Kristin Donaldson History of Philosophy II, Wake 3/20/14 Spinoza in Love Spinozas singularity frees us from negative emotions

about the present (e.g. people we dont like) and the future (e.g. fear of dying). In Spinozas Ethics, determinism is illustrated in a fashion that is satisfying to all parts of the mind. It is sufficient in reason and comforting to the psyche. Determinism is the idea that any event is predetermined by previous conditions. This determinism allows us to understand others as a product of their circumstances and love them as a part of the same system we are. Additionally, we can only love what we know, so the more we understand, the more we can love. These ideas combine to form my thesisBecause the universe is determined, we should aspire to understand everything, which will equate to loving everything. Spinozas Ethics The Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata contains five parts, (I) Concerning God, (II) On the Nature and Origin of the Mind, (III) On the Origin and Nature of Emotions, (IV) Of Human Bondage, or the Strength of the Emotions, and (V) Of the Power of the Understanding, or of Human Freedom. The first part describes a clean conception of the universe and singularity. In part two, Spinoza explains the parallelism of the human body and mind, which exists through the modes of extension and thought respectively. Part three explains human emotions, mostly the relationship between pleasure, pain, love, and hate. The final two parts explain the forces working against each other in the realm of human suppression and freedom.

Understanding Determinism PART I: PROP. XI. God, or substance, consisting of infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality, necessarily exists. Though humans may conceive of causes, this is just one of the many ways in which the brain simplifies the world. We only perceive effects, and attribute causes to them. Most of the miscommunication between reality and our conception of it occurs when we isolate an event and try to translate it to an isolated cause. No cause exists in isolation, even the cause of simple things, like a marker falling to the floor, is caused by a web of other factors. The marker didnt fall just because it was dropped, it wouldnt have fallen unless Dr. Wake decided to drop it, which he did because he wanted to illustrate a point, because the class looked confused, because they were confused. This isnt the only domino of effects though. The marker fell down because relative to us the force of the mass below the marker was greater than the force of gravity above it and so it was attracted to rest on the Earth as we are. The marker also had to be present, which came to be from some chain of events. And of course the marker exists, and we exist, and the Earth exists, all from another indescribable and entangled chain of events that together form a web. This is temporal unfolding. Time is a variable(x) that interacts with the rest of the equation(f). This equation of nature, like any algebraic equation, is always in balance; every moment is logically equivalent to all others. This function is a play or interaction between different modes of the substance. The substance as far as we know has an unchanging amount of energy and mass that are always equal to what they were before, only changing in organization. Similarly, if f(x) wasnt a state of reality, but instead a number, we could more clearly see how things are equal. f(x)= (1+1+1)+(1+1+1)+(1+1+1)

 = 3+3+3 = 33 = 32 =9 = (42)+1 Though the expression may change, the substance, the reality, the answer is essentially the same. Every moment in all of the universe must fit with every other moment. Everything happens because of the implications or circumstances in the moment before, whatever they may be. Possibility is an illusion that manifests because of our temporal perception. We experience time such that what is reality is only what is present. To us, the past is no more, and the future is uncertain. It is possible that with perfect knowledge of the present, the future could be certain, however it is highly unlikely for us because we are limited by our nature of being connected to a body that exists and receives information from only some space. All probabilities entail with the given data and as far as I know, specific things either are or arent. In Part I, Proposition 29, Spinoza summarizes the idea clearly, Nothing in nature is contingent, but all things are from the necessity of the divine nature determined to exist and to act in a definite way. Humans are born ignorant of causes, but we make associations between events which help us survive and improve our conatus. Together, the attribution of causes and our desire for self-fulfillment leads us to make choices that we feel are best for us. Everyone is making the best choices with the tools they have. Though different people have different tools (experiences, memories, attention, ).

Understanding our Enemies PART II: PROP. XLVIII. In the mind there is no absolute or free will; but the mind is determined to wish this or that by a cause, which has also been determined by another cause, and this last by another cause, and so on to infinity. This brings me to one way determinism frees us from hate and makes loving others easier. By understanding the relationship between our enemies and the rest of nature, how they were given different tools and shaped by different times and places, we can understand why someone would not agree with us on what is the best decision. People have the volition to make decisions, however, every decision has influences and was made because of some collection of reasons. When someone makes a decision that you perceive to be the wrong decision (invoking negative emotions), it is because their lives have had experiences that supported different values, different techniques, and different conceptions (IIp35&36). A persons parents and teachers, culture and region, stress level and neural priming should all be considered when accounting for someones actions, more so than if they are stupid or lazy or needy. These traits are secondary to a persons experiences; (1+1+1)+(1+1+1)+(1+1+1) expresses more than just the numerical value of 9, it also expresses how 9 came to be. The wrong decision and the person who made it are products of the web of reality; both are necessary outcomes in our universe. All things exist within nature, and nothing outside the universe exists to cause it (Ip6&7), so no natural thing can be contingent. All things, people, and decisions are part of nature and could not be any different from as they are. It is fruitless to hate what could be no other way. Even if you do find someone to be acting in a disagreeable way, hate, hostility, and antagonism are not going to influence their tool kit as positively as compassion, cooperation, and aid.

