The Third Great Man of the Middle 17th
Baruch Spinoza
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Benedictus de Spinoza (November 24, 1632 – February 21, 1677), named Baruch Spinoza (Hebrew: ברוך שפינוזה) by his synagogue elders, and known as Bento de Espinosa or Bento d'Espiñoza in his native Amsterdam, was a Jewish-Dutch philosopher. He is considered one of the great rationalists of 17th-century philosophy and, by virtue of his magnum opus the Ethics, one of the definitive ethicists. His writings, like those of his fellow rationalists, reveal considerable mathematical training and facility. Spinoza was a lens crafter by trade, an exciting engineering field at the time because of great discoveries being made by telescopes. The full impact of his work only took effect some time after his death and after the publication of his Opera Posthuma. He is now seen as having prepared the way for the 18th century Enlightenment, and as a founder of modern biblical criticism. 20th century philosopher Gilles Deleuze referred to Spinoza as "The absolute philosopher, whose Ethics is the foremost book on concepts" (Deleuze, 1990).
Life
Following their expulsion from Spain during the Inquisition, many Jews sought refuge in Portugal, only to be instructed to accept Christianity or be banished. Spinoza's parents were arrested, then fled to the Netherlands. Spinoza was born to this family of Sephardic Jews, among the Portuguese Jews of Amsterdam. He had an orthodox Jewish upbringing; however, his critical, curious nature would soon come into conflict with the Jewish community. He initially gained infamy for his positions of pantheism and neutral monism, as well as the fact that his Ethics was written in the form of postulates and definitions, as though it were a geometry treatise. Also, his Theologico-Political Treatise was highly critical of orthodox readings of the Torah and challenged the idea that Jews were a chosen people. In the summer of 1656, he was issued the writ of cherem, (similar to an excommunication)[1] from the Jewish community, because of apostasy for his claims that God is the mechanism of nature and the universe, having no personality, and that the Bible is a metaphorical and allegorical work used to teach the nature of God, both of which were based on a form of Cartesianism (cf. René Descartes). Following his excommunication, he adopted the first name Benedictus (the Latin equivalent of his given name, Baruch). The terms of his cherem were quite severe (see Kasher and Biderman (19nn)) it was never revoked.
Spinoza was reluctant to discuss his excommunication with others. He maintained he left Amsterdam because an attacker had tried to stab him but instead put a hole in his coat. This is a contested viewpoint since an attacker did scar Spinoza's face with a dagger sometime after his excommunication. Spinoza, a pacifist, handled the ordeal badly at first. His shock remained with him for several months.
After his excommunication, Spinoza lived and worked for a while in the school of Franciscus van den Enden, who taught him Latin and may have introduced him to modern philosophy. During this period Spinoza also became acquainted with several Collegiants, members of a non-dogmatic and interdenominational sect with tendencies towards rationalism and Arianism. Spinoza was also in contact with Peter Serrarius, a radical Protestant merchant with whom he corresponded. Serrarius is thought to have been a patron of Spinoza at one point as well. By the beginning of the 1660s, Spinoza's name became more widely known, and eventually Gottfried Leibniz and Henry Oldenburg paid him visits. He corresponded with the latter for the rest of his life. Spinoza's first publication was his Tractatus de intellectus emendatione. In 1665 he notified Oldenburg that he had started to work on a new book, the Theologico-Political Treatise, published in 1670.
It has been suggested that Spinoza was writing prodigiously to offset the pain of his separation from his two siblings.[citation needed] His sister, Rebeka, defended him at first, though she later abandoned him, unable to accept his "apostasy". His brother, Gabriel, moved to an island and changed his surname.
Since the public reactions to the anonymously published Theologico-Political Treatise turned unfavourable to his brand of Cartesianism, Spinoza abstained from publishing more of his works. Wary and independent, he wore a signet ring engraved with his initials, a rose and the word "caute" (Latin for caution). The Ethics and all other works, apart from the Principles of Cartesian Philosophy and the Theologico-Political Treatise, were published after his death in the Opera Postuma edited by his friends.
