What do you think?
Rate this book
Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew Who Gave Us Modernity
Part of the Jewish Encounter series
In 1656, Amsterdam’s Jewish community excommunicated Baruch Spinoza, and, at the age of twenty–three, he became the most famous heretic in Judaism. He was already germinating a secularist challenge to religion that would be as radical as it was original. He went on to produce one of the most ambitious systems in the history of Western philosophy, so ahead of its time that scientists today, from string theorists to neurobiologists, count themselves among Spinoza’s progeny.
In Betraying Spinoza, Rebecca Goldstein sets out to rediscover the flesh-and-blood man often hidden beneath the veneer of rigorous rationality, and to crack the mystery of the breach between the philosopher and his Jewish past. Goldstein argues that the trauma of the Inquisition’ s persecution of its forced Jewish converts plays itself out in Spinoza’s philosophy. The excommunicated Spinoza, no less than his excommunicators, was responding to Europe’ s first experiment with racial anti-Semitism.
Here is a Spinoza both hauntingly emblematic and deeply human, both heretic and hero—a surprisingly contemporary figure ripe for our own uncertain age.
In 1656, Amsterdam’s Jewish community excommunicated Baruch Spinoza, and, at the age of twenty–three, he became the most famous heretic in Judaism. He was already germinating a secularist challenge to religion that would be as radical as it was original. He went on to produce one of the most ambitious systems in the history of Western philosophy, so ahead of its time that scientists today, from string theorists to neurobiologists, count themselves among Spinoza’s progeny.
In Betraying Spinoza, Rebecca Goldstein sets out to rediscover the flesh-and-blood man often hidden beneath the veneer of rigorous rationality, and to crack the mystery of the breach between the philosopher and his Jewish past. Goldstein argues that the trauma of the Inquisition’ s persecution of its forced Jewish converts plays itself out in Spinoza’s philosophy. The excommunicated Spinoza, no less than his excommunicators, was responding to Europe’ s first experiment with racial anti-Semitism.
Here is a Spinoza both hauntingly emblematic and deeply human, both heretic and hero—a surprisingly contemporary figure ripe for our own uncertain age.
287 pages, Hardcover
First published May 30, 2006
About the author
Rebecca Goldstein
24 books392 followersRebecca Newberger Goldstein grew up in White Plains, New York, and graduated summa cum laude from Barnard College, receiving the Montague Prize for Excellence in Philosophy, and immediately went on to graduate work at Princeton University, receiving her Ph.D. in philosophy. While in graduate school she was awarded a National Science Foundation Fellowship and a Whiting Foundation Fellowship.
After earning her Ph.D. she returned to her alma mater, where she taught courses in philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, philosophy of psychology, the rationalists, the empiricists, and the ancient Greeks. It was some time during her tenure at Barnard that, quite to her own surprise, she used a summer vacation to write her first novel, The Mind-Body Problem. As she described it,
"To me the process is still mysterious. I had just come through a very emotional time, having not only become a mother but having also lost my father, whom I adored. In the course of grieving for my father and glorying in my daughter, I found that the very formal, very precise questions I had been trained to analyze weren’t gripping me the way they once had. Suddenly, I was asking the most `unprofessional’ sorts of questions (I would have snickered at them as a graduate student), such as how does all this philosophy I’ve studied help me to deal with the brute contingencies of life? How does it relate to life as it’s really lived? I wanted to confront such questions in my writing, and I wanted to confront them in a way that would insert `real life’ intimately into the intellectual struggle. In short I wanted to write a philosophically motivated novel."
The Mind-Body Problem was published by Random House and went on to become a critical and popular success.
More novels followed: The Late-Summer Passion of a Woman of Mind; The Dark Sister, which received the Whiting Writer’s Award, Mazel, which received the 1995 National Jewish Book Award and the 1995 Edward Lewis Wallant Award; and Properties of Light: A Novel of Love, Betrayal, and Quantum Physics. Her book of short stories, Strange Attractors, received a National Jewish Book Honor Award. Her 2005 book Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel, was featured in articles in The New Yorker and The New York Times, received numerous favorable reviews, and was named one of the best books of the year by Discover magazine, the Chicago Tribune, and the New York Sun. Goldstein’s most recent published book is, Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew who Gave Us Modernity, published in May 2006, and winner of the 2006 Koret International Jewish Book Award in Jewish Thought. Her new novel, Thirty-Six Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction, will be published by Pantheon Books.
In 1996 Goldstein became a MacArthur Fellow, receiving the prize which is popularly known as the “Genius Award.” In awarding her the prize, the MacArthur Foundation described her work in the following words:
"Rebecca Goldstein is a writer whose novels and short stories dramatize the concerns of philosophy without sacrificing the demands of imaginative storytelling. Her books tell a compelling story as they describe with wit, compassion and originality the interaction of mind and heart. In her fiction her characters confront problems of faith: religious faith and faith in an ability to comprehend the mysteries of the physical world as complementary to moral and emotional states of being. Goldstein’s writings emerge as brilliant arguments for the belief that fiction in our time may be the best vehicle for involving readers in questions of morality and existence."
Goldstein is married to linguist and author Steven Pinker. She lives in Boston and in Truro, Massachusetts.
After earning her Ph.D. she returned to her alma mater, where she taught courses in philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, philosophy of psychology, the rationalists, the empiricists, and the ancient Greeks. It was some time during her tenure at Barnard that, quite to her own surprise, she used a summer vacation to write her first novel, The Mind-Body Problem. As she described it,
"To me the process is still mysterious. I had just come through a very emotional time, having not only become a mother but having also lost my father, whom I adored. In the course of grieving for my father and glorying in my daughter, I found that the very formal, very precise questions I had been trained to analyze weren’t gripping me the way they once had. Suddenly, I was asking the most `unprofessional’ sorts of questions (I would have snickered at them as a graduate student), such as how does all this philosophy I’ve studied help me to deal with the brute contingencies of life? How does it relate to life as it’s really lived? I wanted to confront such questions in my writing, and I wanted to confront them in a way that would insert `real life’ intimately into the intellectual struggle. In short I wanted to write a philosophically motivated novel."
The Mind-Body Problem was published by Random House and went on to become a critical and popular success.
More novels followed: The Late-Summer Passion of a Woman of Mind; The Dark Sister, which received the Whiting Writer’s Award, Mazel, which received the 1995 National Jewish Book Award and the 1995 Edward Lewis Wallant Award; and Properties of Light: A Novel of Love, Betrayal, and Quantum Physics. Her book of short stories, Strange Attractors, received a National Jewish Book Honor Award. Her 2005 book Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Gödel, was featured in articles in The New Yorker and The New York Times, received numerous favorable reviews, and was named one of the best books of the year by Discover magazine, the Chicago Tribune, and the New York Sun. Goldstein’s most recent published book is, Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew who Gave Us Modernity, published in May 2006, and winner of the 2006 Koret International Jewish Book Award in Jewish Thought. Her new novel, Thirty-Six Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction, will be published by Pantheon Books.
In 1996 Goldstein became a MacArthur Fellow, receiving the prize which is popularly known as the “Genius Award.” In awarding her the prize, the MacArthur Foundation described her work in the following words:
"Rebecca Goldstein is a writer whose novels and short stories dramatize the concerns of philosophy without sacrificing the demands of imaginative storytelling. Her books tell a compelling story as they describe with wit, compassion and originality the interaction of mind and heart. In her fiction her characters confront problems of faith: religious faith and faith in an ability to comprehend the mysteries of the physical world as complementary to moral and emotional states of being. Goldstein’s writings emerge as brilliant arguments for the belief that fiction in our time may be the best vehicle for involving readers in questions of morality and existence."
Goldstein is married to linguist and author Steven Pinker. She lives in Boston and in Truro, Massachusetts.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 123 reviews
December 13, 2023
The Age of Hope
“Inherited religion is no religion.” I have no recollection of the source of this aphorism but it was a startling revelation to my youthful mind. It was so obviously true to me. Without a critical investigation of one’s spiritual heritage, authentic religious conviction is impossible. We are all the product of our cultures, including its religion. Simple acceptance, ‘faith’, in the tenets of culture is expedient tribalism, not spiritual enlightenment and certainly not thought. Meaningful thought about religion irritates people, including oneself. Baruch Spinoza is the epitome of such thought.
The ancient Hebrew idea of the nahala or covenantal inheritance is, I think, Spinoza’s philosophical touchstone, especially in his philosophy of religion. Goldstein’s analysis implicitly shows how Spinoza took this idea as the core of not only his Jewishness but also of his humanity. What he created was a personal statement offered to others, inviting, not demanding, participation in the process of intellectual discovery that he considered religion to be. This statement is a modern formulation of the covenant of the nahala. It is a way to both appreciate and transcend one’s culture simultaneously. It is the positive motivation which, I think, underlies and complements Goldstein’s analysis
Baruch Spinoza at the age of 23 was excommunicated from the Portuguese Jewish Congregation of Talmud Torah in Amsterdam on July 27, 1656. The reason for this drastic action are unclear. Given that Judaism was not a state sponsored religion, there were no civil consequences. Spinoza may have regretted the expulsion but he neither protested it nor mourned the formal separation from his spiritual community. The later German poet, Novalis, would call Spinoza “God-intoxicated.” Yet he was better known in history as the first secularist, the one who opened the attack on organized religion in Europe. Goldstein’s book is an exploration of this apparent paradox.
The synagogue rejected Spinoza but Spinoza did not reject the synagogue. According to biblical law, the nahala of Judaism is an irrevocable legacy shared by every Jew. It cannot be taken away or alienated. Historically the nahala was eretz Israel, the physical land. But over generations of dispersal, voluntary and forced, Jewish religious thought recognized that the abiding legacy of Judaism was cultural not geographical - the law, that is the rules of correct behavior, among people as well as between people and God. The law, in turn, was a part of the ‘covenant’, that permanent arrangement with the eternal, unnameable divine being within which the realities of existence could be progressively discovered.
This covenant of the nahala had no fixed content. It evolved continuously as reflected in biblical documents. Each interpretation of the law provoked further interpretations, not only of the law, but also of the character of human identity, of the meaning of being human. Spinoza’s recognition that this covenant is a process not its temporary result is of fundamental philosophical as well as religious import. It is, in a sense, the essence of Judaism, that the covenant demands an eternal search for its eternal object. Any attempt to limit this search by either law or social convention is a breach of the covenant. Spiritual learning inherits the past but it never stops transforming itself into a new inheritance.
Spinoza understood the difficulties his co-religionists as well as the rest of the world had with this concept of the covenant. Most of us would prefer stability, intellectual stability as well as emotional and political stability. But such stability can only be purchased at the cost of hope. Religious faith seeks to restrict thinking to an established set of doctrines about the world. Religious hope projects thought into some unknown future with a confidence that is more profound than faith. It is this hope that is the real substance of both the covenant of the nahala and Spinoza’s philosophy. He was the first to announce an epochal change - from the Age of Faith to the Age of Hope. To recognize that hope may not be enough to hope for is not betrayal; it is learning in the Spinozan (and Jewish) tradition.
“Inherited religion is no religion.” I have no recollection of the source of this aphorism but it was a startling revelation to my youthful mind. It was so obviously true to me. Without a critical investigation of one’s spiritual heritage, authentic religious conviction is impossible. We are all the product of our cultures, including its religion. Simple acceptance, ‘faith’, in the tenets of culture is expedient tribalism, not spiritual enlightenment and certainly not thought. Meaningful thought about religion irritates people, including oneself. Baruch Spinoza is the epitome of such thought.
