Comparing Spinoza with Lao Tzu · Lao Tzu is a philosopher of the Warring States period of classical Chinese history and is credited as the founder of Taoism. Spinoza ... well-being

Comparing Spinoza with Lao Tzu:

Spinoza’s Notions of God as Nature with Lao Tzu’s Notions of the Tao

{Suitable for Undergraduate Philosophy} {Would Require Citations from Reference List Provided}

{This Sample Illustrates Structure and Full Bibliography in Turabian format}

This Comparative Philosophy Sample Paper is provided by © 2015 Rachel McLeod, NCF Business Solutions

1

© 2015 Rachel Conlin McLeod NCF Business Solutions, LLC. For Illustrative Educational Purposes Only All Rights Reserved pg. 1

As a 17th century excommunicated Jewish philosopher, Baruch Spinoza is

considered one of the most radical philosophers of the early modern period of

Western philosophy. Lao Tzu is a philosopher of the Warring States period of

classical Chinese history and is credited as the founder of Taoism. Spinoza

holds extremely naturalistic views on God, the world, the human being and

knowledge. These views serve to ground a moral philosophy centered on the

control of the passions leading to virtue and happiness. Lao Tzu is a virtue

theorist from the 6th century B.C.E who holds a very cosmic, naturalistic

worldview from which his notion of Tao or “The Way” as the framework of his

metaphysics is based upon. Despite the obvious differences with time and

geography and background, fundamentally, there are some significant

similarities between the metaphysics and philosophy of Spinoza and the

metaphysics and philosophy of Lao Tzu.

To understand these similarities, we can first consider Spinoza’s

definition of God. What Spinoza intended to demonstrate in his work, Ethics,

published posthumously after his death in 1677, was the truth about God,

Nature, and especially ourselves and the way in which God, Nature, and we as

human beings relate with one another and connect with Nature and his

definition of God. He further intended to demonstrate and explain the highest

principles of society, religion and the good life. Despite the great deal of

metaphysics, physics, anthropology and psychology that take up Parts One

through Three of Ethics, Spinoza took the crucial message of the work to be

ethical in nature. By definition, Spinoza was a virtue theorist as opposed to a

2


duty theorist in this respect. In Ethics, Spinoza argues that our happiness and

well-being lie not in a life enslaved to the passions and conspicuous

consumption or materialism; nor in the related unreflective attachment to the

superstitions that pass as religion, but rather in the life of reason.

To that purpose, and to Spinoza’s understanding, Part One of Ethics, “On

God”, begins with some deceptively simple definitions of terms that would be

familiar to any seventeenth century philosopher. “By substance I understand

what is in itself and is conceived through itself”; “By attribute I understand

what the intellect perceives of a substance, as constituting its essence”; “By God

I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of an

infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite

essence.”

In propositions one through fourteen of Part One, Spinoza presents the

basic elements of his picture of God. God is the infinite, necessarily existing

(that is, uncaused), unique substance of the universe.12 There is only one

substance in the universe; it is God; and everything else that is, is in God.13 Note

that in these propositions, he refers to God not as deity explicitly but as an

infinite, singular substance from which everything else in existence is rooted or

connected or derived. In other words, there is nothing separate from God but

all things in existence are components of the singular infinite substance of God.

To understand the components of this logical conclusion which Spinoza makes

and to gain some understanding of how he will arrive at the definition of God

3


as Nature, we look at each of his first fourteen propositions of Part One in

Ethics.

In proposition one, Spinoza claims, “A substance is prior in nature to its

affections.” Proposition two states, “Two substances having different attributes

have nothing in common with one another. (In other words, if two substances

differ in nature, then they have nothing in common). Proposition three states,

“If things have nothing in common with one another, one of them cannot be the

cause of the other.” Proposition four claims, “Two or more distinct things are

distinguished from one another, either by a difference in the attributes [i.e., the

natures or essences] of the substances or by a difference in their affections [i.e.,

their accidental properties].” In proposition five it is claimed that, “In [N]ature,

there cannot be two or more substances of the same nature or attribute.”

