Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T05:05:48.092Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Field Metaphysic, Power, and Individuation in Spinoza

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Valtteri Viljanen
Valtteri Viljanen*
Affiliation:
University of Turku, 20014 Turku, Finland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Spinoza developed a highly interesting metaphysical theory of nature and individuality. In this paper, I endeavor to bring forward some ideas on how Spinozistic views on extended substance, physical world, and individuality can be approached using the concept of power as the basis of interpretation. Jonathan Bennett's ‘field metaphysical’ interpretation of Spinoza's doctrine of one extended substance has generated much discussion, and forms the other starting point of my paper. I believe that the field metaphysical interpretation enables one to deal with the central questions concerning physical individuation — individuality and the persistence of individual being — in a rather novel way. My main question is this: what follows if physical individuals are seen as parts of a unified field of extended power?

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 393 - 418
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ablondi, F. and Barbone, S. 1996. ‘Individual Identity in Descartes and Spinoza.’ Studia Spinozana 10: 69–91.Google Scholar
Barbone, S. 2002. ‘What Counts as an Individual for Spinoza?’ In Spinoza. Metaphysical Themes, Koistinen, O. and Biro, J. eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. 1984. A Study of Spinoza's Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. 1991. ‘Spinoza's Monism: A Reply to Curley.’ In God and Nature: Spinoza's Metaphysics, Yovel, Y. ed. Leiden, New York, København, and Köln: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. 1996. ‘Spinoza's Metaphysics.’ In The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza, Garrett, D. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. 2001. Learning from Six Philosophers. Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume. Volume 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Carriero, J. 1995. ‘On the Relationship between Mode and Substance in Spinoza's Metaphysics.’ Journal of the History of Philosophy 33: 245–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curley, E. 1991. ‘On Bennett's Interpretation of Spinoza's Monism.’ In God and Nature: Spinoza's Metaphysics, Yovel, Y. ed. Leiden, New York, København, and Köln: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Deleuze, G. 1988. Spinoza: Practical Philosophy (Spinoza: Philosophie pratique 1981). Hurley, R. trans. San Francisco: City Lights Books.Google Scholar
Deleuze, G. 1997. Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza (Spinoza et le problème de l’expression 1968). Joughin, M. trans. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
Della Rocca, M. 2003. ‘The Power of an Idea: Spinoza's Critique of Pure Will.’ Nous 37: 200–31.Google Scholar
Esfeld, M. 2002. Holismus in der Philosophie des Geistes und in der Philosophie der Physik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Garber, D. 1996. ‘Descartes and Spinoza on Persistence and Conatus.’ Studia Spinozana 10: 43–67.Google Scholar
Garrett, D. 1994. ‘Spinoza's Theory of Metaphysical Individuation.’ In Individuation and Identity in Early Modern Philosophy. Descartes to Kant, Barber, K.F. and Garcia, J.J.E. eds. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Gueroult, M. 1968. Spinoza I. Dieu. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Gueroult, M. 1974. Spinoza II. L’Âme. Hildesheim and New York: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Harris, E.E. 1973. Salvation from Despair. A Reappraisal of Spinoza's Philosophy. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonas, H. 1979. ‘Spinoza and the Theory of Organism (1965).’ In Spinoza. A Collection of Critical Essays, Grene, M. ed. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1992. ‘Physical Monadology (Monadologiam physicam, 1756).’ In Kant, Immanuel Theoretical Philosophy, 1755–1770. Walford, D. trans. and ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koistinen, O. 1991. On the Metaphysics of Spinoza's Ethics. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Lachterman, D.R. 1978. ‘The Physics of Spinoza's Ethics.’ In Spinoza: New Perspectives, Shahan, R.W. and Biro, J.I. eds. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Lecrivain, A. 1986. ‘Spinoza and Cartesian Mechanics.’ In Spinoza and the Sciences, Grene, M. and Nails, D. eds. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Matheron, A. 1988. Individu et communauté chez Spinoza (1969). Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Pietarinen, J. 2000a. ‘Spinoza: hyve on valtaa.’ In Mitä on valta? Räikkä, J. and Wennberg, M. eds. Kuopio: Unipress.Google Scholar
Pietarinen, J. 2000b. ‘The Rationality of Desires in Spinoza's Ethics.’ In Rationality and Irrationality (Contributions of the Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society 8). Brogaard, B. ed. Kirchberg: Austrian L. Wittgenstein Society.Google Scholar
Pietarinen, J. 2003. ‘Spinoza on Causal Explanation of Action.’ In Realism in Action, Sintonen, M. Ylikoski, P. and Miller, K. eds. Dordrecht, Boston, and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Rice, L.C. 1971. ‘Spinoza on Individuation.’ The Monist 55: 640–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohs, P. 1996. Feld – Zeit – Ich: Entwurf einer feldtheoretischen Transzendentalphilosophie. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.Google Scholar
Sachs, M. 1976. ‘Maimonides, Spinoza, and the Field Concept in Physics.’ Journal of the History of Ideas 37: 125–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinoza, B. 1985. Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect (Tractatus de intellectus emendatione). In The Collected Works of Spinoza Volume 1. Curley, E. ed. and trans. Princeton: Princeton University Press. = TEIGoogle Scholar
Spinoza, B. 1985. Short Treatise on God, Man and His Well-Being (Korte Verhandeling). In The Collected Works of Spinoza Volume 1. E. Curley, ed. and trans. Princeton: Princeton University Press. = KV.Google Scholar
Spinoza, B. 1985. Descartes’ ‘Principles of Philosophy’ (Principia Philosophiæ Cartesianæ). In The Collected Works of Spinoza Volume 1. Curley, E. ed. and trans. Princeton: Princeton University Press. = DPP.Google Scholar
Spinoza, B. 1985. The Ethics (Ethica ordine geometrico demonstrata). In The Collected Works of Spinoza Volume 1. Curley, E. ed. and trans. Princeton: Princeton University Press. = E.Google Scholar
Spinoza, B. 1995. The Letters. Shirley, S. trans. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company. = Ep.Google Scholar
Van Zandt, J.D. 1986. ‘Res extensa and the Space-Time Continuum.’ In Spinoza and the Sciences. Grene, M. and Nails, D. eds. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Viljanen, V. forthcoming. ‘On the Derivation and Meaning of Spinoza's Conatus Doctrine.’ In Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy, Volume IV. Garber, D. and Nadler, S. eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dunin Borkowski, S. von 1933. ‘Die Physik Spinozas.’ Septimana Spinozana: 85–101.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. 1998. ‘Field Theory, Classical.’ In Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Volume 3. Craig, E. ed. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wilson, M.D. 1996. ‘Spinoza's Theory of Knowledge.’ In The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza. Garrett, D. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, A. 1974. ‘Spinoza's Conception of the Attributes of Substance (1927).’ In Studies in Spinoza. Critical and Interpretive Essays. Kashap, S.P. ed. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wolfson, H.A. 1961. The Philosophy of Spinoza. Two Volumes in One (1934). Cleveland and New York: Meridian Books.Google Scholar