Spinoza’s Axiom 1 in Part II

Note that, out of respect, I have listed both the original text and the English translation (by R. H. M. Elwes) of Spinoza’s words that are the subject of this explanation. The following abbreviations are used: Definition: Def. Axiom: Ax. Proposition: Prop. Demonstration (Proof): Dem. Corollary: Cor. Scholium: Schol.

The basic elements of the Ethics are abbreviated according to the following convention: Pars: E, Definitio: D, Axioma: A, Propositio: P, Demonstratio: d, Corollarium: C, Scholium: S

(e.g.) Part I, Proposition 8, Scholium 2: E1P8S2

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－ Ax. I Hominis essentia non involvit necessariam existentiam, hoc est, ex naturæ ordine, tam fieri potest, ut hic, & ille homo existat, quam ut non existat.

Ax. I The essence of man does not involve necessary existence, that is, it may, in the order of nature, come to pass that this or that man does or does not exist. －－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－

This axiom is the human version of the following Prop. 24 in Part One.

“The essence of things produced by God does not involve existence.”

But isn’t this redundant? Spinoza’s world consists only of necessity, and there is no contingent existence. Why does this axiom deliberately use “necessary existence”? If there is no contingent existence, then “necessary existence” is synonymous with “existence,” and wouldn’t it be the same as Prop. 24 in Part One?

Therefore, let’s investigate Spinoza’s usage of “necessariam” in Part One.

I have investigated this before from a different perspective, but Ethics is an inexhaustible spring, and no matter how many times you examine it, Ethics never diminishes.

E1D7 is an abbreviation for Def. 7 in Part One. Please refer to the abbreviation explanation at the beginning of this essay.

E1D7 “a se sola ad agendum determinatur: Necessaria autem“ （…is determined to act by itself alone; but those things which are necessary）

E1D8 “quatenus ex sola rei æternæ definitione necessario sequi concipitur.” （insofar as it is conceived to follow necessarily from the definition alone of an eternal thing）

E1A3 “Ex data causa determinata necessario sequitur effectus” （From a given determinate cause, an effect necessarily follows）

E1P7 “ipsius essentia involvit necessario existentiam” （Its essence necessarily involves existence.）

E1P8 “Omnis substantia est necessario infinita.” （Every substance is necessarily infinite.）

E1P8D “quæ etiam necessario deberet existere” （which also would necessarily have to exist）

EIP8S2 “adeoque fatendum necessario est, substantiæ existentiam,” （and so it must necessarily be admitted [that] the existence of substance）

E1P8S2 “dari necessario uniuscujusque rei existentis certam aliquam causam” （that for each existing thing, a certain cause must necessarily be given.）

E1P8S2 “debeat necessario dari causa,” （a cause must necessarily be given）

E1P8S2 “quandoquidem (per Notam III) uniuscujusque debet necessario dari causa” （since [according to Note 3] a cause must necessarily be given for each thing.）

E1P8S2 “debet necessario extra unumquemque dari,” （it must necessarily be given outside each one [of them]）

E1P8S2 “debet ejus definitio necessariam existentiam involvere” (Its definition must involve necessary existence)

E1P10S “necessitatem, sive æternitatem” (necessity, or eternity)

There are many more examples, but from those above, the uses of “necessariam” and the declensions of the adjective “necessarius” can be classified into the following categories.

① When existence or action is determined by something else ② When existence is derived from the definition ③ When an effect arises from a cause ④ When the essence involves existence ⑤ When describing the characteristics of substance (infinity) ⑥ The mode of existence of substance ⑦ The mode of existence of causes ⑧ Another way of saying eternity

I have examined all the examples in this way, and they fit into these eight classifications.

Can I say something amazing now? It’s been a while since I used this line. (By the way, this line is from the anime Wasteful Days of High School Girls, where the protagonist repeats it often.)

While searching for “nece” in Word, considering declensions, I often came across the word “nec esse.” At first, I excluded it as unrelated, but gradually I started to think it might be connected, and upon investigating the etymology, I found the following.

