Resumen: Este escrito aborda la interpretación deleuziana de la sustancia spinozista. Su objetivo es mostrar que el núcleo fundamental de dicha interpretación reside en el señalamiento del carácter único y a la vez múltiple de la sustancia, carácter que Deleuze conceptualiza a través de la categoría de distinción formal, tomada de Duns Scoto. Con este propósito, se caracterizan las nociones de univocidad y de expresión, que nos conducen a plantear que la sustancia, por ser a la vez única y múltiple, (...) consiste en el desarrollo de una contradicción. Esta condición nos permite concluir que la interpretación deleuziana, más allá de su propósito manifiesto, enfatiza una arista del trabajo de Spinoza que lo acerca a la filosofía de Hegel. Lo cual implica que la propia producción de Deleuze ofrece, también, aspectos que la aproximan a la del filósofo alemán.: This paper addresses the Deleuzian interpretation of the Spinozist substance. It aims at showing that the fundamental nucleus of this interpretation lies in pointing out the unique and simultaneously multiple character of the substance, which Deleuze conceptualizes through the category of formal distinction, taken from Duns Scoto. To reach this goal, the notions of univocity and expression are characterized. This leads us to affirm that substance, being both unique and multiple, consists of the development of a contradiction. This character allows us to conclude that the Deleuzian interpretation, beyond its manifest purpose, emphasizes a dimension of Spinoza’s work that brings it closer to Hegel’s philosophy. This implies that Deleuze’s own production also offers aspects that approach it to the German philosopher’s work. (shrink)

The relation between structure and conjuncture has been one of the biggest challenges facing social theory and Louis Althusser’s writings provide some of the most important interventions on this subject. Contrary to an image of Althusser first embracing and then abandoning structuralism, Althusser tried from the beginning to articulate the theory of structural causality with an insistence on the singularity of historical conjunctures. Althusser’s theoretical trajectory, despite his shortcomings, still offers a necessary starting point for a materialist conception of the (...) relation between structural and conjunctural determinations that stresses the complex, uneven and overdetermined character of social reality without resorting either to a ‘surface phenomena/deep structures’ dualism or to the empiricism of simply registering singular practices. (shrink)

The following paper addresses the problem of dualism in Spinoza’sontology. It aims to briefly reconstruct the story of the discussion around this problem in orderto analyze howthe philosophical traditionhas interpreted the dualities of essence-existence, eternity-duration,infinite-finite, substance-modes. The goal is to shed light on the inaccuraciesthat arise from understanding these as ontological distinctionsas well as from ignoring them entirely. Our proposal is to expose aninterpretation that allows us to claim Spinoza’s duality, in a way thatpresents it as a gnoseological duality instead (...) of an ontological one, thatis, to show how the duplicity refers to perspectives or ways in whichhumans conceive reality. We believe that, in this way, duality does notonly become compatible with the univocity of being but also provides adeeper comprehension of the authentic Spinozistic spirit. (shrink)

Review of the critical, interdisciplinary anthology Spinoza Now edited by Dimitris Vardoulakis with contributions by Alain Badiou, Christopher Norris, Simon Duffy, Justin Clemens, Mieke Bal, Antonio Negri and more.

Based on proposition 28 of Part I of Spinoza's Ethics, I argue that the idea of interdetermination set out there is formed by excluding indetermination and finalism. Spinoza conceives reality as an infinite network of singular interdeterminations without hierarchies or outside. From interdetermination itself the problem arises of what it means to be a finite mode of God. This problem, however, is more fully resolved through the notion of 'absolute necessity of relation'. Once we have these conceptual tools, we can (...) understand the way in which finitude and absoluteness merge in singular things, making them cognizable with objectivity. But just because all things are knowable, it does not mean that we can know them all. For the power of our understanding is also limited. Affirming the knowability of all things and the limitation of our capacity to know, Spinoza challenged both irrationalistic scepticism and the mistake of human thought for the infinite understanding of God. (shrink)

The present work aims to study the knot formed between ontology, normativity and subjetivation in order to tackle the problem of materiality of domination relations. Along these lines, a materialist aproach will explore the movements, relationships and multiple implications among these dimensions. This method seeks to dismantle the tendency of philosophical idealism that appeals to the suture, blocking and closure of the plurality of events through some normative principle of a, let´s say, a priori trascendental or empirical character. As a (...) counterpart, it seeks to show the constitutive paradox of the subjectivation process and, at the same time, its possibilities of singular, autonomous and immanent constitution. (shrink)

Pierre Macherey’sHegel or Spinoza?suggests that Hegel was driven to his now legendary misinterpretations of Spinoza because he could not accept Spinozism without compromising his own philosophy. Macherey shows us a Spinoza that pre-emptively resists and challenges Hegel’s understanding of Spirit as Subject realising itself through self-negation and contradiction. This review draws out the central arguments in the book, and those arguments most salient for contemporary theories of capitalism and revolution, and points towards possible implications for Marxist theory.

Resumo: Em nosso artigo, compararemos, a partir do problema do ceticismo, as diferentes compreensões que Hegel tem, em sua juventude e em sua maturidade, do que seja determinação e de como sua concepção de determinação se afastaria ou não da concepção de Espinosa. De fato, como pretendemos mostrar, uma dimensão pouco explorada e, contudo, fundamental para compreender como o Hegel de maturidade pretende distinguir a sua concepção de determinação daquela de Espinosa, é o esforço hegeliano de oferecer uma resposta satisfatória (...) ao ceticismo, por meio da qual a filosofia possa adquirir o estatuto de um conhecimento verdadeiramente seguro e bem fundamentado. Nesse sentido, será fundamental mostrar como a própria concepção hegeliana de determinação passou por mudanças significativas desde seu período de juventude até a sua maturidade, e como isso foi central para a reavaliação que o Hegel de maturidade faz da filosofia de Espinosa e da compreensão que este teria determinação. (shrink)

Předkládaná stať aplikuje Hegelovo „vyvrácení“ spinozismu na Marxe. Nejprve osvětluje povahu Hegelova pojetí filosofické kritiky, kterou Hegel staví do kontrastu s pouhou polemikou – střetem jedné geniální mysli s druhou. Na tomto pozadí lépe vyniká Hegelovo „vyvrácení“ spinozismu jako ukázky filosofické kritiky, a nikoli pouhé polemiky. Filosofická kritika si nárokuje být imanentní. Kritizovanou filosofii ničím zvnějšku neobohacuje, ale přihlíží, jak ona sama sebe překonává. Příkladem takového sebepřekonání je pochopení substance zároveň jako subjektu, či jako ducha. Toto pochopení vlastně dělá to, (...) že dává ontologický význam tomu, čemu Hegel říká „vnější myšlení“ a co na první pohled žádný ontologický význam nemá, co se zdá být pouhou ideologií, afekcí či více či méně adekvátní ideou. V této „ontologizaci myšlení“ Hegel vidí to jediné skutečné vyvrácení spinozismu. Mým návrhem je přihlížet téže „ontologizaci“ – řekněme „ontologizaci ideologie“ u Marxe. Toto sebepřekonání Marxovy filosofie spatřuji v Hegelově vyvození pojmu státu z pojmu občanské společnosti. Hegelem vypracovaný logický či pojmový přechod od občanské společnosti ke státu odpovídá re-konceptualizaci substance v ducha. Tato re-konceptualizace vyvrací nejen spinozismus, ale i marxismus. (shrink)

Este estudo tem como principal objetivo uma análise do conceito de determinação em Espinosa. Historicamente, o pensamento de Espinosa foi assimilado a uma filosofia acosmista, isto é, uma filosofia que nega a realidade das coisas finitas em um mundo onde apenas Deus ou a substância seria real. Tal interpretação se consolida a partir das considerações hegelianas em suas Lições sobre a História da Filosofia e na Ciência da Lógica, em que Hegel lê todo o sistema de Espinosa a partir do (...) princípio "omnis determinatio est negatio". Nosso estudo se desenvolve então, primeiramente, apresentando as consequências contemporâneas desta leitura hegeliana; em seguida analisamos a interpretação hegeliana e algumas contribuições de Deleuze a respeito do conceito de determinação em Espinosa; e, por fim, analisamos no texto espinosano a função que o conceito de determinação desempenha e como ela se distancia do consagrado marco de leitura hegeliano de que “omnis determinatio est negatio”. (shrink)

Deleuze has suggested that Spinoza and Foucault share common concerns, particularly the notion of immanence and their mutual hostility to theories of subjective intentionality and contract-based theories of state power. This article explores these shared concerns. On the one hand Foucault's view of governmentality and its re-theorization of power, sovereignty and resistance provide insights into how humans are constituted as individualized subjects and how populations are formed as subject to specific regimes or mentalities of government. On the other, Spinoza was (...) concerned with how humans organized themselves into communities capable of self-government. In particular, his idea of immanent causality was crucial because central to his ideas of freedom and power. We argue that Spinoza's approach to power and causality prefigures ideas developed by Foucault in his theory of governmentality, especially with respect to his biopolitical rethinking of power and resistance. (shrink)

The paper offers a new account of Spinoza's conception of “substance”, the fundamental building block of reality. It shows that it can be demonstrated apriori within Spinoza's metaphysical framework that (i) contrary to Idealist readings, for Spinoza there can be no substance that is not determined or modified by some other entity produced by substance; and that (ii) there can be no substance (and hence no being) that is not a thinking substance.

This paper argues that the images evoked in the literature of the Spanish indignados, and other contemporary global justice movements, specifically those of disciplinary and social decadence, a space–time beyond the limits of the possible, obligations across generations, and, ultimately, of universal history as horizon and anticipation, reactivate the legal critique of absolute property that featured so prominently in nineteenth-century accounts of law, civil society, and revolutionary right, and then again in the context of twentieth-century decolonization and revolutionary movements. Insofar (...) as such images can be distinguished from concepts, following a certain reading of the critical tradition against the grain, they pave the way towards the formulation of a systemic critique or a ‘jurisprudence of indignation’, in the wake of the emergence, rise and current crisis of the global market. (shrink)

The main objective of this article is to analyze the conceptual connection between the Doctrine of Children’s Education, briefly mentioned in Spinoza’s Tractatus de Intellectus Emendatione, and the concept of emendation present at the very center of this Treatise’s title. A close textual exegesis of the opening paragraphs of TIE reveals why such a doctrine cannot be the ascetic renunciation of the content of ordinary life. We shall see instead that a new institution of life shall be possible only through (...) a deep plunge into the understanding of ordinary confused life. A Spinozan Doctrine of Children’s Education shall then be conceived as a pedagogy guided by an error mapping principle, i.e., a pedagogy capable of amending the mistaken beliefs of students through their understanding of the way these are produced as real events in the world. This would be an immanent pedagogy, which could be relevant to any form of contemporary thought that seeks a truly liberating education. (shrink)

The argumentative structure of this article can be summarized as follows: 1) Spinoza was repeatedly accused of eleaticism; 2) there is a rupture with the eleaticism when one admits the ‘multivocity’ of the logical operators “is” and “is not”; as can be seen, for example, 2.1) in the discussion introducing the Great Genera in Plato’s Sophist, and 2.2) in a certain use made by Aristotle of the category’s doctrine in order to soften the Parmenidean version of the Principle of Non-Contradiction. (...) 3) Spinoza admits the ‘multivocity’ of “is” and “is not”. Hence, Spinoza should not be placed among the Eleatics but inside the brotherhood of the suspects of the so-called parricide against Parmenides. This reasoning, which almost sounds as a truism, will, however, suggest two interesting further considerations: one on how an important tradition of interpretation of Spinoza has misplaced the problem of the relationship of Spinoza’s ontology with the logical principles; and another on the type of logic that is implied by the theory of modes of perception or kinds of knowledge. (shrink)

This paper explores the materialist and the object-based dimension of “the ideal” in Evald Ilyenkov’s thought and, consequently, his speculative technique of converging matter and idea. The philosophic figures that Ilyenkov relies on to legitimate such a convergence are Hegel, Spinoza, and Marx. The paper reveals the complexities in Ilyenkov’s task to reconcile his dialectics of the ideal with Spinoza’s studies of Substance, tracing the discrepancies in Ilyenkov’s attempt to conjoin Hegelian and Marxian dialectics and Spinoza’s nonidealist immanentism. The reference (...) to the researchers of Spinozism, such as Macherey, Deleuze, Badiou, Della Rocca, Oittinen, and Maidansky, confirms the difficulties in discerning dialectics in Spinoza’s thought. Ilyenkov managed to reveal that Hegel’s idealism was grounded in an objective materialism conditioned by the other-determined self, and merely needed Marx’s thought to complete the socialization of Subject; whereas Spinoza never truly needed to theorize the concept of the ideal. The key finding of the paper is in tracing how—due to developing Marxist epistemology out of Marxist political economy—Ilyenkov manages to consider social being and labor through noumenal parameters, proving that any material activity can be seen as thought-oriented. (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)

