Imran S. Peer Philosophy 1301-5002(Introduction to Philosophy) March, Spring Semester 2012 Dr.

Thames Term Paper Baruch Spinoza was a rationalist philosopher who lived from 1632 to 1677[1]. I chose to do my term paper on his works because I share rationalist views like he did. Although I do agree with most of his reasoning of his philosophies, there are some philosophies of his that I do not agree with. According to Sophies World, Spinoza said that we must continually bear in mind the period itthe biblewas written in [1]. Similarly, I think that while examining Spinozas philosophies and teachings, it is necessary to adhere to the context, i.e. the period of time Spinoza lived in. As explained to me by my professor, as philosophies evolved and new ones arose, for every thesis of a philosopher, another philosopher would come up with an antithesis and claim it as his own philosophy. Further after this, a third philosopher would look at both philosophies and synthesize his own philosophy which would eventually become his thesis. This cycle of thesis, antithesis and synthesis (thesis) repeated many times. For example, during the period of 600500B.C., Thales philosophized that all matter was made of water. He believed that everything in the world could be broken down into water. During this same period of time, another philosopher, Anaximander, philosophized that all matter was created of some substance that was boundless. Soon after, Anaximenes philosophized that all matter was made up of air or vapor.

From the example, Thales would be the Thesis, Anaximander the Antithesis and Anaximenes

the synthesis or thesis. I believe that Spinozas beliefs were only an antithesis or synthesis in response to another philosopher. Such is the human nature and the world is governed by laws of naturewhich Spinoza believed as well. Spinoza belonged to a Jewish community in Amsterdam but was excommunicated for heresy [1]. Spinoza rejected and criticized the religion. He did not believe that the Bible was from God. However, Spinoza did not reject the idea of God. He did reject the religions and the Bible, yet, he did not reject the existence of God. Unlike Ren Descartes, Spinoza was a monist. He did not believe that everything in the world was either thought or extension. Instead, he believed that everything existent could be reduced to a single substance [1]. Most world religions believe that God is the outer cause of everything that takes place in the world. However, Spinoza did not believe so; he thought God was more likely the inner cause. He believed that God did not control everything but, he did control certain things through the laws of nature. I strongly concur with Spinozas thinking. I believe God is not the outer cause of anything. For example, minimizing the interference of God in the creation of the universe, the strongest theory is the big bang theory. Its thesis is that billions of years ago, a huge explosion of biblical exponent took place and hence the universe came into being. Yet, there had to have been something that exploded. From Spinozas ideology that God controls the world through laws of nature, I think that God maybe created that mass that exploded and everything else after that, took place according to the laws of nature; the continuous expansion of the universe due to the explosion, collision of massive space bodies forming planets, gravity, momentum, and everything else. Similarly, I dont think God is the cause of the apple dropping on Newtons head, or the cause of water
[1]

Jostein Gaarder, "Spinoza," in Sophie's World, trans. Paulette Mller (New York: Berkley Books, 1994), 247-248

flowing down a slope and neither did Spinoza seem to either. The apple fell on Newtons head because it was ripe and it was under constant gravitational pull of the Earth. When a child jumps in the path of a speeding vehicle, he does not get hit because God caused it, but rather because the car couldnt have been stopped within a short distance at that great of a speed; simpl y put, it had too much momentum. To support this, Alberto Knox in Sophies World asks Sophie about two trees in a garden; one growing in a sunny spot and the other in a dark shady spot, regarding which one would grow better. Sophie replies that the one in the sunny spot would grow better because it has better conditions to live in. If this case is taken in to consideration, God did not cause the tree in the sun to grow faster and better; it would happen because it is in the trees nature to grow well in optimum conditions. God may be the inner cause of the nature of the tree to grow better in the sun, but doesnt cause it to grow better directly. As much as I agree with Spinoza on this matter, Spinoza goes on to philosophize that God does not exist independently. As mentioned before, Spinoza was a monist. Unlike Rene Descartes who believed that everything in the world is either thought or extension, Spinoza believed that everything is one. He believed everything is God. He believed that everything is an attribute of God. I do not agree with this belief of Spinoza. Everything cannot be god. If everything was God, then why does God have to control the world through the laws of nature? I believe that God does exist independently, yet, controls the world through laws of nature as discussed before. One of Spinozas proposition that I believe almost everyone who has been or is in a relationship of any kind with anyone, will agree to is If we love something similar to ourselves, we endeavor, as far as we can, to bring it about that it should love us in return [2]. When a person meets a complete stranger, the first thing he or she will do is to look for similarities with

