Random quote
The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.

Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834)

Spinoza and the double-aspect theory

Rubin Vase

If you have read my last blog, you may have noticed that I defend there a view about the relationship between mind and body that is called the double-aspect theory, or also dual-aspect monism. I came to this view long ago when I was working on my PhD thesis and didn’t know yet its name, or that it was, for example, Spinoza’s view on reality. My question then was methodological: What is the difference between the methods of explanation and understanding, especially when we study human behaviour and actions? My answer was that the method of explanation asks for the causes why someone does what he or she does, so for the causes of behaviour, while the method of understanding asks for the reasons why someone does what he or she does, so for the reasons of actions. In other words, the method to be used depends on the kind of questions we want to ask about a human. I’ll not repeat or summarize here my PhD thesis, but in view of my present ideas, we can say that with the method of explanation we study the human body and with the method of understanding we study the human mind. So, if we want to know why someone does what he or she does, we try to explain it if we want to investigate the causes that made someone’s body move in a certain way, and we try to understand it if we want to investigate the mental reasons that made someone perform an action. We can also say that there is one substance “human being” but we can approach it as a physical entity or as a mental entity; as a body or as a mind. Body and mind (or the mental) are the two basic aspects of a human being.
Seen this way, my version of the double-aspect theory is epistemic, and actually it says nothing about the ontic side of humans, but without substantiating this view, I also think that ontologically there is only one substance, and not two substances like a body substance and a mind substance that are mixed in such a complicated way, for instance, that we could investigate them only by seeing them as aspects. As I indicated in my last blog, I see body and mind rather as structures of the one existing substance that basically makes up the world; a bit like that the ink in a book can be structured that way that it is the text of a story at the same time. The text is a manifestation of the substance.

I don’t know whether there are older versions of the double-aspect theory, but this view on reality was central in Spinoza’s philosophy. By developing his version of substance monism, Spinoza criticized Descartes’ mind-body dualism, which says that body and mind are different substances that make up humans and that interact in the brain. According to Spinoza there is only one substance that makes up the world. How should we conceive such a substance? That’s why Spinoza introduced the concept of attribute. As defined by Spinoza it’s a difficult concept, but following Beth Lord in his Spinoza’s Ethics – which is a guide to Spinoza’s Ethics – we can say that “attributes are the different ways in which a substance can be perceived. ... An attribute is the substance itself, as perceived in a certain way” (p. 21; italics Lord). According to Spinoza, two attributes are relevant for humans: extension and thinking. Also for Descartes extension and thinking are relevant for humans, but for him they are separate substances, while for Spinoza extension and thinking are two different attributes of the one substance that exists in this world.
Once we know this the analogy between Spinoza’s world view and the double-aspect theory is clear, especially when we use its alternative name “dual-aspect monism”: Spinoza’s attributes are nothing but what I have called aspects and his attributes extension and thinking are what in dual-aspect monism are called matter and mind. The latter are called body and mind when we talk about humans.
At the end of my last blog I remarked that there may be more aspects than the two aspects matter and mind. This is what Spinoza actually says, too, for according to him the one existing substance has an infinite number of attributes. In my terms this means that the one existing substance has an infinite number of aspects. In fact, Spinoza’s theory is a multi-aspect theory, but because only two attributes are relevant to humans, we can ignore it.

Random quote
Things which have most hold on us, as the concealment of our few possessions, are often a mere nothing. It is a nothing which our imagination magnifies into a mountain. Another turn of the imagination would make us discover this without difficulty.

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

What is a book?

Sometimes things pop up in my mind and I feel an urge to write about it. For example, I have many books around here, but what actually is a book? You could say that it is a bundle of paper with a text printed on the paper. I think that this is rather to the point. However, also a magazine, a journal or a newspaper is a bundle of paper with text and nevertheless we don’t call it a book. Actually, this difference is not so important for me. In antiquity books were written on scrolls and still they are called books. Moreover, some magazines and journals are also almost like books. The only difference with a book is that they belong to a series of regularly published bundles of texts. On the other hand, sometimes books are part of a series and nevertheless we call them books.
But I am moving in the wrong direction, for the difference between books, magazines, newspapers etc. is not what really interests me. What I actually find intriguing is that books, magazines, etc. are material objects and texts at the same time. Or rather, a book has a text: blots of ink that have a meaning for us. I’ll ignore for this blog magazines, newspaper, etc. but in fact “book” and “text” are alternative expressions for the same. For there is more in a book than just texts that makes a book a book: There may be pictures, a book has always a cover (true: newspapers don’t have it), and so there are other text-like characteristics that make a book a book. But what is interesting now is that a book is a material thing – mainly paper – and that a book has also a meaning, which is mainly expressed by the text in the strict sense. In a book, material and mind come together.
When you think about it carefully, it is intriguing that material and the immaterial, matter and mind are combined in a book. How is this possible? Seen this way, the question suggests that a book has or consists of two different substances and that they come together in some way: They touch. But how? For Descartes, in humans mind and body interact or “touch” in the pineal gland in the brain. Should there also be such a pineal gland in a book? Maybe the letters? But there are many letters in a book. Where then and how do the two substances of the book, so the paper and the meaning, come together? I can go on and try to answer this question, but I think it is the wrong question. The question “How do the paper (the material) and the meaning (immaterial) in a book ‘touch’” supposes already that there are two substances that touch in a book in some way. What matter is and what mind is are difficult questions, but I think, however, that somehow they are alike. Matter and mind are different ways in which the “stuff” in the world can be organized but basically they are made of the same “stuff”, whatever it is or however we should imagine it. Matter and mind are rather ways of structuring the stuff (= the substance that basically makes up the world) than that they are two different stuffs. (This suggests that other ways to structure stuff, besides matter and mind, are also possible).
What does this mean for my question “what is a book”? We can say now that a book is a bundle of paper to which something (a text in the proper sense) that someone had in mind is added, and that this would suggest that a book consists of two substances (“stuffs”). Nevertheless, for some – like printers, publishers or booksellers – a book is merely a paper object (so mere matter), and for others – like philosophers and their readers, unless when they are moving their bookcases – it is the printed thoughts that make a book. Some see a book as a bundle of paper and others see it as a bundle of thoughts. Since a book consists of one substance, we can also say: Some are interested in other aspects of the substance “book” than others. Some are interested in a book as matter and others are interested in a book as mind. In other words, a book has two aspects, matter and mind, and it depends on your perspective which aspect is interesting to you. And maybe (if there are more ways to structure the bookish stuff) there are other aspects as well. But isn’t the whole mind-body duality – so the mind-body-distinction – not more than a question of different aspects? Doesn’t this distinction simply depend on your perspective so on the kind of questions you ask?

