Book Review: Benedict de Spinoza-Ethics

Benedict de Spinoza was a Dutch Philosopher of Jewish descent. He spent a great deal of time reading ancient philosophy, Descartes, and Hobbs. He supported himself through grinding lenses and spent every free moment he could reading, theorizing, and writing. He so desired to maintain his intellectual independence that he turned down a regular job to work as a teacher at Heidelberg. His intellectual independence led him to some amazing theoretical discoveries that influenced philosophy, psychology, democracy, law and ethics. His two greatest works were Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demostrata. 

In his work The Tractatus Theologico-Politicus  he provided a strong critique of the militant nature of Holland's ruling House of Orange. He also advocated tolerance of religions. He believed that religions could live peacefully with each other if they rose above their petty ideological debates. The problem is that people become narrowly defined by their ideologies and do not quite understand the similarities between all of these religions. 

Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata (Ethics) (1677) is modeled after Euclid’s Elements. The work entails a deduction of each ethical proposition that builds off of each other to create a methodology. They all lead back to a few axioms. The entire work is completed much like a geometric mathematical formula. He seeks an elemental approach to understanding life and the nature of existence. The work proposes a number of axioms and then provides the proofs associated with them in a list type book format. 

 His main arguments are that rationality is the highest form of freedom, all human beings live by the laws of nature, and society should enhance freedom of thought. God and nature are tied together and very much the same. All reality can be defined by mathematical principles and methods of deduction. The more we know about our world the more we know about ourselves. Pure rationality is considered perfection and this cannot happen unless one is God. More knowledge leads to higher levels of awareness. Of interest in Spinoza’s work is that all concepts and aspects of life can be deducted down to elemental principles. Furthermore, the entire universe can be represented by a formula or other method of mathematical equation. 

Certainly if we bounce around in science a little we can find a formula for a great many things. It makes one wonder that if we were to connect all formulas together through if and then statements would we come to untie the world knot. If everything could be predicted by developing accurate formulas for human nature and then connecting them into the longest formula the world has ever seen would we know everything? Perhaps no one’s brain could be so large as to complete this task. I guess that would put us above nature.  Of course you would still have the problem of an infinite space which means it would be impossible to know everything because everything is always expanding. You would need to be faster than that expansion. 

If anything I guess we should learn not to make assumptions without first looking around at the whys and why nots of any situation. If you haven’t done this analysis then you are likely limited by a number of poor assumptions. For a great majority of us to be wrong would be impossible-so we think. You can find additional explanation in each of the sections of Spinoza’s work on Ethics.

I: Of God:

The first part of the book discusses the nature of God or Ethics of God. Of particular interest in this section is the concept that God is infinite because if God was not he would be limited in power by another being of similar power. He discusses God and nature as being the same. All laws of nature are inherent part of God and we are determined by these laws. Each and everything within the world fits within this nature, is ruled by it, and is defined by it. That understanding the laws of nature may help a person better understand God. Humans are not above nature but deeply embedded within it and therefore limited by their perspective. 

Proof 13: A substance which is absolutely infinite is indivisible.

 

II: Of the Nature and Origin of the Mind:

The second section is often debated today as heavily as it was in the past. To Spinoza the mind has an idea of the body and there is no separation between mind and body. The very nature of thinking is related to having a concept of one’s body and objects in the world. Perhaps this is a concept related to self-reflection. If we do not think about ourselves then we are not conscious that we exist. It is a little like Descarte’s “I think therefore I am”. Our minds are part of nature and reflections of that nature. How we think of ideas and concepts, are representations of objects in the world and seem to be part of larger collective connection of thoughts related to understanding nature/reality. Intuition is seen as the highest form of knowledge while opinions are full of fallacies.

Proof 7: The order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things.

III: Of the Origin and Nature of the Effects:

Spinoza in this section basically sets up psychological theory. As nature is run by laws and rules so too his human nature and should not be separate from nature. The affects of passion and actions are part of nature. Morality is about understanding one’s nature and how it works within the natural environment. He appears to create an argument for the subjectivity of one’s environment and how this influences passions and in turn behavior. It is those thoughts and how we make meaning that lead to certain decisions and choices that influence our behaviors.

Proof 1: Our mind does certain things (acts) and undergoes other things, namely, insofar as it has adequate ideas, it necessarily does certain things, and insofar as it has inadequate ideas, it necessarily undergoes other things. 

IV: Of Human Bondage, or the Powers of the Affects:

In this section Spinoza talks more about the bondage of mind and emotion and the ability to create true freedom for oneself. This freedom can only come when we are able to act in any way we choose (baring immoral acts). The environment doesn’t force us to act but we act because we deem it within ourselves. He discusses the nature of false freedom whereby we are controlled by our environment and its forces and believe we are acting with a level of free will. The power to create freedom is difficult as we are most comfortable thinking only of ourselves and our own needs…which means we are not free. True freedom and goodness requires us to think of those things made of joy and positive affectivity because their affects are more powerful than those which are negative. It is a problem of limited perspective, lack of emotional intelligence, and the ability to critically think about ourselves or the world.  

