Welcome to this course on aspects of western philosophy module 11 and lecture 11. This lecture will try to understand spinosa's the modern philosopher spinosa's concepts of substance attributes in modes. Spinoza is one of the most important philosophers of the modern age and there is a very interesting observation which Bertrand Russell makes about spinosa when he writes his history of western philosophy. He says I quote spinosa is the noblest and most lovable of the great philosophers. Intellectually some others have surpassed him, but ethically he is supreme. As a natural consequence he was considered during his lifetime and for a century after his death a man of appalling wickedness. This is what very interesting observation Bertrand Russell makes about spinosa. The one hand spinosa is the noblest and most lovable of all the great philosophers because he was ethically supreme. This is Russell's comment. Now, we will try to understand spinosa's major philosophical themes and concepts. We have already discussed the contributions of Descartes and in one sense there is a continuity because in Descartes philosophy we have seen some of the most important themes of modern philosophy were introduced. Descartes comes up with a very unique conception of knowledge, a notion of absolutely certain knowledge and most importantly was suggesting a methodology to understand to gain knowledge. So, he employs a method of doubt and following that you know he insisted that we should employ mathematical deductive method in philosophy as well to derive or to understand or to develop a system of knowledge and it is in this context we should also try to understand spinosa and the background of spinosa's work is that he was obviously influenced by Descartes and the modern philosophical temperament of his age and he has accepted Descartes materialistic and deterministic physics to a very great extent though he comes up with very significant modifications and also qualifications of this materialism. On the one hand we can see that spinosa's major concerns were with religion and virtue the question of virtue which is not the case with many of the modern philosophers. We can see that afterwards you know modern philosophy is trying to maintain a distance from questions about religion and eventually what happens were the encountering crisis. Later on we will see that by the time we reach our discussions we start discussing manual Kant. Kant was trying to highlight that there is a problem of fragmentation in society, the fragmentation of human reason into three compartments of ethics, logic and aesthetics. So, this actually begins with the very emergence of modern philosophy. So, there was a concern that you know we can visibly see it in spinosa's philosophy that the major concerns were with religion and virtue though he was a modern philosopher who would be naturally concerned about modern sciences, scientific methods and questions about knowledge and certainty and so on and so forth. Now, again I would just quote from Russell. What Russell says is that spinosa's attempt was to find room for reverence and a life devoted to the good within the framework of a materialistic and deterministic physics. So, this is a very interesting observation because on the one hand you can see that there is a emphasis on the materialistic and deterministic physics following the dominant temperament of modern philosophy and on the other hand we can see that the attempt was to find a room for reverence and a life devoted to the good within this framework. So, there is a concern for ethics and there is also an emphasis on materialistic and deterministic physics. So, in one sense he was concerned about bringing these two compartments together, ethics and science which is a problem even today to bring together science and ethics. The whole notion, the whole problem you know according to some philosophers there is a crisis in modern life and the crisis is due to this separation of ethics or moral concerns from scientific or other concerns. This is why I refer to Habermas and Immanuel Kant's philosophy. Habermas when talks about Immanuel Kant's philosophy highlights that there is a fragmentation and the fragmentation has primarily resulted in a rift between science and ethics or the domain of knowledge and the domain of forens. And let us before we really delve into the details of Spinoza's framework, let us have a relook into the Cartesian world. So, in the cart we could see that we have already seen this, we have already explained it in the previous one or two lectures. The whole notion of world in the cart we could see that it can be divided into two substances or two domains, two independent domains which can be termed as res cogitans or the thinking substance and res extensa which is the extended substance. And the res cogitans can be further divided into two in finite thinking substance or God and finite thinking substance or individual minds and res extensa or the extended substance is primarily constituted of finite extended substances or matter. So, this is what in the previous lecture we have examined, we have seen as the mind body dualism. So, we can see it here in Descartes there is a concept of substance or rather we can even say that there is a notion of three substances where God predominantly appears as more substantial than the other two substances which are mind and matter or mind and body. God is the only substance in the true sense of the term something which exist independent of everything else. In that sense if you follow this definition God is the only substance and everything else depends on God. So, there are other two substances the dependent or relative substances which depend on God though they remain mutually independent. So, there is autonomy that mind and the domains of mind and the matter maintained. God has created mind and matter and can also annihilate them and mind and matter depend on God but are mutually independent. This is the Cartesian picture. And in this context when you see God this is there is a reason why I am referring to the concept of God because the notion of God appears in a very important manner in a Spinoza's framework. So, in the Cartesian framework following the scholastic predecessors Descartes also asserts that God is a creator of the world it is a primary substance or rather it is the only substance in the true sense of the term. World is constitutive of minds and matter. So, as I have already discussed there is a domain of the mind and there is a domain of body or matter. God is separated from both and is different from both because there is more reality attributed to God or God is substantially more than any of the other things bodies and minds in this world. So, in this sense there is a major concern which Spinoza encounters that with the conception of God who is the creator of the world. But at the same time different from the world Cartesian dualism removed God from the world there is a separation which Descartes dualism has amounted to. God is a far away observer once God has created the domains of minds and matter and made them separate made them independent of each other God becomes a far away observer Cartesian dualism in that sense removed God from the world and this is where you know Spinoza finds certain problems I mean this whole framework is problematic because of the separation Spinoza says that Cartesian paradigm has emptied the idea of God of any content. So, God becomes to removed from the minds and matter the minds and bodies which are there in the world and to which God is of course related in the sense that God has created them and can also annihilate them. But apart from that sort of God's duty seems to be over devoid of God we cannot give a real explanation of the world of things. So, once God has created