Antonio S. Borge

In this paper, I argue for a novel defence of the view that attributes are numerically distinct for Spinoza, which, contrary to paradigmatic objectivist readings, does not contradict his substance monism nor commit him to the view that the only substance has more than one essence. I show that Spinoza offers three overlooked arguments for attribute unity that are consistent with my interpretation. Next, I turn to the perspectivist interpretations of Spinoza’s theory of attributes, dominant in Spinoza scholarship today, under which each attribute is one way in which the whole essence of the only substance can present itself to the intellect. I contend that my interpretation has two advantages over these readings: it can accommodate Spinoza’s arguments of attribute-essence symmetry and essence-modes proportionality.

In this paper, I argue for a novel defence of the view that attributes are numerically distinct for Spinoza, which, contrary to paradigmatic objectivist readings, does not contradict his substance monism nor commit him to the view that the only substance has more than one essence. I show that Spinoza offers three overlooked arguments for attribute unity that are consistent with my interpretation. Next, I turn to the perspectivist interpretations of Spinoza’s theory of attributes, dominant in Spinoza scholarship today, under which each attribute is one way in which the whole essence of the only substance can present itself to the intellect. I contend that my interpretation has two advantages over these readings: it can accommodate Spinoza’s arguments of attribute-essence symmetry and essence-modes proportionality.

A central objection to objectivist interpretations of Spinoza’s theory of attributes is their alleged inconsistency with his commitment to the simplicity of God’s essence. This paper offers a novel response to this objection. I begin by outlining two main arguments for the claim that, for Spinoza, God’s essence must be simple: his alignment with a longstanding tradition that treats simplicity as a necessary divine property, and his endorsement of the principle that parts are by nature prior to their wholes. I then introduce a distinction, available within Spinoza’s framework, between integral and metaphysical parts. I argue that while Spinoza is committed to the view that God’s essence cannot have integral parts, he is not committed to denying it metaphysical parts. This reading not only addresses the simplicity objection but also clarifies Spinoza’s definition of ‘attribute’ and strengthens the case for both structural and constitutive forms of objectivism.

In this paper, I argue for a novel defence of the view that attributes are numerically distinct for Spinoza, which, contrary to paradigmatic objectivist readings, does not contradict his substance monism nor commit him to the view that the only substance has more than one essence. I show that Spinoza offers three overlooked arguments for attribute unity that are consistent with my interpretation. Next, I turn to the perspectivist interpretations of Spinoza’s theory of attributes, dominant in Spinoza scholarship today, under which each attribute is one way in which the whole essence of the only substance can present itself to the intellect. I contend that my interpretation has two advantages over these readings: it can accommodate Spinoza’s arguments of attribute-essence symmetry and essence-modes proportionality.

In this chapter I argue that in the TTP we find overlooked and compelling evidence supporting the reading of Spinoza as a pantheist. The plan is as follows. I begin by laying out, in Section 1, four principal reasons that have been put forward against the reading of Spinoza as a pantheist: (i) the idea that the identification of God and nature lacks textual evidence, (ii) the claim that for Spinoza God is active and nature is passive, (iii) the view that for Spinoza God is independent and nature is dependent, and (iv) the claim that for him whereas God is simple and indivisible, nature is complex and divisible. In Section 2, I contend that in the TTP we find strong evidence that shows that (i) is false and the claim that Spinoza accepts (ii) is incorrect. In Section 3, I turn to reasons (iii) and (iv) against the pantheist interpretation. I argue that when God and nature are understood as two ways of conceiving one and the same thing, as Spinoza posits in the TTP, then reasons (iii) and (iv) are no longer problematic for reading Spinoza as a pantheist. Finally, in Section 4 I show that the identification of God and nature has important advantages of accommodating two claims made by Spinoza: that infinite modes share the propria of substance and that the existence of modes follows necessarily from the existence of God’s attributes.

Any account of Spinoza's understanding of attribute must be able to satisfy his definition criterion; that is, it must coherently accommodate the elements involved in his definition of attribute as “what the intellect perceives of a substance as constituting its essence” (E1d4). But this is not enough. There are several available readings that satisfy this criterion and are mutually incompatible. To know what Spinoza means we must supplement his definition criterion with a criterion aiming at consistency with other principles in his system. With the definition and consistency criteria in the backdrop, the aim of this paper is to offer a critical overview of the current state of the debate on Spinoza's theory of attributes.

I examine Spinoza's claim in the Metaphysical Thoughts that the attributes of God are only distinguished by a distinction of reason. I contend that for Spinoza essential attributes, such as Thought or Extension, cannot be distinguished by Francisco Suarez's distinction of reasoning reason, as Martin Lin suggests, nor can he be using Suárez’ distinction of reasoned reason for this purpose, as Yitzhak Melamed believes. Since reasoning reason and the distinction of reasoned reason are the only two kinds of rational distinction available to Spinoza, it follows that for him the distinction between God's essential attributes in the CM cannot be a distinction of reason. But I show that Spinoza is not mistakenly using Suarez's distinction in the CM. Rather, I argue, Spinoza consistently follows Suárez and uses reasoned reason to distinguish between God's necessary properties and not between God's essential attributes.

I argue that, against what is commonly believed, Spinoza’s use of the relation of constitution to characterize the relation between attributes and the essence of a substance does not indicate that, for him, there must be a numerical identity between each attribute and the essence constituted by that attribute. To do this, I follow a twofold strategy. First, I contend that the claim that because in Spinoza’s time constitution was understood as a one- to-one relation is mistaken: the main logicians of Spinoza’s time, all Cartesian philosophers, believe that the constitution of an essence can be a many-to-one relation. I show that Spinoza can both accept that constitution is a many-one relation and share Descartes’ understanding of this relation. Second, I defend the claim that Spinoza’s use of constitution in the Ethics is consistent with these logicians’ account of constitution. In particular, I focus on Spinoza’s inclusion of the intellect in the definition of attribute and his definition of God.