Ethics

The first thing that might strike the reader about Spinoza’s Ethics is its unusual form. Rather than a continuous narrative or a series of chapters, each part begins with a series of definitions, which are followed by axioms, propositions, and finally demonstrations. Spinoza refers to this approach as “geometric,” and he took inspiration from Euclid’s geometry treatises, written in the third century BC. To an extent, Spinoza was also following the lead of René Descartes (1596-1650), who advocated using the geometrical format in philosophical works. In the 17th century natural science, mathematics, and geometry were coming to the fore as major intellectual pursuits. Many thinkers believed that mathematics held the key to understanding the universe and could be applied to other disciplines.

This geometric structure allows Spinoza to present premises and draw conclusions from them, thus compelling the reader’s assent through logic. The mathematical style is intended to make his argument clearer and more convincing. Each claim that Spinoza makes is supported by what came before, so that readers are led through the argument step-by-step and can retrace their steps to see that the argument holds.

The title Ethics reveals that Spinoza’s book will ultimately be about human nature and actions and how to live the “good life.” However, Spinoza begins by laying down basic principles about nature and being itself. Part 1 is concerned with metaphysics, or the principles of being and existence. Before he explains how to live well, Spinoza must explain why human beings are constituted the way they are and their place in the larger cosmos. Explaining why things are the way they are leads to a consideration of God as the cause behind all things.

Spinoza was not the first to speak of God as the First Cause, though he was the first to suggest that this concept alone suffices to explain God. The term goes back to ancient philosophers like Aristotle and was elaborated by medieval thinkers like Thomas Aquinas. These philosophers used much of the same terminology that Spinoza uses to describe states of being, such as essence, substance, nature, etc. However, Spinoza reaches different conclusions. First, he posits that God is an infinite, self-caused being and is therefore a substance—a thing that is self-causing and self-explanatory, and not dependent on anything else for its existence. He further posits that God is the only substance in the universe. This is because, as he argues, there cannot be two different substances with the same nature or attributes. Furthermore, God necessarily exists, since it is logically impossible that an infinite being does not exist, given the fact that finite beings exist (7). Finally, since God is a substance, and everything must either be a substance or in a substance, it follows that all things are in God.

Spinoza believed that recent discoveries in science and philosophy had led human beings to a better understanding of the way things are. For a long time, people believed that God had personal attributes: He created the world in an act of free will, directs events through his wise and loving providence, and rewards and punishes human beings according to their actions. Spinoza insists that such beliefs come from the imagination and are the result of anthropomorphizing, or projecting human qualities onto God. Instead, Spinoza argues that God is identifiable with the natural order as a whole; God does not stand outside nature and does not act for some purpose or end. Rather, everything that happens flows from God’s nature. This means that nothing could be different from how it is; there is no chance or spontaneity, and everything is necessarily the way it is.

Thus, the Ethics is partly polemical, written to challenge established ideas and change readers’ minds. This becomes clear in the Appendix to Part 1, which differs in tone from the rest of Part 1 and is an extended attack on “prejudices,” or traditional views. Spinoza aims to demystify our view of the universe and debunk what he considers “superstitious” views of God and nature embodied in traditional religious teachings. These teachings hold that God and nature work with a purpose in mind, and that God rewards and punishes human behavior. Spinoza wants to replace these views with what he regards as a rational, scientific, and purely philosophical account of the way things are. As a rationalist, Spinoza believes that reason explains everything, and any belief in mystery is merely superstition, which we must dispel for our own good. Instead of viewing humanity as the center of the world, we ought to recognize that nature does not exist for our benefit; Spinoza says that chance events and human suffering prove this.

Because he equated God with the natural order of things, Spinoza was frequently labeled a pantheist, or someone who believes that God is in all things and not separate from his creations. Indeed, Spinoza implies that the very concept of the creation is a fallacy. An act of creation is impossible for God; all things simply flow necessarily from who he is. To suppose that God acted for some purpose implies that he lacks something or depends on humanity or other things for fulfillment. Instead, Spinoza speaks of God as the cause of all things.

Some critics went so far as to call Spinoza an atheist because his God seemed so far removed from the God of Judaism or Christianity. Spinoza’s view of nature is also often labeled as monism (literally, one-ism) because he holds that there is only one substance or principle in the universe, and that is God.