The Philosophy of Spinoza

by Joseph Ratner

Selections usually need no justifications. Some justification, however, of the treatment accorded Spinoza's Ethics may be necessary in this place. The object in taking the Ethics as much as possible out of the geometrical form, was not to improve upon the author's text; it was to give the lay reader a text of Spinoza he would find pleasanter to read and easier to understand. To the practice of popularization, Spinoza, one may confidently feel, would not be averse. He himself gave a short popular statement of his philosophy in the Political Treatise. The lay reader of philosophy is chiefly, if not wholly, interested in grasping a philosophic point of view. He is not interested in highly meticulous details, and still less is he interested in checking up the author's statements to see if the author is consistent with himself. He takes such consistency, even if unwarrantedly, for granted. A continuous reading of the original Ethics, even on a single topic, is impossible. The subject-matter is coherent, but the propositions do not hang together. By omitting the formal statement of the propositions; by omitting many of the demonstrations and almost all cross-references; by grouping related sections of the Ethics (with selections from the Letters and the Improvement of the Understanding) under sectional headings, the text has been made more continuous. It is the only time, probably, dismembering a treatise actually made it more unified.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Religion, Classics

377 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1927

Reviews

[J.D. Steens · Rating 3 out of 5]

Spinoza's philosophy attracts because of its rigorous attention to the (non-supernatural) material world, and to its believable argument that humans are motivated by their need for preservation and happiness (pleasure and the absence of pain).*

Spinoza's philosophy is anchored in a metaphysical realm: Nature is God and God is nature. God is One and that Oneness is manifested in material nature and the immutable laws of cause and effect that govern everything. God, as seen in the laws of nature, is perfection (oneness and harmony). The ethical charge for man is to escape the bondage of instinctual passion that divide us through the use of reason that directs us to abide by the laws of the whole. In this way, individual interest is equated with the interest of the whole. Reason provides this unity and enable us to approximate God's perfection.

Against Hobbes, Spinoza sees reason always on the side of peace and harmony. This gives too much credit to humans. Reason promotes division as well as harmony, depending on whether the instincts of preservation sense the benefits of cooperation. Spinoza sidesteps this very real problem by arguing that, rather than self-preservation, one should be moved to seek the harmony of the whole because of an intellectual love for God. This aspiration reflects our higher nature to participate in the harmony of the whole.

But this is the soft spot in Spinoza's philosophy. It is grounded in a transcendent realm and not within our biological being. It directs humans toward an unattainable and unrealistic perfection that is too frequently at odds with the requirements of self-preservation and with the human capacity to restrict self-interest in deference to the whole. The harmony of the whole is a laudable goal and no doubt motivates many. However, many are and will always be immune to the interests of the whole in which case, reason becomes the enemy of harmony. This is the lesson of history despite the wish that it not be so. Relying on reason (and its capacity to unify opposition and conflict in thought), as opposed to using countervailing power (checks and balances) in real time to maintain the harmony of the whole, will always be a precarious proposition.

*Spinoza’s theory of emotions is difficult to decipher. He starts with the drive for self-preservation. That drive is desire (will), expressed as seeking that which provides pleasure and avoiding that which creates pain. These – desire, pleasure (joy), pain (sorrow) – are the three primary emotions. All other emotions are variations of these. Passions that get in the way of good decision-making –those not in accord with our best interests or the Stoic-like nature of things – are bad. Reason and emotion work together as a team; emotion supplies the end for acting, and reason supplies the means. Rather than being controlled by impulse and the here and now, which Spinoza calls passive, we must actively govern ourselves. ‘“An emotion can neither be hindered nor removed except by a contrary and stronger emotion,’” Durant quotes from Spinoza. Then Durant adds, “Instead of uselessly opposing reason to passion – a contest in which the more deeply rooted and ancestral element usually wins – he opposes reasonless passions to passions coordinated by reason, put into place by the total perspective of the situation.”

[James Violand · Rating 2 out of 5]

Spinoza’s philosophy is difficult enough without a pompous twenty-five year old scholar deciding to re-arrange the philosopher’s writings to make them “easier” to understand! Ratner hobnobs together sentences from Ethics, merges them with a thought in a private letter, and sutures the gaps with a few paragraphs from Theologico-Political Treatise. The ghoulish result is an ugly, confusing creature. Continuity of thought is ruined and the reading becomes laborious. Fortunately, other summaries are available (ex. Modern Library’s The European Philosophers from Descartes to Nietzsche) which synthesize Spinoza’s works better. But be forewarned: Spinoza is a very difficult read.

