Theological-Political Treatise: Gebhardt Edition

Rating:
Summary: Review Error
Review: I am the author of the May 1999 review that faults the typsetting of the Hebrew in Spinoza's notes.

You have attached my review to the wrong translation.

The review applies to the Samuel Shirley translation reprinted in 1998 by Hackett Publishing Company, ISBN 0-87220-398-0.

You originally had it attached to the correct edition. How did it get here?

Please fix it. I don't want to libel Mr Ewes.

Rating:
Summary: Excellently Argued, But Outragiously Sophistical
Review: I write thise review after having written a major end of term paper on this treatise, so I may be a little close to the issue and to my own personal observations and biases to offer a good review. That being said, Spinoza's Theological-Political Treatise is a superbly reasonable and logical work essentially devoted to the necessity of freedom of speech and expression in a well ordered state. That's the short version, and if that were all that there was this work would would be neither controversial nor brilliant.

That, however, is only a part of the picture. What makes this treatise so tantalizingly obnoxious is the steps by which Spinoza achieves his aims; and be forwarned, this is a work springing from a very definite aim and not from a spirit of open inquiry. Spinoza knows where he wants to go, and is not above twisting arguments to his own ends. That being said, he performs these feats beautifully. As the title suggests, this work deals with both theolgical and political aspects and their correct placement in society. Spinoza begins with what can be considered some of the earliest modern biblical exegesis, in that he views the Bible not fundamentally as a divinely inspired handbook, but as a work that should be read in a specific historical context, its teachings aimed to deal with specific problems relating to distinct peoples and not to be taken as philosophical explanations. Because of this fact, and a complex train of arumentation which I shall not attempt to recreate here, Spinoza determines that theology and philosophy must be seperated, the former dealing with obediance and the latter with truth. From here he goes on to speak of the relationship of man to society (basically he reiterates Hobbes' argument) and the necessity of the toleration of conflicting ideas and beliefs.

There are many aspects of this work that are right on target, not the least of which are Spinoza's appeals for freedom of speech (perhaps fueled by the problems he himself was facing as a result of his ideas) and his basic model of biblicasl exegesis. The devil, however, is in the details and how he reaches these conclusions. It is obvious from his work that he is contemptuous of the majority of men who lack intelligence and can merely find solace in religion. He begins his work with a number of bold presupositions (not the least of which being his wiew of the Bible as a book obviously bereft of authority concerning clues to the true nature of God) and stacks his argument in such a tight manner, constantly sub-refferencing itself, that the average reader will have a hard time following it without the aid of diagramming it. That being said, his arguemnt is brilliant, if only in his ability to accept one easy premise which he then goes on to show necessarilly leads to a more uncomfortable one.

This is a work that needs to be read with much care. The first time I read it, I found myself enthralled with it, but upon more careful reading I became much less impressed. Is is without a doubt a classic of philosophy (or at least a very good political pamphlet) and is well worth the read, but do yourself a favor and read Spinoza's Ethics as well. Not to spoil anything, but much of what he shows here he directly refutes in his ethics. This seems likely to be intentional, and provides a warning to all those readers who wish to take the idea of this book too seriously. This work was meant to convince people of a politically expediant idea, not to show to show them the truth.

Rating:
Summary: Excellently Argued, But Outragiously Sophistical
Review: I write thise review after having written a major end of term paper on this treatise, so I may be a little close to the issue and to my own personal observations and biases to offer a good review. That being said, Spinoza's Theological-Political Treatise is a superbly reasonable and logical work essentially devoted to the necessity of freedom of speech and expression in a well ordered state. That's the short version, and if that were all that there was this work would would be neither controversial nor brilliant.

That, however, is only a part of the picture. What makes this treatise so tantalizingly obnoxious is the steps by which Spinoza achieves his aims; and be forwarned, this is a work springing from a very definite aim and not from a spirit of open inquiry. Spinoza knows where he wants to go, and is not above twisting arguments to his own ends. That being said, he performs these feats beautifully. As the title suggests, this work deals with both theolgical and political aspects and their correct placement in society. Spinoza begins with what can be considered some of the earliest modern biblical exegesis, in that he views the Bible not fundamentally as a divinely inspired handbook, but as a work that should be read in a specific historical context, its teachings aimed to deal with specific problems relating to distinct peoples and not to be taken as philosophical explanations. Because of this fact, and a complex train of arumentation which I shall not attempt to recreate here, Spinoza determines that theology and philosophy must be seperated, the former dealing with obediance and the latter with truth. From here he goes on to speak of the relationship of man to society (basically he reiterates Hobbes' argument) and the necessity of the toleration of conflicting ideas and beliefs.

