This PDF is a truncated section of the full text for preview purposes only. Where possible the preliminary material, first chapter and list of bibliographic references used within the text have been included. For more information on how to purchase or subscribe to this or other Taylor & Francis titles, please visit https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315242620. ISBN: 9781351898614 (ebook)
SPINOZA AND DEEP ECOLOGY Spinoza and Deep Ecology explores the philosophical, psychological and political assumptions that underpin a concern for nature, offering specific suggestions how the domination of humans and nature may be overcome. It is primarily intended as an introduction to the philosophy of ecology, known as deep ecology, and to the way Spinoza s philosophy has been put to this aim. Only a self-realization, along the lines of Spinoza s philosophy, can afford a philosophy of care which is inclusive of humans and the non-human world, which recognizes the need for civil laws and democratic politics for human flourishing. In stark contrast to texts written by or on behalf of deep ecologists, Spinoza and Deep Ecology is not afraid of criticizing existing versions of deep ecology which fail to accept that human concerns are integral to environmental issues.
ASHGATE NEW CRITICAL THINKING IN PHILOSOPHY The Ashgate New Critical Thinking in Philosophy series aims to bring high quality research monograph publishing back into focus for authors, the international library market, and student, academic and research readers. Headed by an international editorial advisory board of acclaimed scholars from across the philosophical spectrum, this new monograph series presents cutting-edge research from established as well as exciting new authors in the field; spans the breadth of philosophy and related disciplinary and interdisciplinary perspectives; and takes contemporary philosophical research into new directions and debate. Series Editorial Board: Professor David Cooper, University of Durham, UK Professor Peter Lipton, University of Cambridge, UK Professor Sean Sayers, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK Professor Simon Critchley, University of Essex, UK Dr Simon Glendinning, University of Reading, UK Professor Paul Helm, King s College London, UK Dr David Lamb, University of Birmingham, UK Professor John Post, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA Professor Alan Goldman, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia Professor Joseph Friggieri, University of Malta, Malta Professor Graham Priest, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia Professor Moira Gatens, University of Sydney, Australia Professor Alan Musgrave, University of Otago, New Zealand
Spinoza and Deep Ecology Challenging Traditional Approaches to Environmentalism Eccy de Jonge
First published 2004 by Ashgate Publishing Published 2016 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright Eccy de Jonge 2004 The right of Eccy de Jonge to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data De Jonge, Eccy Spinoza & deep ecology: challenging traditional approaches to environmentalism. - (Ashgate new critical thinking in philosophy) 1. Spinoza, Benedictus de, 1632-1677 2. Deep ecology - Philosophy 3. Environmental ethics 4. Metaphysics I. Title 179.1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data De Jonge, Eccy Spinoza and deep ecology: challenging traditional approaches to environmentalism / Eccy de Jonge. p. cm (Ashgate new critical thinking in philosophy) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-7546-3327-6 (alk. paper) 1. Deep ecology 2. Ecology -- Philosophy 3. Spinoza, Benedictus de, 1632 1677. I. Title II. Series. GE195.D42 2003 179'.1--dc21 2002043968 ISBN 13: 978-0-7546-3327-3 (hbk)
To my mother, Toni Rolls
This page intentionally left blank
Contents Preface Acknowledgements Abbreviations ix xi xiii DEEP ECOLOGY Introduction: Defining Deep Ecology 1 1 Deep Ecology and Environmental Ethics 9 An Integrated Philosophy of Care 9 The Ethics of Nature 15 2 Self-Realization: the Heart of Deep Ecology 35 The Nature of the Self 37 The Non-Moral Self 50 SPINOZA 3 The Metaphysics of Nature 61 The Aim of Metaphysics 62 From Metaphysics to Ethics 73 4 Spinoza and Deep Ecology 85 Self Analysis 86 The Metaphysics of Love 92 5 The Social and Political Self 109 The Politics of Harm 110 The Ideal Civil State 121 Concluding Remarks 145 Bibliography 147 Index 163 vii
This page intentionally left blank
Preface Deep ecologists aim to show how an harmonious relationship with nature can be made available, through extending care from the human to the non-human world. To this end, deep ecology sets itself up as the substantial basis for a philosophy of ecology as distinct from an environmental ethics. This book criticizes existing versions of deep ecology but argues that its philosophy of care can be substantiated in the writings of the seventeenth-century philosopher, Benedict de Spinoza (1632 77). Whilst Spinoza will not be able to uphold all the various tenets of deep ecology, his metaphysics can ground deep ecology s core thesis: self-realization. It might be asked why it is necessary to establish a particular philosophy of ecology rather than an environmental ethics. Whilst it may be possible to give reasons why we ought to extend our concern to the non-human world, the incidence of war and other crimes against humanity makes such an ethics incomplete. In contrast, the doctrine of self-realization aims to show not why we ought to care for the non-human realm but how the concern we show towards those who are closest to us can be developed to include all beings. But first we must know, how does care or concern arise? Spinoza will be able to answer this question through his philosophy of love. Whilst this will show how we can develop a deeper concern for both the human and the non-human world, it will exclude certain people who are unable to love, or who suffer insufficient self-love to embrace other beings those who commit suicide, for instance. These are among the people who need the assistance of certain social and intellectual resources in order to be capable of love