Saint Anthony Mary College

Philo 103: Modern Philosophy

Amisola, Michael Jhon L. May 24, 2017

Spinoza on Freedom and Will

Benedict Baruch Spinoza on his account on Freedom and will admits that human beings
are free to the extent they can substitute some other thought in a given moderate impulse, but he
states strong desires; as in violent emotions cannot be overcome. Spinoza claims that as for
humans that cannot restrain their impulses they tend to believe and think that they chose the
desired thing by their own free will, however free decisions of this nature are illusory. I. Our
mind is in certain cases active, and in certain cases 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. 1This paper
would like to delve in the issue regarding on freedom and will of Baruch Spinoza. That thing is
said to be free [liber] which exists solely from the necessity of its own nature, and is determined
to action by itself alone. (1def7)2 it raises questions that predominantly be relevant on human
existence and its accountability for its freedom and will. This paper also present Spinozas
position and dissertation regarding the ethical views taken from the different commentaries that
would quantify and clarify the writers point of view and understanding on the chosen topic as
being regarded as relevant in every day existing being. Exposing the philosophers idea on the
Freedom and will in deterministic universe point of view. As Spinoza claim and as written in his
several books especially in ethics that the freedom and will is highly presented. The position of
Spinoza as he maintained that the freedom is determined only in one cause and that cause must
agree and follow from the nature of God who is ultimately free and human is limited in freedom

1R.H.M. Elwes, trans., "Part III: On the Origin and Nature of the emotion," in Benedict de Spinoza: The
Ethics (Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata) (Penn State Electronic Classic Publication), pg.5.

2R.H.M. Elwes, trans., "Part I: Concerning God," in Benedict de Spinoza: The Ethics (Ethica Ordine
Geometrico Demonstrata) (Penn State Electronic Classic Publication), pg.4.
since it is only a mode of Gods attribute and thus the affects also brought forth an quantification
upon human preservation of being.

Commentaries
Steven Nadler made a commentary regarding on Spinozas Freedom and Will.
Referring unto Spinozas claim that All beings naturally seek their own advantage- to preserve
their own being-and it is right for them to do so. This is what the virtue consist in. Since we are
thinking beings, endowed with intelligence and reason, what is to our greatest advantage is
Knowledge.3 God or the one substance in Spinoza consisting of infinite attributes, each of which
expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists.4Affirming on Spinozas that God or
nature with the kind of adequate or clear intellectual knowledge that reveals Natures most
important truths and shows how everything and existentially on higher causes. Since in Spinoza
the two attributes of God which is the extension and thought that as presented by Nadler that in
contemporaries it has been misunderstood and to the extent of confusion. Also the human mind,
like God, contains ideas. The following sentences will qualify Nadlers position regarding the
claim of Spinoza on Freedom and Will. Since we are thinking beings, endowed with intelligence
and reason, what is our greatest advantage is knowledge. Our virtue, therefore, consists in the
pursuit of knowledge and understanding of adequate ideas.5 In this view of freedom that is
endowed among all humans the freedom that Nadler try to emphasize coming from Spinozas
freedom which is within the nature of the attributes of God, the knowledge of intuition. Nadler
points out that Spinozas argument on the minds intellectual love of God is the way of
understanding the universe which is primarily a freedom and autonomy following the condition
that any event that happens to us humans follows from the nature alone and not a result of
objects that affect outside us. As further explanation of Nadler free individual as he termed
whom all share the same nature and act on the same principle will constitute to form a society.
The commentary of Nadler explains how human as being modes of Gods attribute and nature
are definable in freedom in terms of Gods freedom. There must be a congruence in mans

3
Steven Nadler, "Baruch Spinoza," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, June 29, 2001, , accessed May 16,
2017, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/.
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid.
freedom or action towards God. The capacity of the mind to knowledge is already a form of
freedom.

