The Road to Hell is paved with Facades

My favorite philosophy, but not necessarily the true one or anything too serious, is the one where we connect everything. This is one of the central reasons that I love Spinoza so much, and subsequently Kant. This belief in the whole thing is called Holism.

Philosophy before the modern period relied significantly on Aristotle. Aristotle has this idea that substance is what is a subject and cannot be said of a subject. "What is called substance most fully, primarlily, and most of all, is what is neither said of any subject nor in any subject--for instance, an individual man or horse. The species in which the things primarily called substances belong are called secondary substances, and so are their genera. An individual man, for instance, belongs in the species man, and animal is the genus of the species; these things, then (for instance, man and animal), are called secondary substances." (Irwin and Fine 3, Aristotle: Introductory Readings).

Spinoza was influenced by both Judaism and Aristotle when he came up with his concept of substance. His concept of substance goes (unmenacingly enough) "By substance I mean that which is in itself and is conceived through itself; that is, that the conception of which does not require the conception of another thing from which it has to be formed." (Translated from the Latin by Samuel Shirley in Baruch Spinoza, The Ethics and Selected Letters (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1982; which was reprinted in Ariew and Watkins Modern Philosophy).

I said "unmenacingly enough" . Substance to Spinoza is God. Later, he writes in the Ethics that substance can be written God or Nature. In fact, Spinoza goes to great lengths to say that God is not anything other than what is real; what to Spinoza is known or can be known. Matthew Stewart comments that Spinoza's work was in order to make God immanent but not transitive. Immanent means that God is everything, and the not transitive part means that God is not between atoms. My atheist friends joke that Christians believe Jesus holds atoms together. Of course they don't really believe that, but there is a problem of the trinity in Christianity, and the problem of extra ideas in Judaism. We have already mentioned in this blog that the fundamental prayer of Judaism is "Hear, Oh Israel, God is one and God is everything." This was invoked during one of the speeches at President Obama's Inauguration last year, by the way (by the Reverend who spoke, I can't remember his name). In saying that God is nature and nothing else, Spinoza intentionally gets rid of all the mumbo jumbo. Unfortunately, a lot of us want to believe in the mumbo jumbo: heaven, angels, fairies, ghosts, trolls-under-bridges, souls, and all of that weird stuff.

Spinoza's idea of holism was part of a lot of people's ideas of holism. Holism means the belief in a greater whole, and Professor Bykova said that holism has the same root word as whole. Bykova said that the German Idealists use this idea of holism. While Bykova did not invoke Spinoza directly, Hegel did when he said that you are either a Spinozist, or you are not a philosopher. Of the German Idealist, Kant, Hegel, Schuller, and Fichte are among the most prominent.

The Kantian system is as regulated if not more regulated than Spinoza's. Spinoza's system is among the most well-organized projects of its kind. Unfortunately it's also the only project of its kind. I think Wittgenstein came close, but I haven't read enough Wittgenstein.

Kant's system is not divided topically, but argumentatively in comparison to Spinoza's Ethics. Spinoza's Ethics is five parts which are supposed to firstly argue his points and secondly lead the reader to enlightenment. The first part has to do with Skepticism and what this world is. Spinoza's substance is a sure answer to any skepticism. There's no way to doubt it after it has been declared. The fifth part is about leading someone to the love of knowledge. So for example, Part One is "Concerning God," Part Two is "Of the Nature and Origin of the Mind," and Part Five is, "Of the Power of the Intellect, or of Human Freedom." Spinoza's system is a marked contrast to Descartes' meditations, which show his personal journey. Spinoza instructed the reader. The Ethics are designed to be persuasive in the way that 2+2=4 is persuasive. I'm not kidding. The method of mathematical argument is based on Euclid and influenced the analytic tradition of philosophy in the United States; subarguments comprise the parts.

Kant's Architectonic is a labyrinth. Architectonic is the exact name of the organization of the book, and I think, but I don't remember exactly, that it was based on Aristotelian styling. I also don't know the reason outside of tradition that Kant would employ (or invent) the Architectonic. Aristotle comes in big later, in the Transcendental Deduction and surrounding areas, because the table of categories is based on Aristotle.

So, it's a fun labyrinth. Outside of that, I don't remember why the Architectonic itself was employed in the Critique of Pure Reason, but for the purpose of argument's sake. Believe it or not, Kant also attempted to be accessible. There is an obvious rise and fall to the philosophical action of the book.

The jewel-piece of the Critique of Pure Reason is The Transcendental Deduction, which is where Kant argues that we have the right to apply the categories to experience. The categories themselves are not as far sweeping as some would like. For example, there's substance (under number 3, Of Relation) and causality, but also ones that no one would really fault Kant for sticking in there even if they weren't a matter of minds and not conforming to reality. Ones that are not controversial are unity and plurality, and negation and limitation. People say, "duh, that comes from minds and not external worlds," but people weren't so sure back then. People aren't so sure about substance and causality these days. Stuff that people would like to be more far sweeping includes God, Angels, and good living. Sorry folks, it's not in the table.

The climax of the work are the Antinomies and Doctrines on Method, which are meant to divide philosophy and science.