Random quote
He who seeks to be eminent amongst able men has a great task, but that is always good for the public; whereas he who plots to be the only figure amongst ciphers is the decay of a whole age.

Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

How to become a great prince

Louis XIV, alias the Sun King: King of France 1643-1715

In my blog about Machiavelli two weeks ago we have seen that basically anything is allowed for a prince to stay in power if not to increase his glory. Cunning and guile and actually also war, special military operations and murder – although Machiavelli doesn’t say it clearly in the passages discussed there – are allowed for these purposes. It is glory that is most important for a prince; not to take care for his subjects. Why should he, for all the people “want is to be free from oppression”. (The Prince, p. 40) Machiavelli says this for a prince who came to power with the support of the people, but I think it is so for every prince. Or rather it was so in Machiavelli’s days, when bringing prosperity for the people was not yet a requirement for a ruler, also not for one supported by the people. This doesn’t mean, of course, that caring for his subjects did not contribute to the glory of a prince. Anyway, for present-day autocrats, and also for some democratically elected leaders, glory and power are still more important than promoting prosperity. Just such a view on politics made that the word “Machiavellism” got such a bad reputation and is seen as synonymous with unscrupulous politics, and that politics in general has got a bad name.
I have nothing against a ruler, who does his job with pleasure and who takes care of maintaining a good reputation for himself, for how else would we find people who are prepared to rule? I think that no one is so altruistic to present himself only because the job must be done. However, for Machiavelli, glory and power are in fact the only criteria to judge the success of a prince, and not, for instance, as it would be today, the state of the economy and the prosperity of the people. So, “if a ruler wants to survive, he’ll have to learn to stop being good, at least when the occasion demands.” (p. 61) Hence Machiavelli discusses such questions as whether a prince should be generous or mean. Answer: Being generous may be better, but “since a ruler can’t be generous and show it without putting himself at risk, if he’s sensible he won’t mind getting a reputation for meanness.” (p. 62) Should a leader wish to be seen as compassionate rather than cruel? Or, which is almost the same, “is it better to be loved rather than feared, or vice versa? The answer is that one would prefer to be both but, since they don’t go together easily, … it’s much safer to be feared than loved.” Although “while a ruler can’t expect to inspire love when making himself feared, he must avoid arousing hatred. Actually, being feared is perfectly compatible with not being hated.” (p. 66) A prince is safe so long as he avoids being hated and held in contempt. (p. 72)
This is the negative side. But glory is not the same as not being hated and being held in contempt. It is a positive reputation. This is a theme that Machiavelli treats in chapter 21 of The Prince. We read the core of the answer how to be honoured already in the first sentence of this chapter: “Nothing wins a ruler respect like great military victories and a display of remarkable personal qualities.” (p. 87). Machiavelli thinks here of military operations but a leader can also “win acclaim by giving impressive demonstrations of character in his handling of domestic affairs… But above all a ruler must make sure that everything he does gives people the impression that he is a great man of remarkable abilities.” (p. 88)
Machiavelli’s book is about power and glory, not in the abstract but for a concrete person: The prince. In modern words we would say “Make the prince great again”, which would also have been a great title for the book. Or maybe better “Make your country great again”, in which, as you’ll have understood, “country” is a metaphor for “prince”.

Random quote
In wartime, truth is whatever hurts the other side most.

Adam Shatz, author (1972-)

The ass in the lion’s skin

Since I had no time to write a blog this week, instead I publish this fable by Jean de La Fontaine. I leave the interpretation to you. To my mind, it is wider than the conclusion in the fable itself.

The ass in the lion’s skin

An ass clad in a lion's skin,
Spread terror all around,
And though he was an ass within,
Each trembled at the sound!
A portion of Jack's ear by chance peeped through,
And the whole trick at once exposed to view.
Ralph with a cudgel did his office quick,
Wild stared the folks who did not know the trick.
They were surprised to see that Ralph, at will,
Could drive a lion to the mill.
Many great people famed in France,
By whom this apologue's familial- grown,
Are chiefly for their courage known
By the bold equipage in which they prance.

Sources
Fables, Jean de La Fontaine, Book V, 21
Source illustration