the world the minds and the bodies and separated them. So, there is no role God plays in this world in that sense. So, devoid of God we cannot give a real explanation to the world of things and how to reestablish the major concern for Spinoza is this how to reestablish the intimate connection between God and the world and again how to interpret all reality in terms of God's ultimate perfection because we could see that our experience such as that God we have already seen is an infinite substance it is infinite necessarily infinite because it is a substance it can exist independent of everything else and such a substance which is absolutely free and which can exist independent of everything else cannot be a finite entity cannot be limited by anything else. So, now the problem is the minds and bodies which we come across which we encounter in this world. So, if they are created by God what is their relationship with God now whether what sort of relationship what sort of reality do they have how to interpret all reality in terms of God's perfection because if God is perfect then how can his creation be imperfect that is the question. Now, again what Spinoza does is he posits this entire problem as a problem between finite things verses infinite substance reality cannot be constitutive of finite things because if reality if substance is something that exist independent of everything else absolutely free then there cannot be any other substances there cannot be finite substances the world is not a collection of independent persons and objects each complete in itself and real in itself if that is a case if the world is a mere collection of objects which are independent of each other then how do you establish how do you explain their interconnections if this interconnections are necessary then you have to sort of ultimately go back to a substance a one single substance a homogenous substance from where derive the reality if they are not interconnected then you cannot explain anything that you cannot explain the very functioning of the world of the universe no unity can be explained. So, the unity in this world itself indirectly suggest something else no object can be understood in isolation this is what Spinoza was trying to assert every object is connected with other object you cannot understand one object independent of everything else objects form an endless series from one relationship to another. So, you can see an interconnected network of series of objects and finally, what Spinoza was trying to argue is that this series of objects constitute one single reality ultimately they all refer to an infinite substance which is which is God. So, you can see that there is a craving for unity in this approach and finally, taking us to the notion of ultimate unity of every existence. So, what Spinoza was trying to argue is that if at all there is a substance that substance must be infinite that cannot be a finite substance, but then the question is if that is the case then how do you explain the infinite substances which we come across the bodies and the minds which we come across in our day to day life how do you explain that and in an attempt to explain this in an attempt to answer to this question Spinoza develops his philosophy centered around a notion of infinite homogeneous substance. So, here is the starting point of philosophy for Spinoza the homogeneous and infinite reality which alone is absolutely certain there cannot be more than one substances if there are more than one substances then they would then you will have to explain the relationship if there is a and b then you have to explain the relationship between a and b in what sense a is related to b whether it is superior or inferior whether they are equals all these things I mean some way they are related and the concept of relationship implies limitation. If a is related to b in one sense we can say that a is also limited by b and infinite substance cannot be a limited substance. So, this is the way in which Spinoza would be arguing from this homogeneous infinite substance the existence of multiplicity of finite objects is derived. So, the existence of all these multiple objects are derived from that one single homogeneous infinite substance and the aim of philosophy is the understanding of the ultimate unity of things it is not that I mean what makes this interconnections possible or what is the nature of this interconnectedness between objects that is the question and philosophy is trying to understand or trying to provide an answer to this question or rather philosophy is trying to respond to the quest for unity. And now let us see Spinoza on substance this is a central concept in Spinoza's philosophy and here of course the notion of substance as a history as we have already indicated I have already mentioned it in the way previous lecture when we discuss Descartes that you know the concept of substance probably goes back to the Greek era, but the scholastic philosophers have taken it up and sort of discussed is extensively, but we will find a more systematic and a more modern approach to this concept of substance in Descartes. So, I will probably start with Descartes and from Descartes and beyond we will go found Descartes notion of homogeneous substance very interesting because it is Descartes who provides or rather who accepts this notion of substance which is there in the more or less not with much of a difference from the scholastic for fathers in history, but at the same time Spinoza had certain very serious reservations in accepting the dualism that followed Cartesian concept of or Cartesian definition and understanding of the notion of substance. We have already seen this you know when Descartes derived or Descartes developed a concept of substance he simultaneously developed a notion of relative substances as well mind and body and attributed to them certain qualities certain attributes mind thinking and body extension and in terms of these attributes he makes a dualism a kind of fundamental dualism between minds and bodies and this dualism has actually led to a series of problems which Descartes found it difficult to answer and the Cartesian the later Cartesians also his followers also were grappling with this problem of how to explain the mind body dualism and Spinoza also found it problematic and was trying to respond to that in a unique way. Substance must be homogeneous and hence must be infinite and existent I have already explained this it must be self cost and self dependent if it is cost by something else then it must be dependent on that something else and something which is finite cannot be dependent on something else it should be independent. So, it cannot be the effect of an external cost it must have been self cost. So, substance is self cost the same thing like when we talk about God it is often stated that God has created the entire world if God has created the entire world who has created God because you have already introduced the creation logic to explain the existence of this world you have invented a God who is the creator of this world while this world is in finite the creator should be infinite. But then who has created the infinite God because this question is rather meaningless because the very notion that the very concept of infinity suggest that it is self cost it cannot be the effect of anything prior to that there can be only one substance homogeneous infinite one single substance which is God and when Spinoza talks about substance he says that finite things are defined by their physical or logical boundaries. So, when I call a pen a pen I am defining it I am attributing certain qualities to that when I say that my pen is black in color I am attributing a quality of color this pen is black in color and when I say this pen is black in