Professional Documents
Culture Documents
15)
the elucidation of Spinoza’s ethical views. At the very end of this part
the “Free Man [homo liber],” i.e., a man who is led by reason and not
2 Unless otherwise marked, all references to the Ethics, the early works of
Spinoza, and Letters 1-29 are to Curley's translation: The Collected Works of
4 volumes (Heidelberg: Carl Winter Verlag, 1925)) for the Latin text of
1
freeman thinks of nothing less than of death, and his wisdom is a
Why does Spinoza claim that a free and rational man does not even
think of death? Is it not the case that death is one of the essential
avoid death? And, if so, can she try to avoid death without thinking
of it?
immediately to the right of the part of the book), or ‘demonstration’ (in all
other cases). Hence, E1d3 is the third definition of part 1 and E1p16d is the
Carlisle, Zach Gartenberg, Warren Zev Harvey and Jason Yonover for their
2
Spinoza’s typically bold views about the nature of death have
of more familiar theories about mind eternity and the afterlife. To put
death – and not just the various theories about the afterlife – is
audacious claim.
soul that continues to exist after the death of the body…But this
still rejecting any theory of afterlife). For Spinoza, the fear of death is
4 Bradley, Ben, Feldman, Fred, and Johansson, Jens (eds.), Oxford Handbook
3
the essential litmus test that distinguishes between the philosopher
people from fear (of death).5 The more a person is guided by reason
the less she would think of death. The concept of death, for Spinoza,
proceed in the following order. In the first part of this paper we will
of the Biblical story of the Fall. In the third part we will attempt to
(or Woman). Specifically, we will explain how the free human being
5 TTP Preface| III/12. This point is also nicely stressed by Garber, “Free
Man,” 110-112. Only in his late and incomplete Political Treatise does
Spinoza entertain the idea of a “free multitude” that is mostly not guided by
4
attempts to continue her existence and avoid death while not fearing
it. In the fourth and final part of the paper we will explain Spinoza’s
views on the “death” of the mind and the nature of the imaginary
the wording of Spinoza’s claim in his June 1666 (probable date) letter
such:
them express the nature of the whole [rem destruere est illam in
totius exprimat].6
thing, i.e., turning an existing thing into nothing, but rather as a new
“Spinoza’s Mereology.”
5
however, should not at all surprise us since Spinoza relentlessly
affirms that nothing comes from nothing and nothing turns into
evil.
things are evil which bring it about that the parts of the human
another.
6
this, that its Parts communicate their motions to one
Next, things which bring it about that the human Body’s parts
q.e.d.8
8 Italics added. In his early Short Treatise Spinoza’s account of the mind-body
union is different from the Ethics. Still his conception of the death of the
body (and mind) is quite similar to the Ethics: “But if other bodies act on
ours with such force that the proportion of motion [to rest] cannot remain
7
We quote E4p39d in extenso, since it provides a brief summary of
Ethics, Spinoza provides the following criterion for the identity over
of bodies.10
Idea, knowledge, etc. of a body having this proportion of motion and rest.”
KV II, Pref|I/53/25-29.
following E2p13.
10 E2p13def| II/99/27-100/5.
8
or gain parts yet still remain the same individual as long as the parts
The human body too can undergo many changes and still
functioning of the parts of our body are too drastic.11 We can, for
example, lose some organs and still retain, more or less, the same
Yet, having been guillotined, the body’s pattern of motion and rest
changes dramatically. For Spinoza, the death of the body is just such a
changes that are more radical than this threshold would constitute the death
of the individual.
would consider a human corpse as an integrated whole (at least shortly after
9
Interestingly, Spinoza seems to hold that death occurs even
when the new pattern of behavior of the body is more complex and
elaborate than the old one. Thus, at the end of the preface to Part 4
beings have much more capable and complex minds (and bodies)
would turn into a cluster of worms. Thus, for Spinoza, a body dies
of most people?
between the human Mind and the others, and how it surpasses them, it is necessary
for us, as we have said, to know the nature of its object, i.e., of the human
than others of doing many things at once, or being acted on in many ways
at once, so its Mind is more capable than others of perceiving many things
10
We will put this question on hold for the time being, and turn
E4p39.
motion and rest to one another. For I dare not deny that—
11
taken for a grown-up infant if he had also forgotten
added.).
