Spinoza attributes mentality to all things existing in nature. He claims that each thing has a mind that perceives everything that happens in the body. Against this panpsychist background, it is unclear how consciousness relates to the nature of the mind. This study focuses on Spinoza’s account of the conscious mind and its operations. It builds on the hypothesis that Spinoza’s panpsychism can be interpreted as a self-consistent philosophical position. It aims at providing answers to the following questions: what is (...) consciousness, for Spinoza, and what are the causes that determine its presence in nature? How can human and non-human individuals be distinguished on account of their mentality? How can Spinoza conceive of the human mind as consisting entirely of conscious perceptions? And how, according to Spinoza’s mind-body parallelism, is the content of consciousness determined so that it reflects in thought the order and connection of the actions and passions of the body? To address these questions, I first determine what Spinoza’s notion of “consciousness” is and how he uses it. Then, I investigate whether he has a theory of recognition capable of accounting for specifically human behaviour and mentality. Further, I examine his description of memory and the way in which memory shapes the framework of human conscious thought. Finally, I look for an account of discursive reasoning, capable of explaining the existence of activities of the mind that, by operating on the content provided by memory, preserve themselves through time and change. (shrink)

The tenth proposition of Spinoza’s Ethics reads: ‘Each attribute of substance must be conceived through itself.’ Developing and defending the argument for this single proposition, it turns out, is vital to Spinoza’s philosophical project. Indeed, it’s virtually impossible to overstate its importance. Spinoza and his interpreters have used EIp10 to prove central claims in his metaphysics and philosophy of mind (i.e., substance monism, mind-body parallelism, mind-body identity, and finite subject individuation). It’s crucial for making sense of his epistemology (i.e., Spinoza’s (...) account of knowledge and response to skepticism) and in resolving puzzles within the Ethics (i.e., explaining human ignorance of all but two attributes). Even those who do not attribute some of the above claims to Spinoza need EIp10 to defend much of what they believe about Spinoza’s system. This paper locates a previously unnoticed argument for this proposition in Spinoza’s Short Treatise on God, Man, and His Well Being. There, Spinoza shows himself concerned with a powerful and underappreciated form of philosophical skepticism, one with surprising echoes in the work of his contemporary Leibniz as well as in the later Wittgenstein. Spinoza’s introduction of E1p10 in the Ethics circumvents this form of skepticism, solving the problem the Short Treatise envisions while also explaining that text’s argument’s absence from the explicit justificatory structure of the Ethics. (shrink)

This paper offers a new interpretation of the young Spinoza’s method of distinguishing the true ideas from the false, which shows that his answer to the sceptic is not a failure. This method combines analysis and synthesis as follows: if we can say of the object of an idea which simple things underlie it, how it can be constructed out of simple elements, and what properties it has after it has been produced, doubt concerning the object simply makes no sense. (...) The paper also suggests a way in which this methodology connects to the ontology of the Ethics. (shrink)

Kartezjusz w kwestii intelektualnego doświadczenia i sceptycyzmu Epistemologia Kartezjusza jest zakorzeniona w jego głębokim zainteresowaniu i uznaniu dla tego, co można by nazwać intelektualnym doświadczeniem, lub dokładniej przejrzystym intelektualnym doświadczeniem. To zainteresowanie intelektualnym doświadczeniem, jak mi się wydaje, podzielali inni racjonaliści, Spinoza i Leibniz. W części pierwszej artykułu staram się ulokować fenomen przejrzystego intelektualnego doświadczenia w ramach doktryny Kartezjusza i Spinozy. Usiłuję pokazać, że jeśli nie uwzględnimy w sposób właściwy charakteru tego doświadczenia, to ryzykujemy utratą wglądu w centralne motywy leżące (...) u podstaw ich teorii poznania. W drugiej części artykułu rozważam intelektualne doświadczenia w kontekście sceptycznego wątpienia, w szczególności radyklanego wątpienia. Chociaż często przyjmuje się, że Kartezjusz i Spinoza zajmują opozycyjne stanowiska, gdy chodzi o kwestię radykalnego wątpienia, to ja sądzę, że ich stanowisko były bardziej do siebie podobne w tej sprawie niż się zwykle przyjmuje. (shrink)