color I am also limiting it by qualifying it as black I am limiting it I am also saying that it is not white it is not a knife it is rather a pen and it is not white or green or red or whatever other I am saying that it is a pen which has a certain property called blackness. So, by defining I am rather making certain boundaries that will limit it. So, every definition every qualification is a limitation this is the reason why in Indian philosophies in the Advaitins interestingly would say that there is a there are certain interesting relationship between the Advaitic perspective and Spinoza's perspective though they are entirely different I mean Spinoza actually advocates a kind of pantheism which is not there in there in Advaita philosophy, but still there are certain interesting parallels even the Advaitins also believe that something which is boundless cannot be defined because all definition involves a limitation and drawing boundaries. So, finite things are defined by their physical or logical boundaries they are defined by what they are not. So, when I say I am I this is a black pen I am also saying that it is not a white knife all determination is negation substance by its very definition is infinite. So, here comes the definition of substance it says that I read the conception of which does not depend on the conception of another thing from which it must be form I repeat the definition of substances the conception of which does not depend on the conception of another thing from which it must be formed. So, it is absolutely independent, it is absolutely self-cost, it is independent and infinite. Anything finite is limited, it is limited by space and time, it is limited by other objects, it is limited by a specific shape and a specific location where it is situated, but anything infinite cannot be like that, infinite is limitless, boundless. A finite thing is limited by some other thing of the same nature, those two things will then have the same attribute. So, this is the problem, I mean when you talk about substance, you can never have a substance which is finite, because if there are finite things, then there are, see when I say pen, I actually mean that it belongs to a class, a group of things which can all be termed as pen. So, there is something common with pen A and pen B and these two things will have the same attribute, the penness. An attribute is that which the intellect perceives. So, this is another definition. So, an attribute is that which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of a substance. So, here we can see that there is a slight deviation from the definition of attribute as it was given by Descartes, where attribute is a quality without which the substance cannot be even imagined of existing. So, here it is something which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of a substance. So, while we can say that while Descartes advocates a concept of attribute in a very fundamental sense, for Spinoza it is much limited, for him it is qualified, he brings the intellect, the perception of the intellect. So, you can talk about an attribute only by relating it with an intellect which perceives this attribute or by means of this attribute perceives the object and its qualities. There cannot be two or more substances possessing the same attribute. If an attribute is something which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of a substance, then there cannot be more than one substance, because if there are then more than one substance says, then both of them must be sort of having the same essence and essence there cannot be two essences. One object as an essence, if another object has its essence then these two are two different objects. So, there cannot be two different objects, if there were two or more of them they would have to be distinguishable from one another, they would have to possess different attributes. So, difference in attributes is a prerequisite for conceiving difference in substances. Now, the question is why substance is infinite and one and Spinoza says if two substances possess the same attributes, they possess the same essence, then they are not two, but one, because it is the essence which makes an object distinguishable, distinct. We cannot distinguish them two objects if they have the same essence. If there cannot be two or more substances possessing the same attributes, substance cannot be limited or finite, it must be infinite and one. So, that is the concept of substance which Spinoza advocates, the homogenous infinite single substance that which is in itself and is conceived through itself. This is again a kind of definition of substance, I repeat that which is in itself something which is the essence and existence are coinciding that thing and is conceived through itself. It is not conceived through something else, if there is something else then it is not infinite, then there are two or more than one, but substance is single one homogenous and it is in itself and is conceived through itself. It cannot have an external cause, if it has an external cause, then it is limited and condition by that an external cause, then it is not infinite and since substance is infinite it cannot have an external cause. It can be non through itself alone, because if it is non through something else, then it is limited by that thing, then it is related to that thing and infinite substance is absolutely non-relative, it is absolute, it cannot be a relative thing. It is the cause of itself, it is explained through itself and not by reference to an external cause, because any external cause would impose conditions and restrictions. So, it is in this context Spinoza denies plurality of substances, the existence of a plurality of substances needs to be explained in terms of the notion of cause, because these plurality, there is these different substances would have been derived from one single substance. So, there must be a cause for that, if there must be a cause for that then these substances are not substantial, then they are not real, something which is conditioned and limited by a cause cannot be real. IDF causation imposes restrictions and limitations and again substance cannot be the effect of an external cause, it is self-cause, I have already mentioned this, it is understood purely through itself to conceive it as an effect or a cause is against the definition of substance, because definition of substance insists that there is only one such thing. And if you follow this definition which I have mentioned slightly above, if you follow this definition of substance, it is completely self-dependent, not dependent on anything, if it is dependent on something then it is limited. It does not depend on any external cause either for its existence or for its attributes and modifications, its essence involves its existence. So, this is what I mentioned existence and essence coincides in the notion of substance. I read, I understand that to be cause of itself, the essence of which involves existence and the nature of which cannot be conceived except as existent. So, existence and essence converges coincides, since existence pertains to the nature of substance, this is what Spinoza says, I repeat since existence pertains to the nature of substance, its definition must be necessarily involve existence and therefore from its mere definition of its existence can be concluded. So, everything is derived from the mere definition, from its mere definition its existence is derived. Now, one important aspect about modern philosophy as we have examined Descartes Cartesian philosophy, we have seen that Descartes possessed a very unique conception of knowledge and his very objective was to arrive at a absolutely certain clearly and clarity and distinct clear and distinct knowledge. This is what he