In Paul Austerโs ingenious and moving novel Mr. Vertigo an abused boy is rescued by a traveling magician, a mysterious Hungarian Jew named Mr. Yehudi. Yehudi promises to teach the boy to walk on airโand eventually delivers. Mr. Yehudi has a favorite book which goes with him everywhere- a copy of Spinozaโs โEthics.โ
I have little in common with Mr. Yehudi besides being a Jew who loves Spinozaโs book, but love it I do. There are times when I felt like it held all the answers one could want about life, other times when I argued with it or was bewildered by it. I have always read it in awe at what a human intellect can accomplish if it follows the yellow brick road far enough. Spinozaโs intellectual courage and daring are, I think, unquestionable.
There is a big problem with the Ethics, however, which anyone who has read it โ or tried to read it through and failed, which Iโm sure is a much larger number โ knows. The Ethics was written in the 1650s using Latin scholastic terminology in a form Spinoza called โgeometric fashion.โ
This entailed setting forth what he wanted to say like a series of mathematical propositions: definitions, propositions, axioms and scholiums. If that sounds difficult and off-putting, it is. There is a meaning and purpose to it, and those who truly fall in love with Spinoza will come to appreciate it- the crystalline, relentless logical clarity of the work is itself an essential part of Spinozaโs message.
Nevertheless for those who want to find a way into Spinoza, the form that he put the Ethics into is often a wall, not a doorway. Most of the introductions to Spinoza focus on his life and ideas for a popular audience or are difficult academic books written for serious students of philosophy. Whatโs missing is a โplain Englishโ explanation of the Ethics for the average reader which avoids replicating his complex, abstract language.
That is what Iโve tried to do here. If youโre interested in a general introduction to Spinozaโs life and works, I wrote one here.
In some places I will follow every line of the Ethics with commentary, and in others I will summarize blocks of the text which go into intricacies of argument which are beyond what most beginning readers need, especially their first time through.
Throughout the commentary I will try to suggest more common and, I think, more contemporary words to translate Spinozaโs Latin than the usual. Some of these will sound off to those of you who are used to standard translations, but try to keep an open mind and see what Iโm after- Iโve chosen these words either because they make the text easier to understand or because they suggest fresh ways of looking at it. No words are perfect, and I realize my choices have flaws just like any other.
Iโm sure Iโm not the most qualified to do this, and that I will fail both in terms of substance and style in major ways. Nevertheless, as an ancient Jewish text says, โIn a place where there is no one doing the job, do that job.โ
So here I am, letโs go.
First Part of the Ethics
1 Of God
The Ethics has five parts which discuss 1) the nature of God and reality; 2) the nature of the mind and body; 3) the nature of emotion and reason; and 4) the way to freedom and what Spinoza calls โblessednessโ or โsalvationโ, though he is โ as we shall see โ co-opting Christian words for different goals than they were intended for.
The translations here are mine, based on Curley and Kisner for the most part. Iโm going to go through the first few definitions and propositions in full to give a taste of Spinozaโs writing, then I will begin summarizing blocks of text while letting you know where I am in the actual text for reference. My hope is that after this basic orientation youโll be able to go through the original yourself.
Definitions
By โcause of itselfโ I mean that whose essence involves existence or that whose nature cannot be conceived except as existing.
Spinoza first sets out to define his key terms. This first definition may seem very abstract, but it will be important. What Spinoza means here is that there is something which causes itself, and which we cannot imagine as non-existent.
What is that? Well, reality itself. Reality causes itself, and we cannot meaningfully speak of reality not existing.
That may simple, and yes, it is, though its also profound. There is a tendency to rarefy what Spinoza is talking about some times, but we should recognize that though his arguments are scholastic and abstract in form they deal, in the end, with what is right in front of us and it is our experience of life that he aims to transform.
Spinoza uses the term substantia for what I am calling Reality, but this is confusing and near-meaningless for most people today, even in its English translation as โsubstance.โ Substantia is that which is real and which everything else is made of. It is not some โthingโ though- things are made of it.
