Chapter 2

Prop.XI. In proportion as a mental image is referred to more objects, so is it more frequent, or more often vivid, and occupies the mind more.

Proof.- In proportion as a mental image or an emotion is referred to more objects, so are there more causes whereby it can be aroused and fostered, all of which (by hypothesis) the mind contemplates simultaneously in association with the given emotion; therefore the emotion is more frequent, or is more often in full vigour, and (V:viii.) occupies the mind more. Q.E.D.

Prop.XII. The mental images of things are more easily associated with the images referred to things which we clearly and distinctly understand, than with others.

Proof.- Things, which we clearly and distinctly understand, are either the common properties of things or deductions therefrom (see definition of Reason, II:.xl.Note ii.), and are consequently (by the last Prop.) more often aroused in us. Wherefore it may more readily happen, that we should contemplate other things in conjunction with these than in conjunction with something else, and consequently (II:xviii.) that the images of the said things should be more often associated with the images of these than with the images of something else. Q.E.D.

Prop. XIII. A mental image is more often vivid, in proportion as it is associated with a greater number of other images.

Proof.- In proportion as an image is associated with a greater number of other images, so (II:xviii.) are there more causes whereby it can be aroused. Q.E.D.

Prop. XIV. The mind can bring it about, that all bodily modifications or images of things may be referred to the idea of God.

Proof.- There is no modification of the body, whereof the mind may not form some clear and distinct conception (V:iv.); wherefore it can bring it about, that they should all be referred to the idea of God (I:xv.). Q.E.D.

Prop. XV. He who clearly and distinctly understands himself and his emotions loves God, and so much the more in proportion as he more understands himself and his emotions.

Proof.- He who clearly and distinctly understands himself and his emotions feels pleasure (III:liii.), and this pleasure is (by the last Prop.) accompanied by the idea of God; therefore (Def. of the Emotions:vi.) such an one loves God, and (for the same reason) so much the more in proportion as he more understands himself and his emotions. Q.E.D.

Prop. XVI. This love towards God must hold the chief place in the mind.

Proof.- For this love is associated with all the modifications of the body (V:xiv.) and is fostered by them all (V:v.); therefore (V:xi.), it must hold the chief place in the mind. Q.E.D.

Prop. XVII. God is without passions, neither is he affected by any emotion of pleasure or pain.

Proof.- All ideas, in so far as they are referred to God, are true (II:xxxii.), that is (II:Def.iv.) adequate; and therefore (by the general Def. of the Emotions) God is without passions. Again, God cannot pass either to a greater or to a lesser perfection (I:xx.Coroll.ii.); therefore (by Def. of the Emotions:ii., &iii.) he is not affected by any emotion of pleasure or pain.

Corollary. Strictly speaking, God does not love or hate anyone. For God (by the foregoing Prop.) is not affected by any emotion of pleasure or pain, consequently (Def. of the Emotions:vi., &vii.) he does not love or hate anyone.

Prop.XVIII. No one can hate God.

Proof.- The idea of God which is in us is adequate and perfect (II:xlvi., II:xlvii.); wherefore, in so far as we contemplate God, we are active (III:iii.) ; consequently (III:lix.) there can be no pain accompanied by the idea of God, in other words (Def. of the Emotions:vii.), no one can hate God. Q.E.D.

Corollary.- Love towards God cannot be turned into hate.

Note.- It may be objected that, as we understand God as the cause of all things, we by that very fact regard God as the cause of pain. But I make answer, that, in so far as we understand the causes of pain, it to that extent (V:iii.) ceases to be a passion, that is, it ceases to be pain (III:lix.); therefore, in so far as we understand God to be the cause of pain, we to that extent feel pleasure.

Prop. XIX. He, who loves God, cannot endeavour that God should love him in return.

Proof.- For, if a man should so endeavour, he would desire (V:xvii.Coroll.) that God, whom he loves, should not be God, and consequently he would desire to feel pain (III:xix.); which is absurd (III:xxviii.). Therefore, he who loves God, &c. Q.E.D.