Spinoza lived in Amsterdam and the surrounding area all of his life, earning a comfortable living from lens-grinding. Certainly the lens-grinding aspect of Spinoza's work is uncontested, but what exact lenses he made is in question. Many have said he produced excellent magnifying glasses, and some historians credit him with being an optician (in the sense of making lenses for eyeglasses). He was also supported by small, but regular donations from close friends. He died in 1677 while still working on a political thesis. His premature death was due to a lung illness and possibly the result of breathing in glass dust from the lenses he ground. Only a year earlier, Spinoza had met with Leibniz at The Hague for a discussion of his principal philosophical work, Ethics, which had been completed in 1676 (Lucas, 1960). Spinoza never married, nor did he father any children.
Overview of his philosophy
After having first subscribed to Descartes's dualistic belief that body and mind are two separate substances, Spinoza later changed his view and asserted that they were not separate, being merely different aspects of one substance. In this, he was influenced by his reading of Malebranche:
[Malebranche] teaches that we see all things in God himself. This is certainly equivalent to explaining something unknown by something even more unknown. Moreover, according to him, we see not only all things in God, but God is also the sole activity therein, so that physical causes are so only apparently; they are merely occasional causes. (Recherches de la vérité, Livre VI, seconde partie, chap. 3.) And so here we have essentially the pantheism of Spinoza who appears to have learned more from Malebranche than from Descartes.
—Schopenhauer, Parerga and Paralipomena, Vol. I, "Sketch of a History of the Doctrine of the Ideal and the Real"
Spinoza argued that God and Nature were two names for the same reality, namely the single substance (meaning "to stand beneath" rather than "matter") that underlies the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications. The argument for this single substance runs as follows:
Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its existence.
No two substances can share an attribute.
Proof: If they share an attribute, they would be identical. Therefore they can only be individuated by their modes. But then they would depend on their modes for their identity. This would have the substance being dependent on its mode, in violation of premise 1. Therefore, two substances cannot share the same attribute.
3. A substance can only be caused by something similar to itself (something that shares its attribute).
4. Substance cannot be caused.
Proof: Something can only be caused by something which is similar to itself, in other words something that shares its attribute. But according to premise 2, no two substances can share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be caused.
5. Substance is infinite.
Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and limited by something. But to be limited by something is to be dependent on it. However, substance cannot be dependent on anything else (premise 1), therefore substance is infinite.
Conclusion: There can only be one substance.
Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other. But this would act as a restraint, and they would be dependent on each other. But they cannot be dependent on each other (premise 1), therefore there cannot be two substances.
Spinoza contended that "Deus sive Natura" ("God or Nature") was a being of infinitely many attributes, of which extension and thought were two. His account of the nature of reality, then, seems to treat the physical and mental worlds as two different, parallel "subworlds" that neither overlap nor interact. This formulation is a historically significant panpsychist solution to the mind-body problem known as neutral monism. The consequences of Spinoza's system also envisage a God that does not rule over the universe by providence, but a God which itself is part of the deterministic system of which everything in nature is a part. Thus, God is the natural world and has no personality.
Spinoza was a thoroughgoing determinist who held that absolutely everything that happens occurs through the operation of necessity. For him, even human behaviour is fully determined, with freedom being our capacity to know we are determined and to understand why we act as we do. So freedom is not the possibility to say "no" to what happens to us but the possibility to say "yes" and fully understand why things should necessarily happen that way. By forming more "adequate" ideas about what we do and our emotions or affections, we become the adequate cause of our effects (internal or external), which entails an increase in activity (versus passivity). This means that we become both more free and more like God, as Spinoza argues in the Scholium to Prop. 49, Part II. However, Spinoza also held that everything must necessarily happen the way that it does. Therefore, there is no free will.