In another commentary made by Steven B. Smith in his book he expounded how

Spinozas concept of freedom in human beings because Spinoza want to emphasize how
essential the human being as part of the Nature, humans or human being is not endowed with
ultimate freedom for the reason that the thoughts in human mind or the events in mind exists
following from the ideas of Gods attributes of thought and so as the actions and volitions are as
determined by any other natural events. In the Mind there is no absolute, or free, will, but the
mind is determined to will or that by a cause that is also determined by another, and this again by
another, and so to infinity (II48).6 This simply saying that the freedom that the mind or human
being possess are not really independently from human alone, and so as the human will but that
of the nature if God. And this is to support that why contemporaries had misunderstanding
regarding the will because thinkers would like to compel that the human will is pedestal outside
the nature on which Smith exemplified in his argument regarding the misconceptions of the
contemporary thinkers. For nothing is outside within the nature if the nature, even the mind. The
commentary also includes Spinozas view of the affects. Where affects is defined as a non-
conscious experience if intensity; a moment of unformed and unstructured potential as divided
into actions and passions and so the phenomena that happens by the cause of our own human
nature or when something happens apart from the nature, then we are passive and being acted
upon it. Due to the presupposition that mans innate striving to preserve its being whish is called
the will. Since naturally humans pursue what could be the advantage or in a way would help to
preserve the being and would also avoid what could harm the power of acting, termed by
Nadler upon Spinozas viewpoint. For all passions plays a role in which as external object affects
human capacities. The kind of sickness of the mind as presented that for the man that is being
affected is under the control of the outside the object that to love for a thing that can never fully
be possessed.

6Steven B. Smith, Spinoza's Book of Life Freedom and Redemption in the Ethics (New Haven, London: Yale
University Press, 2003), pg.63.
 Matthew J. Kisner in his book on Spinoza on Human freedom that provides interpretation
of Spinozas theory of freedom that is much valuable and on how to attain it. Most of Spinozas
work of freedom and will lies on his work of ethics which reflect much on human and the
conatus. Freedom is very much important for Spinoza as it suggest a different way of thinking.
For freedom is important to Spinoza, in part because it is fundamentally connected to our good:
freedom amounts to acting from ones own power, what he calls conatus or striving, while he
understand that good whatever promotes one power.7 That in such a way achieving what is good
promotes freedom so as to say that the highest good attainment implies ones greatest freedom.
Kisner in his book try to provide clarification on the misinterpretation and misunderstanding of
the freedom that Spinoza exposes. Freedom as self-caused implies that only God can be as
ultimately free, a conclusion Spinoza openly accepts thus human can only attain freedom in a
limited sense a freedom which in Kisners own words is compatible with causal determinism.
Freedom in a sense that is determined in actions by either or internal or external causes as self-
determined by the sole cause of our actions, the Nature of God.

Kisner argues that the virtuous character should be understood as effective dispositions to
at, arising from the adequate ideas representing our good. Kisner include words that are in line
and definitional virtuous character from understanding of Spinoza. Fortitudo, which means
strength of character, Animositas; courage and the generositas which is generosity. Fortitude is
responsible for all activities which follow from emotions insofar as it exercises understanding.
Since understanding is the first and only basis of virtue so fortitudo is the basis of all virtuous
activity. Courage is defined as self-interested desire to act from reason, more specifically, to
preserve ones being according to the dictates of reason (3p59s).8 Who for Spinoza the
animositas should be distinguished from the common English definition. For him courageous
person is one who isnt intimidated and keeps calm mind or head in time of crisis which is
termed in the commentary, resourcefulness on danger. So to act courageously mst be
motivated by the content of some adequate idea. The goal of an upright and ethical life for
Spinoza is understanding oneself as dependent and passive to God. The value of passion that

7
Matthew J. Kisner, Spinoza on Human Freedom (New York, United States of America: Cambridge
University Press, 2011), pg.3.
8
Ibid.
provides adequate knowledge for moral reasoning. The commentary arises Spinozas remark on
the divine law which is rooted on the natural law.

