Will and Consciousness

In Spinoza's doctrine the Vital principle is the 'endeavor of something to persist in its being', with Will the Mental aspect of the endeavor.  Now, a significant feature of the endeavor is that it is "conscious". Thus, this Psychological dimension of his doctrine is apparently at odds with the long tradition, beginning with Leibniz, culminating with Freud, and thereafter popularized, according to which behavior is at least in part determined by subconscious or unconscious forces.  However, Spinoza would likely respond that such forces all have external sources, and, hence, are not ingredient in the Vital principle per se of the entity.  Likewise, an Emotion, contrary to some theories that glorify emotions, is not an expression of innermost character, but an effect of some external influence. Instead, it is only when behaving consciously, or, equivalently, when exercising Volition, or, equivalently, that one is self-activating, that, according to his doctrine, one is truly oneself.

Truth, Correspondence, Holist

Descartes' thesis that Will and Understanding are distinct is based on a traditional Correspondence concept of Truth.  For, the divergence of the two is exemplified for him by False Belief, in which Affirmation, a product of Will, does not correspond to its object, and, hence, is lacking Understanding.  In contrast, Spinoza's thesis that Will and Understanding are coextensive is based on a different concept of Truth, which can be called Holist.  According to that concept, a False Belief is, more precisely, one that is only partly True, but, in itself, is a product of an affirmation that combines both Will and Understanding.  For example, according to Descartes, a dream is False because it does not correspond to fact.  But, according to Spinoza, it is True as a datum, but False only insofar as it is a partly True representation of fact, potential complemented by another True datum, e. g. that one earlier fell asleep. The Holist concept is thus applicable to Berkeleyan Phenomenalism, which denies correspondence to any fact, and, so, serves Spinoza as the basis of a criticism of Empiricism. So, his Holist concept of Truth is another example of Spinoza's divergence from both main schools of Modern Philosophy.

Centripetal, Centrifugal, Mind

As has been previously discussed, the repudiation of Geocentrism and Anthopocentrism, entailed by the Copernican discoveries, is preparatory to a replacement of Centripetal Geocentrism and Centripetal Anthropocentrism, by Centrifugal Geocentrism and Centrifugal Anthropocentrism.  In other words, the concept of humans as protagonists on a cosmic stage in a drama determined by impregnable Heavens, is replaced by that of humans as centers of action, with the Heavens an accessible destination, as history has proven.  Now, one set of inhabitants of the Ancient Heavens is Platonic Ideas, which are thus passively experienced, e. g. contemplated.  But Spinoza inverts that relation, with a concept of Mind that anticipates Brentano's Intentionality.  According to this concept, Mind experiences an Idea only insofar as it posits it, i. e. affirms it, which Spinoza ascribes to Volition, rather than to Brentano's Intention.  On this basis, Volition and Understanding are one and the same, in opposition to Descartes' contrary concept of their relation. Kant later briefly similarly posits the unity of Will and Reason, but squanders the opportunity to further develop the insight, and to perhaps extend his rubric 'Copernican Revolution' to that unity.

Centrism, Centripetal, Centrifugal

It seems unarguable that one always finds oneself physically at the center of a world.  Hence, Physical Egocentrism seems to be an undeniable fact that is the basis of Epistemological Egocentrism, as well as of Psychological Egocentrism, and of Moral Egocentrism.  However, proponents of these rarely seem to consider that they all have a further foundation.  To begin with, none of them seems to recognize the ambiguity of any Centrism--Centripetal vs. Centrifugal--and the concepts are each varieties of the former.  So, typically ignored is Centrifugal Egocentrism, i. e. that one is a center of Action in one's world, and, hence, rarely considered is that this is the foundation of the Centripetal Egocentrisms, e. g. that Perception is a function of Action. Indeed, Modern Philosophy is primarily the product of the falsification of Centrifugal Egocentrism as Centripetal Egocentrism, e. g. Descartes, who is self-evidently at a desk writing the Meditations, presenting himself instead as gazing at a fire, and likewise for all the major works of the era.  But one possible exception is the Ethics--in which a Mode is an instance of a divine Emanation, i. e. a center of Action--an exception that is typically obscured by the inclusion of Spinoza as part of a sequence of Rationalists, in opposition to a sequence of Empiricists.  Nevertheless, Spinoza is distinctive among them as acknowledging and exploring the epochal change in human history that is a consequence of the Copernican discovery--a transition from Centripetal Geocentrism, i. e. in which the Earth is the arena of a cosmic drama of which humans are the protagonists, to Centrifugal Geocentrism, in which the Earth is the starting point of the human exploration of a previously impregnable cosmos.

