Spinoza

[Leo]

What are your thoughts on Spinoza?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Confused a priori dogmatist.

[Leo]

Can you elaborate please?

[Random Precision]

The Ethics is the only text from Rationalist philosophy that makes any sense to me. I think regardless of its correctness, his system is the result of an incredible intellect, it is beautiful and completely consistent, which you can't say for the other Rationalists like Descartes or Leibniz. He was also the first modern materialist thinker.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Leo:


Can you elaborate please?

Well, I summarised my general objections to this way of doing philosophy here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/self-t105849/index.html?p=1408653#post1408653

With a few changes, it also applies to Spinoza.

But, with a far left like you, I'd have thought that you'd be the last to take heed of a ruling-class hack like Spinoza.

[Dean]

But, with a far left like you, I'd have thought that you'd be the last to take heed of a ruling-class hack like Spinoza.

Absence of evidence that the maintenance of the ruling class was his aim in his philosophical works, what is wrong with taking his stuff seriously?

[Leo]

But, with a far left like you, I'd have thought that you'd be the last to take heed of a ruling-class hack like Spinoza. I was asking about it because we are studying him at the moment in my university, not because I agree or disagree with his philosophy.

I don't think Spinoza came from the ruling class of his day personally though, his father was a merchant I think, thus part of a class which wasn't really the ruling class, and was progressive compared to the ruling class in that day. In fact I was told that he was harassed by the ruling class his whole life.

[Leo]

He was also the first modern materialist thinker.

I don't think this is true. Even if you consider Spinoza a materialist based on his equation of god only with nature (which I am not sure you can), and even if you consider him modern (which I am not sure you can either), he wouldn't be the first modern materialist thinker since Giordano Bruno, who lived briefly before Spinoza also expressed the same point.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dean:


Absence of evidence that the maintenance of the ruling class was his aim in his philosophical works, what is wrong with taking his stuff seriously?

It's irrelevant what he thought he was trying to do, theorizing about a hidden world, anterior to the senses, accessible to thought alone, is the way the ruling-class has always seen things. So Spinoza was merely proving Marx right when he said that the ruling ideas are in every age those of the ruling class.

Spinoza was simply doing what all traditional philosophers have always done.

As I pointed out in relation to dialectical materialism and why leading Marxists accept this theory:


1) The founders of this quasi-religion weren't workers; they came from a class that educated their children in the classics and in philosophy. This tradition taught that behind appearances there is a hidden world, accessible to thought alone, which is more real than the material universe we see around us.

This way of seeing things was invented by ideologues of the ruling class, who viewed reality this way. They invented it because if you belong to, benefit from or help run a society which is based on gross inequality, oppression and exploitation, you can keep order in several ways.

The first and most obvious way is through violence. This will work for a time, but it is not only fraught with danger, it is costly and it stifles innovation (among other things).

Another way is to persuade the majority (or a significant section of "opinion formers" and administrators, at least) that the present order either works for their benefit, is ordained of the 'gods', or that it is 'natural' and cannot be fought, reformed or negotiated with.

Hence, a world-view is necessary for the ruling-class to carry on ruling in the same old way. While the content of this ruling ideology may have changed with each change in the mode of production, its form has remained largely the same for thousands of years: Ultimate Truth is ascertainable by thought alone, and it can therefore be imposed on reality dogmatically.

So, these non-worker founders of our movement, who had been educated to believe there was this hidden world that governed everything, looked for principles in that invisible world that told them that change was inevitable, and part of the cosmic order. Enter dialectics, courtesy of the dogmatic ideas of a ruling-class mystic called Hegel.

Now, I know you do not accept DM, but the above neatly summarises why philosophers view the world in the same way as dialecticians.

[Leo]

Leo:

Quote:
Absence of evidence that the maintenance of the ruling class was his aim in his philosophical works, what is wrong with taking his stuff seriously?

I didn't say that, that was Dean.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Apologies, I've now changed it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Leo:


I was asking about it because we are studying him at the moment in my university, not because I agree or disagree with his philosophy.

Well, that the only valid reason why anyone should study his work.


I don't think Spinoza came from the ruling class of his day personally though, his father was a merchant I think, thus part of a class which wasn't really the ruling class, and was progressive compared to the ruling class in that day. In fact I was told that he was harassed by the ruling class his whole life.

Where did I say he came from the ruling-class?

[Leo]

Where did I say he came from the ruling-class?

Well, you called him a ruling class hack.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Leo:


Well, you called him a ruling class hack

And check out my reply to Dean for the reason I said this.

[Random Precision]

I don't think this is true. Even if you consider Spinoza a materialist based on his equation of god only with nature (which I am not sure you can),

Why not? Nature is material.


and even if you consider him modern (which I am not sure you can either),

The way I learned philosophy at university, everyone since Descartes is called "modern". I'm not sure if you learned it differently. But I don't really think there's much value at all in terms like modern, premodern, postmodern etc


he wouldn't be the first modern materialist thinker since Giordano Bruno, who lived briefly before Spinoza also expressed the same point.

Granted. I would say then that he was one of the first prominent materialist thinkers, and probably the first to profess an internally consistent, materialist worldview.

[Leo]

Well, that the only valid reason why anyone should study his work.

