An amateur (read: giddy fangirl) synopsis of Spinoza's thoughts on God.
First, he starts out with definitions and axioms, which I'm kinda merging with his propositions here.
Then he gets into the good stuff. He goes from very simple propositions to basically exlaining life, the universe, and everything. He was a monist, which means he believed that everything exists as a whole, rather than duality or plurality.
He starts out by introducing us to "substance." Substance is a metaphysical concept, which means that you're not gonna find it anywhere in the real, experiential, world. Substance has attributes, and its main attribute is existence. This is shorthand for saying, "Substance exists because substance is existence." (Don'tcha love that circular logic?)
Then he proceeds to prove why there cannot be more than one substance. And this one is tricky, but I guess this constitutes what they call "aplomb."
Substance A has attributes 1, 2, and 3. If Substance B also had attributes 1, 2, and 3, well, then B would be A, and whaddaya know, there's only one substance. You could say Substance B has attributes of 4, 5, and 6--but wait. Along with the attribute of existence, substance also has the attribute of infinity. Therefore all attributes are attributes of Substance A, and Substance B is left out in the lonely cold of forgotten nonexistence.
So our postulated substance has the attributes of existence and infinity, and is therefore the only substance possible. Another attribute of substance is freedom. Now, we mere mortals don't have freedom (more on this shocking development later), because we and our actions are determined by other "modes" (physical things, like rocks and squirrels and paperweights) and "attributes" (metaphysical things like extension, thought, and motion), all of which are in turn determined by substance. But substance is self-determined, self-caused. It can't be caused by anything external to it, because hey, we already proved that there can't be any substance but substance, so there.
Not only is substance self-caused, but it is the root cause of everything in existence. He (or possibly the translator, but I'm giving the translator the benefit of the doubt) calls substance the "First Cause," but this doesn't mean a temporal first cause (a la God causing the Big Bang), but rather something like Aristotle's (or maybe Plato's, I forget) "Prime Mover." The existence behind all existence, the action beneath all actions, the mind which supports all thought, etc.
Substance is, of course, God.
If the universe were a painting, traditional theists would say that God is the painter. Spinoza would probably say that God is the canvas, the paint, the paintbrush, and the motion of painting, but that there ain't no painter, because the painting is self-caused, you imbecilic morons. (He never actually says imbecilic morons, but dear God he comes close. Perhaps philosophers hadn't yet invented humility.)
But back to that free will myth that people seem to cling to because they apparently don't know any better. (Or, in Spinoza's words, that he's shown to be a myth "with greater clearness than that of noonday light." No wonder they kicked him out of his synagogue...)
God is self-caused, because there is no substance apart from God that could cause God. This means that God is the only thing out there that's free. Nothing else can affect God's existence or actions. Within God exist infinite attributes and modes, some of which manifest as us. We think we're free, but we aren't, not only because our actions are really reactions to other lives and other things around us, but because our very existence depends upon other things outside ourselves.
The tricky bit is, though, that since existence is the essence of God, and since God is self-caused and free, then the universe is the way it is because that's the way God is.
Here he does some mental tap-dancing.
If God is perfect, and God produced the world, then it can't be anything but what it is. If a perfect God produced the world, then the world is perfect. To imply that the world is imperfect is to imply that the world is out of God's control and is, in many ways, in the hands of Fate. Which is impossible, because God is perfect. (Oh, and he says "Q.E.D." a lot.)
So: God is existence, everything that exists is a manifestation of God, and the universe is the way it's supposed to be, warts and all. And free will is a myth of self-empowerment that we use to comfort ourselves--except that it backfires, because then we wind up blaming ourselves when shit happens, and we would all be much happier if we would sit back and enjoy the ride.
Or something like that.
Then he gets into the good stuff. He goes from very simple propositions to basically exlaining life, the universe, and everything. He was a monist, which means he believed that everything exists as a whole, rather than duality or plurality.
He starts out by introducing us to "substance." Substance is a metaphysical concept, which means that you're not gonna find it anywhere in the real, experiential, world. Substance has attributes, and its main attribute is existence. This is shorthand for saying, "Substance exists because substance is existence." (Don'tcha love that circular logic?)
Then he proceeds to prove why there cannot be more than one substance. And this one is tricky, but I guess this constitutes what they call "aplomb."
Substance A has attributes 1, 2, and 3. If Substance B also had attributes 1, 2, and 3, well, then B would be A, and whaddaya know, there's only one substance. You could say Substance B has attributes of 4, 5, and 6--but wait. Along with the attribute of existence, substance also has the attribute of infinity. Therefore all attributes are attributes of Substance A, and Substance B is left out in the lonely cold of forgotten nonexistence.
So our postulated substance has the attributes of existence and infinity, and is therefore the only substance possible. Another attribute of substance is freedom. Now, we mere mortals don't have freedom (more on this shocking development later), because we and our actions are determined by other "modes" (physical things, like rocks and squirrels and paperweights) and "attributes" (metaphysical things like extension, thought, and motion), all of which are in turn determined by substance. But substance is self-determined, self-caused. It can't be caused by anything external to it, because hey, we already proved that there can't be any substance but substance, so there.
Not only is substance self-caused, but it is the root cause of everything in existence. He (or possibly the translator, but I'm giving the translator the benefit of the doubt) calls substance the "First Cause," but this doesn't mean a temporal first cause (a la God causing the Big Bang), but rather something like Aristotle's (or maybe Plato's, I forget) "Prime Mover." The existence behind all existence, the action beneath all actions, the mind which supports all thought, etc.
Substance is, of course, God.
If the universe were a painting, traditional theists would say that God is the painter. Spinoza would probably say that God is the canvas, the paint, the paintbrush, and the motion of painting, but that there ain't no painter, because the painting is self-caused, you imbecilic morons. (He never actually says imbecilic morons, but dear God he comes close. Perhaps philosophers hadn't yet invented humility.)
But back to that free will myth that people seem to cling to because they apparently don't know any better. (Or, in Spinoza's words, that he's shown to be a myth "with greater clearness than that of noonday light." No wonder they kicked him out of his synagogue...)
God is self-caused, because there is no substance apart from God that could cause God. This means that God is the only thing out there that's free. Nothing else can affect God's existence or actions. Within God exist infinite attributes and modes, some of which manifest as us. We think we're free, but we aren't, not only because our actions are really reactions to other lives and other things around us, but because our very existence depends upon other things outside ourselves.
The tricky bit is, though, that since existence is the essence of God, and since God is self-caused and free, then the universe is the way it is because that's the way God is.
Here he does some mental tap-dancing.
If God is perfect, and God produced the world, then it can't be anything but what it is. If a perfect God produced the world, then the world is perfect. To imply that the world is imperfect is to imply that the world is out of God's control and is, in many ways, in the hands of Fate. Which is impossible, because God is perfect. (Oh, and he says "Q.E.D." a lot.)
So: God is existence, everything that exists is a manifestation of God, and the universe is the way it's supposed to be, warts and all. And free will is a myth of self-empowerment that we use to comfort ourselves--except that it backfires, because then we wind up blaming ourselves when shit happens, and we would all be much happier if we would sit back and enjoy the ride.
Or something like that.