Understanding our Relationships PART IV: PROP. II. We are only passive, in so far as we are apart of Nature, which cannot be conceived by itself without other parts. We are also freed from hate through determinism by understanding our own relationships with our enemies. The notion of being able to change is the essence of life itself. We all share this ability to change, and unlike much of the rest of life on Earth, we also share the ability to use reason. It is easy to empathize with others when we consider that it is the same rationality within all of us. The ability to piece together information and form an identity is our core. We all have the same starting point, but our temporal and spatial location alters our perspectives. Different bodies have different idiosyncrasies that effect our rationality. And the family who raises us, pushes our perceptions further apart. When encouraged to walk a mile in their shoes, we are reminded to imagine how we would have come to the same decisions if under the same circumstances. If it seems as though Im saying we are not as individual as many would like to believe, you are receiving my message clearly. We are all interacting with each other. The people we have known permanently alter us; as evidenced by our memory of them. We are influenced by who we meet, externally and internally. We associate the traits they possess with their other characteristics, gaining generalities about the world. We also share experiences with people, and they can change how we perceive the situation as a whole. Obviously, we also form beliefs and ideals based on the exchange of information in conversation. It is good that we have the opportunity to affect others (and the rest of nature), just as others (and the rest of nature) affect us. Otherwise we would not be alive.

Furthermore, I would venture to say that we are not only influencing each other, but are defined in conjunction with others. I would like to posit a question before continuing: Where do you end? What do you call I or Me? There are a few indicators of self-hood. We tend to associate our selves with what we feel, what we control, and what is attached to us. Things with all three traits, such as our hands, we feel are very much a part of us. Our stomach is more often addressed as separate from us perhaps because we lack control over it. The hair on ones head may be considered part of a self, and probably more so than ones clothes. But we dont actually feel our hair, much like our clothes, we feel its effect on our skin. But if clothes are part of someones person, then temporary connection opens the concept of self far wider, even to tools and utensils. It is common to say I wrote or the like, though it is the pen that actually created the markings on the paper. It is not only active causes that we attribute to our selves, but also passive occurrences we conceptualize as happening to us. Imagine someone is telling you about a car wreck, you may hear that person say I was hit on my drivers side. Even a remote control car has a similar conceptualization, a child may exclaim Get out of my way! as he drives over your foot, or even Did you see me jump over the cat? How widely we refer to physical things as our selves complicates defining it. To the breadth we have expanded it, our self seems to be something that includes quite a bit of what we typically consider the external world; only a distinction by degree. Let us scale back the definition of self for a moment to consider a few analogies. Aristotle called the individual the hand of the body, but we can draw a more useful analogy by imagining ourselves as a cell. We can learn about cells as individuals; how they reproduce, what they need to survive, how they die and how their parts work together. But it is obvious that a cell is not independent; they work with other cells for the good of the body. We are all pieces of the

same enclosed system, dependent on one another. You could not exist as you are without them. In this way hating or ridiculing someone is like doing so to a part of yourself. Additionally, because we are dependent on the entire system, acting selfishly is actually detrimental, and working for the good of the whole is more beneficial. The body can survive if one of its cells die, but a cell will not survive if the body dies. Understanding is Loving PART V: PROP. XXV. The highest endeavour of the mind, and the highest virtue is to understand things PART V: PROP. XLII. Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself; neither do we rejoice therein, because we control our lusts, but, contrariwise, because we rejoice therein, we are able to control our lusts. Spinoza describes how understanding is equivalent to love and freedom in Part V. In Proposition 32 he states We take pleasure in what we understand by [intuition], and this is accompanied by the idea of God as cause. Since we understand God is an interconnected whole and not separate parts, we know that in conjunction with the rest of the universe, we are our own cause. The more thoroughly we explore our identity as the whole universe, the freer we are from bad emotions. In proportion as the mind understands more things by the second and third kind of knowledge, it is less subject to those emotions which are evil, and stands in less fear of death, (Vp38). Our conatus is aided by clear and distinct ideas, so we work for our own benefit better when we know more about what is outside of our bodies. All of our passive emotions exist in the parts of our intellect that perceive things from our fixed state. We may expand past this fixed state through knowledge, tapping into the active emotions. If we are to believe everything we

interact with is part of our extended selves, the more we learn, the more we are. Knowledge expands our sense of self, and enables us to use reason and actively love others. According to Spinoza, understanding grows into completeness, and the more complete we are, the more blessed we are, and so the more peace of mind and love we have. He says that the more knowledge we have of the singularity, the more power our minds have over how we feel. Bad emotions are described by Spinoza as contrary to our nature. We have an intellectual love for truth because through Gods nature of reality, we too have a nature of reality. Our love of truth means that we can only experience bad (contrary) emotions about what is confused or false (contrary). The knowledge of evil is an inadequate knowledge (IVp44). Things that happen which seem contrary to our advantage is necessary for our universe to exist, and we must be satisfied with them because they are true. The love of truth, or Amor Dei Intellectualis, is the kind of love that God has for itself, including us. It is the same love that we have for God. We can replace the passive passions with this intellectual love, allowing us a more stable conatus and less volatile happiness. In Spinozas words: There is nothing in nature, which is contrary to this intellectual love, or which can take it away, (Vp37). Opposition Contradiction of Morality and Determinism Some people would argue that determinism is contradictory to morality or an Ethics. These people usually find that Spinozas language in the later sections of his Ethics is nondeterministic. The volition Spinoza attributes to humans is conflated with free will, but Spinoza was clear in stating that this is not the case in Part II, Proposition 48. One may ask, But if all actions are predetermined and are within the nature of God, how can anything be morally

