ON BAYLE’S INTERPRETATION OF SPINOZA’S SUBSTANCE AND MODE * ALEX GUILHERME INTRODUCTION influential from the end of the 17th century until the end of the 18th century, as the Dictionnaire was here are two aspects of Spinoza’s translated into various European languages and metaphysics that one must bear in mind became standard reading in most European Twhen reading his philosophy. First, Universities. As such, it could be said that Bayle is Spinoza understood that metaphysics is the study largely responsible for much of the of the nature of reality, of the nature of Being; misunderstanding that surrounded Spinoza’s and as such, Spinoza was concerned with philosophy in that age. The connection between questions such as: How do things exist? What the reception and the eventual fate of philosophical exists? and Why do they exist? The ther aspect system is not always appreciated but it is no is that Spinoza belonged to the philosophical unimportant element for as Schröder (1996:157) tradition that understood that philosophy had writes: the understanding and the reception of a to be systematic. That is, out of one single and philosopher’s work depends to no little extent on the simple principle one must be able to deduce a way in which earlier interpreters and especially his whole philosophical system (and Hegel is disciples represented it - that is to say, the Dutch probably the last philosopher in this Spinozists of the late 17th and early 18th century - philosophical tradition). For Spinoza the concept influenced the fortune of their Master’s philosophy of substance is such a principle, and as such, he abroad. Most modern commentators would not defended the idea of a monistic metaphysical subscribe to Bayle’s interpretation as it has been system, i.e. substance is the simple principle out discredited due to its clear misinterpretation of of which the whole of Reality is to be deduced. some of Spinoza’s views. In fact, it has been noted That is to say that he strongly maintained recently that Spinoza himself would reject his own throughout his writings that i. one, and only one views would them incur the implications inferred substance exists, ii. that God or Nature is a by Bayle in the Dictionnaire (cf. Curley 1969:13; substance, and iii. that all that exists is a Nadler 2008:56). modification of the substance. There is, however, much debate among commentators regarding (CONTINUATION OF NOTE 1) name had been banned under the Anti-Socinian Act of 1653, which was the foundation the meaning of the concepts of substance and for all intellectual censorship in the Dutch Republic. One mode, and of the inter-relation between these such documented case is: Adriaan Koerbagh, a medical terms. In this paper I wish to assess the very first doctor and jurist, who wrote two books on the education published interpretation of Spinoza’s thought, of the Dutch people; he was arrested and questioned by namely, that of Pierre Bayle in his Dictionnaire the police on the 20th July 1668 and confirmed that his books concealed Spinozist ideas (cf. Siebrand 1988:13). Critique et Historique where he portraits Spinoza Socianism (from the Latin socius – ‘companion’) held the 1 as a Cartesian. This interpretation was very views that i. Christ was human and not divine, ii. that human beings possess free will and thus it preached * Dr Alex Guilherme - DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY - UNIVERSITY against the Lutheran idea of predestination, iii. argued in OF DURHAM, Durham, Co. Durham, United Kingdom. favour of pacifism and against all wars, iv. argued for the 1 Bayle’s is the very first interpretation of Spinoza’s separation of church and state, and v. argued in favour of thought to name Spinoza explicitly. Earlier commentaries reason over dogma. Thus, it is easy to see why Spinoza’s did not mention the name of Spinoza or explicitly allude Tractatus , and the Ethics, were banned under the Anti- to his thought for Spinoza’s works and (TO BE CONTINUED) Socinian Act, since Spinoza held at least i., iv., and v. REVISTA Conatus - FILOSOFIA DE SPINOZA - VOLUME 3 - NÚMERO 6 - DEZEMBRO 2009 11 GUILHERME, ALEX. ON BAYLE’S INTERPRETATION OF SPINOZA’S SUBSTANCE AND MODE. P. 11-16. There is, however, a temptation to read Spinoza is a naturalised entity. Spinoza’s God is Nature, as a Cartesian because he makes use of much the whole of Nature (i.e. nature as the essence Cartesian terminology, such as substance and of everything that exists – natura naturans, and mode. Such a reading would be partially accurate nature as a physical self-contained system – because Spinoza is the most prominent natura naturata; cf. E I p29).3 It is therefore philosopher that appeared just after Descartes, generally agreed that Spinoza defended a and as such he was influenced by and