P 44

P44 "It is of the nature of reason to regard things as necessary, not as contingent." (

It is this proposition which I will attempt to confront and the reason being is, it is opaque in nature, and rather abstract (to me of course). Spinoza is setting up an epistemological argument for reasoning and is comparing it to thinking based on contingency. On one scenario we have “the nature of reason” regarding things as necessary and the nature of reason NOT regarding things as contingent. Spinoza goes on to say that based on this claim we can make the further claim that when we conceive of something as contingent it is only because our imagination is acting upon what we perceive(Of the Mind; Dem 143). What Spinoza goes on to say in the scholium to proposition 44 is of huge importance in relation to this notion of necessity and contingency and their relation to the nature of reason. Spinoza says “…that if the human body has once been affected by two external bodies at the same time… when the mind imagines one of them, it will immediately recollect the other also…”(The Ethics On the Mind 143), we must start with what Spinoza is trying to say here. According to Spinoza, when people learn, or observe rather, two things which both occur simultaneously the mind, or rather the imagination, creates a correlation between the two. We can now approach Spinoza’s example regarding this; the boy who sees Peter, Paul, and Simon on various parts of the day learns to correlate their seeing of the particular person to the time of day, so based on temporality and the natural movement of time a particular person will come up when a particular time of day passes (On the Mind 143-144). This applies with anything not only temporality and people but also with standard habituation. In any psychology course they run Spinoza’s contingent experiment on their students, they will show you a picture of a dog then a cat then the same dog that showed up the first time, and the person watching this series of photos will safely assume that a cat will show up next, it is exactly this that Spinoza says is not the nature of reason. Spinoza continues with saying that “…this necessity of things is the very necessity of God’s eternal nature.” (On the Mind 144), So now Spinoza, in proposition 44, has not only created an epistemological theory but has correlated it with Spinoza’s own notion of God, which entails this notion of the nature of reason to be, in Spinoza’s perspective, the only right approach to knowledge.

~ True Ideas of the Body ~

The relation between thoughts and extensions helps me understand the relation between mind and body.  This is because in Spinoza's view, thought and extension are both attributes of God. Thus they both express the same essence, only in different ways.  And the human mind and all its ideas are ideas of the human body, and both ideas of God.   The pattern I see is that when one event (substance) causes the other (mode), the essence of the first is implied in the other.

Proposition 7 says: "The order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things."  What he means is that the way in which a mode of thought is created is the same as how a mode of extension is also created.  The "connection of causes", how one thought leads to another or an event leads to another, are basically the same, because it all expresses the essence of substance, or of God.  The difference is that each has its own language.  As Spinoza says on the bottom of page 119, when talking about modes of thinking we should explain the connections of causes through thinking attributes only.  And the same goes for modes of extension. The point is that both modes have their own way of explaining the whole of nature, or the essence of substance.  

Now, if we look at proposition 13, we see that Spinoza is telling the same causal story here.  "The object of the idea constituting the human mind is the body".  So all ideas of the mind are also ideas of the body.  Because proposition 11 says that when the mind perceives something it is the same as God having this idea.  Since the human mind is part of the intellect of God, and so is the body, Spinoza links both the mind and the body as attributes of one substance.  The Cartesian buried very very deep in me shrieked with horror, as this completely goes against Descartes dualism theory.  Spinoza puts the body and the mind in one hand, as attributes of one substance, rather then making them two completely separate things.

I personally think he is right on this. Or at least makes a better argument then Descartes. Because all modes express the essence of a single infinite substance. And so every combination of though and extension (mind and body) do not equal two separate things, but just one, the essence of God.  It also means that since substance is infinite, we may one day experience new ways of understanding mind and body, which is very sexy.

