Spinoza in 90 Minutes

Philosophers in 90 Minutes #23

by Paul Strathern

In Spinoza in 90 Minutes, Paul Strathern offers a concise, expert account of Spinoza's life and ideas, and explains their influence on man's struggle to understand his existence in the world. The book also includes selections from Spinoza's writings; a brief list of suggested reading for those who wish to push further; and chronologies that place Spinoza within his own age and in the broader scheme of philosophy.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Biography, History, Audiobook, Religion, Science

87 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1996

About the author

Paul Strathern (born 1940) is a English writer and academic. He was born in London, and studied at Trinity College, Dublin, after which he served in the Merchant Navy over a period of two years. He then lived on a Greek island. In 1966 he travelled overland to India and the Himalayas. His novel A Season in Abyssinia won a Somerset Maugham Award in 1972.

Besides five novels, he has also written numerous books on science, philosophy, history, literature, medicine and economics.

Reviews

[Maziyar Yf · Rating 2 out of 5]

در میان 8 جلدی که از مجموعه آشنایی با فلاسفه از پل استراترن خوانده ام ، آشنایی با اسپینوزا را می توان ضعیف ترین و کم ارزش ترین کتاب این مجموعه دانست . استراترن بیشترین حجم کتاب را به زندگی باروخ اختصاص داده و شوربختانه آن چه از فلسفه اسپینوزا بیان کرده بسیار آشفته و مبهم است .
تنها نکته مثبت کتاب استراترن ، خاتمه کتاب است که با بخشی درخشان از رساله الهی – سیاسی اسپینوزا در باب حکومت به پایان رسیده است :

هدف نهایی حکومت نه تسلط بر مردم باید باشد نه محدود ساختن آنان از راه وحشت و ترس و نه وادار کردن آنان به اطاعت، بلکه باید هدف آن آزاد ساختن مردم از ترس باشد تا بتوانند در بیشترین امنیت ممکنه زندگی کنند. به عبارت دیگر باید حق طبیعی انسانها را به زنده بودن مورد حمایت قرار داد تا با اطمینان کامل و بدون اینکه بر خود یا بر همسایه خود زیانی وارد سازند زندگی کنند هدف نهایی حکومت این نیست که انسان را از موجودی صاحب خرد و اندیشه به چارپایی لایعقل یا عروسک خیمه شب بازی مبدل کند بلکه باید آنها را چنان آماده سازد که روح و جسمشان را در امنیت تمام بپرورند و عقل خود را آزادانه به کار بندند و نگذارند که قدرت مردم در راه کینه جویی و خشم و فریب مصرف شود و نه معروض رشک و ستم واقع شوند. درواقع غرض و هدف اصلی
حکومت همانا آزادی است

[Mohammadjavad Abbasi · Rating 3 out of 5]

این کتاب نیز مانند سایر مجموعه کتاب های آشنایی با فیلسوفان سعی کرده زندگی نامه و افکار و عقیده هر فیلسوف را به طور مختصر و مفید شرح دهد.
اسپینوزا یکی از فیلسوفان بزرگ خردگرای سده ۱۷ به شمار می‌آید.او در یک خانوادهٔ یهودی متولد شد. او تحصیل علم را در مدرسهٔ یهودیان آغاز کرد اما رفته رفته نشانه‌های تردید در مورد کتاب مقدس یهودیان به عنوان وحی الهی در او آشکار شد.
او می‌گفت کسانی که اسفار پنج‌گانه موسی (یا خمسهٔ موسی که به پنج کتاب اول عهد عتیق انجیل اطلاق می‌شود) را نوشته‌اند، هم از نظر علمی و هم از نظر علم کلام و الهیات ساده‌لوحانی بیش نیستند و اصولاً خمسهٔ موسی اصلاً از موسی نیست! او به این بسنده نکرد و گفت که در تورات هیچ شاهدی بر این که خداوند صاحب جسم است یا روح فناناپذیر است و یا فرشتگان وجود دارند در دست نیست.این نظرات در نهایت منجر به تکفیر از سوی روحانیون یهودی شد.