“necessarius” (necessary) is commonly thought to derive from the Latin prefix “ne-” (negation) and “cedere” (to go away, to yield), but the underlying concept is inseparably linked to “esse” (to exist).

Etymological breakdown: Why does “not yielding” mean “necessary”? The Latin “necesse” (indispensable) is traditionally broken down as follows. ne-: Prefix indicating negation (not) cedere: To avoid, to depart, to retreat, to concede

Thus, the etymological nuance is “something from which one cannot depart” or “something unavoidable.” It refers to a state where there is only one path, with no way to turn back or deviate, and that is the original meaning of “necessity.”

Philosophical and linguistic connection with “esse (to exist)”: Although the direct components are “cedere,” semantically it is closely related to “esse.”

Ontological connection: In philosophy (especially in Scholasticism and Spinoza), “necessarium” refers to “that which cannot fail to exist.” In other words, “something that cannot be separated from existence (esse).”

Fusion of meanings: The quality of “not being able to depart (ne-cedere)” transferred directly to the obligation or necessity of “having to continue to exist (esse).”

When Spinoza says “its essence involves existence (existentiam / esse),” he is treating this etymological “unavoidability” as the logical “necessity of existence.” By going back to the etymology in this way, it becomes clear that the eight classifications of usage converge into one fundamental meaning.

Namely, the way in which effects arise from God’s existence = essence = power is called necessity.

The fact that effects arise from causes necessarily is because they arise from God’s power. And necessity being another name for eternity stems from the fact that eternity is defined as existence being derived from God’s definition (E1D8). That is because a true definition is a definition of essence. Thus, existence always means necessary existence.

Then, returning to the initial question, why does Ax. 1 in Part Two rephrase “existence” from Prop. 24 in Part One as “necessary existence”? Even though humans are also “things produced by God.”

In God, existence = essence (E1P20) and essence = power (E1P34).

And all existence is necessary existence. However, necessary existence in God arises from essence, but human necessary existence does not arise from human essence.

In God, since existence = essence = power, the fact that necessary existence arises from an immanent cause means it arises from essence. “Essence involves existence” means that.

However, human necessary existence does not arise from essence, but from the transeunt causes of other humans or things. And it perishes due to the transeunt causes of other humans or things.

Human necessary existence is eternal existence as part of an infinite chain of transeunt causes, but when viewed as an isolated existence separated from the causal order, it is perceived as perishable existence, like contingent existence.

But finite existence, perishable existence, and contingent existence are all false ideas captured from the perspective of humans as finite modes, and they are ideas represented through perception.

Let us look at Ax. 1 again.

Ax. I The essence of man does not involve necessary existence, that is, it may, in the order of nature, come to pass that this or that man does or does not exist.

This “in the order of nature” refers to the causal order of transeunt causes in finite modes. Humans are generated and perish not from essence, but by transeunt causes. Therefore, it does not arise from essence.

Unlike in God, in humans, essence and necessary existence are separated. The reason is the separation of immanent cause and transeunt cause — that is, while God and the mediate infinite modes are in an immanent causal relationship, the finite modes within the mediate infinite modes exist as an infinite chain of transeunt causes, and it is not the individual transeunt causes but the chain of transeunt causes itself that is maintained by the immanent cause.

Unlike in Part One, the emphasis on “necessary existence” serves to distinguish it from the logic by which God’s necessary existence arises, and to emphasize that human necessary existence arises not from an immanent cause, but from transeunt causes.

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－

I intend to organize complex matters conceptually, though it may appear somewhat messy to some. However, as a discerning reader of this series, you have likely already realized from a higher perspective that this is a structural intention: to clarify the mode of human existence before diving into the investigation of the human mind (finite intellect). The reason Part II requires a distinct set of definitions and axioms from Part I is that we are transferring from the eternal world of God in Part I to the world of human duration in Part II. I use the term “transference” — in the psychoanalytic sense — rather than a mere “transition” because the essence of Part I is repeated and reshaped within Part II. But before someone shouts, “Somebody shut this old man up!” I’ll stop here for today.