Mind and Body

Spinoza after explaining the theory of god’s existence shifts onto the nature and origin of the mind. His proofs of the existence of God and the intellect now lead up to mans minds and its workings in relation to god and nature. That being said, Spinoza states a body is a mode with certain attributes and expressions of god’s essence and work in tune in the grander picture of things. Starting on the opposite end of the spectrum, Descartes theory of the mind and the body is that the two are independent of each other. And since they are two separate things their workings don’t lend to each other or support each other. Same as a thought cannot be weighed nor has no physical properties, external ‘things’ to and of itself it have no correlation to the first. Both philosophers believe in the minds ability to think rationally and to exist in and of self, but while one makes clear distinctions between the two, Spinoza has a different view of body and mind.

Physical external things are finite and are limited to our precepts and experiences. A prior knowledge, a way of knowing before having any experience, are concepts already in the mind that don’t rely on experience but are realized (proven) a posteriori. Looking past substance and gods infinite being if we concentrate on what makes me me and you you, in body and in mind Spinoza view is that we are all finite beings made up of this finite “substance” and not different or special in any way aside from our modes. All things being a reflection of gods’ essence et al., it is also clear that things made that must survive gods plan and abide by his nature.

In P7 of The Ethics, Spinoza states: “the order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things.” In the case of Hume, experience or cause and effect is by no means knowledge or a path to knowledge. If by the same token an idea becomes thought and a thought become a concept, a misguided idea or thought can mushroom into non/false knowledge easily. Same as an external occurrence might be thought of caused something else and actually does not, IE four leaf clover for luck.

The mind not having the same hindrance the body is free but must work the same way nature governs the external world. To Spinoza all are of one body anyway but all have a unique mind to which we can think outside of external things and conceive and rationalize many things, including our existence, mathematical concepts and god in general and work in conjunction with the order the way god intended. Is the mind limited to the body and vise versa? Are the two separate?

Things "Natured"

It is quite possible that I have absolutely no idea what I have just read, or that I have no hint of correctness in my explanation for what it means for a thing to be "natured". I believe that by things being “natured”, Spinoza is trying to say that all things have been created by some aspect of nature. It is impossible for anything to be outside of nature as nature is everything. God is not outside of nature, as God is nature. Nothing can exist outside of God so nature in turn is God. I find it particularly hard to follow Spinoza’s explanations due to their own confusing nature. Before Spinoza, I used to think that God was an entity outside of nature, one that was without association to a certain definition of being but Spinoza quickly takes that notion away by attributing God so directly to nature as to call God nature itself. He says that everything in existence is a part of nature, and there is no conceivable way that they cannot be a part. And according to the nature of God, everything is the way and happens in the way it does with a purpose. They could not have occurred in any other manner (p33, page 106)

For something to be natured, it has to be in accordance with the rules that it is the way it is because it absolutely has to be that way. It is intended to be that way, so I don’t think it is going too far if one was to say that all things in existence are natured. They have their own natures, stemming from the overall nature which is God and God’s intention. Personally I find it difficult to bring it further than saying the simple sentence “everything is because of God”, as that statement seems to be an easily appropriate answer to any question regarding the purpose of anything that one can think of.

Nature itself is something that is natured. Everything that exists in nature exists with a specific purpose that reflects God’s intention for it. There is no way for something to exist in nature without an effect. (p 36, page 109) Everything that is created by God is perfect because God’s nature is perfect. And the things that happen in nature are subject to the laws of nature.

For me it is hard to follow what Spinoza is really trying to say (it does seem that he has a lot more to say than what I am understanding from this) because all that I am getting from this is one overall set of ideas which is that everything is everything. God is nature and nature is God. God’s power is in his essence and God is the cause of himself. Things are because of nature, nature is because of God and God is because of himself. The way in which all things act and exist are God’s essence in themselves. (p 35, page 109) Spinoza says that whatever we can conceive to be a part of God’s power, necessarily exists (p 35, page 109) He pushes us to believe that everything in existence is necessary so therefore it is impossible for anything to be made independent of necessity. The way nature is, the way people are, are all a part of necessity and therefore a part of God’s essence. Things natured, are things out of necessity, things out of necessity are things that work and exist according to God’s power/essence, including God.

