Abstract
In spite of some panentheistic traits in his philosophy, Spinoza was clearly a pantheist. Spinoza’s God is not personal and not transcendent but immanent, as God is identical to the world or Nature. There are no miracles in nature, and only because of ignorance, mistakes, and errors do we wonder or feel enchantment about it. What is allegedly above reason, is, in fact, much under it, and Nature’s wisdom is entirely immanent. The laws of Nature are the laws of God, and theology and natural science are identical. There is no need of panentheistic traits to know and understand God-Nature-Substance. Nevertheless, the author expresses some doubts concerning this conclusion about Spinoza’s philosophy, a conclusion that he, too, finally endorses.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For a fine survey and an updated bibliography consult Culp, 2017. See also: (Biernacki & Clayton, 2013; Clayton, 2000, 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2006, 2008a, 2008b, 2010, 2015; Cooper, 2006; Diller & Kasher, 2013; Gasser, 2019; Griffin, 2004; Hartshorne & Reese, 1953; Main, 2017; Moltmann, 1974, 1981, 1996; Peacocke, 1979, 2001, 2004, 2006).
Cf. its anticipation by the Cambridge Platonists’s approaches to panentheism and panpsychism, discussing Spinoza’s philosophy. See Hengstermann, 2020, especially p. 158.
Referring to the Ethics, I use the following abbreviations: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively refer to the Part, a—axiom, aff.def—definitions of the affects, app–appendix, c—corollary, d—demonstration, def—definition, e—explication, l–lemma, pref—preface, p—proposition, po–postulate, s—scholium, and G I ... IV – the pagination in the relevant volume of Gebhardt’s edition of Spinoza Opera (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1925) Curley I (Spinoza 1985). Referring to TPT, namely, The Theological-Political Treatise, I use Curley’s translation in Curley II (Spinoza 2016), pp. 65ff.
Unlike pantheism, panentheism, in many versions, cannot be completely naturalistic, insofar as God is also transcendent, for God’s transcendence means that there is something in God that is supernatural. Only the immanent part of God can be considered naturalistic. Nevertheless, for naturalistic versions of panetheiesm see footnote 5 below. The intersecting of panentheism and panpsychism, as discussed by various authors in Brüntrup et al. (2020), may suggest that some traits of panentheism may be considered as naturalistic. This demonstrates that, in some cases, panentheism can be less easily distinguished from either pantheism or classical theism. See, for instance, Lataster, 2014.
Nevertheless, Göcke refers to the necessity of the world according to panentheism (Göcke, 2020). This approach, contrary to other approaches, challenges the view that panentheism accepts the contingency of the world which might be a basis for the panentheistic concept of “wonder.” The relating of contingency, or wonder, to miracles does not accurately reflect those forms of panentheism that reject the supernatural. See Clayton (2015), especially in pp. 9 and 10, rejecting the idea of a supernatural intervention which would exclude miracles Cf. Clayton (2020). See also Leidenhag (2014), identifying panentheism as naturalistic and as avoiding supernaturalistic interventionism.
Sub quadam specie aeternitatis (under some aspect of eternity, “under a certain species of eternity”) in the second grade of knowledge, namely, ratio (2p44c2 and d), and sub specie aeternitatis (under an aspect of eternity), namely, without qualification, in the third, supreme grade of knowledge, namely, scientia intuitiva.
To understand this argument correctly, there is a difference between a formally logical conditioning, which is symmetrical and do not assume priority, and an ontological and epistemological ones, which assumes priority.
I would like to thank an anonymous reviewer to Philosophia for his or her comments and suggestions, which I have found most useful.
References
Biernacki, L., & Clayton, P. (Eds.). (2013). Panentheism across the World’s Traditions. Oxford University Press.
Brüntrup, G., Göcke, B. P., & Jaskolla, L. (Eds.). (2020). Panentheism and Panpsychism: Philosophy of Religion meets Philosophy of Mind. Brill/Mentis.
Clayton, P. (2000). The Problem of God in Modern Thought. Eerdmans.
(2003). God and World. In K. J. Vanhoozer (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology (pp. 203–218). Cambridge University Press.
(2004a). Panentheism in Metaphysical and Scientific Perspective. In P. Clayton, & A. Peacocke (Eds.), In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God’s Presence in a Scientific World (pp. 73–91). William B. Eerdmans.
(2004b). Panentheism Today: A Constructive Systematic Evaluation.In P. Clayton, & A. Peacocke (Eds.), In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God’s Presence in a Scientific World (pp. 249–264). William B. Eerdmans.
(2006). Conceptual Foundations of Emergence Theory. In P. Clayton, & P. Davies (Eds.), The Re-Emergence of Emergence: The Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to Religion (pp. 1–31). Oxford University Press.