Proposition six then adds, “One substance cannot be produced by another

substance.” Proposition seven proposes that, “It pertains to the nature of a

substance to exist.” Then Spinoza in proposition eight claims, “Every substance

is necessarily infinite.” Proposition nine states, “The more reality or being each

thing has, the more attributes belong to it.” Proposition ten claims, “Each

attribute of a substance must be conceived through itself.”23 Proposition eleven

then expresses that, “God, or a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each

of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists.”

The proof of this eleventh proposition consists simply in the classic

“ontological proof for God's existence”. Spinoza writes that “if you deny this,

conceive, if you can, that God does not exist. Therefore, by axiom seven [‘If a

4


thing can be conceived as not existing, its essence does not involve existence’],

his essence does not involve existence. But this, by my proposition seven, is

absurd. Therefore, God necessarily exists.”

Spinoza further claims in proposition twelve, “No attribute of a substance

can be truly conceived from which it follows that the substance can be divided.”

Proposition thirteen then states, “A substance which is absolutely infinite is

indivisible.” Concluding in proposition fourteen that, “Except God, no substance

can be or be conceived.”

This proof that God—an infinite, necessary and uncaused, indivisible

being—is the only substance of the universe proceeds in three simple steps.

First, Spinoza establishes that no two substances can share an attribute or

essence according to his proposition five. Then, Spinoza believes he has proven

in proposition eleven that there is a substance with infinite attributes, in this

instance, God. It then follows, in conclusion, that the existence of that infinite

substance precludes the existence of any other substance. For if there were to

be a second substance, it would have to have some attribute or essence. But

since God has all possible attributes, then the attribute to be possessed by this

second substance would be one of the attributes already possessed by God. But

Spinoza claims he has already established that no two substances can have the

same attribute. Therefore, there can be, besides God, no such second substance.

“Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can be or be conceived without God”

according to Spinoza’s proposition fifteen. Those things that are “in” God (or,

more precisely, in God's attributes) are what Spinoza calls modes.

5


Spinoza’s definition of God—condemned since his excommunication

from the Jewish community as a “God existing in only a philosophical sense”—

is meant to preclude any anthropomorphizing of the divine being. In the

commentary to his proposition fifteen, Spinoza writes against “those who feign

a God, like man, consisting of a body and a mind, and subject to passions. But

how far they wander from the true knowledge of God, is sufficiently established

by what has already been demonstrated… …Besides being false, such an

anthropomorphic conception of God can have only deleterious effects on

human freedom and activity, insofar as it fosters a life enslaved to hope and

fear and the superstitions to which such emotions give rise.”

According to the traditional Judeo-Christian conception of divinity, God

is a transcendent creator, a being who creates a world distinct from himself to

come into being by creating it out of nothing. God produces that world by a

spontaneous act of free will, and could just as easily have not created anything

outside himself.33 By contrast, Spinoza's God is the cause of all things because

all things follow causally and necessarily from the divine nature. Or, as he puts

it, from God's infinite power or nature “all things have necessarily flowed, or

always followed, by the same necessity and in the same way as from the nature

of a triangle it follows, from eternity and to eternity, that its three angles are

equal to two right angles”. The existence of the world is, thus, mathematically

necessary according to Spinoza. It is impossible that God should exist but not

the world. This does not mean that God does not cause the world to come into

being freely, since nothing outside of God constrains him to bring it into

6


existence. But Spinoza does deny that God creates the world by some arbitrary

and undetermined act of free will. God could not have done otherwise. There

are no possible alternatives to the actual world, and absolutely no contingency

or spontaneity within that world. Everything is absolutely and necessarily

determined according to Spinoza.

