lliil ,5#l|^|g;:yr^:.. 5 0' V- aV .0^ .-xN' ^^ '<' /■ ^^ ^■.- .^^ VN-^ ^^. '. -Tl,. ,0 o^ -^^ * „ .. n ^ ^;*^ a'^ ^^ "'■ O \^ .^ !rl ' VX^ ^.^f^..^*. ,0o '%' ,/^' -.^^ '^, V^^ ^"^ x^^^. >-^- ■'^^. .1^' 0' . 5 -r.. x\ vC^ '^'^. .^ \ .. .C,- .\^ •^/. '-' '^l.' 0^ -/C^. o ' - rxC^ "^ "^ '^ ■-<>. •'■' ^ ^ * ^f .'-' ^^^■s^' fa$ aX^' '^/>, .^N^ .^-^^'- r '^ .#% Vfe , . -^ x\ '?-, ''/ . -t. / s .^ %_ ^. =i-'l .\V\' , N .^^_ X'f -7^. Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive in 2011 witii funding from Tine Library of Congress Iittp://www.arcliive.org/details/pliilosopliyofspin01spin Series of ^obern pbilosopbers. Edited by E. Hershey Sjieatli, Ph.D. DESCARTES by Prof. H. A. P. TORREY of the University of Vermont.* SPINOZA by Prof. GEO. S. FULLERTON of the University of Pennsylvania.* LOCKE by Prof. JOHN E. RUSSELL of Williams College.* V HUME by Prof. H. AUSTIN AIKINS of Trinity College, N. C* REID by E. HERSHEY SNEATH of Yale Uni- versity.* Y KANT by Prof. JOHN WATSON of Queen's University, Canada.* HEGEL by Prof. JOSIAH ROYCE of Harvard University. * Those marked with an asterisk are ready. HENRY HOLT & CO., Publishers, NEW YORK. Bevies ot f^o^cvn pbilosopbers "^ - — Edited by E. Hejshey Sneath, Ph. D. THE /' Philosophy of Spinoza AS CONTAINED IN THE FIRST, SECOND, AND FIFTH PARTS OF THE "ETHICS," AND IN EXTRACTS FROM THE THIRD AND FOURTH TRANSLA TED FROM THE LA TIN, AND EDITED WITH NOTES BY GEORGE STUART FULLERTON Professor of Philosophy in the University of Pennsylvania SECOND EDITION, ENLARGED ■' 0? CO • 19 189A Jf^^/J-^'^ / NEW YORK HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 1894 Copyright, i8 HENRY HOLT & CO. THK MERSHON COMPANY PRESS, KAHVVAY, N. J, PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. As it is the purpose of this little volume to set forth the philosophical system of Spinoza in the philoso- pher's own words, and not merely to prepare a book of disconnected extracts from his writings, I have fol- lowed a plan which may seem somewhat unusual in works of this kind. The philosophy of Spinoza is contained in its final form in the " Ethics." By translating in full the first, second, and fifth parts of the "Ethics," giving the author's prefaces to, and summaries of, the third and fourth parts, and supplying in foot-notes passages in the omitted portions to which reference is made, I have found it possible to give a just idea of the doc- trine contained in the " Ethics," while reducing the work by about one-half, and bringing it within the limits demanded by this Series. That it is not easy to cut into a work constructed as is this one, anyone may readily satisfy himself by examination. I think, liowever, I have omitted nothing essential to a com- prehension of Spinoza's metaphysical system, and have preserved intact his chain of argument. Lack of space has made any extended criticism of his reasoning out of the question. A very brief exam- ination of some of the cardinal points in his system I have thought it desirable to insert in the form of notes. These are referred to by number in the text, and will be found in the back of the book. IV PREFACE. In making the translation I have used the excellent Latin text of Van Vloten and Land, which appears to be remarkably free from errors of any sort, and have endeavored first of all to be exact and to avoid para- phrases. This has sometimes resulted in a sacrifice of grace, but it is, of course, worth the sacrifice. I take this opportunity of thanking my colleague and former pupil, Dr. Wm. Romaine Nevvbold, for a number of suggestions which have materially improved my translation. GEORGE STUART FULLERTON. University of Pennsylvania, October, 1 89 1. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. This second edition is so different from the first that it may ahnost be regarded as a new book. The general plan is retained, but the translation has been freely altered throughout, and in Part III. proposi- tions I to II have been added. Some of the intro- ductory matter is new, and the critical and explana- tory notes have been greatly multiplied. I have discussed at length in a prefatory note the nature of Spinoza's reasoning and the foundations upon which it rests ; and I beg the reader to examine this care- fully before proceeding to a study of the text. It has been my experience that, even to intelligent students, the argument of the " Ethics " presents serious diffi- culties. In my notes I have taken great pains to make the author's meaning plain, and have not hesitated, with this end in view, to repeat the same thought in different places, when, in the interests of clearness, it has seemed wise to do so. I have, of course, been somewhat hampered by the necessity of keeping the size of the volume within reasonable limits. Explanations and excuses are always rather stupid, but it may not be wholly amiss for me to state here that, when the first edition was printed, an uncor- rected copy of the translation of Part I. was sent, through a misunderstanding, to the printer. As the VI PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. proofs were corrected for me by a friend, while I was suffering from a serious illness, the fact was not dis- covered until after the publication of the book. It, hence, contains some errors from which the present edition is free. George Stuart Fullerton, June, 1894. CONTENTS. PAGE Bibliography i Biographical Sketch 5 Sources of Spinoza's Philosophy ' ii Brief Exposition of Spinoza's System. — Spinoza's Influence upon Subsequent Thinking 13 The Ethics : Part I. Of God 25 Part II. Of the Nature and Origin of the Mind 74 Part III. Of the Origin and Nature of the Emotions 132 Part IV. Of Human Bondage, or of the Strength of the Emotions 153 Part V. Of the Power of the Understanding, or of Human Freedom 171 Critical and Explanatory Notes 209 Introductory Note : I. Spinoza's Epistemology : 1. Ideas and Things 210 2. Parallelism of Ideas and Things 211 3. The Test of Truth 213 4. The Concatenation of Ideas 214 5. Mind and Body 215 6. Summary 216 Introductory Note : II. Spinoza's Realism the Key to the Reasonings Contained in the " Ethics ": 7. The System of Ideas 217 8. Spinoza's Realism. . . . 219 Vin CONTENTS. PAGE 9. The Concept 225 10. Concepts made Causes 233 11. Concepts, though Causes, yet Universals 235 12. The Word " Involved " 239 13. Essence 244 14. Deduction of Ideas from the Idea of God 252 15. The Dual Causality of the " Ethics" 254 16. The Eternity of Essences 255 17. Summary 258 Notes to Part I 262 Notes to Part II 283 Note on the Mind and its Knowledge 317 Notes to Part III 325 Notes to Part IV 330 Notes to Part V 335 Index 355 BIBLIOGRAPHY. It would not be profitable to attempt, in a work of this sort, anything like a complete bibliography of Spinozistic literature. Such a bibliography would be very extensive, and of little value to most of those who will use this book. I shall, consequently, merely indicate, for the sake of the few who may wish such information, where it may be looked for, and shall then confine myself to mentioning a limited number of books readily obtainable, which the student will find of service in gaining a good knowledge of the life and philosophy of Spinoza. A list of Spinoza's works will be found in the Biographical Sketch fol- lowing this Bibliography. In 187 1 Dr. A. van der Linde published at The Hague a full and excellent catalogue of the Spino- zistic literature, under the title " Benedictus Spinoza : Bibliografie." This brings the bibliography down to 1871. The introductory chapter to Sir Frederick Pollock's volume on Spinoza (to be mentioned later) supplements this, and brings us to 1880. What has appeared since, those interested in the subject will not find it difificult to trace. The last edition of the complete works of Spinoza, and one which should be on the shelf of every care- ful student of his philosophy, is that of Van Vloten and Land (2 vols., The Hague, 1882-83). It is attractive in typography, and very free from errors of 2 BIBLIOGRAPHY. any sort. This edition has been used in the transla- tion of these selections. The German reader will doubtless find it helpful to sometimes compare with the Latin Auerbach's transla- tion (" Spinoza's Sammtliche Werke," 2 vols., Stutt- gart, 187 1). Auerbach follows the Latin very closely — more closely, indeed, than an English writer would dare to. Where a passage admits of more than one meaning he seems to use excellent judgment in making a selection. Readers of French may use in the same way Saisset's translation of Spinoza's principal works (3 vols., Paris, 1872). It is not, however, as close as Auerbach's. There is no complete English translation of the works of Spinoza. A translation of his most impor- tant works, by R. H. M. Elwes, appeared in 1883-84 (2 vols., London, Bohn's Philos. Lib.). This contains the "Theologico-Political Treatise," the "Political Treatise," the unfinished work on the " Improvement of the Understanding," the " Ethics," and an abridg- ment of Spinoza's Correspondence. The translation of the " Ethics " I have compared pretty carefully with the original, and have found it careful, generally quite close, and graceful. The translator has used Bruder's text (1843), which is now superseded by the text of Van Vloten and Land, With Elwes's rendering of some passages I do not agree, as is, of course, to be expected ; but I can recommend his translation, and the student would do well to secure these volumes. There are several other translations of the"Ethics,"the best of which is that by William Hale White (London, 1890, second edition, by Mr. White and Amelia Hutchinson Stirling, 1894). This seems to be accu- rate, but is not as readable as the translation just men- BIBLIOGRAPHY. 3 tioned. Another translation, which is, however, quite inferior to those by Elwes and White, was made by Professor Henry Smith of Lane Theological Seminary (Cincinnati, 1886). It is preceded by a lengthy criti- cism of Spinozism, and especially of its significance for theology. An anonymous translation, which ap- peared before any of these (New York, 1876), is not reliable. The expository and critical volumes on Spinoza by Sir Frederick Pollock (" Spinoza : His Life and Phi- losophy," London, 1880), Dr. James Martineau ("A Study of Spinoza," London, 1883), and Dr. John Caird (" Spinoza," Edinburgh, 1888), will be found helpful to a comprehension of his system. They are written from different points of view, and will serve to supplement each other. Pollock lays especial stress on the scientific side of Spinoza's thought, and em- phasizes the harmony of some of his doctrines with the conceptions of modern science. His book is full of valuable information communicated in a very clear and straightforward way. His admiration for the philosopher, however, makes him, in my judgment, a little blind to his errors in reasoning, and inclined to pass lightly over that aspect of his philosophy which finds its explanation in his Jewish birth and training. Dr. Martineau gives more attention to Spinoza's meta- physics, and his criticisms will be found acute and suggestive. Dr. Caird writes from what one may call the Neo-Hegelian point of view, and is most in sym- pathy with what Pollock is inclined to explain away. If one is unable to procure all three of these books, and has to choose a single one, he would better take the volume by Dr. Martineau. For most of our information concerning the life of 4 BIBLIOGRAPHY. Spinoza we are indebted to Colerus. An old English version of Colerus' account is reprinted by Pollock {pp. at., Appendix A.). It gives a vivid picture of the man and his surroundings. Both Pollock and Mar- tineau (especially the latter) devote a good deal of space to Spinoza's life. In connection with the above it would be well to read four essays on Spinoza by Land, Kuno Fischer, Van Vloten, and Renan, which have been edited in an English dress by Professor Knight of St. Andrews (London and Edinburgli, 1882). The German reader will enjoy Auerbach's historical romance (" Spinoza, Ein Denkerleben," Stuttgart, 1880. A translation by Charles T. Brooks, New York, 1882), which is excellent. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. Baruch de Spinoza was born at Amsterdam, No- vember 24, 1632. He was the son of Spanish or Portu- guese Jews who had taken refuge in the Netherlands from the cruel persecutions directed against their race in the Peninsula. His early education, which was entirely Jewish, was probably largely confined to the study of the Hebrew language and literature, in which, at the age of fifteen, he was regarded as a very prom- ising scholar. Latin he learned from the free-thinking physician Francis van den Ende, from whom also he may have gotten his knowledge of German, his initi- ation into the sciences, and an introduction to the works of Giordano Bruno and Descartes. He was acquainted with Spanish and Portuguese, as these lan- guages were spoken in the Jevvish colony to which he belonged, and one of them was his mother tongue. Italian he learned, probably, from his teacher, the Rabbi Morteira, who was a Venetian. Dutch he never used with fluency, although he spent his life in Holland. His studies and the reflections to which they gave rise produced in him a gradual separation from the faith of his fathers. In 1656 it was deemed necessary by the rulers of the synagogue at Amsterdam to take steps to remove the scandal occasioned by his hereti- cal opinions and his lax observance of the ceremonial law. He was offered an annuity of 1000 florins on condition of an outward conformity. This being s 6 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. refused, he was excommunicated for thirty days. During this period, as he was one evening leaving the Portuguese synagogue, he was set upon by an unknown man armed with a dagger, who, however, succeeded only in piercing his coat. After this event he removed from Amsterdam to tlie house of a friend — himself a heretic, as he belonged to the sect of the CoUegiants — two or three miles from the city, on the Ouwerkerk road. On the 27th of July, 1656, he was formally excommunicated, and cut off from his people. This was the occasion of his substituting for his Hebrew name Baruch, its Latin equivalent Benedict. Spinoza had learned the art of making lenses for optical instruments, and he now supported himself by it. He acquired a reputation as an optician, and was consulted in this capacity by Leibnitz and Huygens. About the beginning of the year 1661 he moved with his Collegiant friend to Rijnsburg, near Leyden. Three years later he moved again to Voorburg, a suburb of The Hague, where he spent six years. In 1670 he took up his residence in The Hague, and there lived until his death, which occurred on February 21, 1677. Spinoza lived much alone — in part, probably, from choice, but also in part from necessity. His separa- tion from his kindred was complete after his excom- munication. On the death of his father, his two sisters made an effort to deprive him of his share of the inheritance, on the ground that he was a heretic and cut off from Israel. An appeal to the civil power established his right, but he afterward voluntarily resigned to his sister^ all that came to him except one bed. As he never joined any Christian sect, his com- panionship with Christians was necessarily not of the ^ BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 7 closest, and his opinions, which he took no great pains to conceal, inspired with horror many who would have been drawn to him by the beauty of his life. Yet he had a limited number of enthusiastic disciples who studied his manuscript works with ardor, and addressed him as master. Reacquired the friendship of persons high in position, notably of the De Witt brothers, and of a number of scholars who addressed to him letters on scientific and philosophical subjects. Not the least interesting part of his writings is this correspondence, which throws light on several important points in his philosophy. At the time of the French invasion of the Netherlands in 1672, he was sent for by the Prince of Conde, who wished to make his acquaintance. On his arrival at the camp he found the Prince absent, but was informed that he could probably obtain a pension from Louis XIV. by dedicating some work to that monarch. This offer he refused. Occupied with his philosophical studies and cor- respondence, and with his manual labor, Spinoza led a quiet and laborious life, sometimes remaining in his apartments for days together. His simple recreations were smoking an occasional pipe of tobacco and con- versing on ordinary matters with the people of the house, watching the habits and quarrels of spiders, working with a microscope, and making sketches of his friends with ink or charcoal, in which last exercise he appears to have had some skill. A book of such sketches was in existence after his death. The character of Spinoza was singularly pure and beautiful. With a single-minded devotion to truth, and a willingness to suffer martyrdom for his con- victions, he combined an earnest desire for a tranquil and quiet life, and a catholicity of sympathy which 8 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. manifested itself in a generous tolerance. Though he had suffered for his opinions at the hands of both Jew and Christian, toward neither does he show any trace of bitterness or spite. The material goods valued by the multitude — money, position, reputation — he re- garded with the indifference of the Stoic sage. A gift of 2000 florins from Simon de Vries, a disciple and admirer, was refused ; and when, later, De Vries wished to make the philosopher his heir, Spinoza dissuaded him from the act, saying that the money ought to pass to tlie natural heir, a brother of De Vries. The estate was so disposed of, but with the proviso that a pension be paid to Spinoza during his lifetime. The heir having fixed this pension at 500 florins, Spinoza declared the sum excessive, and refused to accept more than 300. When the Elector Palatine Charles Lewis offered him the chair of Philosophy at Heidel- berg, it was declined on the ground that the duties attached to it might interfere with philosophical re- search, that liberty of thought and expression might be restricted, and that he preferred the quiet of private life to the honor of the position tendered him. The picture of this private life left us by Colerus, the Lutheran minister who afterward occupied apartments Spinoza had lived in at The Hague, shows it to have been simple and frugal in the extreme. A number of sensational stories concerning his death-bed were cir- culated soon after his death. They are all denied by Colerus. For years Spinoza had suffered from con- sumption, but his death was sudden and unexpected. On the morning of the day in which he died, he came down and conversed with the people of the house. In the afternoon he passed away while alone with his friend and physician Lewis Meyer. There is every BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 9 reason to believe that his death was as quiet and peaceful as his Hfe. His estate scarcely more than sufficed to pay his debts and the expenses of his funeral. The only bit of romance his biographers have con- nected with his life must be received with hesitation. The story goes that Van den Ende, under whom, as has been said, Spinoza acquired the Latin, was assisted in his teaching by his daughter Clara, a young woman of learning and intelligence. Spinoza became her lover, but was defeated by a more fortunate rival named Ker- kering, who was his fellow-pupil, and whose addresses were made irresistible by the gift of a valuable neck- lace. It is true that Van den Ende's daughter Clara married a man named Kerkkrinck, but the marriage took place in 167 1, and the bride was then only twen- ty-seven years old. She could not, consequently, have been more than twelve when Spinoza left Amsterdam. Besides this, the reputed rival was seven years younger than Spinoza, and it is not likely that they both stud- ied under Van den Ende at an age in which rivalry could arise betw^een them. It is, however, possible that Spinoza kept up his visits to the house of his former teacher after he took up his residence out of the city, and we have in this possibility a straw for those to cling to who wish to believe in the story of his love. Yet there is little in the life or writings of the philosopher to indicate that he was susceptible to a romantic passion. He lived in a world of the intel- lect and not of the emotions. Only two of Spinoza's works were published during his lifetime. The first was a summary of the first and second parts, and a portion of the third part, of Descartes' " Principles of Philosophy," arranged in lO BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. the form of mathematical demonstration. This ap- peared at Amsterdam in 1663. In 1670 he put forth anonymously the " Tractatus Theologico-Politicus," which is an attempt to prove not only that freedom of thought and speech may be granted without danger to piety and the peace of the commonwealth, but also that such freedom cannot be denied without danger to both. To prove his point he enters into an exhaust- ive examination of the nature of prophecy, the author- ity of the Biblical writers, the principles of interpreta- tion, and the relation of theology to philosophy, all of which subjects he handles with the utmost freedom and boldness. His methods are those of the modern school of historical criticism, and it Avas but natural that both methods and results should give offense. Especially offensive was his Erastian doctrine of the supremacy of the state in matters ecclesiastical. The book was speedily condemned by the Reformed churches and put on the Index of the Church of Rome. Spinoza had arranged that after his death the desk containing his letters and unpublished manuscripts should be carried to Jan Rieuvvertz, a publisher at Amsterdam. This was done, and in the same year (1677) appeared the " Opera Posthuma," which con- tained the " Ethics," the " Tractatus Politicus," the unfinished "Tractatus de Intellectus Emendatione," a selection of the letters written to Spinoza by various scholars, and his answers to them, and a " Compen- dium of Hebrew Grammar." In 1687 was printed at The Hague Spinoza's brief " Treatise on the Rainbow," which for years was supposed to have perished, but was discovered and reprinted in 1862 by Dr. J. van Vloten in a supplement to an edition of Spinoza's SOURCES OF SPINOZA S PHILOSOPHY. II works. In the same supplement appeared for the first time the early essay entitled, " A Short Treatise on God, and on Man and his Blessedness." A few letters not contained in the collection of the " Opera Pos- thuma" have since been published. SOURCES OF SPINOZA'S PHILOSOPHY. The reader of Spinoza is struck by the fact that one finds in his philosophy, curiously blended with one another, two widely different elements. He is, on the one hand, a mediaeval realist, a mystic, dwelling in a world which seems to the modern thinker strange and unreal. On the other hand he is a scientific thinker who has anticipated with remarkable acuteness some of the most important conceptions of later scientific thought. The mind of a philosopher is not a mere aggregation of independent elements easily separated and traced to different sources ; but if we venture to make the distinction between Spinoza the scientific thinker and Spinoza the religious philosopher, we may regard the former as the child of Descartes and the latter as the descendant of the mediceval Jewish phi- losophers, who held to an Aristotelianism colored by Neo-Platonic. conceptions. Born a Jew, and early impregnated with the Jewish literature and philosophy, it is scarcely conceivable that Spinoza should have escaped the influence of the semi- Oriental character of the leading scholars of his race. Although but one direct reference to the Kabbala occurs in his writings, and that one is contemptuous in tone, it is sufficiently evident that the Neo-Platonic conceptions at the root of the Jewish philosophy have 12 SOURCES OF SPINOZA S PHILOSOPHY. contributed much to the form and spirit of his doc- trine. That Spinoza was familiar with the works of the Jewish philosophers we know. It is, furthermore, very probable that he was influenced by the writings of Giordano Bruno, the mystic and pantheist. In these facts we have enough to account for the pres- ence of one element in his philosophy ; and that an element so important, as the reader will see, that the reasonings of the "Ethics" cannot be made intelligi- ble unless its presence be constantly recognized. That Spinoza owes much to Descartes, I have just said. He was, perhaps, at no time a Cartesian ; but it is easy to find in Descartes' "Meditations" and " Principles of Philosophy " passages which appear to belong more properly to the later system, and which, more fully developed, might have resulted in some of its leading ideas. Nevertheless, the notion that the philosophy of Spinoza is simply the logical outcome of the philosophy of Descartes, and only brings to light what was implicit in the latter, cannot justly be held. It leaves out of view a very important element in the Spinozistic philosophy. The fusion of the two elements and the resulting system of doctrine was, of course, due to the genius of Spinoza himself. BRIEF EXPOSITION OF SPINOZA'S SYSTEM. SPINOZA'S INFLUENCE UPON SUBSEQUENT THINKING. ■ Influenced by the conceptions at the root of the medieval Jewish philosophy, Spinoza transformed the Cartesian doctrine of two independent substances, mind and matter, into a pantheistic doctrine which recognizes but one substance, God, of which thought and extension are mere manifestations. Substance is defined as that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself. Only one substance can exist, and this must be infinite, and self-caused. It is the real cause of all that exists, and, indeed, is all that exists, for all things are but manifestations of the one substance, which unfolds itself in manifold forms through an inner necessity of its nature. This sub- stance is God, a being not outside of the world and acting upon it as men exercise their activity upon external things, but an immanent cause, the very being of whatever is. Attribute is defined as that which the understanding perceives as constituting the essence of substance. Substance consists of an infinite number of infinite attributes, only two of which can be known by us. These two are thought and extension. Each attribute expresses, though in a different way, the essence of the one substance. Hence different attributes, while they are conceived as distinct, are not really different entities, independent substances, but the one thing 14 EXPOSITION OF SPINOZA S SYSTEM. viewed under different aspects. God is, therefore, a thinking being in so far as he is contemplated under the attribute of thought, and he is extended in so far as he is contemphited under the attribute of extension. The same may be said in the case of all the other attributes to us unknown. Between different attri- butes there cannot be any interaction. The spiritual cannot act upon the material, nor the material upon the spiritual. As aspects of the same thing they are absolutely parallel and perfectly correspond, but they can exercise upon each other no influence. Only body can act upon body, and thought upon thought. Modes are individual things. The modes of the attribute thought are ideas. Those of the attribute extension are material things, or bodies. As it is the one substance that is revealed under the two attributes thought and extension, a body and the idea of that body are one and the same thing expressed in two ways. The order and connection of things is, there- fore, identical with the order and connection of ideas. For every mode in the attribute of extension there is a corresponding mode in the attribute of thought, and in each of the other attributes. All the modes in each attribute are causally connected with each other, and form an endless chain of causes and effects. The human body is a mode in the attribute exten- sion, and the human mind, which is composed of ideas, is the corresponding mode in the attribute thought. Consequently, the mind cannot act upon the bod}', nor the body upon the mind. All the actions of the body must be explained by material causes, and all changes in ideas by reference to other ideas. Both physical and mental changes follow unvarying laws, and there is no possibility of freedom, in the common EXPOSITION OF SPINOZA S SYSTEM. 15 acceptation of the word. " Nothing in the universe is contingent, but all things are determined by the necessity of the divine nature to exist and act in a definite manner." When men, therefore, believe themselves possessed of free will, it is because they are conscious that they will and desire, but are igno- rant of the causes which have impelled them to do so. Every one of man's actions is, hence, to be regarded as a link in an infinite chain of causes and effects. Each idea may be traced back along the ideal series, and each physical fact along the series of physical facts. Neither series has a beginning, and, as per- fectly parallel, they can by no possibility come together. Man is, in modern phrase, a physical automaton with parallel mental states. Man necessarily seeks what he deems to be useful to him, and that alone is useful which preserves and exalts his being. The terms "good" and "evil" indicate nothing really in things regarded as they are in themselves : by " good " we mean what we know to be useful to us, and by evil what we know to be a hindrance to us in the pursuit of any good. Vir- tue is power, the power of furthering one's being, and self-preservation is the supreme law. As, how- ever, man is but a part of nature, and his power is inferior to that of other things, he cannot indefinitely preserve his being, but must ultimately go to the wall. In so far as he is acted upon by external things, he is in a state of passivity, or is subject to the passions, which are natural phenomena, belonging to the -fixed order of nature, and may be studied as one studies the geometrical properties of bodies. This doctrine of human bondage to the order of natural causes would seem to cut off completely the i6 EXPOSITION OF Spinoza's system. possibility of any sort of freedom in human action, and yet it is the teaching of the " Ethics " that man may hberate himself from this dependence upon external causes, cease to be "a part of nature," and become free. Such freedom is the goal that he is to set before him, and in its attainment consists his blessedness. To understand Spinoza's deliverances on the freedom of man, one must examine his con- ception of the relation of substance to its modes, and his doctrine of essences. It has been said above that substance is the cause of all things that exist, and that it is, at the same time, their very being. How can these two state- ments be reconciled? A cause is something numeri- cally distinct from its effect, and how can it be its very being ? The careful reader of the " Ethics " will discover that Spinoza has three distinct conceptions of God or substance, and that he passes from one to another in a very confusing way. I discuss all this at length in my notes, and shall not dwell upon the subject here, but it will suffice to state that sometimes he conceives the relation of substance to its modes as that of cause to effect, sometimes as that of a whole to its parts, and sometimes as that of a universal to the individ- uals subsumed under it. It is the last conception that it is important for us to consider in this con- nection. The problem of the universal and its relation to the individual was the common heritage of Christian, Jew, and Arab in the Middle Ages. It absorbed the attention of speculative minds to a degree that seems to us surprising, unless we bear in mind the conclu- sions drawn from the solution given it, and their EXPOSITION OF SPINOZA S SYSTEM. 1 7 significance for the whole philosophical system of the thinkers of the time. To the extreme Realist, class names were not mere words, or conveniences for clas- sification. They stood for things — not individual things, but things in a higher sense, things upon which individual things depend, and to which they owe the fact that they are what they are. But class names may indicate broader or narrower classes, and we may arrange them in a series as higher or lower ; regarding as the highest that which indicates the broadest class, and as the lower those which, by the addition of differences, come to indicate smaller and smaller classes down to the smallest class possible. If class names indicate things, we have here a series of things, which are yet not individual things, but essences, things of a different order, and which stand to each other in the relation of higher and lower. Now, if the individuals depend upon the species, it is but reasonable to suppose that the species depend in the same way upon the genus which embraces them. If individual men are what they are by virtue of their " manhood," it seems but reasonable to say that "rational animal " and "irrational animal" stand in a like relation to "animal." We have thus a hier- archy of universals, a --world of essences, which are things, though not individual things, and which are so related to each other that the lower depend upon the higher, and may be called, in a certain sense, their effects. At the top of the series stands the highest universal, which is ultimate cause, and at the bottom we find individual things, which do not, indeed, belong to the world of essences, but which are related to essences as each lower essence is related to the one above it. lO EXPOSITION OF SPINOZA S SYSTEM. Thus are universals turned by the Realist into things, and these things made real causes. It should be noted, however, that they are causes of a peculiar kind. They are not separate from their effects and beside them, but they are, so to speak, within them. The essence "man," for example, is in each individual man; and if "man" is to be defined as a rational animal, the higher essence "animal " is in the lower essence "man." Essences are, then, immanent causes, and an individual which is determined to any action by its essence is not determined by an external thing, but may be said to determine itself. It is, conse- quently, free, for freedom means, not absence of determination simply, but absence of determination by an external cause. Such reasonings did not die with the Middle Ages, and it is thus that Spinoza reasons. He turns univer- sals into things, and makes these things immanent causes of their effects. This makes it possible for him to regard man as determined by two distinct kinds of causes : first, external causes, or real individual things, which are outside of and distinct from their effects ; and second, immanent causes, which belong to tlie world of essences, and are not to be sought out- side of their effects. In so far as man is regarded as a mere link in the chain of finite modes, he is subject to natural necessity and is not free, for each such link is absolutely conditioned by what precedes it; in so far as he is determined by his essence to any action he is determined from within. In being so determined he is no longer in a state of bondage, he does only what is in harmony with his nature, is freed from the passions, and enjoys a state of blessedness. The problem of life is to detach one's self from the influence EXPOSITION OF SPINOZA S SYSTEM. I9 of external things, and to be more and more deter- mined from within. But the mind that attains this self-determination is, in just so far, immortal. Essences are related to each other as higher and lower, and the higher may be regarded as causes of the lower, but this peculiar causal relation does not imply that they are related to each other as temporal antecedent and consequent. Time-relations only apply to things regarded as stand- ing in the other causal series, that of individual finite modes. The relation of one essence to another is an eternal one. If, then, anything in man be regarded as belonging to the series of essences or as the result of a descent along this series, this must, like everything else belonging to the series, be eternal. Man's essence is, hence, eternal and imperishable, and if it constitute the greater part of a man's mind he will have small cause to fear death, for the part of him which will perish will be very small compared with that which will remain. But how is one to attain this freedom and immor- tality ? and what part of the mind is it that is eternal ? It is that part which consists of clear and distinct, or adequate, ideas. The mind is, as we have said, com- posed of ideas. Some of these are clear and distinct, and some are confused. We know a thing confusedly when we know it only in part, and we know only in part when we cannot explain the thing from its causes. Each link in fhe series of finite modes must be explained by a reference to other modes preceding, these by a reference to still others, and so on without end. Such things cannot be adequately known, for all their causes cannot be known. They are things which have to be explained by a reference to some- 20 EXPOSITION OF SPINOZA S SYSTEM. thing beyond themselves. If, however, anything can be explained by a reference to the other series of causes, the series of essences, it carries its explanation, so to speak, within itself, and may be adequately known. Now God or substance is the sole cause of itself and of things, and if we can obtain an idea by a logical deduction along the series of essences from the idea of God, we have completely explained it and know it adequately. And we have explained it with- out going beyond it to any other idea. Moreover, as we have obtained this idea by a logical deduction from the idea of God, we see that it is contained im- plicitly in the nature of God, and, hence, we recognize it to be eternal and imperishable. That part of the mind, therefore, that consists of adequate ideas belongs to the world of essences and shares their immortality. Thus the highest good of the mind is the knowledge of God, and in inowin^ God inan gains freedom and blessedness. It follows that our highest aim in life should be to know God, or, in other words, to replace our confused and fragmentary knowledge by adequate ideas. The ignorant man is in bondage to passion, a perishable thing : in so far as a man is wise, he is free and undisturbed in spirit, he belongs to the world of essences, and possesses immortality and true peace. The path that leads to this goal seems difificult, but it may be found. " All things excellent are as difficult as they are rare." So much for the doctrine contained in the " Ethics." I shall refer the reader for a fuller exposition and for a criticism to the notes that follow the text. Spinoza's reasonings are often loose and faulty, but his meaning and the general plan of his work should, to the sym- pathetic student, be sufificiently apparent. Part I. EXPOSITION OF SPINOZA S SYSTEM. 2 1 treats of God or substance ; Part II. of the nature of the human mind ; in Part III. the mind is treated as a part of nature, a finite mode in the infinite chain of modes, and completely conditioned by its place in that chain ; in Part IV. the essence of the mind as a some- thing belonging to the world of essences, and to be distinguished from that which is individual and perish- able, makes its appearance. It is a. part oi the mind, and distinguished from the rest. The last half of Part V. treats of this part of the mind as altogether detached from its place in the world of individual real things, and wholly in the world of essences. If the student will read carefully my somewhat lengthy Introductory Note, he will, I think, be in a position to follow Spinoza as he unfolds his thought. The properly ethical portions of his work are con- tained in Part IV. Here Spinoza is still in the world of real things, but is not wholly of it. He has passed from the consideration of the individual as an indi- vidual to the consideration of him as containing something universal — as not this man or that, but as mmi. This leads to the treatment of man as a social being, having rights and duties ; and though the reader may criticise the reasoning by which our author passes from an uncompromising egoism to an altruistic utilitarianism, he will have to admit that many of Spinoza's ethical maxims are excellent, and the spirit of his teachings elevated. Spinoza never founded a school as did Descartes. For this the intense theological antagonism he has aroused has been partly responsible. He appears to have been very imperfectly understood, and, indeed, except for an occasional unfriendly criticism, almost overlooked by the learned world during the century 22 EXPOSITION OF SPINOZA S SYSTEM. (Succeeding his death. He was brought before the German mind by Lessing and Jacobi in the latter part of the last century, and has deeply influenced it since. Lessing, Goethe, Herder, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel owe him much. Coleridge, who regarded the " Ethics" as one of the three greatest works since the introduction of Christianity, brought him from Ger- many to England. He has, however, had more in- fluence upon English literature and theology than upon the course of English philosophy. On French soil Spinozism has never flourished. In our own time there has been a revival of interest in Spinoza among Dutch scholars, resulting in a celebration with fitting ceremonies of the two hundredth anniversary of liis death, and the erection of the statue of the philos- opher at The Hague, where he spent the last years of his life. The widespread interest of men of letters in his thought and personality is revealed by the fact that thirteen nations were represented on the com- mittee charged with the erection of the statue. At the present time this interest is evidently increasing. THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA AS CON- TAINED IN THE FIRST, SECOND, AND FIFTH PARTS OF THE "ETHICS," AND IN EXTRACTS FROM THE THIRD AND FOURTH. THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. Ube Btbics. PART I. OF GOD. Definitions. 1. By cause of itself I mean that whose essence involves existence ; or, in other words, that whose nature cannot be conceived except as existing. i * 2. A thing is said to he. finite in its kind when it can be limited by another of the same nature. For ex- ample, a body is called finite because we always con- ceive another still greater. In the same way one thought is limited by another. But a body cannot be limited by a thought, nor a thought by a body. 3. By substance I mean that which is in itself, and .is conceived by means of itself : that is, that the con- ception of which does not need to be formed from the conception of any other thing. 2 4. '^y attribute \ mean that which the understanding perceives as constituting the essence of substance. 3 5. By mode I mean the modifications of substance : in other words, that which is in and is conceived by means of something else. 4 6. By God I mean a being absolutely infinite : that * These numbers refer to the critical notes, at the end of this volume, — Tr. 26 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART I is, a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, each one of which expresses an eternal and infinite essence. 5 Explanation. — I say absolutely infinite, not infinite in its kind ; for we can deny an infinity of attributes of anything that is infinite only in its kind. But to the essence of that which is absolutely infinite belongs everything that expresses essence and involves no negation. 7. A thing will be called free that exists by the sole necessity of its nature, and is determined to action by itself alone : that, on the other hand, which is determined by something else to exist and to act in a definite and determinate way will be called necessary, or rather coerced.^ 8. By eternity I mean existence itself in so far as it is conceived as following necessarily from the mere definition of an eternal thing. Explanation. — For such existence, like the essence of a thing, is conceived as an eternal truth ; it cannot, therefore, be explained by duration or time, even though duration be conceived as without beginning and without end. 7 Axioms^ 1. Everything that is, is either in itself or in some- thing else. 2. That which cannot be conceived by means of something else must be conceived by means of itself. 3. Granted a determinate cause, an effect necessa- rily follows ; conversely, if there be no determinate cause it is impossible for an effect to follow. 4. Knowledge of an effect depends upon and in- volves knowledge of its cause. Prop. 4] OF GOD. 2 7 5. Things which have nothing in common cannot be comprehended by means of each other ; that is, the conception of the one does not involve the con- ception of the other. 6. A true idea must agree witli its object. 7. If a thing can be conceived as non-existent, its essence does not involve existence. Prop. i. Substance is by nature prior to its modifica- tions. 9 Proof. — This is evident from defs. 3 and 5. Prop. 2. Two substances with different attributes have nothing in covuno7i. Proof. — This, too, is evident from def. 3. Each must be in itself and be conceived by means of itself ; that is, the conception of the one does not involve the conception of the other.io Prop. 3. When things have nothing in common, the one cannot be the cause of the other. Proof. — If they have nothing in common, then {axiom 5) they cannot be comprehended by means of one another, and, hence {axiom 4), the one cannot be the cause of the other." Q. E. D. Prop. 4. Two or more distinct things are distin- guished from each other either by a difference in the attributes of the substances, or by a difference in their modifications. Proof. — Everything that is, is eitlier in itself or in something else {axiom i), that is {defs. 3 and ^, out- side of the understandingi2 there is nothing save sub- stances and their modifications. There is, therefore, outside of the understanding, notliing by means of which several things can be distinguished from one another, except substances, or, which is the same 28 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. ' [Part I thing {^def. 4), their attributes and their modifica- tions. Q. E. D. Prop. 5. There cannot he in the universe two or tnore substances of the same nature, that is, with the same attribute. Proof. — Were there several distinct substances, they would have to be distinguished from one another either by a difference in attributes or by a difference in modifications (by the preceding proposition). If merely by a difference in attributes, it will be admitted there cannot be more than one with the same attribute. If, on the other hand, one is to be distinguished from another by a difference in modifications, then, since a substance is by nature prior to its modifications (i),* when we lay aside its modifications, and consider it in itself, that is {def. 3 and axiom 6), consider it as it is, we cannot conceive it as distinguished from another substance. In other words {by the preceding proposi- tion), there cannot be several substances, but only one.13 Q. E. D. Prop. 6. One substance cannot be produced by another substance. Proof. — There cannot be in the universe two sub- stances with the same diiX.x\h\ite {by the preceding propo- sition), that is (2), substances that have something in * The meaning of the references occurring in the text would seem to be sufficiently plain ; but to avoid possible misconception it may be well to state that where reference is made to a proposi- tion, definition, etc., in the same Part, the number of the propo- sition or definition only is given : where the passage referred to is in another Part, the Part is indicated by Roman numerals. When the reference is to something omitted in this volume, the passage referred to, or its equivalent, is given in a footnote. Most of the references are to propositions, and in such cases the numbers stand alone. — Tr. Prop. 8] OF GOD„ , 29 common. Therefore (3), the one cannot be the cause of the other, or, in other words, the one cannot be produced by the other. Q. E. D. Corollary. — Hence it follows that a substance cannot be produced by any other thing. For there is nothing in the universe except substances and their modifi- cations, as is evident from axiom i and defs. 3 and 5. But a substance cannot be produced by a substance {l^y the preceding proposition). Hence a substance can- not be produced by any other thing whatever. Q. E. D. Another Proof. — This is proved even more readily by a reductio ad absurdiwi. For if a substance could be produced by any other thing, the knowledge of it would have to depend on a knowledge of its cause {axiom 4) ; hence {def. 3) it would not be a sub- stance. 14 Prop. 7. It belongs to the nature of a stibstance to exist. Proof. — A substance cannot be produced by any other thing {by the corollary to the preceding proposition); it must, therefore, be its own cause, that is {def. i), its essence necessarily involves existence, or, in other words, it belongs to its nature to exist. ^5 Q. E. D. Prop. 8. Every substance is necessarily infinite. Proof. — There does not exist more than one sub- stance with a given attribute (5), and it belongs to the nature of that one to exist (7). It must, therefore, belong to its nature to exist either as finite or as infi- nite. But not as finite. For {def. 2) it would have to be limited by another of the same nature, and this, also, would necessarily have to exist (7). There would, then, be two substances with the same attribute, which is absurd (5). It therefore exists as infinite. 16 Q. E. D. 3© THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART I Scholium i. — Since finitude is in fact a partial nega- tion, and infinitude an absolute affirmation of the exist- ence of any nature, it follows from prop. 7 alone that every substance must be infinite. ^7 Scholium 2. — No doubt it is difficult for all those who judge of things confusedly and are not accus- tomed to come to a knowledge of them by means of their first causes, to comprehend the proof of prop. 7 ; for they make no distinction between the modifications of substances and the substances them- selves, nor do they know how things are produced. Hence they ascribe to substances the origin they see proper to natural objects. For those who are ignorant of the true causes of things confuse all things, and without repugnance fancy trees talking as well as men, and that men are formed from stones as well as from seed, and they imagine that any kind of thing can be changed into any other. In the same way those who. confuse the divine nature with the human easily ascribe to God human emotions, especially as long as they are further ignorant how the emotions are produced in the mind. But if men would consider attentively the nature of substance, they would never doubt the truth of prop. 7 ; nay, rather they would all accept this proposition as an axiom and class it among the common notions. For by substance they would mean that which is in itself and is conceived by means of itself ; in other words, that the knowledge of which does not presuppose the knowledge of any other thing. By modification, on the other hand, they would mean that which is in something else, and whose conception is formed from the conception of the thing in which it is. For this reason we can have true ideas of non- existent modifications, since, although they do not Prop. SJ OF GOD. 3 1 actually exist outside of the mind, yet their essence is included in something else in such a way that they can be conceived by means of that. But since sub- stances are conceived by means of themselves, their truth can have no being outside of the mind except in themselves. Hence, should anyone say that he has a clear and distinct, that is, a true idea of a sub- stance, and yet doubts whether such a substance exists, it would be absolutely the same as saying that he has a true idea and yet is not certain that it is not false ! This will be plain to anyone who gives the matter enough attention. Or if one maintains that a substance is created, he thereby maintains that a false idea has been made true, than which really nothing more absurd can be conceived. We are, therefore, forced to confess that the existence of a substance is an eternal truth, just as is its essence. i8 Hence we are able to prove in another way that there cannot be more than one substance with a given nature, and I have thought it worth while to set forth the proof here. But to do this in a methodical way, I must note — First, that the true definition of a thing neither involves nor expresses anything except the nature of the thing defined. Whence it follows in the second place, that no definition either involves or expresses a certain definite number of individuals, seeing that it expresses nothing but the nature of the thing defined. For example, the definition of the triangle expresses nothing but just the nature of the triangle, and not a certain definite number of triangles. I must note in the third place that every existing thing necessarily has some definite cause, by reason of which it exists. And finally in the fourth place that this cause, by reason of which anything exists, must either be con- 32 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART I tained in the very nature and definition of the existing thing {for the reason, of course, that it belongs to the nature of such a thing to exist), or it must be outside of it. Granted these points, it follows that if there exist in the world some definite number of individuals, there must necessarily be a cause why those individuals, and neither more nor less, exist. If, for example, there exist in the universe twenty men (I will suppose, to make the matter clearer, that they exist at the same time, and that no others have ever existed before), it will not be a sufificient explanation of the existence of the twenty men to show the cause of human nature in the abstract ; but it will be further necessary to show the cause why twenty exist, and not more nor less ; for ij)y point third) there must necessarily be a cause for the existence of each one. But this cause {by poi7its second and third) cannot be contained in human nature itself, since the true definition of man does not involve the number twenty. Hence {by point fourth) the cause why these twenty men exist, and, consequently, why each one exists, must neces- sarily be outside of each one. Therefore, the conclu- sion is unavoidable that everything of such a nature, that several individuals with that nature can exist, must necessarily have an external cause to bring about their existence. Now since it belongs to the nature of a substance to exist {by what I have Just shown in this ' scholium), its definition must involve necessary exist- ence, and hence its existence must be inferred from its mere definition. But from its definition {as has just been proved from points second and third) the existence of several substances cannot be inferred. From it, therefore, it follows necessarily that but one of a given nature exists, as was maintained. ^9 Prop, io] OF GOD. 33 Prop. 9. The jnore reality or being anything has, the greater the nii7nber of its attributes. Proof. — This is evident from def. 4.20 Prop. 10. Each attribute of a substance must be con- ceived by means of itself. Proof. — Attribute is that which tlie understanding perceives as constituting the essence of substance {def. 4) ; therefore {def. 3) it must be conceived by means of itself. Q. E. D. Scholium. — Hence it is evident that although two attributes are conceived as really distinct — that is, the one is conceived without help from the other — yet we cannot thence infer that they constitute two beings, or, in other words, two different substances. For it is of the nature of a substance that each of its attri- butes is conceived by means of itself ; seeing that all the attributes it has have always been in it simulta- neously, nor has it been possible for one to be pro- duced by another, but each one expresses the reality, that is, the being of the substance. It is, therefore, far from absurd to ascribe several attributes to one substance ; nay, nothing in the world is clearer than that every being must be conceived under some attri- bute, and that the more reality or being it has, the more attributes has it that express both necessity, that is, eternity, and infinity. Hence nothing can be clearer than that an absolutely infinite being must necessarily be defined {as in def. 6), as a being con- sisting of an infinity of attributes, each one of which expresses a definite eternal and infinite essence. Should one here ask, by what mark, then, can we distinguish different substances ? let him read the propositions that follow, which show that there exists in the universe but a single substance, and that this is 34 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART I absolutely infinite. Hence such a mark would be sought in vain. 21 Prop. ir. God, that is, a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, each one of ivhich expresses an eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists. Proof. — If you deny it, conceive if you can that God does not exist. Then (axiom 7) his essence does not involve existence. But this (7) is absurd. There- fore God necessarily exists. 22 Q. E. D. Another Proof. — A cause or reason must be assigned, whether for the existence or the non-exist- ence of everything. For example, if a triangle exists there must be a reason or cause for its existence ; if, on the other hand, it does not exist, there must be a reason or cause which prevents it from existing, one, in other words, which annuls its existence. Now, this reason or cause must either be contained in tlie nature of the thing, or must be external to it. For instance, the reason for the non-existence of a square circle is given in its very nature — it involves a contra- diction. The existence of a substance, on the other hand, also follows from its very nature, for this in- volves existence (7). But the reason for the exist- ence or non-existence of a circle or of a triangle is not to be found in their nature, but in the order of the material universe, for from this it must follow either that a triangle now necessarily exists, or that it is impossible for it now to exist. This is self-evident. Hence it follows that if there is no reason or cause which prevents a thing from existing, that thing neces- sarily exists. If, therefore, there can be no reason or cause which prevents God from existing, or which an- nuls his existence, we must certainly conclude that he necessarily exists. But were there such a reason Prop, ii] of god. 35 or cause it avouM have to be either in the divine nature itself or external to it, that is, in some other substance of another nature. For were it of the same nature, God, by that very fact, would be admitted to exist. But a substance of a different nature could have nothing in common with God (2), and hence could neither bring about nor annul his existence. Since, therefore, there cannot be, external to the divine nature, a reason or cause which annuls the divine existence, such a cause, if God does not exist, will have to be found in his very nature, and this would involve a contradiction. To affirm this of a Being absolutely infinite and supremely perfect is absurd. Therefore, neither in God nor external to God is there any cause or reason which annuls his existence, and, hence, God necessarily exists.23 Q. E. D. Another proof. — To be able not to exist is lack of power, and, on the other hand, to be able to exist is power {as is self-evident). If, therefore, nothing nec- essarily exists but finite beings, finite beings are more powerful than the absolutely infinite Being, and this {as is self-evident) is absurd. Hence, either nothing exists, or an absolutely infinite Being necessarily exists also. But we exist either in ourselves, or in something else that necessarily exists {axiom i a7id prop. 7). Therefore, an absolutely infinite Being, that is {def. 6) God, necessarily exists. 