The Un-Stoic Spinoza: An Analysis of Spinoza, Aristotle, and Epicurus's Accounts of Pleasure

191 Pages·2017·1.15 MB·English

by  Brandon Smith

The Un-Stoic Spinoza: An Analysis of Spinoza, Aristotle, and
Epicurus’s Accounts of Pleasure

by

Brandon Smith

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

in

Philosophy

Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario

© 2018, Brandon Smith
ii

Abstract:
The purpose of this thesis is to provide a contrast to the literature on early modern Dutch
philosopher Benedictus de Spinoza’s notable agreements with Stoic eudaimonism in his ethical
framework. I intend to emphasize what is meaningfully non-Stoic in Spinoza’s own
eudaimonism, while nevertheless granting that there is undeniable conceptual common-ground
between them. I seek to illustrate where Spinoza departs from Stoic eudaimonism by outlining
his agreements with two philosophers who function as a conceptual contrast to the Stoics:
Aristotle and Epicurus. This thesis, in turn, lays out Aristotle, Epicurus, and Spinoza’s respective
views on the ontological and ethical (that is eudaimonistic) nature of pleasure. All three
philosophers are committed to two fundamental claims that are strongly antithetical to the Stoic
view of pleasure: (a) pleasure holds a necessary connection to the health of one’s state of being
and (b) pleasure is by nature good.
iii

Acknowledgements
A project such as this is in no way a solitary endeavour. It involves support from a wide
range of people. Firstly, I must thank Prof. Annie Larivée and Prof. Melissa Frankel for their
enthusiasm, commitment, patience, and endless encouragement in helping me conceptualize and
produce an undeniably ambitious work. Your guidance has not only bettered this thesis, but also
me as a scholar.
Secondly, I must thank my various companions. Nyx Halford, Rebecca Robb, and
Courteney Crump, thank you for being the best friends an Aristotelian, Epicurean, or Spinozist
could ask for. To Jennifer Shields, my first true Stoic friend, I express my gratitude to you for
your welcoming nature, kind encouragement, and intellectual delight. To Emilie Duschesne, I
give my utmost love and gratitude to you for your love of learning, thoughtfulness, loyalty, and
profound compassion. It is an unquestionable fact that this project would never have been
completed without you, and may it be a testament to the virtue of our friendship and
perseverance. To my MS family, Patty, Rae, Orion, Tif, Katterina, Raya, Anna, Bex, Mica,
Racheal, and Adri, thank you deeply for making me wealthy in love.
Finally, I very humbly thank my parents, James and Janet Smith. I am where I am and I
have done what I have done here, precisely because of your profound and endless love, support,
patience, and encouragement.
Thank you all for your causal role in my self-contentment, katastematic enjoyment, and
true pleasure.
iv

Table of Contents
Abstract: ………………………………………………………………………………………... ii
Acknowledgements: …………………………………………………………………………… iii
Table of Contents: ……………………………………………………………………………... iv
List of Abbreviations: ………………………………………………………………………..... vi
Preface: ……………………………………………………………………………………….... ix
Chapter 1: Stoicism and Spinoza’s Eudaimonism………………………………………….... 1
1.1 Eudaimonism………………………………………………………………………... 1
1.2 A Dual-Aspect Conception of Emotion……………………………………………. 10
1.3 Stoic Pleasure………………………………………………………………………. 24
Chapter 2: Spinoza’s Account of Pleasure…………………………………………………... 30
2.1 Spinoza’s Ontology of Pleasure……………………………………………………. 30
2.2 Spinoza’s Ethics of Pleasure……………………………………………………….. 52
Chapter 3: Aristotle’s Account of Pleasure…………………………………………………. 69
3.1 Aristotle’s Ontology of Pleasure…………………………………………………… 69
3.2 Aristotle’s Ethics of Pleasure………………………………………………………. 79
Chapter 4: Epicurus’s Account of Pleasure…….………………………………………….. 104
4.1 Epicurus’s Ontology of Pleasure………………………………………………….. 104
4.2 Epicurus’s Ethics of Pleasure……………………………………………………... 121
Chapter 5: Spinoza’s Non-Stoic Eudaimonism……………………………………………. 136
v

5.1 Spinoza’s Relation to Aristotle and Epicurus…………………………………….. 136
5.2 Spinoza’s Relation to the Stoics………………………………………………….. 155
5.3 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………... 168
Bibliography: ……………………………………………………………………………….. 171
vi