Spinoza's philosophy has much in common with Stoicism in as much as both philosophies sought to fulfil a therapeutic role by instructing people how to attain happiness (or eudaimonia, for the Stoics). However, Spinoza differed sharply from the Stoics in one important respect: he utterly rejected their contention that reason could defeat emotion. On the contrary, he contended, an emotion can be displaced or overcome only by a stronger emotion. For him, the crucial distinction was between active and passive emotions, the former being those that are rationally understood and the latter those that are not. He also held that knowledge of true causes of passive emotion can transform it to an active emotion, thus anticipating one of the key ideas of Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis.
Some of Spinoza's philosophical positions are:
The natural world is infinite.
There is no real difference between good and evil.
Everything done by humans and other animals is excellent and divine.
All rights are derived from the State.
Animals can be used in any way by people for the benefit of the human race, according to a rational consideration of the benefit as well as the animals' status in nature.[2]
Ethical philosophy
Encapsulated at the start in his Treatise on the Improvement of the Understanding (Tractatus de intellectus emendatione) is the core of Spinoza's ethical philosophy, what he held to be the true and final good. Spinoza held a relativist's position, that nothing is good or bad, except to the extent that it is subjectively perceived to be by the individual. Things are only good or evil in respect that humanity sees it desirable to apply these conceptions to matters. Instead, Spinoza believes in his deterministic universe that, "All things in nature proceed from certain necessity and with the utmost perfection". Therefore, no things happen by chance in Spinoza's world, and reason does not work in terms of contingency. In the universe anything that happens comes from the essential nature of objects, or of God and nature. Perfection therefore abounds according to Spinoza. If circumstances are seen as unfortunate it is only because of our inadequate conception of reality. Spinoza's point is, there is nothing inherent in any thing, to make it either good or bad. From this he concluded that the ethical ventures of other philosophers had been mistaken.
Acts such as altruism and piety should be made by the "mere guidance of reason". Spinoza's system also teaches that the knowledge of God induces us "to do those things which love and piety persuade us". For instance, one person may find roasted peanuts tasty and so for her roasted peanuts are good. But another person may be allergic to nuts and so for him peanuts are bad. Spinoza's point is, there is nothing inherent in any thing, like a nut, to make it either good or bad.
The Pantheism Controversy
In 1785, Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi published a condemnation of Spinoza's pantheism, after Lessing was thought to have confessed on his deathbed to being a "Spinozist", which was the equivalent in his time of being called an atheist. Jacobi claimed that Spinoza's doctrine was pure materialism, because all Nature and God are said to be nothing but extended substance. This, for Jacobi, was the result of Enlightenment rationalism and it would finally end in absolute atheism. Moses Mendelssohn disagreed with Jacobi, saying that there is no actual difference between theism and pantheism. The entire issue became a major intellectual and religious concern for European civilization at the time, which Immanuel Kant rejected, as he thought that attempts to conceive of transcendent reality would lead to antinomies in thought.
Spinoza's philosophy was considered to be a religion by the Germans of the late eighteenth century.[citation needed] It seemingly provided an alternative to Materialism, Atheism, and Deism. They did not, however, value Spinoza's geometric form with its logical proofs. Three of Spinoza's ideas strongly appealed to them:
the unity of all that exists;
the regularity of all that happens; and
the identity of spirit and nature.
Spinoza's "God or Nature" provided a living, natural God, in contrast to the Newtonian mechanical First Cause or the dead mechanism of the French "Man Machine."]
Modern relevance
Late twentieth century Europe has demonstrated a greater philosophical interest in Spinoza, often from a left-wing or Marxist perspective. Notable philosophers Gilles Deleuze, Antonio Negri and Étienne Balibar have each written books on Spinoza. Deleuze's doctoral thesis, published in 1968, refers to him as "the prince of philosophers". (Deleuze, 1968). Other philosophers heavily influenced by Spinoza include Constantin Brunner and John David Garcia. Stuart Hampshire wrote a major English language study of Spinoza, though H. H. Joachim's work is equally valuable. Unlike most philosophers, Spinoza and his work were highly regarded by Nietzsche.