The ancient Hebrew idea of the nahala or covenantal inheritance is, I think, Spinoza’s philosophical touchstone, especially in his philosophy of religion. Goldstein’s analysis implicitly shows how Spinoza took this idea as the core of not only his Jewishness but also of his humanity. What he created was a personal statement offered to others, inviting, not demanding, participation in the process of intellectual discovery that he considered religion to be. This statement is a modern formulation of the covenant of the nahala. It is a way to both appreciate and transcend one’s culture simultaneously. It is the positive motivation which, I think, underlies and complements Goldstein’s analysis
Baruch Spinoza at the age of 23 was excommunicated from the Portuguese Jewish Congregation of Talmud Torah in Amsterdam on July 27, 1656. The reason for this drastic action are unclear. Given that Judaism was not a state sponsored religion, there were no civil consequences. Spinoza may have regretted the expulsion but he neither protested it nor mourned the formal separation from his spiritual community. The later German poet, Novalis, would call Spinoza “God-intoxicated.” Yet he was better known in history as the first secularist, the one who opened the attack on organized religion in Europe. Goldstein’s book is an exploration of this apparent paradox.
The synagogue rejected Spinoza but Spinoza did not reject the synagogue. According to biblical law, the nahala of Judaism is an irrevocable legacy shared by every Jew. It cannot be taken away or alienated. Historically the nahala was eretz Israel, the physical land. But over generations of dispersal, voluntary and forced, Jewish religious thought recognized that the abiding legacy of Judaism was cultural not geographical - the law, that is the rules of correct behavior, among people as well as between people and God. The law, in turn, was a part of the ‘covenant’, that permanent arrangement with the eternal, unnameable divine being within which the realities of existence could be progressively discovered.
This covenant of the nahala had no fixed content. It evolved continuously as reflected in biblical documents. Each interpretation of the law provoked further interpretations, not only of the law, but also of the character of human identity, of the meaning of being human. Spinoza’s recognition that this covenant is a process not its temporary result is of fundamental philosophical as well as religious import. It is, in a sense, the essence of Judaism, that the covenant demands an eternal search for its eternal object. Any attempt to limit this search by either law or social convention is a breach of the covenant. Spiritual learning inherits the past but it never stops transforming itself into a new inheritance.
Spinoza understood the difficulties his co-religionists as well as the rest of the world had with this concept of the covenant. Most of us would prefer stability, intellectual stability as well as emotional and political stability. But such stability can only be purchased at the cost of hope. Religious faith seeks to restrict thinking to an established set of doctrines about the world. Religious hope projects thought into some unknown future with a confidence that is more profound than faith. It is this hope that is the real substance of both the covenant of the nahala and Spinoza’s philosophy. He was the first to announce an epochal change - from the Age of Faith to the Age of Hope. To recognize that hope may not be enough to hope for is not betrayal; it is learning in the Spinozan (and Jewish) tradition.
August 24, 2020
A Highly Personal Meditation On Spinoza
Rebecca Goldstein begins her study "Betraying Spinoza: "The Renegade Jew who Gave us Modernity" (2006) by asking why a book on Spinoza is appropriate for as series of books called "Jewish Encounters" which the publisher describes as "a project devoted to the promotion of Jewish literature, culture, and ideas." Spinoza (1632 -- 1677) was excommunicated with great vehemence from the synagogue in Amsterdam in 1656, and he never returned to it. While some Jewish thinkers have proposed over the years a symbolic, posthumous lifting of the excomminication, there are, for most readers, unbridgeable differences between Spinoza's thought and traditional Judaism. And Goldstein, a professor of philosophy, a distinguished novelist, and a MacArthur fellow, never suggests any such approach, to her credit. Why, then, an introductory book about Spinoza in a series devoted to "Jewish literature, culture, and ideas"? And why a book about "betraying" Spinoza?
Goldstein's answers are a mixture of the personal, historical, and philosophical. Raised in an Orthodox Jewish family, Goldstein received her early education in an all-girls religious school in Brooklyn. Her "secular" education in the school included an overview of intellectual history in which her teacher impressed upon her charges a highly negative view of Spinoza as an atheist and apostate with a highly arrogant view of the power of human reason and a philosophy which was both pagan and untenable. Goldstein became fascinated with Spinoza. Goldstein chose to become a philosopher (she does not tell us why) in the analytical tradition which is, for reasons different from those offered by Goldstein's early mentor, also highly critical of Spinoza's attempt at metaphysics. She was assigned to teach a course in continental rationalism: Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz; and, she tells the reader, returned to the philosopher with fresh eyes. Thus, part of the answer to the question "why Spinoza" is personal, as the philosopher reminded Goldstein of the orthodox religion of her childhood and then became a figure Goldstein in adulthood grew to admire and to teach.
Goldstein's answer also is in part historical. Much of her book is an exploration of the information that scholars have been able to discover about Spinoza's life and about the Amsterdam Jewish community in which he was raised. The Jewish community in Amsterdam were, for the most part, recent refuges from Portugal. They had fled to escape the terrors of the Inquisition. Many of the immigrants were Marranos who had on the surface converted to Christianity but remained internally Jewish. These "New Christians" were the target of the Inquisition and were at risk of a terrible death if they were discovered. Spinoza was raised among a community that was trying to recover its Judaism in a city, Amsterdam, of openness for its time. Goldstein traces various strands of Jewish thought, the rationalism of Maimonides and the Kabbalism that developed in response to it, shows how they were related to the persecution of the Jews by the Inquisition, and discusses their continued influence on Spinoza's own radical thinking.
Goldstein's history is informed by her talents as a novelist. She tries to get inside the young Spinoza and to think about how we would have felt in realizing that he could not accept the teachings of his elders, in his excommunication, in a possible failed love affair, and in other glimpses that scholars have given us of his inner life. Goldstein tries to see Spinoza's writings, chiefly the Ethics and the Tractatus, as memoirs and as personal documents. She is fully aware of the paradoxical character of this approach as no philosopher more that Spinoza tried to get beyond the personal and the idiosyncratic to find a truth "sub specie aeternitatis" that was the same for all people everywhere independent of personal foibles, ingrained prejudices, and beliefs. She gives a good introductory overview of Spinoza's religious critique in the Tractatus and of the exposition of his full philosophy in the Ethics while trying to tie them in to the history of the Marrano's and the Amsterdam Jewish community, to Spinoza's own life, to the development of a scientific world outlook, and to the tumultuous politics of the Amsterdam of Spinoza's day.
And how does Goldstein see herself as "betraying" Spinoza? One might suppose that she would consider the Judaism of her youth and find a way of returning to and adopting it. Here again, this is not what Goldstein is about. She appears committed in a full, honest, and for me highly commendable way to modernity and to the secularism which Spinoza helped bring about. Goldstein "betrays" Spinoza by her commitment to the imagination and to the value of particularity as opposed to what she finds as Spinoza's cosmic and impersonal rationalism. She suggests that some of Spinoza is inconsistent with her feelings as a lover, mother, and novelist. Thus, her book is pointedly dedicated to "Steve" with the addition "DESPITE SPINOZA." And when she points out that the mature Spinoza "could have little considered regard for imagination, a faculty not known for its skill in grasping logical entailments, and therefore a faculty to be deemed both cognitavely and ethically negligible" she observes simply: "But here I disagree." (p. 196) Goldstein refers throughout the book to her love for her two daughters which in Spinozistic terms may verge on the irrational but which she will not give up. And in her brief but good bibliography, Isaac Bashevis Singer's magnificent story "The Spinoza of Market Street", has the last word, as Goldstein quotes the words of its protagonist, a life-long student of Spinoza, saying under the power of love for a woman: "Divine Spinoza forgive me. I have become a fool." It is in appreciation of the power and worth of certain emotions rather than in a retreat from secularism that Spinoza is deemed to be "betrayed".
I have studied Spinoza for many years and learned a great deal from Goldstein's book. I appreciate her candor and refusal to lapse into sentimentality. Goldstein has written a thoughtful and highly personal account of a great philosopher that will be valuable to those who know his thought and to those coming to it for the first time.
Robin Friedman
Rebecca Goldstein begins her study "Betraying Spinoza: "The Renegade Jew who Gave us Modernity" (2006) by asking why a book on Spinoza is appropriate for as series of books called "Jewish Encounters" which the publisher describes as "a project devoted to the promotion of Jewish literature, culture, and ideas." Spinoza (1632 -- 1677) was excommunicated with great vehemence from the synagogue in Amsterdam in 1656, and he never returned to it. While some Jewish thinkers have proposed over the years a symbolic, posthumous lifting of the excomminication, there are, for most readers, unbridgeable differences between Spinoza's thought and traditional Judaism. And Goldstein, a professor of philosophy, a distinguished novelist, and a MacArthur fellow, never suggests any such approach, to her credit. Why, then, an introductory book about Spinoza in a series devoted to "Jewish literature, culture, and ideas"? And why a book about "betraying" Spinoza?
Goldstein's answers are a mixture of the personal, historical, and philosophical. Raised in an Orthodox Jewish family, Goldstein received her early education in an all-girls religious school in Brooklyn. Her "secular" education in the school included an overview of intellectual history in which her teacher impressed upon her charges a highly negative view of Spinoza as an atheist and apostate with a highly arrogant view of the power of human reason and a philosophy which was both pagan and untenable. Goldstein became fascinated with Spinoza. Goldstein chose to become a philosopher (she does not tell us why) in the analytical tradition which is, for reasons different from those offered by Goldstein's early mentor, also highly critical of Spinoza's attempt at metaphysics. She was assigned to teach a course in continental rationalism: Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz; and, she tells the reader, returned to the philosopher with fresh eyes. Thus, part of the answer to the question "why Spinoza" is personal, as the philosopher reminded Goldstein of the orthodox religion of her childhood and then became a figure Goldstein in adulthood grew to admire and to teach.
Goldstein's answer also is in part historical. Much of her book is an exploration of the information that scholars have been able to discover about Spinoza's life and about the Amsterdam Jewish community in which he was raised. The Jewish community in Amsterdam were, for the most part, recent refuges from Portugal. They had fled to escape the terrors of the Inquisition. Many of the immigrants were Marranos who had on the surface converted to Christianity but remained internally Jewish. These "New Christians" were the target of the Inquisition and were at risk of a terrible death if they were discovered. Spinoza was raised among a community that was trying to recover its Judaism in a city, Amsterdam, of openness for its time. Goldstein traces various strands of Jewish thought, the rationalism of Maimonides and the Kabbalism that developed in response to it, shows how they were related to the persecution of the Jews by the Inquisition, and discusses their continued influence on Spinoza's own radical thinking.
Goldstein's history is informed by her talents as a novelist. She tries to get inside the young Spinoza and to think about how we would have felt in realizing that he could not accept the teachings of his elders, in his excommunication, in a possible failed love affair, and in other glimpses that scholars have given us of his inner life. Goldstein tries to see Spinoza's writings, chiefly the Ethics and the Tractatus, as memoirs and as personal documents. She is fully aware of the paradoxical character of this approach as no philosopher more that Spinoza tried to get beyond the personal and the idiosyncratic to find a truth "sub specie aeternitatis" that was the same for all people everywhere independent of personal foibles, ingrained prejudices, and beliefs. She gives a good introductory overview of Spinoza's religious critique in the Tractatus and of the exposition of his full philosophy in the Ethics while trying to tie them in to the history of the Marrano's and the Amsterdam Jewish community, to Spinoza's own life, to the development of a scientific world outlook, and to the tumultuous politics of the Amsterdam of Spinoza's day.
