E4P45 note:
"I say it is the part of a wise man to
refresh and recreate himself with moderate and pleasant food and
drink, and also with perfumes, with the soft beauty of growing
plants, with dress, with music, with many sports, with theatres,
and the like, such as every man may make use of without injury to
his neighbour. For the human body is composed of very numerous
parts, of diverse nature, which continually stand in need of
fresh and varied nourishment, so that the whole body may be
equally capable of performing all the actions, which follow from
the necessity of its own nature ; and, consequently, so that the
mind may also be equally capable of understanding many things
simultaneously. This way of life, then, agrees best with our
principles, and also with general practice ; therefore, if there
be any question of another plan, the plan we have mentioned is
the best, and in every way to be commended. There is no need for
me to set forth the matter more clearly or in more detail."
*****
Also, this little blurb from a website:
"The Buddha referred to his teachings as 'the Middle Way', avoiding
the extremes of sensual indulgence and self-mortification. His own
life, prior to attaining enlightenment, witnessed both extremes - the
luxury of his life in his father's palace in his youth in contrast to
the severe ascetic practices he engaged in during his six-year search
for enlightenment. Neither brought a release from suffering."
*****
[18] (1) Having laid down these preliminary rules, I will betake
myself to the first and most important task, namely, the amendment
of the understanding, and the rendering it capable of understanding
things in the manner necessary for attaining our end. (2) In order
to bring this about, the natural order demands that I should here
recapitulate all the modes of perception, which I have hitherto
employed for affirming or denying anything with certainty, so that
I may choose the best, and at the same time begin to know my own
powers and the nature which I wish to perfect.
*****
I think that the words "with certainty" in p18s2 above are confusing
at best, since Spinoza goes on to explain how uncertain some of the
modes he is going to recap really are. I think he would have edited
this sentence to make it more clear prior to publication, and I would
thus call the sentence at least "unpolished" as it stands.
*****
19 Of the four modes of perception
[19] (1) Reflection shows that all modes of perception or knowledge
may be reduced to four:-
I. (2) Perception arising from hearsay or from some sign which
everyone may name as he please.
II. (3) Perception arising from mere experience - that is, from
experience not yet classified by the intellect, and only so called
because the given event has happened to take place, and we have no
contradictory fact to set against it, so that it therefore remains
unassailed in our minds.
III. (19:4) Perception arising when the essence of one thing is inferred
from another thing, but not adequately; this comes when [f] from
some
effect we gather its cause, or when it is inferred from some general
proposition that some property is always present.
IV. (5) Lastly, there is the perception arising when a thing is
perceived solely through its essence, or through the knowledge
of its proximate cause.
*****
These should be broken down so that each phrase is very clear. What
is an example of "from some sign which everyone may name as he
please?" These modes may very quickly transition one into another.
For example, I am disturbed to see a splotchy color coat after my
stucco guy has finished one of my jobs. For an instant, there was a
raw perception...then it was very generally classified, as a poor
stucco job. accompanied by fear. But then, more specifically, I
recall cases where splotches had been caused by inadequate
mixing...but was that with stucco, or paint? Maybe paint, hmmm...It
turns out, there has been an error of perception. Small puddles of
water on the ground were casting direct reflections of sunlight on
the wall, the color was fine.
These things go on in us constantly, in the proverbial blink of an
"i." Come to think of it, the question of how much light is
reflected, and how much reaches say, the bottom of the puddle, is an
extremely involved calculation, involving quantum electro dynamics,
etc. Why does it happen that way? What is really going on with light
and color.....perception??? Who is perceiving what? Why was there
fear, and what is at its root? The brain begins to light up as
understanding becomes more and more discernible...individual/
relationship with world...and there is Love.
Spinoza is going to illustrate his modes with his famous
"proportionals," but we get ahead of ourselves. I want to see
continually how each of these kinds of knowledge work within the
contents of my own consciousness, so I observe for examples, moment
to moment.
I wonder though, since Spinoza states that "the natural order demands
that I should here recapitulate all the modes of perception," why do
they appear to be in reverse order, with respect to what he calls
"the natural order" later on? We'd have to jump ahead and consider
what Spinoza says about the proper order of investigation and all of
that in order to fully illuminate the question, so I'm going to leave
it an open question for now. If he had called that which is here
styled "the fourth kind" of knowledge "the first kind" instead, this
would have saved a bit of confusion when he included a variation of
this scheme into Ethics. Let's recall that what we are shown here as
the "fourth kind" of knowledge is always "the third kind of
knowledge" in Ethics. I tend to think that the scheme in Ethics is
the one Spinoza considered more polished, which was condensed
(generally, hearsay and experience were lumped under a single head as
the "first kind of knowledge") and it would be worthwhile to compare
these schemes in detail. Perhaps Spinoza was endeavoring to speak
more intelligibly to us by arranging the order thus, in spite of it
being technically reversed. However, the fact that he reworked the
scheme for Ethics might speak to our present scheme's "lack of
polish," although I have tended to prefer this scheme personally.
See E2P40 note for these same rudiments of his epistemology in
Ethics. That note, BTW, also includes:
*****
" Again we should discern whence the notions called
secondary derived their origin, and consequently the axioms on
which they are founded, and other points of interest connected
with these questions. But I have decided to pass over the
subject here, partly because I have set it aside for another
treatise..."
*****
What treatise? Is this some content for TEI that Spinoza was
proposing? I don't understand what he is talking about here. What
are the "notions call secondary," "axioms" etc? If he did include
this stuff in TEI, I am not aware of it. If he did not, but intended
to, this would speak to the incompleteness factor. If I cannot get
some answer from the list re these questions, I hope I may find them
in a history of philosophy, however, any help would be appreciated.
