# mens postea illo a sua vera causa quæ .... (Spinoza)



## SuprunP

I've been reading a book and one sentence puzzled me a lot. This book is a translation of Ethics by Spinoza, and the sentence in question is:

From the preceding proposition it is clear that when the mind is later affected by the former *as its true cause* - which, by hypothesis, of itself neither increases nor diminishes the mind's power of thinking - it will straightway be affected by the other, which does increase or diminish its power thinking; that is (Sch. Pr. 11, III), it will be affected by pleasure or pain.
(Spinoza "Complete Works" with translations by Samuel Shirley. "Ethics", Part III, Proposition 15)

Here is another translation by using which I tried to cast light on the actual meaning of the said sentence.

From the foregoing proposition it is evident that, whenever the mind is afterwards affected by the former, *through its true cause*, which (by hypothesis) neither increases nor diminishes its power of action, it will be at the same time affected by the latter, which does increase or diminish its power of activity, that is (III. xi. note) it will be affected with pleasure or pain.
("Ethics" by Benedictus de Spinoza, translated by R. H. M. Elwes, Part III, Proposition 15)

Here is the original Latin Text:

Ex præcedenti propositione patet quod ubi mens postea illo a sua vera causa quæ (per hypothesin) per se ejus cogitandi potentiam nec auget nec minuit, afficietur, statim et hoc altero qui ipsius cogitandi potentiam auget vel minuit hoc est (per scholium propositionis 11 hujus) lætitia vel tristitia afficietur atque adeo illa res non per se sed per accidens causa erit lætitiæ vel tristitiæ.

Could anybody compare the translations with the original text and help me to understand the true meaning of the said sentence, especially the meaning of the part in bold?

Thanks.


----------



## relativamente

The main verb is afficietur, future tense passive form meaning will be affected. The agent in ablative normally corresponds to English phrase beginning by the preposition by.Translating literally "the mind will be affected by its true cause".What I do not see clearly whether it reffers to the cause of the mind or the cause of the former.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

A passive form is usually completed either by an ablative expressing means or by _ab+ Ablative_ expressing an agent. Here both are present :* illo* and *a sua vera causa*. To understand _illo_, it's necessary to take into account the previous sentence of the text :_ _
 
_Ponatur mens duobus affectibus simul affici, *uno* scilicet qui ejus agendi potentiam neque auget neque minuit et *altero *qui eandem vel auget vel minuit (vide postulatum 1 hujus). _

_illo  _refers to the word _uno_ [_affectu_]  ,hence the translation _by the former _( _altero_ being turned into _the other_ or _the latter_ ).

_a sua vera causa_ seems harder to make out. _Sua_ refers to _affectus_, even though _sua _is not related to the subject, but phrases as _per se_ and _sua sponte _unrelated to the subject are usual and referring it to _mens_ does'nt make sense. _vera _means true or real. So I think the phrase denotes the cause, the source that is at the root of the affect. Some French translations make it clearer by saying : " par la cause qui la produit ( la = la passion, _affectus_ ) or par " l'action d'une cause la produisant ". 
 
The difficulty is due to the necessity of using two prepositions in English or in French. If I had to choose, I'd prefer "through" (although the cause   logically precedes the affect ), but my opinion is just one and not a native's !


----------



## lacrimae

I understand "...by virtue or by reason of its true causa ". Causa (antecedent of Quae ) is later explained in the sentence "quae...."


----------



## SuprunP

lacrimae said:


> I understand "...by virtue or by reason of its true causa ". Causa (antecedent of Quae ) is later explained in the sentence "quae...."



What does *its* refer to?

Thanks.

P.S. I do not know Latin, that's why the word _quae_ (or any other Latin word) makes little sense to me.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

lacrimae said:


> I understand "...by virtue or by reason of its true causa ". Causa (antecedent of Quae ) is later explained in the sentence "quae...."


 
 Your translation is quite relevant.



SuprunP said:


> What does *its* refer to?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> P.S. I do not know Latin, that's why the word _quae_ (or any other Latin word) makes little sense to me.


