Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 19:44:49 -0500 (EST) From: Kelly Timothy Lynch <ktlynch-AT-vex.net> Subject: S&N paper clarification attempt All right, let me take a stab at clarifying, in a way perhaps demanding less thought from the reader, the basic line of my little paper which seems to have bewildered John. We begin with BGE #13, with particular interest in Spinoza's "Inkonsequenz". Instead of sailing off into the side blue yonder, perhaps looking for some grand inconsistency in Spinoza rooted in a conflict of cultures (Magian & Faustian?), we pay careful attention to the actual specific context of the remark "(man dankt ihn der Inkonsequenz Spinozas--)". The basic point of BGE #13 is against the physiologists' idea of "self-preservation" as the cardinal drive of organic beings, in favor of "Wille zur Macht". An important reason given for this is that "self-preservation" (as the basic organic drive) is a superfluous teleological principle, and _this_ is where our Spinoza remark comes in. At this point I presuppose, as my opening notes indicated, at least some knowledge of Spinoza. Given some knowledge of Spinoza, we realize immediately that S. was clearly, fundamentally, radically opposed to teleology. In this fundamental respect S. is in agreement with Nietzsche. To this degree we might say, at risk of confusing John, that S. was, from N.'s perspective, on the right track. But N. then seems to suggest that S. did not follow this through to its final consequences, that he let a superfluous teleological principle slip in, one somehow related to "self-preservation". Which leads us to a consideration of S.'s "conatus". I think this more or less takes us through the point that John needed clarification of. And my little paper does, from this point on, gradually become more subtle, more difficult, perhaps more questionable, in a sense more speculative. (An aside: ending with a question-mark was quite deliberate in this paper.) Still, it might be useful to push on just a bit further, for now, adding a few words on the interpretation of S. my paper hints at. If more clarification is needed, I suspect John will let me know. As I noted, the S. quotation in my sig. is _Ethics_I prop.34, "God's power is his essence itself". One way (by no means the only way) to approach the S. interpretation my paper hints at is to start at this point. In my paper I make two points about this prop., that it is the leading prop. of the short concluding group of prop.s in Part I, and that we can view this as a kind of infinite analogy with the essence of individual things. There is no question of God (for S.) acting for an end (even if that is only "self-preservation"). But act He does. His essence is, so to speak, pure action, pure power, pure necessity (prop.35) and pure productivity (prop.36). Perhaps my drift is becoming more clear--you might say, I suggest a dynamic interpretation of Spinoza. Take care for now, Kelly Timothy Lynch || "Dei potentia est ktlynch-AT-vex.net || ipsa ipsius essentia." Toronto, Ontario, Canada || Spinoza --- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005