Introductory Notes on Spinoza’s Theory of Knowledge
One can meaningfully make sense of Spinoza’s theory of knowledge if it is understood within the context of Descartes’ theory of knowledge.
Like Descartes, Spinoza was a rationalist. In fact, Descartes was a great influence on Spinoza. However, Descartes and Spinoza differ on their understanding of thought and extension. We learned from Cartesian dualism that thought and extension are the essence of two causally interacting substances. Hence, in Cartesian philosophy, thought (or mind) and extension are two independent substances. In contrast to this view, Spinoza believes that thought and extension are parallel aspects of one and the same substance. Hence, in Spinoza, there is no dualism; thought and extension are not existing independently from each other.
It is also important to note that The Ethics, which is Spinoza’s magnum opus, provides the key to understanding the entire system of Spinoza’s philosophy. The ultimate aim of the book, which is also the ultimate aim of his philosophy, is human blessedness, a blessedness that is inseparable from “knowledge of the union existing between mind and the whole of nature”. As we can see later, for Spinoza, the greatest goal of human life is to understand one’s place in the structure of the universe as a natural expression of the essence of God. Thus, human blessedness for Spinoza means having adequate knowledge of the motives of what we do, which in turn leads us to engage in deliberate action. In understanding Spinoza’s philosophical system, we should be guided, therefore, by what his philosophy ultimately aims to achieve.
Another important introductory concept that will help us understand Spinoza’s theory of knowledge is the vacuum argument, which is implied in Descartes’ theory of knowledge. For a detailed discussion on Descartes’ theory of knowledge, see “Descartes’s Theory of Knowledge”.
Now, for both Descartes and Spinoza, the vacuum remains a “something”, with size and shape, though it lacks mass, solidity, impenetrability, and the like. For Descartes, an empty space or vacuum remains something real, though it contains nothing perceptible in it. Hence, an empty space or vacuum is just a particularly thin region of a single reality, that is, RES EXTENSA or extended substance. And it must be noted that for Descartes, there is only one extended substance, and it is SPACE.
Spinoza developed this Cartesian thought on empty space. For Spinoza, all physical objects (that is, things) are simply qualities (or modes) of one substance, namely, the whole of SPACE. Thus, for Spinoza, the difference between matter and empty space is just the difference between thick and thin regions of SPACE.
Descartes and Spinoza share the same view that there is only one material reality, that is, EXTENDED SUBSTANCE or SPACE. But they differ on their views of a thinking substance, or RES COGITANS. Descartes thought that there are many spiritual realities (that is, things that have minds) of THINKING SUBSTANCES or RES COGITANS. Spinoza rejects this position. Spinoza argues that there is only one substance, and that there is only one thinking substance, which is identical with material substance. Thus, as we can see later, for Spinoza, reality is ONE. For Spinoza, reality equals substance and all its modes. And for Spinoza, substance and all its modes equal God, or nature (Deus, sive Natura). The discussion that follows briefly sketches the key concepts of Spinoza’s theory of knowledge.
Key Concepts of Spinoza’s Theory of Knowledge
Substance, Modes, and Attributes
Spinoza borrowed the Cartesian notions of substance, modes, and attributes and appropriated them in his philosophy.
Spinoza modified the Aristotelian definition of substance as something or anything that exists in itself. Spinoza agrees with Aristotle that a substance is that which exists in itself. But Spinoza added that “the conception of which does not require the conception of another thing from which it is to be formed” (Ethics, 1d3). In other words, substance for Spinoza is conceived through itself. For this reason, a tree, understood in the Aristotelian sense as substance, is not really a substance for Spinoza because although it exists in itself, it cannot be conceived through itself. A tree (and other material things) exists in time and space, but it is conceived or explained in terms of the laws governing spatial reality. For Spinoza, therefore, there is only one substance and that is Nature.
Nature for Spinoza is the totality of modes. Spinoza understands modes as the sum total of all the qualities and states of a substance, and which are knowable only in terms of an attribute. According to Spinoza, attribute refers to that which the intellect perceives of substance as constituting its essence, namely, thought and extension.
Mind and Body
For Spinoza, modes include not only qualities (for example, hardness, color, and the like), but also things or matter (for example, a tree or a person) in general. Here, Spinoza includes not only physical matter or things but also mental and psychological predicates like thought and feeling.
But unlike Descartes, Spinoza argues that there is no dualism between thought and extension. Rather, thought and extension are two attributes of one and the same underlying reality. Thus, for Spinoza, all modes (that is, everything in nature) fall under attributes (thought and extension). Thus, for Spinoza, an extended substance is identical with a thinking substance. Indeed, for Spinoza, “all extended things are also thinking things”.
Panpsychism
As we can see, Spinoza’s view of Nature falls under Panpsychism, the thesis that all extended things are also thinking things. Panpsychism also holds the belief that everything has a soul. As an adherent of Panpsychism, Spinoza argues all living things also think. A tree, for example, is a thinking thing for Spinoza.
But it must be noted that the term “thinking” for Spinoza is not only limited to mental attributes. For Spinoza, thinking also includes “subconscious desires and perceptions”. For this reason, plants and animals can also be categorized as “thinking things”, but they do not have conscious mental life as humans do. This explains why Spinoza rejects Descartes’ view that it is humans alone who think. Like Hobbes who argues that the mind could just be matter in motion, Spinoza believes that the mind (of humans) differs only in terms of “degree” but not in “kind” from the rest of nature.
Deus, sive Natura (God, or Nature)
The concept of God as Nature is the key to understanding Spinoza’s notion of “reality as one”.
As is well known, Spinoza identified God with Nature. Thus, for Spinoza, God in Himself is identical with God’s creation. As we can see, Spinoza is a Pantheist. Pantheism is a form of naturalism that views Nature as God, where God means the infinite, unitary, and self-existent cause of all existence.
As a Pantheist, Spinoza believes that everything found in Nature is simply and extension of God inasmuch as everything in Nature is part of God.
It must be noted, however, that Spinoza’s view of Nature is a deterministic system, which means that every event taking place within it is caused by another, antecedent event within the system. And because this cause-effect relationship happens within the system, an appeal to a final cause is not possible. Thus, Spinoza tried to transfer the religious attitude of worshipful awe and humble love from “God, the personal creator of Nature” to “God, the impersonal system of Nature itself”.
It is important to note that Spinoza used the term “infinite cause of the universe” rather than “final cause of the universe” in order to show that in the deterministic system of Nature, there is no God as final cause of everything. This is simply because God is Nature in itself. And for Spinoza, cause and effect is simply part of God or Nature, and since this event (that is, cause-effect) happens within Nature, then, again, there is no final cause.
Spinoza’s Moral Teachings
According to Spinoza, the greatest good of human life is to understand one’s place in the structure of the universe as a natural expression of the essence of God. This is what Spinoza calls human blessedness, which is, as already mentioned, the goal of Spinoza’s philosophy.
Human blessedness, for Spinoza, is having adequate knowledge of the motives of what we do, and which leads us to engage in deliberate action. In this way, actions are considered morally good. Again, this only happens when we recognize our place within the grander scheme of reality as a whole. The reason behind this is that if we know that Nature is God, then any action that is harmful to Nature (to everything, especially humans) is an attack on God.