Most philosophers - those that you have mentioned - are interested in Spinoza, surprise surprise, not for ethical reasons, but rather for his metaphysics. They want to take over Spinozist metaphysics because it avoids the difficulties of substance dualism, and is a coherent backbone for explaining the whole of reality, which accords physical science a fitting place. Furthermore, it is largely immanent, which means that it can allow them to dispense with God and/or the transcendent. — Agustino

Is this really all the metaphysical interest boils down to? Because this is so boring. What's the stroke of genius that makes Spinozan immanence interesting?

The ethical stuff you cite, it doesn't sound all that different to me than some of the stoics. I can see the appeal, but not really the originality.

The ethical stuff you cite, it doesn't sound all that different to me than some of the stoics. I can see the appeal, but not really the originality. — csalisbury

For what it's worth csalisbury, I think that Spinoza's genius is most readily evident in the Tractatus Tehologico-Politicus where, unlike anyone before him in Western philosophy, he was able to explain how the Bible should be treated more like an anthropological work, and not a supreme divine book. If you think about it, it was truly remarkable how modern his views were of the sociological and anthropological origins of the Torah and the rest of the Bible, especially his rejection of miracles, and his arguments against an anthropomorphic God and prophesy, and the idea that the Bible (Torah especially) was essentially a constitution for the ancient state of Israel that was suited for a particular time and place. Also, his careful analysis of multiple origins of the authorship of the Torah/Bible predicting/inspiring the JEPD theory of the Torah (the theory that the Torah/Bible was a compilation of various oral and written texts from southern tribe of Judah, 10 Northern Tribes, Koheins/Preists, and Deutoronomists). His critical analysis was way ahead of its time and essentially set the tone for not just a scientific age within the confines of religion but a complete secular break from the confines of philosophizing with a god already in the picture.

So this is the thing - I get what makes him historically interesting. And I give him plenty of kudos for his courage and iconoclasm. But all that stuff, for us, is a fait accompli . To read that kind of stuff now is to be preached to as the choir. It could be mildly pleasurable, I suppose. It seems extremely boring to me though. There's no challenge in it for us 21st century readers. I feel like the appeal has to go beyond that, to some ingenuity in the Ethics . I just can't find what it is.

Edit: so Pneumenon above has mentioned liking Spinoza because he feels like he's always agreed with him. I don't think there's anything wrong with that per se. It's a matter of whether someone articulates stuff you've felt but couldn't quite put into words vs someone just saying something you already agree with (and perhaps bolstering with facts or arguments). The former I'm into, but the latter feels hollow.

So this is the thing - I get what makes him historically interesting. And I give him plenty of kudos for his courage and iconoclasm. But all that stuff, for us, is a fait accompli . To read that kind of stuff now is to be preached to as the choir. It could be mildly pleasurable, I suppose. It seems extremely boring to me though. There's no challenge in it for us epigones. I feel like the appeal has to go beyond that, to some ingenuity in the Ethics . I just can't find what it is. — csalisbury

I agree mainly that his views on the passions seem to be generally Stoic in nature and probably origin. His view of tempering of passions especially show this. However, his view may be more nuanced than the Stoics. I think on of Spinoza's aims was to put humans squarely in a superstructure that is made of the same principles as the rest of reality rather than being on a pedestal beyond or above it. We are affected by cause and effect as is the rest of nature, according to this view. He also thinks that there is a conatus in all things, or striving to preserve itself. Here we see a kind of parallel to Schopenhauer's "Will-to-live". He thinks that whatever gives us more power to think and act according to our nature us joy and whatever diminishes our power to think and act according to our nature, gives us sadness. The more we understand the causes and effects of our passions, the more we are increasing our power, and according to Spinoza's definition of joy, this is inherently joyful to increase power, and thus even a subject like sadness can be transformed to joy by understanding the causes of the sadness. His nuance on the Stoic theme seems to be his idea that we are causal creatures that are never beyond the passive affects that impinge upon us, and that, in a way we cannot even know if our power is diminished or increased from external sources without encountering passive affects in the first place (so they are not wholly bad).

