Intuition and Procreation

For Spinoza, in general, Rational Knowledge is of Universal propositions, and Intuitive Knowledge is of Individual entities qua Individual entities. The paradigmatic example of the former is Mathematical propositions, while the significant example of the latter is one's awareness of oneself as a Mode of Substance.  Now, also for Spinoza, Will and Knowledge are identical.  Hence, Rational Knowledge must be Techne, i. e. an exercise of Will determined by a Universal proposition.  Likewise, Intuitive Knowledge can only be one's awareness of oneself as a creator in the act of creating.  Thus, Intuition can occur in what Kant conceives as an act of Genius, which he then subordinates to Reason.  More commonly, it occurs in the creation of a new Mode, i. e. in the act of Procreation.  But, Human Procreation is a collaborative process.  Hence, Spinoza's Intuition can entail the existence of others.

Rationalism and Deity

In addition to Epistemological Rationalism and Methodological Rationalism, previously discussed, there is Ontological Rationalism, according to which reality is Rational.  That there is more than one variety of Ontological Rationalism is signified by a distinction between Spinoza's version and Leibniz's--between the concept of the identity of Logical Necessity and Causal Necessity, and the concept of a pre-established Harmony.  That distinction can be signified as the difference between Atomist Ontological Rationalism, and Holistic Ontological Rationalism.  Now, there has been some confusion involving Epistemological Rationalism and Ontological Rationalism, as exemplified by a vacillation in the targets of Hume's Skepticism--between the absence of an Empirical ground for the attribution of Necessity to a given sequence of events, e. g. linking the striking of a billiard ball with its subsequent movement, and the taking for granted that a pattern of past sequences is fixed, e. g. that daytime will follow night.  Regardless, Spinoza is plainly an Ontological Rationalist, and a Methodological Rationalist, though, because of the superiority of Intuition to Reason in his doctrine, not clearly an Epistemological Rationalist.  Now, his concept of immanent Pantheism is antithetical to the standard Theological representations of the Abrahamic deity, though he attempts to soften the contrast, perhaps more out of prudence in a hostile atmosphere than as rigorously developed.  But there is one concept of a deity that seems to fit Spinoza's concept of dynamic Substance that is the fundamental principle of his doctrine--the 'Seminal Logos' of some Ancient Stoics, which functions as the immanent generative process in a Rational reality.  However, perhaps out of prudence, Spinoza never explicitly recognizes it as such.  In any case, because only such a deity can be the source of a completely Rational universe, the recognition of any other deity falsifies the classification of a system as Ontological Rationalism.

Rationalism and Method

Unlike either Descartes or Locke, Spinoza sharply distinguishes Method from Epistemology.  On the one hand, his privileging of Intuition over Reason signifies that he is not an Epistemological Rationalist.  But, on the other, he is an exemplary Rationalist in his deductive Method of developing his doctrine.  Notable in that regard is that the fundamental entity in his doctrine is initially neither 'God' nor 'Nature', but 'Substance', one of Aristotle's Categories.  Indeed, the former two are extrinsic to the doctrine, as is, therefore, the classification of it as 'Pantheistic'.  But, this Methodological Rationalism does not preclude Intuition; rather, immediate cognition is implicitly required for the positing of an Axiom, and of Substance as such.  Thus, what appears in the exposition as a deduced 'Knowledge of God', must signify a reconstruction of the moment that grounds the entire doctrine--a dynamic Intuition of Substance.  Thus, the classification of the doctrine as either Theological or Physicist, i. e. on the basis of characterizing Substance as 'God' and/or 'Nature', is, in Rational terms, accidental.

Transcendence, Immanence, Atomism, Organicism

The concept of a dynamic immanent God/Nature does not mean that divine creativity is the inner dimension of merely the world of human experience.  It further entails that divine creativity is also the inner principle of human behavior.  Spinoza's concept of Intuition consists in one's realization of that principle, not in an inert beholding of a deity, as is entailed in the usual concept of such Intuition as merely contemplative.  Thus, he anticipates an implication of Evolution other than the ones previously discussed--that an individual human functions not as an independent Atom, but as Part of a Whole--in this case of the Species, in particular, rather than of Nature, in general.  So, the standard classification of Spinoza as a Rationalist completely misses how the concept of immanent divinity entails the possibility of a replacement of an Atomist concept of human behavior with an Organicist concept of human behavior.

