Welcome to the final day of Spinoza Week at Goat Rope. Aside from links and comments about current events, the guiding thread this week has been the thought of that great and humane 17th century philosopher. If this is your first visit, please click on earlier posts.
There seems to be a paradox at the center of Spinoza's thought. First, he makes a strong case for determinism, the idea that there is no freedom of the will and that everything happens of necessity--indeed, from the necessity of the nature of God. On the other hand, he believes that through proper understanding and awareness, we can free ourselves from the grip of negative emotions and misguided ideas.
It seems to El Cabrero that if everything happens of necessity, there would be no way of overcoming negative emotions and bad thinking and, conversely, if we could do that, then maybe everything isn't determined. But I like Spinoza too much to push the point.
At the opening of Part IV of The Ethics, he writes
It's hard to argue with that. But Spinoza was no Spock who thought all emotions were bad. He believed all beings have a drive to persist in being and increase their power. He called that conatus. Things that increase our potential and strengthen us are good and give us pleasure (rightly understood) and things that weaken us or harm us cause pain. By pleasure, he seemed to mean something more like self actualization or the eudaimonia of the Greeks.
The problem is false reasoning, obsessions, and negative emotions--meaning emotions that have a negative affect on us and other. He called this "inadequate thinking." To the extent we are captive to these, we are really passive and helpless in their grasp.
He believed that by thinking clearly and distinctly about how the world and our minds work, we could gain power over these negative patterns and live a life of reason. That means enjoying in moderation the good things of the world, doing what we can to improve things, and accepting those things we can't change. People living the life of reason want nothing for themselves that they don't wish everyone to have and look after both their own interests and the well-being of society.
This isn't altogether different from the Buddhist idea of overcoming negative attachments and delusional thinking through right understanding and mindfulness or the modern psychological approach of cognitive therapy that helps people learn about and correct irrational ideas.
To the extent we do that, we begin to look at live sub specie aeternitas or from the viewpoint of eternity. The highest level of serenity was something he called "the intellectual love of God," which means reverence for the universe and acceptance of the nature of things. He even seems to suggest that to the extent we do this, our minds approach a kind of immortality, although he probably didn't have a heavenly Disney World in mind.
Of course, it's easier said than done but we can make progress in that direction. Here are the last words of The Ethics:
I don't know about y'all, but I've got a long way to go.
There seems to be a paradox at the center of Spinoza's thought. First, he makes a strong case for determinism, the idea that there is no freedom of the will and that everything happens of necessity--indeed, from the necessity of the nature of God. On the other hand, he believes that through proper understanding and awareness, we can free ourselves from the grip of negative emotions and misguided ideas.
It seems to El Cabrero that if everything happens of necessity, there would be no way of overcoming negative emotions and bad thinking and, conversely, if we could do that, then maybe everything isn't determined. But I like Spinoza too much to push the point.
At the opening of Part IV of The Ethics, he writes
Human lack of power in moderating and checking the emotions I call servitude. For a man who is submissive to his emotions does not have power over himself, but is in the hands of fortune to such an extent that he is often constrained, although he may see what is better for him, to follow what is worse.
It's hard to argue with that. But Spinoza was no Spock who thought all emotions were bad. He believed all beings have a drive to persist in being and increase their power. He called that conatus. Things that increase our potential and strengthen us are good and give us pleasure (rightly understood) and things that weaken us or harm us cause pain. By pleasure, he seemed to mean something more like self actualization or the eudaimonia of the Greeks.
The problem is false reasoning, obsessions, and negative emotions--meaning emotions that have a negative affect on us and other. He called this "inadequate thinking." To the extent we are captive to these, we are really passive and helpless in their grasp.
He believed that by thinking clearly and distinctly about how the world and our minds work, we could gain power over these negative patterns and live a life of reason. That means enjoying in moderation the good things of the world, doing what we can to improve things, and accepting those things we can't change. People living the life of reason want nothing for themselves that they don't wish everyone to have and look after both their own interests and the well-being of society.
This isn't altogether different from the Buddhist idea of overcoming negative attachments and delusional thinking through right understanding and mindfulness or the modern psychological approach of cognitive therapy that helps people learn about and correct irrational ideas.
To the extent we do that, we begin to look at live sub specie aeternitas or from the viewpoint of eternity. The highest level of serenity was something he called "the intellectual love of God," which means reverence for the universe and acceptance of the nature of things. He even seems to suggest that to the extent we do this, our minds approach a kind of immortality, although he probably didn't have a heavenly Disney World in mind.
Of course, it's easier said than done but we can make progress in that direction. Here are the last words of The Ethics:
...it is clear of how much a wise man is capable and how stronger he is than an ignorant one, who is guided by lust alone. For an ignorant man, besides being agitated in many ways by external causes, never possessing true contentment of mind also lives as it were unaware of himself, God, and things, and as soon as he ceases to be passive, ceases to be. On the other hand, the wise man, in so far as he is considered as such, is scarcely moved in spirit: he is aware of himself, of God, and things by a certain eternal necessity, he never ceases to be, but always possesses true contentment of mind. If the road I have shown to lead to this is very difficult, it can yet be discovered. And clearly it must be hard when it is so seldom found. For how it could it be that if salvation were close at hand and could be found without difficulty it should be neglected by almost all? But all excellent things are as difficult as they are rare.
I don't know about y'all, but I've got a long way to go.
SAD NEWS from Illinois.
WHAT WE DIDN'T GET. Here's an item on the kind of economic stimulus we really need.
THE AFTERMATH OF WAR. Sometimes the violence doesn't stop when veterans return.
RITTER ON IRAN. Here's an interview with Scott Ritter about the Bush administration's intentions towards Iran.
ATTACKS ON HOMELESS PEOPLE are rising.
THE ONE AND THE MANY. Is a beehive one big organism or a bunch of little ones?
GOAT ROPE ADVISORY LEVEL: ELEVATED
News Feed (RSS & Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment