Spinoza: Philosophical Method

This chapter argues that the standard conception of Spinoza as a fellow-travelling mechanical philosopher and proto-scientific naturalist is misleading. It argues, first, that Spinoza’s account of the proper method for the study of nature presented in the Theological-Political Treatise (TTP) points away from the one commonly associated with the mechanical philosophy. Moreover, throughout his works Spinoza’s views on the very possibility of knowledge of nature are decidedly sceptical (as specified below). Third, in the seventeenth-century debates over proper methods in the (...) sciences, Spinoza sided with those that criticized the aspirations of those (the physico-mathematicians, Galileo, Huygens, Wallis, Wren, etc) who thought the application of mathematics to nature was the way to make progress. In particular, he offers grounds for doubting their confidence in the significance of measurement as well as their piece-meal methodology (see section 2). Along the way, this chapter offers a new interpretation of common notions in the context of treating Spinoza’s account of motion (see section 3). (shrink)

Spinoza's Ethics self-consciously follows the example of Euclid and other geometers in its use of axioms and definitions as the basis for derivations of hundreds of propositions of philosophical si...

It is a challenge in teaching early modern philosophy to balance historical faithfulness to the arguments and concerns of early modern philosophers and interpreting them as relevant to the kinds of thinking that contemporary undergraduate students find plausible. Early modern philosophy is unique, however, in applying modern scientific method directly to problems concerning nonphysical aspects of reality that our contemporary scientific thought, and with it mainstream contemporary culture, no longer find amenable in their own, independent right to reliable reasoned approaches. (...) At the same time, early modern philosophy often also takes seriously purely conceptual or logically consequential thought in the investigation of these topics, as our mainstream contemporary culture does not. This kind of thought, we argue, is distinctive of philosophy in general and appropriate to nonphysical aspects of reality. Early modern philosophy, then, offers a bridge between the kind of reasoned, objective thought our mainstream culture finds plausible and thought about nonphysical reality or, in general, the thought that characterizes philosophy. (shrink)

Practices of the self are prominent in Spinoza, both in the Ethics and On the Emendation of the Intellect. The same can be said of Descartes, e.g., his Discourse on the Method. What, if anything, distinguishes their practices of the self? Michel Foucault’s concept of “spirituality” isolates how Spinoza ’s practices are relatively unusual in the early modern era. Spirituality, as defined by Foucault in The Hermeneutics of the Subject, requires changes in the ethical subject before one can begin philosophizing, (...) and claims to result in a complete transfiguration or perfection of the subject. Both these characteristics are present in Spinoza ’s Emendation while both are lacking in Descartes’ Discourse. Turning to the Ethics’ practices of the self, I show how affects can be moderated through other affects, and that this text establishes a thorough training of the self which will strengthen one’s overall power well into the future. My treatment of the Ethics differs in emphasis from many other readings which focus on reason’s power over affects, or on cognitive therapy which moderates individual affects to lessen current sadness. In both works, Spinoza ’s practices of the self promise significant changes to those who undergo them. (shrink)

i would like to thank Michael Della Rocca for his thoughtful response to my remarks. Needless to say, I am not entirely convinced by everything he says, but I am also sure that he did not think that I would be! The substantive points on which we differ are complex, and deserve careful consideration and argument; this is not the occasion on which to thrash out those differences. But I would like to add a few words about the methodological differences (...) that Della Rocca notes at the end of his contribution.In rejecting my attribution of a “superhero” methodology to his Spinoza, Della Rocca suggests the following contrast between our approaches:[P]erhaps the most general and appropriate way to see the methodological.. (shrink)

The Geometrical Method The Geometrical Method is the style of proof that was used in Euclid’s proofs in geometry, and that was used in philosophy in Spinoza’s proofs in his Ethics. The term appeared first in 16th century Europe when mathematics was on an upswing due to the new science of mechanics. … Continue reading Geometrical Method →.

