Part 4 and the first half of Part 5 of
Spinoza’s Ethics are about ethics in
the narrow sense. The first three parts of the book can be seen as an introduction
to what the core of the book describes: a moral philosophy. They constitute the
frame of Spinoza’s exposition of good life. In Part 4 he describes his ethics
of emotions, so what we must do in order to avoid that our emotions make us
behave in the wrong way. Like Part 3, it is followed by a summary. The first
part of Part 5 gives an ethics of freedom and it is about our possibilities.
Maybe you expect that Spinoza presents a
range of rules about what to do and not to do, like, for instance, the Ten
Commandments in the Bible: “You shall not murder”, or “Honour your father and
your mother”. Not so Spinoza. Even his summary of Part 4 doesn’t contain
explicit rules to follow for leading a moral life but it describes how a good
life looks like. The rules of life are implicit, although not difficult to
infer.
Spinoza is a rationalist and knowledge is
everything for him. Therefore I think that the heart of his ethics can be found
in this quotation from Part 4 (Chapters 4 and 5):
“[T]he ultimate aim or highest desire ...
is that whereby [man] is brought to the adequate conception of himself and of
all things within the scope of his intelligence. ... Therefore, without
intelligence there is not rational life: and things are only good, in so far as
they aid man in his enjoyment of the intellectual life, which is defined by
intelligence. Contrariwise, whatsoever things hinder man's perfecting of his
reason, and capability to enjoy the rational life, are alone called evil.” For
our freedom – treated in Part 5 – this means that in order to be free, we must
understand (so trying to get knowledge) what freedom from being led by our
emotions involves. We must not be blindly guided by them but try to understand
what they do to us. This is the maximum possible, for in the end man is
determined by nature. If you find this confusing and contradictory, I agree,
for how can being free be compatible with being determined? But that is another
discussion – a discussion that still is current – and here I want to restrict
myself to clarifying Spinoza’s ethics.
How do you know whether you have knowledge
of your emotions so that you will not be taken over by them? For in order to
know what to do, you must know which emotions to follow. Spinoza makes this
clear in proposition VIII of Part 4 and its proof:
“We call a thing good or evil, when it is
of service or the reverse in preserving our being ..., when it increases or
diminishes, helps or hinders, our power of activity. Thus, in so far as we
perceive that a thing affects us with pleasure or pain, we call it good or
evil; wherefore the knowledge of good and evil is nothing else but the idea of
the pleasure or pain... Therefore the knowledge of good and evil is nothing
else but the emotion, in so far as we are conscious thereof.” In other words:
Good is what makes us happy and bad is what makes us sad, and to get knowledge
of what makes us happy or sad is not difficult, at least not most of the time.
This is the basis of Spinoza’s ethics.
Now you may say that we can fill in all
this as we like. For example, sadistic behaviour might make someone happy, and
so it would be good for him (but certainly not for the victim). This is not how
Spinoza sees it. Spinoza’s ethics is a humane ethics. Some examples: Stand up
for yourself, he says, but take care of others. Cooperate where you can. For
doing so and helping each other is better for yourself and makes it is easier
to become happy. “[I]n reality, Avarice, Ambition, Lust, &c., are species
of madness, though they may not be reckoned among diseases.” (proof of
proposition XLIV)
Moreover, don’t return hate for hate, for,
“Hatred can never be good” (proposition XLV). As Spinoza explains in the proof
of the next proposition: “... hatred is increased by being reciprocated, and
can be quenched by love ..., so that hatred may pass into love ...; therefore
he who lives under the guidance of reason will endeavour to repay hatred with
love, that is, with kindness.”
And a final quote in order to show how humane
Spinoza’s philosophy is: “He who is moved to help others neither by reason nor
by compassion, is rightly styled inhuman, for ... he seems unlike a man.” (note
on proposition L)
No comments:
Post a Comment