display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers
15 ideas
4836 | The mind only knows itself by means of ideas of the modification of the body [Spinoza] |
Full Idea: The mind does not know itself, except in so far as it perceives the ideas of the modifications of the body. | |
From: Baruch de Spinoza (The Ethics [1675], II Pr 29) | |
A reaction: This is reminiscent of Hume's 'bundle of perceptions' report of introspection. It is in tune with a modern 'animalist' view of a person, and with a view of the mind as a map of the body and its environs. Is he a sceptic about personal identity? |
3422 | Externalism about content makes introspection depend on external evidence [Kim] |
Full Idea: Externalism about content would have the consequence that most of our knowledge of our own intentional states is indirect and must be based on external evidence. | |
From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.207) | |
A reaction: I think this is a confusion, endemic in discussions of externalism. If what Shakespeare meant by 'water' is H2O, or Putnam means by 'elm' what experts say, the point is that their meanings are NOT part of their intentional states, which are bookmarks. |
21861 | Self-knowledge needs perception of the affections of the body [Spinoza] |
Full Idea: The mind does not know itself except in so far as it perceives the ideas of the affections of the body. | |
From: Baruch de Spinoza (The Ethics [1675], II Pr 23) | |
A reaction: 'The ideas of the affections of the body' seems to be twice removed from the actual body, so I am not crystal clear what this says. The idea of knowing yourself with no involvement at all of the body seems absurd. |
3363 | We often can't decide what emotion, or even sensation, we are experiencing [Kim] |
Full Idea: It is not always easy for us to determine what emotion (or even physical sensations) we are experiencing. | |
From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p. 18) | |
A reaction: Confused sensations are, I would have thought, rare. Emotions, I think, are only confused when they are weak, and then a lot of the confusion is merely verbal. Our body and intuitions understand the feeling well enough, but we lack the vocabulary. |
3412 | How do we distinguish our anger from embarrassment? [Kim] |
Full Idea: How do we know that we are angry rather than embarrassed? | |
From: Jaegwon Kim (Philosophy of Mind [1996], p.159) | |
A reaction: A very nice question, because the only answer I (or anyone?) can think of is that they are distinguished by their content. Event A is annoying, while event B is embarrassing. Either of those feelings is almost inconceivable without its content. |
17216 | The poet who forgot his own tragedies was no longer the same man [Spinoza] |
Full Idea: Sometimes a man undergoes such changes that he cannot very well be said to be the same man, as was the case with a certain Spanish poet ...who was so oblivious of his past life that he did not believe the tales and tragedies he had composed were his own. | |
From: Baruch de Spinoza (The Ethics [1675], IV Pr 39) | |
A reaction: This seems to need Locke's distinction between 'man' and 'person', since the poor poet was clearly the same human being. Spinoza places huge emphasis on the intellect as the essence of the man. |
4814 | A thing is free if it acts by necessity of its own nature, and the act is determined by itself alone [Spinoza] |
Full Idea: That thing is called free which exists solely by the necessity of its own nature, and of which the action is determined by itself alone. | |
From: Baruch de Spinoza (The Ethics [1675], I Def 7) | |
A reaction: This points to the obvious thought that nothing is independent enough to achieve freedom. Our concept of nature is of almost endless interdependence. God seems the only thing that could possibly qualify, though some might say humans could. |
19922 | People are only free if they are guided entirely by reason [Spinoza] |
Full Idea: The only genuinely free person is one who lives with his entire mind guided solely by reason. | |
From: Baruch de Spinoza (Tractatus Theologico-Politicus [1670], 16.10) | |
A reaction: It strikes me as blatantly impossible to be entirely guided by reason. His point is that it is a subservience to reason which is entirely chosen. Why is that different from choosing to be entirely subservient to another person? |
4871 | A thing is free if it acts only by the necessity of its own nature [Spinoza] |
Full Idea: I say that a thing is free, which exists and acts solely by the necessity of its own nature. | |
From: Baruch de Spinoza (Letter to G.H. Schaller [1674], 1674.10) | |
A reaction: Of course, this isn't 'freedom' at all, but it seems to exactly right as an account of so-called freedom. In the case of a human being the 'necessity of our own nature' is character, and virtue and vice are the expressions of the necessities of character. |
21802 | An act of will can only occur if it has been caused, which implies a regress of causes [Spinoza] |
Full Idea: Each volition can neither exist nor be determined to produce an effect unless it is determined by another cause, and this cause again by another, and so on, to infinity. | |
From: Baruch de Spinoza (The Ethics [1675], I Pr 32), quoted by Stephan Schmid - Faculties in Early Modern Philosophy 3 | |
A reaction: Acts of will are usually responses to situations, so it seems a bit simplistic to think that they are all spontaneous sui generis causal events. That argument won't work, of course, for a random volition that is out of context. |
4837 | 'Free will' is a misunderstanding arising from awareness of our actions, but ignorance of their causes [Spinoza] |
Full Idea: Men are mistaken in thinking themselves free; their opinion is made up of consciousness of their own actions, and ignorance of the causes by which they are conditioned. | |
From: Baruch de Spinoza (The Ethics [1675], II Pr 35) | |
A reaction: I have recently come to totally agree with this. The whole concept of free will seems to me incoherent, and Spinoza pinpoints the error. We aren't equipped to know the origins of the thoughts that arrive in our consciousnesses. |
4843 | Would we die if we lacked free will, and were poised between equal foods? Yes! [Spinoza] |
Full Idea: It may be objected, if a man does not act from free will, what will happen if the incentives to action are equally balanced, as in the case of Buridan's ass? Will he perish of hunger and thirst. ..Personally I am ready to admit that he would die. | |
From: Baruch de Spinoza (The Ethics [1675], II Pr 49) | |
A reaction: A nicely defiant way of demonstrating his rejection of free will. I have to agree with him. Even if there were such a thing as 'free will', it is hard to see how it could act as a tie-breaker. Which way would it freely decide? |
4844 | The mind is not free to remember or forget anything [Spinoza] |
Full Idea: It is not within the free power of the mind to remember or forget a thing at will. | |
From: Baruch de Spinoza (The Ethics [1675], III Pr 02) | |
A reaction: An interesting little corrective if you were thinking that your total control over you mind proved that you had free will. Once you face up to your lack of control of the memory process, you begin to realise how little of your mind even feels controlled. |
4311 | We think we are free because we don't know the causes of our desires and choices [Spinoza] |
Full Idea: Men think themselves free because they are conscious of their volitions and their appetites, yet never give a thought to the causes which dispose them to desire or to exercise the will as they do, since they are wholly unaware of them. | |
From: Baruch de Spinoza (The Ethics [1675]) | |
A reaction: This encapsulates the determinist idea nicely. In the end we just choose, but we have no idea why we prefer one reason to another, or simply opt for one thing rather than another. |
7828 | The actual world is the only one God could have created [Spinoza] |
Full Idea: Things could not have been brought into being by God in any manner or in any order different from that which has in fact obtained. | |
From: Baruch de Spinoza (The Ethics [1675], I Pr 33) | |
A reaction: Said to be a "notorious" proposition. This is a key idea in philosophy because it represents (like solipsism) one of the extremes - there is no such thing as contingency, and that all things are necessary. It is daft not to take Spinoza seriously on this. |