This paper aims at reconstructing the ethical issues raised by Spinoza's early Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect. Specifically, I argue that Spinoza takes issue with Descartes’ epistemology in order to support a form of “ethical intellectualism” in which knowledge is envisaged as both necessary and sufficient to reach the supreme good. First, I reconstruct how Descartes exploits the distinction between truth and certainty in his Discourse on the Method. On the one hand, this distinction acts as the basis (...) for Descartes’ epistemological rules while, on the other hand, it implies a “morale par provision” in which adequate knowledge is not strictly necessary to practice virtue. Second, I show that Spinoza rejects the distinction between truth and certainty and thus the methodological doubt. This move leads Spinoza to substitute the Cartesian Cogito with the idea of God as the only adequate standard of knowledge, through which the mind can attain the rules to reach the supreme good. Third, I demonstrate that in the Short Treatise Spinoza develops this view by equating intellect and will and thus maintaining that only adequate knowledge can help to contrast affects. However, I also insist that Spinoza's early epistemology is unable to explain why human beings drop conceive of the idea of God inadequately. Thus, I suggest that in his later writings Spinoza accounts for the insufficiency of adequate knowledge in opposing the power of the imagination and passions by reconnecting the nature of ideas with the mind's conatus. (shrink)

Spinoza is among the most pivotal thinkers in the history of philosophy. He has had a deep and enduring influence on a wide range of philosophical subjects, and his work is encountered by all serious students of Western philosophy. His _Ethics_ is one of the seminal works of metaphysical, moral, religious and political thought; his _Theological-Political Treatise_ inaugurated a novel method of biblical exegesis; and both his political works developed the pre-eminence of democracy above all other regimes. Nevertheless, the significance (...) of Spinoza's philosophy is matched by its complexity. His system presents a considerable challenge for the modern student; his language is frequently opaque, while the esoteric themes explored in his work often require elucidation. _Spinoza: Basic Concepts_ intends to overcome most of such difficulties. Each essay in this collection explores a key concept involved in Spinoza’s thinking, relating it to his understanding of philosophy, outlining the arguments and explaining the implications of each concept. Together, the chapters cover the full range of Spinoza’s interdisciplinary system of philosophy. (shrink)

The argument for modal collapse is partly responsible for the widespread rejection of the so-called Principle of Sufficient Reason in recent times. This paper discusses the PSR against the background of the recent debate about grounding and develops principled reasons for rejecting the argument from modal collapse.

Scholars have begun to explore Baruch Spinozas critique of rationalism, largely because of his importance for later thinkers deeply concerned about the nature of body, including Nietzsche, Freud, Marx, Frankfurt school critical theorists, and feminists. Until now, however, Spinozas epistemological writings have not been properly addressed in this revival of interest in his materialism. My dissertation reconstructs Spinozas materialist method of knowing in an effort to reclaim it from Cartesian and idealist readings, offering instead a materialist reading of Spinozas epistemological (...) writings that shows him as the first serious critic of modern rationalism. Contrary to the predominant reading of Spinoza in Anglo-American philosophy, which presents him as a metaphysician dependent on Cartesian epistemology, I argue that Spinoza offers something separate, akin to an epistemology, that distinguishes him from the Cartesian model and allows him to critique it. The dissertation explores how Spinozas method of knowing must involve material conditions, including concrete history, psychology, society, and politics, that are experienced through the body and that render a purely mental criterion for knowledge impossible. (shrink)

early modern philosophers commonly appeal to a mathematical method to demonstrate their philosophical claims. Since such claims are not always followed by what we would recognize as mathematical proofs, they are often dismissed as mere rhetoric. René Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, and Benedict de Spinoza are perhaps the most well-known early modern philosophers who fall into this category. It is a matter of dispute whether the ordo geometricus amounts to more than a method of presentation in Spinoza’s philosophy. Descartes and Hobbes (...) clearly appeal to a method of discovery modeled after geometry, but neither employs it to develop a heavily quantitative physics. Whereas Descartes’s version of the geometrical method .. (shrink)

