Today is Spinoza's posthumous birthday (24th November) so I've been thinking about him and philosophy and here are my thoughts.
At the risk of repeating myself, I choose philosophers to research based on three things:
One, they are adamant that Philosophy is not Theology and the two must be kept distinctly separate. Examples of such philosophers are Shepherd and Spinoza. I totally agree with this, which is why I am not a theologian, and have no intention of ever becoming one. Moreover, I am not a philosopher of religion. If religion crops up somewhere I'll address it, but it's not something I seek out or am personally interested in, especially when doing philosophy.
Two, they are not religious eg JS Mill and Hume
Three, I can connect with them, I can empathize with them and I like them.
Last week I watched the London Spinoza Circle's workshop available to replay on YouTube since we are not meeting in person at the moment due to the pandemic. It got me thinking about the differences between a Spinoza researcher's personal take on religion and Spinoza himself and how it does or does not influence their interpretation of him.
Clare Carlisle, in her book, reads Spinoza through a Christian lens. She seems to repurpose Spinoza's philosophy for Christianity and devotion. To be honest, I'm struggling with how this works. 🤔I personally fail to see any Christianity in his philosophy. 🤷And I think it would be very difficult for him to want to incorporate it into his system of thought, given that his family had to flee Catholic (Christian) religious persecution and, in so doing, become refugees in a foreign country. Spinoza was also aware and worried 😟 that his Ethics may be banned by the Vatican before he died. And indeed Spinoza was banned by the Vatican shortly after his death when a so-called friend of his submitted a copy (of questionable accuracy and merit given that Spinoza had explicitly not permitted anyone to run around with that copy) of a work by, presumably Spinoza, to the Vatican Office. With friends like that, who needs enemies! So I would question the urgency of reading Spinoza through the lens of such Christian so-called friends around him. Besides, I'm not sure why the Vatican was interfering with and banning a work by a non-Christian. They should only be concerning themselves with fully fledged Roman Catholics who are in 'communion with the church' (which means those who have done all the required sacraments, are fully on board with Roman Catholic dogma, doctrine, mission, and leading an active Catholic life). I read that Catholics who are not fully in communion with the church cannot even function properly within it e.g. they do not have full status and are not granted certain things. So surely the Vatican should not be interfering with a Jew in Amsterdam. Even Darwin didn't manage to get into the Vatican's banned book list!
However, I was delighted that Susan James stated clearly that "in her own life" she "finds no personal use for the name of God". A rather obtuse way of saying she's not religious, which I've known all along and is part of what I've always enjoyed about her philosophy lectures, talks, papers and books but I'm pleased she's actually stating it and giving us that personal insight. It's about the freedom to be who you want to be. We shouldn't be in the same place as we were back in the 17th century when everyone had to be religious. It was a problem for Hobbes that he professed to be an atheist. Some people aren't religious. If they are not feeling it then they shouldn't feel pressure to be otherwise. Philosophy should not just feel like a branch of religion whereby religious people are dictating what you can write or say! At least with Susan James I never feel like I'm getting fed religion through the backdoor, unbeknownst to me. Which, to my mind, makes it more pure philosophy!
Philosophy is not attempting to take over theology/religion so theology shouldn't attempt to take over philosophy. They are two separate disciplines and never the two should meet. You can lead a perfectly good moral life just through being philosophical. You can use philosophy as a way of life, or you can use religion as a way of life, or a combination of both, but you should have a choice and whatever you choose should be respected.
As for me, I interpret Spinoza within the context of his Jewish identity because it is simply who he was so, of course, it comes through in his texts and is an internal feature of his philosophy. But I've never used Spinoza's philosophy as a way of leading a religious life myself.
Even though I have a Jewish interpretation of Spinoza, I don't project Judaism onto him. I'm not spreading my mind onto the world and his texts, as Hume would put it in his theory of Projectivism. I'm attempting to merely explain the properties I objectively notice in his writings and respect his Jewish heritage. I see his Dutch and Jewish identities as coexisting in him throughout his life. I don't have a religious agenda. I'm not peddling Judaism. I'm not saying 'Look at Spinoza! Isn't he amazing! Be Jewish!' Jews do not go around converting people to Judaism. If they do then they are strange. My Jewish interpretation purely comes from believing Spinoza when he says he's an Orthodox religious Jew and appreciating when he draws on Judaism in his works. I'm simply giving Spinoza his voice as a Jew in philosophy.
Although I lead a Jewish way of life myself, as far as it's possible, I'm not, however, strict about it because I wasn't brought up to be religious. Nevertheless, I do have some quirks due to my (Czech born) grandmother. She somehow instilled in me certain old-fashioned Jewish habits. For instance, how to wash my hands in a certain way, having a horror of finding and removing insects when preparing food 😱(even though I'm otherwise fascinated by insects and collect/study them), seeing blood spots in eggs (the egg had to be thrown away)😱 and separating meat and dairy and so on. I don't follow these Jewish habits in my daily life just as a way of being religiously observant. It's a part of me and is a way of keeping my granny's memory alive. I don't see it as illogical, because I think, as Spinoza also explains, there are some customs in Judaism that are not based on reason but exist so that the Jewish people stay bonded and survive so, in that way, they have a value in themselves.