The "Nature" of God

The only thing that Spinoza is trying to prove, is that there is no God. At least not how we perceive him to be. For Spinoza, God is not an entity that one can bound or give some sort of quality to; He is not some vending machine we can ask favors from. God is no divine being, God is everywhere and everything. Spinoza’s basic mistake stems from his definition of God (D6 pg 85). He is trying to approach a psychological idea with metaphysical tools. He chooses a battlefield that he automatically wins in; he gives a clear cut definition of what he thinks God is, and then bases all of his knowledge about God on this very definition. Never has God been based on a mathematical proof, or logical deduction, it was always an idea that was based on the fact that people did not know anything for sure. Spinoza is attacking all those that ever tried to attach any quality or trait to God. They tried to separate God (who is divine and infinite) from the corporeal (finite) world, which is very easy to describe and explain to a common person (P15 pg 94). Spinoza is proving that this separation is not possible, for even the corporeal is infinite (IV pg 95). By doing this, he is ruining the common notion of God, as He is portrayed in religion. Spinoza is being diplomatic in that he is not outright stating that God does not exist. What he is doing is completely morphing, or dissolving God into a metaphysical idea of the eternity of the universe.

By stating that “whatever is, is in God, and nothing can be or be conceived without God,” Spinoza is showing us how God and nature are one in the same. (Nature being everything.) If we take into account that every effect has a cause, (except for God, or substance, that is a cause of itself), Spinoza is basically saying that there is no beginning. Everything has a cause, except for God; he has always been and will be. However everything else is based on determinism and not some guiding hand of God, because that will give God purpose. Spinoza still fails to address the issue of God as we know Him. Just because my idea of a cat is the same as of a four dimensional machine, (or something else that the human mind is unable to perceive) and I can set up a fancy definition and proof to prove my point, it doesn’t mean that because a four dimensional machine is not a living thing, a cat is therefore not a living thing.

Human beings are an extension of substance, thus extensions of God.

Spinoza believes that human beings are extensions of God, thus we exist in God (SR 92). He ascertains that "Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can be or be conceived without God" (SR 94). By his words, human beings are extensions of substance, or modes of the extension of God. As human beings, we are effects and the knowledge we have of ourselves depends upon the knowledge we have of our cause (SR 86). As God is the only substance, its cause is its self (SR 85,94). Therefore, the more we understand God as this cause, the more we can ultimately understand ourselves.
Spinoza also asserts that the existence of a substance is an eternal truth, and an eternal truth cannot be explained by a time interval, even if that interval has no point of ending or beginning (SR 86, 89). By these statements, one can deduce that a greater understanding of eternity will also lead to a greater understanding of human beings. Because there is nothing except for substances and modes, and substance is an eternal truth, Spinoza declares that corporeal or extended substance is itself of the divine nature (SR 89, 94). He addresses people's ignorance in declaring that extended substance, or human beings, are created by God, while removing corporeal substance from the divine nature, with the axiom that "one substance cannot be produce by another substance" (SR 87, 94). As human beings are the created, not the creator, it follows we are extensions of God.
Spinoza states that human beings either wield power by way of our existence as finite beings that are more powerful that an infinite being, or that we exist in something else, which necessarily exists, which is God (SR 92). For God not to exist, then nothing would exist. But alas we do exist, therefore God does exist and we are extended substance within God (SR 92). Spinoza addresses that opponents argue that because corporeal substance consists of parts, it cannot be infinite, or be of God (SR 94). But they mistakenly conceive corporeal substance to be finite because they believe it to be made of finite parts (SR 96). Ultimately Spinoza believes that human beings are extensions of God, that God is absolutely infinite, extended substance is one one of God's infinite attributes, and that corporeal substance is infinite (SR 94, 96).