In this paper, I discuss Spinoza on the proper methods and content of physical science. I start by showing how Spinoza's epistemology leads him to a kind of pessimism about the prospects of empirical and mathematical methods in natural philosophy. While they are useful for life, they do not tell us about nature, as Spinoza puts it, “as it is in itself.” At the same time, Spinoza seems to allow that we have some knowledge of physical things and their behavior. (...) So I go on to outline and critique a few of the accounts of how Spinoza thinks we can do this, focusing on the role of the common notions in physics. In the third section, I discuss the possible contents of physics, for Spinoza, and argue that they are not, as is usually thought, fundamentally Cartesian. I conclude by pointing to some promising directions for future research and suggesting a few heuristics for such research. (shrink)

Both Plato and Kant devote much attention and care to deliberating about their method of philosophizing. And, interestingly, both seek to expand and explain their view of philosophical method by one selfsame strategy: explaining the contrast between rational procedure in mathematics and in philosophy. Plato and Kant agree on a fundamental point of philosophical method that is at odds with the mathematico-demonstrative methodology of philosophy found in Spinoza and present in Christian Wolff. Both reject the axiomatic approach with its insistence (...) on fundamental truths postulated from the outset. Both alike insist that philosophizing—unlike mathematics—is an exercise in theorizing where the questions of basicness and foundations come into view only after the inquiry has gone on for a long, long time—and certainly not at its start. (shrink)

Spinoza ’s letter of June 2, 1674 to his friend Jarig Jelles addresses several distinct and important issues in Spinoza ’s philosophy. It explains briefly the core of Spinoza ’s disagreement with Hobbes’ political theory, develops his innovative understanding of numbers, and elaborates on Spinoza ’s refusal to describe God as one or single. Then, toward the end of the letter, Spinoza writes: With regard to the statement that figure is a negation and not anything positive, it is obvious that (...) matter in its totality, considered without limitation [indefinitè consideratam], can have no figure, and that figure applies only to finite and determinate bodies. For he who says that he apprehends a figure, thereby means to indicate simply this, that he apprehends a determinate thing and the manner of its determination. This determination therefore does not pertain to the thing in regard to its being [esse]; on the contrary, it is its non-being [non-esse]. So since figure is nothing but determination, and determination is negation [Quia ergo figura non aliud, quam determinatio, et determinatio negatio est], figure can be nothing other than negation, as has been said. Arguably, what is most notable about this letter is the fate of a single subordinate clause which appears in the last sentence of this passage: et determinatio negatio est. That clause was to be adopted by Hegel and transformed into the slogan of his own dialectical method: Omnis determinatio est negatio. Of further significance is the fact that, while Hegel does credit Spinoza with the discovery of this most fundamental insight, he believes Spinoza failed to appreciate the importance of his discovery. The issue of negation and the possibility of self-negation stand at the very center of the philosophical dialogue between the systems of Spinoza and Hegel, and in this paper I will attempt to provide a preliminary explication of this foundational debate between the two systems. In the first part of the paper I will argue that the “determination is negation” formula has been understood in at least three distinct senses among the German Idealists, and as a result many of the participants in the discussion of this formula were actually talking past each other. The clarification of the three distinct senses of the formula will lead, in the second part of the paper, to a more precise evaluation of the fundamental debate between Spinoza and Hegel regarding the possibility of self-negation. In this part I will evaluate the validity of each interpretation of the determination formula, and motivate the positions of the various participants in the debate. (shrink)

This paper critically analyses two of Eckart Förster’s claims on the development of German idealism. The first claim is the following: In his writings on colour and on plant development, Goethe uses a method that is grounded in Spinoza’s third form of knowledge, scientia intuitiva. According to the second claim, Goethe’s methodology played a crucial role in establishing a developmental approach to knowledge in Hegel’s early Jena period. The paper assesses objections to both claims.