And how does Goldstein see herself as "betraying" Spinoza? One might suppose that she would consider the Judaism of her youth and find a way of returning to and adopting it. Here again, this is not what Goldstein is about. She appears committed in a full, honest, and for me highly commendable way to modernity and to the secularism which Spinoza helped bring about. Goldstein "betrays" Spinoza by her commitment to the imagination and to the value of particularity as opposed to what she finds as Spinoza's cosmic and impersonal rationalism. She suggests that some of Spinoza is inconsistent with her feelings as a lover, mother, and novelist. Thus, her book is pointedly dedicated to "Steve" with the addition "DESPITE SPINOZA." And when she points out that the mature Spinoza "could have little considered regard for imagination, a faculty not known for its skill in grasping logical entailments, and therefore a faculty to be deemed both cognitavely and ethically negligible" she observes simply: "But here I disagree." (p. 196) Goldstein refers throughout the book to her love for her two daughters which in Spinozistic terms may verge on the irrational but which she will not give up. And in her brief but good bibliography, Isaac Bashevis Singer's magnificent story "The Spinoza of Market Street", has the last word, as Goldstein quotes the words of its protagonist, a life-long student of Spinoza, saying under the power of love for a woman: "Divine Spinoza forgive me. I have become a fool." It is in appreciation of the power and worth of certain emotions rather than in a retreat from secularism that Spinoza is deemed to be "betrayed".
I have studied Spinoza for many years and learned a great deal from Goldstein's book. I appreciate her candor and refusal to lapse into sentimentality. Goldstein has written a thoughtful and highly personal account of a great philosopher that will be valuable to those who know his thought and to those coming to it for the first time.
Robin Friedman
January 9, 2010
"By decree of the angels and by the command of the holy men, we excommunicate, expel, curse and damn Baruch de Espinoza, with the consent of God, Blessed be He, and with the consent of the entire holy congregation, and in front of these holy scrolls with the 613 precepts which are written therein; cursing him with the excommunication with which Joshua banned Jericho and with the curse which Elisha cursed the boys and with all the castigations which are written in the Book of the Law. Cursed be he by day and cursed be he by night; cursed be he when he lies down and cursed be he when he rises up. Cursed be he when he goes out and cursed be he when he comes in. The Lord will not spare him, but then the anger of the Lord and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the Lord shall blot out his name from under heaven. And the Lord shall separate him unto evil out of all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this book of the law. But you that cleave unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day." -- excerpt from the excommunication of Baruch de Espinoza, July 27, 1656.
Bertrand Russell describes Spinoza as "the noblest and most lovable of the great philosophers." I cannot disagree. As remarkable as his philosophy is, his conduct is even more so.
Goldstein titled her book Betraying Spinoza because she hopes to reconstruct his identity and demonstrate how it influenced his thinking, while recognizing that his formal philosophy endeavors to abrogate the concept of identity. Through an analysis of Jewish history at large (and the 17th century Amsterdam Jewish community in particular) and making the occasional educated guess, she makes the compelling case that Spinoza, in rejecting Judaism, was a sort of Jewish savior. By destroying the Jewish conceit of being God's "chosen people," he undercuts all forms of essentialism, religious or otherwise.
His impact on John Locke is noted. The leap to his influence on the deism that informed the thinking of those who would found the United States is short. When I am at my most pessimistic I think of the philosopher, and those like him, and I allow myself to hope.
Bertrand Russell describes Spinoza as "the noblest and most lovable of the great philosophers." I cannot disagree. As remarkable as his philosophy is, his conduct is even more so.
Goldstein titled her book Betraying Spinoza because she hopes to reconstruct his identity and demonstrate how it influenced his thinking, while recognizing that his formal philosophy endeavors to abrogate the concept of identity. Through an analysis of Jewish history at large (and the 17th century Amsterdam Jewish community in particular) and making the occasional educated guess, she makes the compelling case that Spinoza, in rejecting Judaism, was a sort of Jewish savior. By destroying the Jewish conceit of being God's "chosen people," he undercuts all forms of essentialism, religious or otherwise.
His impact on John Locke is noted. The leap to his influence on the deism that informed the thinking of those who would found the United States is short. When I am at my most pessimistic I think of the philosopher, and those like him, and I allow myself to hope.
February 8, 2022
I had known about this book for a good while, having read and enjoyed Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away. Then Spinoza popped up in the news toward the end of 2021: a Spinoza scholar who wanted to visit his subject's old stomping grounds got a letter telling him Spinoza's excommunication was still in effect, and for his trouble the would-be visitor was declared a persona non grata. Some liberal friends cringed with embarrassment at the exhibition of small-mindedness, but before they could get too scandalized, an invitation was forthcoming after all. Seems that first inhospitable respondent did not have the final word.
The publicity was my tipping point; I ordered the book and have read it.
The Prologue tells about the excommunication, the first chapter is on his philosophy, the second looks at history, the third deals with issues of identity, and the fourth chapter cycles back and takes his philosophy, history and identity to the next level. That's it cut and dried, but dry it is not. Rebecca Goldstein's strong suit is that she makes philosophy revelatory. In fact, telling everything she has written would be akin to a spoiler, since part of the fun is seeing it for yourself, and despite being scholarly she's good at showing you. Suffice it to say Spinoza is not an atheist, but he proves to his own satisfaction at least that God is one with logic which is one with the world and the things that exist and happen in the world. God is not transcendent, which means we don't have to worry about a creator God. God is immanent.
According to Spinoza's logic, then, existence is the essence of "nature," i.e., all that is: the opposite, then, of the idea of multiverses.
The wrinkle in his chain of reasoning has to do with what the author calls the Presumption of Reason, which Spinoza takes as proven, or, rather, as simply a law of logic, but she says not. What is being presumed is that for every fact there is a reason -- that there are no loose ends -- but the author says that's either true or not true of the world, while Spinoza's entire structure assumes it is true.
Neither the author's religious education nor her philosophical education led to any sort of sympathy with Spinoza. She was taught as a child that Spinoza is an apikorus (literally, Epicurean, or philosopher) -- heretic in Hebrew -- and that his philosophy amounted to atheism. And our current philosophy is analytic philosophy, inductive and empirical; it teaches that Spinoza's philosophy, which is deductive (like logic and mathematical proofs) is circular and nonsensical.
Nevertheless she eventually came to be moved by what Spinoza teaches. She herself teaches a course in seventeenth century rationalism (Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz) and has watched the light bulb come on for generations of students.
Ironically, she had become a philosopher.
Spinoza's philosophy is akin to the "detachment" achieved in Buddhist enlightenment, albeit reached by other means. For him salvation consists of the pleasure when things click and the peace achieved via letting go what cannot be controlled; that is the only salvation. For him God = logic = all of existence: logic fully embodied in reality.
She illustrates the problem of how this comes across by means of the Woody Allen quip, "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying."
By the author's lights, Spinoza was in extremis intellectually on account of his Marrano background. She's pointing to the forced conversions and traumatized identities -- the trauma, generally speaking; the tortures that informed his family and communal history -- under Reconquista and the Spanish-Portuguese inquisition.
In the seventeenth century, "Portuguese" was understood to mean "Jewish." The Jews who escaped to Portugal only to find themselves under the same brutal system eventually eluded the long arm of the Inquisition by decamping for relatively liberal Amsterdam. There they struggled to reclaim their Jewish identities and reconstruct their Jewish lives, all while placating the powers-that-be. They had to walk a fine line and pass certain religious litmus tests requiring, among other things, that their leaders keep the community in line. To do otherwise would be to risk their precarious standing.
That is the context, then, in which his excommunication occurred.
It's to that historical background that Rebecca Goldstein attributes what she calls Spinoza's "ecstatic rationalism." Here's a Spinoza quote she includes in her book:
She continues:
She goes on to say this ecstatic impulse, in which she also sees something Platonic, sets Spinoza apart from the other two rationalists, Descartes and Liebniz, who were Christians, thus members of the majority, and did not have to solve for themselves the Jewish problem -- Jewish identity, suffering, and history.
I used to say I am a panentheist, but maybe that's because I thought it resolved something, or that there was something wrong with being a pantheist. Reading Spinoza, I'm thinking maybe I am a pantheist after all. I'm not detached and enlightened as we have been saying about Spinoza, certainly not, nor did I get there through logic and mathematical proofs. Not me. But immanence -- yes. And I really don't worry about that pesky question of a creator God.
My views have changed over time. I imported my original theology from my mother. In the '70s I experienced the world (and thought about it) in terms of the Americanized version of Zen that was in the air at the time. And in the early 2000s my language shifted again, toward more conventional God terms. That's how I get my arms around everything, or how it gets its arms around me. Mostly I ask for strength and courage and to be able to do God's will, which means writing and expressing myself, publicly, I mean -- not in private. Not withdrawing too much. Not expecting demands on others to solve (resolve?) anything.
Now, I can imagine what those of my friends "without a religious bone in their bodies" think about that. They think it's a crutch. Perhaps I don't believe in the God they don't believe in, either. Perhaps they, like Spinoza's rationalist contemporaries, are members of the hegemonic majority, and just maybe that has something to do with it.
I am not Oz, the great and powerful. I am Jan, the small and weak.
...And it works. Not like a trick works, but the way truth works.
Let's hear it for Spinoza.
A few years ago I read Rebecca Goldstein's novel 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction and didn't love it. I tried and abandoned The Mind-Body Problem because I couldn't get into it. But I loved Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away, and now this one. On the strength of that sample, I recommend her nonfiction.
The publicity was my tipping point; I ordered the book and have read it.
The Prologue tells about the excommunication, the first chapter is on his philosophy, the second looks at history, the third deals with issues of identity, and the fourth chapter cycles back and takes his philosophy, history and identity to the next level. That's it cut and dried, but dry it is not. Rebecca Goldstein's strong suit is that she makes philosophy revelatory. In fact, telling everything she has written would be akin to a spoiler, since part of the fun is seeing it for yourself, and despite being scholarly she's good at showing you. Suffice it to say Spinoza is not an atheist, but he proves to his own satisfaction at least that God is one with logic which is one with the world and the things that exist and happen in the world. God is not transcendent, which means we don't have to worry about a creator God. God is immanent.
According to Spinoza's logic, then, existence is the essence of "nature," i.e., all that is: the opposite, then, of the idea of multiverses.
The wrinkle in his chain of reasoning has to do with what the author calls the Presumption of Reason, which Spinoza takes as proven, or, rather, as simply a law of logic, but she says not. What is being presumed is that for every fact there is a reason -- that there are no loose ends -- but the author says that's either true or not true of the world, while Spinoza's entire structure assumes it is true.
Neither the author's religious education nor her philosophical education led to any sort of sympathy with Spinoza. She was taught as a child that Spinoza is an apikorus (literally, Epicurean, or philosopher) -- heretic in Hebrew -- and that his philosophy amounted to atheism. And our current philosophy is analytic philosophy, inductive and empirical; it teaches that Spinoza's philosophy, which is deductive (like logic and mathematical proofs) is circular and nonsensical.
Nevertheless she eventually came to be moved by what Spinoza teaches. She herself teaches a course in seventeenth century rationalism (Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz) and has watched the light bulb come on for generations of students.
Ironically, she had become a philosopher.
Spinoza's philosophy is akin to the "detachment" achieved in Buddhist enlightenment, albeit reached by other means. For him salvation consists of the pleasure when things click and the peace achieved via letting go what cannot be controlled; that is the only salvation. For him God = logic = all of existence: logic fully embodied in reality.
She illustrates the problem of how this comes across by means of the Woody Allen quip, "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying."
By the author's lights, Spinoza was in extremis intellectually on account of his Marrano background. She's pointing to the forced conversions and traumatized identities -- the trauma, generally speaking; the tortures that informed his family and communal history -- under Reconquista and the Spanish-Portuguese inquisition.
In the seventeenth century, "Portuguese" was understood to mean "Jewish." The Jews who escaped to Portugal only to find themselves under the same brutal system eventually eluded the long arm of the Inquisition by decamping for relatively liberal Amsterdam. There they struggled to reclaim their Jewish identities and reconstruct their Jewish lives, all while placating the powers-that-be. They had to walk a fine line and pass certain religious litmus tests requiring, among other things, that their leaders keep the community in line. To do otherwise would be to risk their precarious standing.
That is the context, then, in which his excommunication occurred.
It's to that historical background that Rebecca Goldstein attributes what she calls Spinoza's "ecstatic rationalism." Here's a Spinoza quote she includes in her book:
If the way which I have pointed out, as leading to this result, seems exceedingly hard, it may nevertheless be discovered. Needs must it be hard, since it is seldom found. How would it be possible, if salvation were ready to our hand, and could without great labor be found, that it should be by almost all men be neglected? But all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare.
She continues:
From causa sui to salvation. Salvation is achieved by bringing the vision of the causa sui--the vast and infinite system of logical entailments of which each of us is but one entailment--into one's very own conception of oneself, and, with that vision, reconstituting oneself, henceforward living, as it were, outside of oneself. The point, for Spinoza, is not to become insiders, but rather outsiders. The point is to become ultimate outsiders.
The word "ecstasy" derives from the Greek for "to stand outside of." To stand outside of what? Of oneself. It is in that original sense that Spinoza offers us something new under the sun: ecstatic rationalism. He makes of the faculty of reason, as it was identified through Cartesianism, a means of our salvation. The preoccupations of his inquisitorially oppressed community come together with the mathematical inspiration of Cartesianism to give us the system of Spinoza.
She goes on to say this ecstatic impulse, in which she also sees something Platonic, sets Spinoza apart from the other two rationalists, Descartes and Liebniz, who were Christians, thus members of the majority, and did not have to solve for themselves the Jewish problem -- Jewish identity, suffering, and history.
Only Spinoza had to fight his way clear of the dilemmas of Jewish being, fighting all the way to ecstasy. ...
Spinoza names the ecstasy his system delivers amor dei intellectualis, the intellectual love of God.
I used to say I am a panentheist, but maybe that's because I thought it resolved something, or that there was something wrong with being a pantheist. Reading Spinoza, I'm thinking maybe I am a pantheist after all. I'm not detached and enlightened as we have been saying about Spinoza, certainly not, nor did I get there through logic and mathematical proofs. Not me. But immanence -- yes. And I really don't worry about that pesky question of a creator God.
My views have changed over time. I imported my original theology from my mother. In the '70s I experienced the world (and thought about it) in terms of the Americanized version of Zen that was in the air at the time. And in the early 2000s my language shifted again, toward more conventional God terms. That's how I get my arms around everything, or how it gets its arms around me. Mostly I ask for strength and courage and to be able to do God's will, which means writing and expressing myself, publicly, I mean -- not in private. Not withdrawing too much. Not expecting demands on others to solve (resolve?) anything.
Now, I can imagine what those of my friends "without a religious bone in their bodies" think about that. They think it's a crutch. Perhaps I don't believe in the God they don't believe in, either. Perhaps they, like Spinoza's rationalist contemporaries, are members of the hegemonic majority, and just maybe that has something to do with it.
I am not Oz, the great and powerful. I am Jan, the small and weak.
...And it works. Not like a trick works, but the way truth works.
Let's hear it for Spinoza.
A few years ago I read Rebecca Goldstein's novel 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction and didn't love it. I tried and abandoned The Mind-Body Problem because I couldn't get into it. But I loved Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away, and now this one. On the strength of that sample, I recommend her nonfiction.
March 11, 2010
It’s an interesting experience to read Rebecca Goldstein’s “Betraying Spinoza” immediately after reading Steven Nadler’s “Spinoza: A Life.” They are two very different books about Spinoza with different strengths and weaknesses, although arguably Nadler’s has more strengths while Goldstein’s has more weaknesses.
While Nadler’s “Spinoza: A Life” is a detailed, factual, historical biography, Goldstein’s “Betraying Spinoza” tries to do many things, some of them more effectively than others. In some places, “Betraying Spinoza” offers a cliff notes-esque review of parts of “Spinoza: A Life,” for which I was grateful. I also appreciated Goldstein’s explanations of Spinoza’s philosophy, made more digestible for laypeople like me; I felt like I was sitting in one of Goldstein’s undergraduate lectures where I could actually follow the material. “Spinoza: A Life,” in contrast, contained many detailed sections describing Spinoza’s philosophy that were difficult for me to penetrate, using words like “substance” and “extension” in ways that clearly mean something different to philosophers than they do to ignoramuses like me.
Goldstein also offers us her first memory of exposure to Spinoza, taking place in her Bais Yaakov high school class. I appreciated the familiarity of the description, as I attended a similar high school. I was surprised by the amount of detail her high school teacher knew about Spinoza’s life, and wondered how much of this Goldstein was putting into her teacher’s mouth after the fact, having read up on Spinoza.
Much of the book was speculative and subjective in this way, and read less like a scholarly work and more like an intellectual blog post. This was especially true in the last section where Goldstein attempted to imagine an inner life for Spinoza in the absence of any concrete indicators. I admired Goldstein’s ability to incorporate and apparently adhere to what factual information we do have, but I can't help feeling ambivalent about the value of reading something that claims to be about Spinoza but is ultimately not much more than a series of Goldstein’s projections.
To be sure, Nadler’s book is drier and a more difficult read, but it’s also a more focused and informative book, whereas Goldstein’s tends to ramble and speculate, frequently veering off on tangents and diluting factuality with a high degree of personal musing. One goodreads reviewer who clearly knows more than I do about the subject seemed to feel that Goldstein was stretching things and making illusory connections; I have no idea whether or not that’s accurate, but her general writing style leaves a lot of room for that.
For all my criticisms, though, I have to admit that Goldstein’s book may be a good resource for people who want to learn about Spinoza but aren’t sufficiently motivated to plow through a challenging book like Nadler’s. Goldstein’s book is informative and undemanding, if you have patience for her tangents and speculations. I found that reading Nadler’s book first and following up with Goldstein’s gave me the best of both worlds in a sense; having worked my way through a more academic book on Spinoza, it was pleasant to consolidate the knowledge I gained with something more lightweight.
While Nadler’s “Spinoza: A Life” is a detailed, factual, historical biography, Goldstein’s “Betraying Spinoza” tries to do many things, some of them more effectively than others. In some places, “Betraying Spinoza” offers a cliff notes-esque review of parts of “Spinoza: A Life,” for which I was grateful. I also appreciated Goldstein’s explanations of Spinoza’s philosophy, made more digestible for laypeople like me; I felt like I was sitting in one of Goldstein’s undergraduate lectures where I could actually follow the material. “Spinoza: A Life,” in contrast, contained many detailed sections describing Spinoza’s philosophy that were difficult for me to penetrate, using words like “substance” and “extension” in ways that clearly mean something different to philosophers than they do to ignoramuses like me.
Goldstein also offers us her first memory of exposure to Spinoza, taking place in her Bais Yaakov high school class. I appreciated the familiarity of the description, as I attended a similar high school. I was surprised by the amount of detail her high school teacher knew about Spinoza’s life, and wondered how much of this Goldstein was putting into her teacher’s mouth after the fact, having read up on Spinoza.
Much of the book was speculative and subjective in this way, and read less like a scholarly work and more like an intellectual blog post. This was especially true in the last section where Goldstein attempted to imagine an inner life for Spinoza in the absence of any concrete indicators. I admired Goldstein’s ability to incorporate and apparently adhere to what factual information we do have, but I can't help feeling ambivalent about the value of reading something that claims to be about Spinoza but is ultimately not much more than a series of Goldstein’s projections.
To be sure, Nadler’s book is drier and a more difficult read, but it’s also a more focused and informative book, whereas Goldstein’s tends to ramble and speculate, frequently veering off on tangents and diluting factuality with a high degree of personal musing. One goodreads reviewer who clearly knows more than I do about the subject seemed to feel that Goldstein was stretching things and making illusory connections; I have no idea whether or not that’s accurate, but her general writing style leaves a lot of room for that.
For all my criticisms, though, I have to admit that Goldstein’s book may be a good resource for people who want to learn about Spinoza but aren’t sufficiently motivated to plow through a challenging book like Nadler’s. Goldstein’s book is informative and undemanding, if you have patience for her tangents and speculations. I found that reading Nadler’s book first and following up with Goldstein’s gave me the best of both worlds in a sense; having worked my way through a more academic book on Spinoza, it was pleasant to consolidate the knowledge I gained with something more lightweight.
October 14, 2012
This book is part of a series on famous Jewish thinkers. Spinoza was excommunicated from the Portuguese Jewish community in which he had been educated when he was 23. The group had been called "marranos" believed to be a Castilian word for swine. They fled to the relatively liberal city of Amsterdam.
Spinoza became a lens grinder. A very good one, apparently. The dust helped to end his life early. A lens grinder is an interesting philosophical job. As a philosopher, Spinoza looks at the world through his own lenses.
He seems to me a gentle man, someone I would be happy to meet and call a friend. There is just such greatness about him.
He wore a signet ring throughout his life inscribed with the word "caute", Latin for "cautiously." An image of a thorny rose was engraved on it, so he signed his name "sub rosa." The name Spinoza derives from the word for thorn in Portuguese.
His goal was to give us a rigorously proved view of reality. If we follow it, we find a life worth living. All his faith was put into the power of reason.
He was known in Hebrew, Portuguese,and Latin as Baruch, Bento, and Benedictus, translated by all three as "blessed."
Here is part of the curse placed on Spinoza:
"having long known of the evil opinions and acts of Baruch de Spinoza, they have endeavored by various means and promises, to turn him from his evil ways. But having failed to make him mend his wicked ways, and, on the contrary, daily receiving more and more serious information about the abominable heresies which he practiced and taught and about his monstrous deeds, and having for this numerous trustworthy witnesses who have deposed and born witness to this effect in the presence of the said Espinoza, they became convinced of the truth of this matter; and after all of this has been investigated in the presence of the honorable hakhamim, they have decided, with their consent, that the said Espinoza should be excommunicated and expelled from the people of Israel..."
"By decree of the angels and by the command of the holy men, we excommunicate, expel, curse and damn Baruch de Espinoza, with the consent of God, Blessed be He, and with the consent of the entire holy congregation, and in front of these holy scrolls with the 613 precepts which are written therein; cursing him with the excommunication with which Joshua banned Jericho and with the curse which Elisha cursed the boys and with all the castigations which are written in the Book of the Law. Cursed be he by day and cursed be he by night; cursed be he when he lies down and cursed be he when he rises up. Cursed be he when he goes out and cursed be he when he comes in. The Lord will not spare him, but then the anger of the Lord and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the Lord shall blot out his name from under heaven. And the Lord shall separate him unto evil out of all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this book of the law. But you that cleave unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day."
The proclamation of the excommunication concludes with the following famous lines of the actual warning:
"That no one should communicate with him neither in writing nor accord him any favor nor stay with him under the same roof nor within four cubits in his vicinity; nor shall he read any treatise composed or written by him."
Compare the curse with the words of Spinoza: "Without intelligence there is not rational life, and things are only good in so far as they aid man in his enjoyment of the intellectual life which is defined by intelligence. Contrariwise, whatsoever things hinder man's perfection of his reason, and capability to enjoy the rational life, are alone called evil."
Spinoza thought the world was of itself. Nothing outside the world, no transcendent god, explains the world. He believes our finite minds are limited because of their finitude.
The book deals with some of the history of the Inquisition. Tomas de Torquemada in 1483 became head of it. He was insatiable. He demanded retrials of people found innocent. Sometimes he burned the victims anyway. He designed the Inquisition to keep running after he died. Torture took place in the greatest secrecy. "Without an infusion of blood" meant someone would be burned to death. Supposedly, a less cruel punishment. It was justified by John 15:6, "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." Penitent heretics were strangled rather than burned. Goods were confiscated, so the Inquisitors became rich.
Jews had to convert and became the New Christians. Even today some Catholics recite an incantation before entering a church that dates back to when Jews used phrases to disavow what they were about to do. The two religions blended in many ways.
St. Teresa of Avila was part of a New Christian family. And she taught St. John of the Cross.
Spinoza offers us a religion of reason. It asks us to be reasonable, something far more difficult to do than the most extreme asceticism. We must get rid of all of our self-deceptions about being the chosen ones because we happened to be born into a certain religion. There is no privileged access to the truth. He distinguishes between religion and superstition. He condemns the latter. Although Spinoza was a determinist, he was not a fatalist. Like me.
Famous Jewish joke. A priest puts his hand on a Jew's head and keeps repeating, "You were once a Jew and now you're Christian." Later the priest catches the convert eating chicken instead of fish on Friday. The convert explains he put his hand on the chicken's head and kept repeating, "You were once a chicken and now you're a fish."
Spinoza handled the excommunication well. He chose to reconstruct himself.
Spinoza defines "finitude" as being subject to forces beyond one's control. We are incurably finite, despite delusions to the contrary. We don't bring ourselves into being and we can't prevent ourselves from going out of being. To feel oneself expanding outward into the world is pleasure. To feel oneself diminishing and contracting out of the world is pain. Desire is the third of the "primary emotions." They are judgments as to what will make us further our lifelong project to persist and flourish in this world.
Love is the feeling of flourishing. Just thinking that I'm flourishing gives me the feeling of pleasure that reinforces the judgment that I'm flourishing.
Once we purge our minds of the illusion of contingency, peace will be possible within each of us. The peace will be of acquiescence, of unity, and of purpose. There is the only true god. There is only one logically possible world. We must understand and accept it.
Spinoza became a lens grinder. A very good one, apparently. The dust helped to end his life early. A lens grinder is an interesting philosophical job. As a philosopher, Spinoza looks at the world through his own lenses.
He seems to me a gentle man, someone I would be happy to meet and call a friend. There is just such greatness about him.
He wore a signet ring throughout his life inscribed with the word "caute", Latin for "cautiously." An image of a thorny rose was engraved on it, so he signed his name "sub rosa." The name Spinoza derives from the word for thorn in Portuguese.
His goal was to give us a rigorously proved view of reality. If we follow it, we find a life worth living. All his faith was put into the power of reason.
He was known in Hebrew, Portuguese,and Latin as Baruch, Bento, and Benedictus, translated by all three as "blessed."
Here is part of the curse placed on Spinoza:
"having long known of the evil opinions and acts of Baruch de Spinoza, they have endeavored by various means and promises, to turn him from his evil ways. But having failed to make him mend his wicked ways, and, on the contrary, daily receiving more and more serious information about the abominable heresies which he practiced and taught and about his monstrous deeds, and having for this numerous trustworthy witnesses who have deposed and born witness to this effect in the presence of the said Espinoza, they became convinced of the truth of this matter; and after all of this has been investigated in the presence of the honorable hakhamim, they have decided, with their consent, that the said Espinoza should be excommunicated and expelled from the people of Israel..."
"By decree of the angels and by the command of the holy men, we excommunicate, expel, curse and damn Baruch de Espinoza, with the consent of God, Blessed be He, and with the consent of the entire holy congregation, and in front of these holy scrolls with the 613 precepts which are written therein; cursing him with the excommunication with which Joshua banned Jericho and with the curse which Elisha cursed the boys and with all the castigations which are written in the Book of the Law. Cursed be he by day and cursed be he by night; cursed be he when he lies down and cursed be he when he rises up. Cursed be he when he goes out and cursed be he when he comes in. The Lord will not spare him, but then the anger of the Lord and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the Lord shall blot out his name from under heaven. And the Lord shall separate him unto evil out of all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this book of the law. But you that cleave unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day."
The proclamation of the excommunication concludes with the following famous lines of the actual warning:
"That no one should communicate with him neither in writing nor accord him any favor nor stay with him under the same roof nor within four cubits in his vicinity; nor shall he read any treatise composed or written by him."
Compare the curse with the words of Spinoza: "Without intelligence there is not rational life, and things are only good in so far as they aid man in his enjoyment of the intellectual life which is defined by intelligence. Contrariwise, whatsoever things hinder man's perfection of his reason, and capability to enjoy the rational life, are alone called evil."
Spinoza thought the world was of itself. Nothing outside the world, no transcendent god, explains the world. He believes our finite minds are limited because of their finitude.
The book deals with some of the history of the Inquisition. Tomas de Torquemada in 1483 became head of it. He was insatiable. He demanded retrials of people found innocent. Sometimes he burned the victims anyway. He designed the Inquisition to keep running after he died. Torture took place in the greatest secrecy. "Without an infusion of blood" meant someone would be burned to death. Supposedly, a less cruel punishment. It was justified by John 15:6, "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." Penitent heretics were strangled rather than burned. Goods were confiscated, so the Inquisitors became rich.
Jews had to convert and became the New Christians. Even today some Catholics recite an incantation before entering a church that dates back to when Jews used phrases to disavow what they were about to do. The two religions blended in many ways.
St. Teresa of Avila was part of a New Christian family. And she taught St. John of the Cross.
Spinoza offers us a religion of reason. It asks us to be reasonable, something far more difficult to do than the most extreme asceticism. We must get rid of all of our self-deceptions about being the chosen ones because we happened to be born into a certain religion. There is no privileged access to the truth. He distinguishes between religion and superstition. He condemns the latter. Although Spinoza was a determinist, he was not a fatalist. Like me.
Famous Jewish joke. A priest puts his hand on a Jew's head and keeps repeating, "You were once a Jew and now you're Christian." Later the priest catches the convert eating chicken instead of fish on Friday. The convert explains he put his hand on the chicken's head and kept repeating, "You were once a chicken and now you're a fish."
Spinoza handled the excommunication well. He chose to reconstruct himself.
Spinoza defines "finitude" as being subject to forces beyond one's control. We are incurably finite, despite delusions to the contrary. We don't bring ourselves into being and we can't prevent ourselves from going out of being. To feel oneself expanding outward into the world is pleasure. To feel oneself diminishing and contracting out of the world is pain. Desire is the third of the "primary emotions." They are judgments as to what will make us further our lifelong project to persist and flourish in this world.
Love is the feeling of flourishing. Just thinking that I'm flourishing gives me the feeling of pleasure that reinforces the judgment that I'm flourishing.
Once we purge our minds of the illusion of contingency, peace will be possible within each of us. The peace will be of acquiescence, of unity, and of purpose. There is the only true god. There is only one logically possible world. We must understand and accept it.
April 3, 2021
This is a silly book. Rebecca Goldstein has writted a book ostensiably about Spinoza och yet it is mostly about his jewish ancestry (combined with aspects of her own biography). It seems odd to try focus on who Spinoza was rather than emphasizing his thought. His thought is all about how we should be impersonal and that the highest form of living is breaking through the illusion of the self (or rather seeing life from an impersonal third perspective).
The author is in no way coherent. She idiolizes Spinozas thought on one page and yet on the next emphasizes the value of having a personal identity. The format of the book also shows how little she has understood his philosophy. Spinoza would have recoiled at including his own subjectivity in his work Ethics. I also don't see why it would be impossible to break away from a tight nit community in order to create a life for yourself (as numerous other thinkers have done).
I was so provoked by the author that I was only able to read two thirds of the book. Read this only if you are very interested in jewish history.
The author is in no way coherent. She idiolizes Spinozas thought on one page and yet on the next emphasizes the value of having a personal identity. The format of the book also shows how little she has understood his philosophy. Spinoza would have recoiled at including his own subjectivity in his work Ethics. I also don't see why it would be impossible to break away from a tight nit community in order to create a life for yourself (as numerous other thinkers have done).
I was so provoked by the author that I was only able to read two thirds of the book. Read this only if you are very interested in jewish history.
July 23, 2023
May 2023
5 stars
On my second reading of this book, I am stumped trying to remember why the first reading was difficult for me.
It is a combination of part autobiographical of Rebecca, sharing her experience of learning Spinoza while teaching it to us, and part Jewish history , where she takes many meandering breaks to the generations preceding Spinoza, so we can better understand the community where he was born and raised, and the zeitgeist of his time.
Oh, and I loved her dear Mrs. Schoenfeld, with her British accent and all.
A touching excerpt on identity:
Smack in the middle of a book whose protagonist's very philosophy is to depersonalize identity,
We have this:
"Were such ardent believers as St. Teresa of Ávila, who not only gave themselves wholeheartedly to Christianity, but were accepted, even canonized, still incorrigibly Jewish?
Implicit in the constancy of inquisitorial attention is an assumption of ineradicable Jewish essentialism. No matter how sincere the conversion, no matter how devoutly Christian the life, Jewish ancestry branded one forever suspect. It was as if certain propositional attitudes - most notably the rejection of Jesus of Galilee as the Messiah - were transmitted in the blood, making true Christian sincerity all but impossible, and for all the generations to come. Recidivism was biologically determined, and the formidable office of the inquisition was necessary to pry open the outer Christian carapace to reveal the Jewish substance within. A Jew is a Jew is a Jew.
The Marranos were enmeshed in some of the same identity-metaphysics as were their persecutors. For them, too, there was an inviolable fact of the matter concerning true Jewish identity that remained untouched by all outer performance. They may have gone through formal Christian conversions, taken the sacrament, and gone every week to confession, but within the confessional of their inner being, they, too, continued to insist on their essential Jewishness."
Oct 2020
4 stars
Excellent but difficult. I hadn't realized how difficult spinoza can be.
5 stars
On my second reading of this book, I am stumped trying to remember why the first reading was difficult for me.
It is a combination of part autobiographical of Rebecca, sharing her experience of learning Spinoza while teaching it to us, and part Jewish history , where she takes many meandering breaks to the generations preceding Spinoza, so we can better understand the community where he was born and raised, and the zeitgeist of his time.
Oh, and I loved her dear Mrs. Schoenfeld, with her British accent and all.
A touching excerpt on identity:
Smack in the middle of a book whose protagonist's very philosophy is to depersonalize identity,
We have this:
"Were such ardent believers as St. Teresa of Ávila, who not only gave themselves wholeheartedly to Christianity, but were accepted, even canonized, still incorrigibly Jewish?
