Etica — parte 4
- Lingua:
- inglese
- Stato:
- Opera completa
- Autorialità:
- Scritta dall'autore
- Stato del testo:
- Nessun rumore di scansione rilevato (misura automatica su tutto il testo, non verificata a mano)
- Estensione:
- ~22.500 parole · 107 passi
Cita quest'opera
- APABaruch Spinoza. (n.d.). Ethics — Part 4 [Etica — parte 4]. Digital reproduction: SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/it/works/baruch-spinoza/ethics-part-4
- MLABaruch Spinoza. Ethics — Part 4 [Etica — parte 4]. Digital reproduction, SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/it/works/baruch-spinoza/ethics-part-4.
- ChicagoBaruch Spinoza. Ethics — Part 4 [Etica — parte 4]. Digital reproduction, SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/it/works/baruch-spinoza/ethics-part-4.
Riferimento all’edizione riprodotta. SigPhi è la riproduzione digitale. Anno, editore e traduttore compaiono quando noti; «n.d.» indica un anno sconosciuto.
Di che cosa tratta
Un sistema completo — Dio, la mente, gli affetti, la libertà — dimostrato come geometria: definizioni, assiomi e proposizioni che culminano nell'idea che la libertà è comprendere la necessità.
Contesto e storia
Spinoza terminò l'Etica verso il 1675 e rinunciò a pubblicarla in vita: lo scandalo del suo 'Deus sive Natura' — Dio e la Natura come una cosa sola — l'avrebbe sepolto. Apparve nel 1677, mesi dopo la sua morte, nelle Opera Posthuma, e fu proibita quasi subito. L'autore era vissuto all'Aia molando lenti, scomunicato dalla comunità ebraica di Amsterdam a ventitré anni con un anatema di durezza mai revocata. Per un secolo 'spinozista' fu un insulto; poi, per l'idealismo tedesco e per molti altri, la montagna con cui ogni filosofia deve misurarsi.
Contesto editoriale, non una fonte citabile: a differenza dei passi dell'opera, questi dati non si possono verificare sul corpus.
sees that it is carried through to the end, which its author had purposed for it. But if a man sees a work, the like whereof he has never seen before, and if he knows not the intention of the artificer, he plainly cannot know, whether that work be perfect or imperfect. Such seems to be the primary meaning of these terms. But, after men began to form general ideas, to think out types of houses, buildings, towers, &c., and to prefer certain types to others, it came about, that each man called perfect that which he saw agree with the general idea he had formed of the thing in question, and called imperfect that which he saw agree less with his own preconceived type, even though it had evidently been completed in accordance with the idea of its artificer. This seems to be the only reason for calling natural phenomena, which, indeed, are not made with human hands, perfect or imperfect: for men are wont to form general ideas of things natural, no less than of things artificial, and such ideas they hold as types, believing that Nature (who they think does nothing without an object) has them in view, and has set them as types before herself. Therefore, when they behold something in Nature, which does not wholly conform to the preconceived type which they have formed of the thing in question, they say that Nature has fallen short or has blundered, and has left her work incomplete. Thus we see that men are wont to style natural phenomena perfect or imperfect rather from their own prejudices, than from true knowledge of what they pronounce upon. Now we showed in the Appendix to Part I., that Nature does not work with an end in view. For the eternal and infinite Being, which we call God or Nature, acts by the same necessity as that whereby it exists. For we have shown, that by the same necessity of its nature, whereby it exists, it likewise works (I:xvi.).…