Spinoza-Ethics

Ethics I by Spinoza, Presentation

Spinoza’s modern age ethics seek to explain the nature of God. Spinoza starts by giving us some definitions, and then he goes on to propositions; there are some propositions that do not really require explanation because they based purely in definitions. It is important to understand that for Spinoza God cannot be seen with the ignorant reason of man. By this I mean, that God cannot be seen as to have an end and purely submissive to men; as it usually happen with human’s selfish reasoning, because if one sees Spinoza’s theories this way it would be pointless for the sole fact that God will act with an end in order to archive something. Hence, God would be searching for something he lacks. This cannot be because, as I will explain latter, God is purely in act.

He explains that “there cannot be two or more substances of the same nature or attribute”, this is due to the definitions given to attribute and affections. A substance cannot be distinguished through its affections because the substance is prior to it affections, meaning that if one compares to its affections it is like comparing something that has not yet come to existence; because, as said in the text, the substance is the only thing that exists by itself.

What constitutes a substance’s essence, attribute, cannot be of several ones; because if it is what constitutes it essence it would mean that it is the substance itself. Therefore it would be the same substance and not several, because an attribute of a substance is the same as the substance and the substance is one in itself and not several. It follows that a substance has nothing in common with another substance, and if they have nothing in common it would mean that one cannot be the creator, or the cause, of the other. As said by Spinoza, a substance cannot be created by another, for the mere fact that if it was the substance would be the cause, therefore the offspring of the substance would not be substance given that, it would not be “conceived though itself”. Hence, a substance cannot bring into being another substance and it follow that substances cannot be created by anything, because substances are the only things which essence involves existence and substances cannot be created by other substances. Consequently, they are self-caused. From the fact that two substances cannot have the same attributes, it is subsequent that the substance if infinite, because in order for a thing to be finite it needs a fellow with common aspects to be compared to. As a result, the substance has no other option than to be infinite.

It is said in the definition of substance that its essence involves existence and that existence is because of its essence. We can also explain it through what was said before, if substances are the only possibility of creation and are self-caused it necessarily follows that they involve existence; because if substances did not involve existence they would not be able to be the cause of anything, and they are. Hence if God is a substance and substances involve existence it is evident that God exists, because it is a substance by definition.

Spinoza explains the inevitability of God’s existence through cause. He says that everything exists unless it has a reason not to exist, therefore God would not exist if he had a cause for his nonexistence but he does not, as far as we know. In the other hand, he as a substance has the nature to exist which is the reason itself to exist, it follow from this that the reason not to exist cannot be in him. God could only cease to come into existence if another substance could withdraw his existence; this is not possible because a substance has zilch in common with another matter.

Spinoza gives a final argument for proposition 11. This argument is kind of feeble, due to his assumption that existence is power because it is “self-evident”. Even if it is weak, it explains the necessity of an infinite substance to exist, because if existence contained only finite entities it would follow that they have power, because they exit, but if finite substance have power because they exist then it would be absurd and an infinite substance entity should be the one to exits, aka God. Yet again, this argument is based on the assumption that existence is better and more powerful than the nonexistence.

Proposition 14 explains why God is the only substance. The author explain this by saying that attributes are the effects of the substance and that if there was to be another substance it would signify that this substance would have to be explained through the attribute. What I understood is that the attributes are involved in existence and existence comes from the substance, therefore the attribute would be conceived in only one substance because nature (existence) is unique. It follows that attributes are eternal, because attributes express the essence of the substance which is infinite and existent. Hence

...