in Spinoza s sense. This leads to an examination of Spinoza s political theory, including the need for civil laws and his version of the democratic state. Deep ecologists, engaged in Spinoza s metaphysics, have ignored his political requirements that enable self-realization to take place. Instead, those deep ecologists who do hold a political theory are tied to an approach which is opposed to Spinoza s doctrine, for the sort of politics associated with deep ecology includes forms of violent direct action. This has made deep ecology seem highly controversial. The politics of deep ecology contradicts a philosophy whose underlying aim is to increase care which includes the human as well as the non-human world. This means that to substantiate deep ecology in Spinoza s metaphysics requires separating deep ecological political theory from its philosophical foundations. We shall see that the need to divorce deep ecological philosophy from its violent and radical politics is a good thing, since its political and social views make deep ecology, as a viable philosophy, untenable. ix
This page intentionally left blank
Acknowledgements This book is based on my PhD thesis. I would like to thank Tom Sorell, who acted as my thesis supervisor, and Andrew Collier, who acted as examiner to the PhD and who encouraged me to turn the thesis into a book. I would also like to thank Herman de Dijn and Richard Mason, for independently reviewing the manuscript for publication, and Marin Terpstra for his comments on Spinoza s political theory, elucidated in chapter 5. I am also grateful to Pete Kolsky for many editorial suggestions. Among others who offered support, and to whom I am grateful are: Christine Anderson, Steve Barbone, Wiep van Bunge, Chris Curtis, Max Fordham, Ia and John McIlwaine, Chris Mounsey, Kit Fai Naess, Piet Steenbakkers, and Theo van der Werf. Finally, I would like to thank my mother, Toni Rolls, for her encouragement, advice and support over many years, which made the writing of this book possible. xi
This page intentionally left blank
Abbreviations The following abbreviations pertain to works by Spinoza in English translation. Latin or Dutch abbreviations are shown in brackets. ST Short Treatise on God, Man and His Well-Being (KV Korte Verhandeling van God, de Mensch en Deszelvs Welstand), trans. A. Wolf. Of the two manuscripts ST refers to the first (A) unless otherwise stated. Occasionally, phrases are added to A from B; in such cases B appears in {}. CL Correspondence, Letters (quoted from the Elwes edition unless otherwise stated) OIU On the Improvement of the Understanding (TIE Tractatus de Intellectus Emendatione) TPT A Theologico-Political Treatise (TTP Tractatus Theologico-Politicus) PT A Political Treatise (TP Tractatus Politicus) MT Metaphysical Thoughts (CM Cogitata Metaphysica) DPP Descartes s Principles of Philosophy E(I V) Ethics, Parts I V (e.g. EV, Ethics part 5) In the Ethics the following abbreviations are used in order to pinpoint the quotation. In all cases I refer to the Elwes translation and use the abbreviations below rather than the page number for cross-reference to any translation. Where appropriate I have consulted the Latin text (Gebhardt edition) and placed these terms in brackets. Any amendment to the translation is given in the notes. app ax c def def aff d exp lem n p pref pf appendix axiom corollary definition definition of affect demonstration explanation lemma note (in recent translations scholium is used instead) proposition preface proof See the bibliography for further details and editions of Spinoza s works. xiii
This page intentionally left blank
Introduction Defining Deep Ecology Deep ecology can be divided into a philosophy of ecology which asks deeper questions concerning our relationship to the environment and a social/political movement which follows a set of guidelines called the Deep Ecology Platform (DEP). 1 In calling itself a movement deep ecology comes under attack, both for scorning selfcriticism and for being prescriptive rather than meta-ethical. As a philosophy, deep ecology is no less controversial, but this is tied to its failure to address what might be termed the human rights issue. Deep ecology, as a particular branch of philosophy, describes a specific interest that a philosopher has to the discipline of philosophy, a discipline that is attractive because it offers a philosophical perspective not afraid of its sources or in limiting itself to the Western tradition, as is typical of most Western thought. In its emphasis on self-realization, deep ecology attempts to grasp something fundamental, which is usually seen as belonging only to Eastern thought namely: an emphasis on characterizing a deeper sense of self than the mind/body relation. It thus offers a real place where East and West can meet. Furthermore, the deepness of deep ecology is seen as analogous to discovering metaphysical foundations for a philosophy of ecology which might otherwise be subsumed as a branch of environmental ethics. Since many philosophers who define themselves as sympathetic to deep ecology hold opposing views as to what it is, and yet still use the term deep ecology, we shall use deep ecology to refer to a philosophy of ecology which is deeper than environmental ethics or normative approaches to environmentalism. 2 Thus each time philosophers engage with issues surrounding our relationship to nature, questioning its foundations, whether metaphysical or ontological, they are engaged in deep ecology, which is equivalent to deep questioning of ecological (as opposed to environmental) issues. The term deep ecology was coined by the Norwegian philosopher, Arne Naess, in a paper given in Bucharest in 1972. Instead of outlining the fundamental basis of deep ecology, Naess distinguished deep ecology from shallow ecology, a position now more appropriately referred to as social or reform ecology. Naess argued that shallow ecology focused on the health and affluence of people in the developed world, in contrast to deep ecology which viewed humanity as inseparable from nature, maintaining a non-anthropocentric bias. It was the nonanthropocentricity of deep ecology that, Naess argued, distinguished it from shallow (or reform) ecology. 3 In 1984, George Sessions, an American philosopher and Spinoza scholar, devised with Arne Naess eight principles for a Deep Ecology Platform, or DEP. This became 1
