A third interpretation of Spinoza has it that the infinite modes can explain how we get from corporeal substance, which is not extended in space, to modes that are extended in space. It has been widely accepted that Spinoza intends the infinite modes to transition from an indivisible and eternal natura naturans to divisible and sempiternal natura naturata, although, of course, the details of the way this works vary from interpreter to interpreter. As a most careful and well-argued example of this kind of view, I’ll consider Yitzhak Melamed’s recent account of the infinite modes in Melamed (2013). The infinite modes are introduced in EIp21–23 as modes which “exist necessarily and are infinite” and “(a) follow either from the absolute nature of some attribute of God, or (b) from some attribute, modified by a modification which exists necessarily and is infinite” (EIp21–23, G II 64/C 429–430). (a) are usually referred to as the “immediate infinite modes”, and (b) as the “mediate infinite modes”. Melamed argues that a careful reading of Letter 12 shows that modes are divisible by their nature and substance is not, and that the infinite modes effect the transition from indivisibility to divisibility. If the infinite modes effect this transition, can they also effect the transition from the attribute of Extension as it is contained in or modifies God, and the sempiternal world of extended bodies?
« Prev Next »
Top of page Top of page