24 Q. E. D. ScJwlium. — In this last proof I have, for the sake of clearness, chosen to demonstrate the existence of God a posteriori. Not that God's existence does not fol- low a priori hom. the same premises. For since to be able to exist is power, it follows that, the more reality belongs to the nature of a thing, the greater $6 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [ParI' I the power it has of itself to exist. Hence the abso- lutely infinite Being, God, has of himself an absolutely infinite power to exist. He, therefore, exists abso- lutely. Many, perhaps, will find it difficult to see the force of this proof, because they are accustomed to consider only those things which flow from external causes. They see that of such things, those which quickly come into being — that is, which easily exist — easily cease to exist ; and, on the other hand, those things which they conceive as having many properties, they consider less easy to bring into being — that is, less ready to exist. But, to free them from these prejudices, I need not here show in what sense the saying " w/ia/ quickly comes into being, quickly perishes^' is true ; nor yet discuss whether, from the point of view of nature as a whole, everything is equally easy or not. It is enough to point out that I am not speaking of things which are brought into being by external causes, but of substances alone, which (6) cannot be produced by any external cause. For things which are brought into being by external causes, whether they consist of many parts or of few, owe all their perfection or reality to the virtue of an external cause, and, hence, their existence has its source solely in the perfection of an external cause, and not in their own. A substance, on the other hand, owes what perfection it has to no external cause. Hence, even its existence must follow from its very nature, and, accordingly, is nothing but its essence. Perfection, therefore, does not annul the existence of a thing, but insures it. Imperfection, on the contrary, annuls it. Hence, there is nothing of whose existence we can be more certain than we are of that of the absolutely infinite or perfect Being, that is, God. For the mere fact that his es- Prop. 13] OF GOD. 37 sence excludes all imperfection, and involves absolute perfection, removes every cause for doubting his existence, and establishes it as most certain. This, I think, will be clear to anyone who gives the matter a little attention. 25 Prop. 12. No attribute of substance can be truly con- ceived from which it would follow that substance can be divided. Proof. — The parts into which substance so con- ceived would be divided, will either retain the nature of substance, or they will not. If the former, then (8) each part will have to be infinite, and (6) its own cause, and (5) will have to consist of a different attri- bute. Hence it will be possible to make several substances out of one substance, which (6) is absurd. Furthermore, the parts (2) would have nothing in common with the whole, and the whole {def. 4 and prop. 10) could both be and be conceived with- out its parts, which no one can doubt to be absurd. If, on the other hand, we take the latter alternative, namely, that the parts will not retain the nature of substance ; then, were the whole substance divided into equal parts, it would lose the nature of substance, and would cease to be, which (7) is absurd. 26 Prop. 13. Absolutely infinite substance is indivisible. Proof. — Were it divisible, the parts into which it would be divided will either retain the nature of absolutely infinite substance, or will not. If the former, there will be several substances of the same nature, which (5) is absurd. If the latter, then {as above) it will be possible for absolutely infinite substance to cease to be, which (11) is also absurd. Corollary. — Hence it follows that no substance, and 38 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART I consequently no corporeal substance, in so far as it is substance, is divisible. Scholium. — That substance is indivisible may be more readily apprehended from the mere fact that the nature of substance cannot be conceived except as infinite, and that by a part of substance one can only mean a finite substance, which (8) plainly involves a contradiction. 27 Prop. 14. Besides God, no substance can be or be conceived. Proof. — God is an absolutely infinite being, of whom no attribute that expresses the essence of sub- stance can be denied {def. 6), and he necessarily exists (11). If, then, there were any substance besides God, it would have to be expressed by means of some attribute of God, and thus there would exist two sub- stances with the same attribute, which (5) is absurd. There cannot, therefore, be any substance besides God, nor can such even be conceived. For if it could be conceived, it would necessarily have to be con- ceived as existing. But this {by the first part of this proof) is absurd. Therefore, besides God, no sub- stance can either be or be conceived. Q. E. D. Corollary i. — Hence it follows very clearly : First, that there is but one God, or, in other words {def. 6), there is in the universe only one substance, and that this is absolutely infinite, as I have intimated above in the scholium to prop. 10. Corollary 2. — It follows, second, that that which is extended and that which thinks are either attributes of God, or {axiojn i) modifications of God's attri- butes.28 Prop. 15. Whatever is, is in God, and without God nothing can either be or be conceived. Prop. 15] OF GOD. 39 Proof. — Besides God, there is no substance, and none can be conceived (14) ; that is {def. 3), there is nothing that is in itself and is conceived by means of itself. But {^def. 5) modes can neither be nor be con- ceived without a substance. Hence they can only be in, and be conceived by means of, the divine nature. But, besides substances and modes, there is nothing {axiom i). Therefore, without God nothing can either be or be conceived. 29 Q. E. D. Scholiuvi. — There are those who fancy that God, like man, consists of body and mind, and is subject to passions, but how far they are from possessing a true knowledge of God is sufficiently evident from what has been already proved. These I pass by, for all who have to any degree reflected upon the divine nature, deny that God is corporeal. Of this they give an excellent proof in the fact that by body we mean a certain quantity, having length, breadth, and thick- ness, and bounded by some definite figure, than which nothing more absurd can be asserted of God, a being absolutely infinite. Nevertheless in other arguments, by which they try to establish this truth, they all the while show clearly that they wholly separate corporeal or extended substance from the divine nature, and maintain it to be created by God. By what divine power it could have been created, they are quite igno- rant ; which shows clearly that they do not understand what they say themselves. I, for my part, have proved, as I think, clearly enough (6, cor., and 8, schol. 2), that no substance can be produced or created by any other thing. Furthermore, I have shown (14) that besides God no substance can either be or be conceived, and hence have inferred extended substance to be one of the infinite attributes of God, Still, for the sake of 40 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART I a fuller exposition, I will answer the arguments of my opponents, which all amount to this : Fir-st, they maintain that corporeal substance, as substance, con- sists of parts, and, therefore, deny that it can be infinite, and, consequently, that it can be predicated of God. This argument they develop in many ways, one or two of which I will quote. If, they say, cor- poreal substance is infinite, let it be conceived as divided into two parts ; each part will be either finite or infinite. If the former, then that which is infinite is composed of two finite parts, which is absurd. If the latter, then one infinite is twice as great as another, which is also absurd. Again, if an infinite quantity be estimated in parts a foot long, it will have to con- sist of an infinite number of such parts ; as will also be the case if it be estimated in parts an inch in length. Hence one infinite number will be twelve times as great as another. Finally, if from one point of a certain infinite quantity we conceive as extending to infinity the two lines, A B, A C, which at first are a definite and determined distance apart ; it is certain that the distance between B and C will continually increase, and at length from a determinate distance will become indeterminable. Since, as they believe, these absurdities follow from the supposition that quantity is infinite, they infer that corporeal substance must be finite, and, hence, that it does not belong to the essence of God. The second argument is also Prop. 15J OF GOD. 41 drawn from God's supreme perfection. God, they say, since he is a supremely perfect being, cannot be passively affected ; but corporeal substance, since it is divisible, can be passively affected. It follows that it cannot belong to God's essence. These are the argu- nTents I find writers bringing forward to prove that corporeal substance is unworthy of, and cannot belong to, the divine nature. But anyone who pays proper attention will find that I have already answered these arguments, for they are based wholly on the supposi- tion that corporeal substance is composed of parts, which supposition I have above (12 and it,., co?-.) shown to be absurd. In the second place, anyone who will rightly consider the matter will see that all those absurdities (if, indeed, they are all absurdities — a point I am not now discussing), from which they would infer extended substance to be finite, do not in the least result from the supposition that quantity is infi- nite, but from the supposition that infinite quantity is measurable, and is composed of finite parts. Hence, from the absurdities which result from that supposi- tion, they can draw no other conclusion than that infinite quantity is not measurable, and cannot con- sist of finite parts. This is exactly what we proved just above (12, ^/r.). Thus they really turn against themselves the weapon aimed at us. If, therefore, they still choose to infer from this absurdity they plead, that extended substance must be finite, they do just what one does who infers that the circle has no center from which all lines drawn to the circumference are equal, and infers it from the false supposition that the circle has the properties of the square. For they conceive corporeal substance, which can only be con- ceived as infinite, single, and indivisible (8, S,and 12), 42 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part I in such a way as to infer that it is finite, composed of finite parts, manifold and divisible. In the same way, others, after pretending that a line is composed of points, are able to find many arguments to prove that a line cannot be divided to infinity. And certainly it is no less absurd to maintain that corporeal substance is composed of bodies or parts, than that a solid is com- posed of surfaces, surfaces of lines, and lines of points. This must be admitted by all who know that clear reasoning is infallible, and especially by those who deny the existence of a vacuum. For if corporeal substance could be so divided that its parts would be really distinct, why could not one part be annihilated and the rest remain connected with each other as before ? And why must all be so fitted together that there exists no vacuum ? Surely, of things really dis- tinct from one another, one can exist and abide in its own state without another. Since, therefore, there is no vacuum in nature (of this I shall speak elsewhere), but all the parts must so run together that there be no vacuum ; it again follows that they cannot be really distinguished; in other words, that corporeal substance, as substance, cannot be divided. If, nevertheless, one here asks, why we are so prone by nature to divide quantity ; I answer, it is because we conceive quantity in two ways ; to wit : abstractly, that is, superficially, as when we imagine it, and, second, as substance, in which case we conceive it by means of the under- standing alone. If, therefore, we consider quantity as it is in the imagination, a thing we do often and quite easily, we shall find it finite, divisible, and composed of parts. If, on the other hand, we consider it as it is in the understanding, and conceive it as substance — a very difficult task — then, as I have already sufifi- Prop. i6] OF GOD. 43 ciently proved, we shall find it infinite, single, and indivisible. This will be plain enough to everyone who knows how to distinguish between the imagina- tion and the understanding, especially if he will also consider that matter is everywhere the same, and that there is in it no distinction of parts except as we con- ceive it affected in diverse ways, whence its parts are distinguished only modally, not really. For example, we conceive water, in so far as it is water, to be divided, and its parts to be separated from one another ; but not in so far as it is corporeal substance, for, in so far as it is that, it is neither separated nor divided. Again, water, in so far as it is water, is gen- erated and destroyed; but in so far as it is substance, it is neither generated nor destroyed. With this I think I have answered the second argument also ; see- ing that it, too, rests upon the assumption that matter, in so far as it is substance, is divisible and composed of parts. But even if what I have said were untrue, I do not know why matter should be unworthy of the divine nature, since (14) besides God there can be no substance, in relation to which it could be passive. Everything, I say, is in God, and everything that hap- pens, happens solely through the laws of the infinite nature of God and results (as I shall show presently) from the necessity of his essence. Therefore, even if extended substance be supposed to be divisible, yet, provided only it be admitted to be eternal and infinite, there can be no reason for saying that God is passive in relation to something else, or that extended sub- stance is unworthy of the divine nature. But of this enough for the present. 3° Prop. 16. From the necessity of the divine nature there must folloiv in infinite ways an infinity of things : 44 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [pART I that is, everything that can fall ivithin the scope of an infinite intellect. Proof. — The truth of this proposition ought to be evident to everyone who bears in mind that, granted the definition of a thing, the understanding infers from this a number of properties, which necessarily follow from it (in other words, from the very essence of the thing). And it infers the more properties, the more reality the definition of the thing expresses ; that is, the more reality the essence of the thing defined involves. But since the divine nature has an absolute infinity of attributes {def. 6), each one of which, further, expresses an essence infinite in its kind, there must necessarily follow from its necessity in infinite ways an infinity of things, that is, everything that can fall within the scope of an infinite intellect. Q. E, D. Corollary i. — Hence it follows that God is the efficient cause of everything that can fall within the scope of an infinite intellect. Corollary 2. — It follows, in the second place, that God is a cause /^r se, and wol per accidens.''' Corollary 3. — It follows, in the third place, that God is absolutely the first cause. 3^ Prop. 17. God acts solely from the laws of his oivn nature and under no constraint. Proof. — We have just shown (16) that from the mere necessity of the divine nature, or, in other words, from the mere laws of that nature, there follows an absolute infinity of things ; and we have proved (15) that nothing can either be or be conceived without God, but all things are in God. Wherefore there can be nothing external to him that can determine or con- strain him to act, and hence, God acts solely from * /. e.. Causality belongs to his very nature. — Tr. Prop. 17] OF GOD. 45 the laws of his own nature, and under no constraint. Q. E. D. Corollary i. — Hence it follows, first, that there is no cause, except the perfection of his nature, which, either from without or from within, moves God to act. Corollary 2. — It follows, in the second place, that God alone is a free cause. For God alone exists from the mere necessity of his nature (11, and 14, cor. i), and acts from the mere necessity of his nature (by the preceding proposition). Therefore {def. 7), he alone is a free cause. Q. E. D. Scholium. — Others think that God is a free cause because they suppose him able to prevent those things of which we have spoken as following from his nature — in other words, as in his power — from coming to pass, that is, from being produced by himself. But this is the same as saying that God can prevent it fol- lowing from the nature of a triangle that its three angles are equal to two right angles ; that is, can pre- vent an effect from following its cause, which is ab- surd. Furthermore, I shall show below, without mak- ing use of this proposition, that neither intellect nor will belongs to God's nature. I know, of course, that many think they can prove that the highest intellect and free will belong to his nature, saying they find nothing they can ascribe to God more perfect than what is in us the highest perfection. Again, although they conceive God as actually in the highest degree a knower, yet they do not believe that he can bring into existence all the things he actually knows, for they think this destroys God's power. If, they say, he had created all the things that are in his intellect, he would not, after that, have been able to create any more, and this, they believe, contradicts God's omnipo- 46 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART I tence. Hence they have preferred to maintain that God is indifferent to all things, and creates only what, by a certain arbitrary fiat, he has decided to create. But I think I have shown clearly enough (i6) that from God's supreme power, that is, from his infinite nature, in an infinity of ways an infinity of things — in other words, all things — have streamed forth of neces- sity, or, rather, always follow by the same necessity ; just as, from the nature of the triangle, it follows from eternity to eternity, that its three angles are equal to two right angles. Hence God's omnipotence has from eternity been actual, and to eternity will abide in this actuality. This it seems to me, ascribes to God a much truer omnipotence. Nay, to speak plainly, my opponents appear to deny that God is omnipotent. For they are forced to admit that God knows an infinity of things that can be created, and yet will never be able to create them. Otherwise — that is to say, supposing him to create everything he knows — he would, as they hold, exhaust his omnipotence and render himself imperfect. Hence, in order to hold that God is perfect, they are reduced to the necessity of maintaining at the same time that he cannot do everything that falls within his povver. I do not see that anything more absurd than this, or more incon- sistent with the omnipotence of God, can be imagined. Again, to say a word here of the intellect and will commonly ascribed to God ; if intellect and will do belong to God's eternal essence, each of these attri- butes must be taken in a sense very different from the common one. For there would have to be a world-wide difference between our intellect and will and the intellect and will constituting God's essence, nor could they agree in anything, except in name ; Prop. 17] OF god. 47 just as the Dog, a constellation, agrees with dog, an animal that barks. This I will prove as follows : If intellect belongs to the divine nature, it cannot, like our intellect, be by nature posterior to (as many think), or simultaneous with, the things it knows, for God is by his causality- prior to all things (16, cor. i). On the contrary, the truth and the formal * essence of things is what it is, because it exists as such objec- tively in the intellect of God. Therefore God's intel- lect, in so far as it is conceived as constituting God's essence, is in reality the cause of things, whether of their essence or of their existence — a truth which appears also to have been remarked by those who have maintained that God's intellect, will, and power are one and the same thing. Since, therefore, God's intellect is the sole cause of things, in other words, is the cause, as we have shown, both of their essence and of their existence, it must necessarily differ from them both with respect to its essence and to its existence. For an effect differs from its cause in just that which it has from its cause. For example, one man is the cause of the existence of another man, but not of his essence, for the latter is an eternal truth. Hence, as regards essence, they can exactly agree ; but they must differ in existence. If, therefore, the existence of the one come to an end, it does not follow that that of the other will do so too ; but if the essence of the one could be destroyed or made false, the essence of the other would be destroyed also. Wherefore, a thing that is cause both of the essence and of the existence of a given effect, must differ from such an * Formal, i. e., having what we would now call objective exist- ence ; objective, i. e., existing in the mind by way of representa- tion. — Tr. 48 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART I effect as regards both its essence and its existence. But God's intellect is the cause both of the essence and of the existence of our intellect ; hence God's intellect, in so far as it is conceived as constituting the divine essence, differs from our intellect as regards both its essence and its existence, nor can it agree with it in anything save in name, as I said before. The same reasoning applies to the will, as one can easily see. 32 Prop. 18. God is the immanent, not the transient, cause of all things. Proof. — Everything that is, is in God, and must be conceived by means of God (15) ; hence (16, cor. i), God is the cause of the things that are in himself ; which was the first point to be proved. Again, there cannot be external to God any substance (14), that is {def. 3), anything which is in itself external to God ; which was the second point. Therefore, God is the immanent, not the transient, cause of all things.33 Q. E. D. Prop. 19. God is eternal^ that is, all God's attributes are eternal. Proof. — God {^def. 6) is a substance, and this (11) necessarily exists, that is (7), it belongs to its nature to exist ; in other words, his existence follows from his definition. Hence {def. 8) he is eternal. In the second place, by God's attributes is meant that {def. 4) which expresses the essence of the divine sub- stance, that is, that which belongs to substance. This, I say, must be involved in the attributes them- selves. But eternity {as I have already proved from prop. 7) belongs to the nature of substance. There- fore, each of the attributes must involve eternity and, hence, all are eternal. Q. E. D. Scholium. — The truth of this proposition is also Prop. 21] OF GOD. 49 most clearly evident from the proof I have given (11) of God's existence. This proof, I say, establishes that God's existence, like his essence, is an eternal truth. Moreover {see '''The Principles of the Cat te- sian Philosophy,'' prop. 19), I have given also another ])roof of God's eternity, which it is unnecessary to repeat here. 34 Prop. 20. God's existence and his essence are one and the sat?ie thing. Proof. — God {by the preceding proposition) and all his attributes are eternal. That is, each of his attributes expresses existence. Therefore, the sam^? attributes of God that {def. 4) express God's eternal essence also express his eternal existence ; in other words, just that which constitutes God's essence con- stitutes at the same time his existence ; hence the latter and his essence are one and the same thing. Q. E. D. Corollary i. — Hence it follows, first, that God's existence, like his essence, is an eternal truth. Corollary 2. — It follows, in the second place, that God is unchangeable, or, in other words, that all God's attributes are unchangeable. For were these changed as regards their existence they would also have to be changed {by the preceding proposition) as regards their essence ; that is {as is self-evident)., they would be changed from true to false, which is absurd. 35 Prop. 21. Everything that follows from the abso- lute nature of any attribute of God must aha ays exist and be inftiitej that is, by virtue of that attribute it is eternal and infinite. Proof. — If you deny it, conceive, if you can, as in some attribute of God and following from its absolute 50 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART I nature, something that is finite and has a determinate existence or duration — for example, the idea of God in thought. Now, thought, since it is, by hypothesis, an attribute of God, is necessarily (ii) in its nature infinite. But in so far as it has the idea of God, it is, by hypothesis, finite. Now {def. 2), it cannot be conceived to be finite unless it be limited by thought itself. Not, however, by thought itself in so far as it constitutes the idea of God, for in so far it is, by hypothesis, finite ; hence, by thought in so far as it does not constitute the idea of God, which, neverthe- less (ri), must necessarily exist. There is, therefore, thought which does not constitute the idea of God, and, hence, from its nature, in so far as it is absolute thought, the idea of God does not necessarily follow. (For it is conceived as constituting, and not -consti- tuting, the idea of God.) This is contrary to our hypothesis. Therefore, if the idea of God in thought, or anything else (it matters not what is taken, for the proof is a general one) in any attribute of God, fol- lows from the necessity of the absolute nature of that attribute, it must necessarily be infinite. This was the first point. In the second place, that which follows in this way from the necessity of the nature of any attribute can- not have a determinate duration. If you deny it, let us suppose that there is in some attribute of God a thing that follows from the necessity of the nature of that attribute, for example, the idea of God in thought ; and let us suppose that this thing at one time has not existed or sometime will not exist. Now, since thought is by hypothesis an attribute of God, it must neces- sarily exist and be unchangeable (11 ajid 20, cor. 2). Therefore, beyond the limits of the duration of the Prop. 23] OF GOD. 51 idea of God (for we are supposing that it has at one time not existed, or sometime will not exist), thought must exist without the idea of God. But this is con- trary to our hypothesis, which assumes that when thought is granted the idea of God necessarily follows. Therefore, the idea of God in thought, or anything that necessarily follows from the absolute nature of some attribute of God, cannot have a determinate duration, but is, by virtue of that attribute, eternal. This was the second point. Mark, this is true of everything that necessarily follows in any one of God's attributes from the absolute nature of God.36 Prop. 22. Whatever foUo7vs from any attribute of God, in so far as it is 7nodified by a modification that, by virtue of this attt-ibute, necessarily exists and is infinite, must also both necessarily exist and be infijiite. Proof. — The proof of this proposition is similar to that of the preceding one. Prop. 23. Every mode, which necessarily exists and is infinite, must necessarily have followed either from the absolute nature of some attribute of God, or from some attribute modified by a modification ivhich necessarily exists and is infinite. Proof. — A mode is in something else, by means of which it must be conceived {def. 5); that is (15), it is in God alone, and can be conceived by means of God alone. If, therefore, a mode is conceived as necessa- rily existent, and as being infinite, in both cases this is necessarily inferred or perceived by means of some attribute of God, in so far as this is conceived as expressing infinity and necessity of existence, or, in other words {^def. 8), eternity ; that is {def. 6 and prop. 19), in so far as it is considered absolutely. A mode, therefore, wliich necessarily exists and is infi- 52 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. TPart I nite, must have followed from the absolute nature of some attribute of God ; and that either immediately (21), or mediately through some modification which follows from his absolute nature, that is {by the preceding propositioii), which necessarily exists and is infinite. Q. E. D. Prop. 24. The essence of the things produced by God does Jtot involve existence. Proof. — This is evident from def. i. For that whose nature (considered in itself) involves ex- istence, is its own cause, and exists solely from the necessity of its nature. Corollary. — Hence it follows that God is not merely the cause that brings things into existence, but is also the cause of their continuing in existence ; or, to use a scholastic term, God is the cause of the being of things. For wliether things exist or do not exist, whenever we consider their essence we find it does not involve either existence or duration ; hence their essence cannot be the cause either of their existence or of their duration. Only God, to whose nature alone existence belongs, can be the cause of these (14, cor. i).37 Prop. 25. God is not the efficient cause of the exist- ence of things only, bid also of their essence. Proof. — If you deny it, it follows that God is not the cause of the essence of things. Hence {axiom 4) the essence of things can be conceived without God. But this (15) is absurd. Therefore God is the cause of the essence of things also. Q. E. D. Scholium. — This proposition follows more clearly from prop. 16. For from that proposition it follows that, given the divine nature, one must necessarily infer from it the essence as well as the existence Prop. 28] OF GOD. 53 of things ; and, in a word, that God must be said to be the cause of all things in just the sense in which he is said to be the cause of himself. This will be still more clearly evident from the following corollary. CoroUa>j. — Particular things are nothing but modi- fications of the attributes of God ; in other words, modes, by which tlie attributes of God are expressed in a definite and determinate manner. The proof of this is evident from prop. 15 and def. 5.38 Prop. 26. A thing that is detei'viined to any action has necessarily been so determined by God : and a thing that is not determined by God cannot determine itself to action. Proof. — That through which things are said to be determined to any action is necessarily something positive (as is self-evident). Therefore, God is, from the necessity of his nature, the efficient cause both of its essence and of its existence {2^and 16). This was the first thing to be proved. From this the second part of the proposition very clearly follows. For if a thing which is not determined by God could determine itself, the first part of the proposition would be false, which is absurd, as we have shown. Prop. 27. A thing that is determined by God to any actiofi cannot render itself undetermined. Proof. — The truth of this proposition is evident from axiom 3. Prop. 28. No individual thing, that is. nothing that is fiiiite and has determinate existen e, can exist or be determined to action, unless it be determined to exist- ence and action by some cause other than itself, which also is finite and has a determinate existence; again, this cause cannot exist nor be determined to action unless it be 54 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART I determined to existence and action by still another, which, too, is finite and has a determinate existence ; and so to infinity. Proof. — Whatever is determined to existence and action is so determined by God (26 a7id 24, cor.). But that which is finite and has a determinate exist- ence cannot have been produced by the absolute nature of any attribute of God ; for everything that follows from the absolute nature of any attribute of God is infinite and eternal (21). It must, therefore, have followed from God or from some one of his at- tributes, in so far as tliis is considered as modified by some mode, for besides substance and modes nothing exists {axiom i and defs. 3 and 5), and modes (25, cor). are only modifications of the attributes of God. But it cannot have followed from God or from one of his attributes in so far as this is modified by a modifica- tion that is eternal and infinite (22). It must there- fore have followed from, or have been determined to existence and action by, God or one of his attributes in so far as this is modified by a modification that is finite and has a determinate existence. This was the first point. In the second place, this cause, that is, this mode [by the same reasoning by whicJi the first part of the proposition has just been proved) must also have been determined by another, which, too, is finite and has a determinate existence, and tliis last, in turn, by another {by the same reasoning), and so on {by the same reasoning) to infinity. 39 Q. E. D. Scholium. — Since certain things must have been produced by God immediately, namely, those things that necessarily follow from his absolute nature, and through these certain other things, that yet cannot either be or be conceived without God ; it follows ; Prop. 29] of god. 55 First, that God is absolutely the proximate cause of the things immediately produced by himself; but he is not a cause, as the saying is, after their kind. For God's effects cannot either be or be conceived without their cause (15 and 24, cor^. It follows, in the second place, that God cannot be properly called the remote cause of particular things, unless, perhaps, because we distinguish the latter from tlie things that he has produced immediately, or, rather, that follow from his absolute nature. For by a remote cause we mean one that is in no way joined with its effect. But every- thing that is, is in God, and so depends upon God, that without him it can neither be nor be con- ceived. 4° Prop. 29. There is in the universe nothing con- tingent ; but all things are, from the necessity of the divine nature, determined to existence and action of a definite sort. Proof. — Whatever is, is in God (15) ; but God can- not be called a contingent thing, for (11) he exists necessarily and not contingently. In the second place, the modes of the divine nature have followed therefrom necessarily, and not contingently (16), and that whether the divine nature be considered abso- lutely (21) or as determined to action of a definite sort (27). Moreover, God is not merely the cause of these modes in so far as they simply exist (24, cor^, but also (26) in so far as they are considered as deter- mined to some action. But if they are not determined by God {by the same propositioit), it is impossible, not contingent, that they should determine themselves ; on the other hand (27), if they are determined by God, it is impossible, not contingent, that they should render themselves undetermined. Therefore, all 56 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART I things are, from the necessity of the divine nature, determined not only to existence, but also to existence and action of a definite sort, and there is nothing that is contingent.41 Q. E. D. Scholium. — Before going further, I will here explain to the reader, or rather remind him of, what we must understand by naitcra naturans and natura fiaturata* From what precedes, I think it is now evident that we must mean by natura naturans that which is in itself, and is conceived by means of itself ; in other words, those attributes of substance which express an eternal and infinite essence, that is (14, cor. I, and 17, cor. 2), God, in so far as he is regarded as a free cause. By natura naturata, on the other hand, I mean all that follows from the necessity of God's nature, or in other words, from the necessity of each of his attributes ; that is, all the modes of God's attributes, in so far as these modes are regarded as things that are in God, and that cannot be or be conceived without God.42 Prop. 30. An intellect, actually finite or actually infinite, must comprehend the attributes of God and the modifications of God, and nothing else. Proof. — A true idea must agree with its object {axiom 6), that is {as is self-evident^, what is contained objectively in the intellect must necessarily exist in nature. But in nature (14, cor. i) there is but one substance, which is God ; nor are there any modifica- tions (15) but those which are in God, and which {by * For these expressions we have no exact equivalent. They might be rendered: "nature regarded as active," and "nature regarded as passive " ; but I have preferred to keep the Latin names, which have become common property. A literal tranglft' tion into English would not be endurable. — Tr, Prop. 32] of god. 57 the same proposition) without God can neither be nor be conceived. Therefore, an intellect, actually finite or actually infinite, must comprehend the attributes of God and the modifications of God, and nothing else.43 Q. E. D. Prop. 31. Actual intellect, whether it be finite or infinite, as also will, desire, love, etc., 7nust be referred to natura naturata and not to natura naturans. Proof. — By intellect {as is self-evident) we do not mean absolute thought, but only a certain mode of thinking, which mode differs from others, such as desire, love, etc., and must, hence, be conceived by means of absolute thought ; in other words (15 and def. 6), it must be so conceived through some attri- bute of God which expresses the eternal and infinite essence of thought, that without it it can neither be nor be conceived. Therefore (29, schol.) it must be referred to natura naturata and not to natura naturans, as must also the other modes of thinking. Q. E. D. Scholium. — My reason for here speaking of actual intellect is not that I admit that there is such a thing as intellect in potence ; but, as I wish to avoid all confusion, I have chosen to speak only of a thing we perceive as clearly as possible, namely, of the mere act of knowing, than which we perceive nothing more clearly. For we cannot know anything that does not conduce to a more perfect knowledge of the act of knowing. Prop. 32. Will cannot be called a free, but only a necessary, cause. Proof. — Will, like intellect, is only a certain mode of thinking, hence (28) no volition can exist or be determined to action unless it be determined by some 5,8 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [rAKT I cause other than itself, and this, in turn, by another, and SO on to infinity. But if we suppose will to be infinite it must be determined to existence and action by God, not in so far as he is absolutely infinite substance, but in so far as he has an attribute that expresses the infinite and eternal essence of thought (23). Therefore, in whatever way we conceive it, whether as finite or as infinite, it calls for a cause to determine it to existence and action ; hence {def. 7) it cannot be called a free, but only a necessary or constrained cause. Q. E. D. Corollary i. — Hence it follows, first, that God does not act from the freedom of his will. Corollary 2. — It follows, in the second place, that will and intellect are related to God's nature in the same way as motion and rest, and absolutely all natural things, which (29) must be determined by God to existence and action of a definite sort. For will, like everything else, needs a cause to determine it to existence and action of a definite sort. And although an infinity of things follow when will or intellect are granted, yet God cannot on this account be said to act from the freedom of his will, any more than he can be said to act from the freedom of mo- tion and rest, on account of the things that follow from motion and rest, for an infinity of things follow from these also. Therefore, will no more belongs to God's nature than do the rest of the things in nature, but is related to it in the same way as are motion and rest, and all the other things, which, as we have shown, follow from the necessity of the divine nature, and are by it determined to existence and action of a definite sort. 44 Prop. 2>Z- Things could not have been produced by Prop. 33] OP GOD. 59 God in any other ivay or in any other order than that in which they have been produced. Proof. — All things have followed necessarily from the nature of God as given (16), and from the neces- sity of God's nature have been determined to exist- ence and action of a definite sort (29). If, therefore, things could have been of a different nature, or could have been determined to action of another sort, so that the order of nature would be different, God's nature, too, could be different from what it is ; hence (11) that nature, too, would have to exist, and, conse- quently, there could be two or more Gods, which (14, cor. i) is absurd. Therefore, things could not have been produced by God in any other way or in any other order than that in which they have been pro- duced. Q. E. D. Scholium i. — As in what precedes I have made it clearer than noonday that there is in things absolutely nothing to justify one in calling them contingent, I will here explain briefly what is meant by contingent ; but, first, what is meant by necessary and impossible. A thing is said to be necessary either by reason of its essence, or by reason of its cause. For the existence of a thing necessarily follows either from the essence and definition of the thing, or from the fact that there is an efficient cause. Again, for similar reasons, a thing is said to be impossible; namely, either because its essence or definition involves a contradiction, or because there is no external cause determined to the production of the thing. But a thing is called con- tingent only in relation to the imperfection of our knowledge. For when we do not know that the essence of a thing involves a contradiction, or do know certainly that it does not involve a contradic- 6o THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART I tion, and yet can make no definite assertion concern- ing the existence of the thing because we are igno- rant of the order of causes, then the thing cannot seem to us either necessary or impossible ; and, hence, we call it either contingent or possible. Scholium 2. — From what precedes it clearly follows that things have been brought into being by God in the highest perfection, seeing that they have followed necessarily from a most perfect nature. Nor does this charge God with any imperfection, for it is his perfection that has compelled us to make this asser- tion. Nay, from the contrary statement, it would clearly follow (as I have just shown) that God is not supremely perfect ; for, if things had been brought into being in some other way, we should have to ascribe to God some other nature different from that which, from a consideration of the most perfect Being, we are compelled to ascribe to him. I have no doubt many will reject this opinion as absurd, and will refuse to apply their mind to a careful consideration of it ; and that simply because they are accustomed to ascribe to God a freedom very different from that {def. 7) we ascribe to him — in other words, an absolute will. But I have also no doubt that, if they will consider the matter and duly weigh my chain of proofs, they will wholly reject the sort of freedom they now ascribe to God as not only worthless, but a great obstacle to knowledge. There is no need of my re- peating here what I have said in the scholium to prop. 17. Still, for the sake of my opponents, I will further show that, even if will be admitted to belong to God's essence, it nevertheless follows from his per- fection that things could not have been created by God in any other way or order. This will be easy to Prop. 33] OF GOD. 61 prove if we consider first the fact, admitted by my opponents, that it depends solely on God's decree and will that everything is what it is — otherwise God would not be the cause of all things. And in the second place, that all God's decrees have been ordained by God himself from all eternity — otherwise he would be charged with imperfection and fickleness. Now, since there is in eternity no when, before, or after, it follows, from the mere perfection of God, that God never can decree anything else, and never could have done so ; in other words, that God has not existed before his decrees and cannot exist without them. But it is said, even on the supposition that God had made some other universe, or had from eternity ordained other decrees regarding nature and its order, that would not argue any imperfection in God. But those who say this admit thereby that God can change his decrees. For if God had ordained other decrees regarding nature and its order than those he has ordained, that is, had had some other will and thought regarding nature, he would necessarily have had an intellect different from that he actually has and a will different from that he actually has. And if one may ascribe to God a different intellect and a different will without any change in his essence and in his perfection, what is to prevent his changing his decrees regarding created things and nevertheless remaining as perfect as before? For his intellect and his will regarding created things and their order are, in their relation to his essence and perfection, just the same, however we conceive them. Again, all the phi- losophers I know admit that there is in God no potential, but only actual, intellect ; now since, as they also admit, neither his intellect nor his will is to 62 THE PHILOSOPHY OP SPINOZA. [Part I be distinguished from his essence, it further follows that, if God had actually had a different intellect and a different will, his essence, too, would necessarily be different. Hence (as I inferred at the outset), if things had been brought into being by God other than tliey actually are, God's intellect and his will, that is (as is admitted) his essence, would have to be different ; which is absurd. Since, therefore, things could not have been brought into being by God in any other way or order, and since the truth of this assertion follows from God's supreme perfection, there is no sound reason that can persuade us to believe that God has chosen not to create, in the same perfection with which he knows them, all the things that are in his intellect. It will be objected that there is in things neither perfection nor imperfection ; that that in them which makes them perfect or imperfect, and on account of which they are called good or bad, depends solely on the will of God, and hence, had God chosen, he could have made what is now perfection the greatest imper- fection, and vice versa. But what else would this be than the open assertion that God, who necessarily knows what he wills, can by his will make himself know things in some other way than as he knows them, which (as I have just shown) is highly absurd. Hence I can turn this argument against those who bring it forward, thus : All things depend upon God's power. Therefore, for things to be different God's will also would necessarily have to be different ; but God's will cannot be other than it is (as I have just shown very plainly from God's perfection). Hence things, too, cannot be other than they are. I confess this doctrine which subjects all things to a certain arbitrary fiat of Prop. 36] OF GOD. 6^ God and makes them depend upon his good pleasure, is less wide of the truth than that of those who main- tain that God does all things with some good end in view. The latter appear to affirm that there is some- thing external to God and independent of him, upon which, as upon a pattern, God looks when he acts, or at which he aims, as at a definite goal. This is simply subjecting God to fate, and nothing more absurd than this can be maintained concerning God, who is, as we have shown, the first and only free cause as well of the essence of all things as of their existence. It is, therefore, unnecessary to waste time in refuting this nonsense. 45 Prop. 34. God' s power is his very essence. Proof. — It follows from the mere necessity of God's essence that God is his own cause (11), and (t6 and cor.) the cause of all things. Therefore, God's power, through which he himself and all things are and act, is his very essence. Q. E, D. Prop. 35. Whatever we conceive to be in God's power., necessarily exists. Proof. — Whatever is in God's power must {by the preceding proposition) be so comprehended in his es- sence that it necessarily follows from it ; hence it necessarily exists. Q. E. D. Prop. t,6. There exists notliing from tvhose natui c some effect does not follow. Proof. — Every tiling that exists expresses in a defi- nite and determinate way God's nature or essence (25, r^r.), that is (34), everything that exists expresses in a definite and determinate way God's power, which is the cause of all things. Therefore (16), from everything that exists, some effect must follow. Q. E. D. 64 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART I APPENDIX. In the foregoing I have unfolded the nature of God and his properties ; as that he exists necessarily ; that he alone is ; that he exists and acts solely from the necessity of his nature ; that he is, and in what way he is, the free cause of all things ; that all things are in God, and so depend upon him that without him they can neither be nor be conceived ; and, finally, that all things have been fore-ordained by God, not from the freedom of his will or his absolute good- pleasure, but from his absolute nature, or, in other words, his infinite power. Moreover, wherever an opportunity presented itself, I have taken care to remove prejudices which could have prevented the reader from seeing the force of my proofs. As, how- ever, there still remain not a few prejudices which very well could and can prevent men from grasping the connection of things as I have set it forth, I have thought it worth while to here summon these before the bar of reason. Now all the prejudices I here undertake to point out depend on just this one ; that men commonly suppose that all things in nature act, as they themselves do, with a view to some end, nay, even assume that God himself directs all things to some definite end, saying that God has made all things for man, and man that he might worship God. I shall, therefore, consider this prejudice first. I shall inquire, in the first place, why most persons assent to it, and all are naturally so prone to embrace it. In the second place, I shall prove that it is false ; and, lastly, I shall show how there have sprung from it prejudices con- cerning good and evil, 7nerit and sin, praise and blame, order and confusion, beauty and ugliness, and other things of the sort. This is not the place, however, to Appendix] OF GOD. 65 deduce these things from the nature of the human mind. It will here suffice to assume certain facts all must admit, namely, that all men are born ignorant of the causes of things, and that all men have, and are conscious of having, an impulse to seek their own advantage. From this it follows, first, that men think themselves free for the reason that they are conscious of their volitions and desires, and, being ignorant of the causes by which they are led to will and desire, they do not so much as dream of these. It follows, second, that men do everything with some purpose in view ; that is, with a view to the advantage they seek. Hence it happens that they always desire to know only the final causes of actions, and, when they have learned these, are satisfied. It is because they have no longer any reason to doubt. But if they cannot learn these from someone else, nothing remains for them to do but to turn to themselves and have re- course to the ends by which they are wont to be determined to similar actions ; and thus they neces- sarily judge another's character by their own. Again, since they find in themselves and external to them- selves many things, which, as means, are of no small assistance in obtaining what is to their advantage, as, for example, the eyes for seeing, the teeth for chewing, plants and animals for food, the sun for giving light, the sea for maintaining fish, and so on — this has led them to regard all the things in nature as means to their advantage. And knowing that these means have been discovered, not provided, by themselves, they have made this a reason for believing that there is someone else who has provided these means for their use. For after they had come to regard things as means they could not believe that things had made 66 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part I themselves; but from the means which they were wont to provide for themselves they had to infer the existence of some ruler or rulers of nature, endowed with human freedom, who had provided everything for them, and had made all things for their use. Moreover, as they had never had any information con- cerning the character of such beings, they had to judge of it from their own. Hence they maintained that the gods direct all things with a view to man's advantage, to lay men under obligations to themselves, and to be held by them in the highest honor ; whence it has come to pass that each one has thought out for himself, according to his disposition, a different way of worshiping God, that God might love him above others, and direct all nature to the service of his blind desire and insatiable avarice. Thus this prejudice has become a superstition and has taken deep root in men's minds ; and this has been the reason why everyone has applied himself with the greatest effort to comprehend and explain the final causes of all things. But while they sought to prove that nature does nothing uselessly (in other words, nothing that is not to man's advantage), tliey seem to have proved only that nature and gods and men are all equally mad. Just see how far the thing has been carried. Among all the useful things in nature they could not help finding a few harmful things, as tempests, earth- quakes, diseases, and so forth. They maintained that these occur because tlie gods were angry on account of injuries done them by men, or on account of faults committed in their worship. And although experience daily contradicted this, and showed by an infinity of instances that good and evil fall to the lot of the pious and of the impious indifferently, that did not make Appendix] OF god. 67 them abandon their inveterate prejudice ; they found it easier to class these facts with other unknown things of whose use they were ignorant, and thus to retain their present and innate condition of ignorance, than to destroy the whole fabric of their reasoning and think out a new one. Hence they assumed that the judgments of the gods very far surpass man's power of comprehension. This in itself would have been suffi- cient to hide the truth forever from mankind, had not mathematics, which is concerned, not with final causes, but with the essences and properties of figures, shown men a different standard of truth. Besides the mathe- matics, other causes can be mentioned (I need not here enumerate them) which might have led men to examine these common prejudices, and have brought them to a true knowledge of things. In what precedes I have sufficiently developed my first point. To show that nature has no predetermined end and that all final causes are only human fancies needs but little argument. For I think this is suffi- ciently evident, both from the bases and causes, whence, as I have shown, this prejudice has had its origin, and from prop. 16 and the corollaries to prop. 32, as also from all those propositions in which I have proved that everything in nature proceeds by a certain eternal necessity, and in the highest perfection. Still, I will add that this doctrine of final causes simply turns nature upside-down. It regards as effect what is really cause, and vice versa. In the second place, it makes last what is by nature first. Finally, it ren- ders most imperfect what is supreme and most per- fect. For (to omit the first two points as self-evident) that effect, as is plain from props. 21, 22, and 23, is the most perfect which is immediately produced by God ; 68 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART I and the more intermediate causes are needed for the production of a thing, the more imperfect it is. But if the things immediately produced by God were made in order that God might attain his end, then necessarily the last things, for the sake of which the first were made, would be the most excellent of all. Again, this doctrine denies God's perfection ; for if God acts with an end in view, he necessarily seeks something he lacks. And although theologians and metaphysicians distinguish between \X\t finis indigenticR and the finis assimilationis^^ they nevertheless admit that God has done everything for his own sake, and not for that of created things. For, except God him- self, they can assign no final cause of God's acting before the creation, and hence are forced to admit that God lacked these things for which he chose to provide means, and desired them, as is self-evident. Nor must I here overlook the fact that the adherents of this doctrine, who have chosen to display their ingenuity in assigning final causes to things, have employed in support of their doctrine a new form of argument, namely, a reduction, not ad impossible, but ad ignorantiam j f which shows that there was no other way to set about proving this doctrine. If, for exam- ple, a stone has fallen from a roof upon someone's head, and has killed him, they will prove as follows that the stone fell for the purpose of killing the man : If it did not fall, in accordance with God's will, for this purpose, how could there have been a chance concurrence of so many circumstances (for many cir- *Literally, "the end of need" and " the end of assimilation." The meaning of the terms is sufficiently clear. — Tr. f That is, they appeal, not to the absurdity of the opposing doc- trine, but to the ignorance of their opponent. — Tr. Appendix] OF GOD. 69 cumstances often do concur) ? Perhaps you will answer, it happened because the wind blew and the man had an errand there. But they will insist, why did the wind blow at that time ? and why did that man have an errand that way at just that time ? If you answer again, the wind rose at that time, because, on the day before, while the weather was still calm, the sea had begun to be rough ; and the man had had an invitation from a friend; they will again insist, since one may ask no end of questions, but why was the sea rough ? and why was the man invited at that time? And so they will keep on asking the causes of causes, until you take refuge in the will of God, that asylum of ignorance. So again, when they consider the structure of the human body, they are amazed, and because they are ignorant of the causes which have produced such a work of art, they infer that it has not been fashioned mechanically, but by divine or super- natural skill, and put together in such a way that one part does not injure another. Hence it happens that he, who seeks for the true causes of miracles, and endeavors, like a scholar, to comprehend the things in nature, and not, like a fool, to wonder at them, is everywhere regarded and proclaimed as a heretic and an impious man by those whom the multitude rever- ence as interpreters of nature and the gods. For these men know that, with the disappearance of ignorance, wonder — their only means of argument and of main- taining their authority — goes too. But this I leave, and pass on to the third point I proposed to treat here. After men had persuaded themselves that everything that happens, happens for their sake ; they had to re- gard that quality in each thing which was most useful to 70 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART I them as the most important, and to rate all those things which affected tliem the most agreeably as the most excellent. Hence, to explain the natures of things, they had to frame the notions ^v^i?