...With regard to the terms "dynamic" and "static" and also, as mentioned in recent posts, the terms "active" and "passive", I believe we have to be careful about being swayed in our thinking by the confusions of our own imagination. When I see/hear the terms active or dynamic I cannot help but imagine bodies in motion: "Those kids are so active they're going to wear me out!" On the other hand with the terms passive or static something like this might come to mind: "She sat passively, seeming not to notice the activity around her." I won't be surprised if someone here is thinking: "Oh, there he goes again, pointing out the obvious." But I believe if we pay attention to Spinoza's use of such terms we might begin to realize he's using them differently --especially as he often reminds us of the distinction he makes between imagination and Understanding, duration and Eternity, etc. Of active and passive nature, as was pointed out recently, he said:
========= E1: PROP. 29, Note:
...By nature viewed as passive I understand all that which follows from the
necessity of the nature of God, or of any of the attributes of God, that is,
all the modes of the attributes of God, in so far as they are considered as
things which are in God, and which without God cannot exist or be conceived.
Nature is "active" in Spinoza's sense when it involves nothing outside of itself (to put it negatively.) The motion and rest of particular bodies does not belong to "nature viewed as active" but to "nature viewed as passive":
========= E3: PROP. 2: So in this sense the motion of all particular bodies is passive even though we might use the term "active" in a different sense from Spinoza to say that "Moving bodies are active, while resting bodies are not." Now Spinoza also uses the terms "active" and "passive" with regard to our mind:
========= E3: PROP. 1: What does he mean here? Does he mean that our mind is "in motion" or "at rest"? Does he mean that it is "dynamic" when we imagine, for instance, the earth or a machine whose parts are moving but "static" when we imagine that same machine with its parts not moving? Or does he mean that our mind is active when we are following, step-by-step, a particular chain of reasoning but passive when it contemplates a single thing? He previously said that our mind has inadequate ideas (is passive) "whenever it perceives things after the common order of nature" --even with regard to knowledge of itself, its own body, and of external bodies:
========= E2: PROP. 29 Corollary, Note: As an aside, where he says; "Whenever it is determined in anywise from within..." how many of us simply imagine ourselves as an independent being exercising free will in this "determination from within" rather than as a particular mode of the attribute of thought following necessarily from the divine nature? Anyway, Spinoza says that the mind does have adequate ideas whereby he said it is "active":
========= E2: PROP. 38: and later;
========= E2: PROP. 45: and from this;
========= E2: PROP. 47:
Men have not so clear a knowledge of God as they have of general notions,
because they are unable to imagine God as they do bodies, and also because
they have associated the name God with images of things that they are in the
habit of seeing, as indeed they can hardly avoid doing, being, as they are,
men, and continually affected by external bodies
Keeping in mind the last paragraph of the above note; when Spinoza said in Part 1 that:
========= E1: PROP. 20, Corollary 2: ...are we perhaps imagining bodies in motion or at rest and trying to apply these ideas to "nature viewed as active"? Does change involve time and place? If so...
========= E5: PROP. 29, Note: ...If not, what do we mean by change and perhaps more importantly how do we conceive actual things? Things conceived under the form of Eternity (not endless time) involve no change and are not active/passive or dynamic/static in the ordinary sense of these terms.
Regards,
|
BACK to Personal Notes menu.