5 ideas
21855 | Only in the 1780s did it become acceptable to read Spinoza [Lord] |
Full Idea: It was not until the 1780s that it became acceptable to read the works of Spinoza, and even then it was not without a frisson of danger. | |
From: Beth Lord (Spinoza's Ethics [2010], Intro 'Who?') | |
A reaction: Hence we hear of Wordsworth and Coleridge reading him with excitement. So did Kant read him? |
3912 | I must exist in order to be mistaken, so that even if I am mistaken, I can't be wrong about my own existence [Augustine] |
Full Idea: Since therefore I must exist in order to be mistaken, then even if I am mistaken, there can be no doubt that I am not mistaken in my knowledge that I exist…. I know that I exist, and I also know that I know. | |
From: Augustine (City of God [c.427], Ch.XI.26) | |
A reaction: Fine, but the main problem is his over-confidence about a stable personal identity that does the thinking. |
21866 | Hobbes and Spinoza use 'conatus' to denote all endeavour for advantage in nature [Lord] |
Full Idea: 'Conatus' [translated as 'striving' by Curley] is used by early modern philosophers, including Thomas Hobbes (a major influence of Spinoza), to express the notion of a thing's endeavour for what is advantageous to it. It drives all things in nature. | |
From: Beth Lord (Spinoza's Ethics [2010], p.88) | |
A reaction: I think it is important to connect conatus to Nietzsche's talk of a plurality of 'drives', which are an expression of the universal will to power (which is seen even in the interactions of chemistry). Conatus is also in Leibniz. |
6683 | The contact of spirit and body is utterly amazing, and incomprehensible [Augustine] |
Full Idea: The manner of contact of spirit with body, which produces a living being, is utterly amazing and beyond our powers of comprehension | |
From: Augustine (City of God [c.427], XXI.10) | |
A reaction: This leads to a rather clear objection against a theory which needs a miracle to explain a common natural phenomenon. At least Augustine was beginning to recognise that interaction is a bit of a problem. |
3643 | The concept of mind excludes body, and vice versa [Descartes] |
Full Idea: The concept of body includes nothing at all which belongs to the mind, and the concept of mind includes nothing at all which belongs to the body. | |
From: René Descartes (Reply to Fourth Objections [1641], 225) | |
A reaction: A headache? Hunger? The mistake, I think, is to regard the mind as entirely conscious, thus creating a sharp boundary between two aspects of our lives. As shown by blindsight, I take many of my central mental operations to be pre- or non-conscious. |