#Spinoza Scholar Martin Lin corrigeert Spinoza m.b.t. zijn causaliteitsaxioma 1/ax4

Martin Lin, videostill 2015

Over Martin Lin, nu Associate Professor of Philosophy at Rutgers University, New Brunswick. had ik al eerder blogs (zie onder). Recent uploadde hij naar wel drie plaatsen op internet zijn artikel of hoofdstuk

Martin Lin, “The Many Faces of Spinoza's Causal Axiom.” In: Sebastian Bender and Dominik Perler (ed.), Causation and Cognition in Early Modern Philosophy. New York: Routledge (forthcoming) [PDF philpapers, PDF philarchive en academia.edu]
Het betreft zijn bijdrage aan  de conferentie "Causation and Cognition in Early Modern Philosophy" die van 31 mei t/m 2 juni 2018 in Berlijn werd gehouden [cf.] en waarvan dus een boek wordt samengesteld.

Zijn bijdrage begint aldus: “Cognition of the effect depends on and implies cognition of its cause,” announces Spinoza in 1a4 of his Ethics.¹ This axiom, known as “Spinoza’s causal axiom,” is one of the most important in the Ethics. It plays a central role in Spinoza’s arguments for some of his most important doctrines, including (1) that things with nothing in common cannot causally interact; (2) that we have sense perception of the external causes of our bodily states; (3) that we have adequate knowledge of God’s eternal and infinite essence; and (4) that the order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things. It would, thus, appear that a single axiom bears a tremendous amount of weight in Spinoza’s metaphysical system.

In what follows, I will explore how Spinoza uses the axiom to argue for the four doctrines mentioned above, and I will argue that it cannot be given a consistent interpretation that allows it to play all the roles that he assigns to it. In particular, whereas there is a single interpretation that makes sense of (1)–(3), there is no way to make the causal axiom consistent with both those doctrines and the role Spinoza assigns it in securing (4). I will argue, however, that this does not present an insuperable problem for Spinoza, because he has a better argument for the parallelism that relies not on the causal axiom but rather on mode identity. I conclude by considering the underlying philosophical motivations for the causal axiom and argue that it is an expression of a coherent and attractive view of the relationship between causation and causal explanation.”

De slotalinea luidt:

“Spinoza causal axiom is thus a complex principle that is, in the context of his system, at war with itself. It entails one principle about implication and another about causal dependence. As we have seen, the principle concerning implication is an important doctrine that is essential to No Interaction, Sense Perception, and Knowledge of God and has a clear and appealing philosophical motivation. In contrast, the principle concerning causal dependence fails in the one job it is asked to do—secure Parallelism—and lacks any compelling motivation. What is more, given his other commitments, the causal dependence principle and the implication principle cannot both be true. We must conclude that the clause about causal dependence in the causal axiom was a misstep and Spinoza would do well by rejecting it. An axiom that merely said that cognition of the cause is implied by cognition of the effect would provide Spinoza everything he needs while protecting him from the disastrous consequences of his original formulation.” [vet van mij, SV]

Daartussen een ingenieuze analyse van Spinoza’s axioma 1/ax4 en hoe hij dit zelf toepast. Helder geschreven, maar door het hoge abstractieniveau van de inhoud niet altijd eenvoudig te volgen: het vergt nogal concentratie.

Zijn boek is op komst:

Martin Lin, Being and Reason: an essay on Spinoza's metaphysics.  Bij Oxford University Press staat het aangekondigd voor 25 April 2019 (Estimated). En verder:
• Gives a detailed a systematic reconstruction of many of the central issues in Spinoza's metaphysics
• Defends a realist interpretation of Spinoza's metaphysics
• Goes against many recent idealist readings and corrects misapprehensions about the content of Spinoza's philosophy
________________

https://rutgers.academia.edu/MartinLin

Eerdere blogs over Martin Lin

22-06-2008: Spinoza's vrijmakende ketterij - met link naar Review van Nadler's Spinoza's Heresy door Martin Lin (University of Toronto) op Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

07-17-04-2012: Martin Lin - een productieve jonge Spinozascholar

07-01-2017: Martin Lin over "Spinoza's panpsychisme"

28-02-2017: Spinoza’s denken over oordelen en willen