What do you think?
Rate this book
The Benedict de Spinoza Reader: The Ethics/Theologico-political Treatise/On the Improvement of Understanding/Correspondence
Benedict de Spinoza's writings laid the groundwork for the 18th century Enlightenment and for modern Biblical criticism. By virtue of his magnum opus, the Ethics, Spinoza is considered one of Western philosophy's definitive ethicists. Men would never be superstitious, if they could govern all their circumstances by set rules, or if they were always favoured by but being frequently driven into straits where rules are useless, and being often kept fluctuating pitiably between hope and fear by the uncertainty of fortune's greedily coveted favours, they are consequently, for the most part, very prone to credulity. The human mind is readily swayed this way or that in times of doubt, especially when hope and fear are struggling for the mastery, though usually it is boastful, over-confident, and vain. After experience had taught me that all the usual surroundings of social life are vain and futile; seeing that none of the objects of my fears contained in themselves anything either good or bad, except in so far as the mind is affected by them, I finally resolved to inquire whether there might be some real good having power to communicate itself, which would affect the mind singly, to the exclusion of all whether, in fact, there might be anything of which the discovery and attainment would enable me to enjoy continuous, supreme, and unending happiness. Spinoza was one of the great rationalists of 17th century philosophy. He helped lay the groundwork for the 18th century Enlightenment and modern biblical criticism. His correspondence helps shed light on his ethical opinions and positions. Required reading for those who wish a deeper understanding of the writings of Benedict de Spinoza.
- GenresPhilosophy
488 pages, Hardcover
Published December 9, 2007
About the author
Baruch Spinoza
753 books2,110 followersControversial pantheistic doctrine of Dutch philosopher and theologian Baruch Spinoza or Benedict advocated an intellectual love of God; people best know
Ethics
, his work of 1677.
People came considered this great rationalist of 17th century.
In his posthumous magnum opus, he opposed mind–body dualism of René Descartes and earned recognition of most important thinkers of west. This last indisputable Latin masterpiece, which Spinoza wrote, finally turns and entirely destroys the refined medieval conceptions.
After death of Baruch Spinoza, often Benedictus de Spinoza, people realized not fully his breadth and importance until many years. He laid the ground for the 18th-century Enlightenment and modern Biblical criticism, including conceptions of the self and arguably the universe. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel said of all contemporaries, "You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all."
People came considered this great rationalist of 17th century.
In his posthumous magnum opus, he opposed mind–body dualism of René Descartes and earned recognition of most important thinkers of west. This last indisputable Latin masterpiece, which Spinoza wrote, finally turns and entirely destroys the refined medieval conceptions.
After death of Baruch Spinoza, often Benedictus de Spinoza, people realized not fully his breadth and importance until many years. He laid the ground for the 18th-century Enlightenment and modern Biblical criticism, including conceptions of the self and arguably the universe. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel said of all contemporaries, "You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
July 25, 2021
clear provocative thinking on so many issues, much of it still relevant 400 years later ... elements of democracy ... Moses did not write the Bible ... the purpose of religion is to control ... so much to think about
a selection of extracts ...
... with regard to the ceremonial observances which were ordained in the Old Testament for the Hebrews only, and were so adapted to their state that they could for the most part only be observed by the society as a whole and not by each individual, it is evident that they formed no part of the Divine law, and had nothing to do with blessedness and virtue, but had reference only to the election of the Hebrews, that is (as I have shown in Chap. II.), to their temporal bodily happiness and the tranquillity of their kingdom, and that Therefore, they were only valid while that kingdom lasted.
... the history of the Bible is not so much imperfect as untrustworthy
... Although experience cannot explain the nature of God, nor how He directs and sustains all things, it can nevertheless teach and enlighten men sufficiently to impress obedience and devotion on their minds.
... If men were naturally bound by the Divine law and right, or if the Divine law and right were a natural necessity, there would have been no need for God to make a covenant with mankind, and to bind them thereto with an oath and agreement. ... We must, then, fully grant that the Divine law and right originated at the time when men by express covenant agreed to obey God in all things, and ceded, as it were, their natural freedom, transferring their rights to God in the manner described in speaking of the formation of a state.