Spinoza scholars have claimed that we are faced with a dilemma: either Spinoza's definitions in his Ethics are real, in spite of indications to the contrary, or the definitions are nominal and the propositions derived from them are false. I argue that Spinoza did not recognize the distinction between real and nominal definitions. Rather, Spinoza classified definitions according to whether they require a priori or a posteriori justification, which is a classification distinct from either the real/nominal or the intensional/extensional classification. (...) I argue that Spinoza uses both a priori and a posteriori definitions in the Ethics and that recognizing both types of definitions allows us to understand Spinoza's geometric method in a new way. We can now understand the geometric method as two methods, one resulting in propositions that Spinoza considers to be absolutely certain and another resulting in propositions that Spinoza does not consider certain. The latter method makes use of a posteriori definitions and postulates, whereas the former method uses only a priori definitions and axioms. (shrink)

The guidebook is meant to be read alongside the Ethics. It thus follows the order of Spinoza’s text and discusses sets of propositions as the development of various strands of argument. It instructs readers to pause and, for example, read Propositions 1-5 of Part 1 together, before moving on to a different component of his argument for the simplicity of substance. Lord dedicates more elaborate discussion to crucial but problematic propositions, like Proposition 11 of Part 1, Proposition 7 of Part (...) 2, etc. It thus serves as a good map for new readers, who are often bewildered by Spinoza’s geometrical method, in addition to explaining his major teachings. The book includes various study aids, including a glossary, suggestions for further reading, examples of questions students are likely to encounter, and even tips for students writing about Spinoza. (shrink)

English summary: This volume takes Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz in comparison, meaning maximum nearness and maximum distance at the same time. Maximum nearness in terminology, in problem formation, in the way historical sequences refer to each other, but also in the right to think fundamentally and originally. Maximum distance achieved in the solutions and their evaluations, in the concepts of self-confidence and knowledge, in the understanding of science or the importance of ethics, and the relationship between immanence and transcendence. With a (...) focus on theory of ideas and knowledge, this volume draws this comparison as part of a historical similarity: all three thinkers transform from a more methodically dominated first phase to a metaphysical maturation that becomes stronger and more comprehensive, a change that can not only be understood as a continuity. German text. German description: Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz im Vergleich, das heisst maximale Nahe und maximale Distanz zugleich. Maximale Nahe in der Terminologie, in der Problemstellung, in der Art in der historischen Reihenfolge aufeinander Bezug zu nehmen, aber auch im Anspruch fundamental und urspruenglich zu denken. Maximale Distanz in den Losungen und deren Bewertungen, den Konzeptionen des Selbstbewusstseins und der Erkenntnis, dem Verstandnis von Wissenschaft oder der Bedeutung der Ethik, dem Verhaltnis von Immanenz und Transzendenz.Der vorliegende Band zieht - mit einem Schwerpunkt in der Theorie der Ideen und der Erkenntnis - diesen Vergleich im Rahmen einer historischen Ahnlichkeit: Alle drei Denker wandeln sich von einer eher methodisch dominierten ersten Phase zu einer umfassender werdenden und gewissermassen starker metaphysischen Reifezeit, eine Wandlung, die nicht nur als Kontinuitat verstanden werden kann. (shrink)

Baruch Spinoza was born in Amsterdam during a period of unprecedented scientific, artistic, and intellectual discovery. Upon its release, Spinoza’s Ethics was banned; today it is the quintessential example of philosophical method. Although acknowledged as difficult, the book is widely taught in philosophy, literature, history, and politics. This introduction is designed to be read side by side with Spinoza's work. As a guide to the style, vocabulary, and arguments of the Ethics, it offers a range of interpretive possibilities to prepare (...) students to become conversant with Spinoza's philosophical method and his challenge to conventional thinking. (shrink)

