Ghosts, spirits and specters. Do they exist?
In 1674, the philosopher Spinosa, a fierce foe of superstition and its misuse in human societies, received a letter from Hugo Boxel, a friend who had studied and believed in ghosts. The correspondence, some of it at least, was saved and later published.
"Thus," Boxel wrote, "I think there are spirits of all sorts, but, perhaps, none of the female sex."
"I wonder that those who have seen naked ghosts did not cast their eyes on those parts of the person which would remove all doubt," Spinosa replied. "Perhaps the witnesses were timid or ignorant of the pertinent malefemale distinction."
Spinosa hated disputes and controversy. However, he could deftly wield a logical cleaver and did so with Mr. Boxel.
In Letter 56, Spinosa provides a counter-argument to the claim belief in superstition is equivalent to belief scientific theory.
The dispute between the ideals of reason and superstition, as Spinosa points out, is an old one. It dates back to at least to the time of the ancient pre-Christian Jews and Greeks; similar disputes arose in ancient Athens in the days of Pericles. Those who believe in a anthropomorphic God who divinely meddles in human affairs also tend to believe in various intermediary deities. Apparently, even an omniscient, omnipotent, all present, omnitemporal God works through agents.
I have edited the letters, deleting most of the sonorous compliments and discussions on the nature of God.
LETTER 51
Hugo Boxel
14 Sept 1674
to Benedictus de Spinosa at the Hague
Distinguished Sir—
My reason for writing to you is that I want to know your opinion about apparitions and ghosts or spectres.
Do you admit their existence, what do you think about them, and how long does their life last? For some hold them to be mortal, others immortal. As I am doubtful whether you admit their existence, I will proceed no further.
Meanwhile, it is certain, that the ancients believed in them. The theologians and philosophers of to-day are hitherto agreed as to the existence of some creatures of the kind, though they may not agree as to the nature of their essence.
Some assert that they are composed of very thin and subtle matter, others that they are spiritual.
.... [Surely] you do not believe that some of them are the souls of the dead, as the defenders of the Romish faith would have it. .. Farewell.
HB
LETTER 52
Benedict de Spinosa
Sept. 1674
to: Hugo Boxel
Dear Sir,
Your letter, which I received yesterday, was most welcome to me, both because I wanted to hear news of you, and also because it shows that you have not utterly forgotten me.
Although some might think it a bad omen–that is, perhaps the ghosts or spectres caused you to write me-- I, on the contrary, think to discern a deeper meaning in the circumstance. Of course, one should not weigh only truths: even those things which appear trifling or imaginary may be of use.
However, let us defer your question, whether ghosts are real, delusions or imaginary, for I see that not only denial of them, but even doubt about them would injure you, similar to the feelings of one convinced by the numerous histories related by men of to-day and the ancients about other affairs of which men think.
The great esteem and honor in which I have always held and still hold you, does not suffer me to contradict you but still less does this esteem compel me to humor you.
The middle course, which I shall adopt, is to beg you to be kind enough to select from the numerous stories which you have read, one or two of those least open to doubt, and most clearly demonstrating the existence of ghosts., for me to assess. For, to confess the truth, I have never read a trustworthy author who clearly showed that there are such things as ghosts and spectres. ...
In passing, [it seems to me evident that we are sure] there exists much of nature which is not now known. [Perhaps we might call some of it] “ghosts.” I shall not deny the existence of the unknown. In fact, there are an infinity of things which I cannot make out. So, to assist in my inquiry, pray tell me, my dear Sir: What are these ghosts or specters of which you write?
Are they male or female? Do we count among them children, fools, madmen? How does ghost differ from specter?
All that I have heard of such beings seems more adapted to the silly than the wise, or, to say the best we can of it, resembles the pastimes of children or of fools. So it would behoove further inquiry for you to better detail the nature of beings to be discussed.
Please note, before I end, I would submit to you a consideration one should use in weighing any tale: that the desire which most men have to narrate things. Many times men will narrate events not as they really happened but as the author wished them to happen.
I have, perhaps once or twice on past occasions, suggested this premise can be illustrated from the stories of ghosts and specters. Indeed, at least once, perhaps on more occasions, I have suggested such stories may furnish the best example.
I will here stop until I have learnt from you the nature of these beings and the stories that contain such proof to so completely convince you that any doubt about ghosts and specters is itself absurd.
BDS
LETTER 53
Hugo Boxel
21 Sept. 1674
To: Benedict de Spinosa at the Hague
Most sagacious Sir,—
You have sent me just the answer I expected to receive, from a friend holding an opinion adverse to my own. But no matter. Friends may always disagree without injury to their friendship.
You ask me, before you gave an opinion as to what these specters or spirits are, to tell you whether they are children, fools, or madmen, and you add that everything you have heard of them seems to have proceeded rather from the insane than the sane. It is a true proverb that a preconceived opinion hinders the pursuit of truth.
