Jump to content

Talk:Baruch Spinoza

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.167.58.210 (talk) at 16:32, 15 June 2010 (→Excommunication by the Catholic church). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Separation of Church and State

I have removed the claim that "Spinoza is also the first proponent of the separation between the church and the state" from the end of the section "Modern Relevance." It is simply false, yet seems to be a commonly held misconception. Rather than just silent delete it, only for it to appear again, a citation: "the supreme right of deciding about religion, belongs to the sovereign power, whatever judgment he may make, since it falls to him alone to preserve the rights of the state and to protect them both by divine and by natural law" (Theologico-Political Treatise, 199). See also, in more depth, Ch. 19 of the TTP ("Where it is shown that authority in sacred matters belongs wholly to the sovereign powers and that the external cult of religion must be consistent with the stability of the state if we wish to obey God rightly"). He seems categorical, no? I am curious though where this strange misconception originates from, especially since it is so off-base, yet so widely held . Anyone know? Nmacri (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just belatedly (as a late comer to this subject/page on Wikipedia) came upon your argument above, by chance. But I think I have an answer. In your two references above, it seems to me that Spinoza is clearly arguing that the State has supremacy over the Church in religious matters of worship. If one accepts his rather bold argument that the State has supremacy, and not the Church, as is commonly accepted to this day, and if one adds to that the fact that throughout the TPT he is arguing for a secular, non-religious State, then it seems to me that he is indeed arguing, albeit indirectly, for a separation of church and state.
warshytalk 15:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It still says in the info box that one of his notable ideas was separation of church and state. According to this, it sounds like he favored freedom of personal religious belief but state control of the church (freedom to worship at home, but not in an unsanctioned special building). This is the direct opposite of separation. Should that info be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.224.161 (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your are quite right, and from a present point of view it might sound like the opposite of laicism. But in Spinoza's time, when the catholic inquisition and its censorship were still very powerful, it was not enough to separate the state from the church. It needed a superior power against the despotism of certain religious authorities. The category should not be removed, because the second part of the Tractatus theologico-politicus is without any doubt an important 17th century source which treated the separation between state and religion. And so it is regarded by the authors of the Stanford Encyclopedia who are certainly not so important than philosophers of the 17th and 18th century referring to Spinoza's political theory just for this very reason. I have added the category separation between religion and state to the article Theologico-Political Treatise.
--Platonykiss (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced comparison to Vedantic thought

I've removed for the second time a pointless and unsourced comparison to Hindu thought which looks at best like original research. There is no historical reason to compare Spinoza to Vedanta unless one can establish an actual factual link in that Spinoza was actually in fact exposed to Vedantic thought somehow. Otherwise one can litter each and every article about philosophy with random comparisons of "gee this looks a lot like Indian/Chinese or whatever thought". The same ideas crop up independently in various areas. I don't see any reason for the comparison without making a real argument that Spinoza actually read some Vedantic literature. If there is a need for such a comparison then one should find a legitimate scholar who makes one.Ekwos (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well put. Such an insight on this matter was long overdue. I am glad someone was able to put it so correctly and in such straightforward terms. I completely agree with the above.
warshytalk 11:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no historical reason to compare Spinoza to Vedanta unless one can establish an actual factual link

