An Attempt to Understand Spinoza’s Doctrine of the Eternity of the Human Mind1)

(1)

§1

　Spi

noz a ’ s doc t r i ne of t he e t e r ni t y of t he huma n mi nd ha s be e n c ons i de r e d t o be a hi ghl y c ont r ove r s i a l one i n hi s Et hi c s by ma ny i nt e r pr e t e r s of Spi noz a ’ s phi l os ophy .

　The

di f f i c ul t y wi t h t he doc t r i ne l i e s i n t he f a c t t ha t i t s e e ms i nc ons i s t e nt wi t h a not he r doc t r i ne i n hi s phi l os o- phy , na me l y wha t i s c a l l e d Mi nd- Body Pa r a l l e l i s m.

I n Pr opos i t i on 23 of Pa r t Fi ve of t he Et hi c s Spi noz a s a ys : “ The huma n mi nd c a nnot be a bs ol ut e l y de s t r oye d wi t h t he huma n body , b ut t he r e r e ma i ns of i t s ome t hi ng t ha t i s e t e r na l . ”

²⁾　

Ta ke n l i t e r a l l y , Spi noz a s e e ms t o a s s e r t t ha t t he r e i s a n e t e r na l pa r t i n t he huma n mi nd.

On t he ot he r ha nd, a c c or di ng t o t he Mi nd- Body Pa r a l l e l i s m i mpl i e d by t he we l l known Pr opos i t i on 7 of Pa r t Two, t he huma n mi nd mus t be de s t r oye d a t t he s a me t i me a s t he c or r e l a t i ve huma n body i s de s t r oye d.

　Thi

s s e e ms t o i mpl y t ha t t he r e i s no e t e r na l pa r t i n t he huma n mi nd s o l ong a s t he r e i s no e t e r na l pa r t i n t he c or r e l a t i v e huma n body .

A Ca mbr i dge phi l os ophe r C. D. Br oa d onc e s a i d i n hi s Fi v e Ty pe s of Et hi c al The or y :

“ Tha t Spi noz a wa s r i ght i n t hi nki ng t ha t t he s e e xpe r i e nc e s [

=

c e r t a i n r e l i gi ous a nd mys t i c a l e xe r i e nc e s ] a r e of t he ut mos t i mpor t a nc e a nd t ha t phi l os ophy mus t de a l s e r i ous l y wi t h t he m I ha ve no doubt ; but I a m e qua l l y s ur e t ha t hi s t he or y of t he m i s not c ons i s t e nt wi t h t he r e s t of hi s s ys t e m. ” ( Br oa d [ 1959] , p. 16) .

Al s o, J ona t ha n Be ne t t , one of t he r e pr e s e nt a t i ve Spi noz a s c hol a r s of our t i me , s a ys a bout t he pa r t whe r e t he doc t r i ne i n que s t i on i s de v e l ope d, i n hi s A St udy of Spi noz a’ s Et hi c s : “ Af t e r t hr e e c e nt ur i e s of f a i l ur e t o pr of i t f r om i t [

=

t he s e c ond ha l f of Pa r t Fi ve of t he Et hi c s ] , t he t i me ha s c ome t o a dmi t t ha t t hi s pa r t of t he Et hi c s ha s not hi ng t o t e a c h us a nd i s pr e t t y c e r t a i nl y wor t hl e s s . ” ( Be nne t t [ 1980] , p. 372) .

§2

　I

a dmi t t ha t Spi noz a ’ s doc t r i ne of t he e t e r ni t y of t he huma n mi nd me a ns s ome t hi ng i nc on-

t he Et e r ni t y of t he Huma n Mi nd

¹⁾

Ka t unor i MATUDA

(Received on October11,2007)

1)　Thispaperisaslightly modified and amplified English version ofpartofMatuda[2007]which is written in Japanese.

2) In thispaper,thecitationsfrom theEthicsfollow thetranslation by Edwin Curley in Curley [1985].

(2)

s i s t e nt wi t h hi s Mi nd- Body Pa r a l l e l i s m, a s l ong a s i t i s l i t e r a l l y unde r s t ood.

　Ho

we ve r , i n t hi s s hor t pa pe r I woul d l i ke t o a s s e r t t ha t t he r e i s a not he r i nt e r pr e t a t i on of t ha t doc t r i ne whi c h i s c ons i s t e nt wi t h t he Mi nd- Body Pa r a l l e l i s m.