[Theresa · Rating 3 out of 5]

I came here to expand upon my understanding of Spinoza's idea that nature = god and was not disappointed. Everything else (mostly democracy bad, theocracy good; it was difficult for me to absorb much of what he was saying) was....sort of disappointing.

I would still read other selections of his writings, maybe ones that focused more on the concepts I'm interested in.

[Harlan · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was my father's and I have moved it around for 40 years. I finally cracked it open and skimmed it heavily. I find reading old, dense language very hard, even though I have a Masters in humanities. I think I got the point of his philosophy and why he was very radical for his time (from this book)

[Michael Huang]

(Lost my book, half finished, probably in a hotel. //sigh)

[Marcelo · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good overview and summary of Spinoza's major works (Ethics, Theologico-Political Treatise) augmented by some personal letters and other minor papers. The major draw is that this doesn't change the content, but rather streamlines it and makes it more readable. I'd say it largely succeeds.

Overall, I can see why Spinoza is one of the pillars of modern philosophy - first of all, it presents a view of God which i can agree with (God is basically the universe, eternal, with its own set of rules and aims stemming from this nature; and everything is within it, nothing without it) and deconstructs and takes apart some of the major deviations from traditional religion (basically the anthropocentric view of God as having a purpose in the advancement of humanity, which he decries as utter nonsense based on our need to find meaning in things, and also a denial of the nature of God himself - if God's goal in existence is to provide for men to have meaning, then God is imperfect and lacking, so far as he needs men to complete him...). He takes down miracles, superstition, interpreters of the divine word, and the need for ceremony around God flawlessly. It's a superb performance, and it takes about the first third of this book (mainly extracted from the T-P T)

His philosophy is also deeply humanistic, in the sense that he understands and incorporates the ways in which human beings are conditioned or limited by Nature into his view of human behavior and goals. He understands that man is not fully free, but just free within the limited set of choices that it's provided to him. And that freedom is only obtained through knowledge, because you cannot be free if you are not consciously aware of why you are doing what your are doing, what your possible options are and your limitations. He doesn't use this to excuse man for his deeds, but rather to color what we should do when people stray, and how to best reinforce the proper path through reason.

Also, his deconstruction of sacred texts between divine law and norms for living applicable to that society for which they were written at that time is also illuminating, and lays the ground for a reasoned arguments against some of the most glaring excesses of organized religion - no wonder he was excommunicated and decried as an Atheist as he run a battle ram into the powers that be. The fact that this discussion continues today, with many people in our country still reading the Bible as if it was all true, divine and applicable to every situation makes you want to urgently push this book into the hands of anyone defending that position...

And, finally, when you think this was written around 350 years ago... - let's just say you come out admiring the man's courage (though a more biological term first comes to mind).

Overall, Spinoza is a product of the illumination, and so he tends to fall on Reason a lot. In that sense, he doesn't give emotions their full reign, insofar as the understanding of the biological nature of emotions wasn't that far advanced yet. He does, however, say many times that a man cannot deny his emotions more than he can turn into something essentially different.

Yes, it does take work to read this book - I'll say that, especially in the latter parts. But it's an effort well spent.

[Mike Morris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Still amazed how Spinoza, in a competent work of philosophy, manages to mesh into it, Theology, and eloquently so, when so much of contemporary philosophy shuns religion and attempts to turn clumsy logical problems into a belief system. I know, at this late juncture, Spinoza is not bleeding edge, and the work has been opened into the public domain for decades, but still, the influence rings fresh.

In his musings on Man, Spinoza seems to be more than a little bit cognizant of old stoicism. He blends the terms Nature, as of a Natural way of life, with the path of the Rational person. Mere days ago, I'm reading Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius saying some of these same things.

Spinoza represents a different problem in a flat statement at the beginning of one of the chapters, and then he gives us a spirited explanation: good and evil, respectively, are only things that bring us either joy or sorrow. If one takes the comment by itself, Spinoza seems to turn his back on his own Hermeneutics and Theology, even favor of societal anarchy in the name of pleasure. However, in those same pages, he is pushing the old Stoic message of man conforming to nature, and nature being rational, and mutually beneficial across a spectrum.

[Thomas Fackler · Rating 2 out of 5]

Spinoza develops a philosophy that works quite well except for the fact that he lives in a time when proof of the existence of a god/life-force is imperative. This seems to be the main failing.

Otherwise his take on the world at large is a pretty humanistic one wherein we do what we do because it is our nature to do what we do - with slightly more technical detail.

[Charles · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed the origin and nature of emotions section. I also enjoyed the sections about politics, Of the Foundations of a State, Of Supreme Authority and Freedom of Thought and Speech.