Spinoza was born 387 years ago today (in 1632). This year, rather aptly, it falls just 3 days after World Philosophy Day! Hence, over the next few blog posts, I’d like to flesh out my almost decade long journey reading Spinoza’s philosophy by filling in some of the contextual background to my research on him.
Just as I’m putting my research
into context, I also find the same is true with all textual interpretations. Thus,
only looking at
1) either
the content of a book (the properties of the text)
2) or
the contextual, historical, sociological, political, biographical framework
restricts one’s perspective and
only tells half the story. These two approaches are not mutually exclusive. One
does not have to choose between them. To get the full philosophical picture,
one needs to be capable of balancing both 1) which involves an analysis of the
properties of a philosophical argument together with 2) illuminating the
context within which it was written. Being able to situate a philosopher and
their texts is important no matter what style the text is written in, how the arguments
are demonstrated, or which subject, be it philosophy, maths, physics or literature because nobody creates or thinks
something in a vacuum, be it artwork, music or books.
For instance, although one can
read Euclid and follow his train of mathematical thought logically from
beginning to end, it does not follow that one should ignore the context of his
writings. It is still important to know that the Euclidean mathematical system
is not the only one which exists. This fact could not be learnt from just
reading his writings and looking at the internal properties of his text,
demonstrations and arguments which he provides. Yet one would be ignorant if
one were not able to see Euclid’s geometry in the context of non-Euclidean geometries
developed in the 19th century. Thus, the era within which the reader
is reading the text is relevant and impacts on their understanding of it.
Euclid’s geometry was the only geometric system from Plato’s time, when Euclid wrote
it, before being questioned, centuries later, in the 16th century
but no alternative was found until the 19th century. Hence, if
reading Euclid in Spinoza’s era in the 17th century, one would
rightly assume it is the only geometric system that exists and one would
require less background contextual knowledge to understand Euclid’s arguments.
However, when reading Euclid in the 21st century, it is valuable to
read books about him which provide historical, biographical and contextual
knowledge in order to fully appreciate Euclid’s writings.
I’ve found Berlinski’s excellent
book ‘The King of Infinite Space – Euclid and his Elements’ crucial for
grasping Euclidean mathematics because he begins by placing Euclid within an
historical context and relates his thought to others to show an on-going
discussion (ranging from mathematicians to physicists and logicians) rather
than just abstractly discussing his mathematics. Berlinski’s book has also
helped me think about Spinoza’s Ethics because he eventually re-wrote it in the
style of Euclidean demonstrations after his fellow Dutch philosophers suggested
it to him. (This would make Spinoza’s Ethics ground-breaking because it would
be the first major philosophical treatise which would use the geometrical
method fully and throughout, unlike Descartes, who only extracted the
analytical aspect of the method.) Spinoza took up their suggestion partly
because his time was being consumed by constantly having to explain what he
meant in his manuscripts of the Ethics.
Spinoza’s earlier versions of the
Ethics and his Short Treatise, which became the basis for his Ethics, were all
written in his more usual Rationalist philosophical style. Hence, unlike some
current thought, I think Spinoza’s Ethics should not be approached or
interpreted differently from his other works simply because his latter drafts of
it were transposed into a geometric form. The kernel of his body of thought
remains the same whether demonstrated geometrically or not. Had he wished to or
perhaps lived long enough, he may have rewritten many of his works (for example,
his TP, where he states he uses a mathematical approach) by transposing his
arguments into the geometrical method. Why? Because the aim of a Euclidean
geometric method is that it provides such a tight, logical framework that the demonstrations
for arguments become indisputable, thereby guaranteeing true, certain knowledge.
Therefore, I think, to claim that his Ethics contains flaws, mistakes or contradictions
is in itself mistaken, because Spinoza’s methodology is fool proof.
I interpret all of Spinoza’s
works as pure philosophy texts. This seems obvious, however, I am often
surprised by how his treatises are divided up into disconnected parts which
require completely different approaches, rather than seeing them as a whole
united body of philosophy.
·
His political works are lumped together on one
side, although even so, the TP is liable to be misplaced under political
science and his TTP under theology.
·
His Short Treatise is arrogantly dismissed as
somehow irrelevant to all his other works. This is especially strange
considering the Short Treatise manuscript may be a draft on which he built his
Ethics. I have written about his Short Treatise in my volume 2. It is highly
relevant to his metaphysics and pivotal to understanding his concept of the
soul and immortality and matches up with his Ethics. Perhaps the Short Treatise
is merely an inconvenient text for those who wish to claim that his Ethics
stands apart from the rest of his work so needs a different interpretative
approach. It is also an inopportune text for those who wish to portray Spinoza
as an atheist, although, thankfully, this point of view is less prevalent over
the last few years!
· The Ethics is sometimes characterised as an
abstract, incomprehensible, mathematical work requiring no further contextual,
historical, sociological, political, psychological, biographical backdrop.
This, I think, leads to misunderstanding the role of the Ethics in Spinoza’s
philosophy so can result in misinterpreting it.
· Spinoza’s Emendation of the Intellect plays a
relatively minor role in scholarship.
· Spinoza’s book on Descartes was a rushed job
written in roughly 2 weeks at the request of a friend. This text I see as a
hybrid – the main text is a teaching aid for those learning Descartes. Only the
appendix is relevant to what Spinoza thought so only this short section counts
in his body of philosophy.
· Spinoza’s Hebrew Grammar book, which was
unfinished at the time of his death, was also maybe partly to teach the
language to underpin his philosophy. We see Hebrew words in his original texts
which he used to support his arguments. It may also be because, as a Jew, he
considered Hebrew to be a sacred language so naturally was lovingly attached to
it.
· Spinoza is even dismissed as being a talented scientist,
physicist, mathematician despite designing cutting edge lenses, microscopes and
telescopes, as well as using his expert knowledge of mathematical physics to help
build the largest European telescope. He was not just a humble lens grinder!
Indeed, posthumously, his calculations and grinding dishes were used to make
the lens for this largest European telescope. As I mention in my volume 2 on
Spinoza, chapter 10, he wrote two treatises on physics and maths, ‘Algebraic
Calculation of the Rainbow’ and ‘Calculation of Chances’. This shows he was a
scientific, mathematical genius, in addition to being a philosophical genius. So
Spinoza is clearly strong at natural philosophy (philosophy of science, which
both philosophers and scientists wrote about in the Early Modern period), logic,
and forming accurate arguments. If we fail to understand Spinoza’s philosophy
at times, it’s our fault, not his! I think it’s important not to mistake
critical thinking as equating to purely negative criticism. On the contrary, critical
thinking does not cease to be critical just because it is positive. Indeed, one
learns more from positive criticism than negative criticism.
