Descartes proved, and quietly exceeded
Can another man's philosophy be set out in strict geometrical order without being endorsed — and what shows through when Spinoza does the setting out? The exposition is faithful; the appendix is not innocent.
Written to teach a pupil Descartes without handing over his own opinions, Spinoza recast the first two parts of the Principles — physics, motion, and mechanics included — into definitions, axioms, and proofs, with Meyer's preface warning that the author expounds Descartes and dissents from much he here demonstrates. The appended Cogitata Metaphysica, dressed as a scholastic handbook, threads in positions that are Spinoza's own. The only book he published under his own name, it became the one dated, authorised text against which to read the rest.
- metaphysics
- epistemology
- motion
- mechanics
- physics
- ontology
- logic
- matter
- substance
- extension
- force
- geometry
- existence
- essence
- perfection
- eternity
- creation
- divine attributes
- god
- certainty
- necessity
- truth
- error
- time
- infinity
- will
- causation
- free will
Enter a dialogue
- If you dissent from much you prove here, isn't setting it out in strict order a kind of dishonesty toward the reader?
- Metaphysical Thoughts says a man torn between food and drink who starved would be a stupid ass, so the mind can act unpushed. Is choosing proof of freedom?
- In your account, Descartes doubts even his own body, since senses deceive and amputees feel pain in lost limbs. Why can he not doubt that he doubts?
- God causes our errors only as the sun's absence causes darkness, you write. But if God gave us a will wider than our understanding, isn't he to blame?
- You prove empty space is impossible, since space is only the body that fills it. Can reasoning alone settle what nature contains?