It is a logically necessary fact that Reality exists, though we can never perceive it in and of itself. What is Reality? Well, we donโt know, really, since as we shall see we can only know it by its attributes, or qualities. In another sense, as we shall see, Spinoza claims that we all have an adequate knowledge of it. Why? Because weโre experiencing it right now, just as it is. Thatโs it. This is it. There is no special, esoteric way to experience Reality. Knowing it doesnโt come with heavenly music or bliss. Youโre already experiencing it right now.
So aside from the fact that โSubstanceโ in the philosophical sense is a somewhat archaic word that sticks in our mouths and minds, I have one more reason for avoiding it. It suggests that there is a separate something which is the matter everything is made of, like various tools made out of metal. Thatโs problematic because Substance cannot be separated from its qualities and manifestations- Substance is all of the things it appears as and all the ways it is known, as well as those who know it.
Reality is not just what stuff is made of, it has qualities and laws by which it operates- it is everything and how everything works, it has was Spinoza calls โinfinite attributesโ or limitless qualities and ways of being known. That is why I think โRealityโ is a useful translation for substantia, and one that is both clarifying and demystifying.
It is also true, and essential to Spinozaโs project, that for Spinoza Reality=God. We will get into this far more in the posts to come. For now, Spinoza is just warming up.
2. A thing is said to be โfinite in its kindโ if it can be limited by another thing of the same nature. For example, a body is said to be finite because we always conceive bodies that are greater. Similarly, a thought is limited by another thought. But a body is not limited by a thought nor a thought by a body.
Spinoza is setting up his game for later, as he will do again and again throughout the Ethics. For now, what we need to understand of this is that most things are โfinite in their kindโ which means that they are limited by other things which are of the nature to be able to interact with them. For instance a tree is limited by the fire that breaks out on it after a lightning strike. Everything is like that, in fact, except for one thing: Reality itself, which has no outside and cannot be limited by anything.
Spinoza also makes the important and controversial point, which he will build on later, that the mind does not limit the body or vice versa. This may seem counter-intuitive- donโt we move our arms by thinking? Spinoza will later argue that in fact we do not: arms are moved not by thoughts but by electrical impulses in the nervous system. Similarly, thoughts are not produced by neurons, theyโre produced by thoughts. As intriguing as that is, letโs leave it for now- weโll get back to it in detail later.
3. By substance I mean that which is in itself and is conceived through itself, i.e. no concept of any other thing is needed for forming a concept of it.
Here Spinoza defines Reality. Reality is that which is in itself and conceived through itself. Well, duh!
Think of a car. If you ask yourself, โWhat is a car?โ you will have to say, well, itโs a moving vehicle made of wheels, an engine, and a chassisโฆDo you see whatโs happening here? You need to bring in other concepts to explain a car. But how do you explain what Reality is? Well, itโs whatโs real. You see? We could also use another word, like Being or What Is. What is โisโ? Well, it is. You donโt need, and in fact canโt use, any other concept to explain what โisโ is. It is, thatโs all (sorry, Heidegger).
To a large extent, Spinoza is dialoguing with Aristotelian and Cartesian conceptions of โsubstanceโ which assert that there are different substances or ultimately real things which then have attributes through which they are known. I will avoid the details of these intra-philosophical arguments here for the most part, since this is not a philosophy class but a guide to Spinozaโs transformative project.
Suffice it to say that Spinoza wants to argue that there is only one Reality, only one real thing that everything else is made of and is an expression of. As we shall see, this is not an academic issue for Spinoza, or a case of him arguing for which flavor of ice cream he thinks is best, Marvelous Monism or Pluralist Pamplemousse.
Spinoza thinks that the psychological, ethical and even political implications of what he saying are immense. Follow along, and see if you agree. If you decide to accept the currency of Spinozaโs kingdom I think you will see that his project is both practical and liberating.
Thank you for writing about Spinoza. I feel same way about him since I wrote my senior paper at St. Johnโs millennia ago. I even have a stuffed spinoza magnet on my refrigerator. I am reading โbetraying Spinozaโ now. Thanks again.
I love "Betraying Spinoza." Great book!