Spinoza

Ken Taylor
It’s Philosophy Talk.

Baruch Spinoza
Rational thought, my dear friends, is a self rewarding virtue. And religious prejudice is a veil which protects the mind from reason.

John Perry
The life and thought of Baruch Spinoza.

Ken Taylor
One of the most beguiling and influential philosophers of all time.

John Perry
Spinoza was unappreciated during his lifetime, but widely heralded after his death.

Ken Taylor
What led Hegel to say that you are either a Spinozaist or not a philosopher at all?

Rebecca Goldstein
The man’s intuitions were astonishing.

Ken Taylor
Our guest is Rebecca Goldstein, author of “Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew Who Gave Us Modernity.”

Rebecca Goldstein
In so many different fields—in cosmology, in neuroscience, and certainly in philosophy—his intuitions are being vindicated time and time again.

John Perry
The life and thought of Spinoza—coming up on Philosophy Talk.

Ken Taylor
Welcome to Philosophy Talk, the program that questions everything…

John Perry
…except your intelligence. I’m John Perry.

Ken Taylor
And I’m Ken Taylor. We’re here at the studios of KALW San Francisco.

John Perry
Continuing conversations that begin at Philosophers Corner at Stanford. That’s where Ken teaches philosophy and I taught philosophy for 40 years.

Ken Taylor
40 amazing years, John. Now today we’re talking about the 17th century Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza, sometimes called the inventor of modernity.

John Perry
Along with Descartes and Leibniz, Spinoza is one of the great rationalists of the 16th and 17th century.

Ken Taylor
Yeah, he had a lot in common with those guys, but he was far more radical than either of them, John. For one thing, you know, both Descartes and Leibniz found a place in their thinking, a really important places in their thinking, for something very much like the traditional Judeo-Christian God—you know, a personal God, creator of the rest of us, guide your of the universe. There is not a single hint of anything like that in Spinoza is kind of atheistic system.

John Perry
Yeah, but it’s not quite fair to call Spinoza an atheist. He was a pantheist, really. A pantheist believe that God is everything and everything is God. If everything is God, then God exists

Ken Taylor
Now, okay, then I don’t want to quibble over labels. I mean, one thing you have to admit, is that Spinoza’s God, if you want to call it that, if you insist on that label, is very, very different from the Judeo-Christian God. His so-called God,hHe’s not a transcendent being that exists apart from the world that he’s supposedly created—that God just is the world. And there’s nothing at all beyond it, this world God totality nature thing.

John Perry
I guess that’s precisely what makes some people call Spinoza the inventor of modernity. He both changed the way people in the West think about God and changed the way we think about the universe as a whole, very much including the place of humans with it.

Ken Taylor
Yeah, I think that’s a really important part of Spinoza. Think of the mental and the physical. You know, before Spinoza, many thinkers considered the mental and the physical as radically different things. I would say that was part of common sense, it was part of philosophy, it was part it was a part of everything. Spinoza denied that. He saw the mental and the physical—there’s really like two aspects of one thing, two aspects of a single universe.

John Perry
And that’s just the tip of the universe, so to speak. There are many more than just these two aspects of the one universe. Spinoza’s universe is this freestanding, multi-dimensional thing of boundless complexity. And we poor humans have so far, at least, a very radically incomplete understanding.

Ken Taylor
It sounds a lot, when you put it that way, it sounds a lot like modern string theory or something.

John Perry
And ask yourself where we humans fit into this string of things.

Ken Taylor
This string of things… Well, I know one thing not as entities made in the image and likeness of the transcendent God, not as immortal souls and a brief sojourn within the material world, nothing like that.

John Perry
No, that’s not what we’re like at all on spinosus view. We’re nothing but transient modes or aspects of the one universe. Think of the universe is a vast deep pond. We’re ripples in the pond and like ripples we don’t last very long.

Ken Taylor
It sounds plausible to me. I bet you it sounds plausible. To many people these days. It sounds maybe like common sense. But you know, I’m sure that it struck Spinoza his contemporaries not plausible at all, but as bold, original.

John Perry
More like revolutionary and dangerous. He was called Satan’s emissary and the great atheist. He was even excommunicated by the Jewish congregation of Amsterdam for his “monstrous deeds and abominable heresy.”

Ken Taylor
Monstrous deeds… Funny thing is, though, I mean, if I recall correctly, he was excommunicated when he was just 23. He was just a pup. Those big books that outline his philosophical system, they came much later. Indeed his most famous book, The Ethics, which he was afraid to publish in his lifetime, because he didn’t like controversy—that was only published posthumously.

John Perry
Yeah, but you know how young men in a hurry to change the entire metaphysical, theological, and scientific outlook of the Western world can be. I bet he was willing to talk about developing versions of his views to anyone who would listen.

Ken Taylor
You know, I haven’t met many young men like that, but whatever exactly he did, so pissed off the powers that be in his Sephardic Jewish community. I know one thing: we moderns we owe him a debt of gratitude.

John Perry
The gratitude did come a little late for him to know about it. But it did come in the 19th century. Hegel said you’re either a Spinozaist or not a philosopher at all. And in the 20th century, Einstein and Borges both wrote love poems to Spinoza.

Ken Taylor
Wow, love poems to Spinoza. Now, you know, we said in this program once that Leibniz, who actually hated Spinoza, I gather, was the most important philosopher you know the least about, but I’m starting to think we were wrong about that. It’s probably Spinoza who deserves that title.

John Perry
Well, at a minimum, he probably deserves a title of the once most widely reviled philosopher who’s now most widely revered.

Ken Taylor
You know, and to find out more about this once-reviled now-revered philosopher, we sent our Roving Philosophical Reporter, Shuka Kalantari, to follow the trail of this renegade. She files this report.

Shuka Kalantari
By the time Baruch Spinoza was 23 years old, his philosophies had already ruffled a lot of feathers in the Portuguese Jewish community of Amsterdam. He claimed God and nature were the same thing.

Spinoza: The Apostle of Reason
He began to question everything. Everything—creation and our creator.

Shuka Kalantari
That’s a clip from Tariq Ali’s “Spinoza: The Apostle of Reason.” On July 27 1656, the Jewish leaders in Amsterdam issued a herem on Spinoza—a total exclusion from the Jewish community.

Spinoza: The Apostle of Reason
The matter has been carefully examined by the ruling scholars and councils. They consent to the banishment forever of Baruch de Espinoza from the Nation of Israel.

Shuka Kalantari
The Jewish leaders wrote, “Cursed be he by day 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.” You get the picture.

Steven Nadler
Yeah, he really pissed somebody off.

Shuka Kalantari
That’s Steven Nadler, a philosophy professor at the University of Wisconsin Madison, and a Spinoza expert.

Steven Nadler
This is by far the harshest herem ever issued by that community in this period. There were dozens of excommunica— dozens of herems issued by the Amsterdam community between 1630 and 1680, and they’re for a variety of offenses, taking a book out of the library without permission for insulting the rabbi’s for gambling for lewd behavior in the streets. But usually the herem was lifted after a short period of time when the offender made an apology and paid a fine.

Shuka Kalantari
Spinoza never apologized. At least there’s no documentation of it. Even still, people have tried really hard to get Spinoza reintegrated into Judaism.

Steven Nadler
There was an instance in 1927 when Joseph Klausner, the historian at Hebrew University stood on a hilltop and proclaimed the ban was lifted. Of course, he had no authority to do that, it didn’t mean anything. And then in 1953, David Ben Gurion, former Prime Minister of Israel, insisted that the ban should be lifted. But the only authority who could lift the ban would be the leadership of the Amsterdam Portuguese community that issued the ban in the first place.

Shuka Kalantari
And they were not going to do that.

Steven Nadler
But then a couple of years ago, a member of the Portuguese congregation wanted the issue raised again.

Shuka Kalantari
That was in 2012. The congregation put together an advisory committee of Spinoza experts to weigh in, including Stephen Nadler. Nadler’s. takeaway was… what’s the point? Spinoza is long dead. It would just be a symbolic move.

Steven Nadler
The only reason why you would want to lift the herem is because it would be a kind of public relations boon, kind of proclaiming to the world Spinoza is one of ours and we welcome him back with open arms.

Shuka Kalantari
The 2012 effort to get Spinoza de-excommunicated, didn’t work. And Nadler thinks it’s a good thing. He says reintegrating Spinoza into Judaism would undermine Spinoza’s philosophies.

Steven Nadler
Spinoza no longer saw himself as Jewish but didn’t see himself as Christian or Muslim, or anything. He was an individual who like all individuals are part of nature.

Shuka Kalantari
Ultimately, we don’t know how Spinoza felt about his excommunication because there’s no documentation on that. But Nadler thinks Spinoza couldn’t have cared less.

Steven Nadler
For him to be welcomed back into this or that particular religious community, for him would be a meaningless thing. Maybe a betrayal of what Spinoza stands for. He, you know, he doesn’t want to be a member of this club that wants them as a member.

Shuka Kalantari
Baruch Spinoza died in The Hague at age 44. He was making a living grinding optical lenses at the time, and the dust from the glass exacerbated and earlier lung illness. In the 20 plus years after his excommunication, Spinoza continued to write philosophical works about the nature of reality, politics, and of course, religion. For Philosophy Talk, I’m Shuka Kalantari.

John Perry
Thanks Shaka and thanks Stephen Nadler for providing those insights into Spinoza’s life and relation with the Jewish community. I’m John Perry, with me is my fellow Stanford philosopher Ken Taylor.

Ken Taylor
And today we’re thinking about the thought and life and times of Baruch Spinoza. We’re joined now by Rebecca Newberger Goldstein. She was recently awarded National Humanities Medal by President Barack Obama for bringing philosophy into conversations with culture. She’s author of many things, including “Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew Who Gave Us Modernity.” Rebecca, welcome to Philosophy Talk and sincere and deep congratulations.

Rebecca Goldstein
Thank you so much. Hi, John. Hi, Ken.

John Perry
Hi, Rebecca, and congratulations from me too. That is certainly no surprise to find you interested in Spinoza, because you’re interested in everything interesting. But tell us about how and when you and Spinoza got together for the first time.

Rebecca Goldstein
Yeah, this is a long relationship. It goes all the way back to when I was a sophomore in high school and I went to a very religious Orthodox all-girls school in which we were actually discouraged from even going on to college. This was really, this was hardcore.

Ken Taylor
Glad you recovered from that.

Rebecca Goldstein
Well, it’s it’s an ongoing journey. And I mostly I played hooky, I hated that school. But one day I was there. And we I was in a Jewish history class. And we were talking about modernity, which we were against. And it had all been downhill since Babylonia and Spinoza was being discussed. And he was being discussed as a cautionary tale. You know, this is what happens little girls when you ask too many questions. And for the first time, I actually raised my hand in class and asked a question was a first time I was interested. And I mean, various things. The teacher said, you know, he was, he wasted his good brains that God gave him and and he was, you know, he was ashamed for the Jews and even Christians despised him. But one of the things he that she said this teacher, it determine the course of my life, which was he, although he was a heretic, the the Jewish word, the Hebrew word for heretic is up Icarus, which actually comes from Epicurus right, shows the attitude towards philosophers. And he kept it secret for until both of his parents died. And he went along with everything. And I vow to myself, at 14 years old, that I would do the same, which was mighty inconvenient to say. So I did go along with conventions of my community until both my parents were gone.

John Perry
Wow, geez, your high school teacher must be so proud of having inspired such an important figure. Or maybe not. Now you call Spinoza the renegade Jew. And we just heard facts about his being excommunicated by the Jews of Amsterdam, I guess we don’t know quite what they were thinking of. But give us a quick overview of spinosus most shocking ideas, the ones that probably ended up as being a renegade?

Rebecca Goldstein
Well, I mean, there certainly is his view of God identifying God with Nietzsche. He removes any grounds for a transcendent God, it’s, you know, it’s not just that he’s arguing for the identity between God and nature hate men, what he means by nature is basically a final theory of everything, that kind of thing that string theorists talk about. But I think the thing that really made him so dangerous that he was appropriating for reason, the tasks that had been taken over that that religion had had had delegated to itself, namely, to explain why there’s something rather than nothing, you know, how existence came to be, and what is the nature of morality and why are we to be moral, and he was cutting, you know, Judeo Christian God out of the picture.

Ken Taylor
Well, so look, we’re gonna have to dig into this. This is deep, complicated, big, exciting stuff, but we’ll come back to it after a short break. You’re listening to Philosophy Talk. Today, we’re thinking about Spinoza with Rebecca Goldstein, author of “Betraying Spinoza.”

John Perry
In our next segment, we’ll look at how this renegade philosopher ushered in modernity.

Ken Taylor
Monism, multiple aspects, and modernism—when Philosophy Talk continues.

Tony Bennett
Ha ha ha, who’s got the last laugh now.

John Perry
Baruch Spinoza had some pretty wild ideas regarding the 17th century in Amsterdam, and his fellow Jewish community didn’t laugh that hard. They gave him a writ of herem—basically an excommunication. I’m John Perry. This is Philosophy Talk the program that questions everything…

Ken Taylor
…except your intelligence. I’m Ken Taylor, and we’re looking at the life and thought of Spinoza.

John Perry
Our guest is Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, author of “Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew Who Gave Us Modernity.” Now, Rebecca will be part of a live chat at our online community of thinkers on Thursday, November 12, at 1pm Pacific, that’s your chance to chat with a wonderful scholar, wonderful philosopher and a National Humanities Medal winner. We hope you can join us at philosophy talk.org, Thursday, November 12 -1 pm pacific.

Ken Taylor
So Rebecca, I want to ask you about this. You’re not the only person who’s—I heard Dan Garber, who was on the show, said Spinoza invented modernity. You say he’s the renegade Jew who gave us modality really single handedly one guy, how did he give us modality? Don’t me think about what it means to say Spinoza gave us modernity?

Rebecca Goldstein
Yeah, um, he—excuse me—he did have helpers. I would say he ceded the enlightenment, that that he’s really, you know, about 100 years before these ideas take off that we, the pick questions can be answered by way of Reason. Reason can be you know, can give us the world and it can give us the odds, right? He’s the first one naturalize normativity, or to try to naturalize normativity. I mean, he calls his magnum opus, the ethics. And I’m actually reading that book does change you. It’s never quite the same again.

Ken Taylor
It’s exhausting. But it’s—

Rebecca Goldstein
You know, I used to teach it every autumn. And it was a small, intense class. And by Thanksgiving, they were they were spinosus. And they it was, it was an extraordinary thing that would happen. I don’t know how, okay, it lasted. Okay, let’s try it this way.

Ken Taylor
Okay, so I know that Spinoza struck just about every thinker of the time, not just the religious thinkers, but many philosophers as deeply problematic in some ways. I mean, Leibniz, who was deeply influenced by Spinoza thought he wrote this pitiful book, I forget the exact phrase he used, but he thought too bad. He couldn’t have written a better book such a brilliant man. Right? But okay. Tell, think me back into the pre modern frame of reference, what is it about pre modernity, and what was so prevalent about pre modernity that he challenged so deeply?

Rebecca Goldstein
Um, so actually, so the book that Leibniz was attacking was the theological political treatise, not the ethics. And he called it out, I think, Pestell book or Pescia? Which book? And so, what was going on there? Well, Spinoza was saying that, well, I actually the the subtitle of that book says, a great deal we’re in it is shown that freedom to philosophize cannot only be granted without injury to piety and the peace of the Commonwealth. But that the peace of the Commonwealth and piety are endangered by the suppression of this freedom. He was trying to get the clerics first and foremost, but also the state out of philosophies away. And by philosophy, he also meant natural philosophy and science. So this idea that there are experts and thinking and everybody else should get out of the way, including the religious thinkers was you know what this was this was heresy this was this was a renegade.

John Perry
So his renegade-ism isn’t just in this new conception of God and diminished conception of, of humans, but also in this advocacy of something like free speech well before its time.

Rebecca Goldstein
Free speech, free inquiry. Exactly.

John Perry
Now Locke spent some time in in Holland. And then, you know, came back with William and Mary and kind of that gave a boost to free speech. Is there any connection between these two column based phenomena?

Rebecca Goldstein
We, some of us think so. So, you know, luck and, and Spinoza were born exactly the same year 1632. Although Spinoza died much sooner. And went so what, when? When monk spent his time in Amsterdam, which he had to go It was the freest state in all of Europe, the freest place in all of Europe, when he went there, you know, he had certain ideas, he spoke to people who had known Spinoza. And when all we know is that when he left Amsterdam, he was far closer to what we call modernity at certainly, that’s when he wrote the two letters of toleration, tolerance, he was he he was moving much closer to to, you know, this notion of free inquiry and get out of the way.

Ken Taylor
So here’s the thing, I guess, I guess, strikes me, I mean, the some of the ideas in people like Locke and Spinoza. And others seem to us these days, just like common sense, and probably like, they were always there, right? But actually, it that’s not true. They emerged at a time in a place. And and one of the reasons why I think it’s really cool to study these dead philosophers, is because you can actually see new cultural formations actually emerging in the thought of these people. And one of the things we don’t get is how radical how much of a rupture these ideas are, from what was prevailing at the time. Do you agree with that or disagree with that?

Rebecca Goldstein
So so very much agree. He, one of the things that’s very telling about him is that after he was put into permanent ferrum on the one and only person we know was put into permanent harem by his Jewish community, he didn’t convert to Christianity, although that would have been such a good career move to convert to Christianity. He’s the first person that we know of, of the modern age, who doesn’t it refuses to identify himself in terms of a religious community. So he was insisting on a secular identity at a time when the notion of secularism did didn’t even exist. It hadn’t been formulated yet. So you know, think about that, in terms of how, what a revolutionary he was.

John Perry
So the Jewish community in Amsterdam didn’t like what he had to say. But the wider Amsterdam community, which I suppose was mostly Christian, what were his ideas on the political sphere, I’m sure his ideas on God and humans were quite at variance with their views. But was his view on political freedom and freedom of speech was that as grating to the wider citizens of Amsterdam, as it would have been to the Jewish community.

Rebecca Goldstein
Well, Amsterdam was the freest place in all of Europe, it was they had many bookshops, which were gathering places for, for thinkers all over Europe, I mean, Descartes also went and found refuge in, in Amsterdam. So it was, it was an In fact, the one I owe external identity that that Spinoza did apply to himself and with great pride was as a citizen of the Republic of the Netherlands that he took pride in. So, you know, it’s the only place where he could have gotten away with what he did get away with.

Ken Taylor
So I’ve heard a couple different things here. So Spinoza, was one of the founding fathers of political modality of the police have a kind of political conception of the state of the importance of the separation of church and state. I’ve heard it said, I mean, because of his natural naturalism, right, there is nothing beyond nature, nature is a complete thing unto itself, you know, governed by the laws of nature, relentless necessity, it’s, he was among the first or the first or something to think of that thought in a thick way, which has really big consequences. Because if you think, Well, what is the human being? Well, some part of nature, how do we understand the the human being in nature, and that seemed like one of his major goals, you have to have a naturalistic approach, you have to think of consciousness and will and freedom as just things in the Nether? That’s not an easy we’re still struggling with that, right? I mean, I’ve heard it said that he’s, you know, people like Einstein, because it is this theory of everything kind of approach. Thought he was cool. So I mean, he was the inventor of like, it sounds like he ushered in all many, many different aspects of modality, political modality scientific modality philosophical module, would you agree with that?

Rebecca Goldstein
I live in an ethical modernity as well right the notion of naturalizing ethics of trying to derive it from a study of humans of human nature.

Ken Taylor
Okay, so now I want you to convince me so tell me how did the pre modern think of say ethics was there? No, kind of no hint? of naturalistic ethics or naturalistic psychology, the pre-modern?

Rebecca Goldstein
Well, there certainly wasn’t the Greek world right. So, you know, Aristotle is notions of human flourishing. But but once Europe became Christianized that realm of thinking was was taken over by by the church and synagogue, you know, and mosque and so, it was a, it had been a long time since philosophers and philosophers took up the broken thread from from the Greeks.

Ken Taylor
So, let me let me ask a question, okay. So this one, okay, once you make this shift, to thinking about human beings is just part of nature and what happens to ethics? I mean, some people think Dostoevsky said If God is dead, everything is everything is permitted and nothing is forbidden. Right? Anything goes and lots of people live in that fear Nietzsche, in the 19th century announced the death of God and and thought that ethics was a big part, what did how did Spinoza think we ought to live given this, this radical shift in his in outlook that he was ushering?

Rebecca Goldstein
So I can start at the beginning. Or I could start at the end, where would you like? Okay. So the, the fundamental notion in his psychology and therefore also in his ethics is, cannot us right, the striving so it comes from the Latin to strive to try those striving to persist in our own survival and flourishing. And he said, he, he actually identifies that as the essence of a thing at what what, what I am, what Rebecca Newberger Goldstein is, is the thing that cares more about the survival and flourishing of Rebecca Newberger Goldstein than any thing else. Right. And that and, and it doesn’t even call for any explanation why I care about it. I’m that thing, and that’s why I care about it. That is his fundamental idea here and a very, you know, naturalist idea, it could be nicely supported by evolutionary psychology. I just had an available Yeah, yeah, yeah. So you know, there, there are ways in which we could really bolster this up now and make it give it even more scientific respectability. But what, you know, so so it’s, that’s where all the offs come from, you know, our own self interest. And what he tries to argue, though, is that if we’re rational about it, we will end up caring about the universe at large seen ourselves in the widest perspective possible, caring about other people’s seeing that they’re exactly in the same position as we are. So you know, he does derive something like the golden rule. But the end point is this point of a sort of Crete acceptance, acquiescence gratitude, that you’re part of existence, even for a short time. And it’s a very elevated Trent, transcending kind of experience that you can you can get into when you give yourself over to his reasoning,

John Perry
So Rebecca, we’ve got an interesting question in an email from JoAnn in San Francisco, a little off the topic when pursuing, but it’s very interesting. She wants to know what Spinoza thought of the Torah. That’s the first five books of Moses in the Old Testament, I assume something quite different than he was taught as a sophomore in high school, but But what did he think?

Rebecca Goldstein
Yeah, so here’s another way in which he’s, you know, precipitated with driving us into modernity. He’s really the first person who put forth a consistent rigorous of biblical criticism. He’s the first person that we know of, who said that the Torah was written by many different authors spread out over different timeframes. He points out the internal inconsistencies of it. He thinks, you know, there was a call late or he thinks it was actually Ezra during the return of from from Babylonia, but anyway, so that’s, that’s another thing. And one of the things that he talks about in biblical criticism is that you have to, you know, you have to read it internally, you can try to interpret it with your conception of truth and that way he’s very, very against my manatees. But but that you have to see what it’s trying to say internally. And if you read it that way, you will find many different inconsistencies.

Ken Taylor
So some philosopher, I can’t remember who said, criticizing Spinoza said and philosophy says If you’re a consistent philosopher, you have to be a Spinoza. If I wasn’t Hegel who thought that was a praise, but so do you remember this, then?

Rebecca Goldstein
Yes. So I think so there, you know, in during Hegel’s time in the midst of the German enlightenment, the elf, Clairol. There was this guy named Jacobi. And he was a convert from Judaism to Christianity. And he decided to mount the huge, you know, argument with the F CLARIN with the Enlightenment making Spinoza that the center boy the poster boy, and he was one who said, Look, if you are consistent philosopher, you’re an atheist, Spinoza issed and a moralist, a fatalist. And he even accused Kant of being a closet.

Ken Taylor
Yeah, you can think of Spinoza’s philosophy. And either that’s a good thing for philosophy or a bad thing for philosophy. We’ll dig into more of this and you’re listening to Philosophy Talk, we’re talking about Spinoza with Rebecca Goldstein, author of “Betraying Spinoza.”

John Perry
In our next segment, we’ll compare Spinoza’s revolutionary metaphysics with some ideas of the universe offered by modern science.

Ken Taylor
Many aspects, many universes and many interpretations—when Philosophy Talk continues.

John Lennon
I don’t believe it I Ching, I don’t believe in the Bible.

John Perry
Today, we’re thinking about Baruch Spinoza. He didn’t accept a lot of the wisdom of his time, especially the Judeo-Christian concept of God. I’m John Perry. This is Philosophy Talk, the program that questions everything…

Ken Taylor
…except your intelligence. And not surprisingly, I’m Ken Taylor, and our guest is Rebecca Newberger Goldstein. I want to remind you, you can be part of a live chat with Rebecca at our online Community of Thinkers on Thursday, November 12, at 1pm Pacific Time. Join us for the online chat you can talk to Rebecca without the mediation of me and John—now that’s a treat.

John Perry
So Rebecca, your your book says “Betraying Spinoza,” and and I think it’s you, the author that you claim is betraying Spinoza—not uniquely. Can you tell us why you’re betraying Spinoza?

Rebecca Goldstein
There’s so many ways in which I betrayed Spinoza. One was that it was written in a series, I had been invited to write a series of Jewish thinkers confronting Jewish thinkers. And when the editor approached me, I said, Oh, you know, I’m really not interested, the only, you know, person I would be interested in writing about would be Barak Spinoza. But to write about him from a Jewish point of view, is such a betrayal of Spinoza. And I was so impassioned, in my, you know, arguing that I that I couldn’t do it, I wouldn’t do it. But he said, Wow, you should do this. There’s a lot of passion here. And I was really glad I did, because actually looking at Spinoza, in the context of his Jewish history, you know, his community, give me give me actually new insights into into evenly FX, I read it a little bit differently.

Ken Taylor
But I want to explore I know there’s another sense, but I want to explore it. I’m going to stop you there for a second, because he’s one of the things I have come to think I’m not sure I get it. Spinoza right about this. He didn’t he doesn’t address post modernity and identity politics and the formation of a human identity. But I think he would think that all these concrete specific identities that we have, that we take so seriously, just are not worth taking seriously. They’re not worthy of reason. They divide us in ways that don’t is that we shouldn’t be divided. They they speak to us with the authority of a tradition, but where does the authority of a tradition comes from? So I don’t know. I think that underneath him is some kind of thoroughgoing cosmopolitanism that would that would reject all these concrete, particular local identity formations. Am I right or wrong about that?

Rebecca Goldstein
Is it anything that’s the hardest, but it was, there’s a way of reading the ethics as a kind of how to book how to form how to construct a different identity, throwing off all of those, those those contingent markers, the group that we happen to have been born into. And here’s, you know, he’s so radical, that he’s sort of arguing to the extent that we’re rational, we all participate in exactly the same identity. It’s the only identity that matters,

Ken Taylor
So to map him as a Jewish thinker. It’s like, wow.

Rebecca Goldstein
That’s right. It was Yeah, spot but here, but one of the things that one of the things I sort of argued myself into with that community that community was very, very special. It was a very fraught community. It all consisted of refugees from the Inquisition from the they were Portuguese, refugees, they were all they had been converts. Because, you know, Judaism was illegal on the Iberian Peninsula. Start, you know, way 1492 In Spain, and then 1497, it was the Inquisition came to Portugal. And so his entire community was reclaiming Judaism. They had been, you know, a lot of them secret Jews at great peril to themselves. That’s what the audit of fate was all about rooting out the secret Jews. And so their Jewish identity meant everything to them. And they were always arguing about what is it really to be a Jew? Are their relatives who are back in Portugal are practicing Catholicism? Are they yet Jewish? And I think that that pushed Spinoza towards his radicalism that he kind of is using Cartesian rationalism to argue himself out of this problem. And saying, it really doesn’t matter. Let it chew is that just doesn’t matter.

John Perry
So Rebecca, I want to change gears here a little to go from his ethics and his connection with the Jewish community to his metaphysics, because we want to compare it briefly with modern science. And you mentioned his devotion to Cartesian rationalism. But both he and liveness rejected de cartes metaphysics, they went very different ways. liveness came up, but but they both went, kind of, well, they they went very different ways, away from the dualism for livens, the universe ultimately was just a bunch of mon ads who are minds, I guess. And for Spinoza, it goes from dualism to to something that’s much more complicated, but there’s just one thing so So is there some one thing that they both didn’t like about de cartes metaphysics, which strikes a lot of people’s very plausible?

Rebecca Goldstein
I think that de cartes rationalism was motivated by his epistemology, his demands for certitude you know, what it means to do grounded belief, he wanted something like mathematics Spinoza and liveness. The heart of their rationalism is metaphysical and not epistemological doesn’t have to do with knowledge, but their intuitions about the nature of the world. And they both shared the deep intuition, although it took them to different places, that the universe is thoroughly intelligible. And that that it is a an offense to reason to think that there are facts, which are just facts, for no other reason than their facts. It was almost like a, you know, it’s something that reason can presume that there’s always an explanation live in it’s called the principle of sufficient reason, and Spinoza has that same intuitions when you realize that that’s what’s going on that he’s presuming that just like a law of logic, the those those proofs that he gives start to go through, that’s the thing that he’s assuming there. And where it took him to was that all facts have to be necessary, that that causality is a necessary connection? I mean, humans really diametrically opposed to, to Spinoza here, and that the whole shebang has to be self explanatory there to be is to be explicable. It’s it’s, it’s a it’s an reasons all the way down. It’s not turtles all the way down.

Ken Taylor
It’s reason and that necessity, one of the things that doesn’t leave room for that relentless necessity is anything like human freedom, which is another big thing, but you know, we’ve got a we’ve got caller on the line, Phyllis in Menlo Park is on the line. Welcome to Philosophy Talk.

Phyllis
I wanted to briefly mention I loved “Plato at the Googleplex.” Great book. I’m, I’m not understanding exactly about what he did believe. What was the any thing like—oh, first of all, what date was he alive again? Was it the 1600s?

Rebecca Goldstein
Yes, yeah. He was born in 1632.

Phyllis
Yes. Okay. You haven’t mentioned any influence of the Renaissance on him, or did he have influenced on the Renaissance? But what did he believe? Did he have any idea of science or cells or, you know, evolutionary?

Rebecca Goldstein
He was very interested. So he’s, he comes before Sir Isaac Newton, right. So this is very, very early. It’s just the beginnings of science. He was very interested in it he kept he was in communication with all the scientists of his day. The great astronomer Hagen’s would only use lenses that ground As he called him, “our Israelite.” And so even after his excommunication, he was still a Jew.

Ken Taylor
Huygens would, as I read somewhere with only refer to him as that Jew from such and such a place, but he would never name him.

Rebecca Goldstein
Exactly, exactly. So that’s what I’m saying it would have been such a good career move to convert to Christianity, but but he was very, very interested in science and in optics in the new physics. But, you know, there’s no he, I mean, he certainly doesn’t know about evolution. I mean, you know, this, this comes this comes, you know, in the 19th 19th century, this comes so much later.

Ken Taylor
He didn’t complete modernity, he just started modenity.

Rebecca Goldstein
Charted it, exactly. Exactly what he did do is, you know, to say that science can’t be dictated to us by by by rabbis, or priests or ministers, you know, so you can imagine him weighing in on the creationism issue. He just said, professional thinkers have to be free to think. And that was, as you say that, that that’s the beginning of modernity.

John Perry
So Rebecca, we know that Einstein was a big admirer of Spinoza. And other scientists to notice this, because Spinoza is such a great guy, or does his picture of the world really make some contribution? Or have some deep analogy with a picture offered to us by modern science?

Rebecca Goldstein
Well, um, I think both actually, but the view that if we truly understood the final theory that there is a final theory, and that it, it, it’s the only one that’s possible, if we could see it, we would know that this is very, this is very attractive to scientists, and even the Stephen Hawking for example, at the end of A Brief History of Time, the his his his last paragraph is something like out however, if we do discover a complete theory, it should, in time be understandable and broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists, then we shall all philosopher scientists, and just ordinary people be able to take part in the discussion of question of why it is that we in the universe exists. If we find the answer to that it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason. For then we would know the mind of God, that is pure Spinoza.

Ken Taylor
Yeah. And you know, that’s going to be in some long, complicated equation. It’s not going to be an ordinary language. But you know, Rebecca, this is a fascinating topics when I was as a fascinating guy, and you are among the most fascinating people I know. And I want to congratulate you on your Humanities Medal. But right now, I have to thank you for joining us.

Rebecca Goldstein
Thank you both.

Ken Taylor
Our guest has been Rebecca Newberger Goldstein. She’s a prolific author of many works of philosophical fiction and nonfiction. For this purposes, she wrote the book “Betraying Spinoza: The Renegade Jew Who Gave Us Modernity.” So John, you want to get any betraying thoughts about Spinoza?

John Perry
Well, I mean, you said you thought the answer to Stephen Hawking’s question and that’s spinosus question and being long equation, but I have a feeling I already know the answer. And I can express it in ordinary English that is what’s human life all about and how it come to be. By accident. I think Hawking’s looking for more than that out of out of string theory in the like, he’s going to be disappointed me, but then I’m a mere philosopher.

Ken Taylor
They’re looking I mean, look, Spinoza believed in the relentless necessity every state of the universe, and follows with necessity abundant the previous state and the nature of the universe, there’s this equation that will express the eternal essence of the universe and will explain all things. I think that’s what modern physics is after.

John Perry
No modern, modern fit, I mean, natural necessity. That is the laws of nature are deterministic, which I guess we don’t really believe anymore, anyway, is quite different from Rational necessity, which everything makes sense. That’s true. I think Spinoza might be a little disappointed.

Ken Taylor
That’s true. The whether you could do that make National Natural and rational necessity converge. But you know what? That’s a great conversation piece. And this conversation continues, and philosophers corner at our online community of thinkers where our motto is Cogito ergo Blago, I think, therefore I blog. YouTube can become a partner in that community, just by visiting our website, Philosophy Talk dot o RG. And please join us at the community on Thursday, November 12th, at 1pm Pacific Time for a live online chat with today’s guest, Rebecca Goldstein.

John Perry
Now a guy who could speak talk his way out of any excommunication trap: it’s Ian Shoales the Sixty-Second Philosopher.

Ian Shoales
Ian Shoales… Baruch Spinoza was just 23 when he was excommunicated by his synagogue. Even before that, he had been attacked on the steps of the synagogue by a knife-wielding man shouting “heretic.” He didn’t keep his beliefs a secret. He rejected the God of Abraham, and religion in general. Why should humans expect rewards or punishments when God is actually the whole universe, and therefore not judge-y? Maybe it’s all been predetermined anyway, God being everything and all. These were heresies all right, especially for the time. At the time, excommunication was not that uncommon, not confined to big ticket transgressions. You could get thrown out for talking too loud, carrying weapons into the synagogue, spreading libel, hanging out with tax avoiders… And it doesn’t seem like it had THAT big an effect on Spinoza. He was a non-believer anyway. He had friends and admirers, and enjoyed his work. Spinoza lived on an allowance provided by friends for him to pursue his studies. He did not grind lenses as a job, but as research into optics, a new science at the time. Some have wondered why Spinoza did not convert to Christianity after his excommunication. That doesn’t make much sense. He already doesn’t believe in the one thing, why would he go for Judaism 2.0? “Now, with Jesus!” And surely if he joined, he would just be kicked out of that church as well. Catholic treatment of heretics was not a cakewalk. Stonings, torture, exile, death. Of course excommunication is not so bad as it was. Sinead O’Connor, didn’t hurt her much. Napoleon was kicked out. He conquered the world. Who needs the Church? Fidel Castro was kicked out, but later had mass with John Paul II. What about other religions? You can get kicked out of the Lutheran Church, it seems, but it’s complicated, involving stating of grievances, discussions of complaints, a vote by the entire congregation. It’s an ever widening circle of shame. The Mormons have excommunication but it’s called disfellowshipping. Jehovah’s Witnesses, theoretically, at least, will kick you out just for having lunch with a fornicator. So state your sexual history BEFORE you order the tuna melt. Even the Quakers have a process, which is called being “read out of meeting.” During the Viet Nam War, they tried to have Richard Nixon read out, but the Quakers just didn’t have the heart to go through with it. Islam does not have excommunication, but it’s pretty free with the fatwas. Which can lead to shunning, chiding, and of course, in Salman Rushie’s case, the threat of death. Spinoza was spared all that. Again he ground lenses for a living, probably a contributing factor to this death at 44 of an unspecified lung disease, perhaps tuberculosis, perhaps silicosis. Breathing in ground glass fragments all day can’t be good for your health. Nowadays, Spinoca’s status as a possible victim of unsafe work practices would probably supercede his status as a precursor of modern physics. Posters in the subway trains. Bill boards. Go Fund Me efforts to bring surgical masks to LensCrafters, and draft legislation to force ophthalmologists to put warning labels on nasal passages. Is this the true legacy of Baruch Spinoza? Maybe. Maybe his true legacy might be that of Groucho Marx. He wasn’t excommunicated, but he did refuse to join any group that would have him for a member. I gotta go.

John Perry
Philosophy Talk is the presentation of Ben Manilla productions and the trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, copyright 2015.

Ken Taylor
Our executive producer is David Demarest.

John Perry
The program is produced by Devin Strolovitch. Laura Maguire is our director of research. Our marketing director is David Millar.

Ken Taylor
Thanks also to Ted Muldoon, Merle Kessler, Erica Topete, and Mark Stone.

John Perry
Support for Philosophy Talk comes from various groups at Stanford University and the partners at our online community of thinkers.

Ken Taylor
And from the members of KALW San Francisco, where our program originates.

John Perry
The views expressed (or mis-expressed) on this program do not necessarily represent the opinions of Stanford University, or of our other funders.

Ken Taylor
Not even when they’re true and reasonable. The conversation continues on our website, philosophytalk.org where you too can become a partner in our community of thinkers.

John Perry
I’m John Perry.

Ken Taylor
And I’m Ken Taylor. Thank you for listening.

John Perry
And thank you for thinking.

Annie Hall
The other important joke for me is one that’s usually attributed to Groucho Marx, but I think it appears originally in Freud’s “Wit and Its Relation to the Unconscious,” and it goes like this—I’m paraphrasing—I would never want to belong to any club that would have someone like me for a member.