Spinoza and Other Philosophers

The entry on Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832) for the Cambridge Spinoza Lexicon, edited by Karolina Hübner and Justin Steinberg. This is the second (August 2022) draft; please do not quote, but comments are very welcome.

In his philosophical book called The Ethics, Spinoza has extensively discussed God. In his view, God is a unique substance with infinite attributes. He is self-subsistent and has no cause. He believes that because of His being infinite, there is nothing in the world in which there is no trace of God. Otherwise, His infinity would be challenged. There have been various judgments concerning this idea. After presenting a brief but clear explanation of Spinoza's idea and clarifying the existing views (...) concerning the oneness of being, the purpose of the present paper is to acquit him of the charge of believing in "pantheism" and "the oneness of existent" and attribute to him the belief in a kind of oneness of being which has not yet attained the necessary maturity. This feature is the result of the unidimentionality of Spinoza's rational approach. (shrink)

In this paper, I seek to examine Deleuze’s fascination with “spiritual automata” as a counterpoint to his more famous notion, the “body without organs”. I shall argue that both are grounded in a deep reflection, on Deleuze’s part, on the problems and issues generated by Spinoza’s notion of parallel attributes. Ultimately, I argue, the development of the two notions is motivated by identical metaphysical worries regarding the tenability of transformation, persistence, and affective interrelations between individuals. The answer, for both thinkers, (...) is the insertion of a “third” relational term, which virtually interfaces with each without violation of their parallel development. For Spinoza, such term is the absolutely infinite substance; for Deleuze, it is instead the notion of sense and the faculty of sense-making. (shrink)

The early modern period was the natural historical habitat of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, i.e., the demand that everything must have a cause, or reason. It is in this period that the principle was explicitly articulated and named, and throughout the period we find numerous formulations and variants of the PSR and its closely related ‘ex nihilo nihil fit’ principle, which the early moderns inherited from medieval philosophy. Contemporary discussions of these principles were not restricted to philosophy. “Nothing will (...) come of nothing; speak again” old King Lear tells his daughter Cordelia at the beginning of Shakespeare’s celebrated tragedy, and in early modern science, conservation principles were the order of the day. Within philosophy, Malebranche stipulates that there cannot be an effect without a cause, and Berkeley motivates his idealism by an appeal to ‘ex nihilo nihil fit.’ Were we to try to provide an exhaustive survey the various formulations of the PSR in this period – including the weaker ones – we would be writing an encyclopedia. In fact, one wonders whether any early modern thinker was willing to accept a wholesale rejection of the PSR, i.e., a view which states that no fact requires an explanation. Moreover, the view that many – perhaps most – facts require an explanation seems to be tacitly assumed even by us today, in both our theoretical and colloquial discourse. For these reasons, this chapter will focus on two early modern philosophers who advocated very strong (i.e., virtually exceptionless) versions of the PSR: Benedict de Spinoza and G.W. Leibniz. Following a brief overview of Descartes’s restricted endorsement of the PSR, I will turn to discuss the central features of the PSR in the writings of Spinoza (§2) and those of Leibniz (§3). In the cases of each of these philosophers, we will examine carefully: (i) their main statements of the PSR, (ii) the scope they assign to the principle (i.e., what requires an explanation and what counts as an explanation), (iii) the modal strength they assign to the principle, (iv) the main implications they draw from the principle, (v) exceptions to the principle, and, finally, (vi) the justification of the principle. In §4, we will study a principle, complementing the PSR, namely, the assertion that everything and every fact must have an effect (or as Leibniz would put it: “nothing is sterile”). (shrink)

Amir investigates Santayana’s statements about Spinoza in Scepticism and Animal Faith. She answers the question of how Santayana can acknowledge Spinoza as “his master” and “hero” while systematically rejecting Spinoza’s philosophy.

The first section of the chapter will address the philosophy of modality among Spinoza’s medieval Jewish predecessors, and, primarily, in Hasdai Crescas (1340-1410/11), a bold and original, anti-Aristotelian philosopher. This section should both complement the discussion of modality in medieval Christian and Islamic philosophy in the previous chapters of this volume and provide some lesser-known historical background to Spinoza’s own engagement with modal philosophy. Following a section on Spinoza’s definitions of his main modal concepts and his understanding of contingency, I (...) will turn, in the third section, to discuss the extent of Spinoza’s commitment to necessitarianism. The recent debate about whether Spinoza was a strict necessitarian has resulted in quite a few insights about Spinoza’s modal philosophy, but it has also detracted attention from some basic questions about Spinoza’s modal philosophy, and in the fourth and last section of the chapter, I will attempt to chart the foundational questions that still have been barely explored. The primary aim of this chapter it to provide a survey and outline of the chief elements of Spinoza’s modal philosophy. Still, beyond the mere overview of Spinoza’s arguments (and some major scholarly debates), I will also advance two original theses. First, I will show that Spinoza makes a distinction between two notions of contingency, and that once this important distinction is observed, Spinoza’s various assertions about contingency turn out to be consistent. Secondly, I will discuss the text (E2a1) which is commonly taken to be the strongest and most stubborn proof against the reading of Spinoza as strict necessitarianism; I will show that the basic meaning of this text has been widely misunderstood, and that E2a1 is perfectly compatible with strict necessitarianism. (shrink)

Nesta resenha são apresentados alguns pontos fundamentais do livro de Tracie Matysik When Spinoza Met Marx: Experiments in Nonhumanist Activity. Na obra, a autora analisa detidamente alguns pensadores ligados à tradição alemã pós-Hegel: Heinrich Heine, Berthlod Auerbach, Moses Hess, Karl Marx, Johann Jacoby, Jakob Stern e Gueorgui Plekhanov. Seu foco é o modo como todos esses utilizaram o pensamento de Espinosa para compreender a noção de atividade e a possibilidade de transformação social. Espinosa era fundamental para o tema, pois seu (...) pensamento permitiria unir a ação humana à sua completa determinação frente à necessidade presente na natureza, duas ideias indispensáveis para um século no qual a ciência se desenvolvia rapidamente e para um país que acabara de presenciar as revoluções nas terras vizinhas. Matysik, então, nos oferece a oportunidade de entender a riqueza do espinosismo, dadas as inúmeras possibilidades de interpretação das obras do filósofo neerlandês, utilizadas tanto para fins revolucionários quanto reformistas. Além disso, a partir da segunda metade do livro, a autora nos convoca para discutir as relações entre a filosofia da completa determinação e os movimentos com raízes no socialismo marxista, apresentando os principais problemas que surgiam - e ainda surgem - para os autores que buscavam traçar tal conexão. (shrink)

El presente trabajo se propone examinar la objeción de Leibniz a E1p2 y E1p5 y responder a ella. La objeción es conocida: es falso, según Leibniz, que dos substancias de atributos diversos no tengan nada en común (i. e., E1p2) y, por consiguiente, que en la naturaleza no puedan darse dos o más substancias de mismo atributo (i. e., E1p5). Defiendo que E1p2 y, por tanto, E1p5 resisten a la objeción de Leibniz. Para ello, abordo, primero, el sentido y la (...) función de E1p2 a fin de determinar dos posibles contextos en que la demostración es válida: el contexto delimitado por la doctrina cartesiana del atributo principal y el contexto escolástico de la doctrina lógica de la diversidad esencial. Segundo, examino la objeción de Leibniz, con lo que determino de manera más precisa el marco epistémico tanto de E1p2d como de la objeción de Leibniz. Tercero, propongo un análisis crítico de la objeción de Leibniz a fin de mostrar que, si bien esta objeción tiene cierta apariencia de validez, si consideramos únicamente lo enunciado por Spinoza en las definiciones y axiomas anteriores a E1p2, esta entraña una contradicción. Por último, indico el punto de mayor dificultad en la demostración de E1p2 para proponer una pequeña rectificación a fin de volverla inmune a la objeción de Leibniz. (shrink)

There is no evidence that Spinoza knew anything about Buddhism, but his philosophy bears certain similarities with Buddhist philosophy, or at least as shall be argued later. This paper compares and contrasts Spinoza’s thoughts on death and immortality with Buddhist philosophy. According to Spinoza, the death of a human being is a process whereby the body, as a mode of Substance, is modified according to natural law. However, Spinoza’s view on the mind or the soul is interesting. In Book V (...) of the Ethics, he says, “The human mind cannot be absolutely destroyed with the body, but something of it remains which is eternal” (VP23). This proposition has generated a considerable number of commentaries. This paper notes some similarities and differences between Spinoza’s thoughts and the corresponding view in Buddhist philosophy. Spinoza’s idea bears an interesting similarity with Buddhist philosophy. The mind that survives, both in Spinoza and in Buddhist philosophy, is not personal but is mind in general, in the same way as bodies are essentially extension in general. (shrink)

Different Beasts: Humans and Animals in Spinoza and the Zhuangzi studies conceptions of human and animal identity as articulated in the ancient Chinese text known as the Zhuangzi and in the works of the seventeenth-century European philosopher Benedict de Spinoza. By examining how, in these very different philosophies, notions of humanness and animality intersect with ideas about human unity and solidarity, social order, and categories of social difference (such as gender, descent, and ability), Different Beasts opens new paths for understanding (...) Spinoza and the Zhuangzi while also developing methodological insights into the practice of cross-cultural comparative philosophy. (shrink)

This article explores the concept of substance, attributes, and modes in Spinoza's "Ethics" by examining them through the perspectives of ancient Greek and medieval philosophers, as well as Descartes' views on substance and extension, along with their notions of God and His attributes. Wolfson's interpretation of Spinoza based on these perspectives serves as the basis for this investigation. The primary objective of this article is to critically evaluate Wolfson's interpretation of the concepts of substance, attribute, and mode as proposed by (...) Spinoza, with a focus on their philosophical implications and coherence within Spinoza's overall framework. Spinoza's predecessors, Aristotle and Descartes, believed in the multiplicity of substances. In contrast, for Spinoza, there is only one substance—a self-sufficient being that exists independently and does not rely on others for its existence. One considers a similarity between modes in Spinoza's philosophy and accidents in Aristotle's system: It is impossible to imagine modes and accidents without substance. Despite this similarity, in the Aristotelian system, accidents characterise the substance, but in Spinoza's philosophy, the substance precedes modes; in fact, modes result necessarily from the substance. Spinoza then claims that the substance has infinite attributes, but the human mind only knows two attributes—Thought and Extension. According to him, the substance is identical to its attributes. So, the substance as thinking thinks about itself, i.e., the body. For Spinoza, individual things and Ideas are finite modes of the attributes of body and mind that follow necessarily from the substance. (shrink)

Ziel dieser Untersuchung ist es zu zeigen, wie Platons Verständnis von Lust und Unlust in seinem Dialog Philebus mit Spinozas Theorie der Affekte zusammenhängt. Beide Denker verstehen den Affekt der Lust in Relation zu Werturteilen und dem Charakter einer Person. Ich behaupte, dass Platon und Spinoza gleichermaßen feststellen, dass die Wahl des Individuums für lustvolle Objekte von der Definition und Bestimmung des Guten und des Ideals des Individuums selbst abhängt, und somit auch von der Ursache der Lust. Beide Philosophen stimmen (...) darin überein, dass sich das Vergnügen eines vernünftigen Menschen von dem eines unvernünftigen unterscheidet, da auch ihr Urteil über Gut und Böse jeweils unterschiedlich ist. Ich schließe, dass Platons und Spinozas Bild eines vernünftigen Menschen im Zusammenhang mit den Affekten der Lust und des Unlustempfindens übereinstimmt, weil es hierbei um ein ganzheitliches Bild vom Menschen geht, der Affekte nur entsprechend seiner Natur oder seines Wesens erlebt. (shrink)

The question of Spinozist determinism and necessitarianism have been extensively studied by commentators, while the relationship between the notions of divine will and free will still requires elaborate studies. Our article seeks to contribute to such research, by clarifying the analyses of these questions by authors that Spinoza has confronted: Maimonides, as well as other Jewish philosophers, and Leibniz who criticized Spinozist determinism. We will study the consequences of these analyses on two examples that Spinoza gave to refute free will, (...) namely the dream and the situation of Buridan's ass. -/- Résumé: La question du déterminisme spinoziste et du nécessitarisme a été largement étu-diée par les commentateurs, tandis que la relation entre les notions de volonté divine et de libre arbitre nécessite encore des études plus élaborées. Notre article cherche à contribuer à ces recherches, en clarifiant les analyses de ces questions par des auteurs auxquels Spinoza s’est confronté : Maïmonide, ainsi que d’autres philosophes juifs, et Leibniz qui a lui-même critiqué le déterminisme spinoziste. Nous étudierons les conséquences de ces analyses sur deux exemples que Spinoza a donnés pour réfuter le libre arbitre, à savoir le rêve et la situa-tion de l’âne de Buridan. (shrink)

It is obvious that both Spinoza and Leibniz attach importance to the notion of expression in their philosophical writings and that both do so in a similar fashion: They agree, for example, that the mind expresses the body (although this claim has rather different meanings for each of them). Another – albeit related – use of ‘expression’ that appears in both thinkers provides a deeper insight into some metaphysical similarity as well as difference: The idea that expression is closely connected (...) with the perfection and action of individual things. While this relation is explicit in Leibniz, I will show that it is also in a less straightforward way found in Spinoza and, furthermore, that the relation of expression in regards to perfection is similar in Spinoza and Leibniz as both of them regard individuals as perfect insofar as they express the world and God. But one crucial difference in their accounts lies in the claim that, for Spinoza, what is being expressed and gives rise to perfection can be privative in nature, while such a thing cannot be the object of an expression for Leibniz. As I will argue, this not based merely on their different metaphysical views, but also on a difference in what can serve as content of an expression. (shrink)

In this article I start with Marx's transcriptions of Spinoza, and the deep significance of what he transcribed, from the Theologico-Political Treatise and the Correspondence, and in what order. I contend that this demonstrates what was of particular interest and importance to him at that time. Second, I examine the presence, even if not explicit, of Spinoza in Marx's works, and turn to the question whether Marx was a Spinozist. I think he was. Third, I turn to Ilyenkov and his (...) engagement with Spinoza, and fourth, to Ilyenkov's place in the Marxist tradition of Spinozism. Fifth and sixth, I present an analysis of Ilyenkov's instrumental deployment of Spinoza first in his Dialectical Logic and then in his The Dialectic of the Abstract and the Concrete in Marx's Capital. (shrink)

Recently the literature dedicated to the Kantian reception of Spinoza has experienced a significant increase. There are several studies dedicated to mapping the presence of the latter in both pre-critical and critical writings of the former, and different are the results achieved by each. Yet, with the exception of a few references to the section in which Spinozism is presented as the only alternative to transcendental idealism, the Critique of Practical Reason is almost never mentioned nor, even less, is it (...) customary to look at it in an attempt to find something that attenuates the contrast between the two philosophies. The aim of this essay is to show how it is precisely in the second Critic, and in particular by introducing the Fact of Reason, that Kant thinks, so to speak, together with Spinoza. Indeed, in 1788 the moral law works as an adequate idea that makes us active causes, and the experience of the freedom procured by the conscience that we have of it is, therefore, very similar to the experience of eternity illustrated by the fifth book of the Ethics. (shrink)

El presente trabajo busca rastrear la figura de Baruch Spinoza en el pensamiento de Judith Butler. Por ello, se analizará, en un primer momento, la tan afamada oposición entre Spinoza y Hegel para, en una segunda instancia, reparar cómo Butler entiende la propia filosofía de Spinoza y, finalmente, ver de qué manera la filósofa logra hermanarla a la de Hegel. A través de estos tres momentos podemos ver cómo es posible pensar, en el decir de Butler, una continuidad complementaria entre (...) Spinoza y Hegel. (shrink)

The work will be structured in three sections. The first of them analyzes how the different specialists in Spinozian work have studied the Dutch corpus in a dialectical way. This type of interpretation will be emphasized here not only in regard to Spinoza's own ontology, but also to his political philosophy. Secondly, this article investigates the way in which Spinozian ontology can be studied, proposing that, rather than making use of a dialectical method of Hegelian roots, it is rather possible (...) to undertake the study of Spinoza's main philosophical concepts. that are linked to the essence from the notion of sublimation, a notion that, as we will see, is closely related to the monism of Spinoza's philosophy. Finally, the way in which this sublimation procedure can also be applied to the concepts of the Dutchman that specifically refer to the political aspect of his thought is analyzed. (shrink)

In the lecture of December 16, 1980, Deleuze proposes a cross-reading of Spinoza and Rousseau. First, Deleuze reinterprets Rousseau’s morality in the light of Spinoza’s critique of ‘morality’ based on the opposition of good and evil; second, and reciprocally, he rereads Spinoza’s practical and ethical philosophy from a concept extracted from Rousseau’s work: that of the ‘materialism of the wise’. According to Deleuze, this ‘practical materialism’ evoked by Rousseau, consisting of both ‘determinism’ and ‘sensualism’, has a Spinozist inspiration, insofar as (...) it has an amoralist dimension, close to the critique of morality developed in the Ethics. But on the other hand, Rousseau’s ‘materialism of the wise’ allows us, conversely, to reread the Spinozist explanation of the conquest of freedom, by revealing the presence of practical principles very close to those of Rousseau’s ethical materialism. The cross-reading of Spinoza and Rousseau thus presents a double aim: on the one hand, to identify the presence of amoralist themes and issues in Rousseau’s work; on the other, to reveal the existence of materialist principles in the Spinozist ethical itinerary. (shrink)

En este artículo propongo una lectura de los primeros capítulos de Montesquieu. La politique et l’histoire de Louis Althusser con el fin de señalar el modo en el que las primeras menciones a Spinoza en la obra de Althusser se producen junto a Montesquieu y reflexionar sobre el sentido crítico de esas menciones. Con un estudio como este quisiera, primero y en general, señalar la importancia no siempre del todo reconocida que tuvo Montesquieu en el desarrollo teórico de Althusser. Segundo, (...) analizar el significado de las alusiones críticas a Spinoza presente en este escrito. Y, tercero, indicar los trazos que configurarían las condiciones de posibilidad de la integración del spinozismo al pensamiento de Althusser. (shrink)

A partir do estudo dos Princípios de Filosofia Cartesiana e da Ética de Spinoza, buscaremos explicitar o problema do anticartesianismo em três movimentos críticos específicos de natureza metódica, metafísica e ética: primeiro, a conversão do método empregado nos Princípios de Descartes; segundo, a crítica ao “dualismo substancial”; e, por fim, a crítica à teoria cartesiana do livre-arbítrio.

This paper deals with the unexpected and singular presence of Baruj Spinoza in the recent History of Philosophy published by Jürgen Habermas. On the matter, from current perspective, spinozist ethics of immanence is considered allows to overcome deontological limits that even today condition the ethics of discourse.

Most comparisons of Thomas Hobbes and Baruch Spinoza focus on the difference in understanding of natural right. We argue that Hobbes also places more weight on a rudimentary and exclusive education of the public by the state. We show that the difference is related to deeper disagreements over the prospect of Enlightenment. Hobbes is more sanguine than Spinoza about using the state to make people rational. Spinoza considers misguided an overemphasis on publicly educating everyone out of superstition—public education is important, (...) but modes of superstition may remain and must be offset by institutions and a civil religion. The differences are confirmed by Spinoza’s interest in the philosopher who stands apart and whose flourishing may be protected, but not simply brought about, by rudimentary public education. Spinoza’s openness to a wisdom-loving elite in a democracy also sets up an interesting parallel with Thomas Jefferson’s own commitment to the natural aristocracy needed to sustain republicanism. In demonstrating the 17th century philosopher’s skepticism toward using the state exclusively to promote rationality, even as he recognizes the importance of a sovereign pedagogical role and the protection of philosophy, we move to suggest that Spinoza is relevant to contemporary debates about public education and may reinvigorate moral and political discourse in a liberal democracy. (shrink)

My general objective in this paper is to provide the outlines of the reception of Baruch Spinoza and Moses Mendelssohn in the Russian Enlightenment of the late 18th century as well as in the Russian-Jewish Haskalah. In part of the paper I consider Gavrila Derzhavin’s mention of Mendelssohn in his “Opinion,” the translation of Mendelssohn’s Phaedon in Nikolay Novikov’s Masonic-inspired journal Utrennyi Svet, and the readings of Spinoza’s view on God and then-shared interpretation of his views as an “atheism” in (...) Feofan Propovich, Vasily Trediakovskiy, and Alexander Sumarokov. In the part on the late Russian-Jewish Haskalah of 1860s I examine two intellectual biographies appeared in the period—Saveliy Kovner on Spinoza and Yakov Gurliand on Mendelssohn, which aim to interpret positions of Spinoza and Mendelssohn as exemplary strategies of the Jewish emancipation within the framework of claims and prospects of the modern European culture. I also rediscover and reinterpret Spinoza’s approach to religion as the late Russian Haskalah’s authors strongly object to label Spinoza’s philosophy of religion as “atheistic” and consider it as close to the “pure, or true Judaism.”. (shrink)

Spinoza and Kant are considered to be polar opposites with respect to ethics. The radical difference between them is supposed to consist in Spinoza’s ethical egoism, or interest-based Strebensethik, and Kant’s duty-cantered, deontological Sollensethik. I challenge this opposition and argue that both in Kant and Spinoza we deal with a notion of the self’s realization that is “interest”-based and therefore does not involve self-sacrifice. I show, on the one hand, that the streben in Spinoza’s Strebensethik consists in realising one’s essentially (...) human interest, which resides in ethical-rational action, and, on the other hand, that sollen in Kant’s Sollensethik is in fact a streben of the Kantian “proper self” (eigentliches Selbst) after the realization of its ethical-rational interest. (shrink)

The article concerns the main lines of reception of the philosophical ideas of B. Spinoza. Estimates of the work of this thinker, his role and importance have undergone significant changes in the course of the development of Western European and Russian philosophical thought. It focuses on the study of the transformations occurred in the approach and nature of evaluations of the main philosophical ideas of Spinoza in the Western European philosophical space, primarily in Germany and France. At the same time, (...) we can state that the peak of interest in the philosophy of Spinoza in these national traditions seriously diverges in time. Initially, we can talk about the predominance of interest in Spinoza’s philosophy on the part of German-speaking thinkers. For a long time, Spinoza’s philosophy was characterized as atheistic and, in connection with this, was subjected to fierce criticism. It is the German enlighteners who are credited with reviving interest in Spinoza’s philosophy at a new level. At the same time, the philosophical views of this thinker not only cease to be assessed as atheistic, but are sometimes perceived in the exact opposite way - as imbued with genuine religious faith. F. Schleiermacher can be considered here as a striking example of such an approach to Spinoza’s philosophy. In the future, interest in Spinoza’s philosophy was maintained in the German-speaking philosophical space due to the reception of his ideas by Hegel, Feuerbach, and Neo-Kantians. In French-language philosophy, interest in Spinoza wakes up much later - in the middle-second half of the 20th century, which is associated primarily with such name as Deleuze. However, this “French Renaissance” of Spinoza’s philosophy can be considered as no less significant than the Renaissance of the age of German Enlightenment. It was “French Spinozism” that brought the study of Spinoza’s philosophy to the international level, significantly expanding their conceptual framework. (shrink)