Prominent Cambridge philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein also recognized Spinoza's importance. At the suggestion of G. E. Moore, Wittgenstein's first definitive philosophical work was entitled,Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. This was an allusion to Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. Both texts erect complex philosophical arguments starting from basic logical assertions and principles.
Spinoza has had influence beyond the confines of philosophy. Albert Einstein named Spinoza as the philosopher who exerted the most influence on his worldview (Weltanschauung). Spinoza equated God (infinite substance) with Nature, consistent with Einstein's belief in an impersonal deity. In 1929, Einstein was asked in a telegram by Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein whether he believed in God. Einstein responded by telegram "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."[1] Spinoza's pantheism has also influenced the environmental theory. Arne Næss, the father of the deep ecology movement, acknowledged Spinoza as an important inspiration.
Spinoza is an important historical figure in the Netherlands, where his portrait was featured prominently on the Dutch 1000-guilder banknote, legal tender until the euro was introduced in 2002. The highest and most prestigious scientific award of the Netherlands is named the Spinozapremie.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Benedictus de Spinoza (November 24, 1632 – February 21, 1677), named Baruch Spinoza (Hebrew: ברוך שפינוזה) by his synagogue elders, and known as Bento de Espinosa or Bento d'Espiñoza in his native Amsterdam, was a Jewish-Dutch philosopher. He is considered one of the great rationalists of 17th-century philosophy and, by virtue of his magnum opus the Ethics, one of the definitive ethicists. His writings, like those of his fellow rationalists, reveal considerable mathematical training and facility. Spinoza was a lens crafter by trade, an exciting engineering field at the time because of great discoveries being made by telescopes. The full impact of his work only took effect some time after his death and after the publication of his Opera Posthuma. He is now seen as having prepared the way for the 18th century Enlightenment, and as a founder of modern biblical criticism. 20th century philosopher Gilles Deleuze referred to Spinoza as "The absolute philosopher, whose Ethics is the foremost book on concepts" (Deleuze, 1990).
Life
Following their expulsion from Spain during the Inquisition, many Jews sought refuge in Portugal, only to be instructed to accept Christianity or be banished. Spinoza's parents were arrested, then fled to the Netherlands. Spinoza was born to this family of Sephardic Jews, among the Portuguese Jews of Amsterdam. He had an orthodox Jewish upbringing; however, his critical, curious nature would soon come into conflict with the Jewish community. He initially gained infamy for his positions of pantheism and neutral monism, as well as the fact that his Ethics was written in the form of postulates and definitions, as though it were a geometry treatise. Also, his Theologico-Political Treatise was highly critical of orthodox readings of the Torah and challenged the idea that Jews were a chosen people. In the summer of 1656, he was issued the writ of cherem, (similar to an excommunication)[1] from the Jewish community, because of apostasy for his claims that God is the mechanism of nature and the universe, having no personality, and that the Bible is a metaphorical and allegorical work used to teach the nature of God, both of which were based on a form of Cartesianism (cf. René Descartes). Following his excommunication, he adopted the first name Benedictus (the Latin equivalent of his given name, Baruch). The terms of his cherem were quite severe (see Kasher and Biderman (19nn)) it was never revoked.
Spinoza was reluctant to discuss his excommunication with others. He maintained he left Amsterdam because an attacker had tried to stab him but instead put a hole in his coat. This is a contested viewpoint since an attacker did scar Spinoza's face with a dagger sometime after his excommunication. Spinoza, a pacifist, handled the ordeal badly at first. His shock remained with him for several months.