wrong? The answer is complex. Morality is an abstract concept and is defined by its context from philosopher to philosopher. Spinoza states that without society, there would be no good or evil. This helps us narrow what he means by morality. The essence of Spinozas morality though, is different from many philosophers as it does not concentrate on what is wrong, but instead what is right. No human is perfect because no human is complete, however, we can become more complete through our knowledge. To extend our knowledge of ourselves and nature, is also to extend our morality. Changes in our sense of self necessarily change our conatus. Spinozas perfect morality is somewhat like the conatus of the entire whole. There is no inherent contradiction between this notion and determinism. Morality itself, in being part of nature, is also deterministic. Active and Passive Emotions I have also come across an argument that states that Spinoza is contradictory when speaking of active and passive emotions. This is similar to the questioned posed to morality earlier. The argument against Spinozas praise of active emotions is simply that the passive emotions are just as natural as the active emotions. Active emotions are controlled by reason and passive emotions arise externally. Active emotions though, are more powerful and more useful because they arise from a more accurate picture of our environment. Emotions tell us what we want and what we dont want, but passive emotions are skewed by limitations in time or recall and limitations in space or location. Active emotions, by having reason, are better because they are connected with God more widely. Self-Hatred and Irrationality The goal of my paper is to encourage people to work for the good of everyone, because we are all one. A snag arises from this idea though, namely that some people experience self-

loathing and extending the self to include everything would extend the loathing instead of love. This is not contradictory to Spinozas stance on hate, but relates to it in a way that is remedied through the same process of understanding as I have been advocating. Selfabasement is thinking too meanly of one's self by reason of pain (IIIp29). A person may perceive themselves as being the cause of their pain, and so hate themselves. They may also perceive themselves as causing pain to something they love, and hate themselves for that. However, when considering the Lack of Freedom? The lack of an uncontaminated free-will gives many a knee-jerk reaction towards the sad emotions that Spinoza attempts to rid us of. This is a passive emotion, let it go. When thinking rationally about what Spinoza states, there is no reason given to feel despair. What we have in consciousness cannot be taken away by explanation. Spinozas doctrine actually steers us towards a better freedom. He states in the proof for Part V, Proposition 27: The highest virtue of the mind is to know God (IV. xxviii.), or to understand things by the third kind of knowledge (V. xxv.), and this virtue is greater in proportion as the mind knows things more by the said kind of knowledge (V. xxiv.): consequently, he who knows things by this kind of knowledge passes to the summit of human perfection, and is therefore (Def. of the Emotions, ii.) affected by the highest pleasure, such pleasure being accompanied by the idea of himself and his own virtue; thus (Def. of the Emotions, xxv.), from this kind of knowledge arises the highest possible acquiescence. Q.E.D.

This blessed connection with God arises from our understanding; an understanding that is free from the body. Blessedness is freedom from the negative emotions caused by inconveniences to our person. Instead of being limited by our perception, we are free to contemplate the bigger picture. The clearest illustration I can provide is a simplification, as follows. The more we understand about our universe, the more differences and nuances we can see. If we knew only if things were red or not red, any choice would be one of the two, we are only free to make two choices. If we knew things were either red, blue or neither, we could differentiate between three choices. We can also add shapes like round or not round, and if things are still or moving. We now have twelve choices, because we know more. Of course humans have faculties that produce many more varieties of conception, but more importantly we have hope. Hope or desire is why we also make choices regarding actions. Our conatus wills us to decide what action we take in order to attain the thing we hope for. If we could not differentiate between rounded or edged objects, we could not make certain choices that are crucial to our desires (e.g. inventing the wheel). Knowledge allows us to more precisely manipulate our world in the way we intend to. Spinoza states that he [calls] him free who is led solely by reason. However, this freedom is an impossibility for people. We are led not only by reason, but also by our experiences. Some of our experiences are interactions with other people, where we lead each other. I am not jilted by this Spinozas denial of my freedom, I am glad for it. If people were free, only to be led by reason, there would be no individuality and we would not be able to influence one another. With freedom comes isolation.

I love Spinoza Though, my own experiences are merely anecdotal, I believe that when theory translates onto experience, the two are both affirmed. I have personally found that since viewing the world as a complex series of reactions and interactions and people as not separate from this nature, my peace of mind has been increased and my affection for others has grown. It is no coincidence that when someone is kind they are often called understanding.

References Spinoza, B. (2009). The Ethics (1677). In E. W. Ed. Roger Ariew, Modern Philosophy: An Anthology of Primary Sources (Second Edition) (pp. 144-195). Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing Company, Inc.