In order to diminish the affects of negative passive affects we must reflect on the nature of existence, which I would guess for him, are the axioms, definitions, conclusions, etc. that flow from reasoning about why and how the world exists. This somehow frees us from passive emotions and makes us blessed. Of course, I don't think any of this follows really. I do not see how trying to understand the nature of the world and the causes of our passions frees us from suffering. I experience suffering whether I know the causes of it or not. To know that I cannot change a situation does not make the situation go away, and in a way, my mind can simply tell itself that it is trying to trick itself into not suffering and thus defeat its own attempt at trying to prevent the external source from affecting my mind. I do not think that joy necessarily follow from knowing my place in the scheme of the universe either. Also, I think the idea of blessedness is a reification, and ill-defined as far as I see it. It is some feeling that comes about from knowing the whole. This to me is akin to happiness coming from understanding a complex problem or the happiness from reflecting upon a complex problem. However, I don't think that it deserves a special status. It is simply another form of joy, albeit through much more complex ways of looking at things. However, I can see parallels with Schopenhauer's conception of genius where an artist can see the forms more clearly. Blessedness here can be akin to Schopenhauer's non-individuated artist, except instead of art it is logic and metaphysical study which is the aesthetic template. However, Schopenhauer might perhaps say that these pursuits are still in accordance with time/space/causality and thus even if they are more detached pursuits, they are still not escaping Will.

Though there are parallels to Schopenhauer, and probably influences, if indirectly via the concept of conatus, I think Schopenhauer's appraisal of the situation is much closer to the truth. We are bound to suffer and that conatus/Will brings in the human form a kind of pendulum swing between goals directed at survival and goals directed at warding off boredom. We strive but for nothing in particular, and this leads to an ever present lack that we must continually try to satiate.

t's a matter of whether someone articulates stuff you've felt but couldn't quite put into words vs someone just saying something you already agree with (and perhaps bolstering with facts or arguments). — csalisbury

Yeah, that.

Yeah, that's def the sense I got from you (hope it didn't sound like I was suggesting the opposite.) Would you be willing to share what he's articulated for you?

"The mind is God's idea of the body" blew me away because it sums up a very weird experience I once had while meditating and have never quite been able to express. And the fact that Spinoza managed to deduce it is mind-boggling. There have been other things, as well, such as his definitions of joy and sorrow, and his use of determinism as a psychological device with which to achieve mental calm.

Did he say anything about ethics that the Stoics did not? I suppose not, besides some minor technical details, but that's besides the point. Spinoza may be saying the same thing as the Stoics, but the way in which he says those things really brought it all home to me.

This is sort of how I feel about Immanuel Kant. The more I read about him the more I discover about myself.

For me though, definitely NOT Spinoza.

I don't agree with Spinoza's metaphysics on the unity of God and Nature.

God is God -- a separate Being from the rest of us. He/She/It/They must be separate and immortal or else They could not have created Nature. The creation of Nature is the whole crux of the First Cause argument by Aristotle and by Aquinas.

Spinoza also subordinated the Church to the State. King Henry would have loved this. Most others would not. I believe in the complete separation of Church and State much like the Founding Freemasons of the USA set out in the 1st Federal Amendment to the US Constitution.

Many of Spinoza's other ideas are inspiring however.

Perhaps you can share with us (tell us) which of his particular musings you like the most ?!

I once dated a young woman (both of us still in our 20's) who talked about Spinoza all the time. She was recovering from Protestantism and Spinoza became her fall back foundation. I wish she had been more clear in her discussions, but she just rambled. It was frustrating and maddening to listen to her. So I just dumped her and moved on, the way most single people dump each other whenever it is not a good fit.

When I now hear about Spinoza I think about her.

See, this Hippy talk is precisely what frustrates me about Spinoza.

What is mind? We all struggle with that.

So Spinoza thinks human mind is just the thoughts of God ??

That's nonsense.

We don't know what mind is, and this does not help us to find out.

It is just Hippy talk. It sounds beautiful and makes sense if you are smoking an opium pipe but only then.

Exactly. CS and I want to know.

Then we can grill you back.

My favorite Stoic is Marcus Aurelius and I have read parts of his meditations. Anybody going into government service should read them all.

But we all need to give credit to Zeno Of Cyprus and his stoa too.

Stoicism is probably the most useful of all the philosophies because it teaches us to grin and bear it, then keep working at it too.

See, this Hippy talk is precisely what frustrates me about Spinoza.

What is mind? We all struggle with that.

So Spinoza thinks human mind is just the thoughts of God ??

That's nonsense.

We don't know what mind is, and this does not help us to find out.

It is just Hippy talk. It sounds beautiful and makes sense if you are smoking an opium pipe but only then. — YIOSTHEOY

Try reading him.

That's not how I get things done.

First I read / have read / 3 books on surveys of philosophy, to wit:

- History Of Western Philosophy, by Russell
- Essentials Of Philosophy, by Mannion
- Modern Philosophy, by Scruton.

This tells me everything I need to know about all the philosophers, for openers.

There is nothing in any of Spinoza's hippy talk that interests me.

Especially since I don't smoke anything either.

It would be much more useful as long as you are going to make the investment in time anyway for YOU to LIST the concepts that you learned of Spinoza so that WE can then read IT instead.

That way you can actually be useful -- unless you are afraid of the heat and don't want to go into the kitchen.

Sil vous plait.

Not only that, but telling someone to read something is a fallacy called "shifting the burden".

The burden is on you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Oh god not another Fallacy Hunter. Wiki pokedex in hand, scouring the plains of the internet for specimens in the wild. It's like playing soccer with someone who sees the game itself as a means to the distribution of red cards.

@Pneumenon I wonder if it comes down to temperament. I suffer from periodic irruptions of depression which usually aren't triggered by anything in particular, so I've struggled with neat and crisp theories of joy and sorrow. They just don't reflect my experience. I'm drawn more toward those accounts that emphasize spiritual and emotional crises whereby ones values and coordinates are reconfigured - I suppose you could call these synchronic rather than diachronic shifts. Spinoza seems to put a damper on this because he's installed a rigid structure that only allow for simple x-causes-joy, y-causes-sorrow accounts where events plays out deterministically in time while everything else in the metastructure remains the same.

I think @Agustino is right here and that Spinoza's system is a construction, borne of suffering, that wants to be seen as a deductive discovery. It feels a bit like an ark whose inhabitant pretends there was no crisis which led to its construction,to the point where he pretends there's not even any ocean, just an eternal encompassing structure.

I wonder if it comes down to temperament. I suffer from periodic irruptions of depression which usually aren't triggered by anything in particular, so I've struggled with neat and crisp theories of joy and sorrow. They just don't reflect my experience. I'm drawn more toward those accounts that emphasize spiritual and emotional crises whereby ones values and coordinates are reconfigured - I suppose you could call these synchronic rather than diachronic shifts. Spinoza seems to put a damper on this because he's installed a rigid structure that only allow for simple x-causes-joy, y-causes-sorrow accounts where events plays out deterministically in time while everything else in the metastructure remains the same. — csalisbury

I'm not sure I can make a debate-style point here, as you're airing a perspective rather than an argument, but perhaps I can juxtapose my own perspective with yours here.

The idea that joy is an increase in power/perfection/reality and sorrow is a decrease in same is what resonates with me. I see this as a construction that can account for crises and turning points nicely - in fact, I see it as actually emphasizing the importance of such things. The turning point in a crisis, for me, would be the point at which my down-going comes into conflict with my "essence" (I vaguely suspect that one need not be an essentialist to make sense of this, hence the quotes). Either I win, or my down-going does. If I win, then joy results when I bounce back.

I've never quite understood what Spinoza meant by perfection or reality. But I do agree that joy and sorrow are intimately related to our capacity to act. I guess I see crisis as requiring us to change something that was hitherto part of our essence, or at least somethig that was a central part of the way in which we'd been desiring. We can only return to joy if we change ourselves, I mean. This is my experience at least and I guess I'm weird enough it may differ from the experience of others. The language of winning in a battle against sorrow strikes me as a kind of resolute doubling down on one's identity which for me always seems to make things worse. Then again I'm somtimes bad at standing up for myself IRL.

Concretely: for a long time my driving-force was being interesting in conversation and making people laugh. It was like a social categorical imperative for me. I got more and more depressed to the point of a pretty bad breakdown and painfully, laboriously came to understand how that drive had prevented me from actually bonding with anyone. That changed my approach to living a whole lot. I used to abhor the concrete and the banal. Now that's mostly what I try to focus on (though it still feels very awkward). Like a brand new conatus almost. Or maybe I iust had more insight into what I actually needed.

I guess I see crisis as requiring us to change something that was hitherto part of our essence, — csalisbury

Or maybe I iust had more insight into what I actually needed. — csalisbury

Perhaps the conflict between my down-going and my essence is a conflict within my essence, and one side will win. ;)

that's def one way to look at. I don't know though. 'Essence' isn't sitting right with me. Not just for theoretical reasons.