgment,” etc., as unscientifc—the perceptions universe and even human behavior. Part I, Proposition of these phenomena are undoubtedly real, but they 29, concludes, “Nothing in nature is contingent, but describe something that does not meaningfully exist all things are from the necessity of the divine nature (Hampshire 129; Spinoza 280). One could also argue Aisthesis 23 Volume 8, 2017 Deus, sive Natura: Substance and Determinism in Spinoza’s Ethics that if humans’ actions are determined by natural the cause of the hatred, that the hatred toward and laws, then a rigorous science of human behavior overall will diminish (Spinoza 302-3). As Bennett should be possible. In his own time, there was no notes, this is not exactly how hatred works. Further science of human behavior in any proper sense of the explanation, which may cause one to consider term—psychology did not exist. Spinoza, in the same causes other than Peter in one’s displeasure (say, for Scholium, seems to have faith that such a science example, that Paul assisted or even prompted him) would emerge and would be capable, in principle at will not necessarily lessen one’s hatred toward Peter least, of discovering laws of human behavior: absolutely, but at most proportionally, as now the Again, no one knows in what way and by what hatred directed
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Development of Dr. Alfred North Whitehead's Philosophy Frederick Joseph Parker
    University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Master's Theses Student Research 1936 The development of Dr. Alfred North Whitehead's philosophy Frederick Joseph Parker Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/masters-theses Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Parker, Frederick Joseph, "The development of Dr. Alfred North Whitehead's philosophy" (1936). Master's Theses. Paper 912. This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. mE Dt:VEto!l..mm oa llS. At..~"1lr:D !JG'lt'fR ~!EREAli •a MiILOSO?ll' A. thesis SUbm1tte4 to the Gradus:te i'acnl ty in cana1:.at1: f!Jr tbe degree of llaste,-. of Arts Univerait7 of !llcuor.&a Jnno 1936 PREF!~CE The modern-·wr1 ter in the field of Philosophy no doubt recognises the ilfficulty of gaining an ndequate and impartial hearing from the students of his own generation. It seems that one only becomes great at tbe expense of deatb. The university student is often tempted to close his study of philosophy- after Plato alld Aristotle as if the final word has bean said. The writer of this paper desires to know somethi~g about the contribution of the model~n school of phiiiosophers. He has chosen this particular study because he believes that Dr. \i'hi tehesa bas given a very thoughtful interpretation of the universe .. This paper is in no way a substitute for a first-hand study of the works of Whitehead.
    [Show full text]
  • Autonomy and Republicanism: Immanuel Kant's Philosophy of Freedom Author(S): Heiner Bielefeldt Source: Political Theory, Vol
    Autonomy and Republicanism: Immanuel Kant's Philosophy of Freedom Author(s): Heiner Bielefeldt Source: Political Theory, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Aug., 1997), pp. 524-558 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/191892 Accessed: 25-05-2018 14:18 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/191892?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory This content downloaded from 81.157.207.121 on Fri, 25 May 2018 14:18:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms AUTONOMY AND REPUBLICANISM Immanuel Kant's Philosophy of Freedom HEINER BIELEFELDT University of Bielefeld INTRODUCTION: THE PARADOX OF LIBERALISM Since its origins in early modernity, liberalism has always been a hotly debated issue. A charge frequently brought forward is that liberalism mirrors a lack of ethical substance in modern society, a society which seemingly loses its inner normative cohesiveness and hence can be held together only by a set of abstract procedural rules.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Chemistry
    Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Chemistry Jaap van Brakel Abstract: In this paper I assess the relation between philosophy of chemistry and (general) philosophy of science, focusing on those themes in the philoso- phy of chemistry that may bring about major revisions or extensions of cur- rent philosophy of science. Three themes can claim to make a unique contri- bution to philosophy of science: first, the variety of materials in the (natural and artificial) world; second, extending the world by making new stuff; and, third, specific features of the relations between chemistry and physics. Keywords : philosophy of science, philosophy of chemistry, interdiscourse relations, making stuff, variety of substances . 1. Introduction Chemistry is unique and distinguishes itself from all other sciences, with respect to three broad issues: • A (variety of) stuff perspective, requiring conceptual analysis of the notion of stuff or material (Sections 4 and 5). • A making stuff perspective: the transformation of stuff by chemical reaction or phase transition (Section 6). • The pivotal role of the relations between chemistry and physics in connection with the question how everything fits together (Section 7). All themes in the philosophy of chemistry can be classified in one of these three clusters or make contributions to general philosophy of science that, as yet , are not particularly different from similar contributions from other sci- ences (Section 3). I do not exclude the possibility of there being more than three clusters of philosophical issues unique to philosophy of chemistry, but I am not aware of any as yet. Moreover, highlighting the issues discussed in Sections 5-7 does not mean that issues reviewed in Section 3 are less im- portant in revising the philosophy of science.