《به قضاوت فرشتگان و روحانیون، ما باروخ اسپینوزا، را تکفیر
می‌کنیم، از اجتماع یهودی خارج می‌کنیم و او را لعنت و نفرین می‌کنیم. تمامی لعنت‌های نوشته شده در قانون (منظور تلمود و تورات است) بر او باد، در روز بر او لعنت باد، در شب بر او لعنت باد. وقتی خواب است بر او لعنت باد، وقتی بیدار است بر او لعنت باد، وقتی بیرون می‌رود بر او لعنت باد و وقتی باز می‌گردد بر او لعنت باد. خداوند او را نبخشد و خشم و غضب خدا علیه او مستدام باد، خداوند نام او را در زیر این خورشید محو کند و او را از تمامی قبایل اسرائیل خارج کند. ما شما را نیز هشدار می‌دهیم، که هیچ‌کس حق ندارد با او سخن بگوید، چه به طور گفتاری و چه بطور نوشتاری. هیچ‌کس حق ندارد به او لطفی بکند، کسی حق ندارد با او زیر یک سقف بماند، و در دو متری او قرار بگیرد، و هیچ‌کس حق ندارد هیچ نوشته‌ای از او را بخواند.》

هگل، دربارهٔ فیلسوفان هم عصر خود مینوسید:《شما یا پیرو اسپینوزا هستید، و یا اساساً فیلسوف نیستید.》

مهمترین آرا و نظرات او میتوان به رد دوگانه انگاری روح و جسم و همچنین دیدگاه او در اعتقاد به خدا است .
《جهان صحنه خیمه‌شب‌بازی نیست و خدا خیمه‌شب باز آن که آن را کنترل کند، خود از طریق معجزه قوانین طبیعت را نقض کند و زیر پا بگذارد و در صورت لزوم دوباره آن را به کار گیرد!خدا همان طبیعت است که در برگیرنده تمام علت‌ها وجوهر هاست》

[Alish · Rating 2 out of 5]

یه مسئله که به نظرم در مورد بیشتر سری کتاب‌های آشنایی با فیلسوفان استراترن (از جمله همین کتاب) صدق میکنه اینه که بیشتر به زندگینامه فرد توجه داره تا به عقایدش یا تاثیری که در فلسفه داشته
البته مطالعه زندگی فیلسوف برای پی بردن به رابطه بین باورها و زندگی خودش قطعا مهمه ولی دیگه نه اینقدر

[Theo Logos · Rating 4 out of 5]

”At the core of Spinoza’s philosophy is his all embracing system. This straddles the hierarchical world of medieval certainty and the emerging belief of reason alone to reach the truth.”

”Spinoza’s systematic, theistic approach renders his philosophy an anachronistic oddity. Ironically, the conclusions he drew from this out of date system are deeply in accord with modern thought, from science to politics.
Both his system, and the conclusions he drew from it have a compelling beauty unequaled in the history of philosophy. If beauty were truth, and truth beauty, as Keats claimed, Spinoza’s philosophy would be all we know, and all we need to know.”

Spinoza perhaps more than any other single philosopher is an ideal subject for this entertaining series of philosophical introductions. This is because, while his ideas are appealing, fascinating, even sublime, his philosophical writing is a baroque tangle of nearly indecipherable, impenetrable mathematic proofs originally composed in Latin, and shot through with consistent contradictions. As much as he fascinates me, Ive given up hope of ever making it through his major works, such as The Ethics. For everyone short of professional philosophers, Spinoza has become the philosopher that is most important for you to know of but that you are least likely to read with any hope of comprehension.

Spinoza’s core ideas resonate closely to progressive concepts that are currently vital and appealing:

”His mathematically generated system embodied “Deus sive natura” — God or Nature. It started from basic assumptions, and by a series of geometric proofs constructed a universe which was also God. His is the classic example of pantheism, the belief that God and the Universe are one and the same thing. This has a curious echo in the modern Gaia hypothesis, where our planet is viewed as a single, vast organism, or self regulating cell.”

Likewise, his Ethics anticipated ideas that feel distinctly modern:

”Spinoza’s system also yielded a holistic ethics similar to that favored by modern ecologists — harm the world and you harm God, harm another and you harm yourself.”