Uh, excuse me, but contemporary philosophy, and historians of philosophy no longer think comparison relevant if only there is a 'genetic' link to the concepts under comparison. That is a simple prejudice reflecting diffusionist approaches current in the 19th.century. The habit of noting similarities of conceptual structure, themes, and logical form between otherwise independent traditions, East and West, is by now an established practice both in pure philosophy and works written on the history of philosophy. The point about made Spinoza and Sankaraite Vedanta is not a matter of OR. You find it noted in Indian and Japanese histories of philosophy quite frequently (See Nakamura Hajime, Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples 1964 (p.70. Jap.original 1948). For numerous parallels see the same's Parallel Developments 1975 passim (Spinoza's in se esse compared to Skr. svatantrantā, and aisvarya ibid.pp.506-7). Not great books, but specialists have since broached the parallels sketched or suggested there with full monographs). Certain passages in Spinoza's Ethics are likened to more fully developed trains in the traditional Buddhist analysis of the passions and suffering (Jon Elster (ed) The Multiple Self pp.257-8). There has been a vast dialogue East and West, over the last 5 decades, which now assumes the normalcy of discussing seminal developments in Indian and Chinese thought with analogous developments among the pre-Socratics or the post-Aristotelian logic. One thinks of G. E. R. Lloyd, Lisa Raphals, Joseph Needham, the first to come to mind of several dozen. Diffusionism is a premise, and a very dated, eurocentric one at that. So enough of this provincialism. Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are books and articles aiming to compare various ideas. This is an encyclopedia article about Spinoza. It should be about the man's life and the man's thought so that a person can come away with the simple facts of who he was, when he lived, and what ideas he espoused. Everything else is unnecessary clutter. Like I said, why stop with Vedenta? Heck let's go through the classical Greek and Latin philosophers, and then on to some Chinese philosophers, and throw in some Japanese, and while we are at it, maybe we can rummage through the mythology of a dozen cultures and find some more links. The type of comparison we are talking about is unending, and we can always find more and more people to compare each philosopher to. It is also inappropriate to a general encyclopedia, where the articles should be to the point about the subject of the article. I don't see any reason to litter the Vedanta article with references to Spinoza, Plato, Plotinus, Kant, and Hegel, or do the same thing to the Zen article, or say Dogen. An encyclopeda should deal in the plain facts, not in every idea anyone ever thought of with regard to the man. In fact the ideas expressed comparing Spinoza to Vedanta are properly the ideas of the authors of the books in question and belong in articles about them. These are not Spinoza's ideas, these are theirs. The simple rule should be "Does this factoid tell me anything about Spinoza?" These comparisons tell one nothing about Spinoza. This is only one step above the problem that has been plaguing Wikipedia - that one can look up a topic and find out more about a random and forgettable video game or comic book than about the subject of the article.137.53.241.1 (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main point is that Wikipedia does not allow original research: WP:OR. No matter how interesting an idea may seem, it is not allowed in Wikipedia unless it is supported by the published work of a recognized expert in the field. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree again with the remarks by 137.5.241.1 above. Different varieties or strands of human thought can always be compared. But comparing different types or strands of thought is a different subject or task than defining a particular type of thinking. The article about Spinoza tries do define Spinoza's thinking, as much as it can, and as imperfectly as it does. There could be a different entry comparing for example, Spinoza's thought to different strands of far Eastern thinking, but these comparisons do not belong in the article about Spinoza's philosophy in itself. There is nothing provincial about separating different strands into different categories. It is only logical do define different modes of thinking and categorize them separately. Once they are separately defined into their different components, comparisons can also be made, but that is a different task, that is dealt with in a separate entry which would deal specifically with possible comparisons.
warshytalk 11:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a philosophy page. Contributers are expected to know something about the subject, and reason logically. The passage was dismissed as OR. I showed it was not OR, but a commonplace in scholarship. So now the goalposts are moved. I suspect the objections are made because those who raise them are unfamiliar with the topic. If so, don't erase material by those who are familiar with it.
Three objections are being made.
(1)A comparison between Spinoza and positions in the Advaita Vedanta school, to be relevant to the article, would require evidence of a genetic influence of the latter on the former.
(2)The comparisons made constitute a violation of WP:OR.
(3)The comparison is random, and thus just 'random' 'litter' that tells you nothing of Spinoza. Wiki articles don’t like random clutter.
(I.Answer) As shown, the premise here is false. In philosophy, and historical studies of philosophy, concepts are regularly compared irrespective of a genetic link arguing for influence
(2 Answer). It was fairly common in the 19th century to compare Spinoza's system to aspects of Advaita Vedanta. The first academic monograph on it in modern times I am aware of is M.S.Modak's doctoral dissertation, Vedanta and Spinoza:A Comparative Study, University of London 1928, a short synthesis of which is available in his article, with the same title, published in Philosophy, Vol. 6, No. 24, pp. 446-458. Oct., 1931. The argument was developed by Ramakant Tripathi in several books, esp.his Spinoza in the Light of the Vedanta, Banaras Hindu University, 1957. Since then it is encountered with considerable frequency in oriental histories of philosophy (see Nakamura Hajime, Ways of Thinking of Eastern People 1964 p.70 and Parallel Developments as cited above. It is not infrequent in Western philosophy. Arthur C. Danto, in his Mysticism and Morality, (1972) 1976 Penguin p.52 draws an analogy between another Indian school, the Cārvāka heterodoxy of materialism, and Spinoza. O. Graf's 'Chu Hsi and Spinoza' (for a précis see Proceedings of the 10th. International Congress of Philosophy, vol.1 Amsterdam 1949 p.238) found interesting parallels between Spinoza and the founder of Neo-Confucianism, and elaborated on them in his 3 volume edition, translation and commentary on Zhu Xi(朱熹)’s Chin Ssu Lu (近思錄) Die Sungkonfuzianische Summa mit dem Kommentar des Yeh Tsai (Sophia University Press, Tokyo 1953-4). Joseph Needham cites Spinoza to gloss the Daoist separation of ethics from the study of nature (Daodejing: 道德經 ch.5), in his Science and Civilization in China Cambridge University Press, 1962 p.49. I've already mentioned Jon Elster (ed), The Multiple Self, Cambridge University Press, 1986 pp.257-8).
(3). The wiki article on Plotinus, to give one example, provides an unembarrassed reference to scholarship that has drawn an analogy between the neo-Platonist thinker and this Indian school.