    [Show full text]
  • Eternity and Immortality in Spinoza's Ethics
    Midwest Studies in Philosophy, XXVI (2002) Eternity and Immortality in Spinoza’s Ethics STEVEN NADLER I Descartes famously prided himself on the felicitous consequences of his philoso- phy for religion. In particular, he believed that by so separating the mind from the corruptible body, his radical substance dualism offered the best possible defense of and explanation for the immortality of the soul. “Our natural knowledge tells us that the mind is distinct from the body, and that it is a substance...And this entitles us to conclude that the mind, insofar as it can be known by natural phi- losophy, is immortal.”1 Though he cannot with certainty rule out the possibility that God has miraculously endowed the soul with “such a nature that its duration will come to an end simultaneously with the end of the body,” nonetheless, because the soul (unlike the human body, which is merely a collection of material parts) is a substance in its own right, and is not subject to the kind of decomposition to which the body is subject, it is by its nature immortal. When the body dies, the soul—which was only temporarily united with it—is to enjoy a separate existence. By contrast, Spinoza’s views on the immortality of the soul—like his views on many issues—are, at least in the eyes of most readers, notoriously difficult to fathom. One prominent scholar, in what seems to be a cry of frustration after having wrestled with the relevant propositions in Part Five of Ethics,claims that this part of the work is an “unmitigated and seemingly unmotivated disaster..
    [Show full text]
  • Existentialism, Phenomenology, and Education James Magrini College of Dupage, [email protected]
    College of DuPage [email protected]. Philosophy Scholarship Philosophy 7-1-2012 Existentialism, Phenomenology, and Education James Magrini College of DuPage, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://dc.cod.edu/philosophypub Part of the Education Commons, and the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Magrini, James, "Existentialism, Phenomenology, and Education" (2012). Philosophy Scholarship. Paper 30. http://dc.cod.edu/philosophypub/30 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy at [email protected].. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Scholarship by an authorized administrator of [email protected].. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Existentialism, Phenomenology, and Education James M. Magrini Existentialism, and specifically phenomenology, in qualitative educational research, tends to be misunderstood. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which is that scholars/researchers writing in the field often emulate and imitate the dense writing styles of philosophical forerunners in phenomenology such as Hegel, Brentano, Husserl, Heidegger, and Merleau-Ponty. Thus the writing is beyond the comprehension of many education professionals and practitioners. Existentialism and phenomenology need not be highly complex. Here I provide a summary of existentialism and phenomenology in accessible terms so that educators might see the potential this type of philosophy holds for enhancing our educational endeavors. 1. Existentialism is a modern philosophy emerging (existence-philosophy) from the 19th century, inspired by such thinkers as Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. Unlike traditional philosophy, which focuses on “objective” instances of truth, existentialism is concerned with the subjective, or personal, aspects of existence.
    [Show full text]
  • Descartes' Influence in Shaping the Modern World-View
    R ené Descartes (1596-1650) is generally regarded as the “father of modern philosophy.” He stands as one of the most important figures in Western intellectual history. His work in mathematics and his writings on science proved to be foundational for further development in these fields. Our understanding of “scientific method” can be traced back to the work of Francis Bacon and to Descartes’ Discourse on Method. His groundbreaking approach to philosophy in his Meditations on First Philosophy determine the course of subsequent philosophy. The very problems with which much of modern philosophy has been primarily concerned arise only as a consequence of Descartes’thought. Descartes’ philosophy must be understood in the context of his times. The Medieval world was in the process of disintegration. The authoritarianism that had dominated the Medieval period was called into question by the rise of the Protestant revolt and advances in the development of science. Martin Luther’s emphasis that salvation was a matter of “faith” and not “works” undermined papal authority in asserting that each individual has a channel to God. The Copernican revolution undermined the authority of the Catholic Church in directly contradicting the established church doctrine of a geocentric universe. The rise of the sciences directly challenged the Church and seemed to put science and religion in opposition. A mathematician and scientist as well as a devout Catholic, Descartes was concerned primarily with establishing certain foundations for science and philosophy, and yet also with bridging the gap between the “new science” and religion. Descartes’ Influence in Shaping the Modern World-View 1) Descartes’ disbelief in authoritarianism: Descartes’ belief that all individuals possess the “natural light of reason,” the belief that each individual has the capacity for the discovery of truth, undermined Roman Catholic authoritarianism.