The Tractatus de intellectus emendatione was considered by a great part of scholars an incomplete work. In this essay, instead, the Author tries to explain how, on one hand, all is demanded by the method’s argument there’s in fact in the text, so its incomplete aspects are just formal, not about content. On the other hand, the theory, about the best knowledge of singular things should be deduced by the infinite order of ideas and eternal things, has many hard problems, (...) because the infinite can’t be never totally known, and so adequately. That’s properly the aporia inside spinozism, and we can find it, at the best, in this first work. (shrink)

Spinoza searched for a language that could help him to create a monistic system of ethics. Latin was in the 17th century a fairly malleable medium of communication. In its philosophical use it was largely a creation of Descartes. Spinoza wanted to use it in a way that would resemble Euclid's treatment of geometry. He needed a language that would clearly and precisely describe the process by which a man could liberate himself from the power of affection that hamper naturaly (...) propensity for social peace and mental equaenimity. He decided to begin by describing nature, which was responsible for man's proclivities and abilities. Consequently he needed a new conception of substance which on the one hand could be definied by some initial axioms, and on the other hand would sufficiently flexible to include various aspects of human thought. It is interesting that when Spinoza had to make a choice between flexibility and content, he resolved to adopt a strict method of reasoning at the cost of the received understanding of substance. It is possible that these linguistic considerations led him to adopt the view that substance is identical with God and as such encompasses all principles of operations of the human mind and premises for the deriving of all fundamental notions popular in his times. (shrink)

Dans le chapitre 12 de son TTP, Spinoza définit le sacré de la sorte : « Mérite le nom de sacré et de divin ce qui est destiné à l'exercice de la piété et de la religion et ce caractère sacré demeurera attaché à une chose aussi longtemps seulement que les hommes s'en serviront religieusement ». De par cette définition première qui fait relever le sacré de la religion, Spinoza est en train d'exclure le sacré du domaine de la vérité (...) qui est propre à la philosophie. Quant à sa lecture désacralisante de la Bible, bien qu'elle s'appuie sur sa philosophie pour nier au surnaturel son existence, c'est par le biais de sa « méthode historico-critique », qu'elle va permettre à Spinoza d'atteindre son but. La question du sacré est donc loin d'être pour Spinoza une question de simple piété ou de soumission au divin. Elle est au contraire une source de problèmes. Cet article voudrait montrer comment Spinoza comprend ce problème, et d'examiner la solution qu'il y propose à travers son programme de désacralisation radicale de l'Écriture.In the 12th chapter of his Tractatus theologico-politicus, Spinoza defines the sacred in this way: “A thing is called sacred and Divine when it is designed for promoting piety, and continues sacred so long as it is religiously used: if the users cease to be pious, the thing ceases to be sacred”. By this first definition that situates the sacred in the realm of religion, Spinoza is excluding the sacred from the domain of the truth proper to philosophy. As for his desacralizing reading of the Bible, though it denies, on the basis of his philosophy, any existence to the supernatural, it is thanks to the “historico-critical method” that this reading will enable Spinoza to attain his goal. For Spinoza, the question of the sacred is therefore far from being a question of simple piety or submission to the divine. On the contrary, it is a source of problems. This article will attempt to show how Spinoza deals with this situation and to examine the solution he proposes through his program of radical desacralisation of the Scriptures. (shrink)

Se trata en este artículo de aclarar la especificidad del análisis de la Escritura propuesto por Spinoza en el Tratado Teológico Político. Se parte de la distinción entre los diferentes niveles de interpretación que Spinoza aplica al texto sagrado, y que pueden resumirse en dos: el histórico-filológico y el filosófico. A continuación, se intentan determinar las relaciones entre estos diferentes niveles, y asimismo las diferencias de la propuesta spinoziana frente a otras propuestas interpretativas, en particular, la Philosophia S. Scripturae Interpres (...) de Lodewijk Meyer. (shrink)