This article considers the history of Soviet Spinoza studies after World War II. V.V. Sokolov, editor of the last Soviet publication of Spinoza’s works, regards him as a metaphysician, at times rising to dialectics, and a pantheist rising to materialism. E.V. Ilyenkov, Ya. A. Milner and B.G. Kuznetsov offer a radically different interpretation of Spinoza, as our advanced contemporary. The article provides a critical analysis of the concept of man as a “thinking body,” which Ilyenkov mistakenly ascribes to Spinoza and (...) then corrects on behalf of Marx. Kuznetsov, in his own words, performs a “neo-Spinozist analysis of science.” He is looking for equivalents of Spinoza’s concepts in modern physics, starting with the “physically meaningful” concept of being. Milner wrote a new Ethics, based on the concept of “free necessity” as a social duty consciously performed by the individual. (shrink)

How did Baruch Spinoza, the seventeenth-century Dutch-Jewish philosopher, become a nineteenth-century German Marxist? It is on its face an unlikely development. Karl Marx was a fiery revolutionary theorist who heralded the imminent demise of capitalism, while Spinoza was a contemplative philosopher who preached rational understanding and voiced skepticism about open rebellion. Further, Spinoza criticized all teleological ideas as anthropomorphic fantasies, while Marxism came to be associated expressly with teleological historical development. Yet socialists of the German nineteenth century were consistently drawn (...) to Spinoza as their philosophical guide. Tracie Matysik shows how the metaphorical meeting of Spinoza and Marx arose out of an intellectual conundrum about the meaning of activity. How is it, exactly, that humans can be fully determined creatures - creatures in nature and governed by causal laws of nature - and also able to change their world? To address this seeming paradox, many revolutionary theorists scrapped the idea of activity as something autonomous humans do when they assert themselves against nature and its causal laws. Thinking with Spinoza, they came to think of activity instead as relating - as the state of relations between humans and between humans and the non-human world. Matysik follows these Spinozist-socialist intellectual experiments in the meaning of activity that unfolded across the nineteenth century, drawing lessons from them that may be meaningful for the environmental-justice issues confronting the contemporary world. (shrink)

Introduction : Involuntarism and philosophy -- The obscure dust of the world : the unconscious of perception in Leibniz -- Inevitable and persistent inadequacies : the unconscious of ideas in Spinoza -- Deteriora Sequer : the unconscious of desire in Spinoza -- The gravity of ideas : the unconscious of habit in Hume -- Conclusion : obscurity and involvement.

Presents a novel interpretation of Schelling's philosophy by way of his reading and critique of Spinoza.

El presente trabajo se propone abordar la recepción de la filosofía moderna europea que se desplegó en el siglo XVIII en dos instituciones fundamentales del territorio del Río de la Plata: la Universidad de Córdoba y el Colegio de San Carlos de Buenos Aires. Nuestro objetivo es analizar dicha recepción a pensando su vínculo con una manera específica de practicar la enseñanza de la filosofía en estas instituciones, entendiéndola como parte esencial del quehacer filosófico, como una búsqueda genuina de conocimiento. (...) Nos concentraremos en el caso de Baruch Spinoza —pensador perseguido y condenado a la censura— para ilustrar las diversas formas en las que nuevos autores modernos eran incorporados paulatinamente a la enseñanza de la filosofía en las aulas rioplatenses. (shrink)

I argue that, against what is commonly believed, Spinoza’s use of the relation of constitution to characterize the relation between attributes and the essence of a substance does not indicate that, for him, there must be a numerical identity between each attribute and the essence constituted by that attribute. To do this, I follow a twofold strategy. First, I contend that the claim that because in Spinoza’s time constitution was understood as a one- to-one relation is mistaken: the main logicians (...) of Spinoza’s time, all Cartesian philosophers, believe that the constitution of an essence can be a many-to-one relation. I show that Spinoza can both accept that constitution is a many-one relation and share Descartes’ understanding of this relation. Second, I defend the claim that Spinoza’s use of constitution in the Ethics is consistent with these logicians’ account of constitution. In particular, I focus on Spinoza’s inclusion of the intellect in the definition of attribute and his definition of God. (shrink)