“GOD ACTS FROM THE LAWS OF HIS NATURE ALONE”: FROM THE NIHIL EX NIHILO AXIOM TO CAUSATION AS EXPRESSION IN SPINOZA’S METAPHYSICS by Francesca di Poppa Degree in Philosophy Magna cum Laude, Università di Pisa, 1994 MA in History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, 2000 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2006 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented By Francesca di Poppa It was defended on April 17, 2006 and approved by Dr. James E. McGuire, Professor, Dept. of History and Philosophy of Science Dr. Stephen Engstrom, Professor, Dept. of Philosophy Dr. Dennis Looney, Professor, Dept. of French and Italian Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Peter Machamer, Professor, Dept. of History and Philosophy of Science ii Copyright © by Francesca di Poppa 2006 iii “GOD ACTS FROM THE LAWS OF HIS NATURE ALONE”: FROM THE NIHIL EX NIHILO AXIOM TO CAUSATION AS EXPRESSION IN SPINOZA’S METAPHYSICS Francesca di Poppa, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2006 Abstract: One of the most important concepts in Spinoza’s metaphysics is that of causation. Much of the extensive scholarship on Spinoza, however, either takes causation for granted, or ascribes to Spinoza a model of causation that, for one reason or another, fails to account for specific instances of causation—such as the concept of cause of itself (causa sui). This work will offer a new interpretation of Spinoza’s concept of causation. Starting from the “nothing comes from nothing” axiom and its consequences, the containment principle and the similarity principle (basically, the idea that what is in the effect must have been contained in the cause, and that the cause and the effect must have something in common) I will argue that Spinoza adopts what I call the expression-containment model of causation, a model that describes all causal interactions at the vertical and horizontal level (including causa sui, or self- cause). The model adopts the core notion of Neoplatonic emanationism, i.e. the idea that the effect is a necessary outpouring of the cause; however, Spinoza famously rejects transcendence and the possibility of created substances. God, the First Cause, causes immanently: everything that is caused is caused in God, as a mode of God. Starting from a discussions of the problems that Spinoza found in Cartesian philosophy, and of the Scholastic and Jewish positions on horizontal and vertical causation, my dissertation will follow the development of Spinoza’s model of causation from his earliest work to his more mature Ethics. My work will also examine the relationship between Spinoza’s elaboration of monism, the development of his model of causation, and his novel concept of essence (which for Spinoza coincides with a thing’s causal power). iv TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... VII 1.0 DESCARTES’ METAPHYSICS: AN OVERVIEW ................................................ 1 1.1 THE NATURE OF EXTENSION...................................................................... 6 1.2 THE NATURE OF THOUGHT AND REPRESENTATION....................... 11 1.3 PARTICULARS ................................................................................................ 14 1.4 THE PROBLEM OF SUBSTANCE IN DESCARTES: “KEEPING THE DISTANCE”......................................................................................... 19 1.5 THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE “KEEPING THE DISTANCE” PROBLEM: SUMMING UP............................................................................................. 32 2.0 SPINOZA’S CAREER AS A MONIST: DECONSTRUCTING DESCARTES’ METAPHYSICS ......................................................................................................................... 39 2.1 THE NATURE OF EXTENSION.................................................................... 44 2.2 THE NATURE OF THOUGHT AND REPRESENTATION....................... 51 2.3 PARTICULARS ................................................................................................ 57 2.4 THE PROBLEM OF CAUSATION ................................................................ 62 2.5 A THEORY OF SUBSTANCE......................................................................... 76 2.6 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 79 3.0 THE “KEEPING THE DISTANCE” PROBLEM IN THE TRADITION .......... 83 3.1 SUÁREZ: THE VERTICAL LEVEL, OR CREATION EX NIHILO ......... 85 3.2 SUÁREZ: THE HORIZONTAL LEVEL, OR FIRST VS. PRINCIPAL CAUSES ........................................................................................................................... 