^/, evil, order, confu- sion, ivarm, cold, beauty, and deformity j and from their belief that they are free have arisen the notions of praise and blame, sin and merit. The latter I shall explain below, after discussing the nature of man ; the former I will briefly explain here. They have called good, everything that conduces to health and to the worship of God, and bad everything that is un- favorable to these. And as those who do not under- stand nature make no affirmations about things, but only imagine things, and take imagination for under- standing ; in their ignorance of things and of their nature they firmly believe that there is order in things. For when things are so arranged that, when they are represented to us through the senses, we can easily imagine them, and hence can easily think them over, we call them orderly ; if the opposite be true, we say they are in disorder, or are confused. And since those things we can easily imagine are more pleasing to us than the others, men place order above confusion — as though order had any existence in nature except in relation to our imagination — and they say that God created all things in order, thus unwittingly ascribing imagination to God ; unless possibly they mean that God, making provision for the human imagination, arranged all things in the way in which they could be most easily imagined. Nor will it, perhaps, put any check upon them that we find an infinity of things that far transcend our imagination, and very many that, by reason of its weakness, confound it. But of this enough. The other notions, too, are nothing but Appendix] . of god. 71 modes of imagining, which affect the imagination in various ways : yet they are regarded by the ignorant as the chief attributes of things. This is, as we have just said, because men believe that everything was made for their sake, and call the nature of a thing good or bad, sound or rotten and spoiled, according as it affects them. For example, if the motion com- municated to the nerves by objects represented through the eyes is conducive to health, the objects which cause it are called beautiful ; those objects, on the other hand, that excite a contrary motion, are called ^lgly. Again, those that move the sense through the nostrils are called odoriferous or stinking ; those that move it through the tongue, sweet or bitter, savory or unsavory, and so on ; those that move it through the touch, hard or soft, rough or smooth, and so forth. Finally, those that move the ears are said to give forth noise, sound, or harmony ; which last has driven men so mad that they believed even God takes delight in harmony. Nor are there wanting philos- ophers who have persuaded themselves that the motions of the heavenly bodies compose a harmony. All this sufficiently proves that everyone has judged of things according to the condition of his brain, or, rather, has taken the affections of his imagination for things. Hence (to make a passing allusion to this point, too), it is not surprising that so many con- troversies have arisen among men as we find to be the case, and tliat from these skepticism has resulted. For although men's bodies are in many respects alike, yet tliey have very many points of difference, and, therefore, what seems good to one seems bad to another ; what seems orderly to one seems confused to another ; what is pleasant to one is unpleasant to ^2 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART I another ; and so of the other cases, which I here pass over, not only because this is not the place to deal with them expressly, but also because it is a matter of common experience. The sayings : " Many men, many minds ; " " Every man is satisfied with his own opinion ; " " Brains differ as much as palates ; " — these are in everybody's mouth ; and they sufficiently prove that men judge of things according to the condition of their brains, and rather imagine things than com- prehend them. For had they comprehended things, all these proofs would, as mathematics bears witness, if not attract, at least convince them. We see, therefore, that all the fundamental notions upon which the ordinary man is wont to base his explanation of nature, are only modes of imagining, and do not indicate the nature of anything, but only that of the imagination. Since they have names, like entities existing outside of the imagination, I call them entities, not of reason, but of the imagination. Hence all arguments against me drawn from such notions can 'easily be refuted. Many are accustomed to reason as follows : If everything has followed from the necessity of God's most perfect nature, whence so many imperfections in nature — the stinking rottenness of things, their disgusting ugliness, confu- sion, evil, sin, and so forth ? But, as I have just said, those who reason thus are easily confuted ; for the perfection of things is to be determined solely from their nature and power, nor are things more or less perfect because they please or displease man's senses, and are helpful or harmful to man's nature. To those, however, who ask : Why did not God create all men such as to be led solely by the guidance of reason ? I answer only, because he had no lack of material Appendix] OF GOD. - • 73 wherewith to create all things, from the very highest to the very lowest degree of perfection ; or, to speak more strictly, because the laws of his nature were ample enough to suffice for the production of every- thing that can be conceived by an infinite intellect, as I have proved in prop. 16. These are the prej- udices which I undertook to note here. If any more of this sort remain, anyone can, by a little reflection, correct them for himself.4^ PART II. OF THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND. I NOW proceed to set forth those things tliat neces- sarily had to follow from the essence of God, a Being eternal and infinite. I shall not, indeed, treat of all of them, for I have shown (I, 16) that there must follow from this essence an infinity of things in infinite ways, but I shall treat only of those which may lead us, as it were, by the hand, to a knowledge of the human mind and its highest blessedness. 47 DefinitionsA^ 1. By body I mean a mode which expresses, in a definite and determinate manner, the essence of God, in so far as he is considered as an extended thing. {^See I, 25, cor^ 2. I regard as belonging to the essence of a thing that which, being given, the thing is necessarily given, and which being taken away, the thing is necessarily taken away ; in other words, that without which the thing, and, conversely, which without the thing, can neither be nor be conceived. 3. By idea I mean a conception of the mind, which the mind forms because it is a thinking thing. Explanation. — I say rather conception than percep- tion, because the word perception seems to indicate that the mind is acted upon by the object ; but con- ception seems to express an action of the mind. 74 Axioms] the MIND. 75 4. By adequate idea I mean an idea which, in so far as it is considered in itself and without reference to an object, possesses all the properties or intrinsic marks of a true idea. Explanation. — I say intrinsic, to exclude the extrinsic mark, namely, the agreement of the idea with its object. 5. Duration is indefinite continuance in existence. Explanation. — I say indefinite, because it can in no wise be limited by the nature itself of the existing thing, nor yet by the efficient cause, which, to be sure, necessarily brings about the existence of the thing, but does not sublate it. 6. By reality 3.Ti.^ perfection I mean the same thing. 7. By individual things I mean things that are finite and have a determinate existence. If, however, several individuals so unite in one action that all are conjointly the cause of the one effect, I consider all these, in so far, as one individual thing. AxiomsA^ 1. Man's essence does not involve necessary exist- ence ; in other words, in the order of nature, it equally well may or may not come to pass that this or that man exists. 2. Man thinks. 3. Such modes of thinking as love, desire, or what- ever else comes under the head of emotion, do not arise unless there be present in the same individual the idea of the thing loved, desired, etc. But the idea may be present without any other mode of thinking being present. 4. We perceive by sense that a certain body is affected in many ways. 76 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART II 5. We do not feel or perceive any individual things except bodies and modes of thinking. See the Postulates after Prop. 13. Prop. i. Thought is an attribute of God, that is, God is a thinking thing. Proof. — Individual thoughts, or this and that thought, are modes which express in a definite and determinate manner God's nature (I, 25, cor.). God therefore possesses (I, def. 5) the attribute, the con- ception of which is involved in all individual thoughts, and through which they are conceived. Hence, thought is one of the infinite attributes of God, and it expresses God's eternal and infinite essence (I, def. 6) : that is, God is a thinking thing. Q. E. D. Scholium. — This proposition may also be proved from the fact that we can conceive an infinite thinking being. For the more thoughts a thinking being is capable of having, the more reality or perfection do we regard it as containing ; a being, then, that can think an infinity of things in an infinity of ways is necessarily, by virtue of its thinking, infinite. Since, therefore, we conceive an infinite being by fixing attention upon thought alone, thought is necessarily (I, defs. 4 and 6) one of the infinite attributes of God, as I asserted. 50 Prop. 2. Extension is an attribute of God, that is, God is an extended thing. Proof. — This is proved like the preceding prop- osition. Prop. 3. There is necessarily in God an idea, both of his own essence, and of all those things which necessarily follotu from his essence. Proof. — God can (1) think an infinity of things in Prop. 3] I'HE MIND, 77 an infinity of ways, or {which is the same thing, I, 16) can form an idea of his own essence, and of all those things which necessarily follow from it. But every- thing that is within God's power necessarily is (I, 35). Therefore such an idea necessarily is, and (T, 15) it is in God and nowhere else.S^ Q. E. D. Scholium. — By the power of God the multitude understand God's free will, and his authority over all things that are, which consequently are commonly regarded as contingent ; for God has, they say, the power to destroy all things and to reduce them to nothing. Again, they very often liken the power of God to that of kings. This I have refuted in I, 32, corollaries i and 2, and have shown in I, 16, that God acts by the same necessity as that by which he knows himself ; that is, just as it follows from the necessity of the divine nature (as all agree in maintaining) that God knows himself, so from the same necessity it follows that God does an infinity of things in an infin- ity of ways. Later, in I, 34, I have shown that the power of God is nothing else than the active essence of God ; hence it is as impossible for us to conceive that God does not act as to conceive that he does not exist. Moreover, did I care to follow this up further, I could show, too, that the power the multitude attribute to God not only is a human power (in that it shows that God is conceived by the multitude as a man, or as like a man), but even that it involves lack of power. But I do not wish to discourse so often upon the same theme. I merely beg the reader again and again to ponder repeatedly what is said concern- ing this point in Part I, from prop. 16 to the end. For no one will be able rightly to perceive my mean- ing unless he very carefully avoids confounding the 7 8 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part II power of God with the human power or authority of kings. Prop. 4. The idea of God, from which aft infinity of things folloiv in ati infijiity of ways, can be but one. Proof. — Infinite intellect comprises nothing save God's attributes and his modifications (I, 30). But God is one (I, 14, cor. i). Therefore the idea of God, from which an infinity of things follow in an infinity of ways, can be but one. 52 Q. E. D. Prop. 5. The formal* being of ideas admits of God as its cause, only in so far as he is regarded as a think- ing thing, and not in so far as he is manifested in some other attribute. That is, the ideas both of the attributes of God and of individual things do not admit of their objects — -perceived things — as their efficient cause, but God him- self, in so far as he is a thinking thing. Proof. — The proof is evident from prop. 3 of this Part. We there concluded that God can form an idea of his own essence, and of all those things which neces- sarily follow from it, from the mere fact that God is a thinking thing, and not from the fact that he is the object of his own idea. It follows that the formal being of ideas admits of God as cause, in so far as he is a thinking thing. Another proof of this is as follows : The formal being of ideas is a mode of thinking {as is self- evident^, that is (I, 25, cor^, a mode which ex- presses in a definite manner the nature of God, in so far as he is a thinking thing, and thus (I, 10) involves the concept of no other attribute of God, and conse- quently (I, axiom 4) is the effect of no other attribute than thought. Therefore the formal being of ideas * Formal is here about equivalent to real or actual. — Tr. Prop. 7] THE MIND. 79 admits of God as its cause, only in so far as he is re- garded as a thinking thing, etc. S3 Q. E. D. Prop. 6. The modes of any attribute have God as their cause, only in so far as he is considered under the attribute of which they are modes, not in so far as he is considered under any other attribute. jProof—Fj3.ch attribute is conceived through itself independently of anything else (I, 10). The modes, tlien, of each attribute involve the concept of their own attribute, but of no other ; therefore (I, axiom 4), they have as their cause God, only in so far as he is considered under the attribute of which they are modes, and not in so far as he is considered under any other attribute. Q. E. D. Corollary. — Hence it follows that the formal being of things, which are not modes of thinking, does not follow from the divine nature because this first knew things ; but the objects of ideas follow and are inferred from their attributes in the same manner, and by the same necessity, as we have shown ideas to follow from the attribute of thought. 54 Prop. 7. The order arid connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things. Proof. — The proof is evident from axiom 4, of Part T, for the idea of anything that is caused depends upon a knowledge of the cause whose effect it is. Corollary. — Hence it follows that God's power of thinking is equal to his realized power of acting. That is, whatever follows formally* from God's infi- nite nature follows also objectively in God in the same order and with the same connection from the idea of God. * See note to I, 17, schol. — Tr. 8o THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part li Scholium. — Before going further we should recall to mind this truth, which has been proved above, namely, that whatever can be perceived by infinite intellect as constituting the essence of substance belongs exclu- sively to the one substance, and consequently that thinking substance and extended substance are one and the same substance, apprehended now under this, now under that attribute. So, also, a mode of exten- sion and the idea of that mode are one and the same thing, but expressed in two ways ; a truth which cer- tain of the Hebrews* appear to have seen as if through a mist, in that they assert that God, the intel- lect of God, and the things known by it, are one and the same. For example, a circle existing in nature, and the idea, which also is in God, of this existing circle, are one and the same thing, manifested through different attributes ; for this reason, whether we con- ceive nature under the attribute of extension, or under that of thought, or under any other attribute whatever, we shall find there follows one and the same order, or one and the same concatenation of causes, that is, the same thing. I have said that God is the cause of an idea ; for instance, the idea of a circle, merely in so far as he is a thinking thing, and of the circle, merely in so far as he is an extended thing, just for the reason that the formal being of the idea of a circle can only be perceived through another mode of think- ing, as its proximate cause, that one in its turn through another, and so to infinity. Thus, whenever we con- sider things as modes of thinking, we must explain * This may have reference to a passage in the work entitled "The Garden of Pomegranates," by Moses Corduero, a Kab- balist of the sixteenth century ; or, perhaps, to a passage in the " Guide to tlie Perplexed," by Maimonides. — Tr. Prop. 8] THE MIND. 8l the whole order of nature, or concatenation of causes, through the attribute of thought alone ; and in so far as we consider them as modes of extension, we must likewise explain the whole order of nature soleJy through the attribute of extension. So also in the case of the other attributes. Hence God, since he consists of an infinity of attributes, is really the cause of things as they are in themselves. I cannot explain this more clearly at present. 55 Prop. 8. The ideas of individual things or modes which do not exist must be comprehended in the infinite idea- of God, in the same way as the formal essences of individual things or modes are contained in the attributes of God. Proof. — This proposition is evident from the one preceding, but it may be more clearly understood from the preceding scholium. Corollary. — Hence it follows that so long as indi- vidual things do not exist, except in so far as they are comprehended in the attributes of God, their objec- tive being, that is, their ideas, do not exist, except in so far as the infinite idea of God exists ; and when particular things are said to exist, not merely in so far as they are comprehended in the attributes of God, but also in so far as they are said to have a being in time, their ideas, too, involve an existence, through which they are said to have a being in time. Scholium. — If anyone wants an illustration to ex- plain this matter more fully, I can, indeed, give none that will adequately explain the thing of which I speak, for it is unique. I will, however, do what I can to make it clear. The nature of the circle is such that the rect- angles formed by the segments of all the straight 82 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part II lines which intersect each other in it are equal. It follows that an infinity of rectangles equal to each other are contained in the circle. Still, no one of them can be said to exist, except in so far as the circle exists, nor can the idea of any one of these rectangles be said to exist, except in so far as it is comprehended in the idea of the circle. Of that infinite number let us now conceive two only, E and D, as existing. Plainly their ideas also now exist, not merely in so far as they are com- prehended in the idea of the circle ; but also in so far as they involve the existence of those rectangles. And by this they are distinguished from the remaining ideas of the rest of the rectangles. 5^ Prop. 9. The idea of an individual thing, actually existent, has God for its cause, not in so far as he is in- finite, but in so far as he is considered as afi^ected by another idea of an individual thing actually existent, of which idea in its turn God is cause, in so far as he is affected by a third idea, and so to infinity. Proof. — The idea of an individual thing actually existent is an individual mode of thinking, and distinct from all others (8, cor. and schol); therefore (6), it has God, in so far merely as he is a thinking thing, for its cause. Not, however (I, 28), in so far as he is a thing thinking absolutely, but in so far as he is considered as affected by some other mode of thinking ; and of this also God is cause in so far as he is affected by another, and so to infinity. But the order and con- catenation of ideas (7) is the same as the order and concatenation of causes ; therefore, of any particular idea, another idea, that is, God, in so far as he is con- Prop, io] THE MIND. 83 sidered as affected by another idea, is the cause ; of this one, too, he is the cause in so far as he is affected by another, and so to infinity. Q. E. D. Corolla)'}'. — Whatever takes place in the individual object of any idea, the knowledge of this is in God, in so far only as he has an idea of the said object. Proof. — The idea of whatever takes place in the object of any idea is in God (3) not in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he is considered as affected by another idea of an individual thing {by the preceding proposition); but (7) the order and concatenation of ideas is the same as the order and concatenation of things. The knowledge, therefore, of what takes place in any individual object, is in God, in so far only as he has the idea of that object. 57 Q. E. D. Prop. 10. Substantive beifig does not belong to the essence of man, that is, substance does not cojtstitute the essence of man. Proof. — Substantive being involves necessary exist- ence (I, 7). If, then, substantive being belongs to the essence of man, granted substance, man would necessarily be granted {def. 2) : hence man would necessarily exist, which {axiom i) is absurd. There- fore, etc. Q. E. D. Scholium. — This proposition is proved also by I, 5, which maintains that there are not two substances of the same nature. As, however, a number of men may exist, that which constitutes the essence of man is not substantive being. This proposition is evident, more- over, from the other properties of substance, to wit, that substance is in its nature infinite, immutable, indivisible, etc.; as anyone may readily see. Corollary. — Hence it follows that the essence of man consists of certain modifications of God's attrj- 84 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART II bates. Substantive being (fy the preceding propositioii) does not belong to the essence of man. It is, there- fore (I, 15), something which is in God, and which without God can neither be nor be conceived, that is (I, 25, cor?), a modification, or mode, which expresses God's nature in a definite and determinate manner. Scholium. — Surely all must admit that without God nothing can be or be conceived. For it is an accepted fact with all that God is the sole cause of all things, both of their essence and of their existence ; that is, God is the cause of things, not merely as regards their coming into existence, but also as regards their being. At the same time most persons say that that belongs to the essence of a thing without which the thing can neither be nor be conceived. Consequently, they either believe that the nature of God belongs to the essence of created things, or that created things can be or be conceived without God, or, as is more prob- able, they are inconsistent. The cause of this I believe to be that they have not observed the proper order of philosophizing. They have believed the divine nature, which should be contemplated before everything else, since it is prior both in knowledge and in nature, to be last in the order of knowledge, and the things called objects of sense to be first of all. Whence it has come to pass that, while they contem- plated the things of nature, they thought of nothing less than they did of the divine nature ; and when afterward they brought their mind to the contempla- tion of the divine nature, there was nothing they could think of less than of their first imaginings, upon which they had based the knowledge of the things of nature, inasmuch as these could not at all help one to a knowledge of the divine nature. Hence it is no Prop, ii] ' the mind. 85 wonder that tliey sometimes contradicted themselves. But this I pass over. My purpose here was only to give the reason why I did not say that that belongs to the essence of anything without which the thing can neither be nor be conceived. It is, that particular things cannot be or be conceived without God, and yet God does not belong to their essence. For my part, I have said that that necessarily constitutes the essence of anything, which being granted, the thing is granted, and which being taken away, the thing is taken away ; or that without which the thing, and, conversely, which without the thing, can neither be nor be conceived. 58 Prop. 11. The first thing that constitutes the actual being of the human mind is nothing else than the idea of some individual thing actually existing. Proof. — Man's essence {by the corollary to the preced- ing propositioii) consists of certain modes of the attributes of God ; namely {axiom 2) of modes of thinking, in all of which {axiom 3) an idea is prior by nature, and when this is present the other modes (those, that is, to which the idea is prior by nature) must be preeent in the same individual {by the same axiom). Thus an idea is the first thing that constitutes the being of the human mind. But it is not the idea of a non-existent thing, for in that case (8, cor) the idea itself could not be said to exist ; it is, then, the idea of a thing actually existing. Not, however, of an infinite thing. For an infinite thing (I, 21 and 22) must always necessarily exist; but this is {axiom i) absurd ; therefore the first thing that constitutes the actual being of the human mind is the idea of an individual thing actually existing. Q. E. D. Corollary. — Hence it follows that the human mind 86 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART II is a part of the infinite intellect of God. When, therefore, we say that the human mind perceives this or that, we say merely that God, not in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he is manifested by the nature of the human mind, that is, in so far as he constitutes the essence of the human mind, has this or that idea ; and when we say that God has this or that idea, not merely in so far as he constitutes the nature of the human mind, but in so far as besides the human mind he has also the idea of another thing, we say the human mind perceives the thing partially or inade- quately. Scholium. — Here, doubtless, my readers will stick, and will contrive to find many objections which will cause delay. For this reason I beg them to proceed with me slowly, and not to pass judgment on these matters until they have read over the whole. 59 Prop. 12. Whatever takes place in the object of the idea that constitutes the human mi7id must be perceived by the human mind; that is, an idea of that thing is 7ieces- sarily in the mind. In other words, if the object of the idea that constitutes the human inind be a body, nothing can take place in that body without being perceived by the mind. Proof. — Whatever takes place in the object of any idea, the knowledge of it is necessarily in God (9, cor.), in so far as he is considered as affected by the idea of that object ; that is (11), in so far as he constitutes the mind of anything. Whatever, then, takes place in the object of the idea that constitutes the human mind, the knowledge of it is necessarily in God, in so far as he constitutes the nature of the human mind, that is (11, cor^, the knowledge of it is necessarily in the mind, or the mind perceives it. Q. E. D, Prop. 13] the mind. 87 Scholium. — This proposition is evident also, and more clearly understood, from 7, schol., which see. 60 Prop. 13. The object of the idea that constitutes the humaji mind is the body, that is, a definite mode of exten- sion actually existing, and nothing else. Proof. — If the body were not the object of the human mind, the ideas of the modifications of the body would not be in God (9, cor.^, in so far as he constituted our mind, but in so far as he constituted the mind of something else; that is {\\, cor?), the ideas of the modifications of the body would not be in our mind. But {axiom 4) we have ideas of the modi- fications of the body. Therefore the object of the idea that constitutes the human mind is the body, and that (11) is a body actually existing. Again, if, be- sides the body, there was still another object of the mind, then, since nothing (I, 36) exists from which some effect does not follow, there vvould (11) neces- sarily have to be in our mind the idea of some effect of this object. But {axiom 5) there is no such idea. Therefore the object of our mind is the existing body and nothing else. Q. E. D. Corollary. — Hence it follows that man consists of mind and body, and that the human body exists, just as we perceive it. Scholium. — From this we comprehend, not merely that the human mind is united to the body, but also what is meant by the union of mind and body. No one, however, can comprehend this adequately or dis- tinctly, unless he first gain an adequate knowledge of the nature of our body. AVhat I have proved so far have been very general truths, which do not apply more to men than to all other individual things, which are all, though in different degrees, animated. For of 88 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART II everything there is necessarily an idea in God, of which God is the cause, just as there is an idea of the human body ; hence, whatever I have said of the idea of the human body must necessarily be said of the idea of everything. Yet we cannot deny that ideas differ among themselves as do their objects, and that one is more excellent than another, and contains more reality, just as the object of the one is more excellent than the object of the other, and contains more reality. Therefore, in order to determine in what the human mind differs from other ideas, and in what it excels the others, we must gain a knowledge, as I have said, of the nature of its object, that is, of the human body. This, however, I cannot here treat of, nor is it neces- sary for what I wish to prove. I will only make the general statement that, in proportion as any body is more capable than the rest of acting or being acted upon in many ways at the same time, its mind is more capable than the rest of having many perceptions at the same time ; and the more the actions of a body depend upon itself alone, and the less other bodies contribute to its action, the more capable is its mind of distinct comprehension. We may thus discern the superiority of one mind over others, and we may see the reason why we have only a very confused knowl- edge of our body ; and many other things which, in what follows, I shall deduce from what has been said. Hence I have thought it worth while to explain and prove these things rather elaborately. To do this, I must make a few preliminary statements concerning the nature of bodies. 6i Axiom I. — All bodies are either in motion or at rest. Axiom 2. — Every body moves sometimes more slowly, sometimes more rapidly. Prop. 13] the mind. 89 Lemma i. — Bodies are distinguished from one another as regards their motion or rest, their swiftness or slow- ness, and not as regards their substance. Proof. — The first part of this I assume to be self- evident. That bodies are not distinguished as regards their substance is evident both from I, 5, and I, 8. It is still more evident from what has been said in the scholium to I, 15. Lemma 2. — All bodies agree in some respects. Proof. — All bodies agree, in the first place, in that they involve the conception of one and the same attri- bute {def. i). In the second place, in that they can move now more slowly, now more swiftly, or simply now move and now remain at rest. Lemma 3. — A body in motion or at rest must have been determined to motion or rest by another body, which also was determined to motion or rest bv another, this again by another, and so to infinity. Proof. — Bodies {def. i) are individual things, which {lemma r) are distinguished from one another as re- gards their motion and rest ; therefore (I, 28) each must necessarily have been determined to motion or rest by another individual thing, namely (6), by another body which also {axiom i) is either in motion or at rest. But this, too {by the same reasoning^, could not have been in motion or at rest if it had not been determined to motion or rest by another, and this in turn {by the same reasoning^ by another, and so to infinity. Q. E. D. Corollary. — Hence it follows that a body in motion remains in motion until it is determined by another body to come to rest ; and a body at rest remains, too, at rest until it is determined to motion by another. This is, besides, self-evident. For if I suppose a 90 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART II body — A, for instance — to be at rest, and do not direct my attention to other moving bodies, I can say nothing of the body A except that it is at rest. But should it afterward happen that the body A is set in motion, that surely could not have been due to the fact that it was before at rest ; for from that nothing else could follow than the body A should remain at rest. If, conversely, A be supposed to be in motion, whenever we think only of A, we can make no affirma- tion concerning it except that it is in motion. But should it afterward happen that A is brought to rest, that truly could never have been due to the motion which it had before ; from the motion nothing else could follow than that A should be in motion. It is due, therefore, to something which was not in A, namely, to an external cause, by which it was deter- mined to come to rest. Axiom I. — All the modes, in which any body is affected by another body, are a consequence both of the nature of the body affected and of the nature of the body affecting it ; so that one and the same body is set in motion in divers ways according to the diver- sity of nature of the bodies setting it in motion ; and conversely, different bodies are set in motion in differ- ent ways by one and the same body. Axiom 2. — When a body in motion impinges upon another which is at rest, and which it cannot set in motion, it is re- flected in such a way that it contin- ues in motion, and the angle made by the line of reflection with the plane of thebody at rest, upon which the former body has impinged, is equal to the angle which the line of incidence makes with the same plane„ Prop. 13] the MIND. 9! This is true of the most simple bodies, which are distinguished from one another only by motion or rest, swiftness or slowness ; now let us pass on to those that are complex. Definition. — When several bodies of the same size or of different sizes are so pressed upon by other bodies as to lie against each other, or if they move with the same or with different degrees of rapidity, in such a way as to communicate to each other tlieir motions according to some fixed law, we say that they are united to each other, and that all together com- pose one body, that is, one individual, which is distin- guished from all others by this union of bodies. Axiom 3. — In proportion as the parts of an indi- vidual, or composite body, are in contact with each other by greater or less surfaces, the less or more easily can they be forced to change their place, and, consequently, the more or less easily can that individ- ual be made to take another shape. Hence I shall call hard, bodies the parts of which are in contact by large surfaces ; soft, those the parts of which are in contact by small surfaces ; and fluid, those, finally, whose parts are in motion among themselves. Lemma 4. — //, from a body, or individual, co?nposed of many bodies, some bodies are taken aze.. If the human body has once been affected simultaneously by two or more bodies^ when the mind after that imagines any one of them it will forthwith call to reme?nbrance also the others. Proof. — The cause of the mind's imagining any 98 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part II body is (<^ the preccdi?ig corollary) , that the human body is affected and disposed by the traces of an ex- ternal body in the same way as it was affected when certain of its parts were impelled by that external body ; but {by hypothesis) the body was then so dis- posed that the mind imagined two bodies at the same time ; it will therefore now, also, imagine two at the same time ; and when the mind imagines either, it will forthwith recollect the other. Q. E. D. Scholium. — From this we clearly comprehend what memory is. It is nothing but a certain concatenation of ideas, involving the nature of things outside of the human body, which arises in the mind according to the order and concatenation of the modifications of the human body. I say, in the first place, that it is a concatenation of those ideas only that involve the nature of things outside of the human body, not of the ideas that express the nature of those things ; for these ideas are really (i6) ideas of the modifications of the human body, which involve both its nature and that of external bodies. I say, in the second place, that this concatenation follows the order and con- catenation of the modifications of the human body, to distinguish it from the concatenation of ideas wliich follows the order of the understanding, whereby the mind perceives things through their first causes, and which is the same in all men. From this, furthermore, we clearly understand why the mind from the thought of one thing immediately passes to the thought of another which bears no resemblance to the former. For example, from the thought of the word pomum (apple) a Roman passes straightway to the thought of the fruit, which bears no resemblance to that articulate sound, and has nothing in common with it, except Prop. 19] ' the mind. 99 that the body of the same man has often been affected by these two ; that is, the man has often heard the vfordi pomwn while he saw this fruit. Thus each one passes from one thought to another, according as custom has ordered the images of things in his body. A soldier, for instance, who sees in the sand the tracks of a horse, passes at once from the thought of the horse to the thought of its rider, and from that to the thought of war, etc.; while a rustic passes from the thought of a horse to the thought of a plow, a field, etc. Thus each one, according as he has been accus- tomed to join and connect the images of things in this or that way, passes from a given thought to this thought or to that. Prop. 19. The human mind does not come to a knowl- edge of the human body itself, or know that it exists, except through the ideas of the modifications by which the body is affected. Proof. — The human mind is the idea or knowledge of the human body (13), which (9) is in God, in so far as he is considered as affected by the idea of another individual thing. Or rather, since {postu- late 4) the human body needs many bodies, by which it is continually born anew, as it were ; and since the order and connection of ideas is (7) the same as the order and connection of causes ; this idea is in God, in so far as he is considered as affected by the ideas of many individual things. Therefore God has an idea of the human body, or knows the human body, in so far as he is affected by many other ideas ; and not in so far as he constitutes the nature of the human mind; that is {11, cor.), the human mind does not know the human body. But the ideas of the modifica- tions of the body are in God, in so far as he con- lOO THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part II stitutes the nature of the human mind ; that is, the human mind perceives these same modifications (12), and consequently (16) perceives the human body itself, and that (17) as really existing. Therefore, only in so far does the human mind perceive the human body. 65 Q. E. D. Prop. 20. There is in God also an idea or knowledge of the human mind, which follows in God in the same tvay, and is referred to God in the same way, as the idea or knowledge of the human body. Proof. — Thought is an attribute of God (i) ; there- fore (3) there must necessarily be in God an idea of it and of all its modifications, and consequently (11) of the human mind also. In the second place, it does not follow that this idea or knowledge of the mind is in God in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he is affected by another idea of an individual thing (9). But the order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of causes (7). Therefore this idea or knowledge of the mind follows in God, and is referred to God, in the same way as the idea or knowledge of the body.66 Q. E. D. Prop. 21. This idea of the mind is united to the mind in the same way as the mind itself is united to the body. Proof. — We have proved that the mind is united to the body, from the fact that the body is the object of the mind (12 and 13); hence, for the same reason, the idea of the mind must be united with its object, that is, with the mind itself, in the same way as the mind is united with the body. Q. E. D. Scholium. — This proposition is much more clearly comprehended from what was said in the scholium to prop. 7 of this Part. I there showed that the idea of the body and the body, that is (13), the mind and the Prop. 23] the mind. ioi body, are one and the same individual, conceived now under the attribute of thought, now under that of extension. Hence the idea of the mind and the mind itself are one and the same thing, conceived under one and the same attribute, namely, that of thought. The idea of the mind, I say, and the mind itself fol- low in God, by the same necessity, from the same power of thinking. For, in truth, the idea of the mind — that is, the idea of an idea — is nothing else than the essence of an idea, in so far as this is con- sidered as a mode of thinking, and without relation to its object. For when anyone knows a thing, from that very fact he knows that he knows it, and at the same time knows that he knows that he knows it, and so to infinity. But of this more hereafter. 67 Prop. 22. The htiinan mind perceives^ not mej-ely the modifications of the body, but also the ideas of these modifications. Proof. — The ideas of the ideas of modifications follow in God in the same way, and are referred to God in the same way, as the ideas of the modifica- tions. This is proved as is prop. 20. But the ideas of the modifications of the body are in the human mind (12), that is (11, cor?), they are in God, in so far as he constitutes the essence of the human mind. Hence, the ideas of these ideas are in God, in so far as he has a knowledge, or idea, of the human mind ; that is (21), they are in the human mind itself, which, consequently, perceives not merely the modifications of the body, but also the ideas of these. 68 Q. E. D. Prop. 23.. The tnind only knozvs itself in so far as it perceives the ideas of the modifications of the body. Proof. — The idea or knowledge of the mind (20) follows in God in the same way, and is referred to I02 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part II God in the same way, as the idea or knowledge of the body. But since (19) the human mind does not know the body itself; that is (11, cor.), since the knowledge of the human body is not referred to God, in so far as he constitutes the nature of the human mind ; neither is the knowledge of the mind referred to God, in so far as he constitutes the essence of the human mind; and hence (11, cor.), in so far the human mind does not know itself. In the second place, the ideas of the modifications which the human body receives involve the nature of the human body itself (16), that is (13), they agree with the nature of the mind ; hence the knowledge of these ideas neces- sarily involves the knowledge of the mind. But {by the preceding proposition) the knowledge of these ideas is in the human mind itself. Therefore only in so far does the human mind know itself. 69 Q. E. D. Prop. 24. The human mind does not involve a7i adequate knoivledge of the parts which compose the hioman body. Proof. — The parts which compose the human body do not belong to the essence of the body, except in so far as they communicate to one another their motions according to a certain definite law (see the def. after lemma 3, cor)), and not in so far as they can be regarded as individuals without relation to the human body. For the parts of the human body are {postu- late i) highly composite individuals, the parts of which {lemma 4) can be separated from the human body, while the nature and essence of the latter are preserved intact, and can communicate their motions {axiom i, after lemma 3) to other bodies according to another law. Therefore (3) the idea or knowledge of any part is in God, and that (9) in so far as he Prs^OP. 26] THE MIND. 103 is regarded as affected by another idea of an indi- vidual thing, which individual thing is prior in the order of nature to the part in question (7). This may be said, too, of any part of the individual which forms a part of the human body ; hence, the knowl- edge of any component part of the human body is in God, in so far as he is affected by many ideas of things, and not in so far as he has an idea of the human body merely ; that is (13), an idea, which constitutes the nature of the human mind. Therefore {11, cor.) the human mind does not involve an adequate knowl- edge of the parts Avhich compose the human body. 7° Q. E. D. Prop. 25. T/ie idea of any modification of the hiunan body does not involve an adequate knowledge of an external body. Proof. — I have shown (16) that the idea of a modi- fication of the human body involves the nature of an external body in so far as the external body modifies the human body itself in a certain determinate manner. But in so far as the external body is an individual, which is not referred to the human body, the idea or knowledge of it is in God (9), in so far as God is re- garded as affected by the idea of another thing, which (7) is prior by nature to the external body itself. Hence the adequate knowledge of an external body is not in God in so far as he has an idea of a modifica- tion of the human body ; in other words, the idea of a modification of the human body does not involve an adequate knowledge of an external body.71 Q. E. D. Prop, 26. The human mind does not perceive any external body as actually existing, except through the ideas of the modifications of its own body. Proof. — If the human body is in no way affected by 104 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part II an external body, neither is (7) the idea of the human body, that is (13), the human mind, affected in any way by the idea of the existence of that body, or, in other words, it in no way perceives the existence of that external body. But in so far as the human body is in some way affected by an external body, the mind (i6 and cor.) perceives an external body. Q. E. D. Corollary. — In so far as the human mind imagines an external body, it does not have an adequate knowl- edge of it. Proof. — When the human mind contemplates ex- ternal bodies through the ideas of the modifications of its own body, we say that it is imagining (17, sc/iol.)', nor can the mind by any other method {by the preceding proposition) imagine external bodies as really existing. Therefore (25), in so far as the mind imagines external bodies, it does not have an adequate knowledge of them. Q. E. D. Prop. 27. The idea of any modification of the huniaji body does not involve an adequate knottdedge of the human body itself. Proof. — Any idea of any modification of the human body involves the nature of the human body just in so far as the human body is regarded as affected in a certain determinate manner (16). But in so far as the human body is an individual, which can be affected in many other ways, the idea of the said modification, etc. {See proof of prop. 2 5.) 72 Prop. 28. The ideas of the modifications of the human body in so far as they are referred to the hwnaji mind alone, are not clear and distinct , but confused. Proof. — The ideas of the modifications of the human body involve the nature both of external bodies and Prop. 29] THE MIND. 105 of the human body itself (16); and they must involve the nature, not only of the human body, but also of its parts ; for the modifications are modes (^postulate 3) which affect the parts of the human body, and conse- quently the whole body. But (24 and 25) the adequate knowledge of external bodies, as well as of the parts which compose the human body, is not in God in so far as he is considered as .affected by the human mind, but in so far as he is considered as affected by other ideas. These ideas of modifications are therefore, in so far as they are referred to the human mind merely, like conclusions without premises ; that is {as is self- evident) they are confused ideas. Q. E. D. Scholium. — It may be proved in the same way that the idea which constitutes the nature of the human mind is not, considered in itself alone, clear and dis- tinct. This applies also to the idea of the human mind, and to the ideas of the ideas of the modifications of the human body, in so far as they are referred to the mind alone, as anyone may readily see. 73 Prop. 29. The idea of the idea of any modification of the humati body does not involve an adequate knowledge of the huma?i mind. Proof. — The idea of a modification of the human body does not (27) involve an adequate knowledge of the body itself, that is, does not adequately express its nature, or, in other words (13), does not adequately agree Avith the nature of the mind. Therefore (I, axiom 6) the idea of this idea does not adequately express the nature of the human mind ; that is, does not involve an adequate knowledge of it. Q. E. D. Corollary. — Hence it follows that the human mind, .when in the ordinary course of nature it perceives things, has not an adequate but merely a confused and Io6 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part II fragmentary knowledge, whether of itself, of its body, or of external bodies. For the mind has no knowl- edge of itself, except in so far as it perceives ideas of the modifications of the body (23). Its own body, however, it does not perceive (19), except through those very ideas of the modifications through which alone (26) it perceives external bodies. Therefore, in so far as it has these, it has not an adequate, but merely (28 and schol.) a mutilated and confused knowl- edge of itself (29), of its body (27), and of external bodies (25). Q. E. D. Scholium. — I say expressly that the mind has not an adequate but merely a confused knowledge of itself, of its body, and of external bodies, when in the ordinary course of nature it perceives things ; that is, when, by chance contact with things, it is determined from without to the contemplation of this thing or that ; not when, from the fact that it is contemplating several things simultaneously, it is determined from within to a perception of their liarmonies, differences, and oppositions. For when it is determined from within in this way or that, things are contemplated clearly and distinctly, as I shall show later. 74 Prop. 30. We can have but a very inadequate knowl- edge of the duration of our body. Proof. — The duration of our body does not depend upon its essence {axiom i), nor yet upon the absolute nature of God (I, 21). It is (I, 28) determined to existence and action by causes, which are also deter- mined by others to existence and action of a definite and determinate sort, and these again by others, and so to infinity. Hence the duration of our body depends upon the common course of nature and the constitution of things. But what the constitution of Prop. 32] the mind. io? things is, of this an adequate knowledge is in God, in so far as he has ideas of all things, and not merely in so far as he has the idea of the human body (9, cor?). Hence there is in God a very inadequate knowledge of the duration of our body, in so far as he is consid- ered merely as constituting the nature of the human mind. That is (i i, r^r.), this knowledge is in our mind very inadequate. 75 Q. E. D. Prop. 31. We can have but a very inadequate knowl- edge of the duration of individual things which are external to us. Proof. — Every individual thing, like the human body, must be determined to existence and action of a definite and determinate sort by some other indi- vidual thing ; this in turn by another, and so to infinity (I, 28). But since I have proved in the pre- ceding proposition, from this common property of individual things, that we have but a very inadequate knowledge of the duration of our body, the sanic inference is to be drawn concerning the duration of individual things, to wit, that we can have of it but a very inadequate knowledge. Q. E. D, Corollary. — Hence it follows that all individual things are contingent and perishable. For we can have no adequate knowledge of their duration {by the preceding proposition), and this is what we mean (I, t,t„ schol. i) by the contingency of things and the possi- bility of decay. Except in this sense (I, 29) nothing is contingent. Prop. 32. All ideas, in so far as they are referred to God, are true. Proof. — All ideas, that are in God, absolutely agree with their objects (7, cor?), therefore (I, axiom 6) all are true. 76 Q. E. D. Io8 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART II Prop. ^^. There is in ideas no positive element, on account of which they are called false. Proof. — If you deny this, conceive, if you can, the positive mode of thinking which constitutes tlie essence of error or falsity. This mode of thinking cannot be in God {by the preceding proposition) ; and yet out of God it cannot either be or be conceived (I, 15)- Therefore, there can be in ideas no positive element, on account of which they are called false. 77 Q. E. D. Prop. 34. Every idea which is in ns absolute, that is, adequate and perfect, is true. Proof. — When we say that there is in us an ade- quate and perfect idea, we say merely (11, cor.) that there is in God, in so far as he constitutes the essence of our mind, an adequate and perfect idea. Con- sequently (32) we say, merely, that such an idea is true. Q. E. D. Prop. 35. Falsity consists in the privatio?i of knoitd- edge that is ifivolved in inadequate or mutilated and confused ideas. Proof. — There is in ideas no positive element to constitute the essence of falsity {'h'h)- But falsity cannot consist in absolute privation (for minds, not bodies, are spoken of as going astray and being de- ceived) ; nor yet in absolute ignorance, for ignorance and error are different things. Hence it consists in that privation of knowledge which is involved in an inadequate knowledge of things, that is, in inadequate and confused ideas. Q. E. D. Scholium. — In the scholium to prop. 17 I have explained in what sense error consists in a privation of knowledge, but for the fuller explication of this I will give an example. Men are, for instance, de- ceived in thinking themselves free, a belief which Prop. 37] • the mind. 109 rests upon this alone, that they are conscious of their actions and ignorant of the causes which determine them. This, then, is their idea of freedom, that they know no cause of their actions. Their statement that human actions are due to Avill is a collection of words, for which they have no idea. For all are ignorant of what will is, and how it moves the body. Those who boast that they know, and imagine seats and habitations for the soul, usually provoke either laughter or disgust. Thus, when we look upon the sun, we imagine it about two hundred feet away from us ; an error which does not consist merely in the act of imagination, but in the fact that, while we thus imagine it, we are ignorant of its true distance, and of the cause of this act of the imagination. And, although we afterward learn that it is above six hundred diameters of the earth away from us, never- theless we imagine it is as near ; for we do not imagine the sun to be so near because we are ignorant of its true distance, but because the modification of our body involves the essence of the sun, in so far as the body itself is affected by that object.78 Prop. ^6. Inadequate ajid confused ideas folloiv by the same necessity as adequate, or clear and distinct, ideas. Proof. — All ideas are in God. (I, 15) ; and, in so far as they are referred to God, are true (32) and (7, cor?) adequate. Hence none are inadequate, or confused, except in so far as they are referred to some individual mind (24 and 28). Hence all, both adequate and inadequate, follow by the same neces- sity (6, cor). Q. E. D. Prop. 37. That tvhich is common to all things (see lemma 2, above), and is equally in the part and in the 7vhole, constitutes the essence of no individual thing. no THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part II Proof. — If you deny this, conceive, if you can, that it constitutes the essence of some individual thing, namely, the essence of B. Then [def. 2) it cannot be nor be conceived without B. But tliis is contrary to the hypothesis. Hence it does not belong to the essence of B, nor constitute the essence of any other individual thing. 79 Q. E. D. Prop. 38. That 7vhich is common to all things, and is equally in the part and in the whole, cannot be conceived except adequately. Proof. — Let A be something that is common to all bodies, and that is equally in the part and in the whole of each body. I say that A cannot be con- ceived except adequately. For the idea of it (7, cor.^ is necessarily adequate in God, both in so far as he has the idea of the human body, and in so far as he has the ideas of its modifications, which (16, 25, and 27) involve to some degree both the nature of the human body and that of external bodies. That is (12 and 13), this idea is necessarily adequate in God, in so far as he constitutes the human mind, or in so far as he has ideas, which are in the human mind. The mind, therefore (ii, cor?), necessarily perceives A adequately, and that in so far as it perceives itself, its own body, or any external body ; nor can A be con- ceived in any other way. Q. E. D. Corollary. — Hence it follows that certain ideas or notions are common to all men. All bodies {lemma 2) agree in some things, and these [by the preceding propo- sitio?i) must be perceived adequately, or clearly and distinctly, by all. 80 Prop. 39. That which is common to and a property of the human body and those external bodies by which the human body is wont to be affected, and which is equally in Prop. 40] THE MIND. Ill the part and in the whole of each of them — of this also there is an adequate idea in the nmid. Proof. — Let A be something, which is common to and a property of the human body and certain exter- nal bodies, which is equally in the human body and in these external bodies, and which, finally, is equally in the part and in the whole of each external body. Of this A there will be in God an adequate idea (7, cor?), both in so far as he has an idea of the human body, and in so far as he has ideas of the said exter- nal bodies. Now, let the human body be affected by an external body, through that which they have in common, that is, through A. The idea of this modi- fication will involve the property A (16) ; and hence (7, cor^ the idea of this modification, in so far as it involves the property A, will be adequate in God, in so far as he is affected by the idea of the human body; that is (13), in so far as he constitutes the nature of the human mind. Therefore (11, cor?) this idea is adequate in the human mind also. Q. E. D. Corollary. — Hence it follows that the more prop- erties the body has in common with other bodies, the more things is the mind capable of adequately per- ceiving.81 Prop. 40. All ideas in the mind, that follow frovi ideas which are in it adequate, are themselves adequate. Proof. — This is evident. When we say that an idea in the human mind follows from ideas which are in the mind adequate, we merely say (11, cor.) that there is, in the divine mind itself, an idea of which God is the cause, not in so far as he is infinite, nor in so far as he is affected by the ideas of many individual things, but in so far merely as he constitutes the essence of the human mind. 112 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART II Scholium i. — In the above I have set forth the cause of the notions that are called common, and that are the foundation of all our reasoning. But of certain axioms or notions there are other causes, which it would be a digression to unfold here by my method. From these it would appear, which notions are the most useful, and which are of scarcely any value ; and again, which are common notions, and which are clear and distinct to those only who are without prejudices ; and, finally, which are unfounded. Moreover, it would appear whence the notions called secondary, and hence the axioms based upon them, have had their origin ; and there would be set forth other reflections which I have made at various times touching this subject. But since I have reserved these things for another treatise, and for fear that I may arouse aversion by my excessive prolixity, I have de- cided to pass over this matter here. Nevertheless that I may omit nothing that it is necessary to know, I will briefly mention the causes in which the terms known as transcendental have had their origin, as, for exam- ple. Being, Thing, Something. These terms arise from the fact that the human body, since it is limited, is only capable of forming in itself distinctly a certain number of images at one time (/ have explained ivhat an image is in the scholium to prop. 17). If this number be exceeded, the images begin to run to- gether ; and if the number of images that the body is able to form in itself distinctly at one time be greatly exceeded, they are all entirely confused with each other. Since this is so, it is evident from the corollary to prop. 17, and from prop. 18, that the human mind can imagine distinctly at onetime as many bodies as there are images that can be Prop. 40] the mind. 113 formed at one time in the body corresponding to it. But when the images in the body are wholly confused with each other, the mind, too, will imagine all the bodies confusedly, and without distinguishing them at all. It will grasp them under one attribute, as it were, namely, under the attribute of Being, of Thing, etc. This can also be deduced from the fact that images are not always equally lively ; and from other causes analogous to these, which it is not necessary to unfold here, for it is sufficient to the object I have in view to consider a single one. They all amount to this, that these terms stand for ideas in the highest degree con- fused. Again, from like causes have sprung the notions called universals, as Man, Horse, Dog, etc. There are formed in the human body at the one time so many images — for instance, of man — that they over- come the faculty of imagination ; not, indeed, wholly, but to such a degree that the mind is unable to im- agine the little differences in the individuals (as the color, the size, etc., of each) and their exact number. It distinctly imagines only that in which all, in so far as they affect the body, agree. By this element, espe- cially, the body was affected in the case of each indi- vidual ; it is this that the mind expresses by the word man ; and this that it predicates of an infinity of indi- viduals. As I have said, it cannot imagine the exact number of individuals. But bear in mind that these notions are not formed by everyone in the same way, but differently by each according to the nature of the object by which the body has been the more often af- fected, and which the mind most easily imagines or remembers. For example, those who have more often regarded with admiration the stature of men will un- derstand by the word man an animal erect in stature. 114 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART II Those, on the other hand, who have been accustomed to notice something else, will form another common image, as that man is a laughing animal, a featherless biped, a rational animal, and so on. Each one will form universal images of things according to the char- acter of his body. Hence it is not strange that among philosophers, who have endeavored to explain nature through the mere images of things, there have arisen so many controversies. 82 ScholiuJH 2. — From all that has been said above it is clearly evident that we have many perceptions, and that we form universal notions : First, from indi- viduals, represented to our understanding through the senses fragmentarily, confusedly, and without order (29, cor.) ; hence I have been accustomed to call such notions knowledge from vague experience. Second, from signs ; for example, when we hear or read cer- tain words, we think of things, and form certain re- sembling ideas of them, through which we imagine them (18, schoL). Both these ways of viewing things I shall hereafter call Knowledge of the First Kind, Opinion, or Itnagination. Third : From the fact that we have common notions and adequate ideas of the properties of things (38, cor., 39 and cor., and 40). I shall call this Reason, or Knowledge of the Second Kind. Besides these two kinds of knowledge there is, as I shall show in what follows, still a third, which I shall call Iiituitive Kfiotuledge. This kind of knowl- edge proceeds from the adequate idea of the formal essence of certain attributes of God to the adequate knowledge of the essence of things. I will make all this clear by a single example. Three numbers are given to find a fourth, which shall be to the third as the second is to the first. Without hesitation mer- Prop. 43] the mind. 115 chants multiply the second and the third, and divide their product by the first. They do this, either be- cause they have not forgotten the rule they received without proof from their teacher, or because they have often tested it with very simple numbers ; or by virtue of the proof of prop. 19 of the seventli book of Euclid, namely, from the common property of proportionals. But with very simple numbers none of these is neces- sary. For example, given the numbers i, 2, 3 — every- one sees that the fourth proportional number is 6, and we see this much the more clearly in that we infer it to be the fourth from the ratio that we see at a glance the first bears to the second. 83 Prop. 41. Knowledge of the first kind is the sole cause of falsity, while that of the second and third kinds is necessarily true. Proof. — I have said in the preceding scholium that to knowledge of the first kind belong all those ideas that are inadequate and confused. Hence (35) this knowledge is the sole cause of falsity. I have said, in the second place, that to knowledge of the second and third kinds belong all those that are adequate. There- fore (34) it is necessarily true. Q. E. D. Prop. 42, Knowledge, not of the first, but of the second and third kinds, teaches us to distinguish between the true and the false. Proof. — This proposition is self-evident. He who knows how to distinguish between the true and the false must have an adequate idea of the true and the false ; that is (40, schol. 2), must apprehend the true and the false by knowledge of the second or third kind. Prop. 43. He who has a true idea, at the same time kuoivs that he has a true idea, nor can he doubt of the truth of the thing known. Il6 THK PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART II Proof. — An idea that is true in us is one which is adequate in God, in so far as he is manifested by the nature of the human mind {\\, cor.). Let us grant, therefore, that there is in God, in so far as he is mani- fested by the nature of the human mind, an adequate idea A. There must necessarily be also in God an idea of this idea, and this is referred to God in the same way as the idea A [l^y 20, the proof of which is general). But the idea A is, by hypothesis, referred to God in so far as he is expressed by the nature of the human mind. Therefore the idea of the idea A must also be referred to God in the same way. That is (11, cor.), this adequate idea of the idea A is in the mind that has the adequate idea A. Hence, he who has an adequate idea, or (34) truly knows something, must at the same time have an adequate idea of his knowledge, or, in other words, have true knowledge of it ; that is {as is self-evident), he must at the same time be certain. Q. E. D. Scholium. — In the scholium to prop-. 21 I have explained what the idea of an idea is, but one should note that the preceding proposition is sufficiently evi- dent of itself. No one who has a true idea is ignorant that a true idea involves the highest certainty ; for to have a true idea means nothing else than to know something perfectly or in the best possible way. No one can doubt this, unless he thinks an idea is some- thing passive like a picture on a panel, and not a mode of thinking, to wit, the act of understanding itself. Who, I ask, can know that he perceives anything, without first perceiving the thing ? That is, who can know that he is certain of anything, without first being certain of that thing? Again, what norm of truth can there be more clear and cer- Prop. 44] the mind. 117 tain than a true idea? Just as light reveals both itself and darkness, so truth is the norm both of itself and of what is false. In the foregoing I think I have given an answer to the following disputed points : First, if a true idea be distinguished from a false one only in that it is said to agree with its object, the true idea has no more reality or perfection than the false (since they are distinguished merely through an external relation), nor, consequently, has the man who has true ideas any more than the man who has only false ideas. Second, how does it happen that men have false ideas ? And, third, how can one know certainly that one has ideas which agree with their objects ? I think, I say, that I have now answered these disputed points. As regards the difference between a true idea and a false, it appears from prop. 35 that the one is related to the other as being to not being. The causes of falsity I have very clearly shown from prop. 19 to prop. 35 with its scholium. From these it is clear what the difference is between the man who has true ideas and the man who has only false. As to the last point, namely, how a man can know he has an idea that agrees with its object ; this I have, just above, suffi- ciently and more than sufficiently shown to spring from the mere fact that he has an idea that agrees with its object — in other words, from the fact that truth is its own norm. Add to this that our mind, in so far as it perceives things truly, is a part of the infinite intellect of God (11, cor.). Therefore it is as necessary that the clear and distinct ideas of the mind must be true as that the ideas of God must be true.84 Prop. 44. It is of the nature of reason to regard things, not as contingent, but as necessary. Proof. — It is of the nature of reason to perceive Il8 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART II things truly (41), namely (I, axiom 6), as they are in themselves ; that is (I, 29), not as contingent, but as necessary. 85 Q. E. D. Corollary i. — Hence it follows that it is due only to imagination that we regard things, whether with respect to the past or to the future, as contingent. Scholiuiii. — How this happens I will briefly explain. I have shown above (17 and cor?) that the mind, even when things do not exist, always imagines them as present, unless there present themselves causes that exclude their present existence. Again, I have shown (18) that, if the human body has once been affected by two external bodies simultaneously, the mind, whenever, after that, it imagines either one of them, will forthwith recall also the other, that is, will regard both as present to it, unless there present them- selves causes that exclude their present existence. Further, no one doubts that we imagine time because we imagine some bodies moving more slowly or more swiftly than, or equally fast with, others. Let us sup- pose, then, a boy, who has yesterday for the first time seen Peter in the morning, Paul at noon, and Simon in the evening, and to-day again sees Peter in the morning. It is evident from prop. 18 that as soon as he sees the morning light he will imagine the sun passing over the same part of the sky he saw it pass over on the day before, that is, he will imagine the entire day ; and with the morning he will imagine Peter, with the noon Paul, and with the evening Simon. In other words, he will imagine the existence of Paul and of Simon in relation to future time. If, on the contrary, he sees Simon in the evening, he will refer Paul and Peter to past time, imagining them, that is, simultaneously with past time. This he will do the Prop. 45] the mind. 119 more uniformly, the oftener he has seen them in this order. But if he ever happens to see, on some other evening, James instead of Simon, he will on the fol- lowing morning imagine with the evening now Simon and now James, and not both together. For, by hypothesis, he has seen only the one or the other, not both together, simultaneously with the evening. His imagination will therefore waver, and with future evening time he will imagine now this one and now that. In other words, he will regard neither as cer- tainly, but each as contingently, future. And there will be this same wavering of the imagination, if we imagine things that we conceive in the same way with relation to time past or present. Hence we will con- ceive as contingent things related as well to present time as to time past or future. Corollary 2. — It is of the nature of reason to per- ceive things under a certain form of eternity. Proof. — It is of the nature of reason to regard things as necessary, and not as contingent {by the pre- ceding propositioii). Moreover, it perceives this neces- sity of things truly (41), that is (I, axiom 6), as it is in itself. But (I, 16) this necessity of things is the very necessity of the eternal nature of God. Therefore it is of the nature of reason to regard things under this form of eternity. Add to this that the foundations of reason are the notions (38) which represent the prop- erties common to all things, but do not represent (37) the essence of any particular thing ; and which, there- fore, must be conceived without any relation to time, under a certain form of eternity. 86 Q. E. D. Prop. 45. Every idea of a body, or of an indiiddiial thing actually existing, 7iecessarily involves the eternal and infinite essence of God, I20 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART II Proof. — The idea of an individual thing, actually existing, necessarily involves both the essence and the existence of that thing (8, cor)^. But individual things (I, 15) cannot be conceived without God ; and since (6) they have for their cause God, in so far as he is considered under the attribute of which they are modes, the ideas of them (I, axiom 4) must neces- sarily involve the conception of their attribute, that is (I, def. 6), must involve the eternal and infinite essence of God. Q. E. D, Scholium. — By existence I do not here mean dura- tion, that is, existence in so far as it is abstractly con- ceived, and, as it were, a certain kind of quantity ; I am speaking of existence in its very nature, which is attributed to individual things, because an infinity of things follow in infinite ways from the eternal neces- sity of God's nature (I, 16) ; I am speaking, I say, of the very existence of individual things, in so far as they are in God. For, although each individual thing is determined by some other to a particular mode of existence, the force by which each persists in existing follows from the eternal necessity of the nature of God. On this point see I, 24, cor.87 Prop. 46. The knowledge of the eternal and infinite essence of God, which is involved in every idea, is ade- quate and perfect. Proof. — The proof of the preceding proposition is general, and, whether a thing be regarded as part or as whole, the idea of it, whether it be the idea of a part or of a whole, involves {by the preceding proposi- tion) the eternal and infinite essence of God. There- fore, that which gives a knowledge of the eternal and infinite essence of God is common to all things, and is equally in the part and in the whole. Prop. 47] THE MIND. 121 Hence (38) this knowledge must be adequate. 88 Q. E. D. Prop. 47 , The human mind has an adequate knowl- edge of the eternal and infinite essence of God. Proof. — The human mind has ideas (22) through which (23) it perceives, as actually existing, itself, its body (19), and (16, cor. i, atid 17) external bodies. Therefore (45 and 46) it has an adequate knowledge of the eternal and infinite essence of God. Q. E. D. Scholium. — From this we see that God's infinite essence and his eternity are known to all. Moreover, since all things are in God and are conceived through God, it follows that we can deduce from this knowl- edge many truths that we may adequately know ; and thus develop that third kind of knowledge of which I have spoken in 40, schol. 2, and of the excellence and utility of which I shall have occasion to speak in Part V. That men have not as clear a knowledge of God as of common notions arises from the fact that they cannot imagine God as they do bodies, and that they have connected the word God with images of the things that they are accustomed to see — a thing men can scarce avoid doing, as they are continually affected by external bodies. Many errors, indeed, consist in just this, that we apply the wrong names to things. For when one says that the lines which are drawn from the center of a circle to its circumference are unequal, one plainly means by a circle something else — for the time being, at least — than do mathemati- cians. Thus, when men make mistakes in reckoning, they have one set of figures in mind and another on the paper. Hence, if you consider their thought, they do not make mistakes ; yet they seem to do so, because we think they have in mind the same figures as are on 122 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART II the paper. If this were not so, we would not believe they made any mistake ; just as I did not believe one mistaken, whom I heard lately proclaiming that his hall had flown into a neighbor's hen. His thought appeared to me sufficiently evident. Many contro- versies arise from the fact that men do not rightly express their meaning, or that they misconstrue the meaning of someone else. For in truth, while they flatly contradict each other, they are either thinking the same thing, or thinking of different things, so that the errors and absurdities they suppose in another have no existence. Prop. 48. There is in the mind no absolute or free 7i'illj but the mind is determined to this or that volition by a cause, which has itself been deterinined by another cause, this again by another, and so to infinity. Proof. — The mind is a definite and determinate mode of thinking (11), therefore (I, 17, cor. 2) it cannot be a free cause of its own actions, that is, it cannot have an absolute power to will or not to will. It must be determined to this or that volition (I, 28) by a cause, which has itself been determined by another cause, this again by another, etc. Q. E. D. Scholium. — In the same way it is proved that there is in the mind no absolute power of knowing, desiring, loving, etc. Whence it follows, these and similar faculties are either absolutely fictitious, or only meta- physical entities — universals — that we are accustomed to form from individuals. Thus, understanding and will are related to this or that idea and to this or that volition, as lapidity is related to this or that stone, or man to Peter or Paul. Why men think themselves free I have explained in the Appendix to Part I. Be- fore I go further, it should be noted that I mean by Prop. 49] THE mind. 123 will, not desire, but the faculty of afifirming and deny- ing ; I mean, I say, the faculty by which the mind afifirms or denies what is true or false, and not the desire through which the mind seeks or avoids things. But having proved these faculties to be universal notions, which are not distinguished from the individ- uals of which we form them, it remains to inquire whether the volitions themselves are anything but just the ideas of things. It remains, I say, to inquire whether there is in the mind any other affirmation or negation than that involved in an idea, in that it is an idea. On this point see the following proposition, and, to avoid confounding ideas with pictures, see, also, def. 3 of this Part. For by ideas I do not mean such images as are formed at the back of the eye, or, if you please, in the middle of the brain, but the concep- tions of thought. Prop. 49. There is in the mind no volition, that is, no affirmation or negation, except that involved in an idea in that it is an idea. Proof. — There is in the mind {by the preceding prop- osition) no absolute power to will or not to will, but only particular volitions, namely, this or that affirma- tion, and this or that negation. Let us conceive, therefore, some particular volition — for instance, the mode of thinking by which the mind affirms the three angles of a triangle to be equal to two right angles. This affirmation involves the conception or idea of a triangle, that is, it cannot be conceived without the idea of a triangle ; for it is the same thing whether I say, A must involve the conception B, or A cannot be conceived without B. In the second place, this affirmation {axiom 3), without the idea of a triangle, cannot be. Therefore this afifirraa- 124 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART II tion cannot^ without the idea of a triangle, either be or be conceived. Moreover, this idea of a triangle must involve this same affirmation of the equality of its three angles to two right angles. Therefore, con- versely, this idea of a triangle can neither be nor be conceived without this affirmation. Hence {def. 2) this affirmation belongs to the essence of the idea of a triangle, and is nothing but that idea. What I have said of this volition is (since I took it at random) to be said also of every volition, namely, that it is nothing else than an idea.89 Q. E. D. Corollary. — Will and understanding are one and the same thing. Proof. — Will and understanding are nothing but particular volitions and ideas (48 and schol). But a particular volition and a particular idea are {by the preceding propositio)i) one and the same thing. There- fore will and understanding are one and the same thing. Q. E. D. Scholiuni. — In the foregoing I have set aside the cause commonly assigned to error. I have shown above, moreover, that falsity consists merely in the privation involved in mutilated and confused ideas. Hence a false idea, in so far as it is false, does not involve certainty. When we say, therefore, that a man acquiesces in what is false, and has no doubt of it, we do not say that he is certain, but only that he does not doubt, or that he acquiesces in what is false, because no causes are present to make his imagination waver. On this point see 44, schol. Consequently? no matter how tenaciously we suppose a man to cling to what is false, we never speak of him as being cer- tain. By certainty we mean something positive (43 and schol.) not merely the privation of doubt. By Prop. 49] THE MIND. ,^ I25 the privation of certainty, on the other hand, we mean falsity. But for the fuller explication of the preceding proposition it remains : first, to give warning of cer- tain dangers ; second, to ansvver the objections that can be made to this my doctrine ; and, third, I have thought it worth while to indicate certain useful results of this doctrine, that I may remove every scruple. I say certain of them ; for the most important ones will be better understood from what I shall say in Part V. I begin then with the first point, and I warn my readers to distinguish carefully between an idea — that is, a conception of the mind — and the images of things we imagine. It is necessary, in the second place, to distinguish between ideas and the words by which we indicate things. For these three, images, words, and ideas, are by many either wholly con- founded, not distinguished with sufift^nt precision, or not distinguished with sufficient care. Hence they are wholly ignorant of this doctrine of the will, a doc- trine the acceptance of which is truly necessary, as well for speculation as for the wise ordering of life. Of course, those who think that ideas consist in images formed in us on meeting bodies persuade them- selves that the ideas of things of which we can form no resembling image are not ideas, but mere figments, which we frame by an exercise of free will. They look upon ideas, then, as passive pictures upon a panel; and, possessed by this prejudice, they do not see that an idea, in that it is an idea, involves affirma- tion or negation. Again, those who confound the words with the idea, or even with the affirmation involved in the idea, think that they can will some- thing contrary to what they perceive, when they affirm or deny in words only something contrary to what 126 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part II they perceive. He, however, vi^ill be able easily to shake off these prejudices, who fixes attention upon the nature of thought, in which the conception of extension is not involved in the least ; and who, there- fore, clearly understands that an idea (since it is a mode of thinking) consists neither in the image of a thing, nor in words. For the essence of words and of images is composed of bodily motions solely, and these do not involve at all the conception of thought. These few words of admonition will suffice, so I pass to the aforesaid objections. The Jirsf of them is — and they think this undisputed — that the will extends farther than the understanding, and therefore is dif- ferent from it. And the reason why they think the will extends farther than the understanding is, that they say they have found by experience that they do not need a greater power of assenting — affirming — or denying, in order to assent to an infinity of other things, which we do not perceive, than we now have ; but that they do need a greater power of understand- ing. The will is therefore distinguished from the understanding in that the latter is made finite, and the former infinite. Second, the objection can be raised that experience seems to teach nothing more clearly than that we can suspend judgment and not assent to what we perceive. This is also confirmed by the fact that no one is said to be deceived in so far as he perceives something, but only in so far as he assents or dissents. For example, he who imagines a winged horse does not, on that account, admit that there is a winged horse ; that is, he does not, on that account, make a mistake, unless he at the same time admit there is a winged horse. Experience, therefore, seems to teach nothing more clearly than this, that the will, or Prop. 49] THE MIND. 127 the power of giving assent, is free, and different from the power of understanding. Third, the objection can be made that one affirmation does not seem to contain more reality than another ; that is, we do not seem to need a greater power for affirming to be true what is true, than for affirming to be true something that is false ; but we do perceive that one idea has more reality or perfection than another, for some ideas are as much more perfect than others as are their objects more excellent than the objects of those others. This, too, seems to establish a difference between will and understanding. Fourth, the objection can be made : If a man does not act from free will, what will happen if he be in equilibrium, like Buridan's ass ? will he die of hunger and thirst ? If I admit this, I would seem to be thinking of an ass or the statue of a man, and not of a man. If, on the other hand, I deny it, I make him self-determining, and, conse- quently, possessed of the power of going and doing whatever he wants. Perhaps other objections than these can be made, but as I am not obliged to crowd in everything anyone can dream of, I shall set myself to answer these objections only, and that as briefly as I can. In answer to the first, I say that I admit the will extends farther than the understanding, if by the understanding be meant clear and distinct ideas only ; but I deny that the will extends farther than the per- ceptions, that is, the faculty of conceiving. Nor, indeed, do I see why the faculty of willing should be said to be infinite rather than the faculty of perceiving. Just as by the faculty of willing we can affirm an infinity of things (one after another, however, for we cannot afiirm an infinity of things simultaneously), so. 128 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART II by the faculty of perceiving, we can perceive by sense or become aware of an infinity of bodies (of course, one after another). If it be said, there are an infinity of things that we cannot perceive, I retort, we cannot attain to these same things by any thought, nor, conse- quently, by any power of willing. It is objected, if God chose to make us perceive these things also, he would indeed have to give us a greater power of per- ceiving, but not a greater power of willing, than he has given us. This is the same as saying that if God should choose to make us comprehend an infinity of other beings, it would, indeed, be necessary for him to give us a greater understanding than he has given us, but not a more general idea of being with which to embrace this infinity of beings. For we have shown the will to be a universal, that is, an idea by which we explain all particular volitions, or, rather, what is com- mon to them all. When, tlierefore, persons believe that this idea common to all volitions — this universal idea — is a faculty, no wonder they say this faculty extends infinitely beyond the limits of the understand- ing. A universal is predicated equally of one, of sev- eral, or of an infinity of individuals. The second objection I answer by denying that we have a free power of suspending judgment. When we say that one is suspending judgment, we say only that he sees he does not adequately perceive a thing. Hence suspending judgment is really perception and not free will. To understand this clearly, let us con- ceive a boy imagining a horse, and not perceiving any- thing else. Since this image involves the existence of the horse (17, ^^r.), and the boy does not perceive anything that denies the existence of the horse, he will necessarily regard the horse as present, nor will Prop. 49] THE MIND. 129 ne be able to doubt its existence, although he is not certain of it. This we daily experience in dreams, but I do not believe there is anyone who thinks that he, while he is dreaming, has a free power of suspend- ing judgment on the things he is dreaming, and of bringing it about that he should not dream he sees the things he is dreaming he sees. Nevertheless, it happens that even in dreams we suspend judgment, as when we dream that we are dreaming. Further- more, I admit that no one makes a mistake in so far as he perceives ; that is, I admit that the imaginations of the mind, in themselves considered, involve no error (17, sc/iol.) ; but I deny that a man, in so far as he perceives, makes no affirmation. What is it to perceive a winged horse, if not to affirm that a horse has wings ? For if the mind perceived nothing but the winged horse, it would regard it as present ; and it would have no cause to doubt of its existence, nor any power of dissenting, unless the image of the winged horse were connected with an idea that denied the existence of said horse, or unless it perceived its idea of a winged horse to be inadequate, in which case it would either necessarily deny the existence of said horse or necessarily doubt it. With this I think I have answered the third objec- tion also ; namely, in showing that will is a universal, predicated of all ideas, and that it signifies only what is common to all ideas, that is, an affirmation. Of this, consequently, the adequate essence, in so far as it is thus abstractly conceived, must be in every idea, and for this reason must be the same in all. But this is not true of it in so far as it is considered as con- stituting the essence of an idea, for in so far particular affirmations differ from each other as much as do ideas 130 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part II themselves. For example, the affirmation involved in the idea of a circle differs as much from that involved in the idea of a triangle as the idea of a circle does from the idea of a triangle. Again, I deny absolutely that we need an equal power of thinking to affirm that to be true which is true, and to affirm that to be true which is false. These two affirmations, from the point of view of the mind, are related to each other as being to not-being, for there is in ideas nothing posi- tive that constitutes the essence of falsity (35 and schol., and 47, sc/iol.). One must note, therefore, especially, how easily we make mistakes when we confound universals with particulars, and entities of the reason and abstractions with real things. Finally, as concerns ih.e fourth objection, I say that I quite admit that a man in such a state of equilib- rium (one, namely, who perceives nothing but hunger and thirst, and such food and drink placed at equal distances from him) will perish of hunger and thirst. If I be asked, is not such a man to be regarded as rather an ass than a man ? I say, I do not know ; just as I do not know how one should regard a man that hangs himself, or how one should regard children, fools, those of unsound mind, etc. It remains to indicate how much the knowledge of this doctrine contributes to the service of life, and this we shall easily comprehend from the following : First, it is of value in that it teaches us that we act solely according to God's decree, and are partici- pants in the divine nature ; and this the more, the more perfect the actions we perform, and the better and better we comprehend God. Hence this doctrine not only sets the soul completely at rest, but also teaches us in what our highest felicity or blessedness Prop. 49] the mind. 131 consists, to wit, only in the knowledge of God, which leads us to do only those things that love and piety recommend. Thus we see clearly how far from a true estimate of virtue are those who expect God to honor them with the highest rewards for their virtue and good actions, as though for the extremest slavery — as if virtue and the service of God were not felicity itself and the completest freedom. Second, it is of value in that it teaches us how to behave with regard to those things which depend upon fortune, and which are not within our power, that is, with regard to those things that do not follow from our nature. It teaches us, namely, to look forward to and to endure either aspect of fortune with equanimity, just because all things follow from the eternal decree of God, by the same necessity with which it follows from the essence of a triangle that its three angles are equal to two right angles. Third, this doctrine is of service to social life, in that it teaches to hate no one, to despise, to ridicule, to be angry at no one, to envy no one. It is of service, further, in that it teaches each one to be content with what he has, and to aid his neighbor, not from womanish pity, partiality, or superstition, but solely under the guidance of reason, according to the demands of the time and the case. This I shall show in Part III. Fourth, this doctrine is of no little advantage to the state, in that it shows how citi- zens ought to be governed and led ; namely, not so as to act like slaves, but so as to do freely what is best. With this I have fulfilled the task I set myself in this scholium, and here I bring to a close this my second Part. In it I think I have explained the nature of the human mind and its properties sufifi- 132 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. ciently at length, and, so far as the difficulty of the subject admits of it, with clearness. And I have set forth truths from which can be inferred, as will in part appear from what follows, much that is very excellent and exceedingly useful, and that it is neces- sary to know. 90 PART III. OF THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE EMOTIONS. Most of those who have written on the emotions and on human conduct seem to be treating not of natural things that obey the general laws of nature, but of things that lie outside of nature. Indeed, they appear to conceive of man in nature as a realm within a realm. For they regard man as rather disturbing than following the order of nature, as having absolute power over his actions, and as being determined solely by himself. Furthermore, human infirmity and in- constancy they attribute, not to the general power of nature, but to I know not what defect in human nature, which, accordingly, they bewail, deride, despise, or, more commonly, denounce ; and he who has learned to carp the most eloquently or the most in- geniously at the infirmity of the human mind is re- garded as a prophet. There have not been lacking, it is true, distinguished men (to whose labor and in- dustry I confess I owe much), who have written many excellent things concerning the right conduct of life, and have given to mortals counsels full of wisdom ; but yet no one, so far as I know, has determined the nature and strength of the emotions, and what the mind can do toward keeping them within bounds. I know, indeed, that the illustrious Descartes, although he believed the mind to have absolute power over its 134 'i'HE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [I'ART III actions, yet endeavored to explain human emotions by their first* causes, and to show how the mind can gain absolute control over the emotions ; but in my opinion he shows nothing but the acuteness of his own great mind, as I shall prove in the proper place, for I wish to return to those who would rather denounce or deride human emotions and actions than comprehend them. To these it will no doubt seem strange that I undertake to treat of human defects and follies by the geometrical method, and wish to prove by rigid reason- ing what they proclaim to be inconsistent with reason, unmeaning, absurd, and dreadful. But my reason is this : nothing happens in nature that can be attributed to a defect in it ; for nature is always the same, and its virtue or power of acting is everywhere one and the same ; that is, the laws and rules of nature, according to which all things come to pass and undergo their changes of form, are everywhere and always the same ; consequently there should be also one and the same method of comprehending the nature of things of whatever kind, namely, through the general laws and rules of nature. Therefore the emotions of hate, anger, envy, etc., considered in themselves, follow from the same necessity and power of nature as do all other particular things ; and hence own to definite causes, through which they are comprehended, and have definite properties as worthy of our knowledge as the properties of any other thing in the mere contem- plation of which we take delight. I shall treat, there- * Descartes distinguished between the proximate cause of the pas- sions — the movement of the pineal gland by the animal spirits — and their first causes, by which he meant the objects which act upon the senses and thus give rise to passions C^Les Passions de I'Ame.," Art. 51}. Preface] ' the emotions. 135 fore, of the nature and force of the emotions, and of the power which the mind has over them, by the same method as, in what precedes, I have treated of God and of the mind ; and I shall consider human actions and appetites just as though I were dealing with lines, surfaces, or solids. Definitions S)'^ 1. I call a cdi\\?,& adecjuaie, when through it its effect can be clearly and distinctly perceived. On the other hand, I call inadequate or partial, one whose effect cannot be comprehended through it alone. 2. When there takes place anything in us or outside of us, of which we are the adequate cause, that is {by the preceding definition), when there follows from our nature anything in us or outside of us which can be clearly and distinctly comprehended through our nature alone, I say that we are active. But when, on the other hand, there takes place anything in us, or when anything follows from our nature, of which we are only the partial cause, I say that we 2^x0. passive. 3. By emotion I mean modifications of the body, by which the body's power of acting is increased or diminished, assisted or restrained, and also the ideas of these modifications. //", therefore, we can be the adequate cause of any one of these modifications, by emotion I mean an action j otherwise I mean a passion. Postulates. I. The human body can be affected in many ways by which its power of acting is increased or dimin- ished, and in still other ways which render its power of acting neither greater nor less. 136 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part III This postulate or axiom rests upon postulate i and lemmas 5 and 7, q. v. after II, 13. 2. The human body can undergo many changes, and nevertheless retain the impressions or traces of objects {II, postulate 5), and, consequently, the same images of things. For the definition of these, see II, 17, schol. Prop. i. Our mind is in some respects active and in some respects passive : in so far as it has adequate ideas it is necessarily active, and in so far as it has inadequate ideas, it is necessarily passive. Proof. — Some of the ideas in every human mind are adequate, while others are fragmentary and con- fused (II, 40, schol.). Now the ideas that are ade- quate in any mind are adequate in God in so far as he constitutes the essence of that mind (II, 11, cor.); and those that are inadequate in a mind are adequate in God {by the same corollary), not in so far as he con- tains within himself merely the essence of that mind, but in so far as he at the same time contains within himself the minds of other things. Again, granted any idea, some effect must necessarily follow (I, 36), and of this effect God is the adequate cause {def. i), not in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he is considered as affected by the aforesaid idea (II, 9). But of an effect, of which God is the cause in so far as he is affected by an idea which is adequate in a given mind, that mind is the adequate cause (II, IT, cor.). Hence our mind {def. 2), in so far as it has adequate ideas, is necessarily active. This was the first point. In the second place, a man's mind is not the adequate, but a partial, cause of anything that necessarily follows from an idea that is adequate in God, not in so far as he contains merely the mind of Prop. 2] THE EMOTIONS. 137 that man, but in so far as he contains together with it also the minds of other things (II, ii, cor.). Hence {def. 2), in so far as the mind has inadequate ideas, it is necessarily passive. This was the second point. Therefore our mind, etc. 92 Q. E. D. Co7'ollary. — Hence it follows that, the more inade- quate ideas the mind has, the greater the number of passions to which it is subject ; and, on the other hand, the greater the number of its adequate ideas, the greater the number of its activities. Prop. 2. T]ie body cannot determine the mind to think, nor can the mind determine the body to motion or rest, or any other state, if there be any other. Proof. — Every mode of thinking has God for its cause in so far as he is a thinking thing, and not in so far as he is expressed by some other attribute (II, 6). Hence whatever determines the mind to think is a mode of thought and not a mode of extension ; that is (II, def. i) it is not a body. This was the first point. In the second place, the motion or rest of one body must be due to another body, which in turn was determined to motion or rest by another, and abso- lutely everything that takes place in a body must have had its source in God in so far as he is con- sidered as affected by some mode of extension, and not by some mode of thought (II, 6) ; in other words, it cannot have its source in the mind, which (II, 11) is a mode of thought. This was the second point. Therefore, the body cannet determine the mind to think, etc. Q. E. D. Scholium. — This may be more clearly comprehended from what I have said in II, 7, schol., to wit, that the mind and the body are one and the same thing, con- ceived now under the attribute of thought, now under '138 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part III that of extension. Whence it happens that the order or concatenation of things is the same, whether we conceive nature under this attribute or that ; and that, consequently, the order of the things done and suffered by our body is by nature the same as the order of the actions and passions of the mind. This is also evident from the proof I have given of prop. 12, Part II. These arguments leave no room for doubt, but nevertheless I scarcely think I can induce men to weigh them with an unprejudiced mind, unless I sup- port the doctrine by an appeal to experience, so firmly are men persuaded that the body is set in motion and is brought to rest solely at the mind's good pleasure, and performs a multitude of actions which depend only on the mind's choice and ability to think. For as yet no one has determined of what the body is capable ; in other words, experience has as yet taught no one what the body can do according to the laws of nature, considered merely as corporeal nature, and what it cannot do unless it be determined by the mind. For no one has as yet a sufficiently accurate knowledge of the structure of the body to be able to explain all its functions ; to say nothing of the fact that we observe in brutes many actions that far surpass human sagacity, and that somnambulists do a great many things while asleep that they would not dare to do when awake ; which sufficiently proves that the body, in accordance with the laws of its own nature solely, can do much that its mind wonders at. Again, no one knows how or by what means the mind moves the body, nor how many degrees of motion it can impart to the body, and how swiftly it can move it. Hence it follows that when men say Prop. 2] THE EMOTIONS. 139 that this or that action of the body has its source in the mind, which controls the body, they do not know what they are saying, and merely confess in high- sounding words that they are ignorant of the true cause of that action and do not wonder at it. They will object that, whether they do or do not know by what means the mind moves the body, yet they know by experience that if the human mind were not capable of thinking, the body would be motionless. Furthermore, that they know by experience that it is within the power of the mind alone to speak or to remain silent, and to do many other things which, consequently, they believe to depend upon the mind's decree. But, as regards the first point, I ask those who urge this objection whether experience does not also show that if the body remains motionless, the mind is inca- pable of thinking? For when the body comes to, rest in sleep, the mind slumbers with it, and has not the power of thinking it has when awake. Again, I think everyone knows by experience that the mind is not always equally capable of thinking about the same object ; but, according as the body is the better adapted to having the image of this or that object excited in it, the mind is the more capable of contemplating this or that object. It will be objected that one cannot, from the laws of nature, when nature is regarded merely as corporeal, deduce the causes of buildings, paintings, and things of this sort, which are due solely to human skill, nor could the human body, unless it were determined and guided by the mind, build a temple. But I have already shown that those who reason thus do not know what the body can do, or what can be deduced from a mere contemplation of 140 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part III its nature, and that they do know by experience that a great many things take place merely according to the laws of nature, that they never would have believed could take place except under the direction of the mind. Such are the acts performed by somnambulists during sleep — acts which they themselves wonder at when awake. I would, moreover, call attention to the structure of the human body, which vastly sur- passes in ingenuity anything constructed by human skill, to say nothing of the truth, proved above, that an infinity of things must follow from nature con- sidered under any attribute whatever. And as regards the second point, surely the condi- tion of human affairs would be much more satisfactory if it were as much within man's power to be silent as to speak. But experience gives sufficient and more than sufficient proof of the fact that there is nothing less under a man's control than his tongue, nor is there anything of which a man is less capable than of restrain- ing his impulses. This is the reason most persons believe that we are free only in doing those things to which we are impelled by slight desires, for the im- pulse to do such things can be easily checked by the memory of some other thing of which we often think ; but that we are by no means free in doing those things to which we are impelled by strong emotion, which cannot be checked by the memory of some other thing. But, had they not had experience of the fact that we do many things which we afterward regret, and that we often, when we are harassed by conflicting emotions, see the better and follow the worse, nothing would prevent them from believing that we are always free in our actions. Thus the infant believes it desires milk of its own free will ; the Prop. 2] THE EMOTIONS. I4I angry child that it is free in seeking revenge, and the timid that it is free in taking to flight. Again, a drunken man believes that he says of his own free will things he afterward, when sober, wishes he had left unsaid ; so also an insane man, a garrulous woman, a child, and very many others of the sort, believe they speak of their own free will, while, nevertheless, they are unable to control their impulse to talk. Thus experience itself shows, no less clearly than reason, that men think themselves free only because they are conscious of their actions and ignorant of the causes which determine them. It shows, moreover, that the mind's decisions are nothing but its impulses which vary with the varying condition of the body. For everyone regulates his actions as his emotions dictate ; and those who are harassed by conflicting emotions do not know what they want ; while those who are not controlled by any emotion are driven hither and thither by the slightest motive. All this certainly shows clearly that the mind's decision, as well as its impulse and the determining of the body, all are by nature simultaneous, or rather all are one and the same thing, which, when it is considered under and expressed by the attribute of thought, we call a decision, and when it is considered under the attri- bute of extension, and deduced from the laws of motion and rest, we call a determining. This will be still clearer from what I shall say later. But the point I would have you especially note here is that we cannot do anything by a decision of the mind unless we remember it. We cannot, for example, speak a word unless we remember that word. Moreover, it is not within the free power of the mind to remember a thing or to forget it. Hence it is believed that this 142 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part III alone is within the power of the mind : we can by the mere decision of the mind hold our peace concerning a thing we remember, or speak of it. But when we dream that we are speaking, we think we are speaking because our mind has freely decided to speak, and yet we are not speaking, or if we are speaking, it is due to a spontaneous motion of the body. Again, we dream that we are concealing things from men, and that by the same decision of the mind as that by which, when we are awake, we choose to hold our peace concerning the things we know. Finally we dream that, by the decision of our mind, we are doing things we do not dare to do when awake. In view of all this I should very much like to know whether there are in the mind two sorts of decisions, the one imaginary and the other free ? If such an absurdity is out of the question one must necessarily admit that this decision of the mind, which is thought to be free, is not distinguishable from imagination or memory, and is nothing but the affirmation necessa- rily involved in an idea, in that it is an idea (II, 49). Hence these decisions of the mind arise in the mind by the same necessity as the ideas of things actually existing. Those, therefore, who think that they speak, or hold their peace, or do anything whatever, by the free decision of the mind, are dreaming with open eyes. 93 Prop. 3. The acts of the viind spring solely from adequate ideas; its passions depend wholly upon those that are inadequate. Proof. — The first thing that constitutes the essence of the mind is nothing but the idea of the actually existent body (II, ir and 13), and this idea (11, 15) is composed of many others, some of which (II, 38, Prop. 5] THE EMOTIONS. 143 co7\) are adequate, and some inadequate (II, 29, cor). Hence everything tliat follows from the nature of the mind, and of which the mind is the proximate cause, through which it must be comprehended, must neces- sarily follow from an idea either adequate or inade- quate. But in so far as the mind has inadequate ideas it is necessarily passive (i). Therefore the acts of the mind follow solely from adequate ideas, and the mind is passive only in that it has inadequate ideas. Q. E. D. Scholium. — Thus we see that passions cannot be attributed to the mind except in so far as it contains something that involves negation ; that is, except in so far as it is considered as a part of nature, which cannot be clearly and distinctly perceived by itself, and independently of other parts. By similar reason- ing I might show that passions are to be attributed to all individual things in the same way as to the mind, and that they cannot be perceived in any other way, but it is my purpose to treat only of the human mind. 94 Prop. 4. NotJiing can be destroyed save by an external cause. Proof. — This proposition is self-evident, for the definition of a thing affirms the essence of that thing, but does not deny it ; in other words, it posits the essence of the thing, but does not remove it. As long, therefore, as we give our attention merely to the thing itself, and not to external causes, we shall be able to find in it nothing that can destroy it. 95 Q. E. D. Prop. 5. TJiings have contrary natures, that is, they cannot exist in the same object, in. so far as the one can destroy the other. 144 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part IH Proof. — If they could mutually agree, or could exist together in the same object, there could be in the said object something that could destroy it, which {by the preceding proposition) is absurd. Therefore, etc. Q. E. D. Prop. 6. Each thing, in so far as in it lies, strives to persevere in its being. Proof. — Particular things are modes, by which God's attributes are expressed in a definite and determinate manner (I, 25, cor?)\ that is (I, 34), things which express in a definite and determinate way God's power — that by which he is and acts. A thing, furthermore, has not in itself anything by which it can be destroyed, or which can annul its existence (4); on the contrary it is {by the preceding proposition) op- posed to everything that can annul its existence. Therefore, in so far as it can, and in so far as in it lies, it strives to persevere in its being.96 Q. E. D. Prop. 7. The endeavor ivith which each thing strives to persevere in its being is nothing bid the actual essence of the thing itself. Proof. — Granted the essence of anything, certain things necessarily follow (I, 36), nor are things able to do anything but what necessarily follows from their nature as determined (I, 29). Hence the power or endeavor of each thing, that by which the thing either alone or with others does or strives to do something, in other words (6) the power or endeavor by which it strives to persevere in its being, is nothing but the actual essence of the thing itself.97 Q. E. D. Prop. 8. The endeavor with which each thing strives to persevere in its being does not involve any finite time, but indefinite time. Proof. — If it involved a limited time that deter- Prop. 9] THE EMOTIONS. I45 mined the duration of the thing, then from the very power by which the thing exists it would follow that the thing, after that limited time, could not exist, but would have to be destroyed. But this (4) is absurd. Hence the endeavor by which a thing exists does not involve any definite time ; but on the contrary, since (4) if no external cause destroy it the thing will al- ways continue to exist through the same power through which it now exists, this endeavor involves indefinite time. Q. E. D. Prop. 9. The mind, both in so far as it has clear and distinct ideas, and in so far as it has confused ideas, strives to persevere indefinitely in its being, and is con- scious of this its endeavor. Proof. — The essence of the mind is composed of adequate and inadequate ideas (3), and hence (7) both in so far as it has the former and in so far as it has the latter it strives to persist in its being, and that (8) indefinitely. But since the mind (II, 23) is necessarily conscious of itself through the ideas of the modifications of the body, it is (7) conscious of its endeavor. Q. E. D. Scholium. — This endeavor, when it is referred to the mind alone, is called will, but when it is re- ferred to the mind and the body both, it is called impulse. It is, therefore, nothing but the very essence of man, from whose nature necessarily fol- low those actions that subserve his preservation. Hence man is conditioned to the performance of these actions. Again, there is no difference between impulse and desire, except that we usually speak of men as having desires when they are conscious of their impulses, and consequently desire may be de- fined as impulse accompanied by a consciousness of the 146 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part III same. Thus it is evident from all these considerations that we do not endeavor after, choose, strive for, or desire anything because we judge it to be good ; but, on the contrary, we judge a thing to be good because we endeavor after, choose, strive for, or desire it. Prop. 10. There cannot be in our mind an idea wJiich excludes the existence of our body, but such an idea is contrary to it. Proof. — Anything that can destroy our body cannot exist in it (5), and hence the idea of that thing cannot be in God in so far as he has an idea of our body (II, 9, cor.); in other words (II, 11 and 13) the idea of that thing cannot be in our mind ; but, on the con- trary, since (II, 11 atid 13), the first thing that consti- tutes the essence of the mind is the idea of a body actually existing, it is the first and the chief endeavor of our mind (7) to affirm the existence of our body. Therefore an idea that denies the existence of our body is contrary to our mind, etc. 98 Q. E. D. Prop. ii. Whatever increases or diminishes, aids or restrains, our body's power of acting, the idea of that thing increases or diminishes, aids or restrains, our mind' s power of thinking. Proof. — This proposition is evident from II, 7, or from II, 14. Scholium. — Thus we see that the mind can undergo great changes, passing now to a greater now to a lesser degree of perfection, and these passions explain to us the emotions of pleasure and pain. '^■^ pleasure, there- fore, I shall mean in what follows a passion in which the mind passes to a greater degree of perfection. 'Qy pain I shall mean a passion in which it passes to a lesser degree of perfection. Again, I call the emotion of pleasure, as referred to both mind and body, titillation or liveliness j Prop, ii] the emotions. 147 paiti so considered I call suffering or melancholy. But it should be noted that titillation and suffering are predicated of a man when one part of him is more affected than the rest ; and liveliness and melancholy when all parts are affected alike. What desire is I have explained in the scholium to prop. 9 of this Part. I recognize no primary emotion save these three, and shall show in what follows that the other emo- tions spring from these three. But before going further permit me here to give a fuller explanation of prop. 10, that it may be clearly understood how an idea may be contrary to an idea. In the scholium to prop. 17 of Part II, I have shown that the idea which constitutes the essence of the mind involves the existence of the body as long as the body itself exists. In the second place, from what I have proved in the corollary to prop. 8 of Part II, and in its scholium, it follows that the present existence of our mind depends solely upon this, to wit, that the mind involves the actual existence of the body. Finally, I have shown (II, 17, and 18 with its schol.) that the power of the mind, by which it imag- ines and remembers things, also depends upon this, namely, that it involves the actual existence of the body. Hence it follows that the present existence of the mind and its power of imagining are done away with, just as soon as the mind ceases to affirm the present existence of the body. But the cause of the mind's ceasing to affirm this existence of the body cannot be the mind itself (4), nor can it be the body's ceasing to exist. For (II, 6) the cause of the mind's affirming the existence of the body is not the body's having begun to exist ; and, therefore, by the same reasoning, it does not cease to affirm the existence 148 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part III of the body because the body ceases to exist ; but (II, 17) that it does this is due to another idea which excludes the present existence of our body, and, con- sequently, of our mind, and which is, therefore, contrary to the idea that constitutes the essence of our mind.99 Definitions of the Emotions. T-f^o 1. Desire is the very essence of man, in so far as this is conceived as determined to some action by any one of his modifications. 2. Pleasure is the transition of a man from a less to a greater perfection. 