In chapter 4 of the TTP, Spinoza
uses the phrase “to worship Him truly”[i]
while examining King Solomon’s proverbs in the Hebrew Bible (also known as the
Old Testament). Spinoza equates this phrase with the notion that:
“…that wisdom or intellect alone
teaches us to fear God wisely—that is, to worship Him truly;….”[ii]
“..quod sola sapientia sive
intellectus nos doceat, Deum sapienter timere, hoc est, vera religione colere.”[iii]
Or literally,
word by word, with all the translation possibilities included:
…that only
wisdom [sapientia] (judgement/understanding; reason; prudence, discernment;
good sense; good taste; intelligence) or [sive] intellect [intellectus]
(comprehension/understanding) shows us [nos doceat] (points out/teaches), to
fear [timere] God [Deum] wisely [sapienter], this is [hoc est] (ie) to worship
[colere] (cultivate, promote growth; foster, maintain; honour, cherish, worship;
tend, take care of) [religione] (obligation; sanction; worship; rite; sanctity;
reverence/ respect/ conscience/ scruples; religion) truly [vera] (true, real,
genuine, actual; properly named; well founded; right, fair, proper).
Interestingly,
as can be seen when I’ve broken down the words in a translation, there’s a word
missing in the English translation, because it doesn’t account for both
religione and colere. Given colere is the verb, the missing, additional word is
possibly religione. Although both words can mean worship, they need not equate
to the same thing. As can be seen by the alternative meanings they have, saying
worship twice over would be nonsense. There are many possibilities and I’ve shown
the various words that could be used in translating it. My preferences for how
I would translate it are: to worship with true/ genuine reverence; to
cultivate/cherish/foster true/genuine religion; obligational and covenantal
love/relationship with God.
Fearing wisely is a very literal
translation of “sapienter timere”[iv] so
must be what Spinoza meant. This Latin translation Spinoza gives is also
faithful to the quote Spinoza cites in the original Hebrew from King Solomon,
showing that Spinoza did translate Solomon’s Hebrew word for fear (תאַרְיִ) correctly[v].
However, Spinoza[vi]
generally seems to argue that fear leads to superstition not knowledge of God
or true worship. So, how should we understand the seemingly paradoxical notion
of fearing wisely in Spinoza[vii]?
I suggest Spinoza may have had a
different way of looking at fear than our common notion of it.
One reason is that the Hebrew
word for fear, between its verb and noun forms, has meanings that include
fear/reverence/piety/God-fearingness/respect as well as to see in Judaism. So,
Spinoza could have thought of fearing wisely as being more akin to seeing God
wisely as in intellectually seeing God, using reason to understand Him. In this
way, fear is a broader concept in Judaism and so can be positive or negative,
with an emphasis on fearing in a productive way. This view of affects being
positive or negative, active or passive, can also be seen in Spinoza’s
writings. In both the Ethics and TTP he highlights the problems involving the
negative passion of fear, ranging from generating superstition, encouraging
social and political instability through playing on people’s hopes and fears,
to creating epistemic and psychological blockages, for instance, depression.
A second reason is that Spinoza
seems to be using Solomon’s meaning of fearing and understanding God ie not
just cognitively but also experientially and intuitively. Furthermore, Spinoza
takes the time to add that when he translated the quote from King Solomon about
knowing God from Hebrew into Latin, although he chose “Dei intelliges et Dei
scientiam”[viii],
there is a deeper meaning to it which is not conveyed by the Latin. Therefore,
Spinoza writes “(vel potius amorem; nam haec duo verbum יﬢע jadah significat)”[ix]
which I translate as: (or preferably love; for this is what the verb jadah
(also) means). Some translations omit this bracketed sentence altogether, for
instance, Elwes[x] and
Willis[xi].
However, Bennett includes the content of these brackets in the form of an
excellent editorial note:
“[In quoting this passage,
Spinoza interpolates, after ‘knowledge of God’, ‘(or rather, the love of God,
for the word Jadah has both meanings)’. And before ‘For the Lord grants wisdom’
he inserts ‘(NB)’ = ‘nota bene’ = ‘pay special attention’.]”[xii]
Hence, I think it is important to
remember that Spinoza has specified that he is working with the Hebrew
understanding of the word for knowledge of God, which has its specific meaning
of the concept of knowledge and involves the notion of love[xiii].
So, what background knowledge is assumed here by Spinoza when he refers to the
Hebrew meaning and to Solomon’s understanding of knowledge of God? Knowing and
loving God in Judaism is not just grasping the idea of God but is about having
an intimate, personal relationship with God. The type of love which is
emphasised in Judaism, whether it be love of God or for fellow human beings, is
not a fickle or over-emotional type of love but a covenantal, faithful, stable
and enduring love[xiv].
