To perceive something of something,as....."

[tfsaglam]

Although I have been looking for the meaning of this phrase for a while, I didn't find anything helpful to understand it.

I would be grateful if you would elucidate or explain it grammatically and also tell me its meaning.

"By attribute I understand what the mind perceives of substance, as constituting the essence of substance." (Source: Spinoza’s Ethics, translated by George Eliot.)

Additionally, if possible, can you render it into more modern English without losing its meaning?

 

[jutfrank]

I consider Spinoza's Ethics to be one of the greatest works of philosophy of all time. Here's the same line translated into modern English in 2007 by Michael Morgan—an excellent translation:

D4: By attribute I mean what the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance.

Does this answer your question? Or are you asking for help understanding how this definition is used in the subsequent parts of the book?

 

[emsr2d2]

Although I were was/have been looking for the meaning of this verbal phrase for a while, space here I didn't find anything helpful to understand it. nuancedly.

I would be grateful if you would elucidate or explain it grammatically and also tell me it's its meaning.

Context: "By attribute I understand what the mind perceives of substance, as constituting the essence of substance." (Source: Spinoza’s Ethics, space here translated by George Eliot.)

Additionally, if possible, can you render it into more modern English without losing its meaning?

Jutfrank has given you a great (and better) translation.

Please note my corrections to your post. Remember to end every sentence with one appropriate punctuation mark. Always put a space after a comma. Always capitalise proper nouns, such as "English".

 

[tfsaglam]

I consider Spinoza's Ethics to be one of the greatest works of philosophy of all time. Here's the same line translated into modern English in 2007 by Michael Morgan—an excellent translation:

D4: By attribute I mean what the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance.

Does this answer your question? Or are you asking for help understanding how this definition is used in the subsequent parts of the book?

Actually I am more interested in the specific function "of" in connection with "to perceive" when they were used in such a way in older translation

 

[emsr2d2]

Actually, I am more interested in the specific function of "of" in connection with "to perceive" when they were used in such a way in an older translation.

I'm sure a grammar specialist will be able to help you with that. In the meantime, please note my corrections above. In my last response, I reminded you that you must end every sentence with an appropriate closing punctuation mark yet you omitted the full stop at the end of your sentence again. Please make sure you read all our advice very carefully, then follow it.

 

[tfsaglam]

What I'm looking at here is the verb 'perceive.' It seems to be taking two objects, doesn't it? The first is 'what,' and as for the second, it's the 'substance' that comes after 'of.' So, I'm trying to grasp the intended meaning of this specific construction.
"By attribute I understand what the mind perceives of substance, as constituting the essence of substance."

 

[jutfrank]

Sorry, I think I misunderstood. For clarity and continuity, I'll delete my previous post.

Spinoza wants to say that things appear to the mind to be different because they have different attributes, not because they are made of different substances. Attribute is "of substance" in the sense that it is a feature of, and that it comes in some way from substance, which is more fundamental. To understand the thought more clearly, I would still refer you to the simpler way that Michael Morgan (and several other translators) put it as I've quoted in post #2.

There is some disagreement over exactly what Spinoza meant with this definition. The original Latin reads:

Per attributum intelligo id, quod intellectus de substantia percipit, tanquam ejusdem essentiam constituens.

Below is quoted a passage from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that pertains directly to the correct interpretation of the definition:

The second important ambiguity lies in the Latin term tanquam, since it can mean either “as if, but not in fact,” or “as in fact.” The definition can therefore be read, either as stating that attributes are what the intellect perceives of substance as constituting its actual essence, or that attributes are what the intellect perceives only as if they are what constitute the essence but are not what in fact constitutes it or them. The subjectivists accordingly claim that attributes are what the finite intellect perceives of substance as if constituting its essence. The objectivists, by and large, instead claim that it is the infinite intellect that perceives the attribute as in fact constituting the essence of substance.

 

[tfsaglam]

Sorry, I think I misunderstood. For clarity and continuity, I'll delete my previous post.

Spinoza wants to say that things appear to the mind to be different because they have different attributes, not because they are made of different substances. Attribute is "of substance" in the sense that it is a feature of, and that it comes in some way from substance, which is more fundamental. To understand the thought more clearly, I would still refer you to the simpler way that Michael Morgan (and several other translators) put it as I've quoted in post #2.

There is some disagreement over exactly what Spinoza meant with this definition. The original Latin reads:

Per attributum intelligo id, quod intellectus de substantia percipit, tanquam ejusdem essentiam constituens.

Below is quoted a passage from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that pertains directly to the correct interpretation of the definition:

The second important ambiguity lies in the Latin term tanquam, since it can mean either “as if, but not in fact,” or “as in fact.” The definition can therefore be read, either as stating that attributes are what the intellect perceives of substance as constituting its actual essence, or that attributes are what the intellect perceives only as if they are what constitute the essence but are not what in fact constitutes it or them. The subjectivists accordingly claim that attributes are what the finite intellect perceives of substance as if constituting its essence. The objectivists, by and large, instead claim that it is the infinite intellect that perceives the attribute as in fact constituting the essence of substance.

Thank you so much for Your Efforts.

 

[emsr2d2]

Thank you so much for your efforts.

There's no need to capitalise common nouns.

It's much quicker (for everyone) if you simply add the "Thanks" icon to any post you find helpful.

 

[Annabel Lee]

D4: By attribute I mean what the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance.

The 1949 translation I have (and adore), by James Gutmann, also uses "perceives of":

"By attribute I understand that which the intellect perceives of substance as constituting its essence."

What I'm looking at here is the verb 'perceive.' It seems to be taking two objects, doesn't it? The first is 'what,' and as for the second, it's the 'substance' that comes after 'of.' So, I'm trying to grasp the intended meaning of this specific construction.
"By attribute I understand what the mind perceives of substance, as constituting the essence of substance."

I believe "of" more properly relates to and grammatically modifies "what" (or in my translation, "that") than "perceive."

An attribute is that of substance which the intellect perceives as constituting its essence.

The human intellect, according to Spinoza, does not perceive all of substance, which, for him, is identical to God: "By God understand being absolutely infinite, that is to say, substance consisting of infinite attributes, each one of which expresses eternal and infinite essence" (Ethics, Part I, Definition VI).