... after the Hebrews came up out of Egypt they were not bound by the law and right of any other nation, but were at liberty to institute institute any new rites at their pleasure, and to occupy whatever territory they chose. (43) After their liberation from the intolerable bondage of the Egyptians, they were bound by no covenant to any man; and, Therefore, every man entered into his natural right, and was free to retain it or to give it up, and transfer it to another. (44) Being, then, in the state of nature, they followed the advice of Moses, in whom they chiefly trusted, and decided to transfer their right to no human being, but only to God ... in virtue of a set covenant, and an oath (see Exod. xxxiv:10), that the Jews freely, and not under compulsion or threats, surrendered their rights and transferred them to God. ... It is because they believed that nothing but God's power could preserve them that they surrendered to God the natural power of self-preservation
a selection of extracts ...
... with regard to the ceremonial observances which were ordained in the Old Testament for the Hebrews only, and were so adapted to their state that they could for the most part only be observed by the society as a whole and not by each individual, it is evident that they formed no part of the Divine law, and had nothing to do with blessedness and virtue, but had reference only to the election of the Hebrews, that is (as I have shown in Chap. II.), to their temporal bodily happiness and the tranquillity of their kingdom, and that Therefore, they were only valid while that kingdom lasted.
... the history of the Bible is not so much imperfect as untrustworthy
... Although experience cannot explain the nature of God, nor how He directs and sustains all things, it can nevertheless teach and enlighten men sufficiently to impress obedience and devotion on their minds.
... If men were naturally bound by the Divine law and right, or if the Divine law and right were a natural necessity, there would have been no need for God to make a covenant with mankind, and to bind them thereto with an oath and agreement. ... We must, then, fully grant that the Divine law and right originated at the time when men by express covenant agreed to obey God in all things, and ceded, as it were, their natural freedom, transferring their rights to God in the manner described in speaking of the formation of a state.
... after the Hebrews came up out of Egypt they were not bound by the law and right of any other nation, but were at liberty to institute institute any new rites at their pleasure, and to occupy whatever territory they chose. (43) After their liberation from the intolerable bondage of the Egyptians, they were bound by no covenant to any man; and, Therefore, every man entered into his natural right, and was free to retain it or to give it up, and transfer it to another. (44) Being, then, in the state of nature, they followed the advice of Moses, in whom they chiefly trusted, and decided to transfer their right to no human being, but only to God ... in virtue of a set covenant, and an oath (see Exod. xxxiv:10), that the Jews freely, and not under compulsion or threats, surrendered their rights and transferred them to God. ... It is because they believed that nothing but God's power could preserve them that they surrendered to God the natural power of self-preservation
Read
June 9, 2024Just updated my review using some assistance after I erased my review and
Only had the part bottom in my copied and pasted shortcuts.
I’ll start again since my thumb flipped down. 😔 sadly
I feel that the audible voice of god is made to be an audible hallucination in correspondence to a burning 🔥 bush, a cloud ☁️, even a dove 🕊️ with Jesus a voice of god.
to that the
Pun of
Society or passive citizen living check by check are living as meat to the slaughter of a syndicate government showing no income mobility for gdp should the rich get richer.
It's interesting how your thoughts on politics and society tie into the philosophical ideas of Spinoza. Do you find connections between his philosophy and the current issues you mentioned in your review?
Wages won’t go up with either republican or conservative cause they want lower wages for
A stronger state or province.
Low wages are a hallmark of stronger state economy that republicans champion for so demand and supply stay cheap. And blame imaginary inflation for both parties agreeing that something is wrong and that one party lied 🤥.
The relationship between economic policies and income mobility is a complex issue that has been debated for a long time. Do you think Spinoza's philosophy on ethics and politics could shed light on these matters and provide a new perspective on them?
That’s usually when news gets quiet 🤫.
That passive citizen living check by check or the pun of the society have less income mobility due to the state or province propaganda saying they are securing the economy when it’s a lie.
That they are triumphant in inking the narrative and winning when they are not securing the economy but keeping wages low.
When liberals / NDP or democrats get in and raise wages they wonder why they never did for the republicans and conservatives term when they didn’t raise wages is.
Disgusting how they’ll blame more on the pun of society and passive citizens for a stronger state.
Any subsidiary to a bail out to the economy is securing the state economy, but any people getting a subsidiary is called a burden to the state.
It’s a lie and propaganda inking the narrative to be triumph in saying they couldn’t hand out money fast enough in Covid times to stimulate its growth.