Prop. XX. This love towards God cannot be stained by the emotion of envy or jealousy: contrariwise, it is the more fostered, in proportion as we conceive a greater number of men to be joined to God by the same bond of love.

Proof.- This love towards God is the highest good which we can seek for under the guidance of reason (IV:xxviii.), it is common to all men (IV:xxxvi),and we desire that all should rejoice therein (IV:xxxvii.); therefore (Def. of the Emotions:xxiii), it cannot be stained by the emotion envy nor by, the emotion of jealousy, (V:xviii. see definition of Jealousy, (III:xxxv. Note); but, contrariwise, it must needs be the more fostered, in proportion as we conceive a greater number of men to rejoice therein. Q.E.D.

Note.- We can in the same way, show, that there is no emotion directly contrary to this love, whereby this love can be destroyed; therefore we may conclude, that this love towards God is the most constant of all the emotions, and that, in so far as it is referred to the body, it cannot be destroyed, unless the body be destroyed also. As to its nature, in so far as it is referred to the mind only, we shall presently inquire. I have now gone through all the remedies against the emotions, or all that the mind, considered in itself alone, can do against them. Whence it appears that the mind's power over the emotions consists:-

I. In the actual knowledge of the emotions (V:iv.Note).

II. In the fact that it separates the emotions from the thought of an external cause, which we conceive confusedly (V:ii. and V:iv.Note).

III. In the fact, that, in respect to time, the emotions referred to things, which we distinctly understand, surpass those referred to what we conceive in a confused and fragmentary manner (V:vii.).

IV. In the number of causes whereby those modifications (Affectiones. Camerer reads affectus - emotions), are fostered, which have regard to the common properties of things or to God (V:ix., V:xi.).

V. Lastly, in the order wherein the mind can arrange and associate, one with another, its own emotions (V:x.Note and V:xii., V:xiii., V:xiv.).

But, in order that this power of the mind over the emotions may be better understood, it should be specially observed that the emotions are called by us strong, when we compare the emotion of one man with the emotion of another, and see that one man is more troubled than another by the same emotion; or when we are comparing the various emotions of the same man one with another, and find that he is more affected or stirred by one emotion than by another. For the strength of every emotion is defined by a comparison of our own power with the power of an external cause. Now the power of the mind is defined by knowledge only, and its infirmity or passion is defined by the privation of knowledge only: it therefore follows, that that mind is most passive, whose greatest part is made up of inadequate ideas, so that it may be characterized more readily by its passive states than by its activities: on the other hand, that mind is most active, whose greatest part is made up of adequate ideas, so that, although it may contain as many inadequate ideas as the former mind, it may yet be more easily characterized by ideas attributable to human virtue, than by ideas which tell of human infirmity. Again, it must be observed, that spiritual unhealthiness; and misfortunes can generally be traced to excessive love for something which is subject to many variations, and which we can never become masters of. For no one is solicitous or anxious about anything, unless he loves it; neither do wrongs, suspicions, enmities, &c. arise, except in regard to things whereof no one can be really master.

We may thus readily conceive the power which clear and distinct knowledge, and especially that third kind of knowledge (II:xlvii.Note), founded on the actual knowledge of God, possesses over the emotions: if it does not absolutely destroy them, in so far as they are passions (V:iii. and V:iv.Note); at any rate, it causes them to occupy a very small part of the mind (V:xiv.). Further, it begets a love towards a thing immutable and eternal (V:xv.), whereof we may really enter into possession (II:xlv.); neither can it be defiled with those faults which are inherent in ordinary love; but it may grow from strength to strength, and may engross the greater part of the mind, and deeply penetrate it. And now I have finished with all that concerns this present life: for, as I said in the beginning of this note, I have briefly described all the remedies against the emotions. And this everyone may readily have seen for himself, if he has attended to what is advanced in the present note, and also to the definitions of the mind and its emotions, and, lastly, to Propositions III:i. and III:iii. It is now, therefore, time to pass on to those matters, which appertain to the duration of the mind, without relation to the body.

