Among the great philosophers of history Spinoza is perhaps the most lovable, this because not only
was he a gifted philosopher, but also a saint who thoroughly lived the Ethics that he wrote.
However, in the years following his death he was spoken about “as if he were a dead dog”
said the German philosopher Lessing. His works were promptly banned throughout Holland and to the
Jewish community, of which he formally belonged, he was considered by most a traitor while the
Christians saw him as a devil bent on destroying all hope held by their people. Berkeley dubbed him
“the great leader of our modern infidels,” while Sir John Evelyn called the Theological-Political
Treatise “that infamous book” which served as “a wretched obstacle to the searchers of holy truth.”
Even other heretics, while enjoying his biblical criticism,
could not understand the apparent religious terminology which saturated his work.
This begs the question, why was he so reviled the century following his death?
Well predominately, as seen in the aforementioned comments, the hostility occurred as a result of
his views on the bible, prophecy, and miracles. An attack against these things threatened the
social and political power granted to the state through certain established ceremonial laws.
To maintain the rites afforded them by these superstitions
the state and its proponents would entertain whatever means necessary against whomever
necessary. So let us examine the views which may have at any time cost our philosopher his life.
Outside of his excommunication from the synagogue Spinoza’s troubles began following
the publication of his work the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, or otherwise known as the
Theological-Political Treatise. In it he wished to demonstrate that “the freedom to philosophize
can not 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.” The backlash
to such an aim was such that it prevented him from publishing any further during his lifetime.
It was his thought that in order to produce any valid argument for the freedom of philosophizing
we must first conceive of the bible in a way different than that which was commonly taught.
He begins by attempting to demonstrate that what scripture is is not “natural truth,” but instead
simply the means by which to convey a simple moral message; this being to “Love thy neighbor.”
The bible, in and of itself, is but another document crafted by the hand of man,
if he were born elsewhere then he would maintain the same sentiment about any of the other
religious texts throughout history. The purpose it served was again not to convey “natural truth”,
but instead to establish certain ceremonial laws which would aid in the preservation of
the state by controlling an individual’s behavior. He thought that it was written in such a way as
to capture the imagination of a particular group of people, and thus was not eternal,
but destined to rise and fall with the group they’re directed toward. Miracle stories were
formed for much of the same reasons; it was a necessary adaptation to the public mind.
Scripture, being a creation of man, is subject to the same corruption and mutilation as any other
document. This being the case Spinoza believed that much of the Old Testament is in fact corrupt,
altered to fit the needs of the particular kingdom in which they were being taught.
Outside of the questionable authorship of Scripture Spinoza became greatly troubled by how
religious texts were worshiped, let him speak, “It will be said that, although God’s law is inscribed
in our hearts, Scripture is nevertheless the word of God, and it is no more permissible
to say of Scripture that it is mutilated and contaminated than to say this of God’s word.
In reply, I have to say that such objectors are carrying their piety too far, and are turning
religion into superstition; indeed, instead of God’s word they are beginning to worship
likenesses and images, that is, Paper and ink.”
“To know and love God and to love one’s neighbor as one’s self” is what should be
taken from Scripture; in this way there can be no room for human corruption and manipulation,
every semblance of superstition could be rooted out. In his view “a catholic faith
should therefore contain only those dogmas which obedience to God absolutely demands, and without
which such obedience is absolutely impossible . . . These must all be directed to this one end: that
there is a supreme being who loves justice and charity, whom all must obey in order to be saved,
and must worship by practicing justice and charity to their neighbor.”
Outside of these necessary basic principles each individual “is duty bound to adapt these religious
dogmas to his own understanding and to interpret them for himself in whatever way makes him feel
that he can the more readily accept them with full confidence and conviction.”
By simplifying the message of Scripture to a single moral massage and giving to each the power
to interpret religion in his or her own way he is able to show that the freedom to philosophize,
because it no longer interferes with any superstitious law,
can be given without detriment to true religion.
Around the beginning of the Romantic Movement the image of Spinoza would once again be
conceived in a favorable light. Great men such as Friedrich Jacobi would come to his defense,
even Goethe confessed that he had been “converted” upon his first reading of the Ethics. Novalis
named him “The God Intoxicated Man,” while Herder found within his work that final reconciliation
of philosophy and religion. Even England would come to know him for more than just his heresies.
The discussion on state religion and their efficacy seems to us now only a passing thought,
but for Spinoza each line very well could have cost him, at the very least, his freedom,
perhaps even his life. If the battles he fought seem to use distant and small it can only be
because he has lifted us on his shoulders. If this video has inspired you to seek more
on who I consider to be the greatest philosopher of modern times, then this
video here may be of value. As always thank you for talking philosophy with me, until next time.