DR
"I say it is the part of a wise man to
refresh and recreate himself with moderate and pleasant food and
drink, and also with perfumes, with the soft beauty of growing
plants, with dress, with music, with many sports, with theatres,
and the like, such as every man may make use of without injury to
his neighbour. For the human body is composed of very numerous
parts, of diverse nature, which continually stand in need of
fresh and varied nourishment, so that the whole body may be
equally capable of performing all the actions, which follow from
the necessity of its own nature ; and, consequently, so that the
mind may also be equally capable of understanding many things
simultaneously. This way of life, then, agrees best with our
principles, and also with general practice ; therefore, if there
be any question of another plan, the plan we have mentioned is
the best, and in every way to be commended. There is no need for
me to set forth the matter more clearly or in more detail."
*****
Also, this little blurb from a website:
"The Buddha referred to his teachings as 'the Middle Way', avoiding
the extremes of sensual indulgence and self-mortification. His own
life, prior to attaining enlightenment, witnessed both extremes - the
luxury of his life in his father's palace in his youth in contrast to
the severe ascetic practices he engaged in during his six-year search
for enlightenment. Neither brought a release from suffering."
*****
[18] (1) Having laid down these preliminary rules, I will betake
myself to the first and most important task, namely, the amendment
of the understanding, and the rendering it capable of understanding
things in the manner necessary for attaining our end. (2) In order
to bring this about, the natural order demands that I should here
recapitulate all the modes of perception, which I have hitherto
employed for affirming or denying anything with certainty, so that
I may choose the best, and at the same time begin to know my own
powers and the nature which I wish to perfect.
*****
I think that the words "with certainty" in p18s2 above are confusing
at best, since Spinoza goes on to explain how uncertain some of the
modes he is going to recap really are. I think he would have edited
this sentence to make it more clear prior to publication, and I would
thus call the sentence at least "unpolished" as it stands.
*****
19 Of the four modes of perception
[19] (1) Reflection shows that all modes of perception or knowledge
may be reduced to four:-
I. (2) Perception arising from hearsay or from some sign which
everyone may name as he please.
II. (3) Perception arising from mere experience - that is, from
experience not yet classified by the intellect, and only so called
because the given event has happened to take place, and we have no
contradictory fact to set against it, so that it therefore remains
unassailed in our minds.
III. (19:4) Perception arising when the essence of one thing is inferred
from another thing, but not adequately; this comes when [f] from
some
effect we gather its cause, or when it is inferred from some general
proposition that some property is always present.
IV. (5) Lastly, there is the perception arising when a thing is
perceived solely through its essence, or through the knowledge
of its proximate cause.
*****
These should be broken down so that each phrase is very clear. What
is an example of "from some sign which everyone may name as he
please?" These modes may very quickly transition one into another.
For example, I am disturbed to see a splotchy color coat after my
stucco guy has finished one of my jobs. For an instant, there was a
raw perception...then it was very generally classified, as a poor
stucco job. accompanied by fear. But then, more specifically, I
recall cases where splotches had been caused by inadequate
mixing...but was that with stucco, or paint? Maybe paint, hmmm...It
turns out, there has been an error of perception. Small puddles of
water on the ground were casting direct reflections of sunlight on
the wall, the color was fine.
These things go on in us constantly, in the proverbial blink of an
"i." Come to think of it, the question of how much light is
reflected, and how much reaches say, the bottom of the puddle, is an
extremely involved calculation, involving quantum electro dynamics,
etc. Why does it happen that way? What is really going on with light
and color.....perception??? Who is perceiving what? Why was there
fear, and what is at its root? The brain begins to light up as
understanding becomes more and more discernible...individual/
relationship with world...and there is Love.
Spinoza is going to illustrate his modes with his famous
"proportionals," but we get ahead of ourselves. I want to see
continually how each of these kinds of knowledge work within the
contents of my own consciousness, so I observe for examples, moment
to moment.
I wonder though, since Spinoza states that "the natural order demands
that I should here recapitulate all the modes of perception," why do
they appear to be in reverse order, with respect to what he calls
"the natural order" later on? We'd have to jump ahead and consider
what Spinoza says about the proper order of investigation and all of
that in order to fully illuminate the question, so I'm going to leave
it an open question for now. If he had called that which is here
styled "the fourth kind" of knowledge "the first kind" instead, this
would have saved a bit of confusion when he included a variation of
this scheme into Ethics. Let's recall that what we are shown here as
the "fourth kind" of knowledge is always "the third kind of
knowledge" in Ethics. I tend to think that the scheme in Ethics is
the one Spinoza considered more polished, which was condensed
(generally, hearsay and experience were lumped under a single head as
the "first kind of knowledge") and it would be worthwhile to compare
these schemes in detail. Perhaps Spinoza was endeavoring to speak
more intelligibly to us by arranging the order thus, in spite of it
being technically reversed. However, the fact that he reworked the
scheme for Ethics might speak to our present scheme's "lack of
polish," although I have tended to prefer this scheme personally.
See E2P40 note for these same rudiments of his epistemology in
Ethics. That note, BTW, also includes:
*****
" Again we should discern whence the notions called
secondary derived their origin, and consequently the axioms on
which they are founded, and other points of interest connected
with these questions. But I have decided to pass over the
subject here, partly because I have set it aside for another
treatise..."
*****
What treatise? Is this some content for TEI that Spinoza was
proposing? I don't understand what he is talking about here. What
are the "notions call secondary," "axioms" etc? If he did include
this stuff in TEI, I am not aware of it. If he did not, but intended
to, this would speak to the incompleteness factor. If I cannot get
some answer from the list re these questions, I hope I may find them
in a history of philosophy, however, any help would be appreciated.
DR
No comments:
Post a Comment