Meaning and nature are this book’s principal topics. They seem an odd couple, like raisins and numbers, though they elide when meanings of a global sort—ideologies and religions, for example—promote ontologies that subordinate nature. Setting one against the other makes reality contentious. It signifies workmates and a coal face to miners, gluons to physicists, prayer and redemption to priests. Are there many realities, or many perspectives on one? The answer I prefer is the comprehensive naturalism anticipated by Aristotle and (...) class='Hi'>Spinoza: "natura naturans, natura naturata." Nature naturing is an array of mutually conditioning material processes in spacetime. Each structure or event—storm clouds forming, nature natured—is self-differentiating, self-stabilizing, and sometimes self-disassembling; each alters or transforms a pre-existing state of affairs. This surmise anticipated discoveries and analyses to which neither thinker had access, though physics and biology confirm their hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the question this book considers: Is reality divided:nature vrs. lived experience? Or is experience, with all its meanings and values, the complex expression of natural processes? (shrink)

Friedrich Nietzsche was Less Well-Read in the history of philosophy than were many of his peers in the pantheon, whether Hegel before him or Heidegger after, but he was not for that reason any less hesitant to pronounce judgment on the worth of the other great philosophers: Plato was “boring”; Descartes was “superficial”; Hobbes, Hume, and Locke signify “a debasement and lowering of the concept of ‘philosophy’ for more than a century”; Kant was an “idiot” and a “catastrophic spider,” etc.1 (...) Against this overarching trend of negativity, his uncharacteristically positive response to one thinker, a thinker who initially appears to us as quite different from him, is all the more surprising. In the summer of .. (shrink)

Le traitement de la figure de Moïse reflète la relation ambivalente de Spinoza à Maïmonide. Derrière la polémique manifeste contre le maître médiéval, se cache une lecture ésotérique du Guide des égarés. Que Moïse n’ait été qu’un législateur talentueux à l’imagination particulièrement fertile (et nullement un philosophe) est une thèse que certains de ses lecteurs averroïstes attribuaient déjà à Maïmonide. Spinoza s’inscrit dans leur filiation en transférant vers Jésus les caractéristiques que Maïmonide prête à Moïse tout en reprenant, (...) à son sujet, les mêmes procédés d’écriture complexes que ceux à l’œuvre dans le Guide à propos de Moïse. (shrink)

Baruch Spinoza's Aristotelian critique of Judaism, and religion in general, in the seventeenth century marked the beginning of a period of intense Jewish self-evaluation that continues to this day. This chapter unpacks Spinoza's criticisms to show that the ultimate ethical existence, that is, a virtuous existence, is one which entails attention to three interpenetrating relations: between the self and God, between the self and others, and with oneself. Obedience and love, Spinoza asserts, are the ultimate character traits (...) that instantiate the highest forms of ethical existence in these realms. (shrink)

The example of the Spanish poet’s amnesia, mentioned by Spinoza in the scholium of proposition 39 of part IV of the Ethics in order to elucidate his conception of death, has given rise to many controversies in the scholarly interpretations, which in most cases maintain that the poet dies and that Spinoza himself thought this way. However, the matter is more complex than it at first appears and in this article I take a different path by reconstructing this (...) scholium anew and providing an alternative interpretation. The comparison with selected passages of part V highlights the presence of a bi-conditional between the ratio of motion and rest that a body possesses, and its aptitude to be affected and affect in many more ways. In particular, the latter allows us to acknowledge the continuity of the poet’s individuality, expressed in his mind–body union grounded by the parallelism theory. As a result, the poet case has a crucial explanatory role for Spinoza’s theory of the eternity of the human mind and if one misunderstands the former, the latter is also misconceived. (shrink)

Quentin Tarantino’s filmography, especially since the turn of the century, seems to be an argument for the moral justification of revenge. Bill and his D.iV.A.S. hit-squad (from Kill Bill); Adolf Hitler and Hans Landa (from Inglourious Basterds); “Monsieur” Calvin Candie and his loyal house slave Stephen (from Django Unchained); Stuntman Mike and the Manson family killers (from Death Proof and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood); and Daisy Domergue and General Sanford Smithers (from The Hateful Eight) – they all had (...) it coming, and audiences celebrate when they get what they deserve. Revenge, Tarantino reminds us, is a dish best served cold. But is it really the kind of thing that can be morally justified? To see whether it is, this chapter explores arguments both historic and contemporary. After delineating revenge from legal justice and simple retribution and exploring how Tarantino’s films argue for moral justification of revenge, we will consider common everyday arguments on the topic, as well as the relevant arguments of Plato, Baruch Spinoza, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Friedrich Nietzsche, Trudy Govier, Suzanne Uniacke, Andrew Oldenquist, Simone de Beauvoir, Joshua Gert, Gilead Bar-elli, David Heyd, Robert Nozick, and others. In the end, we will see that revenge can be justified – but only in very specific conditions. (shrink)

« Et soudain, devant l'injonction à répondre, s'imposa à moi la possibilité d'une solution : tourner, comme souvent, la faiblesse en force, l'échec en programme. "Tu te souviens que Spinoza dit quelque part que les choses sont produites par Dieu avec la même nécessité qu'il résulte de l'essence d'un triangle que ses angles sont égaux à deux droits. Nous savons aujourd'hui que cette prétendue 'nécessité' découle d'un choix d'axiomes et non d'un absolu fixé une fois pour toutes. Dans la (...) géométrie de Riemann, cette mesure des angles peut même varier d'un point à l'autre, selon la courbure de l'espace. Je crois que j'aimerais pouvoir être ce genre de 'spinoziste' là : qui conserve le système, mais ne croit plus à l'essence du triangle et à l'absolue nécessité de la géométrie". Un spinoziste riemannien, en somme. » Le but de ce petit livre est de jeter les bases d'un tel programme. Il veut reprendre l'ancien rêve d'une éthique more geometrico, telle que Spinoza en a lancé le projet en plein cœur de la « révolution scientifique » et reposer avec lui la seule question qui vaille au fond : qu'est-ce que « bien vivre »? De son modèle, il retient que ce « bien » ne doit pas être pensé comme une norme extérieure au désir des hommes, mais y prend au contraire sa source, de sorte que l'éthique est inséparable d'une théorie des affects et des désirs. Mais il veut le faire dans un cadre qui n'est plus celui d'une confiance absolue dans l'usage des formalismes, ni dans la capacité de l'homme à dévoiler les « lois de la nature » ou à détenir le secret des « lois de la pensée ». « Éthique locale » ne signifie d'abord que cette provocation à penser la possibilité d'une éthique rationnelle et systématique sans accepter le point de vue de surplomb, « global », que permettait la douce assurance d'un régime transparent du monde à la raison dont les deux premières parties de l'Éthique sont profondément empreintes. Pages de début Liste des abréviations utilisées Avant-propos Incipit : Descartes en son cabinet Chapitre Premier. « À la manière des géomètres »? Chapitre II. Construire, dit-il Conclusion : en quoi ce livre est-il un livre d'éthique?Pages de fin. (shrink)

In contemporary debates about religion, both proponents and opponents seem to share a parental view on God without ever questioning it. This text seeks to trace back that view and compare it with a Biblical alternative. First it is argued that it was Spinoza who needed to depict the Biblical God as a mere father in order to justify his exegesis of him. By connecting all religious imagery to the faculty of imagination and by consequently denying the imagination any (...) direct claims on truth and reason, Spinoza could develop the modern consciousness of progress, as the ‘outgrowing,’ the leaving behind of an age of irrationality and untruth. With a God reduced to a father, the human identity is reduced to a child and the dramatics between the two to growing up and making space. This idea seems to further underpin the whole modern and even postmodern image of God. But if we read the Biblical God from a different perspective we end up with a very different view. Moshe Halbertal claims that the basic image of Biblical anthropomorphism is not the parental but the marital relation between God and man. This new reading is analysed and compared with Spinoza’s exegesis. It turns out that the marital metaphor allows for a whole new and better understanding of God, and connected with that, of religious life, of the value of the Bible, and of the ideas of reason, truth and freedom. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:HumAnimality:The Silence of the AnimalDavid WoodDrawing Especially on Derrida and Agamben while looking over her shoulder at Foucault, Kalpana Seshadri’s central claim is that silence is not merely inscribed in discourse or in political life as the absence or negation of power, but can also be a site for transformation and resistance (Seshadri 2012). Derrida’s deconstruction weans us from any desire for a pure presence, whether in speech or (...) in silence, and draws us into the essential exteriorization he calls writing, which as gramme, trace, and program, opens onto the history and future of technology, and thereafter, the operations of power, in particular biopower, in the articulation of which Agamben in a way synthesizes Derrida and Foucault.Seshadri takes seriously the analogy between race discrimination and the human oppression of the animal. And yet the analogy is incomplete. Racial discrimination can be detected within unproblematically humanistic discourse and often in established legal concepts and frameworks, whereas speciesism needs to be more creative. Outcries over expressions such as “animal holocaust” show just how charged such analogical claims can be, and bring to the surface the complexities of their inscription in our political life and discourse.Seshadri focuses particularly on the paradoxes of autoimmunity (with Derrida) and sovereignty (with Agamben), the points at which the logics of life, power, and language break down, a process that can license both the reduction and curtailing of life (in slavery, in political oppression, and in factory farming), but which also allows for a different response. She writes of [End Page 193] “the possibilities that arise within regimes of domination to effectively annul, neutralize, or escape power in the very moment of its exercise” (Seshadri 2012, 19).Heidegger distinguishes between two reading strategies available to us when dealing with great thinkers, but which in effect are generalizable to anyone worth reading—first, frontal critique, going counter to the other, as he puts it, and second, going to their encounter (Heidegger 1976, 77). He adds that to take the latter path, one has to bring one’s own fundamental questions to the table. This may seem somewhat portentous, and it may seem too that one is merely using the other’s writing as a vehicle for exercising one’s own obsessions, but he is surely right. One’s own deep questions are never wholly personal, and there is no substitute for engagement with what is finally at stake.This is all to justify the line of response I am taking here. As I see it, Seshadri’s articulation of the “humAnimal” largely works on our conceptual protection and demarcation of the privilege of a certain concept of the human and the human subject, which, in the case of sovereignty, has a range of consequences that include but are far from limited to race and animal relations, and may even be distinctively applicable, as Spinoza or Deleuze might say, to what we imagine our bodies to be capable of. In this latter case what is being marked is not the plight of the animal but the impact of a certain discipline of life on the ways in which we live our own bodies. I am thinking in particular of that part of chapter 7, “HumAnimal Acts,” that deals with Philippe Petit’s high wire activity, in his particular his “agility” and, in a beautiful phrase, “exuberant body.”To be clear, this account is tied to Agamben’s rethinking of potentiality and Heidegger’s discussion of dynamis in Aristotle, each contributing to a renewed understanding of movement and life. For Seshadri, this also opens onto another kind of silence, an exuberant ethics, a politics of gesture, of “pure means,” creativity, the good life, the happy body, and so on. In the fascinating chapters 5 and 6 on the “Wild Child,” the upshot is a certain discombobulation, making the Human/Animal distinction tremble, as Derrida would say, arguably helping us live our humanity less dogmatically as well as helping us toward a more complex understanding of the various species of silence. But in each of these cases it could be said that while the shape and tenor of human animation is tweaked, critiqued, and deepened... (shrink)

This book traces the genealogy of ideas of reason, self and sexuality in the West, opening the way to a richer and more diverse understanding of sexual experience. Western philosophy and religion have distorted and continue to distort our experience of sex and love through three far-reaching constellations of reason, self and sexuality. Thinkers like Plato, Aquinas and Kant helped to fashion an ascetic ideal of reason hostile to bodily pleasures and sexual diversity. By contrast, philosophical hedonism advocates a less (...) demanding conception of rationality and defends sexual pleasure. But this approach of thinkers like Hume, Bentham, La Mettrie and de Sade is still one-sided and limiting. A third constellation, Romanticism avoids the limitations of both forms of rationalism, but in the name of a religion of love and passion that ultimately threatens the integrity of the self. In Reason and Sexuality in Western Thought, a richer understanding of sexual experience is traced to a dissident philosophical tradition. In their different ways Montaigne, Spinoza, Hegel and Kierkegaard, Marcuse and Foucault contribute to a more holistic, multi-layered and open conception of reason, sexuality and the self. This book will be essential reading for all students of philosophy and gender studies. (shrink)