Worksheet for Spinoza’s Ethics.

 

For each of these propositions, you need to work through Spinoza’s whole proof.  I recommend reading through the assigned reading in the order in which Spinoza presents it, and then going to these key propositions and working backwards through the proof, tracing the proposition back to the axioms and definitions on which it ultimately depends.  (You won’t need to turn in all of this work, but you will need to do it.)  When you finally turn in the worksheet, you should have clearly written answers to each question.  (Answers to part (a) can take the form of a simple “yes” or “no.”  All other questions should be answered with at least one clear and concise paragraph.)

 

1.  Prop 11: God . . . necessarily exists.

a) Does Spinoza successfully prove proposition 11?

 

b) If not[1], what specific inferences are invalid, what specific axioms are false, and/or what specific definitions are illegitimate?  (In answering this question, be prepared to explain in precisely what sense the inferences are invalid, the axioms are false, or the definitions are illegitimate; and also be sure that you have identified the precise role that such inferences, axioms, or definitions play in Spinoza’s argument.) 

 

c) What significance would believing P 11 have for Spinoza’s contemporaries (such as, for Descartes)?

 

d) What significance would believing it have for us?

 

 

2. Prop. 14: There can be . . . no other substance but God.

a) Given Prop 11, does Spinoza successfully prove proposition 14?

 

b) If not, what specific inferences are invalid, what specific axioms are false, and/or what specific definitions are illegitimate?  (In answering this question, be prepared to explain in precisely what sense the inferences are invalid, the axioms are false, or the definitions are illegitimate.)  In particular, are there any invalid inferences between P11 and P14 (or any new axioms or definitions of which Spinoza makes use that are problematic)?  That is, is Spinoza correct that if God necessarily exists, then there can be no substance but God? 

 

c) What significance would believing P 14 have for Spinoza’s contemporaries (such as, for Descartes)?

 

d) What significance would believing it have for us?

 

 

3. Prop. 28: Every individual thing . . ..

a) Given Prop 14, does Spinoza successfully prove proposition 28?

 

b) If not, what specific inferences are invalid, what specific axioms are false, and/or what specific definitions are illegitimate?  (In answering this question, be prepared to explain in precisely what sense the inferences are invalid, the axioms are false, or the definitions are illegitimate.)

 

c) What significance would believing P 28 have for Spinoza’s contemporaries (such as, for Descartes)?

 

d) What significance would believing it have for us?

 

 

4. Book II, Prop. 7: The order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things.

a) Does Spinoza successfully prove proposition 7?

 

b) If not, what specific inferences are invalid, what specific axioms are false, and/or what specific definitions are illegitimate?  (In answering this question, be prepared to explain in precisely what sense the inferences are invalid, the axioms are false, or the definitions are illegitimate.)

 

c) What is the significance of P 7 within Spinoza’s Ethics?

 

d) What significance would believing P 7 have for Spinoza’s contemporaries (such as, for Descartes)?

 

e) What significance would believing it have for us?

 

 

  1. Book V, Prop 25: The highest . . . virtue is to understand things by the third kind of knowledge.  For analyzing this Proposition, you should use the hypertext edition of Spinoza’s Ethics, available at http://www.mtsu.edu/~rbombard/RB/Spinoza/ethica-front.html.

 

a) Does Spinoza successfully prove proposition 25?

 

b) If not, what specific inferences are invalid, what specific axioms are false, and/or what specific definitions are illegitimate?  (In answering this question, be prepared to explain in precisely what sense the inferences are invalid, the axioms are false, or the definitions are illegitimate.)  You need only find two or three false steps here.

 

c) What significance would believing P 25 have for Spinoza’s contemporaries (such as, for Descartes)?

 

d) What significance would believing it have for us?  (Here take into account, too, Book V, Proposition 42.)

 

 


[1] If so, what inferences, axioms, or definitions might most readily be taken issue with?  Why aren’t these inferences, axioms, or definitions as problematic as they might at first appear?  (For this and all future questions, if you think the proof works, defend it against the best criticisms of it you can think of.)