This article examines the seventeenth-century debate between the Dutch philosopher Benedict de Spinoza and the British scientist Robert Boyle, with a view to explicating what the twentieth-century French philosopher Gilles Deleuze considers to be the difference between science and philosophy. The two main themes that are usually drawn from the correspondence of Boyle and Spinoza, and used to polarize the exchange, are the different views on scientific methodology and on the nature of matter that are attributed to each correspondent. Commentators (...) have tended to focus on one or the other of these themes in order to champion either Boyle or Spinoza in their assessment of the exchange. This paper draws upon the resources made available by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari in their major work What is Philosophy?, in order to offer a more balanced account of the exchange, which in its turn contributes to our understanding of Deleuze and Guattari’s conception of the difference between science and philosophy. (shrink)

Spinoza's Ethics is one of the most remarkable, important, and difficult books in the history of philosophy: a treatise simultaneously on metaphysics, knowledge, philosophical psychology, moral philosophy, and political philosophy. It presents, in Spinoza's famous 'geometric method', his radical views on God, Nature, the human being, and happiness. In this wide-ranging 2006 introduction to the work, Steven Nadler explains the doctrines and arguments of the Ethics, and shows why Spinoza's endlessly fascinating ideas may have been so troubling to his contemporaries, (...) as well as why they are still highly relevant today. He also examines the philosophical background to Spinoza's thought and the dialogues in which Spinoza was engaged - with his contemporaries, with ancient thinkers, and with his Jewish rationalist forebears. His book is written for the student reader but will also be of interest to specialists in early modern philosophy. (shrink)

El propósito de este artículo es mostrar el conflicto de carácter epistémico y metodológico que está en juego en la discusión Boyle/Spinoza, y que permite apreciar cómo, en la naciente ciencia natural del siglo XVII, habría que revaluar al menos dos aspectos: i) la preferencia por un conocimiento hi..

In this paper I argue for a priori conjectural scientific knowledge about the world. Physics persistently only accepts unified theories, even though endlessly many empirically more successful disunified rivals are always available. This persistent preference for unified theories, against empirical considerations, means that physics makes a substantial, persistent metaphysical assumption, to the effect that the universe has a (more or less) unified dynamic structure. In order to clarify what this assumption amounts to, I solve the problem of what it means (...) to say of a theory that it is unified. There are, I argue, eight different kinds of unity important in theoretical physics, all varieties of one basic idea. This provides us with a precise way of partially ordering physical theories with respect to their degree of unity. It also leads to a hierarchical view of physics, according to which physics makes a number of increasingly insubstantial metaphysical assumptions concerning the comprehensibility and knowability of the universe. Two of these are identified as constituting a priori conjectures. I conclude by arguing that the view developed in the paper resolves the traditional clash between empiricism and rationalism in the philosophy of science, and has important implications for science, and for academic inquiry more generally. (shrink)

The Notion of Substance in the "Ethics" by Spinoza Spinoza searched for a language that could help him to create a monistic system of ethics. Latin was in the 17th century a fairly malleable medium of communication. In its philosophical use it was largely a creation of Descartes. Spinoza wanted to use it in a way that would resemble Euclid's treatement of geometry. He needed a language that would clearly and precisely describe the proces by which a man could liberate (...) himself from the power of passions that hamper natural propensity for social peace and mental equanimity. He decided to begin by describing nature, which was responsible for man's proclivities and abilities. Consequently he needed a new concept of substance which on the one hand could be defined by some initial axioms, and on the other hand would sufficiently flexible to include various aspects of human thought. It is interesting that when Spinoza had to make a choice between flexibility and content, he resolved to adopt a strict method of reasoning at the cost of the received understanding of substance. It is possible that these linguistic considerations led him to adopt the view that substance is identical with God and as such encompasses all principles of operation of the human mind and premises for the deriving of all fundamental concepts popular in his times. (shrink)