Implicit in the constancy of inquisitorial attention is an assumption of ineradicable Jewish essentialism. No matter how sincere the conversion, no matter how devoutly Christian the life, Jewish ancestry branded one forever suspect. It was as if certain propositional attitudes - most notably the rejection of Jesus of Galilee as the Messiah - were transmitted in the blood, making true Christian sincerity all but impossible, and for all the generations to come. Recidivism was biologically determined, and the formidable office of the inquisition was necessary to pry open the outer Christian carapace to reveal the Jewish substance within. A Jew is a Jew is a Jew.
The Marranos were enmeshed in some of the same identity-metaphysics as were their persecutors. For them, too, there was an inviolable fact of the matter concerning true Jewish identity that remained untouched by all outer performance. They may have gone through formal Christian conversions, taken the sacrament, and gone every week to confession, but within the confessional of their inner being, they, too, continued to insist on their essential Jewishness."
Oct 2020
4 stars
Excellent but difficult. I hadn't realized how difficult spinoza can be.
November 24, 2019
My exposure to Baruch Spinoza had mostly been composed of whispers with a hint of warning. Yet, as this heretic of Jewish cannon comes to life in this portrayal by Ms. Goldstein, who vividly describes the historical confluences of narratives, peoples, and attitudes of 17th century Europe, it is hard not to develop a deep respect for the man born ahead of his time, whether or not one agrees with his ideas.
September 13, 2016
Excellent biography of Spinoza incorporating philosophical, historical and psychological elements, both communal and personal, regarding the Spanish Portogeuse Jewish community and their then recent transformation from hidden religious practicioners in Portugal to open Jewish orthodoxy in liberal Dutch Amsterdam. The scene is well set to examine how and why Spinoza chose to abandon his faith and write his heavily scorned book that ushered in the secular and atheistic modern world. Goldstein is just great, and a real unique thinker. Her choice of topics shows she's sophisitcated in all intellectual matters, both within logical and emotional spheres. She's a person who's been through it all and writes what should be written, not what could be written. She combines fluid philosophy with questions and solutions about life's meaning and ideas of religious salvation into a single work that somehow champions both secular philosophy and honest religious experiences. Goldstein's unique secular/religious/emotional style deserves more attention. Her voice is one of deep brilliance combined with deep tolerance and understanding, which makes her views and style crucial not only in today's times but for all times.
The title of the book suggests the following question (hinted at but not directly asked): By engaging in traditional religious experiences despite a commitment to Spinoza's philosophy and attendant notions of pure reason and the resultant scientific perspective, have we betrayed Spinozism? The questions is open ended but I would say clearly that the answer is and must be no. Since the world is infinite and we are finite, spinoza acknowledges that we can never fully know our universe. That being so, all human experiences, to the extent not contradicted by what we do know, is fair game. Worth a read and not too difficult.
The title of the book suggests the following question (hinted at but not directly asked): By engaging in traditional religious experiences despite a commitment to Spinoza's philosophy and attendant notions of pure reason and the resultant scientific perspective, have we betrayed Spinozism? The questions is open ended but I would say clearly that the answer is and must be no. Since the world is infinite and we are finite, spinoza acknowledges that we can never fully know our universe. That being so, all human experiences, to the extent not contradicted by what we do know, is fair game. Worth a read and not too difficult.
August 17, 2020
Goldstein's book is an accessible, affectionate account of Spinoza's life and philosophy. Spinoza is usually bracketed with Descartes and Leibniz, the other leading rationalist philosophers of the 17th century. Today, Spinoza's approach to knowledge (which is deductive and a priori) tends to be viewed in opposition to the empiricism of philosophers like David Hume. But in the 17th century, it represented an important extension of the Cartesian revolution in philosophical thought. It was an even starker break with the Scholasticism of Maimonides and Aquinas (whose thinking relied as much on religious revelation as on reason). Spinoza, even more than his fellow rationalists, put human reason at the center of epistemology.
The author (who is both a philosopher and a novelist) views Spinoza within the context of the Jewish community in Amsterdam in which he grew up, suggesting how the experiences of that community may have shaped his thinking. Spinoza's father had escaped Portugal during the Inquisition, and the community he joined in Amsterdam was still in close contact with Spain and Portugal, where Jews were being tortured and burned alive by the inquisitors.
The author's portrayal of Spinoza's inner life is necessarily speculative, because Spinoza said little about himself and in fact strove to separate his philosophy entirely from the personal. (Hence the title _Betraying Spinoza_: The author is re-injecting the personal into the philosopher's work, which is exactly what he sought to avoid.)
The author (who is both a philosopher and a novelist) views Spinoza within the context of the Jewish community in Amsterdam in which he grew up, suggesting how the experiences of that community may have shaped his thinking. Spinoza's father had escaped Portugal during the Inquisition, and the community he joined in Amsterdam was still in close contact with Spain and Portugal, where Jews were being tortured and burned alive by the inquisitors.
The author's portrayal of Spinoza's inner life is necessarily speculative, because Spinoza said little about himself and in fact strove to separate his philosophy entirely from the personal. (Hence the title _Betraying Spinoza_: The author is re-injecting the personal into the philosopher's work, which is exactly what he sought to avoid.)
September 30, 2010
Rebecca Newberger Goldstein's introduction to the subject of Spinoza came when she was a schoolgirl, and her teacher did not paint a flattering picture of him, Spinoza having been excommunicated from the Jewish community of Amsterdam for disbelief of many things, one being that Moses could have written the Torah.
Ms. Goldstein, also a doubter of received wisdom, felt an affinity with Spinoza. She went on to become a philosopher, and, having studied Spinoza's work, wondered about Spinoza the man. She attempts to tell that story in this book. Spinoza, however, preferred to keep his personal life hidden, and only allowed his philosophical works and non-personal letters to be published.
So, in this volume, there is informed speculation, some discussion of his work, some history of the Jewish community that moved to the Netherlands from Portugal as a result of the Inquisition. Ms. Goldstein, also a novelist, uses novelistic techniques in parts of the book, and these could be done without, I think. But her prose is so lucid, fluid, and economical that she is a pleasure to read.
Ms. Goldstein, also a doubter of received wisdom, felt an affinity with Spinoza. She went on to become a philosopher, and, having studied Spinoza's work, wondered about Spinoza the man. She attempts to tell that story in this book. Spinoza, however, preferred to keep his personal life hidden, and only allowed his philosophical works and non-personal letters to be published.
So, in this volume, there is informed speculation, some discussion of his work, some history of the Jewish community that moved to the Netherlands from Portugal as a result of the Inquisition. Ms. Goldstein, also a novelist, uses novelistic techniques in parts of the book, and these could be done without, I think. But her prose is so lucid, fluid, and economical that she is a pleasure to read.
February 1, 2019
It is timely that I read Spinoza amid reading several memoirs in reference to my own writing. Spinoza held one must step outside one’s personal history in coming to understand greater truths. Yet Betraying Spinoza suggests that his quest was borne out of his history. Betraying Spinoza was included in the bibliography of "The Weight of Ink," a novel that left me curious about the philosopher. I highly recommend the novel to anyone interested in the 17th-century history of the Sephardic community of Amsterdam (and their Portuguese origins, compliments of the Inquisition), from which Spinoza was excommunicated as a young man for what were viewed as heretical beliefs. But beyond a history of Spinoza and his community of origin, Rebecca Goldstein does an excellent job of making Spinoza’s precepts accessible, although the reader still must exercise some effort on finer points. I thoroughly enjoyed this insightful work.
May 11, 2010
Betraying Spinoza was an interesting look at the philosopher's life and background from a contemporary Jewish perspective.
I'm afraid that my lack of grounding in philosophy made parts of the book a chore to read - the vocabulary is fairly forbidding. The more interesting and "betraying" parts of Spinoza's life seemed rather speculative, though they were an easier read.
What I did find fascinating was Goldstein's own story of discovering Spinoza at the beginning of the book and her historical and psychological perspective of the Sephardic Jewish experience, from the Moorish blossoming, the hidden lives of the Morranos and then their zealous reawakening in the Netherlands. I also learned about how far back the open-mindedness associated with the Dutch and Amsterdam goes.
I'm afraid that my lack of grounding in philosophy made parts of the book a chore to read - the vocabulary is fairly forbidding. The more interesting and "betraying" parts of Spinoza's life seemed rather speculative, though they were an easier read.
What I did find fascinating was Goldstein's own story of discovering Spinoza at the beginning of the book and her historical and psychological perspective of the Sephardic Jewish experience, from the Moorish blossoming, the hidden lives of the Morranos and then their zealous reawakening in the Netherlands. I also learned about how far back the open-mindedness associated with the Dutch and Amsterdam goes.
August 23, 2015
A cultural ignoramus when it comes to the Judaism ( despite the fact that I was married to the Jewish man for almost 17 years) , this book for me was less about Spinoza and more about the culture. I am grateful as Goldstein simultaneously managed to instill a sense of awe and healthy curiosity for the rich Jewish heritage and to provide the introductory delve into Spinoza's humane philosophies. Enjoyable and intellectual read through and through.
May 12, 2016
Golsdstein describes the style of this book as a memoir, which captures well enough the way it weaves together a biography of Spinoza, an introduction to his philosophy, an attempt to place this in the context of his times and his particular cultural history as a Jew in the 17th Century, and some personal reflections on her own, personal introduction to him. What she does very well, I think, is to demonstrate how The Ethics really is concerned with finding a way to live well in the face of suffering. To this end it is not helpful to state in a bald manner the propositions of Spinoza's finished work, because they lose their impact without a connection both to his life and to ours. She supplies these connections - which ultimately are emotional and not purely rational - by the way she merges his propositions into other material.
For example, she depicts very nicely and humorously the way her Jewish school teacher warned against being seduced by the dreadful (and naturally never understood or even considered, because they are heretical) teachings of this renegade, whom the Jewish community of his time had excommunicated, and then jumps to an account of the arguments used by "Analytic Philosophers" to discourage reading of metaphysics and the Rationalist tradition to which Spinoza belongs. "Let the name of Benedictus Spinoza serve as a warning to you against the folly of metaphysics, which can only end in a systematic semantic nonsense, compounded by the fallacy of ignoring the is-ought gap!' [p56] In a later chapter, she explores Spinoza's very challenging ideas about our personal identities by means of an exploration of the barbaric experience of Spanish and Portuguese Jews in the face of the terrible and centuries long torment of the Inquisition, which was still ongoing in his day. She asks, as he must have done, what it means to be "A Jew" and makes abundantly clear the awful nature of the choices, and the very real risks, Spinoza confronted in his rejection of and excommunication from the Jewish community. At the same time she demonstrates that his philosophy owes much of its nature to the fact that he was indeed a Jew.
These and other conjunctions are not arbitrary or superficial - they impose on the reader a very urgent sense that the ideas Spinoza presented could not be more profound or more immediately relevant. This is philosophy that takes us by the throat.
