E4: PROP. 28:
The mind's highest good is the knowledge of God, and the mind's highest
virtue is to know God.

Proof.--The mind is not capable of understanding anything higher than God,
that is (E1D6), than a Being absolutely infinite, and without which (E1P15)
nothing can either be or be conceived; therefore (E4P26 and E4P27), the
mind's highest utility or (E4D1) good is the knowledge of God.

knowledge and sensation

E2: PROP. 10
...The nature of God, which should be reflected on first, inasmuch as it is
prior both in the order of knowledge and the order of nature, they have
taken to be last in the order of knowledge, and have put into the first
place what they call the objects of sensation;
-----

Things as defined attributes of God

E1: PROP. 25, Corollary:
-- Individual things are nothing but modifications of the attributes of God,
or modes by which the attributes of God are expressed in a fixed and
definite manner.
---------

--He who, guided by [PASSIVE] emotion only, endeavours to cause others to
love what he loves himself, and to make the rest of the world live according
to his own fancy, acts solely by impulse, and is, therefore, hateful,
especially to those who take delight in something different, and accordingly
study and, by similar impulse, endeavour, to make men live in accordance
with what pleases themselves. Again, as the highest good sought by men under
the guidance of emotion is often such, that it can only be possessed by a
single individual, it follows that those who love it are not consistent in
their intentions, but, while they delight to sing its praises, fear to be
believed.

Spinoza's Ethics group post by Terry Neff

Re: Dreamworld vs. Inner Life/Terry

Posted by: "Terry Neff" tneff@earthlink.net tneff

Wed Jul 5, 2006 9:42 am (PST)

Hi All,

I would like to offer a thought experiment to help explain what I meant
when I wrote the following and how it might relate to the ideas expressed in
Spinoza's Ethics:

---------- TNeff message, 6/11/2006:
For each individual human being on this planet, the entirety of their perception of "history" and of "culture" and of "religion", etc., in so far as these involve "external bodies" which are perceived confusedly as they imagine them and not, as these perceptions actually involve, modes of their own body, the entirety of these "things" I repeat, are nothing more than an elaborate dream involving the motion and rest of each particular individual's extremely complex body.
All of the apparent clashes of "culture", "religion", etc., and the destruction of one actual body by another in the name of such things, only occur so long as the individuals involved remain unaware of the nature of this dream "world" and mistake it for reality.
----------

Imagine that you decide to write a book on the social and economic forces affecting the world today. You have traveled and studied extensively doing research on such things and now you decide to take six months off to begin writing. You arrange to stay by yourself on a small secluded island which has a nice house with all the food and supplies you will need including a library of books and DVDs for some occasional relaxation. There is no way to communicate with the rest of the world from this island and so you hire someone to fly you there and to pick you up in the same way six months later.

As you begin your stay on the island you immerse yourself in your notes and reference works and, unbeknownst to you, a highly communicable fatal disease begins to spread very rapidly elsewhere and within a week the entire
human population, except for you, is wiped out. You have no way of knowing this so you continue to work on your book as you think about all that you know concerning the social and economic forces that you have studied and
which you continue to think of as belonging to "the world".

Now, do these "social and economic forces" have any actual existence outside of your own imagination/memory? How can they? All of the physical bodies involved (except for the humans) may still be functional; the bank buildings and stock exchanges around the world still exist as do all the computers, the internet, cars, trains, planes, etc. --but, at the present time, on this planet, is there any actual existing thing or action outside of your imagination which can be referred to by you as "social and economic forces"? Still, you continue in your seclusion to believe that all the things of the world, as you imagine them, continue to exist and operate just as they did when you left them to come to the island. Your own mind has not changed at all in this regard, --from the time when you arrived on the island and the actual world was existing and operating in a particular way, until the present when the actual existing world has changed drastically, your mind has not changed with regard to these things.

Spinoza shows, and if we follow his chain of reasoning we too may have
an adequate idea that:

======= E2: PROP. 13:
The object of the idea constituting the human mind is the body, in other
words a certain mode of extension which actually exists, and nothing else.
======= Corollary:
--Hence it follows that man is composed of mind and body, and that the human
body exists as we perceive it.
=======

He shows that our own body exists as we perceive it, not that "the world
of external bodies exists as we perceive it." He goes on to show:

======= E2: PROP. 16, Corollary 2:
--It follows, secondly, that the ideas, which we have of external bodies,
indicate rather the constitution of our own body than the nature of external
bodies.
======= E2: PROP. 17:
If the human body is affected in a manner which involves the nature of
any external body, the human mind will regard the said external body [only
as it has affected our own body, see below. -TNeff] as actually existing, or
as present to itself, until the human body be affected in such a way, as to
exclude the existence or the presence of the said external body.
======= Corollary:
--The mind is able to regard as present external bodies, by which the human
body has once been affected, even though they be no longer in existence or
present.
=======

Now I choose to call "the world" of external bodies and of social and
economic forces, etc. in your mind in the above situation a "dream" as long
as you are unaware that you are only dealing with the constitution of your
own body, not the actual world as it exists in God. As Spinoza clarifies in
the following note (you might realize this already from E2P16C2 above) these
images of external things in your mind do not answer to the actual essence
of the actual external bodies involved:

======= E2: PROP. 17 Corollary, Note:
...Furthermore (E2P17C, E2P16C2), we clearly understand what is the
difference between the idea, say, of Peter, which constitutes the essence of
Peter's mind, and the idea of the said Peter, which is in another man, say,
Paul. The former directly answers to the essence of Peter's own body, and
only implies existence so long as Peter exists; the latter indicates rather
the disposition of Paul's body than the nature of Peter, and, therefore,
while this disposition of Paul's body lasts, Paul's mind will regard Peter
as present to itself, even though he no longer exists.

Further, to retain the usual phraseology, the modifications of the human
body, of which the ideas represent external bodies as present to us, we will
call the images of things, though they do not recall the figure of things.
When the mind regards bodies in this fashion, we say that it imagines.

I will here draw attention to the fact, in order to indicate where error
lies, that the imaginations of the mind, looked at in themselves, do not
contain error. The mind does not err in the mere act of imagining, but only
in so far as it is regarded as being without the idea, which excludes the
existence of such things as it imagines to be present to it. If the mind,
while imagining non-existent things as present to it, is at the same time
conscious that they do not really exist, this power of imagination must be
set down to the efficacy of its nature, and not to a fault, especially if
this faculty of imagination depend solely on its own nature--that is (E1D7),
if this faculty of imagination be free.
=======

...and so I wrote:

---------- TNeff message, 6/11/2006:
For each individual human being on this planet, the entirety of their
perception of "history" and of "culture" and of "religion", etc., in so far
as these involve "external bodies" which are perceived confusedly as they
imagine them and not, as these perceptions actually involve, modes of their
own body, the entirety of these "things" I repeat, are nothing more than an
elaborate dream involving the motion and rest of each particular
individual's extremely complex body....
----------

Of course the thought experiment involves an extreme situation but still
it is not impossible. However, if you prefer, think now about what you
believe to be the world of external bodies and actions as you perhaps sit in
front of your computer reading this message. Stop reading and think about
this for a moment. Are you conscious that the idea that you have of "the
world", whether you focus on social, economic, cultural, religious,
technological, etc. things and forces, is not the actual idea of the actual
world of bodies in the infinite intellect of God but rather is the idea of
the motion and rest of your own body? If not then might we not describe this
complex imagination as a "dream world" even if our eyes are open, etc.?

Spinoza asks us in the Ethics to follow along with him as he helps us to
see for ourselves the results:

======= E2 Preface:
...which must necessarily follow from the essence of God, or of the eternal
and infinite being; not, indeed, all of them (for we proved in E1P16, that
an infinite number must follow in an infinite number of ways), but only
those which are able to lead us, as it were by the hand, to the knowledge of
the human mind and its highest blessedness.
=======

This Blessedness is not some dream or fantasy and it is not dependent on
our coming to any understanding of social, economic, cultural, religious,
technological, medical, etc. forces affecting our lives although of course
our imagination will often turn toward contemplating such things. In fact,
Spinoza shows in The Improvement of the Understanding and throughout the
Ethics just how difficult it will be to turn away from these other things
for even a short period of time in order to contemplate the actual nature of
our own actual mind as it actually derives from God.

If I may I will violate my usual endeavour to keep things focused on the
Ethics here by quoting from Spinoza's TPT since he seems to summarize quite
nicely his aim for us also in the Ethics:

======= TPT04-P12-14:
Hither, then, our highest good and our highest blessedness aim - namely,
to the knowledge and love of God; therefore the means demanded by this aim
of all human actions, that is, by God in so far as THE IDEA OF HIM IS IN US
[my emphasis -TNeff], may be called the commands of God, because they
proceed, as it were, from God Himself, inasmuch as He exists IN OUR MINDS
[my emphasis -TNeff], and the plan of life which has regard to this aim may
be fitly called the law of God.

The nature of the means, and the plan of life which this aim demands,
how the foundations of the best states follow its lines, and how men's life
is conducted, are questions pertaining to general ethics [does he explicitly
discuss in any detail "the foundations of the best states" in The
Ethics? -TNeff]. Here I only proceed to treat of the Divine law in a
particular application.

As the love of God is man's highest happiness and blessedness, and the
ultimate end and aim of all human actions [is this some "fantasy of
self-mastery" ? -TNeff], it follows that he alone lives by the Divine law who
loves God not from fear of punishment, or from love of any other object,
such as sensual pleasure, fame, or the like; but solely because he has
knowledge of God, or is convinced that the knowledge and love of God is the
highest good. The sum and chief precept, then, of the Divine law is to love
God as the highest good, namely, as we have said, not from fear of any pains
and penalties, or from the love of any other object in which we desire to
take pleasure. The idea of God lays down the rule that God is our highest
good - in other words, that the knowledge and love of God is the ultimate
aim to which all our actions should be directed [again, is this some
"fantasy of self-mastery"? -TNeff]. The worldling cannot understand these
things, they appear foolishness to him because he has too meager a knowledge
of God, and also because in this highest good he can discover nothing which
he can handle or eat, or which affects the fleshly appetites wherein he
chiefly delights, for it consists solely in thought and the pure reason.
They, on the other hand, who know that they possess no greater gift than
intellect and sound reason, will doubtless accept what I have said without
question.
=======

Best Regards,
Terry

God: Fifteen Propositions [from the Ethics]

Proposition 1: A substance is prior in nature to its affections.

Proposition 2: Two substances having different attributes have nothing in common with one another. (In other words, if two substances differ in nature, then they have nothing in common).

Proposition 3: If things have nothing in common with one another, one of them cannot be the cause of the other.

Proposition 4: Two or more distinct things are distinguished from one another, either by a difference in the attributes [i.e., the natures or essences] of the substances or by a difference in their affections [i.e., their accidental properties].

Proposition 5: In nature, there cannot be two or more substances of the same nature or attribute.

Proposition 6: One substance cannot be produced by another substance.

Proposition 7: It pertains to the nature of a substance to exist.

Proposition 8: Every substance is necessarily infinite.

Proposition 9: The more reality or being each thing has, the more attributes belong to it.

Proposition 10: Each attribute of a substance must be conceived through itself.

Proposition 11: God, or a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists. (The proof of this proposition consists simply in the classic "ontological proof for God's existence". Spinoza writes that "if you deny this, conceive, if you can, that God does not exist. Therefore, by axiom 7 [‘If a thing can be conceived as not existing, its essence does not involve existence’], his essence does not involve existence. But this, by proposition 7, is absurd. Therefore, God necessarily exists, q.e.d.")

Proposition 12: No attribute of a substance can be truly conceived from which it follows that the substance can be divided.

Proposition 13: A substance which is absolutely infinite is indivisible.

Proposition 14: Except God, no substance can be or be conceived.

Love of God as The Highest Good

the essence of God, or of the eternal and infinite being; not, indeed, all of them, but only
those which are able to lead us, as it were by the hand, to the knowledge of the human mind and its highest blessedness.


Theological-Politico Tractatus 04-P12-14:
Hither, then, our highest good and our highest blessedness aim - namely, to the knowledge and love of God; therefore the means demanded by this aim of all human actions, that is, by God in so far as THE IDEA OF HIM IS IN US, may be called the commands of God, because they
proceed, as it were, from God Himself, inasmuch as He exists IN OUR MINDS, and the plan of life which has regard to this aim may be fitly called the law of God.


As the love of God is man's highest happiness and blessedness, and the ultimate end and aim of all human actions, it follows that he alone lives by the Divine law who loves God not from fear of punishment, or from love of any other object, such as sensual pleasure, fame, or the like; but solely because he has knowledge of God, or is convinced that the knowledge and love of God is the highest good. The sum and chief precept, then, of the Divine law is to love God as the highest good, namely, as we have said, not from fear of any pains
and penalties, or from the love of any other object in which we desire to take pleasure.

The idea of God lays down the rule that God is our highest good - in other words, that the knowledge and love of God is the ultimate aim to which all our actions should be directed .
The worldling cannot understand these things, they appear foolishness to him because he has too meager a knowledge of God, and also because in this highest good he can discover nothing which he can handle or eat, or which affects the fleshly appetites wherein he
chiefly delights, for it consists solely in thought and the pure reason.

They, on the other hand, who know that they possess no greater gift than intellect and sound reason, will doubtless accept what I have said without question.