was trying to postulate and to arrive at this Descartes devises a method, he suggest that a method should be employed and Descartes method is as we have already seen it is the mathematical detective method. Spinoza also in the same things in the same line and suggest that we should employ a method. So, here we can see the influence of Descartes, the influence of modern scientific temperament which all employs a method and the influence of mathematics where mathematical certainty is possible because mathematics employs a method. All these things we can see in Spinoza as well adopts a geometrical method. So, in the case of Spinoza there is a slight difference, he adopts geometrical method not just mathematical method, in geometry is a science which deals with space and infinity. So, in that sense you know we can see the notion of substance as something which is infinite while developing this notion Spinoza is substantially influenced by geometry. Geometry deals with eternal truths about spatial relations and deduces from self evident which are deduced from self evident premises. So, you have eternal truths about spatial relations which are deduced from self evident premises and you adopt the same method apply it into philosophy, philosophy too should follow a similar method. So, what is it the most self evident thing is the existence of a homogenous infinite substance which is called. So, since in the previous slide I have shown you geometry eternal truths about spatial relations are deduced from self evident premises in geometry in a similar fashion we are trying to do that in philosophy. So, what is the most self evident thing in philosophy it is the existence of a homogenous infinite substance whose existence is actually proved by its very definition. In philosophy from the definition of God his attributes are to be derived. So, you come up with a concept of substance which is identical with God and from that derive the attributes and modes and other things from the attributes of God other lesser truths are derived. So, it is all from the self evident premises you derive everything in geometry. The nature of the real and ultimate connections in the world is not that of cause and effect, but of logical dependence. So, here again because if you introduce the notion of causation to explain the relationship between God and other things then you are sort of getting into the same trap causation would impose limitation any causal relationship suggest limitations which is not acceptable for spinosa because he is dealing with infinity the concept of infinity. So, he says that the nature of the real and ultimate connections in the world is not that of cause and effect which is the popular way in which it is understood, but of logical dependence. See the difference is that in the case of cause and effect there is something which is prior and after effect is after the cause. So, cause is prior to the effect and by virtue of being prior to the effect cause contains more reality than the effect or cause is more important than the effect we can say, but in the case of logical dependence there is no prior and after everything is interconnected there is a logical necessary interconnections between everything and that everything put together that collective whole is what reality is. So, for understanding the notion of substance spinosa adopts the geometrical method and he ultimately suggest that we have to see the entire world interconnected connections with each other each one is connected with the other, but these interconnections need not I mean need to be explained in terms of logical necessary connections rather than causal connections. In Descartes for example, when he talks about substance and attributes Descartes says that the idea of dependent substance of mind and body is derived from the notion of attributes. So, it is by virtue of this concept of attributes Descartes talks about mind and body mind with the attribute of thinking and body with the attribute of extension and this as we have already seen led to the dualism of mind and body and all sort of problems which Descartes and later Cartesian encounter. So, this is one single problem which occupied Descartes and his followers throughout their career and no satisfactory solution to this problem was given in the Cartesian framework and if you try to understand this from spinosa's perspective spinosa's doctrine of attributes again it is very interesting here spinosa is trying to sort of argue or trying to derive this concept of attributes from the definition of substance which he has already presented as infinite homogeneous single substance. So, what is it the more reality or being a thing has the more attributes it will have. So, if this is the principle the more reality or being a thing has the more attribute it will have then what about an infinite substance how many attributes and infinite substance should possess that is a question. So, infinite substance must have infinite attributes this is spinosa's answer each attribute expresses eternal and infinite essence because they are all the attributes of the infinite substance. Since they are the attribute of the infinite substance they are also infinite and they express eternal and infinite essence of the substance to which they are attributes and actually we have already seen that an attribute is something which the intellect can perceive. Thinking and extension are the two attributes which the human intellect is capable of knowing that does not mean that there are no other attributes Descartes talks only about two attributes thinking and extension because they are the things which we can understand spinosa says this is not correct the infinite substance should possess infinite attributes though only two of them out of this infinite attributes only two of them we are capable of knowing our intellect is capable of understanding and comprehending. So, here there are certain difficulties of the dualism which Descartes for example, ultimately reached and encountered how does one substance act upon another of a holy different nature how does the mind act on the body and how does the body act on the mind something which we have already discussed in the previous lecture. So, this is a problem because mind and body they possess diametrically opposite features and attributes and qualities how can it entirely different substance like mind acts upon an entirely different substance body how is it possible the problem of interactionism this is what something which the Cartesians have grappled with and occasionalism all kinds of explanations were given we have not gone to the details of this, but all kinds of explanations were given to account for this very peculiar unique kind of relationship, but ultimately they all fell short of clarity and they ultimately failed to provide a satisfactory explanation to this problem. On the other hand spinosa says that attributes of thought and extension are not two separate things that is an interesting thing they are not two separate things, but only aspects of one and the same thing parallelism between the attributes without any interaction. So, he says there is only one substance which is God whatever attributes we perceive however contradictory they appear to each other they all belong to one and the same substance God. So, there are, but they only aspects of one and the same thing they are aspects of one and the same thing, but there is a parallelism between the attributes without any interaction we do not see them the minds and the bodies there is the attributes of thinking and the attribute of extension they sort of go parallel to each other whenever I want to raise my hand in my mind I can raise it my hand goes up my body obeys. So, it is not that the body the hand goes up in response to the command