Spinoza and other heretics: Reply to critics

Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 35 (1):81 – 112 (1992)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In part I I reply to Seymour Feldman's criticism of volume 1 of The Marrano of Reason. I try to show that Professor Feldman misreads me, first, by overlooking the transformation of Spinoza's Marrano traits from the world of religion to the world of reason; second, by failing to recognize the diversity of Marrano responses as part of my own thesis; and thirdly, by paying no heed to the mental (or, phenomenological) structures and analysis upon which a good deal of my argument relies. Since many of Feldman's particular points hinge upon the first two points, I need not address each item separately. This leaves a few smaller points. I also restate the methodological boundaries of my ?Marrano? thesis, what the book does and does not do. In parts II and III I respond to criticisms on volume 2 of The Adventures of Immanence from Henry Allison and Richard Schacht. I admit the book calls for a chapter on Lessing and the Pantheismusstreit, and also on existentialists like Sartre (and Heidegger too), though not Kierkegaard. I defend, against Allison, my not self?evident decision to include Kant, whose position I characterize as ?immanent humanism?. Although Kant opposed reason to nature, his revolution made the human mind, rather than a transcendent God, the source of objectivity in knowledge, morality in action, legitimacy in politics, and even sanctity in religion. I also defend my reconstruction of Marx's immanentist ontology. I further clarify two crucial distinctions: a philosophy of immanence is not necessarily the same as ?Spinozism?, and is not necessarily critical. Hence my protagonists need not be strict Spinozists, or critical philosophers, to figure in the ?adventures of immanence?. My debate with Schacht concerns the question whether Nietzsche and Marx saw the immanent world as divine (which I deny); the place of pantheism in these thinkers (in Nietzsche I see it as a temptation which amor fati has to overcome); and whether Hegel's discovery of the role of the social world in mediating knowledge depended on his metaphysical anthropomorphism (viewing the immanent domain as subject and Spirit, and assigning the human race a privileged ontological ? and theological ? role in it: I deny that dependence). Finally, in the reply to both Allison and Schacht I rephrase my criticism of Nietzsche's ?cult of transitoriness and explain my preference for ?tentative rationality"?

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 89,685

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Spinoza and other heretics.Yirmiyahu Yovel - 1989 - Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Spinoza and the philosophy of immanence: Reflections on Yovel's the adventures of immanence.Henry E. Allison - 1992 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 35 (1):55 – 67.
Spinoza and Spinozism.Stuart Hampshire - 2005 - Clarendon Press.
Spinoza: A Marrano of reason?Seymour Feldman - 1992 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 35 (1):37-53.
Was Spinoza a marrano of reason?Richard H. Popkin - 1990 - Philosophia 20 (3):243-246.
Towards a religious philosophy.William George De Burgh - 1937 - London,: Macdonald & Evans.
Adventures of immanence revisited.Richard Schacht - 1992 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 35 (1):69 – 80.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-30

Downloads
26 (#518,291)

6 months
1 (#1,016,089)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Spinoza on Essences, Universals, and Beings of Reason.Karolina Hübner - 2015 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 97 (1):58-88.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references