Expressionism I n P h i l o s o p hy : Spinoza

Translated by Martin JoughinExpressionism in Philosophy:

Spinoza

Gilles

ZONE

Deleuze

BOOKS

·

1992

NEW

YORK

© 1990 Urzone Inc.

ZONE BOOKS
1226 Prospect Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11218
First Paperback Edition
Fourth Printing, 2005
All rights reserved.
No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by anymeans, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
microfilming, recording, or otherwise (except for thatcopying permitted by Sections 107 and ro8 of the U.S.
Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the publicpress) without written permission from the Publisher.
Originally published in France as Spinoza et la probleme deI'expression. © 1968 Les Editions de Minuit
Printed in the United States of America
Distributed by The MIT Press,

Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Deleuze, Gilles.
[Spinoza et le probleme de l' expression. English]
Expressionism in philosophy: Spinoza / Gilles
Deleuze; translated by Martin Joughin.
p.

em.

Translation of: Spinoza et le probleme de l' expression.
Bibliography: p.
Index

ISBN 0-942299-51-5 (pbk.)
r. Spinoza, Benedictus de, 1632-1677 -Contributions

in concept of expression. 2. Expression. r. Title.

B3999.E9D4513 1990
199'-492 - dc19

88-2o6o7
CIPC o n t e nts

Translator's Preface

5

Introduction: The Role and Importance ofExpression 13
P A RT O N E

Chapter I
II
III
IV

v
P A R T Two
VI

TH E TRIADS O F SUBS TANC E

Numerical and Real Distinction 27
Attribute as Expression 41
Attributes and Divine Names 53
The Absolute 69
Power 83
P ARAL L E L ISM AND IMM A N E NC E

Expression in Parallelism

99

VII

The Two Powers and the Idea of God

VIII

Expression and Idea 129
Inadequacy 145
Spinoza A9ainst Descartes 155
Immanence and the Historical Components
of Expression 169

IX
X
XI

113

P ART TH R E E
XII
XIII
X IV
XV
XV I
XV I I
XV I I I
IXXTH E TH E O RY O F F I N ITE M OD ES

Modal Essence: The Passage from Infinite
to Finite 191
Modal Existence 201
What Can a Body Do? 217
The Three Orders and the Problem of Evil 235
The Ethical Jtlsion of the World 255
Common Notions 273
Toward the Third Kind of Knowledge 289
Beatitude 303
Conclusion: The Theory of Expression in Leibniz andSpinoza: Expressionism in Philosophy 321
Appendix 337
Notes 351
Translator's Notes 403
Index 429
Index of Textual References 437

Tr a n s l a t o r ' s P r e fa c e"We discover new ways of folding . . . but we are always folding,unfolding, refolding": so ends Le Pli, Deleuze's latest book, on
Leibniz, his first maj or historical study of a philosopher since thepresent book was published twenty years before. Here the main
text doses: "It is hard, in the end, to say which is more impor­tant: the differences between Leibniz and Spinoza in their evalua­tion of expression; or their common reliance on this concept infounding a Postcartesian philosophy." Spinoza and Leibniz: twodifferent expressions of "expressionism in philosophy," an expres­sionism characterized in this book as a system of implicatio andexplicatio, enfolding and unfolding, implication and explication,
implying and explaining, involving and evolving, enveloping anddeveloping. Two systems of universal folding: Spinoza's unfoldedfrom the bare "simplicity" of an Infinity into which all things
are ultimately folded up, as into a universal map that folds backinto a single point; while Leibniz starts from the infinite points

in that map, each of which enfolds within its infinitely "com­plex" identity all its relations with all other such points, theunfolding of all these infinite relations being the evolution of a
Leibnizian Universe.
We are always involved in things and their implications and5

E X P R E SS I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y :S P I N OZA

developments , always ourselves developing in our bodily "enve­
lope," always explaining and implying. In Spinoza's Latin the
distinctions between these various ways of being enfolded in auniversal "complication" or complexity of things are home by thedifferent contexts, mental, physical , and so on, in which implicare,
explicare, and their derivatives are used. An English translator must
often identifY the implicit or explicit context of a particular useof one of these words and choose between, say, "imply," "impli­
cate , " "enfold" - or "explain, " "explicate," "unfold" - while
Deleuze can retain in the French impliquer and expliquer severalof the multiple senses of the Latin. The English language hasdeveloped differently from the French language. It has integrated
Latin and Germanic roots, where French has unfolded directlyfrom Latin. And this double system of English roots has allowed
a splitting of senses in the language of "folding" itself, so that a
Germanic vocabulary of "folds" must often be used in external,
physical , contexts, and one can only talk of a universal "folding"of thoughts and things metaphorically. But what then becomes,
in English translation, of Deleuze's attempt to organize Spinoza's
Universe of internal Thought and external Extension in terms ofan "unfolding" of which the distinction of "inner" and "outer"sides of things (ideas and bodies ) is precisely the initial fold?

The problem does not end with folding itself, but becomes more
complex as the discussion extends to a general dynamics of Spin­oza's system. Thus while the Latin comprehendere and the Frenchcomprendre cover both the "mental" sense of understanding ( con­taining or comprehending in thought ) and the "physical" senseof comprising, including ( containing, "properly speaking") , anEnglish translator must either stretch his language beyond break­ing point in an attempt to find some term (say, "comprehend")
6

T R A N S L A T O R' S

P R E FA C E

to cover both " sides" o f the Latin or French word ( everywhere
substituting it, then, for "understand, " "include," "comprise") ,or simply ask the reader t o try t o constantly bear i n mind thatboth sorts of containment are always to be understood as cor­
responding to a single "term" of the exposition, a term whose
single grammar or expressive logic must be understood as organ­
izing the relations of the two English "sides" of the term through­out the book.
Then consider the Latin couple involvere and evolvere: an orderof continuous "turning" inward and outward, involution and evo­lution, rather than the elementary order of folds. The Frenchenvelopper covers both abstract and physical senses of "involving"and "enveloping" or ( once more) "enfolding." (Just to compli­
cate matters further, the " envelope" which is the human body,later identified by Deleuze as the primary " fold" of internal sub­j ective space in external visible space, is linked in French to thatorder of folding by the fact that pli and enveloppe are two names
for the "envelope" in which we enfold things we send throughthe postal system. )I s this aU a case o f a seductive metaphor being finally neutral­ized in English, once the implicit divergences of the "mental"
and "physical" grammars of folding in Latin and French are at last
made explicit? The metaphorical use of the language of "folding"would then amount (in a familiar analysis) to a partial transposi­tion or translation of the logic of some term ( " fold," say ) fromits true or proper linguistic context ( all the sentences in which
it can properly occur, with all their implications and explications)
into some only partly or superficially similar "analogous" context.
English might then be said to have developed in accordance with
the Scholastic project of systematically distinguishing between
the multiple senses of "equivocal" words, in order to construct
a complete logic of true ( as opposed to specious) implications
7

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I L O S O P H Y:

S P I N OZA

and explications - with the "technical" o r formal use o f words
like "mode" ( for example) properly distinguished from the impre­
cise informal use of the Latin modus or French mode, informallyrendered in English as "manner," "way."

Deleuze's reconstruction of Spinoza's system as a logic of expres­sion is diametrically opposed to such a conception of "equivoca­
tion." Curley does not list ( the "equivocal," "informal") exprimereas a "systematic". term in his glossary, and most commentators, as
Deleuze notes in his Introduction, have also passed over this termin their reconstructions of the "logic" of the system . Deleuze's
use of a disregarded term as the principal axis of his reconstruc­tion of a philosophical or literary system had already character­ized his earlier studies of Nietzsche and Proust ( and has analogies
with, say, Barthes' contemporary reading of Racine "in terms of"solar imagery, which so scandalized the Old Criticism ) . Indeed
the language of " folding, " and an insistence upon the "meta­
phorical" multiplicity of sense as prior to any proj ected unitary
logical syntax, had already been applied in the 1964 reading ofProust. And in the Logic of Sense that followed the present studyof Spinoza we find Deleuze inverting the traditional figures ofmetaphorical use as a partial transposition or translation of a given
logic or grammar from its true context to some partly similar con­text, and of metaphor or analogy "breaking down" at some point
where the logic of the two contexts diverges . Words are there
considered as "multiplicities" of sense, with no stable "home"context, no primary identity: as transferrable among multiple con­texts to produce various patterns of relations between things as
their essentially incomplete grammars or logics unfold in inter­action with those of other words. Already in Difference and Repe­
tition, published j ointly with the present book, it was precisely
8

T R A N S L AT O R ' S

P R E FA C E

the "breakdown" of the traditional logic of identity that organ­
ized fundamental "divergences" or radical differences as the prime
dimensionality or structure of unfolding experience .

Deleuze's thought evolved from his first book ( on Hmbe, 1953 )down to the present work in a series of historical studies ( on
Nietzsche, Kant, Proust, Bergson and Sacher-Masoch). In each ofthese the development of a "philosophy" is traced from some ver­sion of an initial situation where some term in our experience
diverges from its apparent relations with some other terms, break­ing out of that "space" of relations and provoking a reflection inwhich we consider reorientations or reinscriptions of this andother terms within a "virtual" matrix of possible unfoldings ofthese terms and their relations in time. As reflection confronts
wider and wider systems of relations it proceeds toward theinscription of all experience within the unchanging figure ofunfolding Time itself - that is, in Eternity. Such a "philosophy"
comes full-circle when the "subj ect," as that term in our experi­ence which is the locus of orientation of the space of present
appearances within the virtual matrix of all unfolding in time,"orients" its own practical activity of interpretation, evaluationor orientation of the terms of experience within this universal
matrix it has itself unfolded.
This figure of a practical and empirical "philosophy," unfolded
through the sequence of earlier studies, here finds a systematicand symmetric exposition in terms of "folding" itself, as a sys­
tem of universal "expression." But Spinoza sets out this system"beginning with Infinity, " beginning from the bare or otherwise
indeterminate form of predication, attribution or determination
itself. In Difference and Repetition Deleuze sought to present theuniversal "folding" of experience beginning rather with the finite
9

E X P R E S S I O NI S M IN P HI L O S O P H Y :S P IN O Z A

terms of the initial situation o f reflection - beginning, so to
speak, with the plurality of finite modes rather than the abstract
unity of substance . But the form of his presentation there (as,together with this study, one of two theses submitted in order
to become eligible for a professorial chair in the old French uni­
versity system) was organized by what he has since called theabstract textual code of the History of Philosophy: it was institu­
tionally abstracted from that dramatic interplay of discursive text
and external context already implicit in the insistence here on
the radical "expressive" parallelism of internal Thought and exter­
nal Extension, as articulated in the rhetorical o rientation o fSpinoza's logic in the "practical" apparatus o f the scholia (andreflected in Spinoza's own dramatic embedding of biblical text
in historical context in the Iheolonico-Political Treatise). This bookand the companion thesis may thus be seen to prepare the transi­tion from an abstract treatment of historical schemes of experi­ence into the "dramatization" of reflection first manifested in thegeneral scenography of Capitalism and Schizophrenia, as Deleuze's
logic is embedded in the rhetorical apparatus of Guattari's cri­tique of the coupled repression (rather than expression) of innerand outer worlds. A second series of Deleuzian reflections unfolds
from this "scenography" of History toward its universal dramatic
frame, moving from a discursive confrontation with the visual
space of a Bacon painting, and with a visual space-time articu­
lated in the kinetics or kinematics of twentieth-century experi­ence, through the Foucauldian figure of the radical " folding" o finner in outer worlds that articulates the dynamic of Western sub­jectivity, to a new coordination of the "internal" l ogical or psy­chological folding o f experience with the correlative external
space of visible relations (Deleuze once more finding in Leibniz,
as he had in Difference and Repetition, a primary model for the
inversion of the relations of infinite Substance and finite modes).
10

T R A N S L AT O R'S

P R E FA C EThis second series of reflections will, it seems, once more con­clude with Spinoza. Deleuze, discussing with the translator theplace of Expressionism in Philosophy in his development, writes:"What interested me most in Spinoza wasn't his Substance,
but the composition of finite modes. I consider this one of themost original aspects of my book. That is: the hope of making
substance tum on finite modes, or at least of seeing in substancea plane of immanence in which finite modes operate, alreadyappears in this book. What I needed was both (1) the expressive
character of particular individuals, and ( 2) an immanence ofbeing. Leibniz, in a way, goes still further than Spinoza on thefirst point. But on the second, Spinoza stands alone. One finds it
only in him. This is why I consider myself a Spinozist, rather thana Leibnizian, although I owe a lot to Leibniz. In the book I'm
writing at the moment, What is Philosophy?, I try to return to thisproblem of absolute immanence, and to say why Spinoza is forme the 'prince' of philosophers."

III N T R OD U C T I O NTheRole and Importanceof Expression

The idea of expression appears in the first Part of the Ethics as
early as the sixth Definition: "By God I understand a being abso­
lutely infinite, that is, a substance consisting of an infinity of attri­butes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence."
The idea goes on to develop increasing importance. It is taken
up again in various contexts. Thus Spinoza says that each attri­bute expresses a certain infinite and eternal essence, an essencecorresponding to that particular kind of attribute. Or: each attri­bute expresses the essence of substance , its being or reality. Or
again: each attribute expresses the infinity and necessity of sub­stantial existence, that is, expresses eternity. l He also shows how
to pass from each of these formulations to the others. Thus each
attribute expresses an essence, insofar as it expresses in one form•
the essence of substance; and since the essence of substance nec­
essarily involves existence, it belongs to each attribute to express,
together with God's essence, his eternal existence.2 At the sametime the idea of expression contains within it all the difficulties
relating to the unity of substance and the diversity of its attri­butes. The expressive nature of attributes thus appears as one of
the basic themes of the first Part of the Ethics.
Modes are , in their turn , expressive : "Whatever exists ex13

EX P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y :S P I N OZA

presses the nature or essence o f God in a certain and determinate
way" (that is, in a certain mode). J,b So we must identifY a second
level of expression: an expression, as it were, of expression itself.
Substance first expresses itself in its attributes, each attributeexpressing an essence. But then attributes express themselves intheir turn: they express themselves in their subordinate modes,
each such mode expressing a modification of the attribute. As wewill see, the first level of expression must be understood as thevery constitution, a genealogy almost, of the essence of substance.
The second must be understood as the very production of par­ticular things. Thus God produces an infinity of things because
his essence is infinite; but having an infinity of attributes, he nec­
essarily produces these things in an infinity of modes, each o fwhich must be referred to a n attribute to which i t belongs .4
Expression is not of itself production, but becomes such on its
second level, as attributes in their turn express themselves. Con­
versely, expression as production is grounded in a prior expres­sion. God expresses himself in himself "before" expressing him­
self in his effects: expresses himself by in himself constituting
natura naturans, before expressing himself through producing
within himself natura naturata.
The range of the notion of expression is not merely ontolog­
ical; its implications are also epistemological.c This is hardly sur­prising, for ideas are modes of Thought: " Singular thoughts, or
this or that thought, are modes which express God's nature in acertain and determinate way:•s So knowledge becomes a sort ofexpression. The knowledge of things bears the same relation to
the knowledge of God as the things themselves to God: "Since
without God nothing can exist or be conceived, it is evident that
all natural phenomena involve and express the conception of God
as far as their essence and perfection extend, so that we havegreater and more perfect knowledge of God in proportion to our14I N T R O DU C T I O N

knowledge of natural phenomena:'6 The idea of God is expressedin all our ideas as their source and their cause, so that ideas as awhole exactly reproduce the order of Nature as a whole. And
ideas, in tum, express the essence, nature or perfection of theirobjects: a thing's definition or idea is said to exp�ess the thing's
nature as it is in itself. Ideas are all the more perfect, the more
reality or perfection they express in their obj ect; ideas which themind forms "absolutely" thus express infinity. 7 The mind con­ceives things sub specie aeternitatisd through having an idea that
expresses the body's essence from this point of view. 8 Spinoza's
conception of the adequacy of ideas seems always to involve thisexpressive character. From the Short Treatise onward he was seek­
ing a conception of knowledge that would account for it, not assome operation on an object that remained outside it, but as areflection, an expression, of an object in the mind. This require­ment persists in the Ethics, albeit understood in a new way. In nei­
ther case can it suffice to say that truth is simply present in ideas.
We must go on to ask what it is that is present in a true idea.
What expresses itself in a true idea? What does it express? If
Spinoza advances beyond the Cartesian conception of clarity anddistinctness to form his theory of adequacy, he does so, once
again, in terms of this problem of expression.
The word "express" has various synonyms. The Dutch textof the Short Treatise does employ uytdrukken and uytbeelden ( toexpress), but shows a preference for vertoonen ( at once to mani­
fest and to demonstrate ) : a thinking being expresses itself in an
infinity of ideas corresponding to an infinity of objects; but theidea of the body directly manifests God; and attributes manifest
themselves in themselves.9 In the Correction of the Understanding
attributes manifest (ostendunt) God's essence . ' O But such syno­
nyms are less significant than the correlates that accompany andfurther specify the idea of expression: explicare and involvere. Thus
15

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y o

S P I N OZA

definition is said not only to express the nature o f what is defined,
but to involve and explicate it. II Attributes not only express theessence of substance: here they explicate it, there they involveit. 1 2 Modes involve the concept of God as well as expressing it,so the ideas that correspond to them involve, in their turn, God's
eternal essence. 1 3
To explicate i s to evolve, t o involve i s to implicate. Yet thetwo terms are not opposites: they simply mark two aspects ofexpression. Expression is on the one hand an explication, an
unfolding of what expresses itself,e the One manifesting itself in
the Many (substance manifesting itself in its attributes, and these
attributes manifesting themselves in their modes ) . Its multiple
expression, on the other hand, involves Unity. The One remains
involved in what expresses it, imprinted in what unfolds it, imma­
nent in whatever manifests it: expression is in this respect an
involvement. There is no conflict between the two terms, except
in one specific case which we will deal with later, in the con­text of finite modes and their passions. 1 4 Expression in general
involves and implicates what it expresses, while also explicatingand evolving it.
Implication and explication, involution and evolutionf: terms
inherited from a long philosophical tradition, always subj ect tothe charge of pantheism . Precisely because the two concepts are
not opposed to one another, they imply a principle of synthesis:
complicatio. In Neoplatonism complication often means at once theinherence of multiplicity in the One, and of the One in the Many.
God is Nature taken "complicatively"; and this Nature both expli­
cates and implicates, involves and evolves God. God "compli­
cates" everything, but all things explain and involve him . Theinterplay of these notions, each contained in the other, consti­
tutes expression, and amounts to one of the characteristic figuresof Christian and Jewish Neoplatonism as it evolved through the16I N T R O D U C T I O NMiddle Ages and Renaissance. Thus expression has been taken to
be a basic category of Renaissance thought. IS In Spinoza, Nature
at once comprises and contains everything, while being expli­
cated and implicated in each thing. Attributes involve and expli­
cate substance, which in turn comprises all attributes . Modes
involve and explicate the attribute on which they depend , while
the attribute in turn contains the essences of all its modes. We
must ask how Spinoza fits into an expressionist tradition, to what
extent his position derives from it, and how he transforms it.
The question takes on added importance from the fact that
Leibniz also took expression as one of his basic concepts. In
Leibniz as in Spinoza expression has theological , ontologicaland epistemological dimensions. It organizes their theories ofGod, of creatures and of knowledge. Independently of one anotherthe two philosophers seem to rely on the idea of expression inorder to overcome difficulties in Cartesianism , to restore a
Philosophy of Nature, and even to incorporate Cartesian resultsin systems thoroughly hostile to Descartes's vision of the world.
To the extent that one may speak of the Anticartesianism of
Leibniz and Spinoza, such Anticartesianism is grounded in theidea of expression.
If the idea of expression is so important, at once for an under­
standing of Spinoza's system, for determining its relation to thatof Leibniz, and as bearing on the origin and development of thetwo systems, then why have the most respected commentators
taken so little, if any, account of this notion in Spinoza's philos­
ophy? Some compl etely ignore it. Others give it a certain indi­

rect significance , seeing in it another name for some deeper
principle. Thus expression is taken to be synonymous with "ema­nation": an approach that may already be found in Leibniz's crit­
icism that Spinoza understood expression in cabalistic terms,
reducing it to a sort of emanation. 1 6 Or expression is taken as
17

EXPRESSIONISM IN PHILOSOPHY: SPINOZA

another word for explication. Postkantian philosophers would seemto have been well placed to recognize the presence in Spinozismof that genetic movement of self-development for which they
sought anticipations everywhere. But the term "explication " con­firmed their view that Spinoza had been no more able to conceive
a true evolution of substance, than to think through the transi­tion from infinite to finite. Spinoza's substance seemed to them
lifeless, his expression intellectual and abstract, his attributes"attributed" to substance by an understanding that was itself"explicative."17 Even Schelling, developing his philosophy ofmanifestation ( Offenbarunn), claimed to be following Boehme,rather than Spinoza: it was in Boehme, rather than in Spinoza oreven Leibniz, that he found the idea of expression (Ausdruck).
But one cannot reduce expression to the mere explicationof understanding without falling into anachronism. For explica­tion, far from amounting to the operation of an understandingthat remains outside its object, amounts primarily to the object's
own evolution, its very life. The traditional couple of explicatio
and complicatio historically reflects a vitalism never far from pan­theism. Rather than expression being comprehensible in termsof explication, explication in Spinoza as in his forerunners seems
to me to depend on some idea of expression. If attributes mustin principle be referred to an understanding that perceives orcomprehends them, this is primarily because they express theessence of substance, and infinite essence cannot be expressed
without being "objectively" manifest in divine understanding. It
is expression that underlies the relation of understanding between
thought and object, rather than the reverse. As for emanation, one
does of course find traces of this, as of participation, in Spinoza.
The theory of expression and explication was after all developed,
in the Renaissance as in the Middle Ages, by authors steeped in
Neoplatonism. Yet its goal, and its result, was to thoroughly18

INTRO D UCTION

transform such Neoplatonism, to open it up to quite new linesof development, far removed from those of emanation, even
where the two themes were both present. I would further claimthat emanation hardly helps us understand the idea of expression,
but that the idea of expression explains how Neoplatonism devel­
oped to the point where its very nature changed, explains, in par­ticular, how emanative causes tended more and more to become
immanent ones.
Some recent commentators have directly considered the ideaof expression in Spinoza. Kaufmann sees in it a guiding threadthrough the "Spinozist labyrinth, " but he insists upon the mysti. cal and aesthetic character of the notion in general, independentlyof the use made of it by Spinoza. �8 Darbon, from a different view­
point, devotes a fine passage to expression, but finally judges it
incomprehensible: "To explain the unity of substance, Spinoza
tells us only that each attribute expresses its essence. The expla­
nation, far from being any help, raises a host of difficulties. In thefirst place, what is expressed ought to be different from what ex­presses itself. . . ." And Darbon concludes that " Each attributeexpresses the eternal and infinite essence of God; again we can­not distinguish between what is expressed and what it expresses. One
sees how difficult a task the commentator faces, and how the ques­tion of the relations between Spinozist substance and attributes
could have given rise to so many divergent interpretations. "19
One can, though, explain this difficulty: The idea of expres­sion is neither defined nor deduced by Spinoza, nor could it be.
It appears as early as the sixth Definition, but is there no moredefined than it serves to define anything. It defines neither sub­stance nor attribute, since these are already defined (Definitions

3 and 4 ). Nor God, who might equally well be defined without
reference to expression. Thus in the Short Treatise and in his cor­
respondence Spinoza often calls God a substance consisting of an
19

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I L O SO P H Y:

S P I N O ZA

infinity o f attributes, each o f which is infinite . 20 S o the idea ofexpression seems to emerge only as determining the relation into
which attribute, substance and essence enter, once God for hispart is defined as a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes
that are themselves infinite . Expression does not relate to sub­stance or attributes in general , in the abstract. When substanceis absolutely infinite, when it has an infinity of attributes, then,and only then, are its attributes said to express its essence, for only
then does substance express itself in its attributes. It would bewrong to invoke Definitions 3 and 4 in order to deduce directlyfrom them the relation between substance and attribute in God,because God himself " transforms" their relation, rendering it
absolute. Definitions 3 and 4 are merely nominal, the sixth Defini­tion alone is a real one, with real consequences for substance, attri­bute and essence. But what is this "transformation of relations"?
We will better understand it if we consider why expression is no
more deduced than it is defined.
To Tschimhaus, worried about the famous sixteenth Propo­
sition of Part One of the Ethics, Spinoza concedes the important
point that there is a fundamental difference between philosoph­
ical demonstration and mathematical proof. 2 1 From a definitiona mathematician can normally deduce only a single property ofthe obj ect defined; to know several properties he must introduce
new points of view and relate "the thing defined to other objects."
Geometrical method is thus doubly limited, by the externalityof its viewpoints and the distributive character of the properties
it investigates. This was just Hegel's point as, thinking of Spinoza,
he insisted that geometrical method was unable to frame theorganic movement or self-development that is alone appropriate
to the Absolute . Consider for example the proof that the sumof the angles of a triangle is equal to two right angles, where
one begins by extending the base of the triangle . The base is20

I N T R O D U C T I O N

hardly like some plant that grows by itself: it takes a mathemati­
cian to extend it, just as it is the mathematician who considers
from a new point of view the side of the triangle to which hedraws a line parallel, and so on. We cannot imagine that Spinoza
was unaware of such objections, for they are just those made by
Tschirnhaus.
Spinoza's reply may at first seem disappointing: he says thatwhen the geometrical method is applied to real entities, and afortiori, when applied to absolute Being, then we are able todeduce several properties at once. One might well think that
Spinoza is taking for granted just what is in question. But we aredisappointed only to the extent that we confuse two very differ­ent problems of method. Spinoza asks: Is there not some way thatvarious properties deduced independently might be taken to­gether, and various points of view extrinsic to a given definition
brought within what is defined? Now, in the Correction of theUnderstandin9, Spinoza had shown that geometrical figures may
be defined genetically, or by a proximate cause.22 A circle is not
only the locus of points equally distant from a fixed point called
the center, but also the figure described by the moving endpointof any line whose other endpoint is fixed. Similarly, a sphere isa figure described by the rotation of any semicircle about its
axis. Of course such causes are in geometry fictitious: finao ad
libitum. As Hegel would say- and Spinoza would agree- a semi­
circle doesn't rotate by itself. But if such causes are fictitious or
imaginary, it is because their only reality comes by inference fromtheir supposed effects. They are seen as heuristic devices, as con­trived, as fictions, because the figures to which they relate arethings of reason. It is nonetheless true that properties that are
deduced independently by the mathematician, take on a collec­
tive being through these causes, by means of these fictions.23
W hen we come to the Absolute, however, there is no longer any
21

E X PRE S S IONI S M IN PHI L O S OPHY:S PINOZA

fiction: cause is no longer inferred from effect. In taking Abso­lute Infinity as a cause, we are not postulating, as for a rotating
semicircle, something that lies outside its concept. It involves
no fiction to consider modes in their infinite variety as proper­
ties jointly deduced from the definition of substance, and attri­butes as points of view internal to the substance on which they
are so many views. So that if philosophy is amenable to mathe­
matical treatment, this is because mathematics finds its usual limi­
tations overcome in philosophy. No problem is posed by theapplication of geometrical method to the Absolute; rather doesit there f ind the natural way to overcome the difficulties thatbeset it, while applied to things of reason.
Attributes are like points of view on substance; but in theabsolute limit these points of view are no longer external, andsubstance contains within itself the infinity of its points of view
upon itself. Its modes are deduced from substance as propertiesare deduced from a thing's definition; but in the absolute limit,
these properties take on an infinite collective being. It is nolonger a matter of finite understanding deducing properties sin­gly, reflecting on its object and explicating it by relating it toother objects. It is now the object that expresses itself, the thingitself that explicates itself. All its properties then jointly "fallwithin an infinite understanding." So that there is no question of
deducing Expression: rather is it expression that embeds deduc­tion in the Absolute, renders proof the direct manifestation ofabsolutely infinite substance. One cannot understand attributes
without proof, which is the manifestation of the invisible, andthe view within which falls what thus manifests itself. Thus
demonstrations, says Spinoza, are the eyes through which themind sees.24·g

22P A R T ON E

T h e Tr iad so f

Sub s ta n c e

CHAPTER ONE
Numerical andRealD i s t i n c t i on

Expression presents us with a triad. In it we must distinguish sub­stance, attributes and essence. Substance expresses itself, attri­butes are expressions, and essence is expressed. The idea ofexpression remains unintelligible while we see only two of theterms whose relations it presents. We confuse substance and attri­bute, attribute and essence, essence and substance, as long as we
fail to take into account the presence of a third term linking eachpair. Substance and attribute are distinct, but only insofar as each
attribute expresses a certain essence. Attribute and essence are
distinct, but only insofar as every essence is expressed as an
essence of substance, rather than of attribute. The originality of
the concept of expression shows itself here: essence, insofar as
it has existence, has no existence outside the attribute in which
it is expressed; and yet, as essence, it relates only to substance.
An essence is expressed by each attribute, but this as an essenceof substance itself. Infinite essences are distinguished through theattrib utes in which they find expression, but are identified in thesubstance to which they relate. We every where confront thenecessity of distinguishing three terms: substance which expresses
itself, the attribute which expresses, and the essence which isexpressed. It is through attributes that essence is distinguishedT H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

from substance, but through essence that substance is itself dis­tinguished from attributes: a triad each of whose terms serves asa middle term relating the two others, in three syllogisms.
Expression is inherent in substance , insofar as substance isabsolutely infinite; in its attributes, insofar as they constitute an
infinity; in essence, insofar as each essence in an attribute is infi­
nite. Thus infinity has a nature. Merleau-Ponty has well brought
out what seems to us now the most difficult thing to understandin the philosophies of the seventeenth century: the idea of a posi­tive infinity as the "secret of grand Rationalism" - "an innocent
way of setting out in one's thinking from infinity," which finds
its most perfect embodiment in Spinozism. 1 Innocence does notof course exclude the "labor of the concept." Spinoza needed all
the resources of a novel conceptual frame to bring out the power
and the actuality of positive infinity. If the idea of expression pro­vided this, it did so by introducing into infinity various distinc­
tions corresponding to the three terms, substance, attribute andessence. What is the character of distinction within infinity?
What sort of distinction can one introduce into what is absolute,into the nature of God? Such is the first problem posed by theidea of expression, and it dominates Part One of the Ethics.

At the very beginning of the Ethics Spinoza asks how two things,
in the most general sense of the word, can be distinguished, andthen how two substances, in the precise sense of that word, must
be distinguished. The first question leads into the second, andthe answer to the second question seems unequivocal: if two"things" in general differ either by the attributes of their sub­stance, or by its modes , then two substances cannot differ inmode, but only in attribute. So that there cannot be two or more
substances of the same attribute . 2 There is no question that28

N U M E R I C A L

A N D

R E A LD I S T I N C T I O N

Spinoza is here setting out from a Cartesian framework, but whatmust be most carefully considered is just what he takes over from
Descartes , what he discards and , above all , what he takes overfrom Descartes in order to turn it against him.
The principle that there are only substances and modes, modes
being in something else, and substance in itself, may be foundquite explicitly in Descartes. 3 And if modes always presuppose asubstance, and are sufficient to give us knowledge of it, they doso through a primary attribute which they imply, and which con­stitutes the essence of the substance itself. Thus two or more sub­stances are distinguished and distinctly known through theirprimary attributes. 4 From this Descartes deduces that we can con­ceive a real distinction between two substances , a modal distinc­tion between a substance and a mode that presupposes it (without
in turn being presupposed by i t ) and a distinction of reason
between a substance and the attribute without which we could
have no distinct knowledge of the substance . 5 Exclusion, unilat­eral implication and abstraction correspond to these as criteria
applicable to corresponding ideas, or rather as the elementary
data of representation• which allow us to define and recognize
these varieties of distinction. The characterization and applica­tion of these kinds of distinction play a crucial part in the elabo­
ration of the Cartesian system . Descartes no doubt drew on theearlier efforts made by Suarez to bring order into this compli­
cated area, 6 but his own use of the three distinctions seems, in
its very richness, to introduce many further ambiguities.
An initial ambiguity, admitted by Descartes, concerns the dis­tinction of reason, modal distinction and the relation between
them. The ambiguity comes out in the use of the words "mode,""attribute" and "quality" themselves. Any given attribute is aquality, in that it qualifies a substance as this or that, but also a
mode, in that it diversifies it. 7 How do primary attributes appear

T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

in this light? I cannot separate a substance from such an attributeexcept by abstraction; but as long as I do not make it something
subsisting by itself, I can also distinguish such an attribute fromthe substance, by considering it just as the substance's propertyof changing ( o f having, that is to say, various different shapes
or different thoughts ) . Thus Descartes says that extension andthought may be distinctly conceived in two ways: "insofar as one
constitutes the nature of body, and the other that of the soul";
and also through distinguishing each from their substance, by tak­ing them simply as "modes" or "dependents!'8 Now, if in the firstcase attributes distinguish the substances that they qualifY, thenit surely appears, in the second case, that modes distinguish sub­stances with the same attribute. Thus different shapes may bereferred to this or that body, really distinct from any other; anddifferent thoughts to really distinct souls. An attribute constitute�the essence of the substance it qualifies, but this doesn't prevent
it from also constituting the essence of the modes which it links
to substances sharing the same attribute. This dual aspect gener­
ates major difficulties in the Cartesian system.9 Let it suffice here
to note the conclusion that there exist substances sharina the same
attribute. In other words, there are numerical distinctions that areat the same time real or substantial.
A second difficulty concerns real distinction considered alone.
It is, no less than the other forms, a datum of representation. Twothings are really distinct if one can conceive one of them clearlyand distinctly while excluding everything belonging to the con­
cept of the other. So that Descartes explains the criterion of real
distinction to Arnauld as the completeness of the idea alone. He
can quite rightly claim never to have confused things conceived
as really distinct with really distinct things; and yet the passage
from one to the other does appear to him to be perfectly legiti­
mate - the question is, where to make this passage. In the prog30

N U M E R I CA L A N D

R E A L ·ol S T I N C T I O N

ress of the Meditations we need only proceed as far as a divine
Creator to see that he would be singularly lacking in truthfulness
if he were to create things differing from the clear and distinct
ideas he gives us of them . Real distinction does not containwithin it the ground of things differing, but this ground is fur­nished by the external and transcendent divine causality that cre­ates substances conformably to our manner of conceiving themas possible. Here again, all sorts of difficulties develop in rela­tion to the idea of creation. The primary ambiguity attaches tothe definition of substance : "A thing that can exist by itself:' I O Is
there not a contradiction in presenting existing-by-itself as itself
being simply a possibility? Here we may note a second conclu­
sion: God as creator effects our passage from substances conceived
as really distinct to really distinct substances. Real distinction,
whether between substances with different attributes, or thosewith the same attribute, brinns with it a division of thinns, that is,a correspondinB numerical distinction.
The opening of the Ethics is organized around these two Car­tesian conclusions. Where lies the error, Spinoza asks, in suppos­
ing several substances sharing the same attribute? He refutes theerror in two ways, using a favorite style of argument: first througha reductio ad absurdum, and then through a more complex proof.
If there were several substances with the same attribute, theywould have to be distinguished by their modes, which is absurd,
since substance is in its very nature anterior to its modes, noneof which it implies ( this is the short way, taken at 1 . 5 ). The posi­tive demonstration comes further on, in a scholium to Proposi­tion 8: two substances with the same attribute would be only
numerically distinct - and the character of numerical distinction
is such as to exclude the possibility of making of it a real or sub­stantial distinction.
According to the Scholium, a distinction would not be numer31

T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

ical if the things distinguished did not have the same concept ordefinition; but in that case the things would not be distinct, were
there not an external cause, beside the definition, which deter­
mined that they exist in such a number. So that two or more
numerically distinct things presuppose something outside theirconcept. Thus substances could only be numerically distinct
through the operation of some external causality that could pro­
duce them. But only by holding conj ointly a number of confusedideas can we claim that substances are produced. We say they
have a cause, but that we do not know how this cause operates;
we imagine that we have a true idea of these substances, since
they are conceived in themselves, but we are unsure of the truthof this idea, because we do not know, from the substances them­selves, whether they exist. This amounts to a criticism of the
odd Cartesian formula "what can exist by itself." External cau­sality does make sense, but only in relation to the existence offinite modes: every existing mode may be referred to another,
precisely because it cannot exist by itself. To apply such causal­
ity to substance is to make it operate outside the terms that legiti­
mate and define it - to propose its operation in a sort of void,and quite indeterminately. In short, external causality and numer­
ical distinction share the same fate of applying to modes , andto modes alone.
The argument of Scholium 8 has, then, the following form :( 1 ) Numerical distinction requires an external cause to which it
may be referred ; ( 2 ) But a substance cannot be referred to an
external cause, because of the contradiction implied in such a
use of causal principles; ( 3 ) So two or more substances cannot be
distinguished in numero, and there cannot be two substances withthe same attribute. The structure of the argument here differsfrom that of the first eight proofs, which runs: ( 1 ) Two or more
substances cannot share the same attribute, for they would then32

N U M E R I C A L

A N D

R E A LD I S T I N C T I O N

have to be distinguished by their modes, which is absurd; ( 2 ) So
that a substance cannot have a cause external to it, for to be pro­
duced or limited by another substance it would have to share thesame nature or the same attribute; ( 3) So that there cannot be
numerical distinction in any substance, of whatever attribute, and"Every substance must be infinite." ll
On the one hand, one deduces from the nature of numericaldistinction that it is inapplicable to substance; on the other, one
deduces from the nature of substance its infinity, and thus theimpossibility of applying to it numerical distinctions. In either
case, numerical distinction can never distinguish substances, but
only modes that involve the same attribute. For number expresses
in its own way the character of existing modes: the composite
nature of their parts, their limitation by other things of the same
nature, their determination from outside themselves. Number
thus goes on ad infinitum. But the question is, can it ever reach
infinity itself? Or, as Spinoza puts it: even in the case of modes,
is it from the multitude of parts that we infer their infinity?12
When we make of numerical distinction a real or substantial dis­tinction, we carry it to infinity, if only to ensure the convertibil­
ity that then becomes necessary between the attribute as suchand the infinity of finite parts which we distinguish in it. Greatabsurdities then follow: "If an infinite quantity is measured byparts equal to a foot, it will consist of an infinitely many suchparts, as it will also, if it is measured by parts equal to an inch.
And therefore, one infinite number will be twelve times greaterthan another."13 The absurdity does not, as Descartes thought,lie in hypostatizing extension as an attribute, but rather in con­ceiving it as measurable and composed of finite parts into which
one supposes it convertible. Physics here intervenes to support
the principles of logic: the absence of a vacuum in nature means
simply that division into parts is not real distinction. Numerical33

T H ET R I A D SDFS U B S TA N C E

distinction is division, but division takes place only in modes,
only modes are divisible.t4

There cannot be several substances with the same a ttribu te. From
which one may infer: from the viewpoint of relation, that one
substance is not produced by another; from the viewpoint ofmodality, that it belongs to the nature of substance to exist;
and from the viewpoint of quality, that any substance is neces­sarily infinite. lS But all these results are, so to speak , involvedin the argument relating to numerical distinction, and it is thelatter that brings us back around to our starting point: "Thereexists only one substance of the same attribute ! ' 16 Then, from
Proposition 9 on, Spinoza's obj ective seems to shift . I t is nolonger a question of demonstrating that there is only one sub­stance for each attribute, but that there is only one substancefor all attributes. The passage from one theme to the next seems
difficult to grasp. For, in this new perspective, what implication
should be assigned to the first eight propositions? The problem
is clarified if we see that the passage from one theme to theother may be effected by what is called in logic the conversion
of a negative universal. Numerical distinction is never real; thenconversely, real distinction is never numerical . Spinoza's argu­
ment now becomes: attributes are really distinct; but real dis­tinction is never numerical ; so there is only one substance for
all attributes.
Spinoza says that attributes are "conceived to be really dis­tinct:'17 One should not see in this formulation a weakened senseof real distinction. Spinoza is neither suggesting that attributes
are other than we conceive them, nor that they are just concep­
tions we have of substance. Nor indeed should we think that heis making a purely hypothetical or polemical use of real distinc34

N U M ER I C A L

A N D RE A L

D I S T I N C T ION

tion. 1 8 Real distinction, i n the strictest sense, i s always a datumof representation. Two things are really distinct when they areso conceived - that is, " one without the aid of the other," in sucha way that we conceive one while denying everything belonging
to the concept of the other. In this respect there is no disagree­
ment whatever with Descartes: Spinoza accepts both his criter­
ion and his definition. The only thing at issue is whether real
distinction thus understood is, or is not, attended by a real divi­
sion among things. For Descartes, only the assumption of a divine
creator sustained such association. According to Spinoza, one canonly make division correspond to a real distinction by makingof the latter at least a potential numerical distinction, that is, byconfusing it with modal distinction. But real distinction cannot
be numerical or modal.
When Spinoza is asked how he comes to the idea of a single
substance for all attributes, he points out that he has put forward
two arguments: the more reality a being has, the more attributes
must be ascribed to it; and the more attributes we ascribe to abeing, the more we must accord it existence. 19 But no such argu­
ment would suffice were it not supported by the analysis of real
distinction. Only that analysis, in fact, shows it to be possible toascribe all attributes to one being, and so to pass from the infin­
ity of each attribute to the absoluteness of a being that possesses
them all . And this passage, being possible, or implying no con­tradiction, is then seen to be necessary, as in the proof of God's
existence. Furthermore, it is the same argument over real dis­tinction which shows that all the attributes amount to an infin­
ity. For we cannot pass through j ust three or four attributes
without bringing back into the absolute the same numerical dis­tinction which we have just excluded from infinity.20
If substance were to be divided according to its attributes, itwould have to be taken as a genus, and the attributes as specific35

T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

differences. Substance would be posited as a genus which would
tell us nothing in particular about anything. It would differ fromits attributes , as a genus from its differentia, and the attributes
would be distinct from corresponding substances, as specificdifferences are distinct from the species themselves. Thus, bymaking of the real distinction between attributes a numerical dis­tinction between substances, one carries over mere distinctionsof reason into substantial reality. There can be no necessity ofexistence in a substance of the same "species" as an attribute a specific difference determines only the possible existence ofobjects corresponding to it within the genus. So substance is once
more reduced to the mere possibility of existence, with attributes
being nothing but an indication, a sign, of such possible existence.
The first critique to which Spinoza subjects the notion of signin the Ethics appears precisely in relation to real distinction.21
Real distinction between attributes is no more the "sign" of adiversity of substances than each attribute is the specific charac­
ter of some substance that corresponds, or might correspond, toit. Substance is not a genus, nor are attributes differentia, nor are
qualified substances species.22 Spinoza condemns equally a think­ing that proceeds by genus and differentia, and a thinking thatproceeds by signs.
Regis, in a book in which he defends Descartes against Spinoza,
invokes the existence of two sorts of attributes: "specific" ones
which distinguish substances of different species, and "numerical"
ones which distinguish substances of the same species.23 But thisis just what Spinoza objects to in Cartesianism: according to him,
attributes are never specific or numerical . It seems we may sum
up Spinoza's thesis thus: ( 1 ) In positing several substances withthe same attribute we make of numerical distinction a real dis­tinction, but this is to confuse real and modal distinctions, treat­ing modes as substances; and ( 2 ) in positing as many substances

N U M E R I C A L

A N D

R E A LD I S T I N CT I O N

as there are different attributes we make of real distinction anumerical distinction, confusing real distinction not only withmodal distinction, but with distinctions of reason as well.
In this context it appears difficult to consider the first eight prop­
ositions as having only a hypothetical sense. Some proceed as though
Spinoza began by arguing on the basis of a hypothesis that hedidn't accept, as if setting out from a hypothesis that he intended
to refute. But this misses the categorical sense of the first eight
propositions. There are not several substances of the same attri­bute, and numerical distinction is not real : we are not here
confronting a provisional hypothesis, valid up to the point where
we discover absolutely infinite substance, but have before us,
rather, a development that leads us inevitably to posit such a sub­stance. And the categorical sense of the initial propositions is not
merely negative. As Spinoza says, "there exists only one substanceof a certain nature!' The identification of an attribute as belong­
ing to an infinitely perfect substance is, in the Ethics as in the
Short Treatise, no provisional hypothesis, but should be interpreted
positively from the viewpoint of quality. There is one substance
per attribute from the viewpoint of quality, but one single sub­stance for all attributes from the viewpoint of quantity. What is
the sense of this purely qualitative multiplicity? The obscure for­mulation reflects the difficulties of a finite understanding rising
to the comprehension of absolutely infinite substance, and is jus­tified by the new status of real distinction. It means: substances
as qualified are qualitatively, but not quantitatively, distinct - or
to put i t better, they are "formall y, " "quidditativel y, " and not"ontologically" distinct.

One of the sources of Spinoza's Anticartesianism is to be foundin the theory of distinctions. In the Metaphysical Thoughts he sets37

T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

out the Cartesian conception: "There are three kinds of distinc­tion between things, real , modal , and of reason." And he seems
to give his approval : "For the rest, we pay no attention to thehodgepodge of Peripatetic distinctions ." 24 But what counts is
not so much the list of accepted distinctions, but their meaningand precise application. In this respect Spinoza retains nothing
Cartesian. The new status of real distinction is fundamental: as
purely qualitative , quidditative or formal , real distinction ex­
cludes any division. Yet isn't this j ust one of those apparently
discredited Peripatetic distinctions returning under a Cartesianname? That real distinction is not and cannot be numericalappears to me to be one of the principal themes of the Ethics.
This thoroughly upsets the other distinctions. Not only is real
distinction no longer referred to numerically distinguished pos­sible substances, but modal distinction, in its turn, is no longer
referred to accidents as continaent determinations. In Descartes
a certain contingency of modes echoes the simple possibility of
substances. It's all very well for Descartes to insist that accidents
are not real , but substantial reality still has accidents. To be pro­
duced, modes require something other than the substance towhich they relate - either another substance that impresses
them in the first, or God who creates the first along with all that
depends on it. Spinoza's view is quite different: there is no morea contingency of modes in relation to substance than a possibil­
ity of substance in relation to attributes. Everything is neces­sary, either from its essence or from its cause: Necessity is the
only affection of Being, the only modality. And the distinctionof reason is, in turn, thereby transformed. We will see that there
is no Cartesian axiom (Nothing has no properties, and so on)that does not take on a new meaning, hostile to Cartesianism ,on the basis of the new theory of distinctions . The theory has asits fundamental principle the qualitative status of real distinc-

N U M E R I C A L

A N D

R E A LD I S T I N C T I O Ntion. Detached from all numerical distinction, real distinction
is carried into the absolute, and becomes capable of expressing
difference within Being, so bringing about the restructuring ofother distinctions.

39

C H A P T E R Tw o
Attribute as Expression

Spinoza doesn't say that attributes exist of themselves, nor thatthey are conceived in such a way that existence follows or resultsfrom their essence. Nor again does he say that an attribute is in
itself and conceived through itself, like substance. ! The status of
the attributes is sketched in the highly complex formulations of
the Short Treatise. So complex, indeed, that various hypotheses
are open to the reader: to assume various different dates of com­position; to recognize the undeniably imperfect state of the man­uscripts; or even to advert to the still hesitant state of Spinoza's
thought. Such arguments are, however, only relevant once weadmit that the formulations of the Short Treatise are together
inconsistent, and inconsistent, furthermore, with the later matterof the Ethics. But this does not seem to be the case. The relevant
passages of the Short Treatise are not so much supplanted by the
Ethics as transformed - and this through a more systematic useof the idea of expression. So that, conversely, they may serve toclarify the conceptual component of Spinoza's thought that is
informed by this idea of expression.
These passages say, in tum: ( 1 ) "Existence belongs to the es­
sence of the attributes,• so that outside them• there is no essenceor being"; ( 2 ) "We understand them only in their essence, and not
41

T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

in their existence, i.e. [we do not understand] that their essencenecessarily belongs to their existence"; "you do not conceive ofthemb as existing by themselves"; ( 3) They exist "formally" and"in act"; "we prove a priori that they exist."2
According to the first formulation, essence as essence has no
existence outside the attributes that constitute it. So that essence
distinguishes itself in the attributes in which it has existence . It
always exists in a genus - in as many genera as there are attri­butes. Each attribute, then, becomes the existence of an eternal
and infinite essence, a "particular essence."3 Spinoza can thus saythat it belongs to the essence of attributes to exist, but to exist,
precisely, in the attributes. Or even: "The existence of the attri­butes does not differ from their essence."4 The idea of expres­sion, in the Ethics, adapts this initial step: the essence of substancehas no existence outside the attributes that express it, so thateach attribute expresses a certain eternal and infinite essence.
What is expressed has no existence outside its expressions; each
expression is, as it were, the existence of what is expressed. (Thisis the same principle one finds in Leibniz, however different thecontext: each monad is an expression of the world, but the world
therein expressed has no existence outside the monads that
express it. )How can one say that the attributes express not only a certain
essence, but the essence of substance? This essence is expressedas the essence of substance, and not that of an attribute. Essences
are thus distinct in the attributes in which they have their exist­
ence, but amount only to one single essence of substance. The
rule of convertibility states that every essence is the essence ofsomething. Essences are really distinct from the viewpoint of theattributes, but essence is single from the viewpoint of the obj ect
with which it is convertible . Attributes are not attributed tocorresponding substances of the same genus or species as them-

AT T R I B U T E

A S

E X P R E S S I O N

selves; rather do they attribute their essence to something else,
which thus remains the same for all attributes. So that Spinoza
can go so far as to say: " I f no existence follows from any sub­stance's essence if it is conceived separately, it follows that it is
not something singular, but must be something that is an attri­bute of another, viz. the one, unique, universal being . . . . So noreal substance can be conceived in itself; instead it must belong
to something else."5 All existing essences are thus expressed by theattributes in which they have existence , but this as the essenceof something else - that is, of one and the same thing for all attri­butes. We can then ask: What is it that exists through itself, insuch a way that its existence follows from its essence? This isclearly substance , the correlate of essence, rather than the attri­bute in which essence has existence solely as essence. The exist­
ence of essence should not be confused with the existence of its
correlate. All existing essences relate or are attributable to sub­stance, and this inasmuch as substance is the only being whose
existence necessarily follows from its essence. Substance is priv­
ileged to exist through itself: it is not the attribute that exists
through itself, but that to which the essence of each attribute
relates, in such a way that existence necessarily follows from theessence thus constituted. So Spinoza may perfectly consistently
say of the attributes : "We conceive them only in their essence,and not in their existence ; we do not conceive them in such a
way that their existence follows from their essence." This second
sort of formulation does not contradict the previous one, butrather gives a measure of the deepening of a question, or a change
in perspective on it.
What is expressed has no existence outside its expression,
but is expressed as the essence of what expresses itself. Onceagain we face the necessity of distinguishing three terms: sub­stance which expresses itself, attributes which are its expressions,43T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

and the essence which is expressed. Yet if attributes do indeed
express the essence of substance, how is it that they do not also
express the existence that necessarily follows from it? These same
attributes to which an existence in themselves is refused havenonetheless, as attributes , an actual and necessary existence.
Furthermore, in demonstrating that something is an attribute,
we demonstrate, a priori, its existence. So the diverse formula­tions of the Short Treatise should be interpreted as relating inturn to the existence of essence, the existence of substance and theexistence of the attribute itself. And it is the idea of expression that,in the Ethics, combines these three moments and gives them asystematic form .

The problem of divine attributes had always been closely related
to that of divine names. How could we name God, had we notsome sort of knowledge of him? But how could we know him,
unless he made himself known in some way, revealing and ex­pressing himself? It is a God who speaks, the divine Word, who
seals the alliance of attributes and names. Names are attributes,
insofar as attributes are expressions. True, the whole question isthen that of knowing what they express: the very nature of God
as it is in itself, or only the actions of God as Creator, or evenjust extrinsic divine qualities, relative to creatures? Spinoza does
not fail to bring in this traditional problem . He is too good agrammarian to overlook the connection between names and attri­butes. In the Theologico-Political Treatise he asks under what names,or by which attributes, God reveals himself in Scripture: asks
what it is for God to speak, what expressive character should beseen in the voice of God. And when he wants to illustrate what
he personally understands by an attribute, he thinks of the exam­ple of proper names: "By I srael I understand the third patriarch;
44

AT T R I B U T E

ASE X P R E S S I O N

I understand the same by Jacob, the name which was given him
because he had seized his brother's heel !'6 The relation of Spin­ozism to the theory of naming must be considered in two aspects.
How does Spinoza fit in this tradition? But above all how does
he renew it? One may already foresee that he renews it doubly:
by an alternative conception of names or attributes, and by analternative determination of what an attribute is.
Attributes are for Spinoza dynamic and active forms . And
here at once we have what seems essential : attributes are nolonger attributed, but are in some sense "attributive!' Each attri­bute expresses an essence, and attributes it to substance. All theattributed essences coalesce in the substance of which they are
the essence. As long as we conceive the attribute as something
attributed, we thereby conceive a substance of the same species
or genus; such a substance then has in itself only a possible exist­
ence, since it is dependent on the goodwill of a transcendent God
to give it an existence conforming to the attribute through which
we know it. On the other hand, as soon as we posit the attributeas "attributive" we conceive it as attributing its essence to some­thing that remains identical for all attributes , that is, to neces­sarily existing substance. The attribute refers his essence to an
immanent God who is the principle and the result of a metaphys­
ical necessity. Attributes are thus truly Words in Spinoza, withexpressive value: they are dynamic, no longer attributed to vary­
ing substances, but attributing something to a unique substance.
But what do they attribute, what do they express? Each attri­bute attributes an infinite essence, that is, an unlimited quality.
And these qualities are substantial , because they all qualify an
identical substance possessing all the attributes. So there are two
ways of identifying what is an attribute: either one looks, a priori,
for qualities conceived as unlimited, or, setting out from what
is limited, one looks, a posteriori, for qualities that may be taken
45

T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

to infinity, which are as it were "involved" in the limits of thefinite - from this or that thought we deduce Thought as an infi­
nite attribute of God, from this or that body we deduce Exten­
sion as an infinite attribute. 7
The latter, a posteriori, method, should be studied closely, forit presents the problem of the involvement of infinity in its
entirety. It amounts to giving us a knowledge of the divine attri­butes which begins from that of "creatures!' But its way is not
through abstraction or analogy. Attributes are not abstracted fromparticular things , still less transferred to God analogically. A ttri­butes are reached directly as forms of beinB common to creatures and
to God, common to modes and to substance. One can easily enoughsee the supposed danger of such a method: anthropomorphism
and, more generally, the confusion of finite and infinite. An ana­
logical method sets out explicitly to avoid anthropomorphism :according to Aquinas, qualities attributed to God imply no com­munity of form between divine substance and creatures, but only
an analogy, a "congruenc e" of proportion or proportionality. In_
some cases God formally possesses a perfection that remains
extrinsic for creatures, in some cases he eminently possesses a
perfection that is formally congruent with that perfection in crea­tures. The significance of Spinozism may here be judged by theway in which it inverts the problem . Whenever we proceed byanalogy we borrow from creatures certain characteristics in order
to attribute them to God either equivocally or em inently. Thus
God has Will, Understanding, Goodness, Wisdom and so on, but
has them equivocally or eminently.s Analogy cannot do withoutequivocation or eminence, and hence contains a subtle anthro­pomorphism, just as dangerous as the naive variety. It is obviousthat a triangle, could it speak, would say that God was eminently
triangular. The analogical method denies that there are forms
common to God and to creatures but, far from escaping the mis-

AT T R I B U T E

ASE X P R E S S I O Ntake it denounces, it constantly confuses the essences of creatureswith the essence of God. In some cases it does away with theessence of particular things, reducing their qualities to determi­
nations that can belong intrinsically only to God, in some cases
it does away with the essence of God, lending to him eminently
what creatures possess formally. Spinoza, on the other hand,insists on the identity of form between creatures and God, while
permitting no confusion of essence.
Attributes constitute the essence of substance, but in no sense
constitute the essence of modes or of creatures. Yet they are forms
common to both , since creatures imply them both in their own
essence and in their existence. Whence the importance of therule of convertibility: the essence is not only that without whicha thing can neither be nor be conceived, but is conversely thatwhich cannot be nor be conceived outside the thing. It is inaccordance with this rule that attributes are indeed the essenceof substance, but are in no sense that of modes, such as man: theycan very easily be conceived outside their modes.9 It remains thatmodes involve or imply them, and imply them precisely in the form
belonging to them insofar as they constitute the essence of God. Whichamounts to saying that attributes in their turn contain or com­prehend the essences of modes, and this formally, not eminently.

Attributes are thus forms common to God, whose essence they consti­tute, and to modes or creatures which imply them essentially. The sameforms may be asserted of God and of creatures, even though God
and creatures differ in both essence and existence. The difference
consists precisely in this , that modes are only comprehended
under these forms, while God, on the other hand, is convertible
with them. But such a difference does not impinge on the for­mal reason of the attribute taken as such.
Spinoza is very conscious of his originality here� On the grounds
that creatures differ from God both in essence and existence, it
47

T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

was claimed that God had nothing in common with creatures for­mally. But in fact quite the reverse is the case: the same attributes
are predicated of God who explicates himself in them , and ofmodes which imply them - imply them in the same form inwhich they are congruent with God. Furthermore, as long as one
refuses community of form , one is condemned to confuse theessences of creatures and God through analogy. As soon as one
posits community of form, one has the means of distinguishingthem. Spinoza can thus pride himself not only on having reduced
to the status of creatures things that had previously been consid­
ered as attribute ; of God, but on having at the same time raised
to the status of divine attributes things that had before him been
considered as creatures, lO As a rule Spinoza sees no contradiction
between the assertion of a community of form and the positingof a distinction of essences. In adj acent passages he says : ( 1 ) If
things have nothing in common, one cannot be the cause of theother; ( 2 ) If a thing is cause of both the essence and existence ofanother, then it must differ from it both in the ground of its
essence, and in that of its existence. 1 1 The matter of reconcilingthese two passages does not seem to me to raise any particular
problem in Spinozism. Spinoza is himself taken aback that his cor­
respondents should be taken aback, and reminds them that hehas every ground for saying both that creatures differ from God
in essence and existence, and that God has something in com­
mon with creatures formally. 12
Spinoza's method is neither abstract nor analogical . I t is aformal method based on community, working with common
notions. And the whole of Spinoza's theory of common notions
finds its principle precisely in this status of the attribute. If one
is to give a name to this method, as to the underlying theory, it
is easy to recognize here the great tradition of univocity. I believethat Spinoza 's philosophy remains in part unintelli&ible if one does not

AT T R I B U T E

ASE X P R E S S I O N

see in it a constant struggle against the three notions of equivocation,eminence and analogy. The attributes are, according to Spinoza,
univocal forms of being which do not change their nature inchanging their "subj ect" - that is, when predicated of infinite
being and finite beings, substance and modes, God and creatures.
I believe it takes nothing away from Spinoza's originality to place
him in a perspective that may already be found in Duns Scotus .
The analysis of how Spinoza for his part interprets the notion of
univocity, how he understands it in an altogether different way
from Duns Scotus , must be postponed until later. It will sufficefor the moment to bring together the primary determinations of
the attribute. Attributes are infinite forms of being, unlimited,
ultimate, irreducible formal reasons; these forms are common to
God whose essence they constitute, and to modes which in theirown essence imply them. Attributes are Words expressing unlim­
ited qualities; these qualities are as it were involved in the limitsof the finite. Attributes are expressions of God; these expressionsof God are univocal, constituting the very nature of God as natura
naturans, and involved in the nature of things or natura naturata
which, in a certain way, re-expresses them in its turn.

Spinoza is able on this basis to distinguish attributes and propria.
His starting point is Aristotelian: a proprium is what belongs t<Y athing, but can never explain what it is. Thus the propria of God
are just "adj ectives" which give us no substantial knowledge; God
would not be God without them , but is not God through them. 13

Spinoza could, in accordance with a long tradition, give to thesepropria the name of attribute ; but there would then still b e ,according to him , a difference of nature between two sorts o f
attribute. But what does Spinoza mean, when h e adds that the
propria of God are only "modes which may be attributed to49

T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

him"?14 Mode should not here be taken in the particular sense
often given to it by Spinoza, but in the more general scholastic
sense of a "modality of essence !' Infinite, perfect, immutable,
eternal are propria that may be predicated of all attributes. Omnis­
cient, omnipresent are propria predicated of a particular attribute(Thought, Extension) . All attributes express the essence of sub­stance; each attribute expresses an essence of substance. But
propria express nothing: "Through these propria we can know nei­
ther what the being to which these belong is, nor what attributes
it has."t5 They do not constitute the nature of substance, but are
predicated of what constitutes that nature. So they do not form
the essence of Being, but only a modality of that essence as
already formed. Infinite is the proprium of substance, that is, themodality of each of the attributes that constitute its essence.
Omniscient is the proprium of thinking substance, that is, the infi­
nite modality of that attribute, Thought, which expresses anessence of substance. Propria are not properly speaking attributes,
precisely because they are not expressive. Rather are they like
"impressed notions," like characters imprinted, either in all attri­butes, or in some one or other of them. The opposition of attri­bute and proprium turns then on two points. Attributes are Words
expressing substantial essences or qualities, while propria are only
adj ectives indicating a modality of those essences or qualities .
God's attributes are common forms, common to substance whichis their converse, and to modes which imply them without being
convertible with them, while God's propria are truly proper toGod, not being predicable of modes, but only of attributes .
A second category of propria relate to God as cause, insofar
as he acts or produces something: not as infinite, perfect, eter­nal, immutable, but as cause of all things, predestination, provi­
dence. 16 Now, since God produces things within his attributes,
these propria are subj ect to the same principle as the previoussoAT T R I B U T E

A S

E X P R E S S I O N

ones. Some are predicable of all attributes, others of one or otherof them. The second sort of propria are still adjectival, but insteadof indicating modalities, these indicate relations - God's relations
to his creatures or to his productions. Finally, a third category
embraces propria that do not even belong to God: God as summum
bonum, as compassionate, as j ust and charitable . !? Here it is pri­marily the Theologico-Political Treatise that clarifies the matter. The
treatise speaks of divine justice and charity as "attributes whicha certain manner of life will enable men to imitate ." I S These
propria do not belong to God as cause; it is no longer a question ofsome relation of God to his creatures, but of extrinsic determi­
nations which indiCate only the way in which creatures imagine
God. It is true that these denominations have extremely varia­
ble senses and values: they go so far as to give God eminence inall kinds of things - a divine mouth and eyes, moral qualities andsublime passions, mountains and heavens. But, even if we restrict
ourselves to j ustice and charity, we arrive at nothing of God's
nature, nor of his operations as Cause. Adam, Abraham and Moses
were ignorant not only of the true divine attributes, but also of
most of the propria of the first and second sort. 19 God revealed
himself to them under extrinsic denominations which served
them as warnings, commandments, rules and models of life. Morethan ever, it must be said that this third kind of proprium is in noway expressive . They are not divine expressions, but notions
impressed in the imagination to make us obey and serve a Godof whose nature we are ignorant.

51

CHAPTER THREE
Attributes andDivine Names

According to a long tradition, divine names relate to manifesta­
tions of God. Conversely, divine manifestations are a speechthrough which God makes himself known by some name or other.
So that it amounts to the same thing to ask whether the namesthat designate God are affirmations• or negations, or whether thequalities that manifest him and the attributes that belong to him
are positive or negative . The concept of expression, at once
speech and manifestation, light and sound, seems to have a logic
of its own which favors both alternatives. Sometimes one mayemphasize positivity, that is, the immanence of what is expressedin expression, sometimes "negativity," that is, the transcendenceof what expresses itself in relation to all expressions. What con­ceals also expresses, but what expresses still conceals. Thus it is
all a question of emphasis in the problem of divine names, or theattributes of God. That theology that is called negative admits
that affirmations are able to designate God as cause, subj ect torules of immanence which lead from what is nearest to what
is farthest from him . But God as substance or essence can be
defined only negatively, according to rules of transcendence
whereby one denies in their turn names that are farthest fromhim, then those that are nearest. And then suprasubstantial andT H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

superessential deity stands splendidly as far from all negation as
from all affirmation. Negative theology thus combines the nega­tive method with the affirmative, and claims to go beyond both.
How would one know what must be denied of God as essence,
if one didn't first of all know what one should affirm of him ascause? Negative theology can therefore only be defined by its
dynamics: one goes beyond affirmations in negations, and beyond
both affirmations and negations in a shadowy eminence.
A theology of more positive ambitions, such as that of SaintThomas, relies on analogy to ground new affirmative rules. Pos­
itive qualities do not merely indicate God as a cause, but belong
to him substantially, as long as they are treated analogically. That
God is good doesn't mean that God is not evil , nor that he is thecause of goodness; the truth is rather that what we call goodness
in creatures "preexists" in God in a higher modality that accords
with divine substance . Here once more, it is a dynamic thatdefines the new method. This dynamic, in its turn, maintains theforce of the negative and the eminent, but comprehends it within
analogy: one proceeds from a prior negation to a positive attri­bute, the attribute then applying to God formaliter eminenter. tBoth Arab and Jewish philosophy came up against the sameproblem. How could names apply not only to God as cause, but
to the essence of God? Must they be taken negatively, denied
according to certain rules? Must they be affirmed, according toother rules? If, though, we adopt the Spinozist viewpoint, both
approaches appear equally false, because the problem to which
they relate is itself an altogether false one.
Spinoza's tripartite division of propria obviously reproduces a
traditional classification of divine attributes: ( 1 ) symbolic denom­
inations, forms and figures, signs and rites, metonymies from thesensible to the divine; ( 2 ) attributes of action; ( 3) attributes of
essenc e . Take an ordinary list of divine attributes: goodness ,54

AT T R I B U T E S

A N D

D I V I N E

N A M E S

being, reason, life, intelligence, wisdom, virtue, beatitude, truth,
eternity; or greatness, love, peace, unity, perfection. It might beasked whether these attributes belong to the essence of God,
whether they must be understood as conditional affirmations, oras negations marking only the ablation of some privation. But
according to Spinoza, such questions do not arise, because thegreater part of these attributes are only propria. And the rest are
beings of reason. They express nothing of the nature of God,either negatively or positively. God is no more concealed in themthan expressed by them . Propria are neither negative nor affirma­
tive; one might say, in Kantian style, that they are indefinite.
When one confuses the divine nature with propria, one inevitably
has an idea of God that is itself indefinite . One then oscillates
between an eminent conception of negation and an analogicalconception of affirmation. Each, through its dynamic, implies
something of the other. One gets a false conception of negation
by introducing analogy into what is affirmed. And an affirmationthat is no longer univocal , no longer formally affirmed of its
obj ects, is no longer an affirmation.
It is one of Spinoza's principal theses that the nature of God
has never been defined, because it has always been confused withhis "propria!' This explains his attitude toward theologians. And
philosophers have in their turn followed the path of theology:
Descartes himself thought that the nature of God consisted in
infinite perfection. Infinite perfection, though, is only a modal­
ity of that which constitutes the divine nature. Only attributes
in the true sense of the word (Thought, Extension) are the con­stitutive elements of God, his constituent expressions, his affir­
mations, his positive and formal reasons, in a word, his nature.
But one then asks precisely why these attributes, with no inher­
ent tendency to concealment, should have been passed over, why
God was denatured by a confusion with the propria which gave55

T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

him an indefinite image . A reason must be found to explain why
Spinoza's predecessors, in spite of all their ingenuity, confinedthemselves to properties and were unable to discover the natureof God.
Spinoza's answer is simple: they lacked a historical , criticaland internal method capable of interpreting Scripture . 2 They
didn't ask about the plan of the sacred texts . They took them as
the Word of God, God's way of expressing himself. What the
texts said of God all seemed to be something "expressed," andwhat they didn't say seemed inexpressible . 3 It was never asked"does religious revelation relate to the nature of God?," "is its
end to make this nature known to us?," "is it amenable to thepositive or negative treatments whose application is supposed tocomplete the determination of this nature?" Revelation concerns,
in truth, only certain propria. It in no way sets out to make known
to us the divine nature and its attributes . What we find in Scrip­
ture is of course heterogeneous : here we have specific ritualteachings, there universal moral teachings; sometimes we evenfind speculative teaching - the minimum of speculation required
for moral teaching. But no attribute of God is ever revealed. Only
varying " signs , " extrinsic denominations that guarantee somedivine commandment. At best, "propria" such as divine existence,
unity, omniscience and omnipresence, which guarantee a moral
teaching.4 For the end of Scripture is to subj ect us to models oflife, to make us obey, and ground our obedience. So it would be
absurd to think that knowledge might be substituted for revela­
tion: how could the divine nature, were it known, serve as a prac­
tical rule in daily life? And still more absurd to believe thatrevelation makes known to us something of the nature or essenceof God. Yet this absurdity runs through all theology. And thereby
compromises philosophy as a whole. Sometimes the propria of reve­
lation are subjected to a special treatment that reconciles them

AT T R I B U T E S

A N D

D I V I N E

N A M ESwith reason; sometimes, even, propria of reason are found, dis­tinct from those of revelation. But this provides no way out of
theology; one still relies on properties to express the nature ofGod. One fails to appreciate the difference of nature between
them and true attributes. And God will always inevitably be emi­
nent in relation to his propria. Once one ascribes to them an
expressive value they do not have , one ascribes to divine sub­stance an inexpressible nature which it does not have either.
Revelation and expression: never was the effort to distinguish
two domains pushed further. Or to distinguish two heterogene­ous relations: that of sign and signified, that of expression andexpressed. A sign always attaches to a proprium ; it always signifies
a commandment; and it grounds our obedience. Expression always
relates to an attribute; it expresses an essence, that is, a nature in
the infinitive; it makes it known to us. So that the "Word of God"has two very different senses: an expressive Word, which has noneed of words or signs, but only of God's essence and man's
understanding; and an impressed, imperative Word, operating
through sign and commandment.h The latter is not expressive, but
strikes our imagination and inspires in us the required submis­
sion.s Should one say, at least, that commandments "express" thewishes of God? But that would in turn prejudge will as belong­
ing to the nature of God, take a being of reason, an extrinsic
determination, for a divine attribute. Any mixing of the twodomains is fatal . Whenever one takes a sign for an expression,
one sees mysteries everywhere , including, above all , Scripture
itself. Like the Jews who think that everything, unconditionally,
expresses God. 6 One then gets a mystical conception of expres­sion: it seems no less to conceal than to reveal what it expresses.
Enigmas, parables, symbols, analogies, metonymies come in thisway to disturb the rational and positive order of pure expression.
Truly, Scripture is indeed the Word of God, but as a command57

T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

ing speech: imperative, it expresses nothing, because it makes
known no divine attribute.
Spinoza's analysis does not merely mark the irreducibility ofthese domains. It proposes an explanation of signs which is a sortof genesis of an illusion. It is not, indeed, false to say that every­
thing expresses God. The whole order of Nature is expressive.
But it is a simple misunderstanding of natural law to grasp it as
an imperative or commandment. When Spinoza comes to illus­
trate different kinds of knowledge with the famous example ofproportional numbers, he shows that, on the lowest level, we do
not understand the rule of proportionality: so we hold on to asign that tells us what operation we should make on these num­bers . Even technical rules take on a moral aspeCt when we makeno sense of them and only cling to a sign. This is still more thecase with laws of Nature. God reveals to Adam that ingesting theapple would have terrible consequences; but Adam , powerless to
grasp the constitutive relations of things, imagines this law of
Nature to be a moral law forbidding him to eat the fruit, and God
himself to be a ruler who punishes him for having eaten it.7 The
sign is the very thing of prophecy; and prophets, after all , havestrong imagination and weak understanding. 8 Expressions of God
never enter the imagination, which grasps everything under the
aspect of sign and commandment.
God expresses himself neither in signs, nor in propria. When
we read in Exodus that God revealed himself to Abraham , Isaac
and Jacob, not as Jehovah, but as Shaddai ( sufficing for the needsof all ), we should not see in this the mystery of the tetragram­maton, or the supereminence of God considered in his absolutenature. We should see rather that the revelation does not havethe expression of this nature or essence as its obj ect.9 Natural
knowledge, on the other hand, does imply the essence of God;
implies it because it is a knowledge of the attributes that actu-

AT T R I B U T E S

A N D

D I V I N E

N A M ESally express this essence. God expresses himself in his attributes,
and attributes express themselves in dependent modes : this is
how the order of Nature manifests God. The only names expres­sive of God, the only divine expressions, are then the attributes:
common forms predicable of substance and modes. If we know
only two of these, it is just because we are constituted by a moqeof Extension and a mode of Thought. These attributes do not,at least, require any revelation, but only the light of Nature. We
know them as they are in God, in their being that is common
to substance and modes. Spinoza insists on this point, citing a
passage from Saint Paul which he makes almost a manifesto of
univocity: "The invisible things of God from the creation of
the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things thatare made . . . :•w, c The univocity of attributes merges with theirexpressivity: attributes are, indissolubly, expressive and univocal.
Attributes no more serve to deny anything than they are them­selves denied of essence. Nor are they affirmed of God by analogy.
An affirmation by analogy is worth no more than a negation byeminence ( there is still something of eminence in the first case,and already some analogy in the second) . It is true, says Spinoza,that one attribute is denied of another. 1 1 But in what sense? "Ifsomeone says that Extension is not limited by Extension, but by
Thought, is that not the same as saying that Extension is infinite
not absolutely, but only so far as it is Extension?" 12 So negation
here implies no opposition or privation. Extension as such suf­
fers from no limitation or imperfection resulting from its nature,and so in vain might we imagine a God who possessed Extension"eminently:'13 In what sense, conversely, is an attribute affirmedof substance? Spinoza often insists on the point that substances
or attributes exist in Nature formally. Now, among the many
senses of the word "formal" we must bear in mind the one inwhich it is opposed to " eminent" or " analogical ." Substance59

T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

should never be thought of as comprehending its attributes emi­
nently, nor should attributes, in their turn, be thought of as con­taining the essences of modes. Attributes are formally affirmedof substance; they are formally predicated of the substance whose
essence they constitute, and of the modes whose essences they
contain. Spinoza constantly reminds us of the affirmative char­acter of the attributes that define substance, and of the need forany good definition to be itself affirmative. 14 Attributes are affir­
mations; but affirmation, in its essence, is always formal , actual,univocal : therein lies its expressivity.
Spinoza's philosophy is a philosophy of pure affirmation. Affir­
mation is the speculative principle on which hangs the whole of
the Ethics. Here we may investigate how Spinoza comes upon, anduses, a Cartesian idea. For real distinction tended to give to theconcept of affirmation a genuine logic. Indeed real distinction
as used by Descartes sets us on the way toward a profound dis­covery: the terms distinguished each retain their respective pos­itivity, instead of being defined by opposition, one to another.
Non opposita sed diversa is the formula of the new logic . 15 Realdistinction appeared to open up a new conception of the nega­tive, free from opposition and privation, and a new conceptionof affirmation too, free from eminence and analogy. We havealready seen why this conception does not lead Spinoza back into
Cartesianism : Descartes still gives real distinction a numericalsense, a function of substantial division in Nature and among
things. He conceives every quality as positive, all reality as per­fection; but all is not reality in a qualified and distinguished sub­stance, and not everything in a thing's nature is a perfection .
Spinoza is thinking of Descartes, among others, when he writes:"To say that the nature of the thing required this limitation, andtherefore it could not be otherwise, is to say nothing; for thenature of the thing cannot require anything unless it exists !' 16
6oAT T R I B U T E S

A N D

D I V I N E

N A M E S

For Descartes there are limitations "required" by a thing by vir­tue of its nature, ideas that have so little reality that one might
almost say they came from nothing, natures that lack something.
And through these everything that the logic of real distinction
had been thought to throw out, privation, eminence, is reintro­
duced. We will see how eminence, analogy, even a certain equivo­

cation, remain almost as spontaneous categories of Cartesian thought.
In order to bring out the deepest consequences of real distinc­tion conceived as a logic of affirmation, on the other hand, it
was necessary to reach the idea of a single substance with all its
attributes really distinct. And it was first of all necessary to
avoid all confusion, not only of attributes with modes, but of
attributes with propria.

Attributes are affirmations of God, logoi or true divine names. Let
us return to the passage where Spinoza invokes the example ofIsrael , so named as patriarch, but called Jacob in relation to his
brother. 17 It illustrates in this context the distinction of reason
as it applies between substance and attribute: Israel is called Jacob(Supplantor ) in relation to his brother, as a " plane" might becalled "white" in relation to a man looking at it, and as a sub­stance might be called this or that in relation to an understandingthat "attributes" to it this or that essence. The passage certainly
favors an intellectualist or even idealist interpretation of attri­butes. But a philosopher is always led to simplify his thought onsome occasions , or to formulate it only in part. Spinoza doesn't

fail to underline the ambiguity of the examples he cites. The attri­bute is not in truth just a manner of seeing or conceiving; its rela­tion to the understanding is indeed fundamental , but is to beotherwise interpreted . It is because attributes are themselves
expressions that they are necessarily referred to the understand61

T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

ing as to the only capacity for perceiving what is expressed. It isbecause attributes explicate substance that they are, thereby,correlative with an understanding in which all explication isreproduced or "explicates" itself obj ectively. The problem thus
becomes more definite: attributes are expressions, but how candifferent expressions refer to one and the same thing? How candifferent names have the same referent? "You want me to explain
by an example how one and the same thing can be designated(insigniri) by two names!'
The role of understanding amounts to its part in a logic ofexpression. Such a logic is the outcome of a long tradition, fromthe Stoics down through the Middle Ages . One distinguishes inan expression ( say, a proposition) what it expresses and what it
designates. 18 What is expressed is, so to speak, a sense that has
no existence outside the expression; it must thus be referred toan understanding that grasps it obj ectively, that is, ideally. But it
is predicated of the thing, and not of the expression itself; under­
standing relates it to the object designated, as the essence of thatobj ect. One can then conceive how names may be distinguishedby their senses, while these different senses relate to the same
designated obj ect whose essence they constitute. There is a sortof transposition of this theory of sensed in Spinoza's conceptionof attributes. Each attribute is a distinct name or expression; what
it expresses is so to speak its sense; but if it be true that what isexpressed has no existence outside the attribute, it is nonethe­less related to substance as to the obj ect designated by all theattributes. Thus all expressed senses together form the "expres­sible" or the essence of substance, and the latter may in its turnbe said to express itself in the attributes .
It is true that in assimilating substance to an obj ect desig­
nated by different names, we do not resolve the essential prob­lem - that of the difference between those names. Worse still ,62

AT T R I B U T E S

A N D

D I V I N E

N A M ESthe difficulty is only increased, in that these names are univocal
and positive, and so apply formally to what they designate: theirrespective senses seem to introduce into the unity of what is des­ignated a necessarily actual multiplicity. In an analogical view thisis not the case : names apply to God by analogy, their senses"preexist" in him in an eminent mode which ensures their incon­
ceivable, inexpressible, unity. What, though, if divine names havethe same sense as applied to God and as implied in creatures, thesame, that is, in all uses, so that their distinction can no longer
be grounded in created things, but must be grounded in this God
they all designate? Duns Scotus, as is well known, raised this prob­
lem in the Middle Ages, and provided a profound solution. It waswithout doubt Scotus who pursued farther than any other theenterprise of a positive theology. He denounces at once the neg­
ative eminence of the Neoplatonists and the pseudoaffirmationof the Thomists, and sets against them the univocity of Being:
being is predicated in the same sense of everything that is, whether
infinite or finite, albeit not in the same "modality." But the pointis that being does not change in nature, in changing modality ­that is, when its concept is predicated of infinite being and offinite beings (so that, already in Scotus, univocity does not leadto any confusion of essences ) . 19 And the univocity ofbeing itself
leads to the univocity of divine attributes: the concept of an attri­bute that may be taken to infinity is itself common to God andcreatures, as long as it be considered in its formal reason or its
quiddity, for "infinity in no way abolishes the formal reason ofthat to which it is added.''20 But, formally and positively predi­
cated of God, how can infinite attributes or divine names not
introduce into God a plurality corresponding to their formal rea­sons, their distinct quiddities?
This is the problem to which Scotus applies one of his mostoriginal concepts, which complements that of univocity: the idea

T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

of formal distinction.21 It relates to the apprehension of distinct
quiddities that nevertheless belong to the same subject. This must
obviously be referred to an act of understanding. But the under­
standing isn't merely expressing an identical reality under two
aspects that might exist separately in other subj ects, or expressing
an identical thing at different degrees of abstraction, or expressing
something analogically in relation to some o ther realities . I t
objectively apprehends actually distinct forms which yet, a s such,
together make up a single identical subj ect.e Between animal andrational there is not merely a distinction of reason , like thatbetween homo and h umanitas ; the thing itself must already be"structured according to the conceivable diversity of genus andspecies ."22 Formal distinction is definitely a real distinction,
expressing as it does the different layers of reality that form or
constitute a being. Thus it is called jormalis a parte rei or actualis
ex natura rei. But it is a minimally real distinction because thetwo really distinct quiddities are coordinate, together making asingle being.23 Real and yet not numerical, such is the status of for­mal distinction.24 One must also recognize that in the order offinitude two quiddities such as animal and rational are connected
only through the third term to which each is identical . But thisis not the case in the infinite . Two attributes taken to infinity
will still be formally distinct, while being ontologically identi­
cal . As Gilson puts it, "Because it is a modality of being ( and not
an attribute ), infinity can be common to quidditatively irreduc­ible formal reasons , conferring on them an identity of being,
without canceling their distinction of form."25 Thus two of God's
attributes, Justice and Goodness for example, are divine names
designating a God who is absolutely one, while they signify dif­ferent quiddities. There are here as it were two orders, that offormal reason and that of being, with the plurality in one per­fectly according with the simplicity of the other.

AT T R I B U T E S

A N D

D I V I N E

N A M E S

The attribution of such a status to formal reason finds a dedi­
cated opponent in Suarez, who cannot see how formal reason is
not to be reduced either to a distinction of reason or a modal
distinction.26 It says either too much or not enough: too muchfor a distinction of reason, but not enough for a real distinc­tion. Descartes, when the question arises, is of the same view.27
We still find in Descartes the same repugnance toward con­ceiving a real distinction between things which does not lie in
different subj ects, that is, which isn't attended by a division of
being or a numerical distinction. The same is not true of Spin­oza: in his conception of a nonnumerical real distinction, it is
not hard to discern Scotus's formal distinction. Furthermore ,with Spinoza formal distinction no longer presents a minimumof real distinction, but becomes real distinction itself, giving thisan exclusive character.
1 . Attributes are, for Spinoza, really distinct, or conceived asreally distinct. They have irreducible formal reasons ; each at­tribute expresses, as its formal reason or quiddity, an infinite
essence. Thus attributes are distinguished "quidditatively," for­mally: they are indeed substances in a purely qualitative sense.
2. Each attributes its essence to substance, as to something else.
Which is a way of saying that to the formal distinction between
attributes there corresponds no division of being. Substance is nota genus, nor are attributes specific differences. So there are no
substances of the same species as the attributes , no substancewhich is the same thing (res) as each attribute (jormalitas). 3. This"other thing" is thus the same for all attributes . It is furthermore
the same as all attribute s . And the latter determination in noway contradicts the former one. All formally distinct attributes
are referred by understanding to an ontologically single sub­stance. But understanding only reproduces obj ectively the natureof the forms it apprehends. All formal essences form the essence

T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

of an absolutely single substance . All qualified substances form
only one substance from the point of view of quantity. So that
attributes themselves have at once identity of being and distinc­tion of formality. Ontologically one, formally diverse, such istheir status.
Despite his allusion to the "hodgepodge of Peripatetic distinc­
tions , " Spinoza restores formal distinction, and even gives it arange it didn't have in Scotus. It is formal distinction that provides

an absolutely coherent concept of the unity of substance and the plu­
rality of attributes, and gives real distinction a new logic. One maythen ask why Spinoza never uses the term, and speaks only of real
distinction. The answer is that formal distinction is indeed a real
distinction, and that it was to Spinoza's advantage to use a terri_lthat D escarte s , by the use he had made of it, had in a sense
neutralized theologically. So that the term " real distinction"
allowed great audacity without stirring up old controversies
which Spinoza doubtless considered pointless or even harmful. I
don't believe that Spinoza's Cartesianism went any further than
this. His whole theory of distinctions is profoundly Anticartesian.
To picture Spinoza as Scotist rather than Cartesian is to riskcertain distortions. I intend it to mean only that Scotist theories
were certainly known to Spinoza, and played a part, along withother themes, in forming his pantheism.28 What then becomes ofprimary interest is the way Spinoza uses and transforms the notionsof formal distinction and univocity. What in fact did Duns Scotus
call an "attribute" ? Justice, goodness, wisdom and so on - inbrief, propria. He of course recognized that the divine essence
could be conceived without these attributes ; but he defined theessence of God by intrinsic perfections, understanding and will .
Scotus was a "theologian" and, in this capacity, was still dealing
with propria and beings of reason. Thus formal distinction does
not with him have its full range, and is always at work on beings
66

AT T R I B U T E S

A N O

O I V I N E

N A M E S

of reason like genera and species, and faculties of the soul, or on

propria such as the supposed attributes of God. Furthermore ,univocity in Scotus seems compromised by a concern to avoid
pantheism. For his theological , that is to say "creationist," per­spective forced him to conceive univocal Being as a neutralized,
indifferent concept. Indifferent as between finite and infinite ,singular and universal, perfect and imperfect, created and uncre­
ated.29 For Spinoza, on the other hand, the concept of univocal
Being is perfectly determinate, as what is predicated in one andthe same sense of substance in itself, and of modes that are insomething else. With Spinoza univocity becomes the obj ect of apure affirmation. The same thing, formaliter, constitutes theessence of substance and contains the essences of modes. Thus
it is the idea of immanent cause that takes over, in Spinoza, from
univocity, freeing it from the indifference and neutrality to which
it had been confined by the theory of a divine creation. And it isin immanence that univocity finds its distinctly Spinozist formu­
lation: God is said to be cause of all things in the very sense (eosensu) that he is said to be cause of himself.

CHAPTER FouR
The Absolute

Spinoza carefully shows how every ( qualified) substance must be
unlimited. The sum of the arguments of the Short Treatise and the
Ethics may be presented thus: If a substance were limited, thiswould have to be either by itself, or by a substance of the same
nature, or by God who had given it an imperfect nature. ! But it
could not be limited by itself, for "it would have had to change
its whole essence:'• Nor by another substance, for there would
then be two substances with the same attribute . Nor by God,
since God is in no way imperfect or limited, and so still less facedwith things that would "require" or imply some limitation orother before being created. Spinoza indicates the importance of
these themes, but this elliptically: "If we can prove that there
can be no limited substance, every substance belonging to thedivine being must be unlimited:'• The transition appears to be
as follows: if every substance is unlimited, we must recognize thateach is in its genus or form infinitely perfect; there is thus equality
between all forms or all genera of being; no form is inferior toany other, none is superior. This is the transition formulated
explicitly by Spinoza in another passage: "There is no inequality
at all in the attributes:'2
Thus one cannot imagine that God might contain the reality

T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

or perfection of an effect in a higher form than that involved in
the effect, because no form is higher than any other. One may
infer from this that all forms being equal ( attributes ), God can­not possess one without possessing the others; he cannot possess
one that doubles, eminently, for another. All forms of being, as
infinitely perfect, must without limitation belong to God as abso­
lutely infinite Being.
This principle of equality of forms or attributes is but anotheraspect of the principle of univocity, and the principle of formal
distinction. It is nonetheless a particular application of it: it forces
us to pass from Infinite to Absolute, from infinitely perfect toabsolutely infinite. Forms of being, all being perfect and unlim­
ited , and so infinitely perfect, cannot constitute unequal sub­stances calling for the infinitely perfect as for a distinct being
playing the role of eminent and efficient cause. No more canthey amount to substances equal among themselves ; for equal
substances cannot be such only numerically, they would haveto have the same form , " they would necessarily have to limit
one another, and consequently, would not be infinite :'3 Forms,
equally unlimited, are thus attributes of a single substance thatpossesses them all, and possesses them actually. But it would thenbe a great mistake to think that infinite perfection is enough todefine the "nature" of God. Infinite perfection is the modalityof each attribute, that is to say, the "proprium" of God. But thenature of God consists in an infinity of attributes, that is to say,in absolute infinity.

