Like several posters below me, I want to talk about Spinoza's perspective on what he calls God. However, I will try to take a different approach and compare when Spinoza uses the term "God" to when he uses "Nature." Our introduction says that Spinoza apparently uses the terms "God" and "Nature" interchangeably to mean the "vast, interconnected causal system in which everything occurs". The question that came to my mind, then, was why did he use a particular term (God or Nature) when he did? Is there any subtle difference between Spinoza's conception of God and of Nature? Hopefully this post will shed some light on this.
Spinoza writes that "Nature does not act with an end in view; that eternal and infinite being, whom we call God, or Nature, acts by the same necessity whereby it exists" (Good Life 162). Here we see Spinoza using the terms interchangeably—he says "God, or Nature". However, this passage ascribes a few complicating characteristics to our conception of God/Nature. First, it is a being. Second, it acts, but not "with an end in view". Third, this being with potential for action is "eternal and infinite."
Some of these characteristics compete with most people's conception of Nature. I doubt that most people would characterize nature as a being. Actions are also up for debate; actions occur in nature, but is it correct to say that nature acts? Lastly, eternal and infinite is far from clear. On the other hand, all of these characteristics do fit in with common notions of a deity. However, since Spinoza seems to equate "God" and "Nature," it is not safe to assume that his definition of God resembles a god of a theistic religion.
Therefore, we must refine our understanding of Spinoza's definition of God/Nature. I will compare two more passages. Spinoza writes, "Now to perfect the intellect is also nothing other than to understand God and the attributes and actions of God that follow from the necessity of his nature" (165). Here Spinoza reiterates that God can perform actions. He also states that God, in addition to being Nature, has a nature. He has "attributes", and actions "follow from the necessity of his nature." Is Spinoza slightly differentiating between God and Nature? Is it significant that he says that perfect intellect is "to understand God" when he just as easily could have said it is "to understand Nature"? These are questions I don't have an answer for.
Here is my next quote: "And so in so far as we rightly understand these matters, the endeavor of the better part of us is in harmony with the order of the whole of Nature" (168). Emphasizing the importance of understanding and intellect, this echoes the point of the passage I quoted above. However, it does identify understanding God as a perfect aim. Rather, it says that understanding leads to perfect harmony with Nature.
Maybe these subtle differences do not really mean anything. However, since Spinoza is supposedly using these terms interchangeably, how does he choose which word to use? It seems like there must be at least some subtle difference, but I haven't managed to put my finger on it yet. What do you think? What does Spinoza mean when he says things like "Blessedness consists in love towards God" (172)? Would this statement be any different if Spinoza had instead written "love towards Nature"?
Spinoza writes that "Nature does not act with an end in view; that eternal and infinite being, whom we call God, or Nature, acts by the same necessity whereby it exists" (Good Life 162). Here we see Spinoza using the terms interchangeably—he says "God, or Nature". However, this passage ascribes a few complicating characteristics to our conception of God/Nature. First, it is a being. Second, it acts, but not "with an end in view". Third, this being with potential for action is "eternal and infinite."
Some of these characteristics compete with most people's conception of Nature. I doubt that most people would characterize nature as a being. Actions are also up for debate; actions occur in nature, but is it correct to say that nature acts? Lastly, eternal and infinite is far from clear. On the other hand, all of these characteristics do fit in with common notions of a deity. However, since Spinoza seems to equate "God" and "Nature," it is not safe to assume that his definition of God resembles a god of a theistic religion.
Therefore, we must refine our understanding of Spinoza's definition of God/Nature. I will compare two more passages. Spinoza writes, "Now to perfect the intellect is also nothing other than to understand God and the attributes and actions of God that follow from the necessity of his nature" (165). Here Spinoza reiterates that God can perform actions. He also states that God, in addition to being Nature, has a nature. He has "attributes", and actions "follow from the necessity of his nature." Is Spinoza slightly differentiating between God and Nature? Is it significant that he says that perfect intellect is "to understand God" when he just as easily could have said it is "to understand Nature"? These are questions I don't have an answer for.
Here is my next quote: "And so in so far as we rightly understand these matters, the endeavor of the better part of us is in harmony with the order of the whole of Nature" (168). Emphasizing the importance of understanding and intellect, this echoes the point of the passage I quoted above. However, it does identify understanding God as a perfect aim. Rather, it says that understanding leads to perfect harmony with Nature.
Maybe these subtle differences do not really mean anything. However, since Spinoza is supposedly using these terms interchangeably, how does he choose which word to use? It seems like there must be at least some subtle difference, but I haven't managed to put my finger on it yet. What do you think? What does Spinoza mean when he says things like "Blessedness consists in love towards God" (172)? Would this statement be any different if Spinoza had instead written "love towards Nature"?
Mills, I'm really glad you blogged about this, since I've had the same question since you brought it up in our group on Thursday. Spinoza's definition of God really reminded me of Descartes - God's attributes (being eternal, infinite, perfectly good) are true because they are the definition of God. But the fact that Spinoza equates God with Nature is really confusing to me. Like you said, I have a hard time imagining Nature as a being, but rather as a system or order. I thought it might have made more sense to acknowledge God as the creator of Nature (or something like that), so that one can only know God by knowing Nature through that third/highest form of knowledge. This obviously changes Spinoza's argument, but that arrangement makes more sense to me. I also find it interesting that Spinoza chooses to use "God" more than "Nature," even though he claims the two are interchangeable and the same.
ReplyDelete