ASK THE ACADEMY Better Living Resource Center Business & Finance Resource Center The Radical Academy Blogs Ask the Academy Main Index
Click Here for New & Used College Textbooks at Discount Prices Click Here for College Education Information & Study Resources Shop Amazon Stores in the Radical Academy Bookstore Magazine Outlet Music Store Classical Music Store Video Store DVD Store Computer Store Camera & Photo Store Computer/Video Games Software Store Musical Instruments Outlet Store Cellular Phones Toys & Games Tools & Hardware Automotive Store Outdoor Living Consumer Electronics Home & Garden Kitchen & Housewares Baby Superstore Apparel & Accessories Gourmet Food Grocery Store Sporting Goods Jewelry & Watches Health & Personal Care Beauty Store		Posted April 26, 2006   Are We Wrong About Spinoza? The Radical Academy received an e-mail from Michael M. in England taking us to task for our comments about Benedict Spinoza in our "Adventures in Philosophy" section. Here is Dr. Dolhenty's reply which was e-mailed to Michael and is now presented here. Michael's words are in red and Dr. Dolhenty's words are in black. Dear Michael, Thank you for your feedback. Let me make a few comments in reply. Thank you for providing an outstanding philosophical accomplishment. Thank you for your kind words. We have worked hard for some years to make our little contribution to philosophy on the Web. I am very much interested in the work of Spinoza and as such have to suggest to yourselves that your piece on Spinoza is, frankly, incorrect. Well, here I have to disagree (kindly, of course). Continue on... Firstly, the perception of Spinoza as endorsing a pantheistic philsophy is to ignore the philosophical and socio/religious assumptions and arguments that Spinoza held and put forward. There is little doubt that Spinoza's philosophy is pantheistic insofar as he equates "God" with "nature," or "God" with "substance." Virtually, all the historians of philosophy are in agreement on this point. As to the comment that his contribution to contemporary philosophy is "none" and if I recall "incorrect" well I would suggest that philsophers have had to deal with him ever since. You need to re-read this matter. The exact text reads: The positive contributions of Benedict Spinoza to the Perennial Philosophy. In a word, none. Spinoza has a particular attraction for the dilettanti and the parlor-philosophers. But with all due respect for the man's sincerity, and with proper commiseration for him as the butt of meanness and persecution, we must recognize his teachings as false and pernicious. Note that it does not say "contributions to contemporary philosophy." It says contributions to the "Perennial Philosophy." The "Perennial Philosophy" is usually defined as that philosophical "tradition" called "Classical Realism" which commences with Plato and Aristotle and continues on through Aquinas to contemporary philosophers such as John Wild, Mortimer Adler, and many others too numerous to name. Spinoza made no contributions to Classical Realism. In fact, Spinoza's philosophy leads to a metaphysical "Idealism" which is virtually the exact opposite of a metaphysical "Realism" (that is a crude way to put it really, but his view is definitely not in conformity with realism of any sort. This is why we say his philosophy is incorrect, false, or whatever. It is totally out of sync with "common sense" realism. He begins with a few axioms ("assumptions," "definitions") and then proceeds (gemometrically) to draw deductions from those axioms. Now, understand, there is no question regarding his "genius." His Ethics is a masterpiece of writing and generally enjoyable reading. But he is wrong, wrong, wrong. You might want to read the essay on our website called "The Fallacy of Epistemological Idealism," which shows why Idealism is false.  I recall that Kant spent eight years carrying on him a copy of his work, Ethics, Einstein claimed that the if he had to adopt a particular philosophy it would be Spinoza's, huge political and social forces were raised during his lifetime and afterwards and much more contemporaryily , and from my point of view, worryingly, Henry Kissinger claimed in an interview that it was Spinoza's that he most emphasised with, so even in this non-exhaustive list we may be able to tentively suggest that Spinoza's influence was slightly more that "none" as to the question of its correctness that is a different question, I though feel that excluding Marx he has been the most important philosopher during the course of modernity.  Well, there is no doubt that many people think Spinoza was great, or important, or whatever. But celebrity endorsements mean nothing when it comes to philosophical truth. I could easily find celebrities, academics, philosophers, or other "important" people who would endorse the most ridiculous of ideas. While I grant it is important to know and understand whom and how any philosopher of consequence has influenced thinkers, particular those who have affected world events or socio-political policies, it is beside the point when it comes to the "truth" or "adequacy" of any specific philosophy to explain reality the way it actually is.  You have every right to consider Spinoza your second most-important philosopher. That is your opinion and everyone has a right to his or her personal opinion. My concern is with philosophical truth, not philosophical popularity.  I hope these brief remarks have responded to your comments in a way that is both enlightening and kindly.  Best regards,  Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D. Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book... Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Magazine... Academy Showcase Specials Ask the Academy Main Index
-- Top of Page -- [Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer] Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, 2002-03, 2004-05, & 2006 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.