After his excommunication, Spinoza lived and worked for a while in the school of Franciscus van den Enden, who taught him Latin and may have introduced him to modern philosophy. During this period Spinoza also became acquainted with several Collegiants, members of a non-dogmatic and interdenominational sect with tendencies towards rationalism and Arianism. Spinoza was also in contact with Peter Serrarius, a radical Protestant merchant with whom he corresponded. Serrarius is thought to have been a patron of Spinoza at one point as well. By the beginning of the 1660s, Spinoza's name became more widely known, and eventually Gottfried Leibniz and Henry Oldenburg paid him visits. He corresponded with the latter for the rest of his life. Spinoza's first publication was his Tractatus de intellectus emendatione. In 1665 he notified Oldenburg that he had started to work on a new book, the Theologico-Political Treatise, published in 1670.
It has been suggested that Spinoza was writing prodigiously to offset the pain of his separation from his two siblings.[citation needed] His sister, Rebeka, defended him at first, though she later abandoned him, unable to accept his "apostasy". His brother, Gabriel, moved to an island and changed his surname.
Since the public reactions to the anonymously published Theologico-Political Treatise turned unfavourable to his brand of Cartesianism, Spinoza abstained from publishing more of his works. Wary and independent, he wore a signet ring engraved with his initials, a rose and the word "caute" (Latin for caution). The Ethics and all other works, apart from the Principles of Cartesian Philosophy and the Theologico-Political Treatise, were published after his death in the Opera Postuma edited by his friends.
Spinoza lived in Amsterdam and the surrounding area all of his life, earning a comfortable living from lens-grinding. Certainly the lens-grinding aspect of Spinoza's work is uncontested, but what exact lenses he made is in question. Many have said he produced excellent magnifying glasses, and some historians credit him with being an optician (in the sense of making lenses for eyeglasses). He was also supported by small, but regular donations from close friends. He died in 1677 while still working on a political thesis. His premature death was due to a lung illness and possibly the result of breathing in glass dust from the lenses he ground. Only a year earlier, Spinoza had met with Leibniz at The Hague for a discussion of his principal philosophical work, Ethics, which had been completed in 1676 (Lucas, 1960). Spinoza never married, nor did he father any children.
Overview of his philosophy
After having first subscribed to Descartes's dualistic belief that body and mind are two separate substances, Spinoza later changed his view and asserted that they were not separate, being merely different aspects of one substance. In this, he was influenced by his reading of Malebranche:
[Malebranche] teaches that we see all things in God himself. This is certainly equivalent to explaining something unknown by something even more unknown. Moreover, according to him, we see not only all things in God, but God is also the sole activity therein, so that physical causes are so only apparently; they are merely occasional causes. (Recherches de la vérité, Livre VI, seconde partie, chap. 3.) And so here we have essentially the pantheism of Spinoza who appears to have learned more from Malebranche than from Descartes.
—Schopenhauer, Parerga and Paralipomena, Vol. I, "Sketch of a History of the Doctrine of the Ideal and the Real"
Spinoza argued that God and Nature were two names for the same reality, namely the single substance (meaning "to stand beneath" rather than "matter") that underlies the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications. The argument for this single substance runs as follows:
Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its existence.
No two substances can share an attribute.
Proof: If they share an attribute, they would be identical. Therefore they can only be individuated by their modes. But then they would depend on their modes for their identity. This would have the substance being dependent on its mode, in violation of premise 1. Therefore, two substances cannot share the same attribute.
3. A substance can only be caused by something similar to itself (something that shares its attribute).
4. Substance cannot be caused.
Proof: Something can only be caused by something which is similar to itself, in other words something that shares its attribute. But according to premise 2, no two substances can share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be caused.
5. Substance is infinite.
Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and limited by something. But to be limited by something is to be dependent on it. However, substance cannot be dependent on anything else (premise 1), therefore substance is infinite.
Conclusion: There can only be one substance.
Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other. But this would act as a restraint, and they would be dependent on each other. But they cannot be dependent on each other (premise 1), therefore there cannot be two substances.