And Spinoza’s political thought was the vanguard of what we now call the Enlightenment, which mostly unfolded in the century after his:

”Spinoza’s political theory was equally ahead of its time. He believed that the purpose of a state was only to protect the individual in order that he could freely develop himself and his ideas by use of enlightened reason.”

Yet the way he arrived at his conclusions seems, by our current reckoning to be deeply flawed, and the way he recorded them nearly incomprehensible. He was deeply influenced by Maimonides, by Descartes, by Giordano Bruno, but in incorporating them into his ideas often abandoned the very elements that made their earlier thought workable and comprehensible. Strathern uses the flippant mockery that has become a hallmark of his in this series to point out the contradiction between the brilliant appeal of Spinoza’s thought and the baroquely haphazard way that he constructed his philosophy:

”One by one, Spinoza was assembling the ingredients, which when cooked in the hot oven of his intellect, would produce the unsurpassed confectionary of his philosophy, a creation of infinite sweetness, containing a mouth-watering variety of philosophical cherries, plum observations, and sickly theological cream, all overlaid with marzipantheism, and coated with rigid, geometric icing, topped by the single glowing candle of its uniqueness.”

To sum it up, Spinoza — the philosopher you read about rather than read.

[baQer (BFZ) · Rating 3 out of 5]

اسپینوزا: من نمی‌دانم فلسفه‌ی من بهترین فلسفه‌ها هست یا نیست
ولیکن خودم آن را حق می‌دانم و اطمینانم به درستی آن به همان اندازه است که شما اطمینان دارید که مجموع سه زاویه‌ی هر مثلث مساوی با دو قائمه است

[Tony Vacation · Rating 2 out of 5]

I didn't retain a lot of information about Spinoza's theories from my drive-by listening of this audiobook. Something about a system of reasoning Spinoza pulled out of his ass and decorated with pretty prose. Actually there were some really nice sound bites about jealousy and loss peppered throughout Strathern's cute little philosophic primer. Not much is known about Spinoza's life other than that he juked an assassin's attempt at knifing him (at least that is the detail that I remember most). Um, Spinoza pissed a lot of people off because he was neither Jewish nor Christian, and his ideas about religion did not really go with the program of the time.

...shit, I dunno. You tell me about Spinoza.

[Thomas · Rating 2 out of 5]

Read it just this morning (a bit under 90 minutes, did I read too fast?). While it's not a bad read in the strict sense, it really did not give me any solid sense of Spinoza's overall philosophy and quite often just felt like an outlet for the author's (rather bad) attempts at wittiness.

[Mahshid · Rating 2 out of 5]

فکر میکردم بیشتر راجع به فلسفه و طرز فکر و آثار فیلسوف باشه اما نود و نه درصد به زندگی نامه اش پرداخته بود و فقط اشاره مختصر و گنگی به فلسفه اسپینوزا کرده بود

[Reza Mardani · Rating 2 out of 5]

خیلی مختصر و گنگ بود

[Shakiba Shamloo · Rating 1 out of 5]

خیلی خیلی مختصر و به‌درد نخور بود. در حد بیان زندگی‌نامه‌ی اسپینوزا و اشاره‌ای به آثارش. هیچ ارزشی نداشت.

[Maral · Rating 4 out of 5]

He querido acercarme a este filósofo de algún modo sencillo y con este libro ha sido posible. Escueto y rápido. Luego ya uno decide si profundiza. Me ha gustado mucho.

[Dawn Todhunter · Rating 4 out of 5]

90 minutes of Spinoza is about all I can stand. I read this because he figures so prominently in The Weight of Ink. I wanted to know more about him. Interesting guy. Odd, but interesting. I feel a certain kinship with him on the subject of personal rights and freedom, but I'm not likely to attempt the reading of Ethics anytime soon. His idea of conveying an idea seems to be tying it up and beating it senseless until you agree with his point just to shut him up. Actually, that didn't work out very well for him. He was declared dead by his Jewish community and the Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, weren't exactly fond of him either.