101 3.3 SUÁREZ: CONCLUSION.............................................................................. 116 3.4 THE JEWISH-SCHOLASTIC SYNTHESIS: ABRAHAM COHEN HERRERA’S GATE OF HEAVEN................................................................................. 119 v 3.5 HERRERA: VERTICAL CAUSATION AND THE SEFIROT.................. 123 3.6 HERRERA: EMANATION AND EXPRESSION ....................................... 126 3.7 HERRERA: HORIZONTAL CAUSATION ................................................ 139 3.8 HERRERA: CONCLUSION.......................................................................... 143 3.9 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 147 4.0 METAPHYSICS IN THE MAKING. CAUSATION AND SUBSTANCE IN SHORT TREATISE................................................................................................................... 151 4.1 TREATISE ON THE EMENDATION OF THE INTELLECT: THE UNION OF THE MIND WITH NATURE................................................................................... 154 4.2 SUBSTANCE AND GOD IN SHORT TREATISE ....................................... 167 4.3 CAUSATION AND SUBSTANCE MONISM: THE ARGUMENT IN SHORT TREATISE .......................................................................................................... 171 4.4 DETERMINISM, ESSENCE AND THE PRINCIPLE OF PLENITUDE. 184 4.5 CONCLUSION: GOD’S PRODUCTIVITY................................................. 191 5.0 CAUSATION IN SPINOZA’S MATURE PHILOSOPHY: ETHICS ................ 200 5.1 SPINOZA’S METHODOLOGICAL UNIVOCITY .................................... 203 5.2 CONCRETE CAUSATION: A PRELIMINARY NOTE AGAINST THE INFERENTIAL INTERPRETATION OF CAUSATION ........................................... 206 5.3 THE REVOLUTION OF ESSENCE: THE ATTRIBUTES AND THE PRINCIPLE OF PLENITUDE ....................................................................................... 209 5.4 SUBSTANCE AND ITS CAUSE: A METAPHYSICS OF POWER ......... 226 5.5 “VERTICAL” CAUSATION: THE EXPRESSION OF GOD ................... 235 5.6 FROM CONTAINMENT TO EXPRESSION: A NEW MODEL OF CAUSATION .................................................................................................................... 250 5.7 SUBSTANTIAL AND MODAL CAUSATION ............................................ 260 5.8 CONTAINMENT, UNIVOCITY, AND THE DISSIMILARITY PRINCIPLE ...................................................................................................................... 271 5.9 TOWARD BODIES IN MOTION: A PHYSICS OF EXPRESSION......... 282 5.10 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 288 BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................................................................... 298 vi INTRODUCTION Spinoza’s monism, the notion that there is only one substance, has been considered, especially but not exclusively by his contemporaries, a puzzling feature of his philosophy. A few modern interpreters went so far as to argue that Spinoza’s real modernity lies in the fact that he dispenses with the ancient concept of substance (contrary to Descartes) and that the parts of Ethics that matter most to the goals of the work (ethical and political philosophy relevant to human happiness) easily dispense with a theory of substance and monism. On the other hand, Jonathan Israel, in his Radical Enlightenment, writes: For even the last, the mid-18th century phase in the formation of the Radical Enlightenment, the probing towards the concept of evolution from inert matter and of higher from lower forms of life, was derived, as its foremost champion Diderot stressed, directly from the doctrine that motion is inherent in matter, a concept generally regarded with horror and universally acknowledged in Enlightenment Europe as quintessentially Spinozist. The claim that Nature is self- moving and creates itself became indeed the trademark of the Spinosistes. Thus the origins of the evolutionary thesis seemingly reinforces Einstein’s proposition that the modern scientist who rejects divine Providence and a God that governs the destinies of man, while accepting the ‘orderly harmony of what exists,’ the vii intelligibility of an imminent universe based on principles of mathematical rationality, in effect believes in Spinoza’s God.1 Israel rightly remarks that the most radical element of Spinoza’s thought is dispensing with transcendence while at the same time offering a concept of matter as active that overcomes the limits of the inert matter of Cartesian metaphysics, thus opening the door to materialistic evolutionism