of my mind it is not that the mental thinking of my wanting to my desire to raise my hand has cost the movement in my hand, but rather on the other hand spinosa says that there is a desire in the mind and the hand goes up. So, they run parallel to each other for each mode of thought a mode of extension will exist. So, for each mode of thought let my hand goes up a mode of extension my hand going up exist. So, they go parallel to each other not that one is cost by the other. So, in Descartes framework this is the substance attribute framework we have already discussed it God is the independent substance mind with the attribute of thinking and matter with the attribute of extension exist one independent substance and the two dependent substances God and mind mind and matter are distinct by virtue of possessing different attributes, but in spinosa this would picturize spinosa's perception God the only substance and extension and thought are within that which means that they are both are attributes of God. God as an infinity of attributes each of which is infinite out of God's infinite attributes only thought and extension are known to us now comes the important point finite minds are modes of God under the attribute of thought and finite bodies are modes of God under the attribute of extension.  It is quite interesting that some of his critics even view him as a atheist as I already mentioned that because I had a very interesting life very eventful life he started his career as a Jew he belongs to the Jewish community. So, he started his career in a very conventional way his parents sent him to I mean he was considered as one of the promising sort of intellectuals in the Jewish community by the community, but soon he found that some of these explanations given by the theologians are not really satisfying some of his later concerns. So, he sort of started questioning the kind of the traditional interpretations given in Jewish theology which ultimately led to his communication even from the community and there was even a murder attempt, but spinosa held very unorthodox views about God. So, that is what this conception of God where which we will explain in the next lecture which is called pantheism which is a very unorthodox view of God which cannot be accepted by any of these three Abrahamic religions of Judaism Christianity and Islam. So, these three religions find this picturization of God identification of God with nature God and nature are one and the same as extremely problematic and this is what precisely spinosa says out of God's infinite attributes only two we will know and finite minds are modes of God under the attribute of thought and finite bodies are modes of God under the attribute of extension and the universe is ultimately not different from God the infinite substance which has infinite attribute and the intellect can understand it with the help of two attributes thought and extension motion and rest is the fundamental mode of extension understanding or apprehending is the fundamental mode of thought I repeat motion and rest is the fundamental mode of extension understanding and apprehending is the fundamental mode of thought they run parallel to each other. And extension and motion in Descartes for example, we have already seen motion is caused by God who is an external cause and Descartes even says that the amount of motion is constant as God constant. So, there is a kind of motion of initial push the first move which is caused by God and the amount of motion is constant and spinosa says that there is no external cause he denies the idea of external cause and nature is not different from God. So, the motion in nature is not caused by an external God with a push, but rather nature and God are one and the same. So, every motion every movement motion and rest everything is caused by itself. So, it is not different from it the logically prior state of substance under the attribute of extension is motion and rest it is logically prior not causally prior. So, there is no sort of sequence in time there is only logical sequencing. So, the logically prior state of substance under the attribute of extension is motion and rest and God and nature are not distinct movement must be a characteristic of nature itself no cause distinct from nature which could confer or impress movement upon nature. So, whatever motion whatever movement is there in nature is not cause by an external entity or God, but it is self cause because God and nature are one and the same. So, motion is already there in nature in God and it is a root of spinosa's pantheism and it is in this context the physical world and extension can be understood I mean Descartes understands it as substance and attribute, but for spinosa motion and rest is a fundamental mode of extension it is a primary characteristic of extended nature and the total proportion of motion and rest remain constant here there is some similarity with Descartes. And the physical universe is a self contained system of bodies in motion because they are necessarily self contained and if you try to understand the concepts of substance attributes and modes from this context it is different from the Cartesian interpretation because the total amount of motion and rest or what in today's modern terminology can be understood as energy law of conservation of energy is the infinite internal immediate mode of God or nature under the attribute of extension. So, you can understand it in that way the total amount of motion and rest is the infinite and eternal immediate mode of God or nature under the attribute of extension and nature is a spatial system or system of bodies logically interconnected the system of bodies is the immediate infinite and eternal mode of God or nature under the attribute of extension and when we come to thinking which is Descartes another attribute of the substance of mind it is absolutely infinite understanding for spinosa it is not a fine attribute of a finite thinking substance, but thinking is an absolutely infinite understanding the immediate infinite and eternal mode of God or nature under the attribute of thought. We will explain this in the next lecture when we discuss the concept of God understanding or apprehending is a fundamental mode of thought and again our mind is an eternal mode of thinking this is determined by another mode of thinking. So, it is all logically I mean interconnected in that way and this one again by another and so on to infinity. So, you ultimately take us to infinity the thought and extension the two attributes of Descartes the attributes of thought and extension where attributes of the same substance or different aspects of one and the same substance the eternal and infinite intellect of God possesses them and this is what the psycho physical parallelism means for each mode of thought a mode of extension exist parallel thought can only be explained by reference to thought series. So, there is a thought series and there is a series of bodies they run parallel to each other extension by reference to other modes of extension a mode of extension and the idea of that mode are one and the same thing expressed in two ways. So, though they run parallel they are not different they are one and the same thing because they belong to one and the same homogeneous infinite substance which is God and they are expressed in two ways that is all this is called the psycho physical parallelism we can conceive nature under the attribute of extension or under that of thought both follow one and the same order one and the same concatenation of causes ultimately points to the infinite divine substance which is God this we will explain in the next lecture the concept of God which is a very central concept in Spinoza's philosophy. So, we will wind up this lecture here. Thank you.