[Jimena · Rating 2 out of 5]

Un libro breve, de lectura amena, que ofrece algunos de los puntos centrales de la biografía del pensador, esta vez sin extenderse excesivamente en puntos insignificantes. La exploración que Strathern hace del pensamiento de Spinoza es puntual y sencilla desvelando para nosotros algunas de sus nociones acerca de la naturaleza panteista del Dios concebido por el filósofo o su optimista visión del Estado.

Aun así, considero que podría -y debería- haber incluido más fragmentos de los textos de Spinoza en la parte final en lugar de tanta opinión del propio Strathern. Un error que ya he señalado con anterioridad en otras entregas de esta colección.

[Arash Kamangir · Rating 4 out of 5]

اصل جنس‌ه این مجموعه.

[David Lies · Rating 5 out of 5]

After reading “Ethics” by Benedict de Spinoza (Formerly Baruch), this was an almost perfect supplement to comment upon Spinoza’s philosophy, and to also inform the reader of the intimacies of Spinoza’s life. Learning now, not just philosophy, but also of the fires that forged the man who penned this strong philosophy of logic and reason in the mid-late 1600’s.
Its worth 90 minutes without a doubt.

[hossein Babadi · Rating 4 out of 5]

اسپینوزا فیلسوف فیلسوفان است. او بنای رفیع متافیزیکی شگفت آوری را برپا کرد که در اوج زیبایی و نبوغ قرار دارد، این که بنا نه برگرفته از واقعیت است و نه حاصل تجربه، شگفتی آن را دو چندان می سازد.

[César Zeledón]

Divertida y breve introducción a la vida y el pensamiento de Spinoza.

[Sebastián Sáez M. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Muy bueno, se reivindicó Strathern respecto a la anterior.

[Claudio Valverde · Rating 5 out of 5]

Baruch Espinoza interesantisimo filosofo holandés judío (del siglo XVII) que fue repudiado tanto por el judaísmo como por el cristianismo. Como PANTEISTA su concepción de Dios era que éste era todo y todo era Dios pero le quitaba toda consciencia no era un Dios misericordioso o castigador por los pecados cometidos. Por eso fue repudiado por la Iglesia. Intento explicar todo a partir de un razonamiento geométrico. Su Racionalismo fue más allá del mismo Descartes. Dañar a otros o a la naturaleza equivalía dañarse a uno mismo, conocido argumento utilizado por los ecologistas modernos. La naturaleza no es buena ni mala simplemente es la naturaleza Albert Einstein se declaró oportunamente partidario de Espinoza. Muy interesante lectura.

[Jesse Slater · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5/5, really. This primer is, given its length, essentially a slightly lengthy 'Introduction' to a proper collection. The author presents a survey of Spinoza's life and philosophy, injecting his own thoughts at times. This is supposed to be wit as zest, but sometimes comes off as haughty.
My main complaint with this book is that it doesn't give the reader a 'Where to Go From Here'. It readily condemns the Ethics as unreadable, but doesn't tell the reader what they should read instead as Spinoza's work goes.

[Marijke · Rating 3 out of 5]

A quick read and informative. Very cynical, however, and, if I can believe my other sources/experts on Spinoza, not always correct and sometimes oversimplified. It does feel good that Paul Strathern underscores the difficulty for many in reading Spinoza's original works, because that makes me feel less stupid. If you have the time, this is still worthy of being read, as long as it is not your only source for understanding Spinoza. To sum up, this book does not do justice to Spinoza.

[Matias Kangas · Rating 4 out of 5]

A clear and short volume on the life and philosophy of Spinoza. I couldn't get my head around all of the stuff on "Ethics" - but I think the fault lies in the limits of my ability to grasp thoughts as difficult as some of Spinoza's. Anyway, I recommend this volume, if you are interested in Spinoza. It was even funny in some of its parts.

[Ali Rahnamae · Rating 3 out of 5]

کتاب بسیار خلاصه ای که خطوط اصلی فلسفه اسپینوزا را شرح می دهد با این حال شاید بسیار نقادانه به اسپینوزا پرداخته و خواننده را که از اسپینوزا چیز زیادی نمی داند (و به همین دلیل هم چنین کتاب مختصری را انتخاب کرده) از پرداختن بیشتر به آثار او منصرف کند. زمان نگاری وقایع مهم فلسفی آخر کتاب هم بسیار خلاقانه و سودمند بود.

