In
Spinoza’s universe, nothing happens by accident and everything has a reason. If
circumstances are seen as unfortunate, it is only because of our inadequate
conception of reality, which he believed was infinite and eternal. As a lens
maker by profession, he believed that our senses were so imperfect that nothing
like universal truth could possibly be discovered through the senses.
In
his Treatise on the Improvement of the Understanding, he held good and evil to
be relative concepts. This means that nothing is intrinsically good or bad
except when related to a particularity. I would rate his Treatise as “R”,
because in the opening, he starts with the mental quiescence that results from sex
and other sensual endeavors, and relates that to the effects of Riches and
Fame, stating that these, too become a preoccupation of the mind. Another name
for fame is “honor,” and these values were generally held as important, since
they were named in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Here Spinoza clearly amplifies Aristotle’s
critical demeanor, “… the attainment of riches and fame is not followed as in
the case of sensual pleasures by repentance, but, the more we acquire, the
greater is our delight, and, consequently, the more are we incited to increase.
Fame has the further drawback that it compels its votaries to order their lives
according to the opinions of their fellow men, shunning what they shun, and
seeking what they seek.”
One
of the things he’s concerned with here is that men he has seen, who are rich or
famous, are placed in danger of their safety, “Examples are no less numerous of
men, who have endured the utmost wretchedness for the sake of gaining or
preserving their reputation.” Spinoza realized that benevolence was limited by
the economy of scale; while one person could not feed all of the poor, the
state might be large enough to do it.
For
Spinoza, when people discuss good and bad, they mean, “That’s good for humans,”
or, “That’s bad for humans.” Nothing is perfect or imperfect in itself, but
only the eternal order of nature can determine their place. Presaging Huserl,
Spinoza believes that humans cannot cogitate the order of nature itself, but
rather their own knowledge of the union
that exists between the mind and nature. In the Ethics, Part III, his position is that
human dominion over nature is an illusion,
Here,
Spinoza may have been the first philosopher to realize that the function of the
mind was not to override the emotions. The emotions rather, for Spinoza, are a
passivity of the soul, or perhaps as we say today, human instincts. While he calls a man driven by instinct, one in
“bondage”, he carefully replaces the terms, “good and bad”, with, “good, bad,
and indifferent”. The opposite of this attitude is the Stoic, which believes
that the emotions depend on our will, and that we can govern them.
The
ethical imperative, then, for Spinoza is to find the character that best knows
nature, emulate that character, and build a society that is the most conducive
to the attainment of this character and forge a social order in which this
character may be attained by the maximum number with the least difficulty and
danger.
Rules of Life from the Treatise
- Speak intelligibly to the maximum number of people. (The logic here is that we gain large advantages from the multitude.)
- In regards to pleasures, only indulge in those which are healthful.
- Get enough of the money necessary for life and health, and follow economic customs.