In another commentary about Spinozas Freedom and will Edward W. Younkins

affirming Spinoza in his claim. In his commentary the word that has been highlighted the most is
the freedom on deterministic universe. Deterministic is defined in philosophy as a conceptual
model of the philosophical doctrine of determinism applied to as a system for understanding
everything that has and will occur in the system, based on the physical outcomes of causality.
Such idea of freedom is only an ideal conception of freedom which is just the mental expression
of perfect self-determination being an adequate cause. The law of self-preservation has a big
emphasis on Spinozas concept of Freedom and will. Hence, it is based on the ontology of man
whose condition can only be accounted for his own existential condition. In his ethics where
human freedom can be seen also includes the foundation of virtue since for Spinoza virtue
involves the fuller development of ones individuality. People come to live and exist determined
by a relative necessity and not in one of the absolute necessity. According to Spinoza, mans
necessity (i.e., to persist) is not absolutely necessary. Instead, it is possible, contingent, and
voluntarily acquired depending upon an effective persons chosen activities.9 Since for Spinoza,
freedom means the existence of options and the capability and ability to make valued judgment
decisions. His concept of freedom defines power, the knowledge of necessity. He argues that a
powerful which is also a virtuous man act because on the first place they know why they must
act. It implies again as the same with the other commentary that to be free is to be guided upon
the law of ones nature. The conatus is a potency which require effort.10 Spinoza argues that
rationality as an essential means of attaining good life thus, reaches happiness through
understanding as it lies in the life of reason. Human mind and thinking with perfection in its
being as not being controlled by external forces. In this commentary of Younkins it explains
Spinozas external forces as emotions. He argues that humans are not free so long as humans act
because of something beyond our control to act. The only way to achieve the freedom of Spinoza

9
Edward W. Younkins, "Spinoza on Freedom, Ethics, and Politics," Le Qubcois Libre, May 07, 2006, ,
accessed May 16, 2017, http://www.quebecoislibre.org/06/060507-2.htm.
10
Ibid.
in a way that whatever happens to him/her is the result from his own nature rather than the
external thing to himself.

In another commentary, Rocco A. Astore argued that for something to be entirely free it
must be uncompelled in all ways and also the cause of itself. Since for Spinoza there can only be
one substance, God thus the modes as attributes of God are physically and mentally dependent
from the nature of God and freewill is only an infinitesimal way of conveying Gods will.
Spinoza claims that traditional ways of understanding freewill are erroneous because it is not
independent faculty of the mind, rather it is a notion that assist one to preserve in their being
even if they are not only freely aware of it. 11 Freewill is not an independent faculty of thought
rather it is part of mental faculties. In this commentary it stresses Spinozas issue concerning
knowledge and its relation to freewill. As for one who does have more knowledge of
understanding himself or himself. Human freedom is not totally free rather the knowledge of
God or the intuition is only a means of aligning oneself to the will of God as nature allows. Still
there is still external causes that affect us which accordingly to Spinoza can either be tamed or
eradicated. As Aristotle held on Spinozas claim that the understanding of freewill are erroneous.
According to him when one mistakenly or accidentally choose to do something good they are
just following what is necessary to maintain who they are as they understand themselves at
instant. While otherwise when one chooses to what is regarded as bad which one believe that
would help maintain their being mistakenly it would destroy their goal of preserving their being.
Hence one errs when they believe themselves to be freely choosing, because they are in fact not
really choosing, since what is claimed to be bad is the result of a mistaken notion that one
thought would be beneficial to that continuity.12 As it is held in the commentary, the mistaken
understanding of choice persist to ignorance.

The last commentary that the writer used in this writing is from the commentary of
George H. Smith who commented on Spinozas theory of freedom and will in view of rights
especially in the society. Spinoza here defended Hobesian position that one have the right to do

11
Rocco A. Astore, "Examining Free-Will Through Spinoza and Descartes," Inquiries Journal, 02nd ser., 08
(2016): pg.1, 2016, accessed May 16, 2017, http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1354/2/examining-
free-will-through-spinoza-and-descartes.

