Author
Enes Dag
Publication Place
Hits University -
Hits University
Subject
Hittite Journal of Theology, 2023-06, Vol.22 (1), p.229-266
Type
Book
Language
ara,tur
Digital
Yes
Manuscript
No
Library
Leitir Library
Library Asset ID
EISSN: 2757-6949, DOI: 10.14395/hid.1235191
Record ID
cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_b5daa42f8d0949e8bf352dc27ddd6be9
Library Location
DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals)
Notes
This article focuses on the concept of acquiescentia, which is one of the central concepts of Spinoza's moral philosophy and can be translated into Turkish as "inner peace", "satisfaction" or "satisfaction", and two other concepts related to it. While one of these two concepts is acquiescentia in se ipso, which can be translated as the feeling of "self-satisfaction", the other is the concept of mentis/animi acquiescentia, which expresses a mental state and can be translated as "mental serenity". The article investigates whether man, who is a being in God and subject to the necessity in Nature, and therefore determined to exist and act, reaches an "emotional satisfaction" and a "mental serenity" arising from mental states caused by adequate ideas. In this direction, Spinoza's theory of inner peace is put forward as "emotional satisfaction" and "mental serenity". Spinoza's aim with his theory of "inner peace" or "satisfaction" is to offer epistemological and ethical guidance that will enable people to feel "self-satisfaction", to saturate their mind with the contentment that comes from true knowledge, to reach emotions that are not temporary but superior, and to continue their life in this direction. In the article, studies that deal with Spinoza's theory of "inner peace" independently and fill an important gap in the literature are also mentioned and the main theses of these studies are clarified. In addition, the main ideas of the studies in question are criticized, new reading suggestions are offered, and different conclusions are reached with different arguments. In this regard, it is seen that the authors examining the theory in question consider both "self-satisfaction" and "mental serenity" as the same "emotion" expressing "satisfaction" occurring at different degrees. On the other hand, it is determined that the authors in question associate the different degrees of "satisfaction" caused by this same feeling with Spinoza's three types of knowledge. In the article, on the one hand, it is justified why "self-satisfaction" and "mental serenity" are not the same feeling, and on the other hand, it is clarified why the different degrees of "satisfaction" in question do not directly correspond to each of Spinoza's three types of knowledge. Based on this ground, "self-satisfaction" is presented as a feeling and "mental serenity" is presented as a comprehensive mental state. Here, the first one expresses a "satisfaction" that increases from reason to intuition, while the second one indicates a higher "satisfaction" that occurs only with intuition. In the formation of the satisfaction in question, reason does not function as one type of knowledge and intuition as another type of knowledge; Because the "satisfaction" that occurs thanks to reason is a kind of "dissatisfaction" that makes one feel its deficiency and tends to increase, while the "satisfaction" achieved through intuition causes a feeling of completeness or perfection. Therefore, “real satisfaction” occurs through intuition, reason is merely a basis for intuition, a preparation or the provision of the conceptual tools needed. In addition, it seems that "dream", another type of knowledge of Spinoza along with "reason" and "intuition", and the opinions arising from it are not a suitable source for a theory of satisfaction consisting of "self-satisfaction" and "mental serenity". In this context, in the article, self-satisfaction is determined as "emotional satisfaction", and mental serenity is determined as "mental contentment arising from correct knowledge", "intellectual love of God", "holiness" and "salvation". This ground is clarified as the possibility or horizon of making clear that what is expressed by the two concepts in question is not a "satisfaction" or "inner peace" associated with the same types of emotions and knowledge. In the light of the investigations and criticisms made within the aforementioned framework, the study has two main claims: The first is that the "self-satisfaction" arising from the mind reaches its highest form with the "intellectual love of God" arising from intuition and creates the "emotional satisfaction" of the human being. The second is that the mind reaches the knowledge of God and the love of God from the knowledge of itself through adequate ideas and "contentment based on correct knowledge" under the horizon of eternity, and thus brings a perfect "mental serenity" in man by bringing him to "happiness", which is the highest human happiness, and "salvation", which is its result.
Detaylı Başlık
Spinoza'nın ‘İçsel Huzur’ Teorisi: Duygusal Doyum ve Zihinsel Dinginlik
