I am planning to read Spinoza's Ethics, Geometrically Demonstrated, and before I read a work I peruse throughout the work, keeping note of headings, as well as read the table of contents, to get a general idea of the structure of the work. The…
I define "Pantheism" as the position that affirms the equality between God and the whole reality (not of course equal to every single existing thing, but equal to ALL reality, the reality as a totality).
Often Spinoza is called "pantheist", but in…
I noticed that Spinoza (Ethics, proof for Prop. XI) mentions cause and reason often in the same sentence, but what is the actual difference between these terms?
Example:
"If, then, no cause or reason can be given, which prevents the existence of…
V. Per modum intelligo substantiæ affectiones sive id quod in alio est, per quod etiam concipitur.
Definition V
By mode, I mean the modifications of substance, or that which exists in, and is conceived through, something other than itself. (trans.…
I'm Having trouble understanding which causes from an aristotelian point of view would no longer apply to them mechanistic philosophy of philosophers like Boyle, Spinoza, Galileo
I'm having some trouble comprehending Spinoza's Proposition 5, in Part I of the Ethics. Here's the excerpt (Curley translation):
P5: In Nature there cannot be two or more substances of the same nature or attribute.
Dem.: If there were two or more…
I'm currently reading the George Eliot's translation of the Ethics, edited by Clare Carlisle, and I am french, so I'm not 100% certain I can trust what I think I understood.
Since everything follows from the absolute nature of God, which is…
This is a popular Spinoza quote
"Nothing in Nature is random...A thing appears random only through the incompleteness of our knowledge." Spinoza, Ethics I.
Yet, it is not in Ethics.
Can anyone help me trace the origin of this quote?
Ethics 1 Proposition 8 states that "Every substance is necessarily infinite", but in Scholium 2 he states: "there exists only one substance of the same nature.
I'm confused by him saying "every" substance and then saying there exists "only one…
There seems to be a problem with Axiom VII from Spinoza's Ethics:
VII. If a thing can be conceived as non—existing, its essence does not involve existence.
How can this be axiomatic? God can be conceived as non-existing, so by this Axiom, His…
When I was in college, around 1984, Jonathan Bennett was famous as an important critic.
At this point, I find myself a bit confused. I feel that I am very clear on Spinoza's arguments but I am having trouble putting my finger on the assumptions…
In Proposition 29 of Spinoza Ethics, he says that "In nature there is nothing contingent"
My questions: What does it mean for something to be contingent? and what follows from the claim that nothing is contingent?
Spinoza's first axiom in The Ethics goes "All things which are either are in themselves or in another." Omnia quae sunt vel in se vel in alio sunt. The meaning of this, as many commentators have pointed out isn't exactly clear. But, later on, in…
I'm having a rather difficult time understanding this proof. While the rest of the propositions are relatively easy to follow, I am completely lost as to how it is absurd to think that the essence doesn't involve existence. Would someone mind…