I wi l l be gi n t o e xpl a i n t hi s ne w i nt e r pr e t a t i on wi t h a pa r a bl e .

　The

pa r a bl e c ons i s t s i n i ma g- i ni ng t ha t t he he r o of Haml e t s houl d be gi n t o t hi nk a bout t he a ut hor of t he dr a ma i n whi c h he e xi s t s .

Le t

’

s i ma gi ne t ha t Ha ml e t , pr i nc e of De nma r k, s houl d be a wa ke ne d, a s i t we r e , a f t e r , f or e xa mpl e , he s a i d t o Ophe l i a , “ Ge t t he e t o a nunne r y” , a nd s a y t o hi ms e l f , “ Al l my wor ds a r e i n t r ut h c ompos e d by a Br i t i s h dr a ma t i s t na me d Wi l l i a m Sha ke s pe a r e i n 1601” .

　Of

c our s e , t hi s i s a n unc ommon, e ve n gr ot e s que i ma gi na t i on, be c a us e a pe r s on be l ongi ng t o a s t or y i s i ma gi ne d t o a v e r t hi s i nt e r e s t f r om t ha t s t or y whos e pa r t he i s a nd be gi n t o t hi nk a bout t he a ut hor of t he whol e s t or y .

　And

wha t i s mor e s t r i ki ng i s t ha t , i f he be ga n t o t hi nk a bout t he a ut hor , Ha ml e t s houl d be c ons c i ous t ha t t he a bove - me nt i one d l i ne “ Al l my wor ds a r e i n t r ut h c ompos e d by a Br i t i s h dr a ma t i s t na me d Wi l l i a m Sha ke s pe a r e i n 1601” i s i t s e l f c ompos e d by t he ve r y dr a ma t i s t Wi l l i a m Sha ke s pe a r e .

　The

r e f or e Ha ml e t i n t hi s s i t ua t i on s houl d c ons i de r a l l hi s wor ds wi t h no e xc e pt i on a s e mi t t e d not f r om hi ms e l f b ut f r om Sha ke s pe a r e .

Now, wha t pa r t of t he hi s t or y s houl d t hi s Awa ke ne d Ha ml e t f e e l hi ms e l f be l ongi ng t o?

Shoul d he f e e l hi ms e l f be l ongi ng t o t he Mi ddl e Age s a s t he s t or y i s s uppos e d t o be ?

　By

no me a ns , be c a us e t he Awa ke ne d Ha ml e t s houl d be no mor e t hi nki ng a bout a ny pe r s on or a ny e ve nt a r ound hi m be l ongi ng t o t he Mi ddl e Age s , but a bout Sha ke s pe a r e wr i t i ng t he dr a ma Haml e t i n 1601.

　The

r e f or e he s houl d f e e l hi ms e l f be l ongi ng t o t he ye a r of hi s be i ng i n v e nt e d by Sha ke s pe a r e , t ha t i s t o s a y , t he ye a r 1601.

§3

　Wi

t h t he doc t r i ne of t he e t e r ni t y of t he huma n mi nd, Spi noz a i nt e nds t o e xpl a i n t he

“e xcel l ence and ut i l i t y” ( Schol i um t o Pr opos i t i on 47 of Par t Two) of t he t hi r d ki nd of knowl e dge .

　The

t hi r d ki nd of knowl e dge i s , i n Spi noz a ’ s de f i ni t i on, knowl e dge whi c h

“ pr oc e e ds f r om a n a de qua t e i de a of t he f or ma l e s s e nc e of c e r t a i n a t t r i but e s of God t o t he a de qua t e knowl e dge of t he e s s e nc e of t hi ngs ” ( Se c ond Sc hol i um t o Pr opos i t i on 40 of Pa r t Two) . I n compar i s on wi t h t he par abl e of t he Awakened Haml et , I woul d l i ke t o s ee what t he

“ e xc e l l e nc e a nd ut i t i l y” of t he t hi r d ki nd of kno wl e dge c ons i s t s i n.

Or di na r i l y , t he huma n mi nd t hi nks a bout s i ngul a r pe r s ons a nd e v e nt s a r ound i t s e l f wi t hout

t hi nki ng a bout t he t r ue c a us e of t he wor l d whos e pa r t i t i s , j us t a s t he Not - Ye t - Awa ke ne d

Ha ml e t t hi nks a bout s i ngul a r pe r s ons a nd e ve nt s a r ound hi ms e l f wi t hout t hi nki ng a bout t he

(3)

a ut hor of t he dr a ma whos e pa r t he i s .

