|
|
Front Page  Titles (by Subject) LETTER LXXII. (LXXXIII.): Spinoza to * * * * 1 - The Chief Works of Benedict de Spinoza, vol. 2
LETTER LXXII. (LXXXIII.): Spinoza to * * * * 1 - Benedict de Spinoza, The Chief Works of Benedict de Spinoza, vol. 2 [1662]Edition used:The Chief Works of Benedict de Spinoza, translated from the Latin, with an Introduction by R.H.M. Elwes, vol. 2 De Intellectus Emendatione - Ethica. (Select Letters). Revised edition (London: George Bell and Sons, 1901).
About Liberty Fund:Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals. Copyright information:The text is in the public domain.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
LETTER LXXII. (LXXXIII.)
Spinoza to * * * *
[Spinoza gives the required explanation. Mentions the treatise of Huet, &c.] Distinguished Sir,—
With regard to your question as to whether the variety of the universe can be deduced à priori from the conception of extension only, I believe I have shown clearly enough already that it cannot; and that, therefore, matter has been ill-defined by Descartes as extension; it must necessarily be explained through an attribute, which expresses eternal and infinite essence. But perhaps, some day, if my life be prolonged, I may discuss the subject with you more clearly. For hitherto I have not been able to put any of these matters into due order.
As to what you add; namely, that from the definition of a given thing considered in itself we can only deduce a single property, this is, perhaps, true in the case of very simple things (among which I count figures), but not in realities. For, from the fact alone, that I define God as a Being to whose essence belongs existence, I infer several of His properties; namely, that He necessarily exists, that He is One, unchangeable, infinite, &c. I could adduce several other examples, which, for the present, I pass over.
In conclusion, I ask you to inquire, whether Huet’s treatise (against the “Tractatus Theologico-Politicus”) about which I wrote to you before, has yet been published, and whether you could send me a copy. Also, whether you yet know, what are the new discoveries about refraction. And so farewell, dear Sir, and continue to regard yours, &c.
The Hague, 15 July, 1676.
Tschirnhausen.
|