List of Abbreviations
Aristotle:
NE: Nicomachean Ethics
OS: On the Soul
PoA: Posterior Analytics
PrA: Prior Analytics
All references in the Nicomachean Ethics are translated by Christopher Rowe, Oxford UP, 2002.
All other primary sources are taken from The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford
Translation, edited by Jonathan Barnes, vols, 1 and 2, Princeton UP, 1984.
Descartes:
PP: Principles of Philosophy
All references are taken from The Continental Rationalists, vol. 1, Cambridge UP, 1985. Past
Masters.
Epicurus:
M: Letter to Menoceus
PD: Principal Doctrines
H: Letter to Herodotus
I: Letter to Idomeneus
vii

All primary sources are taken from the The Epicurus Reader: Selected Writings and Testimonia,
edited and translated by Brad Inwood and L.P. Gerson, Hackett, 1994.
Spinoza:
E: Ethics
App. = Appendix
Ax. = Axiom
C = Corollary
Def. = Definition
Def. Aff. = Definitions of the Affects
L = Lemma
P = Proposition
Post. = Postulate
Pref. = Preface
S = Scholium
Ep: The Letters
TIE: Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect
All primary sources are taken from Spinoza: Complete Works, edited by Michael L. Morgan,
translated by Samuel Shirley, Hackett, 2002.
viii

Epicurean/Stoic Sources:
HB: Epictetus, Handbook
LP: Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers
OM: Cicero, On Moral Ends
TD: Cicero, Tusculan Disputations
A: Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
ix

Preface:
The aim of this thesis is to examine, and subsequently to emphasize, the non-Stoic
aspects of early modern Dutch philosopher Benedictus de Spinoza’s philosophy. For the
purposes of this analysis, I will focus specifically on the literature concerning Spinoza’s relation
to the ethical philosophy of the ancients, namely his eudaimonism. A eudaimonistic ethic
understands the end of morality, i.e. the highest good, to be happiness. In English Spinoza
scholarship, it is often shown that Spinoza’s eudaimonism shares a strong resemblance to the
ancient Graeco-Roman eudaimonism of Stoicism.
Scholars such as A.A. Long, Susan James, Jon Miller, Steven Nadler, and Derk
Pereboom describe significant agreements between these two philosophies. Spinoza and the
Stoics are argued to share a deterministic metaphysics, a critique of passions as involving
erroneous judgments, a conception of living happily as synonymous with virtue and living
according to Nature, a distinction between irrational (passions) and rational emotions, and finally
the view that pleasure, suffering, striving, and avoidance are all (in some sense) primary
emotions. Such literature, in turn, makes it persuasive to view Spinoza as a Neo-Stoic in many
ways.1
Other literature, however, seeks to problematize this Neo-Stoic perspective on Spinoza’s
ethical philosophy. Matthew Kisner argues that for Spinoza, contra Stoicism, passions are not
absolutely opposed to virtue, and in fact serve as useful and necessary tools in gauging good/bad

1 James (“Spinoza the Stoic” 292, 310-16) and Pereboom (1) are explicit in supporting this claim, as both argue that
Spinoza is reconceptualizing Stoicism in some sense.
x

and making oneself more virtuous (“Spinoza’s Virtuous Passions” 761-2, 777-81). Aurelia
Armstrong too argues that Spinoza values passions in living happily, by emphasizing the
“dynamic power” of individuals through the conatus, which involves a necessary relation
between acting and being acted on in perseverance (14-8). Edwin Curley and Genevieve Lloyd
take a different approach, claiming there are Epicurean elements to be found in Spinoza’s ethics
(Epicureanism being a major Hellenistic opponent to Stoicism). Curley asserts that Spinoza’s
Conatus Principle (E IIIP6) “neatly reconciles Stoic and Epicurean” conceptions of human nature
“insofar as it incorporates into the conatus a striving not only for self-preservation [the primary
desire for the Stoics],” but also pleasure as increased “power of action,” pleasure being the
primary object of desire for the Epicureans (Behind the Geometrical Method 114-5). Lloyd also
positions Spinoza between the Stoics and Epicureans, arguing that “Spinoza’s treatment of the
emotions can be seen as ingeniously bringing together ancient Stoic repudiation of the passions
as involving erroneous beliefs, and the apparently opposed Epicurean treatment of pleasure as
the highest good . . .” (80). Through these scholars we consequently can see an illustration of the
non-Stoic aspects of Spinoza’s eudaimonism in terms of the ethical value of passions, and more
specifically pleasure.
This thesis focuses on the subject of pleasure as the strongest point of ethical dissension
between the Stoics and Spinoza. My approach, however, differs somewhat from the above
scholars. While I too seek to emphasize Spinoza’s separation from Stoic ethical doctrine, I intend
to accomplish this task by inverting the Stoic literature on Spinoza through a comparison of his
eudaimonism with ancient eudaimonistic ethics that serve as a significant conceptual contrast to
Stoicism, namely those of Aristotle and Epicurus. I favour this approach because it is possible to