　But

whe n t he huma n mi nd knows i t s e l f a nd ot he r s i ngul a r t hi ngs t hr ough t he t hi r d ki nd of knowl e dge , i t t hi nks a bout t he t r ue c a us e of t he m, j us t a s t he Awa ke ne d Ha ml e t s houl d t hi nk a bout t he a ut hor of t he dr a ma .

　I

n ot he r wor ds , whe n t he huma n mi nd ha s t he t hi r d ki nd of knowl e dge a bout i t s e l f a nd ot he r s i ngul a r t hi ngs , i t t hi nks t ha t t he s e s i ngul a r t hi ngs a r e wha t God a s t he uni que c aus a s ui pr oduc e s by pr oduc i ng hi ms e l f .

　At

t hi s mome nt , t he huma n mi nd a ve r t s i t s i nt e r e s t f r om t he v a gue a s s oc i a t i on of t hi ngs , na me l y t he obj e c t of t he f i r s t ki nd of kno wl e dge , a nd f r om t he l a wf ul c onne xi on of t hi ngs , na me l y t he obj e c t of t he s e c ond ki nd of knol wdge .

　I

ns t e a d, t he huma n mi nd be c ome s c ons c i ous of t he c a us a l r e l a t i ons hi p be t we e n s i ngul a r t hi ngs a nd t he i r t r ue e f f i c i e nt c a us e , t ha t i s , God a s t he uni que c aus a s ui .

　And

t he huma n mi nd mus t be a l s o c ons c i ous t ha t t he knowl e dge “ The s e s i ngul a r t hi ngs a r e wha t God pr oduc e s by pr oduc i ng hi ms e l f ” , t oo, i s pr oduc e d by t ha t God.

The n, wha t wi l l t he huma n mi nd f e e l i s t he s ubj e c t whi c h ha s t he kno wl e dge “ The s e s i ngul a r t hi ngs a r e wha t God pr oduc e s by pr oduc i ng hi ms e l f ” ?

　Ce

r t a i nl y t he huma n mi nd wi l l f e e l t ha t t he knowl edge pr oceeds f r om t hat God al t hough i t comes onl y by way of i t s i nt el l ect .

Fur t he r mor e t he huma n mi nd wi l l f e e l i t s e l f not e xi s t i ng i n 2007, nor i n a ny pa s s a ge of t i me , but be l ongi ng t o t he s pe c i e s of t i me i n whi c h God a s t he uni que c aus a s ui pr oduc e s hi ms e l f a nd e ve r yt hi ng i n t he wor l d, t ha t i s t o s a y , t he s pe c i e s of e t e r ni t y .

　I

n f a c t Spi noz a s a ys : “ We f e e l a nd kno w by e xpe r i e nc e t ha t we a r e e t e r na l ” ( Sc hol i um t o Pr opos i t i on 23 of Pa r t Fi v e ) .

§4

　I

t i s t r ue t ha t t he Awa ke ne d Ha ml e t i s a r ough pa r a bl e , be c a us e t he ont ol ogi c a l s t a t us of Sha ke s pe a r e a nd t ha t of God a r e qui t e di f f e r e nt .

　Sha

ke s pe a r e i s a mode a nd God i s a s ubs t a nc e i n Spi noz a ’ s me t a phys i c a l t e r mi nol ogy.

　Howe

ve r , t hi s pa r a bl e i s of gr e a t us e whe n one t r i e s t o gr a s p t he gi s t of Spi noz a ’ s doc t r i ne of t he e t e r ni t y of t he huma n mi nd.

　Spi

noz a i nt e nds t o s a y t ha t t he t hi r d ki nd of kno wl e dge c a us e s a dr a ma t i c c ha nge i n t he huma n wa y of t hi nki ng a bout t i me .

Or di na r i l y , t i me i s r e a l a s t he or de r of e ve nt s , f or e xa mpl e , t he pr e c e de nc e of Ha ml e t ’ s

r e f us a l of Ophe l i a t o he r s ui c i de .

　But

a s l ong a s Ha ml e t we r e a wa ke ne d a bout t he e xi s t e nc e of

Sha ke s pe a r e a s t he c a us e of t he dr a ma whos e pa r t he i s , t i me t a ke n a s t he or de r of e ve nt s woul d

not s e e m r e a l t o hi m.

　I

ns t e a d, Ha ml e t woul d c ons i de r hi ms e l f be l ongi ng t o t he t i me of

Sha ke s pe a r ’ s wr i t i ng Haml e t .