There are many aspects of this work that are right on target, not the least of which are Spinoza's appeals for freedom of speech (perhaps fueled by the problems he himself was facing as a result of his ideas) and his basic model of biblicasl exegesis. The devil, however, is in the details and how he reaches these conclusions. It is obvious from his work that he is contemptuous of the majority of men who lack intelligence and can merely find solace in religion. He begins his work with a number of bold presupositions (not the least of which being his wiew of the Bible as a book obviously bereft of authority concerning clues to the true nature of God) and stacks his argument in such a tight manner, constantly sub-refferencing itself, that the average reader will have a hard time following it without the aid of diagramming it. That being said, his arguemnt is brilliant, if only in his ability to accept one easy premise which he then goes on to show necessarilly leads to a more uncomfortable one.

This is a work that needs to be read with much care. The first time I read it, I found myself enthralled with it, but upon more careful reading I became much less impressed. Is is without a doubt a classic of philosophy (or at least a very good political pamphlet) and is well worth the read, but do yourself a favor and read Spinoza's Ethics as well. Not to spoil anything, but much of what he shows here he directly refutes in his ethics. This seems likely to be intentional, and provides a warning to all those readers who wish to take the idea of this book too seriously. This work was meant to convince people of a politically expediant idea, not to show to show them the truth.

Rating:
Summary: A monastic coherence of a humble genius
Review: The life of Benedict Spinoza is unique in itself and is the coherent background to everything he wrote, which contradisdicted his family origin. First of all, his name was not originally Benedict but Baruch, which is Hebrew for Benedict("the blessed one").
Second, he was the son of a well-to-do Spanish or Portuguese family who had to imigrate to the then United States of the Netherlands to escape the persecution of the Catholic Holy Inquisition, which was at its heyday in Spain and Portugal. It was in the famous tradition of Holland's liberal thinking that he grew up and began his philosophical studies, which were latter to be the foudation for great philosophers like Hegel. Third, as soon as he could, he abrogated the Jewish religion and his Jewish origins and was then anathemized ever since by the Jewish community and by his own family, to the point of being barred to share his fathers' inheritance. He appealed to court, won the case, and voluntarily did not take possession of the money. Fourth, in the tradition of a few great philosophers (Rousseau among them), he disdained all the luxuries and prestige his intellect could bring him and prefered to work as a shoemaker , devoting much of his time to his philosophical thinking, particularly targeted to some tenets of the Jewish and Catholic religions. Sure, there is many more to tell from this unique philosopher, but the reader can be sure that this is the very appeal of the book and is mirrored all the time in his reflexions. His lack of a superior knowledge of Latin, the language in which the text was originally written in the very tradition of the time, allows the reader an easy understanding of the content Spinoza tries to convey, whithout in any way jeopardizing the strenght of the philosopher's arguments.

In the book, which was never his intention to be published in his lifetime, he addresses many religious and philosophical questions and one is appaled by the apparent easiness with which the philosophers runs down a lot of religious dogmas, both Jewish and Catholic, whithout any possiblity of being considered heretic. Take, for instance, the logic with which he approaches miracles, and the reader will be astounded by the clearness of his arguments, originally developed in Latin (one of the more than 8 languages he was able to read or read/write). Also of importance is the characterization of the differences between apostles and prophets, and many more. His vision of the best way politics should be conducted - he favored his concept of democracy - is less strong but none the less interesting.

This is a seminal book for everyone interested in the foundations of the modern philosophical thinking where Spinoza occupies a very important place.

Rating:
Summary: Lofty thoughts of a tobacco addict.
Review: The subtle things in this book are suspected of being capable of doing serious damage to the idea of consensus. Still, this is mainly a book for serious readers who seek ideas in previous centuries. It is unlikely to provide much material to songwriters and comedians who long for sustained fame in the 21st century, and who might benefit by providing the kind of depth contained in the title of Chapter XIII, "It is Shown That Scripture Teaches Only Very Simple Doctrines, Such as Suffice for Right Conduct." (p. 175). This unabridged Elwes translation, available from Dover Publications since 1951, was originally published in 1883. According to the Introduction, the second work included here on pages 279 to 387 (where this unfinished work reaches a lack of conclusiveness with, "we shall easily see that men and women cannot rule alike without great hurt to peace. But of this enough.") A POLITICAL TREATISE was translated by A. H. Gosset, "who has also, in my absence from England, kindly seen the work through the press." (pp. xxxii - xxxiii). The lofty thoughts presented in the main work here are primarily theological in nature. There is no index, and the Notes on pages 267-278 are those of the author on the primary work, A THEOLOGICO-POLITICAL TREATISE. Chapter I, "Of Prophecy," on "sure knowledge revealed by God to man," (p. 13) as distinct from ordinary knowledge which all share, and Moses is considered first, as unique in the sense expressed by Deut. xxiv. 10: "And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord knew face to face." (p. 18). Furthermore, Spinoza wrote, "that if Moses spoke with God face to face as a man speaks with his friend (i.e. by means of their two bodies) Christ communed with God mind to mind." (p. 19). There is a return to the earlier view of Moses on pages 123-4 in Chapter VIII on "The Authorship of the Pentateuch." After an examination of the early books of the Bible, and especially Deuteronomy, it was the opinion of Spinoza, "I cannot find anyone, save Ezra, to whom to attribute the sacred books." (p. 130).