Some scholars have taken this passage to indicate that Spinoza adopts
proportion of motion and rest among its parts (or what we called the
rather to illustrate this very definition. For Spinoza, the Spanish Poet
indeed died since the parts of his body acquired a different pattern of
the body can die (i.e., adopt a new governing pattern of motion)
while not turning into a corpse. Consider, however, the case of José,
capacity to forget anything. José did not at all lose the memory of his
lies not so much in its eccentric notion of death as in its laying down of
12
pre-injury experience. Still, his body seems to acquire a radically new
Ikea table into four legs and a square board, the Spinozist would
a new pattern of motion and rest. Similarly, were the table devoured
Spinozist would describe this event too as the death of the table.
that all bodies have corresponding minds. After asserting that all
16 Of course, one may object that there is still some continuity between
José’s patterns of movement before and after the accident, but then it is just
in order to show that for the Spinozist, loss of memory is not a necessary
13
explain the difference between the degrees of animation of bodies17
the cat and the table are animated. Yet, the cat is more animated than
the table, since the body of the cat is much more complex than the
body of the table, and given parallelism, the mind of the cat should
beyond the scope of this paper. 18 Still, we would like to note that
bodies.
8.
14
non-physical spirits (divine will etc.). Thus, for Spinoza, panpsychism
first, seem to us quite odd. For one thing, we may wonder: If death is
Like all finite things human beings try to persevere in their being. For
definition of life [vita] in his early Cogitata Metahysica as “the force through
(I/260/13).
15
new pattern of motion and rest. As we have already noted, even if the
would just as well try to avoid it. For Spinoza, a finite thing always
desires to retain its identity. For this reason Spinoza thinks that
suicide can only result from external influences on our minds and
bodies since the essence of our mind and body always affirms and
does not deny our existence (E3p4d). Thus, responding to the Stoic
existence is built into the essence of every finite being: stones, human
continue the form of life that is what we are. Does this mean that we
should fear death? Oddly enough Spinoza answers the last question
does not think at all of death, Spinoza turns to provide his own
16
in that story of the first man. For in it the only power
by P37).
Spinoza,” 159-161, and 171. For an insightful reading which stresses the
17
fully rational (or almost fully rational23) before eating from the tree of
knowledge (or rather, cognition) of good and evil, and for both
Maimonides, Spinoza asserts “If men were born free, they would
Christi” (i.e., the idea of God) seems to be his own Christian twist of
Maimonides’ claim that the first human beings knew the genuine
God, but that after several generations this knowledge was lost as
humanity declined into the cult of idolatry, and that true religion was
Patriarchs.25
569-573.
23 Spinoza discusses the Fall also in the second chapter of his late and
that Adam could not have been fully rational, since otherwise “how could it
have happened that, knowingly, with eyes open, he would have fallen.”
resulting from anthropocentrism and egoism, see Harvey, “La Mort,” 48-
49.
18
For Spinoza, the rational core of the Fall narrative is the
and evil is a natural and necessary result of the loss of one’s ability to
his degradation and acquisition of the notion of good and evil that
the Fall Adam desired to live; after the Fall he feared death. Are not these
Part III: Why does the Free Man not Think of Death?
Man desires life, but does not fear death, we have to revisit E4p67
with which we began our inquiry. Here is the proposition and its
demonstration:
19
but desires the good directly (by P63C), i.e. (by P24),
explicitly states that the Free Man “acts, lives, and preserves his
overcome them.” Thus, the Free Man clearly attempts to avoid death.
But how can he avoid death, if he does not think at all of death?
fear death (or anything else), but what justifies the transition in the
than of death”? Why does Spinoza think that having no fear of death
which is constituted by our attitude toward it, i.e., fear. Fear is not an
26 This is the title of the twentieth chapter of the first book of Montaigne’s
For other sources of this dictum, see Curley’s editorial note in Spinoza,
20
speaking, we cannot avoid fearing death just as we cannot avoid
Spinoza’s Free Man does not think of death for the simple
fear [metus] as “inconstant sadness which has arisen from the image of
shortly turn to address this issue. For now, let us point out that
Spinoza’s Free Man is guided by reason. Therefore, all of his ideas are
subject to the passion of fear (E4p63). The Free Man is not afraid of
dogs. He is not afraid of ghosts (even if there were any), and he is not
born of the idea of a future or past thing whose outcome we to some extent
doubt.”
28 E3p3: “The actions of the Mind arise from adequate ideas alone; the
normally we are able to distract our attention away from it. Yet, at our death
21
incapable of the passion of fear, and insofar as he incapable of fear,
he has no place for the notion of death in his mind. Thus, the Free
death, since death, like any other notion constructed through our
which is mostly, if not completely, one which should not incite fear –
is, for Spinoza, the genuine reality of the event we call “death.” On
turn now to the delicate issue of the death of the human mind.
22
understanding of temporality. Instead, we will concentrate on those
human mind in the second half of Part Two. Since the scholium
its relation to the imagination, see Schechter, Existence and Temporality, Ch. 1,
23
nothing but the idea of the body (my mind is the idea of my
Spinoza argues in E2p8 that ideas have duration if, and only
Still, we should take notice of two crucial claims in the last passage.