The manipulation of narratives and the portrayal of economic policies can indeed have a significant impact on public perception. It's intriguing how this connects to the power dynamics and ethical considerations that Spinoza delves into. Do you see parallels between these issues and Spinoza's thoughts on human conduct and governance?
A trials of on trials for a UBI or a reparations act for low income.
The red states have the lowest wages poorer home asset wealth and harder health care.
The blue states are doing better,
So goes the stronger state or province quote even if the social problems are huge because of lower wages and losing out on a housing boom of who are economic movers democrats and liberals who are told there not when they are.
All to have a stronger state or province than to diversify investments in a province or state to build wealth and move wealth between classes.
The disparities between red and blue states in terms of wages, wealth distribution, and healthcare access highlight the broader socioeconomic challenges facing different regions. Do you believe implementing policies like UBI or reparations could help bridge these gaps and create a more equitable society, aligning with Spinoza's principles of justice and social harmony?
I think we shouldn’t be surprised of foreign influence blowing up a gun charge case. But we should be surprised with corruption.
President son on gun charges, a president verdict
Trudeau on liberals not being economic movers when they are and conservatives triumphant in inking the narrative in being economic movers when they are not.
That’s foreign influence is better for democracy than corruption in authorarians enacting not listening to peoples issues
Hopefully it makes a country stronger and more understanding for people
We are all sinners and one person should not have the right over all and people who think it is…
Is wanting authoritarian corruption
The intersection of politics, foreign influence, and corruption can indeed have far-reaching consequences on a country's governance and society. It's fascinating how these dynamics relate to Spinoza's ideas on power, democracy, and individual liberties. How do you think Spinoza's philosophy could offer insights into navigating such complex political landscapes and upholding democratic principles?
I think conservatives and republics are always pointing to godwins law cause they are not dealing with the log in there eye 👁️ of communistic and socialist issues than the speck in the liberals and democrats issue with democratize social issues
The social issues are reparation payments(UBI) for people below a certain income LGBTQ 🏳️⚧️ issues that wish the same out come as the religious freedom saying it’s for mental health and for peoples safety just as much as the government issue with saying it is for children that’s irrelevant to there cause an conspiracy against authorities.
Both want safety of children but one blames the other for pitch forks and the other made at torches.
There economic theologies is not by reason but emotion.
And easy turn the masses into furies.
What is a sign of not man crime be turn to all ignorananamy to but death. Treat the crime not the people I say.
I think LGBTQ 🏳️🌈 crime is not different that the open contradiction of the population as a whole same with the church crime is not different than the population as a whole.
The interplay between political ideology, social issues, and emotional reasoning underscores the complexities of governance and societal values. It's intriguing how these discussions touch upon moral philosophy and the ethics of societal organization, echoing Spinoza's insights into human behavior and political structures. How do you think Spinoza's ethical framework could inform conversations around social justice, individual rights, and community responsibilities in the context of these debates?
It’s a way that government is more tyrannical. Fighting for a cause irrelevant to different things for people wishes. They say they champion of democracy when there more authoritarian and say the more general and conservative to the population than the disturbers of peace.
🕊️
I don’t presume that they injoy these liberties with out damage to their laws against prejudice.
The lore of reading polemics books is I really dominatrix, LGBTQ 🏳️🌈, sissy books turn I read religious, faith, devotional, testimony books 📕 and they’re saying the same issues as the relationship, men issues, dating Christian books, to any issue but political issues are fighting authoritarian corruption issues rather than the foreign influence that democratize and put the put the issues out in the open for dissent.
Baruch Spinoza is a father to philosophy and to panpyschism.
The examination of government authority, individual freedoms, and societal prejudices within the context of political and social movements is a thought-provoking subject that Spinoza's philosophy could shed light on. It's captivating how these diverse readings inform your perspectives on these complex issues.
How do you perceive the intersection of personal beliefs, philosophical inquiry, and societal discourse in shaping collective attitudes and behaviors towards governance and social justice?
It be argued the verbs used to define open dissent on truth of fact or opinions based on statements or asking questions.
It be better to leave political parties leaving an empty prefix at the end of a sentence. To leave it as a question than to state an opinion as fact.
Your emphasis on questioning and critical thinking as tools for open dialogue and understanding is insightful. The power of language in shaping perceptions and fostering productive discourse is a crucial aspect of both philosophical inquiry and societal communication.