I disagree. Even if you are right, and even if Spinoza is nothing but a ruling class hack (and hack of which ruling class? the ruling class of which period?), there is still reason to study his work, since it expresses something, even if only the thought of the ruling class. Would you be against, for example, studying the Old Testament, the Bible or the Koran in order to understand what they expressed in the historical situations and what the adherents of these religions believe in even if only to be able to refute it more properly?


Why not? Nature is material.

But is Spinoza's understanding of nature materialist? While it could be said that he is distancing himself from the monotheistic and anthropomorphic understanding of god by identifying the concept of god with that of nature or the universe, does he not do so by mystifying nature itself?


The way I learned philosophy at university, everyone since Descartes is called "modern". I'm not sure if you learned it differently. But I don't really think there's much value at all in terms like modern, premodern, postmodern etc

Yeah sure, but Descartes is considered modern only because he considers man as substance (limited substance as opposed to unlimited, eternal substance, ie god) and divides it into two, the body and the mind. Spinoza on the other hand, neither accepts such division between the body and the mind nor does he considers anything other than nature (ie what is eternal, god etc.) as substance, something that exists without being based on something else. In this sense I am not sure whether Spinoza can be included in "modern philosophy" if it begins with Descartes.

You are right that there isn't much value in terms like modern in my opinion though.


Granted. I would say then that he was one of the first prominent materialist thinkers, and probably the first to profess an internally consistent, materialist worldview.

I would say people like Anthistenas and Epicuros from the ancient period as well as medieval philosophers like Ibn-i Ravendi professed a much more materialist worldview than Spinoza.

[Meridian]

As someone who has an interest in not a world separate from the material world but elegant ways the material world may be organised, I am interested in Spinoza but have yet to read any of his actual work.

[Dean]

Dean:



It's irrelevant what he thought he was trying to do, theorizing about a hidden world, anterior to the senses, accessible to thought alone, is the way the ruling-class has always seen things. So Spinoza was merely proving Marx right when he said that the ruling ideas are in every age those of the ruling class.

Spinoza was simply doing what all traditional philosophers have always done.

As I pointed out in relation to dialectical materialism and why leading Marxists accept this theory:



Now, I know you do not accept DM, but the above neatly summarises why philosophers view the world in the same way as dialecticians.

Isn't your whole argument "total dismissal" by guilt of association? How can such a logical fallacy be acceptable in your mind, if you're so convinced in your attacks on 'mysticism' and other false premises?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Leo:


I disagree. Even if you are right, and even if Spinoza is nothing but a ruling class hack (and hack of which ruling class? the ruling class of which period?), there is still reason to study his work, since it expresses something, even if only the thought of the ruling class. Would you be against, for example, studying the Old Testament, the Bible or the Koran in order to understand what they expressed in the historical situations and what the adherents of these religions believe in even if only to be able to refute it more properly?

Fine, disagree. That's your right, just like you are free to study the entire New York telephone directory, if you want -- a far more useful endeavour, incidentally.


hack of which ruling class? the ruling class of which period?),

Well, if you read my post above: any ruling class, since this is the way they have seen the world since records began. All that has changed is the content, not the form: there is an invisible world, anterior to the senses, which is more real that the world we see around us, which is accessible to thought alone. This 'allowed' theorists ever since to derive fundamental truths about reality from language alone. I have expanded on this here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/self-t105849/index.html?p=1408653#post1408653

This core ideological theory has dominated thought 'East' and 'West' for thousands of years, which confirms Marx assessment: the ideas of the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class.

Now, theorists like Spinoza, clearly, were not members of the ruling class, but the world-view of that class dominated his thought, just like it has dominated the ideas of vast majority of theorists (in the 'West') since ancient Greek times, and like it dominates the thought of most comrades, many of whom give me a hard time here for even pointing this out. It has such a grip on their thought that this way of doing philosophy is seen as the only legitimate way of doing it (indeed it is regarded as a sort Super-Science, capable of delivering truths that science cannot), and to such an extent that they become quite abusive and irrational when it is exposed for what it is. [So, dialecticians are not the only ones here who defend this source of 'intellectual' opiates with emotive outbursts. (I can explain that allegation if you want.)]


Would you be against, for example, studying the Old Testament, the Bible or the Koran in order to understand what they expressed in the historical situations and what the adherents of these religions believe in even if only to be able to refute it more properly?

Yes. Why do you need to refute such dogmas? You know that they are adhered to for non-rational reasons, and only social change will remove the conditions which require such consolation.

If others want to waste their time on this rubbish, fine by me. But, it is also up to me to point this out, and defend it when required.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dean:


Isn't your whole argument "total dismissal" by guilt of association? How can such a logical fallacy be acceptable in your mind, if you're so convinced in your attacks on 'mysticism' and other false premises?

No more than Marx was 'guilty' when he said that the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class.

Fortunately, I have good reason to question the intellectual foundations of all metaphysical/ruling-class theories -- outlined here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/self-t105849/index.html?p=1408653#post1408653

Worked out in extensive detail here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2012_01.htm


How can such a logical fallacy be acceptable in your mind, if you're so convinced in your attacks on 'mysticism' and other false premises?

Since I do not commit it, there is no case to answer.

Finally, I do not claim that such theories are false; they do not make it that far. They are non-sensical (that is, they are incapable of being true or false, since they are based on a systematic misuse of language).