One may already foresee the transformation to which Spinoza,
countering Descartes, will subj ect the proofs of God's existence.
For all the Cartesian proofs proceed from infinite perfection. And
not only do they proceed from it, they move within the infinitely
70

T H EA B S O L U T E

perfect, which they identify with God's nature . The proof aposteriori, in its first formulation, runs: "The idea I have of a being
more perfect than my own, must necessarily have been set in me
by a being who is indeed more perfect:' The second formulationis: "From the simple fact that I exist, and have in me the idea ofa supremely perfect being ( that is, of God ), God's existence isvery obviously proven:'4 And the ontological or a priori proof isstated thus: "What we clearly and distinctly perceive to belong
to the nature or essence, or to the unchanging and true form ofsome thing; that can be truly predicated or affirmed of this thing;
but after having quite carefully inquired what God is, we clearlyand distinctly conceive that it belongs to his true and unchanging
nature that he exist; we can therefore truly affirm that he exists: •s
Now the inquiry to which Descartes alludes in the minor prem­
ise consists precisely in the determination of the "supremely per­fect" as the form, essence or nature of God. Existence, being aperfection, belongs to this nature. Thanks to this maj or premise
one can conclude that God does indeed exist.
Thus the ontological proof itself involves an identification of
infinite perfection with the nature of God. For consider the sec­
ond set of obj ections made against Descartes's Meditations. He is
reproached for not having proved, in the minor premise, that thenature of God was possible, or implied no contradiction. It isargued against him that God exists if he is possible ( Leibniz takes
up the obj ection in some celebrated passages6 ) . Descartes replies
that the supposed difficulty in the minor premise is already re­solved in the maj or premise. For the latter does not mean: What
we clearly and distinctly conceive to belong to the nature of something can truly be said to belong to the nature of this thing. Thatwould be a mere tautology. The maj or premise means: "Whatwe clearly and distinctly conceive to belong to the nature of something, that can be truly predicated or affirmed of this thing:' Now

T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

this proposition guarantees the possibility of anything that weconceive clearly and distinctly. If some other criterion of possi­
bility is required, a sort of sufficient reason on the side of theobject, we confess our ignorance, and the powerlessness of under­
standing to reach such a reason.7
Descartes seem� to sense the meaning of the obj ection, andyet not understand, or want to understand, it. He is criticizedfor not having proven the possibility of the nature of a being of
which "infinite perfection" can be only a proprium. Such a proof isitself, perhaps, impossible: but in that case the ontological argu­
ment does not follow. 8 In any case, infinite perfection gives us
no knowledge of the nature of the being to which it belongs. If
Descartes thinks to have solved all the difficulties in the maj or
premise, this is in the first place because he confuses the natureof God with a proprium : he then thinks that a clear and distinct
conception of the proprium is enough to guarantee the possibilityof the corresponding nature. Descartes does admittedly oppose
the aspect under which God is presented in Scripture ("mannersof speaking . . . which do indeed contain some truth, but only inso­
far as this is considered in relation to men" ) to the aspect underwhich God himself appears in the light of Nature .9 But he isthereby only opposing propria of one sort to those of another. In
relation to a being that has as a rational property that of being
infinitely perfect, the question "Is such a being possible?" per­sists in its entirety. And if it be asked how Descartes is able, fromhis viewpoint, to identifY proprium and divine nature, I reply thatonce more the reason is to be found in the way he invokes emi­
nence and analogy. Descartes reminds us that "of the things which
we conceive to be in God and in ourselves," none is univocaJ)O
Now, it is just insofar as one admits a basic inequality between
forms of being, that the infinitely perfect can come to desig­
nate a higher form which may be taken for the Nature of God .
72

T H EA B S O L U T E

Descartes defines God by giving a list of properties: "By the name
God, I understand a substance infinite, eternal , unchanging ,independent, omniscient, omnipotent . . . ." 1 1 In their misty emi­
nence these properties may, considered as a whole, appear likea simple nature.
In Leibniz, two themes are deeply related: infinite perfection
does not suffice to constitute the nature of God, and a clear anddistinct idea does not suffice to guarantee its own reality, that is
to say, the possibility of its obj ect. The two principles meet in
the requirement of sufficient reason or real definition. Infinite
and perfect are only distinctive marks ; the clear and distinct
knowledge that we have of them in no way tells us whether thesecharacteristics are compatible ; there might perhaps be a contra­
diction in ens perjectissimum, just as there is in "the greatest num­ber" or "the greatest velocity." The essence of such a being is only
conj ectural , and so any definition of God by perfection alone
remains nominal . Whence Leibniz's severe criticism : Descartes
does not in general go any further than Hobbes, as there is 1 nO
reason to trust the criteria of a psychological consciousness ( clar­
ity and distinctness ) any better than simple combinations ofwords. 12 These same themes appear, in a wholly different con­text, to be shared by Spinoza. It is hardly surprising that there
should be some basic common points in the Anticartesian reac­tion toward the end of the seventeenth century. According toSpinoza, infinite perfection is only a proprium. The property tells
us nothing of the nature of the being to which it belongs, anddoes not suffice to prove that such a being involves no contra­

diction. Until a clear and distinct idea is grasped as "adequate"
one may doubt its reality and the possibility of its obj ect. Until
one gives a real definition, bearing on the essence of a thing rather
than on propria, one remains among the vagaries of what is merely
conceived, without relation to the reality of the thing as it is out73

T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

side our understanding. B Thus sufficient reason seems to impose
its requirements in Spinoza as well as in Leibniz. Spinoza sets ade­quacy as sufficient reason of a clear and distinct idea, and absolute
infinity as sufficient reason of infinite perfection. The ontologi­
cal argument, in Spinoza, no longer bears on an indeterminate
being that is supposed infinitely perfect, but rather on absolute
infinity, determined as that which consists of an infinity of attri­butes. ( Infinite perfection being only the mode of each of these
attributes, the modality of essence expressed by each . )If this claim i s correct, however, one may well b e surprisedby the way that Spinoza proves a priori that the absolutely infi­
nite, that is, a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes,
necessarily exists. 14 An initial proof runs: I f it did not exist, it
would not be a substance, for every substance necessarily exists.
A second: If absolutely infinite being did not exist, there would
have to be a reason for this nonexistence; this reason would haveto be internal, and so absolute infinity would have to imply a con­tradiction; "but it is absurd to affirm this of Being absolutely infi­
nite and supremely perfect:' These arguments clearly still advance
via infinite perfection. The absolutely infinite ( substance con­sisting of an infinity of attributes) necessarily exists, or it would
not be a substance; or it would not be infinitely perfect. But thereader has a right to insist on a deeper proof, on which these arefounded. It must be shown that a substance that exists necessar­
ily has as its nature to consist of an infinity of attributes or, whichcomes to the same thing, that the infinitely perfect has as its rea­son or principle the absolutely infinite.
And Spinoza has indeed done precisely what the reader isentitled to require of him. The idea that Spinoza in the Ethics"installs" himself in God and "begins" with God is only an approxi­
mation of the truth and is, strictly speaking, inaccurate. What ismore we will see that , according to Spinoza, it is al together74

T H EA B S O L U T E

impossible to set out from the idea of God. The proof of God's
existence appears in Proposition 1 1 . But the first ten have shownthat n umerical distinction not beinB real, any really distinct substanceis unlimited and infinitely perfect; conversely, real distinction not beinB
numerical, all infinitely perfect substances toaether make up an infi­
nitely perfect substance of which they are the attributes; infinite per­fection is thus the proprium of the absolutely infinite, and absolute
infinity the nature or reason of the infinitely perfect. Herein lies theimportance of these opening proofs, which are in no sense hypo­thetical, and herein lies the importance of considering numeri­cal and real distinctions. Only on this basis can Proposition 1 1
conclude: Absolutely infinite substance , implying no contradic­
tion, necessarily exists; if it did not, it would not have infinite
perfection as a property, nor indeed would it be a substance .
The opening scheme of the Ethics is thus a s follows: 1 . Defini­tions 1-5 : Merely nominal definitions, needed in the mechanismof subsequent proofs; 2. Definition 6: The real definition of God,as absolutely infinite Being, that is, as "substance consisting of
an infinity of attributes, each of which expresses an eternal andinfinite essence!' The definition takes up the terms "substance"and "attribute" and gives them the status of realities. But the real­
ity of the definition itself does not mean that it immediately
shows the possibility of its obj ect. For a definition to be real, one
need only be able to prove the possibility of the object as defined;
this at once demonstrates the reality or truth of the definition;
3. Propositions 1-8 : The first stage in the proof of the reality ofthe definition: numerical distinction not being real, every reallydistinct attribute is infinitely perfect, and every qualified sub­stance is unique, necessary and infinite. This sequence obviously
relies only upon the first five definitions; 4. Propositions 9 and 10:
The second stage: as real distinction is not numerical , distinct
attributes or qualified substances together form one and the same75

T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

substance having all these qualifications, that is, all the attributes .
This second sequence closes i n the Scholium t o Proposition 10,
which establishes that an absolutely infinite substance implies nocontradiction, so that Definition 6 is indeed a real one15 ; 5 . Prop­
osition 1 1 : The absolutely infinite necessarily exists; otherwise
it could not be a substance, and could not have as a property
infinite perfection.
A confirmationb of this scheme is provided by examining the
Short Treatise. For what is wrongly said of the Ethics applies wellenough to the Short Treatise, which does indeed begin with God,
installs itself in his existence. At the time of its composition
Spinoza still believed that it was possible to set out from an idea
of God. Thus the a priori argument receives an initial formula­tion that conforms entirely to Descartes's statement of it. 16 And
so the argument, moving altogether within infinite perfection,
gives us no way of knowing the nature of the corresponding being.
As it stands at the head of the Short Treatise, the ontological argu­
ment serves no purpose whatever. So Spinoza adds a thoroughly
obscure second proposition: "the existence of God is essence:'n
I believe that, taken literally, this formulation can no longer be
understood from the viewpoint of infinite perfection, but only
from that of absolute infinity. Indeed, for the existence of God
to be essence, the same "attributes" that constitute his essence
must also constitute his existence. Thus Spinoza adds an explan­
atory note, anticipating the development of the Short Treatise, by
invoking here, already, the attributes of an absolutely infinite sub­stance: "To the nature of a being that has infinite attributes, an'attribute' belongs, which is Being." 1 8 The differences between
the Short Treatise and the Ethics seem to be these: 1 . The Short
Treatise begins by showing "That God is," before any real defini­tion of God. Thus, strictly speaking , it has available only the
Cartesian proof, and is therefore forced to set alongside the ortho-T H EA B S O L U T E

dox statement of this proof an altogether different version whichanticipates Chapter Two ( "What God is" ); 2. The Ethics, rather
than setting beside one another two formulations, one proceed­ing from infinite perfection, the other from absolute infinity,presents a proof that still proceeds from infinite perfection, butthat is entirely subordinated to the prior and well-grounded pos­iting of absolute infinity. Then the second formulation of the
Short Treatise is no longer needed, and no longer obscure and outof place: its equivalent is to be found in the Ethics, but no longer
as a proof of God's existence, only of his immutability. 19

Thus far there is no difference between Leibniz's requirements
and Spinoza's: the same call for a real definition of God, for anature or reason of the infinitely perfect. The same subordina­tion of the ontological proof to a real definition of God, and to
the demonstration that this definition is indeed a real one. Whichmakes Leibniz's account of things all the more surprising. We canhere draw upon two texts. First, a note added to the manuscript"Quod ens perfectissimum existit," in which Leibniz speaks of
his discussions with Spinoza in 1 6 7 6: "When at the Hague I
showed Spinoza this argument, which he thought solid. As he ini­
tially disagreed with it, I wrote it out and read him this sheet!'20
Then his notes on the Ethics: he complains of Spinoza's Defini­tion 6 that it is not a real definition. It does not show the equiva­
lence of the terms "absolutely infinite" and "consisting of an
infinity of attributes"; it doesn't show the compatibility of theattributes among themselves; it doesn't show the possibility ofthe object defined.2I Either Leibniz means that Definition 6 does
not immediately show the possibility of what is defined - but
Leibniz believes no more than Spinoza in the existence of suchan intuition of God. Or he means that Spinoza has not noticed77

T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

that the reality of the definition has to be proven - but such a
criticism would completely misconstrue the general proj ect of
the Ethics and the sense of the first ten propositions. In fact, if
one considers the formulations through which Leibniz himself
proves the possibility of God, one does not at first sight perceive
any difference between these and Spinoza's.
For Leibniz, God is possible because infinite perfection is the
proprium of an "absolute Being" that includes in itself all "attrib­
utes," "all simple forms taken absolutely," all "natures which aresusceptible of the highest degree," "all positive qualities express­
ing something without limitation:'22 How do these forms suffice
to prove the possibility of God? Each is simple and irreducible ,conceived i n itself, index sui. Leibniz says that it is their very dis­parity that assures their compatibility ( the impossibility of theircontradiction) , and their compatibility that assures the possibil­
ity of the Being to which they belong. Nothing in this sets Leibniz
against Spinoza. Everything is literally common to them, includ­ing the use of the idea of expression, and including the thesis
according to which expressive forms are "the fount of things:'
In this respect at least, Spinoza had nothing to learn from Leibniz.
We are left to conclude that Leibniz did not report the conver­sation at the Hague accurately. Or that Spinoza listened, andspoke little, privately recognizing the coincidence of Leibniz's
ideas with his own. Or perhaps a disagreement was revealed, but
this over their respective ways of understanding infinite positive
forms or qualities. For Leibniz conceives these as primary pos­sibles in the divine understanding. Moreover, these prime possi­
bles, "absolutely simple notions," lie outside our knowledge: weknow that they are necessarily compatible , without knowing
what they are. They appear anterior to, and above, any logicalrelation: knowledge reaches only to "relatively simple notions"which serve as terms of our thinking, and of which the best, per-

T H EA B S O L U T E

haps, one can say is that they have a symbolic relation to theprime· simples.23 Leibniz hereby escapes the absolute necessity
which he denounces as the danger of Spinozism: he stops "meta­
physical" necessity getting out from God and communicating
itself to creatures. He introduces a sort of finality, a maximal prin­ciple, into the ontological proof itself. After his meetings with
Spinoza, Leibniz considers absolute necessity the enemy. Could
not Spinoza conversely think, though, that in order to save crea­tures and creation, Leibniz was retaining all the perspectives ofeminence , analogy and symbolism in general? Perhaps Leibniz
only appears to advance beyond infinite perfection, only appears
to arrive at a nature or reason.
Spinoza thinks that the definition of God as he gives it is areal definition. By a proof of the reality of the definition must
be understood a veritable generation of the obj ect defined. Thisis the sense of the first propositions of the Ethics: they are not hypo­thetical, but genetic. Because attributes are really distinct, irreduc­ible one to the others, ultimate in their respective forms or in
their kinds, because each is conceived through itself, they can­not contradict one another. They are necessarily compatible, andthe substance they form is possible . "It is of the nature of a sub­stance that each of its attributes be conceived through itself, since
all the attributes it has have always been in it together, and one
could not be produced by another, but each expresses the real­
ity, or being of substance. So it is far from absurd to attributemany attributes to one substance:'24 In the attributes we reachprime and substantial elements, irreducible notions of uniquesubstance . There appears here the idea of a logical constitutionof substance, a "composition" in which there is nothing physi­cal. The irreducibility of the attributes not only proves, but con­stitutes the nonimpossibility of God as unique substance with all
attributes. There cannot be contradiction except between terms
79

T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

of which one, at least, is not conceived through itself. And thecompatibility of attributes is not grounded, for Spinoza, in aregion of the divine understanding above logical relations them­selves, but in a loaic proper to real distinction. It is the nature of
real distinction between attributes that excludes all division ofsubstance; it is this nature of real distinction that preserves indistinct terms all their respective positivity, forbidding their def­
inition through opposition one to another, and referring them
all to the same indivisible substance. Spinoza seems to have gone
further than any other along the path of this new logic : a logicof pure affirmation, of unlimited quality, and thus of the uncon­
ditioned totality that possesses all qualities; a logic, that is, ofthe absolute. Attributes should be understood as the elementsof such a composition of the absolute.

Attributes as expressions are not simply "mirrors." Expressionist
philosophy brings with it two traditional metaphors: that of amirror which reflects or reflects upon an image, and that of aseed which "expresses" the tree as a whole. Attributes are oneor the other of these, depending on the viewpoint taken. On the
one hand, essence is reflected and multiplied in attributes, attri­butes are mirrors, each of which expresses in its kind the essenceof substance: they relate necessarily to an understanding, as mir­rors to an eye which sees in them an image. But what is expressed
is at the same time involved in its expression, as a tree in its seed:
the essence of substance is not so much reflected in the attributes
as constituted by the attributes that express it; attributes are notso much mirrors as dynamic or genetic elements.
God's nature (natura naturans) is expressive . God expresses
himself in the foundations of the world, which form his essence,
before expressing himself in the world. And expression is not simSo

T H EA B S O L U T E

ply manifestation, but is also the constitution of God himself.
Life, that is, expressivity, is carried into the absolute. There is aunity of the diverse in substance, and an actual diversity of the One
in the attributes. Real distinction applies to the absolute, because
it combines these two moments and relates each to the other. So
it is not enough to say that Spinoza privileges Ens necessarium overEns perjectissimum. What is actually most important is Ens abso­
lutum. Perjectissimum is only a proprium, a proprium from which one
sets out as the modality of each attribute. Necessarium is anotherproprium, at which one arrives as the modality of a substance hav­
ing all attributes . But between these is discovered Nature or theabsolute: the substance to which are referred Thought, Exten­
sion and so on, all the univocal forms of being . This is why
Spinoza insists in his letters on the necessity of not losing sightof Definition 6, of constantly returning to it. 25 That definition
alone presents us with a nature , the expressive nature of theabsolute. To return to this definition is not just to keep it in mind,
but to return to a definition that has meanwhile been proven to
be real . And that proof is not a sort of operation performed byan understanding that remains outside substance; it amounts tothe life of substance itself, the necessity of its a priori constitution.
"When I define God as the supremely perfect Being, since thisdefinition does not express the efficient cause ( for I conceivethat an efficient cause can be internal as well as external ) I shallnot be able to discover all the properties of God from it; butwhen I define God as 'a Being, etc.' " ( see Ethics, Part One, Def­inition 6 ) . 26 Such is Spinoza's transformation of the proof a priori :he goes beyond infinite perfection to absolute infinity, in which
he discovers sufficient Reason or Nature . This step leads in toa second triad of substance : ( 1 ) All forms of being are equal andequally perfect, and there is no inequality of perfection between
attributes; ( 2 ) Every form is thus unlimited, and each attribute81

T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

expresses an infinite essence; ( 3 ) All forms thus belong to one
and the same substance, and all attributes are equally affirmed,
without limitation, of an absolutely infinite substance. The first
triad was that of attribute-essence-substance . The second is:perfect-infinite-absolute. The first was founded on a polemicalargument: real distinction cannot be numerical; and on a posi­tive argument: real distinction is a formal distinction between
attributes affirmed of one and the same substance. The polemi­
cal argument for the second triad is: propria do not constitute anature; and the positive argument: everything in Nature is per­fect. No "nature" lacks anything; all forms of being are affirmedc
without limitation, attributed to something absolute, since theabsolute is in its nature infinite in all its forms . The triad of theabsolute thus complements that of substance: it carries it forward,
leading us on to discover a third and last determination of God.

82

CHAPTER FIVE
Power

There is a theme that constantly recurs in all Leibniz's criticism
of Descartes: he goes "too quickly." Descartes thought that it wasenough in the order of being to consider the infinitely perfect,enough in the order of knowing to possess a clear and distinct
idea, and enough, in order to pass from knowing to being, toexamine quantities of reality or perfection. Descartes is always
led, in his hurry, to confuse relative and absolute. ' If we look once
more for what is common in the Anticartesian reaction, we seethat Spinoza, for his part, takes issue with Descartes's facility.
Descartes's willingness to make philosophical use of "easy"a and"difficult" had already worried many of his contemporaries.
When Spinoza comes up against the Cartesian use of the word
" easy, " he loses that professorial serenity with which he hadpromised to set forth the Principles differing in nothing by ''thebreadth of a fingernail"; here he even seems to show a kind ofindignation . 2 He is not of course the first to denounce this facil­
ity, any more than Leibniz was the first to denounce rapidity. But
the criticism takes on with Leibniz and Spinoza its most com­plete, its richest and its most effective form .
Descartes gives two statements of the a posteriori proof ofGod's existence: God exists because his idea is in us; and also

T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

because we ourselves, with our idea of him, exist. The first proof
is based directly on the consideration of quantities of perfection
or reality. A cause must have at least as much reality as its effect;
the cause of an idea should have at least as much reality formallyas the idea has obj ectively. But I have the idea of an infinitely
perfect being (that is, an idea that contains "more obj ective real­
ity than any other"3 ). The second proof is more complex, since
it proceeds from an absurd hypothesis: Had I the power to cre­ate myself, it would be much easier for me to give myself prop­
erties of which I have an idea, and it would be no more difficult
for me to preserve myself than to produce or create myself.4 The
principle in this case is: What can do more can do less. "Whatcan do more, or the more difficult thing, can also do a lesser
thing ."5 But if it is more difficult to create or preserve a sub­stance than to create or preserve its properties, it is because thesubstance has more reality than the p roperties themselves. One
may obj ect that the substance is the same thing as its properties
considered collectively. But "distributively" the attributes arelike parts of a whole, and it is in this sense that they are easierto produce . One may in turn obj ect that a ( say, finite ) substancecannot be compared with the ( say, infinite) attributes of someother substance . But if I had the power to produce myself asa substance, the perfections of which I have an idea would bepart of myself, so that it would indeed be easier for me to givemyself them than to produce or preserve myself as a whole. It
may be obj ected, finally, that a determinate cause, destined bynature to produce a certain effect, cannot "more easily" pro­
duce some other effect, be it even of a lesser quantity. But, fromthe viewpoint of a first cause, the quantities of reality corres­
ponding to attributes and modes enter into relations of whole
to part that allow the determination of greater and lesser, easierand more difficult.6

P O W E R

The same argument clearly lies at the heart of both proofs .
Descartes either relates quantities o f obj ective reality t o quanti­
ties of formal reality, or he brings quantities of reality into therelations of whole and part. The entire proof a posteriori, at any
rate, proceeds by examining quantities of reality or perfection
considered simply as such. Spinoza, expounding Descartes, does
not refrain from attacking the second proof; he again finds, or
carries over, obj ections to the notion of "facility!' And the man­ner in which he does this leads one to think that, if he werespeaking for himself, he would have no greater sympathy for the
first proof. One does in fact find many versions of an a posteriori
proof of God's existence in Spinoza's work. I believe these all havesomething in common, some involving a criticism of the first
Cartesian proof, the others of the second, but all sharing the endof substituting an argument based on power for an argument basedon quantities of reality. It is as though Spinoza were always, in very
diverse ways, proposing the same criticism: Descartes takes what
is relative as absolute. In the a priori proof, Descartes confuses
absolute with infinitely perfect, but infinitely perfect is only arelative term. In the a posteriori proof, Descartes takes quantityof reality or perfection as an absolute, but this is again only rela­tive. Absolute infinity as nature and sufficient reason of infinite
perfection; power as sufficient reason of the quantity of reality:
these are the correlative transformations to which Spinoza sub­mits the Cartesian proofs .

The Short Treatise contains n o trace o f the second Cartesian argu­
ment; but it preserves the first, in terms similar to those of
Descartes 7: "If there is an idea of God, the cause of [this idea]
must exist formally and contain in itself whatever the idea has
obj ectively. But there is an idea of God . . . !' But the proof of thisT H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

first proposition is thoroughly modified. We see syllogisms mul­
tiply, evidence of a state of Spinoza's thought, however indistinct,
in which he is already trying to advance beyond the argument
based on quantities of reality and substitute an argument basedon power. His reasoning runs as follows: A finite understanding
has not in itself the "capacity" to know infinity, nor indeed toknow this rather than that; but it "can"b know something; there
must then, formally, be an obj ect that determines it as knowing
this rather than that; and it "can" conceive infinity; so God musthimself exist formally. In other words, Spinoza asks: Why mustthe cause of the idea of God contain formally all that this idea
contains obj ectively? Which amounts to saying that Descartes's
axiom does not satisfy him. The Cartesian axiom was: there mustbe "at least as much" formal reality in an idea's cause as there isobj ective reality in the idea itself. (Which guaranteed that there
was not "more" in the case of an infinite quantity of obj ective
reality. ) But we sense that Spinoza is looking for a deeper rea­son. This section of the Short Treatise is already elaborating vari­
ous elements that will play their part in an axiom of powers :understanding has no more power to know than its obj ects haveto exist and act; the power of thinking and knowing cannot begreater than a necessarily correlative power of existing.
Is it really a question of an axiom ? Another passage of the Short
Treatise, certainly of later date, states: "There is no thing of which
there is not an idea in the thinking thing, and no idea can exist
unless the thing exists ."S This principle is basic to all of Spin­ozism. Once proved it leads to the equality of two powers. The
first part of the formula is, it is true, difficult to prove, if one does
not assume the existence of God. But the second is easily proved.
An idea that was not the idea of some existing thing would not
be distinct at all, would not be the idea of this or that. Or, togive a better proof: To know is to know by the cause, so that noth86

P O W E R

ing can be known without a cause of its being in existence or inessence. One may already infer from this argument that the powerof thinking, in which all ideas participate, is not superior to a
power of existing and acting in which all things participate. And
this is what matters from the viewpoint of an a posteriori proof.
We have an idea of God; we must then assert an infinite powerof thinking as corresponding to this idea; but the power of think­ing is no greater than the power of existing and acting; we mustthen assert an infinite power of existing as corresponding to thenature of God. The existence of God is not inferred directly fromthe idea of God; we pass through the detour of powers to find, inthe power of thinking, the ground of the obj ective reality con­tained in the idea of God, and in the power of existing the groundof the formal reality of God himself. The Short Treatise seems to
me to be already elaborating the elements of a proof of this kind.
An explicit formulation is then given in the Correction of theUnderstanding.9,c But it is in a letter that Spinoza most clearly
reveals what he was after from the Short Treatise on: the substitu­
tion of an axiom of powers for the Cartesian axiom of quantities
of reality, considered unclear. "The power of Thought to think
about or to comprehend things, is not greater than the power of
Nature to exist and to act. This is a clear and true axiom, accord­
ing to which the existence of God follows very clearly and validly
from the idea of him."lO
We should however note that Spinoza comes rather late into
the possession of his "axiom!' Nor, furthermore, does he give itin the fullest form which would imply strict equality between thetwo powers. Further still , he presents as an axiom a proposition
that he knows to be in part demonstrable. But there is a reason
for all these ambiguities. The equality of powers is all the better
demonstrable if one begins with an already existing God. So thatas he advances to a more perfect formulation of this equality,

T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

Spinoza ceases to use it to establish God's existence a posteriori ;he reserves it for another use, another domain. The equality of
powers will in fact play a fundamental role in Book Two of the
Ethics; but that role is to be the decisive factor in the demon­
stration of parallelism , once God's existence is already proved.
One should not, therefore, be surprised that the a posteriori
proof of the Ethics should differ in kind from that of the Short
Treatise and the Correction of the Understanding. It is still based on
power. But it no longer proceeds via the idea of God, or a corres­
ponding power of thinking, to an infinite power of existing. It
proceeds directly within existence, via the power of existing. The
Ethics thus follows suggestions already proposed by Spinoza in the
reworked version in the Principles. There Spinoza set out the first
Cartesian proof without commentary or emendation, but the sec­
ond proof was thoroughly reworked. Spinoza violently took issue
with Descartes's use of the word " easy," and proposed a thor­
oughly different argument: 1. The more something has of real­
ity or perfection, the more existence does it involve ( possible
existence corresponding to finite degrees of perfection, or nec­
essary existence corresponding to infinite perfection) ; 2. \Vhat­
ever has the power (potentia or vis) to preserve itself, requires nocause of its existence to "exist possibly," or even "necessarily."
Whatever has the power to preserve itself thus exists necessar­
ily; 3. I am imperfect, and so have no necessary existence, andhave not the power to preserve myself; I am preserved by some­thing else, something else that must necessarily have the power
to preserve itself, and must therefore exist necessarily. ll
In the Short Treatise there is no trace of Descartes's second
argument; the first is retained but proved in an altogether dif­ferent way. In the Ethics, on the other hand, there remains no
trace of the first (because the argument from powers is now
reserved for a better use) . But one does find in the Ethics a ver88

P O W E Rsion of the a posteriori proof which is related to Descartes's sec­
ond argument, if only as an implicit criticism of it, and as its
reworking. Spinoza attacks those who imagine that the more thatbelongs to a thing, the more difficult it is to produce. 12 But hegoes farther than he had gone in the Principles. The exposition
there left out what was most important: existence, whether pos­sible or necessary, is itself power; power is identical to essence itself.
It is just because essence is power that possible existence ( in athing's essence) is not the same as a "possibility." The Ethics pre­sents, then, the following argument: ( 1 ) The capacity to exist ( thatis, the possible existence involved in the essence of a finite thing)is a power; ( 2 ) Now, a finite being already exists necessarily (byvirtue of some external cause which determines its existence);( 3) I f absolutely infinite Being did not itself exist necessarily,
it would have less power than finite beings, which is absurd ;( 4 ) But the necessary existence of the absolutely infinite cannot
obtain by virtue of an external cause; so that it is through itself
that the absolutely infinite being necessarily exists. B Thus basedon the power of existing, the a posteriori proof leads to a new apriori proof: the more reality or perfection that belongs to thenature of some thing, the more power does it have, that is, themore forces tending to its existence ( virium . . . ut existat ); "Godtherefore has, of himself, an absolutely infinite power of existing.
For that reason he exists absolutely." 14

S p inoza's argument from p ower thus has two aspects, one relating
to his criticism of Descartes's first proof, the other to criticism
of the second. But we should look in each case, and especiallyin the second , which represents the definitive state of Spinoza's
thought, for the implications of the argument. A power of exist­
ing is attributed to a finite being as identical to its essence. Of

T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

course a finite being exists not by its own essence or power, but
by virtue of some external cause. It has nevertheless its own
power of existing, even though this power necessarily only be­comes effective under the action of external things. Yet anotherreason to ask: On what condition do we attribute to a finite
being, which does not exist through itself, a power of existing andacting identical to its essence?15 Spinoza's reply would appear to
be as follows: We affirm this power of a finite being to the extent
that we consider this being as part of a whole, as a mode of an
attribute, a modification of a substance. This substance itself thus
has an infinite power of existing, all the more power the more
attributes it has. And the same reasoning applies to the power ofthinking: we attribute to a distinct idea a power of knowing, but
this to the extent that we consider this idea as part of a whole ,a s a mode of the attribute Thought, a modification of a thinking
substance that itself has an infinite power of thinking. 16
It now appears more clearly how the a posteriori proof of the
Ethics leads to a proof a priori. One has only to recognize that God,
having all attributes, fulfills, a priori, all the conditions for a power
to be asserted of some thing: he thus has an "absolutely infinite"
power of existence, exists "absolutely" and through himself. We
furthermore see how God, having as one attribute Thought, also
has an absolutely infinite power of thinking. J7 Attributes seemin all this to have an essentially dynamic role . Not that they arethemselves powers. But, taken collectively, they are the condi­
tions for the attribution to absolute substance of an absolutely
infinite power of existing and acting, identical with its formal
essence. Taken distributively they are the conditions for the attri­
bution to finite beings of a power identical with their formal
essence, insofar as that essence is contained in this or that attri­bute. On the other hand, the attribute of Thought is, taken in
itself, the condition for assigning to absolute substance an abso90

P O W E R

lutely infinite power o f thinking, identical with its obj ective
essence, and for the attribution to ideas of a power of knowing,
identical with the objective essence that respectively defines them.
It is in this sense that finite beings are conditioned, being neces­sarily modifications of substance or modes of an attribute. Sub­stance is as it were the unconditioned totality, because it possesses
or fulfills a priori the infinity of conditions. Attributes are condi­
tions common to substance which possesses them collectively andto modes which imply them distributively. As Spinoza says, it is
only by human attributes (goodness, justice, charity and so on)that God "communicates" to human creatures the perfections they
possess. lS It is, on the other hand, through his own attributes that
God communicates to all creatures the power proper to each.
The Political Treatise presents an a posteriori proof akin to thosegiven in the Principles and the Ethics. Finite beings do not exist
and are not preserved by their own power, but are dependent for
their existence and preservation on a being able to preserve itself
and to exist through itself. Thus the power by which a finite being
exists, is preserved, and acts, is the power of God himself. 19 One
might imagine that such an argument tends in some respects tosuppress any power proper to creatures. But this is not at all thecas e . All of Spinozism agrees in conferring on finite beings apower of existence, action and perseverance ; and the very con­text of the proof in the Political Treatise emphasizes that things
have their own power, identical with their essence and constitu­
tive of their "right." Spinoza does not mean that a being that does
not exist of itself has no power; he means that it has no p ower of

its own except insofar as it is part of a whole , that is, part of thepower of a being that does exist through itself. (The whole aposteriori proof rests on this argument from the conditioned tothe unconditioned. ) Spinoza says in the Ethics: man's power is"part of the infinite power of God."20 But the part turns out to91

T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

be irreducible, an original degree of power distinct from all oth­ers . We are a part of the power of God, but this just insofar as
this power is "explicated" by our essence itself.21 Participationis always thought of by Spinoza as a participation of powers. But
the participation of powers never does away with the distinctionof essences. Spinoza never confuses the essence of a mode withan essence of substance: my power remains my own essence,
God's power remains his own essence, while my power is at thesame time part of the power of God. 22
How can this be so? How can a distinction of essences be rec­onciled with a participation of powers? If the power or essenceof God can be "explicated" by a finite essence, this is because
attributes are forms common to God whose essence they consti­tute, and finite things whose essences they contain. God's power
divides and explicates itself in each attribute according to theessences comprised in that attribute . Th us the part-whole rela­tion tends to merae with the mode-attribute, modification-substance
relation. Finite things are parts of the divine power because they
are modes of God's attributes . But the reduction of "creatures"to the status of modes, far from taking away their own power,shows rather how a part of their power properly belongs to them,along with their essence. The identity of power and essence is
to be asserted equally (under the same conditions ) of modes andsubstance. These conditions are the attributes, through which
substance possesses an omnipotence identical to its essenc e .
And thus modes, implicating these same attributes that consti­
tute God's essence are said to "explicate" or "express" divine
power. 23 Reducing things to modes of a single substance is not a
way of making them mere appearances, phantoms , as Leibniz
believed or pretended to believe , but is rather the only way,according to Spinoza, to make them "natural" beings, endowedwith force or power.
92

P O W E R

The identity of power and essence means: a power is always an
act or, at least, in action. A long theological tradition had asserted
the identity of power and act, not only in God, but in Nature. 24
At the same time, a long tradition of materialism in physical the­ory asserted the actual character of all power in created things
themselves: for the distinction of power and act, potentiality andactuality, was substituted the correlation of a power of acting anda power of being acted on or suffering action, both actual .25 The
two currents meet in Spinoza, one relating to the essence of sub­stance, the other to the essence of modes . For in Spinozism all
power bears with it a corresponding and inseparable capacity to
be affected. And this capacity to be affected is always, necessar­
ily, exercised. To potentia there corresponds an aptitudo or potestas;
but there is no aptitude or capacity that remains ineffective, andso no power that is not actual .26
A mode's essence is a power; to it corresponds a certain capac­
ity of the mode to be affected. But because the mode is a part of
Nature, this capacity is always exercised, either in affections pro­
duced by external things ( those affections called passive ), or in
affections explained by its own essence ( called active ) . Thus thedistinction between power and act, on the level of modes, dis­appears in favor of two equally actual powers, that of acting, andthat of suffering action, which vary inversely one to the other,
but whose sum is both constant and constantly effective. Thus
Spinoza can sometimes present the power of modes as an invari­
ant identical to their essence, since the capacity to be affected
remains fixed, and sometimes as subj ect to variation, since thepower of acting (or force of existing) "increases" and "diminishes"according to the proportion of active affections contributing to
the exercise of this power at any moment.27 It remains that amode, in any case, has no power that is not actual : it is at each
moment all that it can be, its power is its essence.
93

T H ET R I A D S

O FS U B S TA N C E

The essence of substance, at the other extreme, is also power.
This absolutely infinite power of existence carries with it a capac­
ity to be affected in an infinity of ways . But in this case thecapacity to be affected can be exercised only by active affections.
How could absolutely infinite substance have a power of suffer­ing action, since this obviously presupposes a limitation of its
power o f action? Substance, being omnipotent in and throughitself, is necessarily capable of an infinity of affections, and is theactive cause of all affections of which it is capable. To say thatthe essence of God is power, is to say that God produces an infin­
ity of things by virtue of the same power by which he exists. He
th us produces them by existin9. Cause of all things "in the same
sense" as cause of himself, he produces all things in his attributes,
since his attributes constitute at once his essence and his exist­
ence. It is not enough, then, to say that God's power is actual: itis necessarily active, it is act. God's essence cannot be his power
without an infinity of things proceeding from it, and this pre­cisely in the attributes that constitute it. So that modes are also
the affections of God, but God never suffers the activity of hismodes; his only affections are active. 2 8
Every essence is the essence of some thing. One should there­
fore distinguish between essence as power, that of which it is theessence, and the corresponding capacity to be affected. That ofwhich an essence is the essence is always a quantity of reality or
perfection. But a thing has the greater reality or perfection, thegreater the number of ways in which it can be affected: the quan­tity of reality is always 9rounded in a power identical to an essence.
The a posteriori proof sets out from the power proper to finite
beings: one seeks the condition of a finite being having a power,
and rises from this to the unconditioned power of absolutely infi­
nite substance . For the essence of a finite being is only a power
in relation to a substance of which this being is a mode. But this94

P O W E R

a posteriori approach only provides us with an access to a deepera priori approach. The essence of absolutely infinite substance isomnipotence, since substance possesses a priori all the conditions
for the attribution of power to some thing. But if it be true thatmodes, by virtue of their power, exist only in their relation to
substance, then substance, by virtue of its power, exists onlyin its relation to modes : it has an absolutely infinite power ofexistence only by exercising in an infinity of things, in an infin­
ity of ways or modes, the capacity to be affected corresponding
to that power.
Spinoza hereby leads us to a final triad of substance. Settingout from the arguments from power, the discovery of this triad
occupies the whole concluding section of Part One of the Eth­ics. It takes the following form: the essence of substance as an
absolutely infinite power of existing; substance as ens realissimum
existing of itself; a capacity to be affected in an infinity of ways,
corresponding to this power, and necessarily exercised in affec­
tions of which substance is itself the active cause. This third triad
takes its place alongside the previous two . It does not correspond,
like the first, to the necessity of a substance with all attributes;
nor, like the second, to the necessity that such a substance should
exist absolutely. It corresponds rather to the necessity that thissubstance should produce an infinity of things. And it does not
merely serve to allow our passage from substance to modes, but
communicates itself to or applies to these. So that modes them­selves present us with the following triad: a mode's essence as a
power; an existing mode defined by its quantity of reality or per­fection; the capacity to be affected in a great number of ways. Thus
Part One of the Ethics may be seen as the unfolding of three triads,
which all find in expression their principle: those of substance,of absolute and of power.

95

P A R T Tw oParal l e l i s m an d I m man e nce

CHAPTER

S ix

Expression i n Parallelism

Why does God produce anything at all ? The problem of a suffi­
cient reason for the production of things does not disappear in
Spinozism, but rather gains in urgency. For God's nature is, as
natura naturans, in itself expressive. This expression is so natu­
ral, or essential, to God, that it does not merely reflect a ready­made God, but forms a kind of unfolding of divinity, a logical andgenetic constitution of divine substance. Each attribute expresses
a formal essence; all formal essences are expressed as the absolute
essence of a single identical substance whose existence necessar­
ily follows; this existence is thus itself expressed by the attributes.
These are the very moments of substance; expression is, in God,his very life. So that one cannot say God produces the world, uni­verse or natura naturata, in order to express himself. For not only
must the sufficient reason necessitate the result, ruling out any
argument from finality, but God expresses himself in himself, in
his own nature, in the attributes that constitute him. He has no"need" to produce, lacking nothing. We must take literally ametaphor used by Spinoza to show that the world he producesadds nothing to God's essence: when a workman sculpts heads
and chests, and then j oins a chest to a head, this addition adds
nothing to the essence of the head . 1 This maintains the same99

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

essence, the same expression . If God expresses himself in himself,
the universe can only be a second degree of expression. Substancealready expresses itself in the attributes that constitute natura
naturans, but attributes in their tum express themselves in modes,
which constitute natura naturata. Still more reason to ask: Why
this second level? Why does God produce a modal universe?

To account for production a priori, Spinoza adduces the initialargument that God acts, or produces, as he understands himself(seipsum intelligit); understanding himself necessarily, he acts nec­
essarily. 2 His second argument appears sometimes to depend on
the first, sometimes to be distinct and complementary. God pro­duces as he exists; necessarily existing, he necessarily produces)
What is the sense of the first argument? What does "under­
stands himself" mean? God does not conceive in his understand­ing possibilities, but understands the necessity of his own nature.
Infinite understanding is not the locus of the possible, but theform of the idea that God necessarily has of himself or of his own
essence. The scientia of God is not a science of the possible, but
the knowledge God has of himself and of his own nature. Under­
standing, then, is to be opposed to conceiving something as pos­sible. Understanding is thus the deduction of properties fromwhat one apprehends as necessary. Thus, from the definition of
the circle, we deduce various properties that really follow fromthis definition. God understands himself; an infinity of proper­
ties follow, which fall, necessarily, within the divine understand­ing. God in understanding his own essence produces an infinityof things, which result from it as properties result from a definition.
One sees in this argument how modes are assimilated to logicallynecessary properties that follow from the essence of God as thisis understood . When Spinoza congratulates certain Hebrews for100

E X P R E S S I O N

I NPA R A L L E L I S M

having seen that God, God's understanding , and the things heunderstands, were one and the same thing, he means at once that
God's understanding is the scientia he has of his own nature, andthat this knowledge comprises an infinity of things that neces­sarily result from this nature. 4
But why does God understand himself? Sometimes Spinozapresents the proposition as a sort of axiom .5 The axiom derives
from Aristotelian conceptions: God thinks himself, is himself the
obj ect of his thought, his knowledge has no other obj ect thanhimself. Such is the principle opposed to the idea of a divine
understanding that thinks "possibles!' And many commentators
had assembled convincing arguments to show how Aristotle's
God, thinking himself, thereby also thinks all the other things
that necessarily result from him: the Aristotelian tradition thus
tends toward a theism , sometimes even toward a pantheism ,which identifies knower, knowledge and known ( the Hebrews
invoked by Spinoza were Jewish Aristotelians).
Yet Spinoza's theory of the idea of God is too original to be
based on a mere axiom or an appeal to some tradition. That God
understands himself should follow from the necessity of thedivine nature . 6 The notion of expression plays here a decisiverole. In his self-expression, God understands himself insofar as heexpresses himself. In expressing himself formally in his attributes
he understands himself obj ectively in an idea. God's essence,
expressed in the attributes as formal essence, is expressed in ideas
as obj ective essence. Thus Spinoza, from the definition of attri­bute on, invokes an understanding capable of perceiving. Not thatthe attribute is "attributed" by understanding: the word "per­ceiving" sufficiently indicates that understanding grasps nothingthat is not in Nature. But as expressing the essence of substance,
attributes are necessarily referred to an understanding that under­
stands them objectively, that is, perceives what they express. Thus
101

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

the idea of God is seen to be grounded in the divine nature itself:
because God has as his nature an infinity of attributes, each ofwhich "expresses" an infinite essence, it follows from this expres­sive nature that God understands himself and , understanding
himself, produces all the things that "fall" within an infinite
understanding. 7 Expressions are always explications . But the
explications of the understanding are only perceptions. It is notunderstanding that explicates substance, but the explications of
substance refer necessarily to an understanding that understands
them . God necessarily understands himself, just as he explicatesor expresses himself.
Let us consider the second argument: God produces as heexists. Modes are here no longer assimilated to logical proper­
ties, but rather to physical affections . The independent develop­
ment of this line of argument is thus grounded in power: the more
power a thing has, the more it can be affected in a great numberof ways; but we have proved, either a posteriori or a priori, that
God has an absolutely infinite power of existence. God therefore
has the ability to be affected in an infinity of ways, a potestas that
corresponds to his power or potentia. This ability is necessarily
exercised , but this cannot be by affections which come fromsomething other than God; thus God necessarily and actively pro­duces an infinity of things which affect him in an infinity of ways.
That God should necessarily produce things tells us also how
he produces. Understanding himself as a substance composed of
an infinity of attributes , existing as a substance composed of an
infinity of attributes, God acts as he understands and as he exists,
this then in these attributes that express at once his essence andexistence. He produces an infinity of things, "in an infinity ofmodes." That is: The things produced have no existence outside
the attributes that contain them . Attributes are univocal condi­
tions of God's existence , and also of his action. Attributes are102

E X P R E S S I O N

I NPA R A L L E L I S M

univocal or common forms, predicated, in the same form, of crea­tures and creator, products and producer, formally constituting
the essence of one, formally containing the essence of the oth­ers. The principle of necessary production thus reflects a dou­
ble univocity. A univocity of cause: God is cause of all things in
the same sense as he is cause of himself. A univocity of attributes :God produces through and in the same attributes that constitutehis essence. So Spinoza pursues a constant polemic: he never tiresof showing the absurdity of a God producing things through moral
attributes such as goodness, justice or charity, or indeed throughhuman attributes such as understanding and will .
Suppose, by analogy with man, that understanding and will
were attributes of God himself. S This would not get us very far,for we would be attributing understanding and will to God only
equivocal ly: because of the distinction of divine and humanessence, divine and human understanding and will share a "com­munity of name" only, like dog-star and barking dog-animal .
Numerous absurdities follow, according to which God must con­tain eminently the perfections through which he produces crea­tures. 1. From the viewpoint of understanding, God will be said
to be "omnipotent" precisely because he is "unable" to create
things with perfections as he understands them, that is, in thesame form as they belong to him . So one purports to demon­
strate the omnipotence of God through an impotence.9 2. Fromthe viewpoint of will , it will be said that God might have willed
otherwise, or that things might have been of another nature had
God so willed. God is attributed will , it is made his essence;but it is supposed at the same time that he might have had adifferent will , and so a different essence (unless divine will bemade a pure thing of reason, in which case the contradictions
are only increased); this allows the supposition of two or more
possible gods. So that here variability and plurality are intro-

PARA L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

duced into God, to demonstrate his eminence . IO
I have simplified Spinoza's criticisms. But I believe that when­ever he attacks the image of a God essentially endowed with
understanding and will, he is developing the critical implicationsof his theory of univocity. He wants to show that understanding
and will can only be considered attributes of God by analogy. But
analogy is unable to conceal the equivocation from which it setsout, or the eminence to which it leads. And the eminence of per­fections in God involves, like equivocal attributes, all sorts of con­tradiction. To God are attributed only those forms that are as
perfect in the creatures in which they are implicated, as in God
who understands them . God does not produce things because hewills, but because he is. He does not produce because he con­ceives, conceives things as possible, but because he understands
himself, necessarily understands his own nature . In short God
acts "by the laws of his nature alone": he could not have produced
anything else, or produced things in a different order, except byhaving a different nature. 1 1 It may be noted that Spinoza hardly
needs, in general, to denounce the incoherence of the idea of cre­ation directly. He has only to ask: How does God produce things,
in what conditions? The very conditions of production render it
different from a creation, and "creatures" different from crea­
tions. As God produces necessarily, and within his own attributes,
his productions are necessarily modes of these attributes that
constitute his nature.

Th � logic of expression seems to be one of duplication. Spinoza
is too careful a grammarian to allow us to miss the linguistic
origins of "expression." Attributes are, as we have seen, names :verbs rather than adj ectives. Each attribute is a verb, a primary
infinitive proposition, an expression with a distinct sense; but

E X P R E S S I O N

I NPA R A L L E L I S M

all attributes designate substance as one and the same thing .
The traditional distinction between the sense expressed and the
obj ect designated ( and expressing itself in this senseb) thus finds
in Spinozism direct application. The distinction necessarily gen­erates a certain movement of expression. For the sense of an ini­tial proposition must in its turn be made the designatum of asecond, which will itself have a new sense, and so on. Thus thesubstance they designate is expressed in the attributes, attributes
express an essenc e . Then the attributes are in their turn ex­pressed: they express themselves in modes which designate them,the modes expressing a modification. Modes are truly "particip­
ial" propositions which derive from the primary infinitive ones.
Thus expression, through its own movement, generates a sec­
ond level of expression. Expression has within it the sufficientreason of a re-expression. This second level defines production
itself: God is said to produce things, as his attributes find expres­sion.c So that in the last instance it is always God who , but forthe different level of expression, is designated by all things. Attri­butes designate God, but so also do modes, within the attributeon which they depend . " Some of the Hebrews seem to haveseen this, as if through a cloud, when they maintained that God,
God's understanding, and the things understood by him are one
and the same."12
There is an order in which God necessarily produces things.
This order is that of the expression of attributes. Each attributeis first expressed in its absolute nature: an immediate infinite
mode is thus the first expression of an attribute . Then the mod­ified attribute expresses itself, in a mediate infinite mode. Finallythe attribute is expressed "in a certain and determinate way," orrather in an infinity of ways which amount to finite existingmodes . B This last level would remain inexplicable did not infi­
nite modes, within each attribute, contain in them the laws or

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

the principles of the laws according to which corresponding finite
modes are themselves determined and ordered.
If there is an order of production, it is the same for all attri­butes. For God produces things concomitantly in all the attributes
that constitute his nature. So that the attributes express them­selves in one and the same order, down to the level of finite
modes, which must have the same order in different attributes.
This identity of order defines a correspondence of modes: to anymode of one attribute there necessarily corresponds a mode ofeach of the other attributes. This identity of order excludes any
relation of real causality. Attributes are mutually irreducible andreally distinct; none is cause of another, or of anything whateverin another. Modes therefore involve the concept of their own
attribute alone, and not that of any other. 14 The identity of orderand the correspondence between modes of different attributes
therefore excludes any relation of real causality between thesemodes, as between their attributes. And on this point there is noserious reason to believe any change occurs in Spinoza's thought:
the famous passages of the Short Treatise in which Spinoza speaksof an action of one attribute on another, of an effect of one attri­bute in another, an interaction between modes of different
attributes, should not it seems be interpreted in terms of realcausality. Is The context specifies that two attributes (Thought
and Extension) act one on another when they are "taken to­gether," or that two modes of different attributes ( soul and body)act one on another to the extent that they form "parts of a whole."
Nothing in this really goes beyond the assertion of correspond­
ence: if two things are parts of a whole, nothing can change in
one without there being some corresponding change in the other,and neither thing can change without the whole itself changing. 16
One may at most see in these passages the stamp of a phase inwhich Spinoza had not yet sufficiently expressed the difference106E X P R E S S I O N

I NPA R A L L E L I S M

between his own doctrine and apparently similar doctrines ( occa­
sional causality, ideal causality ) . Spinoza never seems to haveadmitted the action of a real causality to account for the rela­tion between modes of different attributes.
The principles above lead to a result in which may be recog­
nized Spinoza's first formulation of parallelism: there is an identityof order or correspondence between mo q es of different attributes.
One may indeed call "parallel" two things or two series of things
which bear to each other a constant relation, such that there isnothing in one to which there corresponds nothing in the other,while all real causality between them is excluded. But one should
be wary of the word "parallelism , " which is not Spinoza's . I t
seems t o be a creation of Leibniz's, who employs it o n his own
account to designate such a correspondence between autono­
mous or independent series. 17 So we should not imagine that
identity of order is enough to identify Spinoza's system; there isa sense in which it is found in more or less all doctrines that
refuse to interpret correspondences in terms of real causality. If
the word "parallelism" does adequately characterize Spinoza's
philosophy, it does so by itself implying something beside a mere
identity of order, something beside a correspondence. And it does
so also because Spinoza is not satisfied with this correspondenceor this identity as definition of the link that unites modes ofdifferent attributes.
Thus Spinoza gives two further formulations that extend thefirst: identity of connection or equality of principle, identity of being
or ontological unity. The specifically Spinozist theory is stated thus:"One and the same order, that is, one and the same connectionof causes, i . e . , that the same things follow one another." 1 8 One
should certainly be in no haste to consider order and connection( connexio or concatenatio) as strictly synonymous. What is certainis that in the passage just cited, the assertion of an identity of
1 07

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

being amounts to something more than a mere identity of con­nection; so that it appears likely that connection already involves
something more than order. And indeed, identity of connectionmeans not only the autonomy of corresponding series, but an
isonomy, that is, an equality of principle between autonomousor independent series. d Consider two corresponding series, butwith unequal principles, that of one being in some way eminent
in relation to that of the other: between a solid and its proj ec­
tion, a line and an asymptote, there is indeed an identity of order
or correspondence, but not, strictly speaking, an "identity ofconnection!' The points of a curve are not linked together ( con­catenantur) in the same way as those of a straight line.e In suchcases one can speak of parallelism only in a very vague sense.
"Parallels," in the strict sense, require an equality of principle
between the two corresponding series of points . When Spinoza
asserts that modes of different attributes have not only the sameorder, but also the came connection or concatenation, he meansthat the principles on which they depend are themselves equal .
Already in the passages of the Short Treatise, if two attributes or
two modes of different attributes are "taken together," this isbecause they form equal parts or halves of a whole. Parallelism
is given its strict sense by the equality of attributes, which guar­antees that the connection is the same between things whoseorder is the same.
Leibniz, then, coins the word "pa11allelism," but invokes it for
his own purposes in a very general and hardly satisfactory manner:
Leibniz's system does indeed imply a correspondence between
autonomous series, substances and phenomena, solids and pro­jections ; but the principles of these series are singularly unequal.
(One may add that Leibniz, when he speaks more exactly, invokes
the image of proj ection rather than that of parallels . ) Spinoza,
on the other hand, does not use the word "parallelism," yet the108

E X P R E S S I O N

I NPA R A L L E L I S M

word suits his system, as he does suppose the equality of the prin­ciples from which independent and corresponding series follow.
H ere again one sees well enough the nature of his polemical
intent. By his strict parallelism Spinoza refuses any analogy, anyeminence, any kind of superiority of one series over another, andany ideal action that presupposes a preeminence: there is no more
any superiority of soul over body, than of the attribute of Thought
over that of Extension. And the third formulation of parallelism,that which asserts identity of being, goes even further in the same
direction: the modes of different attributes have not only thesame order and the same connection, but the same being; they
are the same things, distinguished only by the attribute whose con­
cept they involve . Modes of different attributes are one and thesame modification, differing only in attribute. Through this iden­tity of being or ontological unity, Spinoza refuses the interven­tion of a transcendent God to make each term in one series agreewith a term in the other, or even to set the series in agreement
through their unequal principles. Spinoza's doctrine is rightly
named "parallelism," but this because it excludes any analogy,
any eminence, any transcendence. Parallelism, strictly speaking,is to be understood neither from the viewpoint of occasionalcauses, nor from the viewpoint of ideal causality, but only fromthe viewpoint of an immanent God and immanent causality.
The essence of expression is in play in all this. For the rela­tion of expression goes beyond the relation of causality: it applies
to independent things, and to autonomous series which have, noless than these, a determinate correspondence, constant and reg­ular. If Spinoza's philosophy and that of Leibniz have a naturalline of engagement/ it is to be found in the idea of expression,in their respective use of this idea. And we will see that Leibniz's"expressive" model is always that of asymptote or proj ection.
The expressive model that emerges in Spinoza's theory is quite
1 09

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

different: a "parallelist" model , it implies the equality of twothings that express the same third thing, and the identity of thisthird thing as expressed in the other two . The idea of expressionin Spinoza at once brings together and grounds the three aspectsof parallelism .
Parallelism characterizes modes, and modes alone. But it isgrounded in substance and the attributes of substance . God pro­duces things in all attributes at once: he produces them in thesame order in each, and so there is a correspondence between
modes of different attributes. But because attributes are reallydistinct this correspondence, or identity of order, excludes any
causal action of one on another. Because the attributes are all
equal, there is an identity of connection between modes differing
in attribute. Because attributes constitute one and the same sub­stance, modes that differ in attribute form one and the same mod­ification. One may in a sense see in this the triad of substance"descending" into the attributes and communicating itself to themodes.g Substance expressed itself in attributes, each attribute
was an expression, the essence of substance was expressed. Now
each attribute expresses itself, the dependent modes are expres­sions, and a modification is expressed. It will be recalled that theessence they expressed had no existence outside the attributes,
but was expressed as the absolute essence of substance, the samefor all attributes. The same applies here: a modification has no
existence outside the mode that expresses it in each attribute,but it is expressed as a modification of substance, the same forall modes differing in attribute. One and the same modificationis thus expressed in the infinity of attributes in "an infinity ofmodes, " which differ only in attribute. Importance must there­
fore be attached to the terms "mode" and "modification:' In prin­ciple, a mode is an affection of an attribute, a modification anaffection of substance . One is to be understood formally, thel lO

E X P R E S S I O N

I NPA R A L L E L I S M

other ontologically. Every mode is the form of a modification in
an attribute, every modification the being in itself of modes
differing in attribute (being in itself is not here opposed to a being
for us, but to a formal being). Their correlation may be statedthus: modes differing in attribute express one and the same mod­ification, but this modification has no existence outside themodes expressing it in different attributes . Whence a formula­tion presented by Spinoza himself as obscure: "God is really thecause of things as they are in themselves ( ut in se sunt ), insofar as
he consists of an infinity of attributes.h For the present, I cannot
explain these matters more clearly!'19 "In itself" obviously does
not mean that the things produced by God are substances. The
res in se is substantial modification; but God does not produce
this modification outside the modes that express it in all attri­butes at once. We see the triad of substance, then, extending toa modal triad (attribute-mode-modification). And this is precisely
how Spinoza demonstrates parallelism in the Scholium to I I . 7 :Just a s one and the same substance is "comprehended" i under
different attributes , one and the same thing (modification) is"expressed" in all attributes; as this thing has no existence out­side the modes that express it in each attribute, modes differing
in attribute have the same order, the same connection, and thesame being in themselves.

IllC H A P T E R S EV E N
T h e Tw o

Powers andtheI dea of God

Parallelism, then, seems easy to demonstrate. One need only
carry the unity of substance into modification, and the expres­sive character of attributes into modes, the transposition being
grounded in the necessity of production ( the second level o f
expression) . But when we consider Part Two, Proposition 7 a s awhole, we are disconcerted to find before us a far more complex
operation. Thus the text of Enuncia, Proof and Corollary does
indeed assert an identity of order, connection and even being, but
not between modes expressing the same modification in each
attribute. The triple identity is asserted only of ideas, which aremodes of Thought, and the thing they represent, which is a modeof some attribute . Such parallelism is epistemoloaical: it is estab­lished between an idea and its "object" (res ideata, objectum ideae).
The Scholium , on the other hand, follows the lines indicatedabove : it deduces an ontoloaical parallelism between all modes
differing in attribute. But it itself reaches this conclusion only by
way of the proof and corollary: it generalizes the case of an idea
and its obj ect, extending it to all modes differing in attribute. 1
Several questions arise. In the first place , assuming the twoparallelisms go together, why does one have to pass at the outset
through an "epistemological" detour? Is it only a detour? What
1 13

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

is its sense and importance in the Ethics as a whole? Above all ,are the two parallelisms reconcilable? The epistemological view­
point amounts to this: that given a mode in some attribute, there
corresponds to it in the attribute of Thought an idea that repre­
sents it, and it alone . 2 Far from leading us to the unity of a"modification" expressed by all modes in different attributes ,epistemological parallelism directs us rather to the simple unityof an "individual" formed by the mode of a certain attribute andthe idea that represents solely this mode.3 Far from leading us
to the unity of all modes differing in their attribute, it directs us
to the multiplicity of the ideas corresponding to modes of dif­ferent attributes. In this sense, "psychophysical" parallelism is aparticular case of epistemological parallelism: the soul is the ideaof the body, that is to say, the idea of a certain mode of Exten­
sion, and of this mode only. The epistemological viewpoint, then,
may be stated thus: one and the same individual is expressed bya given mode and by the corresponding idea. But the ontologi­
cal viewpoint thus: one and the same modification is expressedby all corresponding modes differing in attribute. Of all Spinoza's
friends and disciples, it is Tschimhaus who best emphasizes thedifficulty, recognizing that it is at the heart of the system of
expression .4 How may the two viewpoints be reconciled? This,
most particularly, since epistemology forces us to confer on theattribute of Thought a singular privilege: the attribute must con­tain as many irreducible ideas as there are modes of different attri­butes ; still more, as many ideas as there are attribute s . This
privilege seems in flagrant contradiction with all the demandsof ontological parallelism .

We must therefore examine the Proof and Corollary of Proposi­tion 7 in detail : "The order and connection of ideas is the samel l4

T H ETWO

P O W E R S

A N D

T H E

I D E A

O F

G O D

as the order and connection of things ." The Proof is simple; itmerely invokes the axiom that "The knowledge of an effectdepends on, and involves, the knowledge of its cause !' Whichtakes us back, in its turn, to the Aristotelian principle that toknow is to know by the cause. In Spinoza's perspective one de­duces: ( 1 ) To every idea there corresponds some thing (nothingcan be known independently of a cause of its being, in essence
or in existence); ( 2) The order of ideas is the same as the orderof things (a thing is known only by knowledge of its cause ) .
But this specifically Spinoza's perspective involves more thanjust Aristotle's axiom. How otherwise could we understand thefact that Aristotle and many others did not reach a theory of par­allelism? Spinoza happily recognizes this: "We have shown thata true idea is simple, or composed of simple ideas ; that it shows
how and why something is, or has been done; and that its obj ec­
tive effects proceed in the soul according to the formal natureof its obj ect. This is the same as what the ancients said, i . e . , thattrue knowledge proceeds from cause to effect - except that so far
as I know they never conceived the soul (as we do here ) as acting
according to certain laws , like a spiritual automaton ."S " Spir­itual automaton" means first of all that an idea, being a mode ofthought, has its ( efficient and formal ) cause nowhere but in theattribute of Thought. Equally, any obj ect whatever has its effi­
cient and formal cause only in the attribute of which it is a mode,
and whose concept it involves. Here then is what sets Spinoza
apart from the tradition leading down from Antiquity: all effi­
cient or formal (and a fortiori material and final ) causality between
ideas and things, things and ideas, is excluded. This double exclu­
sion is not referred to an axiom, but is the obj ect of proofs thatoccupy the beginning of Part Two of the Ethics. 6 Spinoza can thus
assert the independence of the two series, the series of things andthe series of ideas. That to each idea there corresponds some
1 15

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

thing is, in this context, an initial element of parallelism .
But only an initial element. For ideas to have the same con­nection as things, there must also be an idea corresponding toeach thing. We come back to two formulae of the Short Treatise:"No idea can exist unless the thing also exists , " but in turn
"There is no thing of which there is not an idea in the thinking
thing."7 But, to prove that each thing is the obj ect of an idea, we
no longer run up against the difficulties that stopped us in the aposteriori proof. For now we start from an existent God. We knowthat this God understands himself: he forms an idea of himself,
he possesses an infinite understanding. But it is enough for this
God to understand himself, to produce things and, producing,to understand all that he produces .
To the extent that God produces as he understands himself,
all that he produces necessarily "falls" within his infinite under­
standing . In understanding himself and his own essence, Godalso understands all that follows from his essence. So infinite
understanding understands all the attributes of God, as well as
all his affections . 8 Ideas that God forms are ideas of his own
essence, but are also ideas of all that he formally produces in his
attributes. There are thus as many ideas as there are things, eachthing being the object of an idea. One calls a "thing," indeed,
anything that follows formally from the divine substance; things
are explicated through that attribute of which they are a mode.
But as God understands all he produces, to each mode that fol­lows from an attribute there corresponds an idea in God's under­
standing. Thus ideas themselves flow from the idea of God, justas modes follow or flow from their respective attribute; the idea
of God is thus the cause of all ideas , just as God is himself thecause of all things.
To every idea there corresponds some thing, and to every thing
an idea. It is just this theme that allows Spinoza to assert an equal1 16

T H ET W O

P O W E R S

A N D

T H E

I D E A

O F

G O D

ity of principle: there are in God two equal powers . In Proposi­tion 7, the Corollary is linked to the Proof precisely through therecognition of this equality of powers: "From this it follows that
God's power of thinking is equal to his actual power of acting."
Thus tpe argument from powers no longer serves to prove aposteriori the existence of God, but plays a decisive role in deter­mining epistemological parallelism. It allows us to go farther still,
and to assert an identity of being between objects and ideas . Thisis the point of the Corollary: what follows formally (that is to say,in this or that attribute) from God's infinite nature, is the sameas what follows obj ectively from the idea of God. One and thesame thing is formal in the attrjbute on which it depends within
the power of existing and acting, and obj ective in the idea of God
on which it depends within the power of thinking. A mode ofan attribute and the idea of that mode are one and the same thing
expressed in two ways, under two powers. In the Proof and Cor­ollary taken together we thus find once again the three momentsof parallelism: identity of order, identity of connection or equal­
ity of principle, and identity of being, but here these apply only
to the relations of an idea and its obj ect.

Spinoza's God is a God who both is, and produces, all , like the
One and All of the Platonists; but he is also a God who thinks
both himself and everything, like Aristotle's Prime Mover. We
must on the one hand attribute to God a power of existing andacting identical to his formal essence, or corresponding to his
idea. But we must equally, on the other hand, attribute to him apower of thinking identical to his obj ective essence, or corres­
ponding to his nature . N ow this principle of the equality of
powers merits close examination, because there is a danger ofconfusing it with another principle of equality, which concernsl l7

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

the attributes alone . Yet the distinction of powers and attributes
has an essential importance in Spinozism. God, that is the absolutely
infinite, possesses two equal powers: the power of existing andacting, and the power of thinking and knowing. If one may use
a Bergsonian formulation, the absolute has two "sides , " twohalves. If the absolute thus possesses two powers, it does so inand through itself, involving them in its radical unity. Such is not
the case with attribut e l We know of only two, Extension andThought, but this because our knowledge is limited, because weare constituted by a mode of Extension and a mode of Thought.
The determination of the two powers is on the other hand in noway relative to the limits of our knowledge, any more than it
depends on the nature of our constitution. The power of existing
we assert of God is an absolutely infinite power: God exists"absolutely," and produces an infinity of things in the "absolute
infinity" of his attributes ( and so in an infinity of modes).9 Simi­
larly, the power of thinking is absolutely infinite. Spinoza does not
merely say that it is infinitely perfect; God thinks himself abso­
lutely, and thinks an infinity of things in an infinity of modes. lO
Whence the expressions absoluta cogitatio to designate the powerof thinking, and intellectus absolute inftnitus to designate infinite
understanding; and the thesis according to which an infinity ofthings in an infinity of modes follows ( objectively) from the idea
of God . 1 1 The two powers are thus in no way relative: they are
the halves of the absolute, the dimensions of the absolute, thepowers of the absolute. Schelling is a Spinozist when he devel­ops a theory of the absolute, representing God by the symbol "A 3"
which comprises the Real and the Ideal as its powers . J2
It may be asked: What are the conditions for asserting of God
an absolutely infinite power of existing and acting, corresponding
to his nature? The conditions are that he should have an infinityof formally distinct attributes which , taken together, constitutell8

T H ET W O

P O W E R S

A N D

T H E

I D E A

O F

G O D

this nature itself. We know, it is true, only two attributes. But wealso know that the power of existing is not the same as the attri­bute of Extension: ideas exist no less than bodies, and Thought
is no less than Extension a form of existence or "genus:' Nor, fur­thermore, do Thought and Extension taken together suffice toexhaust or fulfill an absolute power of existing. We arrive here
at the positive ground of God's infinity of attributes. In an impor­tant passage of the Short Treatise, Spinoza asserts that "We findin ourselves something which openly indicates to us not onlythat there are more, but also that there are infinite perfect attri­butes"; unknown attributes "tell us that they are, though theyso far do not tell us what they are."B In other words: the very
fact of our existence shows us that existence is not exhausted by
the attributes we know. As infinite perfection does not bear its
reason within itself, God must have an infinity of infinitely per­fect attributes, all equal to one another, and each constituting
an ultimate or irreducible form of existence. We know that none
exhausts the absolute power of existing which belongs to God
as sufficient reason.
The absolutely infinite consists, first of all , of an infinity offormally or really distinct attribute s . All attributes are equal ,none being superior or inferior to any other, and each expres­sing an infinitely perfect essence. All these formal essences are
expressed by the attributes as the absolute essence of substance,
are identified, that is, in ontologically single substance. The for­mal essence is the essence of God as it exists in each attribute .
The absolute essence is the same essence, in relation to a sub­stance from which existence necessarily flows, a substance, then,that possesses all attributes. Expression here appears as the rela­tion of form and absolute : each form expresses, explicates or
unfolds the absolute, but the absolute contains or "complicates"
an infinity of forms . God's absolute essence is the absolutely
l l9

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

infinite power of existing and acting; but we only assert thisprimary power as identical to the essence of God conditionally
upon an infinity of formally or really distinct attributes. The
power of existing and acting is thus absolute formal essence. And
this is how the equality of attributes is to be understood: all
attributes are equal relative to this power of existing and actingthat they condition.•
But the absolute has a second power, as it were a second for­mula or "period" of expression: God understands and expresses
himself obj ectively. God's absolute essence is formal in the attri­butes that constitute his nature, and obj ective in the idea thatnecessarily represents this nature. The idea of God thus represents
all formally or really distinct attributes , to the extent that a dis­tinct soul or idea corresponds to each. 14 The same attributes thatare formally distinguished in God are obj ectively distinguishedin the idea of God. But this idea is nonetheless absolutely unitary,
like the substance constituted by all the attributes . 15 Absolute
obj ective essence is thus the second power of the absolute itself:
one cannot posit a being as cause of all things, without its obj ec­
tive essence also being the cause of all ideas . 16 God's absolute
essence is obj ectively the power of thinking and knowing, as it
is formally the power of existing and acting. Another reason toask, in this new instance: What are the conditions for attributing
to God this absolutely infinite power of thinking, as identical tohis obj ective essence?

It is no more legitimate to confuse the attribute of Thought withthe power of thinking, than to confuse the attribute of Extension withthe power of existing. And yet there is a passage of Spinoza's that
seems to say the express opposite, identifying the attribute ofThought with the absoluta cogitatio.J7 But Spinoza goes on to spec­
ify the sense in which this identification should be understood:
only that the power of thinking has as its sole condition the attri120

T H ET W O

P O W E R S

A N D

T H E

I D E A

O F

G O D

bute of Thought. Spinoza does indeed sometimes inquire into thecondition of the power of thinking or, which comes to the samething, into the possibility of the idea of God: for God to be able
to think an infinity of things in an infinity of ways, for it to bepossible for him to form an idea of his essence and of all that fol­lows from it, he must, and need only, have the attribute that isThought. !8 The attribute of Thought thus suffices to conditiona power of thinking equal to the power of existing, which is how­ever conditioned by all attributes ( including Though t ) . One
should not rush into attacking Spinoza's inconsistency. For one
only finds inconsistency by confusing two very different princi­
ples of equality in Spinoza. On the one hand, all attributes areequal ; but this should be understood in relation to the power ofexisting and acting. On the other hand, this power of existing isonly one half of the absolute , the other half being a power ofthinking equal to it: it is in relation to this second power thatthe attribute of Thought enjoys certain privileges. By itself it con­ditions a power equal to that conditioned by all the other attri­butes. There does not seem to be any contradiction in this, butrather an ultimate fact. A fact that in no way concerns our con­stitution or the limitations of our knowledge. The fact rather of
divine constitution or of the unfolding of the absolute. "The fact
is" that no attribute suffices to fulfill the power of existing : athing can exist and act, without being extended or thinking.
Nothing, on the other hand, can be known except by thought;
the power of thinking and knowing is indeed fulfilled by theattribute of Thought. There would be contradiction had Spinoza
first of all posited the equality of all attributes, and then, fromthe same viewpoint, given to the attribute of Thought powers
and functions at variance with such equality. But Spinoza does
not proceed in this way: it is the equality of powers that confers
special capacities in a domain which is no longer that of the121PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

equality of attributes. The attribute of Thought is to the power ofthinR.ing what all attributes (including Thought) are to the power ofexisting and acting.

Three consequences follow from the relation ( and so, also, fromthe difference ) between the power of thinking and the attributeof Thought. First, the power of thinking is asserted, by nature or
participation, of all that is "obj ective!' The obj ective essence of
God is an absolutely infinite power of thinking; and all that flows
from that essence participates in this power. But objective being

would amount to nothing did it not itself have a formal being in theattribute of Thought. Not only the obj ective essence of what is pro­
duced by God, but also the obj ective essences of attributes, andthe objective essence of God himself, are subj ect to the conditionof being "formed" in the attribute of Thought.J9 Thus the idea of
God is but a mode of Thought, and belongs to natura naturata. The
modes of the attribute of Thought are not, strictly speaking, theobj ective essences or obj ective beings of ideas as such. Modesor products are always ideas taken in their formal being. Thus
Spinoza takes great care in giving to the first mode of Thought
the name of infinite understanding: for infinite understanding is
not the idea of God from some viewpoint or other, but just theformal being of the idea of God. 20 It is true, and one must insist
on this point, that objective being would be nothing without thisformal being through which it is a mode of the attribute ofThought. Or, if you like, it would be only potential, without thispotentiality ever being actualized.
We must still distinguish two viewpoints: in its necessity theidea of God is grounded in natura naturans. For it belongs neces­sarily to God, considered in his absolute nature, to understandhimself. There attaches to him an absolute power of thinking
122T H ET W O

P O W E R S

A N D

T H E

I D E A

O F

G O D

identical with his objective essence, or corresponding to his idea.
The idea of God is thus an obj ective principle, an absolute prin­ciple of all that follows obj ectively in God. But in its possibility
the idea of God is grounded only in the natura naturata to which
it belongs. It can be "formed" only in the attribute of Thought,
finds in the attribute of Thought the formal principle on which
it depends, precisely because this attribute is the condition ofasserting of God the absolutely infinite power of thinking. The
distinction between the two viewpoints, that of necessity and thatof possibility, seems to me to be of importance in the theory of
the idea of God . 21 The nature of God, to which corresponds thepower of existing and acting, is grounded in necessity and pos­sibility at once: its possibility is established by the formally dis­tinct attributes, and its necessity by these same attributes taken
together, ontologically "one: ' The same does not apply to theidea of God: its obj ective necessity is established in the nature ofGod, but its formal possibility in the single attribute of Thought
to which, consequently, it belongs as a mode. It will be recalledthat divine power is always actual ; but the power of thinking
corresponding to the idea of God would not, indeed, be actual ,did not God produce infinite understanding as the formal beingof this idea. Infinite understanding is, in addition, called the
Son of God, the Christ.22 Now in the barely Christian image ofChrist as Wisdom, Word or Voice of God, proposed by Spinoza,
one may distinguish an aspect in which it agrees obj ectively withthe absolute nature of God, an aspect in which it formally flows
from the divine nature regarded under the sole attribute ofThought. 23 So that the question whether Spinoza's God thinks
himself in himself is a subtle one, which may only be resolved if
we remember that infinite understanding is only a mode.24 For if
God has wisdom or knowledge, it is a knowledge of himself andof his own nature; if he necessarily understands himself, he does123

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

so by virtue of his own nature : the power of thinking, and of
thinking himself, properly belongs to him, then, absolutely. But
this power would remain only potential did not God create in
the attribute of Thought the formal being of the idea in which
he thinks himself. Thus God's understanding does not belong to
his nature , while the power of thinking does belong to thatnature. God produces things as he obj ectively understands him­
self; but the process of understanding itself necessarily has theform of a product.25
Such is the first privilege of the attribute of Thought: it for­mally contains modes that, taken obj ectively, represent th� attri­butes themselves. This first privilege is not to be confused withanother, which flows from it. A mode that depends on a par­ticular attribute is represented by an idea in the attribute ofThought; but a mode that differs from the first in attribute must
be represented by another idea. For whatever participates, within
this or that attribute, in the power of existing and acting, also
participates in the power of thinking, but always in the attributeof Thought. As Schuller says , "the attribute of Thought has amuch wider extension than the other attributes!' 26 Given a sub­stantial modification, it will be expressed only once in each of
the other attributes, but an infinity of times in infinite under­
standing, and, therefore, in the attribute of ThoughtP And eachidea that expresses it in Thought will represent a mode of one
particular attribute, rather than of some other. So that there will
be as great a distinction between ideas as between attributes
themselves or modes of different attributes: they will have "noconnection!'28 There will thus be an obj ective distinction be­
tween ideas, equivalent to the real formal distinction between
attributes, or modes differing in attribute. Furthermore, this dis­tinction between ideas will itself be obj ective and formal , inso­
far as it is brought into relation with the formal being of the
1 24

T H E·T W O

P O W E R S

A N D

T H E

I D E A

O F

G O D

ideas themselves. Thought will thus contain modes which, whilebelonging to the same attribute, are nevertheless distinguished
not modally, but formally or really. This privilege, once again,
would remain unintelligible, were it not for the introduction of
the special relation between the attribute of Thought and thepower of thinking. Objective formal distinction is the necessary cor­
relate in the idea of God of real formal distinction as it applies in thenature of God; it designates the act of infinite understanding
when it grasps diverse attributes, or corresponding modes ofdiverse attributes.
In the third place, everything that exists formally has an ideathat corresponds to it obj ectively. But the attribute of Thought
is itself a form of existence, and every idea has a formal being inthis attribute. Therefore every idea is, in its turn, the obj ect ofan idea that represents it; this other idea is the obj ect of a third,and so on ad infinitum. In other words: if it be true that every
idea that participates in the power of thinking belongs formallyto the attribute of Thought, then conversely, every idea thatbelongs to the attribute of Thought is the obj ect of an idea thatparticipates in the power of thinking. Whence this final appar­
ent privilege of the attribute of Thought, which is the ground ofa capacity of ideas to reflect themselves ad infinitum . Spinoza
sometimes says that the idea of an idea has to the idea the same
relation as the idea to its object. This is surprising, insofar as idea
and obj ect are the same thing considered under two attributes,
while the idea of an idea and the idea itself would then be thesame thing under the same attribute. 29 But obj ect and idea are
not referred only to two attributes, but referred also to two pow­
ers,. the power of existing and acting, and the power of thinking
and knowing. It is the same with an idea and the idea of that idea:
they are certainly referred to the same attribute, but are referredalso to two powers, since the attribute of Thought is on the one125PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

hand a form of existence, and on the other, the condition of thepower of thinking.
Given this situation, one understands how the theory of theidea of an idea develops in two different directions. For an idea
and an idea of that idea may be distinguished insofar as we con­sider the one in its formal being, in relation to the power o fexisting, and the other i n its obj ective being, i n relation to thepower of thinking: the Correction of the UnderstandinB presents
the idea of an idea as another idea, distinct from the first. 30 But
every idea is, on the other hand, referred to the power of think­ing: even its formal being is only the condition of its participa­tion in that power. From this viewpoint we see the unity of an
idea and the idea of that idea, insofar as they are given in God
with the same necessity, by the same power of thinkina.31 There isconsequently only a distinction of reason between the two ideas:
the idea of an idea is the form of that idea, referred as such tothe power of thinking.

The apparent contradictions of parallelism vanish once two very
different arguments are distinguished: that from powers and theirequality, and that from attributes and their equality. Epistemo­
logical parallelism follows from the equality of powers. Ontolog­
ical parallelism follows from the equality of attributes (in relation
to the power of existing). A difficulty does, however, remain. The
Scholium to I I . 7 passes from epistemological to ontological par­allelism. The transition is effected simply by generalization: " Iunderstand the same concerning the other attributes :' But what
account is to be given of this transition? From the fact that an
obj ect ( in whatever attribute ) and its idea (in the attribute ofThought) are one and the same thing ( or individual ) , Spinoza
infers that correlative obj ects in all attributes are one and the126T H ET W O

P O W E R S

A N D

T H E

I D E A

O F

G O D

same thing ( or modification ) . But it might seem that the argu­
ment should lead, not to the unity of a modification, but rather
to an infinite and irreducible plurality of "idea-obj ect" pairs.
The difficulty is only resolved by considering the complex sta­tus of the idea of God. From the viewpoint of its obj ective neces­sity, the idea of God is an absolute principle, with no less unity
than absolutely infinite substance. From the viewpoint of its for­mal possibility, it is only a mode whose principle is to be foundin the attribute of Thought. Hence the idea of God is able tocommunicate something of substantial unity to modes. Indeed,ideas that flow from the idea of God itself - that is to say, modesof thinking that belong to infinite understanding - will have a
specifically modal unity. The same modification will thus findexpression in an infinity of ways in God's infinite understand­ing. Consequently, the obj ects represented by these ideas will be
obj ects differing only in attribute: like their ideas , they will
express one and the same modification. A mode in some attri­bute forms, with the idea that represents it, an irreducible "indi­vidual"; as does an idea in the attribute of Thought together withthe obj ect it represents. But this infinity of individuals corre­
spond to one another, in that they express a single modification.
Thus the same modification exists not only in an infinity ofmodes, but in an infinity of individuals, each of which is consti­
tuted by a mode and the idea of that mode.
But why did we have to pass through epistemological paral­
lelism? Why not deduce the unity of substantial modification
directly from the unity of substance? Because God produces
things in attributes that are formally or really distinct; attri­butes are indeed expressive, but each finds expression on its own
account, as an ultimate and irreducible form. Of course every­
thing leads one to think that production will benefit from a unity
deriving from substance itself. For, while each attribute finds
1 27

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

expression on its own account, God nonetheless produces in all
attributes at once. Everything leads us then to expect that there
will be modes in different attributes expressing the same mod­ification. Yet we have no absolute certainty in this matter. One
might even conceive as many worlds as there are attribute s .
Nature would be one i n substance, but multiple i n its modifica­
tions, what is produced in one attribute remaining absolutely dif­ferent from what is produced in another. It is because of theirindividual coherence, their specificity, that we are forced to seeka separate ground of the unity of which they are capable. Kant
criticized Spinozism for failing to seek a specific principle of theunity of the diverse in modes. 32 (He was thinking of the unity ofmodes in the same attribute, but the same problem arises withthe unity of a modification relative to modes of different attri­butes. ) But the obj ection seems unfounded. Spinoza was perfectly
aware of a particular problem in the unity of modes, and of theneed to invoke novel principles to account for the transition fromsubstantial unity to modal unity.
The idea of God provides j ust such a principle, through its
dual aspect. In it one passes from the unity of substance, consti­
tuted by all the attributes that express its essence, to the unity ofa modification comprehended in infinite understanding, but con­stituted by the modes that express it in each attribute. To the ques­tion: "Why are there not as many worlds as there are attributesof God?" Spinoza simply replies by referring the reader to the
Scholium to II. 7.33 And this text embodies, precisely, an argumentthat turns on infinite understanding (whence the importance of
the allusion to "some of the Hebrews"): God's understanding has
no less unity than divine substance, and so the things he under­
stands have no less unity than God himself.

128

CHAPTER EIGHT
Expression andI deaSpinoza's philosophy is a " Logic." The nature and rules o f thisLogic constitute his Method. The question whether the Methodand Logic of the Correction of the Understanding are retained in
the Ethics in their entirety is an important one, and can only beresolved by examining the Correction itself. The treatise consistsof two distinct parts. The first concerns the end of Method, orof Philosophy, the final end of thought: it deals primarily withthe form of a true idea . ! The second part is mainly concernedwith the means of attaining this end; it deals with the content
of a true idea.2 The first part necessarily anticipates the second,since the end predetermines the means by which one attains it.
Each of these points must be analyzed.
The end of Philosophy, or the first part of Method, does notconsist in our gaining knowledge of some thing, but in gaining
knowledge of our power of understanding. Not of gaining knowl­edge of Nature, but gaining a conception of, and acquiring, ahigher human nature. 3 Which is to say that Method, in its first
aspect, is essentially reflexive: it consists solely in the knowledgeof pure understanding , of its nature, its laws and its forces.4"Method is nothing but a reflexive knowledge, or an idea of anidea."S There is in this respect no difference between the Ethics
129

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

and the Correction of the Understanding. The obj ect of Method isagain the final end of Philosophy. Part Five of the Ethics describes
this end not as the knowledge of some thing, but as the knowl­edge of our power of comprehension, of our understanding; fromit are deduced the conditions of beatitude,• which is the full actu­
alization of this power. Whence the title of Part Five: De Potentia

intellectus seu de libertate h umana.
"Because Method is reflexive knowledge itself, this founda­tion, which must direct our thoughts, can be nothing other thanknowledge of what constitutes the form of truth:'6 In what does
this relation of form and reflection consist? Reflexive conscious­
ness is the idea of an idea. We have seen that the idea of an idea
is distinct from that idea itself, insofar as the latter is referred in
its formal being to the power of existing, the former in its objec­
tive being to the power of thinking. But, from another viewpoint,
an idea taken in its formal being already refers to the power ofthinking. The formal being of an idea is, indeed, its existence inthe attribute of Thought. And this attribute is not only a kind ofexistence, but also the condition for ascribing to any thing a
power of thinking, understanding and knowing. God has within
the attribute of Thought an absolutely infinite power of think­ing. An idea within the attribute of Thought has a determinate
power of knowing or understanding. The power of understand­ing that belongs to an idea is the power of thinking of God him­
self insofar as it is "explicated" in this idea. It will thus be seenthat the idea of an idea is the idea considered in its form, insofar
as it possesses a power of understanding or knowing (as part of
the absolute power of thinking ) . So form and reflection are
implicated one in the other.
Thus form is always the form of some idea we actually have.
And one must add that only truth has a form. Had falsity a form it
would be impossible for us to take the false for the true, and so

E X P R E S S I O N

A N D

I D E Ato be mistaken. 7 Form is, then, always the form of some true idea
we have. Just to have a true idea is enough for it to be reflected,
and to reflect its power of knowing; it is enough to know, toknow that one knows . 8 Hence Method presumes that one hassome true idea or other. It presupposes an " innate force" o funderstanding which cannot fail among all its ideas to have at least
one that is true. 9 It is in no sense the end of Method to furnish us
with such an idea, but rather to produce the "reflection" of one
we have already, to make us understand our power of knowledge.
But in what does such reflection consist? Form is not in gen­eral opposed to content, but formal being to obj ective or rep­resentative being : the idea of an idea is the idea in its form ,independently of the object it represents. Thought is indeed, likeall attributes , autonomous; so modes of Thought, ideas , areautomata. That is to say, they depend in their formal being on
the attribute of Thought alone: here they are considered "without
relation to the obj ect:'10 So the form of an idea is opposed to its
obj ective or representative content. But it is in no way opposed
to some other content that the idea might itself be supposed topossess independently of the obj ect i t represents . In fact weshould guard against a double mistake concerning both the form
and the content of an idea. Suppose we accept the definition oftruth as a correspondence of an idea with its obj ect. This cer­tainly tells us nothing of a true idea's form : so how are we toknow whether an idea accords with its obj ect? Nor does it tell
us anything of a true idea's content; for a true idea, on this defi­
nition, will have no more reality or internal perfection than a false
one. 11 The conception of truth as correspondence gives us nodefinition, either formal or material, of truth; it proposes a purely
nominal definition, an extrinsic designation. One may perhaps
think, then, that "clarity and distinctness" provides a better deter­
mination, that is, an internal characterization of truth as it is pres-PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

ent in an idea. But it does nothing of the sort. Taken in themselvesclarity and distinctness do indeed relate an idea's content, butthey relate only to its "obj ective" or "representative" content.
They also relate to the form , but only to the form of " psycho­
logical consciousness" in the idea. They thus allow us to recognize
a true idea, the very idea presupposed by the Method, but give us noknowledge of the material content of that idea, nor of its logicalform. Moreover, clarity and distinctness cannot take us beyond
the duality of form and content. Cartesian clarity is dual , rather
than some single thing. Descartes himself asks us to distinguisha material evidence, as it were, the clarity and distinctness of an
idea's objective content, and a formal evidence, a clarity attaching
to the "ground" of our belief in the idea. 12 This dualism extends
into the Cartesian division of understanding and will. In short,
Cartesianism fails not only to conceive the true content of ideas
as material , and their true form as l ogical, but fails also to riseto the standpoint of the "spiritual automaton" which implies theidentity of these.
Ideas have a logical form that should not be confused witha form o f psychological consciousnes s . They have a material
content that should not be confused with their representative
content. One has only to discover this true form and true con­tent, to conceive their unity: the soul or understanding as a"spiritual automaton." Its form, as a form of truth, is one with thecontent of any true idea : it is by thinking the content of sometrue idea which we have that we reflectb the idea in its form ,and understand our power of thinking. We then see why Method
involves a second part, and why the first part necessarily antici­
pates the second. The first part of Method, its final goal , isconcerned with the form of a true idea, the idea of an idea, areflexive idea. The second is concerned with the content of a true
idea, that is, with the adequacy of an idea. This second part is,
13 2

E X P R E S S I O N

A N D

I D E Aso to speak, a means subordinate to an end, but also the meanson which the realization of that end depends. It inquires: Whatis an idea's content? That is, what makes an idea adequate?

A true idea is, from the viewpoint of its form, an idea of the idea;from the viewpoint of its matter it is an adequate idea. Just as
the idea of an idea is seen to be a reflexive idea, an adequate idea
is seen to be an expressive idea. In Spinoza the term "adequate"
never signifies the correspondence of an idea and the obj ect it
represents or indicates , but the internal conformity of the ideawith something it expresses. What does it express? Let us firstconsider an idea as the knowledge of some thing. It is only true
knowledge to the extent that it bears on the thing's essence: itmust "explicate" that essence. But it explicates or explains theessence to the extent that it comprehendsc the thing through its
proximate cause: it must "express" this cause itself, must, thati s , " involve" a knowledge of the cause . 13 This conception o fknowledge is thoroughly Aristotelian. Spinoza does n o t merelymean that the effects known depend on causes. He means in Aris­
totelian manner that knowledge of a thing itself depends on aknowledge of its cause. But this renewal of an Aristotelian prin­ciple is inspired by parallelism: that knowledge should thus pro­
gress from cause to effect must be understood as the law of anautonomous Thought, the expression of an absolute power onwhich all ideas depend. I t thus amounts to the same as sayingthat knowledge of an effect, considered obj ectively, "involves" aknowledge of its cause, or that an idea, considered formally,"expresses" its own cause. l4 An adequate idea is just an idea that
expresses its cause. Thus Spinoza reminds us that his Method isbased on the possibility of linking ideas one to another in a chain,
one being the " complete cause " of another. 15 As long as we
13 3

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

remain with clear and distinct ideas, we have knowledge of effects
only; or to put it differently, we know only properties of things. 16
Only adequate ideas , as expressive, give us knowledge throughcauses, or through a thing's essence.
One now sees what the second part of Method amounts to.
We are still presumed to have a true idea, and to recognize it by
its clarity. But, even though the "innate force" of understanding
provide us at once with this recognition and this possession, thisstill leaves us simply in the sphere of chance (fortuna). We still
have no adequate idea. The whole problem of Method becomesthe following: How to extract our true thoughts from the ruleof chance? That is: How make a true thought into an adequate
idea, linked to other adequate ideas? We set out from a true idea.