(2008a). Adventures in the Spirit: God, World, Divine Action, Fortress Press.
(2008b). Open Panentheism and Creatio Ex Nihilo. Process Studies, 37,166–183.
(2010).Panentheisms East and West. Sophia, 49, 183–191.
(2015). Creation Ex Nihilo and Intensifying the Vulnerability of God. In T. J. Oord (Ed.), Theologies of Creation: Creatio Ex Nihilo and Its New Rivals (pp. 17–30). Routledge.
(2020). Varieties of Panpsychism. In Brüntrup, Göcke, & Jaskolla (Eds.) (pp. 191–204).
Cooper, J. (2006). Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers—From Plato to the Present, Apollos.
Culp, J. (2017). Panentheism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 ed). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/panentheism/
Della Mirandola, P. (2012). Oration on the Dignity of Man, trans. Massimo Riva, Michael Papio, and Francesco Boghesi. Cambridge University Press.
Diller, J., & Kasher, A. (Eds.) (2013). Models of God and Alternative Ultimate Realities (pp. 371–472). Panentheism (Springer).
Gasser, G. (2019). God’s Omnipresence in the World: On Possible Meanings of ‘En’ in Panentheism. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 85, 43–62
Gilead, A. (1985). The Problem of Immediate Evidence: The Case of Spinoza and Hegel. Hegel-Studien, 20, 145–162
(1999). Human Affects as Properties of Cognition in Spinoza's Philosophical Psychotherapy. In Y. Yovel (Ed.), Desire and Affect: Spinoza as Psychologist (pp. 169–182). Little Room Press.
(2020). A Rose Armed with Thorns: Spinoza’s Philosophy Under a Novel Lens (Springer Nature, under contract).
Göcke, B. P. (2020). “Panpsychism and Panentheism”, in Brüntrup. Göcke, and Jaskolla, 2020, 37–64
Griffin, D. R. (2004). Panentheism: A Postmodern Revelation. In P. Clayton & A. Peacocke (Eds.), In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being. (pp. 36–47). Grand Rapids, MI.
Hartshorne, C., & Reese, W. L. (Eds.). (1953). Philosophers Speak of God. University of Chicago Press.
Hengstermann, C. (2020). “God or Space and Nature? Henry More’s Panentheism of Space and Panpsychism of Life and Nature”, in Brüntrup. Göcke, and Jaskolla, 2020, 157–190
Lataster, R. (2014) The Attractiveness of Panentheism—a Reply to Benedikt Göcke. Sophia: International Journal of Philosophy and Traditions, 53, 389–395.
Leidenhag, M. (2014). Is Panentheism Naturalistic? How Panentheistic Conceptions of Divine Action Imply Dualism. Forum Philosophicum, 19, 209–225
Main, R. (2017). Panentheism and the Undoing of Disenchantment. Zygon, 52, 1098–1122
Melamed, Y. (2018). Cohen, Spinoza and the Nature of Pantheism. Jewish Studies Quarterly, 25, 171–180
(forthcoming). From the Gate of Eeaven to the ‘Field of Holy Apples’: Spinoza and the Kabbalah. In C. Cisiu (Ed.), Early Modern Philosophy and the Kabbala.
Moltmann, J. (1974). The Crucified God (Harper and Row).
(1981). The Trinity and the Kingdom (Harper and Row).
(1996). The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology (Fortress Press).
Oord, T. J. & Schwartz, W. A. (2020). Panentheism and Panexperientialism for Open and Relational Theology. In Brüntrup, Göcke, & Jaskolla (pp. 231–252).
Peacocke, A. (1979). Creation and the World of Science. Clarendon Press.
Peacocke, A. (2001). Paths from Science towards God: The End of All Our Exploring. Oneworld.
(2004). Articulating God’s Presence in and to the World Unveiled by the Sciences. In P. Clayton, & A. Peacocke (Eds.), In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being (pp. 137–154). William B. Eerdmans.
(2006). Emergence, Mind, and Divine Action: The Hierarchy of the Sciences in Relation to the Human Mind-Brain-Body. In P. Clayton, & P. Davies (Eds.), The Re-Emergence of Emergence: The Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to Religion (pp. 257–278). Oxford University Press.
Spinoza. (1985). The Collected Works of Spinoza, edited and translated by Edwin Curley (Princeton University Press: New Jersey, Princeton) Volume I (Curley I).
Spinoza. (2016). The Collected Works of Spinoza, edited and translated by Edwin Curley (Princeton University Press: New Jersey, Princeton) Volume II (Curley II).
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. Macmillan.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gilead, A. Why Spinoza was Not a Panentheist. Philosophia 49, 2041–2051 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-021-00378-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-021-00378-8