
Spinoza’s philosophy of freedom - Hooke
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/spinoza-philosophy-freedom/
======
baldfat
I find reading Spinoza's rational idea of Ethics oddly resolves around the
concept of love. I find that I first read Spinoza as the source for Spock in
Star Trek.

First the idea of love for Spinoza is that truly free persons actively avoid
love as in love is a passion.

Second that the "rational/noble" love of doing good to others ethically is the
center piece of ethics.

Proposal 43 "Hatred is increased by being reciprocated, and can on the other
hand be destroyed by love."

"For by “courage” I understand “the desire by which each person endeavors to
preserve his being in accordance with the dictate of reason alone,” and by
“nobility” I understand “the desire by which each person, in accordance with
the dictate of reason alone, endeavors to help other men and join them to him
in friendship.”" Page 73 of Ethics published in 1949 (Copy on my shelf)

When i talk about Spinoza in academic worlds I have the belief that
Kierkegaard (Acts of Love in specific) and Spinoza are agreeing and talking
about the same ethics of love. Though they disagree about everything else
about love it is love that makes us be ethical to our neighbors. I try to make
my children understand that we make those around us better because we care
about their well-being and that while we disagree with people we do so with
the idea that we care for them also.

~~~
coliveira
Is important to be aware that the word love has lost its meaning throughout
the ages. Love for the ancient and medievals was akin to the word passion,
which means literally suffering. Its meaning was like "suffering for someone
or something else", which we would call altruistic. Modern love is more akin
to "like", and has a general meaning of "mutual affinity". Like many concepts
in the modern world, it acquired a individualistic connotation that didn't
exist in the past.

~~~
rskar
Could you give a citation for that "love for the ancient and medievals was
akin to the word passion"? My understanding of that love-to-passion link is by
way of Christianity, i.e. love as the motivation for the suffering (of Jesus).
Otherwise, etymology doesn't show/suggest that sort of change in the meaning
of "love" (e.g.
[http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/110566](http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/110566)).
If anything, there's been a change in the meaning of "passion"
([https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/passion](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/passion)).

~~~
cicero
_The Four Loves_ by C.S. Lewis [1] is about four different Greek words that
are usually translated as "love" in English: storge, philia, eros, and agape.
The self-sacrificing love, agape, is what the GP is talking about.

1:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Loves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Loves)

~~~
baldfat
I love C.S. Lewis he is a good philosopher but a horrible Theologian or
Biblical Scholar.

There are only two words for love in the new Testament: Agape and Philia and
they are used interchangably. Anyone that tries to say they mean different
things are trying to sell you something.

Exercise: Just look up the verses with the two words and read them (One
difference (Many professors disagree that there is any difference)is that when
Jesus and Peter had the conversation of "Do you love me." BUT I couldn't
really tell you for certain why there were two words). Also same thing with
rhema and logos they are used interchangeably.

People that try to split words into "atoms" into definitions just haven't
studied a language for academic purposes. The more I learn the more I know
that the people who did the translations are at a different league and much
better then I am. I cringe when people talk Greek or Hebrew in church because
75% of the times they are just wrong. Like dunamis (power from the inside) is
"dynamite power" makes me want to scream there is no way Paul knew what
dynamite was or was thinking about an explosive.

~~~
cicero
I agree that some preachers misuse their little bit of Greek knowledge, but
Lewis was a professor of literature and knew Greek well. Storge and eros are
not Biblical words, but they are still Greek words that are often translated
"love" and have very different meanings. My point of bringing this up Lewis
was to show that there is support for different meanings for our English word
"love".

Pope Benedict XVI, whom I believe is one of the greatest theological minds of
our day, wrote about 3 kinds of love in his encyclical _Deus Caritas Est_ (God
is Love) [1]. He shows how these different words for love are distinct but
related. (Storge is not included; some people translate it as "affection"
rather than love.) Here is a quote:

 _3\. That love between man and woman which is neither planned nor willed, but
somehow imposes itself upon human beings, was called eros by the ancient
Greeks. Let us note straight away that the Greek Old Testament uses the word
eros only twice, while the New Testament does not use it at all: of the three
Greek words for love, eros, philia (the love of friendship) and agape, New
Testament writers prefer the last, which occurs rather infrequently in Greek
usage. As for the term philia, the love of friendship, it is used with added
depth of meaning in Saint John 's Gospel in order to express the relationship
between Jesus and his disciples. The tendency to avoid the word eros, together
with the new vision of love expressed through the word agape, clearly point to
something new and distinct about the Christian understanding of love._

1: [https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-
xvi/en/encyclicals/do...](https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-
xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est.html)

------
stareatgoats
I find Spinoza more understandable when substituting 'God = Nature' with 'God
= Reality'. I believe that's closest to what he meant, in modern vernacular.

That equivalence was (and still is) anyhow a reasonable (i.e 'unmystical')
starting point for carving out a sliver of understanding from existence in
it's totality, including religious aspects.

------
HippoBaro
I was 16 when I first read Spinoza's Ethics. I didn't understand much by then,
what I did though radically changed my conception of the world. It's not an
easy philosophy. It creates havoc in our conception of human society. No free-
will, thus no sin nor merit, for example.

Spinoza is also a great philosopher for people not used to the "canonical"
philosophical methodology. The treaty looks and works like a formal
mathematical proof with definitions, axioms, and propositions systematically
proved by pure logic.

------
teawithcarl
The sprinkling of intellectual “philosophy articles” in Hacker News have been
of outstanding quality.

------
CoolAndComposed
I take issue with this is a rather rigid classification of things, that isn't
useful, and I hear a lot out of various modern scientist/philosophers.

> There is nothing supernatural; there is nothing outside of or distinct from
> Nature and independent of its laws and operations.

It's pretty common to associate supernatural with magical because super-
natural sounds like beyond the rules of nature, when it can just as easily
mean beyond the known rules of nature. If you can't explain events under
natural law (rules, whatever), it's practically and effectively supernatural.
That doesn't necessarily exclude a future explanation, just because people
have been averse or ignorant, to investigate in the past. Straight from
history, countless supernatural events have been brought in to the fold.

Otherwise, this guy sounds like he had some contemporary beliefs shared by
rationalists.

~~~
simonh
That definition of supernatural, as just the as-yet unknown natural, is a bit
contentious and I've not seen it commonly (ever) espoused by anyone else. Most
people who use the term really do seem to mean, on questioning, something
beyond and different from the knowable natural world and it's forces.
Sometimes they will even classify it as things by definition unknowable to
science.

I do agree that many if not most 'supernatural' phenomena have been explained
by science. However I don't think that it's all that useful to classify them
as supernatural at a previous time and natural now. They haven't changed.

------
koolhead17
I find him closer to Epicureanism

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism)

------
hutzlibu
About the enigma of why he was cursed and expelled of the jewish community:

"If we think that God is like us, an agent who acts for the sake of ends and
who, by issuing commands, makes known his expectations and punishes those who
do not obey, we will be dominated by the passions of hope and fear: hope for
eternal reward and fear of eternal punishment. This will, in turn, lead us
towards submission to ecclesiastic authorities who claim to know what God
wants The resulting life is one of “bondage” – psychological, moral,
religious, social and political enslavement – rather than the liberating life
of reason."

.. well, if he said something like this before and in a way, that people
listened to him, than this was a direct assault to the priests, the Rabbis, of
the community. And also to the general foundations of jewish religion - so
they probably saw it as a existential threat - therefore their harsh reaction.

~~~
solipsism
Yes that's what the author said:

 _And yet, in light of Spinoza’s mature philosophical writings, which he began
working on less than a decade after the herem, the mystery of the ban begins
to dissipate._

------
givan
In a letter of October or November, 1674, Spinoza writes:

 _Thus, I call a thing free that exists and acts out of the pure necessity of
its nature; and I call it compelled, if its existence and activity are
determined in a precise and fixed manner by something else. Thus God, for
example, though necessary, is free, because he exists only out of the
necessity of his nature. Similarly, God knows himself and everything else
freely, because it follows from the necessity of his nature alone that he
should know everything. You see, then, that I locate freedom not in free
decision, but in free necessity. Let us, however, descend to created things,
which are all determined to exist and to act in fixed and precise ways by
outside causes. To see this more clearly, let us imagine a very simple case. A
stone, for example, receives a certain momentum from an external cause that
comes into contact with it, so that later, when the impact of the external
cause has ceased, it necessarily continues to move. This persistence of the
stone is compelled, and not necessary, because it had to be established by the
impact of an external cause. What applies here to the stone, applies to
everything else, no matter how complex and multifaceted; everything is
necessarily determined by an outside cause to exist and to act in a fixed and
precise manner. Now please assume that the stone, as it moves, thinks and
knows that it is trying, as much as it can, to continue in motion. This stone,
which is only conscious of its effort and by no means indifferent, will
believe that it is quite free and that it continues in its motion not because
of an external cause but only because it wills to do so. But this is that
human freedom that all claim to possess and that only consists in people being
aware of their desires, but not knowing the causes by which they are
determined. Thus the child believes that it freely desires the milk; the angry
boy, that he freely demands revenge; and the coward flight. Again, drunkards
believe it is a free decision to say what, when sober again, they will wish
that they had not said, and since this prejudice is inborn in all humans, it
is not easy to free oneself from it. For, although experience teaches us
sufficiently that people are least able to moderate their desires and that,
moved by contradictory passions, they see what is better and do what is worse,
yet they still consider themselves free, and this because they desire some
things less intensely and because some desires can be easily inhibited through
the recollection of something else that is familiar._

Because this view is expressed clearly and definitely, it is easy to discover
the fundamental error in it. Just as a stone necessarily carries out a
specific movement in response to an impact, human beings are supposed to carry
out an action by a similar necessity if impelled to it by any reason. Human
beings imagine themselves to be the free originators of their actions only
because they are aware of these actions. In so doing, however, they overlook
the causes driving them, which they must obey unerringly. The error in this
train of thought is easy to find. Spinoza and all who think like him overlook
the human capacity to be aware not only of one’s actions, but also of the
causes by which one’s actions are guided.

A Philosophy of Freedom - Rudolf Steiner