[Samuel G. Parkison · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ok, Strathern is growing on me. Quite the wordsmith.

[#DÏ4B7Ø Chinnamasta-Bhairav]

~}- - - - - - - - - - - - - -:}|{:- - - - - - - - - - - - - -{~
~}-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-{~
~}--- :}|{:-:}|{:- * FOLLOW 4 FOLLOW * -:}|{:-:}|{: ---{~
~}-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-{~
~}--------:}|{:-:}|{:- * LINKS * -:}|{:-:}|{:----------{~
~}-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-{~
~}- - - - - - - - - - - - - -:}|{:- - - - - - - - - - - - - -{~
***********************************************

~} * -:}|{}|{:=:}|{}|{:- * - * -:}|{}|{:=:}|{}|{:- * {~
* -} {- *

~} * -:}|{}|{:=:}|{}|{:- * - * -:}|{}|{:=:}|{}|{:- * {~

* -:}|{}|{:=:}|{}|{:- *

* -:}|{}|{:- ^ AUDIOBOOK ^ -:}|{}|{:- *

~}- - - - - - - - - - - - - -:}|{:- - - - - - - - - - - - - -{~

~}-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-{~

~}- - - - - - - - - - - - - -:}|{:- - - - - - - - - - - - - -{~

* -:}|{}|{:- * SUMMARY * -:}|{}|{:- *

~}- - - - - - - - - - - - - -:}|{:- - - - - - - - - - - - - -{~

* -:}|{:- * RATING * -:}|{:- * /10 * -:}|{:- *

~}- - - - - - - - - - - - - -:}|{:- - - - - - - - - - - - - -{~

* -:}|{}|{: =EXPERIENCES=&=DISCERNMENTS= :}|{}|{:- *

* -:}|{}|{: = = }|{}|{:- *

~}- - - - - - - - - - - - - -:}|{:- - - - - - - - - - - - - -{~

* -} https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VWrl... {- *

* -:}|{}|{:=:}|{}|{:- *

* -} Gestalt Psychology Simplified with Examples and Principles {- *

* -:}|{}|{: = MY SYNTHESISED ( ^ GESTALT ^ ) OF THE * -:}|{}|{:=:}|{}|{:- * ( WAY THE AUTHOR FRAMES = HIS WRITING PERSPECTIVES ) & ( POINTERS & IMPLICATIONS = the conclusion that can be drawn IMPLICITYLY from something although it is not EXPLICITLY stated ) = :}|{}|{:- *

* -:}|{}|{: = ? = }|{}|{:- *

~}- - - - - - - - - - - - - -:}|{:- - - - - - - - - - - - - -{~

~}-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-{~

~}- - - - - - - - - - - - - -:}|{:- - - - - - - - - - - - - -{~

To SEE a WORLD in a Grain of Sand,
And a HEAVEN in a Wild Flower,
Hold INFINITY in the palm of your hand
And ETERNITY in an Hour"
~ William Blake ~

~}- - - - - - - - - - - - - -:}|{:- - - - - - - - - - - - - -{~

“Wisdom tells me I am nothing. Love tells me I am everything. And between the two my life flows.” Nisargadatta Maharaj

~}- - - - - - - - - - - - - -:}|{:- - - - - - - - - - - - - -{~

Form is Emptiness; Emptiness is form.
Form is not different than Emptiness;
Emptiness is not different than form
~ Heart Sutra ~

Like the ocean and its waves,
inseparable yet distinct

~}- - - - - - - - - - - - - -:}|{:- - - - - - - - - - - - - -{~

" I and The Father are one,
I am The Truth,
The Life and The Path.”