3. Pain is the transition of a man from a. greater to a less perfection. 4. Wonder is the conception of a thing, in which the mind remains fixed, because this particular con- ception has no connection with its other conceptions. 5. Contempt is the conception of a thing which im- presses the mind so little that the mind is moved by the presence of the thing rather to the conceiving of what is not in the thing, than of what is in it. 6. Love is pleasure, accompanied by the idea of an external cause. 7. Hate is pain, accompanied by the idea of an external cause. 8. Inclination is pleasure, accompanied by the idea of something which is per accidens^ the cause of the pleasure. 9. Aversion is pain, accompanied by the idea of something which '\% per accidens the cause of the pain. */. e., the thing in question happens under given ciixumstances to be the cause of the pleasure. Defs.] the emotions. 149 10. Devotion is love toward one whom we admire. 11. Dei'ision is pleasure, which has its source in the fact that we conceive something we despise to be in the thing we hate. 12. Hope is inconstant pleasure arising from the idea of something future or past, of the event of which we have some doubt. 13. Fear is inconstant pain arising from the idea of something future or past, of the event of which we have some doubt. 14. Confidence is pleasure arising from the idea of a thing future or past, regarding which cause for doubt has been removed. 15. Despair is pain arising from the idea of a thing future or past, regarding which cause for doubt has been removed. 16. Joy is pleasure, accompanied by the idea of something past that has turned out contrary to ex- pectation. 17. Disappointment is pain, accompanied by the idea of a thing past which has turned out contrary to expectation.* 18. Commiseration is pain, accompanied by the idea of misfortune which has happened to another, whom we conceive to be like ourselves. 19. Approbation is love toward one who has bene- fited another. 20. Indignation is hate toward one who has harmed another. 21. Over-estimation is thinking too highly of one, by reason of our love for him. * I take Mr. Pollock's rendering of the words conscientice morstts. 150 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Parj- HI 2 2. Under-estiination is thinking too little of one because we hate him. 23. Envy is hate, in so far as it leads a man to be pained by another's good fortune, and to take pleas- ure in another's misfortune. 24. Sympathy is love, in so far as it leads a man to take pleasure in another's good fortune, and to be pained by another's misfortune. 25. Self-satisfaction is pleasure arising from a man's contemplation of himself and his power of acting. 26. Humility is pain arising from a man's contem- plation of his own impotence or feebleness. 27. Repentance is pain, accompanied by the idea of some deed that we think we have done by the free decree of our mind. 28. Pride'\% thinking too highly "if one's self, by rea son of self-love. 29. Self-abasement is thinking too little of one's self because of pain. 30. Glorying is pleasure, accompanied by the idea of some one of our actions which we conceive others as praising. 31. Shame is pain, accompanied by the idea of some one of our actions which we conceive others as blaming. 32. Longing is desire or appetite for the possession of something, fostered by the memory of the thing, and at the same time restrained by the memories of other things which exclude the existence of the thing longed for. T^T^. Emulation is the desire for something, produced in us by the fact that we conceive others to have the same desire. 34. Thankfulness or Gratitude is the desire, or zeal Defs.] the emotions. 151 of love, with which we endeavor to benefit him who, from a like emotion of love, has conferred a benefit upon us. 35. Benevolence is the desire of benefiting him whom we pity. 36. Anger is the desire with which we are incited, from hate, to injure him whom we hate. 37. Revenge is the desire with which, from a recipro- cal hate, we are incited to harm him who, from a like emotion, has done us an injury. 38. Cruelty or Barbarity is the desire with which anyone is inclined to harm him whom we love or whom we pity. 39. Timidity is the desire to escape a greater evil, which we fear, by means of a less. 40. Boldness is the desire with which one is incited to some undertaking which involves peril that his equals fear to undergo. 41. Cowardice is attributed to him whose desire is restrained by fear of a peril that his equals dare to meet. 42. Consternation is attributed to him whose desire to escape evil is restrained by astonishment at the evil he fears. 43. Cou7'tesy or Modesty is the desire of doing what pleases men, and of avoiding what displeases them. 44. Ambition is the immoderate desire of fame. 45. Luxury is the immoderate desire or love of feasting. 46. Drunkenness is the immoderate desire and love of drinking. 47. Avarice is the immoderate desire and love of riches. 48. Lust is the desire and love of sexual intercourse. 152 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. General Definition of the Emotions, An emotion, which is called a passion {pathemd) of the soul, is a confused idea, through which the mind affirms the energy of existence possessed by its body, or any part of it, to be greater or less than it was before ; and through the presence of which the mind itself is determined to this thought rather than to that. PART IV. OF HUMAN BONDAGE, OR OF THE STRENGTH OF THE EMOTIONS. PREFACE, Man's inability to moderate and restrain the emo- tions I call Bondage ; for a man who is subject to the emotions is' not his own master, but is ruled by fortune, and is so in her power that he is often forced, although he sees what is better for him, to follow that which is worse. The cause of this, and, furthermore, what is good or evil in the emotions, I propose to show in this Part. But before I begin I wish to say a few words, by way of preface, concerning perfection and imperfection, and concerning good and evil. One who has undertaken to make something and has brought it to completion will call the thing per- fect ; and not he alone, but everyone who rightly knows, or thinks he knows, the purpose of the author of this work and its object. For example, if one sees some work (which I suppose to be not yet completed), and knows that it is the object of the author of this work to build a house, he will call the house imper- fect, and, on the other hand, he will call it perfect, as soon as he sees the work carried through to the con- clusion which its author determined to give it. But if one sees some work, the like of which he never saw, and does not know the purpose of the maker, he surely cannot know whether that work be perfect or »53 154 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART IV imperfect. This appears to have been the first mean- ing of these words.* But after men began to form general ideas, and to devise patterns of houses, build- ings, towers, etc., and to prefer some patterns of things to others, it came to pass that everyone called that perfect which he saw to be in harmony with the general idea he had formed of a thing of that kind ; and, on the other hand, called imperfect what he saw not to be in harmony with the pattern he had con- ceived, although it had been completed quite accord- ing to the intention of the maker. This appears to be the reason why even the things of nature, which have not been made by human hands, are commonly called perfect or imperfect. For men are wont to form general ideas of natural things as well as of artificial, and these they hold as patterns of things, as it were, and believe that nature (which they regard as doing nothing without some purpose) looks upon them, and sets them before itself as patterns. When, therefore, they see something take place in nature which is not in harmony with the pattern they had conceived of a thing of that kind, they think that nature itself has failed or has blundered, and has left that thing imper- fect. We see, then, that men have accustomed them- selves to call the things of nature perfect or imperfect rather from prejudice than from a true knowledge of them. I have shown in the Appendix to Part I. that nature does not act with any purpose in view ; for that eternal and infinite Being that we call God or Nature acts by the same necessity by which he exists. I have shown (I, i6) that he acts from the same neces- * The force of this is lost in translating. Perfectuni is the participle of perjicere, which means (i) to accomplish ; (2) to bring to completion, and thus to make perfect, — Tr, Preface] HUMAN BONDAGE. 155 sity of nature as that from which he exists. The reason, therefore, or cause, why God or Nature acts, and why he exists, is one and the same. As, there- fore, there is no final cause of his existing, there is also no final cause of his acting ; but, as of his existing, so also of his acting, there is no efficient cause, and no end. Moreover, what is called the final cause is nothing but human impulse itself, in so far as it is considered as the efficient or determining cause of something. For example, when we say that the living in it was the final cause of this or that house, we mean only that a man, because he formed a conception of the pleasures of domestic life, had an impulse to build a house. Hence, the living in it, in so far as it is con- sidered as final cause, is nothing but this particular impulse, which, in truth, is the efficient cause ; and it is regarded as the first, because men are commonly ignorant of the causes of their impulses. For they are, as I have already often said, conscious, indeed, of their actions and impulses, but ignorant of the causes through which they are determined to any particular impulse. As for the common opinion that nature sometimes fails or blunders, and produces imperfect things, I class this with the fictions of which I have treated in the Appendix to Part I. Perfection and imperfection, therefore, are really mere modes of think- ing; that is, notions, which we are accustomed to frame because we compare with one another individuals of the same species or genus. For this reason I have said above (II, def. 6) that by reality and perfection I mean the same thing. For we are accustomed to refer all the individual things in nature to one genus, which we call the highest genus ; that is, to the notion of being, which pertains to all without exception of 156 THE PHILOSOPHY OP SPINOZA. [Part IV the individual things in nature. In so far, therefore, as we refer the individual things in nature to this genus, and compare them with one another, and ascer- tain that some have more being or reality than others, in so far do we say that some are more perfect than others ; and in so far as we attribute to them anything that involves negation, as limit, end, impotence, etc., in so far do we call them imperfect, because they do not impress our minds as much as those we call per- fect, and not because they lack something that belongs to them, or because nature has blundered. For nothing belongs to the nature of anything, except what follows from the necessity of the nature of the efficient cause ; and whatever follows from the neces- sity of the nature of the efficient cause necessarily comes to pass. As for good and evil, these terms indicate no posi- tive element in things, considered, that is to say, in themselves. They are only modes of thinking, or notions, which we form because we compare things with one another. For one and the same thing can be at the same time good, bad, and indifferent. For example, music is good for the melancholy man, and bad for him who mourns ; while for the deaf man it is neither good nor bad. But, although this is so, we should, nevertheless, retain these terms. For since we desire to form an idea of man — a pattern, as it were, of human nature, upon which we may gaze — it will be of service to us to retain these terms in the sense in which I have spoken. Therefore, I shall hereafter mean by " good " what we certainly know to be a means by the aid of which we may come to resemble more and more the pattern of human nature that we have set before us. By " evil," on the other Preface] human BONDAGE. 157 hand, I shall mean what we certainly know hinders us from reflecting that pattern. Furthermore, I shall say that men are more perfect or less perfect, in proportion as they resemble more or less closely this pattern. For it should specially be noted that when 1 speak of a man as passing from a less to a greater perfection, and conversely, I do not mean that he is changed from one essence or form to another (a horse, for example, is as much destroyed by being changed into a man, as by being changed into an insect) ; but I mean that we conceive his power of acting, in so far as we comprehend this through his own nature, to be increased or diminished. Finally, by perfection, taken generally, I shall mean reality, as I have said ; that is, the essence of anything, in so far as it exists and operates in a definite manner, without regard to its duration. For no particular thing can be said to be more perfect from the fact that it has continued longer in existence. Indeed, the duration of things cannot be determined from their essence, seeing that the essence of things involves no definite and deter- minate time of existence. But each thing, whether it be more perfect or less, will always be able to con- tinue to exist with the same force with which it begins to exist ; so that all things are, in this respect, equal. loi Definitions. 1. By good I mean what we certainly know to be useful to us. 2. By evil I mean what we certainly know hinders us from obtaining possession of some good. (Concerning these, see the preceding preface, near the end.) 3. Individual things I call contingent, in so far as, so 158 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part IV long as we pay attention merely to their essence, we discover nothing that necessarily affirms their exist- ence or that necessarily excludes it. 4. These individual things I call possible, in so far as, while we pay attention to the causes by which they must be produced, we do not know whether these causes are determined to their production. (In I, T^T^^ schol. T, I made no distinction between possible and contingent, because there was no need there to distinguish them so carefully.) 5. By contrary emotions I shall mean in what follows those that draw man in different directions, even though they belong to the same genus, as luxury and avarice, which are species of love. These are con- trary, not in their nature \>\x\. per accidens.^ 6. What I mean by emotion toivard a tiling future, present, or past, I have explained in III, 18, schols. i and 2, q. v. \ (But one must here note that, as in the case of space, so also in the case of time, we cannot distinctly conceive distance save up to a certain definite limit. That is, just as we are accustomed to conceive as equally distant from us, and, hence, as though they were in the same plane, all those objects which are more than two hundred feet away from us, or the dis- tance of which from the place in which we are is greater than that we distinctly conceive ; so also we * See note to definitions of the emotions, 8. fin schol. I, a thing past or future is defined as one by which " we have been or shall be affected." Tlie image of such a tiling is said to affect the body as if the tiling itself were present ; though the emotions arising from such images are declared to be inconstant so long as one is not certain of the issue of the thing. In schol. 2 are given definitions of Hope, Fear, Confidence, Despair, Joy, and Disappointment. See definitions of the emotions, 12 to 17. — Tr. App. I] HUMAN BONDAGE. 159 conceive as equally far from the present all objects whose time of existing is distant from the present by a greater interval than that we are accustomed distinctly to conceive, and we refer them, as it were, to the same moment of time.) 7. By the end, for the sake of which we do anything, I mean the impulse. 8. By virtue and power I mean the same thing ; that is (III, 7), virtue, in so far as it relates to man, is the very essence or nature of man, in so far as he has the power of effecting certain things that can be comprehended solely through the laws of his own nature. 102 Axiom. There is in nature no individual thing which is not exceeded in power and strength by some other thing. Than each thing there is always another thing more powerful, by which it can be destroyed. APPENDIX. 103 What I have said in this part concerning the right method of living has not been so arranged that it can be seen at a glance, but I have proved what I have advanced piecemeal, as I was best able to deduce one thing from another. Accordingly, I will here gather up my remarks and reduce them to the form of a summary. I. All our strivings, or desires, follow in such a way from the necessity of our nature that they can be comprehended either through it alone, as through their proximate cause, or through our being a part of l6o THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part IV nature, which cannot be adequately conceived by itself without other individuals. IL The desires, which follow from our nature in such a way that they can be comprehended through it alone, are such as are referred to the mind, in so far as it is conceived as consisting of adequate ideas. The other desires, however, are not referred to the mind, except in so far as it conceives things inadequately, and their strength and growth must be defined, not as human power, but as that of the things which are outside of us. Hence, the former are properly called actions, the latter passions ; for the former always indicate our power ; the latter, on the contrary, our impotence and fragmentary knowledge. III. Our actions, that is, those desires which are defined as due to man's power, or to reason, are always good, but the others may be good or bad. IV. Hence it is of the utmost service in life to perfect the understanding or reason, as far as we can ; and in this one thing consists man's highest felicity or blessed- ness. Indeed, blessedness is nothing but that very satisfaction of the soul which arises from an intuitive knowledge of God. But to perfect the understanding is only to comprehend God, his attributes, and the actions that follow from the necessity of his nature. Wherefore the ultimate aim of the man who is con- trolled by reason, that is, the highest desire, with which he strives to restrain all the others, is that which impels App. VIII] HUMAN BONDAGE. l6l him to conceive adequately himself and everything that can fall within the scope of his understanding. V. There is, therefore, no rational life without intelli- gence ; and things are good only in so far as they help man to enjoy the life of the mind, which is defined as intelligence. On the other hand, those things that hinder man from being able to perfect his reason and enjoy a rational life, these alone do we call bad. VI. But since all those things of which man is the effi- cient cause are necessarily good, no evil can happen to man except from external causes ; that is to say, no evil can happen to him except in so far as he is a part of the whole of nature, whose laws human nature is compelled to obey, and to which it is forced to adjust itself in almost an infinity of ways. VII. It is impossible for man not to be a part of nature, and not to follow its general order ; but if he be placed among such individual things as harmonize with the nature of man itself, that will, in itself, aid and increase man's power of acting. If, on the con- trary, he be placed among such as do not harmonize with his nature, he will scarcely be able, without greatly changing, to adjust himself to them. VIII. Everything in nature that we judge to be evil — in other words, to hinder us from being able to exist and enjoy a rational life — we may remove from us in the way that appears safest ; everything, on the other l62 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part IV hand, that we judge to be good — in other words, serviceable for the preservation of our being and the enjoyment of a rational life — we may turn to our profit, and use as we please ; and by the highest law of nature each one may do that, without restriction, which he thinks contributes to his profit. IX. Nothing can be more in harmony with the nature of anything than the other individuals of the same species. Hence (VII) there is nothing of more serv- ice to man for the preservation of his being and the enjoyment of a rational life than the man who is con- trolled by reason. Again, since among individual things we know nothing more excellent than the man who is controlled by reason, in nothing can one better show how much skill and ability he possesses than in so educating men that at last they live strictly under the dominion of reason. X. In so far as men are influenced by envy or by any emotion of hate toward one another, in so far are they mutually opposed ; and, hence, they are the more to be feared, as they have more power than the other individual things in nature. XI. Souls, however, are not conquered by force of arms, but by love and magnanimity, XII. It is of the utmost service to men'' to enter into social intercourse, and to bind themselves with those App. XIV] HUMAN BONDAGE. 163 bonds that are best fitted to make them all a unit, and to do just those things that serve to strengthen friendship. XIII. But for this skill and vigilance are required. Men differ (for they are rare who live according to the dictates of reason), and yet most men are envious, and inclined rather to revenge than to pity. It needs, therefore, special strength of mind for one to follow one's own bent and restrain one's self from copying their emotions. But those, on the other hand, who know how to carp at men, and rather to upbraid them with vices than to teach them virtues — not to strengthen men's minds, but to crush them — these are a burden to themselves and everyone else. Where- fore, many, through an excessive impatience of mind and a false zeal of religion, have preferred living among brutes to living among men ; as boys or youths who cannot bear with equanimity the chiding of their parents fly to military service, and prefer the hardships of war and the authority of a despotic power to domestic pleasures and paternal admonitions, and suffer any burden to be laid upon them in order to be revenged on their parents. XIV. Therefore, although men regulate nearly everything according to their lusts, nevertheless there results from their common fellowship much more good than harm. Hence it is better to bear their injustices with equanimity, and to do zealously what serves to estab- lish harmony and friendship. 164 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART IV XV. The things that engender harmony are those that are referred to justice, equity, and honor. For men bear with reluctance not only what is unjust and unfair, but also what is considered disgraceful ; that is, one's despising the accepted morals of a state. But for winning love those things are especially neces- sary that regard religion and piety. On these points see : IV, 37, schols. i and 2, 46, schol., and 73, schol.* XVI. Harmony is commonly the result of fear, but it is then not to be depended upon. Add to this, that fear springs from weakness of the soul, and does not, there- fore, belong to the use of reason ; nor does pity, although it seems to present the appearance of piety. XVII. Men are also won by liberality, especially those who have not the means of purchasing the necessaries of life. But to give aid to everyone who has need far surpasses the power and the profit of a private man. The wealth of a private man is far from able to meet such demands. Moreover the ability of a single man is too limited to permit him to join all men to himself * In which it is argued that the man of mere impulse tries to force men to live in the way which happens to please him, and becomes hateful to them ; while he who strives to lead men by reason always acts courteously, kindly, and consistently. Reli- gion is defined as those acts of which we are the cause, in so far as we have a knowledge of God ; piety, as a life according to reason ; honor, as the desire of a man, living according to reason, to associate others with him in friendship. The mutual helpfulness of good men is dwelt upon. — Tr, Apf. XX] HUMAN BONDAGE. 165 in friendship ; hence the care of the poor is incumbent upon society as a whole, and concerns only the com- mon good. XVIII. In receiving favors and returning thanks, our duty is quite different, concerning which see IV, 70, schol., and 71, schol.* XIX. The love of a harlot — that is, lust of generation, which springs from beauty, and in general all love that owns to any other cause than freedom of the soul — easily passes over into hate ; unless, which is worse, it be a species of madness, and then it promotes discord rather than concord. See III, 31, cor.f XX. As regards marriage, it is certain that this is in harmony with reason, if the desire for sexual inter- course be not engendered by beauty alone, but also by the desire of begetting children and educating them wisely ; and if, further, the love of both — that is, of the man and of the woman — has for its cause not mere beauty, but chiefly freedom of soul. * Wherein it is stated that one should, as far as possible, avoid receiving favors, yet should in this exercise caution and avoid giving offense ; that one should repay in kind favors received : that ingratitude is base, as indicating that a man is affected by hatred, anger, pride, avarice, etc. — Tr. f . . . everyone strives, as far as he can, to have everyone love what he loves and hate vs'hat he hates : as the poet says : Speremtcs pariter, parifer meiuamus amantes ; Ferretis est, si quis, quod sinit alter ^ amat. (Ovid, Amoves^ II, xix. 4, 5. — Tr.) l66 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART IV XXI. Furthermore, flattery engenders harmony, but through the disgraceful crhne of slavishness or per- fidy ; indeed, none are more taken with flattery than the proud, who wish to be first and are not. XXII. Self-abasement has a false appearance of piety and religion. And although self-abasement is the opposite of pride, nevertheless he who abases himself is nearest to the proud. See IV, 57, schol.* XXIII. Shame contributes to harmony only in those things that cannot be concealed. Further, since shame itself is a species of pain, it has no relation to the use of reason. XXIV. The other emotions of pain that have men for their object are directly opposed to justice, equity, honor, piety, and religion ; and although indignation seems to resemble equity, yet men live lawlessly where any- one may pass judgment upon another's deeds and vindicate his own right or that of another. XXV. Modesty, that is, the desire of pleasing men, that is determined by reason, is (as I have said in IV, 37, scJiol. I t) referred to piety. But if it springs from * In which it is argued that his pain comes from the comparison of his own weakness with the power of others, and thus the dis- covery of faults in others will give him pleasure, as raising him in the scale. Pride is defined as pleasure arising from a sense of superiority over others. — Tr. f See note to XV.— Tr, App. XXVII] HUMAN BONDAGE. 167 emotion, it is ambition, that is, a desire by which men, under the false appearance of piety, commonly excite discords and seditions. For he who desires to aid others by counsel or deed, that all together may enjoy the highest good, will first of all endeavor to win their love for himself ; he will not strive to lead them to admire him, that a doctrine may bear his name, and he will try not to give them any ground whatever for envy. Farther, in conversation he will avoid referring to men's faults, and will take care to speak only spar- ingly of human infirmity, but more at length of human virtue or power and how it can be perfected ; that thus men may strive to live, as far as they can, accord- ing to the dictates of reason, not from fear or aversion, but influenced merely by the emotion of pleasure. XXVI. Except men, we know no individual thing in nature, in the mind of which we can take delight, and which we can join with us in friendship or any kind of com- panionship. Hence a regard for our interest does not require us to preserve anything that exists in nature except men, but teaches us, according to its various uses, to preserve it, to destroy it, or to adapt it to our use in any way whatever. XXVII. The advantage we derive from things external to us is, besides the experience and knowledge we gain by observing them and by changing them from one form to another, chiefly the preservation of the body ; and in this respect those things are especially useful that can so sustain and nourish the body that all its parts can rightly perform their functions. For the more l68 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part IV capable the body is of being affected in many ways, and of affecting external bodies in many ways, the more capable the mind is of thinking (IV, 38 and 39).* But very few things in nature appear to be of this kind ; wherefore, to nourish the body properly, it is necessary to use many aliments of different sorts. The human body, indeed, is composed of very many parts of different natures, which need constant and varied nutriment, that the whole body may be equally capable of all those actions that may follow from its nature, and, hence, that the mind also may be equally capable of framing many conceptions. XXVIII. But the strength of each man would scarcely suffice to procure this, did not men mutually aid each other. Now money has furnished us a representative for everything, whence it has happened that its image is wont to greatly occupy the mind of the masses ; for they can scarcely imagine any kind of pleasure unac- companied by the idea of money as its cause. XXIX. But this is a vice only in those who seek money, not from need, nor on account of their necessities, but because they have learned the arts of gain, with which they carry themselves ostentatiously. For the rest, they nourish their body from force of habit, but spar- ingly, believing that they lose as much of their sub- stance as they spend on the preservation of their body. But those who know the true value of money, and regulate the measure of their wealth solely according to their need, live content with little. *See II, 14. App. XXXI] • HUMAN BONDAGE. 169 XXX. Since, therefore, those things are good that help the parts of the body to perform their functions, and pleasure consists in this, that the power of man, in so far as he is composed of mind and body, is aided and increased — all those things that give pleasure are good. Nevertheless, since, on the other hand, things do not act with the purpose of giving us pleasure, and their power of acting is not adjusted to suit our advantage, and since, finally, pleasure is very often referred chiefly to one part of the body, emotions of pleasure (unless one exercise reason and vigilance), and hence also the desires engendered by them, are often excessive. Besides, an emotion leads us to put that first which is agreeable at the present time, nor are we able to regard what is future with an equal emotion of the soul. (IV, 44, schol., and 60, schol!^^ XXXI. Superstition, however, appears to maintain that to be good which gives pain, and, on the other hand, that bad which gives pleasure. But, as I have already said (IV, 45, scJiol.\^, no one but the envious takes pleasure in my infirmity and misfortune. For the greater the pleasure with which we are affected, the * The former argues that emotions referred to one part of the body are excessive, in that they so hold the mind to the thought of one object that it is unable to pass to others. Excessive absorption in a single object is madness. The latter refers back to IV, 9, which reads : " An emotion, the cause of which we conceive to be with us at the present time, is stronger than if we did not conceive the cause to be with us." This is proved from II, 17. — Tr. \ Simply says at greater length what is said above. — Tn, l70 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. greater the perfection to which we pass, and con- sequently the greater our participation in the divine nature ; and a pleasure which is regulated by a true regard for our advantage can never be evil. But he who is ruled by fear, and does good to avoid evil, is not ruled by reason. XXXII. But human power is very limited, and is infinitely exceeded by the power of external causes ; hence we have not absolute power to turn to our advantage the things that are external to us. Nevertheless, we will bear with equanimity those things that happen to us contrary to what a regard for our profit demands, if we are conscious tliat we have done our duty, and that the power we have could not have reached so far as to enable us to avoid them ; and that we are a part of the whole of nature, whose order we follow. If we clearly and distinctly comprehend this, that part of us which is defined as intelligence — that is, the best part of us — will be entirely satisfied with this, and will strive to persevere in this satisfaction. For in so far as we have understanding, we can desire only what is neces- sary, and we can have perfect satisfaction only in the truth ; in so far, therefore, as we rightly comprehend this, in so far does the endeavor of the better part of us harmonize with the order of nature as a whole. PART V. OF THE POWER OF THE UNDERSTANDING, OR OF HUMAN FREEDOM. PREFACE. I PASS now to another Part of the " Ethics," and this is concerned with the method or way that leads to Freedom. I shall here, accordingly, treat of the power of reason, and shall show, first, what influence reason itself can have upon the emotions, and, second, what the freedom or blessedness of the mind is. From this we shall see how much more power the wise man has than the ignorant. The further inquiries, however, how and in what way the understanding should be brought to perfection, and in what manner the body should be cared for, that it may be able properly to perform its functions — these do not belong here. The latter concerns medicine, the former logic. Here, therefore, I shall, as I have said, treat only of the power of the mind or of reason, and I shall show first of all, how great and of what sort is the control it has over the emotions in compelling or restraining them. That we have not absolute control over them I have just demonstrated. Yet the Stoics thought them absolutely dependent on our will, and that we can control them absolutely. Nevertheless, they were compelled by the protest of experience, and not in- deed by their own principles, to admit that it requires no little practice and exertion to control and to restrain 172 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART V them. This someone has attempted to show by the illustration of the two dogs (if I remember rightly), the one a house-dog, and the other a hunting-dog. For it has been possible, by training, to accustom the house-dog to hunt ; the hunting-dog, on the contrary, to give over chasing hares. To this opinion Descartes was strongly inclined. For he maintained that the soul or mind is united chiefly with a certain part of the brain called the pineal gland, by means of which the mind perceives all the motions that are ex- cited in the body and external bodies, and which the mind can move in diverse ways by merely willing to do so. He held that this little gland is so sus- pended in the middle of the brain that it can be moved by the least motion of the animal spirits. He held, furthermore, that this gland may be suspended in the middle of the brain in as many different ways as there are different ways in which the animal spirits impinge upon it ; and that, further, there may be as many different traces imprinted upon it as there are different external objects that propel the animal spirits toward it. Whence it happens that if, after- ward, by the volition of the soul moving it in various ways, the gland be suspended in this or that way in which it was once before suspended by the spirits driven in this or that way, the said gland will propel and determine the said animal spirits in the same way as they were before driven by a similar suspension of the little gland. He held, moreover, that each volition of the mind is united by nature to a certain definite motion of the gland. For example, if one will to look upon a distant object, this volition causes a dilatation of the pupil ; but if one think only of dilating the pupil, it is of no use to have the will to do this, for nature Preface] HUMAN FREEDOM. 173 has not joined with the will to dilate or contract the pupil, that motion of the gland that serves to impel the spirits toward the optic nerve in the proper way for dilating or contracting the pupil, but has joined this only with the will to look upon distant or near objects. Finally he held that, although each motion of this little gland seems to have been joined by nature with a single one of our thoughts from the beginning of our life, yet these motions can be joined with other thoughts as a result of habit. This he tried to prove in Art. 50, Part I, of the " Passions of the Soul." From these considerations he infers there is no soul so feeble that it cannot, when well directed, acquire an absolute power over its passions. These are, as he has defined ihtvci, perceptions, or sensatiy the pre- ceding proposition) this love of the mind is a part of the infinite love with which God loves himself. Q. E. D. Corollary. — Hence it follows that God, in so far as he loves himself, loves men, and consequently that the love of God toward men and the intellectual love of the mind toward God are one and the same. Scholium. — From this we clearly comprehend in what our salvation, or blessedness, or freedom con- sists ; to wit, in an unchangeable and eternal love toward God, that is, in the love of God toward men. This love or blessedness is in the sacred Scriptures called glory, and not without justice. For whether this love be referred to God, or to the mind, it may justly be called a satisfaction of the mind, which, in truth, is not distinguishable from glory (defs. of the emotions, 25 and 30). In so far as it is referred to God, it is (35) pleasure^ — let me still use this word — with the accompanying idea of himself ; and it is the same thing in so far as it is referred to the mind (27). Again, from the fact that the essence of our mind consists in knowledge alone, of which the source and foundation is God (I, 15, and II, 47, schol.), it be- comes clear to us how and in what way our mind follows, as regards its essence and existence, from the 202 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART V divine nature, and continually depends on God. I have thought it worth while to note this here, that I might show by this illustration of how much worth is that knowledge of individual things, that I have called intuitive or of the third kind (II, 40, scJiol. 2), and how preferable to general knowledge, which, I have said, is of the second kind. For although, in Part I, I showed by a general argument that all things (including, consequently, the human mind) depend upon God as regards their essence and exist- ence ; nevertheless that demonstration, while it is legitimate and placed beyond risk of doubt, yet does not so impress our mind as when the same conclusion is drawn from the very essence of some individual thing which we say depends upon God. 130 Prop. 37. There is nothijig in nature that is opposed to this intellectual love, that is, that can destroy it. Proof. — This intellectual love necessarily follows from the nature of the mind, in so far as this is con- sidered as an eternal truth through the nature of God (33 ajid 29). If, then, there were anything that were opposed to this love, it would be opposed to the truth : and, consequently^ that which could destroy this love would bring it to pass that what is true would be false ; which {as is self-evident) is absurd. Therefore, there is nothing in nature, etc. 131 Q. E. D. Scholium. — The axiom of Part IV. has to do with individual things, in so far as they are considered with relation to a definite time and place. No one, I think, doubts this. Prop. 38. The greater the number of things the mind kjiows by tJie second and third kinds of knowledge^ the less is it subject to hurtful emotions, and the less does it fear death. , Prop. 39J human freedom. 203 Proof. — The essence of the mind consists in knowledge (IT, 11); hence, the greater the number of things the mind knows by the second and third kinds of knowledge, the greater the part of it which abides (29 and 23), and, consequently {l>y the preceding proposition^., the greater the part of it which is not affected by the emotions that are contrary to our nature, that is (IV, 30),* that are hurtful. Therefore, the greater the number of things the mind knows by the second and third kinds of knowledge, the greater the part of it that remains unharmed, and conse- quently, the less is it subject to hurtful emotions, etc. Q. E. D. Scholium. — From this we comprehend what I have touched upon in the scholium to IV, 39, and have promised to explain in this Part ; namely, that death is the less hurtful^ the greater the clear and distinct knowledge of the mind, and consequently the more the mind loves God. Furthermore, since (27) from the third kind of knowledge springs the highest possible satisfaction, it follows that the human mind can be of such a nature that the part of it which I have shown to perish with the body (21) is of no importance in comparison with the part of it which remains. But more of this presently. 132 Prop. 39. He whose body is capable of the greatest number of activities has a mind, the greatest part of tvhich is eternal. Proof. — He whose body is capable of the greatest number of activities is the least harassed by hurtful emotions (IV, 38), f that is (IV, 30),! by emotions * See note to prop. 10. — Tr. f See IV, App. XXVII, and note.— Tr. X See note to prop. 10. — Tr. 204 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PaRT V which are contrary to our nature. Therefore (lo) he has the power of arranging and concatenating the modifications of the body according to the intellectual order, and consequently of bringing it about (14) that all the modifications of the body are referred to the idea of God. Whence it happens (15) that he is affected with love toward God, which (16) must occupy or constitute the greatest part of the mind ; and hence (33) he has a mind, the greatest part of which is eternal. Q. E. D. Scholium. — Since human bodies are capable of very many activities, there is no doubt but that they can be of such a nature as to be related to minds that have a great knowledge of themselves and of God, and of which the greatest or the chief part is eternal — of such a nature, consequently, as scarcely to fear death. That this may be the more clearly compre- hended, one should here consider that we live in con- tinual change, and according as we change for the better or for the worse, we are said to be fortunate or unfortunate. He who, from being an infant or a child, becomes a corpse, is said to be unfortunate, and, on the other hand, it is regarded as good fortune to have been able to pass the whole span of life Avith a healthy mind in a healthy body. And in truth, he who, like an infant or a child, has a body capable of very few activities, and very dependent on external causes, has a mind that, in itself considered, is scarcely conscious of itself, of God, or of things ; on the other hand, he who has a body capable of very many activities has a mind that, in itself considered, has a vivid consciousness of itself, of God, and of things. In this life, therefore, it is our chief endeavor to change the body of the infant, as far as its nature Prop. 40] HUMAN FREEDOM. 205 permits, and as far as is profitable for it, into another body capable of very many activities, and related to a mind conscious of itself, of God, and of very many things ; so that all that is referred to its memory or imagination will be, in comparison with the under- standing, of scarcely any importance, as I have just said in the scholium to the preceding proposition. i33 Prop. 40. The more perfection each thing has, the more active is it, and the less passive j a7id, conversely, the more active it is, the more perfect is it. Proof. — The more perfect each thing is, the more reality has it (II, def. 6), and consequently (III, 3, and schol.), the more active is it and the less passive. This demonstration proceeds in the same way in in- verse order ; whence it follows that, conversely, a thing is the more perfect, the more active it is. Q. E. D. Corollary. — Hence it follows that the part of the mind which abides, whatever its amount, is more per- fect than the rest. For the eternal part of the mind (23 and 29) is the understanding, and it is on account of this alone that we are said to be active (III, 3) ; but the part that we have shown perishes is just the imagination (21), and it is on account of this alone that we are said to be passive (III, 3, and general def . of the emotions). Therefore {by the preceding proposi- tion), the former, whatever its amount, is more perfect than the latter. Q. E. D. Scholium. — These are the things I set out to prove with regard to the mind, in so far as it is considered without relation to the existence of the body. From these, and at the same time from I, 21, and other prop- ositions, it appears that our mind, in so far as it knows, is an eternal mode of thinking, which is de- 2o6 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART V termined by another eternal mode of thinking, this again by another, and so to infinity ; so that they all together constitute the eternal and infinite intel- lect of God. 134 Prop. 41. Even if we did not know otir jjiind to be eternal, we should nevertheless regard as of the highest importance piety and religion, and all withoict restriction of those things that, as I have shown in Part IV, are referred to courage and niagnani?nity. Proof. — The first and only foundation of virtue or of aright method of living (IV, 22, cor., andlY, 24)* is to seek one's own advantage. But in the determina- tion of what reason pronounces to be of advantage, we have taken no account of the eternity of the mind, which we have come to a knowledge of only in this Fifth Part. Hence, although at that time we were ignorant that the mind is eternal, we regarded as of the highest importance those things that, as I have shown, are referred to courage and magnanimity. Therefore, were we even now ignorant of that fact, we should nevertheless regard as of the highest impor- tance these precepts of reason. Q. E. D. Scholium. — The belief of the multitude appears to be otherwise. Most men seem to think that they are free just in so far as they are permitted to gratify desire, and that they give up their independence just in so far as they are obliged to live according to the precept of the divine lav/. Piety, then, and religion, and all things, without restriction, that are referred to greatness of soul, they regard as burdens ; and they hope after death to lay these down and to receive the reward of their bondage, that is, of piety and religion. And not by this hope alone, but also and chiefly by * See IV, def. 8 ; IV, App. IV, and Note 103.— Tr. Prop. 42] human freedom. 207 fear — the fear of being punished after death with dire torments — are they induced to live according to the precept of the divine law so far as their poverty and feebleness of soul permit. If men had not this hope and fear, but if, on the contrary, they thought that minds perished with the body, and that for the wretched, worn out with the burden of piety, there was no con- tinuation of existence, they would return to their incli- nation, and decide to regulate everything according to their lusts, and to be governed by chance rather than by themselves. This seems to me no less absurd than it would seem if someone, because he does not believe he can nourish his body with good food to eternity, should choose to stuff himself with what is poisonous and deadly ; or, because he sees that his mind is not eternal or immortal, should choose on that account to be mad, and to live without reason. These things are so absurd as scarcely to be worth mentioning.iSS Prop. 42. Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself ; nor do tve rejoice in it because we restrain the desires, but on the contrary, becau.se we rejoice in it we are able to restrain the desires. Proof. — Blessedness consists in love toward God (36, and schol.), which love- springs from the third kind of knowledge (32, cor.). Therefore this love (III, 59,* a7id III, 3) must be referred to the mind in so far as it is active, and hence (IV, def. 8) it is virtue itself. This was the first point. In the second place, the more the mind rejoices in this divine love or blessed- ness, the more it knows (32); that is (3, cor.), the greater the power it has over the emotions, and (38) the less it is subject to emotions that are hurtful. Therefore, from the fact that the mind rejoices in this *See III, I.— Tr. 2o8 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. divine love or blessedness, it has the power of restrain- ing the desires. And since the power of man to re- strain the emotions consists in understanding alone, no one rejoices in blessedness because he has re- strained the emotions, but, on the contrary, the power of restraining the desires springs from blessedness itself. Q. E. D. Scholium. — With this I have completed all that I intended to show regarding the power of the mind over the emotions, and the freedom of the mind. From what I have said it is evident how much stronger and better the wise man is than the ignorant man, who is led by mere desire. For the ignorant man, besides being agitated in many ways by external causes, and never attaining true satisfaction of soul, lives as it were without consciousness of himself, of God, and of things, and just as soon as he ceases to be acted upon, ceases to be. While, on the contrary, the wise man, in so far as he is considered as such, is little disturbed in mind, but, conscious by a certain eternal necessity of himself, of God, and of things, he never ceases to be, but is always possessed of true satisfaction of soul. If, indeed, the path that I have shown to lead to this appears very difficult, still it may be found. And surely it must be difficult, since it is so rarely found. For if salvation were easily attained, and could be found without great labor, how could it be neglected by nearly everyone ? But all excellent things are as difficult as they are rare. 136 CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES. INTRODUCTORY NOTE. Since the limits of this volume do not permit of my printing extended extracts from certain of Spinoza's writings which cast a light upon his theory of knowledge, and are of no small assistance in ex- plaining the reasoning contained in the " Ethics," and since those reasonings are, both on account of their unfortunate mathematical dress and on account of the peculiar character of the writer's thought, difficult of comprehension even to students who have had a good training in the interpretation of philosophical systems, I have thought it desirable in this edition to give rather copious notes, and to preface them with a brief exposition of our author's theory of knowledge and an examination of the general structure of his thought. In this preface I do not examine in detail all of Spinoza's conceptions, but refer the student for such an examination to the notes that follow. Here I am concerned only with certain things which the reader may well bear in mind from the outset, and which will make intelligible to him some of the intri- cacies and obscurities of Spinoza's reasoning. One cannot do justice to an author's thought until one sees how, under the circumstances, the writer might naturally have written as he did. It is my desire to put the student, as fer as possible, in such a position with regard to Spinoza. 2IO THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Introd. I. Spinoza's Epistemology. I. Ideas and Things. — Spinoza draws a sharp dis- tinction between ideas and the objects which they represent. An idea is one thing and its object another, and the two are not even alike. The idea of a circle, for example, is not the circle, and does not resemble the circle, for it has no center and no cir- cumference as a circle has.* Yet in some sense it truly represents the circle, or, in the language of that day, the same thing that exists " formally " or " actu- ally," /. e., as a real, external thing, out there beyond the mind, also exists " objectively " or by way of representative image in the mind.f This way of speaking, which makes the one thing or " essence " or " nature " exist in two ways, the one " formal " or real, the other " objective " or representative, seems to bridge the gulf between the idea and its object, even when they are clearly seen to be two distinct things, as, for example, by Descartes,^; and gives rise to confusion. It makes it easy for one whose theory of knowledge has wholly cut off the world of mind from a supposed real world beyond it, to recover that real world surreptitiously, and without a clear con- sciousness of his inconsistency. § If I say that it is an eternal world that exists " objectively " in my thought, then in my thought I appear to myself to be grasping, not merely ideas, but an external world. One cannot, of course, obtain real knowledge by thus juggling with words, and for the moment regarding as one two things defined to be distinctly two. When the matter * De Intellectus Emendatioiie," p. ii, ed. Van Vloten and Land. f Ibid. X " Meditations," III. § " De Intellectus Emendatione," p. ii, ct seq. I, 2] CRITICAL NOTES. 211 is narrowly examined it is easy to see that a pure assumption has been made, and the fact partly hidden under a phrase. If the idea is one thing, and its object, as we express it, a something beyond it and distinct from it, and if, further, the mind is shut up to its ideas, how can I know that my idea is represent- ative of something beyond itself ? How can I know that it is in any sense a copy ? Evidently I am simply assuming without proof of any sort the '' formal " existence of the object and then concealing from myself the fact that I have made such an assumption by declaring that this external thing exists " objec- tively " in my thought. It is easy to forget one's own hypothesis — the doctrine that the mind is shut up to the circle of its own ideas — and to fall back into the notion that we have direct experience of things, and can correct our ideas of things by an immediate refer- ence to the things themselves. One finds this incon- sistency everywhere in the history of philosophy,* and one does not have to look far for instances of it in contemporary writings. Such an inconsistency ap- pears a little less glaring when cloaked by the scholas- tic phrase I have been discussing. 2. Parallelism of Ideas a7id Things. — Now Spinoza distinguishes, as I have said, between the idea and the object. He declares them to be wholly unlike each other.f Indeed, he pushes so far the Cartesian antith- esis between matter and mind as to deny all inter- action between ideas and things. J Nevertheless he assumes, as above stated, that the idea truly represents ^' E. g., See Descartes, "Meditations," III or Locke's "Essay," bk. iv. eh. xi. I " De Intellectus Emendatione," loc. ci(. \ " Ethics," II, 6, 212 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Introd. its object, and that the world of thought as a whole mirrors with exactitude the world of things. The two worlds of thought and extension he makes com- pletely independent, but absolutely parallel to each other, the one containing " objectively " what exists " formally " in the other. In short, he regards them as one thing viewed under two aspects.* How two things so different as are, in his conception, thought and extension, can be parallel and stand in the rela- tion of original and representative — how an idea, which is denied a center and circumference, can represent a circle, of which these constitute the very essence — Spinoza never attempts to make clear. He leaves the problem where it is left by modern writers who hold to a doctrine of representative perception, declare ideas to be distinct from things and wholly without extension, and yet regard them as in some occult sense truly representative of extended things. It is easy to see how Spinoza, given the doctrine of the " objective " existence of real things, which he inherited from the past, and given also the Cartesian antithesis between mind and matter as wholly different in nature, might naturally hit upon the idea of an absolute independence and yet a complete parallelism between the two worlds. It will save the student some trouble if he will bear in mind that Spinoza never ofTers proof of such a parallelism, but simply assumes it ; that in some passages he presents doc- trines inconsistent with it ; and that, as a matter of fact, he rests upon an appeal to experience in justifi- cation of his position. f Such an appeal to experience * " Ethics," II, 7. f " De Intellectus Emendatione," p. 8 ; "Ethics," II, axioms 4 and 5. I, 3] CRITICAL NOTES. 213 is, of course, an abandonment of the position assumed at the outset. 3. The Test of Truth. — Having thus separated thought from things and denied all interaction between them, Spinoza naturally raises the question : What is the test of truth ? how can a true idea be distinguished from a false ? Since he has cut off ideas from things, he cannot consistently make the test to lie in an observed correspondence of the idea with its object. Ideas are independent of their objects and not to be accounted for by a reference to the objects. He is, hence, quite consistent in seeking for the test of truth in the idea itself.* He falls back upon his notion of " formal essences " and their corresponding "objective essences" or mental representatives, and makes certitude to consist in the possession of the " objective essence " of a thing, or a true idea.f In other words, in having a true idea we possess the truth and may know we possess the truth, for truth shines by its own light, and we need not go beyond the idea to know that it is true. Error arises merely from con- fusion, from our affirming of the "objective essences " of things what does not properly belong to them. J We may, therefore, guard against error by avoiding confusion, by attaining clear ideas ; and, as very sim- ple ideas cannot be confused, error witli regard to them is impossible.! Spinoza's endeavor in all this is sufficiently reasonable. He is trying to find a criterion of truth which will not compel him to pass beyond the circle of ideas to a something wholly outside of * " De Intellectus Emendatione," p. 23, and " Ethics," II, 43, schol. f " De Intellectus Emendatione," pp. 12, 23. \Ibid.^T^. 24. %Ibid., pp. 21, 22, 214 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [IntroD, them and, by hypothesis, wholly cut off from the mind. The problem is a living one, and very irrational solu- tions of it are offered still. If we have only copies of things, representations, and never the things them- selves, it may well " gravel a philosopher," as Bishop Berkeley hath it, to discover any means of proving that they are mere representations or copies, or to pick out those that are true copies from those that are not. In declaring that the idea is an "objective essence " Spinoza makes precisely the assumption made by the adherents of the doctrine of representative perception now, and he cuts the knot in precisely the same way. Of course, the assumption that all clear ideas are true, in so far as this means that they correspond to real things or " formal essences," is a mere assumption, and adopted without proof. Here again we have a mode of procedure closely analogous to what we meet every day. Indeed, it is most interesting to the student of the history of philosophy to see how ancient and how modern is this bit of loose reasoning. It turns up everywhere. Had Spinoza cut loose from the hypo- thetical " external " thing altogether, and become an idealist, and had he, instead of seeking the criterion of truth in the idea itself, sought it rather in the rela- tions of the idea in question with other ideas ; in short, had he sought some such criterion of truth as charac- terizes Berkeley's " ideas of sense,"* he would have had a much more hopeful outlook, and could have avoided the inconsistencies and assumptions which burden his argument. 