And it is best, given our aims, for us to choose a true idea, clear anddistinct, which quite obviously depends on our power of thinking, as it
has no object in Nature, for example the idea of a sphere (or circle ). 17
We must render this idea adequate, that is, must connect it with
its own cause. It is not a matter, as in the Cartesian Method, of
knowing a cause from its effect. Rather is it a matter of under­
standing the knowledge we have of the effect through a knowl­edge , itself more perfect, of its cause .
It may be obj ected that we set out in any case from a known
effect, that is to say, from an idea that is supposed given. I S But
we do not proceed from properties of the effect to certain prop­
erties of the cause, which would be only, as it were, necessary
conditions in relation to this effect. Starting from the effect wedetermine the cause, even if through a "fiction, " as the sufficientreason of all the properties we conceive the effect to possess. '9 It
is in this sense that we know through the cause, or that the cause
is better known than its effect. Cartesian Method is regressive andanalytic. Spinoza's Method is reflexive and synthetic: reflexive
because it involves knowledge of an effect through knowledge of

E X P R E S S I O N

A N D

I D EAits cause; synthetic because it generates all the properties of theeffect from the cause known as sufficient reason. We have an ade­quate idea to the extent that, from a thing, some of whose prop­
erties we conceive clearly, we give a genetic definition, fromwhich follow all of its known properties (and still others that we
do not know ) . It has often been noted that the only role of math­ematics in Spinoza is to provide such a genetic process. 20 The
cause as sufficient reason is what, being given, means that all thething's properties are also given, and, being withdrawn, meansthat all the properties are withdrawn with it.21 We define theplane by the movement of a line, the circle by the movement ofa line with one endpoint fixed, the sphere by the movement of asemicircle . To the extent that a thing's definition expresses its
efficient cause or the genesis of what it defines, the thing's idea
itself expresses its own cause, and we have rendered the idea ade­quate. Thus Spinoza says that the second part of Method is pri­marily a theory of definition: "The chief point of this second partof the Method is concerned solely with this : knowing the con­ditions of a good definition . . . : • 22
Spinoza's Method is thus far already distinct from any analytic
procedure, but does at the same time have a certain regressive
appearance. Reflection appears similar to analysis in that we firstof all "suppose" an idea, in that we start from a supposed knowl­edge of an effect. We suppose certain properties of the circle to
be clearly known; we rise to the sufficient reason from which all
the properties flow. But in determining the reason of the circle
as the movement of a line about one of its endpoints, we have
not yet reached a thought formed through itself or "absolutely."
For such a movement is not contained in the concept of theline, and is itself fictitious, calling for a cause that determines it.
Whence, if the second part of Method amounts primarily to atheory of definition, it is not to be reduced to such a theory. A
135

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

final problem presents itself: How exorcize the supposition withwhich one began? How thereby extricate oneself from a fictitious
sequence? How construct the real itself, rather than remaining
on the level of mathematical entities or things of reason? Wereach the positing of a principle on the basis of a hypothesis; but

the principle must be of such a nature as to free itself entirely from the
hypothesis, to ground itself, and ground the movement by which
we reach it; it must as soon as possible render obsolete the pre­supposition from which we started in order to discover it. Spin­oza's Method, in its opposition to Descartes , poses a problem
closely analogous to Fichte's, reacting against Kant.23
Spinoza recognizes that he cannot immediately set out "thetruths of Nature" in their due order. 24 That is to say, he cannot
immediately set out the succession of ideas as they would haveto succeed one another, for the Real to be reproduced by thepower of Thought alone. One should not see in this any inade­quacy of Method, but rather a requirement of Spinoza's Method,
its way of taking its time. For Spinoza does also recognize that
he can very quickly reach the absolute principle from which allideas flow in due order: the Method will only be perfect when
we possess the idea of the perfect Being; "So in the beginning
we must take the greatest care that we arrive at knowledge ofsuch a Being as quickly as possible!' We must "begin as soon as
possible from the first elements, i . e . , from the source and origin
of Nature"; "As for order, to unite and order all our perceptions,
it is required that we ask as soon as possible, and as reason demands,
whether there is a certain Being, and at the same time, what sortof being it is,, which is the cause of all things, so that its obj ec­
tive essence may also be the cause of all our ideas !'25 Some com­mentators change the form of these passages; and they are also
sometimes explained as belonging to an imperfect phase of Spin­oza's thought. This is not the case: that one cannot begin from

E X P R E S S I O N

A N D

I D EAthe idea of God, that one cannot from the outset install oneself
in God, is a constant of Spinozism . There are real differences
between the Ethics and the Correction of the Understanding, but they
do not concern this point (but only the means used to reach theidea of God as quickly as possible).
What is the theory in the Correction of the Understanding? If
we consider an infinite regress, that is an infinite sequence ofthings that do not exist by their own nature, or whose ideas are
not formed through themselves, we recognize that the conceptof such a regression is in no way absurd. Yet at the same time and this is the real sense of the classic proof a posteriori - it would
be absurd not to recognize the following: that things that do notexist by their own nature are determined in their existence (andin the production of their effects ) by something that itself does
exist necessarily and does produce its effects through itself. It isalways God who determines any cause to produce its effect; so
God is never, properly speaking, a "distant" or "remote" cause. 26
Thus we do not start from the idea of God, but we reach it very
quickly, at the beginning of the regression; for without it wewould not even understand the possibility of a series, its effi­
ciency and actuality. Whence it little matters that we proceed througha fiction. The introduction of a fiction may indeed help us toreach the idea of God as quickly as possible without falling into
the traps of infinite regression. In conceiving the sphere , forexample, we form an idea to which no obj ect in Nature cor­
responds. We explain it by the movement of a semicircl e : thecause is certainly fictitious, since nothing in Nature is producedin such a way; it is nonetheless a "true perception," but this tothe extent that it is conj oined with the idea of God as the prin­ciple which ideally determines the semicircle to motion, that is,which determines that cause to produce the idea of the sphere .
Everything changes , however, once we arrive, by this means,137

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

at the idea of G o d . For we form this idea through itself andabsolutely. "If there is a God, or something omniscient, he canfeign nothing at all!'27 Starting from the idea of God we deduce
all other ideas, one from another, in "due order!' Not only is thisorder now one of progressive synthesis, but, taken in this order,
ideas can no longer amount to things of reason, and all fiction is
excluded. They are necessarily ideas of "real or true things," ideas
to which there corresponds some thing in Nature. 2 8 The produc­tion of ideas, starting from the idea of God, is of itself a repro­
duction of all the things in Nature; t� e sequence of ideas has noneed to copy the sequence of things, insofar as ideas are them­selves produced on their own account, from the idea of God. 29
Ideas do indeed "represent" some thing, but they represent athing precisely because they " express" their own cause, andexpress the idea of God as determining that cause. All ideas, says
Spinoza, express or involve God's essence, and are thereby ideasof real or true things.30 We are no longer caught in a regressive
process that connects a true idea to its cause, if only fictitiously,
in order to rise as quickly as possible to the idea of God: thatprocess could only legitimately determine the content of trueideas. We are now following a progressive procedure, from which
all fiction is excluded, and going from one real being to another,deducing ideas one from another, starting from the idea of God:ideas are then linked according to their own content; but theircontent is also determined by this sequence; we grasp the iden­tity of form and content, we are sure that the sequence of ideas
reproduces reality as such. We will later see just how the deduc­tion works in detail . It is enough for the moment to consider
how the idea of God, as an absolute principle, frees itself fromthe hypothesis from which we began in order to rise to it, andgrounds a sequence of adequate ideas that is identical to the con­struction of reality. The second part of the Method provides not138

E X P R E S S I O N

A N D

I D E A

merely a theory of genetic definition, but closes in a theory of
productive deduction.

Spinoza's Method comprises, then, three general heads, eachstrictly implicated in the others. The first part is concerned withthe end of thinking, which consists not so much in knowing something, as knowing our power of knowing. Thought is from thisviewpoint considered in terms of its form: the form of a true idea
is an idea of the idea or a reflexive idea. The formal definition oftruth is that a true idea is the idea insofar as it is explained by ourpower of knowing. Method, in this first aspect, is itself reflexive.
The second part of Method is concerned with the means ofrealizing this end: some true idea or other is supposed given, but
we must make of it an adequate idea. Adequation constitutes thematter of truth. The definition of an adequate idea ( the mate­rial definition of truth) is: an idea insofar as it expresses its own

cause, and insofar as it expresses God's essence as determining thatcause. An adequate idea is thus an expressive idea. In this second
aspect, Method is genetic: the cause of an idea is determined as
the sufficient reason of all the properties of a thing. This part of
Method leads us to the highest thought, that is, leads us as quickly
as possible to the idea of God.
The second part concludes with a third and last head, con­cerning the unity of form and content, end and means. One finds
in Spinoza as in Aristotle that formal and material definitions,considered in general, fragment the real unity of a complete defi­
nition. Between an idea and an idea of the idea there is only adistinction of reason: in reality reflexive and expressive ideas are
one and the same thing.
How should we understand this last unity? An idea never has
as its cause an obj ect it represents ; rather does it represent an
139

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

obj ect because it expresses its own cause. An idea has, then, a con­tent, expressive and not representative, that is to be referredsolely to the power of thinking. But the power of thinking is what
constitutes the form of an idea as such. The concrete unity of thetwo appears when all ideas are deduced one from another, mate­
rially from the idea of God, formally according to the power ofthinking alone. From this viewpoint the Method is deductive:
form , as logical form , and content, as expressive content, areconjoined in the sequence of ideas. One should note the extent
to which Spinoza insists on this unity of that sequence . At thevery point where he says that Method does not set out to give
us knowledge of some thing, but to give us knowledge of ourpower of knowing, he adds that we do not know the latter except
through knowing as many things, linked one to another, as pos­sible . 3 1 Conversely, when he shows that our ideas are causes
one of another, he deduces from this that all have as cause ourpower of knowing or thinking.32 It is above all the term "spiritualautomaton" that testifies to this unity. The soul is a kind of spir­
itual automaton, which is to say: In thinking we obey only thelaws of thought, laws that determine both the form and the con­tent of true ideas , and that make us produce ideas in sequenceaccording to their own causes and through our own power, so thatin knowing our power of understanding we know through theircauses all the things that fall within this power. 33

In what sense is the idea of God "true"? One cannot say that it
expresses its own cause: formed absolutely, that is, without
the help of other ideas, it expresses infinity. So it is in relation to
the idea of God that Spinoza announces: "The form of the true
thought must be placed in the same thought itself without rela­tion to other things:'34 It may, however, seem odd that SpinozaE X P R E S S I O N

A N D

I D E A

does not restrict the application of such a principle to the idea
of God, but extends it to all thoughts. To the extent that he adds:"We must not say that this difference [of true and false] arises
from the fact that the true thought is knowing things throughtheir first causes. In this, indeed, it differs greatly from the false!'
I believe this difficult passage should be thus understood: Spinoza
recognizes that true knowledge is obtained through the cause,
but considers that here again we have only a material definitionof truth. An adequate idea is an idea that expresses its cause; but
we still do not know what constitutes the form of truth, what
provides a formal definition of truth itself. Here as elsewhere,
we should not altogether identifY what expresses itself and what isexpressed: what is expressed is the cause, but what expresses itself
is once again our power of knowing or understanding, the powerof our understanding. Hence Spinoza says "What constitutes theform of the true thought must be sought in the same thought
itself, and must be deduced from the nature of the understand­ing!'35 Hence also he goes on to say that the third kind of knowl­edge has as its formal cause nothing but the soul or understanding
itself.36 It is the same with the idea of God: what is expressed isinfinity, but what expresses itself is the absolute power of think­ing. So it was necessary to integrate the viewpoint of form withthat of matter, in order to finally conceive the concrete unity ofthe two as it appears in the succession of ideas. In this way only
can we arrive at a complete definition of truth, and understandthe phenomenon of expression -in ideas as a whole . Not only theidea of God, but all ideas , are formally explained through thepower of thinking. An idea's content is reflected in its form, justas what is expressed relates or is attributed to what expresses
itself. All ideas follow at once materially from the idea of God,and formally from the power of thinking: their succession trans­
lates the unity of their two derivations.

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

We have a power of knowing, understanding or thinking only
to the extent that we participate in the absolute power of think­ing. Which implies both that our soul is a mode of the attributeof Thought, and is a part of infinite understanding. The twopoints involve, and give a new form to, a classic problem: Whatis the nature of our idea of God? According to Descartes, forexample, we do not "comprehend" God, but we nonetheless havea clear and distinct idea of him ; for we " understand" what ismeant by infinity, if only negatively, and "conceive" an infinite
thing in a positive manner, albeit only partially. So our knowledge
of God is limited in only two ways : through our not knowing
God in his entirety, and through the fact that we do not know
how what we do know o f him finds its place in his eminent
unity. 37 There is definitely no question of saying that Spinoza
does away with all limitation. But, even though he sometimes
expresses himself in a manner close to that of Descartes, he inter­prets the limits of our knowledge in an entirely novel context.
The Cartesian conception presents , on the one hand, that
mixture of negation and affirmation which one always finds inmethods of analogy ( one recalls Descartes's explicit declarations
against univocity). In Spinoza, on the other hand, the radical cri­tique of eminence, the positing of the univocity of attributes,
have as their immediate consequence that our idea of God is not
only clear and distinct, but also adequate. For the things we knowof God belong to God in the same form as that in which weknow them, that is, in a form common to God who possesses
them, and to creatures who imply and know them. It neverthelessremains the case, in Spinoza as in Descartes , that we know only
a part of God: we know only two of these forms , only two attri­butes, since our body implies no attribute other than Extension
and our ideas none other than Thought. "Therefore this ideaof the body involves the knowledge of God insofar only as he is

E X P R E S S I O N

A N D

I D E A

considered under the attribute of Extension . . . . Therefore theidea of this idea involves the knowledge of God, insofar as he isconsidered under the attribute of Thought, and not insofar as heis considered under any other."3 8 In Spinoza, furthermore, thevery idea of parts of God is better grounded than in Descartes,
divine unity being perfectly consistent with a real distinction
between attributes.
Yet even on this second point the difference between Descartes
and Spinoza remains fundamentaL For, even before knowing a partof God, our soul is itself "a part of God's infinite understanding":
for we have a power of understanding or knowing only to the extent
that we participate in the absolute power of knowing correspond­
ing to the idea of God. Consequently it is enough for there to besomething common to the whole and the part for this something to give
us an idea of God that is not only clear and distinct, but adequate.39
This idea we are given is not an idea of God in his entirety. It isnevertheless adequate, because it is in the part as it is in the whole.
So it is no surprise that Spinoza sometimes says that God's exist­
ence is not known to us through itself: he means that such knowl­edge is necessarily afforded to us through "common notions, "without which it would not even b e clear and distinct, but thanks
to which it is adequate.4D When Spinoza recalls, on the other
hand, that God makes himself known immediately, that he is
known through himself and not through something else, he meansthat the knowledge of God has need neither of signs nor of pro­
cesses of analogy: this knowledge is adequate because God pos­sesses all the things that we know to belong to him, and possesses
them in the same form in which we know them.41 What is the rel­ation between these common notions that give us knowledge of
God and these forms, themselves common or univocal, under which
we know God? Such an analysis must be postponed until a later
point, since it goes beyond the problem of adequation.
14 3

CHAPTER NINE
I nadequacy

What follows from Spinoza's theory of truth? We must first of
all look for its converse• in his conception of inadequate idea.
An inadequate idea is an inexpressive idea. But how is it possible
for us to have indequate ideas? Their possibility only appears once
we determine the conditions of our having ideas in general .
Our soul is itself an idea. It is in this respect an affectionb ormodification of God within the attribute of Thought, just as our
body is an affection or modification of God within the attributeof Extension. The idea constituting our soul or mind is present
in God. He possesses it, but possesses it only through being
affected by another idea, which is its cause. He has it only by"conj ointly" having another idea, an idea, that is, of somethingelse. "The cause of one singular idea is another idea, or God, inso­
far as he is considered to be affected by another idea; and of thisalso he is the cause, insofar as he is affected by another, and soon, ad infinitum!' ! Not only does God possess all ideas, as manyof them as there are things; but all these ideas, as they are in God,
express their own cause, and express God's essence as determin­
ing that cause. "All ideas are in God; and, insofar as they are
related to God, are true, and adequate!'2 We can, furthermore,already begin to sense that, as for this idea which constitutes our145

PA RA L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

soul, we do not possess it. Or we do not at least possess it immedi­
ately; for it is in God only insofar as he also possesses an idea ofsomething else.
All modes participate in the power of God: just as our bodyparticipates in the power of existing, our soul participates in the
power of thinking. All modes are also parts, a part of the powerof God, a part of Nature. So they necessarily come under the
influence of other parts. Other ideas necessarily act on our soul,j ust as other bodies act on our body. We have here "affections"of a second sort, relating no longer to the body itself, but to what
happens in the body; no longer to the soul ( the idea of the body),
but to what happens in the soul ( an idea of what happens in thebody).3 This is the sense in which we have ideas; for although theideas of this sort of affection are in God, they are there only inso­
far as he explicates himself through our soul alone, independentlyof the other ideas he has; they are thus in us.4 If we have a knowl­edge of external bodies, of our own body, of our soul itself, it issolely through these ideas of affections. They alone are given us:
we perceive external bodies only insofar as they affect us, we per­ceive our own body only insofar as it is affected, we perceive oursoul through the idea of an idea of an affection.5 What we callan "obj ect" is only the effect an obj ect has on our body; what
we call "me" is only the idea we have of our own body and oursoul insofar as they suffer an effect. The given here appears as themost intimate and vital as well as the most confused relation
between our knowledge of bodies, our knowledge of our own
body and our knowledge of ourself.
Let us consider the ideas we have corresponding to the effectof an obj ect on our body. On the one hand, they depend on our
power of knowing, that is, on our soul or mind, as their formal
cause. But we have no idea of our body, or of our soul , indepen­dently of the effects they suffer. We are thus incapable of under-

I N A D E Q U AC Y

standing ourselves as the formal cause of our ideas and they appear
to be altogether the result of chance.6 On the other hand, they
have as material causes ideas of external things. But we do nothave these ideas of external things either; they are in God, but
not insofar as he constitutes our soul or mind. We do not there­
fore possess our ideas in conditions such that they can express
their own (material ) cause. Our ideas of affections do of course"involve" their own cause, that is, the obj ective essence of theexternal body; but they do not "express" or "explain" it. They
similarly involve our power of thinking, but are not explainedby it, and are referred to chance. So the word "involve" is here nolonger a correlate of "explain" or "express," but is opposed to these,
designating the mixture of external body and our own body inaffections of which we have ideas. Spinoza's usual formulation ofthis is: our ideas of affections indicate a state of our body, but do
not explain the nature or essence of the external body. 7 This is
to say, the ideas we have are signs, indicative images impressedin us, rather than expressive ideas formed by us: perception or
imagination, rather than comprehension.
An image is, in the strictest sense, an imprint, a trace or phys­
ical impression, an affection of the body itself, the effect of somebody on the soft and fluid parts of our own body; in the figurative
sense, an image is the idea of an affection which makes an object
known to us only by its effect. But such knowledge is not knowl­edge at all , it is at best recognition. And from this there follow
the characteristics of indication in general: the primary "thing
indicated" is never our essence, but always a momentary state of

our changing constitution; the secondary (or indirect) thing indi­cated is never the nature or essence of some external thing, but
is rather an appearance that only allows us to recognize a thingby its effect, to rightly or wrongly assert its mere presence. 8 The
fruits of chance and of encounters, serving for recognition, purely
1 47

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

indicative, the ideas we have are inexpressive, that is to say, inad­
equate. An inadequate idea is neither an absolute privation or an
absolute ignorance: it involves a lack of knowledge .9
Our knowledge is doubly lacking: we lack knowledge both ofourselves, and of the obj ect that produces in us an affection ofwhich we have an idea. An inadequate idea is thus an idea thatinvolves, both formally and materially, the privation of knowl­edge of its own cause. So it remains inexpressive: "truncated,"
like a conclusion without premises . lD What is here fundamental
is that Spinoza shows how a conclusion may thus be detached fromits two premises . We find ourselves naturally in a situation inwhich the ideas we have are necessarily inadequate, because theycannot express their cause nor be explained by our power ofknowing. On all points , the knowledge of external bodies, theknowledge of our soul or mind, the knowledge of our duration,and that of things, we have only inadequate ideas . 11 "When we
look at the sun, we imagine it as about two hundred feet awayfrom us, an error that does not consist simply in this imagining,but in the fact that while we imagine it in this way, we are igno­
rant of its true distance and of the cause of this imagining!' 12 An
image is thus an idea in us that cannot express its own cause, thatis, the idea from which it derives, which is not available to us:
its material cause. But nor does an image express its formal cause,
nor can it be explained by our power of knowing. Thus Spinoza
says that an image, or idea of an affection, is like a conclusion
without premises : there are indeed two premises, material andformal , and the image involves our lack of knowledge of these.

Our problem is now transformed. The question is no longer"Why do we have inadequate ideas?" but rather "How do wecome to form adequate ideas?" In Spinoza it is the same with

I N A D EQ U AC Y

truth as with freedom: they are not given to us in principle, but
appear as the result of a long activity through which we produce
adequate ideas, liberated from the sequence of external neces­sity.13 Spinoza's inspiration is in this respect profoundly empiri­
cist. One is always struck by the diverse inspirations of empiricists
and rationalists. One group is surprised by what fails to surprisethe others . I f we listen to the rationalists, truth and freedom
are, above all, rights; they wond er how we can lose these rights,
fall into error or lose our liberty. Thus rationalism finds in theAdamic tradition, which sets up as its principle the image of afree and rational Adam , a theme that suits its preoccupations
particularly well . From an empiricist viewpoint everything isinverted: what is surprising is that men sometimes manage tounderstand truth, sometimes manage to understand one another,sometimes manage to free themselves from what fetters them .
One may recognize Spinoza's empiricist inspiration simply by thevigor with which he opposes the Adamic tradition, his concep­
tion of freedom and truth as final products revealed only at theend. One of the paradoxes in Spinoza - and this is not the soleinstance in which we will see it at work - is to have rediscovered
the concrete force of empiricism in applying it in support of a new
rationalism , one of the most rigorous versions ever conceived.
Spinoza asks: How do we come to form and produce adequate
ideas, when we necessarily have so many inadequate ones which
divert our power and cut us off from what we might achieve?
We must distinguish two aspects of inadequate ideas : they
"involve privation" of the knowledge of their cause, but are at

the same time effects that in some way "involve" that cause.
Under the first aspect an inadequate idea is false; but under thesecond it contains something positive, and so something true.14 We
imagine, for example, that the sun is two hundred feet away. Thisidea of an affection is incapable of expressing its own cause: it
1 49

PARA L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

does not explain the nature or essence of the sun. It does never­theless involve this essence "insofar as the body is affected by it!'
It is all very well to know the true distance of the sun, but it will
still continue to affect us in such a way that we see it two hun­dred feet away: as Spinoza says, the mistake may be eliminated,but not our imagination. There is thus something positive in an
inadequate idea, a sort of indication that we can grasp clearly.
This is, in fact, how we are able to have some idea of its cause:
having clearly grasped the conditions in which we see the sun,we can clearly infer that it is an object far enough away to appear
small, rather than a small obj ect seen at close range .IS If one does
not bear this positive character in mind, several of Spinoza's the­ses become incomprehensible: in the first place, the thesis that
one can naturally have a true idea, as required by the Method
before it sets to work. But more importantly, since falsity has noform , one could not otherwise understand how an inadequate
idea could itself give rise to the idea of an idea, could have, thatis to say, a form that must be referred to our power of thinking. l 6
The faculty of imagination is defined by the conditions in which
we naturally have ideas, inadequate ideas; it is nonetheless in oneof its aspects a virtue; it involves our power of thinking eventhough it is not explained by it; an image involves its own cause,even though it does not express it. J7
It is not of course enough simply to grasp what is positive inan idea of an affection in order to have an adequate idea. But thisis the first step. For from this positivity we can form the ideaof what is common to the affecting and affected bodies, to theexternal body and our own. And we will see that this "common
notion" is itself necessarily adequate: it belongs to the idea of ourbody as to that of the external body; it is then in us as it is in
God; it expresses God and is explained by our power of think­ing. But from this common notion there follows in turn an idea

I N A D E Q U A C Y

o f the affection that i s itself adequate : the common notion isnecessarily the cause of an adequate idea of the affection thatis distinct only in "its reason" from that idea of the affection
from which we began. This complex mechanism does not, then,amount to the elimination of our inadequate ideas, but to using
what is positive in them to form the largest possible number ofadequate ideas, and ensuring that what inadequate ideas remain
are restricted to the smallest part of our selve s . In short, wemust ourselves accede to conditions in which we can produce
adequate ideas.

I do not yet wish to analyze this mechanism by which we may
reach adequate ideas. Our question was simply: What is an ade­quate idea? And its converse : What is an inadequate idea? An
adequate idea is an idea that expresses its own cause and is ex­
plained by our own power. An inadequate idea is inexpressive andunexplained: an impression that has not yet become an expres­sion, an indication that has not yet become an explanation. This
brings out the intention that underlies the whole ofSpinoza's doc­trine of truth: to substitute a conception of adequacy for the Carte­sian conception of clarity and distinctness. Spinoza's terminology inthis relation does, it is true, vary: sometimes he uses the word
"adequate" to mark the insufficiency of clarity and distinctness,thus emphasizing the need to advance beyond the Cartesian cri­
teria; sometimes he himself uses the words "clear and distinct,"
but applying them only to ideas that follow from an idea that isitself adequate; he sometimes uses them, finally, to designate suchan adequate idea, but in that case has even more reason to givethem an implicit meaning altogether different from Descartes's. 1 8
Spinoza's doctrine of truth is never, i n any case, detachedfrom a polemic, whether direct or indirect, directed against thePA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

Cartesian theory. Considered in themselves clarity and distinct­
ness allow us at the most to recognize some true idea that wehave, recognize, that is, what is positive in an idea that is still
inadequate. But forming an adequate idea takes us beyond clar­
ity and distinctness. A clear and distinct idea does not in itself
constitute real knowledge , any more than it contains its own
ground within itself: the sufficient reason of clarity and dis­tinctness is to be found only in adequacy, and a clear and distinct
idea constitutes real knowledge only to the extent that it follows
from an idea that is itself adequate.
We have here , once again , a point of agreement between
Spinoza and Leibniz, which helps to define the Anticartesian reac­tion. Leibniz's remark that knowledae is a species of expression could
have come from Spinoza. 19 Of course they do not conceive of thenature of adequacy in the same way, because they neither under­
stand nor use the concept of expression in the same way. But
under three essential heads they show a real if unintentional
agreement. First of all Descartes, in his conception of the clear
and distinct, restricted himself to the representative content ofideas; he did not rise to the conception of an infinitely deeper
expressive content. He didn't conceive adequacy as the neces­sary and sufficient reason of clarity and distinctness: didn't con­ceive expression, that is to say, as the basis of representation.
Second, Descartes got no farther than the form of psychologicalconsciousness in ideas ; he didn't get as far as the l ogical form
through which an idea is explained, by which ideas are linked
one to another. And finally he had no conception of the unity ofform and content, that is, of the "spiritual automaton" which
reproduces reality in producing ideas in their due order. Des­cartes taught us that truth was present in ideas. But what use to
us is such knowledge, if we don't know what is present in trueideas? A clear and distinct idea is still inexpressive , and remains

I N A D EQ U A C Y

unexplained. Good enough for recognition, but unable to pro­vide a real principle of knowledge .
We have seen what are the three principal points establishedby Spinoza's theory of ideas: the representative content is but anappearance, determined by a deeper expressive content; the formof psychological consciousness is superficial in relation to true
logical form; the spiritual automaton, manifested in the concat­
enation of ideas, is the unity of logical form and expressive con­tent. Now, these three points are also Leibniz's principal theses.
Whence his liking for Spinoza's term "spiritual automaton." Hehimself understands it in the sense of the autonomy of individ­
ual thinking substances. But even for Spinoza the automatism ofa mode of Thought does not exclude a sort of autonomy in its
power of understanding ( indeed the power of understanding is apart of the absolute power of thinking, insofar as the latter is
explicated through the former ) . All the differences between
Leibniz and Spinoza take away nothing from their agreement onthese fundamental principles which, above all else, constitute the
Anticartesian revolution.
Leibniz's criticism of D escartes is well known: clarity anddistinctness on their own allow us to recognize an obj ect, but give
us no true knowledge of the object; they fall short of its essence,bearing only on external appearances or extrinsic characteristics
through which we can only "conj ecture" that essence; they fallshort of a cause that shows us why the thing is necessarily what
it is.20 Spinoza's criticism, while less familiar, nonetheless pro­ceeds along the same lines, denouncing above all the insufficiencyof the Cartesian idea: clarity and distinctness by themselves give
us only an indeterminate knowledge; they fall short of a thing's
essence, bearing only on propria ; they fall short of a cause fromwhich all the thing's properties would together follow, leading
us only to recognize an obj ect, the presence of an obj ect, from
15 3

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

the effect it has on us; a clear and distinct idea does not express
its own cause, gives us no knowledge of that cause "except what
we consider in the effect."21 In all this, Spinoza and Leibniz are
fighting a common cause, a continuation of what had set themagainst the Cartesian ontological proof, the search for a sufficientreason singularly lacking throughout Cartesianism. Each of them,proceeding differently, discovers the expressive content of ideas, andtheir explicative form.

1 54

CHAPTERTE N

Spinoza Aga inst Descartes

Cartesianism relies on a certain sufficiency of clear and distinct
ideas . Such sufficiency is the ground of Descartes's Method, but
is on the other hand itself demonstrated by applying that Method
itself. Descartes asserts his preference for analysis. In an impor­tant passage he says that analytic method has the merit of show­
ing us "how effects depend on causes." 1 The claim might appear
paradoxical , lending to analysis what belongs to synthesis, did one
not examine its precise significance. We have , according toDescartes, a clear and distinct knowledge of an effect before hav­
ing a clear and distinct knowledge of its cause. I know for exam­ple that I exist as a thinking being before knowing the cause of
my existence . Of course , a clear and distinct knowledge of aneffect presupposes a certain knowledge of its cause, but only aconfused one. "If I say 4 + 3 7, this is a necessary conception,
because we cannot distinctly conceive the number 7 without
including in it 3 and 4 conjusa quadam ratione."2 A clear and dis­tinct knowledge of an effect presupposes, then, a confused knowl­edge of its cause, and never depends on a more perfect knowledgeof the cause. Rather does a clear and distinct knowledge of acause depend on the clear and distinct knowledge of its effect.
This is the basis of the Meditations. - of their order, in particular,=

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

and of their analytic Method in general : a method of inference
or implication.
So if this Method shows us how effects depend on causes, itdoes so as follows: from a clear knowledge of an effect, we ren­der clear the knowledge of the cause it confusedly implied, andthence show that the effect would not be what we know it tobe, did it not have such a cause on which it necessarily depends. 3
I n Descartes, then, two themes are fundamentally linked: the the­oretical sufficiency of clear and distinct ideas, and the practicalpossibility of passing from a clear and distinct knowledge of aneffect to a clear and distinct knowledge of its cause.
That an effect depends on its cause is not in question. The
question relates to the best way of showing this. Spinoza says: I t
i s possible to start from a clear knowledge of a n effect; but fromit we will arrive only at a clear knowledge of its cause, we willknow nothing of the cause beyond what we consider in its effect,
and will never obtain an adequate knowledge . The Correction of
the Understanding contains a fundamental criticism of the Car­tesian Method, of the process of inference or implication it uses,
and of the alleged sufficiency of the clarity and distinctness towhich it appeals. Clear ideas give us nothing apart from someknowl�dge of a thing's properties, and lead us to nothing apartfrom a negative knowledge of its cause. "There is the perceptionthat we have when the essence of a thing is inferred from anotherthing, but not adequately"; "We understand nothing about thecause except what we consider in the effect. This is sufficiently
evident from the fact that then the cause is explained only invery general terms: Therefore there is something, Therefore there issome power, etc . Or also from the fact that the terms express thecause negatively: Therefore it is not this, or that, etc!'; "We infer
one thing from another in this way: after we clearly perceive that
we feel such a body, and no other, then, I say, we infer clearly

S P ! N OZAAG AI N ST

D E S CA R T E S

that the soul is united to the body, which union is the cause ofsuch a sensation; but we cannot understand absolutely from thiswhat that sensation and union are " ; "Although such a conclu­
sion is certain, it is still not sufficiently safe."4 There is not one
line among these that is not directed against Descartes and his
Method. Spinoza does not believe in the sufficiency of clarity anddistinctness, because he doesn't believe there is any satisfactory
way of proceeding from the knowledge of an effect to a knowl­edge of its cause.
Clear and distinct ideas are not enough, one must advance toadequate ideas. That is: it is not enough to show how effects
depend on causes , one must show how true knowledge of aneffect itself depends on knowing its cause. This is the definitionof the synthetic Method. On all these points Spinoza stands as an
Aristotelian against Descartes : "This is the same as what theancients said, i . e . , that true knowledge proceeds from cause toeffect:'s Aristotle showed how scientific knowledge was to be hadthrough causes. He didn't just say that knowledge must discovercauses, reach the cause on which a known effect depends; he said
that an effect is not known, except to the extent that its cause isalready, and better, known. A cause is not only prior to its effectbecause it is its cause, but prior also from the viewpoint of knowl­edge, needing to be better known than the effect. 6 Spinoza takes
up this thesis: "For really, knowledge of the effect is nothing but
acquiring a more perfect knowledge of its cause!'7 Not "more per­fect" than that which we had at first, but more perfect than thatwhich we have of the effect itself, and prior to that which wehave of the effect. Knowledge of an effect may be said to be clear
and distinct, but knowledge of its cause is more perfect, that is,adequate; and clarity and distinctness are only well grounded
insofar as they follow from adequacy as such.
To know by causes is the only way to know essence. The cause
157

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

is, so to speak, the middle term on which the connection of sub­ject and attribute is grounded, the principle or reason from which
follow all properties belonging to a thing. Thus the search for a
cause coincides , as in Aristotle, with the search for a definition.
Whence the importance of the scientific syllogism whose prem­
ises give us the formal cause or definition of a phenomenon, andwhose conclusion gives us its material cause or definition. A
total definition is one that combines form and matter in a uni­tary statement, in such a way that the obj ect's unity is no longer
fragmented, but rather affirmed in an intuitive concept. On allthese points Spinoza seems to remain an Aristotelian: he empha­
sizes the importance of the theory of definition, he presents thesearch for definitions and the search for causes as identical , andhe asserts the concrete unity of a total definition comprehending
both the formal and material causes of a true idea.
Descartes was not unaware of the claims of the Aristoteliankind of synthetic method : the proof it embodies, he says, isoften "of effects from their causes." 8 Descartes means that while
the synthetic method always claims to gain knowledge throughcauses, it doesn't always succeed. His basic obj ection is the follow­
ing: How can the cause itself be understood? We can understandthrough causes in Geometry, but only because its matter is clear
and conforms to our senses. Descartes admits this (whence his useof the word "often" ).9 So does Aristotle: point, line, even unit,
are principles or "subject-genera," indivisibles accessible throughintuition ; their existence is known and their meaning under­stood. 10 But what happens in other cases, for example in Meta­
physics, when we have to deal with real beings? How is a cause,
principle or middle term to be found? Aristotle himself seems
to refer us to an inductive process, hardly distinguishable fromabstraction, and beginning with a confused perception of theeffect. In this sense it is the effect that is best known, best known

S P I N OZ A

AG A I N S T

D E S C A R T E S

to us as against "best known absolutely." When Aristotle sets out
the way to advance to a middle term or causal definition, he be­gins from a confused whole and abstracts from it a "proportionate"
universal . So that the formal cause is always a specific abstract
characteristic, which has its origin in confused sensory material .
In this light, the unity of formal and material causes remains for
Aristotle a pure ideal, as does unity of an intuitive concept.
Descartes's position may then be put thu s : the synthetic
method has an exaggerated ambition, and gives us no means ofknowing real causes. I t actually begins from a confused knowl­edge of an effect, and advances to abstractions which are wrongly
presented to us as causes, and so, despite its pretensions, merely
examines causes through their effects. 1 1 The analytic method, on
the other hand, has a more modest intent. But, as it begins byeliciting a clear and distinct perception of the effect, it provides
us with a means of inferring from that perception a true knowl­edge of the cause; it is thus able to show how the effects them­selves depend on their causes. The synthetic method is therefore
only l egitimate on the condition of not being left to function
alone, but coming after the analytic method, and based on aprior knowledge of real causes. The synthetic method on its own
gives us no knowledge, it is not a method of discovery; its util­
ity lies in the exposition of knowledge, the exposition of what
has already been "discovered."aIt may be noted that Descartes never considers setting the two
methods apart by relating synthesis to the order of being , andanalysis to the order of knowing. Nor does Spinoza. It would thenbe unsatisfactory, and misleading, to oppose Descartes to Spinoza
by saying that the former follows the order of knowledge and thelatter the order of being. It does of course follow from the defi­
nition of the synthetic method that its order coincides with thatof being. But this consideration is of little importance . The prob159

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

lem is simply to know whether the synthetic method is capable,from the outset and by. itself, of giving us knowledge of the prin­ciples it presupposes. Can it make known to us what is? The prob­
lem then is simply: What is the true method from the viewpointof knowledge?12 Here Spinoza's Anticartesianism is fully mani­
fest: according to him, the synthetic method is the only real
method of discovery, the only effective method in the order ofknowing. 13 But such a position is only tenable if Spinoza thinks
he has the means, not only to refute Descartes's obj ections, butalso to overcome the difficulties of Aristotelianism. And indeed,
when he presents what he calls the third "mode of perception" in
the Correction of the Understandin9, he brings together in this imper­
fect mode or genus two very disparate procedures, each equallycondemned as insufficient. 14 The first consists in inferring a causefrom a clearly perceived effect: one recognizes Descartes's ana­
lytic method and its process of implication. But the second con­sists in "inferring something from some universal, which someproperty always accompanies": one recognizes Aristotle's syn­thetic method and its deductive process starting from a middle
term conceived as a specific characteristic. If Spinoza can, notwithout a certain irony, thus bring together Descartes and Aris­
totle, it is because it comes to the same thin9, more or less, to abstracta universal from a confused knowledae of an effect, and to infer acause from a clear knowledae of its effect. Neither of these proce­dures leads to adequacy. Descartes's analytic method is insuffi­
cient, but Aristotle had no more satisfactory a conception of
the synthetic method.
What was lacking in the Ancients, says Spinoza, was the con­ception of the soul as a sort of spiritual automaton, that is, ofthought as determined by its own laws. 15 I t is parallelism, then,that provides for Spinoza the means of overcoming the difficul­
ties of Aristotelianism. The formal cause of an idea is never an!60

S P I N OZAAG AI N ST

D E S C A R T E S

abstract universal . Universals , whether genera or species , doindeed involve a power of imagination, but this power is reduced
as we come to understand more and more things. The formal
cause of a true idea is our power of understanding; and the morethings we understand, the less we form these fictions of generaand species. J6 If Aristotle identifies formal cause with specificuniversal, it is because he remains at the lowest level of the powerof thinking, without discovering the laws that permit thought togo from one real being to another "without passing throughabstract things:' On the other hand, the material cause of an idea
is not a confused sensory perception: the idea of a particular thingalways has its cause in another idea of a particular thing, which
is determined to produce it.
With the Aristotelian model before him, Descartes could not
grasp the possibilities o f the synthetic method. In one o f its
aspects , it is true, that method gives us no knowledge of things;
but it would be wrong to conclude that its only role was exposi­
tory. In its primary aspect, the synthetic method is reflexive, thatis, gives us knowledge of our power of knowing. It is true, also,that the synthetic method invents or feigns a cause on the basis ofan effect; but far from seeing a contradiction here, we should rec­ognize a minimal regression which allows us, as quickly as possi­
ble, to reach the idea of God as the source of all other ideas. In
this second aspect the method is constructive or genetic. Thatis, the ideas that follow from the idea of God are ideas of real
beings: their production is at the same time the deduction ofreality; the form and matter of truth become identified in the
concatenation of ideas. The method is, in this third aspect, de­ductive. Reflection, genesis and deduction, these three moments
together constitute the synthetic method . It is on these that
Spinoza counts , both to advance beyond Cartesianism and to
make good the inadequacies of Aristotelianism.

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

Let us now turn to the theory of Being: we see Spinoza's opposi­tion to Descartes shifting, but remaining no less radical. I t wquld
indeed be surprising if analytic and synthetic methods implied
the same conception of being. Spinoza's ontology is dominatedby the notions of a cause of itself, in itself and through itself. These
terms are to be found in Descartes himself; but the difficulties
he encountered in their use should teach us something about theincompatibilities of Cartesianism and Spinozism .
Caterus and Arnauld had already obj ected against Descartes
that he used " through itself" negatively, to denote only theabsence of a cause. 17 Even were we to admit with Arnauld that,
if God is assigned no cause, this is because of the full positivityof his essence and is not related to the imperfection of our under­
standing, we still cannot conclude that he has being through him­
self "positively as through a cause," that he is ( that is to say) causeof himself. Descartes does, it is true, consider this polemic tobe largely a matter of words. He asks only that one accord him
the full positivity of God's essence: this conceded, one recognizes
that this essence plays a role analogous to that of a cause. Thereis a positive reason for God not to have a cause, a formal cause,then, for his not having an efficient cause. Descartes explains his
thesis in the following terms: God is his own cause, but this in
another sense than that in which an efficient cause is the cause of
its effect; he is cause of himself in the sense that his essence is aformal cause; and his essence is said to be a formal cause, notdirectly but by analogy, insofar as it plays in relation to his exist­
ence a role analogous to that of an efficient cause in relation
to its effect. I SThis theory rests on three closely linked notions: equivocation( God is cause of himself, but in another sense than that in which
he is the efficient cause of the things he creates; so that being is
not affirmed in the same sense of everything that is, divine andS P I N OZA

AG A I N ST

D E S C A R T E S

created substance, substances and modes, and so on ) ; eminence(God thus contains all reality, but eminently, in a form other thanthat of the things he creates); and analoay ( God as cause of him­
self is not, then, grasped as he is in himself, but by analogy: it isby analogy with an efficient cause that God may be said to because of himself, or to be "through himself" as through a cause).
These theses are not so much explicitly formulated by Descartes
as received and accepted as a Scholastic and Thomist legacy. But,
although they are never discussed, they nonetheless have an essen­tial importance, are everywhere present in Descartes, and indis­
pensable to his theories of Being, of God and of creatures. The
full sense of his Metaphysics is not to be found in them, but with­out them a lot of its sense would be lost. Whence the readinessof Cartesians to present a theory of analogy: rather than thereby
attempting to reconcile their master's work with Thomism, they
are developing an essential component of Cartesianism which had
remained implicit in Descartes himself.
One can always imagine fanciful links between Descartes andSpinoza. One may claim, for example, to find monistic and evenpantheistic tendencies in the Cartesian definition of substance("what requires only itself to exist") . This is to neglect the im­plicit role of analogy in Descartes's philosophy, which is enoughto warn against any such temptation: as in Saint Thomas, the actof existing is in the case of created substances something analo­
gous to what it is in the divine substance . 1 9 And it does indeed
seem that the analytic method ends naturally in an analogical con­ception of being; its procedure itself leads spontaneously to thepositing of being as analogical . It is hardly surprising then that
Cartesianism, in its own way, comes upon a difficulty already pres­ent in the most orthodox Thomism: despite its ambitions, anal­
ogy never manages to free itself from the equivocation fromwhich it starts, or from the eminence to which it leads.

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

According to Spinoza, God is cause of himself in no othersense than that in which he is cause of all things. Rather is he causeof all things in the same sense as cause of himself.2° Descartes says
either too much, or too little: too much for Arnauld, but too lit­
tle for Spinoza. For one cannot employ "through itself" positively,
while using "cause of itself" by simple analogy. Descartes recog­
nizes that if God's essence is cause of his existence, it is so in thesense of a formal rather than an efficient cause. The formal cause
is indeed immanent essence, coexisting with its effect, and insep­
arable from it. But we still then need some positive reason why
God's existence has no efficient cause and is identical with his
essence. Descartes finds this reason in a mere property: God's
immensity, superabundance or infinity. But such a property can­not play the part of a rule of proportionality in an analogical judg­
ment. Because the property designates nothing in God's nature,
Descartes is stuck at an indirect determination of self-causality:
this is asserted in a sense other than efficient causality, but is also
asserted by analogy with it. What then is missing in Descartes,
is a reason through which self-causality can be arrived at in itself,
and directly grounded in the concept or nature of God. This rea­son is what Spinoza discovers in distinguishing the divine naturefrom propria, absolute from infinite. The attributes are the imma­
nent formal elements that constitute God's absolute nature. And
these attributes, in constituting God's essence also constitute his
existence; in expressing his essence they also express the exist­
ence that necessarily flows from it; his existence is therefore thesame as his essence. 21 The attributes thus constitute the formal
reason that makes substance in itself a cause of itself, directly,
and not by analogy.
The cause of itself is approached first of all in itself; this is
the condition for "in itself" and "through itself" to take on a per­fectly positive sense. Self-causality is, as a consequence, no longer

S P I N OZAAG AI N S T

D E S C A R T E S

asserted in another sense than efficient causality; rather i s effi­
cient causality asserted in the same sense as self-causality. Thus
God produces as he exists: on the one hand, he produces neces­sarily; on the other, he necessarily produces within the same
attributes that constitute his essence. Here we come again upon
the two aspects of Spinozist univocity, univocity of cause andunivocity of attributes. There has been a suggestion from theoutset of this analysis that Spinozism cannot be considered apartfrom the contest it carries on against negative theology, andagainst any method proceeding through equivocation, eminence
and analogy. Spinoza condemns not only the introduction o fnegativity into being, but all false conceptions of affirmation inwhich negativity still remains as well . It is these survivals that
Spinoza finds and contests in Descartes and the Cartesians. Hereinlies the sense of Spinoza's concept of immanence ; it expresses
the double univocity of cause and attribute, that is, the unity ofefficient and formal cause, and the identity of an attribute as
constituting the essence of substance, and as implied by the
essences of creatures .
It should not b e thought that i n thus reducing creatures tomodifications or modes Spinoza takes away from them all theirown essence or power. The univocity of cause does not mean that

self-causality and efficient causality have one and the same sense, butthat both are asserted in the same sense of a cause. The univocity of
attributes does not mean that substance and modes have the same
being or the same perfection: substance is in itself, and modifi­
cations are in substance as in something else. What is in anotherthing and what is in itself are not asserted in the same sense , but
being is formally asserted in the same sense of what is in itself
and what is in something else: the same attributes, taken in thesame sense, constitute the essence of one and are implied by
the essence of the other. Further still, this common being is not

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

in Spinoza, as in Duns Scotus, a neutralized being, indifferent
between finite and infinite, between in-se and in-alia. Rather isit the qualified Being of substance, in which substance remains
in itself, but modes also remain as in something else. Immanenceis thus the new figure that the theory of univocity takes on in
Spinoza. The synthetic method naturally leads to the positing of
this common being or immanent cause.
In Descartes's philosophy certain axioms constantly reappear.
Principal among these is that nothing has no properties. It fol­lows from this, from the viewpoint of quantity, that every prop­
erty is the property of some being: everything is thus a being or
a property, a substance or a mode. Also, from the viewpoint ofquality, every reality is a perfection. From the viewpoint of cau­sality there must be as much reality in a cause as in its effect;otherwise something would be produced from nothing . And
finally, from the viewpoint of modality, there can strictly speak­ing be no accidents, accidents being properties that do not nec­
essarily imply the being to which they attach. It belongs to
Spinoza to have given a new interpretation to all these axioms
in accord with his theory of immanence and the requirements ofthe synthetic method. And it seems to Spinoza that Descartes had
not grasped the full sense and consequences of the proposition
that nothing has no properties. On the one hand, any pluralityof substances becomes impossibl e : there are neither unequal
limited substances nor equal unlimited substances, for " theywould have to have something they had from nothing."22 It is notenough, on the other hand, j ust to say that every reality is a per­fection. One must also recognize that everything in the natureof a thing is reality, that is, perfection; "To say that the nature of
the thing required this [limitation], and therefore it could not
be otherwise, is to say nothing. For the nature of the thing can­not require anything unless it exists ."23 One should not imagine
166

S P I N O Z A

AG A I N ST

D E S C A R T E S

that a substance might undergo some limitation o f its nature asa result of its own possibility.
There is no more any contingency of modes in relation to sub­stance than a possibility of substance dependent on its attribute.
It is not enough to show, with Descartes, that accidents are notreal . In Descartes the modes of a substance remain accidental,
because they require an external causality to somehow "put"them in that substance itself. In fact, the opposition of mode andaccident already shows that necessity is the sole affection of
being, its sole modality: God is cause of all things in the same
sense as cause of himself; thus everything is necessary, from its
essence or from its cause. It is of course true that a cause is more
perfect than its effect, substance more perfect than modes; but,
although it has more reality, a cause never contains the reality of
its effect in any other form or any other way than that on which
the effect itself depends. In Descartes one passes from the supe­riority of the cause to the superiority of certain forms of being
over others, and so to the equivocation or analogy of reality (since
God contains reality in a form superior to that involved in crea­tures). It is this transition that grounds the concept of eminence;but it is radically illegitimate. Against Descartes, Spinoza posits
the equality of all forms of being, and the univocity of reality
which follows from this equality. The philosophy of immanence
appears from all viewpoints as the theory of unitary Being, equal
Being, common and univocal Being. It seeks the conditions of agenuine affirmation, condemning all approaches that take awayfrom Being its full positivity, that is, its formal community.b

CHAPTER ELEVEN
Immanence and the Historical
Components o f Expressio n

Two questions now arise . What are the logical links between
immanence and expression? And how was the idea of expressive
immanence historically formed within specific philosophical tra­ditions? ( Such traditions may well be complex, themselves com­bining very diverse influences . )Everything may, i t seem s , b e traced back t o the Platonic
problem of participation. Plato proposed various hypotheticalschemes of participation: to participate was to be a part; or toimitate; or even to receive something from a demon . . . . Partici­
pation was understood, according to these schemes, either mate­
rially, or imitatively, or demonically. But the difficulties in eachcase seem to have the same root: the principle. of participation
was always sought by Plato on the side of what participates . It
usually appears as an accident supervening on what is participatedfrom outside, as a violence suffered by what is participated. I fparticipation consists i n being a part, it is difficult to s e e howwhat is participated suffers no division or separation. I f to par­ticipate is to imitate, there must be some external artist who
takes the Idea as his model. And it is difficult to see, indeed, whatrole an intermediary, whether artist or demon, might in general
have, other than that of forcing the sensible to reproduce thePA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

intelligible, while also forcing the Idea to allow itself to be par­ticipated by something foreign to its nature. Even when Plato
considers the participation of Ideas in one another, the corres­
ponding power is taken as a power of participating, rather thanof being participated.
The primary Postplatonic task was to invert the problem. A
principle that would make participation possible was sought, but
one that would make it possible from the side of the participateditself. Neoplatonists no longer start from the characteristics ofwhat participates (as multipl e, sensibl e and so on ) , asking by
what violence participation becomes possible. They try rather
to discover the internal principle and movement that grounds
participation in the participated as such, from the side of the par­ticipated as such. Plotinus reproaches Plato for having seen par­ticipation from its lesser side . I ,a The participated does not in fact
enter into what participates in it. What is participated remains
in itself; it is participated insofar as it produces, and produces
insofar as it gives, but has no need to leave itself to give or pro­duce. Plotinus formulates the program of starting at the highest
point, subordinating imitation to a genesis or production, andsubstituting the idea of a gift for that of a violence. What is par­ticipated is not divided, is not imitated from outside, or con­strained by intermediaries which would do violence to its nature.
Participation is neither material , nor imitative, nor demonic: itis emanative. Emanation is at once cause and gift: causality by
donation, but by productive donation. True activity comes fromwhat is participated; what participates is only an effect, receiv­
ing what it is given by its cause. An emanative cause is a dona­tive Cause, a donative Good, a donative Virtue.
When we seek the internal principle of participation on theside of what is participated, we necessarily find it "above" or"beyond" participation. There is no question of the principle
17 0

I M M A N E N C E

A N D

T H E

C O M P O N E N T S

O F

E X P R E S S I O N

that makes participation possible itself being participated or
participable. Everything emanates from this principle, it gives
forth everything. But it is not itself participated, for participa­tion occurs only through what it gives, and in what it gives. This
was the basis of Proclus's elab oration of his profound theory of
the Imparticipable; participation only occurs through a princi­
ple that is itself imparticipable , but that gives participation inthings. And Plotinus had already shown that the One is neces­sarily above its gifts, that it gives what does not belong to it, oris not what it gives.2 Emanation has in general a triadic form:
giver, given and recipient. To participate is always to participate
through what is given. So we must recognize not only the gene­sis of what participates, but also that of what is participated itself,
which accounts for the fact of its being participated. A double
genesis, of the given and what receives it: the effect that receives
determines its own existence when it fully possesses what is given
to it; but it does not fully possess it except by turning toward
the giver. The giver is above its gifts as it is above its products,
participable through what it gives, but imparticipable in itself or
as itself, thereby grounding participation.

We are now already able to determine the characteristics bywhich emanative and immanent cause have something in com­mon logically, as well as fundamental differences. Their common
characteristic is that neither leaves itself: they produce whileremaining in themselves. 3 When defining immanent causality,
Spinoza insists on this definition, which to some extent assimi­
lates immanence to emanation.4 But their difference relates tothe way the two causes produce things. While an emanative cause

remains in itself, the effect it produces is not in it, and does not remain
in it. Plotinus says of the One as first principle or cause of causes:
17 1

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E"It is because there is nothing in it that all things come from it."SIn reminding us that an effect is inseparable from its cause, heis thinking of a continuity of flow or radiation, and not of theactual inherence of any content. The emanative cause produces
through what it gives, but is beyond what it gives: so that an effectcomes out of its cause, exists only in so coming out, and is only
determined in its existence through turning back toward the causefrom which it has come. Whence the determination of the effect's
existence is inseparable from a conversionb in which the cause
appears as the Good within a perspective of transcendent final­
ity. A cause is immanent, on the other hand, when its effect is"immanate" in the cause, rather than emanating from it. Whatdefines an immanent cause is that its effect is in it - in it, ofcourse, as in something else, but still being and remaining in it.
The effect remains in its cause no less than the cause remains
in itself. From this viewpoint the distinction of essence between
cause and effect can in no way be understood as a degradation.
From the viewpoint of immanence the distinction of essence does
not exclude, but rather implies, an equality of being: it is thesame being that remains in itself in the cause, and in which theeffect remains as in another thing.
Plotinus also says that the One has "nothing in common" withthe things that come from it.6 For an emanative cause is supe­rior not only to its effect, but superior also to what it gives theeffect. But why exactly is the first cause the One? Giving being
to all that is, it is necessarily beyond being or substance. So ema­nation, in its pure form , always involves a system of the One­
above-being; the first hypothesis of the Parmenidesc dominates all
Neoplatonism.7 Nor is emanation any more separable from a neg­
ative theology, or a method of analogy that respects the eminenceof principle or cause. Prod us shows that, in the case of the One
itself, negation generates affirmations applicable to what the One
17 2

I M M A N E N C E

A N D

T H E

C O M P O N E N T S

O F

E X P R E S S I O N

gives and what proceeds from it. Furthermore, at each stage of
emanation, one must recognize the presence of an imparticipablefrom which things proceed and to which they revert. Emanation
thus serves as the principle of a universe rendered hierarchical ;the difference of beings is in general conceived as a hierarchicaldifference; each term is as it were the image of the superior termthat precedes it, and is defined by the degree of distance that sep­arates it from the first cause or first principle.
Between emanative and immanent cause there thus appears asecond distinction. Immanence for its part implies a pure ontol­
ogy, a theory of Being in which Unity is only a property of sub­stance and of what is. What is more, pure immanence requires
as a principle the equality of being, or the positing of equal Being:
not only is being equal in itself, but it is seen to be equally pres­ent in all beings. And the Cause appears as everywhere equallyclose: there is no remote causation. Beings are not defined bytheir rank in a hierarchy, are not more or less remote from theOne, but each depends directly on God, participating in the equal­
ity of being, receiving immediately all that it is by its essence
fitted to receive , irrespective of any proximity or remoteness.
Furthermore, pure immanence requires a Being that is univocal
and constitutes a Nature, and that consists of positive forms, com­
mon to producer and product, to cause and effect. We know thatimmanence does not do away with the distinction of essences;
but there must be common forms that constitute the essence of
substance as cause, while they contain the essences of modes as
effects. Thus the superiority of causes subsists within the view­
point of immanence, but now involves no eminence, involves,that is, no positing of any principle beyond the forms that arethemselves present in the effect. Immanence is opposed to any
eminence of the cause , any negative theology, any method of
analogy, any hierarchical conception of the world. With imma17 3

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

nence all is affirmation. The Cause is superior to its effect, but
not superior to what it gives to the effect. Or rather, it "gives"
nothing to the effect. Participation must be thought o f in acompletely positive way, not on the basis of an eminent gift, buton the basis of a formal community that allows the distinctionof essences to subsist.

I f there is such a great difference between emanation and imma­
nence, how can they be historically assimilated, if only in a par­tial manner? This happens because in Neoplatonism itself, under
Stoic influences, a truly immanent cause does in fact come to be
combined with emanative causality. s At the level of the One, themetaphors of sphere and radiation already offer an important cor­
rective to the theory of a strict hierarchy. But it is above all thefirst emanation that presents us with an idea of immanent causal­
ity. From the One emanate Intelligence and Being ; and not onlyis there a mutual immanence of Being and Intelligence, but Intel­
ligence contains all intelligences and all intelligibles, j ust as Being
contains all beings and all genera of being. " Full of the beings
which it has generated, lntelligenced as it were swallows them up
again, by keeping them in itself:' 9 Of course from Intelligence,in its tum, there emanates a new hypostasis. But Intelligence does
not constitute such an emanative cause except to the extent thatit has reached its own limit of perfection; and this it reaches only
as an immanent cause. Being and Intelligence are still the One,but a One that is and that knows, the One of the second hypoth­esis in the Parmenides, a One in which the Multiple is present, andwhich is itself present in the Multiple . Plotinus shows that Being
is identical to number in the state of unity, that beings are iden­
tical to number in the state of development ( that is to number as"explicated" 10) . There is already in Plotinus an equality of Being
17 4

I M M A N E N C E

A N D

T H E

C O M P O N E N T S

OFE X P R E S S I O N

correlative with the supereminence of the One . 1 1 Damascius de­velops the description of this aspect of Being - in which the Mul­
tiple is collected, concentrated, comprised in the One, but inwhich the One also explicates itself in the Many - to great lengths.
Such is the origin of a pair of notions that take on greater andgreater importance in the philosophies of the Middle Ages andRenaissance: complicare and explicare. 12 All things are present toGod, who complicates them. God is present to all things , which
explicate and implicate him. A co-presence of two correlative
movements comes to be substituted for a series of successive sub­ordinate emanations. For things remain in God while explicat­
ing and implicating him, no less than God remains in himself, incomplicating them. The presence of things to God constitutes
an inherence, j ust as the presence of God to things constitutes
an implication. An equality of being is substituted for a hierar­
chy of hypostases; for things are present to the same Being, which
is itself present in things. Immanence corresponds to the unityof complication and explication, of inherence and implication.
Things remain inherent in God who complicates them, and God
remains implicated in things which explicate him. I t is a com­plicative God who is explicated through all things: "God is theuniversal complication, in the sense that everything is in him; andthe universal explication, in the sense that he is in everything:'13
Participation no longer has its principle in an emanation whose
source lies in a more or less distant One, but rather in the imme­
diate and adequate expression of an absolute Being that comprises
in i t all beings , and is explicated in the essence of each. Expres­sion comprehends all these aspects: complication, explication,
inherence , implication. And these aspects of expression are also
the categories of immanence. Immanence is revealed as expres­sive, and expression as immanent, in a system of logical relations
within which the two notions are correlative.
17 5

PARA L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

From this viewpoint the idea of expression accounts for thereal activity of the participated, and for the possibility of partic­
ipation. It is in the idea of expression that the new principle ofimmanence asserts itself. Expression appears as the unity of themultiple, as the complication of the multiple, and as the expli­
cation of the One. God expresses himself in the world; the worldis the expression, the explication, of a God-Being or a One who
is. The world is carried into God in such a way that it loses its
limits or finitude, and participates directly in divine infinity. The
metaphor of a circle whose center is everywhere and circumfer­ence nowhere applies to the world itself. The relation of expres­sion does not ground between God and world an identity o fessence, but a n equality of being. F o r it is the same Being that i spresent i n the G o d who complicates all things according to his
own essence, and in the things that explicate him according totheir own essence or mode. So that God must be defined as iden­
tical to Nature complicative, and Nature as identical to God expli­
cative. But this equality or identity in distinction constitutes two
moments within expression as a whole: God expresses himself
in his Word, his Word expresses the divine essence; but the Word
in its turn expresses itself in the Universe, the Universe express­
ing all things in the way belonging to each essentially. The Word
is the expression of God, the language of his expression; the Uni­verse is the expression of this expression, the face of expression,
its physiognomy. (This classic theme of a double expression is tobe found in Eckhardt: God expresses himself in the Word, which
is a silent inward speech; and the Word expresses itself in theworld, which is externalized speech and face .t4 )I have tried to show how an expressive immanence of Being was
grafted onto the emanative transcendence of the One. Yet in Ploti-

I M M A N E N C E

A N D

T H E

C O M P O N E N TS

O F

E X P R E S S I O N

nus and his successors this immanent causality remains subordinate
to emanative cause. Being or Intelligence do indeed "explicate
themselves," but self-explication is only found in what is alreadymultiple, and not in the first principle. "Intelligence explicatedh
itself because it wanted to possess everything - how much betterit would have been for it not to want this, for it thereby became
the second principle ! ' 15 Immanent Being , immanent Thought,
cannot constitute an absolute, but presuppose as first principle anemanative cause and transcendent end from which all flows, andto which all reverts. This first principle, the One above Being,
does of course contain all things virtually: it is explicated but does
not explicate itself, in contrast to Intelligence and to Being. 16 It is
not affected by what expresses it. So that for the limiting devel­
opment ofNeoplatonism we have to wait until the Middle Ages,
Renaissance and Reformation, when we see immanent causality
taking on ever greater importance, Being in competition with theOne, expression in competition with, and sometimes tending to
supplant, emanation. It has often been asked what makes thephilosophy of the Renaissance "modern"; I fully agree with Alex­
andre Koyre's thesis, that the specific category of expression
characterizes the mode of thinking of such philosophy.
One must however recognize that this expressionist tendency
was never fully worked through. It was encouraged by Christian­ity, by its theory of the Word, and above all by the ontologicalrequirement that the first principle be a Being. But Christianity
also repressed it, through the still more powerful requirementthat the transcendence of the divine being be maintained. Thus
one sees philosophers constantly threatened by the accusation of
immanentism and pantheism, and constantly taking care to avoid,
above all else, such an accusation. Already in Erigena one has toadmire the philosophically subtle contrivances by which theclaims of an expressive immanence, an emanative transcendence
1 77

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

and an exemplary creation ex nihilo, are all reconciled. The tran­
scendence of a creator God is in fact saved through an analogicalconception of Being , or at least through an eminent conceptionof God which sets limits to the implications of an equality o fbeing . T h e principle of equality of being is itself interpreted
analogically; transcendence is preserved by drawing on all the
resources of symbolism. The inexpressible is, then, maintained at
the heart of expression itself. Not that one goes back to Plotinus,
to the positing of an ineffable One above Being. For it is the same
God, the same infinite being, who asserts and expresses himself
in the world as immanent cause, and who remains inexpressible
and transcendent as the object of a negative theology that denies
of him all that is affirmed of his immanence . Thus, even in these
conditions, immanence appears as a theoretical limit, corrected
through the perspectives of emanation and creation. The reason
for this is simple : expressive immanence cannot be sustained
unless it is accompanied by a thoroughgoing conception of uni­
vocity, a thoroughgoing affirmation of univocal Being.
Expressive immanence is grafted onto the theme of emana­tion, which in part encourages it, and in part represses it. And it
interacts no less, under similar conditions, with the theme of cre­ation. Creation, in one of its aspects, seems to relate to the same
concern as Emanation: it is here a question, once again, of find­ing a principle of participation on the side of the participateditself. Ideas are placed in God: rather than being referred to somelower power that might take them as models, or force them todescend into the sensible order, they themselves have an exem­
plary character. While representing God's infinite being, they also
represent all that God wishes, and is able, to do. Ideas in God
are exemplary likenesses; things created ex nihilo are imitative like­nesses. Participation is an imitation, but the principle of imitation
is to be found on the side of the model or what is imitated: Ideas

I M M A N E N C E

A N D

T H E

C O M P O N E N T S

O F

E X P R E S S I O N

are not distinguished in relation to God, but in relation to thethings whose possible participation in God himself they ground.
( Malebranche defines Ideas in God as principles of expression,
representing God as participable or imitable. )This was the line taken by Saint Augusti�. And here again,
the concept of expression comes forward to determine the sta­tus of both exemplary and imitative likeness. It is Bonaventure
who , following Augustine, attaches the greatest importance tothis double determination: the two likenesses together constitutethe concrete whole of "expressive" likeness. God expresses him­
self in his Word or in an exemplary Idea; but the exemplary Idea
expresses the multiplicity of creatable and created things. Thisis the paradox of expression as such: intrinsic and eternal , it is
one in relation to what expresses itself, and multiple in relation
to what is expressed. 17 Expression is like a radiation that leads
us from God, who expresses himself, to the things expressed. As
itself expressive ( rather than expressed ), it extends equally to
all things without limitation, like the divine essence itself. We
here again find an idea of equality, which enables Bonaventure
to deny any hierarchy among I deas as they are in God. Indeed
the theory of expressive likeness implies a certain immanence .
Ideas are i n God, therefore things are i n God through their exem­
plary likenesses. But must not the things themselves be in God,
as imitations? Is there not a certain inherence of a copy in its
model ? l 8 One can escape such a conclusion only by maintaining
a strictly analogical conception of being ( Bonaventure himself
constantly opposes expressive likeness and univocal likeness or
likeness of univocity).

Most of the authors cited thus far belong to two traditions at
once: those of emanation and imitation, emanative cause and17 9

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

exemplary cause, Pseudo-Dionysius and Augustine. But these twolines meet in the concept of expression. This may already be seenin Erigena, who forges a philosophy of expression that is some­times " similitudinous" ( turning on likeness ) and sometimes"emanative !' Emanation leads us to expression as explication. Crea­tion leads us to expression as likeness. And expression does in fact
have this dual aspect: on the one hand it is a mirror, a model, aresemblance; on the other a seed, a tree, a branch. But these met­aphors come in the end to nothing . The idea of expression isrepressed as soon as it surfaces. For the themes of creation or ema­nation cannot do without a minimal transcendence, which bars
"expressionism" from proceeding all the way to the immanence
it implies. Immanence is the very vertigo of philosophy, and is
inseparable from the concept of expression ( from the double
immanence of expression in what expresses itself, and of whatis expressed in its expression) .
The significance of Spinozism seems to me this : it asserts
immanence as a principle and frees expression from any subor­
dination to emanative or exemplary causality. Expression itself nolonger emanates, no longer resembles anything. And such a result canbe obtained only within a perspective of univocity. God is causeof all things in the same sense that he is cause of himself; he pro­duces as he formally exists, or as he obj ectively understands him­self. He thus produces things in the very forms that constitutehis own essence. But the same attributes that formally constituteGod's essence contain all the formal essences of modes, and theidea of God's essence comprehends all obj ective essences, or allideas . Things in general are modes of divine being, that is, they
implicate the same attributes that constitute the nature of thisbeing. Thus all likeness is univocal , defined by the presence inboth cause and effect of a common property. The things that are
produced are not imitations any more than their ideas are mod180

I M M A N E N C E

A N D

T H E

C O M P O N E N T S

O F

E X P R E S S I O Nels. There is nothing exemplary even in the idea of God, since
this is itself, in its formal being, also produced. Nor conversely
do ideas imitate things. In their formal being they follow fromthe attribute of thought; and if they are representative, they are
so only to the extent that they participate in an absolute powerof thinking which is in itself equal to the absolute power of pro­ducing or acting . Thus all imitative or exemplary likeness i sexcluded from the relation of expression. G o d expresses him­
self in the forms that constitute his essence, as in the idea thatreflects it. Expression characterizes both being and knowing. But
only univocal being, only univocal consciousness, are expressive.
Substance and modes, cause and effects, only have being and are
only known through common forms that actually constitute theessence of the one, and actually contain the essence of the others.
Spinoza therefore sets apart two domains which were always
confused in earlier traditions: that of expression and of the ex­pressive knowledge which is alone adequate; and that of signs,
and of knowledge by signs, through apophasis or analogy. Spinozadistinguishes different sorts of signs: indicative signs, which lead
us to infer something from the state of our body; imperative signs,
which lead us to grasp laws as moral laws; and revelatory signs,
which themselves lead us to obey them and which at the very
most disclose to us certain "propria" of God. But whatever its sort,knowledge through signs is never expressive, and remains of thefirst kind. 'Indication is not an expression, but a confused stateof involvement in which an idea remains powerless to explain
itself or to express its own cause. An imperative sign is not an
expression, but a confused impression which leads us to believethat the true expressions of God, the laws of nature, are so many
commandments. Revelation is not an expression, but a cultiva­tion of the inexpressible, a confused and relative knowledge
through which we lend God determinations analogous to our own

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E( Understanding, Will ), only to rescue God's superiority throughhis eminence in all genera (the supereminent One, etc . ) . Throughunivocity, Spinoza gives the idea of expression a positive content,
opposing it to the three sorts of sign. The opposition of expres­sions and signs is one of the fundamental principles of Spinozism.
Expression had also to be freed from all trace of emanation.
Neoplatonism drew part of its force from the thesis that produc­tion is not carried out by composition ( addition of species togenus, reception of a form in matter) , but by distinction anddifferentiation. But Neoplatonism was constrained by various
requirements: distinction had to be produced from the Indistinct
or the absolutely One, and yet to be actual ; it had to be actual ,and yet not numerical . Such requirements explain Neoplatonist
efforts to define the status of indistinct distinctions, undivided
divisions , unplurifiable pluralities. Spinoza, on the other hand,finds another solution in his theory of distinctions. In conj unc­
tion with univocity, the idea of a formal distinction, that is tosay, a real distinction that is not and cannot be numerical , allows
him immediately to reconcile the ontological unity of substancewith the qualitative plurality of its attributes. Far from emanat­
ing from an eminent Unity, the really distinct attributes consti­
tute the essence of absolutely single substance. Substance is notlike a One from which there proceeds a paradoxical distinction;
attributes are not emanations. The unity of substance and the dis­tinction of attributes are correlates that together constituteexpression. The distinction of attributes is nothing but the quali­
tative composition of an ontologically single substance; substanceis distinguished into an infinity of attributes, which are as it wereits actual forms or component qualities. Before all production
there is thus a distinction, but this distinction is also the com­position of substance itself.
The production of modes does , it is true, take place through182

I M M A N E N C E

A N D

T H E

C O M P O N E N T S

O F

E X P R E S S I O N

differentiation. But differentiation is in this case purely quanti­tative. If real distinction is never numerical, numerical distinc­tion is, conversely, essentially modal. Number is of course moresuitably applied to things of reason than to modes themselves.
Yet it remains that modal distinction is quantitative, even if num­
ber does not well explain the nature of such quantity. This iswell seen in Spinoza's conception of participation. 19 Theories of
emanation and creation agreed in refusing any material sense toparticipation. In Spinoza, on the other hand, the principle of par­ticipation itself requires us to interpret it as a ma:terial and quan­titative participation. To participate is to have a part in, to be apart of, something. Attributes are so to speak dynamic qualities towhich corresponds the absolute power of God. A mode is, in its
essence, always a certain degree, a certain quantity, of a quality.
Precisely thereby is it, within the attribute containing it, a partso to speak of God's power. Being common forms, attributes are
the conditions of substance having an omnipotence identical with
its essence, and also of modes possessing a part of this power iden­
tical with their essence. God's power expresses or explicates itself
modally, but only in and through such quantitative differentia­
tion. Man thus loses in Spinozism all the privileges owed to aquality supposed proper to him , which belonged to him only
from the viewpoint of imitative participation. Modes are distin­
guished quantitatively: each mode expresses or explicates God's
essence, insofar as that essence explicates itself through themode's essence, that is, divides itself according to the quantity

corresponding to that mode . 20

Modes of the same attribute are not distinguished by theirrank, by their nearness to , or distance from God. They are quan­titatively distinguished by the quantity or capacity of their re­spective essences which always participate directly in divine�ubstance. A certain hierarchy does of course appear to persist

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

in Spinoza between infinite immediate mode , infinite mediate
mode, and finite modes. But Spinoza constantly reminds us that
God is never, strictly speaking, a remote cause. 2! God, considered
under some attribute, is the proximate cause of the correspond­
ing infinite immediate mode. As for the infinite mode Spinoza
calls mediate, it derives from the already modified attribute; but

the first modification is not interposed as an intermediate cause withina system of emanations, it appears as the modality in which God
himself produces in himself the second modification. If we con­sider the essences of finite modes, we see that they do not forma hierarchical system in which the less powerful depend on the
more powerful , but an actually infinite collection, a system ofmutual implications, in which each essence conforms with all of
the others, and in which all essences are involved in the produc­tion of each. Thus God directly produces each essence together
with all the others. That is, existing modes themselves have God
as their direct cause. An existing finite mode must of course bereferred to something else besides an attribute; its cause lies inanother existing mode, whose own cause lies in another, and soon ad infinitum. But God is the power that, in each case, deter­
mines a cause to have such an effect. We never enter into infi­
nite regress; we have only to consider a mode together with its
cause in order to arrive directly at God as the principle that deter­
mines that cause to have such an effect. Thus God is never a
remote cause, even of existing modes. Whence Spinoza's famousphrase ''insofar as . . . ." Things are always produced directly by
God, but in various modalities: insofar as he is infinite, insofar
as he is modified by a modification that is itself infinite, inso­
far as he is affected by a particular modification. A hierarchy ofmodalities of God himself is substituted for a hierarchy of ema­nations; but in each modality God expresses himself immediately,
produces his effects directly. Every effect is thus in God, andI M M A N E N C E

A N D

T H E

C O M P O N E N TS

O F

E X P R E S S I O N

remains in God; and God, furthermore, is himself present in eachof his effects.
Substance first of all expresses itself in itself. This first expression
is formal or qualitative. Substance expresses itself in formally dis­tinct, qualitatively distinct, really distinct attributes; each attri­bute expresses the essence of substance . Here again we find the
double movement of complication and explication: substance"complicates" its attributes, each attribute explicates the essenceof substance, and substance explicates itself through all its attri­butes. This first expression, prior to any production, is as it werethe constitution of substance itsel f. A principle of equality here
finds its first application: not only is substance equal to all its
attributes, but each attribute is equal to the others , none is supe­rior or inferior. Substance expresses itself to itself. It expresses itself
in the idea of God, which comprises all attributes . In expressing
or explicating himself, God understands himself. This second
expression is obj ective. It involves a new application of the prin­ciple of equality: the power of thinking, corresponding to the idea
of God, is equal to the power of existing, which corresponds tothe attributes. The idea of God ( the Son or Word) has a complex
status: obj ectively equal to substance , it is in its formal being
only a product. It thus leads us to a third expression: Substance

re-expresses itself, attributes in their turn express themselves in modes.
This expression is the production of the modes themselves: God
produces as he understands; he cannot understand himself with­out producing an infinity of things, and without also understand­ing all that he produces. God produces things within the same
attributes that constitute his essence, and thinks all he produces
within the same idea that comprisesk his essence. All modes arethus expressive, as are the ideas corresponding to those modes .
Attributes "complicate" the essences of modes, and explicate
themselves through them , just as the Idea of God comprises all

PA R A L L E L I S M

A N D

I M M A N E N C E

ideas and explicates itself through them. This third expression
is quantitative. And, like quantity itself, it has two forms : inten­
sive in the essences of modes, and extensive when the modes passinto existence. The principle of equality here finds its final appli­
cation: not in an equality of modes to substance itself, but in asuperiority of substance which involves no eminence. Modes are
expressive precisely insofar as they imply the same qualitative
forms that constitute the essence of substance .

186PART THRE E

The Theory of Finite ModesC H A P T E R TW E L V E
Modal Essence:T h e P a s s a g e fr o m I n fi n i t e
to Finite

One finds in Spinoza the classic identification of attribute andquality. Attributes are eternal and infinite qualities: as such they
are indivisible. Extension is indivisible qua substantial quality or
attribute . Each attribute is indivisible qua quality. But each
attribute-quality has an infinite quantity that is for its part divisi­
ble in certain conditions. This infinite quantity of an attributeconstitutes a matter, but a purely modal matter. An attribute isthus divided modally, and not really. It has modally distinct parts:
modal, rather than real or substantial parts. This applies to Exten­
sion as to the other attributes: "Is there no part in Extension prior
to all its modes? None, I reply." 1
But it appears from the Ethics that the word "part" must be
understood in two ways. Sometimes it is a question of parts ofa power, that is, o f intrinsic or intensive parts , true degrees,
degrees of power or intensity. Modal essences are thus definedas degrees of power ( Spinoza here j oins a long Scholastic tradi­tion, according to which modus intrinsecus = gradus = intensio2 ) .
But i t is also, a t times , a question of extrinsic or extensive parts,
external to one another, and acting on one another from outside.
Thus the simplest bodies are the ultimate extensive modal divi­
sions of Extension. ( I t should not be thought that Extensivity

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

belongs only to Extension: the modes of Extension are definedessentially by degrees of power, and an attribute such as Thought
itself has extensive modal parts , ideas that correspond to thesimplest bodies. 3,a)
It is as though to each attribute there belonged two quanti­ties, each in itself infinite, but each in its own way divisible incertain conditions : an intensive quantity, which divides into
intensive parts, or degrees, and an extensive quantity, which
divides into extensive parts. It is hardly surprising , then, thatbeside the qualitative infinity of attributes, which relates to sub­stance, Spinoza alludes to two strictly modal quantitative infini­ties. In a letter to Meyer he writes "Certain things [are infinite Jin virtue of the cause on which they depend, yet when they are
considered abstractly they can be divided into parts and viewed
as finite; certain others, lastly, are said to be infinite or, if you pre­fer, indefinite, because they cannot be equated with any num­ber, yet they can be conceived as greater or less."4,b But we thenface many problems: In what do these two infinities consist?
How, and in what conditions, do they allow o f division into
parts? How are they related, and what are the relations of theirrespective parts?

What is it that Spinoza calls a modal essence, a particular or sin­gular essence? His position may be stated thus: A mode's essence
is not a logical possibility, nor a mathematical structure, nor a
metaphysical entity, but a physical reality, a res physico. Spinoza
means that the essence, qua essence, has an existence. A modal

essence has an existence distinct from that of the corresponding mode.
A mode's essence exists, is real and actual , even if the mode
whose essence it is does not actually exist. Whence Spinoza's
conception of a nonexistent mode: this is not something possi-M O DA L

E S S E N C E :T H EPAS S A G E

F R O MI N F I N I T E

TOF I N I T E

ble, but an obj ect whose idea is necessarily comprised in the idea
of God, just as its t;ssence is necessarily contained in an attribute.s
The idea of nonexistent modes is thus the necessary objective cor­
relate of modal essence. Every essence is the essence of some­thing; the essence of a mode is the essence of something whichmust be conceived in infinite understanding. One cannot say ofthe essence itself that it is only possible, nor can one say that anonexistent mode tends, by virtue of its essence, toward exist­
enc e . On these two points Spinoza and Leibniz are radically
opposed: in Leibniz an essence or individual notion is a logicalpossibility, inseparable from a certain metaphysical reality, thatis, from a "claim to existence," a tendency to exist. 6 In Spinoza
this is not the case: an essence is not a possibility, but possesses
a real existence that belongs to it itself; a nonexistent mode
lacks nothing and claims nothing, but is conceived in God's
understanding as the correlate of its real essence. Neither a meta­
physical reality nor a logical possibility, the essence of a mode is apure physical reality.
Modal essences therefore, no less than existing modes, haveefficient causes. "God is the efficient cause, not only of the exist­
ence of things, but also of their essence." 7 When Spinoza showsthat a mode's essence does not involve existence, he of course
primarily means that its essence is not the cause of a mode's exist­
ence. But he also means that the mode's essence is not the causeof its own existence. 8 ,cNot that there is any real distinction between an essence andits own existence; the distinction of essence and existence issufficiently grounded once it is agreed that an essence has a causethat is itself distinct. From this it does indeed follow that theessence exists necessarily, but this by virtue of its cause ( and not
through itself). One may recognize here the principle of a famousthesis of Duns Scotus's ( and of Avicenna before him) : existence193

T H ET H E O RY

O F

F I N I T E

M O D E S

necessarily accompanies essence, but this by virtue of the latter's
cause; it is not thereby included or involved in essence, but added
to it. It is not added to it as a really distinct actuality, but only
as a sort of ultimate determination resulting from the essence's
cause.9 In short, essence always has the existence due to it by vir­tue of its cause. Thus in Spinoza, the following two propositions
go together: Essences have an existence or physical reality; God is theefficient cause of essences. A n essence's existence is the same a s its
being-caused . So that one should not confuse Spinoza's theory
with an apparently analogous Cartesian theory: when Descartes
says that God produces even essences, he means that God is not
subj ect to any law, that he creates everything, even possibility.
Spinoza, on the other hand, means that essences are not possi­
bles, but that they have a fully actual existence that belongs tothem by virtue of their cause. Essences of modes can only beassimilated to possibles to the extent that we consider them
abstractly, that is, divorce them from the cause that makes themreal or existing things.
If all essences agree, this is just because they are not causes
one of another, but all have God as their cause. When we con­sider them concretely, referring them all to the cause on which
they depend, we posit them all together, coexisting and agree­
ing. 10 All essences agree in the existence or reality resulting fromtheir cause. One essence can only be separated from the others
abstractly, by considering it independently of the principle of pro­duction which comprehends all . Thus essences form a total sys­tem, an actually infinite whole. One may say of this whole, as in
the letter to Meyer, that it is infinite through its cause. We mustthen ask: How are the essences of modes distinct, if they are
inseparable one from another? How are they singular, when they
form an infinite whole? Which amounts to asking: In what does
the physical reality of essences as such consist? This problem con1 94

M O DA L

E S S E N C E :T H EPAS S A G E

F R O MI N F I N I T E

TOF I N I T E

ceming at once individuality and reality poses, as is well known,
many difficulties for Spinozism.
Spinoza does not appear to have had any clear solution at theoutset, nor even a clear statement of the problem. Two famous
passages of the Short Treatise argue that, as long as the corres­
ponding modes do not themselves exist, their essences are notdistinct from the attribute containing them, and are furthermore
not distinct one from another - that they do not, theri, have inthemselves any principle of individuality. 1 1 Individuation takes
place only through a mode's existence, not through its essence.
(And yet the Short Trea tise already requires the hypothesis ofmodal essences that are in themselves singular, and makes full useof this hypothesis . )But these two passages o f the Short Treatise should perhaps be
taken as ambiguous, rather than as thoroughly excluding any sin­gularity and distinction of essences as such. For the first passage
seems to say that as long as a mode doesn't exist, its essence exists
solely as contained in its attribute; but the idea of the essencecannot itself contain a distinction that is not in Nature; thus it
cannot represent a nonexistent mode as if it were distinct fromits attribute and from other modes. And the second passage, thatas long as a mode doesn't exist, the idea of its essence cannot
involve any distinct existence; as long as the whole wall is white,
one cannot apprehend anything distinct from it or distinct in it.
(This thesis is not even abandoned in the Ethics: as long as a mode
doesn't exist, its essence is contained in its attribute, its idea com­prised in the idea of God; this idea cannot then involve a distinct
existence, nor can it be distinguished from other ideas . 12)"Being distinct from" is bluntly opposed in all this to "being
contained in." As contained only in their attribute, modal es­
sences are not distinct from it. Distinction, then, is taken in the senseof extrinsic distinction. The argument is as follows. Modal essences
195

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

are contained in their attribute; as long as a mode does not exist,
no extrinsic distinction between its essence and the attribute, or
between its essence and other essences, is possible. Thus no idea
can represent or apprehend modal essences as extrinsic parts of
the attribute, or as parts external one to another. This position
may seem odd, because it supposes that, conversely, extrinsic dis­tinction is not incompatible with existing modes, and is even,indeed, required by them . We will postpone the analysis of thispoint and simply note here that an existing mode has duration,and that while it endures it is no longer simply contained in its
attribute, just as its idea is no longer simply comprised in the idea
of God. 13 It is through duration (and also, in the case of modesof Extension, through figure and place) that existing modes havetheir strictly extrinsic individuation.
As long as the wall is white, no shape is distinguished from orin it. That is: in such a state the quality is not affected by anything
extrinsically distinct from it. But there remains the question of
knowing whether there is another type of modal distinction,
presenting an intrinsic principle of individuation. Furthermore,
one might well consider that individuation through the existenceof a mode is insufficient. We cannot distinguish existing things
except insofar as we suppose their essences distinct; similarly, any
extrinsic distinction seems to presuppose a prior intrinsic one. So
a modal essence should be singular in itself, even if the corres­
ponding mode does not exist. But how? Let us return to Scotus:
whiteness, he says, has various intensities; these are not added
to whiteness as one thing to another thing, like a shape added to
the wall on which it is drawn; its degrees of intensity are intrin­
sic determinations, intrinsic modes, of a whiteness that remains
univocally the same under whichever modality it is considered.J4
This seems also to be the case for Spinoza: modal essences are
intrinsic modes or intensive quantities . An attribute remains as

M O DA L

E S S E N C E o

T H EPA S S A G E

F R O MI N F I N I T E

TOF I N I T E

a quality univocally what it is, containing all the degrees that
affect it without modifying its formal reason. Modal essences arethus distinguished from their attribute as intensities of its qual­
ity, and from one another as different degrees of intensity. One
may be permitted to think that, while he does not explicitly
develop such a theory, Spinoza is looking toward the idea of a dis­tinction or singularity belonging to modal essences as such. The
difference of being (of modal essences ) is at once intrinsic andpurely quantitative; for the quantity here in question is an inten­
sive one. Only a quantitative distinction of beings is consistent
with the qualitative identity of the absolute. And this quantita­
tive distinction is no mere appearance, but an internal difference,a difference of intensity. So that each finite being must be said toexpress the absolute, according to the intensive quantity that con­stitutes its essence, according, that is, to the degree of its power. I S
Individuation is, in Spinoza, neither qualitative nor extrinsic, but
quantitative and intrinsic, intensive . There is indeed , in thissense, a distinction of modal essences, both from the attributethat contains them, and one from another. Modal essences are
not distinct in any extrinsic way, being contained in their attri­bute, but they have nonetheless a type of distinction or singular­
ity proper to them , within the attribute that contains them .
Intensive quantity is infinite, and the system of essences anactually infinite series. We are here dealing with infinity "througha cause!' This is the sense in which an attribute contains, that is,complicates, the essences of all its modes; it contains them as
the infinite series of degrees corresponding to its intensive quan­tity. Now it is easy to see that this infinity is in a sense indivisi­
ble: one cannot divide it into extensive or extrinsic parts, except
through abstraction . ( But by abstraction we separate essencesfrom their cause and from the attribute that contains them, con­sidering them as simple logical possibilities, and taking from
1 97

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

them all physical reality. ) Modal essences are thus in fact insepa­
rable, and are characterized by their total agreement. But they
are nevertheless singular and particular, and distinguished fromone another intrinsically. In their concrete system, all essences
are involved in the production of each: this applies not merely
to the lowest degree of essence, but to the highest also, since theseries is actually infinite. Yet in this concrete system each essence
is produced as an irreducible degree, necessarily apprehended asa singular unity. Such is the system of "complication" of essences.

Modal essences are, then, parts of an infinite series. But this in
the very special sense of intensive or intrinsic parts. One should
not give Spinoza's particular essences a Leibnizian interpretation.
Particular essences are not microcosms. They are not all con­tained in each, but all are comprised in the production of each .
A modal essence is a pars intensiva, and not a pars totalis. 16 As such,it has an expressive power, but such expressive power must be
understood in a way very different from the way it is understoodby Leibniz. For the status of modal essences relates to a strictly
Spinozist problem, concerning absolutely infinite substance. Thisis the problem of passing from infinite to finite. Substance is, so
to speak, the absolute ontological identity of all qualities, abso­
lutely infinite power, the power of existing in all forms , and of
thinking all forms. Attributes are infinite forms or qualities, andas such indivisible. So the finite is neither substantial nor quali­
tative . But nor is it mere appearance : it is modal , that is, quanti­tative. Each substantial quality has intensive modal quantity, itself
infinite, which actually divides into an infinity of intrinsic modes.
These intrinsic modes, contained together as a whole in an attri­bute, are the intensive parts of the attribute itself. And they are
thereby parts of God's power, within the attribute that contains

M O DA L

E S S E N C E :T H EPA S S A G E

F R O MI N F I N I T E

TOF I N I T E

them . It is in this sense, as we have already seen, that modes of adivine attribute necessarily participate in God's power: theiressence is itself part of God's power, is an intensive part, or adegree of that power. Here again the reduction of creatures tothe status of modes appears as the condition of their essence being
a power, that is, of being an irreducible part of God's power. Thus
modes are in their essence expressive: they express God's essence,each according to the degree of power that constitutes its essence.
The individuation of the finite does not proceed in Spinoza fromgenus to species or individual, from general to particular; it pro­ceeds from an infinite quality to a corresponding quantity, which
divides into irreducible intrinsic or intensive parts .