The free man thinks least of all upon death, and his life is a meditation not on death but on life." The Ethics IV.LXVII
Our inability to realistically contemplate our own demise accounts, for Spinoza, for the otherwise incomprehensible power that the superstitious religions exert on us. Only reason, as rigorous as we can muster it, can truly save us, both give us the truth and also deliver us from our primal fear of the truth. This is the state of blessedness towards which The Ethics will, through its severe formal proofs, try to deliver us. [p163]
The ecstatic impulse in Spinoza's rationalism distinguished him from the other two figures with whom he shares equal billing in such courses as the one I teach: "Seventeenth Century Rationalism: Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz." But then, Rene Descartes and Gottfried Leibniz were mambers of the European majority. They were Christians. They were rationalists who had the luxury of taking their own religious ideas for granted. Neither Descartes nor Leibniz had to solve, as Spinoza did, ... the wrenching problem of Jewish identity, of Jewish history and Jewish suffering. Only Spinoza had to fight his way clear of the dilemmas of Jewish being, fighting all the way to ecstasy. [p186]
It was a sort of Cartesian kabbalism he was contemplating now: The Cartesian methodology applied to the fundamental questions of the kabbalah and all of it laid out in the proofs that replicate something of the logical structure of reality. [p220]
The denial of a thing's explicability is tantamount to the denial of that thing's reality. To be is to be explicable. p235
"He who counts himself more blessed because he alone enjoys well-being not shared by others, or because he is more blessed and fortunate than others, knows not what is true happiness, and blessedness, and the joy he derives thereform, if it be not mere childishness, has its only source in spite and malice." Spinoza in Tractatus Chapter 3 [p239]
"I have often wondered that men who make a boast of professing the Christian religion, which is a religion of love, joy, peace, temperance, and honest dealing with all men, should quarrel so fiercely and display the bitterest hatred towards one another day by day, so that these latter characteristics make known a man's creed more readily than the former. Matters have long reached such a pass that a Christian, Turk or Jew or heathen can generally be recognised as such only by his physical appearance or dress, or by his attendance at a particular place of worship, or by his profession of a particular belief and his allegiance to some leader. But as for their way of life, it is the same for all." From the Preface of Spinoza's Treatise. [p120]
The mystery of human suffering, its inevitability and extravagance - he had contemplated it often enough ... But the mystery is no mystery. The world was not created with a view towards human well being. Logic entails what it does, despite our parochial wishes. It is not surprising that out of the vastness of logical implications there are a profusion that threaten our endeavour to persist in our being and to thrive. So nature will produce such illnesses and disasters to make men's lives a misery. And so, too, men will through their bondage to their emotions compound the misery of their own lives and those of others. It is only reason that can save us. Why then, we might ask, did not God make men more reasonable? That is what the problem of evil comes down to: the stubborn stupidity of mankind. Why did God make men so stubbornly stupid? "Things are not more or less perfect, according as they delight or offend human sense, or according as they are serviceable or repugnant to mankind." [From Ethics 1 Appendix] [p247]
For example, she depicts very nicely and humorously the way her Jewish school teacher warned against being seduced by the dreadful (and naturally never understood or even considered, because they are heretical) teachings of this renegade, whom the Jewish community of his time had excommunicated, and then jumps to an account of the arguments used by "Analytic Philosophers" to discourage reading of metaphysics and the Rationalist tradition to which Spinoza belongs. "Let the name of Benedictus Spinoza serve as a warning to you against the folly of metaphysics, which can only end in a systematic semantic nonsense, compounded by the fallacy of ignoring the is-ought gap!' [p56] In a later chapter, she explores Spinoza's very challenging ideas about our personal identities by means of an exploration of the barbaric experience of Spanish and Portuguese Jews in the face of the terrible and centuries long torment of the Inquisition, which was still ongoing in his day. She asks, as he must have done, what it means to be "A Jew" and makes abundantly clear the awful nature of the choices, and the very real risks, Spinoza confronted in his rejection of and excommunication from the Jewish community. At the same time she demonstrates that his philosophy owes much of its nature to the fact that he was indeed a Jew.
These and other conjunctions are not arbitrary or superficial - they impose on the reader a very urgent sense that the ideas Spinoza presented could not be more profound or more immediately relevant. This is philosophy that takes us by the throat.
The free man thinks least of all upon death, and his life is a meditation not on death but on life." The Ethics IV.LXVII
Our inability to realistically contemplate our own demise accounts, for Spinoza, for the otherwise incomprehensible power that the superstitious religions exert on us. Only reason, as rigorous as we can muster it, can truly save us, both give us the truth and also deliver us from our primal fear of the truth. This is the state of blessedness towards which The Ethics will, through its severe formal proofs, try to deliver us. [p163]
The ecstatic impulse in Spinoza's rationalism distinguished him from the other two figures with whom he shares equal billing in such courses as the one I teach: "Seventeenth Century Rationalism: Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz." But then, Rene Descartes and Gottfried Leibniz were mambers of the European majority. They were Christians. They were rationalists who had the luxury of taking their own religious ideas for granted. Neither Descartes nor Leibniz had to solve, as Spinoza did, ... the wrenching problem of Jewish identity, of Jewish history and Jewish suffering. Only Spinoza had to fight his way clear of the dilemmas of Jewish being, fighting all the way to ecstasy. [p186]
It was a sort of Cartesian kabbalism he was contemplating now: The Cartesian methodology applied to the fundamental questions of the kabbalah and all of it laid out in the proofs that replicate something of the logical structure of reality. [p220]
The denial of a thing's explicability is tantamount to the denial of that thing's reality. To be is to be explicable. p235
"He who counts himself more blessed because he alone enjoys well-being not shared by others, or because he is more blessed and fortunate than others, knows not what is true happiness, and blessedness, and the joy he derives thereform, if it be not mere childishness, has its only source in spite and malice." Spinoza in Tractatus Chapter 3 [p239]
"I have often wondered that men who make a boast of professing the Christian religion, which is a religion of love, joy, peace, temperance, and honest dealing with all men, should quarrel so fiercely and display the bitterest hatred towards one another day by day, so that these latter characteristics make known a man's creed more readily than the former. Matters have long reached such a pass that a Christian, Turk or Jew or heathen can generally be recognised as such only by his physical appearance or dress, or by his attendance at a particular place of worship, or by his profession of a particular belief and his allegiance to some leader. But as for their way of life, it is the same for all." From the Preface of Spinoza's Treatise. [p120]
The mystery of human suffering, its inevitability and extravagance - he had contemplated it often enough ... But the mystery is no mystery. The world was not created with a view towards human well being. Logic entails what it does, despite our parochial wishes. It is not surprising that out of the vastness of logical implications there are a profusion that threaten our endeavour to persist in our being and to thrive. So nature will produce such illnesses and disasters to make men's lives a misery. And so, too, men will through their bondage to their emotions compound the misery of their own lives and those of others. It is only reason that can save us. Why then, we might ask, did not God make men more reasonable? That is what the problem of evil comes down to: the stubborn stupidity of mankind. Why did God make men so stubbornly stupid? "Things are not more or less perfect, according as they delight or offend human sense, or according as they are serviceable or repugnant to mankind." [From Ethics 1 Appendix] [p247]
October 6, 2011
It certainly lives up to its title! But why would anyone want to betray Spinoza? Especially an admitted analytic philosopher such as the writer of this book? That's just not logically coherent and analytic philosophers are never incoherent. Nonetheless, the book had a few good moments, mostly when the writer just stuck to the overall scope of Spinoza's project (flattening the universe to a single all-connecting rational plane, thereby vanquishing all metaphysics and religious superstition). The problems occurred when the writer went into detail regarding the personal biography and history of Spinoza and how these informed his philosophy. Yes, I suppose in a biography, one should expect such things. And yes, doing that with Spinoza is a clear betrayal of his project. But if you're going to get messy with rich details, then go all out with it. I found the book boring and tedious in those parts and just wanted to hear the writer's take on Spinoza's rationalism. In the end, I just wanted this book to be written by a continental philosopher. Had a continental philosopher written this book, it would have been a cutthroat betrayal instead of the dry and boring betrayal that the writer effected. I'd like to think that the "Betraying Spinoza" book written by a continental philosopher (perhaps by Deleuze, who loved Spinoza) would start with the following axioms:
I. Spinoza is a spider.
II. Spiders make webs.
III. Webs catch critters.
And then revolve around this question:
How can one betray a spider? (Perhaps by weaving a web to catch another spider. Or by weaving a web that isn't as orderly as the one idealized by humans, perhaps the web of a black widow.)
I. Spinoza is a spider.
II. Spiders make webs.
III. Webs catch critters.
And then revolve around this question:
How can one betray a spider? (Perhaps by weaving a web to catch another spider. Or by weaving a web that isn't as orderly as the one idealized by humans, perhaps the web of a black widow.)
January 10, 2012
In this charming little book, Goldstein betrays Spinoza by using her novelist's imagination to try to discover the man behind a philosopher who made such an effort to abstract himself from the personal. Some parts of the book work better than others. I feel that I did get a better understanding of how Spinoza's ideas relate to living. the history of the Jews that she uses to try to understand where Spinoza was 'coming from' was also quite interesting. Her effort to imagine his life without projecting ideas into his character was not all that convincing, but she did make a good faith effort to work with the sparse materials he left. Overall I do feel that i know Spinoza better, so I am glad Goldstein chose to betray him.
September 18, 2021
التركيز كان على علاقة سبينوزا وفلسفته مع اليهودية،فبالبداية حتى منتصف الكتاب عن الفكر والفلسفة اليهودية وأعلامها ومآسي المجتمع وصولاً لأزمة هوية المجتمع اليهودي من بعد محاكم التفتيش التي جعلت منها هوية مهزوزة تتأثر بعوامل سطحية وشريعة النصارى، وفي النصف الأخير تجسدت فلسفة سبينوزا الدينية بنقدها لليهودية والتوراة -وسائر الأديان عموماً- المؤديه لنفيه من المجتمع اليهودي.
الكتاب بشكل عام ممتاز، أعجبني بشرح كيف كان الفكر اليهودي قبل وبعد محاكم التفتيش. وأيضا من تبرير الكاتبة لدوافع سبينوزا لما فعله.
((من الممكن إنني لم اعطيها حقها أو أزيد عنها فأنا لست متعمق بالفلسفة حتى الآن))
الكتاب بشكل عام ممتاز، أعجبني بشرح كيف كان الفكر اليهودي قبل وبعد محاكم التفتيش. وأيضا من تبرير الكاتبة لدوافع سبينوزا لما فعله.
((من الممكن إنني لم اعطيها حقها أو أزيد عنها فأنا لست متعمق بالفلسفة حتى الآن))
March 8, 2007
she incorporates some personal experiences, which is irritating, but if you're interested in Spinoza (you should be! The universe is the mind of God!), the aftermath of the Inquisition and 17th century thought, well....
April 15, 2015
Read this a few years ago. I remember really enjoying reading Spinoza in college and a few bouts of reading since. The author packs in much history and a sympathetic portrayal of Spinoza, not that he wouldn't be sympathetic. This is a short book/quick read, about a great western, male philosopher.
June 4, 2018
I really liked how Goldstein gave detailed historical background to show how Spinoza got where he did in his thought system. I liked how she blended Spinoza's philosophy into some sort of historical-biographical-fictional-autobiographical story telling.
January 27, 2009
Spinoza, seventeenth century Amsterdam, the Spanish Inquisition, Descartes, Leibniz, Maimonides, Kabbalah--This book is fascinating.
August 7, 2011
More about Jewish history than about Spinoza's philosophy.
January 17, 2012
Not yet completed. Got bogged down with the rabbis disagreements around death, salvation and messiah. I can see why Spinoza went rational...
July 20, 2018
Enjoyed the Spinoza, did not care for the memoir.
January 10, 2022
Nu a fost deloc usor de citit. Cautam o biografie a lui Spinoza, insa am dat peste o combinatie de fragmente biografice si curs introductiv in filosofia Spinozista: obiectivitate radicala.
Rebecca Goldstein era in 2006, anul aparitiei cartii, fellow professor la American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Predand de la inceputul carierei sale academice un curs despre rationalismul secolului XVII: Descartes, Spinoza si Leibniz si marcata de propria-i educatie ebraica primita in copilarie la sinagoga, ea incearca sa ne faca pe toti sa-l intelegem pe Spinoza, nu doar pe studentii sai de la filosofie. Si face o treaba buna in a pune in context acest om genial, un pionier al varstei rationalismului, varsta deschisa nu cu mult timp inainte de Descartes.
