David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
European Journal of Philosophy 20 (1):74-90 (2012)
Spinoza took it to be an important psychological fact that belief cannot be compelled. At the same time, he was well aware of the compelling power that religious and political fictions can have on the formation of our beliefs. I argue that Spinoza allows that there are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ fictions. His complex account of the imagination and fiction, and their disabling or enabling roles in gaining knowledge of Nature, is a site of disagreement among commentators. The novels of George Eliot (who translated Spinoza's works) represent a significant development for those who aim to resolve such disagreement in favour of the epistemic value of the imagination and fiction. Although Eliot agreed with Spinoza that belief cannot be compelled, she nevertheless affirmed the potential of certain kinds of fiction to be not only compelling but also edifying. The parallel reading of Eliot and Spinoza offered here raises the question of whether his philosophy can accommodate a theory of art in which the artist is seen to be capable of attaining and imparting dependable knowledge
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Moira Gatens (2009). The Art and Philosophy of George Eliot. Philosophy and Literature 33 (1):pp. 73-90.
James C. Morrison (1989). Why Spinoza Had No Aesthetics. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 47 (4):359-365.
Michael Rosenthal (1997). Why Spinoza Chose the Hebrews: The Exemplary Function of Prophecy in the Theological-Political Treatise. History of Political Thought 18 (2):207-241.
Baruch Spinoza (1677/1992). Ethics. Hackett.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Lorenzo Vinciguerra (2012). Mark, Image, Sign: A Semiotic Approach to Spinoza. European Journal of Philosophy 20 (1):130-144.
George Louis Kline (1952/1981). Spinoza in Soviet Philosophy: A Series of Essays, Selected and Translated, and with an Introduction. Hyperion Press.
G. H. R. Parkinson (1969). Language and Knowledge in Spinoza. Inquiry 12 (1-4):15 – 40.
Julie R. Klein (2003). Dreaming with Open Eyes. Idealistic Studies 33 (2/3):141-159.
Peter Weigel (2009). Memory and the Unity of the Imagination in Spinoza's Ethics. International Philosophical Quarterly 49 (2):229-246.
Willi Goetschel (2003). Heine's Spinoza. Idealistic Studies 33 (2/3):203-217.
Alexander Douglas (2012). Collingwoods Reading of Spinozas Psychology. Collingwood and British Idealism Studies 18 (1):65-80.
Antonio Negri (2004). Subversive Spinoza: (Un)Contemporary Variations. Distributed Exclusively in the Usa by Palgrave.
Aaron Smuts (2010). The Ghost is the Thing: Can Fiction Reveal Audience Belief? Midwest Studies in Philosophy 34 (1):219-239.
Susan James (2010). Narrative as the Means to Freedom: Spinoza on the Uses of Imagination. In Yitzhak Y. Melamed & Michael A. Rosenthal (eds.), Spinoza's 'Theological-Political Treatise': A Critical Guide. Cambridge University Press. 250.
Don Garrett (2008). Representation and Consciousness in Spinoza's Naturalistic Theory of the Imagination. In Charles Huenemann (ed.), Interpreting Spinoza: Critical Essays. Cambridge University Press. 4--25.
Michael LeBuffe (2010). From Bondage to Freedom: Spinoza on Human Excellence. Oxford University Press.
C. M. Lorkowski (2009). The Miracle of Moses. Heythrop Journal 50 (2):181-188.
Added to index2012-02-28
Total downloads16 ( #110,542 of 1,140,039 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #157,514 of 1,140,039 )
How can I increase my downloads?