’This may be related to enlightenment, liberation, and other concepts of mystical union common to many Eastern and Western traditions. Some have compared Plotinus' teachings to the Hindu school of Advaita Vedanta (advaita "not two", or "non-dual"),[7]’

Plotinus, it has often been remarked, shares similarities with Spinoza (perhaps via St.Augustine). If Plotinus why not Spinoza? (The answer, as far as I can see is, again, provincialism.)Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and an Indian or someone from the sinocentric world would find the analogy not only normal, but stimulating. We are not writing to clarify 'Spinoza' with 'factoids', but to clarify his conceptual world. His conceptual world may be illuminated by looking at it through non-Western eyes, especially when those eyes share something of Spinoza's vision, and the intelligence behind them was nurtured in a tradition as acute, in logical definition, as any mind we admire in our own partial world. Nishidani (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point of an encyclopedia is to provide a foundation of facts from which one can work (and from which one can do the sort of work you are describing). It is not the point of an encyclopedia to stimulate one's thinking (encyclopedias are boring that way). An encyclopedia provides uncontroversial facts and the ability to cross-reference those facts in a straightforward manner. What is being described above is the sort of work one does once the factual foundation is provided for, not part of the factual foundation itself.


The individual user is free to go out and do the sort of cross-refencing that has been described above. It isn't the job of the encyclopedia to tell them the sort of cross-referencing that one thinks they really ought to be doing.
Ekwos (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


If "the point of an encyclopedia is to provide a foundation of facts," are they not also facts what the academic and cultural world has long thought and conceived about what you are calling the "factual foundation"? The defense made above against the three objections is correct that -philosophical facts- are more delicate than, say, the principles of internal combustion engines. See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at plato.stanford.edu for example of how in-depth treatment of -philosophical facts- occurs under academic collaboration and the ramifications of discourse. The claims made by the community that receives a -philosophical fact- constitute facts in themselves, here especially with regard to the bare fact that Spinoza has always been interpreted and reinterpreted by different schools. Thus, talking briefly about a recurrent and strong connection that has been made by the readers of some philosopher complement the philosophical fact that must be interpreted anyway to say anything at all about a philosophers words! Otherwise, to speak of the views of any philosopher on an -encyclopedia- should only and always consist of direct quotes with -zero- guiding orientation and interpretation, because that is -never- factual by the standards of some epistemologies...
As for the second point about cross-referencing, all notable philosophical facts are created by the recurrent and reliable cross-connection of a philosophical writing to its interpretation and application by readers. Brief mention of references that have been made again and again deserve to be in a philosopher entry, and then elaborated discussion of the philosophical facts emerging from specific communities of cross-connection should go, I would say, into a specific Wiki article that references a great deal of thinkers on the specific subject. It is honest to the philosophical world of factually while subjectively occurring ideas and theories to do so. A global encyclopedia should also represent the ideas in a history of ideas, without which there would be no Spinoza article at all. nednednerb (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


As in most colloquial exchanges, the point of departure is lost as chat slips the moorage of the original contention. A vein in Spinoza's thoughgt was likened to a current in Vedanta. You removed it as unsourced. I noted that it was commonplace in reliable sources, and now you come back to me about the function of an encyclopedia being not to stimulate imaginations, but to provide facts, one of which however happens to be that scholars compare Spinoza's thought to strains in Vedanta. This slippage is all very interesting, but neither philosophical nor, I would suggest, characteristic of an encyclopedic mind. Encyclopedias, one should recall, were born in the mind of men like Diderot, and are not to be confused with the reductivist factoid compilations of Comte, or Dickens' Gradgrind. As a Parthian matter of fact, I do however appreciate your preference for Winfred Lehmann's transcription of the *IE word for horse over August Schleicher's. Nishidani (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is "common place" then it wouldn't have been hard for you to go and find those sources now would it? Yet strangely you never did so. Why is it that people who go around claiming something is "common knowledge" or "common place" never seem to be able to find sources?Ekwos (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is easy... Most thoughts can be difficult to find sources (and original sources) for, but they often exist as commonplace within certain circles of communicators... For example, university research and reference librarians often go to school for years and years to be able to dependably and efficiently find sources in a library, the home base for idea sources. The insiders to a philosophical strain of thinking have probably much more commonplace access to such sources as have been expressed in this Talk page. nednednerb (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Citing sources

Since the entire article is tagged for its sourcing problems, there is no point in adding in line sourcing tags also. It just makes the article look even worse. Adding citations for sources is on of the important improvements this article needs, and unsourced material could be removed by any editor at any time.

Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires attribution for direct quotes and for material that is likely to be challenged. Any material that is challenged, and for which no source is provided within a reasonable time (or immediately if it is about a living person), may be removed by any editor. WP:CITE

At the very least, please do not add new material without including a source. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Schosha -- question regarding possible partial restoring of two sentences

I noticed that you "removed two unsourced sentences that seem problematic. when reliable sources can be added, restore them."

The text deletion is a small matter, but maybe consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRESERVE#Preserve_information: "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to: rephrase; correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content; ... request a citation by adding the [citation needed] tag ... ."

So one could restore the two sentences, and then you or i could tone them down, add support-needed tags, etc.

The two sentences were: "Spinoza, having dedicated himself completely to philosophy after 1656, fervently desired to change the world through establishing a clandestine philosophical sect. Because of public censure this was only eventually realized after his death through the dedicated intercession of his friends."

Also, the second deleted sentence still has a remaining echo/support/clarification in the remaining sentence in the article that "The Ethics and all other works ... were published after his death ... edited by his friends in secrecy to avoid confiscation and destruction of manuscripts."

Bo99 (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand what you are saying. To explain my own thinking, when I see stuff about secret groups, I tend to suspect fringe theories. But, if you can add reliable sources to support those two sentences, please do restore them to the article. Otherwise, I do not think thew belong in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, since the entire article is tagged for sourcing problems at the top of the page, in line sourcing tags are redundant. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To explain the cited Wikipedia guideline, it's saying strongly, "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to ... add ... the [support-needed-here] tag ... ", which tag can spur the focus and recollection of people who have read a lot of Spinoza, to look in their sources and come forward with supporting reliable sources. (By the way, that type of immediate and efficient focus on a particular sentence is not provided by the introductory general tag "This article needs additional citations".) If you feel strongly to go against the cited Wiki guideline, okay. Bo99 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find sources to support those sentences, okay. Otherwise get over it. See [1], which says that The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I do understand Bo99's concerns, which were very carefully and nicely explained above. I also see the point that the two sentences are strong sentences, almost "indicting" sentences, that are left hanging there without any reference. As a compromise between the two positions, why not readd the sentences with the specific tag [citation needed] at the end of this paragraph? warshytalk 14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the two sentences because they do not belong in the article if there are no sources to support them. That you want to return them without adding sourcing only further strengthens my perception that they are indeed original research. Do not return the material to the article without sourcing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boy! Talk about unflexible, uncompromising (and somewhat rude too, when compared to the first questioner above, Bo99) 'editors' at Wikipedia. No amount of diplomacy, niceness, willingness to compromise will do... No problem, just keep the whole pie to yourself, and enjoy it too as far as I am concerned regarding this matter.
warshytalk 16:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to explain Wikipedia guidelines. I don't make this stuff up. But I am not infallible either, so you could try this to get another opinion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is a sourcing question, you could also take it here to get other opinions. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read over this issue about these two sentences. I've read much Spinoza, plus scholarly stuff about Spinoza, but I'm not an expert; still, I'm leaning towards Malcolm Schosha's take on these two sentences since in my years pursuing this, it struck me as new -- the idea that Spinoza was planning to start a sect up after his death. I don't think Spinoza ever wanted to start a religion or sect or fringe group or anything; I think his decision to let his "Ethics" manuscript get published after his death was that he wanted to stay alive. Those people back then were nuts about religion. People got killed for believing the wrong stuff. So I don't think it's a good use of time to go hunting for a source that doesn't exist. Anyway, back to the article: I think we shouldn't fuss too much about two individual lines or quotes, because I think the whole article is lackluster and will turn off possible wikipedia readers, and I urge everybody to start thinking about how to improve it, possibly with a rather serious rewrite. I think we should strive for a simpler but better ordered article, and get the basics down right, and when scholars disagree about stuff, then we should refer to each. But I hope we can get REAL experts involved and defer to their judgment. I think Spinoza deserves a better article than this one. Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Tagged some lists

I tagged some lists as trivia. They really should be incorporated into a text rather than as a list. I'll do that when I get a chance, unless someone else does it first.Ekwos (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juan de Prado

