Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T00:29:26.737Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Infinite and the Indeterminate in Spinoza

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2012

Shannon Dea*
Affiliation:
University of Waterloo

Abstract

ABSTRACT: I argue that when Spinoza describes substance and its attributes as “infinite,” he means that they are utterly indeterminate. That is, his conception of infinitude is not a mathematical one. For Spinoza, anything truly infinite eludes counting – not because it is so large as to be uncountable, but because it is just not the kind of thing that can be enumerated or measured. Contra the contemporary mathematical conception of the infinite, I argue that Spinoza’s conception is closer to a grammatical one. I conclude by considering a number of arguments against this account of the Spinozan infinite as indeterminate.

RÉSUMÉ: Je soutiens que, lorsque Spinoza décrit la substance et ses attributs comme «infinis», il veut dire qu’ils sont totalement indéterminés. Autrement dit, sa conception de l’infini n’est pas mathématique. Pour Spinoza, une chose vraiment infinie ne peut être comptée — pas parce qu’elle est trop grande pour être comptée, mais parce qu’elle n’est tout simplement pas le genre de chose qui peut être énumérée ou mesurée. Je soutiens que Spinoza offre, contre la conception contemporaine mathématique de l’infini, une conception quasi-grammaticale. Je conclus en considérant quelques objections possibles à cette approche de l’infini spinoziste comme étant indéterminé.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2012

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

Arthur, Richard 1988Continuous Creation, Continuous Time: A Refutation of the Alleged Discontinuity of Cartesian Time.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 26: 349–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Jonathan 1984 A Study of Spinoza’s Ethics. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Curley, Edwin 1988 Behind the Geometrical Method. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, Stephen H. 2000Berkeley, Suárez and the ‘Esse-Existere’ Distinction.” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 74(4): 621–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donagan, Alan 1988 Spinoza. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Erdmann, Johann Eduard 1889 A History of Philosophy. Vol. 2. Trans. Hough, Williston S.. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Huenemann, Charlie 2004Spinoza and Prime Matter.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 42(1): 2132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, George 1977 “On the Infinity of Spinoza’s Attributes.” In Speculum Spinozanum 1677-1977, ed. Hessing, Siegfried. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 342–6.Google Scholar
Lennon, Thomas 1985Veritas Filia Temporis: Hume on Time and Causation.”’ History of Philosophy Quarterly 2(3): 275–90.Google Scholar
Lennon, Thomas 2005 “The Rationalist Conception of Substance.” In A Companion to Rationalism, ed. Nelson, Alan. Oxford: Blackwell, 1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machery, P. 1994 “Spinoza est-il moniste?” In Spinoza: puissance et ontologie, ed. D’Allonnes, Myriam Revault and Rizk, Hadi. Paris: Editions Kimé, 3953.Google Scholar
Marion, Jean-Luc 1986 “The Essential Incoherence of Descartes’ Definition of Divinity.” Trans. Van de Pitte, Frederick P.. In Essays on Descartes’ Meditations, ed. Oksenberg Rorty, Amélie. Berkeley: University of California Press, 297338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marion, Jean-Luc 1998 “The Idea of God.” Trans. Carlson, Thomas and Garber, Daniel. In The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy. 2 vols. Ed. Garber, Daniel and Ayers, Michael. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 265304.Google Scholar
Ratner, Joseph 1926In Defense of Spinoza.” Journal of Philosophy 23(5): 121–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regis, Pierre-Sylvain 1996 (1704) “Refutation de l’opinion de Spinosa, touchant l’existence et la nature de Dieu.” In L’usage de la raison et de la foy ou l’accord de la foy et de la raison, ed. Armogathe, Jean-Robert. Paris: Fayard, 899934.Google Scholar
Schmaltz, Tad 2002 Radical Cartesianism: The French Reception of Descartes. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinoza, Baruch 1914 Opera Quotquot Reperta Sunt. 3rd ed. 2 vols. Ed. Van Vloten, J. and Land, J. P. N.. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Spinoza, Baruch 1994 A Spinoza Reader: The Ethics and Other Works. Ed. and trans. Curley, Edwin. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinoza, Baruch 2002 Spinoza: Complete Works. Ed. Morgan, Michael and trans. Shirley, Samuel. Indianapolis: Hacket.Google Scholar
Wolfson, H. A. 1926Towards an Accurate Understanding of Spinoza.” Journal of Philosophy 23(10): 268–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfson, H. A 1958 The Philosophy of Spinoza. Cleveland: World.Google Scholar