4. The Concatenation of Ideas. — Since the world of thought mirrors with exactitude the external, real world, the relations between ideas, according to * " Principles," §§ 29-33. I, 5] CRITICAL NOTES. 215 Spinoza, correspond exactly to the relations between things. In other words, the logical deduction of ideas from each other corresponds to the physical relation of effect and cause. If a real thing in nature is caused by another thing and could not have existed without it, then its idea "involves" the idea of that other thing and cannot be conceived without it.* Hence in order to reproduce faithfully in our thought all nature, it is only necessary to begin with the idea which represents the origin and source of nature and to com- pletely develop it, deducing all our ideas from it. Could we do this satisfactorily we would possess all truth. The being from the idea of which all truth may thus be evolved is Spinoza's God, or Substance. It is needless to say that Spinoza did not succeed in thus evolving all ideas from the idea of God, and the student will look in vain for such a deduction. I mention this in passing, as I reserve the subject for fuller discussion a little later. I wish simply to remark here that the student will find this parallel between logical deduction and physical causation one of the most puzzling things in the " Ethics." It cannot be carried out consistently, and it introduces much obscurity into Spinoza's reasoning. The origin of the idea is sufficiently clear. It is a corollary to the gen- eral parallelism between ideas and things, which I have discussed above. 5. Mind and Body. — As every object has its corre- sponding idea, one may say that all things are ani- mated, and as the difference between two ideas corre- sponds to the difference between their objects, some ideas are more complex than and superior to others. f * " De Intellectus Emendatione," pp. 13, 14. f " Ethics," II, 13, schol. 2l6 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [IntrOD. The human body is highly complex ; the idea corre- sponding to it is the human mind ; and, since thought and extension are wholly independent of each other, the mind cannot act upon the body nor the body upon the mind.* This would seem to teach that the human mind can know only the human body, its object, but this is not Spinoza's teaching. He uses the word idea in two distinct senses, in one of which it signifies that in the world of thought, which corre- sponds to some given object in the world of reality, is, so to speak, its soul, and in the other a representa- tive image, which need not be the idea of the object known in the former of the two senses. Spinoza him- self distinguishes! between the two senses of the word, but he does not make the distinction clear, nor does he keep the two meanings separate. A part of his reasoning is based on a confusion of the two. This treatment of ideas the student will find one of the troublesome parts of the " Ethics." I shall dis- cuss it more fully in a note later. It is evident from certain passages that Spinoza fell back upon experi- ence for his evidence that the mind is connected with the body, and forgot that he had wholly cut them off from each other.J 6. Summary. — To summarize briefly : one should bear in mind that Spinoza distinguishes between ideas and their objects, and makes them numerically distinct; that he makes them wholly different in nature, and denies all interaction between them ; that he, never- theless, makes them absolutely parallel, and regards ideas as representative of things ; that, as a conse- * " Ethics," III, 2 and schol. f "Ethics,"' II, 17, schol. :j: " De Intellectus Emendatione," p. 8; "Ethics," axioms 4 and 5. II, 7] CRITICAL NOTES. 21 7 quence, he believes he can reproduce all nature by logical deduction from the idea of the Being which is the source of nature ; and that he regards the relation of mind and body as a special instance of the general parallelism between thought and things, calling the mind the "idea" of the body. These doctrines underlie the reasonings in the " Ethics." They Avill furnish an explanation of much that seems very arbi- trary. One may complain, much that is arbitrary, since the doctrines themselves rest upon unproved assumptions, and do not shine by their own light. To this I answer, it is easy to see how Spinoza might have been led to make such assumptions, which, more- over, are not widely different from those made by philosophers of our day. One may admire the bold- ness and ingenuity of his thought, while recognizing that its foundations are themselves without founda- tion. And it ill behooves philosophers of the nine- teenth century, whose books bristle with "intuitions " and " necessary truths," to criticise severely a philoso- pher of the seventeenth for a few natural assumptions of a similar nature. It is a great saving of labor to assume things as self-evident. II. Spinoza's Realism the Key to the Reasonings Contained in the " Ethics." 7. The System of Ideas. — Spinoza insists that the idea from which all other ideas are to be deduced must not be an abstraction, but the idea of " a partic- ular affirmative essence," of a real Being. This Being is God or substance. From this idea must stream forth all our other ideas, as from God stream forth all things.* Had he rigorously and consistently carried *" De Intellectus Emendatione," pp. 32, 33. 2l8 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [IntroD. out this thought he would have had to deduce from substance the attributes thought and extension, which "the intellect perceives as constituting its essence"; from them, in turn, the two eternal modes, motion and "absolutely infinite intellect "; and from these one or more other eternal modes : after that, " essences " of various orders ; and, finally, finite particular modes, or the individual things in nature, which close the series. These last, however, on account of their number and their complicated relations to each other, as well as on account of the fact that their existence has no connection with their "essence," he declares it beyond the power of the human intellect to obtain by deduction.* He therefore distinguishes between their " essence " or nature and their existence, and allows us the power of deducing the former only from the series of "fixed and eternal things. "f For information regarding the existence of individual things we must look elsewhere. We must turn to experience and the order of causes. J The student will seek in vain in the " Ethics " for the deductions here indicated. The attributes are not deduced from the idea of substance at all ; the infinite modes are not deduced from the attributes ; nor are the essences of finite modes deduced from the infinite modes. As to particular finite modes or individual things, with their "accidents " as well as their essences, there is not even an indication of the way in which these are to be traced back to the idea of God or sub- stance. The '^ existence " of finite things, which is * Ibid. \ I. e, , the essences of various orders which constitute the steps in this deduction, beginning with God or substance, \ " Ethics," I, 7, schol. 2., and 11, proof 2, II, 8] CRITICAL NOTES. 219 distinct from their essence and to be accounted for separately, is left unaccounted for, in fact, being merely referred in a general way to God, the source of all.* It is true that Spinoza seems to indicate in the passage referred to above, that our inability to deduce individual things from the idea of God is due rather to the weakness of our understanding than to the nature of the problem itself, but, as I shall point out later, he treats finite existences as different in their nature from essences, and not susceptible of the same kind of an explanation. 8. Spinoza s Realism. — It was natural that Spinoza should pass lightly over these deductions, for in the nature of the case they cannot be made. The exist- ence of these different orders of being has to be assumed — taken up as furnished by experience — and then the things, in accordance with a general principle, are referred to God as source and cause. Our author, ' though he warns us against abstractions, is really dealing with abstractions, universals, not concrete things, and one cannot deduce a world of concrete realities from an abstraction, even if that abstraction be, after the fashion of the realists, inconsistently treated as a real thing. The question of the nature of the "fixed and eternal things," beginning with God or substance, is a very important one to the student of Spinoza ; and without solving it he cannot find the key to the peculiar reasonings contained in the " Ethics." When he has solved it he can readily see why Spinoza undertook this deduction and why he was doomed to failure. He must realize that " fixed and eternal things" are treated as both abstract and concrete, as universals and real entities. As universals *" Ethics," I, 25, schol. 220 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [InTROD. they form a chain, are related to each other as lower and higher, and seem to make possible a passage from one to the other ; as real entities they appear to jus- tify the derivation of a concrete from that which is really less concrete. Nowhere in the "Ethics" must one lose sight of the fact that they are endowed with this double nature. Spinoza's reasonings are the reasonings of a realist, and he falls into their tradi- tional error. This I shall try to show in what follows. We hear a good deal of Spinoza's nominalism, and we have seen that he insists upon an avoidance of abstractions, upon a deduction of all our ideas from an idea in the strictest sense concrete, that of a " par- ticular affirmative essence." His nominalism was, how- ever, only skin-deep, and he was at heart as thorough a realist as any philosopher of the Middle Ages. No one, it is true, has more clearly indicated the way in which we arrive at certain general notions or uni- versals. Note the following: ""Nevertheless, that I may omit nothing that it is necessary to know, I will briefly mention the causes in which the terms known as transcendental have had their origin, as, for example, Being, Thing, Something. These terms arise from the fact that the human body, since it is limited, is only capable of forming in itself distinctly a certain num- ber of images at the one time. If this number be ex- ceeded, the images begin to run together ; and if the number of images that the body is able to form in itself distinctly at one time be greatly exceeded, they are all entirely confused with each other. Since this is so, it is evident from the corollary to prop. 17, and from prop. 18, that the human mind can imagine distinctly at one time as many bodies as there are images that can be formed at one time in the body corresponding II, 8] CRITICAL NOTES. 221 to it. But when the images in the body are wholly confused with each other, the mind, too, will imagine all the bodies confusedly and without distinguishing them at all. It will grasp them under one attribute, as it were, namely, under the attribute of Being, of Thing, etc. This can also be deduced from the fact that images are not always equally lively ; and from other causes analogous to these, which it is not neces- sary to unfold here, for it is sufficient to the object I have in view to consider a single one. They all amount to this, that these terms stand for ideas in the highest degree confused. Again, from like causes have sprung the notions called universals, as Man, Horse, Dog, etc. There are formed in the human body at the one time so many images — for instance of man — that they overcome the faculty of imagination ; not, indeed, wholly, but to such a degree that the mind is unable to imagine the little differences in the individuals (as the color, the size, etc., of each) and their exact number. It distinctly imagines only that in which all, in so far as they affect the body, agree. By this element, especially, the body was affected in the case of each individual ; it is this that the mind expresses by the word man j and this that it predicates of an infinity of individuals. As I have said, it cannot imagine the exact number of individuals. But bear in mind that these notions are not formed by everyone in the same way, but differently by each according to tiie nature of the object by which the body has been the more often affected, and which the mind most easily imagines or remembers. For example, those who have more often regarded with admiration the stature of men will understand by the word 7?ian an animal erect in stature. Those, on the other hand, who 222 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [IntrOD. have been accustomed to notice something else, will form another common image, as that man is a laughing animal, a featherless biped, a rational animal, and so on. Each one will form universal images of things according to the character of his body." * Leaving out the " images " formed in the body, we have here something quite modern, and Spinoza applies his doctrine more boldly than many of the moderns. To quote from the " Ethics " a little further on : " In the same way it is proved that there is in the mind no absolute power of knowing, desiring, loving, etc. Whence it follows, these and similar faculties are either absolutely fictitious, or only metaphysical en- tities — universals — that we are accustomed to form from individuals. Thus, understanding and will aye related to this or that idea and to this or that volition, as lapidity is related to this or that stone, or man to Peter or Paul."f This appears to be a nominalism, or at least con- ceptualism, sufficiently thorough-going, but it is, as I have said, merely on the surface. Spinoza is at heart a realist, and his reasonings can only be ex- plained after admitting the fact. Had he consistently carried out the thought of the citation just given, he would have recognized that in the several stages of this deduction of things from the idea of God or sub- stance he was handling mere abstractions and not things at all. He would have seen that the attribute thought cannot be regarded as a real thing distinct from the sum total of ideas or modes in which the attribute is expressed ; and that his substance, so far from being a " particular affirmative essence," is * " Ethics," II, 40, schol. i. f II, 48, schol. II, 8] CRITICAL NOTES. 223 either that ultimate abstraction " being," or simply a name for the sum total of particular concrete beings. As a matter of fact, Spinoza vibrates between these two "^ conceptions. Usually he makes the higher orders of being, from which concrete things are to be deduced, abstractions, or, perhaps I should say, treats them as somewhat inconsistent abstractions, while calling them something else. 'But sometimes he clearly comes back to the other conception and makes the lower orders of being parts of the higher. For exam- ple, in his treatise " On the Improvement of the Understanding," after stating that the first principle of nature cannot be conceived as a universal — as an abstraction — he says that what we are in search of is "a. being single and infinite, in other words, the sum total of being, beyond which there is no being." * Again, in speaking of the relation of the finite mind to God, he expresses the same thought. Our ideas are inadequate when we know only in part, and inade- quate ideas arise in us only because we are parts of a thinking being, whose thoughts, some in their entirety and some as fragments, constitute our mind.f The " Etliics " is, if possible, more explicit : " These are the things I set out to prove with regard to the mind, in so far as it is considered without relation to the existence of the body. From these, and at the same time from I, 21, and other propositions, it ap- pears that our mind, in so far as it knows, is an eternal mode of thinking, which is determined by another eternal mode of thinking, this again by another, and so to infinity ; so that they all together constitute the eternal and infinite intellect of God."| Here a por- *P. 26. f P. 25. X V, 40, schol. ; cf. Letter 32, ed. Van Vloten and Land. 224 'fHE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [IntROD. tion of the human mind is made part of an infinite mode, and not subsumed under it as an individual under its universal or class notion. On the other hand these higher orders of being are not usually treated as wholes having the lower as their parts, but rather as universals. The fact that they are universals is not, it is true, very clearly brought out, for the reasoning is vitiated by that unfortunate parallel between physical causation and logical deduction. But it seems to me sufficiently clear that Spinoza treated them rather as universals than as aggregates. That he did not think of them simply as aggregates is plain from a multitude of pas- 'sages. The idea of God is called the cause of all our ideas as God is the cause of all things.* All our ideas are to be deduced from this one, not found in it as the part in the whole. Substance (or God) is by nature prior to its modifications ; f is active while all its modi- fications are passive; J and is indivisible, while modes, as modes, can be divided. § In short, on the supposi- tion that Spinoza uses the word substance merely as another name for the universe regarded as an aggre- gate, much of his reasoning is wholly inexplicable. That these "fixed and eternal things" from which the essences of concrete individuals are to be deduced are really treated by Spinoza as universals, should be clear, I think, to every careful reader of his works. In one passage in his treatise " On the Improvement of the Understanding " he explicitly admits that they resemble universals, and attributes to them a propert}'' which must be denied to every single individual thing * " De Intellectus Emendatione," p. 32. f " Ethics," I, I. X " Ethics," I, 16, 17. § "Ethics," I, 15, schol. II, g] CRITICAL NOTES. 225 of whatever kind. He writes : " Hence these fixed and eternal things, although they are individuals, must, on account of their presence and power everywhere, be to us as universals, that is, as genera of definitions of individual mutable things, and the proximate causes of all things." * It is only a universal that can, in any strict sense of the word, be " present " f every- where. An individual can be present in different places at the one time only as an aggregate of parts. In many other passages one may see that Spinoza thought of these "eternal things " as universals, and that this thought has given birth to much of his rea- soning. 9. The Concept. — The great importance of this question to the Spinozistic philosophy will justify me in indulging in what some may regard as a digression on the subject of the concept or general notion, the much-mooted universal. For a fuller discussion of some aspects of this subject I must refer the reader to a monograph I printed a few years since, entitled " On Sameness and Identity," | and having for object tlie making clear the different senses in which we may, in accordance with common usage, call a thing or things the same. It deals at some length with the question of universals. I shall return later to the "eternal things " of Spinoza. When two or more things resemble each other in any way, or, as we say, have anything in common, we may make a distinction between the quality or qualities they have in common and those in which *P. 33. f I explain later in what sense a universal may be said to be " present " anywhere. X University of Pennsylvania Press, 1890. 226 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [IntroD. they differ from each other, and we may regard the objects as forming a class, giving them a class name. This class name indicates just what they have in com- mon, and abstracts from the other qualities possessed by the objects. When, for example, I compare sev- eral men, I may recognize that they are all alike in certain respects, and may, for convenience, regard them as a class, giving them the general name " man." This general name " man " stands, or should stand, only for those qualities possessed by every member of the class. In the same way I may form other class notions of higher and higher degrees of generality, after the fashion of the handbooks on logic, and may obtain a series of general terms related to each other as lower and higher in the same series, such as man, animal, living being, body, being. Whether the concept be of a low or of a high degree of generality, the procedure is just the same. That which a number of individuals have in common is distinguished from that in which they differ, and is, for the time being, made the object of special attention. It was but natural that, at an early period of the history of thought, reflection should occupy itself with this general notion, marked by the class name, and strive to fathom its significance. We apply the name " man " to a great many different individuals, and recognize that, in so far as each is a man, they are in some sense the same. When a man dies and dis- appears " man " does not disappear, for here is " man " in another individual. What more natural than to assume that " man " (the universal) must have a reality independent of all individual men, eternal, im- mutable and apart, unaffected by all the changes in individual things ? What more natural than to as- II, g] . CRITICAL NOTES. 227 sume that the " man " in each individual man must be strictly identical with that in each other, and that, although present in all, it must be in some sense an individual real thing ? This is just what Plato does. Distinguishing between the universal and the indi- vidual, between " man " and men, he thought it nec- essary, according to Aristotle, who does not, I think, do him injustice, to assume an object for the universal outside of and apart from all the individuals forming a class. This, the object of the general term, is the Platonic Idea. It is a real thing, the real thing, in which the individuals participate, or of which they are copies ; but it is not itself to be found in any or all of them except, so to speak, in a figurative or metaphor- ical way. Aristotle, seeing no reason to assume a new individual, for so he regarded the Platonic Idea, placed the universal in the objects composing the class. Cer- tain of the schoolmen, emphasizing the difference between real things and mental representations, main- tained that only individuals have real existence, and asserted either that universals exist merely as peculiar combinations of mental elements which serve to think the objects forming a class, or that the only thing that can properly be called universal is the word, which may be applied indifferently to many individuals of the one kind. In these views we have the universalia ante rem, the universalia in re, and the universalia post rem ; or Extreme Realism, Moderate Realism,* and Nominalism in its two forms. Now the great snare and stumbling-block of all those who busy themselves with universals is the tendency to make abstractions concrete things — to add what * When in this volume I use the word " realism" without qual- ification, I do not mean to include this doctrine. 228 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [IntrOD, the very nature of the case demands should be absent. When we give a name to a class of objects as a class, or, rather, when we give a name to what a number of objects have in common, we should remember that we are abstracting from everything in which the objects differ. We are trying to indicate that each possesses certain elements which, taken by themselves, render impossible any distinction between different objects. We distinguish two objects as two through some difference, even if it be only local or temporal. Red- ness conbined with a and redness combined with b are recognized as two occurrences of redness, but this only account of a and b. Redness perceived to-day and redness perceived yesterday are two occurrences of redness, marked as such by the " to-day " and the " yesterday." Redness considered simply contains nothing which will allow of such distinctions. This does not imply at all that redness considered simply is an occurrence of redness — that since we have not two or more occurrences of the quality we have a single occurrence of it, an individual. We have not, if we have really abstracted from all save the redness, any " occurrence " or " occurrences " at all, for these imply just the elements of difference which we are endeavoring to eliminate. An "occurrence" of red- ness means redness with a difference which will mark it out from other redness, from another " occurrence." When, therefore, one gives to twenty individuals a common name to indicate that they resemble each other, he should keep clearly in mind just what this means. It means that along with various differing elements each contains the element x. And when he proposes to separate the x from the other elements, and consider it separately, he should be most careful to see II, g] CRITICAL NOTES. 229 that he is really taking it separately, and not allowing shreds of foreign matter to hang to it and give rise to inconsistencies and perplexities. He should make sure that he is keeping his abstraction abstract, and not turning it into a concrete thing in any sense what- ever. For instance, he should not overlook the fact that there is a fallacy in the very question, Whether the X in any one individual is strictly identical with the X in any other ? If these two x's are distinguishable as in two individuals, one is not considering x merely, but X with other elements. The separation of the x element from the other elements in the objects is here not complete, or one would be considering not " an x " or '^x's " but X. The abstract x cannot, strictly speak- ing, be in any of the individuals while remaining an abstraction. When it is in an individual it is " an x " — or X with a difference. So when Spinoza makes his " fixed and eternal things " individuals, and yet declares them to be present everywhere, he is in the same sentence making them abstract and concrete. A universal may be present in many places only in the sense that the x — common, as we say, to a number of individuals — is found now combined with these ele- ments and now with those. As combined with them it becomes this x or that, and is no longer universal. Every individual x, as an individual, is, of course, a different thing from every other, and is not strictly identical with it. Now when Plato looked for the object of the gen- eral name, what did he do ? He created a new object distinct from and apart from all the others. He is very vague in his statements, and he was probably quite as vague in his thought ; but I cannot see how any- one familiar with the " Phaedrus," the " Republic," the 230 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [IntrOD. " Timseus," the " Symposium," and the " Parmenides," and familiar with Plato's concrete way of thinking in images, can avoid coming to the conclusion that the idea was to him predominantly an object, an individ- ual — a vague and inconsistent object, if you please, but still an object. But an x is in no sense a univer- sal. It is the same with other x's only in being like them. The x that they have in common must be x considered simply, not x considered as here or there, in this place or that. All such differences must be completely eliminated if one is to get not an individual, but a universal. If the idea may be considered as apart from objects, it is an object in so far not essen- tially differing from the others, and it matters little whether it be put in heaven or on the earth or in the waters that are under the earth. Wherever and what- ever it may be, it is an individual and must act like an individual, that is, it can only be in the one place at the one time. Plato did not recognize this fact. Although he makes his idea an object, he does not put it on the same plane with other objects. They suffer change, while it is immutable ; they are perceivable by the senses, and it is not ; they are fettered by space and time conditions, while it is in some sense present in many individuals and is in its nature eternal. The trouble has arisen out of his difificulty in keeping an abstraction abstract ; he has turned it into a concrete, and, finding in the world of sense no place for this concrete, this new individual, he has given it a world of its own, where it lives an amphibious life peculiar to itself, and becomes a perennial source of difficulties to succeeding generations of philos- ophers. Aristotle, seeing very clearly some of the objections II, g] CRITICAL NOTES. 23I to this mode of procedure, placed the idea in the objects forming the class. It may be objected that putting X in a place individualizes it as much as putting it out of a place. This is quite true if the " in " be taken locally — taken as it is when we speak of a man as being in one room rather than in another. The X in one object is not identically the x in another object. We do not get the universal, x in the abstract, until we lose the distinctions " in the one object " and " in the other object." If, however, by the statement that the universal is in the objects, one mean merely that the universal is that element x, which, combined with certain elements, forms a total which is known as this object, and combined with certain others forms a total which is known as that, but taken by itself contains no distinction of this and that ; if this be all that is meant by the " in," there is no objection to the use of the statement, and it is strictly true. The x element is a part of each of the objects, but, until some addition is made to it, it is not " the X in this object " or " the x in that object "; it is what they have in common. The " in common " means just this. The nominalistic doctrine has, as has been said, two forms. The extreme nominalistic position, that the only true universal is the name, is highly unreason- able. If the objects to be classed really have some- thing in common, then that which they have in com- mon is a universal element. If, on the other hand, they have nothing in common, why put them in one class and give them a common name ? As for the more moderate nominalism, or the doctrine of the conceptualists — that appears to do justice to ideas, but hardly to things. In so far as it holds that the 232 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [IntrOD. mind can form a concept, which shall consist of the element or elements several objects have in common, we have no quarrel with it. Here we find a true universal, obtained by discarding differences which distinguish objects from one another. We obtain by this that mental core common to several similar mental objects, in other words, to several ideas. If, however, we distinguish between mental objects and " real " things corresponding to them, we have evidently two distinct fields to consider. Do our ideas truly correspond to external objects ? Then, if the ideas have something in common, are enough alike to furnish a concept, must not their correspond- ing objects also be alike ? must they not, too, have something in common ? a universal element ? It does not in the least explain the universal element in " real " things to point out that in the mind there exists a concept or general notion. The concept can be no true representative of what is outside unless it truly correspond to a universal element outside. This sounds a little like extreme realism, but it differs from it as widely as the poles. It is only necessary to bear in mind that, just as the concept, to remain a uni- versal, must be kept abstract, so this hypothetical external universal must be kept abstract, and not turned into a thing. On the whole, the most reasonable doctrine is the Aristotelian, the moderate realism. It is necessary, however, to understand it carefully, and to avoid all tendency to individualize abstractions. That this is by no means easy to do, the history of philosophy clearly shows ; and it shows, too, into what serious perplexities one falls when one neglects to observe this precaution. The Anselmic view of genera and II, lo] CRITICAL NOTES. 233 species as universal substances * is an instance of this error. The doctrine attributed to William of Cham- peaux by Abelard, that universals are essentially and wholly present in each of their individuals, in which latter there is no diversity of essence, but only variety through accidents,! is tenable or not, according to the sense in which the words are taken. The word "wholly " is an awkward one, and would seem to indi- cate that William regarded the universal as a thing, a concrete, which may be in this place or that. What- ever he may have intended to say, there can be no mistake as to the meaning of the following sentence from Robert Pulleyn : " The species is the whole substance of individuals, and the whole species is the same in each individual : therefore the species is one substance, but its individuals many persons, and these many persons are that one substance.''^ The man who could pen such a sentence must have seen his universals through the thickest of fogs, and must have been capable of all sorts of logical enormities. We find nearly everywhere in the Middle Ages this tend- ency to turn abstractions into things, and we see the same tendency later. The procedure has a peculiar charm for the mystic, and one which he finds it hard to resist. It would not be difficult to cite con- temporary instances of the blunder. § 10. Concepts Made Causes. — When one has turned universals — abstractions — into things, it is easy to ascribe to them causal functions which can only be * Haureau, " Philosophic Scholastique, "Paris, 1872, I, p. 281. \ " Historia Calamitatura," quoted by Haureau, I, p. 324. :|: Quoted by Haureau, I, p. 328. § In the foregoing pages I have made use of my above men- tioned treatise. 234 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [IntrOD. exercised by individual real things, having existence as well as " essence." As has been pointed out, con- cepts may be more or less general, and may stand in a relation of lower and higher. Plato, who had turned the Socratic concept into the concrete Idea, conceives of the Ideas as real things arranged in such a series, and makes the highest member of the series the Idea of the Good. He regards the Ideas as causes of things,* and the highest of them as the ultimate cause of all reality and all knowledge.! John Scotus Erigena well illustrates this same way of thinking. He taught that God is the supreme unity, and that, by a process of evolution from the general to the partic- ular, individual things are produced by him. First come forth the highest genera, then the lower, and finally individuals. He conceived universals as real things, which, by a process of unfolding, give birth to that which represents a lesser degree of generality. J As we have seen, the philosophers who have thus made their universals concrete have not made them completely and consistently concrete. They have given them an existence apart from the individuals subsumed under them, but not an existence wholly separate. To have done this would have been to en- tirely abandon the problem of the universal. Plato, for instance, describes the relation of individuals to their ideas as a " participation " in, an "imitation " of, the idea. The idea is the "pattern" and individual objects "images." The idea has a "community" with objects, it is in some sense "present" in them. And John Scotus declares that God alone truly is ; * " Phsedo," 96 et seq. f " Republic," VI, 508. :|: Ueberweg's "Hist, of Philos.," Vol. I, § 90. See also Haureau, I, p. 150 ^/ seq. II, lo] CRITICAL NOTES. 235 that he is the essence of all things ; that they do not exist outside of him, but he is their very substance. This of course is not in harmony with the notion of a causal relation, for in any intelligible sense of the word cause, a cause must be something distinct from its effect and cannot be contained in it. 'I'he words " immanent cause," when they are so used as to con- vey any distinct meaning at all, signify something so different from the causal relation as commonly under- stood that it would be much better to use some other term to express the idea. Cause and effect are two distinct things, and must remain two distinct things to remain cause and effect. I shall speak of this again when I discuss in the notes Spinoza's doj^trine of the causa siii. The attempt to make universals causes, and yet keep them universals, has been the source of much vague and loose reasoning. It is simply the attempt to make them concrete and abstract at the same time. II. Concepts, though Causes, yet Universals. — Much of the reasoning of the " Ethics " will become sufficiently intelligible to one who will bear in mind that Spinoza's "fixed and eternal things" are universals — abstrac- tions — but universals treated as though they were in some sense concrete things, real causes. He falls into the snare always set for the realist, or, perhaps I should say, into the snare into which one must have fallen to be a realist at all, as Plato and John Scotus are realists. As evidence that his " eternal things" are really uni- versals I shall refer to a few passages in the " Ethics." The proof that there cannot be in the universe two or more substances of the same nature, or with the same attribute, reads as follows : "Were there several dis- tinct substances, they would have to be distinguished from one another either by a difference in attributes 236 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Introd. or by a difference in modifications. If merely by a difference in attributes, it will be admitted there can- not be more than one with the same attribute. If, on the other hand, one is to be distinguished from another by a difference in modifications, then, since a sub- stance is by nature prior to its modifications, when we lay aside its modifications and consider it in itself, that is, consider it as it is, we cannot conceive it as distinguished from another substance. In other words, there cannot be several substances, but only one."* Here the substance is evidently what remains after stripping off differences, just as the genus is what remains when we overlook the differences which dis- tinguish the species. If we leave out of view the different classes of men, the " modifications " of "man," and consider "man" simply, of course we cannot get more than one "man" — for that matter we cannot get one " man," for what we really get is not an individual but an abstraction. Spinoza, however, reasons as though the substance reached by this process were an individual, though elsewhere he indicates that it cannot be properly called one.\ In his argument to prove that substance absolutely infinite is indivisible he reasons as follows: "Were it divisible, the parts into which it would be divided will either retain the nature of absolutely infinite substance, or will not. If the former, there will be several substances of the same nature, which is absurd. If the latter, then it will be possible for absolutely infinite substance to cease to be, which is also absurd." | Here substance is evidently treated as that which several things have in common, and upon this depends the absurdity of the first alternative. If substance is an abstraction, a * " Ethics," I, 5. f Letter 50. % " Ethics," I, 13. II, lo] CRITICAL NOTES. 237 universal, it is of course absurd to speak of several substances. We cannot keep things separate from each other when we have left them nothing but their common core. In speaking of extension, or, as he calls it, quantity, Spinoza says : " If, nevertheless, one here asks why we are so prone by nature to divide quantity, I answer, it is because we conceive quantity in two ways ; to wit, abstractly, that is, superficially, as when we imagine it, and, second, as substance, in which case we conceive it by means of the understanding alone. If, therefore, we consider quantity as it is in the imagination, a thing we do often and quite easily, we shall find it finite, divisible, and composed of parts. If, on the other hand, we consider it as it is in the understanding, and conceive it as substance — a very difficult task — then, as I have already sufficiently proved, we shall find it infinite, single, and indivisible. This will be plain enough to everyone who knows how to distinguish between the imagination and the understanding, especially if he will also consider that matter is every- where the same, and that there is in it no distinction of parts except as we conceive it affected in divers ways, whence its parts are distinguished only modally, not really. For example, we conceive water, in so far as it is water, to be divided and its parts to be sep- arated from one another ; but not in so far as it is corporeal substance, for, in so far as it is that, it is neither separated nor divided. Again, water, in so far as it is water, is generated and destroyed ; but in so far as it is substance, it is neither generated nor destroyed."* It is, of course, true that if we turn our attention *" Ethics, I, 15, schol. 238 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [IntrOD. from matter in so far as it is "affected in divers ways," and fix it simply on matter as matter, /. e., on matter in the abstract, we cannot divide matter. All physical division implies that we distinguish between the parts of the thing divided as this part and that, here and there, and in so doing we add the differences that Spinoza calls modifications. His " quantity " conceived as substance is simply the extension in the abstract which is found in all extended things. The same thought is expressed in the language he uses in dealing with modes elsewhere : " Modes are only modifications of the attributes of God ; " * " It cannot have followed from God or from one of his attributes, in so far as this is modified by a modifica- tion which is infinite or eternal ; " f the " essence of man consists of certain modifications of God's attri- butes ; " X " a modification or mode which expresses God's nature in a definite and determinate manner." § Mode is defined as " the modifications of substance, in other words, that which is in, and is conceived by means of, something else ; " || body is *' a mode which expresses in a definite and determinate manner the essence of God, in so far as he is considered as an extended thing." *1[ This mode or modification is the concrete corresponding to a universal, and the " defi- nite and determinate manner " in which extension is expressed is an individualization through accidents. Note again : " Such modes of thinking as love, desire, or whatever else comes under the head of emotion, do not arise unless there be present in the same indi- vidual the idea of the thing loved, desired, etc." * * * " Ethics," I, 28. I Ibid. % " Ethics," II, 10, cor. § Ibid. II " Ethics," I, def. 5. T[ " Ethics," II, def. i. * * " Ethics," II, axiom 3. II, 12] CRITICAL NOTES. 239 The " thinking " is here the class notion. Still clearer is the following proof that thought is an attribute of God, that is, that God is a thinking thing : " Indi- vidual thoughts, or this and that thought, are modes which express in a definite and determinate manner God's nature. God, therefore, possesses the attribute, the conception of which is involved in all individual thoughts, and through which they are conceived. Hence thought is one of the infinite attributes of God, and it expresses God's eternal and infinite essence ; that is, God is a thinking thing."* Evidently the attribute, the conception of which is involved in all individual thoughts, is simply the universal, the abstraction which remains after abstracting from differences. And the infinite attributes of God are the ultimate abstractions at which one arrives by a process of extracting the core common to many individuals. 12. The Word ''''Involved.''' — The somewhat vague phrase, "involved in all individual thoughts," de- serves some attention. In the passage quoted " involved in " is equivalent to *' contained in," as the universal is contained in (I must warn the reader to bear in mind what I have said on the subject of this " in ") the individuals subsumed under it. The word involved {involvere) is constantly used by Spinoza, and he has explained with some clearness what he means by it. He writes : " Let us conceive, therefore, some particular volition — for instance, the mode of thinking by which the mind affirms the three angles of a triangle to be equal to two right angles. This affirmation involves the conception or idea of a *" Ethics," II, I ; cf. the " Short Treatise on God, Man and His Blessedness," Part I, ch. 7. 240 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [IntroD. triangle, that is, it cannot be conceived without the idea of a triangle ; for it is the same thing, whether I say A must involve the conception B, or A cannot be conceived without B. In the second place, this affirmation, without the idea of a triangle, cannot be^ Therefore this affirmation cannot, without the idea of a triangle, either be or be conceived. Moreover, this idea of a triangle must involve this same affirmation of the equality of its three angles to two right angles. Therefore, conversely, this idea of a triangle can neither be nor be conceived without this affirma- tion. Hence this affirmation belongs to the essence of the idea of a triangle, and is nothing but that idea." * Manifestly, in this illustration, to "involve", means to contain something, or to be identical with something, according as we take more or less liter- ally the last clause. f Again : "Things which have nothing in common cannot be comprehended by means of each other ; that is, the conception of the one does not involve the conception of the other." J Here the one involves the other in virtue of the fact that they have something in common, and it is plain from what Spinoza says a little later § that he was thinking of the two things in question as higher class and lower, or as universal and individual. That the idea of any mode, in which the human body is affected by external bodies, must involve both the nature of the human body and the nature of the external body, Spinoza proves as follows : " All the modes, in which any body is affected, are a conse- quence both of the nature of the body affected and the nature of the body affecting it. Hence their idea * " Ethics," II, 49. f " Ethics," Cf. I, def. i, and I, 20. \ " Ethics," I, axiom 5. § " Etliics," I, 3. II, 12] CRITICAL NOTES. 24I necessarily involves the nature of both bodies. Con- sequently, the idea of any mode, in which the human body is affected by an external body, involves the na- ture of the human body and of the external body."* From this he infers, in the first place, that the human mind perceives the nature of very many bodies along with the nature of its own body ; and, in the second |)lace, that the ideas which we have of external bodies indicate rather the constitution of our own body than the nature of external bodies, f The phrase "involves the nature of both bodies," as here used, means that these essences are (at least in part) " objectively " present in the idea. In other words, it includes them. That this is what is meant is evident from Spinoza's use of this proposition later : " Let A be something, which is common to and a property of the human body and certain external bodies, which is equally in the human body and in these external bodies, and which, finally, is equally in the part and in the whole of each external body. Of this A there will be in God an adequate idea, both in so far as he has an idea of the human body, and in so far as he has ideas of the said external bodieso Now, let the human body be affected by an external body, through that which they have in common, that is, through A. The idea of this modification will involve the prop- erty A ; and, hence, the idea of this modification, in so far as it involves the property A, will be adequate in God, in so far as he is affected by the idea of the human body ; that is, in so far as he constitutes the nature of the human mind. Therefore this idea is adequate in the human mind also." J When an idea *" Ethics," II, 16. \ Ibid, cors. i and 2. X " Ethics," II, 39. 242 THE PHILOSOPHY OP SPINOZA. [IntroD. is, not partially, but wholly in the human mind, it is, according to Spinoza, adequate in the human mind, or adequately known by the human mind. Since the idea of the modification in question " in- volves " the property A, and since said idea is in the human mind, the idea of A, which it contains within it, is in the human mind too. Many more instances of this use of the word "involve" might be given, but these will suffice. In general, one thing involves another when it contains it, and, in particular, the word is employed to indicate the relation of the indi- vidual to its universal, or of the species to its genus. Spinoza does not, however, use the word consist- ently in this sense. Indeed, he could not do so, since he does not keep his universals abstract, but turns them into concrete things, causes. The word "involve" suffers a corresponding change in signification, and is sometimes used to indicate a relation between effect and cause. For example, we find it accepted as an axiom that " knowledge of an effect depends upon and involves knowledge of its cause." * We find the same idea very definitely expressed in one of the arguments offered in support of the thesis: " The formal being of ideas admits of God as its cause only in so far as he is regarded as a thinking thing, and not in so far as he is manifested in some other attribute. That is, the ideas both of the attributes of God and of individual things do not admit of their objects — perceived things — as their efficient cause, but God himself, in so far as he is a thinking thing." The argument is : " The formal being of ideas is a mode of thinking, that is a mode which expresses in a definite manner the nature of God in so far as he is a thinking thing, and thus *" Ethics," I, axiom 4. II, 12] CRITICAL NOTES. 243 involves the concept of no other attribute of God, and consequently is the effect of no other attribute than thought. Therefore the formal being of ideas admits of God as its cause only in so far as he is regarded as a thinking thing."* Again: "The modes of any attribute have God as their cause only in so far as he is considered under the attribute of which they are modes, not in so far as he is considered under any other attribute." This is proved in the same way : " Each attribute is conceived through itself independ- ently of anything else. The modes, then, of each attribute involve the concept of their own attribute, but of no other ; therefore they have as their cause God, only in so far as he is considered under the attri- bute of which they are modes, and not in so far as he is considered under any other attribute," f That Spinoza uses the word cause in a sense approaching its usual acceptation seems to me sufficiently evident from the tenor of the passages cited. He denies that external things cause our ideas, but says they are caused by God " in so far as he is regarded as a think- ing thing," or, in other words, in so far as he is ex- pressed in the attribute thought. Moreover he calls this cause the efficient cause, as if to make his mean- ing unmistakable. Just afterward he uses the axiom above mentioned to prove that the order and connec- tion of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things, arguing that since the idea of an effect de- pends upon a knowledge of its cause, the order of ideas must correspond exactly to the nexus of causes and effects in the physical world. J. By this order of causes and effects he did not merely mean the order of "fixed and eternal things" which might be claimed to =5= "Ethics," II, 5. f "Ethics," II, 6. :}: " Ethics," II, 7. 2.J4 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Introd. be " immanent " causes. He includes all separate, individual, existing things, the causes and effects recognized by science.* Such causes and effects are external to and distinct from each other. When, therefore, Spinoza makes his universals causes, he in so far takes them out of the individuals in which they are found (remember this " in ") and makes them con- crete things outside of their effects. In the passages given above the word " involve " marks such a relation to an illicitly obtained concrete. As, however, Spi- noza's " fixed and eternal things " are, like Plato's Ideas, really universals, though treated as in some sense con- crete, one finds sometimes in the same passage a double sense in the word " involve." 13. Essence. — So much for the " fixed and eternal things," as universals. Of these same things as con- cretes, as causes, I have already spoken briefly in the paragraph just preceding. As, however, this aspect of them comes out very clearly in Spinoza's doctrine of " essence," and as that doctrine plays an important part in his philosophy, I shall discuss it rather fully here. Just where Spinoza got this doctrine, or rather where he drew the original inspiration which led him to formulate it as he did, I do not pretend to say. He has left us but scanty information regarding the sources of his philosophy. His fundamental ideas are, however, not new, but had become common property in the Middle Ages. They appear in various forms in the writings of the Jewish philosophers with which he was familiar, and they may be traced back ulti- mately to the Platonic and Aristotelian philosophies. When one has arranged a number of things in *" Ethics," II, 9, and cor.; cf. I, 8, schol. 2, and II, 10, cor. schol. ; also III, i. II, 13] CRITICAL NOTES. 245 a class, and, abstracting from the differences of individuals, has marked by a class name that which they have in common, it is, as I have shown at length above, easy to forget just what one has gotten by the process, and how one has gotten it. It is easy to give the result a significance which does not properly belong to it, and to regard it as something higher in nature than the individuals in which it is found — something fixed and unchangeable. Of course, things may be classed by means of any one of their proper- ties, and the process is in all cases identical; but some classifications are more important than others, and it is natural to consider apart the class names which mark these, as expressing the true " nature " or " essence " of things. Aristotle, for example, does not, with Plato, separate his universals from indi- viduals, but he appears to lose sight of the origin of all universals in distinguishing, as he does, between those which express the essential attributes of their objects and those which do not, and treating the former as of higher rank. There is, it is true, no objection to making such a distinction, provided one bear in mind that the difference is one of utility only and that such universals do not differ in their nature from any others. It is, however, difficult to bear this always in mind, and to the words " nature " and '" essence " are to be attributed a multitude of phil- osophical errors. Now, Spinoza distinguishes between the essence of things and their existence, and not making this simply a difference between the universal and the particular, he treats the essence as different from the other prop- erties of a class of objects ; as independent of the individual and not derived from it in the manner 246 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [IntrOD. indicated. He writes : " Hence we are able to prove in another way that there cannot be more than one substance with a given nature, and I have thought it worth while to set forth the proof here. But to do this in a methodical way I must note : First, that the true definition of a thing neither involves nor ex- presses anything except the nature of the thing defined. Whence it follows, in the second place, that no definition either involves or expresses a certain definite number of individuals, seeing that it expresses nothing but the nature of the thing defined. For example, the definition of the triangle expresses nothing but just the nature of the triangle, and not a certain definite number of triangles. I must note, in the third place, that every existing thing necessarily has some definite cause, by reason of which it exists. And finally, in the fourth place, that this cause, by reason of which anything exists, must either be con- tained in the very nature and definition of the existing thing (for the reason, of course, that it belongs to the nature of such a thing to exist), or it must be outside of it. Granted these points, it follows that if there exist in the world some definite number of individ- uals, there must necessarily be a cause why those individuals, and neither more nor less, exist. If, for example, there exist in the universe twenty men (I will suppose, to make the matter clearer, that they exist at the same time, and that no others have ever existed before), it will not be a sufficient explanation of the existence of the twenty men to show the cause of human nature in the abstract; but it will be further necessary to show the cause why twenty exist, and not more nor less ; for (by point third) there must necessarily be a cause for the existence of each one. II, 13] CRITICAL NOTES. 247 But this cause (by points second and third) cannot be contained in human nature itself, since the true definition of man does not involve the number twenty. Hence (by point fourth), the cause why these twenty men exist, and, consequently, why each one exists, must necessarily be outside of each one. Therefore the conclusion is unavoidable, that everything of such a nature that several individuals with that nature can exist, must necessarily have an external cause to bring about their existence. Now, since it belongs to the nature of a substance to exist, its definition must involve necessary existence, and hence its existence may be inferred from its mere definition. But from its definition (as has just been proved from points second and third) the existence of several substances cannot be inferred. From it, therefore, it follows necessarily, that but one of a given nature exists, as was maintained." * The only part of this extract which concerns us here is the distinction between essence and existence, uni- versal and individual, Spinoza separates them from each other very sharply, but so far from looking to individuals for the essence, the only question he raises is whether the individual can be deduced from the essence. The essence he puts among the " fixed and eternal things " to be deduced from the idea of God or substance, in the manner already described. f Not everything common to several individuals may be re- garded as an essence. He distinguishes between the properties constituting the essence and other prop- erties, as follows : " To be called perfect, a definition must set forth the inmost essence of a thing, and we * " Ethics," I, 8, schol. 2 ; cf. I, 11, proof 2. f " De Intellectus Emendatione," pp. 32-33. 248 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [IntroD. must be careful not to substitute for this some of its properties. To make this clear I shall give an illus- tration, and passing over other examples, for fear I may appear to be desirous of exposing other people's errors, I shall only take the case of an abstract thing, the exact definition of which is unimportant; I shall take, namely, a circle. If this be defined as a figure of such a sort that all lines drawn from its center to its circumference are equal, it is plain to everyone that such a definition does not in the least set forth the essence of the circle, but only one of its properties. And although, as I have said, this is of little moment in the case of figures and other abstractions, yet it is of great importance when one has to do with physical and real entities ; for the properties of things are not understood, as long as one is ignorant of their essence. If we overlook these essences, we necessarily subvert the natural order of ideas, which should reflect the order of nature, and we wholly miss our aim."* From the above as well as from many other pas- sages, it is clear that Spinoza did not regard his " essences " as mere universals, but rather as real things independent of individuals, while retaining certain characteristics of universality. They are " fixed and eternal things," in no sense arbitrary cre- ations, but existing somewhat after the fashion of Plato's Ideas. Spinoza does not, however, always use the words " nature " and "essence " in this sense. He defines desire as " the very essence of man, in so far as this is conceived as determined to some action by any one of his modifications," f and he proves the thesis "any emotion of one individual differs from the *" De Intellectus Emendatione," p. 31. ■(■" Ethics," III, defs. of the emotions, i. II, 14] CRITICAL NOTES. 