Mind, Fitness, Evolution

As has been previously discussed, Spinoza's immanent Pantheism has more in common with 19th-century Vitalism than with the Rationalisms of his own era with which he is usually associated.  He also offers systematic support for some other significant later developments.  On the basis of his Mind-Body Parallelism, he attributes the presumed Mental superiority of Humans to a corresponding Physical superiority--being "more fitted than others for doing many actions", in the note to Part II, Prop. XIII, of the Ethics.  So, a concept of Mind as essentially Practical or Technical anticipates several later doctrines, while the term 'fitted' plainly signifies a potential application in Darwinism.  In turn, the discovery in the latter of the pivotal Evolutionary function of the Human thumb specifies the Physiological basis of Human Mental superiority, which also grounds the Marxist thesis that the tool-wielding capacity facilitated by that thumb is the distinctively Human characteristic.  Now, unlike Darwinism, Spinoza seems to adhere to the concept of a Species as fixed, and, hence, offers no concept of an Evolutionary dynamic.  However, on one interpretation, such a principle can be derived from the elements of his system.  For insofar as his God/Nature is dynamic, so, too, must be its attribute of Extension, which is thus more accurately characterized as Extending.  Furthermore, to Extend can mean to increase in Complexity, or, in other words, to Evolve.  Accordingly, a Mode of Extension, i. e. an individual Body, is not an inert compound of smaller inert parts, but a center of multiple Actions.  So, the rudiments of Evolutionism can be found in Spinoza's doctrine, though without being recognized as such two centuries earlier.

Deity, Immanent, Transcendent

In a system in which a deity is conceived as monotheistic and transcendent, creator, creating, and creature are distinct.  In contrast, those distinctions collapse if a deity is conceived as pantheistic and immanent.  Instead, they are often replaced by a distinction that can most generally be characterized as inner-outer.  For example, in Spinoza's system, the contrast is of 'Nature Naturing' vs. 'Nature Natured'; in Schopenhauer's, Will vs. Representation; in Nietzsche's, Dionysian vs. Apollonian; and in Bergson's, Elan Vital vs. Matter.  Now, in the latter three, the second of each pair is conceived as ontologically inferior in some respect: illusory, by Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, degenerate, by Bergson.  But, for Spinoza, they are each divine aspects, so Nature Natured, as the object of Reason, can constitute adequate Knowledge.  Still, Spinoza shares with the others a significant shortcoming--no explanation of how a unitary force becomes multiple, whether real or sub-real.  This is not a shortcoming exclusive to this theological variation; lacking in all the traditional varieties is an explanation for why a presumably perfect deity creates beyond itself in the first place.  So, that question remains unresolved in the efforts to distance Theology from the Medieval Dualism that continues to influence Philosophy.

Rationalism and Vitalism

The standard classification of Spinoza as a Rationalist, in a continuum with Descartes and Leibniz, is accurate insofar as he conceives Thought to be superior to Sense, and because there is in their works an explicit overlap of common topics.  However, the classification is misleading, for three main reasons: 1. His concept of Reason, unlike those of the other two, is fundamentally Practical; 2. He recognizes a cognitive faculty superior to Reason--Intuition; and 3. The fundamental principle of his doctrine is more accurately classified as Vitalist, aligning him with Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Bergson, of whom he can be recognized as a forerunner.  That #3 is easily overlooked is understandable, given that Spinoza only briefly alludes to it explicitly in the Ethics, in a mere note that he adds to Proposition 29 of Book 1, of Part 1.  But that principle, 'Naturing Nature', which he contrasts with 'Natured Nature', is systematically prior to the traditional Dualisms that he explicitly treats--God-Nature, Mind-Body, and Thought-Extension.  Instead, that pair is the forerunner of Schopenhauer's Will-Representation, Nietzsche's Dionysian-Apollonian, and Bergson's Elan Vital-Matter contrasts, a kinship that Nietzsche likely recognizes.  But that kinship does not hang on an obscure passage--it is more plainly evident in the concept of an immanent deity that they share, and which Spinoza's presumed fellow Rationalists do not.