I see myself as a Jewish feminist so the typical sexism issues in Judaism don't affect me as much because I draw on alternative, positive scriptural explanations given by feminist Torah scholars. I have been particularly inspired by certain Orthodox feminist Jewish Torah arguments I've read and the Orthodox Jewish women in the Original Women of the Wall, who tirelessly argue their cause, fight for their feminist religious rights and bravely attempt to pray at the Western Wall as Orthodox feminists. Sadly, they are currently only a group rather than an entire branch of Judaism with synagogues around the world so it's not easy to publicly wear what you want, pray and read Torah in a synagogue as they attempt to do at the Western Wall. If the Original Women of the Wall opened a feminist LGBT+ synagogue, I'd be first in line, wearing my kippah and tallit katan, clutching my tallit bag! 🙂 Jewish women are merely not obligated to wear certain garments e.g. a tallit and a tallit katan. They are not, however, banned from doing so yet you could be forgiven for thinking this is the case, even in progressive branches! Not being obligated doesn't mean women shouldn't do it! Basically, it all stems from the golden calf idolatry incident when men became bored and wandered off to worship Ba'al but none of the women did. Ever since then, men were not trusted to stay faithful to Judaism and, therefore, had obligations imposed on them to prevent future idolatry. I think women should be allowed the opportunity to show that they don't take it easy as soon as they are not obliged to do something and that they are prepared to do their mitzvahs alongside the men.
I lead a Jewish life in a non-binary way as a genderfluid woman. This means that I wish to lead a Jewish life without gendered restrictions on how I can pray, what I can do or wear. So I not only sometimes wear my own (men's/gender neutral) kippahs, tallit and tallit katan for feminist reasons, for me, it's also about expressing my genderfluid/genderflux gender identity. As with feminist Judaism, there are some great gender identity debates going on. However, it's not until quite recently that Jews, and some rabbis, are raising awareness of non-binary Jewish people and supporting how they wish to live their Jewish life differently. There is also the occasional lesbian rabbis!🙂🌈 But even progressive branches are still way behind on LGBT+ needs and inclusion.
In addition, it's not just cultural pressure but also institutional pressure to gender conform to some feminine ideal that isn't even in scripture! I've looked at and been involved in many different progressive congregations and all or almost all women do not wear any Jewish distinctive clothing e.g. Kippah or tallit. And if they do, it's usually only someone assisting or conducting the service and they wear a very different design of tallit made for women only. It's hugely noticeable by the tallit's thinness of material, colour, smallness and patterns. Yet even non-Jewish men are required to put on a Kippah and sometimes also expected to wear a tallit on attending a service at a synagogue. However, a great fuss leading to a meltdown happens if women do it! So, I can see how Spinoza could easily fall foul of a convention of a particular synagogue. He need not be at loggerheads with them. It happens even when you are perfectly nice and polite! So I definitely agree with Spinoza's criticisms of institutional religion and rabbis, some of whom are also too political! Spinoza was against rabbis being involved in politics and I think he was right. Hume also was against institutional religion. I'm very much on the same page mainly because I had already thought that before I studied philosophy.
I think Spinoza was right to not strain himself to get readmitted to his synagogue. Just by looking at Uriel Acosta's excommunication and how abusively this synagogue behaved towards him on his return, shows that Spinoza wasn't losing out on anything by not returning! Indeed, Spinoza protected his mental wellbeing and survived the experience. Whereas Acosta didn't. He was forced to lie down at the entrance of the synagogue and let everyone trample him on their way into the building. As a result of the synagogue's excessive bullying and cruelty, Acosta committed suicide in 1647, when Spinoza was 13 years old. Why would Spinoza want to risk being subjected to this kind of treatment himself? He was much better off writing philosophy and persevering in his being and mental wellbeing away from the toxic culture of that synagogue. Perhaps Acosta's tragic life informed Spinoza's views on suicide as being caused by external forces rather than an internal failure of the conatus. We cannot in all conscience victim blame Spinoza while knowing that the same synagogue was responsible for the suicide of another Sephardic Jewish man and an exciting intellectual.
Frankly, I don't care how potentially heretical someone might have been (not that Spinoza had been), or what they might have done or not done or paid. It's against Judaism to treat another sentient being in such a gross and inhumane way. There's no excuse for the synagogue to behave in this way. It was plain bullying and harassment in both Acosta and Spinoza's cases.
Sadly, 😥serious bullying and harassment can still exist in the occasional synagogue today, even to the extent that it has reached the British tabloids:
This is still an ongoing issue at this synagogue.
I think there should be an independent support group for victims and survivors who have suffered bullying, harassment and trauma at a synagogue of any denomination.