~~~
maroonblazer
>>The error in this train of thought is easy to find. Spinoza and all who
think like him overlook the human capacity to be aware not only of one’s
actions, but also of the causes by which one’s actions are guided.

I dunno. I see a lot of people who take sole credit for their actions and
outcomes and don't give a thought to the fact that they didn't choose their
parents, place of birth, genetic makeup, talents and temperaments or simply
the role of luck.

------
Kenji
That was a fantastic read. Spinoza was well ahead of his time. People like him
paved (and continue to pave) the way to a saner society.

------
NoB4Mouth
Spinoza was to the medieval Europe what Socrates had been to the Ancient
Greece. Their ideas came to free human mindset from the enslavement the
religious. Those ideas were a threat to the establishment of their days that
were using gods to prey on the masses. No wonder Socrates has to be sentenced
to death. Spinoza found refuge in the then tolerant Netherlands. Coincidence
or not? Spinoza middle name is Benedictus => the Title of current Pope ....
Hope the latter turns a modern days Spinoza...

~~~
baldfat
I never understand the idea that Spinoza was an atheist. Sure his ideas of God
were not Judeo-Christian but he did believe in the super-natural that we see
in action through nature. Spinoza was 100% a theist and wrote about God and
advocated for the evidence of a God. I almost laugh when agnostics try to use
him as their champion. They are ramming their own beliefs into this
Philosopher that it is not respectful to Spignoza's writing. My example is
since he saved Ethics to be released on his death why wasn't he clear on the
rejection of God or place more on Deist statements?

Prop. 28

"The mind's highest good is the knowledge of God, and the mind's highest
virtue is to know God. ...The mind is not capable of understanding anything
higher than God, that is, than a Being absolutely infinite, and without which
nothing can either be or be conceived; therefore, the mind's highest utility
or good is the knowledge of God. Again, the mind is active, only in so far as
it understands, and only to the same extent can it be said absolutely to act
virtuously. The mind's absolute virtue is therefore to understand."

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Digression: I'm suspicious of philosophy because it throws around absolutes
with nothing to back them. Like 'The mind is not capable of understanding blah
blah'. Really? What is this supposition based upon? Its like saying there's a
highest number we can understand - but what if we add 1 to that?

~~~
billybatson
Do you think that there is no limit to human understanding?

~~~
whatshisface
Whatever it is, it's a psychological question. The only hope of answering it
would be to go around measuring how much people could understand - and if that
wasn't possible (due to understanding not being defined, i.e. not really
meaning anything specific, or due to it just being really difficult to
measure), then you'd have no chance of ever knowing.

------
WC3w6pXxgGd
In other words, Objectivism.

~~~
haZard_OS
I urge you to read Spinoza for yourself if you are under the impression that
his philosophy is like Ayn Rand's. I assure you, they are worlds apart.

------
samirillian
Interesting how the judeo- Christian concept of immortality is so clearly
harmful, while the Greek/ eastern concept of the transmigration of souls is so
socially useful. For a Christian, at least, the world is a sinking ship. But
for a Hindu, you will inherit the good and bad you do in this life in the
next. Though, of course, that can lead to a different kind of fatalism in
terms of treatment of the poor.

~~~
baldfat
> For a Christian, at least, the world is a sinking ship.

That isn't universal and as a Theological student it isn't even what is
written in the scriptures. In fact you can't read anywhere in the scriptures
where people go to heaven, but it talks about people living here on earth.

It's hard to make universal statements.

~~~
coliveira
It's hard to make universal statements because the bible is shock full of
contradictory statements. Jesus says explicitly that large is the path that
leads to damnation and that few will be chosen by him. So, while some will
have redemption, the story goes that most of humanity will end up in despair.
Of course, other texts can be used to conclude the opposite, which is the
normal fashion for bible interpretation.

~~~
mseebach
It means "nobody gets it for free". Nobody gets to say "oh, but I'm the king,
I'm pre-redeemed, I can do whatever". Everyone has to work hard every day for
redemption, and nobody is ever done.

~~~
avogadro
That is one possible interpretation of the english translation that you happen
to be using.