199

CHAPTER T H I RTEEN
Modal

Existence

We know that the existence of a modal essence is not the sameas the existence of the corresponding mode. A modal essence canexist without the mode itself existing: its essence is not the causeof a mode's existence. A mode's existence thus has as it cause
another mode, itself existing . 1 But this infinite regression in noway tells us in what that existence consists. If, however, it be truethat an existing mode "needs" a great number of other existingmodes, this already suggests that it is itself composed of a great
number of parts, parts that come to it from elsewhere, that begin
to belong to it as soon as it comes to exist by virtue of an exter­
nal cause, that are renewed in the play of causes while the mode
exists, and that cease to belong to it when it passes away. 2 So we
can now say in what a mode's existence consists: to exist is to actu­
ally possess a very great num ber [plurimaeJ of parts. These compo­
nent parts are external to the mode's essence, and external one
to another: they are extensive parts.
I do not think that there are, for Spinoza, any existing modes
that are not actually composed of a very great number of exten­
sive parts. There are no existing bodies, within Extension,a thatare not composed of a very great number of simple bodies. And
the soul , insofar as it is the idea of an existing body, is itself
201

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

composed of a great number of ideas which correspond to the
body's component parts, and which are extrinsically distinct fromone another) The faculties, furthermore, which the soul possesses
insofar as it is the idea of an existing body, are genuine extensive
parts, which cease to belong to the soul once the body itself
ceases to exist. 4 Here then, it seems, are the primary elementsof Spinoza's scheme : a mode's essence is a determinate degree ofintensity, an irreducible degree of power; a mode exists , if it
actually possesses a very great number of extensive parts corres­
ponding to its essence or degree of power.
What does Spinoza mean by "a very great number"? The let­ter to Meyer provides a valuable clue: there are magnitudes thatare called infinite or, better, indefinite, because "the parts can­not be determined or expressed by any number"; "they cannot
be equated with any number, but exceed every number that canbe given!'S Here we recognize the second infinity, modal andquantitative, of the letter to Meyer: a strictly extensive infinity.
Spinoza gives a geometrical example: the sum of the unequal dis­
tances between two nonconcentric circlesb exceeds any numberthat may be given. This infinite quantity has three distinctive
characteristics, although these are it is true negative, rather thanpositive . It is not, in the first place, constant or equal to itself:
it can be conceived as both greater and less ( Spinoza explains inanother passage: "In the whole space between two circles hav­
ing different centers we conceive twice as many parts as in halfthat space, and yet the number of the parts, of the half as well asof the whole, exceeds any assignable number"6). Extensive infin­
ity is thus an infinity necessarily conceived as greater or less. But
in the second place, it is not strictly speaking "unlimited" : forit relates to something limited . There is a maximum and a mini­
mum distance between two nonconcentric circles, and these dis­
tances attach to a perfectly limited and determinate space. In the202M O DA L

E X I S T E N C E

third place, finally, this quantity is not infinite through the mul­titude of its parts , for "if the infinity were inferred from themultitude of parts, we should not be able to conceive a greater
multitude of parts, but their multitude ought to be greater than
any given one." It is not from the number of its parts that thequantity is infinite, but rather because it is infinite that it divides
into a multitude of parts exceeding any number.
One may note that number never adequately expresses thenature of modes. It may be useful to identify modal quantity andnumber; indeed one must do so, if it is to be opposed to sub­stance and substantial qualities. I did so when presenting modal
distinction as a numerical distinction. But number is, in fact, only
a way of imagining quantity, or an abstract way of thinking ofmodes. Modes, insofar as they flow from substance and its attri­butes, are something more than phantoms of imagination, some­thing more than things of reason. Their being is quantitative ,rather than numerical , strictly speaking. If one considers the pri­mary modal infinity, intensive infinity, it is not divisible into
extrinsic parts. The intensive parts it intrinsically includes, modal
essences, are not separable one from another. Number separates
them from one another, and from the principle of their produc­tion , and thereby grasps them abstractly. If one considers thesecond infinity, extensive infinity, it is of course divisible into
the extrinsic parts that compose existing things. But these extrin­
sic parts always come in infinite collections; their sum always
exceeds any given number. When we explain them by number,
we lose our hold on the real being of existing modes, and grasp
only fictions.7
Thus the letter to Meyer presents, among other things, thespecial case of an extensive modal infinity, variable and divisi­
ble. This exposition is important in itself; Leibniz congratulated
Spinoza on having gone further on this point than many mathe203

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

maticians. 8 But from the viewpoint of Spinozism itself, the ques­tion is: What is the bearing of this theory of the second modal
infinity on the system as a whole? The answer seems to be that
extensive infinity relates to modal existenc e . Indeed , when
Spinoza asserts in the Ethics that composite modes have a very
great number of parts, he understands by "very great number" anunassignable number, that is, a plurality exceeding any number.
The essence of such a mode is itself a degree of power; but what­ever degree of power constitutes its essence, the mode cannot
exist unless it actually has an infinity of parts. If one considers amode whose degree of power is double that of the previous one,its existence is composed of an infinity of parts, which is itself
the double of the previous infinity. There is in the limit an infin­
ity of infinite wholes, a whole of all the wholes, the whole, so
to speak, of existing things both contemporaneous and succes­
sive. In short, the characteristics assigned by Spinoza to the sec­
ond modal infinity, in his letter to Meyer, find an application onlyin the theory of existing modes developed in the Ethics andthere find general application. Existing modes have an infinity(a very great number) of parts; their essences or degrees of power
always correspond to a limit ( a maximum or minimum ) ; allexisting modes taken together, not only contemporaneous but
also successive ones , constitute the greatest infinity, itself divis­
ible into infinities greater or less than one another. 9-

We have yet to discover whence come these extensive parts, andin what they consist. They are not atoms: for not only do atoms
imply a void, but an infinity of atoms could not correspond tosomething limited. Nor are they the virtual components of divis­
ibility to infinity: these could not form greater or lesser infini­ties . To go from the hypothesis of infinite divisibility to that of
2 04

M O DA L

E X I ST E N C E

atoms is to run "from Charybdis to Scylla." I O The ultimate exten­
sive parts are in fact the actual infinitely small parts of an infin­
ity that is itself actual . Positing an actual infinity in Nature is noless important for Spinoza than for Leibniz: there is no contra­
diction between the idea of absolutely simple ultimate parts andthe principle of infinite division, as long as this division is actu­
ally infinite. 11 We must then consider that an attribute has not only
an infinite intensive quantity, but an infinite extensive quantity
also. It is the extensive quantity that is actually divided into an
infinity of extensive parts. These are extrinsic parts, acting one
on another from outside, and externally distinguished. As a whole,and in all their relations, they form an infinitely changeable universe,
corresponding to God's omnipotence. But in this or that determinate
relation they form greater or lesser infinite wholes, corresponding to thisor that degree of power, in other words, to this or that mpdal essence.
They always come in infinities: an infinity of parts, however small,always corresponds to a degree of power; and the whole universe
corresponds to the Power that comprises all these degrees.
This is how we should understand Spinoza's analysis of themodes of Extension. The attribute of Extension has an exten­
sive modal quantity that actually divides into an infinity of sim­ple bodies. These simple bodies are extrinsic parts which are only
distinguished from one another, and which are only related to
one another, through movement and rest. Movement and rest are
precisely the form of extrinsic distinction and external relation
between simple bodies. Simple bodies are determined from out­side to movement or rest ad infinitum, and are distinguished by
the movement and rest to which they are determined. They arealways grouped in infinite wholes, each whole being defined by acertain relatione of movement and rest. It is through this relationthat an infinite whole corresponds to a certain modal essence( that is, to a certain degree of power), and thus constitutes the
2 05

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

very existence of that mode of Extension. d If one considers allthese infinite wholes in all their relations as a whole, one has "thesum of all the variations of matter in movement, " or "the face of
the whole universe" under the attribute of Extension. This faceor sum corresponds to God's omnipotence insofar as the lattercomprises all the degrees of power or all the modal essences inthis same attribute of Extension. 12
This scheme enables us to clear up certain contradictions
which some have thought to find in Spinoza's physics , or to findrather in his Ethics, inconsistencies between its physics of bodies
and its theory of essences. Thus Rivaud noted that a simple bodyis always, and only, determined to movement and to rest fromoutside; whence its state must be referred to an infinite collec­
tion of simple bodies. But how, then, reconcile this status of sim­ple bodies with that of essences? "A particular body, or a simple
body at least, has then no eternal essence. Its reality seems to be
subsumed into that of an infinite system of causes"; "We soughta particular essence, and we find only an infinite chain of causes
none of whose terms appears to have any essential reality of itsown"; "This consequence, which appears to be forced on us by
the passages just cited , seems to contradict the most clearly
ascertained principles of Spinoza's system. What is to become ofthe eternity of essences, unreservedly asserted on so many occa­
sions? How can a body, however small, however transitory its
being, exist without a nature of its own, a nature without which
it can neither arrest nor transmit any movement it receives?
What has no essence at all cannot exist, and every essence is, bydefinition, immutable. A soap bubble that exists at some given
moment, must necessarily have an eternal essence, without whichit could not be."13
Yet there is no need to seek an essence for each extensive
part. An essence is a degree of intensity. But extensive parts and206

M O DA L

E X I ST E N C E

degrees of intensity ( or intensive part s ) in no way correspondterm for term. To every degree of intensity, however small, there
correspond an infinity of extensive parts that have, and must have,
between them purely extrinsic relations. Extensive parts comein greater or lesser infinities, but always come in an infinity; there
is no question of each having an essence, because even to a min­imal essence there correspond an infinity of parts. The soap bub­ble does indeed have an essence, but each part of the infinite
collection that in some relation composes it, does not. In otherwords, in Spinoza, there is no existing mode that is not actually infi­
nitely composite, whatever be its essence or degree of power.
Spinoza says that composite modes have a "very great number"of parts; but what he says of composite modes must be under­stood of all existing modes, for there are no incomposite exist­
ing modes, all existence is by definition composite. Should onethen say that simple extensive parts exist? Should one say that inExtension there exist simple bodies? If by this one means exist­
ence singly, or as a number together, the absurdity is obvious .
Strictly speaking, simple parts have neither an essence nor an
existence of their own. They have no internal essence or nature;they are extrinsically distinguished one from another, extrinsicallyrelated to one another. They have no existence of their own, but
existence is composed of them : to exist is to actually have an
infinity of extensive parts. In greater or lesser infinities they
compose, in different relations, the existence of modes whose
essences are of greater or lesser degree. Not only Spinoza's phys­i c s , but Spinozism as a whol e , beco me s u n i nt e ll igi bl e if one
doesn't distinguish what belongs to essences, what belongs toexistences, and the correspondence between them , which is in
no way term for term.
We now have the elements of an answer to the question of
how an infinity of extensive parts can compose the existence of
2 07

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

a mode . Thus a mode exists, for example, in Extension when
an infinity of simple bodies, corresponding to its essence, actu­
ally belong to it. But how can they correspond to its essence, or
belong to it? Spinoza's answer remains identical from the Short
Treatise on: they do so in a certain relation of movement and rest. A
given mode "comes to exist, " comes into existence , when an
infinity o f extensive parts enter into a Biven relation: it contin­
ues to exist as long as this relation holds. Extensive parts are thusgrouped together in various collections on various levels of rela­tion, corresponding to different degrees of power. Extensive parts
form a greater or lesser infinite whole, insofar as they enter into
this or that relation; in any given relation they correspond toso � e modal essence and compose the existence of the corres­
ponding mode itself; in some other relation they form part ofanother whole, correspond to another modal essence, and com­pose the existence of another mode. Such is the doctrine of the
Short Treatise concerning the coming into existence of modes. 14
The Ethics puts it still more clearly: little does it matter if thecomponent parts of an existing mode are each moment renewed;
the whole remains the same insofar as it is defined by a relation
through which any of its parts belong to that particular modal
essence . An existing mode is thus subj ect to considerable andcontinual alteration: but it little matters, either, that the divi­
sion between its parts of movement and rest, or of speed andslowness of movement, should alter. A given mode will continue
to exist as long as the same relation subsists in the infinite wholeof its parts . I S
It must then be recognized that a modal essence ( a degree ofpower) expresses itself eternally in a certain relation, with its vari­
ous different levels. But the mode does not come into existence
until an infinity of extensive parts are actually determined toenter into this relation. These parts may be determined to enter208

M O DALE X I S T E N C E

into another relation; they are then integrated into another infi­
nite whole, greater or lesser, corresponding to another modal
essence, and composing the existence of another mode. Spinoza's
theory of existence involves, then, three components: a singularessence, which is a degree of power or intensity; a particular exist­
ence, always composed of an infinity of extensive parts; and an
individual form that is the characteristic or expressive relation
which corresponds eternally to the mode's essence, but throughwhich also an infinity of parts are temporarily related to thatessence. In an existing mode, the essence is a degree of power;
this degree expresses itself in a relation; and the relation sub­sumes an infinity of parts. Whence Spinoza's formulation accord­
ing to which the parts, being under the domination of one andthe same nature, are "forced, as this nature demands, to adapt
themselves to one another!' 16
A modal essence expresses itself eternally in a relation, but
we should not confuse the essence and the relation in which it
expresses itself. A modal essence is not the cause of the exist­
ence of the mode itself: the proposition takes up, in Spinoza's
terms, the old principle that a finite being's existence does notfollow from its essence. But what is the new sense of this princi­
ple as seen from Spinoza's viewpoint? It means that for all that amodal essence expresses itself in a characteristic relation, it is
not the essence that determines an infinity of extensive parts
to enter into that relation. (A mere nature does not establish its
dominance by itself, or itself force the parts to adapt themselves
to one another so as to conform with the relation in which it
expresses itself. ) For extensive parts determine one another fromoutside and ad infinitum ; they have none but an extrinsic deter­
mination. A mode comes into existence, not by virtue of its
essence, but by virtue of purely mechanical laws which determine
an infinity of some extensive parts or other to enter into a pre2 09

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

cise given relation, in which its essence expresses itself. A mode
ceases to exist as soon as its parts are determined to enter intoanother relation, corresponding to another essence. Modes comeinto existence, and cease to exist, by virtue of laws external totheir essences.
What are these mechanical laws? In the case of Extension theyamount ultimately to the laws of communication of movement.
If we consider the infinity of simple bodies, we see that they arealways grouped in constantly changing infinite wholes. But thewhole of all these wholes remains fixed, this fixity being definedby the total quantity of movement, that is, by the total propor­
tion of movement and rest, which contains an infinity of partic­
ular relations. Simple bodies are never separable from some one
or other of these relations, through which they belong to somewhole. But the total proportion always remains fixed, while these
relations are made and unmade according to the laws of compo­
sition and decomposition.
Take two composite bodies, each possessing, in a certain rela­tion, an infinity of simple bodies or parts. When they meet it
may happen that the two relations can be directly combined.
Then the parts of one adapt to the parts of the other in a third
relation composed of the two previous ones. Here we have theformation of a body more composite still than the two fromwhich we began. In a famous passage, Spinoza shows how chyleand lymph combine their respective relations to form, as a third
relation, the blood . 17 And, in more or less complex conditions,this process is that of all generation or formation, that is, of all
coming into existence. Parts come together in different relations;each relation already corresponds to a modal essence; two rela­tions combine in such a way that the parts that meet enter intoa third relation, corresponding to a further modal essence. The
corresponding mode thereby comes into existence. But it may
210M O DA L

E X I ST E N C E

happen that the two relations cannot be directly combined. The
bodies that meet are either mutually indifferent, or one, throughits relation, decomposes the relation in the other, and so destroys
the other body. This is the case with a toxin or poison, which
destroys a man by decomposing his blood. And this is the casewith nutrition, but in a converse sense: a man forces the parts ofthe body by which he nourishes himself to enter into a new rela­tion that conforms with his own, but which involves the destruc­tion of the relation in which that body existed previously.
Thus there are laws of composition and decomposition ofrelations which determine both the coming into existence ofmodes, and the end of their existence . These eternal laws in no
way affect the eternal truth of each relation: each relation has
an eternal truth, insofar as an essence expresses itself in it. But
the laws of composition and decomposition determine the con­ditions in which a relation is actualized - that is, actually sub­sumes extensive parts - or, on the other hand, ceases to be
actualized. Whence we must, above all, avoid confusing essences
and relations, or a law of production of essences and a law of com­position of relations. It is not the essence that determines theactualization of the relation in which it expresses itself. Relations
are composed and decomposed according to their own laws. The
order of essences is characterized by a total conformity. Such is
not the case with the order of relations. All relations are of course
combined ad infinitum, but not in just any way. Some given rela­tion does not combine with j ust any other given relation. The
laws of composition that apply to characteristic relations, andthat regulate the coming into existence of modes, pose many
problems. Such laws are not contained in the modal essences
themselves. Was Spinoza thinking of these laws when he wrote,as early as the Correction of the Understanding, of laws inscribedin attributes and infinite modes "as in their true codes"?18 (The211

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

complexity of this passage prevents me from adducing it here . )And then, d o we know these laws, and i f s o , how? Spinoza does
seem to admit that we have to pass through an empirical studyof bodies in order to know their relations, and how they are
combined. 19 Whatever be the answers to these questions , it isenough provisionally to note the irreducibility of the order ofrelations to the order of essences themselves.

A mode's existence does not, then, follow from its essence. Whena mode comes into existence, it is determined to do so by amechanical law that composes the relation in which it expresses
itself, which constrains, that is to say, an infinity of extensive parts
to enter into that relation. Coming into existence should never
be understood in Spinoza as a transition from possible to real :an existing mode is no more the realization of a possible , than amodal essence is such a "possible!' Essences necessarily exist, by
virtue of their cause; the modes whose essences they are neces­sarily come into existence by virtue of causes that determine parts
to enter into the relations corresponding to those essences.
Necessity everywhere appears as the only modality of being, but
this necessity has two components. We have seen that the dis­tinction between an essence and its own existence should not beinterpreted as a real distinction, nor should that of an essence
and the existence of the mode itself. An existing mode is j ust its
own essence itself insofar as the essence actually possesses aninfinity of extensive parts. Just as the essence exists by virtue of
its cause, so the mode itself exists by virtue of the cause that
determines its parts to belong to it. But the two forms of causal­
ity we are thus led to consider force us to define two types ofmodal position,e and two types of modal distinction.
Modal essences were characterized above as intensive reali212

M O DA L

E X I ST E N C E

ties. They were distinguished from their attribute and from one
another only through a very special type of distinction, an intrin­
sic one. They existed only as contained in their attribute, andtheir ideas existed only as comprised in the idea of God. All such
essences were "complicated" in their attribute; this was the form
in which they existed and expressed the essence of God, eachaccording to its degree of power. But when modes come into
existence, they acquire extensive parts. They acquire a size andduration: each mode endures as long as its parts remain in therelation that characterizes it. We must therefore recognize thatexisting modes are extrinsically distinct from their attribute, andextrinsically distinct from one another. The Metaphysical Thoughts
defined "the being of existence" as "the essence itself of thingsoutside God," as opposed to "the being of essence" that desig­
nated things as they are "comprehended in the attributes ofGod."20 This definition corresponds perhaps more closely than
one might imagine to the thought of Spinoza himself. In thisrespect it presents several important characteristics.
It reminds us first of all that the distinction between essence
and existence is never a real distinction. The being of essence (theexistence of essence) is its position in an attribute of God. The
being of existence ( the existence of a thing itself) is also a posit­
ing of essence, but an extrinsic position, outside the attribute. And
I do not believe that this thesis is abandoned in the Ethics. The
existence of a particular thing is the thing itself, no longer as sim­ply contained in its attribute, no longer as simply comprehended
in God, but as having duration, as having a relation with a cer­tain extrinsically distinct time and place.21 It might be obj ectedthat such a conception is radically opposed to immanence . For,
from the viewpoint of immanence, modes do not cease to belong
to substance, to be contained in it, when they come into exist­
ence. But the point is so obvious that it should not detain us long.
2 13

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

Spinoza doesn't say that existing modes are no longer containedin substance, but rather that they are "are no longer only" con­tained in substance or attribute.22 The difficulty is easily resolved

if we consider that extrinsic distinction remains always and only amodal distinction. Modes do not cease to be modes once they are
posited outside their attribute/ for this extrinsic position ispurely modal rather than substantial. If a passing comparison withKant be permissible, it will be recalled that Kant explains that,
although space is the form of exteriority, this form is no lessinternal to me than the form of interiority: it presents objects asexternal to us and to one another, and this without any illusion,
but itself is completely internal to us.23 Similarly Spinoza, in an
altogether different context, talking of an altogether different
matter, says that extensive quantity belongs to an attribute noless than intensive quantity, but that it is a strictly modal formof exteriority. I t presents existing modes as external to the attri­bute, and as external one to another. It is nonetheless contained,
along with all existing modes, in the attribute it modifies. The
idea of an extrinsic modal distinction is in no way inconsistent
with the principle of immanence.
What then does such an extrinsic modal distinction amount
to? When modes are posited extrinsically they cease to exist
in the complicated form that they have while their essences arecontained solely in their attribute . Their new existence is an
explication : they explicate the attribute, each "in a certain anddeterminate way!' That is: each existing mode explicates the attri­bute in the relation that characterizes it, in a way extrinsicallydistinct from other ways in other relations. An existing mode isthus no less expressive than its essence, but is so in another man­ner. An attribute no longer expresses itself only in the modal
essences that it complicates or contains according to their degrees
of power; it also expresses itself in existing modes that explicate
2 14

M O D A L

E X I ST E N C E

it in a certain and determinate manner, that is, according to therelations corresponding to their essences. Modal expression as awhole is constituted by this double movement of complicationand explication.24

2 15

CHAPTER F O U RTEEN
What Can a B o dy Do?

The expressive triad corresponding to finite modes comprises anessence as a degree of power; a characteristic relation in which
it expresses itself; and the extensive parts subsumed in this rela­tion, which compose the mode's existence. But we find in the
Ethics a strict system of equivalences that leads us to a second
modal triad: the essence as a degree of power; a certain capacity
to be affected in which it expresses itself; and the affections that,each moment, exercise that capacity.
What are these equivalences? An existing mode actually pos­sesses a very great number of parts. But the nature of extensive
parts is such that they "affect one another" ad infinitum. From thisone may infer that an existing mode is affected in a very great
number of ways. Spinoza proceeds from the parts to their affec­
tions, and from these affections to the affections of the existing
mode as a whole. 1 Extensive parts do not belong to a given mode
except in a certain relation. And a mode is said to have affections

by virtue of a certain capacity of being affected. A horse, a fish,
a man, or even two men compared one with the other, do nothave the same capacity to be affected: they are not affected by
the same things, or not affected by the same things in the sameway.2 A mode ceases to exist when it can no longer maintain
2 17

T H ET H EO R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

between its parts the relation that characterizes it; and it ceases
to exist when "it is rendered completely incapable of being
affected in many ways."3 In short, relations are inseparable fromthe capacity to be affected. So that Spinoza can consider two fun­damental questions as equivalent: What is the structure ( fabrica)of a body? And: What can a body do? A body's structure is the com­position of its relation. What a body can do corresponds to thenature and limits of its capacity to be affected. 4
This second triad characterizing finite modes well shows how
modes express substance, participate in it, and even, in their own
way, reproduce it. God was defined by the identity of his essence
and an absolutely infinite power (poten tia) ; as such he had apotestas, that is, a capacity to be affected in an infinity of ways;
and this capacity was eternally and necessarily exercised, God
being cause of all things in the same sense as cause of himself.
An existing mode has, for its part, an essence that is identical toa degree of power; as such it has an ability to be affected, a capac­
ity to be affected in a very great number of ways. While the mode
exists this capacity is exercised in varying ways, but is always nec­
essarily exercised under the action of external modes.
What, from these various viewpoints, is the difference between
an existing mode and divine substance? One must not, in the firstplace, confuse an "infinity of ways" with a "very great numberof ways." A very great number is indeed an infinity, but one of a
special kind: a greater or lesser infinity that relates to something
limited. God is, on the other hand, affected in an infinity of ways,
and this is infinity through a cause, since God is the cause of all
his affections. This is a strictly unlimited infinity, which com­prises all modal essences and all existing modes.
A second difference is that God is the cause of all his affec­
tions, and so cannot suffer them . It would be wrong indeed toconfuse affection and suffering or passion.h An affection is not a218

W H ATC A N

AB O DYD O ?

passion, except when it cannot be explained by the nature of theaffected body: it then of course involves the body, but is explainedby the influence of other bodies . Affections that can be com­pletely explained by the nature of the affected body are active
affections, and themselves actions. 5 Let us apply the p rinciple ofthis distinction to God: there are no causes external to God; God
is necessarily the cause of all his affections, and so all these affec­
tions can be explained by his nature, and are actions. 6 Such is
not the case with existing modes. These do not exist by virtueof their own nature; their existence is composed of extensive
parts that are determined and affected from outside, ad infinitum.
Every existing mode is thus inevitably affected by modes exter­
nal to it, and undergoes changes that are not explained by its own
nature alone. Its affections are at the outset, and tend to remain,
passions.7 Spinoza .remarks that childhood is an abj ect state, but
one common to all of us, in which we depend "very heavily on
external causes!'8 The great question that presents itself in rela­tion to existing finite modes is thus: Can they attain to active
affections, and if so, how? This is the "ethical" question, prop­
erly so called. But, even supposing that a mode manages to pro­
duce active affections, while it exists it cannot eliminate all its
passions, but can at best bring it about that its passions occupy
only a small part of itself.9
A final difference concerns the very content of the word
"affection," according to whether it be applied to God or tomodes. For God's affections are those modes themselves, modal
essences or existing modes. Their ideas express the essence of

God as their cause. But the affections of modes are as it were asecond degree of affection, affections of affections: for example,
a passive affection that we experience is just the effect of somebody on our own. The idea of such an affection does not express
its cause, that is to say, the nature or essence of the external body:
2 19

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

rather does it indicate the present constitution of our own body,and so the way in which our capacity to be affected is being atthat moment exercised. An affection of our body is only a cor­poreal image, and the idea of the affection as it is in our mind an
inadequate idea, an imagining. And we have yet another sort ofaffection. From a given idea of an affection there necessarily flow
"affects" or feelings ( affectus ) . 10 · c Such feelings are themselvesaffections, or rather a new kind of idea of an affection. One should
resist attributing to Spinoza intellectualist positions he neverheld . An idea we have indicates the present state of our body's
constitution; while our body exists, it endures, and is defined byduration; its present state is thus inseparable from a previous statewith which it is linked in a continuous duration. Thus to every

idea that indicates an actual state of our body, there is necessarily linked
another sort of idea that involves the relation of this state to the ear­lier state. Spinoza explains that this should not be thought of as
an abstract intellectual operation by which the mind compares
two states. 1 1 Our feelings are in themselves ideas which involvethe concrete relation of present and past in a continuous dura­tion: they involve the changes of an existing mode that endures .
A mode thus has affections of two sorts: states of a body o rideas that indicate these states, and changes i n the body or ideas
indicating these changes . The second kind are linked to the first,
and change with them : one senses how, beginning with an ini­tial affection, our feelings become linked with our ideas in sucha way that our whole capacity to be affected is exercised at each
moment. But all this turns, ultimately, on a certain characteristicof modes , and of man in particular: the first ideas he has are pas­
sive affections , inadequate ideas or imaginings; the affects or
feelings that flow from them are thus passions, feelings that arethemselves passive. One cannot see how a finite mode, especiallyat the beginning of its existence, could have any but inadequate
220

W H ATC A N

AB O DYD O ?

ideas; and one .cannot, consequently, see how it could experienceany but passive feelings. The link is well marked by Spinoza: an
inadequate idea is an idea of which we are not the cause (it is notformally explained by our power of understanding); this inade­quate idea is itself the (material and efficient) cause of a feeling;
we cannot then be the adequate cause of this feeling; but a feelingof which we are not the adequate cause is necessarily a passion. 12
Our capacity to be affected is thus exercised, from the beginningof our existence, by inadequate ideas and passive feelings.
An equally profound link may be found between ideas thatare adequate, and active feelings. An idea we have that is adequate
may be formally defined as an idea of which we are the cause;
were it then the material and efficient cause of a feeling we would
be the adequate cause of that feeling itself; but a feeling of which
we are the adequate cause is an action. Thus Spinoza can say that
"Insofar as our mind has adequate ideas, it necessarily does cer­tain things, and insofar as it has inadequate ideas, it necessarily
undergoes other things" ; "The actions of the mind arise from
adequate ideas alone; the passions depend on inadequate ideas
alone." l 3 Hence the properly ethical question is linked to themethodological question of how we can become active. How can
we come to produce adequate ideas?

One already senses the fundamental importance of that area of
the Ethics that concerns existential changes of finite modes, or
expressive changes . These changes are of several kinds, and must
be understood on various levels . Consider a mode with a given
essence and a given capacity to be affected. Its passive affections(inadequate ideas and passive feelings) are constantly changing.
However, insofar as its capacity to be affected is exercised by pas­
sive affections, this capacity itself appears as a force or power of221

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

suffering. The capacity of being affected is called a power of suf­
fering insofar as it is actually exercised by passive affections. The
body's power of suffering has as its equivalent in the mind thepower of imagining and of experiencing passive feelings.
Let us now assume that the mode, as it endures, comes toexercise (at least partially) its capacity of being affected by active
affections. hi this aspect the capacity appears as a force or powerof acting. The power of understanding or knowing is the powerof acting proper to the soul . But the capacity to be affected remains

constant, whatever the relative proportion of active and passive affec­
tions. And so we arrive at the following conj ecture: that the pro­portion of active and passive feelings is open to variation, withina fixed capacity of being affected. If we manage to produce active
affections, our passive affections will be correspondingly reduced.
And as far as we still have passive affections , our power of action
will be correspondingly "inhibited:' In short, for a given essence,
for a given capacity to be affected, the power of suffering and thatof acting should be open to variation in inverse proportion one
to the other. Both together, in their varying proportions, consti­
tute the capacity to be affected . 14
We must next introduce another level of possible variation.
For the capacity to be affected does not remain fixed at all times
and from all viewpoints . Spinoza suggests, in fact, that the rela­tion that characterizes an existing mode as a whole is endowedwith a kind of elasticity. What is more, its composition, as also
its decomposition, passes through so many stages that one may
almost say that a mode changes its body or relation in leaving
behind childhood, or on entering old age. Growth, aging, illness:
we can hardly recognize the same individual . And is it reallyindeed the same individual? Such changes, whether impercepti­
ble or abrupt, in the relation that characterizes a body, may also
be seen in its capacity of being affected, as though the capacity
222

W H ATC A N

AB O DYD O ?

and the relation enjoy a margin, a limit, within which they takeform and are deformed.IS Here we see the full significance of thepassages of the letter to Meyer that allude to the existence of a
maximum and a minimum .
Thus far we have proceeded as though the power of sufferingand the power of acting formed two distinct principles, their
exercise being inversely proportional within a given capacity to
be affected. This is indeed the case, but only in relation to thefundamental limits of that capacity. It is the case so long as we
consider affections abstractly, without concretely considering theessence of the affected mode. Why? We find ourselves here at
the threshold of a problem explored by Leibniz as well as Spinoza.
It was not by chance that Leibniz, on first reading the Ethics,
spoke with admiration of Spinoza's theory of the affections, hisconception of action and passion. And one should see here a coin­cidence between the developments of their respective philoso­
phies, rather than an influence of Spinoza on Leibniz . 16 Suchcoincidence is in fact more remarkable than any influence. On
one level, Leibniz sets out the following thesis: a body's force,
which is called "derivative ," is double: a force of acting and aforce of suffering, active force and passive force; the active force
remains "dead," or becomes "alive," according to what obstacles
or inducements, registered by the passive force, it encounters.
But on a deeper level Leibniz asks: should passive force be con­ceived as distinct from active force? Is its principle autonomous,does it have any positivity, is it in any way assertive? The reply isthat only active force is strictly real, positive and affirmative. Pas­
sive force asserts nothing, expresses nothing but the imperfec­
tion of the finite. It is as though active force had taken up all thatis real , positive or perfect in finitude itself. Passive force has
no autonomy, but is the mere limitation of active force . There
would be no such force without the active force that it limits. It
223

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

amounts to the inherent limitation of active force; and ultimately
to the limitation of an even deeper force, that is, of an essence
that asserts and expresses itself solely in active force as such. l 7
Spinoza also sets out an initial thesis : the power of sufferingand the power of acting are two powers which vary correlatively,
while the capacity of being affected remains fixed; the power ofacting is dead or alive ( Spinoza says: inhibited or helped) accord­
ing to the obstacles or opportunities that it finds on the side ofpassive affections . But this thesis, if physically true, is not meta­
physically true. Already in Spinoza, at a deeper level, the powerof suffering expresses nothing positive. In every passive affection
there is something imaginary which inhibits it from being real .
We are passive and impassioned only by virtue of our imperfec­
tion , in our imperfection itself. "For it is certain that the agent
acts through what he has , and that the patientd suffers throughwhat he does not have"; " Suffering ,d when the agent and thepatient are different, is a palpable imperfection."18 We suffer
external things, distinct from ourselves; we thus ourselves have a
distinct force of passion and action. But our force of suffering is
simply the imperfection, the finitude, the limitation of our forceof acting itself. Our force of suffering asserts nothing, because it
expresses nothing at all : it "involves" only our impotence, that is
to say, the limitation of our power of action. Our power of suf­
fering is in fact our impotence, our servitude, that is to say, thelowest degree of our power of acting : whence the title of Part Fourof the Ethics, "On Human Servitude." The power of imagination
is indeed a power or virtue, says Spinoza, but would be all themore so, did it depend on our nature , that is , were it active ,rather than amounting only to the finitude or imperfection of ourpower of action, or, in short, our impotence. 19
We still do not know how we may come to produce active
affections; and so we do not know our power of action. And yet
2 24

W H ATC A N

AB O DYD O ?

we may already say that the power of action is the only real, pos­
itive and affirmative form of our capacity to be affected. Aslong as our capacity to be affected is exercised by passive affec­
tions, it is reduced to a minimum, and exhibits only our finitude
or limitation. It is as though a disj unction had appeared in thefinite mode's existence: the negative falling on the side of pas­
sive affections, and the active affections expressing all that is pos­
itive in finite modes. Active affections are indeed the only ones
that really and positively exercise our capacity to be affected. The
power of action is, on its own, the same as the capacity to beaffected as a whole; the power of action by itself expresses es­
sence, and active affections, by themselves, assert essence. In
existing modes, essence is the same as power of action, and thepower of action the same as the capacity to be affected.
One finds in Spinoza a reconciliation of two fundamental prin­ciples. In the physical view a capacity to be affected remains fixed
for a given essence, whether it be exercised by active affections
or passive ones ; a mode is thus always as perfect as it can be. But
in the ethical view the power of being affected is fixed only
within general limits. While exercised by passive affections, it
is reduced to a minimum; we then remain imperfect and impo­
tent, cut off, in a way, from our essence or our degree of power,
cut off from what we can do. It is indeed true that an existing
mode is always as perfect as it can be: but this only relative tothe affections actually belonging to its essence. It is indeed truethat the passive affections we experience exercise our capacity
to be affected; but this, having reduced it to a minimum, having
cut us off from what we can do (our power of action). The expres­sive changes of finite modes consist, then, not only in mechani­
cal changes in the affections it experiences, but also in dynamicchanges in the capacity to be affected , and in "metaphysical "changes of their essence itself: while a mode exists, its very

T H ET H E O RY

O F

F I N I T E

M O D E S

essence is open to variation, according to the affections thatbelong to it at a given moment.20
Whence the importance of the ethical question. We do not evenknow of what a body is capable, says Spinoza.21 That is: We do noteven know of what affections we are capable, nor the extent of ourpower. How could we know this in advance? From the beginningof our existence we are necessarily exercised by passive affections.
Finite modes are born in conditions such that they are cut off inadvance from their essence or their degr�e of power, cut off fromthat of which they are capable, from their power of action. We
can know by reasoning that the power of action is the sole expres­sion of our essence, the sole affirmation of our power of being
affected. But this knowledge remains abstract. We do not knowwhat this power is, nor how we may acquire or discover it. And
we will certainly never know this, if w6 do not concretely try to
become active. The Ethics closes with the following reminder:
most men only feel they exist when they are suffering something.
They can bear existence only as suffering things; "as soon as [theignorant man J ceases to be acted on, he ceases to be."22

Leibniz made a habit of characterizing Spinoza's system by the
impotence in which its creatures found themselves: the theoryof modes was only a means of taking from creatures all their activ­
ity, dynamism , individuality, all their authentic reality. Modes
were only phantasms, phantoms, fantastic proj ections of a sin­gle Substance . And Leibniz uses this characterization, presented
as a criterion, to interpret other philosophies, denouncing inthem either the first signs of an incipient Spinozism , or theconsequences of a hidden one: thus Descartes is the father o fSpinozism , through h i s belief in inert passive Extension; theOccasionalists are involuntary Spinozists to the extent that they226

W H ATC A N

AB O DYD O ?

withdraw from things any action and any principle o f action.
His criticism of a generalized Spinozism is skillful; but one can­not be sure that Leibniz himself subscribed to it ( for how thencould he have so admired Spinoza's theory of action and pas­sion in modes?).
What is clear, at any rate, is that everything in Spinoza's work
contradicts such an interpretation. Spinoza constantly reminds usthat one cannot, without misrepresenting them , confuse modes
with things of reason or "aids to imagination." When speaking
of modifications, he seeks specifically modal principles, whether
arguing from the unity of substance to the ontological unity ofmodes differing in attribute, or arguing from the unity of sub­stance to the systematic unity of the modes contained in one andthe same attribute. And above all , the very idea of the mode isin no sense a way of taking from creatures any power of their own:rather is it, according to Spinoza, the only way of showing how
things "participate" in God's power, that is, how they are partsof divine power, but singular parts , intensive quantities or irre­
ducible degrees. As Spinoza says, man's power is a "part" of thepower or essence of God, but this only insofar as God's essence
explicates itself through the essence of man.23
Leibniz and Spinoza do in fact have a common proj ect. Theirphilosophies constitute two aspects of a new "naturalism." Thisnaturalism provides the true thrust of the Anticartesian reaction.
In a fine passage , Ferdinand Alquie has shown how D escartes
dominated the first half of the seventeenth century by succeedingin the venture of a mathematical mechanical science, whose first
effect was to devaluate Nature by taking away from it any vir­tuality or potentiality, any immanent power, any inherent being.
Cartesian metaphysics completes the venture , because it seeks
Being outside Nature, in a subj ect which thinks it and a God who
creates it. 24 With the Anticartesian reaction, on the other hand,
2 27

T H ET H E O RY

O F

F I N I T E

M O D E S

it is a matter of re-establishing the claims of a Nature endowedwith forces or power. But a matter, also, of retaining the chief
discovery of Cartesian mechanism: every power is actual , in act;
the powers of Nature are no longer virtualities referred to occult
entities, to souls or minds through which they are realized.
Leibniz formulates the program perfectly: to counter Descartes
by restoring to Nature the force of action and passion, but thiswithout falling back into a pagan vision of the world, an idola­try of Nature.25 Spinoza's program is very similar ( with this dif­ference , that he does not rely on Christianity to save us from
idolatry). Spinoza and Leibniz take issue with Boyle as the rep­resentative of self-satisfied mechanism . Did Boyle wish only toteach us that everything happens in bodies through shape andmovement, that would be a meager lesson, being well known
since Descartes . 26 Which , for a given body, are these shapes,
which these movements? Why such a shape, such a movement?
One thus sees that mechanism does not exclude the idea of anature or essence of each body, but rather requires it, as the suf­
ficient reason for a given shape or a given movement, or a given
proportion of movement and rest. The Anti cartesian reaction is,throughout, a search for sufficient reasons: a sufficient reason for
infinite perfection, a sufficient reason for clarity and distinctness,
and a sufficient reason, indeed, for mechanism itself.
The new program is realized by Leibniz on three different lev­els . On the first everything happens in bodies mechanically,
through shape and movement. But these bodies are "aggregates,"
actually and infinitely composite, governed by laws. And move­
ment has no distinctive mark in a body at a given moment: nor
are its patterns discernable at particular moments. The move­ments themselves presuppose forces of passion and action, with­out which bodies would be no more distinguished than would
patterns of movement. Or, if you will , the mechanical laws them228

W H ATC A N

AB O DYD O ?

selves presuppose an inner nature in the bodies they govern. For
these laws could not be "executed," did they confeLon bodies amere extrinsic determination, and were they imposed on them
independently of what they are: thus the working of a law can­not be understood simply in terms of God's will , as the Occa­
sionalists believed, but must also be understood in terms of the
body itself. Hence derivative forces must be attributed to theaggregates as such: "the internal nature of things is no different
from the force of acting and suffering:'27 But nor does the deriv­
ative force, in its turn, contain its own reason: it is only momen­tary, although it links that moment to earlier and later ones.
It must be referred to a law governing the series of moments,
which is a sort of primitive force or individual essence. Theseessences, simple and active, are the source of the derivative forces
attributed to bodies. Indeed they amount to a genuine metaphys­
ics of Nature, which does not merely enter into physics, but cor­
responds to such physics itself.
Spinoza's realization of the naturalist program is closely anal­ogous. Mechanism governs infinitely composite existing bodies.
But this mechanism must in the first place be referred to a dyna­
mic theory of the capacity to be affected ( the power of acting
and suffering); and in the last instance to the theory of the par­ticular essences that express themselves in the variations of thispower of action and passion. In Spinoza as in Leibniz three levels
may be distinguished: mechanism, force and essence. So the real
opposition between the two philosophies should not be sought
in Leibniz's very general criticism that Spinozism takes fromcreatures all power and all activity. Leibniz, while linking themto this pretext, himself reveals the true reasons for his opposition.
And these are in fact practical reasons, relating to the problemof evil, to providence and to religion, relating to the practicalconception of the role of philosophy as a whole.
2 29

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

These divergences certainly do, however, have a speculative
form. I believe what is essential , in this respect, concerns the roleof conatus in Spinoza and in Leibniz. According to Leibniz, conatus
has two senses: physically it designates a body's tendency towardmovement; metaphysically, the tendency of an essence toward
existence. Spinoza could not share such a view. Modal essences
are not "possibles"; they lack nothing, are all that they are, even
if the corresponding modes do not exist. They thus involve notendency to come into existence. A conatus is indeed a mode's
essence ( or degree of power) once the mode has begun to exist. A
mode comes to exist when its extensive parts are extrinsicallydetermined to enter into the relation that characterizes themode: then, and only then, is its essence itself determined as aconatus. Thus conatus is not in Spinoza the effort to persevere in
existence, once existence is granted. I t designates existentialfunction of essence, that is, the affirmation of essence in a mode's
existence. Nor then , when we consider an existing body, can
its conatus be a tendency toward movement. Simple bodies are
determined to movement from outside; they could not be sodetermined were they not also capable of being determined torest. One constantly finds in Spinoza the ancient thesis accord­
ing to which movement would be nothing, were rest not some­thing as well .28 A simple body's conatus can only be the effort topreserve the state to which it has been determined; and a com­posite body's conatus only the effort to preserve the relation of
movement and rest that defines it, that is, to maintain constantly
renewed parts in the relation that defines its existence.
The dynamic characteristics of conatus are linked with its
mechanical ones. A composite body's conatus is also the effort tomaintain the body's ability to be affected in a great number ofways.29 But, since passive affections exercise in their own way ourcapacity of being affected, we make an effort to persevere in exist230

W H ATC A N

AB O DYD O ?

ence, not only insofar as we may be supposed to have adequate
ideas and active feelings, but also insofar as we have inadequate
ideas and experience passions. 30 An existing mode's conatus is thus
inseparable from the affections experienc ed by th e mode each
moment. From this two consequences follow.
Any affection whatever is said to determine our conatus or
essence. Conatus, as determined by an affection or feeling we actu­
ally experience, is called "desire"; as such it is necessarily accom­
panied by consciousness.31 To the linkage of feelings with ideas,
we must add the further linkage of desires with feelings. As longas our capacity to be affected remains exercised by passive affec­
tions , our conatus is determined by passions, or, as Spinoza puts
it, our desires themselves "are born" from passions. But, even inthis case, our power of action comes into play. For we must dis­tinguish what determines us, and that to which we are deter­
mined. A given passive affection determines us to do this or that,to think of this or that, and thereby to make an effort to preserve
our relation or maintain our power. Sometimes we make an effort
to ward off an affection we do not like , sometimes to hold on toan affection we like, and this always with a desire that is all thegreater, the greater the affection itself.32 But "that to which" weare thus determined is explained by our nature or essence, andmust be referred to our power of action. 33 Passive affections do, it
is true, testifY to our impotence, and cut us off from that of which
we are capable; but it is also true that they involve some degree,
however low, of our power of action. If we are to some extent
cut off from that of which we are capable , this is because ourpower of action is immobilized, fixated, determined to engage
itself in a passive affection. Our conatus is thus always identicalwith our power of acting itself. The variations of conatus as it isdetermined by this or that affection are the dynamic variationsof our power of action.34
231

T H ET H E O RY

O F

F I N I T E

M O D E S

What is the real difference between Leibniz and Spinoza, fromwhich all the practical oppositions follow? In Spinoza no less thanin Leibniz the idea of an expressive Nature forms the basis of a
new naturalism . In Spinoza no less than in Leibniz, expression in
Nature means that mechanism is superseded in two ways. Mech­
anism calls, on the one hand, for a dynamism of the capacity to
be affected , defined by the variations of a power of action andpassion; and, on the other, for the positing of singular essences
defined as degrees of power. But the two philosophies do not
at all proceed in the same way. If Leibniz recognizes in things
an inherent force of their own, he does so by making individ­
ual essences into so many substances. In Spinoza, on the other
hand , this is done by defining particular essences as modal , andmore generally, by making things themselves modes of a single
substance . But the distinction is far from clear. For in Leibniz
mechanism is in fact referred to something deeper through therequirements of a finality that remains partly transcendent. Ifessences are determined as substances, if they are inseparablefrom the tendency to come into existence, that is because they
are caught in an order of finality as the context in which they
are chosen by God, or even just subj ect to such choice. And thefinality that thus presides over the constitution of the world isfound again in its details: derivative forces reflect an analogous
harmony, in virtue of which this world is the best, even down
to its parts themselve s . And not only are there principles offinality that govern substances and derivative forces, but there isalso an ultimate agreement between mechanism itself and final­
ity. Hence expressive Nature is in Leibniz a Nature whose dif­ferent levels are hierarchically related, harmonized and , above
all , " symbolize one another." Expression is never divorced in
Leibniz from a symbolization whose principle is always finality
or ultimate agreement.

W H ATC A N

AB O D YD O ?

In Spinoza mechanism is referred to something deeper, but
this through the requirements of an absolutely immanent purecausality. Causality alone leads us to consider existence, andcausality is itself enough to resolve the question. From the view­
point of immanent causality, modes are but appearances devoidof force and essence. Spinoza relies on such causality, properly
understood, to endow things with a force or power of theirown , belonging to them precisely as modes . As opposed to thatof Leibniz, Spinoza's dynamism and "essentialism" deliberately
excludes all finality. Spinoza's theory of conatus has no otherfunction than to present dynamism for what it is by stripping
it of any finalist significance. If Nature is expressive, it is not soin the sense that its different levels symbolize one another; sign,
symbol and harmony are excluded from the true powers of
Nature. The complete modal triad may be presented thus: a modal
essence expresses itself in a characteristic relation; this relation
expresses a capacity to be affected; this capacity is exercised bychanging affections , just as the relation is effected by parts
which are renewed. Between these different levels of expression,
one finds no ultimate correspondence, no moral harmony. One
finds only the necessary concatenation of the various effects ofan immanent cause. So there is in Spinoza no metaphysics ofessences, no dynamic of forces, no mechanics of phenomena.
Everything in Nature is "physical" : a physics of intensive quan­tity corresponding to modal essences; a physics of extensive
quantity, that is, a mechanism through which modes themselves
come into existenc e ; a physics of force , that i s , a dynamism

through which essence asserts itself in existence, espousing thevariations of the power of action. Attributes explicate them­selves in existing modes ; modal essences , themselves containedin the attributes , are explicated in relations or powers ; these
relations are effected by their parts, and these powers by the

T H ET H EO RY

O F

F I N I T E

M O D E S

affections that explicate them in their turn. Expression in Natureis never a final symbolization , e but always, and everywhere , acausal explication.

2 34

CHAPTER FIFTEENThe Three Orders andtheProblem of Evil

An attribute expresses itself in three ways: in its absolute nature(its immediate infinite mode ), as modified ( its infinite mediate
mode ) and in a certain and determinate way (a finite existing
mode ). 1 Spinoza himself presents us with two infinite modes ofExtension: movement and rest, and the face of the whole uni­verse.2 What does he mean by this?
We know that relations of movement and rest must themselves
be considered in two ways: both as eternally expressing theessences of modes, and as temporarily subsuming extensive parts.
From the first viewpoint movement and rest, in comprising all
relations, also contain all essences as they are in their attribute.
Thus Spinoza asserts in the Short Treatise that movement and rest
comprise the essences even of things that do not exist . 3 Moreplainly still , he argues that movement affects Extension before
the latter has any extrinsic modal parts. In order to allow that
there should indeed be movement in the "altogether infinite,"
it is enough to recall that there is never any movement on its own,
but only ever movement and rest together.4 This recollection is
Platonic: the Neoplatonists often insisted on a simultaneous pres­ence of movement and rest, without which movement would
itself be unthinkable in the whole.
235

T H ET H E O RY

O F

F I N I T E

M O D E S

From the second viewpoint, the various relations of move­
ment and rest group together changing infinite collections ofextensive parts. They thus determine the conditions for modes tocome into existence. Each relation that is actualized constitutes
the form of an existing individual . But there is no relation that
does not itself combine with some other to form, in a third rela­tion, a further individual at a higher level. And this ad infinitum,
so that the universe as a whole is a single existing individual ,defined by the total proportion of movement and rest, compris­
ing all relations combined ad infinitum , the collection of allcollections under all relations. This individual is, by its form, the"facies totius universi, which, although it varies in infinite ways,•
yet remains always the same."5

All relations combine ad infinitum to form this facies. But they
combine according to their own laws, laws comprised in the infi­
nite mediate mode. Which is to say that the relations do not justcombine in any way at all; any given relation cannot be combinedwith just any other. Thus we saw how laws of composition werealso laws of decomposition; and when Spinoza says that the facies
remains the same while changing in infinite ways, he is alluding
not only to the composition of relations, but also to their destruc­tion and decomposition. These decompositions do not however(any more than compositions) affect the eternal truth of the rela­tions involved. A relation is composed when it begins to subsume
its parts; it decomposes when it ceases to be realized in them.6
Decomposition, destruction amount then only to this: when two
relations do not directly combine , the parts subsumed in one
determine the parts of the other to enter (according to some law)
into some new relation that can be combined with the first.b
Thus we see that everything in the order of relations is, in a

T H ET H R E E

O R D E R S

A N D

T H E

P R O B L E M

O F

E V I Lway, j ust composition. Everything in Nature is just composition.
When poison decomposes the blood, it does so simply accord­
ing to a law that determines the parts of the blood to enter into
a new relation that can be combined with that of the poison.
Decomposition is only the other side of composition. But thequestion of why there should be this other side remains. Why
do the laws of composition also amount to laws of destruction?
The answer must be that existing bodies do not encounter one
another in the order in which their relations combine. There is acombination of relations in any encounter,C but the relations thatcombine are not necessarily those of the bodies that meet. Rela­
tions combine according to laws; but existing bodies, being them­selves composed of extensive parts, meet bit by bit. So parts of
one of the bodies may be determined to take on a new relation
imposed by some law while losing that relation through which
they belonged to the body.
I f we consider the order of relations in itself, we see it purely
as an order of composition. If it determines destruction as well ,i t does so because bodies meet i n an order that i s not that of theirrelations. Whence the complexity of Spinoza's notion of the"Order of Nature." We must in any existing mode distinguishthree things: its essence as a degree of power; the relation inwhich it expresses itself; and the extensive parts subsumed inthis relation. To each of these orders there corresponds an orderof nature.
There is in the first place an order of essences, determinedby d egrees of power. This order is one of total conformity: eachessence agrees with all others, all being comprised in the pro­duction of each. They are eternal, and none could perish with­out all the others perishing also. The order of relations, as anorder of composition according to laws, is very different. It deter­
mines the eternal conditions for modes to come into existence,237

T H ET H E 0 RY

0 F

F I N I T 'E

M 0 0 ESand to continue to exist while the composition of their relation
is maintained. All relations are combined ad infinitum, but a given
relation cannot be combined with j ust any other. We must, inthe third place, consider the order of encounters . This i s anorder of local and temporary partial agreement and disagree­
ment. Existing bodies meet in their extensive parts, bit by bit.
Two bodies that meet may have relations that combine directly
according to a law (may, that is, agree); but it may be the case, if
two relations cannot combine , that one of the bodies is so deter­
mined as to destroy the other's relation ( the bodies then disa­
gree ) . This order of encounters thus effectively determines themoment when a mode comes into existence ( when the condi­
tions set by the relevant law are ful filled ) , the duration of its
existence, and the moment of its death or destruction. Spinoza
defines it as at once "the Common Order of Nature," as the orderof "extrinsic determinations" and "chance encounters, " and as
the order of passions.?
It is indeed a common order, since all modes are subj ect toit. It is the order of passions and extrinsic determinations, since
it determines the affections we experience each moment, which
are produced by the external bodies we encounter. And Spinoza
can call it "fortuitous" (fortuitus occursus ) without thereby intro­
ducing the least contingency. For the order of encounters is itself
perfectly determinate: its necessity is that of extensive parts andtheir external determination ad infinitum. But it is fortuitous in
relation to the order of relations; the laws of composition no
more themselves determine which bodies meet, and how, thanessences determine the laws by which their relations are com­bined . The existence of this third order poses all sorts of prob­
lems in Spinoza. For, taken as a whole, it coincides with the orderof relations . If one considers the infinite sum of encounters overthe infinite duration of the universe, each involves a composi-

T H ET H R E E

O R D E R S

A N D

T H E

P R O B L E M

O F

E V I Ltion o f relations, and all relations are combined, together withall encounters. But the two orders in no way coincide in theirdetail: if we consider a body with a definite given relation, it mustnecessarily encounter bodies whose relation cannot combinewith its own, and will always eventually meet one whose rela­tion destroys its own. Thus there is no death that is not brutal,
violent and fortuitous; but this precisely because each is altogether
necessary within the order of encounters.

Two sorts of "encounters" must be distinguished. The first sort
occurs when I meet a body whose relation combines with myown. (This itself may happen in various ways: sometimes the bodyencountered has a relation that naturally combines with one of
my component relations, and may thus contribute to the main­
tenance of my overall relation; sometimes the relations of twobodies may agree so well that they form a third relation within
which the two bodies are preserved and prosper. ) Whatever thecase, a body whose relation is preserved along with my own issaid to "agree with my nature," to be "good," that is, "useful ,"to me. s It produces in me an affection that is itself good, whichitself agrees with my nature. The affection is passive because itis explained by the external body, and the idea of the affection
is a passion, a passive feeling. But it is a feeling of j oy, since it isproduced by the idea of an obj ect that is good for me, or agrees
with my nature. 9 But when Spinoza sets out to define this j oyful
passion "formally," he does so by saying that it increases or aids
our power of action, is our power of acting itself as increased or
aided by an external cause. I O (And we know what is good only
insofar as we perceive something to affect us with j oy. 1 1 )What does Spinoza mean by this? He has certainly not for­gotten that our passions, of whatever kind, are always the mark239

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

of our impotence: they are explained not by our own essenceor power, but by the power of some external thing; they thus
involve some impotence on our part.12 All passion cuts us off fromour power of action; as l ong as our capacity to be affected is
exercised by passions, we are cut off from that of which we arecapable. Thus Spinoza says that j oyful passions are passions only
insofar as "a man's power of acting is not increased to the point
where he conceives himself and his actions adequately."13 That
is to say, our power of action is not yet increased to the pointthat we are active. We are still impotent, still cut off from ourpower of action.
But our impotence is only the limitation of our essence andpower of action itself. In involving our impotence, our passive
feelings involve some degree, however low, of our power of action.
Indeed any feeling at all determines our essence or conatus. It thus
determines us to desire, that is, to imagine, and to do, somethingthat flows from our nature. When the feeling affecting us itself
agrees with our nature, our power of action is then necessarily
increased or aided. For the j oy is added to the desire that fol­lows from it, so that the external thing's power encourages andincreases our own . 14 Conatus, being our effort to persevere in
existence, is always a quest for what is useful or good for us; italways involves some degree of our power of action, with which
indeed it may be identified: this power is thus increased when
our conatus is determined by an affection that is good or usefulto us. We do not cease to be passive, to be cut off from our powerof action, but we tend to become less cut off, we come nearer
to this power. Our passive j oy is and must remain a passion: it is
not "explained" by our power of action, but it "involves" a higher
degree of this power.
Insofar as the feeling of j oy increases our power of action, it
determines us to desire, imagine, do , all we can in order to pre-T H ET H R E E

O R D E R S

A N D

T H E

P R O B L E M

O F

E V I L

serve this j oy itself and the obj ect that procures it for us . 15 Loveis in this manner linked with j oy, and other passions with love,so that our capacity to be affected is completely exercised. Thus,
if we consider such a succession of j oyful affections, following
one from another, beginning with an initial feeling of j oy, we seethat our capacity to be affected is exercised in such a way thatour power of action continually increases. 16 But it never increases
enough for us to come into its real possession, for us to become
active, to become the adequate cause of the affections that exer­
cise our capacity to be affected.
Let us now pass on to the second kind of encounter. I meet abody whose relation cannot be combined with my own . The
body does not agree with my nature, is contrary to it, bad or
harmful. It produces in me a passive affection which is itself bador contrary to my nature. 17 The idea of such an affection is a feel­ing of sadness, a sad passion corresponding to a reduction of mypower of action. And we know what is bad only insofar as we per­ceive something to affect us with sadness. It might, however, be
obj ected that various cases should be distinguished. Everythingin such an encounter seems to depend on the respective essencesor powers of the bodies that meet one another. If my body has
essentially a greater degree of power, it will destroy the other,
decompose its relation. And the reverse will be the case if it has
a lesser degree of power. The two cases do not seem to corre­
spond to a single pattern.
But this obj ection is in fact abstract, for we cannot when
considering existence take any account of degrees of power con­sidered absolutely. If we consider essences or degrees of powerin themselves, we know that none can destroy any other, that
all agree . When, on the other hand, we consider conflicts andincompatibilities between existing modes, we have to bring inall sorts of concrete factors, which prevent us from saying that

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

the mode with stronger essence or degree of power will definitely
triumph. Indeed, existing bodies that meet one another are not
only defined by their overall relations: meeting in their various
parts, bit by bit, it is necessarily some of their partial or compo­
nent relations that meet first . A body less strong than my own
may be stronger than one of my components, and may thereby
be enough to destroy me, should the component in question bea vital one.
Thus Spinoza reminds us that the contest between modes,
according to their degree of power, is not to be understood as
relating to these degrees of power themselves: there is no con­test between essences as such. JB But conversely, when Spinozashows that there are always bodies more powerful than my own
in existence which can destroy me, one need not necessarily
think that such bodies have an essence whose degree of power isgreater than my own , or a greater perfection. A body can be
destroyed by another of less perfect essence if the conditions of
their encounter ( that is, the partial relation within which it takes
place) favor such destruction. In order to know in advance theresult of a contest, one would have to know under which rela­tion the two bodies were to meet, under which relation the two
incompatible relations were to confront one another. One would
need an infinite knowledge of Nature, which we do not have. At
any rate, a feeling of sadness, if only a partial one, always comes
into any encounter I have with a body that does not agree withmy nature, this from the fact that the body always injures me inone of my partial relations. This feeling of sadness is, furthermore,
our only way of knowing that the other body does not agree with
our nature. 19 Whether or not we will triumph changes nothing,
for we do not know this in advance. We triumph if we manage
to ward off this feeling of sadness, to destroy, then, the body that
so affects us. We are defeated if sadness takes us over more andT H ET H R E E

O R D E RS

A N D

T H E

P R O B L E M

O F

E V I L

more, in all our component relations, this marking the destruc­tion of our overall relation.
But how, beginning with the first feeling of sadness , is ourcapacity to be affected exercised? Sadness, no less than j oy, deter­
mines our conatus or essence. That is, out of sadness is born adesire, which is hate. This desire is linked with other desires,
other passions: antipathy, derision, contempt, envy, anger and soon. But here again, as determining our essence or conatus, sad­ness involves something of our power of action. As determinedby sadness, conatus is still the quest for what is useful or goodfor us: we endeavor to triumph, that is, to act so as to make theparts of the body that affects us with sadness take on a new rela­tion that may be reconciled with our own. We are thus deter­
mined to do everything to ward off sadness and destroy the object
that is its cause. 20 And yet our power of action is said in this caseto be "diminished:' For the feeling of sadness is not added to thedesire that follows from it: rather is the desire inhibited by thisfeeling, so that the external thing's power is subtracted from ourown.21 Thus affections rooted in sadness are linked one to anotherin exercising our capacity to be affected, and this in such a waythat our power of action is further and further diminished, tend­
ing toward its lowest degree.
We have proceeded thus far as though two chainsd of affec­
tions, j oyful and sad, corresponded to the two sorts of encoun­ter, good and bad. But this is still an abstract view. If one takes
account of the concrete factors of existence, one sees a constantinterplay b etween the two chains : extrinsic relations e are so
arranged that an obj ect can always be a cause of sadness or j oy
accidentally. 22 We may both love and hate the same obj ect, notonly by virtue of these relations, but also by virtue of the com­
plexity of the relations of which we are ourselves intrinsicallycomposed. 23 A j oyful chain may always, furthermore, be inter243

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

rupted by destruction, or even simply by the sadness of the loved
obj ect itself. A sad chain, conversely, may be interrupted by thesadness or destruction of the thing hated: "He who imagines thatwhat he hates is destroyed will rej oice," "He who imagines what
he hates to be affected with sadness will rej oice:'24 We are always
determined to seek the destruction of an obj ect that makes us
sad; but to destroy it is to give the parts of the obj ect a new rela­tion that agrees with our own; we then experience a j oy which
increases our power of action. And with the two sequences thus
in constant interaction, our power of action never ceases to vary.
We must also take account of other concrete factors. For the
first sort of encounter, good encounters with bodies whose rela­tion combines directly with our own, remains altogether hypo­thetical . The question is, once we exist is there any chance of us

naturally havin9 aood encounters, and experiencin9 the joyful affections
that follow from them? The chances are in fact slight enough. In
speaking of existence, we must not consider essences or degrees
of power absolutely; nor must we consider abstractly the rela­tions in which these express themselves. For an existing mode
always exists as already affected by obj ects in partial and partic­
ular relations; it exists as determined to this or that. There has
always been some accommodation of partial relations between
it and external things, such that the mode's characteristic rela­tion can barely be grasped, or is singularly deformed. Thus man
should in principle agree perfectly with man. But in reality men
agree very little in their natures, one with another; this because
they are determined to such a degree by their passions, by obj ects
which affect them in various ways , that they do not naturally
meet in relations that can in principle be combined. 25 "Because
they are subj ect to feelings which far surpass human power or vir­tue, they are often drawn in different directions and are contrary
to one another."26 Indeed a man may be drawn so far as to be in
2 44

T H ET H R E E

O R D E R S

A N D

T H E

P R O B L E M

O F

E V I Lsome sense contrary to himself: his partial relations may be sub­ject to such accommodations, be so far transformed under theaction of imperceptible external causes, that he "takes on anothernature, contrary to the former," another nature that determines
him to suppress the first. 27
There is, then, very little chance of our naturally having good
encounters. We seem: to be determined to much contest, muchhatred , and to the experience of only partial or indirect j oys
which do not sufficiently disrupt the chain of our sorrows andhatreds. Partial j oys are "titillations" f which only increase ourpower of action at one point by reducing it everywhere else,28
Indirect j oys are those we experience in seeing a hated obj ect
sad or destroyed; but such j oys remain imprisoned in sadness.
Hate is in fact a sadness, itself involving the sadness from which
it derives; the j oys of hatred mask this sadness and inhibit it, but
can never eliminate it.29 We now seem farther than ever fromcoming into possession of our power of action: our capacity to
be affected is exercised not only by passive affections, but, above
all , by sad passions, involving an ever lower degree of the powerof action. This is hardly surprising, as Nature is not constructed
for our convenience, but in a "common order" to which man,as a part of Nature, is subj ect.
We have however made some progress, albeit abstract. We
started from a primary Spinozist principle, the opposition ofpassions and actions, of passive affections and active affections.
This principle itself presented two aspects. In the first it was amatter, almost, of real opposition: active and passive affections ,and so the power of action and the power of suffering, varied
inversely within a fixed capacity of being affected . But on a
deeper level the real opposition was simply a negation: passive
affections reflected only the limitations of our essence, involved
our impotence, did not relate to the mind except insofar as it
2 45

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

itself involved a negation. In this aspect only active affections
could effectively or positively exercise our capacity to be af­
fected; the power of action was thus identical to this capacity
itself: as for passive affections, they cut us off from that of which
we were capable .
Passive affections were opposed t o active ones because they
were not explained by our power of action. Yet, involving the lim­
itations of our essence, they in some sense involved the lowest
degree of that power. They are in their own way our power ofaction, but this in a state of involvement, unexpressed , unex­
plained. In their own way they exercise our capacity to be af­
fected, but do so by reducing it to a minimum : the more passive
we are, the less we are capable of being affected in a great num­
ber of ways . If passive affections cut us off from that of which
we are capable, this is because our power of action is reduced toattaching itself to their traces, either in the attempt to preserve
them if they are j oyful , or to ward them off if they are sad. As
involving a reduced power of action, they sometimes increase it,sometimes reduce it. The increase may proceed indefinitely, but
we will never come into full possessiong of our power of action
until we have active affections . But the opposition of actions
and passions should not conceal the other opposition that con­stitutes the second principle of Spinozism: that of j oyful passive
affections and sad passive affections. One increases our power, theother diminishes it. We come closer to our power of action inso­
far as we are affected by j oy. The ethical question falls then, in
Spinoza, into two parts: How can we come to produce active affec­
tions? But first of all : How can we come to experience a maximum

ofjoyful passions?

What is evil? There are no evils save the reduction of our power

T H ET H R E E

O R D E R S

A N D

T H E

P R O B L E M

O F

E V I Lof action and the decomposition of a relation. And the reductionof our power of action is only an evil because it threatens anddiminishes the relation that is our composition. So we are left
with the following definition of evil : it is the destruction, thedecomposition, of the relation that characterizes a mode. Henceevil can only be spoken of from the particular viewpoint of an
existing mode: there is no Good or Evil in Nature in general, butthere is goodness and badness, useful and harmful, for each existing
mode. Evil is what is bad from the viewpoint of this or that mode.
Being ourselves men, we j udge evil from our viewpoint; andSpinoza often reminds us that he is speaking of good and bad only
in relation to human ends. We hardly think, for example , of
speaking of an evil when we destroy the relation in which someanimal exists in order to nourish ourselves. But we do speak of" evil" in two cases: when our body is destroyed, our relation
decomposed, under the action of some other thing; or when weourselves destroy a being like ourselves, that is, a being whose
resemblance to us is enough to make us think it agreed with us
in principle, and that its relation was in principle compatible
with our own.30
Evil being thus defined from our viewpoint, we see that thesame applies from all other points of view: evil is always a bad
encounter, evil is always the decomposition of a relation. The typ­ical case of such decomposition is the action of a poison on our
body. The evil suffered by a man is always, according to Spinoza,of the same kind as indigestion, intoxication or poisoning. And evil
done to a man by some thing, or by another man, always oper­
ates like a poison, like a toxic or indigestible matter. Spinoza
insists on this , in interpreting the celebrated case of Adam's eat­ing of the forbidden fruit. We should not think, says Spinoza, that
God forbade Adam anything. He simply revealed to him that sucha fruit was capable of destroying his body and decomposing his

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

relation: "just as he reveals also to us through our natural under­
standingh that poison is deadly to us."31 Spinoza's theory of evil
would have remained obscure had not one of his correspondents,
Blyenbergh, led him to clarify his position. Not that Blyenberghhimself avoids misunderstandings - misunderstandings that so try
Spinoza's patience that he eventually gives up the attempt to dis­pel them. But on one essential point Blyenbergh well understands
Spinoza's thought: "You avoid the things I call vice . . . as we avoid
eating food that our nature finds disgusting ." 32 Evil as a bad
encounter, evil as poisoning, constitutes the basis of Spinoza's theory.
So if it be asked what evil amounts to in the order of relations,
one has to reply that evil is nothing. For there is nothing, in theorder of relations, but composition. It cannot be said that the
combining of some relations or others is an evil : any combina­
tion of relations is good from the viewpoint of the relations com­bined, that is, simply from the positive viewpoint. When a poison
decomposes my body, it is because a natural law determines theparts of my body in contact with the poison to take on a new
relation which combines with that of the toxic body. Nothing
in this is evil from Nature's viewpoint. To the extent that the poi­son is determined by a law to have an effect, that effect is not anevil, since it consists of a relation which itself combines with thatof the poison. Similarly, when I destroy a body, even one similar
to my own, this is because in the relation and in the circumstancesin which 1 encounter it, it doesn't agree with my nature: so I am
determined to do everything in my power to impose on the partsof that body a new relation in which they will agree with me.
Thus the wicked man, like the virtuous one, seeks what is use­
ful or good to him (if there is some difference between them it
does not lie here ) . Whence Blyenbergh's first misunderstanding
consists in believing that, according to Spinoza, the wicked man
is determined to do evil . We are, it is true, always determined;T H ET H R E E

O R D E R S

A N D

T H E

P R O B L E M

O F

E V I L

our conatus is itself determined by the affections we experience .
But w e are never determined t o do evil; we are determined toseek what is good for us in our encounters, in the circumstancesin which those encounters take place. To the extent that we aredetermined to produce an effect, the effect is necessarily com­bined with its cause, and contains nothing that could be called"evil :'33 In short, evil is nothing because it expresses no compo­
sition of relations , no law of composition. In any encounter,
whether I destroy or be destroyed, there takes place a combin­
ing of relations that is, as such, good . Thus if one considers theorder of encounters as a whole, one may say it coincides withthe order of relations as a whole. And one may say that evil is
nothing in the order of relations themselves.
If we then ask what evil amounts to in the order of essences,here again it is nothing. Consider our death or destruction: ourrelation is decomposed , ceases, that is, to subsume its extensive
parts. But these extensive parts are in no way constituents of ouressence; our essence itself, having its full reality in itself, has neverpresented the least tendency to come into existence. Once weexist, of course, our essence is a conatus, an attempt to perseverein existence. But this conatus is only the state such an essence isdetermined to take on in existence, insofar as the essence deter­
mines neither existence itself, nor the duration of existence. Andso, being the attempt to persevere in existence indefinitely, theconatus involves no definite period: the essence is not more orless perfect accordingly as the mode succeeds in persevering foral onger or shorter period in existence . 34 Lacking nothing while

the mode does not yet exist, the essence is deprived of nothing
when it ceases to exist.
Consider, on the other hand, the evil we do when we destroy
another body similar to our own. Take the action of beating ( thatis, lifting the arm , clenching the fist and moving the arm up

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

and down) : one can see that it expresses something of an essence
insofar as the human body can do it while maintaining its char­acteristic relation. In this sense the action "is a virtue, which isconceived from the structure of the human body." 35 Then, if theaction is aggressive, threatening or destroying the relation thatdefines another body, that is indeed the mark of an encounter
between two bodies whose relations are incompatible in thisrespect, but expresses no essence. One says that my intention
itself was wicked. But the wickedness of the intention lies solely in thefact that I join the image of such an action to the image of a bodywhose relation is destroyed by such an action.36 There is "evil" only tothe extent that the action has as its obj ect something or someone
whose relation does not combine with that on which the action
depends. This case is once again analogous to that of a poison.
The difference between two famous matricides, Nero killing
Agrippina, and Orestes killing Clytemnestra, may serve to en­lighten us. Orestes is not considered guilty because Clytemnestra,
having begun by killing Agamemnon, put herself in a relation that
could no longer be combined with that of Orestes. Nero is con­sidered guilty because he had to be wicked to view Agrippina ina relation absolutely incompatible with his own, and to link theimage of Agrippina to the image of an action that would destroy
her. But nothing in all this expresses an essence.37 All that we
see is the encounter of two bodies in incompatible relations, theconnection of the image of an act with the image of a body whose
relation is incompatible with that of the act. The same act could
be a virtue, had it for its obj ect something whose relation com­bined with its own ( thus there are greetings that look like beat­ings) . Whence Blyenbergh's second misunderstanding: he thinksthat according to Spinoza an evil becomes a good , a crime a vir­tue, to the extent that it expresses an essence, be it even Nero's.
And Spinoza only partly disabuses him . This not j ust because

T H ET H R E E

O R D E RS

A N D

T H E

P R O B L E M

O F

E V I Lhe i s impatient with Blyenbergh's blundering, even insolent,demands , but above all because an "amoralist" thesis such as
Spinoza's can make itself understood only by means of a certain
amount of provocation,38 In fact a crime expresses nothing ofessence, expresses no essence, not even Nero's .
Evil thus appears only in the third order of Nature, that ofencounters. It corresponds only to the fact that the relations com­bined when two bodies meet are not always those of the bodies
themselves. We have seen, moreover, that evil amounts to noth­ing in the order of encounters taken as a whole. Again, it isnothing in the limiting case in which a relation is decomposed,
since such destruction affects neither the reality of the essence
in itself, nor the eternal truth of the relation. There remains ,then, but one case i n which evil seems t o amount t o something.
While it exists, and according to the encounters it experiences,a given existing mode goes through changes corresponding to var­iations in its power of action; but, when its power o f action
diminishes, the existing mode passes from areater to lesser perfec­
tion.39 Does not evil reside in this "passage to a lesser perfection"?
As Blyenbergh says , there must be some evil when one is deprivedof a better condition.40 Spinoza's famous reply is that there is no
privation in the passage to a lesser perfection: privation is only anegation. Evil is nothing even in this last order. A man becomesblind; a man previously inspired by a desire for good is overcome
by a sensual appetite. We have no reason to say that he is deprivedof a better state, since that state no more belongs to his nature
at the moment in question than to those of a stone or the devi l .41
This reply clearly presents certain probl ems . Blyenberghfiercely criticizes Spinoza for having confused two very differ­ent sorts of comparison: comparisons between things that do notshare the same nature, and comparisons between different statesof one and the same thing. It does not, true enough, belong to a

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

stone's nature to see, but sight does belong to man's nature. Thus
his main obj ection is that Spinoza attributes to a thing's essence
an instantaneous character foreign to it; "on your view nothingelse pertains to an essence than what it has at that moment when
it is perceived!'42 If this be the case then any transition forward
or backward in time becomes unintelligible .
Blyenbergh argues a s though Spinoza had said that a being i salways a s perfect a s it can b e , Biven the essence it has at any Biven
moment. Here, then, is his third misunderstanding. For Spinoza
says something completely different: A being is always as perfectas it can be, Biven the affections that, at any particular moment,
belong to its essence. Blyenbergh is clearly confusing "belonging
to its essence" and "constituting its essence!' At each moment
the affections I am experiencing belong to my essence, in thatthey exercise my capacity of being affected. While a mode exists
its essence is as perfect as it can be, given the affections that, at
any particular moment, are exercising its capacity to be affected.
If some given affections are exercising my capacity at some par­ticular moment, then it cannot at the same time be exercised byany other affections: there is an incompatibility, exclusion, nega­tion, but no privation. Let us return to the example of the blindman. Either one imagines a blind man who still has luminous sen­sations, but is blind in the sense that he can no longer act accord­
ing to these sensations, and what luminous sensations remain tohim are altogether passive. In such a case only the relative pro­portion of active and passive affections will have changed , his
capacity to be affected remaining constant. Or one imagines ablind man who has lost all luminous affections. In that case his
capacity to be affected has indeed been reduced. But the sameconclusion follows: any existing mode is as perfect as it can be,
given the affections that exercise its capacity to be affected andcause it to vary within the limits compatible with existence. In

T H ET H R E E

O R D E R S

A N D

T H E

P R O B L E M

O F

E V I L

short, there is in Spinoza no contradiction between the "neces­sitarian" view according to which the capacity to be affected is
at each moment necessarily exercised, and the "ethical" viewaccording to which it is exercised at each moment in such a waythat the power of action increases or diminishes, our capacity
itself varying with it. As Spinoza says, there is nowhere any pri­vation, but there are nonetheless passages between greater andlesser perfections.43
Evil is not anything in any sense. To be is to express oneself, toexpress something else or to be expressed. Evil is nothing, being in
no way expressive. Above all , it expresses nothing. It expresses
no law of composition, no composition of relations; it expresses
no essence; it expresses no privation of some better state of exist­
ence. To evaluate the originality of this position, one must oppose
it to other ways of denying evil. One may call "rationalist moral­ism" ( optimism ) a tradition that has its sources in Plato , and its
fullest development in the philosophy of Leibniz; Evil is noth­
ing because only Being is, or rather because Being, superior toexistence, determines all that is. The Good, or the Better, makethings be. Spinoza's position has nothing to do with this tradition:
it amounts to rationalist "amoralism ." For according to Spinoza,
Good has no more sense than Evil: in Nature there is neither
Good nor Evil. Spinoza constantly reminds us of this: " I f men
were born free, they would form no concept of good and evil solong as they remained free:'44 The question of Spinoza's atheism
is singularly lacking in interest insofar as it depends on arbitraryd e fi n i t i o n s of theism and ath e i s m . The q u e s t i o n can o n l y b e

posed in relation to what most people call "God" from a reli­gious viewpoint: a God, that is to say, inseparable from a ratio
boni, proceeding by the moral law, acting as a judge. 45 Spinoza isclearly an atheist in this sense: the moral pseudo-law is simply themeasure of our misunderstanding of natural laws ; the idea of

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

rewards and punishments reflects only our ignorance of the true
relation between an act and its consequences; Good and Evil are
inadequate ideas, and we form conceptions of them only to theextent that our ideas are inadequate. 46
But because there is no Good or Evil, this does not mean thatall distinctions vanish. There is no Good or Evil in Nature , butthere are good and bad things for each existing mode. The moral
opposition of Good and Evil disappears, but this disappearance
does not make all things, or all beings, equal. As Nietzsche puts
it, " 'Beyond Good and Evil ' . . . at least this does not mean 'Beyond
Good and Bad."'47 There are increases in our power of action,
reductions in our power of action. The distinction between goodthings and bad provides the basis for a real ethical difference,
which we must substitute for a false moral opposition.

2 54

CHAPTER SIXTEEN
T h e E t h i c a l V i s i o n of t h e Wo r l d

When Spinoza says that we do not even know what a body cando, this is practically a war cry. He adds that we speak of con­sciousness, mind, soul, of the power of the soul over the body;
we chatter away about these things, but do not even know whatbodies can do. 1 Moral chattering replaces true philosophy.
This declaration is important in several respects. As long as
we speak of a power of the soul over the body we are not reallythinking of a capacity or power. What we really mean is that thesoul, from its own eminent nature and special finality, has higher"duties" : it must command the body's obedience, according to
the laws to which it is itself subj ect. As for the body's power, thisis either a power of execution, or the power to lead the soulastray, and entice it from its duties. Iri all this we are thinking
morally. The moral view of the world appears in a principle that
dominates most theories of the union of soul and body: when oneof these acts, the other suffers . This is, in particular, the princi­ple of real action in Descartes: the body suffers when the soulacts, and the soul in its turn suffers when the body acts. 2 And,
while denying real action, Descartes's successors do not relin­quish the idea behind this principle: preestablished harmony, forexample, preserves an "ideal action" between soul and body,T H ET H E O RY

O F

F I N I T E

M O D E S

according to which one always suffers when the other acts.3 Fromsuch viewpoints we have no means of comparing the powers ofsoul and body; and having no way of comparing them we are quite
unable to assess either of them . 4
If parallelism is a novel doctrine, this is not because it denies
a real action of soul on body. It is because it overturns the moral
principle by which the actions of one are the passions of theother. "The order of actions and passions of our body i s , bynature , at one with the order of actions and passions of themind."S What is a passion in the mind is also a passion in the body,what is an action in the mind is also an action in the body. Paral­
lelism thus excludes any eminence of the soul , any spiritual andmoral finality, any transcendence of a God who might base oneseries on the other. And parallelism is in this respect practically
opposed not only to the doctrine of real action, but to the theo­ries of preestablished harmony and occasionalism also . We ask"Of what is a body capable? Of what affections, passive as wellas active? How far does its power extend?" Thereby, and thereby
only, can we know of what a soul is in itself capable, what is its
power. Thereby we find a means of "comparing" the power ofthe soul with that of the body, and so find a means of assessing
the power of the soul considered in itself.
To reach an assessment of the power of the soul in itself, onemust pass through a comparison of powers: "To determine whatis the difference between the human mind and the others, andhow it surpasses them , it is necessary for us, as we have said, toknow the nature of its obj ect, i . e . , of the human body. . . . I say
in general , that in proportion as a body is more capable than oth­ers of doing many things at once, or being acted on in many ways
at once, so its mind is more capable than others of perceiving
many things at once. And in proportion as the actions of a bodydepend more on itself alone , and as other bodies concur with it

T H EE T H I C A L

V I S I O N

O F

T H E

W O R L D

less in acting, so its mind is more capable of understanding dis­tinctly."6 In order to really think in terms of power, one must con­sider the matter in relation to the body, one must in the firstplace free the body from that relation of inverse proportionality
which makes all comparison of powers impossible, and thereby
also makes impossible any assessment of the power of the soulconsidered in itself. The question, "What can a body do?" must
be taken as a model . The model implies no devaluation of Thought

relative to Extension, but merely a devaluation of consciousness rela­tive to thought. One recalls Plato saying that materialists, if at all
intelligent, should speak of power rather than of bodies . But it
is true, conversely, that intelligent dynamists must first speak ofbodies , in order to "think" power. The theory of power accord­
ing to which actions and passions of the body accompany actions
and passions of the soul amounts to an ethical vision of the world.
The substitution of ethics for morality is a consequence of par­allelism, and shows its true significance .

The question of what a body can do makes sense taken alone,since it implies a new conception of the embodied individual ,of species, and of genera. As we will see, its biological signifi­
cance should not be neglected. But taken as a model, its primarysignificance is juridical and ethical. All a body can do (its power)
is also its "natural right." If we manage to pose the problem ofrights at the level of bodies , we thereby transform the whole phi­losophy of rights in relation to souls themselves. Everyone seeks,soul and body, what is useful or good for them. If someone hap­pens to encounter a body that can combine with his own in afavorable relation, he tries to unite with it. When someone
encounters a body whose relation is incompatible with his own,a body that affects him with sadness, he does all in his power to
2 57

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

ward off the sadness or destroy the body, that is, to impose on
the parts of that body some new relation that accords with his
own nature. Thus affections at each moment determine conatus,
but conatus is at each moment a seeking of what is useful in termsof the affections that determine it. Whence a body always goes as
far as it can, in passion as in action ; and what it can do is its right.
The theory of natural rights implies a double identification o f
power with i t s exercise , and of such an exercise of power with aright. "The rights of an individual extend to the utmost limitsof his power as it has been conditioned ."7 This is the very mean­ing of the word law: the law of nature is never a rule of duty, but
the norm of a power, the unity of right, power and its exercise.8
There is in this respect no difference between wise man and fool,reasonable and demented men, strong man and weak. They doof course differ in the kind of affections that determine theireffort to persevere in existence. But each tries equally to preserve
himself, and has as much right as he has power, given the affec­
tions that actually exercise his capacity to be affected. The foolis himself a part of Nature, and in no way disturbs its order.9This conception of natural right is inherited directly from
Hobbes. (The question of the fundamental differences between
Spinoza and Hobbes arises on another level. ) What Spinoza owes
to Hobbes is a conception of natural right thoroughly opposedto the classic theory of natural law. a If we take as our guide Cic­ero. who combines within him Platonic, Aristotelian and Stoic
traditions, we see that the natural law of Antiquity presents var­ious characteristics: 1. It defines a being's nature by its perfec­
tion, within an order of ends ( thus man is "naturally" reasonable
and sociable). 2. It follows that the state of nature is not, for man,a state preceding society, even in principle, but rather a life inconformity with nature in a "good" civil society. 3. What is thenprimary and unconditional in such a state are "duties"; for natu-

T H EE T H I C A L

V I S I O N

O F

T H E

W O R L D

ral powers are only potential, and always require an act of rea­
son to determine and realize them in relation to ends they are
to serve. 4. This itself grounds the authority of the wise man; forthe wise man is the best judge of the order of ends, of duties that
follow from it, and of the offices and actions that it falls to eachto exercise and carry out. One can foresee the use Christianity
would make of this conception of natural law: law would become
inseparable from natural theology and even Revelation . IO
It belongs to Hobbes to have brought forward four basic the­ses to set against those just cited. These novel theses transformthe philosophical problem of right precisely by taking the body as
their mechanical and dynamical model. Spinoza adopts these the­ses, integrating them within his own system where they are seen
in a new light. 1. The law of nature is no longer referred to a final
perfection but to an initial desire, to the strongest "appetite" ;detached from the order of ends, it is deduced from appetite as
its efficient cause. 2 . Reason, from this viewpoint, enjoys no priv­
ilege: the fool tries no less than a reasonable being to persevere
in his being; and desires or actions born of reason exemplify thiseffort no more than do the desires or passions of the fool. Whatis more , nobody is born reasonable. Reason may perhaps apply andpreserve the law of nature , but is in no sense its principle ormotive force. Similarly, nobody is born a citizen. 1 1 The civil state
may preserve the law of nature, but the state of nature is in itself
presocial , precivil. Further still , nobody is born religious: "Thestate of nature is, both in nature and in time, prior to religion.
No one knows by nature that he owes any obedience to God . . . ."12
3. What then is primary and unconditional is power or right.
"Duties," of whatever sort, are always secondary relative to theaffirmation of our power, to the exercise of our power, the pres­ervation of our right. And power is no longer referred to an act
that determines and realizes it in relation to an order of ends.
2 59

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

My power is itself actual, because the affections that I experienceeach moment, whatever these may be, have full right to deter­mine and exercise it. 4. It follows that nobody has the authority
to decide my rights. Everyone in the state of nature, whether wise
man or fool, judges what is good or bad, and what is necessary
to his preservation. Whence natural right is not opposed "tostrifes, hatred, anger, treachery, or, in general, anything that appe­tite suggests!'J3 And if it comes about that we are led to renounce
our natural right, this will not happen through the recognitionof the wise man's authority, but through our own consent to thisrenunciation, from fear of a greater evil or hope of a greater good.
The principle of consent ( pact or contract) becomes the princi­ple of political philosophy, and replaces the rule of authority.
Thus defined , the state of nature itself shows us what makes
it intolerable. The state of nature is not viable, as long as the nat­ural right corresponding to it remains theoretical and abstract.14
In the state of nature I live at the mercy of encounters. It is true
enough that my power is determined by the affections that each
moment exercise my capacity to be affected, true enough that I
always have all the perfection of which I am capable, given thoseaffections. But in the state of nature my capacity to be affected
is exercised in such conditions that not only do I experience pas­
sive affections which cut me off from my power of action; thesepassive affections are , moreover, predominantly sad , and contin­ually reduce this power itself. There is no chance of my encoun­
tering bodies that combine directly with my own. It would be
all very well to prevail in various encounters with bodies opposed
to me; but such triumphs, such j oys of hate, would not elimi­
nate the sadness involved in hatred; and, above all , I could neverbe sure winning the next encounter, and would thus be affectedby a perpetual fear.
There could be only one way of making the state of nature260

T H EE T H I C A L

V I S I O N

O F

T H E

W O R L D

viable: by striving to organize its encounters. Whatever body I meet,
I seek what is useful. But there is a great difference between seek­
ing what is useful through chance (that is, striving to destroy bod­ies incompatible with our own) and seeking to organize what isuseful (striving to encounter bodies agreeing in nature with us,
in relations in which they agree). Only the second type of effort
defines proper or true utility. 15 This endeavor does of course haveits limits: we will still be determined to destroy certain bodies,
if only in order to subsist; we cannot avoid all bad encounters,
we cannot avoid death . But we can strive to unite with whatagrees with our nature, to combine our relation with those thatare compatible with it, to associate our acts and thoughts with
the images of things that agree with us. From such an effort wehave a right, by definition, to expect a maximum of j oyful affec­
tions. Our capacity to be affected will be exercised in such con­ditions that our power of action will increase . And if it be asked
what is most useful to us, this will be seen to be man. For man
in principle agrees in nature with man; man is absolutely or truly
useful to man. Everyone , then, in seeking what is truly useful tohim , also seeks what is useful to man. The effort to organize
encounters is thus first of all the effort to form an association ofmen in relations that can be combined. 16
There is in Nature neither Good nor Evil, there is no moral
opposition, but there is an ethical difference. This ethical differ­ence appears in various equivalent forms : that between the rea­
sonable man and the foolish, the wise and the ignorant, free man
and slave, strong and weak. 17 And wisdom or reason have in fact
no other content but strength, freedom . This ethical difference
does not relate to conatus, since fools and the weak, no less thanreasonable men and the strong, strive to persevere in their being.
It relates to the kind of affections that determine our conatus. The
free, strong and reasonable man is in principle fully defined by261

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

his possession of a power of action and the presence in him ofadequate ideas and active affections; the slave and the weak man,on the other hand, have only those passions that derive from theirinadequate ideas, and cut them off from their power of action.
But ethical difference is first expressed on a simpler, prepar­
atory or preliminary level . Before coming into full possession ofhis power, the strong free man may be recognized by his j oyful pas­sions, by affections that increase his power of action; the slave or
weak man may be recognized by his sad passions, by affections
based on sadness which diminish his power of action. We must,
it seems, distinguish two stages of reason or freedom : increasing
our power of action by striving to experience a maximum of j oy­
ful passive affections; and thence passing on to a final stage inwhich our power of action has so increased that it becomes capa­
ble of producing affections that are themselves active. The link
between the two stages remains, to be sure, mysterious. But theexistence of the first stage is not, at least, in doubt. A man who
is to become reasonable, strong and free, begins by doing all in
his power to experience j oyful passions. He then strives to extri­
cate himself from chance encounters and the concatenation ofsad passions , to organize good encounters , combine his relation
with relations that combine directly with it, unite with whatagrees in nature with him , and form a reasonable association
between men; all this in such a way as to be affected with j oy.
The description of the reasonable and free man in Part Four of
the Ethics identifies the striving of reason with this art of organ­
izing encounters , or forming a totality of compatible relations. I S
Reason, strength and freedom are in Spinoza inseparable froma development, a formative process, a culture. c Nobody is born
free, nobody is born reasonable. 19 And nobody can undergo for
us the slow learning of what agrees with our nature , the slow
effort of discovering our j oys . Childhood, says Spinoza, is a state262

T H EE T H I C A L

V I S I O N

O F

T H E

W O R L Do f impotence and slavery, a state of foolishness in which we
depend in the highest degree on external causes, and in which
we necessarily have more of sadness than of j oy; we are nevermore cut off from our power of action. The first man, Adam, cor­
responds to the childhood of humanity. This is why Spinoza soforcefully opposes the Christian, and then rationalist, traditions
which present Adam to us as reasonable, free and perfect before
his fall . Rather should we imagine Adam as a child: sad, weak,enslaved, ignorant, left to chance encounters. "It must be admit­
ted that it was not in the first man's power to make a right use ofreason, but that, like us, he was subj ect to passions."20 That is tosay: It is not sin that explains weakness, but our initial weakness that
explains the myth of sin. Spinoza presents three theses concerning
Adam, which together form a systematic whole : 1 . God forbade
Adam nothing, but simply revealed to him that the fruit was apoison that would destroy his body if it came into contact withit. 2. As his understanding was weak like a child's, Adam per­ceived this revelation as a prohibition; he disobeyed like a child,
not understanding the natural necessity of the relation between
action and consequence, believing the laws of Nature to be moral
laws which it is possible to violate . 3 . H ow can we imagine
Adam free and reasonable, when the first man must necessarily
be affected by passive feelings, not having had time to undergo
the long formative process presupposed by reason no less thanby freedom?21
The state of reason , in its initial aspect, already has a com­plex relation to the state of nature. On the one hand the state ofnature is not subj ect to the laws of reason: reason relates to theproper and true utility of man , and tends solely to his preserva­
tion; Nature on the other hand has no regard for the preservationof man and comprises an infinity of other laws concerning theuniverse as a whole, of which man is but a small part. But the

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D ESstate of reason is not, on the other hand, of another order than
the state of nature itself. Reason, even in its "commandments,"
demands nothing contrary to Nature: it demands only that every­
one should love themselves, seek what is useful to themselves,and strive to preserve their being by increasing their power ofaction. 22 There is thus no artificiality or conventionality in rea­
son's endeavor. Reason proceeds not by artifice, but by a natural
combination of relations; it does not so much bring in calcula­tion, as a kind of direct recognition of man by man. 23 The ques­tion of knowing whether creatures supposed reasonable, or in theprocess of becoming so, need to mutually commit themselves
through a sort of contract, is a highly complex one; but even if
there is a contract on this level, it implies no conventional renun­
ciation of natural rights, no artificial limitation. The state ofreason is one with the formation of a higher kind of body anda higher kind of soul , enj oying natural rights corresponding totheir power: indeed, should two individuals completely combine
their relations, they would naturally form an individual twice as
great, having twice as great a natural right. 24 The state of rea­son in no way either does away with or limits natural rights, butraises them to a power without which such rights would remain
unreal and abstract.
What then does the difference between the state of reason andthe state of nature come down to? In the order of nature each
body meets others, but its relation cannot necessarily combinewith those of the bodies it encounters. The correspondence of
encounters and relations occurs only at the level of Nature as awhole; it occurs between whole and whole in the infinite medi­
ate mode. When however we rise higher in the order of essences,
we witness an effort which prefigures that of Nature as a whole .
The highest essences already strive i n their existence to maketheir own encounters correspond to relations that are compati-

T H EE T H I C A L

V I S I O N

O F

T H E

W O R L D

ble with theirs. This endeavor, which cannot wholly succeed, con­stitutes the striving of reason . A reasonable being may in thissense be said, in its way, to reproduce and express the effort of
Nature as a whole.