This review assesses the strengths and weaknesses of Peter Thomas’s long-awaited study ofThe Prison Notebooks, based on his extensive research and philological reconstruction of the critical edition. I distinguish three senses in which the ‘moment’ in the book’s title can be understood: as the historical moment around 1932 in which Gramsci proposed the outline of his distinct brand of the philosophy of praxis; as the moment or momentum that still lies in wait for a future research programme in Marxist philosophy; (...) and as a methodological principle for understanding the dialectic as a theory in which entities such as state and civil society, but also coercion and consent, far from allowing the kind of Eurocommunist or post-Marxist instrumentalisations in which they are seen as part of a chain of binaries, are actually moments of a unified larger structure that in Gramsci’s work comes to be associated with the idea of the integral state. This impressive reconstruction of Gramsci’s notebooks, however, also reveals some major lacunae, above all, in terms of the lack of attention given to Gramscian developments in the non-European world, in places such as India or Latin America. This omission is all the more surprising given the longstanding tradition, particularly in Latin America, of viewing Gramsci as a theorist of the integral state more so than of hegemony. (shrink)

The aporia inherent in Kojève’s discussion of the end of history stems from the temporality implicit in the moment of inscribing the end of history in philosophy. Hegel’s Phenomenology as the unfolding of absolute knowledge stands at the last moment in history, without necessarily constituting its end. Reading the post-NEP Soviet ideology through Kojève demonstrates that the doctrine of “socialism in one country” similarly situates itself outside historical time as history’s last moment, marked by the coincidence of being and concept, (...) the disappearance of negation, and classless society without an historical agent. In the reconceptualization of labor in Stalinist ideology as a temporalization of being without negation, the representation of time in five-year plans radically reinvents temporality as a suspension of history in the perpetual deferral of its end. Going beyond Kojève, the immanent logic of temporality of five-year plans enables a non-teleological reading of Hegelian philosophy with regard to the status of its method and the function of the end of history. (shrink)

This study argues that the exploration of Hegel and Spinoza’s philosophies of material Nature yields a more compelling critique of Spinoza’s thought than either Hegel himself or commentators have recognised. Rather than attempting a full comparison of Hegel and Spinoza’s accounts of material Nature, this study focuses on elaborating a critique of the deficiencies found, from a Hegelian standpoint, in Spinoza’s account of extended Nature. This study argues that the Hegelian critique of Spinoza’s theory of extended Nature takes at least (...) two major interrelated forms. Firstly, this critique suggests that Spinoza does not adequately derive the necessity of Substance’s existence as Extension, as motion and rest, and as finite bodies. This is demonstrated in this study through an account of Hegel’s immanent development of Nature as such and its mechanical forms from the conclusion of the Science of Logic. Secondly, this critique suggests that Spinoza’s mechanical and quantitative conception of the broader picture of material Nature is inadequate. This is demonstrated through an account of Hegel’s critique of any purely mechanical conception of the natural world, arguing instead that Nature is necessarily driven through a series of qualitatively different stages including the chemical and organic. This study makes an original scholarly contribution through its investigation of the Hegel-Spinoza relationship in the specific context of their philosophies of material Nature, an aspect of this relationship previously unexplored. This study thereby makes the first step in the expansion of the scholarship of the Hegel-Spinoza relationship into this new area, opening a promising new avenue for future work on these great philosophers. (shrink)

RESUMEN El suicidio o el interfictium spinoziano es a simple vista una categoría marginal en el pensamiento de Spinoza. La vasta producción filosófica en torno a quien ha sido considerado como el filósofo de la "anomalía salvaje" o al mismo tiempo el pensador de los "afectos alegres" ignora, o en el mejor de los casos trata oblicuamente, las nociones de muerte y suicidio. La paradoja es total porque el rechazo hacia el pensamiento de la muerte contrasta con la profusa interpelación (...) a dicha categoría en su Ética. El propósito de este artículo es mostrar que la expresión negativa del suicidio, como pura imposibilidad y servidumbre respecto a causas externas es, sin embargo, menos literal y clara, cuando en su análisis se incorporan aquellos elementos centrales de su obra más emblemática. Libertad, Necesidad y Sustancia, entre otros, son conceptos que, desde el suicidio se tensionan mostrando los propios límites del orden geométrico esbozado por Spinoza. ABSTRACT Suicide or spinozian interfictium is at first sight a marginal category in Spinoza's thought. The vast philosophical production on who has been considered the philosopher of the "savage anomaly" or at the same time the "cheerful affects" thinker, ignores or, in the best-case scenario, obliquely addresses the notions of death and suicide. The paradox is complete because the rejection towards the thought of death contrasts with the profuse questioning of the aforesaid category in its Ethics. The goal of this article is to show that the negative expression of suicide, as pure impossibility and servitude with respect to external causes is however, less literal and clear when some central elements of its most emblematic work are incorporated in its analysis. Liberty, Need, and Substance, among others, are concepts that from suicide get tensioned showing the own limits of the geometric order insinuated by Spinoza. (shrink)