Karolina Hubner

This introduction highlights some of the larger themes that emerge in the course of examining the history of metaphysical accounts of human nature, and of the ethical and political consequences of such accounts. It highlights the long-standing battle between naturalistic accounts of human beings (on which human beings are just another part of nature) and rationalist-exceptionalist accounts (on which human beings are not merely distinctive but superior to other kinds of things in virtue of their cognitive capacities). The essay also draws attention to the many ways that the concept of being “human” has been misused to marginalize or oppress certain groups. In light of such abuses, the introduction poses the question of the philosophical, ethical, and political value of continuing to think in terms of something like a common human nature. It ultimately suggests that we may reengineer the concept to advance political and social goals.

This volume investigates what it means to be human. Is there something that makes us distinct from computers, other great apes, Martians, and gods? And what are the ethical and political consequences of how we answer this question? How have our views on this changed from the times of the ancient Greek and Chinese philosophers? What do contemporary evolutionary biologists and advocates of uploading human consciousness onto computers think about it? This volume collects new essays from leading scholars in philosophy, history, and other disciplines to explore these and numerous other questions.

The problem of universals is one of the oldest problems in philosophy. One of the oddities of Spinoza's view of universals is that he endorses both Realism and Nominalism. An analogous Realist account can be given for all thinking things: all ideas, really do have something in common, intrinsically, constitutively, and mind‐independently: namely, thought as a determinable, qualitative, essential substantial nature. Spinoza's accounts of the nature of the human mind and of human emotions both can be read as accounts of such relative common properties. Spinoza's most detailed case study of a mind‐dependent universal whose idea is constructed through abstraction and comparison can be found in his account of the will. Spinoza also often implies that ideas of universals and abstractions have a lower epistemic value than thought that deals with particulars alone.

The article explores the idea that according to Spinoza finite thought and substantial thought represent reality in different ways. It challenges “acosmic” readings of Spinoza's metaphysics, put forth by readers like Hegel, according to which only an infinite, undifferentiated substance genuinely exists, and all representations of finite things are illusory. Such representations essentially involve negation with respect to a more general kind. The article shows that several common responses to the charge of acosmism fail. It then argues that we must distinguish the well-founded ideality of representations of finite things from mere illusoriness, insofar as for Spinoza we can have true knowledge of what is known only abstractly. Finite things can be seen as well-founded beings of reason. The article also proposes that within Spinoza's framework it is possible to represent a finite thing without drawing on representations of mind-dependent entities.

Spinoza claims both that a thing’s essence is identical to power, and that emotions are fundamentally variations in this power. The conjunction of these two theses creates difficulties for his metaphysics and ethics alike. The three main worries concern the coherence of Spinoza’s accounts of essence, diachronic identity, and emotional “bondage,” and put in question his ability to derive ethical and psychological doctrines from his metaphysical claims. In response to these difficulties, this paper offers a new interpretation of Spinoza’s account of affects and his doctrine of the identity of power and essence. It shows that what is fundamental to his ontology of affects is the relation of modification or determination, a relation central to his ontology more generally. The paper argues that we cannot simply identify power and essence but should instead take affects to modify or determine essences as particular exercises of power (particular desires, appetites, and volitions). That is, Spinozistic essences should be viewed as intrinsically determinable, with affects supplying the determinations, and as consisting not in rigid sets of determinate properties, but in ranges of variable properties.

Despite its generic title, Yakira’s Spinoza and the Case for Philosophy has a specific and idiosyncratic focus: Spinoza’s mind-body doctrine, in the context of both an ontology of thought and a search for what Spinoza calls “salvation.” The book will be of value to those interested in Spinoza’s philosophy of mind and epistemology, especially in the context of his moral theory.Yakira’s discussion of Spinoza’s mind-body doctrine is thought-provoking, confronting head-on not just well-known puzzles, but also those dark elements of Spinoza’s philosophy of mind that are crucial to his view but rarely discussed. What does it mean to say that the mind is the idea of the body? How does..

The paper examines a relatively neglected element of Spinoza's theory of mind-body relations: the intentional relation between human minds and bodies, which for Spinoza constitutes their “union”. Prima facie textual evidence suggests, and many readers agree, that because for Spinoza human minds are essentially ideas of bodies, Spinoza is also committed to an ontological and explanatory dependence of certain properties of human minds on properties of bodies, and thus to a version of materialism. The paper argues that such dependence would contradict Spinoza's key epistemological commitments, including the explanatory closure of mental and physical realms, and Spinoza’s claim that all knowledge is knowledge of a thing's causes. The paper argues that Spinoza's dual-reality theory of representation allows us to interpret the intentional relation between human minds and bodies in a way that does not commit Spinoza to a problematic dependence of minds on bodies. This is possible if we take Spinoza's references to properties of bodies in his account of the human mind as references to objectively real bodies, that is as references to the immanent representational content of human minds.

The article proposes a new solution to the long-standing problem of the universality of essences in Spinoza's ontology. It argues that, according to Spinoza, particular things in nature possess unique essences, but that these essences coexist with more general, mind-dependent species-essences, constructed by finite minds on the basis of similarities that obtain among the properties of formally-real particulars. This account provides the best fit both with the textual evidence and with Spinoza's other metaphysical and epistemological commitments. The article offers new readings of how Spinoza understands not just the nature of essence, but also the nature of being, reason, striving, definitions, and different kinds of knowledge.

Spinoza’s ethics is based on the notion that we share a human nature with others, but it is difficult to understand how Spinoza’s metaphysics accommodates the existence of species essences. This essay explains how it does so. It argues that, for Spinoza, the essences of singular things are in a sense the only real essences. Nevertheless, it contends that Spinoza leaves metaphysical space for a different type of species essence. On this reading, species essences are abstract ideas that represent similarities among particular things. While these species essences are not real in the sense that they do not exist prior to the activity of a finite mind nor independently of singular things, they still possess objective reality.

Commentators standardly ascribe to Spinoza a belief in an exceptionless conceptual closure of mental and physical realms: no intention can allow us to understand a bodily movement, no bodily injury can make intelligible a sensation of pain. This counterintuitive doctrine, most often now referred to as Spinoza's 'attribute barrier', has weighty repercussions for his views on intelligibility, nature of the mind, identity, and causality. I argue against the standard reading of the doctrine, by showing that it produces an inconsistent epistemological picture, contradicting Spinoza's theory of mind and his commitment to universal intelligibility. The alternative account I propose is also philosophically more compelling and plausible as an account of thought in its essential intentionality.

Recent literature on Spinoza has emphasized his commitment to universal intelligibility, understood as the claim that there are no brute facts. We draw attention to an important but overlooked element of Spinoza's commitment to intelligibility, and thereby question its most prominent interpretation, on which this commitment results in the priority of conceptual relations. We argue that such readings are both incomplete in their account of Spinozistic intelligibility and mistaken in their identification of the most fundamental relation. We argue that Spinoza is one of the first moderns to address the problem of conditions of intelligibility, and show that, in his metaphysics, expressive relations are best understood as relations of dependence for intelligibility: what a thing ‘expresses’ is its condition of intelligibility, that which determines how, through what concepts, it can be conceived.