As Rabbi Shavit Artson puts it, Judaism “is an ancient tradition of covenantal
love.”[xv] He
continues by stating that:
“Judaism understands love to be
covenantal — the dynamic and persistent integration of the inner
emotion/virtues of affection, empathy, desire, yearning and delight with deeds
of tzedek (justice), shalom (wholeness/integrity) and berakhah
(blessing/wellbeing).” [xvi]
“Covenants are not necessarily
restricted to equal parties. Kings and vassals are not equal, yet they provide
the sociopolitical context for the biblical covenant. God and the Jewish People
do not claim to be equal. But they do insist on the ability to bridge the chasm
of disparity with relationship, and in relationship one may stand as a partner
even with someone who is not your equal. Love that it spans that gulf, and
un-equals are able to stand in partnership and in dignity together, despite
their differences; perhaps because of their distinctiveness.”[xvii]
“Love is the ability to integrate
all our powerful emotions and in consistent empathic behavior.”[xviii]
Also, throughout the Hebrew
Bible, knowing someone or God is used for having a personal, intimate
attachment to that person or God, whether used in the context of relationships
between God and humans or between humans[xix]
so when Spinoza refers to knowledge of God[xx],
I suggest, given the above, we shouldn’t look upon this as a distant, detached,
theoretical, over-intellectualised type of knowledge, but rather as an
intimate, covenantal, committed loving knowledge and appreciation of God. This
perhaps needs to be kept in mind when we use English translations of his
concepts, such as the intellectual love of God and intuitive knowledge, where
it is easy to assume this is some type of hyper-rationalist and
over-intellectualised approach to believing in God, rather than the Biblical
Jewish concept of knowledge and love going together hand in hand. Consequently,
I think this Judaism-based reconceptualization of what Spinoza means by knowing
and loving God sheds light on a range of concepts and ideas Spinoza is trying
to convey, for instance, when he writes about emotion. In Part 2 of this book,
I shall focus on the emotion of fear. King Solomon was known for expounding the
value of religious and non-religious wisdom, the intellect, intuitive
knowledge, truth, justice, God and how to be pious wisely. In this way, King
Solomon[xxi]
sets out a way of fearing God which involves engaging the emotions of fear and
love in a positive way so that they do not become a negative fear which acts as
a knowledge blocker and induces superstition. Spinoza shows how King Solomon
wants to enable people to fear God by seeing God through wisdom thereby gaining
knowledge and covenantal love of God, which also informs ethics and politics[xxii].
Given that Spinoza explicitly highlights these views of Solomon[xxiii],
I conclude that King Solomon’s religious and philosophical views were a source
of inspiration for Spinoza’s philosophy. I conjecture whether Spinoza felt that
King Solomon was a more advanced model of how to be pious and live in the
structure of a political state than Moses and the Hebrews within his era
because the Jewish people were more developed as a nation by King Solomon’s
time and were living within an established monarchical-style system.
So, I think the most fitting
reading of Spinoza on fearing God wisely, is understanding God through reason
and wisdom, and not through hope and a negative/extreme/superstitious type of
fear. So, I think, one can conclude from this that true worship could be
defined as wise worship, that is, worship which is informed by wisdom attained
through the faculty of the intellect and intuition. Further textual support for
this definition is that Spinoza advocates in his preface that people “learn to
worship God more wisely” which, once again, combines the best way to worship
with employing wisdom[xxiv]
which goes together with Spinoza later agreeing with Solomon that “wisdom and
knowledge” come from God[xxv].
This concurs with Spinoza’s argument in the TTP that “the idea or knowledge of
God, and nothing else” gives rise to and determines one’s knowledge and wisdom[xxvi].
Hence, I suggest Spinoza’s claim here could be made clearer by stating it in
the form of a deduction.
So, I would like to put forward
the following attempt of how I would deductively set out Spinoza’s definition
of and argument for true worship:
Premise 1 wisdom and knowledge
come from God
Premise 2 from premise 1 it
follows that knowledge of God alone gives rise to and determines wisdom and
knowledge (because God is the source of wisdom and knowledge)
Premise 3 wisdom is at the
pinnacle of knowledge and involves true, adequate ideas
Premise 4 true worship should be
based on true, adequate ideas (that is gained either from philosophical
reasoning or core scriptural teachings or both)
Hence, conclusion 1: true worship
is achieved by applying God-given wisdom (and knowledge), including knowledge
of God and other true adequate ideas (gained from philosophy and or scripture)
to worship
Hence, conclusion 2: worshipping
truly is identical to worshipping wisely
Furthermore, as I mentioned
earlier, Spinoza quotes Solomon as believing that knowledge of God, “contains
and involves the true principles of ethics and politics”[xxvii].
For Spinoza, this supports his view that one learns the content of “true
virtue” and “ethics” from knowledge and understanding, as well as also forming
part of Spinoza’s notion of natural knowledge[xxviii].
In this book, for the sake of being concise, I shall assume that in Spinoza’s
works, generally speaking, core knowledge of God is gained from God, either
through philosophy and or scripture. So, I read Spinoza as arguing that, just
as true worship is derived from God-given wisdom and knowledge of God,
similarly, true principles of ethics and politics are also derived from wisdom
from God and knowledge of God[xxix].