249 emotion of another, only in so far as the essence of the one differs from the essence of the other," by the argument that emotion varies as does desire, and that a difference in desires means a difference in nature or essence.* This would make the essence different in each individual man. Again, he writes : " Since the essence of the mind consists in its affirming the actual existence of its body, and since by perfection I mean the very essence of a thing ; it follows that the mind passes to a greater or less perfection, when it happens to affirm of its body, or of any part of it, something involving more or less reality than before." f Here the essence of the mind is made a variable quantity. Very striking is the preface to Part IV. of the "Ethics," where the meaning of the word " perfection " is dis- cussed. Spinoza argues that we form general ideas of classes of things by comparing individuals with each other, and thus obtain patterns or ideals by which we afterward judge individuals. He continues: "Per- fection and imperfection, therefore, are really mere modes of thinking ; that is, notions, which we are accustomed to frame because we compare with one ■another individuals of the same species or genus. For this reason I have said above that by reality and per- fection I mean the same thing. For we are accustomed to refer all the individual things in nature to one genus, which we call the highest genus ; that is, to the notion of being, which pertains to all, without exception, of the individual things in nature. In so far, therefore, as we refer the individual things in nature to this genus, and compare them with one another, and as- certain that some have more being or reality than *" Ethics," III, 57 ; cf. IV, 33. f Gen. def. of the emotions, Explanation. 250 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [IntROD. others, in so far do we say that some are more per- fect than others ; and in so far as we attribute to them anything that involves negation, as limit, end, impotence, etc., in so far do we call them imperfect, because they do not impress our mind as much as those we call perfect, and not because they lack some- thing that belongs to them, or because nature has blundered. For nothing belongs to the nature of anything, except what follows from the necessity of the nature of the efficient cause ; and whatever fol- lows from the necessity of the nature of the efficient cause necessarily comes to pass." The terms good and evil likewise are mere notions, formed by com- paring things with one another, but such terms should be retained as a matter of convenience : " For since we desire to form an idea of man, a pattern, as it were, of human nature, upon which we may gaze, it will be of service to us to retain these terms in the sense of which I have spoken. Therefore, I shall hereafter mean by ' good,' what we certainly know to be a means by the aid of which we may come to resemble more and more the pattern of human nature that we have set before us. By ' evil,' on the other hand, I shall mean what we certainly know hinders us from reflecting that pattern. Furthermore, I shall say that men are more perfect or less perfect in pro- portion as they resemble more or less closely this pat- tern. For it should specially be noted that when I speak of a man as passing from a less to a greater perfection, and conversely, I do not mean that he is changed from one essence or form to another (a horse, for example, is as much destroyed by being changed into a man, as by being changed into an insect) ; but I mean that we conceive his power of acting, in II, 13] CRITICAL NOTES. 251 SO far as we comprehend this through his own nature, to be increased or diminished. Finally, by ' perfec- tion,' taken generally, I shall mean reality, as I have said ; that is, the essence of anything, in so far as it exists and operates in a definite manner, without regard to its duration." In the above Spinoza contrasts what really belongs to the nature of a thing — and this means everything that belongs to the thing — with what we regard as belonging to its nature when we have formed an ideal of that kind of a thing and refer to this ideal as a pattern. The " essence " of man, as he uses the word in the passages quoted further back, evidently is such a pattern. It is formed by comparing individuals, and is fixed and changeless only in the sense that the individuals really contain the elements thus taken, and that we form our pattern by choosing these individuals rather than others. In this argument Spinoza ex- presses forcibly the truth that the essences of things are not independent of individuals, but are abstrac- tions, and formed through comparison.* Oddly enough he comes back at the close to the other notion and limits the reality of each thing by its essence, as though this essence were something really existent in nature, and not a product owing its existence as an abstraction to its convenience, and found, in so far as it may be said to really exist at all, only in the indi- viduals which have it as their common core. It is strange that he should not have seen that the essence of man is only a pattern formed by comparing differ- ent men, and the essence of horse one formed by comparing different horses ; that they are entia rationis * Compare the striking passage in his letter to Blyenbergh, Letter 21. 252 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [IntrOD. as much as " white man " or " black horse." This, however, he did not see. Although, as we have seen, he uses the words essence and nature inconsistently, his fundamental thought, and one essential to his phil- osophical system, is that essences are not the result of an abstraction from the differences of individuals, but entities of a different class, eternal, unchangeable, independent of individuals ; not mere abstractions, but real causes ; in other words, they are Platonized abstractions.* 14. Deduction of Ideas from the Idea of God. — We are now in a position to see why Spinoza passes lightly over the deduction of all our ideas from the idea of God or substance. Such a deduction of the concrete from the abstract is an impossibility, and Spinoza's " fixed and eternal things " really are at bottom abstrac- tions. From the concrete one may get the abstract by fixing attention upon certain elements and disregard- ing others, but from a single abstraction one can never get a concrete, for elements have to be added which are not contained in the former. For example, from " white man " I can get " man," but from man alone I cannot possibly get " white man." This difficulty Spinoza met face to face in one of the extracts I have given above. He could not help seeing that he could not get twenty concrete individual men out of " man " in the abstract, for " the definition of man does not involve the number twenty." He was therefore forced to conclude that the essence — man in the abstract — could not be the cause of the existence of twenty individuals. The deduction of all our ideas from the idea of the origin and source of nature, must then, * The definition of essence in Part II. of the " Ethics " (def. 2) is criticised later. See Note 48. II, 14] CRITICAL NOTES. 253 perforce, stop at essences, and is not prevented from going on to individuals merely by the complexity of the problem and the limitations imposed by human weakness, as seems indicated elsewhere.* And, al- though Spinoza has not recognized the fact, the dififi- culty does not end here. It logically repeats itself at each stage of the deduction. If I cannot get twenty men from man, how can I get man and other essences from something higher which will stand to them in a similar relation ? And how deduce from the attri- butes, at the outset, the infinite modes immediately caused by God ? f The intellect " perceives certain things, or forms certain ideas, absolutely; some ideas it forms from others. The idea of extension it forms absolutely, and without considering other thoughts. The idea of motion, however, it cannot form without reference to the idea of extension." J That is, exten- sion can be conceived without thinking of motion, but motion cannot be conceived without thinking of extension. Just so, man can be conceived without thinking of twenty men, but twenty men cannot be conceived without thinking the group of qualities rep- resented by the word man. Whether one be concerned with the relation of individuals to their essence, or of essences to something more abstract, one meets the same difficulty. It is, consequently, not surprising that we do not find in the " Ethics " attributes deduced from substance, infinite modes from attributes, essences of a lower order from infinite modes, or individuals from their essences. Things are not obtained by * " De Intellectus Emendatione," p. 33. But even here Spinoza denies any connection between existence and essence, f " Etliics," I, 28, schol. ; and Letters 64 and 83. :(: " De Intellectus Emendatione," p. 35. 254 I'HE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [IntrOD, deduction, but taken up as given in experience, and then referred in a general way to God as their cause.* 15. The Dual Causality of the "Ethics." — This explains, too, the puzzling dual causality one finds everywhere in Spinoza's writings. As we have just seen, he recognized the impossibility of extracting individuals from essences, and denied that the essence could be the cause of the existence of the individuals. This forced him to look elsewhere for the cause, and he accounted for the existence of individuals — finite particular modes — by a reference to other individuals, the unconditional antecedents recognized as causes in the sciences. This chain of finite causes he conceived of as stretching back to infinity. It is true that God is declared to be the sole cause of things, of their existence as well as of their essence ; f but this chain of finite causes nowhere shows any tendency to approach substance. In declaring that essences can- not cause the existence of individuals, Spinoza has wholly cut them off from each other. We are left with the hierarchy of " fixed and eternal things " on the one side, and concrete individuals on the other ; between them is a great gulf fixed, and the reader will do well to simply accept this state of affairs as he finds it, and save himself the trouble of looking for a bridge where none is forthcoming. J There are thus two distinct aspects to the philoso- * As the reader must see, Spinoza's difficulties arise out of a misconception of the true significance and use of universals in deductive reasoning. f " Ethics," I, 25. \\vi an early work ("Short Treatise on God, Man and His Blessedness," Part I, ch. 2, Second Dialogue) Spinoza attempts to bridge the gulf by an illustration. He does not succeed. II, i6] CRITICAL NOTES. 255 phy of Spinoza, the one having to do with the chain of finite existences or real things, and the other with the fixed and eternal things, the abstractions which he hypostasizes and regards as causes. The former we may call its scientific aspect, and the latter its meta- physico-theological. Each is sufficiently uncompro- mising, and, in forming an estimate of Spinozism, neither should be overlooked or explained away. That the theological form given to his reasoning is not merely a dress borrowed by Spinoza for the pur- pose of making his scientific notions more welcome to his contemporaries should, I think, be clear to any unprejudiced reader of his works. The religious instinct was evidently the fundamental one in his character and furnished the impulse to his philoso- phy.* Moreover, the whole structure of the " Ethics " demands that we yield recognition to this medieval realistic side of his thinking. With that abstracted his reasonings become incomprehensible. It is this religious instinct, too, that forced him into inconsist- encies. To feed it satisfactorily through universals it is' absolutely necessary to make them something more, to make them concretes. God or substance should logically be to Spinoza simply the highest abstraction, the element contained in every idea of whatever sort.f If, however, these words were clearly recognized as meaning nothing more, the religious element would evaporate out of the Spinozistic phi- losophy and leave it sufficiently flat. 16. The Eternity of Essences. — In closing this intro- ductory note, which I have already made much longer than I intended, I shall treat very briefly one more * " De Intellectus Emendatione," opening sentences. I " Ethics," II, 45-47. 256 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Introd. topic, that of the " eternity " of essences of whatever sort. This plays a role of no small importance in Part V. of the "Ethics." I have said, in discussing the formation of the con- cept, that, to have a true universal, it is necessary to keep the element or elements it represents really abstract, that is, wholly separate from others. This x and that x, for example, are distinguished as two by the " this " and the " that," by qualities or marks of some sort, even if they be only spatial or temporal differences. That which they have in common — x in the abstract — must, to remain abstract, be stripped of all such individualizing elements. Hence, x in the abstract is conceived apart from all time-relations. It cannot change, of course, for change implies two con- ditions or states related in time. It cannot cease to be, for if these words mean anything they imply exist- ence in time and a negation of existence in time. One cannot abstract from the notion of time, and then use such expressions- On the other hand, x in the abstract cannot remain unchanged, for it takes time to remain unchanged as well as to change ; and it cannot continue to exist, for continuance out of time is an absurdity. It will not do to deny certain time- relations of universals, and then use words which imply certain others. The essence "man," for ex- ample, cannot cease to exist, but it is equally true that it cannot go on existing, does not exist now, and never has existed. To remain a genuine essence, a universal, it must not touch the stream of time at any point. It must be kept wholly abstract. Now Spinoza follows an ancient custom in applying to essences the word eternal to indicate that they are independent of time-relations. I cannot but regard II l6] CRITICAL NOTES. 257 this use of the word as unfortunate, for when we use the word eternal we commonly mean to indicate an existence through endless time. This, of course, it cannot mean when applied to universals, to essences of any sort ; yet it is very evident that those who em- ploy the word draw from this source the consolation they find in thinking of essences as eternal. Spinoza expressly denies that the word as he uses it has any reference to continuance in time,* but it is clear to a careful reader that he did not really abstract from the idea of time at all. This I shall point out in the notes to follow. We cannot limit one's right to use words as one chooses, and everyone is free to employ the word eternal after his own fashion, but in the interests of clear thinking I may be excused for protesting that it is of great importance to bear clearly in mind the true connotation of the word and to keep to the one connotation throughout. One should remember that, as applied to universals, the word should mean simply that one has abstracted from all time-relations. Uni- versals of all sorts are, therefore, equally eternal. " Redness " is as eternal as " man," and " sourness " as eternal as " substance." f If one chooses, then, to prove man's immortality by pointing to the fact that "man" in the abstract is eternal, he should remember that this is a cheap immortality shared by " man " with the object of every class name, and that it does not imply that "man" exists now or ever will exist. Such an immortality should surely never be confounded with immortality as commonly understood. It is par- ticularly important to think of this when reading Part V, of the " Ethics." That essences of all sorts are eternal and in what * " Ethics," I, clef. 8. f Compare Plato, " Parmen.," 130. 258 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [IntroD. sense they are eternal, should also be borne well in mind when one reads the earlier parts of the " Ethics." In following Spinoza's account of the procession from God or substance to nature as a diversified aggregate of parts — the creation of things, as he calls it* — we seem to have before us a historical progress marked by a fixed order in time. The impression one thus gains is, liowever, delusive, and is due to the fact that Spinoza employs words indicating time-relations when, by hypothesis, all time-relations must be abstracted from. The fixed and eternal things "are all by nature simultaneous "f — which unfortunate phrase must, for the sake of consistency, be understood as simply deny- ing temporal succession, and not as affirming co-exist- ence in time. Thus natiira naturans, or God con- sidered as a free cause, does not precede in time iiatura naturataX created things, but is merely to be regarded as a logical priiis. The things immediately created by God do not precede in time those created through the instrumentality of these former things. We have in the whole series not a description of what takes place or has taken place, but simply a logical arrangement of abstract conceptions as higher and lower. The only historical process is to be found in the series of particular finite modes, or real things ; and, as has been pointed out, there is no indication of any manner in which these may be referred to God or inferred from God. 17. Summary. — In what precedes I have occupied myself almost exclusively with the theologico-meta- physical aspect of the Spinozistic philosophy, for this is * " Ethics," I, 33, scliol. 2. \ " De Intellectus Emendatione," p. 34. \ " Ethics," I, 29, schol. II, 17] CRITICAL NOTES. 259 the aspect that the modern reader finds unintelligible. When Spinoza writes as a medieval realist he employs conceptions which seem to most persons in our day strange and unfamiliar. When, however, he touches the conceptions of modern science he is easily under- stood, and references in the notes will suffice to bring out this side of his doctrine. Such references I shall give from time to time. Again to summarize briefly : Spinoza sets out to deduce from the idea of God, or substance, all our other ideas, and believes it possible to thus produce a priori the order of the whole of nature. He con- ceives of the gap between substance and the individual finite things found in nature as filled by a chain or series of entities, a hierarchy of essences, or fixed and eternal things, which stand to each other in the rela- tion of cause and effect, and which must furnish the steps in the above-mentioned deduction. These essences are really abstractions, universals of a greater or less degree of generality, but they are hypostatized by Spinoza, who was a realist, and treated by him as things, yet as things possessed of properties which belong only to universals. Sometimes, though not usually, they are spoken of as aggregates or wholes, of which finite individual things are parts. The series of essences here indicated is nowhere given, nor is the deduction carried out in any of its parts. Such a deduction of the concrete from the abstract is an impossibility, and rests upon a miscon- ception of the significance of universals and their employment in deductive reasoning. This difficulty forced itself upon Spinoza's attention at one point, and compelled him to regard the chain which should connect substance with finite individual things as 26o THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Introd. broken at its last link — he declares it impossible to deduce real existing things from their essences. He is consequently compelled to accord to essences alone a place in his proposed deduction, and to account for real existing things by a reference to other things of the same kind, the causes recognized in the sciences. Both the existence and the essence of individual things are, it is true, referred to God as sole cause, but no indication is given of any vi^ay of connecting existences with God. They are w^holly unprovided for in Spinoza's general scheme. Essences are declared to be eternal, and by eternity Spinoza is careful to explain that he does not mean existence through endless time. He means that essences are to be regarded as wholly apart from time- relations of any sort. It is true that the universal, in so far as it is really kept universal, must be kept clear from all such individualizing elements. If this be all that is meant by the word eternal, then, of course, universals are eternal — not merely the universals which Spinoza calls essences, but universals of all sorts. " Man," for example, is not more eternal than "hat," or " substance "' than "accident." Such eter- nity does not imply that the universal in question really exists, ever has existed, or ever will exist, for such language introduces the time-relations supposed absent. This should be remembered in reading Part V. of the "Ethics." Since, finally, essences are thus eternal, the series of fixed and eternal things must not be conceived as coming into existence successively ; its parts do not mark a historical progress. We are not to regard God as prior in time to the things he has created, nor the things immediately created by him as prior in II, ly] CRITICAL NOTES. 261 time to those created through their instrumentality. The story of the Creation as given by Spinoza is not a description of what has taken place. Its chapters are not successive. The scries of fixed and eternal things is simply a logical arrangement of abstract con- ceptions as lower and higher. This should be kept carefully in mind throughout, for the language of the " Ethics " is misleading. NOTES TO PART I. !• (def. i) The notion of a causa sui is not original with Spinoza, but dates from a much earlier time {see Martineaus note, "^ Study of Spinoza,'' Part II, ch. i, § 2). Spinoza sometimes appears to recognize that the phrase cannot be taken literally, but rather as indicating that the being in question has no cause {De Int. Emendat., pp. 23, 30, 32), This, however, is not in harmony with his language in other places, where the idea of causality is unmis- takably present {see I, 8, schol. 2 ; 11, proof 2, proof 3, and schol.; 16 and cors.j 18 ; 25, schol. j etc.) ; and a very positive significance was given to the phrase by his master Descartes. The latter maintains {^'^ Answers to the First Objections to the Meditations ") that when we call God the cause of himself we may, indeed, use the words negatively, as indicating that he has no cause ; but when we ask why he is or continues to exist, and consider the incomprehensible power contained in the idea of him, we recognize that this is the true and only cause of his existence. To escape verbal dis- putes, says Descartes, we may avoid the term efficient cause ; but we are justified in believing that his rela- tion to himself is analagous to that of the efficient cause to its effect, and, consequently, that he is the cause of himself in a positive sense. Spinoza cannot use the phrase in a merely negative sense, for his philosophy demands an a priori proof of the existence of God. He denies that essences 262 Def. i] critical notes. 263 can be obtained from individual things given in expe- rience. They must be deduced from the series of fixed and eternal things i^De Int. Etnendat., p. 2>Z \ Letter 10. See my Introductory Note^ II, 13). Since the idea of God cannot be taken from experience, and since all others are to be deduced from it, some way must be discovered of getting it at the outset. This way is found in declaring God's existence to be included in his essence, and then inferring it from his essence. This is not a passing thought with Spinoza ; he evidently regarded it as of the utmost importance, and he returns to it constantly in his different works. A little later {prop. 11) I shall have occasion to discuss the arguments for the existence of God or substance. Here I wish only to consider what is im- plied in including existence in an essence. To one who has read carefully the second part of my Intro- ductory Note the reasoning will be sufficiently clear. Essences are not individual things, but universals, such as " man." A universal is such only in virtue of the fact that it represents what several individual things have in common, and does not contain any of the elements which mark them as individuals. It does not exist in this time or that, or in this space or that. It does not, indeed, exist at all, as a real thing; for it exists only in the individuals subsumed under it (remember what is signified by this use of the word in), and the " man " in any particular individual man is not "man "in the abstract, but an occurrence of the qualities connoted by the word man, at a particu- lar time and place. Now, if I take up existence among the other quali- ties composing an essence, then, no matter what I 264 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART I may mean by the word existence, I must universalize it, I must understand it as existence in general, the mere idea of existence, that which all existing things have in common. I cannot possibly regard it as any particular existence, and insist that, because existence in the abstract has been added to other abstract quali- ties, I have now no abstraction, but a concrete existing thing. If I have such a concrete individual, it is not an essence, for an essence is not individual, but uni- versal. If I have an essence, then, whether existence be one of the qualities attributed to it or not, I have not an existing thing. Unless one wholly change the meaning of the word essence, one cannot escape from self-contradiction in speaking of the real existence of an essence. As we have seen, Spinoza turned his essences into concrete things, and thus found it easy to ascribe to them real existence. The use of the phrase causa sid in a positive sense it seems hardly necessary to criticise. The word cause implies a relation between two things. A thing cannot be said to be related to itself. It can no more be its own cause than it can be its own neighbor. 2. (def. 3) This definition becomes sufficiently in- telligible when one remembers (i) the parallelism of thought and things held by Spinoza {Introductory Note, I, 2), and (2) his notion of the existence of a series of eternal entities corresponding to the logical arrange- ment of concepts as lower and higher {^Introductory Note., II, 7). He regards each lower essence (species) as in the one above it (genus), and the highest of all as in none. This he expresses by saying that it is in itself. Since the mental order reflects the external, each lower concept is conceived by means of the one above it, and the highest, of course, cannot be con- Def. 4] CRITICAL NOTES. 265 ceived through any other. Hence it is conceived through itself. The highest abstraction would not logically be the notion of substance, and Spinoza has simply substituted for it this latter, which seems to give us a concrete thing and not an abstraction. He was by no means the first to do this, the Realists before him having regarded universals as substances {see the sentence quoted from Robert Pulley n, Introductory Note, H, 9; or the doctrine of John Scotus, Ueberwegs '^Hist. of Philos.^ vol. I, § 9°)- 3. (def. 4) Since the attributes constitute the es- sence of substance, one would naturally infer that Spinoza regarded substance as simply a name for the sum of the attributes. The reader of the ''Ethics" will see that there is much to be said in support of this view. Substance is said to consist of attributes {def. 6, a7id props. 11 and 12) ; they are declared iden- tical in such a phrase as the following : "God is eter- nal ; that is, all God's attributes are eternal " {prop. 19; see also 2g, schol.)\ attribute is, like substance, defined as that which must be conceived through itself {prop. 10 and Letter 2); it is stated that nothing exists save substance and its modes {prop. 4; 6, cor.-, 15; 28); and the things immediately created by God are made modes, not attributes, though one of Spinoza's correspondents, in discussing this point, suggests that by these things the author must mean attributes {prop. 28, schol., and Letter 64). On the other hand such an interpretation is not in harmony with the general structure of Spinoza's thought. The attributes of substance are infinite in number, and should find their unity in some universal which stands above them, if the hierarchy of essences 266 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART I is to be complete and end in an ultimate unity. Such a unity Spinoza gives them in substance, and much of his language becomes unintelligible if one assume that he was clearly conscious that by substance he meant only the sum of the attributes {see prop. lo, schol.j props. 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 ; II, 7, sc/ioL, etc.). Spinoza never distinguishes clearly between attri- butes and substance, and never deduces the former from the latter. In tracing individual things, finite modes, to God, he only goes back to the attribute under which they are to be subsumed, and appears to regard his task as finished. This favors the first view of the meaning of the word substance. And yet Spi- noza regarded the universe as a unit; he was in search of a Being, single and infinite, and a multitude of dis- tinct attributes would not satisfy him so long as he recognized them as distinct and independent. The word substance, I think, besides its other suggestions, represented to him the universe as a cosmos, a con- nected whole ; it binds together (very vaguely, it is true) the otherwise independent attributes. Indefinite as is this Spinozistic substance, it is not more indefinite than the notion of substance or substratum still gener- ally accepted. The expression, " which the understanding perceives as constituting," appears to distinguish between things as they are and things as they appear to us, and seems to play into the hands of the idealist. As, however, Spinoza postulated an exact parallelism of thought and things, the idealist can only take the words as an involuntary betrayal of the untenability of his position. 4- (def. 5) For an explanation of this language see Note 2. Modes are the more concrete things sub- sumed under a universal. Axioms] critical notes. 267 5- (def. 6) In the opening propositions in the "Ethics," where Spinoza is developing the general idea of substance, he does not call substance God. After proving that there is but one substance, he uses the terms as interchangeable {p7-op, 11), In the ex- planation appended to the definition, the words " everything that expresses essence," etc., mean everything real and unlimited. 6. (def. 7) See Note i. 7. (def. 8) See my Introductory Note, II, 16, and Note I. In defining eternity as existence itself, Spinoza evidently does not stand by the eternity of essences as I have explained it. The word should only mean that the essence in question is a true universal and freed from all individualizing elements. Consequently, as a universal, it does not really exist. Its only real existence is in its individuals (please remember this ill), and regarded as in an individual it is individual- ized and no longer universal. It is "an occurrence " of certain qualities, not the qualities in the abstract. 8. (axioms) In explanation of these axioms, see my Introductory Note, I. The language of axioms i and 2 is explained in Note 2. Axiom 5 depends on the same thought. Things which have nothing in common cannot be conceived by means of each other because they cannot be related as genus and species are related. For axiom 7, see Note t- Anything can be conceived as non-existent, unless we start with the hy- pothesis that it exists and that the thought of its existence must not be divorced from it, in which case, of course, we contradict ourselves in denying its existence. I can conceive any house as non-existent. I cannot conceive an existing house as non-existent, without ceasing to think of it as an existing house. 268 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART I If I insist that it shall remain an existing house, it is futile to attempt to conceive of it as non-existent. This is really what Spinoza does in including existence in essence, and then assuming the inconceivability of the non-existence of this essence. 9- (prop, i) This does not mean prior in time, but logically prior (see Introductoij Note, II, i6). 10. (prop. 2) See Note 8, where axiom 5 is referred to. 11. (prop. 3) See Introductory Note, I, 4. The order of causes is assumed to correspond exactly to the order of conceptions. 12. (prop. 4) The puzzling words "outside of the understanding " seem to be inserted without good reason, as Spinoza makes the understanding a modi- fication of substance. Note that substance in this proof appears to be made identical with its attributes. 13- (prop. 5) Naturally, if we mean by substance the ultimate abstraction obtained by laying aside all the differences of things, there cannot be more than one substance. So much for the latter part of the argument. As to distinguishing substances by their attributes, if by attribute we mean all that we can con- ceive as constituting the substance, then to speak of two substances with but the one attribute is, of course, absurd. We have in mind one attribute and that is all, and from that we can get no duality of any sort. We must add something to pure " x " to get " this x" and " that x." But if each of two substances has a group of attributes, then (even if substance be but a name for the attributes). they may be distinguished as two in spite of a common attribute, for they may also possess attributes that differ. Spinoza's argument is good only for substances with but one attribute. Prop. 8] CRITICAL NOTES. 269 14- (prop. 6) Such expressions as " produced by " are misleading, and the reader must be on his guard against tliem all through the " Ethics." The causal- ity with which Spinoza is here concerned is the time- less causality of fixed and eternal things, corresponding to the logical order of conceptions {^Introdtictoiy Note, II, 15). In the corollary it is assumed as self-evident that a substance cannot be produced by modifications. ^5- (prop. 7) See Note i. The argument is not above reproach as a bit of logic. If everything that exists must have a cause, if substance exists, and if sub- stance cannot have anything else as its cause, then we must infer that it is its own cause. Of these three " ifs " Spinoza furnishes only the third. 16. (prop. 8) In assuming that every finite substance must be limited by another of the same nature, Spinoza has of course assumed that something is in- finite. This infinite something is not, however, the sub- stance with which the argument sets out. If we con- ceive of a finite substance extending to a certain point and then being continued by another of the same kind, we are not merely considering an attribute, but also bringing in a mode. The thing that stops here and the thing that begins there are clearly recognizable as two things. The thing that is infinite is, consequently, not the substance with which we started, and which ends at a given point. If it be said, we may overlook the mode and consider only the attribute ; I answer, then we should not start with the mode, the supposi- tion of a given finite substance. The argument con- sists in making a distinction and then overlooking it. 17' (prop. 8, schol. i) It will be remembered that prop. 7 was not proved. Note also that finitude is not necessarily a negation. I may think of the thing 270 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part I disqussed in the last note positively as being just what it is ; I may also think of it as not going on, but stop- ping here. So I may think of the infinite as going on ; or I may think of it as not stopping. 18. (prop. 8, schol. 2) The argument is as follows : All clear ideas are true {Introductory Note, I, 3). Some true ideas may represent things not actually existent. Their truth consists in the fact that they are true de- ductions from something else that is true — their essence is included in it. Since substance cannot be thus carried back to something else, the only truth it can have must consist in actual existence. We have a clear, or true, idea of substance, and thus should never doubt its existence. Nor can substance ever have been non-existent, for then the idea of it would have been a false idea (as having no reality corresponding to it), and after the creation of the substance it would be a true idea, and thus a false idea would become true, which is absurd. 19- (prop. 8, schol. 2) I have discussed this question of the essence and the individuals to be subsumed under it in the Introductory Note (II, 13). We have here a striking illustration of the dual causality assumed by Spinoza. Mark that this process of separating the essence from individuals, and considering the former alone, does not justify us in inferring the existence of one substance any more than of several substances. We do not get a single individual thing, but a mere abstraction {Introductory Note, II, 11). 20. (prop. 9) As we commonly use the word reality, a small thing has as much reality as a great one, pro- vided both exist. In other words, both are equally real. In this proposition, as is evident, amount of reality means simply amount of being. If by attribute Prop, ii] critical notes. 271 be meant that which constitutes the being of substance, the reference to def. 4 is to the point, 21. (prop. 10) See Note 3- 22. (prop. 11) See Note i- 23- (prop. II. proof 2) This proof may be con- demned merely on the ground that it rests on the general statement that a thing must exist if there be no cause which prevents its existence. Even if we admit the positive statement that everything that exists must have some cause, we are not bound to admit the negative statement that there must be a cause for the non-existence of whatever does not exist. Strictly speaking, one cannot say that there must be a cause for the non-existence of things, for this has no real being, and cannot be an effect, /. e., cannot stand in a certain relation to another thing. When we say, as we some- times do, that a thing does not exist because the system of things is what it is, we only mean that there does not exist a suitable cause for the production of the thing in question. We cannot mean to causally relate the non-existence of the thing to a part or the whole of the system of things. The doctrine that there must be a cause for the non-existence of everything that does not exist would have strange consequences. Let us suppose nothing at all to exist (a conception pos- sible enough): would it then follow that there must exist causes of all this non-existence of things ? Spinoza's reasoning in this proof contains other errors, which I shall not discuss in detail, as they will be recognized as such by the student who has read the notes preceding. I shall merely point out, as touch- ing the notion of the causa sui, the fallacy which lurks in the words " the reason for the non-existence of a square circle is given in its very nature." As the 272 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART I words " square circle " are said to involve a contradic- tion, they must be, as thus taken together, wholly meaningless. There is, therefore, no " nature " to appeal to — one cannot conceive it as either existent or non-existent, for one cannot conceive it at all. If we choose to say the nature of a square circle pre- cludes its existence, we can only mean that, since we cannot frame any idea at all corresponding to the words, we cannot conceive of a thing, corresponding to the idea, as existing. 24. (prop. II, proof 3) The premises upon which this proof rests should not have been assumed as self- evident. The statement that to be able not to exist is lack of power, is, interpreted in the sense made necessary by the argument built upon it, evidently false. If a thing does not exist, one cannot say that it has the power not to exist, or has anything else. The proof compares the power of an existing finite being with that of a non-existent infinite being, and declares that, in so far as the infinite being is non-existent, it is less powerful. Now it is possible to compare the prop- erties of an existent thing with those of a non-existent if we abstract from the existence and non-existence. In such a comparison we say, in effect, that, did both of the things exist, one would stand in such and such relations to the other. But if the existence and non- existence enter into the comparison and cannot be abstracted from, the matter is very different. A thing cannot be less powerful than another in that it is non-existent, for in that it is non-existent it cannot enter into any comparison at all. A non-existent thing cannot be infinite, or strong, or weak, or any- thing else, for it is nothing. The argument, there- fore, falls. Prop. 14] CRITICAL NOTES. 273 25- (prop. II, schol.) See the preceding note. Even if ability to exist may properly be called a power, it can certainly not be possessed or exercised by something that does not exist, and the whole question is whether the being to which we are attributing a given nature does exist or not, and hence whether it can have any power whatever. If the being does not exist, none of the attributes we allot to it can exist, nor can the number of these non-existent attributes be any indication of a real power to exist on the part of the being in question. The error which underlies and gives support to all these arguments for the existence of God or substance is the separation of existence and essence, and the attribution to essences of a sort of real being inde- pendent of existence. See the discussion of essences in the second part of my Introductory Note. 26. (prop. 12) See the notes to the propositions referred to in support of this argument. 27. (prop. 13) See the notes to the propositions referred to in the text. All this becomes clear when one bears in mind that substance is treated as an abstraction obtained by eliminating differences, a universal {see props. 5 and 8. See also prop. 15, fol- lowing). 28. (prop. 14) In this proposition God or substance appears to be simply a name for the sum total of pos- sible attributes {see JVoteZ)- If the one substance be a something constituted by all possible attributes, and if there cannot be two attributes of the same kind (/. e., if in comparing attributes we must overlook all modal distinctions, see Note 13), then, of course, there must be but the one substance. Having included in God all that is, it is a simple matter to prove there is nothing else in existence. 274 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part I 29. (prop. 15) Here Spinoza comes back to the notion of substance as simmiiim genus {see Notes 2 a?id 3). 30- (prop. 15, schol.) In this scholium we meet with those perennial bugbears, the mathematical antinomies. I cannot here discuss them at length, but must refer the reader for a fuller discussion of the whole subject to my little volume, " The Conception of the Infinite " (J. B. Lippincott Co., Phila., 1887). Spinoza really touches the true solution of these puzzles in his remark that they arise from " the supposition that infinite quantity is measurable." He does not, how- ever, apply correctly this principle, and hence does not solve the problems. The conception of the infinite is not quantitative. We cannot say that one infinite is greater or less than, or equal to, another, for these words imply measure- ment, and measurement of a thing means marking the distance between the limits of the thing. That which has no limits cannot be measured, nor can its extent as a whole be compared with the extent of something else. It is not a whole, for, when we use this word, we mean to include all that lies within the limits of an object. It is not a quantity or amount. When we cut an infinite line, we may, if we choose, call the two lines resulting from this section infi- nite. By infinite we here mean limited at but one point, and one point is not enough to determine the extent of a line. The resulting lines cannot be declared equal to each other, or less or greater than each other. They cannot be compared in extent with the original line. The argument that an infinite line divided into feet will be twelve times as long as one divided into inches. Prop. 15] critical notes. 275 since each contains an infinite number of divisions, evidently assumes that the number of divisions is in each case the same, /. e., that it is a finite number, and may be compared with other numbers. Again, in considering the two lines drawn from the point A, we may criticise the statement that " the distance between B and C will continually increase, and at length from a determinate distance will become indeterminable." This " at length " supposes the end reached, when, by hypothesis, there is no end. As to a line's being composed of points, etc., I must refer the reader to the little volume mentioned above, or to my monograph, " On Sameness and Identity," § 36. It would take too much space to discuss the matter here, and it does not greatly concern us. Spinoza's way out of the difficulty is the assumption that a line does not really consist of parts at all. He regarded space or extension as a real thing, which, diversely modified, constitutes the world of extended objects. Hence he could not admit of the possibility of a vacuum. When he denies that one part of cor- poreal substance could be annihilated, he says, in effect, that it is impossible to conceive of one part of space as annihilated. From this he infers that the parts are not really distinct. If this be true, we may infer that all corporeal substance (or space) is one and the same. But, whether Spinoza is right in assuming that we cannot think of any part of space as annihilated or not, and no matter how we regard space, this argu- ment does not prove that space is not really composed of parts. The parts of a thing may be conceived as indestructible, but that does not prevent their being true parts, and, as such, distinct from one another. 276 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART I The notion of space simply disappears if we abstract all idea of part out of part. Lines are no longer lines, surfaces are no longer surfaces, nor are solids solids. In denying that the parts of corporeal substance are distinct from each other, in conceiving it " as it is in the understanding," Spinoza simply abstracts from the differences which distinguish this part as here and that part as there. He overlooks the modes and falls back on the attribute, and his attribute is not some- thing concrete, composed of concrete parts, but an abstraction. He is considering extension in the abstract, which, of course, implies some notion of part out of part, but leaves out of view the marks of any concrete individual parts. The difference be- tween extension as it is in the imagination and exten- sion as it is in the understanding, is the difference between concrete and general knowledge, between the individual and the universal. This escape to the con- cept in no way solves the problems forced on us by the conception of the infinite. We cannot lay the ghosts of those infinite lines by denying that they are really infinite lines, and composed of parts. As well deny that a yard is composed of feet, or a foot of inches, or refuse to believe that anything is really extended, and may contain a smaller thing or be con- tained in a greater. 31- (prop. J 6) See the Introductory Note I, 4, and II, 10. In corollary i God is called the efficient cause. It should be remembered that the word cause has a double sense in the "Ethics." The "fixed and eternal things " are " immanent " causes. Finite indi- viduals are transient causes of other individuals. The word elificient cause should only apply to causes in Prop. 17] critical notes. 277 the latter sense. The causality attributed to essences and to individual things is discussed in the Introduc- tory Note, II, 15. Corollaries 2 and 3 are, of course, inferred from the fact that nothing can be attributed to any cause outside of the divine nature. 32. (prop. 17) Spinoza conceives all ideas as follow- ing by logical deduction from the idea of God, and, by a parallel process, all things following from God. This leaves no room for arbitrary choice, the physical necessity keeping step with the logical. Remember that neither this logical deduction of ideas, nor the corresponding physical progression, describes a historical process, for the " fixed and eternal things " are " all by nature simultaneous " {see Ititrodiictory Note, II, 16). The deductions from the nature of the triangle should not have been made parallel with the relation of cause and effect, where, when the words are properly used, the effect is not in the cause and simply brought out of it by analysis. The difficulty about God's creating all he knows and being unable to create any more is easily over- come. It arises from the fact that one employs the words "all he knows" to signify a definite amount, a finite quantity. If " all he knows " be infinite, one cannot use the word greater in speaking of it, for no comparison is possible {see Note 30). The words " God's omnipotence has from eternity been actual, and to eternity will abide in this actuality," mean simply that the whole system of " fixed and eternal things" — the hierarchy of abstractions dis- cussed in Introductory Note, II — really exists, has always existed, and will always exist. Of course Spi- noza introduces here, as in many other places, the 278 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART I notion of time, and inconsistently makes eternity to consist in endless time. In the argument to prove God's intellect and will different from ours there are several difficulties. Making God's intellect the cause of things contradicts II, 6, cor. The statement that our intellect and will agree only in name with God's intellect and will appears to contradict what is explicitly stated elsewhere, e. g., V, 40, schol. (on this point see Note 59). The doctrine of causality here taught contradicts I, 3, which latter is more in harmony with Spinoza's general doctrine of the causality of essences. 33- (prop. 18) See the Introductory Note (II, 10) and Notes i, 2^ and 3. A universal may in some sense be said to be immanent in the individuals subsumed under it, and Spinoza here returns to the notion of God as the ultimate universal. I have criticised in the Introductory Note his ascribing causality to these abstractions. The words " immanent cause " are unfor- tunate. If the cause cannot be regarded as a dis- tinct thing from the effect, we simply come back to the notion of a causa sui, which I criticised in Note I. 34- (prop. 19) This proposition appears to make substance only a name for the sum of the attributes {see JVoteZ). As to God's eternal existence, see Notes I and 15. There is evidently a leap in the argument. Existence is included among a number of other attri- butes as belonging to an essence. It is thus treated as distinct from each. Then it is concluded that each attribute is eternal — that is, that the existence included among the other attributes as one of a number is not a distinct property, but is fused with each other attri- bute as they are not fused with each other. It if Prop. 24] CRITICAL NOTES. 279 spread over all the rest. It is thus not treated as an element included with others in an essence. The argument in the " Principles " to which Spinoza refers is as follows : If we do not attribute to God an unlimited existence, we must admit that he, an om- niscient and a most perfect being, would know the limits set to his existence. He would thus know that he, a most perfect being, does not exist beyond those limits, which is absurd. Hence God has not a limited but an infinite existence, and this we call eternity. 35- (prop. 20) See the criticism of the treatment of existence in the preceding note. Prop. 20 completes the confusion by declaring existence absolutely iden- tical with all the other elements in the essence. 36. (prop. 21) This reasoning becomes plain if we bear in mind that here the attribute thought is not treated as a mere universal, an abstraction, but as a thing, infinite in extent and made up of finite thoughts [see the Introductory Note, II, 8). The idea of God is conceived of as one of these finite thoughts, limited by thought beyond itself. It is inferred that, as there may be thought beyond the limits of the idea of God, the idea of God does not follow from the very nature of thought. If it did, we could not have thought with- out it. The second argument is like the first, except that duration is substituted for extent. 37- (prop. 24) See prop. 8, schol. 2, and Note 19. As I have shown at length in the Introductory Note, Spinoza gives no hint of the way in which individual things, existences, are to be derived from God. The preceding propositions have been concerned to prove that all that follows from his absolute nature must be eternal and infinite. How his nature comes to be so conditioned that finite things of any sort may follow 28o THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART I from it is left wholly unexplained. The propositions which follow rest upon the assertion — introduced, as it were, by violence — that God is cause of existences as well as of essences. 38. (prop. 25) See the preceding note. The state- ment in the scholium that God is cause of all things in just the sense in which he is said to be cause of him- self {see Note i), will not square with one of the kinds of causality accepted by Spinoza, that set forth in prop. 28. Each finite thing must have a finite cause external to itself, and unless we simply obliterate the distinctions between things and call them really one and the same (as Sphwza does in the scJiolium to prop. 15, see Note 3° near the end), we cannot fall back on the causa sui idea. 39- (prop. 28) See Notes 37 and 38. 40. (prop. 28, schol.) Spinoza gives in one of his let- ters {Letter 6 \, ed. Van Vlotenand Land), as instances of the things immediately produced by God, in the attribute thought, "absolutely infinite understanding "; and in the attribute extension, '' motion and rest." As a representative of the second class, he instances " the face of the universe as a whole, which, though it varies in infinite ways, remains always the same." 41- (prop. 29) As all ideas are supposed to flow by strict logical necessity from the idea of God, and all things, by a parallel process, from God, the natural result is a universal determinism. The libertarian reader may console himself with the thought that this deduction of ideas and things has not been made {Introductory Note, II, 14). 42. (prop. 29, schol.) Again, the causa sui notion. The attributes as unmodified constitute God as cause ; as niodified, they are God as effect. It should be kept Prop. 33] CRITICAL notes. 281 in mind that natura naturans does not precede in time natura naturata. We have not here a history of crea- tion, but a portrayal of the logical structure of things. Spinoza appears to forget this from time to time, and uses language which is misleading {read, for example, 2,Z, schol. 2). In making God as cause in any way distinguishable from God as effect, Spinoza strains somewhat the causa sui idea. He, however, regards the two as identical, as constituting, not two things, but one (25, cor.^. 43- (prop. 30) See the Introductory Note, I, 2. 44- (prop. 32) Read 28, which is referred to in the proof of this proposition, and see Notes 37 and 38, Will is regarded as determined because it is a mode, and all modes are determined, and follow necessarily from the nature of God. 45- (prop. 2,Z'> schol. 2) Notice the time-relations in- troduced everywhere in this second scholium. Spi- noza has evidently found it impossible to get on without the "when, before, and after" excluded by the idea of '' eternity " {see Note 42). As to the perfection in which God has brought-^ things into being : Spinoza uses the word perfection in a sense quite different from that in which it is used by those whom he criticises. He brings out clearly the difference in the Preface to Part IV. See, also, his definition of perfection in Part II {def. 6). When, however, he speaks of things as having been " brought into being by God in the highest perfection," and labors to prove it, he is evidently taking advantage of the associations which cluster around the word as ordinarily used. In the same way he makes use of the associations which cluster around the word God, though his doctrine changes the meaning of the word 282 • THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. to something the ordinary man never thinks of. He writes, for example {^Letter 21) : " Meanwhile I know (and this knowledge gives me the highest satisfaction and tranquillity of mind) that everything comes to pass by the power and immutable decree of a supremely perfect Being." 46. (appendix) See the preceding note. Spinoza's naturalism is here sufficiently uncompromising. It is well to remember, however, that he did not wholly divorce from the word God the associations which ordinarily accompany it. Had he done so, his philosophy would not have influenced religious minds as it has done since his day. The force and clearness of this scholium make one regret that Spinoza did not write his whole treatise in the same style. The difficulties met with in the " Ethics " are partly due to its unfortunate mathemat- ical dress. NOTES TO PART II. 47- (preface) The reader will remember that, in Part I, no indication was given of the way in which modes could be deduced from the essence of God. Part II begins with such notions as body, idea, individual things, man, love, desire, etc. These are not deduced from the idea of God, but simply taken up as given in experience, and then referred to God. 48- (defs.) As regards def. 2, see what I have said concerning Spinoza's doctrine of essences in the Introductory Note (II, 13). This definition demands too much, and would make the essence of a thing strictly identical with the thing itself. Spinoza does not generally use the word essence in this sense. In explanation of def. 4, see Introductory Note, I, 3. Def. 5 takes up duration, or existence in time, which Spinoza contrasts elsewhere with eternity {see Intro- ductory Note, II, 16). We may take exception to the explanation appended to it, it being by no means clear that the existence of a thing may not thus be limited. Of course, no finite thing is wholly independent, and what happens to it is in part due to the influence of external things. As to def. 6, see the second para- graph of Note 45' 49. (axioms) As regards axiom i, see I, 8, schol. 2, and Introductory Note, II, 13. The four axioms fol- lowing are simply accepted as facts of experience. It is interesting to note that in axiom 4 he avoids idealism (inconsistently, it is true, see Introductory 283 284 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part I Note I, 3) by appealing to the fact that we perceive our body. He forgets that what we perceive is our per- ceived body, a complex in consciousness, and that it still remains to prove that there is a something else external to this perception, and corresponding thereto. Such a proof he nowhere attempts. He did well not to attempt it, for it is nothing more nor less than the attempt to obtain a conclusion without premises, to gain from experience what experience does not con- tain and cannot furnish. Axiom 5 is very interesting. Spinoza has defined God or substance as a being consisting of an infinity of attributes (I, 11). In Part H he teaches that each of these attributes is wholly independent of every other. The modes of each attribute are caused by their attribute alone, and can in no way act upon or be acted upon by the modes in an-y other attribute. They are, so to speak, in different worlds. This would seem to destroy the unity of substance absolutely, and make it only a name for an infinity of wholly different and independent things, existing without any bond of union whatever. Yet, as we have seen {see Note 3), Spinoza regards substance as giving a unity to the attri- butes. It is one, while they are many. Extended sub- stance and thinking substance are one and the same substance, apprehended now under this, now under that attribute (7, schoL). And since the modes of each attribute correspond exactly to those of each other attribute (7, cor., and sc hoi.), a mode of extension and the idea of that mode are the same thing, but expressed in two ways. Hence every individual thing is ex- pressed in an infinity of ways, for it appears as a mode in each attribute. Now, Spinoza accepts it as an axiom that we per- Axioms] critical notes. 