[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
TeleologyandHumanActioninSpinoza
¤
forthcomingin
ThePhilosophicalReview
MartinLin
UniversityofToronto
martin.lin@utoronto.ca
Spinozaenjoysawidespreadreputationastheearlymodernphiloso-
pherwhomakesthemostthoroughgoingandprincipledattackonteleology.
Descartes,forexample,limitshisattackon¯nalcausationtothequestionof
itsusefulnessinphysics.
1
Spinoza,accordingtothestandardstory,accepts
Descartes'rejectionofteleologicalexplanationinphysics,buthealsoboldly
pushesfurtheranddeniesthelegitimacyofteleologicalexplanationevenwith
respecttoGod.Thatis,hedeniesdivineprovidence.Thisstandardpicture,
JonathanBennetthasnotoriouslyargued,doesnotgofarenough.Notonly,
accordingtoBennett,doesSpinozareject¯nalcausationinphysicsandtheol-
ogy,buthealsorejects|oratleastiscommittedtorejecting,whetherornot
helivesuptothiscommitment|teleologicalexplanationsofhumanactions.
Thatis,heiscommittedtodenyingthathumanactionsaregoaldirected.
AccordingtoBennett,Spinozaiscommittedtoholdingthatifcontentbear-
ingstates|forexample,beliefsanddesires|explainhumanactions,theydo
notdosoinvirtueoftheircontent.Onacommonlyacceptedaccountof
thegoal-directednessofhumanaction,theexclusionofmentalcontentfrom
psychologicalexplanationwouldentailthatpsychologicalexplanationsare
notteleological.Ofcourse,Bennettadmits,Spinozafrequentlydoestalkas
ifhumanactioncanbeunderstoodteleologically,butheisinconsistenttodo
so.Whatismore,Bennettclaimsthatintalkingthiswayheisdisloyalto
someofhismostimportantinsightsintothenaturethought|insightswhich
¤
IwouldliketothankMichaelDellaRocca,DonGarrett,MarleenRozemond,and
threeanonymousrefereesformanyhelpfulcomments.
1
See,forexample,Descartes'
PrinciplesofPhilosophy
,I,
x
28.
1
teleologyandhumanactioninspinoza 2
arebothlargelycorrectandincompatiblewithteleologicalexplanationsof
humanaction.
2
Bennett'sinterpretation,ifcorrect,wouldexposeaserious°awinSpinoza's
system.MuchofthemoralpsychologythatSpinozadevelopsandappliesto
theexplanationofhumanbondagetothepassionsinparts3and4ofthe
Ethics
presumesthathumanactionisgoal-directed.Thus,onBennett's
account,Spinoza'smoralphilosophywouldbeundercutbyhismetaphysics
andphilosophyofmind.ForathinkersuchasSpinozawhoaspirestoa
thoroughlysystematicphilosophyinwhichethicalconclusionsaresupported
bymetaphysicalandpsychologicalconsiderations,suchacon°ictwouldrep-
resentaprofoundfailure.
Ibelieve,however,thatBennetthasmisreadSpinoza.Thereisnothingin
hismetaphysicsorphilosophyofmindthatforbidsteleologicalexplanations
ofhumanactions.Infact,thereisgoodreasontothinkthathisaccountof
mentalcontentcommitshimtothem.OrsoIshallargue.
Beforeproceeding,itmightbeworthwhiletosituatethedebateonhu-
manteleologywithrespecttootherformsofteleology.Thereareatleast
threekindsofteleologyatissueinSpinoza:(1)divineprovidence,(2)goal-
directedhumanaction,and(3)whatwemightcall\unthoughtfulteleology."
Bothdivineprovidenceandgoal-directedhumanactionarecommonlyun-
derstoodasinvolvingthought.WhenGodcreatestheworld,accordingan
in°uentialtradition,hedoessobyselectingamongalternativeswhichare
representedtohimbyideasinthedivinemind.Thatis,God'screation
oftheworldisprovidential.Andhumanactionistypicallydirectedto-
wardsomegoalbecauseoftheagent'sbeliefsanddesiresaboutthefuture.
Manyphilosophershavethoughtthatallteleologymustultimatelyinvolve
somethought.Butothers,notablyAristotle,believethatsometeleology
isindependentofthought.Suchteleologyissometimescalled\unthought-
fulteleology."ItisuncontroversialthatSpinozadenieddivineprovidence.
DonGarretthaspersuasivelyarguedthat,contrarytothereceivedinter-
pretation,Spinozaacceptsunthoughtfulteleology.