    [Show full text]
  • The Implications of Naturalism As an Educational Philosophy in Jordan from the Perspectives of Childhood Education Teachers
    Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online) Vol.7, No.11, 2016 The Implications of Naturalism as an Educational Philosophy in Jordan from the Perspectives of Childhood Education Teachers Omar Khasawneh Ahmed Khaled Mohammad Al Momani Al Ain University of Science and Technology Al Ain, United Arab Emirates & Yarmouk University- Jordan Abstract The purpose of this study was to identify the educational implications of naturalism as an educational philosophy from the Jordanian childhood education teachers' perspectives. Each philosophy simply represents a unique conviction concerning the nature of the teaching/learning process. This study could serve as a grounded theory for Jordanian childhood teachers to comprehend the need for a clear educational philosophy within the Jordanian educational system. In addition, this research study would draw Jordanian childhood teachers' interest to be acquainted more with the educational principles of such philosophical theory. The researchers employed a questionnaire consisted of twenty one items, which correspond to the educational principles of naturalism. The quantitative approach is used to gather data as one of the techniques and descriptive due to its suitability for this study. The study findings revealed that Jordanian childhood education teachers' perspectives toward the implications of naturalism as an educational philosophy were positive for all domains; curriculum, aims, and activities. Based on the findings, the researchers provided some relevant recommendations. Keywords : Naturalism, Educational Philosophy, Childhood Education Teachers, Jordan. 1. Introduction Teachers’ educational philosophies and their value systems influence their teaching styles and the way they deal with their students. So, the impact of teachers’ beliefs and values on teaching and learning is evident in each classroom (Conti, 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • Kant on Obligation and Motivation in Law and Ethics
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications - Department of Philosophy Philosophy, Department of 1994 Kant on Obligation and Motivation in Law and Ethics Nelson T. Potter Jr. University of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/philosfacpub Part of the Continental Philosophy Commons, Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons, and the Legal History Commons Potter, Nelson T. Jr., "Kant on Obligation and Motivation in Law and Ethics" (1994). Faculty Publications - Department of Philosophy. 15. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/philosfacpub/15 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications - Department of Philosophy by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Potter in Jarbuch für Recht und Ethik (1994) 2. Copyright 1994, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg. Used by permission. Kant on Obligation and Motivation in Law and Ethics Nelson Potter I. There is a passage in Immanuel Kant's general introduction to both parts of Die Metaphysik der Sitten that deserves more attention than it has received. I plan to build the present paper around the implil:ations of this passage: In all lawgiving (Gesetzgebung) (whether it prescribes for internal or external actions, and whether it prescribes them a priori by reason alone or by the choice of another) there are two elements: first, a law, which represents an action that is to be done as objectively necessary, that is, which makes the action a duty; and second, an incentive, which connects a ground for determining choice to this action subjectively with the representation of the law.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shortcomings of a Concept Inertia and Conatus in the Philosophy of Spinoza
    http://dx.doi.org/10.18778/8142-286-4.36 Alexandre Rouette Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Canada THE SHORTCOMINGS OF A CONCEPT INERTIA AND CONATUS IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA n the third part of the Ethics, Spinoza express the desire to talk about “human actions and appetites just as if it were a question of lines, planes, and bodies” (E3, Appendix).1 With this sentence, it seems clear that Spinoza sides with Hobbes and Descartes and that he wants to con- struct a mechanistic theory of the affects. In the same part of the Ethics, Spinoza also introduces the concept of conatus: “Each thing, as far as it can by its own power, strives to persevere in its being” (E3P6), Spinoza says. One will immedi- ately understand this concept of conatus as the core concept of his mechanistic theory of the affects, the concept without which this mechanistic account of the affects would be impossible. However, in the second part of the Ethics, there is another concept that could have accomplished that same goal, namely, the principle of inertia. In the words of Spinoza, “A body which moves or is at rest must be determined to motion or rest by another body, which has also been determined to motion or rest by another, and that again by another, and so on, to infinity” (E2L3). Inter- estingly enough, in the philosophy of Hobbes, the concept of endeavour/conatus is much nearer to the Spinozistic principle of inertia in its meaning than it is to the Spinozistic version of the conatus.