Flick again, come back for more. This is Jadon Anthony. Swat in and Swat forwards! And a million honours, and he's helping them. What a start to his Bournemouth career. I mean, he finished last season with a flourish, finished really strong, always a midfielder that's prepared to get himself into an area. And it's a calm, composed finish. It's hard and it's low. It's to work it in with his feet this time. Which in that cross, O'Shea arriving! West from a champion, and out in the championship! Strong team in the air, despite not having big forwards, they've got big central defenders. Well, and this will really disappoint Scott Parker. Not that, but... Giving chase, huge boots of honour down to him tonight. He's linked up beautifully with Zamora. Swanky was waiting and passed in! Baljade and Anthony and Jordan Zamora, because without you, this just doesn't happen. A great piece of endeavour initially by Anthony. But look at the willing run of Zamora. Otherwise I'm sure he wouldn't have took the job. Matt Phillips killed Kenny, he was after him. Phillips smuggled through to Mowich, Robinson! It's as good as it gets, isn't it? The passing, the movement, the decision making, and ultimately the execution. It's first-class again, win the ball back in Bournemouth territory, and then they drive.


Our lifestyle is just so accelerated but being out here just for a moment you can forget about the pressures of life. We're at the lovely Fort Worth Botanic Garden inside the Japanese Garden today for our diversity and inclusion monthly program and this is our Asian influence program so it only fits right to be in the Japanese Garden. A lot of the trees are Japanese maples. All of the pavilions are based on Shinto temples and then if you get time go take a look at the Makoshi Shrine which is an authentic shrine. It makes me feel very calm. It has like a soothing effect. You can feel the coolness the evaporative effect of the large trees. Just relax calm. I've been taking yoga with the city as well so I've started practicing some of those breathing techniques and just really enjoying it. I think the first word that came to my mind was peace tranquility relaxation leave your carers at the door you it's sort of like coming to a sacred area. They gave us a tourist I came in that the Japanese culture they they connect with nature and the sounds of the wind the trees and how we become part of that. It's different it's interesting and you can open your mind to other things. I noticed the different crafts the different music the the artistic expressions oh something that sometimes we're not exposed to only on tv and when you're exposed to it in person it's different. I like the interpretive I guess styles that the garden actually has also like the the incorporation of like the fish you know and the water features. The Japanese Garden is part of the Fort Worth Botanic Garden. For hours tours and tea ceremony information visit fwbg.org


And the big thing about today's rumor and reports as well, we're gonna be talking about a major news outlet, actually a few of them leading this report. There is a little bit of misrepresentation of the report based on the presently given information. However, it's possible there is some substance to this that has yet to be discovered because all these reports are coming out of China and getting the exact translations. There isn't full transcripts of everything. So it gets a little bit confusing. So we'll go off the reports and the headlines and the stuff that are happening right now around Nintendo Switch 2 because it seems to be heavily implying that Nintendo Switch 2 is coming early next year. If not the first three months of next year, the first six months because it all depends on what quarter one means. Does quarter one mean quarter one of the fiscal year which would then be April, May, and June? Or does it mean quarter one of the calendar year which would then be January, February, and March? Now we've had one other report that pointed to this time period and this would definitely be a major corroboration that deals with manufacturing which would heavily suggest that hey, you know what? We're getting this damn thing in less than a year. And that would be quite interesting to see when Nintendo would handle announcing it. Could they still keep the doors open to announcing it this year? Yada, yada, yada. So that's why we're talking about this stuff but we gotta go into some corrections after we get into why people are talking about it. And it really starts with this article by WCCF Tech. Now WCCF Tech is a highly reputable website that typically does a really good job with their journalism but you know what? There's actually gonna be some problems with this article and we'll get into it in a little bit. But first let's read what it says. It says Nintendo Switch 2 early 2024 release was hinted by a Chinese SOC manufacturer. So it says the Nintendo Switch successor has yet to be officially revealed but it's looking more and more likely that it will release in the first few months of 2024 or possibly first six months judging from information that was discovered today. As reported by notebook check and money DJ Chinese manufacturer Pixar which provided the SOC powering the Joy-Con sensors as well as other parts for previous Nintendo home consoles such as the Wii and Wii U revealed in its latest financial report that a new console from a Japanese company that hasn't launched a new system in years they are supplying parts for will release in early 2024. While the report from Pixar doesn't mention the new Nintendo Switch outright it's extremely likely the Chinese manufacturer is indeed talking about the yet to be revealed console considering it is the only Japanese company that hasn't released a new system in years something that rules out Sony entirely. This isn't the first time a Chinese company hinted at an early 2024 release date for the next Nintendo Switch and this is the one where we've already had a report on this that has proven to be accurate at least you know, there's no misreported on it and that is with Hog Zoom a metal cases manufacturer revealed earlier this month that they expect an increase in sales in the second half of the year due to Nintendo. They said Nintendo themselves planning to release a new console in the first quarter of 2024. So again, this is an accessory manufacturer basically being like, yeah we are expecting a massive boom in sales in the second half because of something that's released in the first half and so yeah that's quite quite interesting and is definitely something to pay attention to if you didn't hear about that news already there you go and as already mentioned Nintendo hasn't talked much about the Switch successor. Back in May President Shintaro Furukawa stated that no new hardware will be released before the end of the current fiscal year which is actually a misquote another red flag in this article. So this is like the biggest red flag here is that Shintaro Furukawa never said that there wouldn't be new hardware released this fiscal year. What he actually said is that no new hardware is currently part of the fiscal projections because hey, you know, we're not you know, they're not gonna make projections on hardware that hasn't even been announced, right? So they were talking about they were projecting to sell 15 million switches and they were basically inferring none of that 15 million included new hardware. So Nintendo never said there wouldn't be new hardware this fiscal year. That's a common misrepresentation of what he actually said. He was just talking about their financial projections are not based on any potential new hardware because again, new hardware hasn't been announced. Now that being said, we gotta dive into some stuff here. Obviously he does go on to mention dev kits and all of that but that's, here's the problem. They are not the source of this story, all right? So there, while there are major news outlet that got it a lot of attention, they are not the source. So let's go through their sourcing on this because they mentioned two places. Now the first place they mentioned is a place called Notebook Check which is another English website. So let's go take a look at them. And it says Nintendo Switch 2 released a area strongly hinted at third party financial forecast for Pixar Imaging. So it says a new financial report from a Chinese language media site has once again offered up a tasty morsel about the potential Nintendo Switch 2 release date period. So again, we have to go down this rabbit hole for a reason, it's all gonna make sense at the end. All right, this time around a Japanese game console or a Japanese game machine is mentioned but evidence in the article points to this being a Switch 2 or next generation Switch. Not long ago in an article published by MoneyDJ talked about Foxconn's business with the item stating that Nintendo was planning on releasing its Switch successor in the first quarter of 2024. This is again, referencing an older report. Now a new financial report from the same source has been discussed on another part of Nintendo's frequent business partners, Pixar Imaging. The intriguing part for Switch 2 observers is this machine translated as this. So just to note, this is like a Google translation. However, it is worth noting that the supply chain pointed out that the Japanese game machine will be launched early next year which has been absent for many years. The game machine is also one of the key customers of PixArt, which again, PixArt is important because they are a actual confirmed. I looked it up, they are a confirmed manufacturing partner before Nintendo Switch. So yeah, if they're referencing the game machine, it's the only game machine they manufacture parts for. Yeah, talking about the next Nintendo Switch, it's not that hard to connect the dots. Anyways, this article goes on to note and remember, most of what WCCF Tech's article says is coming from this article. In a nutshell, the article reckons that PixArt has generally had a good business year in 2023 with a boost coming from AI developments and that 2024 could be just as fruitful with the Japanese game machine helping things along. While neither Nintendo or Switch are mentioned, it is likely an allusion to what is commonly called the Switch 2. PixArt has worked with Nintendo on numerous occasions including with the Wii and OG Switch, the company specializes in CMOS image sensor SOCs and is partially or wholly responsible for the motion camera sensor found on the bottom of the Switch Joy-Con. Naturally, Nintendo would want to work with reliable partners on Switch 2 so PixArt would probably be on board. So I mean, yeah, based on what they do technology wise they'll probably be part of it. While it could be argued that this Japanese game machine can also be something to do with the PlayStation 5, it's latest related hardware, Project Q Handheld is expected to arrive later this year rather than early next year and the reporter states it comes from the supply chain giving one of the firmest pointers so far as some of this is true releasing following in early 2024 also that it comes from someone who hasn't released new hardware in a while. Look, we've got new hardware from Sony not only this year with the Project Q in 2020 and there's obviously a rumored slim or some sort of PS5 quality of life upgrade this year, et cetera, et cetera. There's a lot of stuff already rumored around PlayStation plus things they've already released. Now this article is mostly fine because this article is quoting another article and they don't make any radical claims in this particular article. And so when we go to the original source here, you end up at the Money DJ website. Now I've already machine translated this into English because it wasn't Chinese, so we're just gonna kind of go through this machine translation and figure something out here and I gotta give FamilyBoard some credit on what we figure out here but it says the CMOS Image Sensor Factory originally phased, benefited AI marketing, a bunch of garbage is worth knowing the supply chain pointed out the Japanese game console will launch a new console that's not been seen for many years early next year. So this is the big one. This is basically what's being quoted. Well when you go through the rest of this article, you'll notice that nothing is sourced, all right? Nothing is sourced and the source tends to be the Pixar Financial Briefing. And when people dug through the Pixar Financial Briefing, it turns out that there's no mention of this in the Pixar Financial Briefing. Why? What is up with that? Why is there no mention of this at the actual, it's like, you know, they're claiming Pixar said this but then Pixar didn't say this. Here's the problem. Here's where all of this gets really confusing and again, while I'm banned at this place, I do need to give a shout out to FamilyBoards that