Park, Sam-Yel (1999) a Study of the Mind-Body Theory in Spinoza. Phd Thesis. Copyright and Moral R
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Park, Sam-Yel (1999) A study of the mind-body theory in Spinoza. PhD thesis. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/2040/ Copyright and moral rights for this thesis are retained by the author A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Glasgow Theses Service http://theses.gla.ac.uk/ [email protected] A Study of the Mind-Body Theory in Spinoza Departmentof Philosophy University of Glasgow A Study of Theory in Spinoza the pffindýBody by Sam-Yel Park A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Arts in Fulfilment of the Requirementsfor the degreeof Doctor of Philosophy June 1999 C Sam-Yel Park 1999 Abstract A Study of the Mind-Body Theory in Spinoza by Sam-Yel Park 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 inadequaciesof these interpretations, it turns out that Spinoza's argumentof the relationshipbetween the mind and the body should be understood as holding that there is a non-causalrelationship 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 parallelismis derived ftom his argumentof identity betweenthe mind and the body, which is basedon his substancenionism. and attribute dualism.We should therefore understand Spinoza's mind-body theory as an identity theory which leads to a parallel relationshipbetween the mind and the body. Sincethe double aspecttheory arguesboth identity and parallelism between the mind and the body, the doctrine we should ascribeto Spinozais the double aspecttheory. Furthermore, owing to the fact that Spinoza maintains substancemonism and attribute dualism (assumingan 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 described properties: the mental and the physical eventsare one and the sameevent Spinozafinds tinder mental and physicalproperties, respectively.From the fact that identity in individuals or events, but not in properties, it follows that his theory should also be understoodas a kind of token identity theory. There are Miculties in this interpretation. Spinoza tries to combine mind- body identity with the separation of attributes, but some have argued that the identity would threaten the doctrine that thought and extension are causally separate. Again, some have argued that if the attributes are distinct then a substancehas more than one essence;while if they are not really distinct, but only seenas distinct, then even God cannot know the true nature of reality. It is difficult to render Spinoza's claims both consistent and plausible, but I have tried to flnd argumentsfor someof Spinoza'sclaims in this area:my interpretation of Spinoza's mind-body theory entails both token identity and property (or conceptual) parallelism whilst ruling out type identity as well as substanceparallelism. So, I have called Spinoza'smind-body theory a token double aspecttheory. Spinoza'sdiscussion of the representativenature of ideasdoes not sit easily with his doctrine of parallelism,at least so far as finite beingsare concerned,I have tried to make the doctrines consistent,but ultimately Spinoza seemsto bring his representationalismand parallelisminto line by appealingto the confusednature of humanideas. Despite all the problems, Spinoza's thought on mind and.body has seemed to many to promise real insight into the nature of mind and body, and I have tried to see how far modern versions of materialism (anomalous monism), person theory, and some developmentsin cognitive sciencecan be said to follow strands in Spinoza'swork. Acknowledgements I should like to thank Messrs P. Shaw and T. Greenvvood for their discerning comments, endless patience, and support throughout my studies. This thesis would never have seenthe light without their encouragement, care and thought. Contents Abbreviation xii Chapter One Introduction 1 1. Introductory Remarks 2. A Preview on Spinoza's Mind-Body Theory 5 (1) God as Substance:Monism -5 (2) The Mind and the Body 10 Id'" ;L Chapter Two Diverse Interpretations of Spinoza's M0ind-Body Theory 14 1. Hylomorphism 16 (1) Hylomorphism in Aristotle 16 (2) The Hylomorphic Interpretation of Spinoza 18 (3) The Inadequacy of the Hylomorphic Interpretation of Spinoza 22 a. Metaphysical System 22 b. Mind-Body Theory 27 2. Idealism 30 (1) The Sources of the Idealistic Interpretation 31 (2) Remarks on the Idealistic