    [Show full text]
  • Existentialism
    TOPIC FOR- SEM- III ( PHIL-CC 10) CONTEMPORARY WESTERN PHILOSOPHY BY- DR. VIJETA SINGH ASSISTANT PROFESSOR P.G. DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY PATNA UNIVERSITY Existentialism Existentialism is a philosophy that emphasizes individual existence, freedom and choice. It is the view that humans define their own meaning in life, and try to make rational decisions despite existing in an irrational universe. This philosophical theory propounds that people are free agents who have control over their choices and actions. Existentialists believe that society should not restrict an individual's life or actions and that these restrictions inhibit free will and the development of that person's potential. History 1 Existentialism originated with the 19th Century philosopher Soren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche, but they did not use the term (existentialism) in their work. In the 1940s and 1950s, French existentialists such as Jean- Paul Sartre , Albert Camus and Simone de Beauvoir wrote scholarly and fictional works that popularized existential themes, such as dread, boredom, alienation, the absurd, freedom, commitment and nothingness. The first existentialist philosopher who adopted the term as a self-description was Sartre. Existentialism as a distinct philosophical and literary movement belongs to the 19th and 20th centuries, but elements of existentialism can be found in the thought (and life) of Socrates, in the Bible, and in the work of many pre-modern philosophers and writers. Noted Existentialists: Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) Nationality Denmark Friedrich Nietzsche(1844-1900) Nationality Germany Paul Tillich(1886-1965) Nati…United States, Germany Martin Heidegger ( 1889-1976) Nati…Germany Simone de Beauvior(1908-1986) Nati…France Albert Camus (1913-1960) Nati….France Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980) Nati….France 2 What does it mean to exist ? To have reason.
    [Show full text]
  • “Modern” Philosophy: Introduction
    “Modern” Philosophy: Introduction [from Debates in Modern Philosophy by Stewart Duncan and Antonia LoLordo (Routledge, 2013)] This course discusses the views of various European of his contemporaries (e.g. Thomas Hobbes) did see philosophers of the seventeenth century. Along with themselves as engaged in a new project in philosophy the thinkers of the eighteenth century, they are con- and the sciences, which somehow contained a new sidered “modern” philosophers. That might not seem way of explaining how the world worked. So, what terribly modern. René Descartes was writing in the was this new project? And what, if anything, did all 1630s and 1640s, and Immanuel Kant died in 1804. these modern philosophers have in common? By many standards, that was a long time ago. So, why is the work of Descartes, Kant, and their contempor- Two themes emerge when you read what Des- aries called modern philosophy? cartes and Hobbes say about their new philosophies. First, they think that earlier philosophers, particu- In one way this question has a trivial answer. larly so-called Scholastic Aristotelians—medieval “Modern” is being used here to describe a period of European philosophers who were influenced by time, and to contrast it with other periods of time. So, Aristotle—were mistaken about many issues, and modern philosophy is not the philosophy of today as that the new, modern way is better. (They say nicer contrasted with the philosophy of the 2020s or even things about Aristotle himself, and about some other the 1950s. Rather it’s the philosophy of the 1600s previous philosophers.) This view was shared by and onwards, as opposed to ancient and medieval many modern philosophers, but not all of them.
    [Show full text]
  • SPINOZA's ETHICS: FREEDOM and DETERMINISM by Alfredo Lucero
    SPINOZA’S ETHICS: FREEDOM AND DETERMINISM by Alfredo Lucero-Montaño 1. What remains alive of a philosopher's thought are the realities that concern him, the problems that he addresses, as well as the questions that he poses. The breath and depth of a philosopher's thought is what continues to excite and incite today. However, his answers are limited to his time and circumstances, and these are subject to the historical evolution of thought, yet his principal commitments are based on the problems and questions with which he is concerned. And this is what resounds of a philosopher's thought, which we can theoretically and practically adopt and adapt. Spinoza is immersed in a time of reforms, and he is a revolutionary and a reformer himself. The reforming trend in modern philosophy is expressed in an eminent way by Descartes' philosophy. Descartes, the great restorer of science and metaphysics, had left unfinished the task of a new foundation of ethics. Spinoza was thus faced with this enterprise. But he couldn't carry it out without the conviction of the importance of the ethical problems or that ethics is involved in a fundamental aspect of existence: the moral destiny of man. Spinoza's Ethics[1] is based on a theory of man or, more precisely, on an ontology of man. Ethics is, for him, ontology. He does not approach the problems of morality — the nature of good and evil, why and wherefore of human life — if it is not on the basis of a conception of man's being-in-itself, to wit, that the moral existence of man can only be explained by its own condition.
    [Show full text]