 Spinoza’s panpsychism may certainly seem more morally appealing than the vivisection-friendly Cartesian view that animals are just more complex versions of tables and clocks. Yet one may also wonder whether an account that can explain how human mindedness is possible only by instituting a general principle – namely, the divisibility of an omniscient infinite intellect into component ideas – that ushers in also plant and mineral minds has diluted the meaning of “mind” beyond recognition or usefulness. Can an account that sees mindedness everywhere explain phenomena that, to all appearances, are particular to human rationality and self-consciousness? And is Spinoza not guilty here simply of a profound confusion of categories: how can my mind just be God’s idea of something? Margaret Wilson expressed the classic version of these worries, pessimistically judging against Spinoza (1999: ch.9).