|
|
|
 |
8th July, 2015: Created
The cause of the interest in Spinoza is accidental and subjective. Accidental because I would have never heard of Spinoza (or rather noticed him) were it not for a character of his painted by Russell in his "History of Western Philosophy". It is subjective because not everyone would take to a certain characterization of personality. Each individual has his own aesthetic to respond to.
It is also accidental because it co-incided with an invigorated interest in the life and teachings of the Buddha and a vague impress of similarity that could be noticed between the two. There are 4 areas of overlap that I recollect noticing: Spinoza's emphasis on ethics and his highly reasoned explanation of it; His primacy on a 'higher good'; His intuitive understanding of the power of the mind to make or unmake a man's life; His use of the term 'an intellectual love of God', which I would interpret, based on his writings, as the act of cultivating and relying on a certain type of reasoning to obtain that 'higher good'. It was as if, Spinoza, had a deep-felt intuition about the centrality of mind in a manner that the Buddha had.
At times I found myself (and still find myself) reverting back to Spinoza's way of expressing things when trying to absorb and interpret the teachings of the Buddha. However, a one-on-one mapping of the doctrine of one to the other does not exist. Both had a different approach to 'expressing', 'articulating', 'teaching' that higher good. The Buddha's (or what we can gather from Pali texts) is highly refined, subtle, detailed and profound to the extent of seeming a never-ending well. It is difficult to comment on Spinoza because a) he died young; b) the literature that he wrote is limited in quantum (but not substance) and did not leave behind a detailed elaboration, explanation of the terms he used from different lenses and perspectives; and c) of course he came from a different background and milieu. As a result, one has to make strenuous effort to understand Spinoza as he would have understood his own teachings.
Nonetheless, the similarity laid out above between the two gentlemen is striking and deserves notice. Over and above, the two gentlemen deserve attention in and of themselves without any comparison with anyone.
However, this section is about Spinoza. So if it takes much effort to really penetrate his doctrine in the way he would have understood it why try? As I mentioned in the beginning: the interest in Spinoza was aroused due to the characterization of his personality as presented by Russell. Significantly, because Russell was a kind-hearted man but yet highly rational. For him to express words of admiration, compassion and appreciation with respect to Spinoza means something.
The chapter on Spinoza in his "History of Western Philosophy" is tucked away between Descartes and Leibniz: two giants in the European philosophical and early enlightenment tradition. Every engineering student is vaguely familiar with Descartes and Leibniz because one encounters their names linked to some mathematical formulations. So they being noticed is probable. But Spinoza would have been difficult to notice if not for the following description in the very first two paragraphs of the chapter in Russell's book:
"Spinoza (1632-77) is the noblest and most lovable of the great philosophers. Intellectually, some others have surpassed him, but ethically he is supreme. As a natural consequence, he was considered, during his lifetime and for a century after his death, a man of appalling wickedness. He was born a Jew, but the Jews excommunicated him. Christians abhorred him equally; although his whole philosophy is dominated by the idea of God, the orthodox accused him of atheism. Leibniz, who owed much to him, concealed his debt, and carefully abstained from saying a word in his praise; he even went so far as to lie about the extent of his personal acquaintance with the heretic Jew.
The life of Spinoza was very simple. His family had come to Holland from Spain, or perhaps Portugal, to escape the Inquisition. He himself was educated in Jewish learning, but found it impossible to remain orthodox. He was offered 1000 florins a year to conceal his doubts; when he refused, an attempt was made to assassinate him; when this failed, he was cursed with all the curses in Deuteronomy and with the curse that Elisha pronounced on the children who, in consequence, were torn to pieces by the she-bears. But no she-bears attacked Spinoza. He lived quietly, first at Amsterdam and then at the Hague, and he showed throughout his life a rare indifference to money. The few who knew him loved him, even if they disapproved of his principles. The Dutch Government, with its usual liberalism, tolerated his opinions on theological matters, though at one time he was in bad odour politically because he sided with the De Witts against the House of Orange. At the early age of forty-three he died of phthisis."
To which this additional sentence will provide a closure: "Although not at all polemical, Spinoza was too honest to conceal his opinions, however shocking to contemporaries; the abhorrence of his teaching is therefore not surprising." See the link Why Spinoza was excommunicated below.
The picture is of a man whose intellectual probity and honesty was of the highest standards. That is, a trait that combines virtue and intelligence in a compound that is hard to call a compound. It becomes an elemental simplicity from which all the rest is constructed. This trait of personality was equally pronounced in Buddha (if we for a moment suspend the divinity associated with the Buddha as well as the content and substance of his teachings.). The traits of an intellectual quest founded on ethical grounds, the necessary mental exertion, and the honesty in taking that mental exertion to its conclusion in the most right manner possible: these are the traits that seem to endear Spinoza to me personally. The merits of his doctrine, his specific thoughts come secondary. Maybe if he would've lived longer those could be of a different matter and form than what we have as his legacy. Or maybe not. Like the Buddha, Spinoza leaves behind a frame of reference to lovingly follow.
As I mentioned in the beginning: a reason to be interested in Spinoza is one's own sense of aesthetics. Aesthetics of such a personality may not attract everyone. Further, the reason I bring up Buddha is because my understanding and appreciation of Spinoza was aided due to my familiarity with the Buddha.
The intent of this page then is personal: it is to give me a chance (and motivation) to keep pursuing Spinoza. It is shared publicly so that at least the name of Spinoza is familiar to at least one other apart from me. Till date I have only fully read his one work Emendation of the Intellect. Ethics, his magnum opus is daunting because of the style as well as the metaphysic that is employed in there. However, the intent is to incrementally understand Spinoza so as to approach Ethics with greater confidence. I have a specific reason for studying Ethics: I am not sure if I would be able to fully resonate with all of its matter as Spinoza came from a very different period, background and cultural context that someone in India would be able to fully relate to.
However, I believe that the very style of writing present in Ethics is a direct reflection of the manner of thinking that Spinoza held as essential to train the mind. That is, based on the reading of the Emendation of the Intellect I gather that an essential feature of Spinoza's doctrine is the fact that: there is a way to think. And if that way of thinking is mastered then it makes the rest of the path much easier to follow. This is an intuition and I could be wrong. But even if I am wrong, in the act of examining the intuition I may get some further understanding of what Spinoza was really after. I really believe that Spinoza is beyond the 'God', 'Attribute' and 'Substance' that the essence of his doctrine has been compressed into. Or terming it a doctrine of Pantheism. The more critical point, to me at least, is that the question is not about Pantheism, but if it is Pantheism what led Spinoza to articulate what he ended up articulating.
More importantly, Spinoza was no idealist. Like the Buddha he was a very practical man. What he said, therefore, needs far greater penetration than what a literal, moral, philosophical, or academic rendering will yield. It is to penetrate Spinoza, the man who aimed for the Divine through the powers available to every individual that one should be interested in him. And equally, he was the "noblest and most lovable" of all the philosophers. Even if we do not manage to fully penetrate his doctrine, we can at least take away his noble and lovable nature to adopt in our own life: in whatever meagre way we can.
For a person sitting in India with access to only Spinoza's written work and some secondary material, this is a difficult, and probably, a futile task. Nonetheless, one that in its very futility will still teach something.
|
Initial draft proof-read and corrected with help from Bibhas Mondal. The errors, if any, may be on account of subsequent modifications and are all attributable to the author.
| |
|