"What do you make of the causa sui issue raised in these discussions of the human situation?"
I have no read Kierkegaard for many years. I am not sure where your exact focus is--probably on free will. But let me know.
Causa sui is a contradiction, IMO. When Spinoza used it as a simile for substance or "God", he was not using "causal" the way it is commonly understood. Basically, he recognized that for something to cause anything...they must have some interface. Thus, there must be only ONE ultimate "substance" (read, existence), because two substances could not interface. There is a fallacy there, IMO--although I appreciate where he was coming from. One can imagine universes which have no contingency.
But if we deal with one universe, then, yes...there can be no causal relationship between substances which have nothing in common. That cannot affect that which has no common element.
Spinoza called his one substance, "God". This substance had infinite attributes--the only two known to us being extension and thought.
We can discuss this, if you like. I would need to re-read his "Ethics", however, as I am a bit out of the circle, just now.
Spinoza was clear that humans were finite beings and that human thought was finite thought (even though, human thought WAS "God's" thought). But I believe that all "God's" attributes were infinite.
In any case...you will never find any question of EGO survival in Spinoza. But if you are willing to lose who you are and become a butterfly without any ego....
-- I know...people hate that! :-) |