There is currently no mention of Spinoza's contemporary Juan de Prado in the article. "About 1655, Spinoza came under the influence of the Marrano, Juan de Prado, who had escaped to Amsterdam and resumed his Judaism, but presently had doubts about Judaism as well as Catholicism." (Lost reference for this quote). Neither is there is a wikipedia article on Juan de Prado.Nickyfann (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC) There is an article by wikipedia in French: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_de_Prado And another article here: http://www.speedylook.com/Juan_de_Prado.html Nickyfann (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


infinitely many attributes v. infinite attributes

The section on Spinoza's philosophy says that he thinks God has infinitely many attributes. He only says that God has infinite attributes. Although this might appear to be the same Spinoza's understanding of infinity makes the two significantly different. The difference may appear unimportant but its a strongly contested part of scholarship on Spinoza what exactly he meant by infinite attributes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.65.10 (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spinoza scholars sometimes disagree about stuff. But this is the first time I've heard about any controversy about the term "infinitely many attributes". As a writer, I see little difference between the terms "infinitely many attributes" and "infinite attributes"; can anybody explain what is the difference between the terms or why this difference might be important? My understanding is that Spinoza believed that God, or Nature, had infinite attributes, but that as humans, we can only perceive two: thought and extension. I've ALWAYS wondered what the other possible attributes are (if Spinoza's right and they exist) but I'll always be baffled about this. Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]
I will be quite honest in that I do not myself see the distinction between these two. However, it is important to understand that Spinoza did not have a very good understanding of the infinite. When he speaks of God having an infinite amount of attributes he must really have in mind something more like 'God has all the attributes'. Otherwise his philosophy would have many problems. If Spinoza meant 'infinite' in the same way we now understand it then it could surely be the case that God could have an infinite amount of attributes, but not ALL the attributes. This would open up the door for the possibility of more than one substance being able to exist. Something which Spinoza explicitly denies. Therefore, when Spinoza says God has an infinite amount of attributes he is essentially meaning to say that God has all the attributes. Diehl1am (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess maybe there could be one way to think about each of those terms. Possibly 'infinitely many attributes' refers to the fact that God has an infinite number of attributes (for example: extension, thought, etc...on to infinity). It refers strictly to the quantity of different attributes that God has. On the other hand, 'infinite attributes' may refer to the fact that each attribute that God possesses, he possesses an infinite amount of that tribute (for example: infinite extension). It refers strictly to the quantity of each attribute that God has. However, both of these terms, while different, apply to God.Diehl1am (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spinoza a Religious Naturalist?

Is it sound to say that Spinoza was a religious naturalist? I think it is. I've put Spinoza in the religious naturalist category. If anyone has any objections/comments please discuss. 613kpiggy (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the nonsense category religious naturalists. Sponiza was anti-religioius and he was not a naturalist. You tried to pull the same thing with Einstein. Einstein was not a naturalist. He was a physicist. If you can provide reliable sources for this nonsense, it can stay. That is how it works. Reverted again. DVdm (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please pardon my intrusion, Mr. Above, do you think you could be a little more courteous to the religious naturalist above you? Or are you an anti-religious naturalist? ;) God, some of you high-and-mighty editing abusers sound like you'd fit right in North Korea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.123 (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone here clarify first what this 'concept/category' of "Religious Naturalism" is, to begin with? Where does it come from? It sounds to me more like just an oxymoron that anything else. I've heard of Deism, and maybe of Religious Rationalism, as historical movements. Is the concept/category of "Religious Naturalism" meant to imply some connection with the two above historical currents of thought? If so, there may be some room for connection to Spinoza's thought. But only once the concepts/categories are thoroughly discussed and clarified here. Thanks. --warshytalk 15:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To me, looking at this, religious naturalism seems to be someone's private hobby here. And he seems to get away with it. DVdm (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've read Spinoza over several years and while I'm not an expert, I don't remember coming across the term "religious naturalism" before either in my reading of Ethics or TPTreatise or scholars writing about Spinoza such as Hampshire, Allison, or Steven Nadler. But it's possible today there is such a thing which can trace it's roots back to Spinoza's thinking (but if so, it's a VERY recent thing). But my sense is "religious naturalism" should possibly have its own page, and perhaps a Spinoza-related article could refer to it; but I don't think religious naturalism should get a whole paragraph on a Spinoza page. But Spinoza did identify "God" and "Nature". Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Good heavens, what arrogance. In spite of what your strange little inner voice might deem fit, "religious naturalism" is not someone's hobby. If you read your own darned website Naturalism, you'd see how Spinoza employed Naturalism in his thought processes when writing his Ethics. Einstein extended Spinoza even further in that general direction.

I have some experience with this sort of odd, newly-born spiritual blending, but "religious naturalist" is exactly the way many would describe Spinoza. In short, it means the man was able to understand and explain our understanding of God via logical, methodical thought processes. And people do believe in this, and it's not inappropriate in an entry on Spinoza nor one on Einstein. What, he can only be a physicist? You are a meanie.

