#agreeing

[bowlby4]

[giffypudding]

Three Thumbs Up!

[mbavreacts]

[alunah-lalunah]

In Ethics II, proposition 49, Spinoza says, “In the mind there is no volition, or affirmation and negation, except that which the idea involves.” In other words, to understand is already to affirm or deny. There isn’t a separate “will” standing above the idea deciding what to do with it.

Maybe the best word for will or affirm, will be agree. What we call agreement (assent, affirmation) is built into the act of understanding itself. When the mind understands something adequately, that understanding includes its own internal yes. You don’t choose to agree with the geometrical truth that the angles of a triangle equal two right angles. Seeing it is agreeing. The same happens with moral or emotional insight, though there the ideas are often confused or partial, so the agreement can be unstable.

Spinoza rejects the idea of a free-standing will that can accept or reject ideas. Understanding and agreement are two sides of one cognitive event. When the understanding is clear, the affirmation is unavoidable.

So the formulation that understanding and agreement are the same is indeed closer to what Spinoza meant than the scholastic term “will.” The intellect does not decide; it assents by seeing. Freedom begins when agreement is no longer an act of choice, but the transparency of seeing what cannot be otherwise.

[crinkle-eyed-boo]

[reactionpicarchive]

[a-path-by-the-moon]