Part 1: Choose one or two of the Spinoza´s Fourth Part of Ethics and explain the sense of the proposition. Add to your explanation an example and finally your own critical assessment of Spinoza 's position.
Proposition 53:
In “Of Human Bondage, or the Strength of Emotions” (Part IV), proposition 53 states “Humility is not a virtue; that is, it does not arise from reason” (Spinoza, pp. 183). In this proposition Spinoza is explains how humility does rise from virtue or reason. Rather, the humility we experience is actually pain that we perceive from our understanding of our own weakness. Humility does not arise from our own understanding of ourselves, but from comparison. Furthermore, Spinoza argues that humility is a passive emotion. Passive emotions are from an external force, they do not come fully from within us. This passage is important becauses Spinoza believes that what defines humans is our ability to
…show more content…
192). In this proposition, Spinoza argues that when we solely use reason, we are not guided by the fear of death. By using reason, we can contemplate life, not death. Additionally, we should strive to extend this life, and preserve …show more content…
[...] The power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already; and that just as the eye was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement of the whole soul be turned from the world of becoming into that of being, and learn by degrees to endure the sight of being, and of the brightest and best of being, or in other words, of the good.” (Plato, Republic, Book VII,
In this paper I shall consider Spinoza’s argument offered in the second Scholium to Proposition 8, which argues for the impossibility of two substances sharing the same nature. I shall first begin by explaining, in detail, the two-step structure of the argument and proceed accordingly by offering a structured account of its relation to the main claim. Consequently I shall point out what I reasonably judge to be a mistake in Spinoza’s line of reasoning; that is, that the definition of a thing does not express a fixed number of individuals under that definition. By contrast, I hope to motivate the claim that a true definition of a thing does in fact express a fixed number of individuals that fall under that definition. I shall then present a difficulty against my view and concede in its insufficiency to block Spinoza’s conclusion. Finally, I shall resort to a second objection in the attempt to prove an instance by which two substances contain a similar attribute, yet differ in nature. Under these considerations, I conclude that Spinoza’s thesis is mistaken.
Spinoza cites the source of the misconception of freedom as man’s inability to understand himself and the causes of his actions. Spinoza expounds on this confusion, “So, experience itself, no less clearly than reason, teaches that men believe themselves free because they are conscious of their own, and ignorant of the causes by which they are determined, that the decisions of the mind are nothing but the appetites themselves, which therefore vary as the disposition of the body.”(p.157) Spinoza conceives decisions and determination to be the same thing, but considered under different lights. When being considered through the lens of thought, the idea is considered a decision; while through the light of extension, it is considered determination, an action caused by laws of motion and rest. Though considered differently, the source of both of these ideas are caused by the striving of the human will, and thus dependent on
The irrational concept of the education has been influenced moral principles concerning what is good for a society as well as for an individual; however, the understanding of the intrinsic nature of the education removes the darkness of beliefs, which Plato calls prisoners’ shadows in his writing The Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, a dialogue between Glaucon and Socrates. Although “The Plato’s Allegory of the Cave” was written thousands of years ago, Plato’s depiction of the true education is a wakeup call for our humanity to admit the acquisition of knowledge with circumspection. The truth often relies on a mistaking understanding of sight or shadow according to Plato; the truth regularly relies on prejudice which makes an individual a prisoner, and the discovery of new truth often encounters hostility. A close analysis of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave allows us to view the education as not a way to transfer knowledge, but a way to transform
In conclusion, Plato and Aristotle present two different conceptions of the soul. By examination of their formulations, and the structure and genre they used, Aristotle's perception of the soul is more convincing. I am more convinced by facts than I am ideals. But his views should not be thrown away, for Aristotle's focus upon the organism as a whole as the proper object of study is a successful approach to the question of the nature of and relationship between mind, body, and soul.
In order to understand the criticisms of Baruch Spinoza’s beliefs, we look at his work “Ethics; Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect; and Selected Letters” translated by Samuel Shirley and edited by Seymour Feldman. This work by Spinoza is broken down in five parts. The first part talks about god. The first part has eight definitions of which the ‘geometric’ proof for Spinoza’s system is based on. Spinoza keeps on going and expostulates that all events are determined and based on fixed laws. Anything that is of Nature (god), must obey these laws.
Firstly, he establishes the uniqueness of a substance. Spinoza uses Definition 3 to prove Proposition 1, 2 and 4, by explaining that that an effect always follows a cause and if there is no cause, it is impossible for an effect to follow. If things do not have anything in common, we cannot use them to understand other things, making them separate. Spinoza further distinguishes the uniqueness of substances in Proposition 1 by using Definition 5 as proof to show that if conception of one thing does not involve the conception of the other thing, substances can be by nature prior to its affections. By proving these Prepositions, he concludes that two substances, which have different attributes and share no cause and effect, have nothing in
Charles Darwin put forth a point in the 1870 that emotions came into their form because they have modifying features. For instance, disgust emerged because the individual by responding in different ways to this emotion increased his survival rate. The expressions of individuals face are in born, the individual soon identifies the expressions on one’s face to judge whether other person is happy to meet him or not. The different theo...
