From: mars1933@hotmail.com   
      
   	 	   
   	Although  I  had  been  aware  for  some  time  of  the Jewish   
   emphasis  on  Spinoza as a prominent and significant Enlightenment   
   figure, I only began  to appreciate the scale and complexity of the   
   Jewish effort to canonize him recently when Jonathan Israel's 2001   
   Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity,   
   1650-1750  was  brought  to  my  attention.   In  this  extravagantly   
   praised  tome  and  its  2006  sequel  Enlightenment Contested:   
   Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man, 1670-   
   1752,   Israel  rejected  strictly  national  interpretations  of  the   
   Enlightenment, and argued that it was a single, highly integrated   
   intellectual and cultural movement. At the center of this single   
   movement he places the ideas of the seventeenth-century Jewish   
   philosopher Baruch Spinoza, whom  Israel  argues  we  should  view   
   above  Descartes,  Hobbes,  Locke, Voltaire,  Newton,  and  other   
   non-Jews,  as  the  source  of  modernity.  In Israel's words, Spinoza   
   and Spinozism were "the intellectual backbone of the European Radical   
   Enlightenment everywhere."   
      
       At least compared with the works of ethnic activists like Anthony   
   Julius,   Israel's work is representative of a more subtle and   
   sophisticated way  of  shaping  "ways  of  seeing."  Much  of  what   
   he  says  is  at  least  factually  correct.  In  some  cases  his   
   assertions are beyond dispute, and are liberally furnished with   
   references to archival documentation. However, Israel's  basic  thesis   
   overreaches  the  sum  of  its  parts.   
      
       In order to fully understand the Jewish effort to raise Spinoza to   
   such lofty heights, it is first necessary to recount, albeit briefly,   
   the life and works  of  the  man  himself.  Far  from  being a typical   
   Jewish guru, Spinoza's  story  begins  in  a  very  singular  manner,   
   and  his  path  from  Jewish  pariah  to  Jewish  icon  is  most   
   interesting.  Born  in  Amsterdam  to  a  family of Jewish Marrano   
   immigrants on  November  25,  1632,  Baruch  Spinoza  was part of a   
   "prospering" Jewish community of merchants and traders.   
      
        Spinoza was given a Jewish education as a child, but grew   
   trouble-some  and  was  visibly  vexed  by  the  restrictions  imposed   
   upon  him  by  his  religion and his community. By the age  of   
   eighteen,  Spinoza had sought out the instruction of Frances Van den   
   Ende, a Dutch ex-Jesuit, and under whom he studied "Latin, Cartesian   
   philosophy, mathematics and the  science  of  the  day."    Mixing   
   increasingly  in  a  Christian  milieu,  especially among the   
   Mennonites.   
      
   	By  his  early  20s,  Spinoza  was  increasingly outspoken in   
   his antagonism towards the Jewish religion, and formally turned his   
   back on the Amsterdam community by refusing to pay the finta  and  the   
   imposta, the usual  contribution  and  tax  levied  on  traded   
   merchandise  by  Jewish leaders "for the benefit of the community."   
   His individualistic behavior was an unwelcome anomaly in a community   
   which was vigorously collectivist and ethnocentric. In A People That   
   Shall Dwell Alone, Kevin MacDonald pointed out that historically  the   
   typical  treatment  of  such  individuals in Jewish societies involved   
   complete expulsion from the community, which in turn amounted to a   
   eugenic selection against individualist tendencies.   In the case of   
   Spinoza,  the  main  consequence  of his  cumulative  indiscretions   
   was  an  edict  of  excommunication.  Jews  were  banned from speaking   
   to him, from rendering him any service, from reading his writings, and   
   from coming within four cubits of him.  It  was  recalled  by  one  of   
   Spinoza's  Dutch friends that "the hostility of the Jewish authorities   
   persisted" and "an attempt was made on his life one night as he was   
   leaving the theatre."   
      
       His  1670  Tractatus Theologico-Politicus  in  which  he   
   expressed   his   thoughts   on   Judaism.   According   to   Spinoza,   
   Judaism  "commands the hatred of the enemy," and is "carnal and   
   particularis "a  particularistic  and  tribal  law  that  serves  no   
   other  end  than  the  earthly or political felicity of the Jewish   
   nation."    Claims  that  Judaism  was  a  universal religion were   
   seen as nonsense  by  Spinoza,  who  saw  in  the  God of Israel only   
   "a tribal God who is not the God of all mankind."   
      
       He stated that, in relation to the Jews, "it is the hatred of the   
   Nations [i.e., non-Jews] that above all keeps  them  in  existence  as   
   a  people."   
      
        In relation to his physical speculations,  it  has  been   
   asserted  by  experts  on  his  work  that  "Spinoza's  name   
   rarely,  if  ever,  figures  in  histories  of 17th-century science;   
   most philosophical commentators pay little, if any, heed to his   
   physical principles   
      
      
       Some  argue that Spinoza's contribution to physical philosophy   
   amounted to little more   than   "a   number   of   subtle   and   
   sophisticated  adjustments,  criticisms, and arrangements."   
      
        Hubertus G. Hubbeling, a Dutch expert on Spinoza, stated that   
   Spinoza and his ideas on political philosophy were of little   
   importance until long  after  the  peak  of  the  Enlightenment.  He   
   also  pointed  out  that  most contemporary works of political   
   philosophy "pay hardly any attention".  "It is not  true  that  his   
   followers  have  been very  numerous.  Very  few  persons  are   
   suspected of adhering to his theory; and among those who are suspected   
   of it, there are few who have studied it; and among the latter group,   
   there  are  few  who  have  understood it". "and  not worth studying   
   in another way than by refuting him," and he was only studied with any   
   seriousness in the nineteenth century.    When  his  work  was   
   eventually examined with intellectual  seriousness,  "scholars  soon   
   discovered  that  Spinoza's  philosophy was  by  no  means  as   
   original  and  new  as  his  contemporaries  and  Spinoza   
   himself had thought."    Most  of  his  political  philosophy  was   
   derivative of  his  reading  of  Machiavelli,  Thomas  Hobbes,  and   
   Hugo  Grotius.   
      
      Gottfried  Wilhelm  Leibniz  (1646-1716), who occupies a prominent   
   place in the history of mathematics (for independently inventing   
   differential and  integral  calculus)  and  as  one  of  the  great   
   rationalist  philosophers, once  said  that  Spinoza  "only   
   cultivated  certain  seeds  in  the  philosophy of Descartes," and   
   that his political philosophy was nothing more than   
   "exaggerated Cartesianism."    Robert  McShea  writes:  "As  for  the   
   influence  of  Spinoza's  specifically  political thought-it is almost   
   as though he had not written. . . . His political philosophy, meant to   
   fit all ages, has been accepted, has been taken seriously, by none."   
      
       As a writer, Spinoza's Latin was replete with grammatical errors,   
   and framing his thoughts, and tended "to  use  the  same   
   illustrations  again and again, frustrating the student seeking a full   
   grasp of his thought."   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)