Spinoza contended that "Deus sive Natura" ("God or Nature") was a being of infinitely many attributes, of which extension and thought were two. His account of the nature of reality, then, seems to treat the physical and mental worlds as two different, parallel "subworlds" that neither overlap nor interact. This formulation is a historically significant panpsychist solution to the mind-body problem known as neutral monism. The consequences of Spinoza's system also envisage a God that does not rule over the universe by providence, but a God which itself is part of the deterministic system of which everything in nature is a part. Thus, God is the natural world and has no personality.
Spinoza was a thoroughgoing determinist who held that absolutely everything that happens occurs through the operation of necessity. For him, even human behaviour is fully determined, with freedom being our capacity to know we are determined and to understand why we act as we do. So freedom is not the possibility to say "no" to what happens to us but the possibility to say "yes" and fully understand why things should necessarily happen that way. By forming more "adequate" ideas about what we do and our emotions or affections, we become the adequate cause of our effects (internal or external), which entails an increase in activity (versus passivity). This means that we become both more free and more like God, as Spinoza argues in the Scholium to Prop. 49, Part II. However, Spinoza also held that everything must necessarily happen the way that it does. Therefore, there is no free will.
Spinoza's philosophy has much in common with Stoicism in as much as both philosophies sought to fulfil a therapeutic role by instructing people how to attain happiness (or eudaimonia, for the Stoics). However, Spinoza differed sharply from the Stoics in one important respect: he utterly rejected their contention that reason could defeat emotion. On the contrary, he contended, an emotion can be displaced or overcome only by a stronger emotion. For him, the crucial distinction was between active and passive emotions, the former being those that are rationally understood and the latter those that are not. He also held that knowledge of true causes of passive emotion can transform it to an active emotion, thus anticipating one of the key ideas of Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis.
Some of Spinoza's philosophical positions are:
The natural world is infinite.
There is no real difference between good and evil.
Everything done by humans and other animals is excellent and divine.
All rights are derived from the State.
Animals can be used in any way by people for the benefit of the human race, according to a rational consideration of the benefit as well as the animals' status in nature.[2]
Ethical philosophy
Encapsulated at the start in his Treatise on the Improvement of the Understanding (Tractatus de intellectus emendatione) is the core of Spinoza's ethical philosophy, what he held to be the true and final good. Spinoza held a relativist's position, that nothing is good or bad, except to the extent that it is subjectively perceived to be by the individual. Things are only good or evil in respect that humanity sees it desirable to apply these conceptions to matters. Instead, Spinoza believes in his deterministic universe that, "All things in nature proceed from certain necessity and with the utmost perfection". Therefore, no things happen by chance in Spinoza's world, and reason does not work in terms of contingency. In the universe anything that happens comes from the essential nature of objects, or of God and nature. Perfection therefore abounds according to Spinoza. If circumstances are seen as unfortunate it is only because of our inadequate conception of reality. Spinoza's point is, there is nothing inherent in any thing, to make it either good or bad. From this he concluded that the ethical ventures of other philosophers had been mistaken.
Acts such as altruism and piety should be made by the "mere guidance of reason". Spinoza's system also teaches that the knowledge of God induces us "to do those things which love and piety persuade us". For instance, one person may find roasted peanuts tasty and so for her roasted peanuts are good. But another person may be allergic to nuts and so for him peanuts are bad. Spinoza's point is, there is nothing inherent in any thing, like a nut, to make it either good or bad.
The Pantheism Controversy
In 1785, Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi published a condemnation of Spinoza's pantheism, after Lessing was thought to have confessed on his deathbed to being a "Spinozist", which was the equivalent in his time of being called an atheist. Jacobi claimed that Spinoza's doctrine was pure materialism, because all Nature and God are said to be nothing but extended substance. This, for Jacobi, was the result of Enlightenment rationalism and it would finally end in absolute atheism. Moses Mendelssohn disagreed with Jacobi, saying that there is no actual difference between theism and pantheism. The entire issue became a major intellectual and religious concern for European civilization at the time, which Immanuel Kant rejected, as he thought that attempts to conceive of transcendent reality would lead to antinomies in thought.