Interpretation 36 vi 3. Epiphenomenalism 39 (1) H. Barker's Note on Ethics 40 a. The Priority of the Body 40 b. The EpiphenomenalisticInterpretation 42 (2) The Inadequacyof the EpiphenomenalisticInterpretation 43 a. The Equality or Priority betweenthe Mind and the Body: the Scholiumof Proposition Two, Part Three 43 b. Incompatibility betweenDefinitions of Epiphenomenalism and Spinoza'sTheory 49 4. Materialism 53 (1) The Interpretation of Stuart Hampshire 54 a. The Principal Point of the Book Spinoza 54 b. A Kind of Materialism 56 (2) The Inadequacy of the Materialistic Interpretation 58 e,71- Chapter Three Parallelism 66 1. Outlook of the Parallelist Interpretation 67 (1) Traditional Parallelism and Spinoza's Parallelism 67 (2) The Sources of the Parallelist Interpretation 69 2. Identity and the Separation of Attributes 72 (1) Bennett and the Separationof Attributes 73 (2) Della Rocca on Identity and Parallelism 80 a. ReferentialOpacity 81 b. Neutral Properties 84 3. The Problems of Identity in Parallelism 86 (1) Trans-Attribute Modes and Neutral Properties 86 (2) The Relationshipbetween Identity Theory and Parallelism 88 vii (3) Della Rocca and the Asymmetry in the Scholium.of Proposition Thirteen (4) The Idea of the Mind and the Mind It" I- Chapter Four One Single Substance and Two Attributes: the Subjective and the Objective Interpretations 1. The Subjective and the Objective Interpretations of Attributes (1) The Status of the Attributes (2) The Issues in Relation to Definition Four 2. Comparison between the Subjective and the Objective Interpretations (1) The Problemsof the Different Interpretations (2) Bennett's View on Attributes (3) The Correspondencebetween De Vries and Spinoza 3. A Proposed Solution to the Problems of the Objective Interpretation (1) The Problem of "One and Many" a. The Relationship between Substanceand Essenceand Attribute b. An Implication of Identity in the Term "Constituere" (2) The Meanmig of the Phrase "Which the Intellect Perceives of' (3) What Is Structurally Common to All the Attributes: Essence Chapter Five One Thing and Two Descriptions in Spinoza: the Double Aspect Theory 1. Statement of the Double Aspect Theory (1) OneThing WhichIs DescribedEither asMental and Physical a. Textual Evidences concerning Double Aspect Theory b. Substance Monism and the Mind-Body Theory c. Parallelism between the Mental and the Physical viii (2) Double Aspect Theory Entailing Identity and Property Parallelism (3) Spinoza as a Double Aspect Theorist a. A Numerical Identity of Events: One Event with Two Properties b. Token Double Aspect Theory 2. Some Criticisms of the Double Aspect Interpretation (1) Bakker's Reectionj of the Double Aspect Theory a. The Terms "Double" and "Aspect" b. Equivalence-Identity (2) Remarks on Bakker's Arguments 3. Attributes and the Double Aspect Theory (1) The Subjectiveinterpretation (2) The Compatibility betweenthe Double Aspect Theory and the Objective Interpretation 4. Bennett and Della Rocca (1) Properties and Events: Partial and Numerical Identity (2) Trans-Attribute Modes, Neutral Properties, and "What Is Structurally Common" a. Bemett b. DeRa Rocca 00 5. The Double Aspect Theory, Determinism, and Morality (1) Determinism a. The Outlook of Determinism in Spinoza b. The Mind and The Body Determinedby One Substance (2) Moral Theory a. Human Bondage b. Moral Theory and Mind-Body Theory ix d"l- Chapter Six The Problem of Representation in Spinoza 1. Spinoza on Representationalism (1) The Outlook of Spinoza'sConcept of Representation (2) The Problemsof Spinoza'sRepresentationalism 2. Della Rocca's Interpretation of the Concept of Representation in Spinoza (1) Parallelismand the Conceptof Representation (2) The ContainmentThesis and the Mind-Relativityof Content (3) The Problemfor DellaRocca's Interpretation 3. Parallelism, Representationalism and Proposition Thirteen (1) "A Body" Insteadof "The Body" (2) The Distinction betweenthe Parallel Object and the RepresentationalObject (3) The ExpandedBody: The Human Body as Including the External Body a. Part of the Wider Whole b. Body-Actual and Body-Cosmic (4) The Distinction between Adequate Ideas and Inadequate Ideas (5) The Essenceof the Human Mind Chapter Seven Spinoza and Contemporary Philosophy of Mind 1. Cognitive Science (1) Rice's Comparisonbetween Cognitive Scienceand Spinoza (2) Similaritiesand Differences 2. Strawson's Person Theory (1) Person Theory