Spinoza, Bohme and God: Clarity Vs. Content

Spinoza, Bohme and God

Clarity Vs. Content

To compare and contrast the conceptions of God, as found in the writings of Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677) and Jacob Bohme (1575-1624), that is my purpose. As can be seen from the like dates, they lived in a near same era. Neither man gained much fame in their lifetime, and both were craftsmen. Spinoza worked as a lens grinder, and Bohme was a shoemaker. Both men existed outside of academia and ran afoul of religious authorities- even though Bohme was a Christian he was still branded as a heretic.

These men may have shared similar external circumstances, but their conceptions of God were at opposite ends of the clarity/content continuum. Spinoza's God is all clarity and abstraction, while Bohme's God consists of content and emotion. Are they both anthropomorphic? Does Spinoza project the highest abstraction as God; Bohme projecting in turn emotions as God? Can there be a non-anthropomorphic conception of God?

Bohme held the doctrine of the microcosm and the macrocosm-humans resemble God.

The difference between clarity and content can be seen in their writing styles. Spinoza's chief philosophical work “The Ethics” has a very definite structure. Spinoza employs definitions and axioms, then proceeds to proportions and demonstrations. Everything is set out logically. Bohme,on the other hand, starts anywhere, jumps from point to point, and takes long diversions from the point, which he may or may not return to. He lacks any kind of systematization or template to his writing style. When we get to Bohme, we shall examine his seven natural properties. The reader should not think that Bohme lists them and then explains them, instead they are scattered throughout his books, even though they have a logical structure. Bohme stacks metaphors on metaphors, occasionally using different metaphors for the same entity. If this is not confusing enough, he uses the symbolic language of alchemy without any explanation of the terms.

Both philosophers can leave a reader's head spinning: Spinoza with his rarefied abstraction; Bohme with his labyrinth of metaphors.

Let us now turn to Spinoza. Spinoza has been accused of being a pantheist and an atheist, and there is evidence for both charges. From the above charges, one can see Spinoza is not a Christian. Spinoza starts out The Ethics with an examination of God or nature. It is important to understand that Spinoza is not using the term nature in its modern sense; instead he is using the term nature in the medieval sense. For medieval thinkers the term nature meant everything that exists. There is no non-nature, or artificial. In this first part of the book, he proves with his own definitions and axioms that there is only one substance. By substance he means there is only one individual in existence. Again, he is using a term in the ancient and medieval sense. As professor Mark Wheeler of San Diego State University has pointed out, any thinker that uses 'the law non-counterdiction as the centerpiece of his epistemology is going to end up with a One. This means there has to be an endpoint where all counterdictions are resolved and includes all entities. The next move is whether the one is an overlying One or an underlying One. In an overlying One, the One is the culmination of reason. In an underlying One, the One is below reason: a ground. An overlying One is the usual top-down system all of us are familiar with. Abstractions are more real than material things. The Forms, or universals are ontologically prior to material things. Let us look at an example drawn from Neoplatonism. The Form's humanity is the cause of and template of all individual humans, whether they be male, female, tall, short, etc. The reason for this is that no one human can express all the traits of the Form. Any defect in an individual human is due to matter. Now that Spinoza has his one thing, he has to explain why we experience many things.

The Neoplatonic parallel is the One and the many. The first thing Spinoza does is introduce what are called attributes. The term attributes is The term attributes is misleading, so here it will be translated to 'how we experience things'. An example should clear up any misgivings. We can experience a wall by bumping into it, or we can imagine a wall in our minds. This constitutes Spinoza's two attributes: thought and extension. Spinoza says there may be an infinite number of attributes, but we only know of the above two. The somethings we experience Spinoza calls 'modifications' or 'modes'.

Let us take another break with an example: Let all of mathematics be (equal) a thought or mode in God's mind. Like mathematics, everything in Spinoza's philosophy is necessary and determined; nothing is contingent. So, mathematics works itself out necessarily whether it is a Hellenistic Greek or a seventeenth century European who adds to the expression of the mode mathematics. As the reader has noticed, all emotional content has been lost by now. There is nor room for Archimedes running through the streets triumphantly shouting “Eureka! “

We lose Cantor's obsession with infinity.