Spinoza’s philosophy has bequeathed longstanding query and dispute regarding the meaning of several doctrines and elements of his system as well as the influences of his innovative, controversial project. Prominent among those debated aspects of Spinoza’s Ethics are its presentation in more geometrico and the goal toward which it purportedly directs us, a scientia intuitiva that will make us blessed, free, and eternal in some sense. In his book Meaning in Spinoza’s Method, Aaron Garrett maintains that the method and the (...) goal of Spinoza’s Ethics are mutually informative: we can only properly understand Spinoza’s method by viewing it in light of its ethical goal, Spinoza’s aim to “transform readers”. In turn, in elucidating Spinoza’s method, we can gain greater insight into what he means by our eternity. (shrink)

With the publication of the notes from Bergson’s early courses it has become possible to investigate the tradition of thinking that Bergson understood himself to be working within. A historical investigation of this understanding is valuable for at least two reasons: first, it allows us to appreciate the decisive interventions that Bergson’s thought makes within the post-Kantian tradition. Part of Bergson’s popularity was due to his insistence upon ‘beginning anew’ in thinking. However, while there is certainly much that is new (...) in Bergson’s thought, to emphasize this element of novelty at the price of occluding Bergson’s scholarly work on the history of philosophy is to simultaneously deprive Bergson’s own philosophy of the depth and relevance that it gathers through its resonance with other great thinkers and, inversely, to fail to understand the critical force of Bergson’s intellectual creativity. In addition to being valuable as an elaboration of the stakes in a particular moment of the history of philosophy, a historical investigation of Bergson’s reading of Spinoza affords us the opportunity to work out and think through the motivating questions that animate Bergson’s own thought and which become visible in the way that he takes up other philosophical concepts and systems. Clearly, such a historical investigation is unconcerned with the question of whether or not Bergson “understood” Spinoza, or “got him right.” That Kierkegaard “misunderstood” Hegel is hardly a profound or even philosophically interesting statement. However, it becomes constructive when it drives us to ask, for instance, how it is that Kierkegaard misunderstands Hegel. What concerns motivate Kierkegaard to reject Hegel’s system? What are the points of disagreement and, perhaps most importantly, what new concepts, what new directions of thought, do these points allow Kierkegaard to create? This point can be generalized as follows: the historical investigation of a philosopher’s engagement with the philosophical tradition is productive (i.e. creative rather than reductive) when this engagement is taken up and interpreted as indicative of the new and distinctive concerns that drive the more recent philosopher’s thought – a thought whose distinction at the same time marks the distinctiveness of his or her historical interlocutor. As Deleuze writes of the concept of the subject, “it is never very interesting to criticize a concept: it is better to build the new functions and discover the new fields that make it useless or inadequate.” By extension, an “interesting” reading of Bergson’s interpretation of Spinoza ought not to emphasize the points of agreement and disagreement between them – as though it could be taken for granted that they have the same or equivalent concerns – but would inquire into the direction of Bergson’s thought that makes Spinoza simultaneously one of his closest philosophical allies and, at the same time, a thinker from whom Bergson repeatedly distances himself and critiques in order to elucidate his own thinking. (shrink)

A partir de uma análise da obra de Francis Kaplan L'Étique de Spinoza et Ia méthode Géométrique, complementada com análises de comentadores clássicos do Espinosismo, como por exemplo, Victor Delbos e Harry Austryn Wolfson, entre outros, o autor procura traçar um historial da utilização do método ou da ordem geométrica, por parte de diversos pensadores, visando apontar, reconhecer ou apenas supor, uma possível influência sobre Bento de Espinosa. /// Starting from Francis Kaplan's analysis in his work L'Étique de Spinoza et (...) Ia méthode Géométrique, complemented with classic commentator's of spinozisme, as for example, Victor Delbos and Harry Austryn Wolfson, the author of the present article attempts to trace a report of the use of the geometrical method or of the geometric order, on the part of several thinkers, seeking to reveal, to recognize or just to suggest, a possible influence on Benedictus de Spinoza. (shrink)