Therefore, I suggest I could formulate a deductive argument structure for
Spinoza’s arguments that could run the same way as I attempted previously:
Premise 1 wisdom and knowledge
come from God
Premise 2 from premise 1 it
follows that knowledge of God alone gives rise to and determines wisdom and
knowledge (because God is the source of wisdom and knowledge)
Premise 3 wisdom is at the
pinnacle of knowledge and involves true, adequate ideas
Premise 4 true principles of
ethics and politics should be based on true, adequate ideas
Hence, conclusion 1: true
principles of politics and ethics, including true virtue, are achieved by
applying God-given wisdom (and knowledge), including knowledge of God
The above also ensures that
ethics and politics contain true, adequate ideas, because they were attained
through wisdom. This may tie in with worshipping wisely or in other words,
truly, since Spinoza associates worshipping wisely with having a merciful
character[xxx].
This may be because, as I have shown, both true worship and true principles of
ethics and politics are derived from the same foundational starting point, that
is, true, adequate ideas gained from wisdom and knowledge of God, which comes
from God. Similarly, Spinoza denounces that some people reject this
foundational starting point, that of using our understanding and reason in
favour of “sordid avarice and ambition” and reducing faith to “credulity and
prejudice”[xxxi].
Spinoza claims that if people were more focused on people’s “souls” then they
would behave with “compassion” towards their rivals rather than “fiercely
persecute” them[xxxii].
I take Spinoza as meaning by this that if people’s principles and behaviour are
ruled by negative emotions, such as greed and superstition, which I think
Spinoza considers a type of false worship, then they won’t grasp ethical and
political principles. To understand these principles, people need to be guided
by wisdom and knowledge of God. Consequently, if they are ruled by negative emotions which impair their grasp of ethical and political principles and so are not guided by wisdom and knowledge of God, their behaviour will be unethical
and socially uncooperative in a political society. For instance, they will tend
towards persecuting others and following their own desires and ambitions as
opposed to being guided by ethical principles that result in virtuous,
compassionate behaviour, as well as socially and politically cooperative
treatment of others[xxxiii]
[i] Spinoza, TTP Trans. Elwes, 67.
[ii] Spinoza, 67.
[iii] Spinoza, Opera: TTP, III:72.
[iv] Spinoza, III:72.
[v] Spinoza, III:72.
[vi] Spinoza, TTP Trans. Elwes.
[vii] Spinoza.
[viii]
Spinoza, Opera: TTP, III:72.
[ix] Spinoza, III:72. For pronunciation reasons, I think Spinoza’s
transliteration of the Hebrew word into jadah was probably designed for a Dutch
readership where the letter j is pronounced like the English y and would also
be useful for speakers of other languages who pronounce j as the English y. So
English readers would need to transliterate this word as yadah or yada.
[x] Spinoza, TTP Trans. Elwes, 67.
[xi] Spinoza, TTP Willis Trans 1862,
chap. IV.
[xii] Benedict de Spinoza, Treatise on
Theology and Politics, ed. Jonathan Bennett, pdf e-book
(http://www.earlymoderntexts.com, 2007), 42, http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/spinoza1669.pdf.
[xiii]
Spinoza, Opera: TTP, III:72.
[xiv] Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, “The Jewish
Covenant of Love,” News, HuffPost The Blog (blog), December 18, 2011,
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-bradley-shavit-artson/jewish-love-covenant_b_1130513.html.
[xv] Shavit Artson.
[xvi] Shavit Artson.
[xvii]
Shavit Artson.
[xviii]
Shavit Artson.
[xix] Rabbi N. Scherman and Rabbi M. Zlotowitz,
eds., Tanach (The Torah/Prophets/Writings, the Twenty-Four Books of the
Bible Newly Translated and Annotated), Stone edition, The Artscroll Series
(Mesorah Publications Ltd., 2008).
[xx] Spinoza, TTP Trans. Elwes;
Spinoza, Ethics (Transl. White, Stirling).
[xxi] Scherman and Zlotowitz, Tanach (The
Torah/Prophets/Writings, the Twenty-Four Books of the Bible Newly Translated
and Annotated).
[xxii]
Spinoza, Opera: TTP, III:72.
[xxiii]
Spinoza, Opera: TTP., especially p72
[xxiv]
Spinoza, TTP Trans. Elwes, 7.
[xxv] Spinoza, 67.
[xxvi]
Spinoza, 67.
[xxvii]
Spinoza, 67.
[xxviii]
Spinoza, 67.
[xxix]
Spinoza, Opera: TTP, vol. III,
chap. IV.
[xxx] Spinoza, TTP Trans. Elwes, 7.
[xxxi]
Spinoza, 7.
[xxxii]
Spinoza, 7.
[xxxiii]
Spinoza, 7.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.