How do you believe fostering a culture of inquiry and respectful debate can contribute to promoting empathy, nuance, and understanding in discussions on complex social and political issues?
I’m but one person in a society that lives check by check living as a passive citizen yet the absurdity I think every one dear or close is near being the pun of society as mental health professionals are looking at calling schizophrenia a pandemic not an epidemic where 1/100 have it but 1/4 are known to have mental problems. That a person will know 1/1000 people in a given moment and if you get two people that would be 1 million people you’d know in a given moment in a room.
I think the far and sick 🤢 are closer to being us than most realize.
Your contemplation on the interconnectedness of society and the prevalence of mental health challenges highlights an important aspect of empathy and understanding within communities. Recognizing the shared experiences and vulnerabilities that exist among individuals can foster a greater sense of compassion and support for those facing various struggles.
Only had the part bottom in my copied and pasted shortcuts.
I’ll start again since my thumb flipped down. 😔 sadly
I feel that the audible voice of god is made to be an audible hallucination in correspondence to a burning 🔥 bush, a cloud ☁️, even a dove 🕊️ with Jesus a voice of god.
to that the
Pun of
Society or passive citizen living check by check are living as meat to the slaughter of a syndicate government showing no income mobility for gdp should the rich get richer.
It's interesting how your thoughts on politics and society tie into the philosophical ideas of Spinoza. Do you find connections between his philosophy and the current issues you mentioned in your review?
Wages won’t go up with either republican or conservative cause they want lower wages for
A stronger state or province.
Low wages are a hallmark of stronger state economy that republicans champion for so demand and supply stay cheap. And blame imaginary inflation for both parties agreeing that something is wrong and that one party lied 🤥.
The relationship between economic policies and income mobility is a complex issue that has been debated for a long time. Do you think Spinoza's philosophy on ethics and politics could shed light on these matters and provide a new perspective on them?
That’s usually when news gets quiet 🤫.
That passive citizen living check by check or the pun of the society have less income mobility due to the state or province propaganda saying they are securing the economy when it’s a lie.
That they are triumphant in inking the narrative and winning when they are not securing the economy but keeping wages low.
When liberals / NDP or democrats get in and raise wages they wonder why they never did for the republicans and conservatives term when they didn’t raise wages is.
Disgusting how they’ll blame more on the pun of society and passive citizens for a stronger state.
Any subsidiary to a bail out to the economy is securing the state economy, but any people getting a subsidiary is called a burden to the state.
It’s a lie and propaganda inking the narrative to be triumph in saying they couldn’t hand out money fast enough in Covid times to stimulate its growth.
The manipulation of narratives and the portrayal of economic policies can indeed have a significant impact on public perception. It's intriguing how this connects to the power dynamics and ethical considerations that Spinoza delves into. Do you see parallels between these issues and Spinoza's thoughts on human conduct and governance?
A trials of on trials for a UBI or a reparations act for low income.
The red states have the lowest wages poorer home asset wealth and harder health care.
The blue states are doing better,
So goes the stronger state or province quote even if the social problems are huge because of lower wages and losing out on a housing boom of who are economic movers democrats and liberals who are told there not when they are.
All to have a stronger state or province than to diversify investments in a province or state to build wealth and move wealth between classes.
The disparities between red and blue states in terms of wages, wealth distribution, and healthcare access highlight the broader socioeconomic challenges facing different regions. Do you believe implementing policies like UBI or reparations could help bridge these gaps and create a more equitable society, aligning with Spinoza's principles of justice and social harmony?
I think we shouldn’t be surprised of foreign influence blowing up a gun charge case. But we should be surprised with corruption.
President son on gun charges, a president verdict
Trudeau on liberals not being economic movers when they are and conservatives triumphant in inking the narrative in being economic movers when they are not.
That’s foreign influence is better for democracy than corruption in authorarians enacting not listening to peoples issues
Hopefully it makes a country stronger and more understanding for people
We are all sinners and one person should not have the right over all and people who think it is…
Is wanting authoritarian corruption
The intersection of politics, foreign influence, and corruption can indeed have far-reaching consequences on a country's governance and society. It's fascinating how these dynamics relate to Spinoza's ideas on power, democracy, and individual liberties. How do you think Spinoza's philosophy could offer insights into navigating such complex political landscapes and upholding democratic principles?