You don't read a lot, do you DVdm? Neither man, Einstein/Spinoza, would have objected to being called naturalists. In fact I think Ronald Clark's biography of Einstein suggests precisely that.... I must comment, your rude reference to the religious naturalism site is, in addition, most impolitic and unkind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.123 (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how the term "religious naturalism" could be used to describe Spinoza today, so I'm kind of agreeing with some of you, since Spinoza equated God and Nature, and in a sense, you could call Spinoza "religious" (but it depends on one's sense of the term) and possibly a "naturalist" (again, what does this term mean?). But I bet serious Spinoza scholars would not use this term -- I haven't come across any scholars using it before -- and I think if we keep this term in the article, it will make us all look uninformed. To keep it in, get good sources if you can find them; if we can't find them, let's edit this term out or create a page called "religious naturalism", and possibly put a link to that page. Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Hegel Quote

"You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all."

This quote stems from a period when "Spinozist" essentially meant what we mean by "atheist" and/or "agnostic". What Hegel is saying is that you can't be a philosopher and a believer in religious dogmas. What Spinoza did was make atheism/agnosticism intellectually grounded and respectable.

I think the quote is misleading as it stands.Ekwos (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support this point of view; for centuries, to be accused of "Spinozism" was not to be thought of as accepting the finer points of doctrine of Spinoza's philosophy, but was to be accused, through genteel code, of religious unbelief. It is hard to believe that Hegel meant all "real" philosophers accepted Spinoza's conclusion that all existence was of one substance. The commenter above me is correct to assume Hegel was admitting debt to Spinoza in making it conceivable (if not "respectable" as he says -- many people thought that to be charged with Spinozism was a horrible fate) that philosophers might reject religious dogmas. The quotation is certainly ambiguous, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.174.243 (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do readers always have to guess what Hegel means?Lestrade (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Writing Style is lackluster

I'm an independent thinker and writer who read Spinoza extensively when younger (although I'm NOT an expert on Spinoza). I'm a fairly competent writer. I'd like to improve this article. I'm hoping serious Spinoza scholars will look at this article too and improve it. I will try to make it simpler yet more factually correct with references. And I want to work with other editors too to get this article up to speed. Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Suggested shorter opening paragraph

I think the opening paragraph is too long, complex, scary. It will turn readers off. I think short and sweet is best. But I'd like to run it by other editors before I make a change --

(proposed new opening paragraph)

Baruch or Benedict de Spinoza (1632–1677) was a rationalist philosopher who built an integrated system of ideas tying together every major area of philosophy including metaphysics, knowledge, mind, psychology, ethics, politics, and religion. His work had a powerful influence on succeeding generations of philosophers and continues to exert an important influence today. While shunned by Jewish and Christian communities, he corresponded regularly with a tight circle of close friends. His Ethics was published after his death at age 44.

That's my proposal for the opening paragraph -- brief so we don't turn off readers (Spinoza is difficult enough, won't we all agree?). Now the rest of the existing opening paragraph we KEEP but include in the body of the article (such as Hebrew names, impact, quotes etc) and we EXPAND and ORDER the body of the article. But this is a major change and I'm asking other wikipedia editors for their input before doing this. So, what do you think? Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

I agree with your overall assessment. I've read Spinoza's TPT (Theologico-Political Treatise) very carefully only. I can barely understand the basic premises and the underpinnings of the "Ethics." I am a "Spinoza follower" as far I can understand the master and I certainly follow-up on the editings that are done on his entry here at Wikipedia. Good luck in your enterprise.warshytalk 14:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, warshy, for your assessment. Wondering what others think? I too read TPT as well as Ethics. Best way to get into Ethics is to simultaneously read explanatory commentary like Steven Nadler's "Spinoza: An Introduction". The Ethics, by itself, is too difficult -- dreadfully geometrical with rigorously applied terms (which confuse us today). Like, active is opposite of passive. I encourage Spinoza scholars to improve this article. Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Not understanding the Ethics

See, I grabbed TPT by the horn and studied every word very carefully for many months. Unfortunately, of course, it was Elwes' English version/translation of it, so it wasn't really Spinoza's work. Anyhow, if I were to try and understand/undertake the Ethics, the proper way to do it, in my mind, would be to first read it very carefully in Latin. Yeah, right. In a future "existence" maybe, who knows... [I am still waiting for the encyclopedia entry that would acknowledge simple misunderstood facts to begin with. Maybe in a future "existence" too...warshytalk 17:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warshy do you know Latin? That would be cool to read "The Ethics" that way. But why not read the English version? If you pick up Ethics, go straight to the "Emotions" section -- so cool. And get a copy of Nadler's "Spinoza: An Introduction". And kind of read both together, off and on. It will make you a more powerful thinker! The toughest part of Spinoza I think is learning what Spinoza means by terms (we THINK we know what he means, but his sense is often different, difficult). Studying the emotions helped me get a better handle on life. Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Proposing New Ordering of "Spinoza" and "Philosophy of Spinoza" Articles