 
_Its_ refers to _illo _that refers itself to _affectu_ ( see my previous post ) and _quae _is a fem. relative relative pronoun that refers to the noun _mens _( mind ), feminine in Latin.


----------



## SuprunP

J.F. de TROYES said:


> _Its_ refers to _illo _that refers itself to _affectu_ ( see my previous post ) and _quae _is a fem. relative relative pronoun that refers to the noun _mens _( mind ), feminine in Latin.



Let me make it absolutely (= as far as it can be possible in discussing such a difficult linguistic as well as philosophical issue) clear.
I can see from your previous post that *its* refers to *illo* that itself refers to *affectu*. But my lack of knowledge of Latin poses a hurdle between my mind and your post, consequently impeding my understanding of the meaning of the sentence in question.

Here is the sentence in English translation that precedes the sentence in question:

Let it be supposed that the mind is affected by two emotions simultaneously, of which one neither increases nor diminishes its power of activity, and the other either increases it or diminishes it (Post. 1, III).

As far as I can understand the word *affectu* is translated here as *emotion*? From this I infer that the second sentence should read either:

[...] whenever the mind is afterwards affected by the former, through its (*former emotion's*) true cause,

or:

[...] when the mind is later affected by the former as its (*former emotion's*) true cause.

Am I right in my assumption?

Thanks.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

SuprunP said:


> Let me make it absolutely (= as far as it can be possible in discussing such a difficult linguistic as well as philosophical issue) clear.
> 
> As far as I can understand the word *affectu* is translated here as *emotion*? From this I infer that the second sentence should read either:
> 
> [...] whenever the mind is afterwards affected by the former, through its (*former emotion's*) true cause,
> 
> or:
> 
> [...] when the mind is later affected by the former as its (*former emotion's*) true cause.
> 
> Am I right in my assumption?
> 
> Thanks.


 
You are perfectly right.


----------



## SuprunP

May I ask you a related question here?

This intellectual love follows necessarily from the nature of the mind insofar as *that* is considered as an eternal truth through God's nature.
(Spinoza "Complete Works" with translations by Samuel Shirley. "Ethics", Part V, 'Of the Power of the Intellect, or of Human Freedom', Proposition 37, proof)

Q: Does Latin text tell us unambiguously and explicitly what is what in this sentence, because I'm having trouble trying to understand what *that* refers to as English sentence is 'slightly obscure'?

The Latin text:
Hic intellectualis amor ex mentis natura necessario sequitur quatenus ipsa ut æterna veritas per Dei naturam consideratur.
(I hope I've copied the right sentence.)

Thanks.


----------



## relativamente

SuprunP said:


> May I ask you a related question here?
> 
> This intellectual love follows necessarily from the nature of the mind insofar as *that* is considered as an eternal truth through God's nature.
> (Spinoza "Complete Works" with translations by Samuel Shirley. "Ethics", Part V, 'Of the Power of the Intellect, or of Human Freedom', Proposition 37, proof)
> 
> Q: Does Latin text tell us unambiguously and explicitly what is what in this sentence, because I'm having trouble trying to understand what *that* refers to as English sentence is 'slightly obscure'?
> 
> The Latin text:
> Hic intellectualis amor ex mentis natura necessario sequitur quatenus ipsa ut æterna veritas per Dei naturam consideratur.
> (I hope I've copied the right sentence.)
> 
> Thanks.


The pronoun ipse, ipsa, ipsum is a pronoun of third person that has an emphatic meaning.There is no doubt that this pronoun refers to mentis natura.For more clarity you can translate ...insofar as the nature of the mind (itself) is considered...


----------



## lacrimae

_Its_ refers to _illo _that refers itself to _affectu_ ( see my previous post ) and _quae _is a fem. relative relative pronoun that refers to the noun _mens _( mind ), feminine in Latin.[/QUOTE]

 I think relative pronoun "quae" refers to the noum "causa" which through "sua" refers to "illo".
saludos


----------