A partir de uma análise da obra de Francis Kaplan L’Étique de Spinoza et la méthode Géométrique, complementada com análises de comentadores clássicos do Espi­no­sis­mo, como por exemplo, Victor Delbos e Harry Austryn Wolfson, entre outros, o autor procura traçar um historial da utilização do método ou da ordem geométrica, por parte de diversos pensadores, visando apontar, reconhecer ou apenas supor, uma possível influência sobre Bento de Espinosa. Starting from Francis Kaplan's analysis in his work L’Étique de Spinoza et la (...) méthode Géométrique, complemented with classic commentator’s of spinozisme, as for example, Victor Delbos and Harry Austryn Wolfson, the author of the present article attempts to trace a report of the use of the geometrical method or of the geometric order, on the part of several thinkers, seeking to reveal, to recognize or just to suppose, a possible influence on Benedictus de Spinoza. (shrink)

In Spinoza’s Tractatus Theologico-Politicus two phenomena, which are of crucial importance for revealed religion, namely prophetic revelation and miracle, are investigated in two different ways. The first phenomenon, prophetic revelation, is primarily considered as a theological issue and is mainly discussed on the basis of biblical research. The second phenomenon, miracle, is primarily considered as a philosophical issue and is mainly discussed on the basis of rational principles. The question is raised why Spinoza is using two different methods to discuss (...) these two issues. Some have argued that Spinoza is using these two different methods on account of strategic reasons. Nevertheless, such a strategic explanation is not entirely satisfactory in so far as it ignores more substantial reasons, which are related to the content of the issues mentioned. In search of these substantial reasons it is necessary to investigate Spinoza’s discussion of the phenomena of prophetic revelation and miracle in more detail. This investigation leads to the conclusion that Spinoza exerts himself more to give causal explanations of miracles than of prophetic revelations, although both phenomena are considered by him as purely natural. However, in the last analysis both extraordinary phenomena are considered as inexplicable natural events, which in this respect are not different from all ordinary natural events. In this way we discover at the border of Spinoza’s rigorous rationalism a new enchantment of the world. (shrink)

In Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicus two phenomena, which are of crucial importance for revealed religion, namely prophetic revelation and miracle, are investigatedin two different ways. The first phenomenon, prophetic revelation, is primarily considered as a theological issue and is mainly discussed on the basis of biblical research. The second phenomenon, miracle, is primarily considered as a philosophical issue and is mainly discussed on the basis of rational principles. The question is raised why Spinoza is using two different methods to discuss these (...) two issues. Some have argued that Spinoza is using these two different methods on account of strategic reasons. Nevertheless, such a strategic explanation is not entirely satisfactory in so far as it ignores more substantial reasons, which are related to the content of the issues mentioned. In search of these substantial reasons it is necessary to investigate Spinoza's discussion ofthe phenomena of prophetic revelation and miracle in more detail. This investigation leads to the conclusion that Spinoza exerts himself more togive causal explanations of miracles than of prophetic revelations, although both phenomena are considered by him as purely natural. However, in the last analysis both extraordinary phenomena are considered as inexplicable natural events, which in this respect are not different from all ordinary natural events. In this way we discover at the border of Spinoza's rigorous rationalism a new enchantment of the world. (shrink)

Readers of Spinoza's philosophy have often been daunted, and sometimes been enchanted, by the geometrical method which he employs in his philosophical masterpiece the Ethics. In Meaning in Spinoza's Method Aaron Garrett examines this method and suggests that its purpose, in Spinoza's view, was not just to present claims and propositions but also in some sense to change the readers and allow them to look at themselves and the world in a different way. His discussion draws not only on Spinoza's (...) works but also on those of the philosophers who influenced Spinoza most strongly, including Hobbes, Descartes, Maimonides and Gersonides. This controversial book will be of interest to historians of philosophy and to anyone interested in the relation between form and content in philosophical works. (shrink)