Etica — parte 4
- Lingua:
- inglese
- Stato:
- Opera completa
- Autorialità:
- Scritta dall'autore
- Stato del testo:
- Testo pulito
- Estensione:
- ~22.500 parole · 107 passi
Cita quest'opera
- APABaruch Spinoza. (n.d.). Etica — parte 4. SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/it/works/baruch-spinoza/ethics-part-4
- MLABaruch Spinoza. "Etica — parte 4." SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/it/works/baruch-spinoza/ethics-part-4.
- ChicagoBaruch Spinoza. Etica — parte 4. SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/it/works/baruch-spinoza/ethics-part-4.
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.
PART IV: Of Human Bondage, or the Strength of the Emotions PREFACE Human infirmity in moderating and checking the emotions I name bondage: for, when a man is a prey to his emotions, he is not his own master, but lies at the mercy of fortune: so much so, that he is often compelled, while seeing that which is better for him, to follow that which is worse. Why this is so, and what is good or evil in the emotions, I propose to show in this part of my treatise. But, before I begin, it would be well to make a few prefatory observations on perfection and imperfection, good and evil. When a man has purposed to make a given thing, and has brought it to perfection, his work will be pronounced perfect, not only by himself, but by everyone who rightly knows, or thinks that he knows, the intention and aim of its author. For instance, suppose anyone sees a work (which I assume to be not yet completed), and knows that the aim of the author of that work is to build a house, he will call the work imperfect; he will, on the other hand, call it perfect, as soon as he 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.…