where is the plus in arguing for the infinity
of attributes?
according to Spinoza substance expresses itself as
extension and mind
extension and mind are all we can know - all we do know
why argue there are an infinite number of attributes -
we do not cannot know?
how do we know that - even if we cannot know what -
they are
substance - is infinite - unlimited
so to argue that it is exhausted by two attributes -
suggests limitations - the limitation of two
OK -
so let's say attributes are a question of knowledge -
intellectual perception
as Spinoza does
what we perceive is what is - extension and mind
on what basis is it to be argued that we know -
of substance - beyond this?
it's the argument of infinity
infinite substance
we know substance as infinite
OK - this is a conceptual argument
about the concept
surely it can be argued that the attributes of
consciousness and extension
define the limit of our perception
and that beyond this what we cannot know -
we can only know what we know
the world beyond this is not known
and for that reason irrelevant -
effectively - non-existent
the conception of substance
substance
is really an exercise in definition
definition of infinity
the definition of that which is not limited
a definition of limitlessness
infinity for Spinoza
is the concept that is logically unbounded
the unbound concept
whether such a concept can be applied to anything -
is another question
a logical exercise is just -
it is not a statement about what exists
it is a statement of concept - not existence
and it is a question whether logically such a notion -
such a concept - 'the unbound concept' makes any sense
the notion of concept seems to entail limits
Spinoza proposes I think - a concept that is not limited
on the face of it - this is a contradiction
statements about attributes - the attributes of mind
and extension - however fall into the existential category -
in the sense they are statements about what exists
or descriptions of what exists
Spinoza wants to argue that mind and extension are
expressions of a single unity
is his theory of substance the only option here?
mind and extension expressions of what?
how to describe the unity?
the concept of this unity is what?
where does it come from?
it is really just a proposal - a bald metaphysical proposal
- to explain this apparent diversity
what underlies
can I suggest that what underlies - whether you describe
this in terms of Spinoza's attributes or not - is not known
therefore the relation mind and extension is not known
we simply don't know
it could well be argued that this issue is the sharp focus
of the unknown
speculative metaphysical theories abound in response to
this matter
why?
perhaps wonder is the answer
and clearly they play a central role in human thinking
it can be argued they have great heuristic value
materialism - one response to the mind-body problem -
has as one of its outcomes
modern science
idealism - it can be said has played a major role in the
spiritual life of human beings
all such proposals speak of human beings - of human need
they are not statements of what is -
Spinoza's conception of substance is elegant and logical -
quite beautiful in its simplicity -
but nevertheless - not what he thinks it is -
it is not an account of how the world is - not that is
objective - and objective in his sense is finally sub specie
aeternitatis -
it is rather how he imagined - beyond what is known
how to correctly describe reality -
any reflection - idea of - if you like - is true
but true in what sense?
the problem is we don't know what a correct description is
the problem is theory of description
this is metaphysics
what view to take?
there is no answer here
there is only the answer of circumstance (if that)
and at best the detailing - the description of circumstance
concerns - needs - expectations - prejudices etc. -
ultimately all we describe it seems to me is description
what makes for a good view of the world? - perhaps concepts
- like elegance - consistency - order - essentially logico
/ mathematical ideas
perhaps
anyway the great diversity of answers - perhaps here is
the true infinite - the great beauty of human being
we live always in our conceptions
there is no release
no non-conceptual point of view
no non-conceptual place
no substance - in Spinoza's sense
the desire for such
is the desire for freedom
but it is not a rational hope
the trap of concept is where we live
it defines our existence
freedom on such a view is what we don't and can't have
it is what we don't know
and to understand this is what?
to know that you don't know
yes
is this freedom?
it is freedom from illusion -
perhaps
p.s.
you might argue that Spinoza's concept of substance
is really an anti-concept
it is the concept of the denial of concept
it is a destruction of concept
and what follows
its reconstruction
such is the 'Ethics'
the concept of the absence of concept?
the definition of that which is undefined -
has no definition
as the basis of all definition
?