Now we have to move to Spinoza's epistemology if we are to understand him. To do the work, we shall have to use another example. Imagine a young woman who plays the triangle in a band. The woman has dropped out of school to join the band, and has missed math class. She has no knowledge of geometry at this point in time. She likes her triangle; one might say she even has an emotional attachment to her triangle. Her father had given her the triangle, and she has used it since then in all her performances. This fondness for her triangle has given her a fondness for all equilateral triangles. She has pins and patches in the form of these triangles. According to Spinoza, she has incomplete and inadequate knowledge of triangles. For Spinoza, all emotions are incomplete or inadequate knowledge. He distinguishes three degrees of knowledge. The first kind of knowledge is things represented through the senses in a way which is confused and mutilated, because it lacks order and reason. There is also an upper degree to this first kind of knowledge: things we read or hear, things we imagine but without necessary knowledge. The second kind of knowledge are common notions and adequate ideas of the properties of things. In other words, qualities. This,however, is not the necessity involved with knowledge and still involves sense perception. The third kind of knowledge happens when we understand the essence of a law or laws of an entity. To return to the young woman's triangle, she has no idea that the essence of a triangle is a closed figure whose angles must add up to 180 degrees. The young woman has the first kind of knowledge and a tinge of the second, but none of the third kind of knowledge. Now, the reader has a better understanding of why everything in Spinoza's philosophy must be necessary and determined; it would be impossible to have knowledge of a contingent entity. Anything that seems random or contingent to us seems that way because we lack complete and adequate knowledge of that thing.

Let us move back to those entities or things we experience, and have knowledge of: modes. We will use the same example we used for the Neoplatonics: the form of humanity. It is tempting to say modes are individual things, but that is not Spinoza's view. Humanity again contains all individual humans, whether they are male and female, tall or short, etc., but Spinoza cannot put defects down to matter. Everything has to be perfect, necessary and determined. Why is it then we find some people are defective and/or lacking? The reason for this is that we have not reached the perfect necessary knowledge. Complaining or getting angry and frustrated is like complaining that all triangles are equilateral, or that we find isosceles and scalene triangles inferior to an equilateral triangle. There should be no element of emotion or sense perception to our knowledge. We should know that all triangles are the expression of the formula that all closed figures with three angles that equal 180 degrees are triangles. If we are still fond of the shape of a triangle like the young woman from our example, this indicates we have not yet reached the perfect necessary knowledge.

What exactly has Spinoza done then? He has taken the Neoplatonic metaphysics of a hierarchy of realms and smashed or telescoped them down to one realm. Instead, there is a hierarchy of ways to experience things or entities. So, what Plotinus saw as a form is just another way to experience a mode. Everything is in one realm. The alert reader might have already figured out where the Neoplatonic One is. The One is everything: God, substance, nature. The only reason we experience the One is because we do not have the right state of consciousness. This leads us to our next topic: Spinoza's idea of blessedness and immortality. It is surprising that Spinoza has a theory of blessedness and immortality. Since we are part of the One we are already immortal, we just don't realize it. If we could stay in a state of consciousness that was the third kind of knowledge, we would see everything as the One. Spinoza said we can get glimpses of this kind of knowledge or experience, and that we should try to stay in that state of consciousness for as long as possible. It is the One being conscious of itself. Immortality, then, is where everyone is a necessary ratio in the One; some people are just more aware than others. They are the blessed.

We come to the question of whether Spinoza was an atheist or a pantheist. Most agree he was an atheist, unless he regarded God as a mathematical ratio. Spinoza's philosophy seems unsatisfying. We lose the bewitching beauty of Cleopatra and Mata Hari, the joy of Archimedes, and the triumphs and tragedies of human life. We lose those experiences that make life worth living. Let us now turn to Jacob Bohme.

Bohme is often called the God taught philosopher. He was subject to rather mystical states, but we should not make too much out of Bohme's lack of education. Somewhere, he picked up the knowledge of Paraclesus and alchemy. Spinoza's main influence was Rene Descartes; Bohme's main influences were Martin Luther and Paraclesus. However, Bohme didn't write the fierce invective of either one.

As Spinoza wanted to take us to the highest abstraction, so Bohme wants to take us to the highest pitch of emotion. Here I shall give a brief review of Bohme's natural properties. The term 'natural properties' is misleading. They should instead be looked upon as potentials in all things. Bohme held the doctrine of the microcosm and macrocosm- so these properties are not only found in God, but in all creation including humans. Anything in order to exist must be a counterdiction. Bohme uses the metaphor of a giant eye looking into a mirror. In the beginning, there is desire and imagination or whimsy. Everything is contingent, and even God has a sense of whimsy.