How can men come to meet one another in relations that arecompatible, and so form a reasonable association? If man agrees
with man, this is so only insofar as he is supposed already rea­
sonable.25 As long as they live by chance encounters , as long as
they are affected by chance passions, men are led in various direc­
tions and so have no chance of meeting in relations that agree:
they are opposed one to another. 26 We can, it is true, avoid thisconflict to the extent that we bring into play a very slow learn­ing process, a very slow empirical education. But we then fall
immediately into another difficulty. In the first place, the bur­den of present encounters is always there to threaten the annihi­
lation of reason's effort. Moreover, this effort will at best succeed
at the close of life; "nevertheless they are in the meanwhile boundto live." 27 Thus reason would amount to nothing and would nevercome into its own power, did it not find help in a power ofanother kind, which joins with it, and which prepares and accom­
panies its development. This other kind of power is that of theState or City.d
The City is, in fact, in no way a reasonable association. I t
differs from such a n association in three ways . 1 . T h e motive
force of its formation is not an affection of reason, that is to say
an affection produced in us by another man in a relation that isperfectly compatible with our own. The motive is anxiety or fearof the state of nature , hope of a greater good .28 2 . The wholethat is reason's ideal is constituted by relations that directly andnaturally combine , by powers or rights that are naturally addi-

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

tive. This is not the case in the City: men being unreasonable,
each must "renounce " his natural rights . Such renunciation
alone makes possible the formation of a whole that itself takeson the sum of these rights . This is the civil "pact" or "con­tract." 29 The sovereign City then has power enough to instituteindirect conventional relations through which citizens are forced
to agree and be compatible . 3 . Reason is the principle of an
ethical distinction between "those who live under its guidance"
and those who remain guided by feeling , those who free them­selves and those who remain slaves . But the civil state distin­
guishes only the just and the unj ust, accordingly as they obey
or do not obey its laws. Having renounced their right to j udge
what is good and bad, citizens rely on a State that rewards andpunishes. Sin and obedience, j ustice and inj ustice are strictly
social categories; moral opposition finds in society both its prin­ciple and its domain. 30
And yet there is a great similarity between the City and Rea­
son's ideal . In Spinoza as in Hobbes the sovereign is defined byhis natural right, equal to his power, equal, that is, to all the rights
relinquished by the contracting parties. But such a sovereign isnot, as in Hobbes, a third party who gains by the contract madeby individuals . The sovereign is the whole; the contract is madebetween individuals who transfer their rights to the whole they
form by contracting. Thus Spinoza describes the City as a col­lective person, with common body and soul, "a multitude whichis guided, as it were , by one mind."31 That the process of its for­mation is very different from that of reason, that it is prerational ,does not prevent the City from imitating and preparing the way
for reason. Indeed there is not, nor can there be, any irrational
totality contrary to reason. The sovereign has of course the rightto demand all it wishes, everything within its power; it is the solejudge of the laws it institutes and can neither do wrong nor dis266

T H EE T H I C A L

V I S I O N

O F

T H E

W O R L D

obey. But precisely because it is a whole, it can preserve itself assuch only insofar as "it tends toward the end that sound reason
teaches all men to pursue": the whole cannot preserve itself
unless it tends toward something that has at least the appearanceof reason. 32 The contract by which individuals alienate theirrights has no motivation but interest ( the fear of a greater evil ,the hope of a greater good) ; if the citizens begin to fear the City
above all else, they find themselves once more in a state of nature,
while the City loses its power, a prey to the factions it has stirred
up . The City's own nature thus determines it to aim as far as pos­sible for reason's ideal, to strive to make the sum of its laws con­form to reason. And the City will agree all the more with reason,
the less sad passions ( sadness or even hope) it produces in its cit­
izens, relying rather on j oyful affections. 33
We must in all this understand a "good" City. For it is withcities as with individuals: many causes, sometimes impercepti­
ble, intervene to pervert nature and precipitate ruin. But, fromthe viewpoint of the good City, two further considerations may
be added to those above. In the first place, what does it mean
for a citizen to "renounce his natural rights"? Not, obviously, torenounce persevering in being . But rather to renounce being
determined by any personal affections whatever. Abandoning his
right to personally judge what is good and what bad, the citizen
thereby commits himself to common collective affections. But giventhese affections he continues personally to persevere in his being,
and to do all in his power to preserve his existence and look after
his interests.34 Spinoza is thus able to say that each, as a memberof the City, renounces his natural rights, and yet entirely preserves
these natural rights in the civil state.35 In the second place, affec­
tions of reason are not subj ect to the City's rule : the power ofknowing, thinking and expressing one's thought remains an inal­
ienable natural right, which the City cannot compromise with-

T H ET H E O RY

O F

F I N I T E

M O D E S

out reintroducing between itself and its subj ects relations ofsimple violence. 36
The "good" City both takes the place of reason for those whohave none, and prepares, prefigures and in its way imitates thework of reason. It is the City that makes possible the develop­
ment of reason itself. One should not take as signs of excessive
optimism Spinoza's two propositions that, everything considered
and despite everything, the City is the best environment in which
man can become reasonable, and that it is also the best environ­ment in which a reasonable man can live.37

In an ethical vision of the world it is always a matter of capacityand power, and never of anything else. Law is identical to right.
True natural laws are norms of power rather than rules of duty.
Thus the moral law that purports to prohibit and command,
involve;� a kind of mystification: the less we understand the lawsof nature, that is, the norms of life, the more we interpret themas orders and prohibitions - to the point that the philosopher
must hesitate before using the word "law," so much does it retain
a moral aftertaste: it would be better to speak of "eternal truths:'
Moral laws or duties are in truth purely civil , social . Society aloneorders and prohibits , threatens and gives us to hope , rewards andpunishes . Reason does of course on its own account involve a
pietas and a reliaio ; and there are of course precepts , rules or"commands" of reason. But the list of such commands is enoughto show that they are not duties but norms of life, relating to thesoul's "strength" and its power of action. 3 8 It can of course also
happen that such norms coincide with the laws of ordinary moral­
ity; but such coincidences are on the one hand not particularly
numerous; and on the other, when reason enj oins or denounces
something analogous to what morality orders or prohibits, it is268

T H EE T H I C A L

V I S I O N

O F

T H E

W O R L D

always for reasons very different from those of morality. 39 The

Ethics judges feelings, conduct and intentions by relating them,not to transcendent values, but to modes of existence they pre­suppose or imply: there are things one cannot do or even say,believe , feel, think, unless one is weak, enslaved, impotent; andother things one cannot do , feel and so on, unless one is free orstrong. A method of explanation by immanent modes of existence thus
replaces the recourse to transcendent values. The question is ineach case: Does, say, this feeling, increase our power of action
or not? Does it help us come into full possession of that power?
To do all we can is our ethical task properly so called. It ishere that the Ethics takes the body as model ; for every bodyextends its power as far as it can. In a sense every being, each
moment, does all it can. "What it can do" is its capacity to beaffected , which is necessarily and constantly exercised by thething's relations with other beings. But in another sense, ourcapacity to be affected may be exercised in such a way that weare cut off from our power of action, and such that this incessantly
diminishes. In this second sense it can happen that we live cut
off from "what we can do ." This indeed is the fate of most men,most of the time. The weak man, the slave, is not someone of lesser
strength in absolute terms. The weak man is he who , whatever his
strength, remains cut off from his power of action, kept in slav­
ery or impotence. To do all we can amounts to two things: How
exercise our capacity to be affected in such a way that our powerof action increases? And how increase this power to the point
where, finally, we p roduce active affections? There are weak men

and strong, slaves and free men. There is no Good and Evil in
Nature, there is no moral opposition, but there is an ethical dif­ference . The difference lies in the immanent existing modes
involved in what we feel , do and think.
This ethical conception has a fundamental critical aspect.

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

Spinoza belongs to a great tradition: the practical task of philos­
ophy consists in denouncing all myths, all mystifications , all"superstitions," whatever their origin. I believe that this tradition
always involves a naturalist philosophy. Superstition is everythingthat keeps us cut off from our power of action and continuallydiminishes it. The source of superstition is thus the concatena­tion of sad passions, fear, the hope linked to fear, the anxiety thatdelivers us over to phantoms. 40 Spinoza knows, like Lucretius,that there are no j oyful myths or superstitions. Like Lucretius
he sets the image of a positive Nature against the uncertainty ofgods: what is opposed to Nature is not Culture, nor the state of rea­son, nor even the civil state, but only the superstition that threatens all
human endeavor. And like Lucretius again, Spinoza assigns to phi­losophy the task of denouncing all that is sad, all that lives onsadness, all those who depend on sadness as the basis of theirpower. "In despotic statecraft, the supreme and essential mysteryis to hoodwink the subj ects, and to mask the fear, which keeps
them down, with the specious garb of religion, so that they may
fight as bravely for slavery as for safety. . . :'41 The devaluation ofsad passions, and the denunciation of those who cultivate anddepend on them , form the practical obj ect of philosophy. Few
themes of the Ethics reappear more constantly than this one: that
all that is sad is bad and enslaves us; all that involves sadness
expresses tyranny.
"No deity, nor anyone else, unless he be envious, takes pleas­
ure in my lack of power and my misfortune; nor does he ascribe
to virtue our tears , sighs, fear, and other things of that kind ,which are signs of a weak mind. On the contrary, the greater thej oy with which we are affected, the greater the perfection towhich we pass, i . e . , the more we must participate in the divine
nature:' "He who rightly knows that all things follow from the nec­
essity of the divine nature , and happen according to the eternal270

T H EE T H I C A L

V I S I O N

O F

T H E

W O R L D

laws and rules of Nature, will surely find nothing worthy of hate,mockery or disdain, nor anyone whom he will pity. Instead hewill strive, as far as human virtue allows , to act well, as they say,and rej oice!' "The superstitious know how to reproach people for
their vices better than they know how to teach them virtues, andthey strive, not to guide men by reason, but to restrain them byfear, so that they flee the evil rather than love virtues. Such peo­
ple aim only to make others as wretched as they themselves are ,so it is no wonder that they are generally burdensome and hate­
ful to men." "One who has been badly received by a lover thinks
of nothing but the inconstancy and deceptiveness of women, andtheir other, often sung vices. All of these he immediately forgets
as soon as his lover receives him again. One therefore, who is anx­ious to moderate his feelings and appetites from the love of free­
dom alone will strive , as far as he can, to come to know thevirtues and their causes, and to fill his mind with the gladness
which arises from the true knowledge of them, but not at all toconsider men's vices , or to disparage men, or to enj oy a false
appearance of freedom !' "A free man thinks of nothing kss thanof death, and his wisdom is a meditation on life, not on death:'42
One may see Spinoza, through the scholia of Part Four of the
Ethics, forming a truly ethical conception of man, founded onj oy and j oyful passions . This he opposes to a superstitious or
satirical conception, founded on sad passions alone: " insteadof an Ethics, they have generally written a satire."43 At a deeper
level Spinoza denounces oppressive powers , which can rule only
through ins p i ring in man the sad p assions from which they p rofit("those who know only how to break men's minds . . ."44). Somesad passions are of course socially useful: among them fear, hope,
humility, even remorse. But this only insofar as we do not liveby the guidance of reason.45 It remains the case that every pas­sion is in itself bad insofar as it involves sadness: even hope, even

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

confidence. 46 A City is so much the better the more it relies onj oyful affections; the love of freedom should outweigh hope , fearand confidence. 47 Reason's only commandment, the sole require­ment of pietas and religio, is to link a maximum of passive j oys
with a maximum of active ones. For j oy is the only passive affec­
tion that increases our power of action, and of all affections j oy
alone can be active. The slave may be recognized by his sad pas­sions, and the free man by his j oys, passive and active. The senseof j oy is revealed as . the truly ethical sense; it is to the practicalsphere what affirmation itself is to the speculative . Spinoza's
naturalism is defined by speculative affirmation in his theory of
substance, and by practical joy in his conception of modes. A phi­losophy of pure affirmation, the Ethics is also a philosophy of thej oy corresponding to such affirmation.

2]2

C H A P T E R S EV E N T E E N
Common Notions

Spinoza's philosophy does not fi x itself in God , or find its natu­
ral starting point in God. The conditions in which we h<tve ideas
seem to condemn us to having only inadequate ones, and the con­ditions in which we are affected seem to condemn us to experi­ence only passive affections. The affections that naturally exercise
our capacity to be affected are passions that reduce it to a mini­
mum , and cut us off from our essence or our power of action.
Yet there appears in this pessimistic assessment of existencea first glimmer of hope: the radical distinction of action and pas­sion should not lead us to overlook a prior distinction between
two kinds of passions. Any passion does of course keep us cut off
from our power of action, but this to a greater or lesser extent.
As long as we are affected by passions we have not come into fullpossession of our power of action. But j oyful passions lead us
closer to this power, that is, increase or help it; sad passions dis­
tance us from it, that is, diminish or hinder it. The primary ques­tion of the Ethics is thus: What must we do in order to be affectedby a maximum of j oyful passions? Nature does not favor us in thisrespect. But we should rely on the efforts of reason, the very slow
empirical effort which finds in the City the conditions that makeit possible: reason in the first principle of its development, or in
27 3

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

its initial aspect, is the effort to organize encounters in such a
way that we are affected by a maximum of j oyful passions. For
j oyful passions increase our power of action; reason is the powerof understanding, the power of action belonging to the soul ; soj oyful passions agree with reason, and lead us to understand, or
determine us to become reasonable. 1
But it is not enough for our power of action to increase. It
might increase indefinitely, j oyful passions might follow indefi­
nitely from j oyful passions, without us coming into full posses­
sion of our power of action. A sum of passions does not makean action. It is not enough, then, j ust to accumulate j oyful pas­sions; we must find the means, through such accumulation, to
win the power of action and so at last experience active affec­
tions of which we are the cause. The second principal questionof the Ethics is thus: What must we do to produce in ourselves
active affections?
1. Active affections, when they occur, are necessarily j oyful :there is no active sadness, since all sadness is the diminution of
our power of action; only j oy can be active . 2 So if our power ofaction increases to the point that we come into its full posses­
sion, our subsequent affections will necessarily be active j oys. 3
2 . Active j oy is " another" feeling than passive j oy.4 And yet
Spinoza suggests that the distinction between the two is one ofreason only. s The two feelings differ only in their causes; passive
j oy is produced by an object that agrees with us, and whose powerincreases our power of action, but of which we do not yet havean adequate idea. Active j oy we produce by ourselves, it flows
from our power of action itself, follows from an adequate idea
in us. 3 . To the extent that passive j oys increase our power ofaction, they agree with reason. But since reason is the soul's powerof action, those j oys that are active are born of reason. When
Spinoza suggests that what agrees with reason may also be born
2 74

C O M M O N

N OT I O N S

of it, he means that from every passive j oy there may arise an
active j oy distinguished from it only by its cause.6

Consider two bodies that agree entirely, two bodies, that is tosay, all of whose relations can be combined: they are like partsof a whole, the whole exercising a general function in relation tothese parts, and the parts having a common property as belonging
to the whole. Thus two bodies that agree entirely have an iden­
tical structure. Because all their relations may be combined, they
have an analogy, similarity or community of composition. Now
consider bodies agreeing less and less, or bodies opposed to one
another: their constitutive relations can no longer be directly
combined, but present such differences that any resemblance
between the bodies appears to be excluded. There is still howevera similarity or community of composition, but this from a more
and more general viewpoint which, in the limit, brings Nature as awhole into play. One must in fact take account of the "whole"formed by the two bodies , not with one another directly, but
together with all the intermediary terms that allow us to passfrom one to the other. As all relations are combined in Nature
as a whole, Nature presents a similarity of composition that may
be seen in all bodies from the most general viewpoint. One may
pass from one body to another, however different, simply bychanging the relation between its ultimate parts. For it is only
relations that change in the universe as a whole , whose parts
remain the sam e .

We thus arrive at what Spinoza calls a "common notion." A
common notion is always an idea of a similarity of composition
in existing modes . But there different kinds of such notions .
Spinoza says that common notions may be more or less useful ,more or less easily formed and also more or less universal - that27 5

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

is, they are organized in terms of the greater or lesser generalityof their viewpoints. 7 One may in fact distinguish two main vari­eties of common notion. The less universal (but also the mostuseful ) are those representing a similarity of composition between
bodies that directly agree, and this from their own viewpoint.
One common notion, for example, represents " what is com­
mon to a human body and to certain external bodies ."8 Throughsuch notions we understand agreements between modes: they go
beyond an external perception of agreements observed by chance,
to find in a similarity of composition the necessary internal rea­son for an agreement of bodies .
At the other extreme the most universal common notions also
represent a similarity or community of composition , but now
between bodies that agree from a very general viewpoint, andnot from their own viewpoint. They thus represent "what is com­
mon to all things , " for example extension, or movement andrest - that is, the universal similarity of relations as combined
ad infinitum from the viewpoint of Nature as a whole . 9 Thesenotions also have their use, for they allow us to understand disa­
greements themselves, giving us a necessary internal reason forthem . In fact, they allow us to determine the viewpoint beyond
which a very general agreement between two bodies ends; theyshow us how and why opposition appears when we adopt a "lessuniversal" viewpoint on these same two bodies . We are abl e ,by making a n experiment i n thought, t o vary a relation u p t o
the point where the corresponding body takes on a nature insome sense "contrary" to its own; we can thereby understand thenature of disagreements between bodies with these or those rela­tions . Thus, when assigning a role to all common notions taken
as a whole, Spinoza says they internally determine the mind tounderstand the agreements of things , as well as their differences
and oppositions . IO

C O M M O N

N O T I O N S

Spinoza carefully distinguishes common notions, on the one
hand , and transcendental terms ( being , thing , something ) or.
universal notions (genera and species, man, horse, dog) on theother. 1 1 And yet common notions are themselves universal, "moreor less" universal according to their degree of generality; onemust then suppose that Spinoza is not attacking what is univer­
sal , but only a certain conception of abstract universality. Simi­
larly, Spinoza is not criticizing the notions of genus and species
in general ; he himself speaks of horse and dog as natural types,of man himself as a normative type or model . J2 Here again, wemust suppose that he is attacking only a certain abstract deter­
mination of genera and species. An abstract idea has, indeed, two
aspects that reflect its inadequacy. In the first place it retains only
gross sensible differences between things: we choose a sensible
characteristic that is easily imagined; we distinguish obj ects
possessing it from those that do not; we identify all those pos­sessing it; as for minor differences, we pass over these , precisely
because objects become confused once their number exceeds thecapacity of our imagination. Second , a sensible differential char­acteristic is extremely variable: it is accidental, depending on theway obj ects affect each of us in chance encounters. "Those whohave often regarded men's stature with wonder will understandby the word man an animal of erect stature . But those who havebeen accustomed to consider some other characteristic will form
another general image of men - for example, that man is an ani­
mal capable of laughter, or a featherless biped, or a rational
animal ." l 3 And the kind of characteri s t i c selected changes n o t

only from individual to individual , but also among the different
obj ects affecting the same individual : certain obj ects are definedby their sensible form, others by their use or function, their man­ner of being and so on. On all counts , abstract ideas are thor­
oughly inadequate: they are images that are not explained by
2 77

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

our power of thinking, but that involve, rather, our impotence;
images that do not express the nature of things, but indicate,rather, the variability of our human constitution.
In all this Spinoza is clearly attacking, not just the proceduresof common sense, but the Aristotelian tradition also. The attempt
to define genera and species through differences first appears in
Aristotelian biology; and those sensible differences vary consid­
erably in nature when different animals are in question. Against
this tradition Spinoza proposes a grand principle: to consider
structures , rather than sensible forms or functions . 14 But what is
the meaning of "structure"? It is a system of relations between
the parts of a body (these parts not being organs, but the ana­
tomical components of those organs ) . By inquiring how these
relations vary from one body to another, we have a way of directly
determining the resemblances between two bodies, however dis­parate they may be. The form and function of an organ in a given
animal depend solely on the relations between its organic parts,that is, between fixed anatomical components. In the limit Nature
as a whole is a single Animal in which only the relations between
the parts vary. For the examination of sensible differences is sub­stituted an examination of intelligible similarities, which allow
us to understand resemblances and differences between bodies" from the insid e ." Spinoza's common notions are biological ,rather than physical or mathematical , ideas . They really do play
the part of Ideas in a philosophy of Nature from which all final­
ity has been excluded . ( Spinoza's comments on this aspect ofcommon notions are, indeed, rare. But then his comments on all
aspects of common notions are rare, and we will see why. His
suggestions nevertheless suffice to make him a forerunner ofGeoffroy Saint-Hilaire , in the development of the great princi­ple of compositional unity. I S )Common notions are general rather than abstract ideas . And as

C O M M O N

N O T I O N S

such they are necessarily "adequate:' Take the case of the less uni­versal notions: what is common to my body and to certain exter­
nal bodies is "equally" in each of these bodies; the idea is thus
present in God, not only insofar as he has an idea of those exter­
nal bodies, but also insofar as he simply has the idea of my body;thus I myself have the idea of something common to various bod­ies, and have it as it is in God. 16 As for the more universal notions:what is common to all things is "equally" in the part and in thewhole, the idea is thus present in God, and so on. l 7 These proofs
underlie the two aspects in which common notions in general arenecessarily adequate; in other words, common notions are ideas thatare formally explained by our power of thinking and that, materially,
express the idea of God as their efficient cause. They are explained byour power of thinking because, being in us as they are in God, theyfall within our own power as they fall within the absolute powerof God. They express the idea of God as their cause because, since
God possesses them as we possess them , they necessarily " in­volve" God's essence. Indeed when Spinoza says that all ideas ofparticular things necessarily involve the eternal infinite essenceof God, he means particular things as they are in God, and so ideasof things as possessed by God . 18 Among the ideas we have, theonly ones capable of expressing God' s essence, or of involving
knowledge of this essence, are thus ideas that are in us as they
are in God: in short, common notions. 19
Several important consequences follow from this: 1 . We wereasking how we might attain adequate ideas . Everything about
existence condemned us to having onl y inadequate ideas: we had
ideas neither of ourselves, nor of external bodies, but only ideasof affections, indicating the effect of some external body on us.
But precisely from such an effect, we can form the idea of what
is common to some external body and our own. Given the con­ditions of our existence this is for us the only possible way of279

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

reaching an adequate idea. The first adequate idea we have is a com­
mon notion, the idea of "something common:' 2. This idea is
explained by our power of understanding or thinking. But thepower of understanding is the soul's power of action. We are
therefore active insofar as we form common notions. The formingof a common notion marks the point at which we enter into fullpossession of our power of action. It thereby constitutes the sec­
ond stage of reason. Reason in its initial development is the effort
to organize encounters on the basis of perceived agreements anddisagreements. The very activity of reason is the effort to con­ceive common notions, and so to intellectually understand agree­ments and disagreements themselves. When we form a common
notion our soul is said "to use reason" : we come into the posses­
sion of our power of action or of understanding, we become rea­
sonable beings. 3 . A common notion is our first adequate idea.
But whatever it be, it leads us directly to another adequate idea.
An adequate idea is expressive , and what it expresses is theessence of God. Any common notion gives us direct knowledge
of God's eternal infinite essence. Any adequate , that is to say,expressive idea, gives us knowledge of what it expresses, that is,adequate knowledge of God's essence itself.

There is, though, a danger of common notions appearing to inter­
vene miraculously, unless we explain how we come to form them.

How do they come to break the concatenation of inadequate ideas towhich we had seemed condemned? "Common" does not of course
mean merely something common to two or more bodies, butsomething common also to minds capable of forming an idea ofit. Spinoza first of all reminds us that common notions can be
more common or less common in different minds .20 And even if
they be identified with innate ideas , innateness in no way does280

C O M M O N

N O T I O N S

away with the effort of forming them , a causa jiendi we need inorder to rediscover what is already given only in principle . That
common notions are in us as they are in God means only that, if
we form them , we have them as God has them . But how, indeed ,do we form them, in what favorable circumstances? How do wearrive at our power of action?
As long as we retain a speculative viewpoint , the problem
remains insoluble. There seems to be a danger of two mistakeninterpretations of the theory of common notions : overlooking
their biological sense in favor of their mathematical one , and ,above all, overlooking their practical sense in favor of their spec­
ulative content. The latter mistake may be explained by the way
Spinoza himself introduces his system of common notions. For
Part Two of the Ethics does indeed consider such notions from apurely speculative viewpoint, and therefore presents them inlogical order, proceeding from the most universal to the least
universal . 21 But there Spinoza is only showing that if we form
common notions , they are necessarily adequate ideas. The cause
and order of their formation is still unknown to us, as is theirpractical nature and function, which is merely suggested in Part
Two P It is true that all bodies have something in common, be
it only extension, and movement and rest. Bodies that do notagree and are opposed to one another have nevertheless some­thing in common, namely a very general similarity of composi­tion which brings into play Nature as a whole under the attributeof Extension. 23 This indeed is why the presentation of common
notions in logical order begins with the most universal : begins,then, with bodies very disparate one from another, and very
opposed one to another. But if it be true that two opposed bod­
ies have something in common, one can never, on the other hand,be opposed to the other or bad for the other through what it has
in common with it: "No thing can be evil through what it has in281

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

common with our nature; but insofar as it is evil for us, it is con­trary to us." 24 When we experience a bad affection, a sad passive
affection produced in us by a body that disagrees with us, noth­ing induces us to form the idea of what is common to that bodyand our own. The opposite is the case when we experience a j oy­
ful affection: a thing being good to the extent that it agrees with
our nature , the j oyful affection itself induces us to form thecorresponding common notion. The first common notions weform are thus the least universal , those, that is, that apply to ourbody and to another that agrees directly with our own and affects
it with j oy. If we consider the order in which common notions
are formed, we must begin from the least universal; for the most
universal, applying to bodies opposed to our own, have no induc­tive principle in the affections we experience.
In what sense are we here taking "induce"? What is in ques­tion is a kind of occasional cause.a Adequate ideas are formallyexplained by our power of understanding or action. B ut every­
thing that is explained by our power of action depends only on
our essence, and is thus "innate:' But innateness had already, in
Descartes, involved a kind of occasionalism . What is innate is
active; but it can only become actual if it finds a favorable occa­sion among affections that come from outside us, among passive
affections. Spinoza's scheme seems then to be as follows:
When we encounter a body that agrees with our own, when
we experience a j oyful passive affection, we are induced to form
the idea of what is common to that body and our own. Thus
Spinoza is led, in Part Five of the Ethics, to recognize the spe­cial part played by j oyful passions in the formation of common
notions: "So long as we are not torn by feelings contrary to our nature[feelings of sadness, provoked by contrary obj ects that do notagree with us] , the power o f the mind by which it strives tounderstand things is not hindered. So long, then, the mind has
282

C O M M O N

N OT I O N S

the power of forming clear and distinct ideas." 25 I t is enough, infact, for the hindrance to be lifted for the power of action to
become actual , and for us to come into possession of what is
innate in us. One can see why it was not enough j ust to accumu­
late j oyful passions, in order to become active. The passion oflove is linked to the passion of j oy, and other feelings and desires
are linked to love. All increase our power of action, but neverto the point that we become active . These feelings must first
become "secure"; we must first of all avoid sad passions which
diminish our power of action; this is reason's initial endeavor. But
we must then break out of the mere concatenation of passions,even j oyful ones. For these still do not give us possession of ourpower of action; we have no adequate idea of obj ects that agree
in nature with us; j oyful passions are themselves born of inade­quate ideas, which only indicate a body's effect on us . We must
then, by the aid of joyful passions, form the idea of what is com­
mon to some external body and our own. For this idea alone, thiscommon notion, is adequate. This is the second stage of reason;
then, and then only, do we understand and act, and we are rea­
sonable: this not through the accumulation of j oyful passions as
passions, but by a genuine "leap, " which puts us in possession ofan adequate idea, by the aid of such accumulation.
Why do we become active when we form a common notionor have an adequate idea? An adequate idea is explained by ourpower of understanding, and so by our power of action. It puts
us in possession of this power, but how does it do this? We should
remember that inadequate i deas also involve a concatenation ofideas that follow from them. A mind that forms an adequate idea
is the adequate cause of the ideas that follow from it: this is thesense in which it is active .26 What, then, are the ideas that fol­
low from the common notion which we form by the aid of j oy­
ful passions? Joyful passions are ideas of the affections produced

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

by a body that agrees with our own ; our mind by itself forms
the idea of what is common to that body and our own; from thisflows an idea of the affection, a feeling, which is no longer passive,
but active. Such a feeling is no longer a passion, because it fol­lows from an adequate idea in us; it is itself an adequate idea.
It is distinct from the passive feeling from which we began, but
distinct only in its cause: its cause is no longer an inadequate
idea of an obj ect that agrees with us, but the necessarily ade­quate idea of what is common to that obj ect and ourselves. Thus
Spinoza can say : "A feeling which is a passion ceases to be apassion as soon as we form a clear and distinct [adequate J ideaof it!'27 For we form a clear and distinct idea of it insofar as we
attach it to the common notion as to its cause; it is then active,and dependent on our power of action. Spinoza does not meanthat all passion disappears : what disappears is not the passive
j oy itself, but all the passions, all the desires linked to it andconnected with the idea of the external thing ( the passion oflove, and so on ).28
Any feeling determines our conatus to do something on thebasis of an idea of an obj ect; conatus, thus determined, is calleda desire. But as long as we are determined by a feeling of passive
joy, our ideas are still irrational , since they are born of inadequate
ideas. But as well as passive j oy we now have an active j oy dis­tinct only in its cause; from this active j oy are born desires thatbelong to reason, since they proceed from an adequate idea. 29"All the appetites, or desires, are passions only insofar as they arise
from inadequate ideas , and are counted as virtues when they are
aroused or generated by adequate ideas . For all the desires bywhich we are determined to do something can arise as much from
adequate ideas as from inadequate ones!'30 Desires of reason thus
replace irrational desires , or rather, a rational concatenation ofdesires is substituted for an irrational one: "We have the power

C O M M O N

N OT I O N S

of ordering and connecting the affections of the body according
to the order of the understanding." 31
This whole process as described by Spinoza falls into fourphases : ( 1 ) passive j oy, which increases our power of action, andfrom which flow desires and passions based on a still inadequate
idea; ( 2 ) the formation, by the aid of these j oyful passions, of acommon notion ( an adequate idea ) ; ( 3 ) active j oy, which fol­lows from this common notion and is explained by our power ofaction; ( 4 ) this active j oy is added to the passive j oy, but replaces
the passions of desire born of the latter by desires belonging toreason, which are genuine actions . Spinoza's proj ect is thus real­
ized not by suppressing all passion, but by the aid of j oyful pas­sions restricting passions to the smallest part of ourselves, sothat our capacity to be affected is exercised by a maximum ofactive affections. 32
Spinoza shows at the opening of Part Five of the Ethics that afeeling ceases to be a passion once we form a clear and distinct(adequate) idea of it; and that we form a clear and distinct ideaof it as soon as we attach it to a common notion as to its cause .
Spinoza doesn't however apply this principle only to the feelingof j oy, but asserts its applicability to any feeling: "There is noaffection of the body of which 'Ne cannot form a clear and dis­tinct concept."33 The proof of this proposition is very concise:"Those things that are common to all can only be conceived ade­quately, and so . . . ." Let us consider, then , the case of sadness.
Spinoza obviously does not mean that sadness, being an inevita­
ble passion, is itself common to all men or to all beings. He does
not forget that a common notion is always the idea of something
positive: nothing is common through mere impotence or throughimperfection. 34 Spinoza means that, even in the case of a bodythat does not agree with our own, and affects us with sadness,
we can form an idea of what is common to that body and ourT H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

own; the common notion will simply be very universal , imply­
ing a much more general viewpoint than that of the two bodies
confronting each other. It has nonetheless a practical function:
it makes us understand why these two bodies in particular do notagree from their own viewpoint. "We see that sadness over somegood which has perished is lessened as soon as the man who has
lost it realizes that this good could not, in any way, have been
kept." 35 (The man in fact understands that his own body and theexternal one could not have combined their relations in a dura­
ble way except in different circumstances: had there been inter­mediary terms, bringing into play the whole of Nature, from
whose viewpoint such a combination would have been possible. )But when a very universal common notion makes us understanda disagreement, a feeling of active j oy again flows from this: anactive joy always follows from what we understand. "Insofar as weunderstand the causes of sadness, it ceases to be a passion!'36 It
thus appears that, even if we begin from a sad passion, the basic
pattern of the earlier scheme is retained: sadness; forming a com­
mon notion; active j oy flowing from it.
In Part Two of the Ethics Spinoza considers the speculative
content of common notions: he supposes them given or poten­
tially given; it is thus natural for him to proceed in a logical orderfrom the most universal to the least universal . At the opening ofPart Five he analyzes the practical function of common notions,
supposed given: that function consists in such notions being thecauses of adequate ideas of affections , that is, of active j oys. The
principle applies to the most universal common notions as to theleast universal , and one can thus consider all common notions
taken together, in the unity of their practical function.
All is changed, though , when Spinoza asks later in Part Five
how we come to form common notions , we who seem con­demned to inadequate ideas and passions. We then see that our286

C O M M O N

N O T I O N S

initial notions are necessarily the least universal ones. They arethose that apply to my body and another body that agrees ( orsome other bodies that agree) with it; these alone have a chanceof being formed from the passive joys I experience. The most univer­
sal , on the other hand, apply to all bodies, and so to very differ­ent bodies that are opposed to one another. But the sadness or
opposition produced in us by a body that does not agree with
our own never provides the occasion to form a common notion.
So the process of forming common notions runs thus: We at firstseek to experience a maximum of j oyful passions ( reason's ini­tial endeavor). So we seek to avoid sad passions, to escape theirconcatenation and to avert bad encounters . We then, subse­
quently, use j oyful passions to form corresponding common
notions, whence flow active j oys (the second effort of reason ) .
These common notions are among the least universal , since they
apply only to my body and to bodies that agree with it. But theystrengthen our ability to avoid bad encounters; and above all they
put us in possession of our power of action and understanding.
Thus, third, we become capable of forming more universal com­
mon notions that apply in all cases, even to bodies opposed tous; we become capable of understanding even our sadness, andof drawing from such understanding an active j oy. We can copewith bad encounters which we cannot avoid, and reduce the sad­ness that necessarily remains with us. But it must not be forgot­
ten that, despite their general identity of practical function ( thatof producing active j oys ) , common notions are all the more use­
ful , all the more effective, for being less universal, proceedingfrom j oyful passions .37
All common notions have the same speculative content: they
involve a certain generality without abstraction. They all have thesame practical function: as necessarily adequate ideas they aresuch that active j oy necessarily flows from them. But they in no

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

way share the same speculative and practical roles, when one con­siders the conditions in which they are formed. The first com­
mon notions we form are the least universal , since the principleof their induction lies in our joyful passions. We come into ourpower of action on the level of the "least universal": we accumu­
late passive j oys, finding in them an opportunity to form com­
mon notions, from· which flow active joys . The increase of ourpower of action thus presents us with the opportunity of com­
ing into that power, or of becoming truly active. Having comeinto our true activity in some cases, we become capable of forming
common notions even in less favorable cases. There is a wholelearning process involved in common notions, in our becoming
active: we should not overlook the importance in Spinozism of
this formative process; we have to start from the least universal
common notions , from the first we have a chance to form .

288

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
To w a r d t h e T h i r d K i n d o f K n o w l e d g e

The different kinds ofknowledge are also different ways ofliving,different modes of existing. The first kind ( imagination) is con­stituted by all inadequate ideas and passive affections in theirconcatenation.! This initial knowledge corresponds first of all tothe state of nature: I perceive objects through chance encounters,
and by the effect they have on me. Such an effect is but a "sign,"
a varying "indication." Such knowledge is had through vague
experience,a and "vague" relates , etymologically, to the randomcharacter of encounters .2 Here we know only Nature's "common
order," know only the effects of encounters between parts accord­
ing to purely extrinsic determinations .
But the civil sta te also belongs to the first kind of knowl­edge. Already in the state of nature, imagination forms universal
abstract ideas , which retain this or that sensible characteristic ofan obj ect. The characteristic is designated by a name, which
serves as a sign either for obj ects resembling the first, or for
obj ects habitually linked with it.3 But along with language andthe civil state a second sort of sign develops , which is impera­
tive rather than indicative. Signs appear to tell us what we must
do to obtain a given result, achieve a given end: this is knowl­edge by hearsay. Thus, in Spinoza's famous example, a sign rep-

T H ET H E O RY

O F

F I N I T E

M O O E S

resents the operation we "must" perform on three numbers inorder to find a fourth. Whether a law of nature or a technicalrule, any law inevitably appears to us in a moral form just inso­
far as we have only an inadequate knowledge of it; a law seems
to us a moral one, or of a moral type, whenever we make its effectdepend on an imperative sign ( rather than on the constitutive
relations of things ).
It is signs that give the first kind of knowledge its unity. They
characterize a state of thought that is still inadequate, involved,
unexplained. One must include even the religious state within thisfirst kind of knowledge and existence, the state, that is, of man
in relation to a God who gives him a revelation. This state dif­fers from the state of nature no less than does the civil state itself:"No one knows by nature that he owes any obedience to God,nor can he attain thereto by any exercise of his reason, but solely
by revelation confirmed by signs !'4 This religious state belongs
nonetheless to the first kind of knowledge, precisely because itis part of our inadequate knowledge, because it is based on signs
and manifests itself in the form of laws which demand and orderthings. Revelation is itself explained by the inadequate charac­
ter of our knowledge, and bears only on certain of God's propria.
The signs of Revelation constitute a third sort of sign and char­acterize the religion of the prophets , religion of the first kindor of imagination.

The second kind of knowledge corresponds in the Ethics to thestate of reason: a knowledge of common notions and throughcommon notions. This is where the real break between differ­ent kinds of knowledge appears in the Ethics: "Knowledge of thesecond and third kinds, and not of the first kind, teaches us todistinguish the true from the false."S We enter, with common

TOWARDT H E

T H I R D

K I N DO F

K N OW L E D G E

notions, into the domain of expression : these notions are our firstadequate ideas, they draw us out of the world of inadequate signs.
And because any common notion leads us to the idea of the God
whose essence it expresses, the second kind of knowledge also
involves a second kind of religion: no longer a religion of imagi­
nation, but one of understanding. The expression of Nature
replaces signs, love replaces obedience; this is no longer the reli­gion of the prophets but, on its various levels, the religion ofSolomon, the religion of the Apostles, and the true religion of
Christ founded on common notions.6
But what exactly do we know of these notions? Common
notions do not of course constitute the essence of any particularthing. And yet one cannot define simply them by their generality.

The notions apply to particular existing modes, and have no sense inde­
pendently of such application. Representing (from more or less gen­eral viewpoints ) the similarity of composition of existing modes,
they are for us the only means of reaching an adequate knowl­edge of the characteristic relations of bodies, of the combinationof these relations and of the laws of composition. Once again,
this is well seen in the case of numbers: in the second kind ofknowledge we do not apply rules known by hearsay, as one would
obey a moral law; by understanding the rule of proportionality
through a common notion, we grasp the way that the constitutive
relations of three given numbers are combined. Thus common
notions give us knowledge of the positive order of Nature as anorder of constitutive or characteristic relations by which bodies
agree with, and are opposed to , one another. Laws of Nature nolonger appear as commands and prohibitions, but for what they
are: eternal truths, norms of composition, rules for the realiza­tion of powers. This order of Nature expresses God as its source;
and the more we know things according to this order, the more
our ideas themselves express God's essence. All our knowledge

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

expresses God, when it is governed by common notions.
Common notions are one of the fundamental discoveries of
the Ethics. We must here attach great importance to the chro­nology. Ferdinand Alquie has recently insisted that the introduc­tion in the Ethics of common notions marks a decisive point in
the development of Spinozism. 7 Indeed, nothing is made of themeither in the Short Treatise or in the Correction of the Understand­ina. Things are already known in the Short Treatise to have char­acteristic relations, but the discovery of these is entrusted to"reasoning," and there is no mention of common notions . 8 In
addition, what there corresponds to the second kind of knowl­edge ( the second "mode of consciousness") does not constitutean adequate knowledge , but only a right belief. And the third"mode of perception," which in the Correction of the Understandina
corresponds to the second kind of knowledge, still amounts only
to a clear knowledge, rather than an adequate one : and it is notin the least defined by common notions but by a Cartesian typeof inference and an Aristotelian type of deduction. 9
However, one does find in the Correction of the UnderstandinB ,in an altoaether different context, a foreshadowing of, and approx­
imation to, what will later become common notions . Thus afamous passage speaks of "fixed and eternal things" which , frombeing omnipresent, are for us "like universals, or genera of thedefinitions of singular, changeable things" : one recognizes inthese the most universal notions, extension, movement, rest,
which are common to all things. And when the remainder of thepassage argues for still other "aids" necessary for the understand­ing of singular changing things, one thinks of the role of less uni­versal common notions . 10 If the passage raises many difficulties,
this is because it is written from the viewpoint of the highest
mode of perception or kind of knowledge, relating to essences
themselves: laws are inscribed in fixed and eternal things, says

TOWARDT H E

T H I R D

K I N DO F

K N O W L E D G E

Spinoza, as in their true codes ; but these laws seem to be thelaws of production of essences as well as the laws of composi­tion of relations. I I
How can we explain Spinoza's conflation here o f such differ­ent sorts of law? I would suggest that he only had an intimationof common notions as he progressed in the composition of theCorrection of the Understandin9. But he had by then already andotherwise defined the third mode of perception ( corresponding
to what would become the second kind of knowledge ) . So con­stant and eternal things, playing the part of universals, found aplace only on the level of the highest kind or mode of percep­
tion: and they were thus also taken as the principles of our knowl­edge of essences. Another role would have been possible, but
Spinoza would then have had to go back and recast his descrip­tion of modes of perception in terms of his new idea. This would
partly explain why Spinoza gave up the idea of completing theCorrection of the Understandina precisely at the point where hecame to the exposition of what he himself calls common prop­
erties. The hypothesis would also allow us to date Spinoza's fulldevelopment of the theory of common notions between theabandoning of the Correction of the Understandina and the compo­
sition of the Ethics. This full possession would then have induced adesire to modify the Treatise, reformulating the theory of the sec­
ond kind or third mode of perception, by giving an autonomousand distinct development of common notions ; thus Spinoza, in
the Ethics, speaks of a treatise in which he proposes to developthese points . l2
When Spinoza discovers that common notions are our firstadequate ideas, a gap opens between the first and second kindsof knowledge . The existence of such a gap should not howeverlead us to overlook a whole system of correspondences between
the two kinds, without which the forming of an adequate idea293

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

or a common notion would remain incomprehensible . We haveseen in the first place that the civil state was a substitute for rea­son, prepared the way for reason, and imitated it. This would be
impossible did not moral laws and imperative signs, despite thecontradictions they involve, coincide in a way with the true posi­tive order of Nature. So it was indeed the laws of Nature thatthe prophets grasped and transmitted, even though they inade­quately understood them. Similarly, a society's primary endeavor
is to choose signs and institute laws that correspond as a whole,as far as possible, to the order of Nature, and, above all , to man's
survival in that order. The variability of signs becomes in thisrespect an advantage, and opens up to us possibilities that do notbelong to understanding on its own account, but rather to imagi­
nation. 13 What is more, reason would never come to form com­
mon notions, that is, come into its power of action, did it nottry to find itself in that first effort that consists in selecting j oy­
ful passions . Before becoming active we must select and link
together passions that increase our power of action. But such pas­sions are related to images of obj ects that agree in nature withus; these images themselves are , once more, inadequate ideas ,mere indications which give us knowledge of objects through theeffect they have on us. Reason would not then "find" itself, wereits first effort not traced out in the frame of the first kind ofknowledge, using all the resources of imagination.
If we consider their origin, common notions find in imagina­
tion the very conditions of their formation . Considered, more­
over, in their practical function, they apply only to things thatcan be imagined. Thus they may themselves, in some respects,
be likened to images . 14 The application of common notions implies,

in general, a strange harmony between reason and imagination, be­tween the laws of reason and those of imagination. Spinoza ana­lyzes various cases. He had shown in Parts Three and Four of the
2 94

TOWARDT H E

T H I R D

K I N DO F

K N O W L E D G E

Ethics under which particular laws of imagination a passion be­comes more or less intense, more or less strong. Thus our feel­ing toward something we simply imagine is stronger than the feel­ing we experience when we believe the thing to be necessary ornecessitated . 15 But the fundamental law of reason amounts pre­cisely to considering things as necessary: common notions allow
us to understand the necessity of the agreements and disagree­ments between bodies. Reason thus profits from one of the fea­tures of imagination: the more we understand things as necessary,the less we feel the strength or intensity of passions rooted in
imagination.16 Imagination is subject to a law according to which
it always initially asserts the presence of its object, is then affectedby causes that exclude such a presence, and enters into a kindof "vacillation," thinking of its obj ect only as possible, or evencontingent. The process of imagining an obj ect thus contains
within it the principle of its own dissipation over time. But rea­
son's law is to form common notions, that is, ideas of properties"which we always regard as present." 17 Reason here satisfies thedemands of imagination better than can imagination itself. Imag­ination, carried along by its fate, which is to be affected by vary­ing causes, doesn't manage to maintain the presence of its obj ect.
Reason doesn't only diminish the relative strength of passions:" taking time into account" the active feelings born of reason
or of common notions are in themselves stronger than any ofthe passive feelings born of imagination.18 By imagination's law,a feeling is so much the stronger, the more causes act together
to provoke it. 19 But a common notion, by its law, applies orrelates to several things, or images of things easily associatedwith them : it is therefore frequent and lively.20 I t thus dimin­
ishes the intensity of feelings of imagination, since it determines
the mind to consider several obj ects. And these obj ects asso­
ciated with the notion are like so many causes favorable to the
2 95

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D ESfeeling of reason which flows from the notion.2I
Necessity, presence and frequency are the three characteris­tics of common notions. And these characteristics ensure that thenotions in a certain way impose themselves on the imagination,either reducing the intensity of passive feelings, or guaranteeing
the liveliness of active ones. Common notions use the laws ofimagination to free us from imagination itself. Their neces­sity, presence and frequency allow them to intervene in the move­
ment of imagination, and divert its course to their own ends . It
is not too much to speak here of a general harmony of imagina­
tion and reason.

The greater part of the Ethics - more precisely, down to V.21 - is writ­ten from the viewpoint of the second kind of knowledge. For it is only
through common notions that we come to have adequate ideas
and an adequate knowledge of God himself. This does not amountto a condition of any knowledge, but to a condition of our knowl­edge, insofar as we are finite existing modes composed of a soul
and a body. We who have at first only inadequate ideas and pas­
sive affections, can come into our power of understanding andaction only by forming common notions . All our knowledge
comes to us through such notions. Whence Spinoza can say that
not even God's existence is known through itself, but "must nec­
essarily be inferred from notions so firmly and incontrovertibly
true, that no power can be postulated or conceived sufficient to
impugn them ."22 The same admission is to be found in the Eth­ics: Part One gives us knowledge of God, and of all things as they
depend on God; but this knowledge is itself of the second kind.23
All bodies agree in certain things, such as extension, move­
ment and rest. The ideas of extension, movement and rest arefor us very universal common notions, since they apply to allTOWARDT H E

T H I R D

K I N DO F

K N OW L E D G E

existing bodies. We may then ask whether the idea of God should
itself be considered as a common notion, as the most universal of
all? Many passages appear to suggest this. 24 But it is not however
the case: our idea of God is closely related to common notions,but is not itself one of them. The idea of God is in a sense opposed
to common notions in that they always apply to things that canbe imagined, while God cannot be imagined.25 Spinoza says onlythat common notions lead us to the idea of God, that they nec­
essarily "give" us knowledge of God, and that without them wewould not have such knowledge.26 For, a common notion is anadequate idea; an adequate idea is an idea that is expressive; andwhat it expresses is God's very essence. The relation of the idea
of God to common notions is thus one of expression. Common
notions express God as the source of all the constitutive relationsof things. As it relates to these notions that express it, the idea
of God is the basis of religion of the second kind. For active feel­ings, active j oys , flow from common notions; and they do so"accompanied by the idea of God." The love of God is j ust suchj oy so accompaniedP Reason's highest endeavor, insofar as it con­ceives common notions, is thus to know God and to love him . 28
( But this God connected with common notions does not have to
respond to our love; he is an impassive God, who gives us noth­ing in return . For, however active, j oys flowing from common
notions are inseparable from those passive j oys resulting fromimagination which initially increased our power of action, andserved us as the occasional causes of our action. And God is him­
self fre e o f p assions: he feels n o p assive j oy, nor any active j oy ofthe type that presupposes a passive j oy. 29)
One recalls the methodological principle of the Correction of
the Understanding, that we cannot start from the idea of God,but must reach it as quickly as possible. And the "quickest pos­sible" way was there presented thus: we had to begin from what
2 97

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

was positive in some idea we had; we strove to make that idea
adequate; it was adequate when referred to its cause, when it
expressed its cause; but in expressing its cause it also expressed
the idea of God as determining that cause to produce such aneffect. We were thus in danger of entering an infinite regression
from cause to cause : God was expressed at each level as what
determined that level of causality.
I believe it is wrong to contrast the Ethics and the Correctionof the Understanding on this point. The Ethics begins with God as
absolutely infinite substance no more than does the Correction. The
Ethics does not begin from God as something unconditioned; wehave seen the role of its opening propositions in this respect. The
proj ect of the Ethics is the same as that of the Correction of theUnderstanding: to rise as quickly as possible to the idea of God,
without falling into an infinite regression, without making God
himself into a remote cause. So if the Ethics is to be contrasted
with the Correction of the Understanding, this should not be interms of any change of method, or still less any change of princi­
ples, but only insofar as the Ethics has found less artificial andmore concrete means. These means (up to V. 2 1 ) are common
notions. We no longer start from what is positive in some idea
or other, in order to try and form an adequate idea: such a pro­cedure is very unsure and remains indeterminate. We start fromwhat is positive in a j oyful passion; this determines us to form acommon notion, as our first adequate idea. We then form more
and more general common notions, which together constitutethe system of reason; but each common notion, on its own level,
expresses God and leads us to knowledge of God. Every common
notion expresses God as the source of the relations combined
together in the bodies to which the notion applies. It should not
be said that the most universal notions better express God thanless universal ones. And , above all , one should not suggest that

T O WA R D

T H E

T H I R D

K I N DO F

K N O W L E D G E

the idea of God is itself a common notion, the most universal of
all: but each notion leads us to it, each expresses it, the least uni­versal along with the most universal. In the system of expression
God is never a remote cause .
The idea of G o d thus plays i n the Ethics a pivotal role . Every­
thing turns about it, everything changes along with it. Spinoza
announces that "besides" the second kind of knowledge, there
is a third. 30 He furthermore presents the second kind as the driv­
ing force of the third: the second kind determines us to enter into
the third, to "form" the third.31 But how does the second kindso determine us? Only the idea of God can explain the transition,
which appears in the Ethics at V. 20-21 . 1 . Every common notion
leads us to the idea of God. As related to the common notions
which express it, the idea of God itself belongs to the second kindof knowledge. It represents, in this respect, an impassive God;but the idea accompanies all the j oys that flow from our powerof understanding ( insofar as this power proceeds through com­
mon notions) . The idea of God is thus the limiting point of thesecond kind of knowledge. 2. But although it necessarily relates
to common notions , the idea of God is not itself a common
notion. So it propels us into a new element. We can come to theidea of God only through the second kind of knowledge; but inarriving at the idea we are determined to leave behind the sec­
ond kind of knowledge, and enter into a new state. In the second
kind of knowledge, the idea of God serves as a basis of the third;
and by "basis" must be understood the true driving force, thecausa fiendi. 32 This idea of God will itself then change in content,
taking on another content in the third kind of knowledge towhich it determines us.
Two of the characteristics of a common notion are to apply
to several existing modes, and to give us knowledge of the rela­tions through which existing modes agree or are opposed. In the299

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

limiting case, it is understandable how the idea of an attributeinitially appears to be a common notion: the idea of extension
is a very universal notion in that it applies to all existing bodies ;and the idea of the infinite modes of Extension makes known to
us the agreement of all bodies from the viewpoint of Nature as awhole. But the idea of God, which is joined to, or "accompanies"
all common notions , leads us to a reappraisal of attributes andmodes. Here again, the Ethics follows the Correction of the Under­
standing: the idea of God affects our entry into the domain of" real beings" and their connection. An attribute is no longer
understood merely as a common property of all the existing modes
corresponding to it, but as what constitutes the singular essenceof divine substance, and as what contains all the particular essencesof its modes. The third kind of knowledge is defined as pro­ceeding "from an adequate idea of the formal essence of certain
attributes of God to the adequate knowledge of the essence ofthings !'33 Attributes are still common forms; what has changedis the sense of the word "common." Common no longer means
more general , that is, applicable to several existing modes, orto all existing modes of a certain kind . Common means uni­
vocal : attributes are univocal , or common to God whose singu­
lar essence they constitute, and to the modes whose particularessences they contain. In short, a fundamental difference appears
between the second and third kinds of knowledge: ideas of thesecond kind are defined by their general function; they apply toexisting modes and give us knowledge of the composition of therelations that characterize those modes . Ideas of the third kindare defined by their singular nature; they represent God's essence
and give us knowledge of particular essences as these are con­tained in God himself. 34
We are ourselves existing modes . Our knowledge is subj ect
to the condition that we must pass through common notions to
3 00

T O WA R D

T H E

T H I R D

K I N DO F

K N O W L E D G E

reach ideas of the third kind. Far from being able to deduce therelation that characterizes a mode from its essence, we must firstknow the relation, if we are to come to know the essence. We
must similarly conceive Extension as a common notion before
understanding it as c onstituting God's essence. The second kindof knowledge is for us the efficient cause of the third kind; andin the second kind it is the idea of God that allows us to passfrom second to third kind. We begin by forming common notions
that express God's essence; only then can we understand God as
expressing himself in essences . This condition of our knowledge
is not a condition of all knowledge: the true Christ does not pro­ceed through common notions. He adapts or conforms what heteaches us to common notions, but his own knowledge is directlyof the third kind; God's existence is thus known to him throughitself, as are all essences, and the order of essences. 35 Thus Spin­oza says that, unlike Christ, we do not know God's existence
through itself. 36 In the natural situation of our existence we arefilled with inadequate ideas and passive affections; we will neverreach any adequate idea or active j oy, if we do not first form com­
mon notions . Yet it should not be concluded that God is known
to us only indirectly. Common notions have nothing to do withsigns; they simply constitute the conditions in which we ourselvesattain to the third kind of knowledge. Thus the proofs of God's
existence are not indirect proofs: in them the idea of God is still
grasped in its relation to common notions, but it determines us,
precisely, to "form" the third kind of knowledge, to enter intoa direct vision.

CHAPTER NINETEEN
Beatitude

The first kind of knowledge has as its obj ect only enc ounters
between parts of bodies, seen in terms of their extrinsic deter­
minations. The second kind rises to the composition of charac­
teristic relations. But the third kind alone relates to eternal
essences: the knowledge of God's essence, of particular essences
as they are in God, and as conceived by God. (We thus rediscoverin the three kinds of knowledge the three aspects of the order ofnature: the order of passions, that of the composition of relations
and that of essences themselves). Now essences have various char­acteristics. They are in the first place particular essences, and so
irreducible one to another: each is a real being, a res physica, adegree of power or intensity. Thus Spinoza can oppose the thirdkind of knowledge to the second, by saying that the second shows
us in general terms that everything that exists depends on God,but the third alone allows us to understand the dependence ofs o m e given essence i n particular. ! On the other hand, however,each essence agrees with all others . For all essences are involvedin the production of each. This is not a case of more or less gen­eral relative agreement between existing modes, but of an agree­
ment that is at once singular and absolute, of each essence withall others.2 So the mind cannot know an essence, that is, know a

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

thing sub specie aeternitatis, without being determined to know
still more things, and to desire more and more such knowledge. 3
Essences are, lastly, expressive: not only does each essence express
all the others in the principle of its production, but it expresses
God as this principle itself, containing all essences, and the prin­ciple on which each particular essence depends. Each essence is apart of God's power, and is thus conceived through God's essence
itself, insofar as God's essence is explicated through that essence.4
The highest knowledge thus has three elements. An adequate
idea, first, of ourselves and of our own essence (an idea expressing
the essence of our body sub specie aeternitatis): everyone forms anidea of their own essence, and it is of such an idea that Spinoza
is thinking when he says that the third kind of knowledge shows
us how some essence in particular depends on God.S An adequate
idea, second, of the greatest number of possible things, this again
in their essence or sub specie aeternitatis. And an adequate idea,
third, of God, as containing all essences, and comprising all in
the production of each ( and so in the production of our own
essence in particular) .
Myself, things and G o d are the three ideas of the third kind.
From them flow j oys , a desire and a love . J oys of the third kind
are active j oys: for they are explained by our own essence andare always "accompanied" by an adequate idea of this essence.
Everything we understand within the third kind of knowledge,
including the essences of other things and that of God, we under­
stand on the basis of conceiving our own essence ( that of ourbody) sub specie aeternitatis.6 The third kind of knowledge thus has
no other formal cause than our power of action and of understand­ing, the power of thinking, that is, of God himself, insofar as he is
explicated through our own essence.? In the third kind of knowl­edge all ideas have as their formal cause our power of understand­ing. All the affections that follow from these ideas are thus of theB E AT I T U D E

nature of active affections , active j oys. 8 I must conceive God's
essence as affecting mine, and essences as affecting one another;
but an essence has no affections that are not formally explainedby the essence itself, that are not, then, accompanied by theidea of oneself as formal cause or by the consideration of one's
power of action.
From the j oy that flows from an adequate idea of ourselves isborn a desire, a desire to know ever more things in their essenceor sub specie aeternitatis. And there is born, above all , a love. For
in the third kind of knowledge the idea of God is, in its turn ,the material cause of all ideas . All essences express God as thatthrough which they are conceived: the idea of my own essence
represents my power of action, but my power of action is just thepower of God himself insofar as it is explicated through myessence. There is thus no j oy of the third kind which is notaccompanied by the idea of God as its material cause: "From thethird kind of knowledge there necessarily arises an intellectualLove of God. For from this kind of knowledge there arises j oy,
accompanied by the idea of God as cause."9

But how are active j oys of the third kind to be distinguished fromthose of the second kind? Joys of the second kind are alreadyactive, since they are explained by some adequate idea that wehave. They are, then, explained by our power of understandingor action. They imply our full possession of this power. But
although this power seems incapable of any increase, it still lacks

a certain quality, a particular qualitative difference characterized
by the degree of power or intensity .o f our own essence itself.
Indeed, so long as we remain with the second kind of knowledge,
our adequate ideas still do not include one of ourselves, ouressence, the essence of our body. This limitation is seen to be

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

important once one recalls the starting point of the problem ofknowledge: we do not immediately have an adequate idea of our­selves or our body, because this idea is only in God insofar as heis affected by ideas of other bodies; we do not therefore know
our own body except through necessarily inadequate ideas ofaffections, and we do not know ourselves except through ideasof these ideas; as for ideas of external bodies, as for the idea of
our own body or our own mind, we do not have these, in theimmediate conditions of our existence. Now, the second kind ofknowledge does indeed give us adequate ideas; but these are only
ideas of properties common to our body and external bodies .
They are adequate because they are in a part as they are in thewhole, and because they are in us, in our mind, as they are in
the ideas of other things. But they in no way amount to an ade­q uate idea of ourselves, nor to an adequate idea of some otherthina. 10 They are explained by our essence but do not themselves
constitute an idea of this essence. With the third kind of knowl­edge, on the other hand, we come to fonn adequate ideas of our­selves and of other things as they are in God, and as conceived
by God. The active j oys that flow from ideas of the third kind
are thus of a different nature from those that flow from ideas ofthe second kind. And, more generally, Spinoza is now able to dis­tinguish two forms of the mind's activity, two modes in which
we are active and feel ourselves to be active, two expressions ofour power of understanding: "It is of the nature of reason to con­ceive things sub specie aeternitatis [second kind of knowledge], andit also pertains to the nature of the mind to conceive the body's
essence sub specie aeternitatis [third kind], and beyond these two,
nothing else pertains to the mind's essence:' l l
All affections , whether passive or active , are affections ofan essence to the extent that they exercise the capacity to beaffected in which the essence expresses itself. But passive affec-

B E AT I T U D E

tions, whether of sadness or j oy, are adventitious, being produced
from outside; active affections, active j oys, are innate because they
are explained by our essence or our power of understanding. l 2
And yet it is as though what is innate had two different dimen­
sions, which account for the difficulties we experience in com­ing upon it or finding it. In the first place, common notions arethemselves innate, as are the active j oys that flow from them. But
this does not stop them having to be formed, and formed either
more or less easily, and so being more or less common to differ­ent minds. The apparent contradiction disappears, if we consider
that we are born cut off from our power of action or understand­ing: we must, in our existence, come into what belongs to ouressence. We cannot, in particular, form common notions, eventhe most general of these, unless we find a starting point in j oy­
ful passions which initially increase our power of action. Thus
the active j oys that flow from common notions find as it were
their occasional causes in passive affections of j oy: in principle
innate , they nonetheless depend on adventitious affections as
their occasional causes. But God himself immediately possesses
an infinite power of action incapable of any increase . God there­
fore no more experiences any passion, not even a j oyful one, thanhe has inadequate ideas. But the question also arises of knowing
whether common notions , and the active j oys that flow fromthem, are in God. Being adequate ideas , common notions areindeed in God, but this only insofar as he has other ideas thatnecessarily contain them ( these other ideas are for us those of
the third kind ) . l 3 So neither G o d , nor Chri s t who is the expres­sion of his thought, think through common notions. Common
notions cannot, then, serve in God as the principles of j oys corres­
ponding to those we experience in the second kind of knowledge:
God is free of passive j oys, and he doesn't even experience those
active j oys of the second kind that presuppose an increase in the

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D ESpower of action as their occasional cause . Thus according to theideas of the second kind we have of them , God experiences no
feelings of j oy. l4
Ideas of the third kind are not only explained by our essence,
they consist of the idea of this essence itself, and of its relations( its relation to the idea of God, its relations with the ideas ofother things, sub specie aeternitatis). From the idea of our essence
as formal cause, and the idea of God as material cause, we canconceive all ideas as they are in God. In the third kind of knowl­edge we form ideas and active feelings that are in us as they are
immediately and eternally in God. We think as God thinks , weexperience the very feelings of God. We form the idea of our­selves as it is in God, and form at least in part the idea of God as
it is in God himself: ideas of the third kind thus constitute a
deeper dimension of what is innate, and j oys of the third kind
are the only true affections of an essence in itself. We do of course
appear to reach the third kind of knowledge .IS But what here
serve us as occasional causes are common notions themselves, andso something adequate and active . The "transition" is only an
appearance; in reality we are simply finding ourselves as we are
immediately and eternally in God. "The mind has had eternallythe same perfections which, in our fiction, now come to it .' ' l6
Those j oys that follow from ideas of the third kind are therefore
the only ones that deserve the name of bea titude : they are nolonger j oys that increase our power of action, nor even j oys thatstill presuppose such an increase, but j oys that derive absolutely
from our essence, as it is in God, and as conceived by God. J7
We must further ask: What is the difference between the idea
of God of the second kind, and that of the third kind? The idea
of God belongs to the second kind of knowledge only throughits relation to the common notions that express it. And the con­ditions of our knowledge are such that we "reach" the idea ofB E AT I T U D E

God through common notions. But the idea of God is not itself
one of these notions . It is this idea, then, that leads us out of thesecond kind of knowledge and reveals to us a new content ofknowledge: no longer common properties, but God's essence, myessence and all the other essences that depend on God. Now, inso­
far as the idea of God relates to common notions, it represents asovereign being who experiences no love and no joy. But in deter­mining us to the third kind of knowledge, it itself receives newqualifications corresponding to this kind of knowledge . The
active j oys we experience in the third kind of knowledge are thej oys experienced by God himself, because the ideas from which
they flow are in us as they are eternally and immediately in God.
No contradiction should be seen, then, between the two kindsof love whose descriptions succeed one another in Part Five of
the Ethics: the love of a God who cannot love us, as he experi­
ences no j oy, and the love of a God who is himself j oyful , wholoves himself and loves us with the same love by which we love
him . It is enough, as the context suggests, to relate the initialpassages to the second kind of knowledge, and the others to thethird kind. I S
Proceeding as they do from the idea of ourselves as it is in
God, our active j oys are part of God's j oys. Our joy is the joy of
God himself insofar as he is explicated through our essence. And
the love of the third kind which we feel for God is "a part of theinfinite love by which God loves himself." The love we feel for
God is the love God feels for himself insofar as he is explicatedthrough our own essence , and so the l ove he feels for our essence

itself. l9 Beatitude designates the possession not only of an active
joy as it is in Go d, but of an active love as it is in God also . 20 The
word "part" must in all this always be understood in an explica­
tive or expressive manner: a part is not a component, but anexpression and explication. Our essence is a part of God, and the

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

idea of our essence a part of the idea of God, only to the extent
that God's essence explicates itself through ours. And it is in thethird kind of knowledge that the system of expression takes on
its final form. This final form of expression is the identity of spec­
ulative and practical affirmation, the identity of Being and Joy,of Substance and Joy, of God and Joy. Joy manifests the unfoldingof substance itself, its explication in modes and the conscious­
ness of this explication. The idea of God is no longer simply
expressed by common notions in general, but is what expresses
and explicates itself in all essences according to their own prin­ciple of production. It expresses itself in each essence in partic­
ular, but each essence comprises all other essences in the law of
its production. The j oy we feel is the j oy God himself feels inso­
far as he has an idea of our essence; the j oy God feels is that which
we ourselves feel insofar as we have ideas as they are in God.

Once we come to exist in duration, and so "during" our exist­
ence itself, we can come into the third kind of knowledge. But
we can only succeed in doing so according to a strict order,
which corresponds to the optimal exercise of our capacity to beaffected: 1 . We begin with inadequate ideas which come to us,
and passive affections which flow from them, some increasing ourpower of action, others diminishing it; 2 . We then form common
notions as a result of an effort of selection among these passive
affections themselves; active j oys of the second kind follow from
common notions, and an active love follows from the idea of God
as it relates to common notions; 3 . We then form adequate ideasof the third kind, and the active j oys and active love that follow
from these ideas (beatitude). But it is a vain hope, while we exist
in duration, to have only active j oys of the third kind, or j ust
active affections in general . We will always have passions, and sad3 10

B E AT I T U D E

ness together with our passive j oys. Our knowledge will always
pass through common notions. All that we can strive toward isto have proportionately more j oyful passions than sad ones, more
active j oys of the second kind than passions, and the greatest pos­sible number of j oys of the third kind. It is all a question of therelative proportions of the different kinds of feeling that exer­
cise our capacity to be affected: a matter of making inadequate
ideas and passions take up only the smallest part of ourselves.21
Duration relates to the existence of modes. It will be recalledthat a mode's existence is constituted by extensive parts which
are determined , in a certain relation, to belong to the mode's
essence. Thus duration is measured by time: a body exists as longas it possesses extensive parts in the relation that characterizes
it. As soon as encounters arrange these parts differently, the bodyitself ceases to exist, its parts forming other bodies with differ­
ent relations. It is therefore obvious that we cannot eliminate all
passion during our existence: for our extensive parts are deter­
mined and affected from outside ad infinitum. To the parts of the
body there correspond faculties of the soul , faculties of experi­
encing passive affections. Thus imagination corresponds to theactual imprint of some body in our own, and memory to the suc­cession of imprints in time. Memory and imagination are trueparts of the soul . The soul has extensive parts which belong to
it only to the extent that it is the idea of a body that is itself com­posed of extensive parts.22 The soul "endures" to the extent thatit expresses the actual existence of a body that endures. And thesoul's faculties themselves involve a power, a power of suffering,a power of imagining things according to the affections they pro­
duce in our body, and so a power of conceiving things in dura­tion, and in relation to time. 23
Extensive parts belong to an essence within a certain relationand during a certain time; but they do not constitute that essence.
3ll

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

The essence itself has an altogether different nature . In itself theessence is a degree of power or intensity, an intensive part. Noth­ing seems to me more mistaken than a mathematical interpreta­tion of particular essences in Spinoza. An essence does, it is true,
express itself in a relation, but it is not the same as that relation.
A particular essence is a physical reality; thus affections are affec­
tions of an essence and the essence itself the essence of a body.
The physical reality is an intensive reality, an intensive existence.
One sees from this that essence does not endure . Duration ispredicated in relation to extensive parts, and is measured by thetime during which these parts belong to the essence. But theessence has in itself an eternal reality or existence; it has no dura­tion, nor any time to mark the end of such duration (no essence
can destroy any other) . Spinoza actually says that essence is con­ceived "by a certain eterna] necessity!'24 But this formulation does
not, in its turn, permit of any intellectualist or idealist interpre­
tation. Spinoza simply means that a particular essence is not of
itself eternal. Divine substance alone is eternal by virtue of itself;
an essence is only eternal by virtue of a cause (God), from which
its existence or reality as an essence derives. It is thus necessar­
ily conceived through that cause; and is thus necessarily con­ceived with the eternal necessity deriving from that cause. It
should come as no surprise that Spinoza consequently speaks of"the idea which expresses the essence of this or that human bodysub specie aeternitatis!' He doesn't mean that the body's essence
exists only as an idea. The mistake in the idealist interpretation
is to turn against parallelism an argument that is an integral partof it, or to understand as a proof of ideality a purely causal argu­
ment. If an idea in God expresses the essence of this or that body,
it is because God is the cause of essences ; it follows that anessence is necessarily conceived through this cause.25
A body exists and endures as long as it actually possesses
3 12

B E AT I T U D E

extensive parts. But it has an essence that is, so to speak , aneternal intensive part (a degree of power) . The soul itself has
extensive parts, insofar as it expresses the existence of a body induration. But it also has an eternal intensive part, which is, so
to speak, the idea of the body's essence. The idea that expresses
the body's essence constitutes the soul's intensive part or essence,and is necessarily eternal . The soul has in this respect a faculty,that is a power, explained by its own essence: an active power ofunderstanding, of understanding things through the third kindof knowledge sub specie aeternitatis. Insofar as it expresses the
body's actual existence in duration, the soul has the power toconceive other bodies in duration; insofar as it expresses the
body's essence, it has the power to conceive other bodies sub

specie aeternitatis.26
Spinozism thus asserts a di fference of nature between dura­tion and eternity. If Spinoza avoids using the concept of immor­
tality in the Ethics, this is because it seems to him to involve themost tiresome confusions . Three arguments may be found, vari­ously employed, in a tradition of immortality which runs from
Plato to Descartes . Theories of immortality rest, in the firstplace, on a certain postulated simplicity of the soul : the bodyalone is conceived as divisible; the soul is immortal because it isindivisible, its faculties not being its parts . The immortality ofthis absolutely simple soul is, in the second place, conceived in
duration: the soul already existed before the body began to exist,
and endures when the body ceases to exist. Thus theories ofimmortality often involve the assumption of a purely intellectual
memory, by which the soul separated from the body can be con­scious of its own duration. Finally, immortality thus defined can­not be the obj ect of a direct experience while the body endures.
In what form does the soul survive the body, what are the modali­ties of survival, what are the faculties of the soul once it is disem-

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

bodied? Only a revelation can tell us in our present state .
These three principles find in Spinoza an avowed opponent.
Theories of immortality always involve a confusion of duration
with eternity. The postulate of the soul's simplicity, in the firstplace, itself always involves a confused idea of the union of souland body. Comparing soul and body, one opposes the simplicityof the soul taken as a whole to the divisibility of the body, also
taken as a whole. It is seen that the body has extensive parts while
it exists, but it is not seen that the soul also has such parts inso­
far as it is the idea of an existing body. One sees (more or lessclearly) that the soul has an absolutely simple and eternal inten­
sive part which constitutes its essence, but one doesn't see that
this also expresses the body's essence, which is no less simple andeternal . "Immortality" invites us, in the second place, to thinkin terms of succession, and renders us incapable of conceiving
the soul as a composite of coexisting things . We do not see thatwhile the body exists, duration and eternity themselves "coexist"
in the soul as two elements different in nature. The soul endures
insofar as there belong to it extensive parts that do not consti­
tute its essence. The soul is eternal insofar as there belongs to it
an intensive part that defines its essence. We should not imag­
ine that the soul endures beyond the body: it endures while thebody itself endures, and it is eternal insofar as it expresses the
body's essence. While the soul is the idea of an existing body,there coexist in it extensive parts that belong to it in duration,
and an intensive part that constitutes it in eternity. Finally, we
have no need of any revelation in order to know in what modes
the soul survives, and how. The soul eternally remains what it
already is in its essence during the body's existence : an intensive
part, a degree of power or power of understanding, an idea that
expresses the body's essence sub specie aeternitatis. Thus the soul's
eternity can indeed be the obj ect of a direct experience. To feel

B E AT I T U D E

and experience that we are eternal, it is enough to enter into thethird kind of knowledge, that is, to form the idea of ourselves as
it is in God. This idea is j ust the idea that expresses the body's
essence; to the extent that we form it, to the extent that we haveit, we experience that we are eternal . 27
What happens when we die? Death is a subtraction, a cutting­back. We lose all the extensive parts that belonged to us in a cer­tain relation; our soul loses all the faculties it possessed insofar
as it expressed the existence of a body itself endowed with exten­
sive parts . 2 8 But for all that these parts and faculties belonged toour essence they constituted nothing of it : our essence consideredsimply as such loses none of its perfection when we lose theelements of extension of which our existence was composed .
The part of us that remains, however great ( that is, whatever its
degree of power or intensive quantity), is in any case more per­fect than all the extensive parts which perish, and conserves all
its perfection when those extensive parts disappear.29 When,furthermore, our body has ceased to exist, when our soul has
lost all those parts that related to the body's existence, we are
no longer in a state in which we can experience passive affec­
tions. 30 Our essence is no longer kept in a state of involvement,
we can no longer be cut off from our power: all that remains, in­deed, is our power of understanding or action.31 The ideas we haveare necessarily adequate ideas of the third kind, as they are in God.
Our essence adequately expresses God's essence, and the affec­
tions of our essence adequately express our essence. We becomecompletely expressive, nothing remains that is "involved" or merely"indicated:' While we existed we could have only a certain num­
ber of active affections of the third kind, themselves related toactive affections of the second kind, which were in turn related
to passive affections . We could hope for only partial beatitude.
But death seems to put us in a situation where we can only be

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

affected by affections of the third kind , which are themselves
explained by our essence.
This point does, it is true, still raise many problems . 1. In
what sense are we, after death, still affected? Our soul has lost
everything that belonged to it as the idea of an existing body. But
there does remain the idea of our existing body's essence. There
does remain the idea of our body's essence as it is in God. We
ourselves have the idea of this idea as it is in God. Our soul isthus affected by the idea of itself, by the idea of God, and by theidea of other things sub specie aeternitatis. As all essences agreewith each essence, as they all have as their cause the God whocomprises all in the production of each, affections that flow fromideas of the third kind are necessarily active and intensive affec­
tions, which are explained by the essence of whoever experiencesthem , while they at the same time express God's essence. 2 . But
if we are still affected after death, does this not mean that ourcapacity to be affected, and our characteristic relation them­selves subsist along with our essence? Our relation can indeed
be destroyed or decomposed, but this only in the sense that it
no longer subsumes extensive parts . The extensive parts thatbelonged to us are determined to enter into other relations
incompatible with our own. But the relation that characterizes
us does nonetheless have an eternal truth insofar as our essence
expresses itself in it. It is the eternal truth of the relation which
remains along with our essence. (And so common notions are still
included in the ideas of essences . ) Our capacity to be affected
may similarly be said to be destroyed, but this in the sense thatit can no longer be exercised by passive affections .32 It has none­
theless an eternal power, which is the same as our power of action
or understanding. And it is the capacity to be affected in its eter­
nal power which remains along with our essence.
But how can we conceive that we in any case enjoy after deathB E AT I T U D E

active affections of the third kind , as though necessarily redis­
covering what was eternally innate in us? Leibniz presents sev­
eral criticisms of Spinoza's conception of eternity: he complainsof its geometric character, with the ideas of essences as analoguesof mathematical forms or shapes; he complains that it conceivesof eternity as without memory or imagination, the eternity, atbest, of a circle or a triangle. But a third criticism seems more
important, posing as it does what is in the end the real problem
with Spinozism : if Spinoza were right, there would be no pointin perfecting oneself in order to leave behind one a still more
perfect eternal essence (as though that essence or Platonic idea
"were not already in Nature, whether I try to resemble it or not,and as though it would be any use to me after death, if i were nolonger anything, to have resembled such an idea"33 ) The ques­tion is, effectively: What is the use of existing if we in any caserej oin our essence after death, in such conditions that we expe­
rience intensively all the active affections corresponding to it?
In losing existence we lose nothing: we lose only our extensive
parts . But what is the use of our efforts while in existence if ouressence is in any case just what it is, a degree of power unaffectedby the extensive parts that were only temporarily and externallyrelated to it?
In fact our capacity to be affected will not, according toSpinoza, be exercised ( after death ) by active affections of thethird kind, if we did not succeed during existence itself in expe­
riencing a maximum proportion of active affections of the sec­
ond kind and (already) of the third. Spinoza can thus consider
that he entirely preserves the positive content of the notion ofsalvation. Existence itself is still conceived as a kind of test. Not,
it is true, a moral one, but a physical or chemical test, like that
whereby workmen check the quality of some material, of a metalor of a vase.
.

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

While in existence we are composed of an eternal intensive
part, constituting our essence, and extensive parts which belong
to us in time within a certain relation. What matters is the rela­tive importance of these two kinds of components. Suppo�ethat we succeed, while still in existence, in experiencing active
affections: our extensive parts are themselves affected by affec­
tions that are explained by our essence alone; the passions thatremain are proportionately less than these active affections. That
is: our capacity to be affected is exercised by a proportionately
greater number of active affections than passive ones. Now active
affections are explained by our essence; passive affections are
explained by the infinite play of extrinsic determinations of ourextensive parts. One may conclude that, of the two elements thatmake us up, the intensive part of ourselves has taken on a muchgreater relative importance than the extensive parts. When in theend we die, what perishes is "of no moment in relation to what
remains ."34 The more we know things by the second and thirdkinds of knowledge, the greater, relatively, is the eternal part ofourselves.35 It goes without saying that this eternal part, taken
in itself independently of the extensive parts that are added to it
to make up our existence, is an absolute. But suppose that dur­ing our existence we remain exercised and determined by passive
affections. Of the two elements that make us up, the extensive
parts will have relatively more importance than the eternal inten­
sive part. And we will lose all the more in dying; whence he only
who has something to fear from it fears death, he who loses rel­
atively more by dying.36 Our essence remains no less the absolute
it is in itself; the idea of our essence remains no less what it isabsolutely in God. But the capacity to be affected which eter­nally corresponds to it remains empty: having lost our extensive
parts we have lost all the affections explained by them. But wehave no other affections. When we die our essence remains, but

B E AT I T U D E

as something abstract; our essence remains unaffected.
The reverse is the case if we have made our intensive part themost important element of ourselves. In dying we lose little: welose our remaining passions, since these were explained by our
extensive parts; to some extent we also lose common notions
and active affections of the second kind, for these have no inde­
pendent role except as they relate to existence; and lastly, active
affections of the third kind can no longer impose themselves on
our extensive parts, since these no longer belong to us. But ourcapacity to be affected remains with us eternally, accompanying
our essence and the idea of our essence; so this capacity is nec­
essarily and absolutely exercised by affections of the third kind.
During our existence we have made our intensive part relatively
the most important portion of ourselves; after our death theactive affections explained by this part exercise our capacity to
be affected absolutely; what remains of ourselves is absolutely
realized. Our essence as it is in God, and the idea of our essence
as conceived by God, are completely affected.
There are no such things as the moral sanctions of a divine
Judge, no punishments or rewards, but only the natural conse­
quences of our existence . During our existence our capacity to
be affected is, it is true, always and necessarily exercised: but thiseither by passive affections or active ones . But if our capacity iscompletely exercised while we exist by passive affections , thenit will remain empty, and our essence will remain abstract, once
we have ceased to exist. It will be absolutely realized by affec­
tions of the third kind if we have exercised it with a maximum
proportion of active affections. Whence the importance of this"test" that is existence: while existing we must select j oyful pas­sions, for they alone introduce us to common notions and to theactive j oys that flow from them; and we must make use of com­
mon notions as the principle that introduces us while still exist-

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

ing to ideas and j oys of the third kind . Then, after death , ouressence will have all the affections of which it is capable; andthese will all be of the third kind. Such is the difficult path ofsalvation. Most men remain, most of the time , fixated by sad
passions which cut them off from their essence and reduce it to
the state of an abstraction. The path of salvation is the path of
expression itself: to become expressive - that is, to become
active; to express God's essence, to be oneself an idea throughwhich the essence of God explicates itself, to have affections thatare explained by our own essence and express God's essence.

