'For the person or persons that hold dominion, can no more combine with the keeping up of majesty the running with harlots drunk or naked about the streets, or the performances of a stage player, or the open violation or contempt of laws passed by themselves than they can combine existence with non-existence'.

- Benedict de Spinoza. Political Treatise. 1677.




Monday, November 18, 2013

Spinoza: The Strength of the Emotions: Definitions


good


that which we certainly know to be  useful to us

we have no certain knowledge –

all knowledge is  open to question – open to doubt –

uncertain

‘good’ – is an unknown –

we expect will resolve our doubts

however any such result –

will be open to question –

open to doubt –

uncertain


bad


that which we certainly know will prevent us partaking any good

we have no certain knowledge –

‘bad’ is an unknown

regarding that which will prevent us from resolving our doubts –

we  will have an expectation

whatever the result –

it will be open to question –

open to doubt –

uncertain


contingent


individual things as contingent

in so far as we  regard their essence alone –

we find no necessity

what exists is a function of description –

to be is to be described

any description –

is open to question –

open to doubt –

uncertain


possible


individual things –

as to the causes by which they must be produced –

we know not whether they are determined to produce them

yes – we don’t know what is possible

any statement of what is possible –

is speculation

what is contingent –

is a statement of what is

what is possible –

is a statement of what could be

any statement is open to question –

open to doubt –

is uncertain


contrary emotions


those which draw a man in different directions

this is uncertainty

short of pretence and delusion –

we are always –

in a state of uncertainty


emotion towards a thing future past or present


from PROP. XVIII Proof –

that is the disposition of the body or emotion is the same whether the image of the thing be present past or future

perhaps there is what Wittgenstein called a ‘family resemblance’ –

but the same? – that is a stretch –

is anyone going to seriously suggest –

 that the disposition of the body –

remains the same through time?

the real point is –

what meaning we give to an image –

regardless of time and place –

will be open to question –

open to doubt –

uncertain


end


by end with which we do anything I understand a desire

yes


virtue and power


the same thing

virtue in so far as it has reference to man is his essence or nature –

in so far as he has the power of effecting something which can only be understood by the laws of his nature

in the words of Paul Feyerabend –

‘anything goes’


© greg t. charlton. 2013.