Spinoza and the Cosmological Argument According to Letter 12

Lærke, Mogens

doi:10.1080/09608788.2012.696052

Cited by 7 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We think that the productive model, especially as it is developed by Lærke, is better suited to capture the way in which the activity of finite modes in the Ethics should be understood. We agree with Macherey (, 108) and Lærke () in holding that God's immanent activity is the ground for the activity of finite things. As we have shown in section 2, however, Spinoza's notion of God's immanent causality in the KV does not entail that finite modes will be active in any robust sense.…”

Section: The Ethics: Immanent Causality and Activitysupporting

confidence: 87%

“…In several recent contributions, Mogens Lærke () has articulated a refined account of Spinoza's concept of causality by showing how the causality of finite modes is God's self‐causation (E1p25). In particular, commenting on E1p25c, Lærke observes that, in Spinoza's account of causation, divine self‐causation and causation among modes are one and the same: “finite causal relations are ways in which God causally relates to himself through his modes” (Lærke , 16). On this basis, Lærke further argues that “the immanent cause designates the immanence of a term in the cause, namely, the participation of the finite mode in the causality as such” (Lærke , 185, our translation).…”

Section: The Ethics: Immanent Causality and Activitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…God is called causa sui in the sense defined in E1p7, namely, insofar as God is the act of causing existence. As Lærke () argues, in E1p25s Spinoza states that this is also the same sense in which God must be called the cause of all things, which means that God is the cause of all things because God's act of causing existence is nothing but the act of causing existence of all possible things (E1p16).…”

Section: The Ethics: Immanent Causality and Activitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Lærke (, 74) reaches a similar conclusion: “That God is the immanent cause of all things just means that finite causation metaphysically speaking must be understood in terms of the modifications that God undergoes in the process of causing himself.”…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“… Viljanen , 98. See also Lærke and . For further discussion of Lærke's position, see section 3. Bennett (, 231–51) challenged the overall consistency of Spinoza's conatus doctrine.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Spinoza's Rethinking of Activity: From the Short Treatise to the Ethics

Sangiacomo¹,

Nachtomy²

2018

The Southern J of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that God's immanent causation and Spinoza's account of activity as adequate causation (of finite modes) do not always go together in Spinoza's thought. We show that there is good reason to doubt that this is the case in Spinoza's early Short Treatise on God, Man and His Well‐being. In the Short Treatise, Spinoza defends an account of God's immanent causation without fully endorsing the account of activity as adequate causation that he will later introduce in the Ethics (E3def2). We turn to an examination of how God's immanent causation relates to the activity of finite things in the Ethics. We consider two ways to think about the link between God, seen as immanent cause, and the activity of finite things: namely, in terms of entailment and in terms of production. We argue that the productive model is most promising for understanding the way in which the activity of finite things and God's immanent causality are connected in Spinoza's (mature) philosophy

show abstract

Section: The Ethics: Immanent Causality and Activitysupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: The Ethics: Immanent Causality and Activitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Ethics: Immanent Causality and Activitymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“… Viljanen , 98. See also Lærke and . For further discussion of Lærke's position, see section 3. Bennett (, 231–51) challenged the overall consistency of Spinoza's conatus doctrine.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations