SPINOZA

AND

ECOLOGY

ARNE NAESS

I n w h a t follows I d o n o t try to p r o v e a n y t h i n g . I i n v i t e the r e a d e r to c o n s i d e r a set of h y p o t h e t i c c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n spinozist a n d ecological t h o u g h t . Most of t h e m s e e m o b v i o u s to me, b u t every o n e n e e d s to be c a r e f u l l y s c r u t i n i z e d . T h e y are (of c o u r s e ) b u i l t u p o n a set of d e f i n i t e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of ecology a n d of t h e texts of S p i n o z a . T h e i n d u s t r i a l states a d o p t policies which to s o m e e x t e n t limit p o l l u t i o n a n d conserve n o n - r e n e w a b l e resources. T h e r e is also a slight r e c o g n i t i o n of o v e r p o p u l a t i o n in t h e s e n s e of too g r e a t c o n s u m p t i o n p e r capita. I n short, t h e r e is in the i n d u s t r i a l states a shallow m o v e m e n t in f a v o u r of p r o t e c t i o n of t h e e n v i r o n m e n t , o r b e t t e r , t h e ecosystems. B u t t h e r e is also a d e e p e r , i n t e r n a t i o n a l m o v e m e n t which tries to m o d i f y a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d s n a t u r e a n d the w h o l e c o n c e p t i o n of t h e r e l a t i o n s of c u l t u r e to n a t u r e . It has d e e p social a n d political i m p l i c a t i o n s . Rachel C a r s o n , w h o s t a r t e d this i n t e r n a t i o n a l m o v e m e n t f i f t e e n y e a r s ago, f o u n d m a n ' s a r r o g a n c e o r i n d i f f e r e n c e t o w a r d s n a t u r e ethically u n a c c e p t a b l e . T h e d r i v i n g f o r c e of the m o v e m e n t was a n d is still p h i l o s o p h i c a l a n d religious. T h e field bioecologists, w h o work in n a t u r e , are o n t h e whole m a n i f e s t i n g a t t i t u d e s of love a n d r e s p e c t that h a v e m a d e a n i m p a c t u p o n m i l l i o n s of p e o p l e . T h e r e is a d e e p c o n v e r g e n c e in m e t a p h y s i c s , ethics a n d life styles a m o n g t h e p e o p l e i n s p i r e d by field ecological t h i n k i n g . T h e issues of p o l l u t i o n , r e s o u r c e d e p l e t i o n a n d o v e r p o p u l a t i o n a r e n o t n e g l e c t e d w i t h i n t h e d e e p ecological m o v e m e n t , b u t they a r e i n t e g r a t e d in a vastly m o r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e f r a m e of r e f e r e n c e . T h i s f r a m e i n c l u d e s the s t u d y of n o n - i n d u s t r i a l c u l t u r e s , s o m e of t h e m s h o w i n g a r e m a r k a b l e ecological e q u i l i b r i u m c o m b i n e d with a f f l u e n c e . ~ H i s t o r y is l i t t e r e d with t h e r e m a i n s of c u l t u r e s that lost the e q u i l i b r i u m . T h e r e is a g r o w i n g u n d e r s t a n d i n g that e v e n if Highly readable: Sahlins, Marshall, Stone Age Economics, London: Tavistock, 1974. 45

ARNE NAESS

w e c a n n o t a n d will n o t i m i t a t e a n y o f t h e o r i g i n a l a f f l u e n t cultures, we shall have to establish post-industrial societies in e q u i l i b r i u m . S p i n o z a m a y t u r n o u t t o b e a n i m p o r t a n t source of inspiration in this quest. In what follows I accordingly invite friends of Spinoza to consider the many aspects of his philosophy that seem to accord with basic strivings within the deep ecological movement. I d o n o t t h i n k it i m p o r t a n t to get to a final conclusion about exactly which concepts or aspects accord best with which concepts or aspects of that movement. There is r o o m f o r d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . I offer only one. The interpretation m a d e u s e o f i n t h i s a r t i c l e is e l a b o r a t e d i n m o r e d e t a i l i n A. N a e s s , Freedom, Emotion and Selfsubsistence ( O s l o : U n i v e r s i t e t s f o r l a g e t 1 9 7 5 ) . F o o t n o t e s will refer mainly to that work. (Abbreviation: FES.) 1. T h e n a t u r e c o n c e i v e d b y f i e l d e c o l o g i s t s is n o t t h e passive, dead, value-neutral nature of mechanistic science, b u t a k i n t o t h e Deus sive N a t u r a o f S p i n o z a . A l l - i n c l u s i v e , c r e a t i v e (as natura naturans), i n f i n i t e l y d i v e r s , a n d a l i v e i n lhe broad sense of panpsychism, hut also manifesting a structure, the so-called laws of nature. There are always causes to be found, bu! extremely complex and difficuh to u n e a r t h . T h e N a t u r e w i t h c a p i t a l N is i n t u i t i v e l y c o n c e i v e d as p e r f e c t in a s e n s e t h a t S p i n o z a a n d o t t l - d o o r e c o l o g i s t s h a v e i n o l ' e ()r l e s s ill c o H H n o n : It is n o t a n a r r o w l y n l o r a l , ulilitarian or aeslhelic perfection. Nalure is p e r f e c t ' i n ilself'. l'er[ection c a n o n l y m e a n completeness o f s o m e s o r t w h e n a p p l i e d i n g e n e r a l , a n d no~ t o s p e c i f i c a l l y h u m a n a c h i e v e n l e n l s . I n t h e l a t t e r c a s e it: n ~ e a n s r e a c h i n g w h a t h a s b e e n consciously intended.'-' '-' 't'erfection' is not a lerm which is introduced in Ihe Ethics by means of separale definition, and il is something adtnining ()f degrees. Joy is an emotion Ihrough which mind is said to become more perfect. (Part 3, Scholium to Proposition 1 1.) Whalever its connolation, 'm()re perfect' catmot be sel)arated in denotation from 'more powerful'. Coral)are Part 4, proof of Proposition 4): "Joy ... is the emotion through which the power of the body [and therefore also ,)f the mind] t() act, increases or is furthered". T h e relation to acdon, and therefore

46

SPINOZA AND ECOI,OGY 2. T h e v a l u e - d u a l i s m s p i r i t / m a t t e r , s o u l / b o d y d o e s n o t h o l d in S p i n o z a n o r is it o f a n y u s e in f i e l d e c o l o g y . T h e two aspects of Nature, those of extension and thought (better: non-extension), are both complete aspects of one s i n g l e r e a l i t y , a n d perfection characterizes both. I n v i e w o f t h e t e n d e n c y to l o o k u p o n t h e b o d y as something more crude than spirit, both field ecologists and Spinoza oppose most forms of idealism and spiritualism -a n d , o f c o u r s e , m o r a l i s m . (I a m n o t s u r e t h e s e " i s m " w o r d s d e s e r v e t o b e u s e d in t h i s c o n n e c t i o n . ) 3. N a t u r e ( w i t h c a p i t a l N) a c c o r d i n g to S p i n o z a , a n d t h e 'universe' of modern p h y s i c s , a r e n o t in t i m e . A s a n absolutely a l l - e m b r a c i n g r e a l i t y , N a t u r e h a s n o p u r p o s e , a i m o r g o a l . I f it h a d a p u r p o s e , it w o u l d h a v e to b e p a r t o f s o m e t h i n g still g r e a t e r , e . g . , a g r a n d d e s i g n . T i m e is o n l y defineable within t h e n e t w o r k o f r e l a t i o n s o f N a t u r e , t h e r e f o r e N a t u r e as a w h o l e c a n n o t h a v e a i m s o r g o a l s w h i c h r e f e r to t i m e . T h e r e is, in e c o l o g i c a l t h o u g h t , a m a r k e d r e a c t i o n a g a i n s t facil f i n a l i s m , e s p e c i a l l y in s o p h i s t i c a t e d r e s e a r c h . T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f ' h i g h e r ' f o r m s o f life d o e s n o t m a k e f i e l d e c o l o g i s t s less i m p r e s s e d w i t h t h e ' l o w e r ' f o r m s , s o m e o f w h i c h h a v e f l o u r i s h e d c o u n t l e s s m i l l i o n s o f y e a r s a n d still ' a r e g o i n g s t r o n g ' . ( T o o s t r o n g , s o m e will say, t h i n k i n g o f r e c e n t e p i d e m i c s o f flu!). T h e r e is n o ' p u r p o s e ' in t i m e such that the bacteria do not have any function or value when 'higher' forms have developed. 4. T h e r e is n o e s t a h l i s h e d m o r a l w o r l d - o r d e r . H u m a n j u s t i c e is n o t a law o f n a t u r e . T h e r e is, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , n o n a t t t r a l laws l i m i t i n g t h e e n d e a w ) u r to e x t e n d t h e r e a l m o f j u s t i c e as c o n c e i v e d in a s o c i e t y o f f r e e h u m a n b e i n g s . These spinozist thoughts are important for striking the to nnderstanding, is intimate. The more perfect, the more active and the less passive, according to Proposition 40, Part 5. In short, "more perfect than' cannol in denotation be separated from a numher of other basic relations. The application of the term to Nature or God clearly is on par with the application of terms like 'love' (amor), 'rationality', 'mind', that is, i! cannot be taken in any precise sense known from phenomena in Nature.

47

ARNE NAESS b a l a n c e b e t w e e n a s u b m i s s i v e , a - m o r a l a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s all k i n d s o f life s t r u g g l e , a n d a s h a l l o w m o r a l i s t i c a n d a n t a g o n i s t i c a t t i t u d e . F u t u r e s o c i e t i e s in e c o l o g i c a l e q u i l i b r i u m presuppose such a 'third way'. 5. G o o d a n d e v i l m u s t b e d e f i n e d in r e l a t i o n to b e i n g s f o r w h i c h s o m e t h i n g is g o o d o r evil, u s e f u l o r d e t r i m e n t a l . T h e terms are meaningless, when not thus related? This accords well with the effort of field ecologists to understand e a c h c u l t u r e ' f r o x n w i t h i n ' . It c o n t r a s t s w i t h e x p l a i n i n g o r m o r a l i z i n g o n t h e basis o f a d e f i n i t e v a l u e code dominant within particular (mostly industrial) societies. 6. E v e r y t h i n g is c o n n e c t e d w i t h e v e r y o t h e r . T h e r e is a network of cause-effect relations connecting everything w i t h e v e r y t h i n g . N o t h i n g is c a u s a l l y i n a c t i v e , n o t h i n g w h o l l y w i t h o u t a n e s s e n c e w h i c h it e x p r e s s e s t h r o u g h being a cause. The ecologist Barry Commoner has called 'All things are c o n n e c t e d ' t h e first p r i n c i p l e o f e c o l o g y . I n t i m a t e i n t e r c o n n e c t e d n e s s in t h e s e n s e o f i n t e r n a l r a t h e r t h a n e x t e r n a l relations characterizes ecological ontology. 7. E v e r y b e i n g s t r i v e s to p r e s e r v e a n d d e v e l o p its s p e c i f i c e s s e n c e o r n a t u r e . E v e r y e s s e n c e is a m a n i f e s t i a t i o n o f G o d ~ r N a t u r e . T h e r e a r c i n f i n i t e w a y s in w h i c h N a t u r e t h u s e x p r e s s e s itself. A n d t h e r e a r e i n f i n i t e k i n d s o f b e i n g s expressing God or Nature. T h e p e r w ~ s i v e b a s i c s t r i v i n g is n o m e r e e f f o r t to a d a p t to s t i n m l i f r o m t h e o u t s i d e . It is a n a c t i v e s h a p i n g o f t h e environment. Successful acts create new wider units of organism/environment. T h e b a s i c u r g e is to g a i n in e x t e n t and intensiveness of self-causing. The term 'self-realizati<m' is t h e r e f o r e b e t t e r t h a n ' s e l f - p r e s e r v a t i o n ' , t h e first s u g g e s t :' The occurrences of the words bonus and malus in the Ethics admit of various conceptualizations. According to Definition 1, Part 4, in the Ethics, 'x is good for y' d(>es no! mean more than 'x is useful for y' or 'x is known by y to he useful for y'. "['he expression 'x is useful for y' is equiwdent to x causes an increase in y's power', 'x causes an increase of y's freedom' and 'x causes an increase of y's perfection.' More about these equivalences in FES, p. 107-109.

48

SPINOZA AND ECOLOGY

ing activeness and creativity, the latter a passive conservative o r d e f e n s i v e a t t i t u d e ? 8. A n o t h e r n a m e f o r t h e a b i l i t y t o a c t o u t o n e ' s n a t u r e o r e s s e n c e is ' p o w e r ' , potentia, t h e s u b s t a n t i v a t i o n o f t h e v e r b ' t o b e a b l e ' , posse. I t is n o t t h e s a m e as t o c o e r c e o t h e r s . T h e p o w e r o f e a c h t h i n g is p a r t o f G o d ' s p o w e r . G o d o r Nature has no other power than ours. "Each and every e x i s t i n g t h i n g e x p r e s s e s G o d ' s n a t u r e o r e s s e n c e in a c e r t a i n determinate w a y ... t h a t is, ... e a c h a n d e v e r y t h i n g e x p r e s s e s G o d ' s p o w e r . . . " ( P a r t I, P r o o f o f P r o p o s i t i o n 36.) All b e i n g s s t r i v e t o m a i n t a i n and gain p o w e r . T h i s n e e d not be a striving to dominate, subdue or terrorize. The establishment of symbiosis, 'living together', rather than c u t - t h r o a t c o m p e t i t i o n m a r k s a g a i n in p o w e r . A t h i g h e r l e v e l s o f s e l f - r e a l i z a t i o n , t h e s e l f e n c o m p a s s e s o t h e r s in a state of increasing intensity and extension of 'symbiosis'.5 The freedom of the individual ultimately requires that of the collectivity. 9. I f o n e i n s i s t s u p o n u s i n g t h e t e r m " r i g h t s " , e v e r y b e i n g n t a y b e s a i d t o h a v e t h e r i g h t t o d o w h a t is in its p o w e r . It is a " r i g h t " t o e x p r e s s its o w n n a t u r e as c l e a r l y a t t d e x t e n s i v e l y as n a t u r a l c o n d i t i o n s p e r m i t . " T h a t r i g h t w h i c h t h e y ( t h e a n i m a l s ) h a v e in r e l a t i o n t o us, w e h a v e in r e l a t i o n t o t h e m . " ( P a r t 4, F i r s t S c h o l i u m t o P r o p o s i t i o n 37). R i g h t s as p a r t o f a s e p a r a t e m o r a l w o r l d o r d e r is a f i c t i o n . '~ ' According to Part 3, l'mposition 6, every thing, as far as it is ill itself, strives to preserve in its being. The term perseverare I take to mean sotnethiiag much more active than just to survive. Therefore I accept as equivalent "x increases in power' and 'x increases in level of selfpreservation'. (FES, p. c.17). Good relations to others a r e o b t a i n e d , according to Part 4, Propositions 46, 50 (Scholium), 72, a+o., through generosity and other forms of non-injury (ohirnsa). According to Part 4, Proposition 4.5, "Hatred can never be good", that is, according to Part 4, Definition 1, it can never he useful to us. Therefore it cannot cause increase in power or understanding. '; It nlnst be cnnceded that Spinoza holds that we cannot he friends of animals or include them in our society. Only humans can be friends of humans and be members of our societies. (See Part 4, Appendix, Chapter 26). And because we are more powerful than animals, we have

49

ARNE NAESS Field ecologists t e n d to a c c e p t a g e n e r a l ' r i g h t to live a n d b l o s s o m ' . H u m a n s h a v e n o special r i g h t to kill a n d i n j u r e , N a t u r e d o e s n o t b e l o n g to t h e m . 10. T h e r e is n o t h i n g in h u m a n n a t u r e o r e s s e n c e , a c c o r d i n g to S p i n o z a , w h i c h c a n only m a n i f e s t o r e x p r e s s itself t h r o u g h i n j u r y of o t h e r s . T h a t is, t h e s t r i v i n g f o r e x p r e s s i o n of o w n n a t u r e does n o t i n e v i t a b l y i m p l y a n a t t i t u d e of hostile d o m i n a t i o n o v e r o t h e r b e i n g s , h u m a n o r n o n - h u m a n . V i o l e n c e in t h e s e n s e of v i o l e n t activity is n o t t h e s a m e as v i o l e n c e as i n j u r y to o t h e r s . T h e h u m a n a t t i t u d e of v i o l e n c e a n d hostility t o w a r d s s o m e species of a n i m a l s h a v e m a d e it i m p o s s i b l e to s t u d y realistically t h e i r life a n d f u n c t i o n w i t h i n t h e whole. T h e field ecologist w h o d e e p l y i d e n t i f y with t h e species s t u d i e d is able to live p e a c e f u l l y with a n y k i n d of "wild" a n i m a l . T h i s a t t i t u d e h a r m o n i z e s with t h e view of S p i n o z a c o n c e r n i n g free m a n (homo liber). S p i n o z a ' s d o c t r i n e a b o u t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of affects (Part 3 a n d 4 of t h e Ethics) m a k e s the field ecologists s y m b i o t i c a t t i t u d e i n e v i t a b l e if t h e d e v e l o p m e n t p r o c e e d s far e n o u g h . I n what follows o t h e r spinozist t h o u g h t s are m e n t i o n e d which h a r m o n i z e with those of field ecologists e v e n if t h e latter d o n o t o f t e n d e v e l o p t h e m c o n s c i o u s l y . 1 1. E v e r y b e i n g has ils u n i q u e d i r e c l i o n of selfr e a l i z a t i o n , ils p a r l i c u l a r essence, 1)u/ " l h e greates! g o o d " is t h e " u n d e r s t a n d i n g r e a l i z m i o n of t h e u n i o n (cognitio unionis) of o u r m i n d wilh w h o l e N a l u r e " . ( O n the improvement

of the understanding, w t 3- 14.)

12. T h e r e a l i z a t i o n of u n i o n with l h e w h o l e N a l n r e is m a d e t h r o u g h the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e p a r t i c u l a r t h i n g s as a m a n i f o l d of e x p r e s s i o n s o r m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of N a t u r e (God). But N a t u r e o r ( ; o d is n o t h i n g a p a r t f r o m t h e manifestations. S p i n o z a rejects the k i n d of unio mystica which r e s u l t s in a t u r n i n g away f r o m p a r t i c u l a r s a n d f r o m n a t u r e . " T h e m o r e more rights. We may use animals as we see fit, and one cannot issue laws against molesting them. (Cp. Part 4, Scholium 1 to Proposition 37, and Appendix, Chapter 26)+

50

SPINOZA AND ECoLoGY

we u n d e r s t a n d t h e p a r t i c u l a r t h i n g s , res singulares, t h e m o r e we u n d e r s t a n d G o d " . (Part 5, P r o p o s i t i o n 24). S p i n o z a ' s c o n c e p t o f N a t u r e a n d its m a n i f e s t a t i o n s lack t h e f e a t u r e s w h i c h m a k e s n a t u r e (in t h e m o r e c o m m o n c o n n o t a t i o n s ) s o m e t h i n g i n f e r i o r to spirit, o r to G o d . E c o l o g i c a l t h i n k i n g p r e s u m e s an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with p a r ticulars in t h e i r i n t e r n a l r e l a t i o n s to o t h e r s . T h e i d e n t i f i c a tion p r o c e s s l ea d s d e e p e r i n t o N a t u r e as a w h o l e , b u t also d e e p e r i n t o u n i q u e f e a t u r e s of p a r t i c u l a r b e i n g s . It d o e s n o t l e a d away f r o m t h e s i n g u l a r a n d finite. It d o e s n o t l e n d itself to a b s t r a c t t h i n k i n g o r conten'~plation, b u t to conscious, intuitive, i n t i m a t e interaction. 13. ' R a t i o n a l i t y ' is w i s e c o n d u c t maximizing selfr e a l i z a t i o n . It c a n n o t he s e p a r a t e d f r o m p e r f e c t i o n , v i r t u e and f r e e d o m . "Since reason does not d e m a n d anything c o n t r a r y to N a t u r e , it d e m a n d s that e v e r y o n e loves h i m s e l f , loc, k f o r w h a t is u s e f u l , ..., a n d t h a i h e strives to o b t a i n all w h i c h really leads m a n to g r e a t e r p e r f e c t i o n ..." (Part 4, P r o p o s i t i o n 18, S c h o l i u m ) . S i n c e s e l f - r e a l i z a t i o n i m p l i e s acts o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g with i n c r e a s i n g p e r s p e c t i v e , r a t i o n a l i t y a n d v i r t u e i n c r e a s e s with t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f u n d e r s t a n d ing. T h e m a x i m u n t is 'an u n d e r s t a n d i n g love o f N a t u r e ' , a m o r intellectualis Dei. T h i s i m p l i e s acts o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g l ) e r f o r m e d with t h e m a x i m u m p e r s p e c t i v e possible, o r l o v i n g i m m e r s i o n a n d i n t e r a c t i o n in N a t u r e 5 14, I n t e r a c t i n g with t h i n g s a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h i n g s c a n n o t b e s e p a r a t e d . T h e uttits o f t t n d e r s t a n d i u g a r e n o t p r o p o s i t i o n s , h i l t ~ICtS. T o t h e c o n t e n t o f i d eas in t h e