12 Ibid.
whatever we have the power to do. Here in Smith it presents Spinozas concept of self-
preservation that includes unlimited right to take any action even including the acts of violence
in order to preserve their own being. Spinoza insisted that that men are naturl enemies who,
while pursuing their self-preservation and welfare in a state of nature without the government ,
would have the unlimited right to take any actions they deem conducive to those ends, including
acts of violence against innocents who had not harmed in any manner. 13 Spinozas notion of
freedom regarding religios freedom by his refusal to extend freedom to external religious
practices. If we have the power to believe or not to believe in what we like the government does
not have the power to interfere for since Spinoza church and the sovereign are two of different
coins. If the sovereign imposes something that would intrude the divine law therefore the
government cannot fully exercise its power. The commentary of Smith argues that the
government must be rational and must impose only those restrictions on freedom necessary to
maintain social order which would pursue one to preserve his/her own well beingness. But
Spinozas claim argues that the problem is that most people are irrational that they are only
guided with their passion that would succumb to their lusts and other irrational desires.

After Smith discussed on Spinozas notion of freedom as applied to government, Smith

argued to Spinozas claim by raising a question that why should we assume that rulers are, or
will be more rational than those of irrational people they rule? Thus Spinozas claim he
questioned and stating that it is dangerously nave. He continued that for Spinoza it appears that
there is no difference between power and rights from power. That to equate rights with power
makes important distinction however ultimately reduces to redundancy and in the end of the
argument Spinozas theory of right that whenever one has the power to do.

Assessment

As accounted for all being primarily it speaks of all being in view of Spinozas
natura naturans, natura naturata. Speaking of all being in this account nothing is exempted.

13
George H. Smith, "Freethought and Freedom: Spinoza on Freedom of Religion and Speech," Freethought
and Freedom: Spinoza on Freedom of Religion and Speech, 17th ser. (July 10, 2015): , July 10, 2015, accessed
May 16, 2017, https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/freethought-freedom-spinoza-freedom-religion-
speech.
Strictly speaking for Spinoza all beings in nature primarily seek their own advantage in order to
preserve their own being. It is right as it follows logically to the position of Spinoza regarding
the freedom of the attributes as part of the totality of the nature. Looking into piece by piece,
human as a mode of the attributes of the substance part of its being is to seek their own
advantage. Hence, the main concept of the idea here is that the substance, the nature, God as
being ultimately free however taking to considerations for humans as modes of Gods attributes.
Being a mode quantifies and qualify as well to be partaker or sharer on the totality of the
freedom that the nature entails. In all the commentaries mentioned above of freedom and will on
Spinoza that all beings especially human are only free in terms of knowledge of God since his
claim of freedom is determined on the nature of God.

The commentary of Nadler asserts that all beings naturally seek their own advantage to
preserve their own being and it is right for them to do so. However, as I have seen though all
beings are free yet they are only free in terms of knowledge. And nothing is more than it beyond
knowledge how about it existence and its experience with the world? The commentary of
Younkins it also talks about how all being is free and in will. It ascribes on deterministic freedom
that relies upon the one substance hence the problem is though it is believed to be free it is still
within the limitations of the knowledge and the writer of this paper found it ambiguous that it
freedom can also be free outside the deterministic claim of Spinoza Among all the commentaries
above the writer of this paper favor on Steven Nadler as it explains widely the notion of freedom
and will of Spinoza. As for the commentary of Matthew J. Kisner that freedom is fundamentally
connected towards our good as it accounts on ones power or the conatus or striving. Ideally our
freedom is connected with what we strive to live as being yes it creates power but the power of
collaborating upon the goodness that one seeks to promote preservation of being.

With regard to the commentary of Astore it is explains on Spinozas theory of freedom.