23

the other person. Once similarities have been established, there is a sudden search for more

similarities. I believe that when said person finds that the stranger is in fact very similar to him or her, the person tries to become their friend and eventually tries to get really close. Spinozas also propositions in his works that If the mind has once been affected by two emotions at the same time, when it is later affected by the one it will also be affected by the other[3]. I strongly disagree with this proposition of his and also with reason. People seem to agree with this proposition of his blindly as they immediately think of love and hate. However, they fail to realize that this proposition applies for two different instances of time. For example, a couple of years ago, my girlfriend and I were on the verge of breaking up. At the time, I felt both emotions of love and despair. I still do love her and talk to her every day. But I dont feel the slightest hint of despair inside me. Yet, if Spinozas proposition is to hold true, I should feel sad every time that I feel love towards her; but, I dont. To support this, I will share another personal experience that seems to hold Spinozas proposition untrue. In high school, I passed my 11th grade exams with Cs. Being a straight A student all my life, I felt sad yet proud that I did it on my own. However, every time that I feel proud of myself at the end of the semester now after achieving satisfactory grades, I dont feel sad at all no matter what the grades are. If Spinoza's proposition was to hold true, I would feel sad every time I felt proud of myself; yet, I dont. While on this topic, Spinoza writes of many other propositions related to emotions; two of which I can relate to, and strongly agree with. He who imagines that what he loves is being destroyed will feel pain. If, however, he imagines that it is being preserved, he will feel pleasure.[4] As an experienced person, I can very
[2] [3] [4]

"Spinoza, Ethics, Part III," in Sophie's Reader, comp. Mark Thames (n.p.: Cengage Learning, n.d.),233 "Spinoza, Ethics, Part III," in Sophie's Reader, comp. Mark Thames (n.p.: Cengage Learning, n.d.),222 "Spinoza, Ethics, Part III," in Sophie's Reader, comp. Mark Thames (n.p.: Cengage Learning, n.d.),225

well relate and agree to this proposition and believe anyone would. I love my mother. When I imagine her death, which is, however, inevitable, I feel pain. Yet, when I imagine how it would be like if she could live forever, or in Spinozas words, preserved, I feel happy. Similarly, Spinoza informs of another one of his propositions which I believe anyone can agree and relate to easily: He who imagines that what he hates is affected with pain will feel pleasure; if on the other hand, he thinks of it as affected with pleasure, he will feel pain. Both of these emotions will vary in intensity inversely with the variation of the contrary emotion in that which he hates [5]. I absolutely hate my girlfriends sister. She caused a lot of problems for the both of us, and continues to do so. I hated how she had a perfect relationship with her boyfriend. However, when that relationship ended for reasons I would not go into detail, I felt pleasure. As I write about this experience, I feel pleasure again. Spinoza definitely propositioned these two theories with great accuracy. Another one of his propositions that most people would agree with was He who imagines he is hated by someone to whom he believes he has given no cause of hatred will hate him in return[6]. By delving deeply into Spinozas works, I have come to realize that he made most of his propositions from the fact that everything in the world obeys its own nature. Hence, Spinoza made the propositions about emotions because such is the nature of human beings and we are bound to obey our nature by all means. I believe Spinoza not only brought about a new philosophy and teachings, but he also brought into light what was already existent yet, not discovered.
4

"Spinoza, Ethics, Part III," in Sophie's Reader, comp. Mark Thames (n.p.: Cengage Learning, n.d.),227 [6] "Spinoza, Ethics, Part III," in Sophie's Reader, comp. Mark Thames (n.p.: Cengage Learning, n.d.),236

[5]

Bibliography Gaarder, Jostein. Spinoza. In Sophies World, translated by Paulette Mller, 247-256. New York: Berkley Books, 1994. Spinoza, Ethics, Part III. In Sophies Reader, compiled by Mark Thames, 222-249. N.p.: Cengage Learning, n.d.