I, then, believe that ghosts exist for the following reasons: first, because it appertains to the beauty and perfection of the universe, that they should; secondly, because it is probable that the Creator created them, as being more like Himself than are embodied creatures; thirdly, because as body exists without soul, soul exists without body; fourthly and lastly, because in the upper air, region, or space,
I believe there is no obscure body without inhabitants of its own; consequently, that the measureless space between us and the stars is not empty, but thronged with spiritual inhabitants. Perhaps the highest and most remote are true spirits, whereas the lowest in the lowest region of the air are creatures of very thin and subtle substance, and also invisible.
Thus I think there are spirits of all sorts, but, perhaps, none of the female sex.
This reasoning will in no way convince those, who rashly believe that the world has been created by chance. Daily experience, if these reasons be dismissed, shows that there are spectres, and many stories, both new and old, are current about them.
Such may be found in Plutarch’s book “De viris illustribus,” and in his other works; in Suetonius’s “Lives of the Cæsars,” also in Wierus’s and Lavater’s books about ghosts, where the subject is fully treated and illustrated from writers of all kinds.
Cardano, celebrated for his learning, also speaks of them in his books “De Subtilitate,” “De Varietate,” and in his “Life;” showing, by experience, that they have appeared to himself, his relations and friends. Melancthon, a wise man and a lover of truth, testifies to his experience of them, as also do many others.
A certain burgomaster, learned and wise, who is still living, once told me that he heard by night the noise of working in his mother’s brew-house, going on just as it does while beer is being brewed in the day; this he attested as having occurred frequently.
The same sort of thing has happened to me, and will never fade from my memory; hence I am convinced by the above-mentioned experiences and reasons, that there are ghosts.
As for evil spirits, who torture wretched men in this life and the next, and who work spells, I believe the stories of them to be fables. ...
I say nothing of monks and priests, for they relate so many tales of souls and evil spirits, or as I should rather say of spectres, that the reader becomes wearied with their abundance.
Thyræus, a Jesuit, in the book about the apparition of spirits, treats the question. [Likely he wrote] merely for the sake of gain. By proving that purgatory is not so bad as is supposed, [the priest] can dig up plenteous store of gold and silver [from those who fear hell].
But the same cannot be said of the writers mentioned previously, and other moderns, who merit greater credit from their absence of bias.
[To answer your passage about] fools and madmen, I [quote] the learned Lavater, who [wrote] “He who is bold enough to gainsay so many witnesses, both ancient and modern, seems to me unworthy of credit...”
HB
LETTER 54
Benedict de Spinosa, The Hague
21 Sept. 1674
To: Hugo Boxel
Dear Sir,
I will rely on what you said in your letter... that friends may disagree on different questions, without injury to their friendship [even should one friend be unworthy of credit] and will frankly tell you my opinion on the reasons and stories, whereon you base your conclusion that there are ghosts of every kind but perhaps none of the female sex.
The reason for my not replying sooner is that the books you quoted are not at hand. In fact, I have not found any except Pliny and Suetonius. However, these two have saved me the trouble of consulting any other, for I am persuaded that they all talk in the same strain and hanker after extraordinary tales, which rouse men’s astonishment and compel their wonder.
I confess that I am not a little amazed, not at the stories, but [that] men of talent and judgment should so employ their readiness of speech, and abuse it in an endeavor to convince us of such trifles.
However, let us dismiss the writers, and turn to the question itself. In the first place, we will reason a little about your conclusion. Let us see whether I, who deny that there are spectres or spirits, am on that account less able to understand the authors, who have written on the subject; or whether you, who assert that such beings exist, do not give to the aforesaid writers more credit than they deserve.
The distinction you drew--admitting without hesitation spirits of the male sex, but doubting whether any female spirits exist--seems to me more like a fancy than a genuine doubt.
I wonder that those, who have seen naked ghosts, have not cast their eyes on those parts of the person, which would remove all doubt. Perhaps the witnesses were timid, or did not know of the pertinent distinction between male and female.
If this is really your opinion, it almost exactly resembles the common imagination that God is masculine not feminine.
. . .
[L]et us see whether we can take [your points] for foundations.
You first reason that the existence of ghosts is needful for the beauty and perfection of the universe.
Beauty, my dear Sir, is not so much a quality of the object beheld, as an effect in him who beholds it. If our sight were longer or shorter, or if our constitution were different, what now appears beautiful to us would seem misshapen, and what we now think misshapen we should regard as beautiful.
The most beautiful hand seen through the microscope will appear horrible. Some things are beautiful at a distance, but ugly near; thus things regarded in themselves, and in relation to God, are neither ugly nor beautiful.
Therefore, he who says that God has created the world, so that it might be beautiful, is bound to adopt one of the two alternatives, either that God created the world for the sake of men’s pleasure and eyesight, or else that He created men’s pleasure and eyesight for the sake of the world.
Now, whether we adopt the former or the latter of these views, how God could have furthered His object by the creation of ghosts, I cannot see. Perfection and imperfection are names of concepts, concepts which do not differ much from the names beauty and ugliness.
So as not to be tedious, I only ask only one further question on this subject: which would contribute most to the perfect adornment of the world, ghosts and specters, or a quantity of monsters such as centaurs, hydras, harpies, satyrs, gryphons, arguses, and other similar inventions?