285 ceive by sense the modifications of our body ; /. (?., the mind perceives a mode in another attribute, that of extension. He also accepts it as self-evident that we do not perceive any individual modes except bodies and modes of thinking. But if our mind, a mode of thought, is identical with our body, a mode of exten- sion, it is no less identical with an infinity of other modes. And if it bear the same relation to them that it does to the body, why is its knowledge limited to bodies and modes of thinking ? This difficulty was pointed out by one of Spinoza's contemporaries, and Spinoza attempts to meet it, but without much success {see Letters 63 to 66). He appears to teach that, as the human body has its cor- responding idea, the human mind {see prop. 13 and schol.), so the particular mode in each of the other attributes, which corresponds to the human body, has its idea too, and this is in every case related to it as the mind is to the body. All these ideas are distinct from each other and infinite in number. They con- stitute an infinity of minds. Thus each individual thing is represented once in every attribute except that of thought, and in that one is represented an infinite number of times — or perhaps (though Spinoza could' not admit more than one attribute of the same kind) one should say, is represented once in each of an infinite number of thought-attributes, for these ideas seem to belong to different worlds. It will be noticed that thought is here put on a very different footing from the other attributes. It is, so to speak, spread over all the rest, as existence is spread over all the rest of the elements in the essence in which it is included in I, 19. Of course, this multi- plying the number of times each thing is represented 286 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART II in the attribute thought does not explain why we know only two aspects of each thing. The idealistic reader will take a certain satisfaction in noting that this difficulty really has its root in that first extension of the attribute thought which makes it go beyond itself and seize upon extended things. If it can do this once, why not again ? The doctrine of the infinity of attributes plays no important part in the philosophy of Spinoza : he occupies himself only with thought and extension. 50. (prop, i) The proof of this proposition brings out well the fact that Spinoza's attributes are uni- versals, abstractions obtained by obliterating differ- ences {see Introductory Note, II, 11). The statement in the scholium, that, since we conceive an infinite being by fixing attention upon thought alone, we must regard thought as one of the infinite attributes of God, needs a little attention. Strictly speaking, by fixing attention upon thought alone, we get nothing but thought, just as by fixing attention upon extension alone we get nothing but extension. Had Spinoza gotten his substance by a further abstraction from the differences between different attributes, then fixing attention upon thought alone would not result in con- ceiving an infinite being — the infinite being, God, or substance. He only carries his abstraction, however, back to the attributes, and then speaks as if he had reached God or substance. Thinking an attribute is, thus, conceiving an infinite being, for the attributes express the nature of this being. As I have said, Spinoza never clearly distinguishes between the being and its attributes {see Note 3). Note that in the proof it is not stated that the infinity of the attribute thought depends upon the Prop, 5] CRITICAL NOTES. 287 fact that the number of modes that express it is infinite, while the schoHum makes a thinking being infinite because it can think an infinite number of thoughts. The proof gives us thought as a universal, the element contained in every thought : the scholium gives us infinite thought as an individual made up of parts. The infinity of the former (if we may call it infinity at all) is a very different thing from that of the latter. 5i« (prop. 3) It is not proved in prop, i that God can think an infinity of things in an infinity of ways. As has been stated just above, the proof of that proposition gives us thought as a universal, a mere abstraction, and overlooks all modal distinctions. These are retained in the scholium. Since they are so retained, it is not true that "we conceive an infinite being by fixing attention upon thought alone." The infinity of the being depends upon our retaining the idea of a multitude of individual thoughts, finite modes, and Spinoza comes back to the idea of God as an aggregate, composed of parts. He is not con- sidering an attribute alone, but an attribute as modi- fied, and his references (I, defs. 4 and 6) are not pertinent. Hence the proof of prop. 3 really rests upon a play upon the words " an infinite thinking being." The conception contained in the scholium of the preceding proposition is substituted for that con- tained in the proof. This one starts with modes, and does not deduce them from the attribute. 52. (prop. 4) See Introductory Note, I, 2, on the parallelism of ideas and things, S3- (prop. 5) Prop. 3, to which reference is made in the first part of this proof, has been criticised in Note 51. The second part falls back on the notion of 288 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PaRT II the genus as cause o.f the species. Ideas are modes of thought, /. e., thought bears to them the relation of universal to particular, hence it is their cause. Exten- sion is not so contained in ideas, hence it cannot be their cause. This doctrine of universals as causes I have discussed at length in the second part of the Introductory Note (lo). 54- (prop. 6) See the preceding note. Compare the statements of the corollary with what is said in the scholium to I, 17, near the end {see Note 32). 55- (prop. 7) For the proof and corollary read the Introductory Note, I, i, which discusses the parallel- ism of the chain of ideas with that of real- causes and effects. As regards the scholium, see Note 3 and the part of Note 49 which is concerned with axiom 5. As we have seen, Spinoza regards every finite mode as conditioned by an endless series of finite causes (I, 28). He denies that the modes of one attribute can condition those of another (II, 6). Each attribute is, therefore, modified by an infinity of finite modes causally connected with each other, but having no causal connection with the modes of any other attri- bute. Nevertheless, the modes in each attribute absolutely correspond to the modes in every other. Each mode in one attribute must, therefore, have a corresponding mode in every other attribute, which mode is simply a different way of expressing the same thing. Thus we have in the attribute of extension an infinite series of material things connected with each other in a necessary and fixed order ; and in the attribute of thought an infinite series of ideas also connected with each other in fixed order. For every material thing there is a corresponding mode in the attribute of thought, and this is the idea of the thing. Prop. 7] CRITICAL NOTES. 289 They are also the same with each corresponding mode in the other attributes of substance. This illustration of the correspondence of modes becomes clearer when we remember that Spinoza regarded all nature as animated {see 13, sc/ioL). In other words, he believed that each material thing has an actually existing counterpart in the attribute thought, which counterpart may properly be called its idea. In this sense of the word the human mind is the idea of the human body {prop. 13). The doctrine of the infinite number of the attributes of substance is, as has been remarked {Note 49), of little significance in Spinoza's philosophy. What is important is his attempt to bridge the gulf between thought and extension. He regarded this identity of the modes in the one substance as furnishing the bridge sought for {see 13, schol^. Spinoza's formal proof that there is no causal con- nection between the modes of one attribute and those of another will, as we have seen, not bear critical examination {see props. 5 and 6 and the notes which relate to them). It was, however, very natural that he should take such a position. Descartes had so sepa- rated thought and extension in his philosophy as to make almost inevitable the doctrine of Occasional Causes, which arose among his immediate followers. This doctrine held that God is the immediate cause of mental changes which appear to result from mate- rial causes, and of material changes which appear to result from mental causes. What appears to us the cause is only the occasion for God's action. This constant interference on the part of an external cause Spinoza could not admit, as it is wholly opposed to his notion of the divine immanence in things. It 29.0 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part II was, therefore, necessary for him to deny that thought can act upon extension or extension upon thought. It remained for him to find some explanation of the fact (which it never seems to have occurred to him to question) that thought and things are so related as to make a knowledge of things possible. The thesis of prop. 7 is not proved by Spinoza, but simply assumed with the doubtful axiom (I, axiom 4) that, knowledge of an effect depends on knowledge of its cause and involves it. The expres- sions " knowledge of an effect " and " knowledge of its cause " assume at once the correspondence of the "knowledge " and the "effect" in the one case, and of the " knowledge " and the " cause " in the other. As the words " cause " and " effect " assume the mate- rial things in question to be in a certain definite rela- tion, it only remains for the axiom to declare the same relation to hold good between the intellectual factors. The correspondence of modes is thus simply as- sumed in proof of our proposition. In the scholium an explanation of the fact is offered. A thing and its idea are declared to be the same thing viewed under different aspects. They are one, because substance is one, and they are modes of substance. This needs some examination. As I have said {NoteZ), Spinoza's statements regarding substance are very vague, but whether we regard it as a name for the sum of the attributes, as the stniimum genus, or as a something underlying modes and different from them {substra- fum), we cannot accept the scholium as really explain- ing anything. If by substance we mean merely the sum of the attributes, we have plainly no explanation at all. Our calling two distinct things the same thing will not make them correspond, nor can it furnish any Prop. 7] CRITICAL NOTES. 291 evidence that they do correspond. If substance be the siimmum genus, the ultimate abstraction, it can serve our turn no better. It will not explain the parallelism of two lines of fence to say they are both " fence." As to the third sense of the word : if the one substance which Spinoza regards as revealed in both the thing and the idea of the thing be something different from both and underlying them (the sub- stratum with which the students of the history of philosophy are familiar), then proof should be offered (i) that substance of this kind exists ; (2) that the substance underlying the tvvo modes in question is really identical, and (3) that a single substance under- lying two modes would cause such a parallelism of modes as the one in question. The proofs of the existence of substance have already been discussed {see I, II, and the notes ivhich criticise it). The second point Spinoza does not prove in any sense which could serve the desired end. He has argued that substance is indivisible (I, 12, 13). The substance underlying one mode is, therefore, identical with the substance underlying any other mode. If, then, we argue that a thing is one and the same with the idea of that thing, on the ground that they are only differ- ent expressions of the same substance, we may also argue that a thing is one and the same with the idea of any other thing. Any attempt to prove the corre- spondence of modes from identity of underlying sub- stance must assume that the substance underlying each material thing is distinct from that underlying every other material thing, and is identical with that underlying one particular idea. Such a partition of substance Spinoza could not admit. As regards the third point, if it be not incompatible with the unity of 292 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART II the one substance that it should have two such differ- ent manifestations as thought and extension, what reason is there to think it incompatible with its unity that the order and arrangement of parts in its two manifestations should be different? The reader will remark a close analogy between Spinoza's doctrine of the independence and parallel- ism of modes in the attributes thought and extension and the modern psychological doctrine of cerebral "automatism." The scholium to prop. 2, Part III, for example, reads like a chapter from a contemporary work on psychology. The failure of Spinoza's argu- ments to prove that mind and body cannot act on one another does not, of course, dispose of this doctrine. 56. (prop. 8) This corollary and scholium rest on the parallelism of thought and things set forth in the last proposition. Spinoza maintains that an idea cannot have actual existence unless its object has it. The only thing puzzling here is the sort of existence attributed to those things that "do not exist except in so far as the infinite idea of God exists." It is the sort of existence attributed to es- sences, which (to take the mental series) may be de- duced from the idea of God, and in so far may be said to exist when once the idea of God is given. The whole series of "fixed and eternal things" are sup- posed to be "simultaneous," and given in the highest member of the series from which they may be deduced. Though Spinoza distinguishes between essence and existence, and denies to these things the latter, yet he grants them a shadowy kind of "essential" existence. An actually existing rectangle has, consequently, a dual existence. On this subject of essences, see the Introductory Note, II, 13. Prop, io] CRITICAL NOTES. 293 57- (prop. 9) The statement in the proof that God is cause of the idea of an individual thing actually ex- isting only " in so far as he is considered as affected by some other mode of thinking " simply says in other words that each idea is caused by some other idea {see I, 28). All things are said to be in God, and, hence, whatever is caused by anything is caused by God *' in so far," etc. As I have said, Spinoza nowhere indicates how the chain of finite existences may be connected with God {see Notes 37 and Z^). As to the corollary : God as a thinking thing means God revealed in the attribute thought {prop. i). Now the only representative of any individual thing in the attribute thought is the idea of the thing. Hence God's knowledge of the thing must be shut up to this. 58. (prop. 10) The reader will find a detailed criti- cism of these arguments by turning to Spinoza's refer- ences and looking up the notes indicated. The definition of essence made use of in the proof and the scholium to the corollary demands too much of an essence {see Note 48), and would make the essence of a thing identical with the thing itself. When the word is used in its proper sense, it does not follow that, given the essence, the thing is given. We have seen that, had Spinoza been logical in following up his series of " fixed and eternal things," God would have been to him simply the ultimate universal, the highest abstraction {see Notes 2 and Z). He would thus be included in the essence of each individual thing, for he would be reached by abstract- ing from all differences of individuals and retaining w^hat they have in common. Given the individual, then, God would be given ; but given God, the indi- vidual would not be given at all. Yet Spinoza's 294 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part II " proper order of philosophizing" begins with the ab- stract and endeavors to develop a concrete. 59' (prop, ii) The only criticism I need make on the proof of this proposition is that props. 21 and 22 of Part I do not, even supposing the reasoning there to be valid, prove that an infinite thing must always necessarily exist. As to the corollary : the infinite intellect of God, which, as we have seen {Note 4°), is an infinite and eternal mode in the attribute thought, is conceived as made up of ideas, and the human mind is regarded as one of its parts, not as subsumed under it as the par- ticular is subsumed under the universal {see V, 40, schoL). This appears to contradict I, 17, sc/ioL, which maintains that God's intellect and man's intellect have nothing in common but the name. Possibly this dif- ficulty may be overcome by supposing that in the scholium just mentioned Spinoza is considering God merely as natura iiaturans, as consisting merely of unmodified attributes. Had he, however, had this thought, he could very easily have said that intellect is a modification of the attribute thought, that no modifications of any sort belong to God regarded as the first cause, and that, consequently, intellect cannot be said to belong to the divine nature in any sense. His language does not entirely fit this interpretation. In this corollary we again meet the " in so far," etc. {see Note si). It will recur constantly. It does noth- ing but remind us that all things are in God. When Spinoza says that God, in so far as he constitutes the essence of the human mind, has this or that idea, he means merely that the idea in question is the essence of the human mind, and that this is a part of God's intellect. When he says "God has this or that idea, Prop. 13] CRITICAL NOTES. 295 not merely in so far," etc., he means that the human mind constitutes only a part of the whole idea of the thing in question, and that this whole is part of God's intellect. Thus it will be seen that Spinoza makes the human mind to consist in ideas. He comes very near to a simple and scientific psychology quite up to the require- ments of modern thought. His unfortunate realism, his failure to grasp the true difference between imag- ination and thought, etc., conspired, as the reader will see, to becloud his horizon. 60. (prop. 12) The thing puzzling about this proof is the fact that it is presented as a proof with the " in so far," etc., as premises {see Notes 57 and 59). The argument really should be that, since the human mind, which is the idea of a given object, exactly represents that object, whatever takes place in the object must be represented in the human mind. Spinoza assumes here, and in the corollary to prop. 9, that this is equiv- alent to saying the mind knows what takes place in the object. 61. (prop. 13) The proof of this proposition rests upon axioms 4 and 5, which appeal to experience {see Note 49). It would perhaps be better to say there is no proof at all, as everything is given in the axioms, and the detour about ideas being " in God, in so far," etc., adds nothing to the thought {see Notes 57 and 59), ex- cept to keep one in mind of the fact that the mind is to be regarded always as a part of God. It has nothing whatever to do with the proof of the thesis. The language of the corollary seems to imply that the existence of the body has been proved. It has, however, been assumed with axiom 4. For the scholium, see Note 55. 296 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA, [PART II What follows, as far as the next proposition. I shall not criticise in detail, for it is at least sufficiently in- telligible. I shall merely take up two points. The a priori proof {iemina 3, cor.) that a body in motion cannot, unassisted, come to rest, nor a body at rest set itself in motion, rests upon the thought that the idea of the effect must be actually contained in that of the cause. Out of the mere thought of motion we cannot get rest, or vice versa. It is, however, only experience, or a deduction from premises furnished by experience, that can tell us what causes and effects go together. Again, the statement {lemma 7, sc/iol.) that the parts of nature may vary in infinite ways without any change of the " whole individual " {see Note 40), will be ac- cepted as true or not according to one's definition of what constitutes change in an individual. The doc- trine of the conservation of energy appears to furnish what Spinoza was feeling for here. 62. (prop. 15) The reference to God in this proof has nothing to do with the argument {see Note 60)^ which rests solely upon the doctrine that an idea exactly represents its object. 63- (prop. 16) In this proposition with its corolla- ries we meet with a serious difficulty. In harmony with the doctrine of the parallelism of thought and things, the object of the idea constituting the human mind has been declared to be the body and noth- ing else {prop. 13), and it has been maintained that everything that takes place in the body, and every part of the body, are represented in the mind {props. 12 and 15). There ought, therefore, to be in the mind "objectively" just what is in the body " formally " and no more. But the external causes of the modifications of the body, the things which act Prop. i6] CRITICAL NOTES. 297 upon it, are not in the body at all. They ought not, then, to be represented in the mind, but in other ideas or minds which are external to the mind. In making the mind perceive anything beyond the body the paral- lelism of mind and body is violated. Of course, Spinoza's argument bases itself, in a way, on the doctrine of parallelism. As effect is related to cause, so is the idea of the effect to that of the cause. The former "involves " the latter. But that does not imply that both ideas make part of one mind — the human mind, which is limited to the representa- tion of what takes place in the body, and ought not to include the representation of anything else. I have discussed at length in the Introductory Note (II, 12) the meaning of the word involve. Usually it denotes the relation of particular and universal. I have also shown that Spinoza uses the word cause in two quite distinct senses, the one to indicate the relation of uni- versal and particular, the other to indicate the relation of finite causes and effects as recognized by science. In the latter case the cause is outside of its effect, and is a distinct thing from it. Now, anything that could be regarded as a cause of the modifications of the body in the first sense of the word cause might be said to be in the body, and its idea might be said to be in the mind. But causes of the second kind can- not be in the body, nor can their ideas (if we are to hold to a parallelism) be in the mind. It is true that Spinoza uses the word idea in two senses (I shall dis- cuss this a little later), but everything that has pre- ceded has led up only to ideas of the one kind, /. e., the representatives in the attribute thought of modes in the attribute extension. To put one of these representatives in another — to put the idea of some- 298 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART II thing else than the body in the mind — is not per- missible. The concession of cor. 2 reminds one of the old "relativity" arguments of Hamilton and others. Spinoza does not attempt to distinguish in detail between what really belongs to external objects and what does not. 64. (prop. 17) For a criticism of the proof of this proposition see the preceding note. In the corollary we find the generally accepted psychological doctrine that, given the same cerebral condition, we will have the same mental activity. With the psychological doctrine we can have no quarrel, as it is a legitimate inference from certain facts given in experience. When, however, we come to examine it in its relation to Spinoza's theory of knowledge, we find, as has been indicated in the preceding note, serious difficulties. The two senses in which Spinoza uses the word idea come out clearly in the scholium. The idea of Peter which constitutes the essence of Peter's mind directly expresses the essence of Peter's body. It is the mode in the attribute thought, which corresponds to the physical Peter, a mode in the attribute extension. The doctrine of parallelism demands that this corre- spondence be complete and absolute. There must be nothing in Peter's body that is not in this idea, and nothing in this idea that is not in his body. But the idea of Peter that is in Paul's mind is a very different thing. It is not in Peter's mind at all, but forms, for the time being, a part of Paul's mind — the idea of Paul, in the sense of the word given above. And there may be in Paul's mind a vast number of ideas of things other than Paul's body. As a good Spinozist Paul's endeavor must be to arrive at the idea of the Prop. 17] critical notes. 299 " origin and source of nature " and deduce from it a host of ideas which are not ideas of his body. Now, the doctrine of parallelism, as Spinoza has developed it in what precedes {pi-ops. 7, 8, 9, 11, 13) presents us with an infinite series of bodies to which correspond, point for point, an infinite series of ideas. Each idea answers to one body, and each body to that particular idea. This correspondence is explained by the assumption that a body and its idea are really identical with each other. Thus if two bodies are dis- tinct from and outside of each other, their ideas are distinct from and outside of each other. By no pos- sibility can the idea of one body be in the idea of another. This doctrine in no way demands a correspondence between Paul's idea of Peter and Peter as he is. It does demand a correspondence between Paul's idea of Peter and some modification of Paul's body. Paul's mind is only a part of the infinite intellect of God {prop. Ti, co)'?^, and the idea of Peter (Peter's mind) is another part. Hence that Peter should be in any way represented in Paul's mind, or that Paul should be able to represent in his mind the whole of nature or any large part of nature seems to contradict the doctrine of parallelism of modes, or, at least, to com- plicate it by the addition of a quite new doctrine. We have here a second parallelism of ideas and things, which must be carefully distinguished from the first. It is this second parallelism, which suddenly appears with the double meaning of the word "idea," that ought to be the important one to Spinoza. His con- cern is with the reality of knowledge, and it is with knowledge that this is concerned. That he confused the '.wo senses of the word idea seems plain, if only 300 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part II from the fact that he leap«, without warning the reader, from the one parallelism to the other. It would hardly be just to close this criticism with- out adding the statement that Spinoza finds himself in good company when he falls into perplexing diffi- culties over the problem of the possibility and reality of knowledge. The doctrine of the duality of ideas and things, convenient and unobjectionable in psy- chology, will not pass in epistemology. This is not the place to discuss the subject at length, and I must refer the reader to my monograph "On Sameness and Identity," § 35.* 65- (prop. 19) The references to God add nothing to the argument {see Notes 57 and 59). Spinoza's reason- ing is, in substance, as follows : The human mind is the idea or knowledge of the human body. The human body is not independent, but a part of a system of finite modes and related to other bodies. The mind is similarly related to other ideas. To express this thought in other words, we may say God has the idea of the human body, /. e., knows the human body, and so far as he is affected by the ideas of many individual things. Hence God has an idea of the human body, /. e.^ knows the human body, in so far as he is affected by many other ideas, /. {^Introductory Note,W, 14); and love toward God is the pleasure which arises in the mental exer- cise of deducing the concrete (the individual thing) from the abstract (the attribute). This is, of course, something very different from what is commonly meant by love toward God. 114. (prop. 17) As the reader will see on looking up Spinoza's references, II, 32, and II, def. 4, have little connection. The reasoning of this proposition is as follows : one is subject to a passion when he is acted upon from without, /. e., when what takes place in him cannot be deduced wholly from his essence or nature. In other words, he is passive in so far as he has inadequate ideas. God cannot have inadequate (fragmentary) ideas, for all that exists comes from him. Hence he is without passions. Again, God cannot be affected by any emotion of pleasure or pain, for he belongs to the world of essences (I, 20), and these emotions imply change. See, below, the note to 18, schol. 115. (prop. 18) Comprehending God as the cause of pain means deducing the pain, along the series of " fixed and eternal things," from the idea of God. I have discussed in Note 105 what it means to form a clear idea of (comprehend the causes of) a passion. If we make pain something positive, and place it as an element in the system of real things, there is no 34° THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART V escape from referring it to God as its cause, since everything must be referred to him. But Spinoza treats it somewhat as we might treat the notion " in part," in saying we know such and such a thing " in part," but God cannot know it in part, nor could we, if our knowledge were more perfect. ii6. (prop. 19) See Note 113. 117. (prop. 20, schol.) In this scholium Spinoza makes a transition to the puzzling question of the mind's immortality. The reader will notice that the opening and closing sentences of the scholium do not admit of a ready adjustment to the doctrine of parallel- ism he has developed in Part II. It is here hinted, and later plainly taught, that the mind may continue to exist when the body is destroyed. See the follow- ing notes. 118. (prop. 21) See the references in the text and my notes corresponding. Spinoza follows the Aristo- telian tradition in making memory and imagination dependent upon the existence of the body, and rea- son independent and imperishable. See Ueberweg's "■ History of Philosophy," vol. i, § 49. 119. (prop. 22) Once more the dual causality [see Introductory Note, II, 15). The essence of the human body, like all other essences, belongs to the series of " fixed and eternal things," and its idea comes by logical deduction from the idea of God. One should note that Spinoza brings together, by the use of an insidious phrase, this essence and the individual existing thing, a body. He talks of the essence of this or that human body, just as he does of \S\q. existence of this or that human body. This makes of the es- sence, no longer a universal, but a component part of an individual ; it has become " an occurrence " of Prop. 23] critical notes. 341 the essential qualities, not those qualities abstractly considered. It is, then, no longer a true essence, a something common to a class of things. In my Intro- ductory Note (II, 9) I have warned the reader of the danger of giving to universals a local habitation in an individual, of making them concrete. In so doing we bring our universal into the system of real exist- ences, but when there it is no longer a universal. The whole of an individual existent human body is indi- vidual and real — no part of it can be singled out from the rest and be dubbed its essence. It takes a class of things to have an essence, and when we con- sider but one single thing, the notion of essence dis- appears. One man cannot walk in single file. The reader will notice in what follows that Spinoza does make the essence a part of the individual mind, and grants to that part immortality while denying it to the rest. This conversion of the abstract into the concrete was forced upon him, for he had to make contact somewhere between the world of essences and the world of real things. 120. (prop. 23) Spinoza's doctrine of immortality is perhaps the most disputed point in his system. Some have believed that he teaches a doctrine of personal immortality, as it is commonly understood ; others have supposed him to mean by immortality only a state of intellectual clarity, and in no sense a con- tinuance of mental life after the death of the body ; still others have supposed that he did not clearly understand his own meaning, and that his utterances are, in consequence, inconsistent with each other ; and some have gone so far as to accuse him of a deliberate intention to conceal his true thought. The charge of disingenuousness may be dismissed, 342 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part V for, though Spuioza often uses words in a sense widely different from that in which they are generally ac- cepted, he is sufficiently frank in the rest of his book, and does not hesitate to oppose commonly received opinions. The student who has followed thus far my criti- cisms of Spinoza's reasonings should be able to see, I think, where the difficulty lies. Bear in mind our author's division of things into the world of essences and the world of real existences {Introductory Note, II, 15). All essences are eternal. The human mind, which is composed of ideas, contains some adequate and some inadequate ideas. All its ade- quate ideas come to it along the chain of essences, and themselves belong to the world of essences, thus participating in the eternity of essences. The part of the human mind composed of adequate ideas is thus eternal, and cannot perish. It is obtained by logical deduction from the idea of God, and is, so to speak, eternally contained in that idea. So much for Spinoza's argument. It is clear that it is open to criticism. In the first place, adequate ideas are referred to the world of essences, and yet made a part of an actually existing individual thing, the human mind. I have criticised this in the pre^ ceding proposition. In the second place, the paral- lelism of mind and body is violated, for it is plainly indicated that the whole of the body may be destroyed, while a part of the mind continues to exist. The doctrine of parallelism would demand that a part of the body continue to exist, too — as much of it as can properly be called " essence." In the third place, the eternity attributed to the indestructible part of the mind cannot, it is claimed, be defined in Prop. 24] critical notes. 343 terms of time, and cannot have any relation to time, and yet Spinoza spealcs of this something as remain- ing after the destruction of the body, and it is indi- cated that it existed before the body. All this means nothing at all, if we completely abstract from the notion of time. The reader will notice that, in the propositions to follow, Spinoza has a very hard time, indeed, with his timeless eternity. It absolutely refuses to stay timeless ; and we can scarcely con- demn it, for we may set down its efforts to gain time as the conatus or impulse to persevere in its thinkable being, a life-and-death struggle to mean something. As there still exist philosophers who believe that the words "timeless eternity " are not without significance to them, I shall point out in the following notes Spinoza's inconsistency, even at the risk of being a little tiresome. {On the eternity of essences, see In- troductory Note, II, 16.) There is one point in the scholium which may seem obscure, the mind's feeling of its own immortality. We may understand this in two ways : Spinoza may have meant that we are as conscious of the presence in our mind of adequate ideas (abstractions, concepts, essences) as of inadequate (sense-perceptions), and hence may know clearly that we are immortal ; or he may have appealed to the " feeling of immortality " as it exists in many persons, the instinctive belief in a future life. Perhaps his words may be interpreted in both ways. 121. (prop. 24) I have shown in the Introductory Note (II, 8) that Spinoza sometimes makes God the universal obtained by abstracting from the differences of things, and sometimes makes him the sum total of things. If we nieari by the word God the sum total 344 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART V of things, then, of course, it follows that the better we comprehend particular things the better we compre- hend God ; if, on the other hand, we mean simply and strictly the highest universal, this does not follow. I have also shown, however, that Spinoza does not keep his universals strictly universal, but makes them in some sense concrete. He conceives of God as the source from which all things flow, from which they derive both their existence and their essence. Now, if it belongs to God's essence or nature to unfold into a system of things, and if our comprehension of things consists in seeing them flow from God (or as logically contained in God), we may say that in comprehending things we are comprehending God. This derivation of the ideas of things from the idea of God I have discussed at length in the Introductory Note. 122. (prop. 25) I have discussed the kinds of knowl- edge in Note 83. The virtue of the mind Spinoza regards as identical with its power. As it is its nature to know, and as it cannot do anything else, its virtue is proportional to its knowledge. But the mind is active (/. e., really knows things completely) in so far * as it has adequate ideas (/. e., ideas which can be deduced along the series of essences from the idea of God). Hence its highest endeavor is to know things by the third kind of knowledge, that is, to know them by such a deduction from the idea of God. 123. (prop. 28) I do not think that there is really any difference between the second and third kinds of knowledge {see Note 83). Spinoza's reasoning in this proposition may seem a little obscure, but it becomes clear when one remembers that he makes desire the very essence of a man, regarded as a cause, and that he has held that adequate ideas can only spring from Prop. 29] CRITICAL NOTES. 345 adequate ideas. Hence the desire to know things by the third kind of knowledge {t. e., the cause of such a knowledge of things) must itself consist of adequate ideas, and must spring from adequate ideas. 124. (prop. 29) The reasoning here is loose, and the student will find it difficult to obtain Spinoza's con- clusion from the references given in the text. I think the argument he means to present is about as follows : The mind is the idea of the body, and its knowledge of the body and of other real things is based upon the ideas it has of the modifications of the body. It can only have ideas of such modifica- tions, and, hence, can only know the body and other existing things, as long as the body exists. In other words, it can only know real existing things, things which " endure," as long as the body exists, and through its ideas of the modifications of the body. It can, thus, only have such knowledge as long as it conceives the present existence of its body. But there are some things that the mind knows under the form of eternity. It has, in other words, some ade- quate ideas, and the part of it composed of adequate ideas is eternal. But the part of the mind which is eternal is the essence of the mind, the part which cor- responds in the world of thought to the essence of the body in the world of extension. Hence the mind can only conceive things under the form of eternity in so far as it is itself eternal, or in so far as it repre- sents the eternal essence of the body. We may say, then, that it can only conceive things under the form of eternity in so far as it conceives the essence of the body under the form of eternity. See my note " On the Mind and its Knowledge," appended to the notes to Part II. It will be noticed 346 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART V that Spinoza's argument given above rests on the doc- trine of parallelism. We have on the one hand the correspondence between knowledge of individual real things, things that " endure," and real things, and on the other that between essence of mind (adequate ideas) and essence of body. It will be evident to a reader of the note referred to just above that Spinoza reasons loosely. 125. (prop. 30) The mind, that is, knows itself as deduced along the series of essences from the idea of God. {See Note 121). 126. (prop. 31) The argument here is that the mind in so far as it is eternal, or in so far as it belongs to the series of " fixed and eternal things," has a knowl- edge of God (for the idea of God is, as immanent cause, involved in every essence). Hence, having the idea of God, it may have an adequate knowledge of all that is involved in this idea — which ought to mean a knowledge of everything. But when Spinoza makes the mind the adequate cause of this knowledge he reasons badly, for the mind's essence is only one of many essences which have been obtained by deduc- tion from the idea of God, and the mind ought to be regarded as the formal cause (on making essences causes, see Introductory Note, II, 10) only of ideas which follow from it, and not of those which follow from other essences, in the line of descent toward individuals. If it be argued that the mind may know all things by such a deduction on the ground that it contains the idea of God, from which all are to be derived, one may answer that Spinoza has held that every idea, without exception, involves the idea of God (II, 46). Hence a mind consisting of any ideas whatever might be regarded as the adequate cause of Prop. 33] CRITICAL NOTES. 347 all that can be deduced from the idea of God, and not merely a mind regarded as an essence, or as eternal. In the scholium it is maintained that the more ade- quate ideas the mind possesses the better its knowl- edge of itself and of God. What I have said just above shows that this is not reasonable. The pos- session of any idea ought to give one an adequate (perfect) knowledge of God, and, hence, of one's self and everything else. Note the temporal flavor given to eternity in the scholium. 127. (prop. 32, cor.) Do not confound this intel- lectual love of God with love of God in the ordinary sense of the words. It is nothing more nor less than the pleasure arising from intellectual activity. He who deduces individual extended things from the attribute of extension, or individual ideas from the attribute thought, and feels pleasure therein, is en- gaged in loving God. The words are highly mis- leading, and must be taken in the strict technical sense given them by Spinoza. 128. (prop. 33) Spinoza's two orders of being, exist- ences and essences, here entangle him in desperate difficulties. The third kind of knowledge is declared to be eternal. This means that it never began to be ; and it follows that the love which springs from it never began to be. But how then can the mind *' endeavor " to know things by this kind of knowl- edge [props. 25 and 28) ? Must it not, while endeavor- ing to gain such knowledge, be without it ? And may not the amount of such knowledge in any given mind progressively increase (38, and 7,9 and schol.) ? The difificulty lies in this : Spinoza has conceived 348 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [PART V of the world of essences as eternally contained in God ; rhey do not flow from him by a historical process, but exist in him and are related to him as the conclusion in a syllogism is related to the premises. Now the mind, or the idea of the body, is an existent thing, and belongs to the world of existences. Things in this world are perishable, and not eternal. The prob- lem is to transfer a part of the mind, as it were, to this other world in which things are eternal ; to turn a greater or less portion of it into an essence. Spinoza does not succeed any better here than he does in his earlier attempts to make contact between the two worlds. Note, again, the temporal flavor of the eternity in the scholium : " The mind has eternally had these same perfections that we have just conceived of as added to it," etc. I may remark in passing that if the mind has always had these perfections, why has it endeavored to obtain them ; and why should it endeavor to obtain any more, for it must already have those it desires to obtain, if it ever can have them, since they are eternal and cannot begin to be. As the reader must see, in talking of a timeless eternity one is simply playing with words. " Has had " and *' will have " mean nothing if we abstract all idea of time. 129. (prop. 34) Again the notion of time is intro- duced. It is implied that, although the imagination cannot remain after death, another part of the mind can {see prop. 23). 130. (prop. 36) The thesis of this proposition re- minds one of the constant tautological references to God in Part II. God, *' in so far as he can be ex- pressed by the essence of the human mind," is nothing Prop. 36] ' CRITICAL NOTES. 349 else than the essence of the human mind, /. e., its eternal part. Hence, of course, it is mere tautology to say that the mind's love toward God is God's love of himself. Compare with this the scholium to prop. 40. On the nature of this love, see Note 127. The corollary appears to contradict what is said in the corollary to prop. 17. In the latter, how- ever, Spinoza is speaking of love as a passion, a love accompanied by pleasure. Here he is speaking of a love which is a pure activity, and " blessedness " has taken the place of the pleasure. The distinction made in the scholium between the second and third kinds of knowledge is not in har- mony with what I have said in Note 83 about the kinds of knowledge. I there said that there was really no difference between knowledge of the second and third kinds. It does not appear to me that it is consistent with Spinoza's doctrine to make such a distinction. Knowledge, is adequate when it can be wholly accounted for without going beyond the limits of the mind itself, that is, when it carries within itself its own explanation — can be deduced from the attribute which it "involves." But knowledge thus deduced from an attribute is of the third kind. Whether the deduction stops somewhere in the series of essences before it reaches concrete individuals does not affect the question (see the definition of knowledge of the third kind in II, 40, schol. 2). In this scholium Spinoza appears to mean, by knowledge of the second kind, knowledge which passes from the idea of God to some essence not at the bottom of the series, and by knowledge of the third kind, knowledge which goes all the way to the bottom. This would make the two kinds of knowledoe differ, not in their start- 350 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part V ing point (the idea of an attribute) but in the point where they end. The reader will notice that this does not adjust itself to the illustration of the three numbers (II, 40, schol. 2), for there the three kinds of knowledge are made to end with the same fact, the difference between them being that they start from different premises. That knowledge of the second kind should start from the idea of an attribute seems plain from II, 37, 38, 45, 46, and 47, That it should end where knowledge of the third kind ends may be inferred from the illustration of the three numbers. It cannot, then, be consistently distinguished from knowledge of the third kind. 131. (prop. 37) Spinoza's reasoning here is as follows: the essence of the mind, regarded as an eternal truth, is deduced from the nature of God. That is, its relation to the nature of God is similar to that of the truth that the three angles of a triangle equal two right angles to the nature of the triangle. If, then, the essence of the mind were destroyed, an eternal truth would not be an eternal truth. As the intellectual love arises out of this relation of the mind's essence to God, it, too, must be eternal and indestruc- tible. Note the reference to time in this use of the word "destroy." The plain implication is that what cannot be destroyed will continue to exist. 132. (prop. 38) The reader will notice, on looking up II, 1 1, that the essence of the mind, as there treated, is an actually existing thing, a something belonging to the world of real existences, not to the world of essences. In making a part of it continue to exist when the rest has been destroyed, Spinoza has trans- ferred it from the one world to the other (se^ Notes 119 and 120). Prop. 40] critical notes. 351 Note, again, the temporal flavor of Spinoza's eter- nity : a part of the mind will perish, but the eternal part will "remain." 133- (prop. 39) In this proposition and scholium it comes out clearly that in passing from bondage to freedom, from the state of perishable beings to that of immortal and imperishable, we are converting ideas of memory or imagination into ideas of the reason. We are, in other words, transferring ideas from the world of real existences to that of essences {see the precedijig note'). I should like the reader, after finish- ing this Part of the " Ethics," to peruse once more the second part of my Introductory Note. It is really important to have clearly in mind what is meant by the world of essences, if one is to comprehend Spi- noza's difficulties with his two orders of being. He quite cuts them off from one another, and then allows the gulf between them to be filled up by essences that become individual things (or parts of individual things), and by individual things which become essences (modifications of the body which come to be referred to the idea of God). 134. (prop. 40) The argument of the proof hinges, I think, on the statement in the scholium to III, 3, to the effect that passions or passive states cannot be attributed to the mind except in so far as it con- tains something that involves negation. Thus it seems to follow that the more perfect a thing is the less passive it is, for perfection is identical with reality, and reality is the opposite of negation. The corollary infers from this that the part of the mind which abides (the essence or reason) is more perfect than the part which perishes (the imagination). All this reasoning rests upon Spinoza's distinction 352 THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA. [Part V between the world of existences and the world of essences. An existing thing is a part of nature and cannot be explained without a reference to other parts; in other words, does not carry its explanation (cause) within itself. It is then incomplete, it lacks being, or involves negation. Essences are complete in them- selves, and do not thus lack being. But it should be remarked that, as has been pointed out, Spinoza has already incorporated his essences in the system of nature. The part of the mind which abides is a part of the mind, that is, a part of a real existent thing, a part of nature, and hence should need explanation in just the same way as other real things in nature. It should then involve negation, or lack perfection, as much as the part of the mind which perishes. I may further mention that one may take exception to Spi- noza's statement that things regarded as a part of nature involve negation, and hence lack perfection. Note, again, the time-content given in the corollary to the idea of eternity. A part of the mind " per- ishes," and a part of it " abides." Note, also, that in the scholium Spinoza has come back from the idea of God as the highest universal, to the idea of him as a sum total made up of parts {see lutrodudoj'y Note, II, 8). The opening sentence of the scholium shows how Spinoza has forgotten the parallelism of mind and body. 135- (prop. 41) See Notes 102 and 103. Piety and religion and the rest should be taken in the strict Spinozistic sense. We have seen what love of God means to the consistent Spinozist. [Note 113.) We have seen also that virtue means simply power, and that it is the sole duty of man to consult his own interests (IV, def. 8, and app. VIII). Now, as the Prop. 42] CRITICAL NOTES. 353 mind is capable of no activity or perfection save knowledge, and as it passes to a greater perfection, and hence experiences pleasure, only in knowing, it must regard as of the highest importance increase of knowledge, and that whether this knowledge is to " abide " or not. In Part V of the " Ethics " we dis- cover that it is to abide. I do not, of course, mean to say that the words piety, religion, and virtue did not mean more to Spinoza than his philosophy would permit them to mean. They did mean more to him, I am sure ; but, in so far as they did mean more, he was not a good Spinozist. 136. (prop. 42) The only point that can cause diffi- culty here is the somewhat inconsistent treatment of love toward God, or blessedness. This is said to spring from knowledge, and is thus treated as some- thing distinct from the knowledge. It is then identi- fied with virtue, or knowledge. Note, again, Spinoza's treatment of eternity in the scholium : the wise man " never ceases to be, but is always possessed of true satisfaction of soul." Sub- tract from this sentence all idea of time, and see what is left. INDEX. Active, wlien we may be said to be, 135 ; mind, in having adequate ideas is, 136. Ambition, 151. Anger, 151. Attribute, defined, 25. See Substance. Automatism, 137 ff. Avarice, 151. Aversion, 148. Beauty, relativity of, 70. Benevolence, 151. Blessedness, defined, 160 ; not the reward of virtue, but vir- tue itself, 207. Body, defined, 74 ; relation to mind, 87 ff. and 137 ff. ; com- position and identity of in- dividual bodies, 88 ff. Boldness, 151. Bondage, 153. Cause, of itself, defined, 25 ; when adequate, 135. Certainty, 124 ff. Commiseration, 149. Common Notions, their nature and origin, 112 ff. Confidence, 149. Consternation, 151. Contempt, 148. Contingent, why things are so called, 59; definition of , 157. Contrary Emotions, 158 Cowardice, 151. Cruelty, 151. Death, not feared by a mind endowed with clear jvoowl- edge, 203. Derision, 149. Descartes, on the emotions, 133; on the seat of the soul, 172. Design. See Final Causes . Desire, 145, 148. Despair, 149. Devotion, 149. Disappointment, 149. Drunkenness, 151. Duration, 75. See Titne. Emotion, defined, 135 ; defini- tions of individual emotions, 148-15 1 ; general definition of the emotions, 152 ; emo- tions produced by reason the most powerful, 180 ; how to control the emotions, 183 ff. Emulation, 150. End, of need, 68 ; of assimila- tion, 68 ; God does not act with a view to, 64 ff.; de- finition of, 159. Envy, 150. Error. See Falsity. Essence, definition of, 74 ; what is common to all things the essence of no individual thing, 109. Eternity, defined, 26 ; form of, 119, 193 ff. ; of the mind, 193 ff. Evil, relative, 156 ; definition of, 156. Falsity, nothing positive, 108 ; definition of, 108 ; does not involve certainty, 124. Fear, 149. Final Causes, origin of the be- lief in, 64 ff. m 356 INDEX. Form, of eternity, iig, 193 ff. Free, a thing free when, 26 ; why men think themselves free, 65. Glorying, 150. God, or substance, defined, 25; consists of infinite attributes, 34 ; necessarily exists, 34 ff. ; the efficient cause of all things, 44 ; acts solely from the necessity of his nature, 44 ; an immanent cause, 48 ; is eternal, 48 ; does not act from the freedom of his will, 58 ; could not have produced things in any other way than they have been produced, 59 ff. ; his perfection an argu- ment against the freedom of his will, 60 ; his power itself his essence, 63 ; is a thinking thing, 76 ; is an extended thing, 76 ; has necessarily an idea of his own essence, and of all those things which fol- low from it, 76 ; the idea of God, but one, 78 ; he is the cause of the modes in any attribute only in so far as he is considered under that at- tribute, 79 ; has a knowledge of the human mind, loo ; is without passions, 188 ; can- not be hated, 188 ; loves him- self with an infinite love, 200. Good, origin of the notion, 70, 156 ; defined, 157 ; what things good, 162 ; super- stition regards pain as good, i6g. Gratitude, 150. Hate, 148. Hope, 149. Humility, 150. Idea, defined, 74 ; when ade- quate, 75 ; their order and connection the same' as the order and connection of things, 79 ; the idea of the mind united to the mind as the mind is united to the body, 100 ; all ideas true in so far as referred to God, 107 ; they contain no posi- tive element of falsity, 108 ; ideas, when adequate, true, 108 ; the idea of what is common to the human body and external bodies adequate, no; ideas that follow from adequate ideas themselves adequate, in. Imagination, 95 ff. Immortality, 193 ff. Impossible, a thing, when, 59. Inclination, 148. Indignation, 149. Individual things, defined, 75. Infinite, the, 39-43. Joy, 149. Knowledge, of the first, second, and third kinds, 114, 115 ; that of the first kind, the sole cause of falsity, 115 ; that of the second and third kinds true, 115 ; the only true end of man, 160 ; man's highest endeavor to know things by knowledge of the third kind, 194; from this kind of knowl- edge springs the intellectual love of God, 199. See Mind. Longing, 150. I.ove, defined, 148 ; toward God, 187 ff. Lust, 151. Luxury, 151. Marriage, 165. Memory, 98. Mind, what constitutes the being of the, 85 ; perceives what takes place in the body corresponding to it, 86 | its INDEX. 357 union with the body, 87 ff. ; has more perceptions as the body is capable of more changes, 94 ; the idea which constitutes its essence not simple, 94 ; knows the body only through the ideas of the modifications of the body, 99 ; only knows itself in so far as it perceives the ideas of the modifications of the body, loi ; does not have an adequate knowledge of the parts that compose the human iDody, 102 ; perceives ex- ternal bodies only through the ideas of the modifications of its own body, 103 ; has a very inadequate knowledge of the duration of the body, 106 ; or of external things, 107 ; has an adequate knowl- edge of the essence of God, 121 ; cannot act upon the body, 137 ; strives to perse- vere in its being, 145. Mode, defined, 25 ; infinite modes, 53-55 ; all modes necessarily determined to ex- istence and action by God, 53 ff.; parallelism of, in dif- ferent attributes, 78 ff., 137, 175- Modesty, 151. Necessary, a thing necessary or coerced when, 26, 53; the will a necessary cause, 57. Natura Naturans, 56. Natura Naturata, 56. Order, relativity of the notion, Overestimation, 149. Pain, 148. Parallelism of modes. See Mode. Passion, ceases to be such when clearly conceived, 176. Passive, when we may be said to be, 135. Perfection, origin and signifi- cance of the term, 153 ff.; identical with reality, 75, 157. Pineal gland, as seat of the soul, 172-175. Pleasure, 148. Possible, individual things when, 158. Power, identical with virtue, 159- Pride, 150. Reality, the same as perfection, 75, 157. Reason, regards things not as contingent but as necessary, 117 ; perceives things under the form of eternity, lig. Repentance, 150. Revenge, 151. Self-abasement, 150. Self-preservation, the highest law of nature, 161. Self-satisfaction, 150. Shame, 150. Social intercourse, its utility, 162 ff. Substance, defined, 25 ; can- not be produced by anything else, 29 ; existence belongs to its nature, 29 ; necessarily infinite, 29 ; consists of in- finite attributes, 34 ; neces- sarily exists, 34 ff. ; is indi- visible, 37 ff. ; God the only substance, 38 ff. ; does not constitute the essence of man, S3. Sympathy, 150. Time, can be conceived by the mind only while the body endures, 192-194. Timidity, 151. Truth, its own norm, 115-117. Underestimation, 150. 358 Understanding, must compre- hend the attributes and modifications of God and nothing else, 56 ; must be referred to nahira naturata and not to natura natuj-ans, 57 ; is nothing but particular ideas, 124. Universals, their origin, 112 ff. Virtue, the same as power, 159. Will, not a free but a necessary cause, 57 ; God does not act from the freedom of his, 58 ; determined to each vo- lition, 122 ; volitions nothing but ideas, 123 ; the faculty of will nothing but partic- ular volitions, 124 ; will and understanding the same, 124 ff. Wonder, 148. o^"<.-. v^^ ,•0 V ^^ c ,0 o 0^ -^i' ■■■■ \°^-<. '."^^^^ <\ -r^ <^'^^ m: #■%. =.V; % -^ ■ v ^%, V <^ ,. . .^^ <:*'. .\ ^^<\\W '^ ■^S^-SB' •\ ",..0 A %■!> '^O c5 ^ .0 0. / " -) V \ .>_ ^A.'^i^'^ \ S'- " ,x^' ^-x"^ ,^'«* -^^ .^\^ ■>- v- -.\ ^ '%u\\\: '''/^^\\\ .\\^ S a^ --c^ -^ ^ x^^.. WTI"^. ^^v-^. -;^._ A-^' -^'r » --^^ C^^ -^^ c^^ ,'V -J^-^ -^ %^ ^'^