The Introduction by R. H. M. Elwes provides a few facts about Spinoza's life on pages x-xx and a brief summary of his writings, primarily the Ethics from pages xxiii to xxxi. The description of appetite, desire, pleasure, and pain on page xxvii as a basis from which "Spinoza deduces the entire list of human emotions" is thought to be the best of Spinoza, but that isn't what this book is about. As the Ethics developed, "The doctrine that rational emotion, rather than pure reason, is necessary for subduing evil passions, is entirely his own." (p. xxviii). Tobacco is not mentioned often in this book, but it is reported that one of Spinoza's amusements was "smoking now and again a pipe of tobacco." (p. xix). Also on Saturday, February 20, 1677, Spinoza spent some time with the landlord and his wife "in conversation, and smoked a pipe of tobacco, but went to bed early." (p. xx). His friend and physician, Lewis Meyer, came to see him the next day, the 21st, and Spinoza expired at about three o'clock on that Sunday afternoon, while the landlord and his wife were at church. The malady from which Spinoza suffered was called phthisis, and it seems as unlikely that any pain that he might have suffered will be conclusively linked to the habit which he enjoyed by doctors who currently do research on heart and lung problems for the leading companies in the tobacco industry, but there may be some basis here for finding a link between philosophy and what they call "junk science."

Those who seek commentaries might find a number to choose from. Spinoza's works were targets of opportunity for philosophers who were concerned about freedom of religion. The final mention of Spinoza in the text of THE SOCIOLOGY OF PHILOSOPHIES by Randall Collins (Harvard University Press, 1998, paperback, 2000) is in a section called Deep Troubles: Free Will and Determinism, Substance and Plurality. As simply summarized there, "Spinoza avoided two-substance dilemmas by positing a single substance with mental and material aspects" (p. 843). The conclusion of that section of Collins's Chapter 15, "Sequence and Branch in the Social Production of Ideas" is "No doubt future philosophies will be created upon this long-standing deep trouble." (p. 845). That seems far more likely than that anyone will explain why Spinoza died of phthisis.

Rating:
Summary: People afraid to try somethin' new?
Review: Those of us in the United States are generally encouraged while young to acquire a solid grounding in the principles upon which the government of the Republic is based: but this permits of a couple different variations, and the story which has it that *the Federalist* contains the sublimest genius may leave some historical relevancies out: including this book, which was widely read for many years by the politically heterodox. And it's a good thing, too, because this volume contains both the most visionary and the most principled works of early-modern political philosophy.

As careful readers of the *Ethics* will expect, the *Tractatus Theologicus-Politicus* is one of the earliest efforts in the genre now known as *Ideologiekritik*: Spinoza was preceded only by Nicholas of Cusa in his efforts to untangle what was "of moment" in revealed religion, specifically the political valences of Scriptural history -- a hugely important topic in every European and American nation, and one never handled so unstintingly and carefully as here. Following upon this, a seminal text with respect to every celebrated "philosophical hermeneutics", we are veritably treated to the unfinished *Political Treatise*: almost an advertisement for a form of government both more liberal and popular than that advocated by Jay, Madison, and Hamilton, but none the more "miserly" for it.

This font of every serious leftist political analysis deserves to be celebrated "like it should" -- an incredible intellectual coup, and such shame as the Enlightenment had. Those hewing to Russell's line as regards the man ought to "take rote", those looking for "the other America" ought to fall into several kinds of gaps with its help: if you can believe it, this is a standard of another kind of tolerance.

Rating:
Summary: heretical but genius quality work
Review: though baruch de spinoza was a heretic and a genius he was a great jewish scholar before he was excommunicated and possesses scriptual interpretations like no other. Although his arugements are very true, logical, pretty clear, and have ample scriptural evidence his passages can still be somewhat dry and boring. This work is a great attempt at trying to present an eloquent theory of religious freedom without philosophical theologogy and expose the falseness of the bible while retaining its beautiful prose and its basic almost universal truths.It is rather long 278 (pages with notes) of huge pages it is great but it can be verbose and excessive