Spinoza's philosophy was considered to be a religion by the Germans of the late eighteenth century.[citation needed] It seemingly provided an alternative to Materialism, Atheism, and Deism. They did not, however, value Spinoza's geometric form with its logical proofs. Three of Spinoza's ideas strongly appealed to them:
the unity of all that exists;
the regularity of all that happens; and
the identity of spirit and nature.
Spinoza's "God or Nature" provided a living, natural God, in contrast to the Newtonian mechanical First Cause or the dead mechanism of the French "Man Machine."]
Modern relevance
Late twentieth century Europe has demonstrated a greater philosophical interest in Spinoza, often from a left-wing or Marxist perspective. Notable philosophers Gilles Deleuze, Antonio Negri and Étienne Balibar have each written books on Spinoza. Deleuze's doctoral thesis, published in 1968, refers to him as "the prince of philosophers". (Deleuze, 1968). Other philosophers heavily influenced by Spinoza include Constantin Brunner and John David Garcia. Stuart Hampshire wrote a major English language study of Spinoza, though H. H. Joachim's work is equally valuable. Unlike most philosophers, Spinoza and his work were highly regarded by Nietzsche.
Prominent Cambridge philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein also recognized Spinoza's importance. At the suggestion of G. E. Moore, Wittgenstein's first definitive philosophical work was entitled,Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. This was an allusion to Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. Both texts erect complex philosophical arguments starting from basic logical assertions and principles.
Spinoza has had influence beyond the confines of philosophy. Albert Einstein named Spinoza as the philosopher who exerted the most influence on his worldview (Weltanschauung). Spinoza equated God (infinite substance) with Nature, consistent with Einstein's belief in an impersonal deity. In 1929, Einstein was asked in a telegram by Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein whether he believed in God. Einstein responded by telegram "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."[1] Spinoza's pantheism has also influenced the environmental theory. Arne Næss, the father of the deep ecology movement, acknowledged Spinoza as an important inspiration.
Spinoza is an important historical figure in the Netherlands, where his portrait was featured prominently on the Dutch 1000-guilder banknote, legal tender until the euro was introduced in 2002. The highest and most prestigious scientific award of the Netherlands is named the Spinozapremie.
posted by Ric Caric at 1:13 PM
3 Comments:
Does anyone else find it funny that while Spinoza copies the "Well, nothing against my religion ever happens- you just don't understand it!" part of Christianity that most people don't like, he never bothers to give God any *good* attributes? I don't care about an impersonal God- why should I? He's *impersonal*. He might as well not exist for all the effect such a god would have on my life.
And if that god is uncaring for my existence, for all of humanity's existence, but is present in nature, than isn't humanity stuck against god? We destroy nature and natural existence- heck, all of science is nothing but an attempt to force nature to do something she would not, under otehr circumstances, do. (That's what science is- forcing nature to do something).
Truth is, the idea of "impersonal gods" is just an excuse for people to not have to worry about their own actions. It's a cop-out, in my view... a way to avoid the entire concept of good and evil. I understand, but do not approve. After all...
Let's consider the judicial implications of Spinoza's theory. All things are perfect, whether we know it or not, and there is no inherently good or evil part of- well, anything. Okay. Then why do we have a justice system?
Don't argue with me by saying "Well, Society would fall apart otherwise." So? All things are perfect and reaching perfection. There is no good or evil- that last is important. No good or evil of *any* kind- not just the Christian viewpoint, but of any viewpoint- means that there is no basis for any judgement. How could you say that society's downfall was bad? Because people would die, get robbed, raped, kidnapped, etc.? Well, the Spinoza answer is that none of that is bad.
Now, he'd argue against it. He'd pull up proof after proof. But the thing is- logically, this is where his system leads. An impersonal god happens to run Nature. And Nature is brutal. It's predator vs. prey, Darwin's nightmare, with only the strongest, fastest, best animals surviving to come out on top. This is the kind of god Spinoza is claiming to exist. He couldn't argue that humans are different- how? Spinoza has a god utterly unconcerned with human beings. So that would indicate that we aren't different in any way from the animals. And so we should, by all rights, live by the law of the jungle.