3 20

CONCLUSIONThe Theory of Expression In
Leibniz and Spinoza:E x p r e s s i o n i s m in

P hi lo so p hy

A philosophy's power is measured by the concepts it creates, orwhose meaning it alters, concepts that impose a new set of divi­
sions on things and actions. It sometimes happens that those con­cepts are called forth at a certain time, charged with a collective
meaning corresponding to the requirements of a given period,
and discovered, created or recreated by several authors at once.
Such is the case with Spinoza, Leibniz and the concept of expres­sion. This concept takes on the force of an Anticartesian reaction
led by these two authors, from their two very different view­
points . It implies a rediscovery of Nature and her power and arecreating of logic and ontology: a new "materialism" and a new"formalism ." The concept of expression applies to Being deter­
mined as God, insofar as God expresses himself in the world. It
applies to ideas determined as true, insofar as true ideas express
God and the world. It applies, finally, to individuals determinedas singular essences , insofar as singular essences express them­selves in ideas . So that the three fundamental determinations ,being, knowing and acting or producing, are measured and system­
atized by this concept. Being, knowing and acting are the threeforms of expression. This is the age of "sufficient reason" : andthe three branches of sufficient reason, the ratio essendi, ratio321

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

cognoscendi and ratio jiendi or agendi , find in expression theircommon root.
The concept of expression rediscovered by Spinoza and Leib­
niz is not, however, a new one: it already had behind it a long
philosophical history. But a rather hidden, and a rather forbidden ahistory. I have tried, indeed, to show how the theme of expres­sion crept into the two great theological traditions of emanationand creation. It did not impinge on these traditions as a third con­
cept competing with the two others from outside, but rather
appeared at a particular moment in their development, bearing
in it the constant threat of diverting or taking over the tradi­tions for its own ends . It is in short a specifically philosophicalconcept of immanence, which insinuates itself among the tran­
scendent concepts of emanative or creationist theology. It brings
with it a specificall y philosophical "danger": pantheism or imma­
nence - the immanence of its expression in what expresses itself,
and of what is expressed in its expression. I t claims to penetrate
into the deepest things, the "arcana, " to use a word of which
Leibniz was fond. It at once gives back to Nature its own spe­cific depthb and renders man capable of penetrating into thisdepth . It makes man commensurate with God, c and puts him inpossession of a new logic: makes him a spiritual automaton equal
to a combinatorial world. Born of the traditions of emanation andcreation it makes of these two enemies, questioning the transcen­
dence of a One above Being along with the transcendence of a
Being above his Creation. Every concept has in it a virtual appa­
ratus of metaphor. The metaphorical apparatus of expression
comprises mirror and seed.1 Expression as ratio essendi is reflectedin the mirror as ratio cognoscendi and reproduced in the seed asratio jiendi. But the mirror then seems to absorb both the beingreflected in it, and the being that sees this image. The seed, orbranch , seems to absorb both the tree from which it comes, andE X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y

the tree that comes from it. And what is this strange existencethat is "held" in the mirror, and that is implied, involved,d in theseed - what is it that is expressed, that entity which one can barely
say exists? We saw that the concept of expression had, so to
speak, two sources: one of them ontological, relating to the expres­sion of God, and born within the traditions of emanation and cre­ation, but bringing these profoundly into question; the otherlogical , relating to what is expressed by propositions, born within
Aristotelian logic, but questioning and shaking it. Both meet in
the problem of divine Names , of the Logos or Word.
If in the seventeenth century Leibniz and Spinoza, one startingfrom a Christian tradition and the other from a Jewish one, bothcame upon the concept of expression and set it in a new light,
they obviously did so within the context of their own time, and interms of the problems posed by their respective systems. Let me
first try to bring out what is common to the two systems, andthe reasons for their reintroduction of the concept of expression.
What, in concrete terms, they criticize in Descartes is his hav­
ing constructed too "fast," too "easy" a philosophy. Descartes pro­ceeds so quickly in all areas that he misses sufficient reasons,essences or true natures: he everywhere stops at what is relative.
This, first of all, with God: Descartes's ontological proof is basedon infinite perfection and rushes to its conclusion; but infinite
perfection is a proprium , altogether insufficient to show what
God's nature is, and how that nature is possible. His a posteriori
proofs are, similarly, based on considering the actual quantities
of reali ty in things , and d o not ri se as far as any dynami c princi­ple on which these might depend. Then with ideas: Descartes dis­covers criteria of clarity and distinctness; but "clear-and-distinct"
is once more a proprium , an extrinsic determination of ideas
which tells us nothing of the nature and possibility of the thingof which we have an idea, or of thought as such . Descartes stops

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

at the representative content of ideas, and at the form of the psy­chological consciousness that thinks them: he thus misses the true
immanent content of ideas, along with their true logical form ,and the unity of the two in the spiritual automaton. He tells usthat truth is present in clear and distinct ideas ; but what is pres­ent in a true idea? The extent to which this second critical cur­rent merges with the first is easily seen: for if one stops at clarityand distinctness one can only measure ideas against one another,and compare them with things, by considering their quantities
of reality. Having only an extrinsic characterization of ideas, onegets no further than extrinsic characteristics within Being. More­over distinctness, taken as a norm of ideas, prejudges the status
of distinctions between the things represented by ideas : it ison the basis of his criterion of clarity and distinctness that Des­cartes, from the whole store of Scholastic distinctions , keeps only
real distinction, which is according to him necessarily numeri­
cal , distinctions of reason, according to him necessarily abstract,
and modal distinction, according to him necessarily accidental .
Finally, with individuals and their actions: Descartes understands
human individuals as real composites of soul and body, that is of
two heterogeneous terms, supposed really to act on one another.
Is it not then inevitable that so many things should according
to Descartes be "incomprehensible"? Not just this composite
itself, but the workings of causality within it, as well as infinity,and freedom? One and the same move reduces Being to the plat­
itude of infinite perfection, things to the platitude of quantities
of reality, ideas to the platitude of real causality - and redis­
covers all the depth of the world, but this , then , in an incom­
prehensible form .
Now whatever the differences between Leibniz and Spinoza,and their different interpretations of expression in particular, thefact is that they both use this concept to advance, on all the lev-

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y

els just noted, beyond what they consider the inadequacy or facil­
ity of Cartesianism , and to restore the demand for a sufficientreason operating absolutely. Not that they retreat from Descartes.
There are for them Cartesian discoveries that are beyond ques­tion: starting, precisely, with the properties of infinite perfection,of a thing's quantity of reality, of clarity and distinctness, of mech­anism and so on. Spinoza and Leibniz are Postcartesians in thesame sense that Fichte, Schelling and Hegel are Postkantians. It
is a question for them of reaching the foundation from whichflow all the properties j ust enumerated , of rediscovering an
absolute that measures up to Cartesian "relativism." How do they
go about this, and why is the concept of expression the best
suited to their task?
Infinite perfection as a proprium must be left behind for abso­lute infinity as a nature. And the first ten propositions of the
Ethics show that God necessarily exists , but does so because
absolute infinity is possible or noncontradictory: thus Spinoza
proceeds by showing that, among all the nominal definitions at
the beginning of the Ethics, the sixth definition is real . But thisreality is constituted by the coexistence of all the infinite forms
that introduce distinction into the absolute without introducing
number. These constitutive forms of God's nature , a nature ofwhich infinite perfection is only a property, are the expressionof the absolute. God is represented as infinitely perfect, but heis constituted by these deeper forms; he expresses himself in these
forms, these attributes. The way Leibniz proceeds is formally sim­
ilar: the same leaving behind of infinity for the absolute. Not, ofcourse, that Leibniz's absolute Being is the same as Spinoza's. But
once again it is a matter of demonstrating the reality of a defini­tion, and reaching a divine nature that goes beyond any property.
Here again this nature is constituted by simple distinct forms inwhich God expresses himself, and which express themselves in

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

infinite positive qualities) Similarly, in Spinoza as in Leibniz, it
is as we have seen the discovery of intensive quantities or quan­tities of power, as deeper than quantities of reality, that transforms
a posteriori procedures, by introducing into them expressivity.
Let us pass to the second point, concerning knowledge andideas. What is common to Leibniz and Spinoza is the criticism ofCartesian clarity-and-distinctness, as applying to recognition andto nominal distinctions , rather than to true knowledge throughreal definitions. Real knowledge is discovered to be a kind of
expression: which is to say both that the representative content
of ideas is left behind for an immanent one, which is truly expres­sive , and that the form of psychological consciousness is left
behind for an "explicative" logical formalism . And the spiritualautomaton presents the unitye of this new form and new content.
We are ourselves ideas, by virtue of our expressive capacity: "We
can therefore define our essence or idea as that which includes
everything which we express . And since it expresses our unionwith God himself, it has no limits and nothing is beyond it."3As for the third point, we must rethink the individual defined
as a composite of soul and body. For though the supposition of areal causality may be the simplest way of understanding the phe­nomena associated with such a composite , its actions and pas­sions, it is not for all that the most convincing or intelligible way.
It overlooks the rich and deep world of noncausal correspondences.
It is possible, moreover, that real causality is established andreigns only in certain regions of this world of noncausal corre­
spondences, and actually presupposes it. Real causality might bemerely a particular case of some more general principle. One feelsthat soul and body have at once a sort of identity that removes theneed for any real causality between them , and a heterogeneity, aheteronomy, that renders it impossible. The identity or quasi­
identity is an "invariance," and the heteronomy is that between

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y

two varying series, one of which is corporeal , the other spirit­
ual . Now real causality enters into each of these series on theirown account; but the relation between the two series, and theirrelation to what is invariant between them, depends on noncausal
correspondence. If we then ask what concept can account forsuch a correspondence, that of expression appears to do so . For
while the concept of expression adequately applies to real cau­sality, in the sense that an effect expresses it cause, and knowl­edge of the effect expresses a knowledge of its cause, the concept
nonetheless goes farther than causality, since it brings a corre­
spondence and a resonance into series that are altogether foreign
to one another. So that real causality is a species of expression,
but merely a species subsumed under a more fundamental genus.
This genus directly explains the possibility of distinct and het­
erogeneous series ( expressions ) expressing the same invariant(what is expressed), by establishing in each of the varying series
the same concatenation of causes and effects . Expression takes
its place at the heart of the individual , in his soul and in his body,
his passions and his actions, his causes and his effects. And Leibniz
by monad, no less than Spinoza by mode, understands nothingother than an individual as an expressive center.
I f the concept o f expression does indeed have this triple
importance, from the viewpoints of universal Being, of specificknowledge and of individual action, the importance of what Leib­
niz and Spinoza have in common cannot be exaggerated. Thiseven though they part company over the use and interpretation of
the concept on each point. And differences of content are alreadyprefigured by differences of form and emphasis. I have noted thatno explicit definition or demonstration of expression is to befound in Spinoza ( even though such a definition and such a dem­
onstration are implicit throughout his work ) . In Leibniz, on theother hand, one finds passages that deal explicitly with what is
3 27

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

comprised in the category of expression , and how far it extends .g
But it is Leibniz, strangely enough, who gives the category suchan extension that it comes to cover everything, including theworld of signs, of similarities, of symbols and harmonies4 - while
Spinoza greatly refines its sense, and strictly opposes expressions
to signs or analogies.
One o f Leibniz's clearest texts in this regard is " Quid sit
idea:•s Having defined expression as a correspondence of habitus
between two things, Leibniz distinguishes two main types of nat­ural expression: those that imply a certain similarity ( for exam­
ple, a drawing), and those that involve a certain law or causality( for example, a proj ection ). But it seems that in each case oneof the terms in the relation of expression is always superior tothe other: either because it enjoys the identity reproduced by thesecond, or because it involves the law that the other develops .
And it in each case "concentrates" in its unity what the other"disperses in multiplicity." Expression, according to Leibniz,
grounds just such a relation of One and Many in every domain:
what expresses itself is "endowed with true unity" in relation toits expressions; or, which comes to the same thing, expression isa unity in relation to the multiplicity and divisibility of what isexpressed.6 But a certain area of confusion or obscurity is thus
introduced into expression: the superior term, through its unity,
expresses more distinctly what the other in its multiplicity ex­presses less distinctly. This indeed is how a division is made into
causes and effects, actions and passions: when a floating body issaid to be the cause of "an infinite number of movements by theparts of the water, " rather than the reverse, this is because thebody has a unity that allows a more distinct explanation of what
is happening.7 Moreover, since the second term is expressed in
the first, the latter as it were carves its own distinct expression
out of a dim area which surrounds it on all sides and in which it

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y

is plunged: thus each monad traces its distinct partial expression
against the background of a confused total expression ; it con­fusedly expresses the whole world, but clearly expresses only apart of it, set apart or determined by the relation, itself expres­sive , which it bears to its body. The world expressed by eachmonad is a continuum in which there are singularities, and it isaround these singularities that monads take form as expressive
centers . The same applies to ideas: "Our soul reflects only upon
more extraordinary phenomena which are distinguished from theothers, it does not have a distinct thought about any when it isthinking equally about all ." 8 Thus our thought does not reachwhat is absolutely adequate, the absolutely simple forms that are
in God, but stops at relatively simple forms and terms ( simple,
that is, relative to the multiplicity they involve ) . And the sameis even true of God, "of God's different viewpoints" in the areasof his understanding that relate to possible creations : the differ­ent creatable worlds form the dim background against which God
creates the best, by creating monads or expressions which besth
express him . Even in God, or in certain areas of his understand­ing at least, Unity comes with a "zero" that makes creation pos­sible. We must then take account of two basic factors in Leibniz's
conception of expression: Analogy, which primarily expresses dif­ferent types of unity relative to the multiplicities they involve,and Harmony, which primarily expresses the way a multiplicity
corresponds in every case to an underlying unity. 9
This all forms a "symbolic" philosophy of expression, in which
expression is inseparable from signs of its transformations, andfrom the obscure areas in which it is plunged. What is distinct
and what confused vary in each expression (mutual expression
means , in particular, that what one monad expresses confusedly,
another expresses distinctly). Such a symbolic philosophy is neces­sarily a philosophy of equivocal expressions. And rather than opposing

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

Leibniz to Spinoza by citing the Leibnizian themes of possibility
and finality, it seems to me essential to bring out this concrete
point concerning the way Leibniz understands and operates withthe phenomenon of expression, for all the other themes and con­cepts flow from it. Leibniz, in order at once to save the richnessof the concept of expression and avert the pantheist "danger"
attaching to it, seems to have found a new formulation accord­
ing to which creation and emanation are two real species o f
expression, or correspond t o two dimensions o f expression:
creation to the originary constitution of analogous expressive uni­ties ("combinations of unity with zero"), and emanation to thederivative series that evolve the multiplicities expressed in eachtype of unity (involutions and evolutions, then, " transproduc­tions" and "metaschematisms"). I O
Spinoza, though, gives expression an altogether different dy­
namic interpretation. For what is essential for Spinoza is to sep­arate the domain of signs, which are always equivocal , from thatof expressions, where univocity must be an absolute rule . Thus
we have seen how the three types of signs ( the indicative signsof natural perception, the imperative signs of the moral law andof religious revelation) were decisively rej ected as inadequate;
and with them went all the language of analogy - that which gave
God an understanding and will, along with that which gave things
an end . At the same time we become capable of forming andgrasping an absolutely adequate idea, since its conditions are set
by the strict reign of univocity: an adequate idea is an expressive
idea, that is to say, a distinct idea that has freed itself from the
obscure and confused background from which in Leibniz it was
inseparable. ( I tried to show in concrete terms how the selection
was effected by Spinoza, through the process of forming common
notions, in which i deas cease to be signs , becoming univocal
expressions . ) Whatever the terms involved in the relation of
3 30

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y

expression, one can never say that one expresses distinctly what
another expresses confusedly. This is not, above all , the way tomake the division into active and passive, action and passion,cause and effect; for, contrary to the traditional principle, actions
go with actions, passions with passions. If Leibniz's preestablishedharmony and Spinoza's parallelism both break with the assump­tion of a real causality between soul and body, the fundamental
difference between them still lies here: the division into actions
and passions remains in Leibniz what it was according to the tra­ditional assumption ( the body suffering when the soul acts, andvice versa) - while Spinoza in practice overturns all this division,
asserting a parity between the soul's passions and the body's, andbetween the body's actions and the soul's. For the relation of
expression holds in Spinoza only between equal terms. Hereinlies the true sense of his parallelism: no series is ever eminent.
The cause does of course, within its series, remain more perfectthan its effect, and the knowledge of the cause, within its series,
more perfect than that of the effect; but far from perfection
implying an "analogy" or "symbolization" in whi ch the more per­fect term would exist on another qualitative level than the lessperfect, it implies only an immanent quantitative process inwhich the less perfect exists in the more perfect, that is, in andunder the same univocal form that constitutes the essence of themore perfect term . (This is also, as we have seen, the sense inwhich Leibniz's theory of qualitative individuation should be
opposed to Spinoza's theory of quantitative individuation, with­out our concluding, of course, that a mode has any less auton­
omy than a monad. )In Spinoza as in Leibniz the relation of expression applies,
essentially, to Unity and Multiplicity. But one would look in vain
through the Ethics for some sign of the Multiple, as imperfect,
implying any confusion relative to the distinctness of the One that331

T H ET H E O RY

O F

F I N I T E

M O D E S

expresses itself in it. A greater or lesser perfection never implies,
for Spinoza, a change of form . Thus the multiplicity of attributes
is strictly equivalenti to the unity of substance : by such strict
equivalence we must understand that the attributes are formallywhat substance is ontologically. This equivalence does not entail
the forms of attributes introducing any numerical distinction ofsubstances; rather is their own formal distinction equivalent toall of the ontological difference between them and the single sub­stance. And if we consider the multitude of modes in each attri­bute, those modes involve the attribute, but this without the
attribute taking on any other form than that in which it consti­
tutes the essence of substance : the modes involve and express
the attribute in the very form in which it involves and expresses
the divine essence. Thus Spinozism brings with it a remarkable
theory of distinctions which, even when it borrows Cartesian ter­minology, speaks a quite different language: so real distinction isin effect nonnumerical formal distinction ( as in the attributes );modal distinction is in effect an intensive or extensive numeri­cal distinction (as in the modes ); the distinction of reason is an
obj ective formal one (as in ideas ) . Leibniz in his own theory
multiplies the types of distinction, but this in order to secure all
the resources of symbolization, harmony and analogy. Spinoza's
language , on the other hand, is always that of univocity: first ofall, the univocity of attributes (in that attributes are, in the same
form , both what constitute the essence of substance, and what
contain modes and their essences ); second , univocity of causation(in that God is cause of all things in the same sense that he iscause of himself); then univocity of ideas (in that common notions
are the same in a part as in the whol e ) . Univocity of being ,univocity of production, univocity of knowing; common form ,common cause, common notion - these are the three figures of
the Univocal that combine absolutely in an idea of the third kind.
332

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y

Far from expression being, in Spinoza, consistent with creationand emanation, it rather excludes these, relegates them to theorder of inadequate signs or equivocal language. Spinoza accepts
the truly philosophical "danger" of immanence and pantheism
implicit in the notion of expression. Indeed he throws in his lot
with that danger. In Spinoza the whole theory of expression supports
univocity; and its whole import is to free univocal Being from astate of indifference or neutrality, to make it the obj ect of a pureaffirmation, which is actually realized in an expressive panthe­
ism or immanence. Here, I feel, lies the real opposition between
Spinoza and Leibniz: the theory of univocal expressions in the one

should be opposed to the theory of equivocal expressions in the other.
All the other oppositions (necessity and finality, necessary andpossible) flow from it, and are abstract in relation to it. For phil­osophical differences do indeed have their concrete origins, in
specific ways of evaluating some phenomenon: in this case, thatof expression.
But whatever the importance of this opposition, we must
return to what is common to Leibniz and Spinoza, to that use of
the notion of expression which presents the whole force of their
Anticartesian reaction. This notion of expression is essentiallytriadic : we must distinguish what expresses itself, the expres­sion itself and what is expressed. The paradox is that "what isexpressed" has no existence outside its expression, yet bears noresemblance to it, but relates essentially to what expresses itself as
distinct from the expression itself. Expression thus bears within
it a double movement : one either takes what is expressed as
involved, implicit, wound up, in its expression, and so retains
only the couple "expresser-expression" ; or one unfolds , expli­
cates, unwindsi expression so as to restore what is expressed (leav­ing the couple "expresser-expressed" ). Thus there is in Leibniz,
first of all, a divine expression: God expresses himself in absolute333

T H ET H E O R Y

O FF I N I T E

M O D E S

forms or absolutely simple notions, as in some divine Alphabet;such forms express unlimited qualities related to God as consti­
tuting his essence. God then re-expresses himself on the level ofpossible creation: here he expresses himself in individual or rel­
atively simple notions , monads, corresponding to each of his"viewpoints!' These expressions in their turn express the wholeworld, that is, the totality of the chosen world, which is related
to God as the manifestation of his "glory" or his will. One sees,in Leibniz, that the world has no existence outside the monads
that express it, while yet God brings the world, rather than themonads, into existence. ll These two principles are in no way con­tradictory, but reflect the double movement by which the world
as expressed is implicit in the monads that express it, and bywhich, conversely, monads in their evolution reconstitute theircontinuous background together with the singularities about
which they are themselves constituted. Subj ect to all the reserva­
tions already noted, the same account may be applied to Spinoza.
Within the triad of substance God expresses himself in his attri­butes, the attributes expressing the unlimited qualities that con­stitute his essence. In the modal triad God re-expresses himself,
or the attributes in their turn express themselves: they express
themselves in modes, modes expressing modifications as mod­ifications of substance, constituting the same world through every
attribute. This constant triadic character means that the conceptof expression cannot be referred either to causality within Being,or to representation in ideas , but goes beyond both , which areseen to be particular cases of expression. For with the dyad ofcause and effect, or that of idea and obj ect, there is always asso­
ciated a third term that transposes one dyad into the other. An
effect does of course express its cause; but at a deeper level causes
and effects form a series that must itself express something, andsomething identical ( or similar) to what another parallel series334

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y

expresse s . Real causality i s thus located in expressive series
between which there are noncausal correspondences. Similarly,
an idea represents an obj ect, and in a way expresses it; but at a
deeper level idea and obj ect express something that is at once
common to them, and yet belongs to each: a power, or the abso­lute in two of its powers ,k those of thinking or knowing , andbeing or acting. Representation is thus located in a certain extrin­
sic relation of idea and obj ect, where each enjoys an expressivity
over and above representation. In short, what is expressed every­
where intervenes as a third term that transforms dualities. Beyond
real causality, beyond ideal representation, what is expressed is
discovered as a third term that makes distinctions infinitely more
real and identity infinitely better thought. What is expressed issensei : deeper than the relation of causality, deeper than the rela­tion of representation. The body has a mechanism in reality, there
is an automatism of thought in the order of ideality; but we learn
that the corporeal mechanism and the spiritual automaton are
most expressive when they find their "sense" and their "corres­
pondence" in the necessary reason that was everywhere lacking
in Cartesianism .
It is hard, in the end, to say which is more important: the dif­ferences b etween Leibniz and Spinoza in their evaluation of
expression; or their common reliance on this concept in foundinga Postcartesian philosophy.

335

APPEN D IX
A Formal Study of the Plan of theE th i cs, a n d o f t h e R o l e o f S c h o l i a I n
i t s R e a l i z a t i o n : T h e Tw o E t h i c s

Theme

Consequence

Correspondina
Expressive
Concept

Speculative
Affirmation

PART ONE

1-8

There are not several substances withthe same attribute,and numerical distinction is not real .

These eight propositions are not
hypothetical but
categorical ; it isthus false that the
Ethics 'begins' with
the idea of God.

The first triad of
substance: attribute,essence, substance.

9-14

Real distinction is
not numerical ,there is only one
substance, with all
attributes .

Only here do wereach the idea of
God as absolutely
infinite substance;
and Definition 6 isshown to be real .

The second triad of
substance: perfect,
infinite, absolute.

3 37

EXPRESSIONISM

15-36

Power or produc-

IN PHILOSOPHY:

Immanence means

SPINOZA

The third triad oftion: the processes

both univocity of

substance: essenceof production andattributes and uni-

as power, that of

the nature of theirvocity of cause

which it is the

products (modes).

(God is cause of all

essence, and thethings in the same

capacity to besense that he isaffected (by modes).

cause of himself ).
Ideas asPART Two

expressive.
1-7

8-13

The epistemological

From sub�tance to

The modal triad:

parallelism of idea

modes, the transfer

attribute, mode,modification.

and object, and theof expressivity : theontological parallel-role of the idea of

ism of soul and body.

God in this transfer.

The conditions of

Aspects of God in

Adequacy and.

ideas: ideas God has

relation to ideas:

inadequacy.

on the basis of his

God insofar as he isnature, and those

infinite, insofar as

we have on the basis

he is affected byof our nature andmany ideas, andour body.

insofar only as hehas a given idea.

Exposition

The model of the

Extensive parts,

First individualof Physics

body.

relations of move-modal triad:

ment and rest,

essence, character-composition andistic relation,

decomposition ofextensive parts.

such relations.
338

A P P E N D I X

1 4- 3 6

The conditions inwhich we have ideas
mean that they arenecessarily inadequate: idea of oneself, idea of one's
body, ideas of otherbodies.

Inadequate ideas are"indicative" and 'involved," as opposed
to adequate ideas ,which are expressive and explicative:
chance, encounters
and the first kindof knowledge.

The inexpressive
character of inadequate ideas .

3 7 - 49

How are adequate
ideas possible?
What is common to
all , or to several ,bodies.

Common notions,as opposed to abstract ideas. How
common notions
lead to the idea
of God: the second
kind of knowledge,
and reason .

The expressive
character of adequate ideas , fromthe point of viewof their form , andfrom that of theirmatter.

Practical j oy.

PART THREE
J-10

What follows fromideas: affections or
feelings. Conatus
as determined bysuch affections.

The distinction of
two sorts of affections, active andpassive; actions follow from adequate
ideas and passions
from inadequate
ones.

Second individual
modal triad :essence, capacity
to be affected, theaffections thatexercise thiscapacity.

l ! - 57

The distinction
between two sorts
of affections , active

The two lines ofj oy and of sadness:
their developments,

Augmenting anddiminishing thepower to act.

339

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

5 8 -59I N

P H I LO S O P H Y :and passive, should
not lead us to overlook the distinction
between two sortsof passive affections,j oyful and sad.

variations andinteractions.

Possibility of anactive j oy, distinct
from passive j oy:
possession of thepower to act.

The critique ofsadness .

S P I N OZA

The full conceptof j oy.

Good and bad.

PART FouR
J-!8

The relative
strengths of affections: factors intheir respective
powers .

Good and bad, as
opposed to Goodand Evil.

The determinationsof conatus.

1 9 - 45

Reason's initialaspect: selecting
passive affections,eliminating sadness,organizing encounters, combining
relations, increasing
one's power ofaction, experiencing a maximumof j oy.

The relative usefulness and necessity ofsociety, as making
possible , preparing
and accompanying
the first strivingof reason.

Further critique ofsadness .

A P P E N D I X

46 - 7 3Good and bad
according to thiscriterion of reason.

Continuation of thecritique of sadness.

PART FIVEFree man and slave,strong man andweak, reasonable
man and madman .
Practical j oy andspeculative
affirmation.

1-1 3

How we can actually come to form
adequate ideas( common notions).
How j oyful passive
affections lead us
to them . How wethereby diminish
sadness, and form anadequate idea of all
passive affections.

We thus arrive at
the second kind ofknowledge, thanks
to certain opportunities afforded by
the first kind .

Reason's second
aspect: forming
common notions,and the active affections of j oy that
follow. Becoming
active .

1 4- 2 0

The idea of God,at the limit of thesecond kind ofknowledge.

From common
notions to the idea
of God.

The impassive God
as understood
through the second
kind of knowledge.

2 1 -4 2This idea of God in
its turn leads us outof the second kindof knowledge , andinto the third kind:the :eciprocating
God of the third

There are as many
parts of the soul as
there are types ofaffection: not only
passive affections ofsadness and j oy, butalso active j oyful

The Ethics has proceeded thus far
through common
notions, and commoo notions only.
But it now changes,
and speaks from341

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

kind of knowledge,
adequate ideas ofoneself, of one's
body, and of otherbodies.

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y :affections of the sec­
ond kind, and evenactive j oyful affec­
tions of the thirdkind. Whence it isinferred what ismortal and what
eternal in the soul :the side that diesand the side thatremains, extensive
parts and intensive
essence.

S P I N OZA

the point of viewof the third kindof knowledge. The
unity, in this thirdkind of knowledge,of practical j oy andspeculative affir­
mation: becoming
expressive, beati­
tude , reciprocity,
univocity.

An extensive study should be undertaken of the Ethics' formal pro­cedures and of the role of each component ( Definition, Axiom,
Postulate, and so on). I wish here only to consider the special andcomplex function of scholia.
The first maj or scholium in the Ethics is the second to 1 . 8.
It sets out to give another proof of Proposition 5 , which statesthat there cannot be several substances of the same attribute. As
we saw in Chapter One above, it runs as follows: ( 1 ) Numericaldistinction implies an external cause; ( 2 ) But it is impossible
for a substance to have an external cause, because any substanceis in itself and conceived through itself; ( 3) There cannot there­
fore be two or more numerically distinct substances within thesame attribute .
The Proof in Proposition 5 itself had proceeded differently
and more concisely: two substances with the same attribute must
be distinguished by their modes, which is absurd. But Proposi­tion 6 , following Proposition 5 , had shown that external causal-

A P P E N D I X

ity cannot therefore apply to substance. And Proposition 7, that asubstance is therefore cause of itself. And Proposition 8 concluded
that a substance is therefore necessarily infinite.
Thus the group formed by Propositions 5 -8, and the Scholium
to Proposition 8, proceed then in inverse manner. The sequenceof propositions starts from the nature of substance in order
to infer its infinity, that is, the impossibility of applying to it
numerical distinctions. The Scholium starts from the nature ofnumerical distinction, and infers the impossibility of applying it
to substance .
Now one might think that the scholium, i n order t o prove that
substance cannot admit any external causality, might do well to
invoke Propositions 6 and 7. But this is in fact impossible . For 6
and 7 presuppose 5 , and the scholium would not then be anotherproof. Yet it does invoke Proposition 7, and this at some length .
But it does so in an altogether novel way: it sees in it a purely
axiomatic content, completely detaching it from its demonstra­
tive context. "If men would attend to the nature of substance,
they would have no doubt at all of the truth of Proposition 7.
Indeed, this proposition would be an axiom for everyone, andwould be numbered among the common notions . . ." The Scho­lium can therefore provide a proof quite independent of that givenin the group formed by Propositions 5 -8.
We may identify three characteristics in such a scholium : 1 .
It sets out a second proof, which i s positive and intrinsic i n rela­tion to an initial proof which proceeded negatively, extrinsically.
( Thus Pro p osition 5 sim p ly invoked the anteriority of substancein order to infer the impossibility of assimilating modal distinc­tion to substantial distinction. And the Scholium to 8 infers theimpossibility of assimilating numerical to substantial distinction,
but does so from intrinsic and positive characteristics of number
and substance. ) 2 . The Scholium is ostensive since it is independ343

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y o

S P I N OZA

ent o f earlier proofs and i s to be substituted for them, retaining
only certain propositions in an axiomatic guise, detached fromtheir demonstrative sequence. (A scholium does of course some­times invoke proofs, but not from among the group that it servesto "double"a). 3 . Whence comes, then, the evidential charac­
ter whic h allows us to treat the propositions that are taken up
anew, independently of their initial context and their proofs, asaxioms? The new character comes from polemical arguments inwhich Spinoza attacks, often violently, those whose minds are too
confused to understand , or who , even, have some interest in
maintaining confusion. (Already in Proposition 8 he fiercely
scolds those who cannot understand Proposition 7 in itself, and
who are prepared to believe that trees talk, and that men are bornfrom stones).
In short, scholia are positive, ostensive and aggressive. Given
their independence relative to the propositions they double, one
might say that the Ethics was written twice, in two different
tones, on two levels , at the same time. For in their own discon­tinuous way the scholia j ump one to another, echo one another,reappear in the preface to some Part of the Ethics, or in the con­clusion to another, forming a broken line which runs right throughthe work at a certain depth, but which rises to the surface onlyat particular points ( of fracture ) . The Scholium to 1 . 8 , for exam­
ple, forms such a line together with those to US , I . l7 , 1 . 3 3 , I I . 3
and 1 1 . 10 : these deal with the different kinds of disfigurement towhich God is subjected by man. Similarly, the Scholium to I I . l 3 ,which sets u p the model of the body, jumps t o that a t III . 2 , andends up in the Preface to Part Five . A broken line of scholia,
similarly, forms a kind of hymn to j oy, constantly interrupted, inwhich those who live on sadness, those whose interest lies in oursadness, and those who need human sadness to secure their power
are violently denounced: IV.45 s 2 , IV.SOs, IV. 6 3 s and V. lOs. Simi3 44

A P P E N D I X

larly, again, the couple free man-slave of IV.66s reappears in the
couple strong man-weak of IV. 7 3s, then in that of wise man-foolwith which the Ethics closes at V.42s. And V.4s and V. 20s, finally,
form a royal road which leads us into the third kind of knowledge.
The main "turning points" of the Ethics are bound, therefore,
to appear in its scholia. For the continuity of propositions andproofs can derive its prominent points , its various impulses, itschanges of direction, only from the emergence of something that
expresses itself in the scholia - scholia as stratum , as current and that generates those fractures where it emerges. Examples ofsuch turning points are found at I I . 1 3 s (introducing the modelof the body), I I I . 5 7s ( the model of active j oys ), IV. 1 8 s ( the modelof reason) and V. 20s,36s ( the third kind of knowledge ).
There are thus as it were two Ethics existing side by side, one
constituted by the continuous line or tide of propositions, proofs
and corollaries, and the other, discontinuous, constituted by thebroken line or volcanic chain of the scholia. The first, in its impla­
cable rigor, amounts to a sort of terrorism of the head , progres­sing from one proposition to the next without worrying about
their practical consequences, elaborating its rules without wor­
rying about individual cases. The other assembles the indignationand the j oys of the heart, presenting practical j oy, setting out
the practical struggle against sadness, expressing itself at eachpoint by saying "such is the case ." The Ethics is in this sense
a double book. There may be some interest in reading the sec­
ond Ethics underneath the first, by jumping from one scholium
to another.

Let us return to the three characteristics of scholia: they are
positive , ostensive and aggressive . These characteristics obvi­
ously overlap within a given scholium , but we may consider
them separately.
That a scholium proceeds positively may, as we saw, mean that
3 45

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y o

S P I N OZA

it relies on intrinsic characteristics, while the corresponding proof
rests on merely extrinsic properties. A particularly clear exam­
ple appears at I I I . 7, concerning the "soul's vacillation" : this isdefined in the Proof of the Proposition by the play of externalcauses that provoke it, but in the Scholium by the diversity of
the internal relations of which we are composed. It may also meanthat a scholium proceeds a priori, while the proof is a posteriori:
thus at I Ll the Proof is based on modes , but the Scholium restson the possibility of directly thinking a quality as infinite. Simi­
larly, at I . l l the scholium presents an a priori argument based "onthe same principle" as the a posteriori method of the Proof. Or
again, take the Scholium on parallelism , which is so important,at I I . 7: while the Proof proceeds from effect to cause to inferthat the order of knowledge is the same as that of things, while
Proof and Corollary together rise from this identity of order inmodes to an equality of powers in God, the Scholium, conversely,
begins from the ontological unity of substance and infers theequality of powers and the identity of order. (There is as we saw
a dislocation between these two ways of proceeding, which isonly resolved by Spinoza's ostensive invocation of the idea of God
in the Scholium: this brings us, already, to the second character­istic of scholia. )But, to conclude the consideration of the first characteristic ,it must be added that the positivity of scholia also appears in aparticularly complex manner: the scholium may proceed within
the order of real definitions, while proposition and proof develop
the consequences of nominal definitions: thus Propositions 9 and
10 of Part One establish the purely logical possibility of one andthe same being having an infinity of attributes, each of which isconceived through itself, but they invoke only Definitions 3 and4, which are nominal definitions of substance and attribute. The
Scholium , on the other hand , invokes Definition 6 which is, as

A P P E N D I X

we saw, the only real definition among all those that open Part
One . Furthermore, since a real definition is one that one shouldbe able to prove real , one that grounds the "real" possibility of
its obj ect ( transcendental as opposed to merely logical possibil­ity), the Scholium to Proposition 10 does actually take on thistask, and proves that Definition 6 is indeed real : the distinction
between attributes cannot, from its positive characteristics, benumerical . And here again, an ostensive use is made of Proposi­tion 9, abstracted from its context.
The positive character of scholia thus has three aspects, intrin­
sic , a priori or real . Let us consider their second characteristic,that of being ostensive . I t also has various aspects , the princi­
pal one having already been noted. This principal , axiomatic,
aspect consists in a scholium's invoking of an earlier proposition
in abstraction from the continuous chain of propositions andproofs, to give it a new, directly polemical force : this is seen in
the Scholia to 1 . 8 (using Proposition 7), to 1 . 10 (using Proposi­tion 9), to I I . 3 (invoking the idea of God ), and to I l . 7 (invoking
the Hebrews ) . . . . The second aspect does , it is true, seem to goless far, for scholia sometimes present only an example of thecorresponding proposition: consider 1 1 . 8 ( the example of lines
within a circle), IV.40 ( the odd example of the action of strik­ing), IV. 63 ( the example of the healthy man and the sick) . . . . But
most of Spinoza's examples seem to go beyond mere examples in
two different ways, taking on two higher and more fundamental
functions, paradigmatic and casuistic. Thus at 1 1 . 13s, then at 1 1 1 . 2 s
the model of the body is s e t out: not so the body can serve a s amodel for thought, disrupting the parallelism or relative auton­
omy of Thought and Extension; but it is introduced as an example
that takes on a paradigmatic function, showing "in parallel" howmuch there is in Thought itself that is beyond consciousness. The
same applies to the model of human nature which is first intro3 47

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y :S P I N OZA

duced at IV. l 8s , and developed at V. lOs and V. 20s. And applies,
lastly, to the model of the third kind of knowledge, introduced at
1 1 .40s and in the last lines of ll .40s, and fully formulated at V. 3 6s.
The casuistic function of the pseudoexample appears, on theother hand, in all the scholia that present, in relation to the pre­ceding proof, the form of "this is j ust the case . . . ." Here again
we have no mere example , but rather a strict assigning of theconditions in which the obj ect of the corresponding proof is
actually realized: the scholium determines a case that falls under
the rule contained in the corresponding proof not as one caseamong others, but as the case that fulfills the rule and meets all
its conditions . The conditions are sometimes restrictive , and ascholium , far removed from the corresponding proposition, may
remind us that the proposition and its proof must be understoodin a restricted sense ( 1 1 .45 s, IV. 3 3 s , etc . ) . But there is on a deeper
level something in this aspect of scholia that coincides with theirpositive way of proceeding, since, for mistakes and passions atleast, it is impossible to obtain a real definition independentlyof the conditions in which the obj ect previously indicated inproposition and proof can actually exist, impossible also to bringout what is positive in a mistake or passion if these conditions
are not determined in the scholium. Scholia of this type proceed,
then, in the form of a "fiat": this is how the thing comes about . . . .
Thus the Scholium to 1 1 . 3 5 explains how error, defined in the
Proposition as a privation, actually comes about, and thereby
already has a certain positivity in the conditions in which it does
come about. And thus 1 1 .44, having enunciated and proved that
it is only imagination that considers things to be contingent, thescholium in its turn sets out to demonstrate "the conditions inwhich this comes about" (qua ratione fiat). This manner of pro­ceeding is generalized in Part Thre e : while propositions andproofs trace in their continuous progress the movement in which

A P P E N D I X

affections are linked to and derived from one another, the scholia
introduce halts, like photographs suddenly taken, freezing the
progress in temporary immobility, in a snapshot showing that sucha familiar affection or faculty does actually correspond, in suchconditions, to what the proposition was discussing . This had
already been done in Part Two , with memory ( I I . 1 8s), and with
common notions ( I I .40sl ) . But in Part Three there is a prolifera­tion of scholia embodying formulations like "Thus we know how
it can happen . . . ," "We see that it may happen . . . ," "This happens because . . . ." At the same time, affections and faculties findtheir names: not j ust the Memory and Common Notions of Part
Two , but the names of all the affections that are to be collected
together in the closing definitions , in a sort of echo of all thescholia: Joy, Sadness , Love , Hate and so on. As though the move­
ment of propositions, proofs and corollaries were continually driv­
ing forward the tide of affections, which only, however, formed
its waves and crests in the scholia. As though propositions, proofs
and corollaries spoke the most elevated language, impersonal andlittle caring to identify that of which it was speaking, since what
it was saying was in any case grounded in a higher truth - while
the scholia baptized, gave names, identified, pointed out anddenounced, echoing in the depths what the "other" language set
forth and moved forward .
The second, ostensive, character of scholia thus has, in its tum,
three principal aspects, axiomatic, paradigmatic and casuistic. And
these constantly bring into play the last characteristic of scholia,
which i s to be p o l em i cal o r aggressive . This final characteristic
itself has various aspects: sometimes it is a matter of analyzing
the speculative confusion or intellectual stupidity of those who dis­figure God, taking him as a "king," giving him understanding andwill , ends and proj ects, shapes and functions, and so on ( scholia,
above all , in Part One ) . Sometimes it is a matter of determining
3 49

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y :S P I N OZA

the conditions in which sensory error, and the passions flowing
from it, come about ( this above all in the scholia of Parts Two
and Three). Sometimes it is a matter of denouncing practical evil,that is, sad passions, their contagiousness , the interests of those
who profit by them - such denunciation taking place above all
in Part Four, but this in relation to the more general proj ect of
the Ethics as recalled in the prefaces and conclusions to various
Parts. The polemic thus has within it three aspects, speculative,
sensory and practical. It is hardly surprising that all these aspects,
and all the characteristics to which they attach, confirm and over­lap one another. The major scholia bring them all together. A
scholium always has a positive intention, but can only fulfill itby the aid of an ostensive procedure, and this can itself only befounded on a polemical base. The ostensive procedure in its turndivides into the polemical argument which gives it its full force,and the positive principle it serves. It may be asked how the pos­
itive movement of scholia can be reconciled with polemical ,critical and negative argument. The answer is that the great forceof Spinoza's polemical power evolves in silence, far from all dis­cussion , and in order to serve a higher affirmation and a higher"ostensivity." Negation serves only, according to Spinoza, to denywhat is negative , to deny what denies and obscures. Polemic,
negation, denunciation are there only to deny what denies, mis­leads, hides - what profits from error, lives on sadness, thinks innegative terms. Thus the most polemical of the scholia bring
together, in their particular style and tone, the two supreme
registersb of speculative affirmation ( of substance ) and practicalj oy (in modes ) : a double language, inviting a double reading of
the Ethics. What is most important in the greatest scholia is theirpolemic, but its power is all the more developed for being in theservice of speculative affirmation and practical j oy, and for bring­ing them together in univocity.
3 50

NotesA Note on Referen ces
The titles of Spinoza's writings are cited in abbreviated form as follows:E

EthicsTP

Theologico-Political Treatise

CU

Treatise on the Correction of the Understanding

ST

Short Treatise on God, Man, and His Well-Being

P

Political TreatiseD

Principles of Descartes' Philosophy

M

Metaphysical Thoughts
In general, passages are located in terms of section and subsection as definedby Spinoza or his original editors, but for citations from TP and the Letters,
the place in the Van Vloten and Land edition is also given, and reference to theLetters follows the enumeration given in that edition. Where these divisions
apply, "e," "p," "c," "s," refer to a proposition's Enunciation, Proof, Corollary
and Scholium respectively, while entire Propositions are referred to simply byPart and number; "n" stands for Note. Thus "E IV.4,5 e,c2p,s; IV Preface nn2 ,3"would refer the reader to the whole of the fourth Proposition of Part IV of the

Ethics, and to the Enunciation, Proof of the second Corollary, and Scholium at
IV.S , together with the second and third Notes to the Preface of Part V. All otherdivisions are cited in unabbreviated form .
3 51

N OT E STO

PAG E S

1 3 - 1 4

English versions are based on existing translations (TP, P : Elwes; Letters
not in Curley 1: Wolf; all other works: Curley) with occasional revision where
this is required by Deleuze's argument and does not conflict with the Latin or
Dutch original . The page or pages where a quoted passage appears in these Eng­
lish versions is given within square brackets at the close of the passage. Where
italics occur, these have always been introduced by Deleuze.
The standard edition of Descartes's works is also cited in abbreviated form:AT

Oeuvres de Descartes, ed. C . Adam and P. Tannery, 1 1 vol s . ( Pari s ,1 8 97-1909 ) .

English versions have been made b y the present translator from the seven­teenth-century French versions used by Deleuze, which present considerable
textual variation from the Latin originals on which the available English trans­
lations are based .
The following works also are cited in abbreviated form :PS

Die Philosophischen Schriften von G. W Leibniz, ed C. I. Gerhardt, 7 vols.
( B erlin, 1 8 75-90).

Loemker

Leibniz, Philosophical Papers and Letters, ed. and tr. Leroy S .
Loemker, 2 n d e d . ( D ordrecht, 1 9 6 9 ) .

I NTRODUCTI O N : TH E ROLE A N D I M P O RTANCE O F EXPRESSION

1 . The formulations given in the Ethics are: (1) aeternam et infinitatem certam

essentiam exprimit ( ! . lOs); ( 2 ) divinae substantiae essentiam exprimit ( 1 . 19p), reali­tatem sive esse substantiae exprimit ( ! . 10s); ( 3 ) existentiam exprimunt ( l . lOc). The
three sorts of formulation are brought together at ! . 10s, where one finds very
subtle distinctions and transitions between the various terms.
2 . E 1 . 1 9 , 20p.
3. E 1 . 36p [43 9 ] ( and 25c: Modi quibus Dei attributa certo et determinato

modo exprim untur).
4. E 1 . 1 6p .
5 . E l l . l p [ 448 ] .
352

N O T E STOPAG E S

1 5 - 2 2

6. TP iv ( 1 1 . 1 3 6 [5 9 ] ) .
7 . CU 1 0 8 (infinitatem exprimunt).
8 . E V. 29e,p.
9 . Cf. ST l l .xx.4 ( uytaedrukt); I . Dialogue 1 1 . 1 2 ( vertoonen ) ; l .vii . l O ( ver­toond).
1 0. cu 76.
1 1 . E l . 8s2: Verum uniuscuiusque rei definitionem nihil involvere neque exprimerepraeter definitae naturam; CU 9 5 : Definitio, ut dicatur perfecto, debebit intimam
essentiam rei explicare.
1 2 . E 1 . 1 9p , 20p.
1 3 . E l l .45 ,46p.
14. Chapter Nine.
1 5 . Cf. Alexandre Koyre, La Philosophie de Jacob Boehme ( Paris, 1 9 2 9 ) and,more particularly, Mystiques, spirituels, alchimistes du XVJe Siecle Allemand ( Paris,
1947).
16. Cf. Foucher de Careil, Leibniz, Descartes et Spinoza ( 1 8 6 2 ). Among more
recent writers, E. Lasbax is representative of those who have pushed furthest
the identification of Spinozist expression with N eoplatonic emanation: La

HiCrarchie dans l'univers chez Spinoza ( Paris, 1 9 1 9 ) .
1 7 . Erdmann, following H egel, sees the attributes a s forms either of under­
standing or sensibility ( Versuch einer wissenschaftlichen Darstellun9 der neueren

Philosophie, Berlin, 1 8 3 6 ; A History of Philosophy, tr. W S. Hough, London, 1 890).
1 8 . Fritz Kaufmann, "Spinoza's System as a Theory of Expression," Philos-

ophy and Phenomenoloaical Research, (September, 1940).
1 9 . Andre Darbon, Etudes spinozistes ( Paris, 1946) pp. 1 17-1 8 .
2 0 . Letters 2 , 4 (to Oldenburg), S T l .ii . l .
2 1 . Letters 8 2 ( from Tschirnhaus), 8 3 ( to Tschirnhaus).
22. cu 7 2 , 9 5 .
2 3 . C U 7 2 : "To form the concept of a sphere, I feign a cause a t will , saythat a semicircle is rotated around its centre, and that the sphere is, as it were,
produced by this rotation. This idea, of course, is true, and even though we
may know that no sphere in Nature was ever produced in this way, neverthe353

N OT E STO

PAG ES

22-33

less, this perception is true, and a very easy way of forming the concept of asphere. Now it must be noted that this perception affirms that the semicircle
is rotated, which affirmation would be false if it were not j oined to the con­
cept of a sphere . ." [ 3 2 ] .
.

24. E V. 2 3 s ; TP xiii: " I f any tell u s it i s n o t necessary t o understand the
divine attributes, but that we must believe them simply without proof, he isplainly trifling. For what is invisible and can only be perceived by the mind,
can be seen with no other eyes than proofs . Whoever, then, has no proof, cansee absolutely nothing of these things" ( 1 1 . 240 [ 1 78 ] ) .
CHAPTER O N E : N U M E RICAL A N D REAL DISTINCTION

1 . Cf. Merleau-Ponty in Les Philosophes celebres ( Paris, 1 9 5 6 ) , p . 1 3 6 .
2. E 1.5 .
3 . This is how Spinoza presents the Cartesian position ( M I I .V): "We needto recall what Descartes has taught ( Principles 1 .4 8 ,49 ), viz. that there is noth­ing in nature but substances and their modes. From this a threefold distinctionof things is deduced ( 1 . 60-6 2 ) , viz. real, modal, and of reason" [ 3 2 3 ] .
4. Descartes, Principles 1 . 5 3 .
5 . Principles 1 . 60-6 2 .
6 . Cf. Suarez, Metaphysicarum disputationum d.VI I I . The only distinctions
recognized by Suarez were real , modal and of reason - he criticized Duns
Scotus's formal distinction in terms very similar to those employed by Descartes.
7. Descartes, Principles 1 . 5 6 .
8 . Principles 1 . 6 3 -64.
9 . On these paragraphs, 6 3 and 64, see the discussion between F. Alquieand M . Gueroult in the proceedings of the Royaumont colloquium : Descartes( Paris, 1967), pp. 3 2 - 5 6 .
1 0 . Descartes, Replies to the Fourth Objections, AT IX.175 .
1 1 . This tripartite formulation is given in Letter 2 ( to Oldenburg , I I I . S[ 166]).
12. Letter 8 1 ( to Tschimhaus), I I I . 241; cf. also Letter 1 2 ( to Meyer), I I I .4 1 :number does n o t adequately express the nature of modes a s a n infinity, that i s ,3 54

N OT E STO

PAG E S33-42

as they depend on substance .
1 3 . E l . 1 5 s [42 2 ] .
1 4. S T l .ii.l9-2 2 .
1 5 . E I . 5 -7, 8 e .
1 6. E 1 . 8s2 [416 : with "nature" for "attribute"J .b
1 7 . E ! . 10s [ 416] .
1 8 . Cf. P. Lachieze-Rey's interpretation in Les Origines cartesiennes du Dieude Spinoza2 ( Paris, 1 9 3 4 ), p . 1 5 1 : "Nor does such a use of the distinction in any
way imply its admissibility, according to Spinoza. It remains solely a means ofdemonstration, given a hypothesized plurality of substances, intended to nul­
lify any possible consequences o f such hypothetical plurality."
1 9 . Letter 9 ( to De Vries, I I I . 3 2 ) . In the Ethics the first argument appears
almost verbatim at 1 . 9 , the second, less directly, at l . 1 1s.
20. Cf. Letter 64 (to Schuller, 1 ! 1 . 206).
2 1 . E ! . 10s: "But if someone now asks by what sign we shall be able to dis­tinguish the diversity of substances, let him read the following propositions,which show that in Nature there exists only one substance, and that it isabsolutely infinite. So that sign would be sought in vain."
2 2 . ST l .vii .9-10.
23. Cf. Regis, Refutation de I'opinion de Spinoza toucbant ]'existence et la naturede Dieu ( Paris, 1704 ) .
24. M I l .v [ 3 2 3 , 3 2 5 ] .
CHAPTER Two : ATTRIB UTE A S EXPRE SSION

1 . Letter 2 (to Oldenburg, I l L S ) : quod concipitur per se et in se. Thus Delbos's
assertion that in this letter an attribute is defined as a substance seems un­
founded ( cf. " La Doctrine spinoziste des attributs de Dieu , " L 'Annee Pbilo­

sopbique, 1 9 1 2 ).
2 . Cf. 1. ST Appendix 1 .4c2 ; 2 . ST l .ii. l7n5 [i.e., 17nf. according to Curley[70] , who reproduces as "note d" a remark disregarded by Van Vloten and Landand by Gebhardt, as being an early interpolation
9 ; 3. ST l .ii passim and 17n5 .
355-

TR ] and First Dialogue,

N OT E STO

PAG E S

42-49

3 . ST l . i i . l 7 [70] .
4. Letter 10 ( to De Vries, 1 1 1 . 34 [ 19 6 ] ) .
5 . S T l . i i . l 7n5 [70 ] .
6 . Letter 9 ( to De Vries, 1 1 1 . 3 3 [ 19 5 -96] ).
7 . E 1 1 . 1- 2 : Spinoza demonstrates that Thought and Extension are attri­butes. The a posteriori m ethod appears in the Proof itself, the a priori one in
the Scholium .
8 . For the criticism of equivocation, see E 1 . 17c2: If will and understand­ing were attributed essentially to God, this would be equivocally, and so purely
verbally, more or less as the word "dog" indicates a heavenly constellation.
For the criticism of eminence, see Letter 5 6 (to Boxel, 1 1 1 . 190): I f a triangle
could speak, it would say that God was eminently triangular - here Spinoza
is replying to Boxel's contention that only eminence and analogy can save us
from anthropomorphism .
9. 1 1 . 1 0cs: The inadequate definition of essence ( as that without which athing can neither be nor be conceived) is to be found in Suarez: cf. Gilson, Indexscholastico-cartesien, pp. 105-6.
1 0 . Letter 6 (to Oldenburg , I l l . 2 5 ) .
I I . Cf. I . E L 3 e; 2 . E L17s. A difference of viewpoint has sometimes been
adduced to reconcile these two passages (the viewpoints of immanent and tran­
sitive causality, etc . ): cf. Lachieze-Rey, Les Origines cartesiennes, pp. ! 5 6-59n.
1 2 . Letter 4 ( to Oldenburg, ! 1 1 . 1 1 ) : "As for your contention that God has
nothing formally in common with created things, etc . , I have maintained thecomplete opposite of this in my definition" ( the definition, that is, of God as a
substance consisting of an infinity of attributes). Letter 64 ( to Schuller, ! 1 1 . 206):"Can a thing be produced by another whose essence and existence are differ­ent? For things which are so different from one another appear to have nothingin common. But since all individual things, except those which are producedby things like themselves, differ from their causes in essence as well as in exist­
ence, I see here no reason for doubt." ( Spinoza then refers to the definition of"mode , " E 1 . 2 5 c . )1 3 . S T l .vii . 6 (cf. also l . i .9n4; iii . lnl ).

N OT E STO

PAG ES

49-56

1 4. ST l .vii .ln1 [ 8 8 ] .
1 5 . S T I .vii . 6 [ 8 9 ] .
1 6 . Cf. S T ! . iii-vi .
1 7 . ST ! .vii.
1 8 . TP xiii ( I I 1 . 241 [ 179]).
1 9 . TP ii ( I I . l 1 5 ) : Adam , for example, knew that God was cause of allthings, but not that he was omniscient and omnipresent.
CHAPTER THREE: ATTRI B UTES AND DIVINE NAMES

1 . On all of these points, see Maurice de Gandillac's introduction to the

Oeuvres completes du Pseudo-Denys ( Paris, 1943 ); and La Philosophie de Nicolas deCues ( Paris, 1941 ). I n the latter work De Gandillac well shows how negative the­ology on the one hand, and analogy on the other, each combines affirmationand negation, but this in converse ways : "In a converse manner to Dionysius,
who reduced affirmations themselves to disguised negations, Saint Thomas . . .
principally uses apophasis to rise from this or that prior negation to some posi­tive attribute. From the impossibility of divine movement, he draws for exam­
ple a proof of divine Eternity; from the exclusion of matter he forms a decisive
argument in favor of the coincidence in God of essence and existence" (p. 272 ).
2. TP vii ( 1 1 . 1 8 5 ): "The path which [this method] teaches us, as the true
one, has never been tended or trodden by men, and has thus, by the lapse oftime, become very difficult, and indeed almost impassable" [ 1 1 3-14] . And viii
( ! 1 . 1 9 1 ) : "I fear that I am attempting my task too late . . ." [ 1 20] .
3 . TP ii ( ! 1 . 1 1 3 ): "Everyone has been extremely hasty in affirming that theprophets knew everything within the scope of human intellect; and, althoughcertain passages of Scripture plainly affirm that the prophets were in certain
respects ignorant, such persons would rather say that they do not understandthe passages than admit that there was anything which the prophets did notknow; or else they try to wrest the Scriptural words away from their evident
meaning" [ 3 3 ] .
4. Cf. TP xiv: the list of "dogmas of faith:' It will b e noted that, even fromthe viewpoint of "propria," revelation remains limited. Everything turns about
3 57

N OT E STO

PAG E S

57-62

justice and charity. Infinity, in particular, does not seem to b e revealed in Scrip­
ture; cf. ii, where Spinoza sets out what was unknown to Adam , to Abraham
and to Moses.
5. On the two senses of the "Word of God," see TP xii. The Short Treatise
had already opposed immediate communication and revelation through signs:
I l .xxiv. 9-l l .
6 . TP i ( 1 1 . 9 5 ) .
7. TP i v ( 1 1 . 1 3 9 ) ; Letter 1 9 ( to Blyenbergh, I I I .65 ).
8 . Cf. TP ii-iii.
9 . TP xiii ( 1 1 . 2 3 9-40 ).
10. TP iv ( 1 1 . 144 [67] ).
1 1 . E I , Definition 6 , Explanation: "If something is only infinite in its own
kind, we can deny infinite attributes of it."
1 2 . Letter 4 (to Oldenburg, 1 1 1 . 1 0 [ 17 1 ] ) .
1 3 . S T l l . xix. 5 .
1 4. See the repeated formulations i n the Short Treatise ( especially l . i ) ,according t o which attributes are affirmed, and affirmed of a Nature which i sitself positive; and s e e CU 9 6 : "Every definition must be affirmative" [ 40] .
1 5 . See L. Robinson's remarks on this point, and the texts of Cartesians
cited by him: Kommentar zu Spinozas Ethik ( Leipzig, 1 92 8 ).
1 6 . ST l .ii.5n [67] . On the imperfection of Extension according to Des­cartes, see, for example , Principles 1 . 2 3 .
1 7 . Letter 9 ( t o De Vries, 1 1 1 . 3 3 [ 19 5 -96 ] ) .
1 8 . T h e distinction in t h e logic o f propositions between " what is ex­pressed" ( the sense) and "what is designated" ( designatum , denominatum ) is by
no means recent, although it reappears in many modern philosophers . Its ori­
gin is to be found in Stoic logic, which distinguishes the expressible and theobject. Ockham , in his turn, distinguishes the thing as such ( extra animam ) andthe thing as expressed in the proposition ( declaratio, explicatio and significatio aresynonymous with expressio ). Some of Ockham's followers take the distinction
even further, and rediscover Stoic paradoxes, making the "expressed" into a non­existent entity, irreducible either to the thing or the proposition: see H. Elie,N OT E STO

PAG E S

63-66

Le Complexe signifiable ( Paris, 1 9 3 6 ) . These paradoxes of expression play a majorrole in modern logic ( Meinong, Frege, Husser! ) , but their source is ancient.
1 9 . Duns Scotus, Opus Oxoniense (Vives edition): for the critique of emi­
nence and analogy, l .iii.l-3; on the univocity of being, l .viii . 3 . It has often been
noted that univocal being allows the distinction of its "modes" to subsist: when
it is considered in its individuating modalities ( infinite and finite), rather thanin its nature as Being, it ceases to be univocal. Cf. E. Gilson, jean Duns Scot
( Paris, 1 9 5 2 ) , pp. 8 9 , 6 2 9 .
20. Opus Oxoniense l .viii .4 ( a 2 n 1 3 ).
2 1 . Ibid. l .ii.4, viii .4 ( cf. Gilson, Ch. 3 ).
22. D e Gandillac, "Duns Scot et la Via Antiqua, " in Le Mouvement doctri­

nal du JXe au XJVe siecle ( Paris, 1 9 5 1 ) , p. 3 3 9 .
2 3 . Opus Oxoniense l . ii.4 ( a5 n43 ): formal distinction i s minima i n suo ordine,

id est inter omnes quae praecedunt intellectionem .
24. Ibid. I I .iii . l : the distinct form has a real being, ista unitas est rea/is, nonautem singularis vel numeralis.
2 5 . Gilson, jean Duns Scot, p. 2 5 1 .
2 6 . Suarez, Metaphysicarum disputationum d. VI I .
2 7 .' Caterus had i n the First Objections t o the Meditations invoked formal
distinction in relation to soul and body. Descartes replies: "As for the formal
distinction which this very learned theologian says he takes from Scotus, I reply,
in brief, that it is no different from the modal , and only covers incomplete
beings . . ." (AT IX. 94-9 5 ).
28. There is really no need to inquire whether Spinoza had read Duns
Scotus. lt is hardly likely that he had. But we do know, even from the inventoryof what remained of his library, his taste for metaphysical and logical treatisesof the quaestiones disputatae variety. Those treatises always included expositionsof Scotist univocity and formal distinction. Such expositions belong to the com­monplaces of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century logic and ontology; see forexample Heerebord's Collegium logicum ( 1 649). From the work of Gebhardt and
Revah we also know of the probable influence on Spinoza of Juan of Prado, andJuan of Prado definitely knew Duns Scotus; see I. Revah, Spinoza et le Dr. Juan359

N OT E STO

PAG ES

67-73

de Prado ( Paris and The Hague, 1 9 5 9 ) , p . 45 .
One might add that the problems of a negative or positive theology, of anal­
ogy or univocity of being, and of the corresponding status of distinctions, arein no way confined to Christian thought. One finds them j ust as alive in the
J ewish thought of the Middle Ages. Some commentators have underlined theinfluence of Chasdai Crescas on Spinoza's theory of extension. More generally,
though , Crescas seems to have elaborated a positive theology involving theequivalent of a formal distinction between the attributes of God; see G . Vajda,

Introduction a la pensee juive du Moyen Age ( Paris, 1947), p . 174.
2 9 . Opus Oxoniense l .iii . 2 ( a4n6 ) : Et ita neuter ex se, sed in utroque illorum

inclurlitur; ergo univocus.
CHAPTER F o u R : THE ABSOLUTE

I . ST l .ii. 2-5 , nn2 , 3 ; E ! . 8p .

2 . S T Appendix I I . l 1 [ 1 5 5 ] .
3 . S T l .ii.6 [67]. That there should b e n o "two equal substances" does notcontradict the equality of attributes: the two principles imply one another.
4. Descartes, Third Meditation, AT IX. 3 8 , 40.
5. Replies to the First Objections, AT I X . 9 1 .
6 . T h e earliest of Leibniz's texts that relate t o this matter date from 1 6 7 2( Leibnitiana , ed. Jagodinsky [Kazan, U.S.S.R. , 1 9 1 3 - 1 5 ) , p. 1 1 2 ) . S e e also thenote of 1676 "Quod ens perfectissimum existit" ( Loemker 14. 1 ) , PS Vll . 2 6 1 .
7. Replies t o the Second Objections : " O r you feign some other possibility, o n
the side of the obj ect itself, which, if i t does not correspond t o the former, cannever be known by human understanding . . :• (AT IX. 1 1 8 ).
8. Such appears to be the position of the authors of the second set of objec­tions (cf. AT IX.101).
9 . Replies to the Second Objections (AT IX. 1 1 2 ) .
1 0. Ibid. (AT IX.108). This is one of the fundamental principles of Thom­
ism : De Deo et creaturis nil univoce praedicatur.
1 1 . Third Meditation (AT IX. 3 6 ) .
1 2 . Cf. Leibniz , Letter t o Princess Elizabeth ( 1 6 7 8 ) and "Meditations o n

N OT E STO

PAG ES

74-83

Knowledge, Truth and I deas" ( 1684; Loemker 3 3 ).
1 3 . On the nominal character of a definition of God by infinite perfection,
see Letter 60 (to Tschirnhaus, I l l . 200).
14. E I . l lppl , 2 .
1 5 . E ! . lOs: "It i s far from absurd to attribute many attributes t o one sub­stance . . ." [ 416].
1 6 . ST l . i . l .
1 7 . S T l . i . 2 . ( O n the ambiguity of the formulation, and its translation, see
Appuhn's note in the Garnier version, p . 506 [his suggestions are in turn taken
up by Curley - m]).
1 8 . ST l . i . ln2 [61-6 2 ] .
1 9 . E I . 20p,c.
20. Cf. G. Friedmann, Leibniz et Spinoza ( Paris, 1946 ) , pp. 66-70.
2 1 . Leibniz, "Ad Ethicam . . ." ( Loemker 20), PS 1 . 1 39-5 2 .
2 2 . Cf. "Quod ens . . ." ; Letter to Princess Elizabeth , "Meditations o n
Knowledge , Truth and I deas!'
2 3 . Cf. Leibniz, "Elementa calculi" ( Loemker 2 6 . 1 ) , "Plan de Ia sciencegenerale," "lntroductio ad encyclopaedium arcanum," in Opuscules et fragments

inedits, ed. Couturat ( Paris, 1903 ).
24. E ! . lOs [ 41 6] .
2 5 . Letters 2 , 4 ( t o Oldenburg, l l l . S , l0-1 1 ) , 35, 3 6 ( to Hudde, l l l . 1 29-3 2 ).
26. Letter 60 (to Tschirnhaus, I l l . 200 [ 3 0 1 ] ) .
CHAPTER F IVE: POWER

1 . Leibniz, Letter to Princess Elizabeth ( 1 67 8 ) : "It must be admitted thatthese arguments [the Cartesian proofs of God's existence J are somewhat sus­
pect, as they proceed too quickly, and do us violence without enlightening us."

The theme of "too fast" recurs constantly: Leibniz invokes against D escartes
his own taste for a slow and weighty style, for a continuity that forbids "leaps,"
his taste for real definitions and polysyllogisms, for an ars inveniendi which takes
time. When Leibniz reproaches D escartes for having thought that quantity of
movement was conserved, one should see in this criticism a particular ( and of

N OT E STO

PAG E S

83-90

course particularly important) case of a very general obj ection: D escartes, inall areas, mistakes the relative for the absolute, through proceeding too quickly.
2. D 1 . 7s: "What he means by this I do not know. What does he call easy,
and what difficult? . . . [note: ] The spider . . . easily weaves a web that men could
weave only with the greatest difficulty . . ." [248 ] .
3 . Descartes, Third Meditation, Principles 1 . 17-1 8 .
4. Third Meditation, Principles 1 . 20-21 ( but the text of the Principles avoids
any explicit reference to the notions of easy and difficult).
5. Argumen ts [viz. Of the Replies to the Second Objections] Drawn Up in

Geometrical Fashion, Axiom 8 (AT IX. 1 2 8 ) .
6 . For all these obj ections made against D escartes b y various correspond­ents, and for his replies, see the Conversation with Burmann, tr. J. Cottingham(Oxford, 1976), and also Letter 347 ( to Mesland, AT IV. l l l ).
7. ST l . i . 3-9 [61-64 ] .
8 . S T l l .xx.3n3 [Proposition 10: 1 3 6 ] .
9 . CU 76,n2 : "Since . . . the origin of Nature cannot . . . be extended more
widely in the understanding than it is in reality . . . , we need fear no confusion
concerning its idea . . . ." ; "If such a thing did not exist, it could never be pro­
duced; and therefore the mind would be able to understand more things thanNature could bring about" [34] .
1 0. Letter 40 ( to Jelles, March 1667, l l l . 142 [ 2 3 3 ] ) .
1 1 . P ! . 7 Lemmata 1 , 2 ; p .
1 2 . E l . l ls.
1 3 . E l.l lp3.
1 4 . E l . 1 1s [41 8 ] .
1 5 . Spinoza does of course often speak of a n effort t o persevere in being.
But this conatus is itself a potentia agendi. Cf. E I I I . 5 7p: potentia seu conatus; E I I I ,General Definition of Affects: agendi potentia sive existendi vis; E.IV.29p: hominis

potentia qua existet et operatur.
1 6. ST l l .xx.3n3 : "This idea then, considered alone, apart from all otherideas , can be no more than an idea of such a thing; it does not have an idea ofsuch a thing. Because such an idea, so considered, is only a part, it cannot have

N OT E S

T O

PAG E S90-99

the clearest and most distinct concept of itself and its obj ect; but the thinking
thing, which alone is the whole of Nature, can. For a part, considered apartfrom its whole, cannot etc." [ 1 3 6 ] .
1 7. E Il.5p.
1 8 . Letter 2 1 ( to Blyenbergh, 1 1 1 . 8 6 ) .
1 9 . p ii. 2-3 .
20. E IV.4p [549].
2 1 . E IV.4p.
2 2 . E IV.4p: " Man's power, insofar as it is explained through his actual
essence, is part of God or Nature's infinite power, i . e . , of its essence" [ 549] .
2 3 . E l . 36p.
24. The identity of power and act, at least in the Nous, is a frequent themeof Neoplatonism, and is to be found in Christian as in Jewish thought. Nicholasof Cusa derives from it the notion of a possest, which he applies to God ( Oeuvres

choisies, ed. de Gandillac, Paris, 1942, pp. 543-46; de Gandillac, La Philosophie
de Nicolas de Cues, pp . 2 9 8 - 3 0 6 ) . This identity in God of act and power isextended by Bruno to the Simulacrum , that is, to the Universe or Nature ( On

Cause, Principle, and Unity, Third Dialogue).
25. This tradition is already taken to a logical conclusion by Hobbes (cf.

De Corpore, Ch. 1 0 ) .
2 6 . Spinoza often speaks of a n aptitude of body, corresponding to i t s power:
a body is apt ( aptus) to act and suffer action (E l l . l 3 s); it can be affected in agreat number of ways ( I l l , Postulate 1 ) . Man's excellence derives from the factthat his body is "apt for the greatest number of things" (V. 3 9 ) . On the other
hand, a potestas corresponds to a power of God ( potentia ) ; God can be affectedin an infinity of ways, and necessarily produces all the affections that lie within
his power ( 1 . 3 5 ).

27. On the variation of vis existendi, see E I l l , General Definition of Affects.
2 8 . ST I .ii.22-2 5 ; E l . 1 5 s .
CHAPTER SIX: EXPRESSI O N IN PARALLELISM

1 . ST I, Second Dialogue 5 .

N OT E STO

PAG E S

1 0 0 - 1 0 6

2 . E 1!.3s.
3 . E 1 . 2 5 s : "God must be called the cause of all things in the same sense i nwhich he is called the cause of himself" [43 1 ] ; 1 1 . 3 s : "It is a s impossible for u s
t o conceive that G o d does n o t act a s it is t o conceive that he does n o t exist"[ 449] ; IV, Preface: "God or Nature acts from the same necessity from which
he exists" [544] .
4. E . I I .7s.
5. E 1 1 . 3 s: "As everyone maintains anonymously" [ 449]; cf. also Letter 75( to Oldenburg, I l l . 2 2 8 ).
6 . This already appears in the Proof of 1 ! . 3 , which appeals to ! . 1 6 . And the
Scholium itself emphasizes this reference ("It follows from the necessity of the divine

nature . that God understands himself" ) .
. .

7. E 1 . 16e,p.
8 . E 1 . 17s.
9 . E 1 . 17s, 3 3 e 2 ; ST l . iv.l-5 .
1 0. E l . 3 3p,s2; ST l . iv. 7-9 .
1 1 . E l . 1 7, 3 3 e,p.
1 2 . E 1 1 .7s. We saw above (Chapter Three) how Spinoza, in his theory of
expression, came upon certain themes of a logic of propositions of Stoic ori­
gin, and taken up again by Ockham's school . But one should take other factors

ginto account, the Hebrew langua e in particular. In his Compendium grammatices

linguae hebreae, Spinoza brings out certain characteristics that constitute a real
logic of expression based on the grammatical structures of Hebrew, and that
lay the foundation of a theory of propositions. Without an annotated edition
the reader who does not know the language cannot understand much of thebook, so I can fasten only on certain elementary principles: ( 1 ) The atemporalcharacter of the infinitive ( Chs . 5 , 33 ); ( 2 ) The participial character of modes( ibid . ) ; ( 3 ) The determination o f various kinds o f infini tive , one o f which
expresses an action referred to a principal cause ( the equivalent of constituere

aliquem regnantem or constitui ut regnaret: cf. Ch. 12 ).
1 3 . E 1 . 21-23p.
1 4 . E ! 1 . 6p.

N OT E STO

PAG E S

106- 1 18

1 5 . ST l l . xix.7f. , xx.4-5 . Albert Leon showed in Les Elements cartesiens dela doctrine spinoziste sur les rapports de la pensee et de son objet ( Paris, 1907), thatthe passages of the Short Treatise do not necessarily imply any assumption of areal causality between attributes, or between soul and body ( cf. p. 200).
1 6 . ST l l . xx . 3 n 3 : "The obj ect cannot be changed unless the idea is alsochanged , and vice versa . . ." [ 1 3 6 ] .
1 7 . By "parallelism" Leibniz understands a conception of soul and bodythat makes them in a certain way inseparable, while excluding any real rela­tion of causality between them . But it is his own conception he designates
thus. Cf. " Reflections on the Doctrine of a Universal Spirit" ( 1702 ; Loemker
5 8 ), § 1 2 .
1 8 . E l l . 17s [45 1 ] .
1 9 . E 1 ! .7s [45 2 ] .
C HAPTER SEV E N : T H E Two PowERS A N D T H E I DEA o F G o o
1 . E I I .7s: " I understand the same concerning the other attributes" [45 2 ] .
2 . Thus the soul is a n idea that represents solely a certain mode of Exten­
sion: cf. E I l . 1 3 e .
3 . O n this u s e of "individual" t o signify the unity of a n idea and i t s obj ect,see E I I . 2 1 s .
4 . Letter 6 5 ( from Tschirnhaus, l l l . 207 ) .
5. cu 85 [37].
6. E 11.5,6.
7 . S T I l .xx.3n3 [ 1 3 6 ] .
8 . E 1 . 3 0e .
9 . C f. E l . 16p: infinita absolute attributa.
1 0. E I l . 3 e , p .

1 1 . Cf. E ! . 3 lp: absoluta cogitatio; Letter 64 (to Schuller, I l l . 206): intellectus

absolute infinitus.
1 2 . Schelling, Stuttgart Lectures ( 1 8 10): "The two unities or powers are again
united in absolute Unity, and the j oint positing of the first and second poweris thus A3 . . . . The powers are henceforth posited equally as periods of God's

N OT E STO

PAG E S

1 19 - 1 2 3

revelation" ( French tr. Jankelevitch, in Essais, Paris , 1946, pp. 309-1 0 ) .
1 3 . ST l .viii .s4 [ 6 4 ; VVL 1 . 7s 3 ] .
1 4 . S T Appendix I I . 9 : "All the infinite attributes, which have a soul justas much as those of extension do" [ 1 5 4 ] .
1 5 . E l l .4e,p.
1 6. CU 99: We must "ask whether there is a certain being, and at the sametime, what sort of being it is, which is the cause of all things, so that its objec­
tive essence may also be the cause of all our ideas" [ 4 1 ] .
1 7. E ! . 3 1p : Understanding, being a mode o f thinking "must be conceived
through absolute thought, i . e . , it must be so conceived through an attribute ofGod, which expresses the eternal and infinite essence of Thought that can nei­
ther be nor be conceived without that attribute" [ 43-45 ] .
1 8 . E l l . ls: ' 'A being that can think infinitely many things i n infinitely many
modes is necessarily infinite by virtue of thinking"b [ 448 ] . ( That is: a being
which has an absolute power of thinking has necessarily an infinite attributewhich is Thought. ) E l l . 5 p : "We inferred that God can form the idea of his
essence, and of all the things which follow necessarily from it, solely from thefact that God is a thinking thing" [ 450] .
1 9 . Cf. E l l . 5 p : Deum ideam suae essentiae . . .Jormare posse.
20. It is infinite understanding, not the idea of God, that is called a mode:E 1 . 3 1e,p; ST l .ix. 3 .
2 1 . Commentators have often distinguished several aspects o f the idea of
God or infinite understanding . Georg Busolt has gone farthest, suggesting that
infinite understanding belongs to natura naturata as the principle of finite intel­
lectual modes, but to natura naturans as considered in itself ( Die Grundziige derErkenntnisstheorie und Metaphysik Spinozas, Berlin, 1895 , l l . l 27ff. ). The distinc­tion seems to me, however, to be groundless, for, as principle of what follows
obj ectively in God, the idea of God should, on the contrary, belong to natura

naturans. This is why I believe a distinction between the idea of God, taken
obj ectively, and infinite understanding, taken formally, to be more legitimate.
2 2 . ST l . ix . 3 ; Letter 73 (to Oldenburg, I l l . 2 2 6 ) .
2 3 . Cf. S T I l . xxii.4n1 : "The infinite intellect, which w e called the S o n of

N OT E STO

PAG ES

1 2 3

1 2 9

God, must exist in Nature from all eternity. For since God has existed frometernity, so also must his idea in the thinking thing, i . e . , exist in itself frometernity; this idea agrees obj ectively with him" [ 1 3 9 ] .
2 4 . Victor Brochard expressed his doubts over this i n " L e Dieu de Spinoza,"

Etudes de philosophie ancienne et de philosophie moderne ( Paris, 1912 ), pp. 3 3 2-70.
25. To the two principles presented above - that God produces as he under­
stands himself, and that he understands all that he produces - we must thenadd a third: God produces the form under which he understands himself andeverything else. The three principles agree on a fundamental point: infinite
understanding is not a locus of possibles.
26. Letter 70 ( from Schuller, l l l . 2 2 1 [ 3 3 8 ] ) .
27. Letter 66 ( t o Tschirnhaus , I l l . 207).
28. Letter 66 (to Tschirnhaus , I l l . 208 [ 3 1 0 ] ) .
29. Cf. E l l . 21s. Albert Leon summarizes the difficulty thus: "How can weescape this dilemma? Either an idea and the idea of the idea bear the same rela­tion as an obj ect foreign to Thought and the idea that represents it, and arethen two expressions of the same content under different attributes; or theircommon content is expressed under one and the same attribute, and then theidea of the idea is absolutely identical to the idea in question, consciousness isabsolutely identical to thought, and the latter cannot be defined independentlyof the former" ( Les Elements cartesiens de Ia doctrine spinoziste sur les rapports deIa pensee et de son objet, p. ! 5 4 ) .
3 0 . CU 34-3 5 : altera idea or altera essentia objectiva are used three times.
The distinction between an idea and the idea of that idea is even classed withthat between the idea of a triangle and the idea of a circle.
3 1 . E l l . 2 1s ( on there being a mere distinction of reason between an idea
and the idea of that idea; cf. E IV. 8 p , V. 3 p ) .

32. Critique ofjudgment §73 .
3 3 . The question is put by Schuller in Letter 63 ( 1 1 1 . 20 3 [305 ] ) .
CHAPTER E I G HT: EX PRESSION A N D I D EA

1 . C f. CU 39: Una methodi pars; 106 : Praecipua nostra methodi pars. Accord-

N OT E STO

PAG E S1 2 9 - 1 3 3

ing to Spinoza's comments, the exposition of this first part closes in 9 1-94 .
2 . CU 9 1 : Secundam partem ; and 94.
3 . CU 3 7 ( and 13: Naturam aliquam humanam sua multo firmiorem ).
4. CU 106: Vires et potentiam intellectus; Letter 3 7 (to Bouwmeester, l l l . 1 3 5 ):"It seems clear what the true method must be, and in what it especially con­sists, namely, only in the knowledge of the pure understanding, and of its natureand laws" [ 2 2 8 ] .
5 . cu 3 8 [ 1 9 ] .
6 . cu 105 .
7. Cf. E 1 1 . 3 3 p .
8 . E l l .43e. (This passage is perfectly consistent with that a t Correction of

the Understanding 34-3 5 , according to which , conversely, one does not needto know that one knows , in order to know. )9. CU 3 3 : "A true idea ( for we have a true idea) . . ." [ 1 7 ] ; 3 9 : "Before all
else there must be in us a true idea, as an inborn tool . . ." [ 19 ] . Such a true idea
supposed by the Method poses no particular problem: we have, and recognize,
it by the "inborn power of the understanding" (CU 3 1 [ 1 7 ] ) . Whence Spinoza
can say that Method requires nothing but a "short account of the mind" (mentis

historiala ) of the sort taught by Bacon: cf. Letter 3 7 (to Bouwmeester, l l l . l 3 5[228]).
1 0 . E 1 1 . 2 1 s [ 468 ] .
1 1 . Cf. S T I l .xv. 2 .
1 2 . I n his Replies to the Second Objections, Descartes presents a general prin­ciple: "One must distinguish between the matter or the thing to which we
accord our belief, and the formal reason which moves our will to accord it" (ATIX. l 1 5 ). According to Descartes, this principle explains how, where the matter
is obscure (in matters of religion), we may nonetheless have a clear ground of
assent ( the light of grace). But it applies also to the case of natural knowledge :the clear and distinct matter of our belief is not to be confused with its clear
and distinct formal ground (in our natural light).
1 3 . The definition (or concept) of a thing explicates its essence and compre­

hends its proximate cause: CU 95-96. It expresses the efficient cause: Letter 60
J68

N OT E STO

PAG E S1 3 3 - 1 3 6(to Tschimhaus, I I I . 200). The knowledge of the effect (idea) involves the knowl­edge of its cause: E I Axiom 4, 1 1 .7p.
14. CU 92: " Knowledge of the effect is nothing but acquiring a more per­fect knowledge of its cause" [ 3 9 ] .
1 5 . Letter 3 7 ( to Bouwmeester, 1 1 1 . 1 3 5 ) . This is the concatenatio intellectus(CU 95 ).
16. CU 1 9 , 21 ( on this insufficiency of clear and distinct ideas, see Chap­
ter Nine below, "ln<J-dequacy").
17. cu 7 2 .
1 8 . We have for example the idea of the circle a s a figure, all of whoseradii are equal : but this is only a clear idea of a "property" of the circle (CU95 ). Similarly, in the closing search for a definition of the understanding, wehave to set out from clearly known properties of the understanding: CU 106-10.
Such is, as we have seen, the requisite of the Method.
1 9 . Thus, starting with the circle as a figure with equal radii, we form thefiction of a cause, in this case a straight line revolving about one of its endpoints:
fingo ad libitum (CU 7 2 ) .
20. What interests Spinoza i n mathematics is not a t all Descartes ' s analytic
geometry, but Euclid's synthetic method and Hobbes's genetic conceptions: cf.
Robinson, Kommentar zu Spinozas Ethik pp. 270-7 3 .
2 1 . cu 1 10 .
2 2 . cu 94 [ 3 9 ] .
2 3 . Fichte , n o less than Kant, starts from a "hypothesis." B u t unlike Kant
he purports to reach an absolute principle that does away with the ini tial
hypothesis : thus, once the principle is discovered, the given is replaced by aconstruction of the given, the "hypothetical judgment" by a "thetic judgment,"
analysis by genesis. Gueroult very well says, "At each stage [the Wissenschaftslehre]
always asserts that, as a principle must depend only on itself, the analytic
method should pursue no other goal than its own elimination; thus indeed it
understands the constructive method as alone effective" ( L 'Evolution et Ia struc­ture de Ia doctrine de Ia science chez Fichte, Paris, 1 9 3 0 , 1 . 174 ).
24. Spinoza had invoked "due order" ( debito ordine) at CU 44. At 46 he

N OT E STO

PAG E S

1 3 6 - 1 4 0

adds: " I f, by chance, someone should ask why I did not immediately, before
anything else, display the truths of Nature in that order - for does not the truth
make itself manifest? - I reply to him and at the same time warn him . . . heshould first deign to consider the order in which we prove them" [21-2 2 ] . Most
translators suppose there to be a gap in this last passage, and consider that
Spinoza is making a "pertinent obj ection" to himself. They consider that later,in the Ethics, Spinoza found a way of setting out truths "in due order" ( cf.
Koyre's French translation of CU, p. 105 ) . There seems to me to be not theslightest gap: Spinoza is saying that he cannot follow the due order from thestart, because this order is only reached at a certain stage in the order of dem­
onstration. And the Ethics, far from correcting this point, rigorously defends
it, as we will see in Chapter Eighteen .
25 . CU 49 , 75 , 99 [ 2 3 , 3 3 , 4 1 ] . ( I n this last passage many translators moveet ratio postulat in order to make it apply to the whole sentence. ) d
2 6 . E 1 . 26e.
27. cu 5 4 [ 16 ] .
2 8 . Cf. E V. 30p: " t o conceive things insofar a s they are conceived throughGod's essence, as real beings" [ 610].
29. cu 42.
30. E I ! .45 e: "Each idea of each body, or of each singular thing which actu­
ally exists, necessarily involves an eternal and infinite essence of God" [ 4 8 1 ] .
( I n the Scholium, and also in that to V. 2 9 , Spinoza adds that "actually existing
things" here designates things as "true or real ," as they follow from the divine
nature, their ideas thus being adequate ones . )3 1 . c u 40-4 1 .
3 2 . Letter 3 7 ( to Bouwmeester, III . 1 3 5 ) .
3 3 . T h e "spiritual automaton" appears at C U 8 5 . As for Leibniz, whodoesn't use the expression earlier than the "New System" of 1695 ( Loemker 4 7),
he seems in fact to take it from Spinoza. And despite differences between their
two interpretations, the spiritual automaton does have one aspect in common
in both Leibniz and Spinoza: it indicates the new logical form of ideas, the new
expressive content of ideas, and the unity of that form with that content.
370

N OT E STO

PAG E S

1 4 0 - 1 4 6

34. Cf. CU 70-71 .
3 5 . cu 7 1 [ 3 2 ] .
3 6 . E V. 3 l e .
37. O n the distinction between infinity ( understood negatively) and a n infi­
nite thing ( conceived positively, but not in its entirety) , see Descartes's Replies

to the First Objections, AT IX.90. The Cartesian distinction in the Fourth Replies,
between complete conception and entire conception is also in some ways appli­
cable to the problem of the knowledge of God: the Fourth Meditation had char­acterized the idea of God as that of a "complete being" (AT IX.42 ), even though
we do not have an entire knowledge of it.
38. Letter 64 ( to Schuller, I I I . 2 0 5 ) [307].
3 9 . E 1 1 .46p: " What gives knowledge of an eternal and infinite essence of
God is common to all things and is equally in the part and in the whole . And
so this knowledge will be adequate" [ 4 8 2 ] .
4 0 . TP vi ( I I . 1 5 9 ) : "As God's existence is p o t self-evident, it must neces­sarily be inferred from ideas so firmly and incontrovertibly true . . !'; and TP,
note 6 ( ! 1 . 3 1 5 ) reminds us that these ideas are common notions.
4 1 . Cf. ST l l .xxiv.9-1 3 .
CHAPTER N I N E : INADEQUACY

1 . E I I . 9 p [45 3 ] ; and cf. l l . l l c : God "insofar as he also has the idea o fanother thing conjointly [Curley: "together" - T R ] with the human mind . . : •[ 45 6 ] ; I l l . lp : G o d "insofar a s he also contains in himself, a t the same time , theminds of other things" [ 49 3 ] .
2 . E l l . 3 6 p [ 4 74].
3. E I l . 9 c : "Whatever happens ( contingit ) in the singular obj ect of any
idea . . ." [454].
4. E I l . 1 2p : "For whatever happens in the obj ect of the idea constituting
the human mind, the knowledge of it is necessarily in God insofar as he consti­
tutes the nature of the human mind, i . e . , knowledge of this thing will neces­sarily be in the mind, or the mind will perceive it" [ 457] .
5 . E ! ! .1 9, 2 3 , 2 6 .
371

N O T E STOPAG E S

147- 1 5 1

6 . On the part of chance (fortuna) in perceptions that are not yet adequate,
see Letter 37 ( to Bouwmeester, l l l . 1 3 5 ).
7 . lndicare : E I l . l6c2; IV. l s Indicate or involve are, then, opposed to expli­

cate. Thus the idea of Peter as it is in Paul "indicates the state of Paul's body, "while the idea of Peter in itself "directly explains the essence of Peter's body"( 1 1 . 1 7s [465 ] ). Similarly, ideas "that only involve the nature of things which areoutside the human body" are opposed to ideas "that explain the nature of thesame things" ( I I . 1 8s [ 466] ).
8.

On the primary thing indicated : our ideas of affections indicate in thefirst place the constitution of our bodies, a present, and changeable, constitu­
tion (E 1 1 . 16c2; I I I , General Definition of Affects; IV. l s ) . On the secondary or
indirect thing indicated : our ideas of affections involve the nature of an exter­
nal body, but indirectly, in such a way that we only believe in the presence of
this body as long as our affection lasts (E 1 1 . 16p; l l . l7e,p,c).
9 . E 1 1 . 3 5 e ,p.
I 0 . E l l . 2 8p.

1 1 . E 1 ! . 24-2 5 , 27-3 1 .
1 2 . E I I . 3 5 s [47 3 J .
1 3 . There is a concatenation ( ordo and concatenatio ) of inadequate ideas,
as opposed to the order and concatenation of understanding. I nadequate ideas
follow one another in the order in which they are impressed in us - the orderof Memory: cf. E I J . l 8s.
1 4 . E I l . 3 3 e,p; l l . 3 5 s; IV.le,p,s.
1 5 . For an analogous example, see CU 21.
1 6 . Cf E 1 1 . 2 2-2 3 .
1 7 . E 1 1 . 17s: "Fur i f the mind, while i t imagined nonexistent things as pres­ent to it, at the same time knew that those things did not exist, it would , ofcourse, attribute this power of imagining to a virtue of its nature , not to avice - especially if this faculty of imagining depended only on its own nature"[ 465] ( that is: if this faculty did not merely involve our power of thinking, but wasalso explained by it).
1 8 . See Letter 3 7 ( to Bouwmeester) , in which Spinoza uses the words
372

N OT E STO

PAG E S1 5 2 - 1 5 6"clear and distinct" to designate adequacy itself. Spinoza understands "clear anddistinct" in a stricter sense to mean that which follows from what is adequate,that which must, then, have its ground in what is adequate: "We understandclearly and distinctly whatever follows from an idea which is adequate in us"(E V.4s [ 5 9 8 ] ) . But this passage is based on I I .40, which stated that all that fol­'lows fro m an adequate idea is also adequate.
1 9 . Leibniz, Letter to Arnauld: "Expression is common to all forms , and
it is a genus of which natural perception, animal sensation and intellectual
knowledge are species" ( The Leibniz-Arnauld Correspondence, tr. Mason, Man­
chester, England and New York, 1967, p. 144 ).
20. Cf. Leibniz, "Meditations on Knowledge . . ."; "Discourse on Metaphys­ics" ( Loemker 3 5 ) §24.
2 1 . The criticism of the clear idea is pursued explicitly by Spinoza in CU
19,n; 2 1 ,n . Spinoza does not, it is true, say "clear and distinct." But this i sbecause he reserves this phrase for h i s own u s e in a sense altogether different
from Descartes's. We will see in the next chapter how Spinoza's criticism bears
on the whole of the Cartesian conception.
CHAPTER TEN : SPINOZA AGAINST DESCARTES

1 . D escartes , Replies to the Second Objections, AT I X . 1 2 1 . This passage ,extant only in Clerselier's French translation, raises great difficulties: Alquieemphasizes these in his edition of Descartes ( I I . 5 8 2 ). We will however consider
in the following pages whether the passage may not be taken literally.
2. Descartes, R ules, Rule 1 2 (AT X.42 1 ) . Again and again in Descartes aclear and distinct knowledge implies, as such, a confused perception of its cause
or principle. J. Laporte gives all sorts of examples in Le Rationalisme de Descartes( Paris, 1 945 ) , pp. 98-99. When Descartes says "I somehow have in myself thenotion of the infinite before that of the finite" ( Third Meditation ), we must
understand by this that the idea of God is implied by that of myself, but con­fusedly or implicitly - rather as 4 and 3 are implied in 7.
3. For example, Third Meditation , AT I X . 4 1 : "I recognize that it would
not be possible for my nature to be as it is, that is, that I should have in myself
373

N OT E STO

PAG ES

1 5 7 - 1 6 1

the idea of God, did not God really exist."
4. CU 19 § 3 ; 21 ( and its corresponding notes ). All these passages describea part of what Spinoza calls the third "mode of perception." It is not here a ques­tion of a process of induction : induction belongs to the second mode, and i s
described and criticized a t CU 20. Here it is rather a question of a process ofinference or implication of the Cartesian type.
5. c u 8 5 [ 3 7 ] .
6 . Cf. Aristotle, Posterior Analytics 1 . 2 ( 71b30).
7 . cu 92 [39].
8 . Descartes, Replies to the Second Objections, AT IV. 1 2 2 ( once again, the passage is only extant in Clerselier's translation).
9 . Ibid.
1 0. Posterior Analytics 1 . 3 2 ( 8 8b25-30).
1 1 . Descartes, Replies to the Second Objections, AT IX.122: "Synthesis, on
the other hand, by a wholly different path, and by so to speak examining causesby their effects ( although the proof it contains is o ften also from causes totheir effects) . . . .