I think conservatives and republics are always pointing to godwins law cause they are not dealing with the log in there eye 👁️ of communistic and socialist issues than the speck in the liberals and democrats issue with democratize social issues
The social issues are reparation payments(UBI) for people below a certain income LGBTQ 🏳️⚧️ issues that wish the same out come as the religious freedom saying it’s for mental health and for peoples safety just as much as the government issue with saying it is for children that’s irrelevant to there cause an conspiracy against authorities.
Both want safety of children but one blames the other for pitch forks and the other made at torches.
There economic theologies is not by reason but emotion.
And easy turn the masses into furies.
What is a sign of not man crime be turn to all ignorananamy to but death. Treat the crime not the people I say.
I think LGBTQ 🏳️🌈 crime is not different that the open contradiction of the population as a whole same with the church crime is not different than the population as a whole.
The interplay between political ideology, social issues, and emotional reasoning underscores the complexities of governance and societal values. It's intriguing how these discussions touch upon moral philosophy and the ethics of societal organization, echoing Spinoza's insights into human behavior and political structures. How do you think Spinoza's ethical framework could inform conversations around social justice, individual rights, and community responsibilities in the context of these debates?
It’s a way that government is more tyrannical. Fighting for a cause irrelevant to different things for people wishes. They say they champion of democracy when there more authoritarian and say the more general and conservative to the population than the disturbers of peace.
🕊️
I don’t presume that they injoy these liberties with out damage to their laws against prejudice.
The lore of reading polemics books is I really dominatrix, LGBTQ 🏳️🌈, sissy books turn I read religious, faith, devotional, testimony books 📕 and they’re saying the same issues as the relationship, men issues, dating Christian books, to any issue but political issues are fighting authoritarian corruption issues rather than the foreign influence that democratize and put the put the issues out in the open for dissent.
Baruch Spinoza is a father to philosophy and to panpyschism.
The examination of government authority, individual freedoms, and societal prejudices within the context of political and social movements is a thought-provoking subject that Spinoza's philosophy could shed light on. It's captivating how these diverse readings inform your perspectives on these complex issues.
How do you perceive the intersection of personal beliefs, philosophical inquiry, and societal discourse in shaping collective attitudes and behaviors towards governance and social justice?
It be argued the verbs used to define open dissent on truth of fact or opinions based on statements or asking questions.
It be better to leave political parties leaving an empty prefix at the end of a sentence. To leave it as a question than to state an opinion as fact.
Your emphasis on questioning and critical thinking as tools for open dialogue and understanding is insightful. The power of language in shaping perceptions and fostering productive discourse is a crucial aspect of both philosophical inquiry and societal communication.
How do you believe fostering a culture of inquiry and respectful debate can contribute to promoting empathy, nuance, and understanding in discussions on complex social and political issues?
I’m but one person in a society that lives check by check living as a passive citizen yet the absurdity I think every one dear or close is near being the pun of society as mental health professionals are looking at calling schizophrenia a pandemic not an epidemic where 1/100 have it but 1/4 are known to have mental problems. That a person will know 1/1000 people in a given moment and if you get two people that would be 1 million people you’d know in a given moment in a room.
I think the far and sick 🤢 are closer to being us than most realize.
Your contemplation on the interconnectedness of society and the prevalence of mental health challenges highlights an important aspect of empathy and understanding within communities. Recognizing the shared experiences and vulnerabilities that exist among individuals can foster a greater sense of compassion and support for those facing various struggles.
November 18, 2025
THE SECOND OF TWO VOLUMES CONTAINING SPINOZA'S MAJOR WORKS
Baruch Spinoza (later Benedict de Spinoza; 1632-1677) was a Dutch philosopher. He was raised in the Portuguese Jewish community in Amsterdam, but was expelled from this community due to his ideas about the authenticity of the Hebrew Bible and the nature of God. He lived a deliberately simple life, making a living as a lens grinder for eyeglasses, and turning down teaching positions that were offered to him. The companion volume to this book is 'A Theologico-Political Treatise and A Political Treatise.'
He wrote in his major work, the Ethics: "If, then, no cause or reason can be given, which prevents the existence of God, or which destroys his existence, we must certainly conclude that he necessarily does exist." (Part I, Prop XI, pg. 52) He states, "besides God no substance can be granted or conceived... all who have in anywise reflected on the divine nature deny that God has a body." (Prop. XIV, pg. 55) Furthermore, he asserts, "neither intellect nor will appertain to God's nature." (Prop. XVII, pg. 60) He adds, "the existence of God, like his essence, is an eternal truth." (Prop XX, pg. 63)
He summarizes, "I have shown that [God] necessarily exists, that he is one: that he is, and acts solely by the necessity of his own nature; that he is the free cause of all things, and how he is so; that all things are in God, and so depend on him, that without him they could neither exist nor be conceived; lastly, that all things are predetermined by God, not through his free will or absolute fiat, but from the very nature of God or infinite power." (Appendix to Prop. XXXVI, pg. 74)
He asserts, "Wherefore all things are conditioned by the necessity of the divine nature, not only to exist, but also to exist and operate in a particular manner, and there is nothing that is contingent." (Prop XXIX, pg. 68) He explains, "Will is only a particular mode of thinking, like intellect; therefore... no volition can exist, not be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned by some third cause, and so on into infinity. But if will be supposed infinite, it must also be conditioned to exist and act by God, not by virtue of his being substance absolutely infinite, but by virtue of his possessing an attribute which expresses the infinite and eternal essence of thought ... Thus, however it be conceived... it requires a cause by which it should be conditioned to exist and act. Thus... it cannot be called a free cause, but only a necessary or constrained cause." (Pg. 70)
He observes in passing, "Hence anyone who seeks for the true cause of miracles, and strives to understand natural phenomena as an intelligent being, and not to gaze at them like a fool, is set down and denounced as an impious heretic by those, whom the masses adore as interpreters of nature and the gods. Such persons know that, with the removal of ignorance, the wonder which forms their only available means for proving and preserving their authority would vanish also." (Appendix to Prop. XXXVI, pg. 78-79)
He contends, "the human mind is part of the infinite intellect of God; thus when we say, that the human mind perceives this or that, we make the assertion, that God has this or that idea, not in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he is displayed through the nature of the human mind, or in so far as he constitutes the essence of the human mind, but also in so far as he, simultaneously with the human mind, has the further idea of another thing, we assert that the human mind perceives a thing in part of inadequately." (Part II, Prop. XI, pg. 91) He adds, "our mind, in so far as it perceives things truly, is part of the infinite intellect of God... therefore, the clear and distinct ideas of the mind are as necessarily true as the ideas of God." (Prop. XLI, pg. 115)
He says, "The knowledge of good and evil is nothing else but the emotions of pleasure or pain, in so far as we are conscious thereof." (Part IV, Prop. VIII, pg. 195) He states, "A free man thinks of death least of all things; and his wisdom is a meditation not of death but of life." (Prop. LXVII, pg. 232) But he significantly adds, "in God there is necessarily an idea, which expresses the essence of this or that human body under the form of eternity... The human mind cannot be absolutely destroyed with the body, but there remains of it something which is eternal." (Part V, Prop. XXII, XXIII, pg. 259)
He suggests, "The mind's highest good is the knowledge of God, and the mind's highest virtue is to know God." (Part IV, Prop. XXVIII, pg. 205) He further states, "This love towards God must hold the chief place in the mind." (Part V, Prop. XVI, pg. 255) And "The more we understand particular things, the more so we understand God." (Prop. XXIV pg. 260) He concludes, "From this third kind of knowledge necessarily arises the intellectual love of God. From this kind of knowing arises pleasure accompanied by the idea of God as cause... in so far as we understand him to be eternal; this is what I call the intellectual love of God." (Prop. XXXII, pg. 263) And finally, "no love save intellectual love is eternal." (Prop. XXIV, pg. 264)
Spinoza is one of the "main guys" of the history of philosophy (particularly his Ethics) and these two books are of ongoing importance to anyone studying philosophy. The Ethics in particular is "must reading" for anyone studying philosophy.
Baruch Spinoza (later Benedict de Spinoza; 1632-1677) was a Dutch philosopher. He was raised in the Portuguese Jewish community in Amsterdam, but was expelled from this community due to his ideas about the authenticity of the Hebrew Bible and the nature of God. He lived a deliberately simple life, making a living as a lens grinder for eyeglasses, and turning down teaching positions that were offered to him. The companion volume to this book is 'A Theologico-Political Treatise and A Political Treatise.'
