The posts for skeptikos II begin here.
Spinoza's definitions
I. Cause of itself
I. By CAUSE OF ITSELF (sui causa) I understand that whose essence involves
existence; or that whose nature cannot be conceived except as existing.
everything conceived exists - the question is in what sense?
i.e. as something that exists just as a conception (in conception) - or something that
exists as outside of conception -
that which exists in conception and outside of conception - i.e. the idea of a table and
a table - exists two dimensionally - inside (as conception) and outside (as matter)
my point: anything can be conceived as existing
that is - that which is conceived exists
that which exists in the non-conceptual mode - on the outside - may or may not exist
as a conception
it depends on whether it has come under the purview of consciousness
what is conceived may or may not exist extra-conception
whether it does or not is a matter of looking
it is a question of experience
to say something exists - is simply to acknowledge it
that is to focus on it
and perhaps further to characterize it
therefore:
existence is reference
apart from this the concept has no content - it is open - or empty
the concept of existence as such is a concept without focus - therefore it refers - quite
ironically to - nothing
p.s.
to assert 'x' and to assert ' x exists' - is to what?
reassert 'x'?
it is as it were to underline 'x'
to assert existence is not to add anything
it is to mark 'x'
to give it focus
it is to pick it out
II. Finite in kind
II. A thing is said to be FINITE IN ITS KIND (in suo genere finita) when it can be
limited by another thing of the same nature. For example, a body is said to be finite
because we can conceive of another body larger than it. Similarly, thought is limited
by another thought. But body cannot be limited by thought, nor thought by body.
a thought is limited by another thought -
a body limited by another body
a thought is not a body and a body is not a thought
the external world or dimension - the world of bodies is not of the internal world or
dimension
and visa versa
the inside is not the outside - the outside is not the inside - as a matter of logic
the conscious dimension is not the non-conscious dimension
the unity of the inside and the outside - is reality
is reality for conscious entities
what occurs in this two dimensional world - is the unity of the two dimensions
we can only speak of the two dimensions as separate in an analytical / theoretical
sense
in practice - in fact - all human activity is the unity of the conscious and non-
conscious
that is any act can be analyzed in terms of its conscious dimension and its non-
conscious dimension
its internality and its externality
the unity as such - the unity qua unity - has no other description but a dimensional
description
the unity qua unity is unknown - is unstatable
it can only be seen in terms of the internal world of consciousness and the external
world of the non-conscious
we cannot grasp the essence - only its dimensions
III. Substance
III. By SUBSTANCE (substantia) I understand that which is in itself and is conceived
through itself. That is, that the conception of which does not depend upon the
conception of another thing, from which it has to be formed.
that which is in itself is that which is not in anything else
that is - that which has no parameters
or that which cannot be defined
therefore substance cannot be known
and
the conception of which does not depend upon the conception of another thing -
is a conception that is not bound
I argue it is of the nature and logic of a conception that it is bound
therefore
substance is that which cannot be conceived
so
if we are to still give substance a positive sense
it can only be as the unknown
otherwise the concept has no place at all
to recognize the unknown is to place everything in context
IV. Attribute
IV. By ATTRIBUTE (attributum) I understand that which the intellect perceives of
substance as constituting its essence.
firstly -
what the intellect perceives as essence I would argue is the unknown
on this view 'knowledge' is not what is essential
it is the ground of knowledge that is essential - the object of knowledge -
and the object of knowledge - the ground of knowledge - is the unknown
intellectual perception - or conception - of attributes or characteristics - if we assume
we are talking here about something other than the unknown - is on this view - non-
essential
so if there are attributes - intellectually perceived characteristics - they are not
essential
secondly -
in short consciousness distinguishes itself and that which it is not
the fundamental distinction of consciousness is logical
consciousness recognizes itself as internal and what it is not as external to it - x and
~x
the primary distinction - or intellectual perception - is of metaphysical dimensions -
not of attributes
the ground of the internal / external distinction - (mind / matter - if you like) is not a
substantial distinction - it is distinction of dimensions - dimensions of the unknown
the distinction is based in logic
substance on this view can only be regarded as logical space
its essential characteristics are the dimensions of this space
V. Mode
V. By mode (modus) I understand the modifications of substance; that which is in
something else, through which it is conceived.
a mode as that which is in something else - through which it is conceived
in something else -
conceived in terms of what it is in -
that is known in terms of its epistemological context
i.e. an event in that which is external to consciousness - the surface - the physical
world - will be known in terms appropriate to that dimension - will be known as of
that dimension
and similarly - a thought - a mental event - will be known - will be apprehended as
being of the internal dimension - and understood in terms appropriate to that
dimension
knowledge like the world itself (the conscious and non-conscious dimensions) is
binary
there is no 'unified knowledge' - all knowledge is dimensional
we understand the world in terms of its dimensions
all events though in this world are two dimensional
a thought will have a physical correlate - a physical expression - in the surface that is
the body - i.e. brain activity
and the body too will express itself - manifest in thought
the unity is there - but it cannot be understood in a unitary manner
that is to say i.e. - a physicalist - surface account dose not - cannot - explain the
internal dimension -
and the mental is not the physical
we can speak of an event as having a physical and mental dimension
as to the event itself - in itself - there is no description - if you are to speak of it as
such - it can only be as the logical ground of internality and externality - and this can
only be referred to as the unknown
VI. God
VI. By God (Deus) I understand an absolutely infinite being: that is, substance
consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence.
an absolutely infinite being -
that which is without limitation
conception is always within - within a context therefore limitation
there is no such thing as open concept
such is the negation of conception
it is to not have a concept
the absolutely infinite being is that which cannot be conceived
infinite attributes -
an infinite number of characteristics
is such that it cannot be defined
it is that which cannot be known
VII. Freedom
VII. A thing is said to be FREE (libera) which exists solely through the necessity of
its own nature, and is determined into action by itself alone. That thing is said to be
NECESSARY (neccessaria) or rather COMPELLED (coacta), which is determined
by something else to exist and act in a certain definite and determinate way.
a thing exists in terms of its own nature
its own nature is not determined by itself
the origin of the determination - the first cause - is not known
freedom is the absence of knowledge
VII. Eternity
VII. I understand ETERNITY (aeternitatis) in so far as it is conceived as following
necessarily from the definition of an eternal thing.
the definition of an eternal thing -
that which cannot be understood in terms of duration or time
we have no experience of such a thing
the notion of eternity - is the negative of what we experience
negation has no content - it does not refer to anything - its function is purely formal
it defines what is - in a logical sense -
it gives what is - its parameters - its form and content
beyond what is given in duration or time we have no knowledge
given this 'eternity' is what is not known
it is beyond knowledge - it is the unknown