That freedom is a freedom of God and an only an expression of God since human cannot
adequately conceive God hence they are not unlimitedly free. I found this claim as to be
unagreeable hence our human freedom and knowledge of God has no indifference and its
freedom is not only be limited upon our knowledge of God. Our own freewill naturally speaking
is derived from the other affects around us and we must acknowledge it. The commentary of
Steven B. Smith held in his commentary that human being as part of nature that human beings is
not endowed with freedom for the reason that the thoughts in human mind and the events are
determined by other natural event. Also like the other commentaries Smith held that our freedom
is determined really in the Nature that in such a way it is the cause of freedom. But the problem I
see in Smiths claim is that freedom is only in the mind as interpreted from Spinoza. It is quiet
unclear to human because as I see our freedom is not enclosed from one reference rather it
involves as well the aspects and affects around us other than virtue. In the commentary of
George H. Smith in his questions of argumentations regarding freedom and right as applied in
the sovereign and church. I would like to add on the theory that our right and freedom has not
had to be overruled by any other ruler. Yes, there can be a mediator in between our interaction
with the world but the ruler must not limit the freedom of other being.

Now the question here is that does a thinking being is it justifiable and fair enough for
human to be an existent being exists only in view of the natures authenticity of freedom? While
saying or claiming that all beings naturally seek their own advantage does it mean to say that the
nature just solely preserving its own being thus humans automatically just abide with the
freedom from the nature? As a writer of this paper it have come up to raise a question that if a
thinking being as according to Spinoza and Nadler are taking and naturally seeking for advantage
as elucidated that this seeking for advantage is knowledge so it means it comes from the nature.
So if this advantage of knowledge is possessing then it says that human is free in terms of
knowledge and thus the knowledge and thus in mind alone and no other than apart from it. The
theory of freedom and will of Spinoza opens a door for a thinking being to make use of
knowledge in either good or bad ways just to meet the end goal of preserving their own being.
Since nature and substance are in everything does it mean to say that there is just only one
mainstream of freedom and thus everything follows in accordance with it? Here comes the
proposition that the best kind if knowledge is the pure intellectual intuition of the essences of
things. And the advantage that is being pertained and referred by Nadler is the knowledge as part
of being a rational endowed with intelligence and reason. Also what about the pure intellectual
intuition? To what does it pertain?

The writer of this paper appreciates and understand on hows Spinozas viewpoint of
freedom is determined. I would favor on the commentary of Steven Nadler as it explains clearly
and elucidates the idea of Spinoza on Freedom and Will.
Conclusion

Therefore, after having thorough reading and comprehension from paper I would claim
that our human freedom and will is not only upon the determined freedom from the nature of
God. Yes, as humans we act and exercise our own freedom accordingly to what would we
believe to be beneficial, positive, and has something to give and provide in our existence as
being human. Yet our freedom is also guided by the passions around us. The affects also that was
mentioned by Spinoza are also living in virtue. But I would like to oppose and qualify that the
emotions and feeling are also part of our preserving our own being. Emotions and feeling from
outside our internal self also provide and affects our way of judgment thus it is freedom. Our
freedom does not only compel with reliance to the claim of Spinoza on the nature of God but our
freedom is a multidimensional aspect that let human freedom weigh on every decision and act
according to its will. Mistakenly bad decisions are inevitable as part of our existence thus as
humans have freedom as I say the power is also a responsibility. Bad decisions are made thus
because humans are driven with other affects around and it is unavoidable because as humans
preserve their well handedness other aspects around are factors involved in making decisions
well in that matter the freedom is now subject to morality. Therefore, the development of modern
philosophy has a very large impact especially in our time because it is the avenue wherein our
thoughts, knowledge, freedom, will, perception of the world and the bodies around examined.
Having the chance to write this paper opens up an idea to me as the writer that our being as
existent as we preserve our own being we are with the world but not only determined in one
cause but also other causes that provokes ourselves to exercise our own freedom and will.