31 See E2p8c: “[S]o long as singular things do not exist, except insofar as
do not exist except insofar as God's infinite idea exists. And when singular
things are said to exist, not only insofar as they are comprehended in God's
attributes, but insofar also as they are said to have duration, their ideas also
involve the existence through which they are said to have duration.” For a
24
First, Spinoza seems to draw a tight connection between the mind’s
32
“present existence” and “the power of imagining.” Second,
developing the claim of E2p8, Spinoza argues that the mind is going
to be in “present existence,” if and only if, the body’s (i.e., the object
mind for Spinoza: the mind ceases to exist in the present when, and
bring about the end of the present existence of the mind. Here,
Spinoza notes that the cause of the mind ceasing to exist in the
present cannot lie in the mind itself, due to the conatus doctrine
(E3p4). Nor can this cause be the body’s “ceasing to exist,” since
would violate the causal and conceptual barrier between the attributes
(see E1p10 and E2p6). Thus, Spinoza concludes, the only possible
reason for the “death of the mind” (i.e., the mind ceasing to affirm
excludes the present existence of our body, and consequently of our Mind,
and which is thus contrary to the idea that constitutes our Mind’s
essence (E3p11s).33
32 Cf. E5p21: “The Mind can neither imagine anything, nor recollect past
25
All this seems pretty enigmatic, if not obscure. If we are to
mind and body, and how this notion of present existence relates to
imagination in E2p17s:
35 To the best of our knowledge, Oded Schechter was the first to observe
this important connection in the first chapter of his Existence and Temporality.
here.
26
in this way, we shall say that it imagines (II/106/7-
10).
For Spinoza, the imagination is not a faculty, but rather the rawest
world. Since our mind is nothing but the idea of our body (E2p13),
Spinoza holds that my ideas of external bodies are truly ideas of the
the condition of our body more than the nature of the external
our errors. We err as long as we perceive the world merely through what
external body may cease to exist shortly after the causal interaction,
27
the effect it brought about in my body is still intact (E2p17d&s).
our memory and recollection of the past also follows “the order and
understanding, of the world, since Spinoza thinks that the very same
38 “I should like you to note that the imaginations of the Mind, considered
in themselves contain no error, or that the Mind does not err from the fact
(E2p17s| II/106/11-13).
28
confusedly. This is how it happens that the Mind is
said to err.
Our image of the sun is to a large extent the result of the structure
the very same image (“yellow ball 200 feet away”); yet, we will adopt
just like the child who thinks that the sun is a yellow ball at a distance
of 200 feet. Unlike the case of the sun, our perception of the present
29
cognition, but also, thereby, a genuine manner of existence, or life, in
the world.
Having the image of the sun and experiencing the presence of other
bodies requires the mediation of our own body. When the body is
of things as present.39 With the death of the body, the mind can no
which concerns this present life [Atque his omnia, quae praesentem hanc
The death of the body is also the end of the “present life” of
the mind which functions and exists in the realm of the imagination.
For those who believe that there is no life but this “present life” of
the imagination, death is a terrifying event. But for those who are
present (see its Def. in IIP17S), which nevertheless indicates the present
constitution of the human Body more than the nature of the external thing
(by IIP16C2). An imagination, then, is an affect (by the gen. Def. Aff.),
30
describes the person who is able to rationally reorder the raw images
is eternal, q.e.d.
Conclusion:
31
normally call “death” is constituted by our fear. For this reason,
Spinoza’s fully free and rational human being would have no concept
the biblical story of the Fall. In the fourth and final part of this paper
that with the death of the body, our mind would no longer conceive
things as present (or past or future), but the loss of our imaginary life
since imaginary life may or may not lead us to error, and may or may
40 We argue that the death of the mind is of limited value, rather than no
value at all, since like all finite beings we strive to persevere in our being.
‘Scientia intuitiva’.”
32
third kinds of cognition operate sub specie aetenitatis.42 The reason for
consistent, for Spinoza, with the fact that I also have adequate eternal
duratio, its reality and its relation to the three kinds of cognition. Still,
philosophy.
42 For the second kind of cognition (i.e., ratio), see E2p44c2. For the third
kind of cognition (i.e., scientia intuitiva), see E5p22, E5p30, and E5p31.
43 See E2p8.
44 See E2p47. For a detailed and elegant clarification of Spinoza’s claim that
“We feel and know by experience that we are eternal,” see Schechter,
33
Bibliography
34
Matson, Wallace, “Death and Destruction in Spinoza’s Ethics,” Inquiry
20 (1977), 403-417.
35
———. Complete Works, translated by Samuel Shirley (Indianapolis:
Hackett, 2002).
ADDITIONS:
- AT8A: “ I call a perception CLEAR when it is PRESENT and
Presence=imagination=inadequacy).
36