2 Spinoza and Deep Ecology known, or rather adopted, as the Deep Ecology Movement; an agreement with the eight principles of the DEP authorized its supporters to be known as deep ecologists. These principles were published a year later in Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered, a text jointly authored by Sessions and Bill Devall, an academic sociologist, who in 1988 published a book exploring the practical side of deep ecology, which emphasized cultivating a specific ecological self. 4 The original Platform, which has been reprinted in numerous publications, formulates eight basic principles for a deep ecology: 1 The well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth have a value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes. 2 The richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves. 3 Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs. 4 The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of non-human life requires such a decrease. 5 Present human interference with the non-human world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening. 6 Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures, the resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present. 7 The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasing higher standard of living. There will be a profound difference between big and great. 8 Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes. 5 Though all three thinkers (Naess, Devall and Sessions) had been writing on ecological issues, and promoting deep ecology during the late 1970s and early 1980s, the text by Devall and Sessions remains the first monograph devoted to exploring the range of deep ecological ideas, as a social, philosophical, political and activist movement. In the early 1990s, Warwick Fox and Freya Mathews both published books exploring deep ecological issues. Both texts deal with our relationship to nature, and with the development of an ecological conscience. These thinkers, Devall, Fox, Mathews, Naess and Sessions, are the main deep ecologists we shall engage with in what follows. There are other, equally established writers, who are strongly linked to deep ecology for instance, Michael E. Zimmerman and Harold Glasser but it is these five figures who deal more explicitly with the issues raised in this book and whom we shall refer to as deep ecologists. Four Approaches Deep ecology can be thought of in four ways: (i) as a deep questioning of the relationship between human beings and nature; (ii) as a metaphysics of ethics rather than an environmental ethics; (iii) as a political movement whose premises are both
Introduction 3 descriptive and normative; and (iv) as an activist approach to dealing with the ongoing destruction of natural entities. Some commentators advocate deep ecology along the lines of (i), others along the lines of (ii) and so on. To complicate matters, Arne Naess has argued in different papers at different times that deep ecology can be regarded exclusively in terms of any of the four approaches. We shall briefly elucidate what these four approaches signify. 1. Deep Questioning Arne Naess remarked that the essence of deep ecology is to ask deeper questions. 6 However, instead of outlining the nature of these questions, Naess developed a set of fundamental principles which he termed ultimate norms. These include the propositions that all life is interrelated, all organisms have intrinsic value, and each being seeks self-realization. Naess devised a form of ecological thinking or ecosophy which he termed Ecosophy T. An ecosophy, he argued, could be any theory or belief in which all creatures, human beings as well as non-human beings are seen as manifestations of the same great self: atman, all having the same potential for self-realization, where the T simply referred to his particular mode of thinking. 7 Since the depth of deep ecology lies in asking deeper questions, many commentators conclude that deep questioning refers to discovering underlying premises for a philosophy of ecology in which religious, philosophical, political and social aspects, both theoretical and practical, come together to form an organic whole. 8 In this sense, the depth of deep ecology refers to a metaphysical exposition underlying environmental ethics, which some see as substantiating political activities. 2. A Metaphysical Ground for an Environmental Ethics Deep ecology seeks to show that there are no ultimate boundaries between self and other, and that as a result, all living beings are reciprocating, interrelated manifestations of the same self. A deep ecological approach to a metaphysics of nature differs from an environmental ethics. Whereas deep ecology seeks to analyse the ontological features that make up the world, including the nature of value, environmental ethics seeks to determine reasons why we ought to extend concern, from human interests to the non-human environment, or to nature as a whole. Warwick Fox believes that deep ecology s primary concern lies in changing the way human beings experience the world, by deepening our understanding of the way things are, rather than concentrating on an expansive ethics. Thus, the deepest idea in deep ecology its esoteric core lies within the doctrine of self-realization, 9 a meta-ontology which supporters of deep ecology regard as a non-anthropocentric position. 10 In conceptualizing ecology as a philosophical position, we shall follow other deep ecologists in seeking to show that the earth and its inhabitants form an integrated system, which does not centre or depend on us. As Bill Devall, one of the founding members of the deep ecology movement, states, anthropocentrism remains the central concern of deep ecology. 11 In addition, Freya Mathews claims that selfrealization constitutes the very heart of deep ecology philosophy, a heart in which the self is recognized as being intimately connected with the rest of nature. 12