if everything is an expression of the whole -
of existence
that is we come at the issue from the top down
and this is Spinoza's approach - starting point
we are proceeding not from experience - we cannot
experience the whole
rather from reasoning
the idea that a part cannot exist independent
of a whole
the particular - only has ontological reality
given a universal - for it to be a particular of -
we can say - that our basis for this ontological
assertion is epistemological
it is a function of the mind
at this point of course you can question whether we
have any basis for believing in anything other than
the mind
but this matter I suggest is already resolved
in the argument that the mind is a particular -
is an expression of a greater reality - a whole -
finally
as to the nature of this whole - again we can say
it is finally unknown - but no less real for that
we can at least assume a relation between the mind
and the world - even if again - we may not be able
to say - with any certainty - what it is
there is - at least logically speaking - the relation
of inclusion
- the mind - included in - the whole
- this we can say - cannot be otherwise
so we can speak of relations - and the relation here -
inclusion - is if you like - primitive - undefined
so we speculate as to the nature of the relationship
and to do this is to exercise nothing more than a
(higher?) function of consciousness
again it is the question of knowledge - what can we know
- of the unknown?
it is the making of metaphysics
and the success of any such a creation will be measured
by what?
what distinguishes one account of the relation of
particular to universal from another?
why should we prefer one against the other?
any account will live or die on its own assumptions
for built into any serious account will be its criterion
of truth
so finally no objective test - rather a question of
consistency - at least of premises and conclusion
so a deductive matter
OK - much to be said here - but I'll get back to Spinoza
what is it that distinguishes anything within a totality?
once we begin with the totality can we get down to the
individual?
clearly this is where we really begin - with individual
things
the whole is a real - but a logical abstraction -
Spinoza begins with the whole - the totality - existence
itself
what exists on this view must exist - and it's everything
- yes
but why does any thing exist?
can his philosophy address this question?
not really - for Spinoza such a question is really finally
the same as asking why existence itself?
and there can be no answer to this - in the sense of -
there is something outside of existence that is its cause -
for existence - substance is sui causa
the world expresses itself the way it does - why? -
there is no reason
it could not be otherwise -
the best we can do is understand this
so finally we are left with a vision of necessity
as to the status of this - now there's a question
is it knowledge?
or is it logic?
in the sense of - what it is possible to think?
(and Spinoza's view at this)
yes - it is this
finally - the logic of substance
and Spinoza's view here depends on a form
of the ontological argument
that thinking - shall we say good thinking -
ogical thinking is always about what exists
thought - that is - reflects existence
(if you make this assumption - adopt this view -
Spinoza's theory can be seen to
follow)
to think about the totality is therefore to think
about what exists
when really all it is - is to give a logical setting -
that has no content - substance - to it - to the logical
reality of an individual - a particular
it is just to say a particular is - an instance
of a universal
we can say this without any reference to any actual
existing thing
it is a statement that tells us - how we think about
ourselves and the world - in a fundamental way -
it's a statement about the logic of this thinking
and finally there is no necessity in this thinking -
unless you adopt it
logic is a realm of possibility - not necessity
how we understand the world - and indeed whether we
understand it as a world is a matter of conjecture -
we can adopt a particular ontology - yes -
but where the necessity?