Proof 18: A desire which arises from joy is stronger, other things equal, than one which arises from sadness.

V: Of the power of the Intellect, or on Human Freedom:

The last chapter is stronger than the first four. Spinoza appears to make an argument that freedom is built upon knowledge and rational thought. That a person cannot be free unless they understand themselves, nature, rational thought, emotions, and even the institutions in which they exist. He suggests democracy as the highest form of governmental freedom when and if that democracy supports the protection of people from abuse and allows for positive societal action. Democracy should support trust, individual freedoms, balance of civic interests, and rational patterns of behavior. 

Proof 6: Insofar as the mind understands all things as necessary, it has a greater power over the affects, or is less acted on by them.

 

You can Purchase the book for your personal library or get it FREE

Pages: 180

Price $10

Ethics as a Sign of Intelligence

What does intelligence have to do with ethics and moral reasoning? Ethics can be seen as a value system that governs the actions of both an individual and a group. Through the use of such ethical systems a level of commonality and trust is formed that encourages stronger business associations and efficient economic interactivity. However, why some are more ethically driven than others depends in part on their cognitive and social intelligence abilities. Such abilities start very young in a person’s life and are influenced by the environment. Ethical development is a concept of nature and nurture as superior to situations where nature versus nurture takes precedence. 

Moral reasoning is closely associated with the development of intelligence and emotional sensibilities. It is believed that …”individuals with extraordinary developed intelligence and creativity are the most valuable gift that humankind has…” Kholodnaya, 2007). The more capable a person is to reflect on their behavior and its consequences the more likely they will be able to choose alternative courses of actions. 

These intelligences are seen early in life based upon a person’s sensitivity, motivation, and character (Tirri, 2011). In order for such moral reasoning to work in an optimal manner the environment must reward and encourage such behaviors. Thus, environment and reasoning are two different sides of the same coin. It is not enough to reason and understand the solutions to moral problems if the environment is hostile to the concept of greater responsibility. 

It is often this environment that either strengthens or diminishes such behavior. This is why it is important for education, colleges, legislation and leadership figures to encourage ethical behavior from the very beginning. There are differences in the ability to understand and act upon such issues. When the environment is hostile to basic ethical values the social structure and expectations discourage appropriate behaviors making them less common in the population. 

Social problems are not easy to define and can be quite difficult for some to understand. Developed people have more ability to use social intelligence, find definitions to problems, planning social strategies, and anticipating social consequences (Lopez, 2007). This is often based in their cognitive and emotional advancements from childhood that encourages the ability to analyze the subtle nature of many of these events and factors.

An ethical model as proposed by Steinberg (2009) helps to formulate how ethics works both within an organization and society at large. It is through these ethics that people contribute to the general functioning and efficiency of society by ensuring that rules apply the same across different spectrums of social structure. 

(1) recognize that there is an event to which to react;

(2) define the event as having an ethical dimension;

(3) decide that the ethical dimension is of sufficient significance to merit an

ethics-guided response;

 (4) take responsibility for generating an ethical solution to the problem;

(5) figure out what abstract ethical rule(s) might apply to the problem;

(6) decide how these abstract ethical rules actually apply to the problem to suggest

a concrete solution;

(7) enact the ethical solution, meanwhile possibly counteracting contextual forces

that might lead one not to act in an ethical manner;

(8) acting upon the situation.

Before one can act they must perceive that there is an event occurring. This can be difficult if one’s perceptions are focused narrowly and tightly on one’s current happenings and needs. The more open-minded a person is the more likely they are able to notice, contemplate, and take actions on such events. A narrow-minded filter is going to leave one so heavily focused on their own needs that a wider responsibility doesn't come into one’s conscious.

This blocking of moral thinking is a result of an arrogance in oneself that does not allow a person to empathize or understand the impact of their behavior on others. Ethical disengagement is a result of removing oneself from ethical responsibilities that are the result of a number of fallacies. These fallacies come from unrealistic optimism, egocentrism, false omniscience (never learning from one’s mistakes), false omnipotence, false invulnerability (Sternberg, 2008). 

Cultures that encourage winning at all costs may also encourage their collective loss. It is important to put this competitive need into the framework of personal and collective advancement. Ethics helps one see how choices impact people beyond themselves and create expectations within the environment. When the damage and stakes become large enough ethical choices should kick in as the most logical (i.e. moral reasoning). When moral reasoning is ignored events such as Enron, the saving and loan scandals that led to the Great Depression, and the athletic doping incident become too commonplace.

Therefore, an ethical event must also be of significance to encourage a person to respond to it appropriately. A small or insignificant event is unlikely to create much of an ethical or moral dilemma. It must be worth someone taking on the effort to find a solution to the problem by analyzing possibilities. In other words, it must be big enough to grab your attention. The more complex the problem, the more avenues of analysis are needed before conclusions can be drawn. It takes a level of motivation to pull all of this off.