Ca sa intelegi de unde au izvorat ideile pe care isi bazeaza sistemul filosofic, trebuie sa intelegi istoria iudaismului, mai ales importanta evenimentelor din peninsula Iberica din perioada Inchizitiei. Acestea au dus la migratia masiva a evreilor sepharzi (Sepharad este denumirea ebraica a Spaniei) spanioli si ulterior portughezi, in Tarile de Jos, in special in tolerantul Amsterdam, influentand decisiv istoria ulterioara a iudaismului.
Foarte superficial, filosofia Spinozista poate fi explicata astfel:
Sa rationezi inseamna sa iti extinzi mintea, iar extinzandu-ti mintea, iti extinzi sinele. Aceasta extindere de sine reprezinta pentru Spinoza esenta placerii (placere rationala); in opozitie cu contractia sinelui (atunci cand acceptam rationamentele altora fara sa le investigam noi insine), ceea ce reprezinta durere (rationala). Chiar daca un rationament pe care ni-l oferim singuri nu ne place, deoarece ne dorim ca lumea sa fie altfel decat este, acest lucru tot reprezinta o extindere a sinelui, deci placere rationala.
Este responsabilitatea fiecaruia sa isi extinda propria intelegere. Este cea mai profunda responsabiitate pe care o avem, deoarece progresul moral al unui individ este egal cu progresul intelectual.
Sau, in alta forma, cea a infamului powerpoint:
• Torah nu are ca sursa revelatia divina, ci a fost scrisa de om/oameni;
• Dumnezeu este identic cu Natura;
• intuitia fundamentala din spatele sistemului sau de gandire este simplu: toate lucrurile au explicatii, toate explicatiile se pot deduce prin logica/ratiune, care este autoevidenta si care se suprapune pe conceptul de Dumnezeu, sau Natura. Cu alte cuvinte, Dumnezeu este ratiunea insasi!
Bine, nu este atat de simplu. Aici intervine durerea de cap pe care am avut-o aproape permanent pe parcursul lecturii.
In afara de scrierile sale, putine alte lucruri sunt cunoscute despre acest evreu sepharad genial, nascut in Amsterdam in 1632, acelasi an in care John Locke se naste in Anglia si trei ani dupa ce francezul Descartes se muta in Amsterdam, acest minunat oras, simbol al libertatii de exprimare si tolerantei, un experiment republican al acelui timp. Sunt absolut fascinat de acest oras, de faptul ca a fost locul in care atatia oameni impresionanti ai culturii europene au gasit mediul propice pentru a-si manifesta creativitatea.
Daca vi se pare interesant, va las sa-l descoperiti singuri. Ultimul lucru pe care il mai spun este ca Spinoza se pare ca a reprezentat inspiratia pentru secularismul lui Locke, cat si pentru sistemul constitutional creat de parintii fondatori ai Statelor Unite, in special Thomas Jefferson.
Rebecca Goldstein era in 2006, anul aparitiei cartii, fellow professor la American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Predand de la inceputul carierei sale academice un curs despre rationalismul secolului XVII: Descartes, Spinoza si Leibniz si marcata de propria-i educatie ebraica primita in copilarie la sinagoga, ea incearca sa ne faca pe toti sa-l intelegem pe Spinoza, nu doar pe studentii sai de la filosofie. Si face o treaba buna in a pune in context acest om genial, un pionier al varstei rationalismului, varsta deschisa nu cu mult timp inainte de Descartes.
Ca sa intelegi de unde au izvorat ideile pe care isi bazeaza sistemul filosofic, trebuie sa intelegi istoria iudaismului, mai ales importanta evenimentelor din peninsula Iberica din perioada Inchizitiei. Acestea au dus la migratia masiva a evreilor sepharzi (Sepharad este denumirea ebraica a Spaniei) spanioli si ulterior portughezi, in Tarile de Jos, in special in tolerantul Amsterdam, influentand decisiv istoria ulterioara a iudaismului.
Foarte superficial, filosofia Spinozista poate fi explicata astfel:
Sa rationezi inseamna sa iti extinzi mintea, iar extinzandu-ti mintea, iti extinzi sinele. Aceasta extindere de sine reprezinta pentru Spinoza esenta placerii (placere rationala); in opozitie cu contractia sinelui (atunci cand acceptam rationamentele altora fara sa le investigam noi insine), ceea ce reprezinta durere (rationala). Chiar daca un rationament pe care ni-l oferim singuri nu ne place, deoarece ne dorim ca lumea sa fie altfel decat este, acest lucru tot reprezinta o extindere a sinelui, deci placere rationala.
Este responsabilitatea fiecaruia sa isi extinda propria intelegere. Este cea mai profunda responsabiitate pe care o avem, deoarece progresul moral al unui individ este egal cu progresul intelectual.
Sau, in alta forma, cea a infamului powerpoint:
• Torah nu are ca sursa revelatia divina, ci a fost scrisa de om/oameni;
• Dumnezeu este identic cu Natura;
• intuitia fundamentala din spatele sistemului sau de gandire este simplu: toate lucrurile au explicatii, toate explicatiile se pot deduce prin logica/ratiune, care este autoevidenta si care se suprapune pe conceptul de Dumnezeu, sau Natura. Cu alte cuvinte, Dumnezeu este ratiunea insasi!
Bine, nu este atat de simplu. Aici intervine durerea de cap pe care am avut-o aproape permanent pe parcursul lecturii.
In afara de scrierile sale, putine alte lucruri sunt cunoscute despre acest evreu sepharad genial, nascut in Amsterdam in 1632, acelasi an in care John Locke se naste in Anglia si trei ani dupa ce francezul Descartes se muta in Amsterdam, acest minunat oras, simbol al libertatii de exprimare si tolerantei, un experiment republican al acelui timp. Sunt absolut fascinat de acest oras, de faptul ca a fost locul in care atatia oameni impresionanti ai culturii europene au gasit mediul propice pentru a-si manifesta creativitatea.
Daca vi se pare interesant, va las sa-l descoperiti singuri. Ultimul lucru pe care il mai spun este ca Spinoza se pare ca a reprezentat inspiratia pentru secularismul lui Locke, cat si pentru sistemul constitutional creat de parintii fondatori ai Statelor Unite, in special Thomas Jefferson.
February 9, 2021
As the title suggests, it is a personal account, written in part at least in a memoir form, stemming from years of studying and teaching Spinoza’s world view. World view I became interested in when I read Einstein’s proclamation that His God was Spinoza’s God. So, who is this Spinoza’s God? It turns out Spinoza thought that the world is self aware logic. The world, universe that he calls Nature is self aware God. Its awareness and its being are one and the same becoming the infinite God.
Where do we fit into it? We are part of it, but we possess limited understanding of it. The world is thoroughly rational, there is explanation for all the facts, but our understanding of it is just the lowest step on the cognitive ladder. Religion is nothing else but superstition we adopt to assuage our fear of death. Real immortality comes from abandoning one’s own personal identity, emotions and all the burden of them to the universalized pure reason.
I’m wondering what Spinoza would think of Buddhism? I think he would feel kinship with it.
Yes, Spinoza’s world is definitely Einstein’s world when I think about what we know Einstein said about it.
Betraying Spinoza is an interesting title that can be viewed in a variety of ways as well. It may mean that by looking at him as part of the Jewish culture, thought and religion, him as essentially Jewish, Goldstein is betraying his absolute and irrevocable break from it. It may mean that by giving herself to love and emotion, and allowing herself to be besotted by it, ‘despite Spinoza to Steve’, which I take to be Steven Pinker, and the devotion to her two daughters, she is betraying his super rational no emotion approach. It may mean looking at Spinoza as an individual, something he himself was absolutely opposed to. As she is saying herself ‘I have insisted on speaking in personal terms of the philosopher who insisted most on impersonality.’
I found Goldstein’s analysis illuminating since it looks not only at Spinoza’s Ethics, but also draws on his life and correspondence with various contemporaneous luminaries and provides the historical background of the Jewish community of the time. And, actually, since the book is written in a series on Jewish thinkers, quite a bit of space is devoted to Judaism and how Spinoza related to the development of critical thinking in that domain at the time. That, even though helpful, I found less of personal interest. Nevertheless, it provided for a coherent whole.
I came to this book after really enjoying Goldstein’s Plato at the Googleplex. This book, though quite different, has the same crispy and witty style. It took me a while to read, but it was worthwhile.
3.75/5
Where do we fit into it? We are part of it, but we possess limited understanding of it. The world is thoroughly rational, there is explanation for all the facts, but our understanding of it is just the lowest step on the cognitive ladder. Religion is nothing else but superstition we adopt to assuage our fear of death. Real immortality comes from abandoning one’s own personal identity, emotions and all the burden of them to the universalized pure reason.
I’m wondering what Spinoza would think of Buddhism? I think he would feel kinship with it.
Yes, Spinoza’s world is definitely Einstein’s world when I think about what we know Einstein said about it.
Betraying Spinoza is an interesting title that can be viewed in a variety of ways as well. It may mean that by looking at him as part of the Jewish culture, thought and religion, him as essentially Jewish, Goldstein is betraying his absolute and irrevocable break from it. It may mean that by giving herself to love and emotion, and allowing herself to be besotted by it, ‘despite Spinoza to Steve’, which I take to be Steven Pinker, and the devotion to her two daughters, she is betraying his super rational no emotion approach. It may mean looking at Spinoza as an individual, something he himself was absolutely opposed to. As she is saying herself ‘I have insisted on speaking in personal terms of the philosopher who insisted most on impersonality.’
I found Goldstein’s analysis illuminating since it looks not only at Spinoza’s Ethics, but also draws on his life and correspondence with various contemporaneous luminaries and provides the historical background of the Jewish community of the time. And, actually, since the book is written in a series on Jewish thinkers, quite a bit of space is devoted to Judaism and how Spinoza related to the development of critical thinking in that domain at the time. That, even though helpful, I found less of personal interest. Nevertheless, it provided for a coherent whole.
I came to this book after really enjoying Goldstein’s Plato at the Googleplex. This book, though quite different, has the same crispy and witty style. It took me a while to read, but it was worthwhile.
3.75/5
May 5, 2022
Spinoza was a Jewish philosopher who worked as a lens grinder to make a living. He is infamous in many circles for his views and beliefs. The Ethics and the Theological-Political Treatise are both his works and cemented his reputation as a man of deep thought. Some even called him an atheist.
Betraying Spinoza is a book by Rebecca Newberger Goldstein that discusses Spinoza's life and times. The book is a small part of a series that explores the world from a Jewish perspective. Goldstein begins by talking about where she first heard about Spinoza in school.
I was expecting something more mainstream. The book starts out slow. It is a scholarly work rather than a work meant for enjoyment. That is my impression, at least. I found the book enjoyable, but it was a bit of a slog.
Thanks for reading my review, and see you next time.
Betraying Spinoza is a book by Rebecca Newberger Goldstein that discusses Spinoza's life and times. The book is a small part of a series that explores the world from a Jewish perspective. Goldstein begins by talking about where she first heard about Spinoza in school.
I was expecting something more mainstream. The book starts out slow. It is a scholarly work rather than a work meant for enjoyment. That is my impression, at least. I found the book enjoyable, but it was a bit of a slog.
Thanks for reading my review, and see you next time.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 123 reviews