Down with Society!
Even more, the concept of "no good, no evil" is ridiculous. Even those who pronounce it fiercest have a "good and evil"- to them, thoes who disagree are "evil", those who agree are "good". Good and evil are the most basic concepts in existence, and I say shame on Spinoza for not bothering to think his thoughts through.
I also say that this sheer incompleteness to his thoughts is probably why I'd never heard of him up to this point. He may be famous in his home, but so what? I'm absolutely certain that some people thought of as famous in their homes are unheard of in the world- just think of your local small-town star.
To FriendofAll-
Actually, that's kind of the point. Under your thinking, Esrever is still right- murder and rape are divine acts. No good and evil = this result. Of course he holds a view that good and evil are polarized. Even if you only believe that there is "evil", than there exists good- if only as a negative of what is *not* evii.
So, let's look at the connotations of what you are saying- the practical applications, in other words.
(Theory is irrelevance taken to the highest point. Only when it is applied does it matter- otherwise it's just wishful thinking).
You claim that there is no good or evil, per se. Doesn't this prove Esrever's point? Without a concept of what is "bad" and what is "good", then anything goes.
Utter chaos, anarchy, and cannibalism are equated with tolerance, peace, and equality. You can't say one is better- there is no "good" at all!
If anything, this gives every being on the planet the right to do as they wish. Those who preach tolerance of all people are exactly as good and decent as the KKK.
No matter what your viewpoint of good and evil, whether you think homosexuals are okay or not, on abortion, etc., it is still a moral judgement. You are saying that one thing is good and another is evil. To not stretch these things out into an actual philosophy on life is ridiculous- the idea of good and evil is inherent within us. Spinoza himself possessed an idea of good and evil- his beliefs were "good", because as he stated, he thought he was right. So Spinoza was "good", and everyone who did not believe in an impersonal god was "evil", if only in the sense that they were wrong about the nature of reality.
So you see, you both prove Esrever's point and fail to show me that Spinoza did not make everyone's actions utterly equal. I'm interested in your response.
To FriendofAll:
But you are missing the point. Good and evil do exist, friend. But not in the concept you are thinking of it as. It's not "Good" as in a God. It's just "Good" as in "what is preferable". Spinoza still has a concept of good and evil. It's a basic concept: What you like and what you don't like. That's the simplest possible definition of good and evil- any form of good and evil, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist- that I can make. Forget Western culture for a minute- Spinoza has a firmly developed sense of good and evil. It's just different from the "tradiitonal" notions.
The point for Esrever is that you prove him right- all actions result from the divine laws of the universe. Henceforth, rape and murder are divine acts. Prove to me that this is not true. I'm not saying rape and murder are "good"- just divine.
So, let's look at Spinoza's God logically. God affects all things- gravity's a good example. Bad people, good people fall down the same way. So do men and women, white people, black people, Native Americans, etc. We all fall the same way.
So let's assume Spinoza is right.
Why is all morality on earth not the same?
We are all based on our original substance. We are all human. Henceforth, we should all look and act and talk the same.
Under his version of determinism, truth be told...
There should be no difference. Or, if there is, then it's based on being from a different substance. And there should be no equality between substances- remember, "no two substances can share an attribute." Do you see the massive possibility for genocide in these arguments? There can be no claim for equality in such an argument, because it's based on things that are absolutely unchangeable. Sorry, buddy, but you are just born the way you are, and nothing can change that.
Please. It's a big world out there. You can't judge on the basis of anything that is not that person. You can't judge based on impersonality in any way, because you can't argue with a God you can't talk to. It's a god based on order, not chaos.
And come on. The world's a big place. I think I'm right, but if Buddha came down and slapped me right now, I'd change my opinion real fast.
Post a Comment
<< Home