Now to compare Spinoza’s notion of God as an infinite power or divine

nature with Lao Tzu’s Tao or “The Way”, let us next consider Lao Tzu’s

understanding of how Tao, as he defines and understands it, relates to

Spinoza’s definition of an infinite force of nature.

Lao Tzu wrote an eighty-one chapter work entitled, the Tao Te Ching,

simply translated as “The Book of The Way and Virtue”.36 This work was written

in poetic form utilizing symbolism, metaphor, and simile to express and

explain to his target audience of the Chinese peasant and merchant classes the

relationship the forces of nature had with each other and with them as human

beings.

The initial purpose of the Tao Te Ching was to express that there were

observable proofs of an infinite force or “Way” or “Tao” guiding or enabling

things to exist and that all things in existence live according to this universal

nature he calls “Tao” or “The Way” that dictates behavior, actions, and the

attributes and qualities that define that particular thing. For example, Lao Tzu

would poetically compare the natural un-tampered with flowing of a stream or

river to the nature of a person in harmony with his or her environment—the

person is always seeking the path of least resistance or least conflict like a

7


river’s waters flow around boulders or rocks as opposed to through them or

against them.

In chapter one of Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching, it is expressed that, “The Tao

that can be known, is not the eternal Tao.” Basically, Lao Tzu is expressing that

the ultimate force of nature is infinite and beyond our capacity to conveniently

define. This type of language and expression is similar to Spinoza’s notion of

an infinite divine power with infinite qualities and attributes. Lao Tzu makes

no claim that the Tao or “The Way” is a deity or not a deity, but rather his

poetic, linguistic illustrations suggest that there is definitely an ordered design

to the universe and an ordered pattern behind all things created.

Everything that has life seems to live according to its nature in

accordance with its qualities and attributes and features. For example, a fish

swims and behaves accordingly because it is in its nature to do so and it was

created to do so and to expect a fish to live as anything else than a fish would

not be in accord with the Tao or with our understanding of nature. We cannot

reasonably expect a fish to behave and exist as we would say, a grizzly bear for

example. Dictating why a fish is a fish and a grizzly bear is a grizzly bear, is the

Tao, according to Lao Tzu—the infinite force of nature.

Lao Tzu is coming at his conclusions in a very simplistic but practical

way which reflects a very strong cosmic worldview. His perspective or focus

was on the physical world and physical environment around him. His primary

concerns were not of the divine or transcendent. While he might have believed

in deities or spirits and was aware of local myths and legends, he expressed

8


that the Tao was the ultimate, overarching force of creation and the source of

life and death and the directing energy that defined why things existed as they

did and why things continue to exist as they do. His philosophy, based on his

belief that mankind should strive to be attuned to their natures and in harmony

with their environment and the Tao and develop their characters in accordance

with that search for all encompassing harmony is based not on abstract

theories and concepts or by the progression of logical arguments and premises

as Spinoza’s propositions of Rene Descartes’ Meditations, but rather on

everyday sense experiences and observations of un-tampered with nature as

they occur in the present.

It is when mankind tries to change the nature of things or tries to tamper

with or control something contrary to its design or nature or qualities and

attributes, that mankind can expect to see chaos or conflict or disharmony.

With this in mind, we see that both Spinoza and Lao Tzu are expressing a

belief in a universal creating force that is ordered, orderly, and all-

encompassing and indivisible. Lao Tzu expects mankind and creatures to be in

harmony with each other and recognizes that to be in harmony is to be attuned

with the Tao—the universal shared guiding and enabling force that made

everything what it is. Spinoza claims similarly that what he calls God cannot be

divided or separated and that all creation and all that is created shares qualities

and attributes of God—that which has infinite qualities and attributes. It is the

shared qualities and attributes that connect us with God. It is the notion that

only an infinite, singular creative force encompassing all possible qualities and

9


attributes could conceive and create all things that establishes we have no

choice but to be connected by virtue of our creation to the force that created

us.