The basic posilion of "understanding', intelligere, in Spinoza's system is seen from its intimate relation to 'causing'. If something is caused adequately thnontgh sotrtething else, it ~s adequately understood through this something, and vice versa. (FES. p. 40, r Part 3, first part of first definition). Activeness is internally related to understanding bec:ause the specific activity of the mind is understanding. It is also related to power and freedom in so I[al" as increased activetness is internally related to increase in power and freedom. In this way not only intuitive understanding of highest (third) kind but also the understanding of laws of nature is promoting power, freedom, joy and perfection.

51

ARNE NAESS "'attribute of n o n - e x t e n s i o n " t h e r e c o r r e s p o n d s a n act i n t h e " a t t r i b u t e of e x t e n s i o n " . U l t i m a t e l y these a t t r i b u t e s a r e a t t r i b u t e s of t h e same, b u t t h e h u m a n way of u n d e r s t a n d i n g is s u c h t h a t we h a v e to t r e a t t h e m s e p a r a t e l y . I n c r e a s e of r a t i o n a l i t y a n d f r e e d o m is p r o p o r t i o n a l to i n c r e a s e of activeness, each a c t i o n h a v i n g t h e aspects of u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d of a b e h a v i o u r o r i n t e r - a c t i o n . N o t all acts n e e d b e overt. 15. Since a g a i n in u n d e r s t a n d i n g e x p r e s s e s itself as a n act, it is in its totality a p r o c e s s w i t h i n t h e e x t e n d e d a s p e c t "of N a t u r e a n d c a n b e s t u d i e d as such. T h i s p o i n t is of p r i m e i m p o r t a n c e to t h e m e t h o d o l o g y of ecology: T h e ' w o r l d ' of a living b e i n g is i n v e s t i g a t e d t h r o u g h s t u d y of its m a n i f e s t ( " m o l a r " n o t " m o l e c u l a r " ) b e h a v i o u r . S p i n o z a f u r n i s h e s ecology a f r a m e of r e f e r e n c e c o m p l e t e l y d e v o i d of t h e k i n d of " m e n t a l i s m " a n d " i n t r o s p e c t i o n i s m " that o f t e n has o b s t r u c t e d the s t u d y of c o g n i tior~ in a n i m a l s a n d m e n . T h e f r a m e w o r k of S p i n o z a a n d g e n e r a l e t o l o g y is also well s u i t e d to c o u n t e r a c t t h e t e n d e n c y to c o n c e i v e h u m a n k n o w l e d g e as s o m e t h i n g e x i s t i n g i n d e p e n d e n t of acts of p a r t i c u l a r h u m a n b e i n g s in p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s - - a n d s t o r e d w h o l e s a l e in libraries. T h e f o r m u l a t i o n of S p i n o z a d o e s n o t p o i n t to a n y d e f i n i t e f o r m of " b e h a v i o u r i s m " . W e are f r e e to i n s p e c t critically a n y c o n t e m p o r a r y v e r s i o n . T h e r e is n o r e a s o n to i d e n t i f y t h e c o n c e p t s of ' b e b a v i o u r ' with that of W a t s o n o r Skinner. 16. Most of t h e basic c o n c e p t s u s e d in t h e Ethics w h e n c h a r a c t e r i z i n g t h e h u m a n p r e d i c a m e n t a r e s u c h as c a n b e used whatever the cultural context. T h e y are f u r t h e r m o r e a d a p t e d to g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s c o v e r i n g s m a l l e r o r g r e a t e r p a r t s of t h e a n i m a l , p l a n t a n d m i n e r a l k i n g d o m s . S o m e of these c o n c e p t s h a v e a l r e a d y b e e n m e n t i o n e d . Spinoza rarely touches u p o n questions c o n c e r n i n g animals, b u t w h e r e h e does, h e shows that his m a i n c o n c e p t s a r e n o t o n l y i n t e n d e c l to a p p l y to h u m a n s , s H e w a r n s , " The panpsychism of Spinoza is expressed in the Scholium to Proposition 13 in Part 2 (of the Ethics). Other individuals than humans are 52

