Spinozism
Spinozism
The philosophic doctrine of Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677). Described by Hegel as the philosophy of Substance. Spinoza denies the possibility of a plurality of substances, and reserves the term for absolute reality. Hence Spinozism is sometimes used as equivalent to Monism. It is also identified with Pantheism, although this is a highly misleading characterization.
In his chief work, the Ethica, Spinoza’s teaching is expressed in a manner for which geometry supplies the model. This expository device served various purposes. It may be interpreted as a clue to Spinoza’s ideal of knowledge. So understood, it represents the condensed and ordered expression, not of ‘philosophy’ alone, but rather of all knowledge, ‘philosophy’ and ‘science’, as an integrated system. In such an ideal ordering of ideas, (rational) theology and metaphysics provide the anchorage for the system. On the one hand, the theology-metaphysics displays the fundamental principles (definitions, postulates, axioms) upon which the anchorage depends, and further displays in deductive fashion the primary fund of ideas upon which the inquiries of science, both ‘descriptive’ and ‘normative’ must proceed. On the other hand, the results of scientific inquiry are anchored at the other end, by a complementary metaphysico-theological development of their significance. Ideally, there obtains, for Spinoza, both an initial theology and metaphysics — a necessary preparation for science — and a culminating theology and metaphysics, an interpretative absorption of the conclusions of science.
The fixity of this theoretical structure is not to be interpreted as incompatible with the continuous movement of discovery. The function of philosophy as such, in any age, is that of attempting to effect the theoretical ordering of the available fund of knowledge. There is implicit in Spinoza’s conception of this function the recognition of the two-fold character of the task of philosophy. The task, on the one hand is reflection upon the available fund of insight and ideas, upon all the fruits of reflection and inquiry, with the purpose of coherent ordering and expression of the fund. In this sense, ‘philosophy’ is that which can be displayed in the geometrical fashion. It is equally the task of philosophy, however, to prepare for this display and ordering. Paradoxically, philosophy must prepare for itself. Philosophy, in this function, is reflection upon the conditions of all inquiry, the discovery of the grounds of method, of the proper and indispensable assumptions of inquiry as such, and of the basic ideas within whose domain inquiry will move. If inquiry is to be undertaken at all, then mind must discover within itself, and disclose to itself, whatever authoritative guidance can be assured for the enterprise. The competence of the mind to know, the determination of the range of that competence, the rational criteria of truth, the necessities levelled to mind by the very reflections of mind — these and related questions define the task of philosophy as propaedeutic both to philosophy itself and to science. In this recognition of the two-fold character of philosophy, and of its relation to science, Spinoza is re-stating the spirit of Descartes.
The precipitates of the propaedeutical effort are to be found, for Spinoza, in the definitions, axioms, postulates, and within the structural plan expressed in the geometrical ordering. It is highly probable that Spinoza would have admitted the tentative character of at least some of the definitions, axioms, and postulates formulated by him. He doubtless saw the possibility that the process of inquiry, revising, augmenting, and re-coordinating the fund of knowledge, might demand alteration in the structural bases of systematic expression as well as in the knowledge to be ordered. Such changes, however, would occur within limits set by the propaedeutical disclosures and the general framework. Advance might require the abandonment of an older metaphysical element, and the substitution of a new one. But with equal likelihood, the advance of knowledge would make possible a richer and deeper apprehension of the content of fixed principles. To illustrateThe first definition of the Ethica, that of Causa sui, might well be for Spinoza a principle that awakened reason must accept, a truth whose priority and validity could not be undermined. He might regard it as a minimal definition of reality, of the nature of the ultimate object of inquiry. On the other hand, Spinoza, it may be conjectured, would not claim for every element of his system a similar finality. Just as he recognizes the role of hypothesis in science, in a similar way, he would recognize the tentative character of some metaphysical and theological elements.
The structural mture of this ideal ordering reflects, of course, the Spinozistic view of the real. Ultimate reality, as Causa sui and as substance, is all-inclusive. Causality is immanent causality, and every determinative being lies within the one substantial being. Spinoza’s doctiine of attributes, infinite and finite modes, serve to express both the all encompassing and systematic nature of the one ultimate reality and to distinguish and to determine the status of finite beings within this reality. In its immanentism as well as in its rational mysticism, the doctrine of Spinoza is not improperly regarded as a Plotinism re-directed by the influence of Descartes and invigorated by the enterprise of modern science. — A.G.A.B.
Main works
Exposition more geometrico of Descartes’ Principles, 1663;
Tract. Theol.-Politicus, 1670 (only two books published during Spinoza’s lifetime);
Ethics, demonstrated in geometrical order, 1677;
Political Treatise, 1677;
De intellectus. emendatione, 1677 (On the Improvement of the Human Mind).
Cf. Vloten and Land, 2 vol. edition of Spinoza’s works.