Lao Tzu recognizes that free will enables mankind to be in disharmony

with the Tao but he never states that there is ever a total disconnect from the

Tao.44 The implication of the eighty-one chapters of the Tao Te Ching are that

there cannot be existence without the Tao’s continued, infinite presence.

Whether we acknowledge it in our own lives or not, we are infinitely tied to the

forces of nature—the Tao. We are subject to them as well as a part of them. We

are also able to tamper but never fully control or reliably harness them

completely.

These conclusions from Lao Tzu are compatible and are parallel to

Spinoza’s conclusions about God as Nature. In Spinoza’s view, mankind cannot

control God or interfere with God’s modes or qualities and attributes. We

cannot prevent or determine what will ultimately be created or designed

through the course of time without acknowledging that even our intent and our

attempts and actions towards disrupting God are inseparable from God. The

forces that ultimately dictate how things are and why they are will correct and

compensate for our tampering and meddling with the ultimate natural force,

according to both Spinoza and Lao Tzu. God, like the Tao, can anticipate and

restore order when mankind acts to create chaos.

Both Lao Tzu and Spinoza acknowledge that struggles between God and

Mankind and Tao and Mankind exist. And how the Tao and God react to

10


Mankind’s acts of free will are also similar. Both God and the Tao remain

infinite and both share infinite qualities, attributes, and properties to enable

and create infinite reactions in a perfect, orderly process to ultimately correct

for chaos or imbalances in Nature—possibly at the expense of Mankind if

Mankind chooses to continue to act in discord with God or the Tao.

In summary, while Lao Tzu is connecting Tao to the forces of Nature or

the forces that enable Nature to act, Spinoza’s language and ideas of God depict

a divine force or divine nature very similar in characteristics and properties as

Nature or as Lao Tzu puts it, the Tao. The end results of Tao in action and

inaction are the same results Spinoza has observed in defining what God is and

what the divine nature has done.

11


Bibliography

Primary Sources – Spinoza

Spinoza Opera, edited by Carl Gebhardt, 5 volumes Heidelberg: Carl Winters, 1925, 1972 [volume 5, 1987].

Spinoza, Ethics, Edwin Curley, translator, The Collected Writings of Spinoza

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985, volume 1. Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise, Samuel Shirley, translator, second edition

Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2001. Spinoza, The Letters, Samuel Shirley, translator, Indianapolis: Hackett

Publishing, 1995.

Secondary Sources – Lao Tzu

Ames, Roger. Wandering at Ease in the Zhuangzi. Albany: State University of New York Press. 1998

Bokenkamp, Stephen R. Early Daoist Scriptures. Berkeley: University of

California Press. 1997 Csikszentmihalyi, Mark and Ivanhoe, Philip J., eds. Religious and

Philosophical Aspects of the Laozi. Albany: State University of New York. 1999

Giles, Lionel. A Gallery of Chinese Immortals. London: John Murray.

1948 Graham, Angus. Chuang tzu: The Inner Chapters. London: Allen &

Unwin. 1981 Graham, Angus. Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient

China. La Salle, IL: Open Court. 1989 Graham, Angus. "The Origins of the Legend of Lao Tan." In Lao-

tzu and the Tao-te-ching, ed. Kohn, Livia Kohn and Michael LaFargue, 23- 41. Albany: State University of New York Press. 1998

12


Hansen, Chad. A Daoist Theory of Chinese Thought. New York: Oxford University Press. 1992

Henricks, Robert. Lao-Tzu: Te-Tao Ching. New York: Ballantine. 1989 Ivanhoe, Philip J. The Daodejing of Laozi. New York: Seven Bridges Press. 2002 Kohn, Livia. Editor. "The Lao-Tzu Myth." In Lao-tzu and the Tao-te-ching.

Albany: State University of New York Press. 1998 Kohn, Livia. "Laozi: Ancient Philosopher, Master of Longevity, and Taoist

God." In Religions of China in Practice, ed. Donald S. Lopez, 52-63. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1996

Kohn, Livia and LaFargue, Michael. Lao-tzu and the Tao-te-ching. Albany:

State University of New York Press. 1998 Kohn, Livia and Roth, Harold. Daoist Identity: History, Lineage, and Ritual.

Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. 2002 Watson, Burton. The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu. New York:

Columbia University Press. 1968 Welch, Holmes. Taoism: The Parting of the Way. Boston: Beacon Press. 1966 Welch, Holmes and Seidel, Anna, eds. Facets of Taoism. New Haven: Yale

University Press. 1979

Secondary Sources – Spinoza

Allison, Henry. Benedict de Spinoza: An Introduction, New Haven: Yale University Press. 1987

Balibar, Etienne. Spinoza and Politics, London: Verso. 1998 Bennett, Jonathan. A Study of Spinoza's Ethics, Indianapolis: Hackett

Publishing. 1984 Curley, Edwin. Behind the Geometric Method, Princeton: Princeton

University Press. 1988 Della Rocca, Michael. Spinoza, London and New York: Routledge. 2008 Donagan, Alan. Spinoza, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1988

13


Garrett, Don. Editor. The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. 1996

Huenemann, Charlie. Editor. Interpreting Spinoza: Critical Essays,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2008 James, Susan. Spinoza on Philosophy, Religion, and Politics: The

Theological-Political Treatise, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2012 Kisner, Matthew J. Spinoza on Human Freedom: Reason, Autonomy and

the Good Life, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2011 Koistinen, Olli. The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza's Ethics, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. 2009 Koistinen, Olli and John Biro. Editors, Spinoza: Metaphysical Themes,

Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2002 LeBuffe, Michael. From Bondage to Freedom: Spinoza on Human

Excellence, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2010 Lord, Beth. Spinoza's Ethics: An Edinburgh Philosophical Guide, Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University Press. 2010 Melamed, Yitzhak and Michael A. Rosenthal. Editors, Spinoza's Theological-

Political Treatise: A Critical Guide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2010

Nadler, Steven. Spinoza: A Life, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge

University Press. 1999 –––. Spinoza's Heresy, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2002 –––.Spinoza's Ethics: An Introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. 2006 –––. A Book Forged in Hell: Spinoza's Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of the

Secular Age, Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2011 Nadler, Steven, "Baruch Spinoza", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall

2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford: Stanford University Press. 2013

Popkin, Richard. Spinoza, Oxford: One World. 2004

14


Preus, J. Samuel. Spinoza and the Irrelevance of Biblical Authority,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2001 Ravven, Heidi and Leonard E. Goodman. Editors, Jewish Themes in Spinoza's

Philosophy, Albany, NY: SUNY Press. 2002 Smith, Steven B. Spinoza, Liberalism and the Question of Jewish Identity,

New Haven: Yale University Press. 1997 –––.Spinoza's Book of Life, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Viljanen, Valtteri, 2011. Spinoza's Geometry of Power, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2003

Verbeek, Theo. Spinoza's Theologico-Political Treatise: Exploring ‘the Will

of God’, London: Ashgate. 2003 Wolfson, Harry. The Philosophy of Spinoza, 2 vols., Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press. 1934 Yovel, Yirmiyahu. Spinoza and Other Heretics, 2 vols., Princeton:

Princeton University Press. 1989 –––. Editor, God and Nature: Spinoza's Metaphysics, Leiden: Brill. 1991 ––– . Editor, Spinoza on Knowledge and the Human Mind, Leiden: Brill. 1994 –––. Editor, Desire and Affect: Spinoza as Psychologist, New York: Little

Room Press. 1999 Yovel, Yirmiyahu and Gideon Segal. Editors, Spinoza on Reason and the

“Free Man”, New York: Little Room Press. 2004

Documents

Comparing Spinoza with Lao Tzu · Lao Tzu is a philosopher of the Warring States period of classical Chinese history and is credited as the founder of Taoism. Spinoza ... well-being