ferred from another thing, but not adequately; this comes when from some effect we gather its cause, or when it is inferred from some general proposition that some property is always present.”[1] It arises from “notions common to all men" which “form the bases of our ratiocination.”[2]
Spinoza does not mean by the expression “not adequately,” that there is error in the activity or process of reason but rather that it gives us the truth dimly as Mrs. Eddy expresses it. Notice that he says it proceeds from effect to cause and is thus in contrast with the intuitive process of the understanding which proceeds from cause to effect as we have seen that Mrs. Eddy, the Neoplatonists and Spinoza teach.
When I began to study Spinoza I was surprised to find that he identifies love with the understanding. I supposed that he did so because he wanted to embody in his philosophy at least the semblance of this Christian virtue; that his psychology would not permit him to regard love both as an affection and as a noble and ennobling virtue, and since it would militate against him to reject it boldly he chose to retain only the name.[3] I was more surprised, however, to find that the Neoplatonists whom he was reproducing had made the same disposition of love. What purpose they could have had in doing so, since they