I'm thinking of reworking these two articles, keeping stuff, but organizing it as follows:

  • Spinoza will be focused on Spinoza's biography (early years, background, schooling, significant teachers, break with Judaism, work on books, circle of friends, death). It can also have his impact as a philosopher, the times he lived in, and so forth. But I don't think this article should delve too deeply into his philosophy (and there are some errors here as well as dubious emphasis on tangential subjects like "deep ecology". Let's stick to his life.
  • Philosophy of Spinoza will focus on his work from The Ethics and TPT -- God, substance, metaphysics, morality, knowledge, passions, freedom & virtue, eternity, politics, religion. It can have critical commentary by other philosophers. But the focus should be on explaining (as simply and clearly as possible without sacrificing accuracy) what his philosophy is.
And, as always, I think Spinoza as a subject is difficult, and as much as possible, wikipedia editors (including myself) should defer to established authorities on this subject and encourage them to make these articles better. Wondering what others think.Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer[reply]

Deep Ecology stuff

I've studied Spinoza on and off at several points in my life and I've never heard about "Deep Ecology" before. A professor who specializes in Spinoza hasn't heard much about it either. I'm thinking perhaps the way it might possibly relate to this article is in a section about philosophical spin-offs; or perhaps as a separate article that links to this page. But to have a whole subsection on a Spinoza page about "deep ecology" doesn't make sense to me. Can anybody explain why it belongs here as a subsection? Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer[reply]

Nietzsche article is better than Spinoza

Not to get competitive, people, but Nietzsche has around 75 references; Spinoza has only 40. And Nietzshe is better written. Come on, people, let's get with it. Spinoza might think this was totally determined, but I'm determined to give Nietzsche a run for his money.Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer[reply]

And, since I'm ranting here, I think there are way too many "cherems" in it; like cherem this, cherem that, cherem again. I could see one or two cherems max, but come on people; plus, I don't even know how to pronounce it (chair-him?). And doesn't picture of Spinoza make him look a little fat?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Panentheism vs Pantheism

When editing, I had trouble following the logic with this sentence:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But since Spinoza insisted that no attribute of a substance can be truly conceived, it follows that "the substance can be divided", and that "a substance which is absolutely infinite is indivisible." (taken from the article)

Please help clarify?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with Tomwsulcer that this was a great contribution to the entry, great writing, by himself and by unidentified users 217.218.35.5 and 80.66.181.139. Kudos to all three of you: the end result was pretty illuminating for this lifelong student of Spinoza. Thanks for the great job! It is work like this, in my view, that makes Wikipedia great, really worthwhile. --warshytalk 19:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original writing of this part is mine. The correction in response to Tomwsulcer is also by me. I think I should be both users 217.218.35.5 and 80.66.181.139!!! :D I wasn't logged in when I added this section. So I think the system is showing my IP address instead of my user name!!!! Thank you Tomwsulcer fo grammatical corrections. milad10us1985 —Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hey great job everybody and I think we're so great we deserve a party. And, does anybody know when we'll receive our checks from Wikipedia for our selfless (determined, says Spinoza) efforts? I keep looking in my mailbox and there's nothing there.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your efforts were determined, then you had no choice but to perform them. Everything that happened in the world prior to your efforts necessarily caused you to do what you did.Lestrade (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

ATHEIST

plz add that he was indeed an atheist, he simply was afraid to admit it in his time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizanthrop (talk • contribs) 11:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About Spinoza as "atheist" -- it depends on the definition of "atheist", and what people mean by : "God". Spinoza definitely believed in "God", but it was a kind of God different from what most : people think, so many people did see Spinoza as an "atheist" like you : say.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spinoza was an atheist as in he DID NOT BELIEVE IN ANY GOD(s) or supernatural beings or anything metaphysical, Spinooza was a materialist.
He was one ofthe first learned jewish atheist polymaths.
Please sign your comments with the four tildes (or click on the squiggly box to the right of the W with the red line and circle. I've studied Spinoza for years, but I'm only a layman. If you consider "God" as being a supernatural being, with powers to do miraculous stuff (raise the dead, part the Red Sea etc) then you're right -- Spinoza didn't believe in that kind of "God". But Spinoza thought of "God" as cause-and-effect, as necessity, and thought it was our highest calling, as humans, to love God. It's a different way of looking at things.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To those who believe in an anthropomorphic [humanoid] God, Spinoza was an atheist. That is because Spinoza used the word "God" to designate an abstract, universal, non–anthropomorphic concept. Spinoza's God is inconceivable and nothing like a person. This makes Spinoza an atheist to those who prefer their God to have a personality.Lestrade (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