Truly the world would be handsomely bedecked if God had adorned and embellished it with beings, which anyone may readily imagine and dream. But no one can find or understand. Children do dream of such beings. Often, in these childhood dreams, such beings work in obedience to the child's personal fancy.
Your second reason is that because spirits express God’s image more perfectly than embodied creatures, it is probable that He has created them.
I frankly confess that I am as yet in ignorance how spirits could express God better than other creatures. Of God’s nature and the varied considerations attached to it, I have previously written. This I know, that between finite and infinite there is no comparison; so that the difference between God and the greatest and most excellent created thing must be no different than that difference between God and the least created thing.
[Also, no explanation of the nature of ghosts is provided. So your second] argument, therefore, is beside both marks.
If I had as clear an idea of ghosts as I have of a triangle or a circle, I should not in the least hesitate to affirm that they had been created by God; but as the idea I possess of [ghosts] is just like the ideas my imagination forms of harpies, gryphons, hydras, and other supernatural beings, well, I cannot consider such things as anything but tales to amuse. At best, they are dreams, which differ from God as totality in the same way that which is not differs from that which is.
Your third reason (that as body exists without soul, so soul should exist without body) seems to me equally absurd.
A live body will have memory, hearing, sight, thought, movement; however, where bodies exist without memory, hearing, sight, etc., then we call them dead. It is not a proof that because a circle exists there must be a sphere [nor does the difference between circle and sphere prove anything like ghosts.]
Your fourth and last reason is the same as your first, and I refer you to my answer given above.
In passing, [let me observe about your example] that I do not know which are the highest or which the lowest places, which you conceive as existing in infinite matter, unless you take the earth as the center of the universe.
For if the Sun or Saturn be the center of the universe, then would it not be the Sun or Saturn as the lowest point? Also then, we must dispense with thinking of the universe as infinite, infinity having no central point; and if not infinite, God would have limits [as discussed in Spinosa's Short Treatise.]
Thus, passing by other arguments, I conclude that your four reasons, however thoughtful, will convince no one of the existence of all kinds of ghosts and specters unless it be those persons who shut their ears to the understanding and allow themselves to be led astray by superstition, so hostile to right reasoning. ...
As regards the stories, I have already said in my first letter, that I do not deny them altogether, but only the conclusion drawn from them. ... I had hoped, that out of so many stories you would at least have produced one or two, which could hardly be questioned, and which would clearly show that ghosts or specters exist.
BDS
Letter 55
Hugo Boxel
Not dated
To: Benedict de Spinosa
Sir,
If we do not in some sense attribute human qualities to God, what meaning can we attach to the term? ... A ghost cannot be conceived as clearly as a triangle: can you say that your own idea of God is as clear as your idea of a triangle?—As a circle exists without a sphere, so a sphere exists without a circle.... It is presumption to sneer at such a body of testimony: Cæsar did not ridicule ghosts, but omens, and if he had listened to Spurina he would not have been murdered.
HB
LETTER 56
Benedict de Spinosa
To Hugo Boxel
Dear Sir,
...
The difficulties experienced by two people following different principles, and trying to agree on a matter, which depends on many other questions, might be shown from this discussion alone, if there were anything to prove from the argument itself.
[I disagree with your conception that belief in reality is equivalent to belief in the supernatural]
...
As soon as I affirm that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles necessarily, I deny that they are thus equal by chance. As soon as I affirm that heat is a necessary effect of fire, I deny that it is a chance effect.
...
Further, when you say that if I deny, that the operations of seeing, hearing, attending, wishing, and similar movements can be ascribed to God, or that they exist in Him in any eminent fashion, you do not know what sort of God mine is.
...
[W]e cannot infer that because [human knowledge] of things divine and human are full of controversies and quarrels that the entire subject-matter of human knowledge is uncertain...
To your question, whether I have of God as clear an idea as I have of a triangle, I reply in the affirmative. But if you ask me, whether I have as clear a mental image of God as I have of a triangle, I reply in the negative. For we are not able to imagine God, though we can understand Him.
You must also here observe, that I do not assert that I thoroughly know God, but that I understand some of His attributes, not all nor the greater part, and it is evident that my ignorance of very many does not hinder the knowledge I have of some.
When I learned Euclid’s Elements, I understood that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles, and this property of a triangle I perceived clearly, though I might be ignorant of many others.
...
The authority of Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates, does not carry much weight with me. I should have been astonished, if you had brought forward Epicurus, Democritus, Lucretius, or any of the atomists, or upholders of the atomic theory [who Plato and Aristotle so scorned.]
It is no wonder that persons, who have invented occult qualities, intentional species, substantial forms, and a thousand other trifles, should have also devised spectres and ghosts, and given credence to old wives’ tales, in order to take away the reputation of Democritus, whom they were so jealous of, that they burnt all his published books...
If you are inclined to believe such witnesses, what reason have you for denying the [Romish] version of supernatural and miracles as in your earlier letters...?
These have been described by so many famous philosophers, theologians, and historians, that I could produce at least a hundred such authorities for every one you have cited to prove [the existence of ghosts. Male or female.]
....
BDS