Prop. XXI. The mind can only imagine anything, or remember what is past, while the body endures.

Proof.- The mind does not express the actual existence of its body, nor does it imagine the modifications of the body as actual, except while the body endures (II:viii.Coroll.); and, consequently (II:xxvi.), it does not imagine any body as actually existing, except while its own body endures. Thus it cannot imagine anything (for definition of Imagination, see II:xvii.Note), or remember things past, except while the body endures (see definition of Memory, II:xviii.Note). Q.E.D.

Prop. XXII. Nevertheless in God there is necessarily an idea, which expresses the essence of this or that human body under the form of eternity.

Proof.- God is the cause, not only of the existence of this or that human body, but also of its essence (I:xxv.). This essence, therefore, must necessarily be conceived through the very essence of God (I:Ax.iv.), and be thus conceived by a certain eternal necessity (I:xvi.); and this conception. must necessarily exist in God (II:iii.). Q.E.D.

Prop. XXIII. The human mind cannot be absolutely destroyed with the body, but there remains of it something which is eternal.

Proof.- There is necessarily in God a concept or idea, which expresses the essence of the human body (last Prop.), which, therefore, is necessarily something appertaining to the essence of the human mind (II:xiii.). But we have not assigned to the human mind any, duration, definable by time, except in so far as it expresses the actual existence of the body, which is explained through duration, and may be defined by time - that is (II:viii.Coroll.), we do not assign to it duration, except while the body endures. Yet, as there is something, notwithstanding, which is conceived by a certain eternal necessity through the very essence of God (last Prop.); this something, which appertains to the essence of the mind, will necessarily be eternal. Q.E.D.

Note.- This idea, which expresses the essence of the body under the form of eternity, is, as we have said, a certain mode of thinking, which belongs to the essence of the mind, and is necessarily eternal. Yet it is not possible that we should remember that we existed before our body, for our body can bear no trace of such existence, neither can eternity be defined in terms of time, or have any relation to time. But, notwithstanding, we feel and know that we are eternal. For the mind feels those things that it conceives by understanding, no less than those things that it remembers. For the eyes of the mind, whereby it sees and observes things, are none other than proofs. Thus, although we do not remember that we existed before the body, yet we feel that our mind, in so far as it involves the essence of the body, under the form of eternity, is eternal, and that thus its existence cannot be defined in terms of time, or explained through duration. Thus our mind can only be said to endure, and its existence can only be defined by a fixed time, in so far as it involves the actual existence of the body. Thus far only has it the power of determining the existence of things by time, and conceiving them under the category of duration.

Prop. XXIV. The more we understand particular things, the more do we understand God.

Proof.- This is evident from I:xxv.Coroll.

Prop. XXV. The highest endeavour of the mind, and the highest virtue is to understand things by the third kind of knowledge.

Proof.- The third kind of knowledge proceeds from an adequate idea of certain attributes of God to an adequate knowledge of the essence of things (see its definition III:xl.Note.ii.); and, in proportion as we understand things more in this way, we better understand God (by the last Prop.); therefore (IV:xxviii.) the highest virtue of the mind, that is IV:Def.viii.) the power, or nature, or (III:vii.) highest endeavour of the mind, is to understand things by the third kind of knowledge. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXVI. In proportion as the mind is more capable of understanding things by the third kind of knowledge, it desires more to understand things by that kind.

Proof.- This is evident. For, in so far as we conceive the mind to be capable of conceiving things by this kind of knowledge, we, to that extent, conceive it as determined thus to conceive things; and consequently (Def. of the Emotions:i.), the mind desires so to do, in proportion as it is more capable thereof. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXVII. From this third kind of knowledge arises the highest possible mental acquiescence.