3
Manycommentators,
includingGarrettandDellaRocca,
4
havetriedtoshowthat,
contra
Ben-
2
JonathanBennett,
AStudyofSpinoza's
Ethics,(Indianapolis:Hackett,1984),chap.
9and\SpinozaandTeleology:AReplytoCurley,"inCurleyandMoreaueds.,
Spinoza:
IssuesandDirections
,(Leiden:E.J.Brill,1990).
3
\TeleologyinSpinozaandEarlyModernPhilosophy,"inGennaroandHuenemann
eds.,
NewEssaysontheRationalists
(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress),1999.
4
Garrett,\Teleology"andMichaelDellaRocca,\Spinoza'sMetaphysicalPsychology,"
teleologyandhumanactioninspinoza 3
nett,Spinozaacceptsthoughtfulhumanteleology.Ibelieve,however,that
noonehasyetsuccessfullyansweredBennett'sargumentsagainstthoughtful
humanteleologyinSpinoza.SobyshowingthatBennett'sargumentscanbe
answered,IhopetohelpcompletethepictureadvancedbyGarrettaccording
towhichSpinozaacceptsbothunthoughtfulteleologyandthoughtfulhuman
teleology,butnotdivineteleology.Moreover,Ishallarguethatacorrect
understandingofSpinoza'sviewsongoal-directedhumanactionshedslight
onimportantfeaturesofSpinoza'saccountofmentalcontentandcausality
moregenerally.
1
Primafacie
textualevidence
ThereissubstantialtextualevidencethatSpinozabelievesthathumanaction
isoftengoal-directed.Thisevidencehasthreemainsources:(1)Spinoza's
informaldiscussionsofhumanaction;(2)Spinoza'sexplanationofthepreva-
lenceofbeliefindivineteleology;and(3)thepsychologicalprinciplesstated
inparts3and4ofthe
Ethics
.
AsGarrettpointsout,Spinozafrequentlyusesteleologicalexplanations
wheninformallydiscussinghumanaction.
5
Forexample,hebeginsthe
Trea-
tiseontheEmendationoftheIntellect
withtheobservationthatmosthuman
actionisdirectedtoward\wealth,honor,orsensualpleasure."
6
Hecontrasts
tothesehisownaim,viz.,\lovetowardtheeternalandin¯nitething,"which
in
TheCambridgeCompaniontoSpinoza
,ed.DonGarrett(NewYork:CambridgeUni-
versityPress),1993.OtherauthorsthathavearguedthatSpinozaacceptsthegoal-
directednessofhumanactionincludeEdwinCurley,in\OnBennett'sSpinoza:theIssue
ofTeleology,"inCurleyandMoreaueds.,
Spinoza:IssuesandDirections
,(Leiden:E.J.
Brill,1990),46-50andRichardManning,\Spinoza,ThoughtfulTeleology,andtheCausal
Signi¯canceofContent,"inKoistinenandBiroeds.,
Spinoza:MetaphysicalThemes
(New
York:OxfordUniversityPress,2002),182-209.
5
Garrett,\Teleology,"p.312.
6
TdIE,
x
3,GII/6.AllcitationsfromSpinozaarefrom
SpinozaOpera
,ed.C.Gebhardt,
4vols.(Heidelberg:CarlWinter,1925)(Ghereafter).MostEnglishtranslationsarefrom
EdwinCurleyed.andtrans.,
TheCompleteWorksofSpinoza
,vol.1,(Princeton:Prince-
tonUniversityPress,1985)withoccasionalmodi¯cations.Referencestothe
Tractatusde
IntellectusEmendatione
,
Descartes'
\PrinciplesofPhilosophy"andthe
ShortTreatiseon
God,Man,andHisWell-Being
areabbreviatedTdIE,DPP,andKVrespectively.In
citationsfromthe
Ethics
,Iusethefollowingabbreviations:the¯rstnumeralrefersto
parts;`p'meansproposition;`c'meanscorollary;`s'meansscholium;e.g.,4p37smeans
Ethics
,part4,proposition37,scholium.
teleologyandhumanactioninspinoza 4
\feedsthemindwithajoyentirelyexemptfromsadness."Suchjoy\isgreatly
tobedesired,andtobesoughtwithallourstrength."
7
Theseremarkswould
makenosenseifhumanactionwerenotgoal-directed.
Intheappendixtopart1ofthe
Ethics
,Spinozaattemptstoexplainwhy
whathetakestobeamereprejudice|thatGodactsforthesakeofsome
end|issocommonlybelieved.Onaverynaturalreadingofthetext,his
explanationpresupposes,asCurleyhasnoted,thathumanactionisteleo-
logical.