I've come across it myself (e.g. Anti-feminist, and anti-LGBT+ attitudes, and even Anti-Semitic comments) and I have known others who have spoken out about bullying and what happened to them and I fully support them as a fellow victim and am available to add my voice! Of course, this is by no means true of all synagogues neither is it only something that occurs in synagogues/Judaism. It is, I think, a feature of institutional power (secular or religious) as Foucault points out. It's, nevertheless, very sad because synagogues are beautiful and should be easily accessible places of worship open to all. The security surrounding synagogues is excessive and it's interesting that Muslims declined such security around mosques because they worried it would put people off from attending.
Such personal experiences of the dark side of synagogue life has greatly improved my understanding of and empathy with Spinoza and helped me understand his situation. So I wouldn't change my position on Spinoza's excommunication, and I would refuse to lay the blame with Spinoza. I've seen it for myself, four centuries later!
In an ideal world, all religions and non-believer groups would receive the same state funding and tax breaks as each other. They then can all thrive together on equal footing and eradicate bigotry and discrimination both under their own roof and out in the world.
I find rabbinic debates fascinating because they are rigorous, logical and full of interesting argumentation between a myriad of opposing stances. Do I believe everything? No! But you can find some unusual facts and arguments in rabbinic debates! Rabbis are not revered in Judaism, they are akin to teachers, not some intermediary between you and God as Christians see priests. Thus, it's easy for me to hold in tension a rational, academic stance with an embracing of the traditions, joy and prayers which are said or sung in Hebrew. (I only pray in Hebrew.) Speaking of Hebrew, Spinoza was writing a Hebrew grammar book at the end of his life, so once again, I feel that love of Hebrew that we both share. He had to write in Latin because it was the language of scholars. Indeed, it was not that long ago that Latin was required if you wanted to 'read' a subject at Oxford or Cambridge.
I also identify with Spinoza's style of scriptural analysis because it is very similar to how my mother chats about it: the texts are imperfect documents written down by humans; you can't take it literally; there are contradictions and errors in it; you need to apply geographical, historical and archaeological facts to the scripture, and so on. Imperfect though it is, I see my Torah and Hebrew scripture books as (albeit damaged and often mistranslated) copies of historical texts, not books containing a type of mythology. Nevertheless, I follow all the respectful customs surrounding Torahs and Hebrew Bibles. I hold in tension that it's sacred scripture, together with not believing it is a reliable source for the word of G-d.
Unlike Spinoza, I personally leave the exact existence of God an open question. Based on my experience, I feel that there could be a greater force of some sort in the universe. I think this is what people call God and for me is the God of the Hebrew Bible. However, I am not dogmatic about it. God may exist, or may exist differently from how we believe him/her/they to exist or, indeed, may not exist at all. If it turned out that this force isn't God, but rather some other phenomenon, I certainly wouldn't have some crisis of faith. I remember reading about a study years ago that argued that the brain is capable of producing experiences of the presence of God all by itself without any need for a God to cause it. This is a very interesting and plausible study. But since these questions are almost impossible to know with certainty, I keep an open mind and don't rule anything out.
Like Spinoza, I have never held Christian concepts of God, Jesus or faith. I know less about Christianity than even he did and I have never attended church. I could count on one hand the amount of times I've been inside a church during a service. I have, however, entered various churches here and abroad, including in the Czech Republic, simply to look at the architecture (and any artworks by famous painters displayed for free) or even to attend a free classical music concert. But I could never connect to Christianity or feel anything in a church.
Furthermore, I have never received any instruction in the Roman Catholic faith or any other Christian denomination. (It took me decades to remember that Joseph, father to Jesus, was not Joseph of the Hebrew Bible. 😂 I had, as a child, studied the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) with my mother so I was good at that.)
It was my choice not to have any religious Christian instruction and my mother was a firm believer that it's up to me to make up my mind when I became an adult as to whether I wanted to follow a religion, which one or none at all. My mother was (and is) very open-minded and liberal so I could choose to be a Christian if I wanted to. But by the age of 10, I made a conscious decision that I didn't want to be a Christian, then or ever. I crossed it off. I've never changed my mind! And I have no intention of ever doing so. I'm exercising my freedom to follow the religion I identify with without suffering discrimination or pressure to convert to Christianity. I'm not against Christianity per se, it's just not for me.
Here's a pause ☕🍪 for everyone to take a deep breath and look shocked and surprised!😮😯🤯
However, much as I have a rational, academic stance towards Judaism I do also have an emotional attachment to it. In my early twenties I went to Pilsen in the Czech Republic and to the Great Synagogue there. As soon as you enter, you just feel something really powerful. I connected with its atmosphere immediately. I found it so very moving. It's very difficult to put into words but I connected with that synagogue on so many different levels: emotionally; religiously (I could feel the Shechinah dwelling in the sanctuary) and I felt connected to the Jewish community of the past and present: culturally; politically; historically including through the tragic events of the Holocaust. Granny told me about her life during the Nazi era. Her emotions and experiences swam into my mind as I stood there looking around the empty sanctuary, tears streaming down my face. I'll never forget that moment. I think this emotional attachment is one that draws me to Spinoza and always will!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.