Living Things and the Limits of Ethics
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
SPINOZA’S MATERIALIST “EPISTEMOLOGY” By Norman Lee Whitman Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Vanderbilt University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Philosophy May, 2015 Nashville, Tennessee Approved: Idit Dobbs-Weinstein, Ph.D. Gregg Horowitz, Ph.D. John Lachs, Ph.D. Warren Montag, Ph.D. Copyright © 2015 by Norman Lee Whitman All Rights Reserved ii In loving memory of my father, Thomas Henry Whitman, and To my wonderful mother, Seranoosh Assadurian Whitman, Without your love and unshakeable confidence, none of this would be possible. With all my love. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Most are fortunate to be born once, but with philosophy, a second birth is possible. As with all births, a mother is needed. By exposing me to critical philosophy and to thinking against the grain of history, Dr. Idit Dobbs-Weinstein, my Doctor Mater, led me to my second birth. Without her careful and intelligent guidance, I would have never been able to become the new being that I am today, as exemplified by this work. Her philosophical fortitude steeled me to the serious thinking and scholarship necessary for true philosophy and provided me with the strong foundation from which to grow as a philosopher. I am deeply indebted to her, and I greatly appreciate her commitment to my growth and to the rigors necessary for achieving genuine philosophy. She is a model of philosophical excellence that I hope to someday more closely approximate. I thank you, Idit. Without the support of the Department of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University and the Vanderbilt University Graduate School, this work would not have been possible. I would like to thank the Graduate School and the College of Arts and Science, from whom I received a Summer Research Award in 2004. I would like also to thank especially the Department of Philosophy for providing me funding and teaching opportunities, both at Vanderbilt and at other universities, which allowed me to continue writing in residence. Dr. Jeffrey Tlumak, Dr. Robert Talisse, Dr. John Lachs, Dr. Gregg Horowitz, and the Philosophy Department’s administrative assistant, Rebecca Davenport, were integral in helping me achieve necessary funding. I am truly grateful to them for their support. Although many of us believe that we alone or with only little support can achieve philosophical knowledge, I know otherwise. Each of the members on my dissertation committee iv showed me the uncanny ways in which knowledge requires the involvement and support of others for thinking. Dr. Gregg Horowitz, with his brilliant dialectical mind, showed me how the questions that drive philosophy can never be easily resolved and demand intimate access to one’s animus to generate philosophical thinking. Dr. John Lachs’s love of philosophical life showed me how living by and being committed to one’s philosophical creed reveals the virtue of one’s philosophy and a deeper appreciation for the concrete concerns that produce it. I must thank Dr. Warren Montag, who along with Idit, helped introduce me to the wider and alternative readings of Baruch Spinoza which serve as the foundation for this dissertation. Finally, I must thank Idit for bringing the demand and force of history to bear on my thinking and this work. Without her subtle and perceptive historical mind, I fear that this work and I would have deformed the genius of prior philosophers. Several other individuals must be acknowledged for their support, love, and friendship. This work would not be possible without the amazing support of Lindsey Reymore. She read several drafts of this work and helped me to clarify my writing and strengthen my arguments. Her unselfish dedication to this work and to my well-being gave me a respite from the stress of intensive writing and research so that I might appreciate my work and learn in the process. She is a pillar in my life which has enabled me to be a better person and a better philosopher. Michael Brodrick’s support and friendship also deserves special recognition. He read through portions of this dissertation and gave me suggestions to improve my work. More importantly, having gone through the process of writing a dissertation, Michael helped alleviate my stress and anxiety. Our shared humor allowed me to put this work and the process of becoming a Ph.D. in perspective so that I could confidently develop my work and philosophical voice. Terry Boyd also deserves special note. As a friend and fellow interlocutor, he has enabled me to appreciate v the power of philosophy to transform one’s life for the better and to realize how fortunate we philosophers are to critically think about the world and to touch the lives of others. I would like to thank my father, Thomas Whitman, who before his death, showed me so much love and support for my education and work. He instilled a sense of self-respect and pride for one’s work that to this day constitutes me. Although he is gone, he lives on in my spirit and memory. Without the continual and boundless support and love of my mother, Seran Whitman, I would not have been able to achieve this work, let alone anything. Her deep love and commitment to me is an infinite treasure that has sustained me throughout my life. I am so glad that you have seen me accomplish this work, and I know that I have given you so much joy and pride, which in turn has gladdened my heart beyond measure. With love, Norman. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. iv Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1 Terminology .........................................................................................................................7 A Way to See Spinoza’s Materialist “Epistemology” .......................................................13 II. THE STATUS OF DEFINITION: PRODUCT OF MIND OR ACT OF INTELLECT ...17 Descartes ............................................................................................................................18 Spinoza ...............................................................................................................................31 III. THE NECESSITY OF A MATERIALIST EPISTEMOLOGY ..........................................65 Marion’s (Mis)Reading ......................................................................................................78 A Spinozian Response .......................................................................................................95 The Necessity of a Materialist Epistemology ..................................................................107 IV. MATERIAL “BEGINNINGS” ..........................................................................................111 Nature Does Nothing in Vain, or God is Not Contingent ................................................114 Spinoza Adopts the New Physics’ Foundational Principle of Efficient Causality ..........................................................................................................................131 There are No Unmediated Causes ....................................................................................147 Spinoza Adopts a Radically New Understanding of Essence ..........................................150 A Ratio of Bodies Establishes an Individual or a Singular Thing in Body .....................169 Summary and Importance of the Previous Principles ......................................................189 V. LACKING INDIFFERENCE: A CRITIQUE OF CARTESIAN INTELLECTUAL INDIFFERENCE ...............................................................................................................193 Embodied Thinking .........................................................................................................196 “Voluntary Thinking” ......................................................................................................218 VI. CONCLUSION: THE END OF ETHICS II, A POLITICAL CONCLUSION .................249 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................262 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A common view among interpreters of Baruch Spinoza is that his method of knowing or epistemology is derived from René Descartes’s analytic method, mathesis universalis. This interpretation develops from both philosophical and historical claims. The main line of argument is that since Descartes furnished modern philosophy with an analytic method based on absolute deductive mathematics and since Spinoza seemingly follows this method, particularly in the Ethics, then Spinoza is an adherent to Descartes’s rationalism. Furthermore, because Spinoza was active in a Cartesian milieu, seventeenth century Holland,1 and seems committed to Descartes’s analytic method, Spinoza simply develops and goes beyond Descartes’s positions to conclude that Nature is absolutely rational and necessary as expressed by Spinoza’s monism. Hegel favors this interpretation, viewing Spinoza as merely borrowing analytic methods and mathematical forms from Descartes.2 Leibniz also came to a similar conclusion in the Theodicy Part III where he describes Spinoza as a radical adherent to Descartes’s method, thereby