LENS MAKER

I recall reading somewhere that Spinoza was not only a lens maker, but the "go-to-guy" for the best lenses in Europe. Can't remember the reference. It's not in Rebecca Goldstein's "Betraying Spinoza." An excellent work.PeterT2 (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New extended Nadler quote

I think the relevant addition here should be something to this effect: that some scholars today, regarding the panentheism vs pantheism matter, argue for one of the choices. But I don't think there's enough room to have an extended rehash of a philosophy conference from 2006. Also, Wikipedia policy discourages using sources like YouTube as a reference, although I think in this case perhaps we could make an exception? Further, Nadler has emailed me that he doesn't like being quoted in Wikipedia, and all things equal, I think we should try to accommodate his wishes. But I appreciate the effort done to add this knowledge; I think it needs to be condensed for this page; but I think it could be included in more expanded form in the article about "pantheism controversy". I moved most of the added material to this article on the pantheism controversy. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the additions. Is Nadler a "philosopher"? I thought he was a scholar and a professor of philosophy but I think to call someone a "philosopher" means they have to have an original philosophy which they can say is theirs.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Philosophy of Spinoza

looke hwat hpnaned to that articul, got recked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.130.165 (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is nice, but a stub like the article Theologico-Political Treatise. I propose to close the article and to split its content into several articles dedicated to one work of Spinoza, or to elaborate it with focus of the particular nature of his philosophy, the historical circumstances of a superstitious and scientificial reception. Now it is more like a second article about Ethica.
Have a look on these articles: Ethics (book), Tractatus de Intellectus Emendatione, his Metaphysics (Principles of Cartesian Philosophy). I propose to connect the second link to Political Treatise to the main article, and to treat the differences between the editions (and who made them) there, while the article Ethics (book) could treat as well the early work "korte verhandeling" which has a homiletic form (commentaries) and can be also regarded as a previous version of some parts of Ethica.
--Platonykiss (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Panentheist, Pantheist, or Atheist?

This section belongs rather to the reception of Spinoza's philosophy than to the main section "philosophy". I changed the structure of the article and added some subsections of the former section "modern relevance".

--Platonykiss (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the section "Panentheist, pantheist, or atheist?," Spinoza's God is described as "living, natural" and as "cold, indifferent." Can Spinoza's God be understood as having these apparently contradictory characteristics? If God is "Being absolutely infinite" [Part One, Definitions, VI] then I suppose He can have such opposite predicates. This makes the article confusing because humans cannot normally think of a subject that has opposing predicates or attibutes.Lestrade (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Yes, indeed. The pantheistic reception (especially among German readers by the end of the 18th century) was a quite confused and confusing one. So they even laughed about each other (as Herder laughed about Goethe). But the confusion started with the secret letters in Spinoza's lifetime, written by authors who liked to talk about Spinoza's atheism, although they often did not have any access to his books. And those who had, like scholars and scientists at Leyden University, did talk about his ideas, but did not dare to cite him. Their problem was not so much the catholic church and the index of the inquisition, but the dangerous punishment in their own Calvinist communities.
This is the historical background, the philosophical background is that terms like "ratio" and "substance" had a religious connotation within theology and patristic or rabbinic neoplatonism, and Jacobi and his contemporaries started to rethink them in another way. Quite natural that Spinoza's philosophy was an attraction for them (positive as negative).
I just edited the structure, not the content. Anyway you should feel wellcome to do some changes.
--Platonykiss (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the aforementioned reasons I have removed these categories, because they belong to his readers like Jacobi, not to Spinoza himself.

--Platonykiss (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the word "God" [Deo]

Didn't Spinoza mainly write in Latin? In that case, the main form of the Latin word God is "Deus" (while "Deo" is the dative/ablative case form, which would be used in certain particular circumstances). AnonMoos (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excommunication by the Catholic church

The article pretty much says that Spinoza was excommunicated by his synagogue in 1656 due to the influence of Catholics, but the article also he says his first publication was 1660. So why exactly does anyone think that Catholics had even heard of him in '56?. Sounds fishy to me. Rwflammang (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

additionally, how much influence would the Catholic Church have had over the activities of the Jewish community in the Dutch Republic? It seems more likely that the Dutch Reformed Church (the "public church" of the Netherlands) would have been involved, if anyone was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.58.210 (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baruch_Spinoza&oldid=368200837"