　Spi

noz a me a ns t o s a y t ha t a s i mi l a r t hi ng wi l l oc c ur whe n t he

huma n mi nd ha s t he t hi r d ki nd of kno wl e dge i n hi s i nt e l l e c t .

　The

gi s t of t he doc t r i ne of t he

e t e r ni t y of t he huma n mi nd i s t ha t pr e c i s e l y a t t hi s mome nt t he huma n i nt e l l e c t be gi ns t o be

c ons c i ous t ha t i t be l ongs t o t he t i me of t he c a us a t i on of t he uni que s ubs t a nc e , na me l y e t e r ni t y .

(4)

The t hi r d ki nd of knowl e dge not onl y c a us e s a dr a ma t i c c ha nge i n t he huma n wa y of t hi nki ng a bout t i me , but a l s o i n t he huma n a f f e c t i ve a c t i vi t y .

　Ac

c or di ng t o Spi noz a , “ The gr e a t e s t s t r i vi ng of t he Mi nd, a nd i t s gr e a t e s t vi r t ue i s unde r s t a ndi ng t hi ngs by t he t hi r d ki nd of knowl e dge ” ( Pr opos i t i on 25 of Pa r t Fi ve ) .

　The

r e f or e , t he huma n mi nd t a ke s t he hi ghe s t pl e a s ur e whe n t hi s ki nd of knowl e dge oc c ur s i n i t .

　Mor

e ove r e , be c a us e t ha t hi ghe s t pl e a s ur e i s a c c ompa ni e d by t he i de a of God a s a c a us e , i t ha s t o be c ome a n i nt e l l e c t ua l l ove of God ( “ amor De i i nt e l l e c t ual i s ” ) .

　Be

s i de s , t he huma n mi nd e nj oyi ng a n i nt e l l e c t ua l l ove of God wi l l f e e l t ha t l ove c omi ng f r om God, j us t a s t he Awa ke ne d Ha ml e t s houl d f e e l hi s l i ne s c omi ng f r om Sha ke s pe a r e .

　I

n ot he r wor ds , t he huma n mi nd e nj oyi ng a n i nt e l l e c t ua l l ove t o wa r d God wi l l f e e l t ha t hi s o wn l ove t o wa r d God i s no di f f e r e nt f r om t he l ove by whi c h God l ove s hi ms e l f .

I n Spi noz a ’ s wor ds , “ t he Mi nd’ s i nt e l l e c t ua l Lo v e of God i s pa r t of t he i nf i ni t e Lo v e by whi c h God l o v e s hi ms e l f ” ( Pr opos i t i on 36 of Pa r t Fi v e ) .

§5

　Al

t hough Spi noz a s a ys i n Pr opos i t i on 23 of Pa r t Fi ve : “ The huma n mi nd c a nnot be a bs ol ut e l y de s t r oye d wi t h t he huma n body , b ut t he r e r e ma i ns of i t s ome t hi ng t ha t i s e t e r na l . ” , I don’ t i nt e r pr e t hi m s a yi ng l i t e r a l l y t ha t t he r e i s a n e t e r na l pa r t i n t he huma n mi nd.

　I

f he i s t a ke n i n t ha t wa y , he mus t be c ons i de r e d t o be i nc ohe r e nt a s ma ny s c hol a r s , C. D. Br oa d i nc l ude d, a s s e r t .

　My

i nt e r pr e t a t i on i s t ha t Spi noz a i nt e nds t o a s s e r t t ha t t he huma n mi nd f e e l s i t s e l f be l ongi ng t o e t e r ni t y whe n i t kno ws s i ngul a r t hi ngs t hr ough t he t hi r d ki nd of kno wl e dge .

I t i s “ e xc e l l e nc e a nd ut i l i t y” of t ha t ki nd of kno wl e dge t o e na bl e t he huma n mi nd t o f e e l i t s e l f be l ongi ng t o e t e r ni t y .

　He

r e , e t e r ni t y i s t he s pe c i e s of t i me i n whi c h God pr oduc e s e ve r yt hi ng i n t he wor l d by pr oduc i ng hi ms e l f .

I nde e d, wha t i t me a ns t o f e e l one s e l f be l ongi ng t o e t e r ni t y i s not a t a l l e a s y t o unde r s t a nd.

Spi noz a hi ms e l f ha s muc h t r oubl e i n e xpl a i ni ng i t i n ge ome t r i c a l e xpos i t i on.