pantheistic view of the world (cf. Hampshire commented on Cartesian philosophy.2 Spinoza 1953:36; Priest 1991:160), and thus the absence use of terminology, such as substance and mode of a supernatural realm. For Spinoza all that is directly related to this. However, and this is exists is this divinised realm inhabited by us. the crucial point here, Spinoza changed the meaning of, as well as changing the inter-relation The second point concerns the Cartesian and between, those terms – for he further developed Scholastic understanding of the concepts of those Cartesian and Scholastic concepts as I shall substance and mode (and modes are sometimes demonstrate later in this paper. This point is vital called accidents). Cartesians and Scholastics held to demonstrate that Bayle misinterpreted the view that God created two kinds of Spinoza’s doctrine of substance and mode and substances, the mental substance and the that his reading must be rejected as a proper extended substance, i.e. God wills the existence interpretation of Spinoza’s philosophy. of these two substances and therefore these substances depend on God for their existence. CARTESIAN AND SCHOLASTIC PHILOSOPHY: TWO POINTS 3 E I p29 note says: : ...I would wish to remind you...what Before assessing Bayle’s interpretation of we must understand by active and passive nature (natura Spinoza’s concepts of substance and mode, I wish naturans and natura naturata)...by natura naturans we to make two points regarding Cartesian and must understand what is in itself and is conceived through Scholastic philosophy, since Bayle reads Spinoza itself ... but by natura naturata I understand whatever as falling under this tradition. The first point follows from the necessity of God’s nature, or from any of God’s attributes, i.e. all the modes of God’s attributes insofar concerns the Cartesian and Scholastics’ as they are considered as things which are in God, and can understanding of Metaphysics. Cartesians and neither be nor be conceived without God). Scholastics held the view that there is the Chaui (1999:56-57) makes an interesting point regarding supernatural realm, which God inhabits, and the the role of natura naturans and natura naturata within natural realm, where God’s created extended and Spinoza’s system by drawing an analogy. She links Spinoza’s views to the scientific revolution in optics at mental substances exist. Thus, for Cartesians and the time. Chaui argues that in Latin there is a difference Scholastics, Metaphysics is both concerned with between lux, i.e. the source of light, and lumen, i.e. light the natural realm through a study of the nature which illuminates the objects around the source of light. of our reality and with the supernatural realm This difference has been forgotten by modern languages, through the study of the nature of God, souls however, it is certain that Spinoza was familiar with both terms as he was fluent in Latin. Chaui’s point is that just and immortality. This is in direct contrast with as in optics there is a difference between the source of Spinoza’s views. In Spinoza’s metaphysical light (lux) and light itself (lumen), there is also a difference system one finds only the natural realm. between God as creator, i.e. active and immanent and Spinoza’s system does not provide for a the essence to all things – natura naturans, and God as supernatural system. Certainly, there is talk of creation, i.e. passive and conceived forming a self- contained system – natura naturata. This is possibly one God. But one must remember that Spinoza’s God of Spinoza’s greatest insights for if reality is conceived simply as product (natura naturata), then reality would 2 Spinoza only published two books during his life time, be at rest, there would be no changes in reality. The idea namely the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (1670) and The of changes in reality requires an active and productive Principles of Descartes’s Philosophy (1663). The former element, that which Spinoza calls natura naturans. This was initially written for a young man of whom Spinoza is to say that the very fact that reality is so dynamic was tutor, the latter was published anonymously at requires the substance, God or nature, to be seen as both Amsterdam. The Ethics, which is considered his major product (natura naturata) and as producer (natura work, was only published posthumously in 1677. naturans). 12 REVISTA Conatus - FILOSOFIA DE SPINOZA - VOLUME 3 - NÚMERO 6 - DEZEMBRO 2009 GUILHERME, ALEX. ON BAYLE’S INTERPRETATION OF SPINOZA’S SUBSTANCE AND MODE. P. 11-16. They were also pluralists about these two created all particular beings,…, the sun, the moon,…are substances as they maintained that there is a modifications of God”, and anyone who is plurality of these two kinds of substance.