We now move to the first natural property: contraction. Contraction is introspective desire. This is hard, sharp and cold. This is the person who desires to be alone, the person who hardens themselves and lives in gloom. The second natural desire is expansion: the desire to move outwards, but with no goal. This is the person who speaks nosily for no reason and has the overwhelming desire to move, is agitated, has nervous energy, etc. These two desires work against each other. One seeks to contract and the other seeks to expand. Both have no goal. These two desires cannot escape one another. This is like the beginning of a person's inner life. Since they cannot escape, they are forced to collide. This brings about the third natural property, which is rotation. Since neither contraction or expansion can escape, they cause oscillation and revolution, but not a harmonious rotation. It is a frenzied rotation, much like a wheel that is out of balance and on fire. Bohme uses the term wheel to symbolize minds. As both seek to free themselves they are forced into a frenzied whirling. We still use the expression today that someone is 'spinning their wheels' or is 'unbalanced.' This is the obsession of Cantor, of Van Gogh. This is the mind that spins out of balance-on fire, full of heat and smoke but no light. This is a movement that can come to no end. It is madness, it is the insoluble problems that keep one up at night. It is the searching for an escape that is not there. This is the first of Bohme's trios, it is the wheel of fire. It is the problem that cannot be solved and cannot be escaped. There is no solution in the wheel of fire. Our next natural property is lightening. This is a sudden illumination after a long and painful fermentation. This is Archimedes screaming through the streets. This is the prisoner released from torture. It is also the born again experience common in Christianity. It also holds fear and terror when entering an unknown territory. The joy of the light and illumination triumphs over the fear, terror and obsession. Bohme says again and again that every life born in fear is enjoyed in freedom, and again perishes in agony. The first trio is called the dark principle or fire wheel that is vanquished by illumination and the higher natural properties. The fifth natural property is sometimes called wisdom, or light and water. This is the vanquishing of terror, fear, and frustration. This is seen in the ability to articulate your feelings, to be able to put into words emotions and feelings that have been plaguing one. This is the feeling of an artist when creation flows right through them, or the author who feels that their book wrote itself. The alert reader might have recognized that the fifth natural property seems like the Son in the Trinity of more orthodox theology. The fire wheel or dark principle is usually identified with the Father in the Trinity. Of course, Bohme did not think God had a beginning in time, but in this realm of existence it was the only way to express that which was eternal. Another use Bohme gives the wheel is to symbolize eternity. The fourth and fifth natural properties are the Son in the Trinity. As a note, Bohme sometimes uses alchemical language to express the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; this would be Sulfur, Salt and Quicksilver. To return to the fifth natural property, the water symbolizes cooling the vanquishing of negative emotions, or the cool, calm streams of Heaven. The sixth natural property is the spoken or audible word. This is the Holy Spirit of the Trinity. This is the wisdom shaped into creation. The Holy Spirit is often associated with bonding, or love. This is much like the creation of family, community, and other bonding that creates something good. The fourth, fifth and sixth natural properties are the wheel of water or mildness. These are the trios in God. In God the fire wheel is never actualized. Evil only gets actualized in worldly matter and humans, because they are fallen. With the fire wheel and water wheel we are finished with God proper. The seventh natural property is usually given the name kingdom. For God these are the things he did not consciously create, such as his throne, Heaven, his appearance, etc. For humans it would be one's haircut, wardrobe, etc.

Bohme asserts that these properties are present in everything that exists, but one usually predominates. Now we come to Bohme's conception of immortality. Bohme is foremost a Christian, so he believes in Heaven. Bohme's idea contains some unusual characteristics that have become influential. As an example, a quote from The Three Principles of the Divine Essence: 'Death and this earthly flesh is swallowed up, and we all live in the great and Holy Element of the body of Jesus Christ, in God the Father, and the Holy Ghost is our comfort; and with this world and with our earthly body, all knowledge and skill of this world perishes; and we live as children, and eat of the Paradisaical Fruit for there is no Terror, Fear, nor Death anymore; for the Principle of Hell together with the Devils (in this last hour) is shut up; and the one [Principle] cannot touch the other any more in Eternity, nor conceive any thought of the other. The Parents shall no more think of their wicked Children that are in Hell, nor the Children of their parents; for all shall be in Perfection, and that which is in Part shall cease.' Bohme makes no distinction for worldly skills or family relations. The other idea to take of is that the blessed live as children. Bohme's vision has gone in and out of fashion. He influenced Kant, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer. Most of his influence on Kant came through Kant's being raised in a Pietist household; the other three men read and studied Bohme. Today he is largely a forgotten figure, but if psychological metaphysics is ever to make a comeback, his writings will be there waiting.

As long as there are Christians there shall be some who find Bohme satisfying. The trouble is in many ways he seems too dated and bizarre. It would be hard to find a starker contrast to Spinoza. Spinoza strives to be a model of clarity, and Bohme's conceptions of God tell us more about Bohme than of God.