　Pr

e t t y c e r t a i nl y i t wi l l be hope l e s s t o gi v e e xc l us i v e a t t e nt i on t o f or ma l de t a i l s i n Spi noz a ’ s a r gume nt i n or de r t o unde r s t a nd hi s doc t r i ne of t he e t e r ni t y of t he huma n mi nd.

　I

n t he be l i e f t ha t a qui t e di f f e r e nt wa y of r e a di ng i s ne e de d, i n t hi s s hor t pa pe r I ha ve ha d r e c our s e t o a pa r a bl e t ha t c ons i s t s i n i ma gi ni ng Ha ml e t t o be gi n t o t hi nk a bout Sha ke s pe a r e .

　Thi

s wa y of i nt e r pr e t i ng Spi noz a i s s ur e l y a ki nd of e xpe r i me nt .

　The

de gr e e of t he s uc c e s s of t hi s e xpe r i me nt de pe nds on how pl a us i bl e a n i nt e r pr e t a t i on i t br i ngs f or t he doc t r i ne i n que s t i on.

§6

　Spi

noz a ’ s doc t r i ne of t he e t e r ni t y of t he huma n mi nd a nd t he i nt e l l e c t ua l l ove of God i s

e s ot e r i c e nough t o pe r pl e x mos t r e a de r s of t he Et hi c s .

　J

us t be c a us e Spi noz a hi ms e l f i s a wa r e

(5)

of t hi s e s ot e r i c i t y , he r e ma r ks i n Pr opos t i on 41 of Pa r t Fi ve s ome t hi ng t o t he e f f e c t t ha t i t i s pos s i bl e t o unde r s t a nd hi s e t hi c a l t he or y de v e l oppe d i n Pa r t Four a nd t he f i r s t ha l f of Pa r t Fi v e wi t hout gr a s pi ng t ha t doc t r i ne .

　Ho

we ve r , gr a s pi ng t ha t doc t r i ne i s undoubt e dl y ne c e s s a r y t o unde r s t a nd wha t Spi noz a c a l l s “ t he knowl e dge of t he uni on t ha t t he mi nd ha s wi t h t he whol e of Na t ur e ( c ogni t i o uni oni s quam me ns c um t ot a Nat ur a habe t ) ” i n Se c t i on 13 of t he Tr e at i s e on t he Eme ndat i on of t he I nt e l l e c t , i n ot he r wor ds , wha t he c a l l s “ s a l v a t i on ( s al us ) ” i n t he pe nul t i - ma t e s e nt e nc e of t he Et hi c s .

The t r a di t i ona l c onc e pt of t r a ns i e nt God ha s no pa r t i n Spi noz a ’ s me t a phys i c s .

　I

n a wor l d wi t hout t r a ns i e nt God, na t ur a l l y , t he r e i s no pos s i bi l i t y f or t he huma n mi nd t o be s a ve d by t r a ns i e nt God.

　Spi

noz a i s f ul l y a wa r e of ho w r e v ol ut i ona r y hi s phi l os ophy i s be c a us e of t hi s l a c k of t r a di t i ona l God.

　The

r e f or e , no ma t t e r ho w “ di f f i c ul t ” a nd “ r a r e ” i t ma y be , Spi noz a mus t s t r e s s a t t he e nd of t he Et hi c s t ha t i t i s pos s i bl e f or t he huma n mi nd t o f e e l i t s own e t e r ni t y a nd l ove God i nt e l l e c t ua l l y.

　For

hi m, t he doc t r i ne of t he e t e r ni t y of t he huma n mi nd i s not hi ng b ut a n i ndi s pe ns a bl e c ompe ns a t i on f or wha t i s de f i ni t e l y l os t i n hi s me t a phys i c a l r e v ol ut i on.

Bibliography

Bennett,Jonathan [1984]:A StudyofSpinoa’sEthics,CambridgeUniversity Press. Broad,C.D.[1959]:FiveTypesofEthicalTheory,Littlefield,Adams& Co.

Curley,Edwin (ed.,tr.)[1985]:TheCollected WorksofSpinoza,vol.1,Princeton University Press. Kobayashi,Michio (ed.)[2007]:Tetsugaku No Rekishi(Histoiredela philosophie),vol.5,Dekaruto

Kakumei(Révolution cartésienne),written in Japanese,Chuokoron-Shinsha. Matuda,Katunori[2007]:“Supinoza(Spinoza)”,in Kobayashi[2007].