Proof.- The highest virtue of the mind is to know God (IV:xxviii.), or to understand things by the third kind of knowledge (V:xxv.), and this virtue is greater in proportion as the mind knows things more by the said kind of knowledge (V:xxiv.): consequently, he who knows things by this kind of knowledge passes to the summit of human perfection, and is therefore (Def. of the Emotions:ii.) affected by the highest pleasure, such pleasure being accompanied by the idea of himself and his own virtue; thus (Def. of the Emotions:xxv.), from this kind of knowledge arises the highest possible acquiescence. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXVIII. The endeavour or desire to know things by the third kind of knowledge cannot arise from the first, but from the second kind of knowledge.

Proof.- This proposition is self-evident. For whatsoever we understand clearly and distinct we understand either through itself, or through that which is conceived through itself; that is, ideas which are clear and distinct in us, or which are referred to the third kind of knowledge (II:xl.Note.ii.) cannot follow from ideas that are fragmentary, and confused, and are referred to knowledge of the first kind, but must follow from adequate ideas, or ideas of the second and third kind of knowledge; therefore (Def. of the Emotions:i.), the desire of knowing things by the third kind of knowledge cannot arise from the first, but from the second kind. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXIX. Whatsoever the mind understands under the form of eternity, it does not understand by virtue of conceiving the present actual existence of the body, but by virtue of conceiving the essence of the body under the form of eternity.

Proof.- In so far as the mind conceives the present existence of its body, it to that extent conceives duration which can be determined by time, and to that extent only, has it the power of conceiving things in relation to time (V:xxi., II:xxvi.). But eternity cannot be explained in terms of duration (I:Def.viii. and explanation). Therefore to this extent the mind has not the power of conceiving things under the form of eternity, but it possesses such power, because it is of the nature of reason to conceive things under the form of eternity (II:xliv.Coroll.ii.), and also because it is of the nature of the mind to conceive the essence of the body under the form of eternity (V:xxiii.), for besides these two there is nothing which belongs to the essence of mind (II:xiii.). Therefore this power of conceiving things under the form of eternity only belongs to the mind in virtue of the mind's conceiving the essence of the body under the form of eternity. Q.E.D.

Note.- Things are conceived by us as actual in two ways; either as existing in relation to a given time and place, or as contained in God and following from the necessity of the divine nature. Whatsoever we conceive in this second way as true or real, we conceive under the form of eternity, and their ideas involve the eternal and infinite essence of God, as we showed in II:xlv.&Note, which see.

Prop. XXX. Our mind, in so far as it knows itself and the body under the form of eternity, has to that extent necessarily a knowledge of God, and knows that it is in God, and is conceived through God.

Proof.- Eternity is the very essence of God, in so far as this involves necessary existence (I:Def.viii.). Therefore to conceive things under the form of eternity, is to conceive things in so far as they are conceived through thp essence of God as real entities, or in so far as they involve existence through the essence of God; wherefore our mind, in so far as it conceives itself and the body under the form of eternity, has to that extent necessarily a knowledge of God, and knows, &c. Q.E.D.

Prop. XXXI. The third kind of knowledge depends on the mind, as its formal cause, in so far as the mind itself is eternal.

Proof.- The mind does not conceive anything under the form of eternity, except in so far as it conceives its own body under the form of eternity (V:xxix.); that is, except in so far as it is eternal (V:xxi., V:xxiii.); therefore (by the last Prop.), in so far as it is eternal, it possesses the knowledge of God, which knowledge is necessarily adequate (II:xlvi.); hence the mind, in so far as it is eternal, is capable of knowing everything which can follow from this given knowledge of God (II:xl.), in other words, of knowing things by the third kind of knowledge (see Def. in II:xl.Note.ii.), whereof accordingly the mind (III:Def.i.), in so far as it is eternal, is the adequate or formal cause of such knowledge. Q.E.D.