SPINOZA AND ECOLOGY however, against thinking that the joys of insects are the s a m e as t h o s e o f h u m a n s . E a c h k i n d o f l i v i n g b e i n g is c o n t e n t w i t h a n d d e l i g h t s in w h a t c o r r e s p o n d s to its n a t u r e or essence. Among the important concepts which have a wider a p p l i c a t i o n t h a n to t h e h u m a n s p e c i e s o n e m a y n o t e t h e following: p e r f e c t i o n (cf. p o i n t 2) g o o d a n d e v i l (cf. p o i n t 4 a n d 5) s t r i v i n g to e x p r e s s o n e ' s n a t u r e o r e s s e n c e (cf. p o i n t 7 a n d 8) s e l f - p r e s e r v a t i o n , s e l f - r e a l i z a t i o n (cf. p o i n t s 7, 1 1 a n d 13) p o w e r (cf. p o i n t s 8,9 a n d 10) r a t i o n a l i t y (cf. p o i n t s 13 a n d 14) v i r t u e (of. p o i n t s 13, cp. t h e e x p r e s s i o n 'potentia seu virtus') f r e e d o m (cf. p o i n t s 13 a n d 14) understanding (cf. p o i n t s 14 a n d 15) feeling e m o t i o n ( T h e p a s s i v e o n e s a r e c o n f u s e d ideas.) confused idea F o r all t h e s e t e r m s it h o l d s t h a t S p i n o z a ' s d e f i n i t i o n s a r e open as regards their exact range?' S o m e a r e c l e a r l y i n t e n d e d to b e a p p l i c a b l e at least to a m a j o r p a r t o f t h e k i n g d o m o f animals. Because of equivalences holding between many of t h e m t h e r a n g e o f all o f t h e m c a n w i t h o u t d o i n g v i o l e n c e to

animated, animata, but in different degrees, diversis gradibus. He even (in the proof of Proposition I, Part 3) uses the expression "'the minds of other things," (aliarum return mentes). About the difference in appetities and joys between various kinds of animals, see Scholium to Proposition 57, Part 3. ~' Spinoza does not directly say so, but I think he would deny rationality of any kind to other beings than humans. He speaks, however, about "virtue or power" of animals, and he more or less identifies virtue and rationality. '... to act vi]'tuously is nothing else than to act according to reason;...' (Part 4, Proof of Proposition 56). Spinoza may evidently be interpreted in various ways as regards the relation of animals to man. We have been interested in the main trend of his reasoning and the main features of his terminology.

53

ARNE NAESS

S p i n o z a ' s texts b e m a d e as l a r g e as s u i t a b l e w i t h i n e c o l o g y and theory of evolution. T h e w i d e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f S p i n o z a ' s concepts d o e s n o t i m p l y u n c r i t i c a l statements a b o u t s i m i l a r i t i e s b e t w e e n h u m a n s a n d o t h e r living b e i n g s . It e n s u r e s a b r o a d continuity o f o u t l o o k , a n d t h e possibility o f f i g h t i n g h u m a n h a u g h t i ness a n d c r u e l t y . E c o l o g i c a l t h o u g h t t y p i c a l o f active field e c o l o g i s t s is n o t e n t i r e l y h o m o g e n e o u s . A n d S p i n o z a ' s texts a r e o f c o u r s e o p e n to v a r i o u s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . I n s p i t e o f this m y c o n c l u s i o n is p o s i t i v e : N o g r e a t p h i l o s o p h e r h a s so m u c h to o f f e r in t h e way o f c l a r i f i c a t i o n a n d a r t i c u l a t i o n o f basic e c o l o g i c a l a t t i t u d e s as B a r u c h S p i n o z a . University of Oslo O s l o 3, N o r w a y

54