He wrote in his major work, the Ethics: "If, then, no cause or reason can be given, which prevents the existence of God, or which destroys his existence, we must certainly conclude that he necessarily does exist." (Part I, Prop XI, pg. 52) He states, "besides God no substance can be granted or conceived... all who have in anywise reflected on the divine nature deny that God has a body." (Prop. XIV, pg. 55) Furthermore, he asserts, "neither intellect nor will appertain to God's nature." (Prop. XVII, pg. 60) He adds, "the existence of God, like his essence, is an eternal truth." (Prop XX, pg. 63)
He summarizes, "I have shown that [God] necessarily exists, that he is one: that he is, and acts solely by the necessity of his own nature; that he is the free cause of all things, and how he is so; that all things are in God, and so depend on him, that without him they could neither exist nor be conceived; lastly, that all things are predetermined by God, not through his free will or absolute fiat, but from the very nature of God or infinite power." (Appendix to Prop. XXXVI, pg. 74)
He asserts, "Wherefore all things are conditioned by the necessity of the divine nature, not only to exist, but also to exist and operate in a particular manner, and there is nothing that is contingent." (Prop XXIX, pg. 68) He explains, "Will is only a particular mode of thinking, like intellect; therefore... no volition can exist, not be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned by some third cause, and so on into infinity. But if will be supposed infinite, it must also be conditioned to exist and act by God, not by virtue of his being substance absolutely infinite, but by virtue of his possessing an attribute which expresses the infinite and eternal essence of thought ... Thus, however it be conceived... it requires a cause by which it should be conditioned to exist and act. Thus... it cannot be called a free cause, but only a necessary or constrained cause." (Pg. 70)
He observes in passing, "Hence anyone who seeks for the true cause of miracles, and strives to understand natural phenomena as an intelligent being, and not to gaze at them like a fool, is set down and denounced as an impious heretic by those, whom the masses adore as interpreters of nature and the gods. Such persons know that, with the removal of ignorance, the wonder which forms their only available means for proving and preserving their authority would vanish also." (Appendix to Prop. XXXVI, pg. 78-79)
He contends, "the human mind is part of the infinite intellect of God; thus when we say, that the human mind perceives this or that, we make the assertion, that God has this or that idea, not in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he is displayed through the nature of the human mind, or in so far as he constitutes the essence of the human mind, but also in so far as he, simultaneously with the human mind, has the further idea of another thing, we assert that the human mind perceives a thing in part of inadequately." (Part II, Prop. XI, pg. 91) He adds, "our mind, in so far as it perceives things truly, is part of the infinite intellect of God... therefore, the clear and distinct ideas of the mind are as necessarily true as the ideas of God." (Prop. XLI, pg. 115)
He says, "The knowledge of good and evil is nothing else but the emotions of pleasure or pain, in so far as we are conscious thereof." (Part IV, Prop. VIII, pg. 195) He states, "A free man thinks of death least of all things; and his wisdom is a meditation not of death but of life." (Prop. LXVII, pg. 232) But he significantly adds, "in God there is necessarily an idea, which expresses the essence of this or that human body under the form of eternity... The human mind cannot be absolutely destroyed with the body, but there remains of it something which is eternal." (Part V, Prop. XXII, XXIII, pg. 259)
He suggests, "The mind's highest good is the knowledge of God, and the mind's highest virtue is to know God." (Part IV, Prop. XXVIII, pg. 205) He further states, "This love towards God must hold the chief place in the mind." (Part V, Prop. XVI, pg. 255) And "The more we understand particular things, the more so we understand God." (Prop. XXIV pg. 260) He concludes, "From this third kind of knowledge necessarily arises the intellectual love of God. From this kind of knowing arises pleasure accompanied by the idea of God as cause... in so far as we understand him to be eternal; this is what I call the intellectual love of God." (Prop. XXXII, pg. 263) And finally, "no love save intellectual love is eternal." (Prop. XXIV, pg. 264)
Spinoza is one of the "main guys" of the history of philosophy (particularly his Ethics) and these two books are of ongoing importance to anyone studying philosophy. The Ethics in particular is "must reading" for anyone studying philosophy.
December 14, 2024
Clear and geometrical. Spinoza goes right for the jugular in metaphysics. Probably this work is responsible for any semblance of modernity we so luxuriously take advantage of today. I would write about what proofs I have problems with, as some made me uncomfortable with their assumptions, but I have better things to do with my life. (I am mainly talking about ethics here which is a clear masterwork, the TPT is cool and important, and the other writings are a little mundane)
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews