Comments on: An Interview with Rebecca Goldstein, author of “Betraying Spinoza”

By: Alban

Alban — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:56:12 +0000

This is a great interview, although it seems that Rebecca Goldstein reduces Spinoza to existence, political and social systems and how we all may live together.

I think his idea has nothing to do with that at all. While Spinoza probably would argue for a democratic system, given from what I see, his primary purpose is the discovery and recognition of truth, the truth of what we are. This world is a denial of truth which should be very obvious to anyone confronted by his claim that truth is the same for everyone.

By: Sunil Sharma

Sunil Sharma — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 05:34:44 +0000

Interesting commentary. Have never read Spinoza in detail but was quite impressed with his radical faith in rationality that I came across in a philosophy refresher class. I can see that some are belittling him on the grounds of his excessive proclivity towards logic and reason with little regard for subjective experience and emotion. I believe both reason and experience/feeling contribute greatly towards an individual’s construction of reality. Each psychic constitution is diffrent so arguing whether rationality or subjective experience comes first is futile. Carl Jung’s theory of Psychological Types lists thinking and feeling as two important human functions. Two person’s perception of reality could be polar opposites of each other depending on whether you are thinking dominant(emphasizes logic) or feeling dominant(emphasizes subjective experience/emotion).

By: Dr. Ann Nunes

Dr. Ann Nunes — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 02:05:13 +0000

James Kennedy asks why Rebecca Goldstein uses the word “betraying” in her title, and whether she means “betray” in the “bad” sense.

Goldstein herself says, in another interview, that she does literally betray Spinoza in several ways.

One is that she deals with his personal life, which he as a philosopher thought was irrelevant to his philosophy.

Another is that she deals with his Jewish religious and ethnic background, which again he as a philosopher thought was irrelevant.

This is not necessarily “bad”–but, since it is contrary to the approach that Spinoza himself would have preferred, it is appropriate to say that her approach here “betrays” Spinoza’s own philosphical principles.

By: paul

paul — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 05:01:08 +0000

Is the “Apple and worm” draft available from Dr. Klever?

By: Wim Klever

Wim Klever — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:49:54 +0000

Rebecca Goldstein is fully right in surmising that Locke was influenced by Spinoza’s ideas and so mediated towards their further effect on the making of America. He not only conversed with Spinoza’s intimates in Amsterdam but also read and extracted his books. The evidence for this is that one can discover at least 40 crypto-quotations from Spinoza’s text in Locke’s texts. In the last decade I composed a draft-ms on this subject (“Apple and worm. Locke as a disguised Spinozist”)that I am willing to pass to serious Locke scholars.

By: Eric Duyshart

Eric Duyshart — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:19:41 +0000

Thanks to Rebecca Goldstein for her efforts in keeping Spinoza’s ideas alive. Although not always intuitive for me, Spinoza’s philosphies should get more attention.

By: Gary Goldberg

Gary Goldberg — Mon, 28 May 2007 16:36:22 +0000

Wonderful interview with Rebecca Goldstein about Betraying Spinoza. Very revealing and interesting. I believe the mistake that Spinoza makes and that we are in need of correcting, is to believe that the application of human rationality to life necessitates dissociating oneself from one’s own experience of the world. THat is the only primary data we actually have upon which to judge and make our decisions about the world. Much more enlightening and perhaps our pathway out of the traps of modernity is “neurophenomenology”. Understanding the link between our subjective experience of the world and the constraints placed on our existence by our own internal biology, specifically how our brains constrain our experience of the world.
Thanks.

By: Steve Hall

Steve Hall — Mon, 28 May 2007 16:35:41 +0000

So, ‘modernity’ was the ‘gift’ of a 17th century Jewish philosopher. Spinoza was quite interesting, but this suggestion is utterly myopic liberal-culturalist claptrap. When are American philosophers actually going to start thinking about the world?

By: Peter The Excommunicated

Peter The Excommunicated — Mon, 28 May 2007 16:34:57 +0000

I think all truth is temporary–a kind of temporary truth–this included!

By: robert zilver

robert zilver — Mon, 28 May 2007 16:34:10 +0000

The achievements of Spinoza?

There seems to be a campaign going on to ascribe many achievements of the West to Spinoza. This campaign is largely tribal. Some publishers try to boost the sale of Spinoza books.

But Spinoza’s conclusions are wrong. You cannot trust reason. You need observations and faith if you can’t think or you have no data.
The “Ethics” is an unreadable book in a geometric pseudoformat and unciphering it is a waste of time for 99,999999 percent of people.
Example: Reason may suggest that you have bad genes for eyesight and certain other health parameters and so on. Christ said “if your eye is evil, then your whole body is in the dark.”
There is a plain and simple logical conflict here.
The last thing we need is lens grinders like Spinoza who dabble in philosophy and think they can reason it out. Down with Spinoza!

Robert Zilver, 2006

By: sidney orlovitz

sidney orlovitz — Mon, 28 May 2007 16:33:17 +0000

Like other large systems of thought,
it appears that its best to approach
Spinoza from several directions.
Perhaps from both the direction of the primacy of reason, and from the direction of the primacy of emotion.
More than one discussion of Spinosa emphasises the relevance of both to his thought. He does seem to be about the integration of systems of thought, to an extent that is modern – Who’s the modern writer that said “only connect”….?

Prof. Goldstein’s comments here make me want to see her book for more.

By: James Kennedy

James Kennedy — Mon, 28 May 2007 16:32:26 +0000

I know that these are a naive questions, but that does not stop me from asking them.

1. Does Goldstein use “Betraying” in the title of her book mostly in the senses that are normally associated with the word “protraying”?

2. Does Goldstein use “Betraying” in the title of her book with the negative connotations usually attached to that word?