This essay hopes to define Spinoza’s reasoning behind his ‘Deus sive Natura’, arguing that God and Nature, or the universe, are but one substance. This separation is distinct to Spinoza’s substance monism, and argued through a geometric essay structure that allows reasoning to be accessible, as well as logical should the reasoning at each step have validity.
“You will find the world in your own eyes, if they learn how to see; in your own heart if it learns how to feel; and in your own fingers if they learn how to touch.” (Dunham 188).
Melamed, Y 2012.The Building Blocks of Spinoza’s Metaphysics: Substance, Attributes and Modes (08.14.11). Johns Hopkins University. Available at: http:// philosophy.jhu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2013/08/Spinozas-Metaphysical-BuilBlocksFinal.pdf [Accessed December 5-15 2013] Nadler, S 2006, Spinoza’s ethics: an Introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pollock, F 1966, Spinoza: His Life and Thought,New York: American Scholar Publication.
Therefore, through the soul, that has been born before being placed into a physical human body, the human has knowledge. As a result of the soul being immortal and knowing everything, Socrates ties that idea of immortality with the theory of recollection, which claims that our knowledge is inside of us because of the soul and it never learns anything new, only remembers, consequently, serving as an evidence that the soul is pre- existent. Socrates uses the knowledge of the soul to explain that there is no such thing as learning but instead there is discovery of the knowledge that one has and does, by himself, without receiving new information. However, most knowledge is forgotten at birth since we are born without knowing, for example, how to add, subtract,talk, etc. Nonetheless, the knowledge we have, has to be recollected with the help of a teacher. Socrates is able to prove this argument to a degree by using Meno’s slave, who had no prior knowledge of geometry before, as an example of how humans have the knowledge inside of them, through the soul, and they know everything but all they need are a sort of guidance to be able to “free” the knowledge they didn’t know they had inside them all this time. (Plato,
David Hume in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and Benedict De Spinoza in The Ethics run noteworthy parallels in about metaphysics and human nature. Spinoza and Hume share opinions of apriori knowledge and free will. For human nature, similar concepts of the imagination and morality arise. Although both philosophers derive similar conclusions in their philosophy, they could not be further distanced from one another in their concepts of God. Regarded as an atheist, Spinoza argues that God is the simple substance which composes everything and that nothing is outside of this simple substance. Hume rejects this notion completely and claims that nothing in the world can give us a clear picture of God. Hume rejects the argument from design
However, only a few in a life time choose not to be satisfied with only just survival rather they assume the yoke of redefining life for themselves and for others. In philosophy of religion, pantheism is usually in conflict with traditional religious authority, which claims that the pantheistic belief is nothing more than a blasphemous form of idolatrous worship. A man by the name Benedictus (Baruch) Spinoza took it upon his shoulders to construct an explainable theory of this deistic belief and as a result earned the name of the father of Pantheism. I, George Meza, had the privilege of investigating the life of this rational genius as he struggled along the path of enlightenment in a society that was as different to him as his theory of ethics was to the Synagogue and the Church. Spinoza’s works ranged from the political to the theistic, from the mathematical, to even the intellectual. I ask the question what trials and troubles in the life of Baruch Spinoza could birth such a passion for what was known at the time as heretical theology. What was the impact of Spinoza’s work on our technologically advanced society that has put aside terms such as G-d and ethic and has attempted to redefine the term free will?
He wrote many dialogues, and one of them includes his famous dialogue called “Allegory of the Cave.” This dialogue explained how we were born into being very naïve people about our surroundings and taking things for granted, but eventually with the right education we grow to be philosophers that know the Form of Good. Society closes our eyes and whispers things to us in our ears and we believe it, in order to break free we need to educate ourselves into being more knowledgeable about our surroundings. We need to analyze even the smallest things, nothing is to be taken for granted because everything is more complex than what it seems (Plato, p. 26). Plato also states in his idea of self, the soul, that the soul is composed of three parts, our desires, the conscious awareness of reason and the spirited part which gets angry at injustice (Plato, p.40). His allegory and this idea about the parts of the soul connect with each other and might as well lead us to understanding what his idea truly means. Like the first argument, we could say that because our souls is what makes us alive, we are aware of the life we live, therefore we become philosophers only when we do not forget where we came from. This though, sounds contradicting to itself if we take the second argument in hand. If our soul is our life and our body is what carries it, than our ability to become philosophers depends solely on our ability to remove our soul from the body in