Note.- In proportion, therefore, as a man is more potent in this kind of knowledge, he will be more completely conscious of himself and of God; in other words, he will be more perfect and blessed, as will appear more clearly in the sequel. But we must here observe that, although we are already certain that the mind is eternal, in so far as it conceives things under the form of eternity, yet, in order that what we wish to show may be more readily explained and better understood, we will consider the mind itself, as though it had just begun to exist and to understand things under the form of eternity, as indeed we have done hitherto; this we may do without any danger of error, so long as we are careful not to draw any conclusion, unless our premisses are plain.

Prop. XXXII. Whatsoever we understand by the third kind of knowledge, we take delight in, and our delight is accompanied by the idea of God as cause.

Proof.- From this kind of knowledge arises the highest possible mental acquiescence, that is (Def of the Emotions:xxv.), pleasure, and this acquiescence is accompanied by the idea of the mind itself (V. xxvii.), and consequently (V:xxx.) the idea also of God as cause. Q.E.D.

Corollary.- From the third kind of knowledge necessarily arises the intellectual love of God. From this kind of knowledge arises pleasure accompanied by the idea of God as cause, that is (Def. of the Emotions:vi.), the love of God; not in so far as we imagine him as present (V:xxix.), but in so far as we understand him to be eternal; this is what I call the intellectual love of God.

Prop. XXXIII. The intellectual love of God, which arises from the third kind of knowledge, is eternal.

Proof.- The third kind of knowledge is eternal (V:xxxi., I:Ax.iii.); therefore (by the same Axiom) the love which arises therefrom is also necessarily eternal. Q.E.D.

Note.- Although this love towards God has (by the foregoing Prop.) no beginning, it yet possesses all the perfections of love, just as though it had arisen as we feigned in the Coroll. of the last Prop. Nor is there here any difference, except that the mind possesses as eternal those same perfections which we feigned to accrue to it, and they are accompanied by the idea of God as eternal cause. If pleasure consists in the transition to a greater perfection, assuredly blessedness must consist in the mind being endowed with perfection itself.

Prop. XXX.IV. The mind is, only while the body endures, subject to those emotions which are attributable to passions.

Proof. Imagination is the idea wherewith the mind contemplates a thing as present (II:xvii.Note); yet this idea indicates rather the present disposition of the human body than the nature of the external thing (II:xvi.Coroll.ii.). Therefore emotion (see general Def. of Emotions) is imagination, in so far as it indicates the present disposition of the body; therefore (V:xxi.) the mind is, only while the body endures, subject to emotions which are attributable to passions. Q.E.D.

Corollary.- Hence it follows that no love save intellectual love is eternal.

Note.- If we look to men's general opinion, we shall see that they are indeed conscious of the eternity of their mind, but that they confuse eternity with duration, and ascribe it to the imagination or the memory which they believe to remain after death.

Prop. XXXV. God loves himself with an infinite intellectual love.

Proof.- God is absolutely infinite (I:Def.vi.), that is (II:Def.vi.), the nature of God rejoices in infinite perfection; and such rejoicing is (II:iii.) accompanied by the idea of himself, that is (I:xi. and I:Def.i.), the idea of his own cause: now this is what we have (in V:xxxii.Coroll.) described as intellectual love.

Prop. XXXVI. The intellectual love of the mind towards God is that very love of God whereby God loves himself, not in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he can be explained through the essence of the human mind regarded under the form of eternity; in other words, the intellectual love of the mind towards God is part of the infinite love wherewith God loves himself.

Proof.- (1) This love of the mind must be referred to the activities of the mind (V:xxxii.Coroll. and III:iii.); it is itself, indeed, an activity whereby the mind regards itself accompanied by the idea of God as cause (V:xxxii.&Coroll.); that is (I:xxv.Coroll. and II:xi.Coroll.), an activity whereby God, in so far as he can be explained through the human mind, regards himself accompanied by the idea of himself; therefore (by the last Prop.), this love of the mind is part of the infinite love wherewith God loves himself. Q.E.D.

Corollary.- Hence it follows that God, in so far as he loves himself, loves man, and, consequently, that the love of God towards men, and the intellectual love of the mind towards God are identical.