Reason, Compassion, Happiness

In Kant's system, Happiness, defined as a totality of satisfactions, is an Empirical concept.  Hence, his inclusion of Happiness in the Highest Good of Pure Practical Reason, even conditionally, is problematic, at best.  Likewise, the ascription to Pure Practical Reason of the Duty to promote the Happiness of others is groundless, i. e. promoting their Rationality would be consistent with the principle.  Similarly, it would seem to follow on the basis of a principle of Self-Denial that one should promote the Self-Denial of others.  But, instead, Schopenhauer advocates Compassion, the exercise of which consists in the alleviation of the specific causes of the suffering of others, which as such, only reinforces their Selfishness.  In contrast, Spinoza has no such difficulty.  For, in his doctrine, Happiness is Health, Health consists in the active exercise of one's powers, and the active exercise of one's powers is grounded in Knowledge, either Reason or Intuition.  Thus, the promotion of the Happiness, no matter whose, is entailed in the Rationality of Spinoza's doctrine.  He does not share the problem with his peers because while their, and most other, concepts of Happiness is that of a passive condition, his is active.

Geocentrism, Perception, Action

As has been previously discussed, the repudiation of Geocentrism entails that of Anthropocentrism, and, hence, that of the Moral Absolutism that has been grounded by the latter.  And, while Berkeley and Kant, notably, endeavor to salvage the concept of the world as the arena of a Theological drama of which humans are the protagonists, Spinoza explores the consequences of the repudiation.  There is a further consequence, which he perhaps only implicitly recognizes, and that Kant verges upon, but because of his Theological commitments, cannot quite appreciate it for what it is.  The concept of Centrism is potentially ambiguous--it can signify motion towards the center, or motion away from the center, e. g. centripetal force, or centrifugal force.  Plainly, traditional Geocentrism and Anthropocentrism are of the former variety, i. e. the universe is conceived as oriented towards human existence.  But the repudiation of that Centrism does not entail that of the inverse Centrism, and, to the contrary, can liberate it.  Indeed, as subsequent history has proven, the Copernican discovery enables the recognition that humans are now centers of action, with the previously impregnable Heavens now an accessible destination.  Implicit in that recognition is the more radical revolution than the one that Kant acknowledges, the one that he verges upon, only to shy away from--the concept of humans as centers of Action, rather than of Perception.  In contrast, Spinoza does conceive Modes as essentially agents, not subjects, and as modifications of a divine emanation, perhaps as agents of a new Geocentrism.

Relativism and Subjectivism

The common association of 'relativism' with 'permissiveness' usually confuses Relativism and Subjectivism.  For unlike the latter, the former is not based on whim, e. g. a food being healthful on bio-chemical grounds, rather than attracting on the basis of aroma.  A similar, though more subtle, confusion underlies most complaints against 'cultural relativism'.  In some cases, the complaints are merely expressions of bigotry, e. g. Eurocentric, but, in others, e. g. ascriptions of objectivity to assertions of the superiority of Beethoven or Shakespeare, there is some basis.  However, as is well covered by Kant, at issue is a dialectic of Taste, namely, how Aesthetic evaluation is even possible, but, again, the conflict is between Objectivity and Subjectivity, not between Objectivity and Relativity.  Instead, the Moral Relativism of Spinoza is based on the factual repudiation of the basis of Moral Absolutism, sometimes aka Manicheanism--the discovery that the human species is not at the center of the universe, and, hence, that what is Good or Evil for it is not as such in itself.  Accordingly, what is beneficial or harmful to humans is still objectively so, but, outside of the Theology that refuses to accept the repudiation of the thesis that the Universe is the setting of a drama of which humans are the protagonists, such Goodness or Evil is not a characteristic that is independent of its effects on humans.