To have a solution doesn't necessary do any good without some action. These abstract solutions are often narrowed to concrete solutions which are then viewed in terms of the counteracting contextual forces to determine the risks involved. Once the risks, solution, and nature of the problem are solidified an act can be forthcoming that puts the solution into motion. The success of that solution depends on the ability to move through the communication patterns and cognitive processes of stakeholders. 

Intelligence, sensibilities, and the environment all work together to encourage ethical actions. Even though each person has the ability to morally reason it is those with the highest intellectual abilities that can reflect on the possible outcomes and impact of their behaviors.  Those who cannot reason beyond themselves, have little motivation beyond their own needs, and are incapable of considering the consequences of their behavior are likely to be either indifferent to ethical violations within the workplace or the perpetrators and promoters of such behaviors.

Kholodnaya, M. (2007). The psychology of intelligence. Moscow: IPRAN Press.

Lopez, V. (2007). La inteligencia social: aportes desde su studio en ninos y adolescents con atlas capacidades congnitivas. Psykhe, 16 (2). 

Sternberg, R.J. (2008). The WICS approach to leadership: Stories of leadership and the structures and processes that support them. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 360–371.

Sternberg, R. (2009).Ethics and giftedness. High Ability Studies, 20 (2). 

Tirri, K. (2009). Combining excellence and ethics: implications for moral education for the gifted. Roeper Review, 33 (1).

Book Review: Critique of Pure Reason

If you are looking for a book that stretches your mind and makes for interesting argumentation you might want to read Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason originally printed in 1781. He seeks to determine what we understand about reality without the use of the senses. He uses metaphysics which tries to explain our existence in the world. In the purest sense of the word Immanuel Kant was a Metaphysician. He attempted to see how far reason alone could discover truths around the world beyond sensory input.

Kant makes a large distinction between priori and a posteriori knowledge. Priori knowledge comes from our senses while posterior knowledge is a higher form of theoretical knowledge seen as independent from our senses. Posterior knowledge is a hierarchical advancement of our basic experiences of the data we collect from our environment. It is possible to call this abstract or theoretical knowledge that allows for projections about the nature of our world. 

Knowledge in its priori form is more synthetic in the sense that it relates directly to our experiences. When the knowledge is posterior in form it takes on a more analytic approach. For example, we experience that rain hits the ground and makes a splat. However, through reflection we can review multiple experiences over time to learn that rain can make plants grow. We may have seen greener grass a day after the rain but without an analytical reflection we wouldn’t have been able to make the connection between rain and green grass.

Each person sees the world in slightly different ways. All prior experiences come into our existing filters and understandings. Without these filters and understands the information would not make a whole lot of sense. It would be as though someone would have a sensory integration disorder where the information is only information without previous context. It would be relatively useless to our needs because it is not processed properly. Therefore, our mind has a perception and this perception makes the world of difference in how we view information and make meaning from it to create behavioral responses. 

Even though Immanuel Kant was not an outright empiricist his book helped in defining and developing the scientific method. Posterior knowledge should be tested to ensure that the data from our environment fit within these explanations. Where there are outliers to these theoretical constructs there would be a need to develop a stronger theoretical model. Hence the process is to develop the model based upon our experiences and then test those models to see if they adequately explain what is happening in our environment. When they don’t explain and predict consistently then there are other factors to consider.

Most importantly Immanuel Kant discussed the concept of morality as reason. In essence, all morality is based on the deduction of natural laws and principles. He certainly makes sense in terms of explaining that moral laws are often associated with societal structure and our concepts of right versus wrong. For example, it is wrong to steal because when one does this they destroy economic trust and this lack of trust can cause societal chaos. If we are not relatively sure that we can keep what we earn why would we put forward the effort? Perhaps it is better to become part of the stealing class or not put forward any effort at all? Since no society can exist without rules of interaction and engagement it would make more sense to enforce/reinforce the elemental beliefs of a society without necessarily forcing society to take any predefined vantage point of these root beliefs. Are there many justifications for not stealing? You only need to pick one regardless of your reasoning as it all ends at the same conclusion.

The book is heavy in terms of its knowledge and discussion. The concepts are theoretical by nature but have transformed the way people think. As you read through this book you will likely need to reread a few paragraphs as Immanuel Kant likes to have long winded rhetorical discussions. You can get temporarily lost in his train of thought. It is his way of connecting the information to create conclusions that others can agree with. Any student who wants to understand the underpinnings of scientific thought, psychological principles, or societal morality should pick up a book. As with all great works they are generally ignored upon their completion but end up transforming the world later.

All the preparations of reason, therefore, in what may be called pure philosophy, are in reality directed to those three problems only [God, the soul, and freedom].- Immanuel Kant

Kant, I. (2007) Critique of Pure Reason. Penguin Books: UK (Originally published in 1781) ISBN978-0-140-44747-7

Pages 686

Price: $14