"1 2 . Alquie, in an oral contribution to a discussion of Descartes, brings out
this point wel l : "I do not at all see that the synthetic order is the order ofthings . . . . A thing is the real unit; being is a confused unity; I am responsible
for the order in what I know. And what must be established is that the orderof my knowledge , which is always an order of knowing, whether it be synthetic

or analytic, is true" ( Cahiers de Royaumont: Descartes, p. 1 2 5 ).
1 3 . CU 94: "The right way of discovery is to form thoughts from some given
definition" [ 3 9 ] .
1 4. cu 19 § 3 .
1 5 . cu 8 5 .
1 6 . CU 5 8 : "The less the mind understands and the more things it per­ceives, the greater is its power of forming fictions ; and the more things it
understands, the more that power is diminished" [26-2 7 ] . Indeed, the more
the mind imagines, the more its power of understanding remains involved, so
the less it actually understands .
3 74

N OT E STO

PAG ES

162- 1 7 1

1 7 . Cf. First Objections, AT IX. 76; Fourth Objections, AT I X . 162-66.
1 8 . Descartes, Replies to the First Objections, AT IX. 87-8 8 : Those attached"to only the proper and strict meaning of efficient," "see here no other kind of
cause which might have a relation and analogy to an efficient cause." They do
not see that "it is quite permissible to consider that [God] in a way does thesame thing in relation to himself, as an efficient cause in relation to its effect"(and cf. Replies to the Fourth Objections, AT IX.182-8 8 : ''All these forms of speechwhich have relation and analogy to the efficient cause . . ." ) .
1 9 . D escartes, Principles 1 . 5 1 ( " What substance is, and that it is a namewhich cannot be attributed to God and to creatures in the same sense" ).
20. E 1 . 2 5 s . It is odd that Lachieze-Rey, when citing this passage, inverts theorder, as though Spinoza had said that God was cause of himself in the sense that
he was cause of things. Such a transformation of the passage is not just an over­sight, but amounts to the survival of an "analogical" perspective that begins withefficient causality ( cf. Les Origines cartesiennes, pp. 3 3-34 ).
2 1 . E 1 . 20p.
22. ST l .ii. 2n2 [66: Curley has a singular rather than plural subj ect. - TR] .
2 3 . ST l .ii.5n3 [67 ] .
CHAPTER ELEV EN : IMMANENCE A N D T H E H ISTORICALCOMPON ENTS OF EXPRESSION

1 . Enneads VI.4.ii. 27-3 2 : "We [viz. Platonists] for our part posit being insensible things, and then set there what must be everywhere; then, imagining
the sensible as something vast, we ask how that nature there can come to extend
into such a vast thing. But what one calls vast is in fact small; and what one
thinks small is vast, because it comes as a whole, before all else, into each partof the sensible . . . ." Plotinus here emphasizes the need to invert the Platonic
problem, and start from the participated, or even from what grounds partici­
pation in the participated .
2 . Ibid. VI. 7 . xvii . 3-6. The theory of the Imparticipable, of giver and gift,
is developed and deepened by Proclus and Damascius throughout their com­mentaries on the Parmenides.
375

N OT E STO

PAG ES1 7 1 - 1 7 5

3 . On the Cause or Reason that produces while "remaining in itself, " andon the importance of this theme in Plotinus , see Rene Arnou , Praxis et theoria( Paris, 1 9 2 1 ) , pp. 8-1 2 .
4. The Short Treatise defines an immanent cause a s acting i n itse/f ( I .ii.24). It
is in this respect like an emanative cause, and Spinoza relates the two causes in
his study of the categories of cause ( ST l .iii . 2 ). Even in the Ethics he uses effluere
to indicate the way modes follow from substance ( ! . 17s); and in Letter 43 ( toOsten, 1 1 ! . 1 6 1 ) , we find omnia necessaria a Dei natura emanare. Spinoza seems
to be retreating from a familiar traditional distinction: an immanent cause wassaid to have a causality distinct from its existence, while emanative causality
was not distinct from the existence of the cause ( cf. Heereboord , Meletemata

philosophica I l . 2 2 9). Spinoza could not, of course, accept such a differentiation.
5. V. 2 . i . 5 [Armstrong V. 5 9 ] .
6 . V. S . iv. There is of course i n Plotinus a form common t o all things; but
this is a form of finality, the form of the Good, which must be understood inan analogical sense .
7. Cf. Gilson, L 'Etre et !'essence ( Paris, 194 8 ) , p. 42 : "In a doctrine of Being,
inferior things have being only by virtue of the being of superior things. In a doc­trine of the One it is, on the contrary, a general principle that inferior things havebeing only by virtue of a higher thing not being; indeed the higher thing only
ever gives what it does not have since, in order to give it, it must be above it."
8. De Gandillac has analyzed this theme in La Philosophie de Nicolas de Cues
( Paris, 1942 ).
9 . V. l .vii . 3 0 [Armstrong V. 3 7 ] .
1 0. V1 . 6 . xxix. The term exelittein ( explicate, develope) has a great impor­tance in Plotinus and his successors, in relation to the theory of Being andIntelligence.
I I . Cf. Vl . 2 .xi. l 5 : "One thing may have no less being than another, while

yet having less unity." f
1 2 . Boethius applies to eternal Being the terms comprehendere and complectiri(cf. Consolation of Philosophy, Prosa VI). The nominal couple complicatio-expli­

catio, or the adj ectival complicative-explicative, take on great importance inN OT E STO

PAG E S

175- 1 9 1

Boethius's commentators, notably in the twelfth-century School of Chartres.
But it is above all in Nicholas of Cusa and in Bruno that the notions acquirea rigorous philosophical character: cf. de Gandillac , La Philosophie de Nicolasde Cues.
1 3 . Nicholas of Cusa, On Learned Ignorance, I I . 3 .g
1 4 . On the category of expression in Eckhardt, cf. Lossky, Theologie negative

et connaissance de Dieu chez Maitre Eckhart ( Paris, 1960).
1 5 . I I I . 8 .viii ; cf. V. 3 .x : "What explicates itselfis multiple."i16. Vl.8 .xviii . 1 8 : "The center is revealed as it is, as it is explicated, throughits rays, but without explicating itself."i
1 7 . Bonaventure develops a triad of expression, comprising the Truth that
expresses itself, the thing expressed, and the expression itself: In hac autem

expressione est tria intelligere, scilicet ipsam veritatem, ipsam expressionem et ipsam
rem. Veritas exprimens una sola est et re et ratione; ipsae autem res quae exprimuntur
habent multiformitatem vel actualem vel possibilem; expressio vero, secundum id quod
est, nihil aliud est quam ipsa veritas; sed secundum id ad quod est, tenet se ex parte
rerum quae exprimuntur (De Scientia Christi, Opera omnia V. 14a). On the words"express" and "expression" in Augustine and Bonaventure, see Gilson, The Philos­

ophy of Saint Bonaventure, tr. Trethowan and Sheed ( London, 195 8 ) , pp. 1 24-2 5 .
1 8 . Thus Nicholas of Cusa remarks: "An image must indeed b e containedin its model, for otherwise it would not really be an image . . . . The model istherefore in all its images, and all its images in it. Thus no image is either moreor less than its model . Whence all images are images of a single model" ( The

Game of Spheres, tr. P. M . Watts, New York, 1 9 8 6 ) .
1 9 . The word and notion, Participation ( participation i n the nature of God,or in his power) , form a constant theme of the Ethics and the Letters.
20. Cf. E IVAp.
2 1 . Whenever Spinoza speaks of an "ultimate or remote cause" he makes
it clear that the formula tion is not to be taken literally: cf. ST I . iii . 2 ; E I . 2 8 s .
CHAPTER TwELVE: M o oAL EssENCE

1 . ST I .ii.19n [71] .
377

N OT E STO

PAG ES1 9 1 - 193

2 . The problem of intensity or degree plays an important role, especiallyin the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries: Can a quality, without changing its
formal reason or essence, be affected by various degrees? And do these affec­
tions belong to the essence itself, or only to its existence? The theory of intrin­
sic modes or degrees is particularly developed in Scotism .
3 . Cf. E l l . ! S e,p.
4. Letter 1 2 ( 1 1 1 .42 [Wolf, 1 2 J ] b ) .
5 . E 1 1 . 8e,c ( and cf. l . 8 s 2 : We have true ideas o f nonexistent modifications,because "their essences are comprehended in another in such a way that they
can be conceived through it" [414] ) .
6 . Leibniz, " O n the Radical Origination of Things" ( Loemker 5 1 ): "Thereis a certain urgency [ exigentia J toward existence in possible things or in possi­
bility or essence itself - a pretension to exist, so to speak - and , in a word,that essence in itself tends to exist" [ 487].
7 . E 1.25e [43 1 ] .
8 . At E 1 . 24e,p Spinoza says that "The essence of things produced b y God
does not involve existence." That is to say: a thing's essence does not involvethat thing's existence. But in the Corollary he adds "For - whether the things
exist or not - so long as we attend to their essence, we shall find that it involves
neither existence nor duration. So their essence can be the cause neither of its own

existence nor of its own duration (neque suae existentiae neque suae durationis)." The[French] translators [and Curley, 4 3 1 - TR] seem to make a surprising blunderby having Spinoza say: "So their essence [viz. the essence of things] can be thecause neither of their existence nor their duration." Even were such a transla­tion possible, which it is absolutely not, how would one understand what the
Corollary added to the Proof? The blunder was no doubt suggested by Spinoza's
allusion to duration. How can he speak of the "duration" of essence, since
essence does not endure? But we do not yet know, at ! . 24, that essence does
not endure . And even when Spinoza has said that it does not, he sometimes
uses the term duration in a very general way, in a sense that is, literally, incor­
rect: cf. V. 20s. The whole of ! . 24 appears, then , to me to be organized thus:

1 . The essence of a thing produced is not a cause of the thing's existence ( Proof);

N OT E STO

PAG ES

1 9 3 - 1 9 6

2 . But nor is it cause of its own existence as essence ( Corollary); 3 . Whence 1 . 2 5 ,G o d is cause even of the essences of things.

I

9. In definitive pages devoted to Avicenna and Scotus, Gilson has shownhow the distinction of essence and existence is not necessarily a real distinc­tion ( cf. L'Etre et /'essence, pp. 1 3 4 , 1 5 9 ) .
1 0 . O n the agreement of essences, cf. E 1 . 1 7s.
1 1 . ST Appendix 11.11 ( the first passage) : "These modes, when considered
as not really existing, are nevertheless equally contained in their attributes. And
because there is no inequality at all in the attributes, nor in the essences of themodes, there can be no particularity in the idea, since it is not in Nature. But
whenever any of these modes put on their particular existence, and by that are
in some way distinguished from their attributes (because their particular exist­
ence, which they have in the attribute, is then the subj ect of their essence ),then a particularity presents itself in the essences of the modes, and conse­
quently in their objective essences, which are necessarily contained in the idea"[ 1 5 4-5 5 ] . ST I I .xx.3n3 ( the second ) : "Since the essence, without existence, isconceived as belonging to the meanings of things, the idea of the essence can­not be considered as something singular. That can only happen when the exist­
ence is there together with the essence, and that because then there is an object
which did not exist before. E . g . , when the whole wall is whi te, then one
distinguishes no this or that in it" [ 1 3 6 ] .
1 2 . E I I . Se , s .
1 3 . E I I . Sc: "When singular things are said t o exist, not only insofar a s they
are comprehended in God's attributes, but insofar also as they are said to have
duration, their ideas also involve the existence through which they are said tohave duration" [45 2 ] . (And cf. I I . Ss: When one actually draws some of the rec­tangles contained in a circle, "then their ideas also exist, not only insofar as
they are only comprehended in the idea of the circle, but also insofar as they
involve the existence of those rectangles. By this they are distinguished fromthe other ideas of the other rectangles" [45 3 : where Spinoza's explanatory dia­gram is reproduced - TR] . )1 4. C f. Duns Scotus, Opus Oxoniense 1 . 3 .i, ii.4n17. The comparison between
379

N OT E STO

PAG ES

197-204

Spinoza and Scotus here bears only on the theme of intensive quantities ordegrees. The theory of individuation attributed to Spinoza, as set out in thenext paragraph, is altogether different from that of Scotus.
1 5 . One may find in Fichte and Schelling an analogous problem of quanti­tative difference and the form of quantifiability in their relation to the manifesta­
tion of the absolute ( cf. Fichte's letter to Schelling of October 1 8 0 1 , in ]. G.
Fichtes Leben und litterarischen Briefwechsel, ed. I. H. Fichte, Sulzbach, 1 8 30-3 1 ,
1 1 . 2 .iv. 2 8 , p . 3 5 7 ) .
1 6. A n exaggeratedly Leibnizian interpretation has sometimes been given
to Spinoza's conception of essences . Huan writes, for example, in Le Dieu deSpinoza ( Paris, 1914) that "each embraces infinite reality from a particular pointof view, and presents in its inner nature a microscopic image of the whole uni­verse" (p. 277).
CHAPTER THIRTEEN: MODAL EXISTENCE
1 . E 1 . 2 8e,p.
2 . The idea of a great number of external causes, and that of a great num­
ber of component parts form two linked themes: cf. E I I . 19p.
3. E 1 1 . 1 5 e, p . This point, among others, worries Blyenbergh ( Letter 24,
I I I . 1 0 7 ) : the soul, being composite, would no less than the body be dissolved
after death. But this is to forget that the soul, and the body as well , have an
intensive essence of a quite different nature from their extensive parts.
4. That is, imagination, memory, passion: cf. E V. 2 1 , 34; and VAOc: "Butthat part we have shown to perish . . ." [615 ] .
5 . Letter 1 2 ( I I I .41-42 [201 , 204] ) .
6 . Letter 8 1 ( to Tschirnhaus, I I I . 241 [ 3 6 2 ] ) . O n this example of the non­concentric circles, and the sum of "unequal distances," see Gueroult, "La Lettrede Spinoza sur l'infini , " Revue de metaphysique et de morale ( October 1 9 6 6 ) .
7 . Cf. Letter 1 2 ( to Meyer, I I I .40-4 1 ) .
8 . Leibniz was acquainted with the greater part of the letter to Meyer. H ecriticizes various details, but on the subj ect of the infinity that may be greateror less, he comments: "This, of which most mathematicians, and Cardan in par-N OT E STO

PAG E S

204-208

ticular, are ignorant, is remarkably observed, and very carefully inculcated by
our author" (PS l . l 3 7n 2 1 ) .
9 . The geometric example in the letter to Meyer ( the sum of unequal dis­
tances between two circles ) is of a different nature to that given in the Ethics
at I l . 8 s ( the totality of rectangles contained in a circle). In the first case it is amatter of illustrating the status of existin9 modes, whose parts amount to greateror lesser infinities, all these infinities taken together corresponding to theFace of the Universe. Thus the letter to Meyer likens the sum of unequal dis­
tances to the sum of changes in matter ( I I I .42 ). But in the second case, in the

Ethics, it is a matter of illustrating the status of essences of modes, as containedin their attribute.
1 0. Letter 12 ( I II .4 1 [204] ). Similarly, in Letter 6 ( to Oldenburg, I I I . 2 2 ,the section "On Fluidity"), Spinoza refuses both a n infinite progression and theexistence of a void.
1 1 . I do not understand why, in his study o f Spinoza's physics, Rivaud
saw here a contradiction: " H ow can one speak, in an extended space whose
actual division is infinite, of completely simple bodies! Such bodies can be real
only in relation to our perception" ( " La Physique de Spinoza, " Chronicon

Spinozanum IV. 3 2 ) . 1. There would be contradiction only between the idea ofsimple bodies and the principle of infinite divisibility. 2. The reality of simple
bodies lies beyond any possible perception. For perception belongs only to com­posite modes with an infinity of parts, and itself grasps only such composites.
Simple parts are not perceived, but apprehended by reason: cf. Letter 6 ( toOldenburg , I I I . 2 1 ).
1 2 . Spinoza's exposition of physics comes in E ! 1 , after Proposition 1 3 ( toavoid any confusion, references to this exposition are preceded by an asterisk ) .
T h e theory of simple bodies takes up *Axioms 1 , 2 a n d *Lemmata 1-3 (downto the second axiom of the last). Spinoza there insists on a purely extrinsic deter­
mination; he does, it is true, speak of the "nature" of bodies, on the level ofsimple bodies, but this "nature" refers only to such a body's previous state.
1 3 . Rivaud, "La Physique de Spinoza, " pp. 3 2-34.
14. ST II, Note to Preface § 7-14.

N OT E STO

PAG E S

2 0 8 - 2 1 8

1 5 . E I I *Lemmata 4 , 6 , 7.
1 6. Letter 3 2 ( to Oldenburg , I I I . 1 20-21 [ 2 1 1 ] ) .
1 7. Ibid.
1 8 . cu 101 [41 ] .
1 9 . Letter 3 0 ( to Oldenburg , I I I . 1 1 9 ) : "I do not know how each of theseparts is connected with the whole, and how with the other parts" [205 ] .
20. M l .ii [304].
2 1 . E 1 1 . 8 c : for the distinction between "existing with duration" and"existing only as being comprehended in their attribute" [45 2 ] ; E V. 29s: forthe distinction between "existing in relation to a certain time and place" and"existing as contained in God and following from the necessity of his nature"[610].
22. Cf. E 1 1 . 8c,s: non tantum . . . sed etiam . . . .
2 3 . Critique of Pure Reason , tr. Kemp Smith ( London, 1 9 3 3 ) , "Critique ofthe Fourth Paralogism ," 1781 version: Matter "is a species of representations( intuition) which are called external, not as standing in relation to obj ects inthemselves external , but because they relate perceptions to the space in which
all things are external to one another, while yet the space itself is in us . . . Space.

itself, with all its appearances, as representations, is indeed only in me; but nev­
ertheless the real , that is, the material of all obj ects of outer intuition, is actu­
ally given in this space independently of all imaginative invention" [A 370, 375 ] .
24. Modal essences , insofar a s they are comprised in the attribute, arealready "explications." Thus Spinoza speaks o f God's essence insofar as it"explicates" itself through the essence of this or that mode: E IV.4p. But there are
two orders of explication, and the word explicate particularly suits the second .
CHAPTER F O U RTEEN: W HAT CAN A B ODY Do?

1 . Cf. E 1 1 . 2 8p : "Affections are modes• with which the parts of the human
body, and consequently the whole body, are affected" [ 4 70] . Cf. also I I , *Pos­
tulate 3 .
2 . E 1 1 1 . 5 le,p, 5 7s.
3. E IV. 3 9p [ 5 6 9 ] .

N OT E STO

PAG ES2 1 8 - 2 2 3

4. E 1 1 ! . 2s : "No one has yet determined what the body can do . . . . For noone has yet come to know the structure of the body" [ 49 5 ] .
5 . E I I I , D efinitions 1 - 3 .
6 . S T l l . xxvi .7-8.
7. E IV.4e,p,c.
8 . E V. 6s, 39s [ 614].
9 . Cf. E V. 20s.
1 0. An affect or feeling presupposes an idea from which it flows: ST Appen­dix 1 1 . 7 ; E I I , Axiom 3 .
1 1 . E I l l , General Definition o f Affects: " I d o not understand that the mind
compares its body's present constitution with a past constitution, but that theidea which constitutes the form of the affect affirms of the body somethingwhich really involves more or less of reality than before" [542].
1 2 . Adequate and inadequate initially qualify ideas. But they come , as aresult, to qualify causes: we are the "adequate cause" of a feeling that follows
from some adequate idea we have.
1 3 . E l l l . l e , 3 e [ 49 3 , 497] .
1 4 . The capacity to be affected is defined as the aptness of a body bothfor suffering and acting: cf. E I l . 1 3 s ("the more a body is capable than others of
doing many things at once, or being acted on in many ways at once . . ." [ 45 8 ] );IV. 3 8 e ( "the more a body is rendered capable of being affected or of affecting
other bodies in a great many ways . . ." [ 5 6 8 ] ) .
1 5 . E IV. 3 9s : "Sometimes a m a n undergoes such changes that I shouldhardly have said he was the same man. I have heard stories, for example, of a
Spanish poet . . . . If this seems incredible, what shall we say of infants? A manof advanced years believes their nature to be so different from his own that hecould not be persuaded that he was ever an infant, if he did not make this con­j ecture concerning himself from others" [5 69-70] .
1 6 . Leibniz's notes bear witness to a persistent interest in Spinoza's the­ory of action and passi on: see, for example, Textes inedits ( ed. Grua, Pari s ,1948 ) , 1 1 . 6 67ff. for a discussion dating from after 1 704. A s Friedmann has wellshown, Leibniz often expresses himself in terms analogous to those used by

N OT E STO

PAG ES

224 - 23 0

Spinoza: Leibniz et Spinoza , p . 201 .
1 7 . Cf. Leibniz, "On Nature itself. . ." ( 1 6 9 8 ; Loemker 5 3 ) § 1 1 . This rela­tion of active and passive force is analyzed by Gueroult in Dynamique et meta­

physique leibniziennes ( Paris, 1934 ), pp. 166-69.
1 8 . ST l l . xxvi . 7 [147] , l . i i . 2 3 [72 ] ; and cf. E l l l . 3 s : "The passions are notrelated to the mind except insofar as it has something which involves a nega­tion" [49 8 ] .
1 9 . E I l . 1 7s.
20. Hence Spinoza, at E III, Definition of Desire, uses the words: "affectionof the essence," affectionem h umanae essentiae.
2 1 . E J J I . 3 s : "They do not know what the body can do, or what can be
deduced from the consideration of its nature alone" [ 496].
22. E V.42s [ 6 1 6 ] .
2 3 . E IV.4p.
2 4 . Cf. Alquie, Descartes, l'homme et !'oeuvre ( Paris, 1 9 5 6 ) , pp. 5 4-5 5 .
Descartes does, i t i s true, return to naturalist considerations in his last works ,but these are negative rather than positive ones ( cf. Alquie, La Decouverte meta­

physique de !'hom me chez Descartes ( Paris, 1 9 5 0 ) , pp. 271-7 2 ) .
2 5 . Leibniz, "On Nature Itself. . ." § 2 ; and cf. § 1 6 : the construction of aphilosophy "midway between the formal and the material" [507].
2 6 . Cf. Leibniz's criticism of Boyle, "On Nature Itself. . ." § 3 ; and Spin­oza's , in Letters 6 , 13 (to Oldenburg: "I did not think , indeed I could not havepersuaded myself, that this most learned gentleman had no other obj ect in his

Treatise on Nitre than to show the weak foundations of that childish and frivo­
lous doctrine of substantial forms and qualities . . . . " Letter 1 3 , 1 1 1 .45 [208 ] ) .
27. Leibniz, "On Nature i n Itself. . . " § 9 [ 5 0 2 ] .
2 8 . ST I l . xix.8n: "two modes because rest is certainly n o t nothing" [ 1 3 1 ] .
If one can speak o f a "tendency" toward movement i n Spinoza, one may d o so
only in the case where a body is inhibited from following the movement towhich it determined from outside, by other bodies, no less external , whichcounter this determination. This is the sense in which Descartes had alreadyspoken of a conatus (cf. Principles l l l . 5 6-5 7 ) .

N OT E STO

PAG E S

230-236

29. E IV. 3 8-39 ( for the two expressions "whatever so disposes the humanbody that it can be affected in more ways" and "things which bring about thepreservation of the proportion of motion and rest the human body's parts haveto one another" [ 5 6 8 ] ) .
3 0 . E I I I .9e,p.
3 1 . On this determination of essence and conatus by any affection what­

ever, see E I I I . 5 6p ad fin. ; III, Definition of Desire. At III .9s Spinoza had defineddesire simply as conatus or appetite "with consciousness of itself." That was anominal definition . When, on the other hand , he shows that conatus is necessar­
ily determined by an affection of which we have an idea (be it inadequate ), he isgiving a real definition, involving "the cause of consciousness."
3 2 . E I I I . 37p.
33. E I I I . 5 4e.
3 4 . E I I I . 5 7p : potentia seu conatus; III, general definition of the affects,
explanation: agendi poten tia sive existendi vis; IV. 24e: Agere, vivere, suum esse

conservare, haec tria idem significant.
CHAPTE R F I FTEE N : THE T H REE ORDERS AND THE PROBLEM O F EV I L

1 . E 1 . 21-25 .
2 . Letter 64 ( to Schuller, I I I . 206).
3 . ST Appendix I .4p: "All the essences of things we see which, when they
did not previously exi st, were contained in Extension, motion and rest . . ."[152].
4. S T l . ii. 19n: "But, you say, i f there is motion i n matter, i t must b e i n apart of matter, not in the whole, since the whole is infinite. For in what direc­
tion would it be moved, since there is nothing outside it? Then in a part. I reply:
there is no motion by itself, but o n l y motion and rest together; and this is, andmust be, in the whole . . ." [71 ] .
5 . Letter 6 4 ( to Schuller, I I I . 206 [ 3 0 8 ] ) .
6 . Parts that enter into some relation must formerly have existed i n otherrelations. These initial relations have to combine if the parts subsumed in them
are to enter into the new relation. The latter is thus in this sense composite.

N OT E STO

PAG ES· 238-243

Conversely, it decomposes when it loses its parts, which must then enter into
other relations.
7 . E 1 1 . 29c: ex communi Naturae ordine ; 1 1 . 29s: Qyoties [mens] ex communi

Naturae ordine res percipit, hoc est quoties externe, ex rerum nempe Jortuito occursu,
determinatur. . . .

Alquie has emphasized the importance of this theme of theencounter (occursus) in Spinoza's theory of affections: cf. Servitude et liberte chez

Spinoza ( Sorbonne lectures ) , p. 4 2 .
8 . E IV d 1 , 3 1e ; and above all 3 8 , 3 9e .
9 . E IV. 8 .
1 0 . Cf. E l l l . 5 7p .
1 1 . E IV. 8e : "The knowledge of good and evil is nothing but a feeling ofj oy or sadness, insofar as we are conscious of it'! [ 5 5 0 ] .
1 2 . E IV. 5 e : "The force a n d growth of any passion, a n d i t s perseverance inexisting, are not defined by the power with which we strive to persevere in
existing, but by the power of an external cause compared with our own" [549] .
1 3 . E IV. 5 9 p [579].
1 4 . E IV. l 8 p : "A desire that arises from j oy is aided or increased by the feel­ing of j oy itself. . . . And so the force of a desire that arises from j oy must be
defined both by human power and the power of the external cause" [5 5 5 ] .
1 5 . E 1 1 1 . 3 7p .
1 6 . Indeed love is itself a j oy, added to the j oy from which it proceeds . . .
(cf. E l l l . 37p).
1 7. Cf. E V. lOe,p: "affects contrary to our nature" [60 1 ] .
1 8 . E V. 37s.
19. E IV. 8 e , p .
20. E 1 1 1 . 1 3 e, 2 8e; and 3 7p: "The power of acting with which t h e m a n will
strive to remove the sadness" [5 1 5 ] .
2 1 . E IV. 1 8p : "A desire that arises from sadness i s diminished or restrainedby the feeling of sadness" [5 5 5 ] .
2 2 . E 1 1 1 . 1 5 - 1 6 "Accidental" i s here n o more opposed t o "necessary" thanwas "fortuitous:'
2 3 . Cf. the "vacillation of mind" of E 1 1 1 . 1 7 ( there are two sorts of vacilla-

N OT E STO

PAG E S244-250

tion : one, defined in the Proof of this Proposition, is explained by extrinsic andaccidental relations between obj ects; the other, defined in the Scholium, is
explained by the different relations of which we are intrinsically composed.
24. E I I I . 20e, 2 3 e [506, 507].
25. E IV. 3 2-34.
2 6 . E IV. 3 7 s 2 .
27. C f. E IV. 20s, Spinoza's interpretation of suicide: " o r finally because hid­den external causes so dispose his imagination and so affect his body, that it
takes on another nature, contrary to the former, a nature of which there can­not be an idea in the mind" [ 5 5 7 ] .
2 8 . E IV.43 .
2 9 . E 1 1 1 .44p: "the sadness hate involves" [ 5 1 9 ] ; 47e: "The j oy which arises
from our imagining that a thing we hate is destroyed, or affected with someother evil, does not occur without some sadness of mind" [5 20].
30. Cf. E I I I .47p.
3 1 . Letter 1 9 (to Blyenbergh, l l l . 65 [ 3 60] ) . The same argument is to befound in TP iv ( 1 1 . 1 3 9 ). The only difference between this divine revelation andour natural understanding is that God revealed to Adam the consequence of eat­ing the fruit, the poisoning that would result, but did not reveal to him thenecessity of this consequence; or Adam, at least, did not have an understanding
powerful enough to understand this necessity.
3 2 . Letter 2 2 ( from Blyenbergh, 1 1 1 .96 [ 3 8 5 ] ).
3 3 . What Spinoza in his correspondence with Blyenbergh calls "works" areprecisely the effects to whose production we are determined.
34. E I I I . 8e : "The striving by which each thing strives to persevere in its
being involves no finite time, but an indefinite time" [ 499] ; E IV, Preface: "Nosingular thing can be called more perfect for having persevered in existing for a longer
time" [546] .
3 5 . E IV. 5 9 s [ 5 8 0 ] .
3 6 . E IV.59s: "If a man moved b y anger or hate is determined to close his
fist or move his arm , that happens because one and the same action can bej oined to any images of things whatever" [ 5 8 0 ] .

N OT E STO

PAG E S

2 5 0 - 2 5 5

37. Letter 23 ( to Blyenbergh, 111 .99): nihil horum aliquid essentiae exprimere;
it is here that Spinoza discusses the cases of Orestes and Nero .
3 8 . Cf. Blyenbergh's obj ection ( Letter 2 2 , 1 1 1 . 9 6 ) : "Here again the ques­tion can be raised : if there were a mind to whose singular nature the pursuit ofpleasures or crimes was not contrary, is there a reason for virtue whiCh would
necessarily move it to do good and avoid evil?" [ 3 8 5 ] , and Spinoza's reply ( Let­ter 2 3 , 1 1 1 . 101 ): "It is as if someone were to ask: if it agreed better with thenature of someone to hang himself, would there be reasons why he should nothang himself? But suppose it were possible that there should be such a nature.
Then I say . . . that if anyone sees that he can live better on the gallows than at
his table, he would act very foolishly if he did not go hang himself. One who
saw clearly that in fact he would enjoy a better and more perfect life or essenceby pursuing crimes than by following virtue would also be a fool if he did not
pursue them. For crimes would be a virtue in relation to such a perverted humannature" [390].
3 9 . Cf. E Ill, D efinition of Sadness .
40. Letter 20 ( from Blyenbergh , l l l .72 ).
4 1 . Letter 21 ( to Blyenbergh , 1 1 1 . 87-8 8 ).
4 2 . Letter 22 ( from Blyenbergh , ! 1 ! . 94 [ 3 8 3 ] ).
4 3 . E I l l , Definition of Sadness, Explanation: "Nor can we say that sad­ness consists in the privation of a greater perfection. For a privation is noth­
ing, whereas the affect of sadness is an act, which can therefore be no otheract than that of passing to a lesser perfection" [5 3 2 ] .
44. E IV.68e [ 5 8 4 ] .
45 . These were Leibniz's criteria, and those o f a l l who accused Spinozaof atheism .
46. E IV.68p.
47. Genealoay of Morals, in Basic Writin9s, tr. Kaufmann ( New York, 1966),
1 . 1 7.
CHAPTER S IXTE E N : T H E ETH I CAL V I S I O N OF THE W O R L D

1 . E 1 1 1 . 2 s . This fundamental passage should not be considered apart fromN OT E STO

PAG ES

2 5 5 - 2 6 2

I l . 1 3 s which prepares it, and V, Preface, which develops its consequences.
2 . Descartes, Passions of the Soul l . l-2.
3 . Leibniz often explains that h i s theory of ideal action follows "establishedfeelings" in preserving in its entirety the rule that apportions action and pas­sion to soul and body in inverse proportion. For between two substances suchas the soul and the body which "symbolize" one another, action must be
attributed to that term whose expression is most distinct, and passion to theother. This is a constant theme of his correspondence with Arnauld.
4. E I J . 1 3 s .
5 . E l l l . 2 s [ 494] .
6. E l l . l 3 s [ 45 8 ] .
7 . TP xvi ( ! ! . 2 5 8 [200] ).
8 . On the identity of "naturally instituted law" and natural rights, see TP
xvi; P ii,iv.
9. TP xiv ( 1 1 . 2 5 8-5 9 ) ; P ii ,v.
1 0 . These four theses, together with the four contrary theses outlined in
the following paragraph, are well set out by Leo Strauss in his book Natural Right

and History (Chicago , 195 3 ). Strauss contrasts Hobbes's theory, whose novelty
he emphasizes, with the conceptions of Antiquity.
1 1 . P v. 2 : "For men are not born citizens [Elwes: "fit for citizenship"] , but
become such [Elwes "must be made so"]" [ 3 1 3 ] .
1 2 . TP xvi ( 1 1 . 266 [210] ).
1 3 . P ii . 8 [294] (cf. E !V. 3 7s2: "Everyone, by the highest right of nature ,judges what is good and what is evil" [566] ).
1 4. P ii. 1 5 : "So long as the natural right of man is determined by the powerof every individual , and belongs to everyone, so long it is a nonentity, existingin opinion rather than fact, as there i s no assurance of making it good" [296].

1 5 . Cf. E IV. 24e: proprium utile.b
1 6 . Cf. E IV.3 5 .
1 7 . E IV. 6 6s ( free man and slave ) ; 7 3 s ( strong man ) ; V. 4 2 s ( wise andignorant) .
1 8 . Cf. E IV. 67-7 3 .

N OT E STO

PAG E S262-266

1 9 . E I V. 6 8 .
20. y ii.6 [ 2 9 3 -94] .
2 1 . At E IV.69s Spinoza traces the Adamic tradition back to Moses: themyth of a reasonable and free Adam may be explained from the viewpoint ofan abstract "hypothesis," by which one considers God "not insofar as he is infi­
nite, but insofar only as he is the cause of man's existence" [ 5 8 4 ] .
2 2 . E IV.18s.
23. The idea of a becoming, or formative process, of reason had alreadybeen developed by Hobbes; cf. R. Polin's commentary, Politique et philosophie

chez .Thomas Hobbes ( Paris, 195 3 ), pp. 2 6-40 . Both Hobbes and Spinoza con­ceive the activity of reason as a kind of addition, as the formation of a whole.
But in Hobbes this is a matter of calculation, while in Spinoza it is a matter of
combining relations, rooted, at least in principle, in intuition.
24. E IV. 1 8 s .
2 5 . E IV. 3 5 .
2 6 . E IV.3 2-34.
27. TP xvi ( ! ! . 2 5 9 [201] ).
28. P vi . ! .
2 9 . Cf. TP xvi ( and E IV. 3 7 s 2 ) . Whatever the type of regime, contractual
delegation always occurs, according to Spinoza, not to the gain of a third party( as in Hobbes), but to that of the Whole, that is, of the totality of contractors .
Mme Frances is right in saying that Spinoza in this sense prepares the way for
Rousseau ( even though she minimizes the originality of Rousseau's conceptionof the way this whole is formed) : cf. "Les Reminiscences spinozistes dans leContrat Social de Rousseau," Revue philosophique (January 1951 ), pp. 66-67. But
if it be true that the contract transfers power to the City as a whole, still theconditions of such a process, and its difference from a process of pure reason,require the pr.esence of a second element through which the City as a whole
in its turn transfers its power to a king or to an aristocratic or democratic assem­
bly. Is this a second contract, genuinely distinct from the first, as is suggested
at TP xvii? ( Spinoza says in effect that the Hebrews formed a political wholeby transferring their power to God, and then transferred the power of the whole
3 90

N OT E STO

PAG E S266-270

to Moses, taken as God's interpreter: cf. I I . 274. ) Or does the first contract only
exist abstractly, as the basis of the second? (In the Political Treatise the State seems
never to exist in its absolute form , absolutum imperium , but always to be repre­
sented by monarchical , aristocratic or democratic forms , the last being theregime that comes closest to an absolute State . )3 0 . E IV.37s; P ii,xviii ,xix,xxiii .
3 1 . p iii . 2 [301 ] .
3 2 . TP xvi ( I I . 2 62-3 ), TP i i . 2 1 , ii i . 8 ,iv.4,v. l , ,3 3 . T h e motive forces in t h e formation of t h e Ci t y are always fear andhope - fear of a greater evil and hope of a greater good. But these are essen­tially sad passions ( cf. E IVA 7p ). The City, once established, must elicit the loveof freedom rather than the fear of punishments or even the hope of rewards .
"Rewards of virtue are granted t o slaves, n o t freemen" ( P x . 8 [ 3 8 2 ] ).
34. p iii . 3 , 8 .
3 5 . In two important passages ( Letter 5 0 , t o Jelles, I I I . 1 7 2 ; and P iii . 3 )Spinoza says that his political theory is characterized by the maintainance of
natural rights within the civil state itself. The principle must be differently
understood in the case of the sovereign who is defined by his natural rights,
these being equal to the sum of the rights relinquished by his subj ects, and in
the case of these subj ects themselves who preserve their natural right of perse­vering in being, even though this right is now determined by common affections.
3 6 . TP xx ( I l . 3 06-7 ); P iii . l O : "The mind, so far as it makes use of rea­son, is dependent, not on the sovereign [Elwes: "supreme authorities"] , but on
itself" [305 ] .
3 7 . E IV. 3 5 s ; IV.73e,p.
3 8 . On pietas and religio, again relative to our power of action, cf. E IV.37sl,
V.41. On the "commands" (dictamina) of reason, cf. E IV. 1 8s .

39. Reason, for example, denounces hatred and everything related : E
1\'.45 -46. But this is solely because hatred is inseparable from the sadness it
involves. Hope, pity, humility, repentance are no less denounced, since theyalso involve sadness: E IV.47 , 5 0 , 5 3-54.
40. Spinoza's analysis of superstition in the preface of the Iheologico-Political391

N OT E STO

PAG E S

27 0 -27 7Treatise is very close to that of Lucretius: superstition is essentially defined bya mixture of greed and anxiety. And the cause of superstition is not a confusedidea of God, but fear, sad passions and their concatenation (TP, Preface, II. 8 5 ).
4 1 . TP, Preface ( 1 ! . 87 [ 5 ] ) .
4 2 . E IV. 4 5 s 2 [ 5 7 2 ] ; IV. S Os [ 5 7 4 ] ; IV. 6 3 s [5 8 2 ] ; V. lOs [602- 3 ] ; IV. 6 7 e[584].
4 3 . P i . l [ 2 8 7 : indefinite articles supplied to accord with the French version - TR] .
44. E IV Appendix 1 3 [5 90] .
45 . E IV. 5 4s.
46. E IV.4 7s.
47. P x . 8 .
CHAPTER SEVENTEE N : C O M M O N NOTIO N S

1 . E IV. 5 9p : "Insofar as j oy is good, it agrees with reason ( for it consists in
this, that a man's power of acting is increased or aided)" [ 5 7 9 ] .
2 . E I l l . 5 9e,p.
3 . E I l l . 5 8e,p; IV.59p.
4. E IlLS 8e.
5. Active and passive feeling are distinguished in like manner to adequate
and inadequate ideas. But between an inadequate and an adequate idea of anaffection the distinction is one of reason only: E V. 3 p .
6 . Cf. E IV. 5 1 p .
7. More or less useful, more or less easily discovered or formed: E I I .40s l .
More or less universal (maxime universales, minime universalia): TP v i i ( ! 1 . 1 7 6 ) .
8 . Less universal common notions: E l l . 39e [ 474] .
9. For this case of the most universal common notions: E 1 ! . 3 7 , 3 8e.
10. E 1 1 . 2 9s: "So often as it is determined internally, from the fact that it
regards a number of things at once, to understand their agreements, differences,and oppositions; so often as it is disposed internally, in this or another way, thenit regards things distinctly, as I shall show below" [ 4 7 1 ] .
1 1 . E l l .40sl .
3 92

N OT E STO

PAG E S27 7 -28 1

1 2 . Cf. E IV, Preface.
1 3 . E I I .40s1 [ 477] .
1 4 . E I I I . 2s: "For .no one has yet come to know the structure [fabrica] of
the body so accurately that he could explain all its functions" [ 495 ] .
1 5 . Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire defines his " Philosophy o f Nature"through the principle of compositional unity. He opposes his method to theclassic method inaugurated by Aristotle, which considers forms and functions.
Beyond these he proposes a determination of the variable relations between
fixed anatomical components: different animals correspond to variations of rela­tion, respective situation and dependence among these components, so that all
are reduced to modifications of a single identical Animal as such . For resem­
blances of form and analogies of function, which must always remain external ,Geoffroy thus substitutes the intrinsic viewpoint of compositional unity or thesimilarity of relations. He is fond of citing Leibniz, and a principle of unity indiversity. Yet I see him as even more of a Spinozist; for his philosophy of Nature
is a monism, and radically excludes any principle of finality, whether external
or internal . Cf. Principes de philosophie zoologique ( 1 8 3 0 ) , and Etudes progressives

d'un naturaliste ( 1 8 3 5 ) .
1 6 . E I I . 39e,p.
1 7 . E I I . 3 8e,p.
1 8 . E I I .45e,s.
19. E I I .46p: "So what gives knowledge of an eternal and infinite essenceof God is common to all , and is equally in the part and in the whole" [ 4 8 2 ] .
20. E I I .40s1:. By o u r method it would be established "which notions arecommon, which are clear and distinct only to those who have no prejudices . . :•[476] .
2 1 . Cf. E I I . 3 8 - 3 9 , and similarly, T P vii, where Spinoza begins from themost universal notions ( I I . 1 76-77).
22, Cf. E I I . 39p: From a common notion there follows the idea of an affec­
tion ( and this is their practical function) .
2 3 . E I V. 2 9 e : "And, absolutely, no thing can be either good o r evil for us,
unless it has something in common with us" [560].
393

N OT E STO

PAG E S

28 2- 28 7

24. E IV. 3 0e [5 60] .
2 5 . E V JOp [60 1 ] .
26. E I l l . l p .
27. E V. 3 e [5 9 8 ] . And the following proposition specifies the way to form
such a clear and distinct idea: by attaching the feeling to a common notion, as
to its cause.
28. Cf. E V. 2e,p; and V.4s: What is destroyed is not the passive j oy itself,
but the loves that proceed from it.
29. E IV.63cp: ''A desire that arises from reason can arise solely from a feel·ing of j oy which is not a passion" [5 8 2 ] .
3 0 . E V.4s [ 5 9 9 ] .
3 1 . E V. 10e [601J .
3 2 . Cf. E V. 20s.
3 3 . E V.4e,c [ 5 9 8 ] .
34. E IV. 3 2 e : " Insofar a s m e n are subj ect t o passions, they cannot be said
to agree in nature." And the Scholium explains that "Things that agree only ina negation, or in what they do not have, really agree in nothing" [ 5 6 1 ] .
3 5 . E V.6s [600) .
3 6 . E V. 1 8 s [ 604 ] .
3 7 . This is t h e order given a t E V. l O . 1 . To t h e extent that " w e are nottorn by feelings contrary to our nature, " we have the power to form clear anddistinct ideas ( common notions ), and to deduce from them affections linked
one to another in accordance with reason. It is thus j oyful passions ( feelings
agreeing with our nature) that provide the initial occasion to form common
notions. We must select our passions, and even when we meet with somethingthat doesn't agree with us, must try to reduce sadness to a minimum (cf. Scho­lium ) . 2. H aving formed our first common notions, we are better able to
avoid bad encounters and feelings opposed to us. And insofar as we necessar­
ily still experience such feelings, we are able to form new common notions,which allow us to understand those disagreements and oppositions themselves( cf. Scholium ).

3 94

N OT E STO

PAG ES

289-293

CHAPTER E I G HTEEN: TOWARD Tl-iE THI R D K I N D O F K N OWLEDGE

1 . E I I .41p.
2 . cu 19.
3 . On connection through memory or habit: E I l . 1 8 s . On connection byresemblance, which characterizes knowledge by signs: E I l . 40ss 1 , 2 .
4. TP xvi ( I I . 266 [210] ) .
5 . E I l .42e [47 8 ] ; and cf. V. 2 8 e .

6. This religion of the second kind is n o t the same a s what Spinoza, in the

Theologico-Political Treatise, calls "the universal faith," "common to all men ."As described in Chapter 14 ( I 1 . 24 7-48 ), the universal faith still relates toobedience, and uses the moral concepts of fault, repentance and forgiveness inabundance: it mixes, in fact, ideas of the first kind and notions of the second
kind. The true religion of the second kind, based solely on common notions,is given a systematic exposition only at E V. 14-20. But the Theologico-PoliticalTreatise gives valuable details : it is initially the religion of Solomon, who knew
the guidance of natural light (iv, 1 1 . 142-44 ) . It is, in a different way, the reli­gion of Christ: not that Christ had need of common notions in order to know
God, but his teaching was in accordance with common notions, rather thanbased on signs ( the Passion and Resurrection obviously belong to the first kindof religion: cf. iv, 1 1 . 140-4 1 , 144 ). It is, lastly, the religion of the Apostles, but
this only in a part of their teaching and activity (xi, passim ).
7. Cf. Alquie, Nature et verite dans la philosophie de Spinoza, pp. 30ff.
8 . ST I l . i . 2 - 3 .
9 . CU 19-21 ( cf. Chapter Ten above) .
1 0. CU 101-2 ; and the Correction of the Understanding closes a t the point( 1 10) where Spinoza is seeking a common property (aliquid commune) on which
all of the positive characteristics of understanding would depend.

1 1 . Spinoza says, indeed, that "constant and eternal things" should give
us knowledge of the "inner essence" of things; here we have the last kind ofknowledge . But constant things must also , on the other hand, serve as "uni­versals" in relation to changing existing modes: and here we have the second
kind, and are in the domain of combining relations, rather than that of the
3 95

N O T E STOPAG E S

293-297

production of essences. The two orders are thus mixed together. Cf. CU 1 0.
1 2 . E 11 .40s1: Speaking of the problem of notions, and their different kinds,
Spinoza says that he had "thought about these matters at one time."b He is obvi­
ously speaking of the Correction of the Understanding. But he adds that he has"set these aside for another treatise": I take him to be referring to a reworkingof the Correction of the Understanding, in terms of the closing considerations
which forced him to begin all over again .
1 3 . TP i : "Many more ideas can b e constructed from words and figures thanfrom the principles and notions on which the whole fabric of reasoned knowl­edge is reared" [25 ] .
1 4 . A t E 1 1 .47 s Spinoza expressly points out the similarity between com­
mon notions and things we can imagine, that is to say, bodies . This indeed is
why the idea of God is there distinguished from common notions. Spinoza goeson to treat in the same way common properties which we "imagine" (V. 7p ),or "images related to things we understand clearly and distinctly" (V.l2e [603 ] ) .
1 5 . E IV. 49 ; V. 5 .
1 6 . E V. 6e,p.
1 7 . E V. 7p: "A feeling that arises from reason is necessarily related to thecommon properties of things which we always regard as present ( for there canbe nothing which excludes their present existence ) and which we always imag­
ine in the same way" [600c].
1 8 . E V. 7e. (The passage relates only to feelings in the imagination about
things "regarded as absent." But, taking time into account , imagination always
comes to be determined to regard its obj ect as absent. )1 9 . E V. 8e,p.
20. E V. 1 1 - 1 3 .
2 1 . Cf. E V. 9 , 1 1 .
2 2 . TP v i ( I l . 1 5 9 [84: with "ideas" rather than "notions" - TR] ) . See also
the note relating to this passage ( 1 1 . 3 1 5 ).
2 3 . E V. 36s.
24. At E 1 1 . 45-47 Spinoza passes from common notions to the idea of God( cf. , above all , 1 1 .46p ). At V. l4-15 there is a similar transition: having shown

N OT E STO

PA G E S

2 9 7-300

how a large number o f images are easily joined to a common notion, Spinoza
concludes that we can join and relate all images to the idea of God.
25. E 1 1 .4 7s: "That men do not have so clear a knowledge of God as they
do of the common notions comes from the fact that they cannot imagine God,as they can bodies" [ 482-8 3 ] .
26. E l l .46p (id quod dat ) .
27. E V. l S p .
2 8 . E IV. 2 8 p .
2 9 . Cf. E V. 17, 1 9 . Spinoza explicitly reminds us that G o d can experienceno increase in his power of action, and so no passive joy. And he here finds anopportunity to deny that God can, in general , experience any j oy at all : for the
only active j oys known at this point in the Ethics are those of the second kind.
But such j oys presuppose passions, and are excluded from God on the samegrounds as are passions.
30. E 1 1 .40s 2 .
3 1 . E V. 2 8 e : "The striving, or desire , t o know things b y the third kind o fknowledge cannot arise from the first kind of knowledge , b u t can indeed arise
from the second" [609 ] .
3 2 . A t E V. 20s Spinoza speaks of the "basis" of the third kind of knowl­edge. This basis is "the knowledge of God" but is obviously not the knowledge
of God that will be provided by the third kind itself. As the context (V. J S - 1 6 )shows , it is here a question of the knowledge of G o d given b y common notions.
Similarly at 1 1 .47s, Spinoza says we "form" the third kind of knowledge on thebasis of a knowledge of God. Once again the context ( I 1 .46p) shows that what
is in question is a knowledge of God belonging to the second kind of knowledge.
3 3 . E l l .40s2 [ 478] ( and cfV. 2 5 p ) .
34. To what extent are ideas of the second and third kinds the same ideas?
Are they differentiated only by their function or use? The problem is a com­plex one. The most universal common notions do definitely coincide with ideas
of attributes. As common notions they are grasped in the general function they
exercise in relation to existing modes. As ideas of the third kind, they are con­sidered in their objective essence, and insofar as they objectively contain modal
3 97

N OT E STO

PAG ES

3 0 1 -3 0 7

essences. The least universal common notions do not however, for their part,coincide with ideas of particular, essences ( relations are not the same as essences,even though essences express themselves in those relations ) .
3 5 . P i v ( 1 1 . 140-4 1 ) .
3 6 . TP i ( 1 ! . 9 8-99 ).
CHAPTER N INETEEN: BEATITU DE

1 . At E V. 3 6s Spinoza opposes the general proof of the second kind to the

singular inference of the third.
2 . E V. 37s: Only existing modes can destroy one another, and no essence
can destroy another.
3. Cf. E V. 25-27.
4. E V. 2 2 p , 3 6e .
5 . Cf. E V. 36s. (The general context here shows that what is in question i seach person's own essence, the essence of h i s own body: cf. V. 3 0 . )6 . E V. 29e.
7. E V. 3 1 e : "The third kind of knowledge depends on the mind, as on aformal cause, insofar as the mind itself is eternal" [610] .
8. E V. 27p: He who knows by the third kind of knowledge "is affected withthe greatest j oy [summa laetitia ]" [ 609 ] .
9 . E V. 3 2c .
1 0. Thus common notions do n o t a s such constitute the essence of any sin­gular thing: cf. E l l . 3 7e. And at V.41p, Spinoza reminds us that the second kindof knowledge gives us no idea of the eternal essence of the mind.
1 1 . E V. 29p. There are thus two kinds of eternity, one characterized by thepresence of common notions , the other by the existence of singular essences .
1 2 . On the affections of an essence in general , and on the adventitious andthe innate, see E I l l , Explanation of the Definition of Desire.
1 3 . According to E 1 1 . 3 8 ,39p, common notions are indeed in God. But this
only insofar as they are comprised in the ideas of singular things (ideas of our­selves and of other things ) which are themselves in God. It is not so with us:
common notions come first in the order of our knowledge. Thus they are in us

N OT E STO

PAG E S308-315

a source of special affections (joys of the second kind). God, on the other hand ,experiences only affections of the third kind.
1 4. Cf. E V. 14-20.
1 5 . E V. 3 1s: "Although we are already certain that the mind is eternal , inso­
far as it conceives things sub specie aeternitatis, nevertheless, for an easier expla­
nation and better understanding of the things we wish to show, we shall consider
it as if it were now beginning to be, and were now beginning to understandthings sub specie aeternitatis . . ." [ 610-1 1 ] .
1 6 . E V. 3 3 s [61 1 ) .
1 7 . E V. 3 3 s .
1 8 . Love toward G o d of the second kind : E V. 14-20; the love of G o d o f
the third kind: E V. 3 2-37.
1 9 . E V. 3 6e,c.
20. E V. 3 6s.
2 1 . Cf. E V. 2 0s , 3 8 p .
2 2 . O n the parts of the soul , s e e E 1 ! . 1 5 . On the assimilation of faculties
to parts, see E V.40cp.
23. E V. 2 3 s,29p. (This faculty of suffering, imagining or conceiving in timeis indeed a power, because it "involves" the soul's essence or power of action . )24. E V. 2 2 p .
25 . E V. 22p. This proof cites precisely that axiom of parallelism b y whichknowledge of an effect depends on and involves knowledge of its cause. Spinoza's
formula species aeternitatis designates at once the kind of eternity that flows froma cause, and the intellectual conception that is inseparable from the cause.
26. E V. 29e,p.
27. E V.23s. This experience necessarily belongs to the third kind of knowl­
edge; for the second kind has no adequate idea of our body's essence, and does

not yet give us the knowledge that our mind is eternal ( cf. V.41 p ).
2 8 . E V. 2 1 e : "The mind can neither imagine anything, nor recollect pastthings , except while the body endures" [ 607 ) .
29. E V.40c: "The part of the mind that remains, however great it i s , is more
perfect than the rest" [ 615 ) .
399

N OT E STO

PAG ES3 1 5 - 3 2 6

30. E V. 34e: "Only while the body endures is the mind subj ect to feelings
which are related to the passions" [ 61 1 ] .
3 1 . E V.40c: "The eternal part of the mind is the understanding, throughwhich alone we are said to act. But what we have shown to perish is the imagi­
nation, through which alone we are said to suffer action" [61 5 ] .
3 2 . At E IV. 3 9p,s Spinoza says that death destroys the body, and s o "renders
it compl etely incapable of being affected" [ 5 6 9 ] . But as the context makes
clear, what are here in question are passive affections produced by other exist­
ing bodies.
3 3 . Leibniz, Letter to the Landgrave of HesseRheinfels, August 14, 1 68 3 .
Cf. Foucher d e Careil , tr. 0 . Owen ( Edinburgh, 1 8 5 5 ) . B y taking the Spinozist
eternity of the soul as similar to a mathematical truth, Leibniz overlooks all
the differences between the third kind of knowledge and the second.
34. E V. 3 8 s [614] . While in existence we strive (V. 3 9s ) to train our bodyin such a way that it corresponds to a mind that is in the highest degree con­scious of itself, of God, and of things. Then what relates to memory and imagi­
nation will be "of hardly any moment in relation to the understanding" [614] .
3 5 . E V. 3 8p: "The more the mind understands things by the second andthird kind of knowledge, the greater the part of it that remains unharmed"[61 3 ] .
3 6 . E V. 3 8 e , s .
C O N C L U S I O N : T H E T H E O RY O F EXPRESS I O N I N LE IBNIZ A N D SP!N OZA:
EXPRESSI O N ISM I N P H I L O S O PHY

1 . On these two themes of mirror and seed (or branch ), in their essen­tial relation to the notion of expression, reference might be made, for exam­
ple, to Eckhardt's trial . The themes are in fact among the principal heads
under which he was accused ( cf. Edition critique des pieces relatives au procesd'Eckhart, ed. G. Thery, in Archives d'Histoire doctrinale et litteraire du Moyen Age( Paris, 1926-27).
2 . On "simple forms taken absolutely," "the very attributes of God , " and"the first causes and ultimate reason of things ," see the Letter to Elizabeth
4 00

N OT E STO

PAG E S326-330( 1 6 7 8 ) , and the "Meditations on Knowledge" ( 1 6 84 ) . In the 1 676 note, "QuodEns perfectissimum existit," perfection is defined as an absolute positive qual­
ity or one quae quicquid exprimit, sine ullis limitibus exprimit ( PS VII . 2 61-62 ) .
Leibniz alludes, in the New Essays, to "original or distinctly knowable quali­ties" that can be carried to infinity.
3 . Leibniz, Discourse on" Metaphysics § 16 [314 J . f
4 . Cf. the passage already cited ( c h . 9 , n . 1 9 ) from a letter t o Arnauld:"Expression is common to all forms, and it is a genus of which natural percep­
tion, animal sensation and intellectual knowledge are species."
5 . PS VI 1 . 263-64.
6 . Letter to Arnauld (Janet 1 . 5 94 ): "It is enough for what is divisible andmaterial and dispersed into many entities to be expressed or represented in asingle indivisible entity or >ubstance which is endowed with a genuine unity"( Mason, p. 144 ). Cf. also New Essays, tr. A. G. Longley, New York, 1 8 9 6 , 1 1 ! . 6§ 24 [ p . 349]: Soul and machine "agree perfectly, and although having n o imme­
diate influence the one upon the other, they are mutually expressive, the one
having concentrated into a perfect unity all that the other has dispersed in mul­
tiplicity" [Longley: "in the manifold."] .
7. Draft of a letter to Arnauld ( 1 6 8 6 ; Janet 1 . 5 5 2-5 3 , Mason, p. 84 ).
8 . Letter to Arnauld (Janet 1 . 5 9 6 , Mason, p. 147 ).
9 . Cf. Textes inedits, ed. Grua ( Paris, 1948), p . 1 2 6 : "As all minds are unit­
ies, one may say that God is the primitive unity, expressed by all the others
according to their capacity. . . . Whence follows their operation in creatures,
which varies according to the different combinations of unity with zero , or of
positive with privative." These different types of unity symbolize one another:
the relatively simple notions of our understanding, for example, symbolizing
the absolute simples of the divine understanding ( cf. "Eiementa calculi" and"lntroductio ad encyclopaedium arcanam"). A unity, of whatever type, is always
the final cause in relation to the multiplicity it subsumes. And Leibniz uses theword "harmony, " especially, to designate this referral of multiplicity to unity( cf. "Eiementa verae pietatis" in Grua, p. 7 ).
1 0 . Leibniz sometimes uses the word "emanation" to designate the crea401

N OT E S

TO

PAG E

334

tion and combination of unities: see, for example Discourse on Metaphysics § 14.
1 1 . A recurrent theme in the correspondence with Arnauld is that God did
not create Adam a sinner, but only created the world in which Adam sinned .

40 2

Tr a n s l a t o r ' s N o t e s

Deleuze has commented on a few points raised in these notes, and his com­ments are sometimes quoted or alluded to below. His reply to a general query
relating to his use of capitalization may be given here: "My use of capitals is
often somewhat arbitrary. I usually capitalize a word for one of two reasons: ( 1 )When a n important notion appears for the first time i n some passage ( subse­
quent uses being in lower-case), or ( 2 ) when some notion has a particular impor­tance in a specific sentence ( but not in adj acent sentences )."INTRO D U CT I O N

a. Dans son genre : I take this phrase to echo Spinoza's in suo genera of D efi­
nition 2. A rather antiquated sense of "in its kind" corresponds to a colloquial
sense of the French expression "in its way." And while attributes are no more
Scholastic genera than modes are species, there is also something of this techni­
cal sense ("in its way" would directly correspond to suo modo, which would
hardly do for an attribute ). "Form" seems here to convey a similar interplay of
two senses.
b. Deleuze's gl o ss and note here underline the interplay in the Latin origi­

nal of the two registers or instances - "technical" or Scholastic, and nontechnicalor "informal" - of modus, each as it were illustrating the other ( the same for­mula "modi qui . . . certo et determinato modo exprimunt" recurs in the next pas­sage translated ). The play carries over into the French mode, but then loses muchof its force in the (or indeed its ) less common English "mode."E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y :S P I N OZA

c . "Epistemology," with its derivatives, may b e taken as the English equiv­
alent to the French gnoseologie ( which Deleuze uses a few pages below as
equivalent to "theory of knowledge" ; his term here is gnoseologique). The term
is sometimes contrasted with epistemologie, taken as the theory of that system­
atically organized and instituted knowledge we call "science." The current insta­
bility of this distinction is, however, reflected in Deleuze's use of epistemologie
and its derivatives throughout Chapter 7 below, as equivalent to gnoseologie here.
d. Sous l'espece de l'eternite: The Latin species has in Spinoza ( like genus, modus

and so on) both a "technical" and an "informal" usage; but to translate this key
expression (with Curley and others ) by taking only the technical sense of a logi­
cal "species" as subdivision of a genus ( the latter, then, being eternity) seems
to me both to contradict Spinoza's own generally derogatory "technical" use( cf. p . 36 below), and to miss the fundamental visual metaphor of the aspector "viewpoint" of eternity ( as opposed to that of duration). The Dutch equiva­
lent used by Spinoza and his translators in this context is gedaante, and this itself
retranslates variously into Latin as species, forma or figura (species is in tum some­times rendered by vertoning, which is sometimes retranslated repraesentamen andso on). The "form of eternity" conveys some of the interplay of the various reg­isters of species aeternitatis, but since the Latin formula is already so familiar I
leave it ( al ong with various other expressions such as natura naturans andnaturata, conatus and so on) untranslated, and leave the interplay o f "technical"
and "nontechnical" ( and of the various different "aspects ," intentional , intelli­gible, sensible , logical . . . of the former) unresolved.
e. S'exprimer, being a reflexive verb - having the same thing as subj ect andobj ect - can often be taken either as active or passive : here ( as in many othercases ) it may mean either what ( actively) expresses itself, or what ( passively)
is expressed.
f. On the problem of how to render the interplay of senses among the Latin

implicare, involvere, their French analogues (impliquer, envelopper, etc . ) , explicare
and its French analogues, complicare, and so on (m ultiple, complexe, etc . ) , in
the "differently folded" system of expression which is English, see the Transla­
tor's Preface.

T R A N S L AT O R ' S

N OT E S

g. The difficulties posed by using Elwes's versions, while we await the com­pletion of Curley's translation of Spinoza's works, are illustrated by his transla­tion here, from which I have departed toward the close: Elwes ends, "cannot
be comprehended by any other means than proofs; if these are absent the obj ect
remains ungrasped." The Latin reads: "nullis ali is oculis videri possunt, quam perdemonstrationes; qui itaque eas non habent, nihil harum rerum plane vident."
CHAPTER O N E

a. In Spinoza, the Dutch vertoning is both repraesentamen and species, "pres­entation" and "appearance"; the difficulty involved in translating Deleuze's

donnee de la representation is that both "representation" and "appearance" aremore technically loaded in English than representation in French, which corre­
sponds rather to Spinoza's less technical vertoning.
b. "Attribute" nowhere occurs in the Scholium, although it is used as
equivalent to "nature" in ( the "equivalent" ) Proposition 5 ( . . . eiusdem naturaesive attri buti ).
CHAPTER Two

a. Curley takes the reference of this passage to be "Nature," rather than theattributes of Nature, and translates : "Existence belongs to its essence , so thatoutside it there is no essence or being" [ 1 5 2 ] .
b . "They" are in this context hypothetical "corporeal and intell ectual
substances."
CHAPTER THREE

a. I have translated affirmer and its derivatives throughout this chapter as"affirm ." While the more usual Engl ish term derives in several cases from"assert," this seems to involve no distortion of Deleuze's sense, and no great
sacrifice of "natural" English, while allowing a uniformity coordinate with the
French argument (using "assert" and its derivatives throughout would not work:

affirmative could not, for example, be correctly translated as "assertive"). I haveon the other hand alternated in my translation of the complementary nier ( andE X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y o

S P I N OZA

its derivatives) between "deny" and "negate" ( and theirs ) , since to privilege
either would lead to rather unnatural expressions, and the unity of the argu­
ment seems adequately maintained by affirmation. (The derivation of this groupof French "negative" terms from the Latin neaare is itself less uniform than thederivation of the complementary "affirmative" group. )b . I have used the single term "word" to translate three French terms: Parole,verbe and mot. When rendering the first of these terms, "word" is capitalized( thus Parole de Dieu becomes "Word o f God" ). The second term is used byDeleuze both capitalized and ( when implying a plurality of "Words") not, but
is always capitalized in English to convey the scriptural resonance absent fromthe common French term for " word, " mot ( which appears throughout withlower-case initial in both French and English). The context in English gener­
ally allows the various different resonances of these three French renderings ofSpinoza's (and Jerome's) single term verbum to be carried over. Sometimes, how­ever, Parole has been rendered by " Speech" ( parole without initial capital isalways "speech") where this particular resonance is required and the context
does not seem adequately to supply it.
c. Romans 1 : 20: The original Greek is somewhat ambiguous in two respects:
Does " from the creation of the world" date the visibility or the invisibility of"the invisibles of God"? And are these invisible things known to understanding
in or through created things ( taking the Greek dative instrumentally) or known
rather in or to the understandings of "creatures"? The King James translation
used by Elwes, while itself remaining somewhat ambiguous, suggests (I think )the first interpretation in each case. The French translation given by Deleuze,on the other hand, appears to suggest the contrary interpretation in each case.
d. Sens: The normal English expression would be "theory of meanin9,'' but
here, as in similar contexts below, I have retained "sense" in order to convey
the sense of the term more fully developed by Deleu·�

'-

'

·

· � -�

'_£' ' " " 'P

and to maintain that continuity with other instances of the same term WJuc-••

exemplifies just such a logic .
e. "Subj ect," "subj ectively" and "obj ectively" have here, of course, their
Scholastic senses of the logical subj ect of a proposition (or its ontological cor406

T R A N S L AT O R ' S

N OT E S

relate), of what belongs to such a "subject" considered in itself ("subjectively"),and of what relates to the "obj ective" perception of the subj ect as object of anact of perception. After the shift from the primacy of ontology to that of epis­
temology typified by D escartes, "subj ective" has come to designate that ele­ment in perception attributable to the psychological "subj ect" of the act, and"objective" the complementary component attributable to the "object" in itself,
so that the Scholastic senses of the words have been effectively reversed ( rather,perhaps, as light is now taken to travel from the obj ect to the eye, whereas it
had earlier been taken to travel from eye to obj ect).
CHAPTER F o u R

a. ST l .ii.n2 [ 66].
b. "Confirmation of this scheme" : contre-epreuve (cf. Chapter 9 , note a).
c . S 'affirmen t : The reflexive use o f verbs in French o ften amounts to a
"middle" voice, intermediate between active and passive , which cannot bedirectly rendered in English , for it has no such voice. Here, for example ,s'affirment has a sense of both ( or "between" ) "affirm" and "are affirmed." This
does not usually cause much of a problem, but may do so when the discussionin which these middle-voice verbs occur turns on questions, precisely, of the
subj ects and obj ects of primary activities, the "categorical" articulation or con­stitution, say, of primary, "absolute" verbality or actuality.
CHAPTER FIVEa. Facile : Modern English takes over only the derogatory sense from theLatin and French words for "easy."b. "Can," peut ( "is capable"), is in French cognate with "a capacity," unpouvoir, being the third person singular of the verb pouvoir ( + infinitive: "to beable to"), from which that substantive is taken. I reserve "power," the more com­
mon translation of pouvoir, to render puissance, which though generally synon­
ymous in French is in the sequel systematically distinguished by Deleuze frompouvoir, as "actual" rather than merely "potential" power: power "in action, "implemented. O n e should bear in mind that this distinction remains merely

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y :S P I N OZA

implicit in the Latin potentia , as in the English "power," and depends , "strictly
speaking, " on a metonymic transfer of the term that in Aristotle generally des­ignates something "potential , " to the "conditional" actuality that " fulfills"( French : remplit ) or exercises such a capacity. Curley notes that "some Frenchscholars" have thought to find in Spinoza a systematic distinction between

pouvoir and puissance, illustrated by his use of potestas and potentia - but that"it is unclear that a systematic examination of Spinoza's usage would confirm
even a prima facie distinction" [ 6 5 1 J, and he translates all occurences of bothpotentia and potestas by "power." One might, finally, reflect that Spinoza's solu­
tion of the thorny question of the actuality of potentiality in general , and of
the potentiality involved in the distinction of actual and potential in particu­
lar - in effect that of the essence of existence, transmitted through Averroist
theories of the Active I ntellect - implies an ultimate convertibility between
actual and potential power: "Gueroult . . . comments that Spinoza introduces thedistinction in order to reduce it immediately to nothing" ( Curley, Joe. cit. ); "Topotentia there corresponds an aptitudo or potestas; but there is no aptitude orcapacity that remains ineffective, and so no power that is not actual" ( Deleuze,p. 9 3 below).
c. Curley uses "intellect" for intellectus ( Spinoza uses the Dutch verstand forboth this and intelligentia, which Curley translates "understanding"). I n orderto maintain consistency I have translated en tendement whether it occurs in
Deleuze or in his citations of Spinoza as "understanding" - thus retaining, inparticular, the traditional English translation of "Treatise on the Correction of
the Understanding" (Curley's "Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect" ­which title hardly has the straightforward connotations of Latin, Dutch, Frenchor traditional English versions ). Curley inclines to the view ( the opposite is
assumed by Deleuze, and material to his argument) that the Correction of theUnderstanding antedates the Short Treatise.
CHAPTER S1x
a. I have in this sentence rendered the same French word science, by thethree words scientia , science and knowledge , as it seems here to be used as an

T R A N S L AT O R ' S

N OT E S

equivalent to the Latin term , which has - combined - both of the latter senses.
Or has, rather, a sense which has latterly become thus divided. ( Deleuze points
out that in Spinoza, scientia appears to comprise the second and third kindsof knowledge. )b. "The obj ect designated ( which s 'exprime )" : An instance of the middle
voice which I am not sure whether to construe as primarily active or passive,
whether as obj ect actively expressing itself "in" the sense of an expression des­ignating it, or passively expressed ( by a speaker) " through" that sense. The
reflexive construction identifies the " obj ect" as indeed obj ect of the verb
"express," but in general the matter of whether it or another "subj ect" is sub­j ect of the sentence has to be inferred from the context. Thus "comment <;:a sedit?" can only mean "how is that said, expressed?" or "how does one express
that?"; and "il s'exprime bien" must just about always mean "he expresses him­
self well" - but the present context leaves the question open. (Deleuze has him­
self noted that in the case of the verb exprimere Latin - like English, but unlike
French - always requires us to choose between active and passive . )c. S 'exprimer again: Scholastic philosophers insisted o n the primacy of theact of expression or "intention," with the "active" and "passive" sides as com­plementary partial aspects of the act. The iteration of intention identified byDeleuze here was, for Scholasticism, the process o f " reflection," in which the"intention" of an elementary act of intending an external obj ect itself becomes"intended" in a second act. Thus the "reference" ( in Fregean parlance ) was called
the "first intention" of an expression, and the "sense" the intentio secunda . The
Fregean paradox that the sense of an expression can never be known qua sense,
but only as a referent, never as a "concept, " but only as transposed by reflec­tion into the character of an "obj ect" is well known, and has a long prehistory.
The reliance on the complex of relations that arise when the activity of reflec­tion or " thought" is itself considered as an obj ect of thought constitutes ofcourse a primary matrix, and associated dynamic, of correlation of subj ects,
obj ects, Thought and Extension, infinite and finite, from Plato and Aristotle on.
d. Egalite de principe, isonomie : "Equality" of principle seems rather odd
in English, caught between a quantitative sense that is rather incongruous, andE X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y :S P I N OZA

a more general sense that is in English (but not in French) more or less restricted
to the moral order of rights, and equally incongruous. What is in question isthat congruence of incongruities expressed here by "equally." I ndeed the figureof "congruence," borrowed from geometry, fits fairly precisely, since what is inquestion is just two parallel "geometrically" developed structures (of "intemal"Thought and "external" Extension) whose Spinozist "geometry" is identical ,if terms in one "series" are exchanged throughout for corresponding terms in
the other series.
e. The examples here all allude to the most fundamental "elements" of the
Euclidean geometry that provides the form or frame of Spinoza's system . Thus
the "straight line" is defined by Euclid precisely as a line all of whose parts havethe same form as ("lie evenly with") the whole line: and this "straightness" isthe simplest "link" that can obtain between the points of a line.
f. Terrain d'affrontement is both a military metaphor, and a physical image; tofind an English equivalent, I have had to narrow the "area" or "field" of confron­tation to a line, and temper somewhat the rather too adversarial "confrontation."g. I take the quotation marks to signal an allusion to the basic (or rather"apical") Neoplatonic figure of the One "descending" into appearance or expres­sion through the process of division and differentiation first expressed in the
primary Triad or Trinity.
h. Curley has "infinite attributes," but it is not then clear whether "infi­
nite" qualifies the attributes individually (as each infinite) or collectively ( asan infinity).
i. " Comprise": The quotation marks allude, according to Deleuze, to Spin­oza's own terms at 1 1 .7, but they also perhaps underline the interplay of twosenses of the French word : the inanimate sense of included, "comprised, " andthe "mental" sense of comprehension, usually translated as "understood ." Alllanguages appear to use the "extensional" figure of comprising as an image of"intensional" mental comprehension, and the duality of the image here under­lines the "parallelism" of the intensional and extensional "series" of inclusionand exclusion.

410

T R A N S L AT O R ' S

N OT E S

CHAPTER SEVEN
a. To speak of "conditions" of the expression of substance might suggestthat these are somehow actually, ontologically, prior to substance or ( what is
the same, being "necessary") its expression. We also speak of "conditions" forasserting certain things of substance and its expression. I have not always beenquite sure where D eleuze's "conditions" are logical (or epistemological ) con­ditions, ontological "conditions" in the sense of preconditions or ontological"conditions" in the Scholastic sense of the "postpredicament" of "habit" or"condition" that must always specify an activity and differentiate it from therange of other potential activities of which something is capable, if the power( potential , capacity) of the thing is to pass into act. I have construed several
doubtful cases in this last sense. Spinoza's "attributes" are universal "conditions"of the sole substance which is Being itself, his "modes" variable "conditions"or "habits," different conditions of subst ance, different ways of it being actual­ized, "taking place." The Scholastics' "transcendentals" ( one, good, true) were
universal necessary "conditions" of actuality, of being, as such: "convertible"
with being ( and one another) in that each might be asserted of anything said tobe. One might perhaps say that the complementary orders of ontological andepistemological "conditions," of "explication" and "implication," were "inver­
tible" rather than convertible. Deleuze recognizes that "The whole question
ofconditions is very difficult and confusing , " and adds that "Substance is ofcourse unconditioned, but may still have internal conditions which relate to it
in their totality ( as the sum of all conditions )."b. Er9o ens, quod infinita infinitis modis co9itare potest, est necessaria virtuteco9itandi infinitum : Curley takes modi "informally" here ( "ways"), and virtuteco9itandi as "in its power of thinking, " rather than as an instrumental use of
the ablative.

CHAPTER EIGHT
a. Beatitude : Curley follows earlier translators in rendering Spinoza's Latin
term beatitudo as "blessedness," but the word sits rather uneasily with Deleuze's
presentation of Spinoza (he remarks that "blessed" seems to me a very unfortu4l l

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y 'S P I N OZA

nate translation of beatus") . The primary meaning of the term coined by Cicero( as of its Dutch equivalents zaligheid, gelukzaligheid - cf. German seligkeit,

gliickseligkeit ) which marks the ultimate goal of Spinoza's philosophy, is simply"happiness, " and that happiness is identified by D eleuze as the freeing of themind from an essentially "passive" fixation in anthropomorphic religiosity. The
passive participle "blessed" has a connotation of "arbitrary" dispensations o f
inscrutable grace , whereas Deleuze's final chapter presents Spinoza's vision ofhappiness as the leaving behind of "religious" fears of arbitrary divine judgment,along with all other "sad" passions. "Bless" is etymologically cognate wi th"blood" and has its roots in that "primitive" religion of fear and sacrifice which
Spinoza takes as the lowest form of the anthropomorphism that is the greatest
obstacle to happiness. "Happy" rather than "blessed" activity is the natural con­verse of "sad" passion, and I would happily render beatitudo simply by "happi­
ness ," had not Spinoza's French translators and Deleuze used beatitude rather
than bonheur. Perhaps the latter term (a catchword of the French Enlightenment)
is slightly anachronistic; Spinoza, after all , used the more "cosmic" beatitudo
rather than laetitia or felicitas to designate "complete" felicity, or happiness "ofthe third kind." ( D eleuze wondered if one could render beatitudo by White­head's "enjoyment": "for doesn't enjoyment sometimes rise to mystical heights?"
But that would require an abandonment of the distinction between Spinozist"joy" in general and a beatific j oy or jouissance - the full possession of j oy in asort of dispossession of oneself. )b. For the dual sense of "reflect" here ( as a sort of impersonal reflexivityof ideas as such, rather like the physical reflection of light, and as "our" reflec­tion "on" the content ), cf. Chapter 6, note c. The argument brought out here
by Deleuze is, of course, against just this false dichotomy between the imagi­nary autonomy of our thinking " ! , " and the radical reflexivity of ideas "in them­selves." We are "in" them as a "spiritual automaton" directed by their free
process of "reflection ," rather than they "in" us, as products of a reflection that
we wrongly think of as a sort of arbitrary whim of the thinker.
c. Expliquer I'essence, comprendre la chose par sa cause : In translating the pas­sages cited by Deleuze here, Curley uses " explain" for explicare and "include"
41 2

T R A N S L AT O R ' S

N OT E S

for comprehendere : but this presents only the "intensional" side of the former
term, and the "extensional" side of the latter, while Deleuze emphasizes thedual character of the first ( by setting it within quotation marks ) , and the"intensional" or psychological character of the second ( cf. Chapter 6, note i ). I
have tried to carry the characteristic duality of Spinoza's Latin terms over into
"explicate" and "comprehend": it would, I think, be even more forced to fol­
low Curley here , and render the second phrase above by "include the thing
through its cause."d. The translator's emendations rej ected by Deleuze, here and in his pre­vious note, are adopted by Curley, who provides argument and authority for therevisions in his notes at 1 . 2 1- 2 2 , 4 1 . ( Deleuze, although rej ecting Koyre's read­ing at CU 46, does in fact give the text as emended to conform with that read­ing; but I have restored the original order insisted on by Deleuze at CU 9 9 :Curley has "it is required, and reason demands, that we ask a s soon a s possible").
CHAPTER NINE
a. Contre-epreuve : I n its sole original sense an engraver's "counter-proof"
taken to check against his plate by "offsetting" a fresh proof impression onto
another sheet of paper ( restoring the lateral inversion of the design as engravedon the plate). More recently it has also come to designate a scientist's verifica­tion of a result by the failure of an experiment designed to disprove it. Deleuzeuses it in the figurative sense of a reverse or converse of a chain of consequences(as invoked for example in "indirect proof" which shows the absurdity of thenegative of a proposition - proof modus tollendo tollens rather than ponendo ponensin Scholastic terminology).
b. The French "affection" normally has (like "modification" in both French
and English) the sense both of a process (corresponding to the Scholastic affectio)
and the result of that process ( affectus ). The latter sense is usually rendered in
English by "affect," a correlate of "effect": an affect is "inwardly" directed toward
an obj ect as its final cause, an effect "outwardly" caused by an obj ect as its effi­
cient cause - for Spinoza they are merely two aspects of the same process. Affect
was also the French equivalent of affectus until the sixteenth century, and has

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y :S P I N OZA

recently been reintroduced in a related sense by French psychologists (borrow­ing from the German Affekt ), followed by Deleuze himself in his study of cin­ema. Spinoza generally reserves affectus for our "second level" affection by anaffection itself (although his usage is not altogether consistent: cf. Curley's note,p . 625 ) , and Deleuze generally renders this as sentiment. (I in turn always trans­late sentiment as "feeling," and have changed Curley's "affects" to "feelings" toaccord with Deleuze's terminology, except on the very few occasions where
Deleuze himself retains affect [e.g . , footnote 8 below] ).
CHAPTER TEN
a. Invente: Discovered or "invented" in the sense of an ars inveniendi, a wayof generating new results which take one substantially beyond the informationfrom which one begins - but in the Aristotelian tradition such inventio, pre­cisely because it takes one beyond one's starting point, lacks the necessity guar­anteed by deductive proof.
b. Communaute: Community in the literal sense of something common to
all , but perhaps also community as the collective unity of the beings that share
this common being. Deleuze notes that "formal" must here be understood "inthe specific sense of 'considered in terms of form': it is being qua being that iscommon to all forms - a common being in various forms. The formalis, formaliterof Scotus."
CHAPTER ELEVEN
a. I have given here a literal translation of Brehier's French version of thepassage, since it cannot be reconciled with the English versions of MacKenna
or Armstrong . Thus Brehier translates kai to pantachou ekei tithemetha as puis

nous mettons !a-bas ce qui devrait etre partout, taking ekei to be an instance ofPlotinus's use of the word to indicate the One simply as there ( a use which iselsewhere rendered "There" by MacKenna, "there" by Armstrong). Armstrong
gives the whole passage as follows: "But since we put 'being' in the percepti­
ble, we also put 'everywhere' there too, and since we think the perceptible islarge we are puzzled about how that other nature spreads itself out in a largenessT R A N S L AT O R ' S

N OT E S

of this extent. But this which is called large is little, that is large, if, as we sup­pose, it reaches as a whole every part of this [perceptible All]" (Enneads, trans.
Armstrong, London and Cambridge, Mass . : Loeb Classical Library, 1966-8 8 ,VI . 279-2 8 1 ) .
The unsuitability o f MacKenna's idiosyncratic version a s a substitute forBn�hier's French may be illustrated by his translation of the present passage: "Itis our way to limit Being to the sense-known and therefore to think of omni­
presence in terms of the concrete; in our overestimate of the sensible, we ques­tion how that other Nature can reach over such vastness ; but our great is small,and this, small to us is great; it reaches integrally to every point of our universe"( 3 rd ed., revised. London: Page, 1 9 5 9 , p. 5 20).
b . Conversion ( Latin conversio, Greek epistrophe ) : A conversion through"reversion" toward that from which it "proceeds" ( processio, proi5dos ). A thing"remains" itself (immanentia, mane ) only by the mirroring in it of these twocomplementary directions of"explication" and "implication" (cf. , e.g., Proclus's

Elements of Theology, with Dodds's introduction and commentary, 2nd e d . ,Oxford, 1963 ).
c. I . e . , 1 3 7b-160c, ei hen esti . . . .
d . Armstrong has " I ntellect" rather than " I ntelligence , " MacKenna has"Intellectual Principle."e. Armstrong and MacKenna here use "unfold," but neither treats the verb

exelittein and its cognates as having any systematic function in the Enneads, bothtranslating it very variously in various other contexts.
f. Esti me hetton on h uparchon hetton einai hen : Armstrong's rendering is "It
is possible to have no less real an existence, but to b e less one" (V1 . 1 4 7 ) ;MacKenna's, "Less unity may not mean less Being."
g. "Deus ergo est omnia complicans in hoc, quod omnia in eo; est omnia
explicans in hoc, quia ipse in omnibus" ( ed . Gabriel, Vienna, 1964, 1 . 3 3 2 ) .
Heron ( On Learned Ignorance, London, 1 9 5 4 , p . 7 7 ) translates this crucial sen­tence "God . . . envelops all in the sense that all is found in Him; He is thedevelopment of all in the sense that He is found in all." Hopkins's version ( Min­
neapolis 1 9 8 1 , p. 94) runs, "God is the enfolding of all things in that all things

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y o

S P I N OZA

are in Him; and he is the unfolding of all things in that He is in all things." I havefollowed the French translation and Deleuze in remaining closer to Cusanus's

complicatio and explicatio, and the more "radical" complex of senses or dimen­
sions embodied in this couple.
h. Armstrong here translates exeilixen as "unrolled" ( 1 1 1 . 3 87 : I have added
the words "thereby" and "principle , " which Brehier's French translation takes
as implicit in the Greek) . MacKenna's version runs, "Desiring universal posses­
sion, it flung itself outward, though it were better had it never known the desire
by which the Secondary came into being."
i. "What explicates itself [ho d'exelittei heauto J is multiple": Armstrong has"That which explicates itself must be many" (V.109); MacKenna, "Anything capa­
ble of analyzing its content must be a manifold" [ 3 9 2 ].

j . Armstrong has "And what that centre is like is revealed through the lines;
it is as if it was spread out without having been spread out."k. Comprend: "Comprises," once again, both in the inner "space" of Thought
and intellectual "comprehension," and the outward physical space of Extension
and physical "inclusion." I am not sure how far the comprehension here is oneof "understanding , " and how far a vaguer figural sense with no specific impli­
cations for whether or not the idea of God itsel f "understands" anything.
CHAPTER TwnVEa. Deleuze insists that not only etendue has what he calls in French exten­

sion . There is a difficulty here: whereas in French the Latin "processes" ofcogitatio and extensio are both usually rendered by the past participles ( pensee
and etendue ) of the corresponding French verbs, English follows the Frenchmodel in the first case ( with the past participle "Thought," rather than "Cogi­
tation" or "Thinking" ) , but the Latin in the second: "Extension, " rather than"The Extended." The latter form would appear more appropriate in English to
the result of the process of "Extension": to the mediate infinite mode of Exten­
sion, rather than that prime activity or actuality itself, dynamically articulated
in its immediate infinite mode, the "laws of motion." In Difference and Repeti­tion , Deleuze follows Bergson in opposing etendue as resul t ( extensum ), toT R A N S L AT O R ' S

N O T E S

extension ( extensio ) as actuality, ( and I think there is sometimes an echo of suchextensum in the etendue of the present "complementary" study) .
Deleuze goes on t o find in Spinoza a rather Bergsonian intension or inten­
sity of modal essence, and a corresponding "extensity" or extension of modal
existence, prior to the traditional "intensional' or "intentional" compositionof ( inward ) thoughts and " extensive" composition of ( outer) bodies. Thisrequires a variant reading (this chapter, notes 8, c ) of a passage that Deleuze con­strues as referring to an existence of modal essences themselves, and (I think) a"numerical" interpretation of the "infinity" of the divine attributes as "infinitely
many" ( for a brief discussion of the latter question, see Wolf's note to Letter
64; Deleuze remarks that "There is, indeed, a difficulty. How can we speak of

two powers on a level to which number does not apply? But the difficulty may
perhaps be more a verbal than a real one." ) . The difficulty of finding a system­
atic distinction in Spinoza between an "ontological" axis of intensive essence
and extensive existence , articulated as a scale of degrees of power, and an"epistemological" axis of intentional ideas and their embodiment in extended
obj ects, seems to me to be reflected in rather odd mixtures of different ordersof inesse, different ways of one thing "being in" another ( cf. Chapter 1 3 , notes
a, d, f). That is to say, the "intensive" composition of essences seems sometimes
to draw on the language of the "intensional" composition of forms in thought,
and the "extensive" composition of existence seems to draw on the languageof "outward" extension. Spinoza himself never speaks of "parts" as "intensive"or "extensive" ( and it is not clear just what the Latin adj ectives would be). He
only qualifies different orders of composition contextually, by using the geni­
tive of the particular "whole" in question: pars extensionis, pars substantiae

extensae, pars naturae, pars Dei . . . pars mentis, pars imaginationis, pars totius universi
and so on ( and extrinsecus qualifies only denominatio and notio ) .