does stay on top of all of it. I'm literally opening this thing as we go here because there's additional information here that we don't have from and that is this post right here. Let me open this up and show you guys. So we have a post over on FamilyBoards saying here that Pixar did do a QA but they didn't transcript the question. So we don't have any actual translations to look at when it comes to the QA section. And people are wondering if the money DJ plays which people aren't really questioning their validity here. They're just wondering, hey, can we verify what was said? And right now it's almost impossible for WCCF tech or notebook check or any of these places to verify any of this. And that's the problem with the reporting is the reporting doesn't include verifications. And when it doesn't include the verifications or the note that this is unverified information, it's difficult. But this is a link to the QA and when you open it up, I mean, it's exactly what you would expect. It is a QA session going through all of their financials over 24 minutes. And for the most part, we don't have any translations of what was said here. So as I'm clicking through all of this, you got this QA section. This is the big section. So this first section has a translation. This last section doesn't. And so we aren't even sure what questions were asked, what was stated. And it's possible in this giant QA sector here that we do actually get this inference that yes, they are expecting pretty good sales in 2024 as well due to this system that's really seen in the first quarter of 2024. So it is possible this statement exists but money DJ doesn't do a good job explaining where in the report they got this information because it's not actually in, there's like a 53 page report. It's not actually in the 53 page report. And it could be in the QA section, but like Nintendo, it's like when we get Nintendo's financial reports, right? They have this in a Q and A. The Q and A always comes later, but we often have people attend the Q and A that English translate us in real time to give us some of the stories. That doesn't happen with this company. Pixar doesn't have this happen. So what is happening is we have no way of verifying this because I don't speak native Chinese. I'm not gonna listen through the 12 minutes here. I tried to get it machine translated through programs that understand and try to translate spoken word into text and that was a giant mess. It didn't really work. I don't know if maybe our AI technologies aren't advanced enough yet for that. But the bottom line is I was chasing down this story all day because something didn't smell right. Just digging through source after source, I'm finding out, I have no way to verify that this was ever said. I can't say that it wasn't, but I can't say that it was. And it's a little frustrating when the way we receive this information from overseas isn't adding in the caveat of they were unable to verify this. They're just trusting that notebook check verified it, who is trusting that Money DJ verified it and Money DJ isn't even stating exactly where the quote came from and because machine translating Money DJ isn't an exact science. Anyways, because Chinese doesn't translate perfectly into English, it's also possible that that entire paragraph is a misquote and it's actually talking about their prior stuff like the other articles brought up. The other articles brought up prior reports about switch coming in quarter one and it's possible that entire paragraph is referencing a prior report. So it's very interesting how this is basically an unverified machine translated story that's spreading like wildfire and nobody seems to be able to verify it. And again, I went through family boards because there were some Chinese speakers on there to see if they wanted to go through and in the effort. No one really wants to seem to go through the effort because it's very boring to listen to. I'm sure by the end of the day we'll probably have the real truth in this and if it was actually talked about in the Q and A. So what's the big takeaway from all of this? The big takeaway is essentially we don't know if this was said. That's the bottom line. We do know however. We do know about an accessory manufacturer. We know about Foxconn and kind of hinting that we would get something in the first half of next year. We know about that Nikkei report that was sort of suggesting second half of next year with mass production beginning sometime at the end of this year. So those are reports that we do know that we do have verified that are real. So within those reports we have some conflicting information on release. We have an accessory manufacturer basically saying hey, this thing's coming out first half of next year, first quarter of next year. We have Foxconn and Nikkei sort of saying oh no actually it's gonna come out in the second half of next year. The only agreement is that it's coming out next year. They can't really agree on the release timing. So when you're seeing all these headlines and all these reports including my own video if you only read headlines that don't care about context that are just like oh the title switch too is coming early next year. First quarter like we have to keep this all in context. I have always, always, always emphasized context matters and yeah, we all click bait. Yeah, we all try to have amazing titles and I don't shy away from that. Like hey, this is how it works in the news field. You need to get your clicks. I don't mind WCCF's title on their article like get people to come in and click. What I hate is when you actually go in and get the context it's missing the context that this is all unverified at this point because they personally couldn't verify it. Notebook check didn't verify it and DJ Money didn't really even tell us where this came from and they didn't get it properly translated in the first place. So bottom line is this. I am probably thinking switch two is in 2024. I think it's coming holiday 2024 but they could do it sooner. And the only thing that makes me think sooner is that the PlayStation 5 Pro rumor is true. I can see where Nintendo wants their own release window and they may drop it in June. They might drop it in the summer. Maybe it'll be first half. Maybe it'll be the first quarter. We don't know and I don't think today we know anything more than we knew yesterday. Thank you so much for tuning in and I'll catch you in the next video.