8
Hewrites:
AlltheprejudicesIhereundertaketoexposedependonthisone:
thatmencommonlysupposethatallnaturalthingsact,
asmen
do
,onaccountofanend.(myemphasis)
Thisclaimappearstoimplythathumanbeingsactforthesakeofanend.
Moreover,hisaccountofhowthisprejudicearisespresupposesthathuman
actionisgoaldirected.First,heclaimsthathumanbeingsalwaysactforthe
sakeofsomeendandtheyaredirectlyawareofthisfact.Next,hepoints
outthatthatmanynaturalphenomenaconducetohumansurvival.For
example,plantsandanimalsprovidenutritiousfood;humanteethareuseful
foreating.Thetruecausesofthesephenomenaarefrequentlybeyondour
ken,but,accustomedaswearetoacceptingteleologicalexplanationsinone
domainofinquiry(viz.,psychology),wereadilyadoptspuriousteleological
explanationsofthesenon-psychologicalphenomena.
Last,andperhapsmostimportantly,thepsychologicalprinciplesthat
Spinozao®ersinthe
Ethics
areoftenteleological.Herearesomeexamples:
Asfaraswecan,westrivetofreeathingwepityfromitssu®er-
ing.(3p27c3)
Westrivetofurthertheoccurrenceofwhateverweimaginewill
leadtojoy,andtoavertordestroywhatweimagineiscontrary
toit,orwillleadtosadness.(3p28)
7
TdIE,
x
10,GII/24{26
8
Curley,\OnBennett'sSpinoza:TheIssueofTeleology,"in
Spinoza:IssuesandDi-
rections
,ed.CurleyandMoreau(Leiden:E.J.Brill,1990),41.Itshouldbenotedthat
itisalsopossibletoreadtheclaimthatmanactsonaccountofanendaspartofthe
prejudicethatSpinozaiscriticizing.(Iowethispointtoananonymousreferee.)
teleologyandhumanactioninspinoza 5
Hewholivesaccordingtotheguidanceofreasonstrives,asfaras
hecan,torepaytheothershate,anger,anddisdaintowardhim,
withlove,ornobility.(4p46)
PsychologicalprinciplessuchastheseformtheheartofSpinoza'smoral
psychologyandnormativeethics.Iftheywereinconsistentwithsomeof
Spinoza'scorecommitments,thenbothhismoralpsychologyandhisethical
theorywouldbeseverelycompromised.
Takentogether,thisevidenceconstitutesastrong
primafacie
casethat
Spinozacountenancesteleologicalexplanationsofhumanaction.Bennett
isawareofthesetexts,andheconcedesthatSpinozasometimesattributed
goal-directedactiontohumanbeings.Bennett,however,thinksthatsuch
attributionsareinconsistentwithotherpartsofSpinoza'sphilosophy,some
ofwhichareamongthebestandmostinterestingparts.Thatis,inattribut-
inggoal-directednesstohumanaction,Spinozabetrayssomeofhismost
penetratinginsights.Bennettconjecturesthattheseinconsistenciesarethe
productofanumberoffactors.First,Spinozamighthavewrittenhisattack
ondivineteleologybeforediscoveringthecaseagainstallteleologybutmay
haveneglectedtorevisetheappendixtopart1inlightofthatdiscovery.
Secondly,Spinozamayhavehadhimselfonlyapartialorinconstantgrasp
ofthecaseagainstallteleologyandsonotallthathewroteconsistently
manifestedhisanti-teleologicalviews.
Bennett'slatterclaiminparticularisnotimplausibleinitself.Great
innovatorsarenotalwaysintotalcontroloftheirinnovations.Soifthere
arepartsofSpinoza'sphilosophythatentailthathumanactionisnotgoal-
directed,itisneverthelesspossiblethatSpinozadidnotsee|oratleastdid
notconsistentlysee|thatentailment.
ThepartsofSpinoza'sphilosophythataresupposedtoentailthedenial
ofteleologicalexplanationsofhumanactionare(1)theargumentsagainst
divineteleology(asopposedtohisexplanationoftheprevalenceofitsaccep-
tance),which,Bennettnotes,areeasilyadaptedtoattackhumanteleology;
and(2)hisaccountofmentalcontent.Bennettexpressesdoubtsaboutthe
cogencyofSpinoza'sargumentsagainstdivineteleology,butheclaimsthat
theytellagainsthumanactioniftheyareanygoodatall.Spinoza'saccount
ofmentalcontentBennettjudgestobesomeofthebestandmostinteresting
partsofSpinoza'sphilosophy.Iwillconsidereachinturn.
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]