Deleuze notes that " I t is quite true that one doesn't, strictly speaking, findintensity in Spinoza. But potentia and vis cannot be understood in terms of exten­
sion. And potentia, being essentially variable, showing increase and diminution,
having degrees in relation to finite modes, is an intensity. If Spinoza doesn't use
this word, current up to the time of Descartes, I imagine this is because heE X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y :S P I N OZA

doesn't want to appear to be returning to a Precartesian physics. Leibniz is lessconcerned by such worries. And does one not find in Spinoza the expression'pars potentiae divinae'?"If one is to systematize Spinoza's language o f "composition" one might
equally well, perhaps , equate the "intensive" composition of essences with theintentional composition o f corresponding thoughts and definitions, and the"extensive" composition of existing modes with the extensional compositionof their " embodiments , " interpreting the "infinity" of attributes as just the"absolute" complementarity o f intensional composition ( one thought "being
in" another logically) and extensional composition ( one body "being in" anotherphysically) - as the principle that the radical complementarity of these two"sides" ("inner" and "outer") of "being-in" is itself in no sense determined "fromoutside, " but a correlate of the bare form of attribution ( the initial complex,
then, of "expression" itself). It is generally Spinoza's correspondents, rather thanSpinoza, who take a "numerical" view of the "infinity" of attributes, and "theother attributes" serve no practical role in the system. I ndeed it is the practicalindifference of this question of the relation of Thought and Extension that no
doubt explains why Spinoza himself did not systematically resolve it, beyond
insisting on a general structural "parallellism" of the two orders of "internal"and "external" composition.
b . I have used Wolf's translation here, since his terminology is closer thanCurley's [205] to that of the French version used by Deleuze, with its various
echoes in D eleuze's own text ( thus for "in virtue . . . depend": Curley has "by
the force of the cause in which they inhere"). l have also rendered the two occur­
rences of certae as " certain things . . . certain otliers . . . " ( rather than Wol f's"some . . . some . . . ") to accord with Deleuze's version.
c . I think Deleuze is suggesting in his note here that the two instances ofthe feminine genitive (suae ) of the ( singular or plural ) third person Latin pos­sessive suus must refer to the grammatical subj ect of the sentence, essentia sua,since in general such a genitive can only be taken to refer to something differ­ent from the subj ect of a phrase when the reference is clearly not to the sub­j ect. Then, since the referent here could be construed as the ( feminine ) subj ect,

T R A N S L AT O R ' S

N OT E S

it m ust be. l t might perhaps be argued by Curley and others, who adopt the tra­ditional construal of the sentence, that "things" ( also feminine) are already thereferent of the first genitive in the sentence ("their essence"), and are indeed the"logical" (if not grammatical ) subj ect of the whole proposition; and further,that since Deleuze uses his own reading of this "mistranslated" sentence to intro­
duce into Spinoza's argument in the Ethics the question of the modal essence's
own existence, and thereby to suggest that this might here (and so must) be what
Spinoza is talking about, his criticism is essentially circular. (They might per­haps also argue that although we do not know at this point that essence does
not endure, Spinoza presumably did know this, and would have little reason to
introduce a complication that would have no sense in the completed system. )CHAPTER THIRTEEN
a. "In Extension" here seems to mean "in the order of extended bodies," forto exist is elsewhere said to mean "to exist outside the attribute" ( note c, below).
b. The sum of the unequal orthosonal distances between two given nested
nonconcentric circles.
c. ''Relation" here translates the French rapport, which in turn translates
Spinoza's Latin ratio (motus et quietus ) , which Curley renders "ratio ." Now

rapport has, among its many senses, that of a numerical ratio ; the Latin ratio,on th!O other hand, also has the general sense of the "reason" ( essence, nature,ground, cause, idea . . . ) of some thing. While the characteristic relation between
the elementary parts of a simple body must be defined simply by some invari­ant "relation" ( such as an equation of motion, a ratio or lex cobaerantiae orunionis) between the variant external motions of those parts, since there are inprinciple no "internal" differences between those incomposite parts - and whilebodies whose parts are themselves composite must of course ultimately be"explicable" simply in terms of such elementary relations - it is not clear that
Spinoza's ratio is here quite as specific as a simple numerical "ratio" of compo­
nent movements (one might note that, at the other end of the scale, the idea

Dei is called by Spinoza infinita ratio ). Furthermore, the "relation" of the partsof a highly composite body might be characterized, without a full' "explication,"

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y :S P I N OZA

in terms of components (blood, bone and so on) that were "internally" ( com­positionally) different: this would in no sense be a mere quantitative "ratio ."Deleuze uses rapport to cover all levels of constitutive "relations ," as well as
various other relations. There is sometimes a quantitative implication absent
from the English " relation , " but even were it possible to uniformly divide
instances of rapport with such a resonance from those without it, and distin­
guish the first group as "ratios," this would quite disrupt the network of rela­tions, the "reason" indeed, of the various different orders of rapport.
d. Dans l'etendue, "in" Extension: But is existing, then, the same as being"in," or "having," extension?
e. Position ( Latin positio ): I t is difficult not to translate this and cognate
terms as though what is being considered is a logical process of "positing" (here,"two ways of positing modes" ) , rather than the ontological "place" of essence
and existence in Spinoza's scheme or Universe. But the same difficulty is posedby the French original , and I have tried simply to carry it over into English as it
stands. Deleuze remarks that "modal position is at once ontological, logical, phys­
ical and psychological."f. "Once they are posited outside their attribute": Here again , being "in"an attribute appears to be more or less the same as being conceived in, being
formally in, having one's essence in, the attribute, and "attributes" appear rather
like the mapping of Thought and Extension into Thought: being "in" them, then,is just being-in in the logical or conceptual sense. In the other sense of being-in,being "outside" the attributes seems rather like being ( physically) "in" (the attri­bute of) Extension, its space ( and time ) - "extensively," that is, in the modeof being-in proper to that attribute ( rather than to Thought and its logical orconceptual "inclusion" ) . Being "outside" "The Concept" then bears an inter­esting resemblance to Hegel's conception of the order of contingency - an orderin principle excluded from Spinoza's deterministic system .
CHAPTER Fou RTEEN

a. The French version has the "nontechnical" Ja�ons, "ways" (in which the
body is affected ) .

T R A N S L AT O R ' S

N OT E S

b. Patir, to "suffer": A passion is something one suffers or undergoes passively(if not necessarily impassively, nor yet necessarily passionately). We suffer what
is done to, or happens to, us; and our passions are opposed to our actions, what
we "do" to something else, as agent rather than "patient." English does not have(as does French) a complex of cognate terms with which to render all the Latin
cognates of passio, but the relations between these various aspects of "passive"
suffering should be kept in mind.
c. Cf. Chapter 9, note b.
d. I have restored the traditional "patient" and "suffering," where Curleyuses the circumlocutions "the one who is acted on" and "being acted on."e. "Final" in the sense of being determined by ends, by "final causality."
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
a. Wolf has , "although it varies in infinite modes" but the French transla­tion used by Deleuze takes this occurrence of modus as "nontechnical ," ren­dering it by maniere. The two senses here more or less coincide.
b. "Can be combined, " presumably, in the sense that the destroying bodyand the decomposed parts of what it destroys can be together integrated with­out further conflict in the unitary "face of the whole universe ." For it is hardly
a characteristic of destruction in general ( as opposed to assimilation - the"nutritional" decomposition of food, for example) that the results of destruc­tion are incorporated with the destructive agent into a new "finite" individual
unity, into a unitary "product" of the destruction. It might also be noted that
the French use of the "middle" voice here, se composant, se compose is ambigu­
ous between an indicative and a modal sense ( between "is combined" and "canbe combined").
c. It might be objected that elastic collision ( of, say, billiard balls) has been
defined above as an encounter in which there is no change of relations.
d. Lisnes : "Lines" in a rather figurative sense.
e. In the French, extrinsic relations, as ( implicitly) distinguished from therapports ( extrinsic and intrinsic), in which individual essences are expressed. A
rapport on the level of finite individual bodies is, of course, in principle resol42 1

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y :S P I N OZA

uble into a nested system of relations ultimately explicable simply in terms ofthe "purely extrinsic" relations of the body's infinitesimal elementary compo­
nents. Yet the sense of "formula" or "ratio" of movement-and-rest, present as
noted above ( Chapter 1 3 , note d) in rapport, but absent from mere relation,
already on the elementary level introduces a distinction between "expressive"
relations that define a certain invariance of physical structure , stable until
disrupted "from outside ," and the merely transient unstable "relation" exem­
plified in such disruptive interaction. The system of " expressive" relations"implicates" the whole unitary order of nested structures within the universal
structure that is the invariant "face of the whole Universe" outwardly reflecting
the "intensive" unity of the attribute of Extension. There is no alternative torendering rapport by "relation," nor any other suitable English term for rela­tion, but the sense of any particular "relation" is, I think, always conveyed by
the context in which the word appears.
f. Cha touillements : As Curley notes [65 0-5 1 ] , this is the term used by
Descartes in the Passions of the Soul for the "excitement" which his Latin trans­
lator rendered by titillatio. Curley, in turn, renders Spinoza's use of the Latin
term by "pleasure" - but this seems to me rather more general than either the
French or Latin words, which both have strong connotations of inconsequen­
tial ephemeral distraction.
g . Here, and below, " full possessio �" translates possession formelle : strict,true, definitive possession.
h. "Natural understanding" has been taken from Wolf's version [150] , being
closer than Curley's "natural intellect" to the French lumiere naturelle.
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
a. Natural "right" is here opposed to natural "law," very roughly as an inter­
nal or "subjective" principle to an external or "objective" one; but "natural law"is the traditional English translation ofjus naturale (or naturae ) and droit nature]( or de la nature ) . Indeed jus or droit ( cf. German and Dutch Rech t ) is the nor­
mal term for "law" as a principle or system of principles (sometimes synony­mous with lex or loi, sometimes perhaps with a sense of something derived from

T R A N S L AT O R ' S

N OT E S

principles of "right," as against positive "laws" as "unnatural" constraints). Somesenses of droit are naturally conveyed by "law," so I have sometimes used "rights"
in the plural to convey the sense of a system of rights.
b . This is the sole occurence of the expression in the Ethics, and the famil­
iar suum utile is substituted for the proprium utile of the enunciatio;n in the clos­ing statement of "what was to be proved" (quod erat demonstrandum ) . Curleysimply translates both expressions "one's own advantage, " presumably taking

proprium as a mere variant of suum , introduced because suum had itself alreadyappeared earlier in the same sentence ( and departing - it seems to me unnec­
essarily - from the set of terms cognate with "useful"). The French ( Plerade )translator, on the other hand, departs here from the usual translation of suum

utile ( as ce qui no us est utile) , to render both expressions by /'utile qui nous est
propre, the utility "proper to us." Although proprium must here be considered
lo9ically equivalent to suum in the order of demonstrations, the resonance of"proper or true" ( as opposed to apparent) utility, brought out by the Frenchtranslation and emphasized here and below by Deleuze, may be taken to play asignificant part in the network of sense later identified by D eleuze as consti­
tuting a second articulation of the Ethics parallel to or "beneath" the logicalorder of demonstration, and best seen in the system of scholia. Thus the reso­
nance here of a man's "true" utility, his utility in the "proper sense" of the word,
belonging to him properly or essentially, like the "proper motion" of a star - as
opposed to an imaginary utility accidentally appearing to attach to some obj ect
or end in some particular configuration of his body in relation to surrounding
bodies - echoes the suum utile, quod revera utile est ( "his own advantage, what
is really useful to him" [5 5 5 ] ) of the Scholium to IV. l 8 , a couple of pages above( and cf. TP i: hominum verum utile ; iv: nostrum utile revera ; v: quod vere utile ) .
c . T h e French culture has a sense o f "cultivation," retained in o u r "agricul­

ture, " "apiculture" and so on, but largely lost in our "culture" itself.
d. Civitas : A term introduced into Latin philosophical vocabulary by anal­
ogy with the Greek polis, which of course meant both "city" and "state" when
the two were (metonymically) equivalent, and "Athens" was both a town andthe region ( including other towns) administered from that town. Curley chooses

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y :S P I N OZA

to translate the Latin throughout by "state, " but since Deleuze maintains bothterms, generally using cite rather than etat, I have always translated the former"City" ( capitalized to emphasize the character of a polity) and the latter "state,"
adapting Curley's translations where appropriate.
C HAPTER SEVENTEEN

a. The French occasion retains ( as is seen in its common use to designatea shopping "bargain" ) the sense of ( e tymologically analogous ) "chance" or"opportunity" present in the Latin occasio, but largely lost in the English hom­onym , and I have in a few constructions translated it by "chance" or "op p or­tunity" rather than "occasion."
CHAPTER E I G HTEEN

a. Latin experientia vaga : The French translation used by Deleuze is expe­

rience vague, and in order to accommodate Deleuze's etymological reflection
here I have had to return to Boyle's "vague experience." Curley translates theexpression "random experience , " but this , while perhaps closer to the sense of"wandering" (vagare ) is less close to the French, and has a dissimilar etymology.
b. The text as given by Deleuze adopts Joachim's variant reading "at one
time, " noted but rej ected by Curley, who gives "from time to time."c. To his translation of this passage Curley adds a note expressing his"surprise" at seeing " 'imagine' used in connection with knowledge which isnecessarily adequate ."CoNcLuSION

a. Maudite : The sense of an intrusion, repressed or exorcized, banished tothe dark side of things, is reflected in the following sentences.
b. Epaisseur, most literally a " thickness" : Here a density, opacity, "sub­stantiality" or "substance" (not ontological - more a "physical" substance ormateriality), a tangibility, a physical reality that is not a mere reflection of theway the word or theme· "nature" is inscribed and articulated in some abstract
logical pattern.

T R A N S L AT O R ' S

N OT E S

c . Adequat a , makes man "adequate to" God. Etymologically this impli<'sa certain equality : a "proportion" o r equality of measure , ontologically or
epistemologically, without any equality of finite and infinite essence ( or, indeed,
any formal "analogy" between finite and infinite) : man and God become "com­mensurate" in the sense that the human and divine "spheres" are brought within
a single "combinatorial" frame (rather as Galileo had physically integrated Heaven
and Earth ) whose unity is in principle accessible to "the spiritual automaton,"
to man's mind, even if its infinite variety is not. This echoes the extended dis­cussion of the "adequacy" of ideas - and the possibility of our reaching an"adequate" idea of God, if not of all that is "implicated" in him - which runs
through much of the earlier part of the book.
d . Or perhaps "involute ," enfolded.
e. Identite must here, I think, be taken as marking the unity of form andcontent in ideas and their concatenation, without however eliding the funda­
mental distinction between the two aspects or components differently "identi­
fied" in that union ( thus a couple of pages above Deleuze speaks in a similar
context of the unite of these two elements in the "spiritual automaton" ) . In
English "identity" does not seem to allow the retention of any fundamental
distinction between the two terms here referred to an identical reality or mod­ification of reality. ( One might wonder, in passing, just how the Scholastic"metaphysical distinction" of form and content fits within the Spinozist sys­
tem of distinctions as expounded by Deleuze . )f. Loemker has "since our substance expresses . . ." but the text given by
Gerhardt, and in Lestienne's critical edition ( 3 rd ed., Paris, 1 9 6 2 , p. 5 4 ) runs:"On pourrait appeler notre essence [MS variant: ou idee] , ce qui comprend tout
ce que nous exprimons, et comme elle exprime notre union avec Dieu meme,
elle n'a point de limites et rien ne Ia passe." Deleuze has "rien ne l'excede,"which seems equivalent to the standard text: Leibniz is identifying what we call"supernatural" as what lies in the "obscure background" beyond our clear knowl­edge of Nature, and insisting that although some things are apparently outside
the order of Nature, nothing is essentially supernatural .
g. La comprehension et . . . l'extension de la categorie d'expression : Roughly ( I

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y :S P I N OZA

think) the "intension" and "extension" of the "category": what is "understood"
as belonging to the concept ( as its meaning ) , and what "falls under it" as a caseof " expression , " its application. D eleuze comments that "I call expression a'category' because it applies to everything: substance , attribute, mode, thing,idea . . . ."h. Pour le mieux : l think there is an echo here of Voltaire's famous carica­
ture of Leibniz and Wolff: "Tout est pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes
possibles" ( "All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds").
i . Egal: "Equal" does not in English bear quite the same sense of somerespect in which, or viewpoint from which, the two terms are, or may be con­sidered, equal ( one of the terms here is of course the system of "points of view"on the other). "Equality, " without some element of "valence" to suggest equal­
ity in some respect, seems to me rather too close to an identity.
j . The various registers of the terms used by Deleuze here, emphasized byhis correlative appositions , envelopper, impliquer, enrouler and developper, expli­

quer, derouler ( involution-evolution, implication-explication and so on) cannot( as was noted in relation to a similar passage in the Introduction) be exactly
transposed term-for-term into English equivalents. But the English appositions
are I think equivalent, insofar as the device is, in each language, precisely an
attempt to see in particular "centers" of sense or figural interplay, an "expres­sive" order o f spatial metaphor that is taken to articulate each " system o f
expression, " each language - a n attempt t o " express" expression itself.
k. Deleuze has confirmed that there is a suggestion here of these ( know­
ing and being ) being two "powers" of the absolute, rather in the sense that one
speaks of the "square" and "cube" of a number as two of its "powers": cf. Chap­ter 7, note 1 2 .
l . L e sens : The best commentary on this term is the next book written byDeleuze, his Logic of Sense. Since sens marks precisely the interplay of the dif­ferent registers in a word - its various "senses" in the various "series" of terms
whose intersection it constitutes, and whose interplay is mapped in the new"logic" of 1969 - I will not attempt any sketch of the various registers of theFrench word sens itself, and let this question mark the close of this book - andT R A N S L AT O R ' S

N OT E S

the "academic" phase of D eleuze's career - and mark the transition into thenew phase which opens with his Logic of Sense and his move to Vincennes.
APPENDIX

a. "Doubler": The quotation marks presumably indicate that various sensesof the word (to line a garment, fold a piece of paper, double ranks, double forsomeone, and so on) may be taken as suggestions as to what Deleuze intends
by it, but that its sense here is dependent on its context.
b . Gouts.

Final Note. l would like, finally, to note the angelic patience of my editor,
Rennie Childress, and the heroically indulgent collaboration of my friend HughTomlinson, and to thank both for their faith that I would eventually get to thislast full stop.

I ndex

ABRAHAM, 5 1 .

absoluta cogitatio, 1 1 8 , 120.
Absolute, 20, 22, 70, 80, 8 9 , 1 1 8ff. ,177, 3 2 5 .
Abstraction, 2 9 , 3 0 , 4 6 , 4 8 , 6 4 , 1 5 8 5 9 , 160, 197-98 , 277, 2 87, 3 19-20.
Accidents, 38, 147, 1 66-67, 169,
2 3 8- 3 9 , 265 , 277, 2 8 9 .
Action, see Power of action.
Adam , 5 1 , 149, 247-4 8 , 2 6 3 .
Adequacy, 1 5 , 1 3 2ff. , 1 3 9ff. , 148ff. ,1 5 1 ff. , 160, 1 8 1 - 8 2 , 2 20-2 1 , 240,
273 , 274, 277, 279ff. , 290ff. , 2 9 8 ,3 0 0 , 3 04ff. , 3 1 1 , 3 1 5 , 3 2 5 , 3 3 0 .
Affections, 9 3-94, 1 0 2 , 1 10-1 1 , 146ff. ,149-5 1 , 167, 2 17ff. , 2 3 1 , 2 3 3-34,
2 3 9 ff. , 252, 2 5 8 , 260, 267, 279,
2 8 2 ff. , 306-07, 3 0 8 , 312, 3 17ff. ;active, 93-9 5 , 2 1 9 , 222ff. , 245-46,
2 5 2 , 2 5 6 , 2 6 2 , 2 6 9 , 274, 305 ,3 07, 3 1 0 , 3 1 5 , 3 1 6 , 3 17ff. ; j oyful,
241, 243-44, 261, 267, 272, 2 8 2 ;passive, 9 3 , 219-20, 2 2 l ff. , 2 3 03 1 , 2 3 9 ff. , 245-46, 2 5 2 , 2 5 6 , 2 7 2 ,273 , 2 8 2 , 2 8 9 , 3 0 1 , 3 07, 3 1 0 , 3 1 1 ,
3 1 5 , 3 17ff. ; sad, 242-44, 260, 2 8 2 .
affectus, 220.
Affirmation, 5 3 -5 5 , 5 9-60, 6 1 , 67,
80, 8 2 , 90, 142, 1 6 5 , 167, 1 7 2 ,
1 7 8 , 2 3 0 , 2 7 2 , 3 10 , 3 3 3 .

Agrippina, 250.
Alquie, Ferdinand, 2 27, 2 9 2 .
Amoralism, 2 5 1 , 25 3-54.
Analogy, 46-49, 54, 55, 5 7, 5 9 , 60,
6 1 , 6 3 , 64, 72, 79, 103-04, 109,
1 4 2 , 143 , 1 62-65 , 167, 1 7 2 , 173,
1 7 8 , 181-82, 232, 275 , 328, 3 2 9 ,330, 331, 332.
Anthropomorphism , 4 6 , see also
Eminence.
Anticartesianism, 17, 37-3 8 , 66, 7 3 ,
8 3 , 1 5 2-54, 1 5 5 ff. , 227ff. , 3 2 1 ff.
Antiquity, 1 1 5 , 2 5 8 .
Apophasis, 1 8 1 .
Apostles, 2 9 1 .
aptitudo, 9 3 .
Aquinas, Thomas, 46, 5 4 , 1 6 3 .
Arcana, 3 2 2 .
Aristotelianism , 49, 1 0 1 , 1 1 5 , 1 3 3 ,1 5 7-5 9 , 1 60-6 1 , 2 5 8 , 2 7 8 , 2 9 2 ,3 2 3 ; biology, 2 7 8 .
Aristotle, 1 0 1 , 1 1 5 , 1 17, 1 5 7-5 9 , 160.
Arnauld, 3 0 , 162, 164.
Artist, 9 9 , 1 69-70.
Atheism , 2 5 3 .
Atoms, 204.
Attributes, divine, 44, 46-47, 49-5 0 ,
5 1 , 5 5 , 6 3 , 64, 6 6 , 7 0 , 7 4 , 7 6 ,
7 8 , 1 0 2 , 142, 143 , 2 1 3 ff. , 2 1 8 - 1 9 ,25 3-54, 3 0 0 , 3 2 5 , 3 3 2 , see also

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y :Attributes ( continued )Extension, propria, Thought.
Augustine, 179, 1 8 0 .
A usdruck, 1 8 .
Authority, 2 5 9 , 260.
Automata, 1 3 1 , 3 3 5 , see also Spiritualautomaton.
Avicenna, 1 9 3-94.
Axiom of powers, 86-87.
BEATITU D E , 1 3 0 , 308ff.
Being, 2 1 , 3 8- 3 9 , 5 0 , 6 3 , 64, 67, 70,
74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 89, 1 3 6 , 1 5 9 ,
1 6 2 , 1 6 3 , 1 6 6 , 1 67, 1 7 3 , 1 74ff. ,2 2 � 2 5 3 , 3 1 0 , 3 2 1 , 3 24, 3 2 5 , 3 2 �
3 3 3 , 3 34.
Bergson, Henri, 1 1 8 .
Bible, 44-45 , 5 6-59, 7 2 ; Genesis 2 : 161 7, 5 8 , 247-4 8 , 263; Exodus, 5 8 .
Blind man , 2 5 1-5 2 .
Blood, 2 10-1 1 , 2 3 7.
Blyenbergh, Willem van, 248, 25 0-5 2 .
Bodies, complex, 2 10-1 1 , 3 2 6 , seealso Obj ect; external , 146ff. , 1 5 0 ,2 1 9 , 239ff. , 2 5 7, 2 7 6 , 2 7 9 , 3 0 6 ;simple, 191-9 2 , 2 0 1 , 205 , 206,
208 , 2 1 0 , 230.
Body, 15, 3 0 , 106, 109, 1 14, 142-4 3 ,145ff. , 1 5 0 , 1 5 7, 201ff. , 219-20,
222, 229, 2 3 7, 239ff. , 247ff. , 2 5 5 5 7, 264, 2 6 6 , 269, 276, 279,
285-86, 305-06, 3 1 1ff. , 3 24, 3 2 627, 3 3 1 , 3 3 5 .
Boehme, R . , 1 8 .
Bonaventure, 179.
Boyle, Robert, 2 2 8 .
CARTESIANISM, 1 5 , 1 7 , 2 9 , 3 6 , 3 8 ,60-61 , 66, 1 3 2 , 1 5 1 ff. , 1 5 5 ff. , 194,227-2 8 , 2 9 2 , 3 2 3 ff. , 332; Method,134-35 1 5 5 1 5 7.
''
Caterus, 1 6 2 .
causa fiendi, 2 8 1 , 2 9 9 .
Causality, 3 1 , 1 10-1 1 , 1 1 5 , 1 6 6 , 1 7 0 ,2 1 2 , 2 9 8 , 3 24, 3 2 8 , 3 34-3 5 ; exter-

S P I N OZA

nal, 3 2 , 167; ideal , 1 07, 109;
immanent, 109, 171, 174, 1 77,
2 3 2 ; occasional , 107, 109; real ,106-07, 1 1 1 , 3 2 4 , 3 2 6-27, 3 3 5 .
Cause, 4 8 , 5 0-5 1 , 5 3 , 5 4 , 8 4 , 8 5 ff. ,94, 1 0 3 , 107-08 , 1 1 5 , 1 3 3 ff. , 1 3 7,
140ff. , 145 , 149-50, 1 5 1 , 1 5 4 ,
1 5 5 ff. , 162ff. , 1 6 5 ff. , 170ff. , 1 8 4 ,
1 9 2 , 1 9 3 -94, 2 1 2 , 2 1 9 , 2 2 1 , 2 4 1 ,
249 , 2 8 3-84, 2 9 8 , 305 , 3 1 2 , 3 1 6 ,
3 2 7, 3 2 8 , 3 3 1 , 3 3 2 , 3 3 4 , see also
Occasionalism ; efficient, 70, 8 1 ,
1 1 5 , 162-65 , 1 9 4 , 2 5 9 ; emanative ,1 9 171ff. 1 77, 179 179-80;'''
eminent, 70; external , 32, 3 3 , 8 1 ,
8 8- 8 9 , 90, 94, 16� 201 , 2 1 9 , 245 ,2 6 3 ; formal , 1 1 5 , 1 4 1 , 146-47,
148, 1 5 9 , 1 60-61 , 162-65 , 305 ,3 0 8 ; immanent, 1 9 , 67, 1 6 6 , 1 7 1 ,
1 7 4 , 2 3 3 ; material , 147, 148, 1 5 85 9 , 2 2 1 , 305 , 3 0 8 ; occasional ,2 8 2 , 3 07-08 ; proximate, 2 1 , 1 3 3 ,1 84; real , 1 5 9 ; remote, 1 3 7, 1 8 4 ,
2 9 8 , 299.
Childhood, 2 1 9 , 222, 262-6 3 .
Christ, 1 2 3 , 2 9 1 , 3 0 1 , see also Logos,
Word.
Christianity, 1 2 3 , 177-79 , 2 2 8 , 2 5 9 ,263 , 2 9 1 , 3 2 3 , see also Theology.
Cicero , 2 5 8 .
Citizen, 2 5 9 ff. , 2 6 6 , 267.
City, 265-68 , 272, 2 7 3 .
Clarity and distinctness, 1 5 , 30-3 1 ,71ff. , 8 3 , 1 3 1 - 3 2 , 1 3 4 , 1 4 2 , 143 ,1 5 1 ff. , 1 5 5 ff. , 2 2 8 , 2 8 2 -8 3 , 2 8 5 ,
3 2 3-24, 3 2 5 , 3 2 6 .
Clytemnestra, 2 5 0 .
Commandments, 5 1 , 5 6 ff. , 264,
2 8 9-90, 291, see also Law, Sign.
Common forms , 4 8 , 5 0 , 5 9 , 6 3 , 9 2 ,103-04, 142 , 1 7 3 -74, 1 8 1 , 1 8 3 ,332.
Common notions, 4 8 , 143 , 1 5 0-5 1 ,275-8 8 , 290ff. , 3 07, 308-09 , 3 101 1 , 3 1 6 , 1 9-20, 3 3 0 , 3 3 2 .

430

I N D E XComplication, 1 19 , 1 7 5 -76, 1 8 5 ,
1 9 8 , 2 1 3 , 2 14-1 5 ; complicare, 1 7 5 ;complicatio, 1 6 , 1 8 .
Composition of relations, see Nature,order of.
conatus, 2 3 0-3 1 , 2 3 3 , 240, 243 , 249 ,2 5 8 , 2 6 1 , 2 84.
concatenatio, 107-0 8 .
connexio, 107.
Consciousness, 7 3 , 1 3 2 , 1 5 2 , 1 5 3 ,181, 231, 2 5 5 , 324, 326.
Contract, 2 6 0 , 2 6 4 , 266.
Convertibility, 4 2 , 47, 50.
Creation, 67, 79, 104, 1 7 8 , 1 80, 1 8 3 ,
3 2 2-2 3 , 3 2 9 , 3 3 0 , 3 3 3 , see also
Production.
Creator, 3 1 , 34, 44, 103, 1 7 8 .
Creatures, 1 7 , 46-4 8 , 5 1 , 6 3 , 79,
91-92, 1 0 3 , 142, 1 6 3 , 165, 199,
2 2 6-27, 264.
Culture, 2 6 2 , 270.

1 8 2 , 1 8 5 , 3 3 2 ; intrinsic, 196ff. ,2 1 3 ; modal , 2 9 , 3 6 , 3 8 , 6 5 , 1 8 3 ,
203 , 3 24; obj ective, 1 2 4 ; real , 2 9 ,30-3 1 , 3 3 , 3 4-3 9 , 60-61 , 64-65 ,66, 75 , 80, 8 1 , 8 2 , 106, 1 2 4-25 ,
143 , 1 8 5 , 1 9 3 ff. , 2 1 3 , 3 24 , 3 2 5 ,
3 3 5 ; o f reason, 2 9 , 3 6 , 3 8 , 6 1 ,64-6 5 , 1 2 6 , 1 3 9 , 1 8 3 , 274, 3 24;
substantial , 3 3 .
Duration, 1 4 8 , 196, 2 1 3 , 220, 2 3 8 ,
249 , 3 10ff.
Duty, 2 5 5 , 2 5 8-60, 2 6 8 .
Dyads, 3 34.

DAMASCIUS, 175 .
Darbon, 1 9 .
Death, 202, 2 4 9 , 2 6 1 , 271, 3 1 5 ff.
D efinition, 2 2 , 3 2 , 100, 1 0 1 , 1 3 5 ,
141 , 1 5 8 -5 9 ; causal, 1 5 8-5 9 ; for­mal, 1 3 9 ; material , 1 3 9 , 141; real ,20, 7 3 , 76, 77-7 8 , 79, 3 2 5 , 3 2 6 .
Demon, 1 6 9 .
Descartes , Rene, 1 7 , 29ff. , 34, 3 8 ,
5 5 , 60-6 1 , 65 , 66, 70ff. , 8 3 ff. , 1 3 2 ,1 3 6 , 1 4 2 , 143 , 1 5 1ff. , 1 5 5 ff. , 194,
2 2 6 , 2 27-2 8 , 2 5 5 , 2 8 2 , 3 1 3 , 3 2 3 2 5 , see also Cartesianism; Medita­
tions, 3 1 , 7 1 ; proof a posteriori,
71ff. , 8 3 ff. , 8 5 ff. , 3 2 3 ; ontological
proof a priori, 7 1 ff. , 76-77, 8 2 ,8 5 ff. , 1 5 4 , 3 2 3 .
designatum , 6 2 , 105 .
Desire, 2 3 1 , 240, 243 , 2 5 9 , 2 8 3 ,2 84-8 5 , 3 04-0 5 .
Differentia, 3 6 .
Distinction, extrinsic, 1 9 5 - 9 6 , 197,
214; formal, 64-67, 82, 1 2 4-2 5 ,43 1

ECKHARDT, jOHANNES, 176.
Effect, 84, 1 1 5 , 1 3 3 - 3 5 , 1 3 7, 1 5 4 ,
1 5 5 ff. , 166-67, 1 7 2 , 1 73-74,
1 84-85 , 249 , 279, 2 8 9 , 3 2 7, 3 2 8 ,
3 3 1 , 334.
Emanation, 17, 1 8-19, 170ff. , 1 74ff. ,179-80, 1 8 2 ff. , 3 2 2-2 3 , 3 3 0 , 3 3 3 .
Eminence, 46-47, 4 8-49 , 5 1 , 5 4-5 5 ,
5 7, 59-61, 6 3 , 70, 72-73 , 79 ,103-04, 108-09 , 1 4 2 , 1 6 3 , 1 6 5 ,167, 1 7 2 , 1 7 8 , 1 8 2 , 1 8 6 , 2 5 5 , 3 3 1 .
Empiricism , 149.
ens absolutum , 8 1 .
ens necessarium , 8 1
ens perfectissim urn , 7 3 , 8 1 .
ens realissim urn , 9 5 .
Equivocation, 46, 49, 6 1 , 103-04,
162-6 3 , 165 , 167, 3 2 9 , 3 3 0, 3 3 3 .
Erigena, John Scotus, 177-78 , 1 80.
Eternity, 13, 15, 3 04-05 , 306-0 8 ,
3 1 2 ff. , 3 17.
Evil, 2 2 9 , 246ff. , 25 3-54, 2 6 1 ,281-82.
Evolution, 16-17, 1 8 , 3 34 .
Explication, 1 5 - 1 6 , 1 8 , 6 2 , 9 2 , 1 0 2 ,1 3 0 , 1 3 3 , 174, 1 7 5 - 7 6 , 1 77, 1 8 5 ,2 14-1 5 , 2 3 4 , 305 , 309-10, 3 3 3 ;explicare, 15-16, 175 ; explicatio, 1 8 .
Expressionist tradition, 17ff. , 80,
169ff. , 181-82, 3 2 2 ff.
Extension, 3 0 , 46, 5 0 , 5 5 , 5 9 , 8 1 ,E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y oExtension ( continued)
106, 1 14 , 1 1 8-20, 142-4 3 , 145 ,
19lff. , 1 9 6 , 2 0 1 , 205-06, 2 0 8 , 2 1 0 ,
2 2 6 , 2 3 5 , 2 5 7, 276, 2 8 1 , 2 9 2 , 29697, 300, 301, 3 1 5 .
Eye, 80.
FABRICA, 2 1 8 .

facies totius universi, 20 6 , 2 3 5 , 2 3 6 .
Facility, 8 3 , 8 5 ff. , 3 2 3 , 3 2 5 .
Falsity, 1 3 0- 3 1 , 1 4 1 , 1 5 0 .
Fichte , Johann Gottlieb, 1 3 6 , 3 2 5 .
Fiction, 2 1 - 2 2 , 1 34ff. , 1 3 8 , 1 6 1 , 3 0 8 .
fortuitus occursus, 2 3 8 , see also
Accidents .
fortuna, 134.
Freedom , 149, 261ff. , 2 7 1 , 3 24.
GENUS, 3 5 - 3 6 , 42 , 45 , 64, 65 , 6�69, 1 19 , 160, 1 6 1 , 174, 182, 199,
2 5 7, 277, 2 9 2 , 3 2 7.
Geometry, 20- 2 2 , 46, 100, 1 0 8 ,
1 3 4-3 5 , 1 3 7, 1 5 8 , 176, 202, 3 17.
Gift, 1 70-7 1 , 174.
Gilson, Etienne, 64.
Good, 54, 172, 24 7, 2 5 3-54, 2 6 1 .
Grammar, 104-05 .
HABITUS, 3 2 8 .
Harmony, 2 3 2 , 2 3 3 , 2 5 5 - 5 6 , 3 2 8 ,329, 331, 332.
Hatred , 243-44, 245 , 2 6 0 , 2 7 1 .
Hegel , G. W. , 20, 2 1 , 3 2 5 .
Hobbes, Thomas , 7 3 , 2 5 8-60, 266.
homo, 64.
humanitas, 64, 263.
Hypostasis, 174, 175 .
IDEA, 1 5 , 27, 2 9 , 3 0-3 1 , 3 2 , 8 5 ff. , 90,
91, 101, 1 1 3 , 1 14-17, 120, 1 2 2 ff. ,1 2 7, 129ff. , 1 3 3 -3 5 , 1 3 7ff. , 145ff. ,1 5 1 ff. , 1 5 6 , 1 6 1 , 169, 178-79, 1 8 5 ,
1 9 3 , 195 , 2 0 2 , 2 20-2 1 , 2 3 1 , 279 ,
297, 299-300, 3 04ff. , 3 10ff. , 3 17,
3 34-3 5 , see also Adequacy, Clarity

S P I N OZA

and Distinctness; of an idea, 1 2 5 2 6 , 1 3 0ff. , 3 1 5 ; kinds of, 3 0 5 ff. ,3 15 .
I deal , 1 1 8 .
Identity of being, 107-09, 1 1 3 , 1 17 ; o fconnection, 107-08 , 1 1 1 , 1 1 3 , 1 1 7;of order, 106-07, 1 10 , 1 1 3 , 1 17.
Image, 80, 147, 148, 1 5 0 , 1 7 3 , 2 2 0 ,2 5 0 , 2 6 1 , 2 7 8 , 294.
Imagination, 5 1 , 147, 148, 150, 203 ,
220, 240, 2 8 9-90, 2 9 1 , 2 94-96 ,297, 3 1 1 , 3 1 7 , see also Power o f
imagining.
Imitation, 1 69-70, 178-8 1 , 1 8 3 .
Immanence, 5 3 , 67, 109, 1 6 6 , 167,
1 69-70, 171-7 3 , 174, 2 1 3 , 227-2 8 ,269, 322, 326, 333.
Immortality, 3 1 3 ff.
Implication, 16-17, 2 9 , 175 , 1 84.
Impotence, 1 0 3 , 224, 2 3 1 , 240, 245 ,
269, 2 7 8 .
Individuation, 1 9 5 ff. , 2 3 6 , 3 3 1 .
Infinity, 1 5 , 2 2 , 2 8 , 3 3 , 3 5 , 4 6 , 64,
70, 85, 102, 1 1 8 ff. , 1 2 7, 140, 1 4 2 ,164, 176, 19� 203 , 2 05 , 20� 2 1 8 ,3 24; modal , 1 9 2 , 2 0 2 , 203ff. ,207-09, 2 1 2 , 2 1 8 .
Inherence, 175-76, 179, 227-2 8 .
Intelligible, 170, 174.
Intelligence, 174, 177.
intensio, 1 9 1 .
Intensity, see Power, degrees of.
Intuition, 1 5 8-5 9 .
I nvolution, 1 5 - 1 6 , 1 3 3 , 147, 148 , 1 8 1 ,279, 3 1 5 ; involvere, 1 5 - 1 6 .
Isonomy, 1 0 8 .
}ACOB, 44-45 , 61 .
Jo� 244, 245 , 2 6 3 , 270, 2 7 2 , 274,
2 8 3 , 2 8 5 , 286, 299, 3 04 , 3 0 5 ff. ;active, 2 74-75 , 2 8 5 , 2 87, 2 8 8 ,297, 3 0 1 , 3 04ff. ; passive , 240-4 1 ,
2 74-75 , 2 84 , 2 8 6 , 2 8 7, 2 8 8 , 297,
3 07, 3 1 1 ; second kind , 3 0 5 ff. ,3 1 0- 1 1 ; third kind, 305ff. , 3 1 1 ,I N D E X

3 1 5 , 316, 320.
Judaism , 5 7, 1 00-0 1 , 105 , 1 2 8 , 3 2 3 .
KANT, IMMANUEL, 1 2 8 , 1 3 6 , 214.
Kantianism, 5 5 .
Kaufmann, 1 9 .
Knowledge , 14-1 5 , 1 7 , 5 6 , 5 8 , 7 2 ,
7 8 , 1 00-01, 1 1 8 , 1 2 1 , 1 2 2 ff. , 129ff. ,1 3 2 , 1 3 3 ff. , 140, 14lff. , 146,
147-4 8 , 149, 1 5 2 -5 3 , 1 5 5 ff. ,1 5 9-60, 1 8 1- 8 2 , 224, 2 7 1 , 279,
280, 289ff. , 303fT. , 3 2 6 ; first kind,1 8 1 , 2 89-90, 29 3-94, 3 0 3 ff. ;order of, 1 5 9-60; second kind,
290ff. , 296-97, 299, 300, 3 0 1 ,3 0 3 , 305-06, 3 07, 3 08-09, 3 1 8 ;third kind , 1 4 1 , 299-3 0 1 , 303-05 ,308ff. , 3 1 3 , 3 1 5 , 3 1 8 .
Koyre, Alexander, 177.
LANGUAGE, 289, 3 3 3 .
Law, 2 5 8 , 266-67, 2 6 8 , 290, 292-9 3 ,294; moral , 5 6-5 7, 5 8 , 247-4 8 ,25 3-54, 2 6 3 , 2 6 8 , 290, 2 9 1 , 294,
3 3 0 ; natural , 58, 247-4 8 , 25 3-54,
2 5 8-60, 263-65 , 2 6 8 , 2 9 1 .
Leibniz, G . W. , 17-1 8 , 4 2 , 7 1 , 73-74,
77-79, 8 3 , 9 2 , 1 07-09 , 1 5 2 , 1 5 3 5 4 , 1 9 3 , 1 9 8 , 2 0 3 , 205 , 2 2 3 ,226-30, 2 3 2-3 3 , 2 5 3 , 3 1 7, 3 2 1 fT. ;"Quod ens perfectissimum exis­
tit, " 77-7 8 .
Logic, 3 3 , 1 2 9 .
Logos, 6 1 , 3 2 3 , see also Word.
Love, 243 , 2 8 3 , 2 9 1 , 297, 304, 309,
3 1 0 ; three kinds of, 309ff.
Lucretius, 270.
MALEBRANCHE, 179.
Man, 91, 1 8 3 , 2 2 7, 261, 277, 3 2 2 .
Many, 1 6 , 1 74-75 , 3 2 8 , 3 3 1 .
Materialism , 9 3 , 2 5 7, 3 2 1 .
Mathematics, 20-2 2 , 1 3 5 , 1 3 6 , 1 5 5 ,1 9 2 , 2 27, 2 7 8 , 3 17.
Mechanism , 209ff. , 227-29, 2 3 0 ,2 3 2-3 3 , 3 2 5 .
Memory, 3 1 1 , 3 17.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, 2 8 .
Metaphor, 80, 1 8 0 .
Metaphysics, 1 5 8-5 9 .
Method, 20-2 2 , 129ff. , 1 3 5 , 1 3 9-40,
1 5 5 ff. ; analytic , 1 3 8 , 1 5 5 , 1 5 9 ff. ;synthetic, 1 5 5 , 1 5 7ff. , 166.
Metonymy, 5 4 , 5 7.
Middle Ages, 17, 1 8 , 6 2 , 6 3 , 175 ,1 77.
Mirror, 80, 1 8 0 , 3 2 2 -2 3 .
Model , 1 6 9 , 1 7 9 , 1 80-8 1 , 277.
modus intrinsicus, 1 9 1 .
Monad , 4 2 , 3 2 7, 3 2 9 , 3 3 1 , 3 34 .
Monism , 1 6 3 .
Moses , 5 1 .
Movement, 205-06, 2 0 8 , 2 1 0 , 2 2 8 ,
2 3 0 , 2 3 5 - 3 6 , 276, 2 8 1 , 2 9 2 ,296-97.
Multiple , 1 74-7 5 , 176, see also Many.
Myth , 2 6 3 , 2 7 1 .
NAMES, 44-45 , 6 1 , 62-6 3 , 1 0 3 , 105 ;divine , 5 3 ff. , 6 1 , 6 3 , 64, 3 2 3 .
natura naturans, 1 4 , 4 9 , 8 0 , 99-100,
1 2 2 -2 3 .
natura naturata, 1 4 , 4 9 , 99-100, 1 2 2 ,123.
Naturalism, 227ff. , 2 3 2 , 2 7 2 , 3 2 1 .
Nature, 1 5 , 1 6 .:_ 17, 5 8 , 5 9 , 6 0 , 7 2 ,
8 1 - 8 2 , 87, 9 3 , 101 , 1 2 8 , 1 2 9 , 1 3 4 ,
1 3 6 , 1 3 7- 3 8 , 1 4 6 , 1 7 3 , 176, 195 ,205 , 2 27-2 9 , 2 3 2-34, 2 3 7ff. , 242,
245 , 247-48 , 2 5 1 , 2 5 3-54, 2 5 8 ,
2 6 1 , 263-65 , 270, 2 7 1 , 273 , 275 ,
276, 27 8 , 2 8 1 , 2 8 6 , 2 9 1 , 294, 300,
3 17, 3 2 1 , 322; Common Orderof, 2 3 8 , 245 , 2 8 9 ; state of, 2 5 8 ,
2 5 9 ff. , 2 6 5 ff. , 2 8 9 .
Nature, order of, 5 8-5 9 , 2 3 7ff. , 2 5 75 8 , 264, 2 8 6 , 2 9 1 , 294; composi­tion of relations, 5 8 , 2 1 1- 1 2 , 2 1 8 ,
2 3 6 ff. , 247ff. , 2 5 3 , 264, 275-76,
2 8 1 , 2 8 6 , 290, 2 9 1 , 2 9 3 , 299, 300,

43 3

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y :Nature, order of ( continue d )S P I N OZA

3 1 4 , 3 1 8 ff.

3 0 3 , 3 1 1 ; essences , 2 1 2 , 2 3 8 ,Passions, 2 1 8 ff. , 2 2 3 , 2 2 8- 2 9 , 2 3 1 ,249ff. , 2 64-6 5 ; passions , 2 3 8 .

2 3 9 ff. , 244-45 , 2 5 6 , 2 5 7-5 8 , 2 5 9 ,Necessity, 3 8 , 44, 45 , 7 9 , 8 8-89 , 100-

2 6 3 , 2 6 5 , 2 7 1 - 72 , 2 7 3 - 74 , 2 84-

0 1 , 104, 1 2 2 - 2 4 , 1 2 7, 149, 1 6 5 ,

8 5 , 294-9 5 , 2 9 6 , 3 10-1 1 , 3 2 8 , 3 3 1 ;2 1 2 , 2 1 9 , 2 5 3 , 2 8 7, 2 9 6 , 3 1 2 , 3 3 3 .

j oyful , 2 4 0 , 2 4 6 , 2 6 2 , 2 7 3 -7 4 ,Negation, 5 3-5 5 , 5 9 , 142 , 1 7 2 , 2 4 5 -2 8 2- 8 4 , 2 8 5 , 2 8 7, 2 9 4 , 2 9 8 , 3 0 7 ,

46 , 2 5 1 , 2 5 2 .

3 1 1 , 3 1 9 ; sad, 2 4 1 , 2 6 2 , 2 6 7, 2 7 0 ,2 7 1 , 2 7 2 , 2 7 3 , 2 8 3 , 2 8 7, 3 1 1 , 3 2 0 .

Neoplatonism , 16·-17, 1 8-- 1 9 , 6 3 ,Saint Paul , 5 9 .

170ff. , 1 7 6 -7 8 , 1 8 2 , 2 3 5 .

Perception, 101-02 , 1 3 7, 147, 1 5 6 ,Nero , 2 5 0 , 2 5 1 .

158, 162, 330.

Nietzsch e , Friedrich, 2 5 4 .

Philosophy, 2 2 , 5 6 , 1 2 9 - 3 0 , 1 8 0 , 2 2 9 ,
2 5 5 , 2 7 0 , 3 2 1 ; Arab , 5 4 ; Jewish ,OBJECT, 1 5 , 1 8 , 20-2 1 , 6 2 , 7 3 , 7 5 ,

5 5 ; political , 2 6 0 .

79 , 8 6 , 1 0 1 , 105 , 1 1 3 , ! 1 5 --17,

Physics, 3 3 , 2 0 6-07, 2 2 9 , 2 3 3 .

1 24-2 5 , 1 2 7, 1 3 1 - 3 2 , 1 3 3ff. , 1 4 6 ,15 3-54, 1 5 8 , 193, 214, 241, 243-

pietas, 2 6 8 , 2 7 2 .

44, 2 5 7-5 8 , 2 7 4 , 277, 2 8 9 , 2 9 5 ,Plato , 1 6 9 - 7 0 , 2 5 3 , 2 5 7, 3 1 3 ;Parmenides, 1 7 2 , 1 7 4 .

3 3 4 -3 5 , see also Bodies , externaL

objectum ideae, 1 1 3 .

Platonism, 1 17, 1 6 9 - 7 0 , 2 3 5 , 2 5 8 , 3 17.

Occasionalism , 2 2 6-27, 2 2 9 , 2 5 6 ,Plotinus , 1 7 0 , 1 7 1 - 7 2 , 1 7 4 , 1 76--77,

282.

178.

plurimae, 2 0 1 ff , 207, 2 1 7-1 8 .

Offenbarung, 1 8 .

Poison, 2 1 1 , 2 3 7, 247-4 8 , 2 5 0 .

One, 1 6 , 8 1 , 1 1 7, 1 7 1 -7 3 , 174f[ , 1 8 2 ," Possibles , " 3 8 , 1 0 1 , 1 0 4 , 1 9 4 , 2 1 2 ,

3 2 8 , 3 3 1- 3 2 ; above Being, 1 7 1 ,
1 7 2 --7 3 , 177, 1 7 8 , 3 2 2 .

2 3 0 ; possibility, 8 8 - 8 9 , 1 0 0 , 1 2 1 ,Optimism , 2 5 3 .

1 2 3 -2 4 , 1 2 � 1 9 3 , 1 9 � 3 3 0 , 3 3 3 .

potentia, 8 8 , 9 3 , 1 0 2 , 1 2 2 - 2 4 , 2 1 8 ,Orestes, 2 5 0 .

ostendere, 1 5 .

2 2 7-2 8 .

potestas, 9 3 , 1 0 2 , 2 1 8 .

PANTHEISM, 1 6 , 1 8 , 66-67, 1 0 1 , 1 6 3 ,Power( s ) , 8 5 ff. , 2 5 5 -5 7, 2 6 0 ; o f act­

177, 322, 330, 333.

ing, 8 6 ff. , 90ff. , 9 3 -9 4 , 1 1 7, 1 1 8 ff: ,Parable, 5 7.

123, 124, 125, 181, 222, 223-26,

Parallelism , J07ff. , 1 1 3 - 1 4 , 1 1 5 - 1 7,

2 2 9 , 2 3 1 , 2 3 2 , 2 3 3 , 2 3 9-41 , 2 4 3 ,1 2 6-2 8 , 1 3 3 , 1 6 0 , 2 5 6-5 7, 3 1 2 ,244-47, 2 5 1 , 2 5 3 , 2 5 4 , 2 6 0 , 2 6 1 ,331.

2 6 2 - 6 3 , 2 6 4 , 2 6 8 , 2 69-70, 2 7 2 ,pars i n tensiva, 1 9 8 .
pars totalis, 1 9 8 , see also Part .

2 97, 3 04-05 , 3 07-08 , 3 1 0 , 3 1 5 ,Participation, 1 8 , 87, 9 2 , - 1 05 , 1 2 2 ,

3 1 6 , 3 5 5 ; comparison of, 2 5 5 - 5 7 ;

2 7 3 -74, 2 8 0 , 2 8 1 , 2 8 2 ff. , 2 8 7 - 8 8 ,

1 2 4 , 1 4 2 , 1 6 9 ff. , 174ff. , 1 7 8-79 ,degrees of, 9 2 , 1 9 1 ff. , 1 9 6 , 1 9 7 ,

1 8 3 , 227, 270.

1 9 9 , 202 , 203 , 2 0 5 -0 6 , 207, 2 0 8 ff. ,Part( s ) , extensive , 1 9 1 - 9 2 , 2 0 1 ff. ,2 1 3 , 2 1 7, 2 1 8 , 2 2 5 - 2 6 , 2 3 0 , 2 3 2 ,2 0 6 ff. , 2 1 2 -1 3 , 2 1 7 , 2 1 9 , 2 3 0 , 2 3 5 ,

2 3 7, 2 3 9 -4 2 , 244, 2 4 6 , 3 0 3 , 3 0 5 ,

2 3 6 , 2 3 7 , 2 3 8 , 249 , 3 1 1-1 3 , 3 14ff. ;3 1 2 , 3 1 3 , 3 14-1 5 , 3 1 7 ; of existing,

extrinsic, 205 ; intensive , 1 9 1 -9 2 ,8 6 ff. , 8 9 ff. , 94, 1 1 7, 1 1 8ff. , 1 2 3 ,43 4

I N D E X

1 2 4 , 1 2 5 - 2 6 , 1 3 0 , 1 8 5 , 3 3 5 ; equal­

Religion, 2 2 9 , 2 5 9 - 6 0 , 2 7 0 , 2 9 0 ; o f

ity of, 8 6 - 8 8 , 1 1 7ff. , 1 2 1 , 1 2 6 ; ofsecond kind, 2 9 1 , 297.

imagination, 1 6 1 , 2 2 2 , 2 24 , 3 1 1 ; of

Renaissanc e , 17, 1 8 , 1 7 5 , 177.

knowing, 8 6 ff. , 90ff. , 1 1 8 , 1 2 0- 2 1 ,Representation, 29, 3 0 , 3 4 , 1 2 5 , 1 3 2 ,1 3 0 , 1 3 1 , 1 3 9 , 140ff. , 1 4 6 , 1 4 8 ,

1 3 3 , 1 3 9-40 , 1 5 2 , 1 5 3 , 1 8 1 ,1 6 1 , 2 2 2 , 2 6 7 , 3 3 5 ; of thinking ,3 3 4-3 5 .

1 3 0 , 1 3 2 , 1 4 0 , 1 4 1 -4 2 , 1 4 6 , 1 5 0 ,res ideata, 1 1 3 .
res physica, 1 9 2 ff. , 3 0 3 .

15 3 , 1 6 2 , 1 8 1 , 1 8 5 , 26� 2 7 8 , 279,

Resemblance, 1 8 0 , 2 7 5 , 2 7 8 , 3 3 3 .

2 8 0 , 3 04-1 5 , 3 3 5 ; of suffering,Rest, 2 0 5 - 0 6 , 2 0 8 , 2 1 0 , 2 2 8 , 2 3 0 ,8 6 ff. , 9 0 ff. , 1 17, 1 2 0- 2 1 , 1 2 2 ff. ,9 3 - 9 4 , 2 2 1 ff. , 2 2 9 , 2 3 2 , 245 , 3 1 1 ;

2 3 5 - 3 6 , 2 7 6 , 2 8 1 , 2 9 2 , 2 9 6-97.

of understanding, 8 6 , 1 29 - 3 0 , 140,

Revelation , 5 1 , 5 6ff. , 2 5 9 , 2 6 3 , 2 9 0 ;see also Sign.

1 4 1 ff. , 1 5 3 , 162, 2 2 2 , 2 7 4 , 2 8 0 ,2 8 2 ff. , 2 8 7, 2 9 9 , 3 04 , 3 0 5 -07,

Rights , 149 , 2 6 0 , 2 6 1 , 2 6 8 ; natural ,313, 314, 316.

2 5 7-5 8 , 2 6 0 , 2 6 4 , 2 6 6 , 267.

Prime Mover, 1 1 7

Rivaud, A., 206.

Privation, 5 5 , 5 9 , 6 1 , 1 4 8 , 149 , 2 5 1 ,252, 253.

SADNESS, 241-44, 245 , 2 5 7-5 8 , 260,

Proclus, 1 7 1 , 1 7 2 -7 3 .

2 6 3 , 2 7 0 , 2 7 4 , 2 8 2 , 2 87, 2 10-1 1 ,see also Passions.

Producti o n , 1 4 , 5 1 , 94-95 , 9 9 ff. ,104ff. , 1 10-1 1 , 1 1 3 , 1 1 8 , 1 2 3 , 1 24 ,Saint-Hilaire , Geoffroy, 2 7 8 .

1 2 7 - 2 8 , 1 3 7, 1 3 8 , 1 6 1 , 1 6 5 , 1 7 0 ff. ,Salvatio n , 3 1 7ff.

1 8 1 ff. , 1 9 8 , 2 1 1 , 3 0 3 -04, 3 1 0 ,Schelling, F. W. ] . , 1 8 , 1 1 8 , 3 2 5 .

316, 332.

Scholasticism, 5 0 , 1 6 3 , 1 9 1 .

Prophets, 5 8 , 2 9 0 , 2 9 1 , 2 9 4 .

Schuller, 1 2 4 .

propria , 49-5 1 , 5 5 ff. , 6 1 , 6 6 - 6 7 , 7 0 ,71-74, 7 5 , 7 8 , 8 1 , 8 2 , 1 0 3 , 1 5 3 -scientia, 100-0 1 .
Scotism , 6 5 see also Duns Scotus.

54, 164, 1 8 1 , 290, 3 2 3 , 3 2 5 .

Scotus , John Duns, 4 9 , 6 3 - 6 5 , 1 6 6 ,1 9 3�94, 1 9 6 .

Pseudo-Dionysius, 1 8 0 .

Seed ( tree, branch ) , 8 0 , 1 8 0 , 3 2 2 - 2 3 .
RAPIDITY, 8 3 , 1 3 6 - 3 7 , 1 3 9 , 1 6 1 , 2 9 7 -Shaddai , 5 8 .
Signs , 3 6 , 5 6 ff. , 1 4 3 , 147, 1 8 1 - 8 2 ,98, 3 2 3 .

ratio bani, 2 5 3 .
ratio cognoscendi, 3 2 1 - 2 2 .
ratio essendi, 3 2 1 - 2 2 .
ratio fiendi, 3 2 2 .

2 3 3 , 2 89-90, 2 9 1 , 294, 3 2 8 , 3 2 9 ,
3 3 0 , 3 3 3 ; imperative , 5 1 , 5 7, 1 8 1 ,
2 8 9 - 9 0 , 2 9 4 , 3 3 0 ; indicative , 1 8 1 ,
2 8 9 , 3 3 0 ; revelatory, 1 8 1 - 8 2 , 3 3 0 .

Rationalism, 2 8 , 1 4 9 , 2 6 3 .

Similitude, 1 80-8 1 .

Real, 1 1 8 , 1 3 6 .

Sin, 2 6 3 .

Reason , 2 5 9 , 2 6 2-64, 2 6 5 ff. , 2 7 1 -7 2 ,
2 7 4 , 2 8 0 , 2 8 3 , 294-96, 297, 2 9 8 ;Solomon, 2 9 1 .
Soul, 3 0 , 6 7 , 1 0 6 , 1 0 9 , 1 14 , 1 1 5 , 1 2 0 ,1 3 2 , 1 4 0 , 1 4 1 , 1 4 2 , 1 4 3 , 145 ff. ,state of, 2 6 3 - 6 4 , 2 7 0 , 2 9 0 ff.

1 5 7, 1 6 0 , 2 0 1 ff. , 2 2 2 , 2 5 5 -5 7, 2 6 4 ,Recognition, 147, 1 5 3 , 2 6 4 .
Reformati o n , 1 7 7 .

2 6 6 , 2 7 3 , 2 80 , 3 1 1 , 3 1 3 ff. , 3 2 4 ,Regis , 3 6 .

3 2 6-27, 3 2 9 , 3 3 1 .

religio, 2 6 8 , 2 7 2 .

Sovereign, 2 6 6 , 3 0 9 .

43 5

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I NSpecies, 3 6 , 42 , 45 , 64 , 65 , 67, 1 5 2 ,1 6 1 , 1 8 2 , 1 9 9 , 2 5 7, 277, 3 2 7.
Spiritual automaton, 1 1 5 , 1 3 2 , 140,
1 5 2-5 3 , 160, 3 2 2 , 3 2 4 , 3 2 6 , 3 3 5 .
State , 2 6 5 -66; civil, 2 5 9 ff. , 266-67,
2 8 9-90, 294.
Stoicism, 62, 174, 2 5 8 .
Structure ( anatomical ), 2 7 8 .
Suarez, 2 9 , 6 5 .
Sufficient reason, 7 2 , 73 -74, 8 1 , 8 5 ,
9 9 , 1 19, 1 3 4 , 1 3 5 , 1 3 9 , 152, 2 2 8 ,
3 2 1-2 2 , 3 2 3 .
summum bonum , 5 1 .
Sun , 1 4 8 , 149-5 0 .
Superstition, 270-7 1 .
Symbolization, 2 3 2 , 2 3 3 , 234, 3 3 1 ,
3 3 2 ; symbolism, 5 4 , 5 7, 79, 1 7 8 ,328, 329.
TETRAG RAMMATO N , 5 8 .
Theism , 101, 2 5 3 .
Theology, 5 5 ff. , 6 3 , 6 6 , 9 3 , 2 5 9 ,
3 2 2-2 3 ; negative, 5 3-54, 1 6 5 , 172,173, 1 7 8 .
Thomism , 6 3 , 1 6 3 .
Thought, 1 4 , 30, 4 6 , 5 0 , 5 5 , 5 9 , 8 1 ,87, 9 0 , 106, 1 1 3 , 1 14 , 1 1 5 , 1 1 8- 2 1 ,1 2 2 ff. , 127, 1 3 0 , 1 3 1 , 1 3 3 , 1 3 6 ,142-4 3 , 145 , 1 5 3 , 177, 1 9 2 , 2 5 7.
Transcendence, 5 3 , 109, 1 7 2 , 176,
177-7 8 , 2 3 2 , 2 5 6 , 269, 277, 3 2 2 .
Triads, first (modal ), 1 9 , 27ff. , 43-44,
82, 1 1 1 ; second (absolute ), 8 1 - 8 2 ;third ( power), 95 .
Truth, l 3 0ff. , 140ff. , 149, 1 5 1 -5 2 ,1 6 1 , 3 2 1 ; see also Adequacy.
Tschirnhaus, Ehrenfried Walther von ,20-2 1 , 1 14.
Tyranny, 270.

UNITY, 1 6 , 1 7 3 , 182, 3 2 9 , 3 3 1 .
Universals, 1 6 1 , 277, 279, 2 8 1 - 8 2 ,
2 8 6-87, 2 8 9 , 292-9 3 , 298-99;
negative , 34.
Univocity, 48-49, 5 9 , 6 3 -64, 66-67,

P H I LO S O P H Y :S P I N OZA

70, 72, 8 1 , 102-0 3 , 104, 142 , 1 6 5 66, 1 67, 1 80-8 1 , 1 8 2 , 196-97,
300, 3 3 0 , 3 3 2-3 3 .
Utility, 2 3 9 , 240-4 1 , 243 , 2 4 8 , 261 ,
26 3-64.
uytdrukken , uytbeelden, 1 5 .
VACUUM, 3 3 , 204.
vertoonen , 1 5 .
Violence, 1 69-70, 249-5 0 , 2 6 8 .
vis, 8 8 - 8 9 .
Voice of G o d , 44-45 , 1 2 3 .
WISDOM, 1 2 3 .
Word , 44, 45 , 4 9 , 5 0 , 5 6 , 5 7, 1 2 3 ,176, 177, 179, 1 8 5 , 3 2 3 .

I n d e x o f Te x t u a l

R e fe r e n c e s

Works by Spinoza
ETHICSPart IDef 1-5
1-6
3
4
6
Axiom 4
Prop 1-8
1-10
3
5-7
5
6
8

9-10
9
10
11

20-2 2 , 28ff. , 95 ' 296
75
3 5 8nl l
19-20
19-20
1 3 , 19-20, 75-76, 77-7 8 ,81-82, 325
369nl33 2 ff. , 3 7 , 75
75-76, 7 8 , 79, 3 2 5enunc , 3 5 6n1 1
3 5 4n2, 3 5 5 n 1 5
3 1 , 3 5 4n2
76
31-33
enunc , 3 5 5n15
proof, 3 60nl
schol 2 , 31-3 3 , 3 5 3 n1 1 ,
3 5 5n16, 3 7 8n5
75-76
34, 3 5 5n19
cor, 3 5 2n1
schol , 3 5 2nl, 355nn17, 2 1 ,3 6 1nn1 5 , 24
75 , 7 6
proof 1 , 361n14
proof 2 , 361n14

IS
16

17

19
20

21
22
23
24

25

26
437

proof 3, 362n13
schol , 3 5 5 n1 9 , 3 6 2nn1 2 ,14schol , 3 5 5 n 1 3 , 3 6 3 n 2 8
20-2 2 , 3 64n6
enunc, 3 64n7
proof, 3 5 2n4, 3 64n7,
365n9
3 64n1 1
cor 2 , 3 5 6n8schol , 3 5 6n1 1 , 3 64nn 8 , 9 ,376n4, 379n10
3 5 2n2
proof, 3 5 2n1, 3 5 3n12
proof, 3 5 2n2, 3 5 3n 1 2 ,361n19, 375n21
cor 1 , 361n19
c o r 2 , 361n19
3 64n1 3 , 3 8 5n1
64n1 3 , 385n1
3 64n1 3 , 3 8 5n1
378n8, 3 8 5 n lenunc, 378n8
proof, 378n8
cor, 378n8
379n 8 , 3 8 5n1
enunc , 3 7 8n7schol, 3 64n 3 , 375n20
cor, 3 5 2n 3 , 3 5 6n12
370n26

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y :Ethics, Part I ( continued)
2 8 enunc, 3 80n1
proof, 3 80n1
schol , 3 77n21
3 0 enunc, 3 6 5 n 8
31 enunc , 3 66n20
proof, 3 65nl l , 366nnl7, 20
33 enunc , 3 64nn9 , 1 1
proof, 3 64nn10, 1 1
schol 2 , 3 64n10
3 5 363n26
3 6 proof, 3 5 2n 3 , 3 6 3 n 2 3Part I I
Prop 1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

9
10
11
12
13

8, 115, 281, 286
3 5 6n7
proof, 3 5 2n5schol , 3 66n1 8
3 5 6n7enunc , 365n10
proof, 3 64n6, 365n10schol , 3 64nn2, 3 , 5 , 6
enunc, 3 66n15
proof, 3 66nl5
36Sn6
proof, 363nl7, 366nn 1 8 ,19
365n6
proof, 3 64nl4
1 1 3 , 1 14-17
proof, 369n13
schol, 1 2 6 , 3 64nn4, 1 2 ,
3 6 5 n 1 9 , 3 6 5 n1
enunc, 378n5 , 3 79nl2
cor, 3 7 8n5 , 3 79n1 3 ,
3 8 2nn2 1 , 2 2schol 1, 379nn 1 2 , 1 3 ,3 8 ln9, 3 8 2n22
proof, 371nl
cor, 371n3
cor schol, 3 5 6n9cor, 37ln1
proof, 371n4
3 8 lnl2
enunc , 365n2
schol, 363n26, 3 8 3nl4,

15
16
17

18
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

30
31
33
35
36
37
38

43 8

S P I N OZA

3 89nn 1 , 4 , 6
axiom 1, 3 8 1n12axiom 2, 3 8 1n12
lemmata 1-3, 3 8 1n12
lemmata 4-7, 3 8 2n15
post 3, 3 8 2n1
399n22enunc , 378n3 , 3 80n3
proof, 378n3 , 3 80n3
proof, 372n8
cor 2 , 3 72nn7 , 8
enunc, 3 7 2 n 8
proof, 3 7 2 n 8cor, 372n8
schol , 3 6 5 n1 8 , 372nn7,
17, 3 84n19
schol, 3 7 2nn7, 1 3 , 395n3
37ln5
proof, 3 80n2schol, 3 6 5 n 3 , 367nn29 ,3 1 , 3 6 8n10372n16
3 71n5 , 372n16
372nl l372nll371n5
372nl l372n1 1
proof, 372n10, 3 8 2 n1
372nl lcor, 3 8 6n7schol , 392n10372nl l372nl lenunc , 3 72n14
proof, 3 6 8n7, 3 7 2n14
enunc , 3 72n9
proof, 3 72n9
scol , 372nn1 2 , 14
proof, 371n2
3 9 2n9enunc, 3 9 8n!O
393n21, 398n13
enunc , 392n9 , 393nl7
proof, 3 9 3n17

I N D E X

39

40

41
42
43
45
46
47

Part I I I
Defs 1-3
Post 1
Prop 1
2
3
8
9
13
17
20
23
28
37
44
47

O F

T E X T U A L

393n21enunc, 3 9 2 n 8 , 393nl6
proof, 3 9 3nn16, 2 2 ,3 9 8n1 3
373n18schol l , 3 92nn7 , 1 1 ,3 9 3nn1 3 , 20, 3 9 5 n 3 ,396n12schol 2 , 3 9 5 n 3 , 3 97nn30,
33
proof, 395nl
enunc , 3 9 5 n5enunc, 368n8
3 5 3 nl 3 , 3 96n24
enunc , 3 70n30, 3 9 3 n 1 8
schol, 3 9 3 n l 8
3 9 6n24
proof, 3 5 3n1 3 , 371n39,393nl9, 3 97nn26, 3 2
396n24schol , 3 96n14, 397nn2 5 ,32

R E F E R E N C E S

proof, 3 87n3 0
enunc , 3 8 2n2
proof, 3 8 2n2
5 4 enunc, 3 8 5 n 3 3
56 3 85 n 3 1
5 7 proof, 362n1 5 ,
3 8 5n34, 3 8 6n!O
schol , 3 8 2n2
5 8 enunc, 3 9 2nn3 , 4
proof, 3 9 2n3
59 enunc , 392n2
proof, 3 9 2nnl , 2
Def of 3 84n 20, 3 85 n 3 1 ,398n12
DesireDefof
Sadness 3 8 8n39, expl, 3 8 8n43
Gen Def 362nl 5 , 363n27, 372n8,3 8 3nl lof Affects
51

Part IV
Preface
Def lProp I

294-953 8 3n5363n26enunc , 3 8 3 n 1 3
proof, 3 7 ! n l , 3 94n2 6schol, 3 8 3n4, 3 8 8nl ,3 8 9n5 , 3 9 3n14
enunc, 3 8 3n13
schol , 3 84nn1 8 , 2 1
enunc, 3 87n34
enunc , 3 85n30
proof, 3 85 n 3 0
schol, 3 8 5 n 3 1
enunc , 3 8 6n20
3 8 6-87n2 3
enunc, 3 87n24
enunc , 3 87n24
enunc , 3 86n20
proof, 3 8 5 n 3 2 , 3 8 6nn1 5 ,
1 6 , 3 86n20
proof, 3 87n29
enunc , 3 87n29

4

5
8
1 5-1 6
17
18
20
24
28
29
30
43 9

224, 2 6 2 , 271-7 2 , 294-95
3 64n3 , 3 87n34, 393nl2
3 8 6n8
enunc, 3 72n14
proof, 3 72n14
schol, 37 2nn7 , 8 , 14
enunc, 3 8 3n7
proof, 3 6 3nn20, 2 1 , 2 2 ,377n20, 3 8 2n24,
3 8 3n7, 3 84n2 3cor, 3 8 3n7
enunc , 3 86nl2
3 8 6n9enunc , 3 8 6nnl l , 1 9
proof, 3 67n3 1 , 3 86n19
3 8 6n22
3 86n2 3
proof, 3 8 6nnl4, 2 1
schol, 390nn 2 2 , 24,391n3 8schol , 3 8 7n27
enunc, 3 8 5n34, 3 89n15
proof, 3 97n2 8
enunc , 3 9 3 n 2 3
proof, 362nl5
enunc, 3 94n24

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y :Ethics, Part IV ( continued)
31 enunc , 3 8 6n832 3 8 7n2 5 , 3 90n26
enunc , 3 94n34
schol, 3 94n34
3 3 3 8 7n2 5 , 390n26
34 3 87n2 5 , 3 90n2 6
3 5 3 89n16, 3 90n25
schol , 3 9 1n3 7
3 7 schol 1 , 3 9 1nn3 0 , 3 8schol 2 , 391n30, 3 8 7n26,
3 89n1 3 , 3 90n29
3 8 3 85 n 2 9 , 3 8 6n8
enunc , 3 8 3n14
3 9 3 85n29
enunc, 3 86n8
proof, 3 8 2n3schol , 3 8 3n15
43 3 87n28
45 391n39
schol 2 , 3 9 2n42
46 391n39
47 391n39
proof, 391n3 3schol , 392n46
4 9 396n15
50 391n39
schol, 3 9 2n42
51 proof 1 , 392n6
proof 2 , 392n6
5 3 391n39
5 4 39ln39
schol, 3 9 2n45
5 9 proof ! , 3 8 6n1 3 , 392n3
proof 2 , 3 8 6n1 3 , 392n3
schol, 3 87nn3 5 , 36
63 schol, 3 9 2n42
proof, 3 94n29
66 schol, 3 89nl7
67 3 8 9nl8
enunc, 3 9 2n42
68 3 8 9n1 8 , 390n19
enunc, 3 8 8n44
proof, 3 8 8n46
69 3 89n1 8

70
71
72
73

App. 1 3
Part V
Preface
Prop 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

44 0

S P I N OZA

schol , 3 90n21
3 89n18
3 89n1 8
3 89nl 8
3 89nl 8
enunc , 391n37
proof, 391n37
schol, 3 89n17
3 92n44
1 3 0 , 2 8 2 , 2 8 5 , 2 8 6 , 309
3 8 9n1
enunc, 3 94n2 8
proof, 3 94n2 8
enunc, 3 94n27
proof, 3 67n3 1 , 3 9 2n5
enunc , 3 94n3 3cor, 3 94n3 3schol, 373n1 8 , 194nn2 8 , 30
3 96n15
enunc , 396nl6
proof, 396n16
schol , 3 8 3n 8 , 3 94n3 5
enunc, 396n18
proof, 3 9 6nnl4, 1 7
enunc, 3 96n19
proof, 3 96n19
396n21
3 94n37
enunc , 3 8 6n17, 3 94n3 1
proof, 3 86n17, 3 94n2 5schol , 3 9 2n42 , 3 94n37
3 9 6nn20, 2 1
3 96n20
enunc , 3 96n14
3 96n20395n6, 396n24, 3 99nn14,
18
395n6, 3 96n24, 3 97n3 2 ,3 99nn14, 18
proof, 3 97n27
395n6, 397n 3 2 , 3 9 9nnl4,
18
395n6, 397n29, 3 99nn14,
18

I N D E X

18
19
20

21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29

30
31
32
33
34
35
36

37
38

O F

T E X T U A L

3 9 5 n 6 , 3 99nnl4, 1 8
schol, 3 94n36
3 9 5 n6 , 397n29, 3 99nn14,18
3 9 5 n6 , 3 99nn14, 18
schol, 3 7 8 n 8 , 3 8 3n9,394n 3 2 , 397n3 2 ,399n21
296, 2 9 8 , 3 8 0n4
enunc , 399n28
proof, 3 9 8n4, 3 99n24,
399n25schol, 3 5 4n24, 3 99n2 3 ,3 99n27
398n3
proof, 3 97n3 3
398n3
3 9 8n3
proof, 3 9 8n8
enunc , 3 95n5 , 397n31
370n30envnc, 3 5 3n8, 3 9 8n6,
3 99n26
proof, 3 5 3 n 8 , 3 9 8nl l ,399n2 3 , 399n26
schol , 3 8 2n21
3 9 8n5
proof, 3 70n2 8
enunc, 3 7 1 n 3 6 , 3 9 8n7schol , 399n15
399n18cor, 3 9 8n9399n18schol, 3 99nn1 6 , 17
3 80n4, 399n18
enunc, 400n3 0399n18399nl8enunc , 3 9 8n54, 399n19
cor, 3 99n19
schol, 3 9 6n2 3 , 3 9 8nn1 ,5 , 399n20
399n18schol , 3 8 6n1 8 , 398n2
enunc, 400n 3 6
44 1

R E F E R E N C E S

39

40
41
42

proof, 399n2 1 , 400n35
schol, 400nn34, 36363n26
proof, 400n 3 2schol , 3 8 3 n 8 , 400nn 3 2 ,34
proof, 399n22
cor, 3 8 0n4, 3 99nn2 2 , 2 9 ,400n 3 1
39ln3 8
proof, 3 9 8n10, 3 99n27
schol, 3 84n2 2 , 3 89n17

T H E O L O G ICO-POLIT!CAL TREATISE''

Preface
Chap iii-iii
ii

iii
iv

v
vi
vii
viii
xi
xii

( 1 1 . 8 5 ), 3 9 1-92n40( 1 1 . 8 7 ), 392n41( 1 1 . 9 5 ), 3 5 8n6( 1 1 . 9 8-99 ), 3 9 8 n 3 6
3 5 8n8( 1 1 . 1 1 3 ), 3 5 7n3( 1 ! . 1 1 5 ), 3 5 7n19
( 1 1 . 1 9 1 ), 3 5 7n2. 2 1 , 391n32. 8 , 3 9 1 n3 2
( 1 1 . 1 3 6 ), 3 5 3n6( 1 1 . 1 3 9 ), 3 5 8n7, 3 87n3 1( 1 1 . 140-4 1 ) , 395n6( 1 1 . 142-44 ), 3 9 5 n6
( 1 1 . 144), 3 5 8n10
.4, 391n32. 1 , 391n32( 1 1 . 1 5 9 ), 371n40, 396n22
note 6 ( 1 1 . 3 1 5 ), 371n40,
396n22( 1 1 . 176-77 ), 393n21( 1 1 . 1 76), 3 9 2n7( 1 1 . 1 8 5 ), 3 5 7n2( 1 1 . 1 9 1 ) , 3 5 7n2
3 9 5 n6
3 5 8n5':'All numbers in parentheses refer tothe page number of vol . I I of the
Van Vloten and Land edition.

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y :Theologico-Poli tical Treatise76(continued )xiii( ! ! . 2 3 9-40 ) , 3 5 8n9

85
91-94

368nl

( ! ! . 247-4 8 ) , 3 9 5 n6

91

368n2

( ! ! . 2 5 8 -5 9 ) , 3 8 9n992

3 6 9 n 1 4 , 3 74n7

"dogmas o f faith , " 3 5 7n494

3 89 n 8 , 3 90 n 2 9

9 5 -96

XX

3 6 8 n 2 , 3 69n2 2 , 3 74 n 1 3
368n133 5 3 n n 1 1 , 2 2 , 3 69nn1 5 , 1 8( ! 1 . 2 5 8 ) , 3 8 9n795( ! 1 . 2 5 9 ) , 390n27

96

35 8n14( ! ! . 2 62 - 6 3 ) , 3 9 1 n 3 299

3 66 n l 6 , 3 70 n 2 5

101-02( ! ! . 2 6 6 ) , 3 89 n1 2 , 3 9 5 n4
xvii

3 6 5 n 5 , 3 70n3 3 , 3 74nn5 ,15

3 5 7n 1 8xvi

3 5 3 n 1 0 , 3 62 n 9 ,n o t e 2 , 3 6 2n9( l L240 ) , 3 5 4n 2 4xiv

S P I N OZ A

395n103 9 0n 2 9101

3 82n18( I 1 . 274 ) , 3 9 1 n 2 9105

3 68n6106 " 1 0

3 69 n 1 8( ! ! . 3 06-07 ) , 3 9 1 n 3 6106

3 67n1 , 3 6 8n4

TREATISE O N THE CORRECTI O N O F

108

3 S 3n7

T H E UND ERSTANDING

1 10

369n21 , 395n1010396nll

19-21

395n9

SHORT TREATI SE o N G o o , MAN,

3 69n1 6 , 3 7 3 n 2 1 , 3 9 5 n 2

AND H I S WELL·BE!NGi9§ 3 , 3 74nn4·, 1 4

Preface§ 7 - 1 4 , not e , 3 8 1 n1 4

note 2 , 373n21

Chap l .

i , 3 5 8n1420

3 74n421369n16, 372nl5 , 373n21,

i.l, 361n16
i.1n2, 361n18

3 74n431
33
34-35

i . 2 , 3 6 1n 1 7

note, 3 7 3 n 2 1

L 3 - 9 , 3 6 2n7

3 6 8n9

i . 9n4, 3 5 6n 1 3

3 6 8n9i i , 3 5 5 n2

367n30, 368n8

iLl, 35 3n20

37

368n3

i i . 2-5 , 3 60nl

38

3 6 8n5i i . 2 n 2 , 3 60nl , 3 7 5 n 2 2

39
40-41

367nl, 3 6 8n9ii.5n, 35 8n16

3 70n3 1i i . 5 n 3 , 3 60nl , 3 7 5 n 2 342

3 70n29i i . 6 , 3 60n3

44

3 69n24i i . l 7 , 3 5 6n 346

3 69n24i i . l 7n549

3 70n25355n2,

3 5 6n5

54

370n2758374n16i i . 1 9 n , 377n1 , 3 8 5 n4

70-71

37ln34i i .2. 2 - 2 5 , 3 6 3 n 2 8

i i . 1 9 - 2 2 , 3 5 5 nl4

71

371n35ii . 2 3 , 3 84n1 872

3 5 3nn2 2 , 2 3 , 3 6 9 nn 1 7 , 1 9

i i . 2 4 , 3 76n4

75370n25iii . ·-vi , 3 5 7n 1 6

44 2

I N D E X

O F

T E X T U A L

R E F E R E N C E S

iii . l n l , 3 5 6n 1 3

iii . S , 3 9 1 n 3 4iii . 2 , 3 76n4, 3 7 7 n 2 1i ii . l O , 3 9 1 n 3 6

iv. l-5 , 3 64n9

iv, 3 89 n 8 , 3 9 8n 3 5

iv. 7 - 9 , 3 64n10v , 3 89n9

vii , 3 5 7n 1 7

v. 2 , 3 89 n l lvii . l n l , 3 5 7n14

vi . l , 3 9 0n 2 8vii . 6 , 3 5 6n 1 3 , 3 5 7n 1 5

x . S , 3 9 1 n 3 3 , 3 9 2n47

vii . 9 - 1 0 , 3 5 5 n 2 2

xvi i i , 3 9 l n 3 0

vii . l O , 3 5 3 n 9xix, 391n30

ix . 3 , 3 66nn 2 0 , 2 2xxiii , 3 9 1n 3 0

8 . s4 , 3 6 6 n 1 3First Dialogue 9 , 3 5 5 n 2

PRINCIPLES O F DESCARTES'S

I I . 1 2 , 3 5 3n9

PHILOSO PHY

Second Dialogue 5 , 3 6 3 n l
II.

I . 7s362n2

i.2-3, 395n8
xv. 2 , 3 6 8 n l l

METAPHYSICAL T H O U G HTS

xix . 5 , 3 5 8 n 1 3

l.ii

37-3 8 , 2 1 3 , 3 8 2n 2 0x i x . 7 f. , 3 6 5 n 1 5

I I .v

3 5 4n3 , 3 5 5 n2 4

xix . S n , 3 84n2 8
xx. 3 n 3 , 3 6 2nn8 , 1 6 ,LETTERS*2 ( to Oldenburg ) , 3 5 3 n 2 0

3 6 5 n 1 6 , 3 6 5 n7 , 3 7 9 n l l[ I I I . 5 ] , 3 5 4n l l , 3 5 5 n l , 3 6 1 n 2 5

xx.4-5 , 3 6 5 n 1 5

4 ( to Oldenburg ) , 3 5 3 n 2 0x x . 4 , 3 5 3n9[ I I I . l0-1 1 ] , 3 6 1 n 2 5

xxi i . 4 n 1 , 3 6 6 n 2 3xxiv. 7-8 , 3 8 3n6[ I I I . lO J , 3 5 8 n 1 2

xxiv.9-l l , 3 5 8n5[ I I I . l l ] , 3 5 6n 1 2
6 ( to Oldenburg ) , 3 84n26

xxiv. 9 -1 3 , 3 71n41
App I .
II.

[III . 2 1 ] , 3 81nll

p. 3 85n3
4c2 , 3 5 5 n2

[ I I I . 2 2 ] , 3 8 1n 1 0

7, 3 8 3 n l 0[ I I I . 2 5 ] , 3 5 6n 1 0
9 ( to D e Vri e s ) [ I I I . 3 2 ] , 3 5 5 n 1 9 ,

9 , 3 6 6n14

3 5 6n6

1 1 , 3 6 0n 2 , 3 7 9n l l[III.32], 3 5 8n17
1 0 ( to D e Vri e s ) [ I I I . 3 3 ]PoLITICAL TREATISE[ I I I . 3 4 ] , 3 5 6n4

91, 3 9 1n 2 9
I. 7

1 2 ( to Meye r ) , 1 9 2 , 1 9 4 , 2 0 2 ,Lemma 1 , 3 6 2n l lLemma 2 ,p , 3 6 2 n l l
i . 1 , 3 9 2n43

2 0 3 -04, 2 2 3i i , 3 8 9nn8 , 9 , 3 9 1 n 3 0[ I I I .41-42 ] , 3 80n5ii.2-3 , 3 6 3n19

[ I I I . 4 1 ] , 3 5 4n 1 2 , 3 8 1n 1 0[ I I I .40-4 1 ] , 3 8 0n7i i . 6 , 3 9 0n 2 0
ii. S , 3 89n13*All numbers in brackets refer toi i . l 5 , 3 8 9n14i ii . 2 , 3 9 1 n 3 1

the page number of vol. I I of theiii . 3 , 3 9 1nn34, 3 5

Van Vloten and Land edition.

44 3

E X P R E S S I O N I S M

I N

P H I LO S O P H Y :Letters ( continued )[ I I I . 4 2 ] , 3 78n4, 3 8 1n9
1 3 ( to Oldenburg ) [ I I I . 45 ] , 3 84n26
19 ( to Blyenbergh ) [ I I I . 65 ] , 3 5 8n7,
3 87n3 1
2 0 (from Blyenbergh) [III.72], 3 8 8n40
2 1 ( to Blyenbergh) [ I I I . 8 6 ] , 3 6 3 n 1 8[ I I I . 87-8 8 ] , 3 8 8n41
2 2 (from Blyenbergh) [III.94], 3 8 8n42
[ I I I . 9 6 ] , 3 87n3 2 , 3 8 8n 3 8
2 3 ( to Blyenbergh ) [ I I I . 9 9 ] , 3 8 8n37
[ I I I . 1 0 1 ] , 3 8 8n 3 8
24 ( from Blyenbergh) [I I I . 107] , 3 80n3
30 ( to Oldenburg) [ I I I . 1 1 9 ] , 3 8 2n19
3 2 ( to Oldenburg ) [II I . l 20-2 1 ] ,3 8 2nn16, 1 7
3 5 (to Hudde) [ I I I . 129-30], 3 6 1 n 2 5
3 6 ( to Hudde) [ I I I . l 3 1- 3 2 ] , 3 6 1 n 2 5
3 7 ( to Bouwmeester) [ I I I . 1 3 5 ] ,368nn4, 9 , 3 69n1 5 , 3 70n3 2 ,372n6, 372-73n18
40 ( to Jelles ) [ I I I . 1 4 2 ] , 362n1043 ( to Osten ) [ I I I . 1 6 1 ] , 3 76n4
50 ( to Jelles ) [ I I I . l 7 2 ] , 391n35
5 6 ( to Boxel ) [ I I I . 190], 3 5 6n860 ( to Tschirnhaus) [ I I I . 200] ,3 61nn1 3 , 2 6 , 3 6 8-69n1 3
63 ( from Schuller) [ I I I . 2 0 3 ] , 3 67n3 364 ( to Schuller) [ I I I . 2 05 ] , 371n3 8[ I I I . 206 ] , 3 5 5n20, 3 5 6n 1 2 ,365nl l , 3 8 5 nn2 , 5
65 ( from Tschirnhaus ) [ I I I . 207] ,3 6 5 n466 ( to Tschirnhaus) [ I I I . 207] , 3 67n27[I I I . 20 8 ] , 3 67n2 870 ( from Schuller) [I I I . 2 2 1 ] , 3 67n26
73 (to Oldenburg) [ I I I . 2 2 6 ] , 366n22
75 ( to Oldenburg) [ I I I . 2 2 8 ] , 3 64n5
8 1 ( to Tschirnhaus), 3 5 4n12
[ I I I . 24 1 ] , 3 80n6
8 2 ( from Tschirnhaus), 3 5 3n21
8 3 ( to Tschirnhaus) [I I I . 24 1 ] , 3 5 3n21
Works by D escartes

Arguments Drawn Up in a GeometricalS P I N OZA

Fashion , 3 62n5
Critique of Pure Reason , 3 8 2n23
Letter to Mesland , 3 6 2n6Passions of the Soul, 3 89n2
Principles, 8 8 - 8 9 , 91, 3 5 4nn3 , 4 , 5, 7,

8 , 9 , 3 5 8n16, 3 62nn3 , 4 , 3 7 5 n 1 9 ,3 84n2 8
Replies to the First Objections, 3 60n5 ,3 71n37, 3 75n1 8

Replies to the Second Objections,
3 60nn7, 8 , 9, 10, 3 6� , 373n1 ,3 74nn 8 , 9 , 1 1
Replies to the Fourth Objections, 3 5 4n10,371n37, 3 7 5 n 1 8
Rules, 3 7 3 n 2
Third Meditation, 3 60nn4, 1 1 , 3 62nn3 ,4 , 3 7 3 n 2 , 3 7 3 -74n3
Fourth Meditation, 371n37
Works by Leibniz"Discourse on Metaphysics," 373n20,
401n3"Elementa calculi , " 361n2 3 , 401n9"Elementa verae pietatis," 401n9"Ad Ethicam , " 361n21"Introductio ad encyclopaedium
arcanum , " 3 6 1 n2 3 , 401n9
Letter to Arnauld, 3 7 3 n 1 9 , 401nn6,
7, 8
Letter to the Landgrave ofHesseRheinfels, 400n 3 3
Letter t o Princess Elizabeth , 3 60nl 2 ,361n2 2 , 3 61n1
"Meditations on Knowledge, Truthand Ideas ," 3 60-61n1 2 , 3 6 1 n 2 2 ,373n20" O n Nature Itself. . . , " 3 84nn2 5 ,
2 6 , 27
"New System , " 370n 3 3"Plan de Ia science generale," 3 6 1 n 2 3"Quod ens perfectissimum existit,"
3 60n6, 3 61n22"On the Radical Origination ofThings ," 378n6"Reflections on the Doctrine of a444

I N D E X

O F

T E X T U A L

Universal Spirit," 3 6 5 n 1 7

Works by Other A u thors

Aristotle, Posterior Analytics, 3 74nn6,
10
Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy,
376n12Bonaventure, De Scientia Christi,
3 77n17
Bruno , On Cause, Principle, and Unity,
3 63n24
Caterus, First Objections, 3 5 9n27,375nl7
Fourth Objections, 375nl7
Duns Scotus, Opus Oxoniense,
3 5 9nnl 9 , 20, 2 1 , 2 3 , 24, 3 60n2 9 ,379n14
Hobbes, De Corpore, 363n25
Kant, Critique ofJudgment, 367n32
Nicholas of Cusa, On Learned
Ignorance, 377n 1 3
The Game of the Spheres, 3 77n1 8
Plotinus, Enneads, 375nnl, 2 , 376nn5 ,6 , 9 , 1 0 , 1 1 , 3 77nnl 5 , 1 6
Suarez, Metaphysicarum disputationem,
3 5 4n6, 3 5 9n26

445

R E F E R E N C E SThis edition designed by Bruce Mau
Type composed by Archetyp e
Printed and b ound by Thomson- Shore , Inc.