On Spinoza*Leszek Kolakowski |
| That the indivisible Whole, or the Absolute,
is 'in' all particular things, and therefore in each of us, is a belief
that appears, variously phrased, in the works of nearly all Platonist
thinkers, including Ptorinus, Proclus, Damascius, Eckhart and Nicholas
of Cusa. However difficult and awkward it might have been to make this
idea compatible with the idea of the self-contained One, they all attempted
it. We find it even in Spinoza, who was faced with formidable, almost
intractable problems when he tried to express this view in his basically
Cartesian idiom, designed for an entirely different purpose. Thus Spinoza,
while denying that the esse of substance belongs to the essence of man
{Ethics II, Prop. 10, and Scholium), says that particular things, being
'modifications' or 'affections' of God, express Him (I.15.Cor.). The body
and its idea are the same thing differently seen - as, he observes, some
Jews vaguely {'quasi per nebulam'} perceived when they said that God,
His intellect and the things encompassed by His intelligence are all one
and the same. Spinoza even claims that the human mind is itself part of
God's infinite intellect (II.II.Cor.) - even though God, being indivisible,
clearly cannot have parts (I.13) - and that the eternal intellectual love
of God of which we are capable is part of God's infinite self-love (V.i6).
It is axiomatically true for him that all things are 'in' God, and no
less obvious that God cannot be 'in' things, since in this usage 'in'
implies absolute dependence. So, since he cannot speak of God's presence
'in' us, he sees human beings - and all beings, for that matter - as God's
modifications or affections. This in spite of the fact that substance,
being immutable and indivisible, cannot ‘modified' or 'affected'
in the sense of being changed by the actions of individuals. However,
these apparent contradictions can be made to disappear if we assume that
every particular thing simply is God - God modified or God expressing
Himself. Spinoza seems to be echoing Eckhart, in a modernized dialect.
Eckhart tried to explain the same intuition as a spark of divinity in
us, or God's birth in the soul; Nicholas of Cusa tried to explain it by
calling the world an explicatio of God (in the sense of unfolding) and
God a complicatio of the world (in the sense of coiling or furling). God
is like a point on a line: present everywhere, never divided, always one.
Atman is Brahman.
Unlike the early Neoplatonists, the pseudo-Cartesian of Amsterdam ('pseudo'
because no trace of the Cogito or of 'subjectivity' remains in his theology)
did not think that the Absolute was ineffable. He seemed satisfied with
the riches of his language. But empiricist and rationalist critiques
were soon to shatter his laboriously built monument to 'geometrical'
method. The train of modernity was heading ineluctably into the same
abyss of double-Nothingness: step by step, both the One and the Cogito
were being converted into nihilum. Certainly neither has disappeared
completely: metaphysics - as a search for a self-rooted Being - has
survived, relegated to life in a kind of philosophical demi-monde. But
its language has been largely de-legalized. |
| *From Leszek Kolakowski Metaphysical Horror Penguin, London 2001 p. 78-80 |
 |