Like a river flowing from its source,
connected and continuous

~}- - - - - - - - - - - - - -:}|{:- - - - - - - - - - - - - -{~

Thy kingdom come.
Let the reign of divine
Truth, Life, and Love
be established in me,
and rule out of me all sin;
and may Thy Word
enrich the affections of all mankind

A mighty oak tree standing firm against the storm,
As sunlight scatters the shadows of night
A river nourishing the land it flows through

~}- - - - - - - - - - - - - -:}|{:- - - - - - - - - - - - - -{~

~}-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-:}|{:-{~

[Freya C · Rating 2 out of 5]

I ought to give this 2.5 stars because the writing is so funny. Paul Strathern is an excellent writer. But I can't recommend it either as biography nor as an introduction to Spinoza's philosophy. It contains numerous errors in fact that diminish it.

1) Strange attributions to Spinoza of phrases he never used. For instance "when we harm others we harm ourselves." If you read the Ethics he never says this, and in those parts of his system where Spinoza counsels treating others well it's far more enlightened self-interest. Human beings all have a similar nature and can do more together, therefore they're better off cooperating with each other. This has nothing immediately to do with mystical Oneness and his tying it to Deep Ecology makes me suspect that he got this from a secondary source.

2) Somehow psycho-physical parallelism doesn't come up at all in the summary of Spinoza's system, when it's probably the key to understanding it.

3) Attribution of the phrase "disenchant the world" to Spinoza, which yes was part of his intellectual project but not in quite those words (which are in quotation marks).

4) Spelling the name of Spinoza's biographer "Celerus" rather than Colerus. It's very difficult for me to see how he could have made a mistake like this (unless they were working from a handwritten document). Did he go by his own notes or somebody else's?

5) The strange notion that Spinoza's correspondence with Henry (Heinrich) Oldenburg was a secret code, unsupported by examples or arguments. The most well-known aspect of their letters is a tense discussion on Christian doctrines such as whether Jesus was bodily resurrected.

6) Ignoring Spinoza's contribution to biblical criticism in Theologico-Political Treatise. Only his rationalistic Bible interpretation is mentioned. This one is more forgivable given that the emphasis of this work is Spinoza's philosophy.

7) The assertion that Spinoza read Bruno early on, which is definitely possible but unsupported by anything Spinoza actually said. This one is also forgivable though, as many of the reference works repeat this claim.


All in all...the research borders on sloppy. As charming as Strathern is on the page I can't recommend the result.

[Chandler Collins · Rating 4 out of 5]

I first learned about Baruch (later Benedict) Spinoza in my class on the History of Biblical Interpretation. Spinoza is a philosopher who exercised much influence in biblical studies, metaphysics, ethics, and the philosophy of the state. I feel like Strathern captured Spinoza's influence well in this short introduction to the philosopher. Spinoza was raised according to a Jewish education but would later become very unorthodox as he would espouse a pantheistic metaphysic and a deterministic view of cause and effect. Spinoza held to the idea that matter was eternal, but creation was the imposition of order on that matter. Spinoza also used a form the ontological argument to prove the existence of God as infinite substance. Substance implies existence, so if a thing such as god or nature is a substance, then it necessarily exists. Every body is god's body, so to harm someone is to harm god's body. Spinoza was certainly out there in his theological views, but he somehow maintained that his philosophy was compatible with orthodox Christianity (sure, Jan). Concerning ethics, Spinoza believed that self-preservation is the basis of virtue, and acts such as virtue were ultimately inhuman acts. Spinoza also held to a benevolent view of man, and in a reversal of Thomas Hobbes's view of the state, Spinoza believe that the state exists to protect the individual who is allowed to pursue his own ends. Interestingly, Spinoza's "Ethics" text was not published until after his death.

These were the takeaways from this little biography on Spinoza. Well done work from Strathern! There is also a helpful afterword discussing Spinoza's rationalistic influence on the field of philosophy in light of the advent of empiricism.

[Paul Tenorio · Rating 3 out of 5]

Baruch Spinoza was far from an atheist, but instead proposed a revolutionary understanding of God that challenged traditional religious thinking. He viewed God and Nature as fundamentally interconnected, defining divinity not as a personal, interventionist being, but as the entire universe itself.
When Spinoza was excommunicated in 1656 at the age of 23, it was precisely because of his radical philosophical views about God and religion. He rejected the idea of a personal God who intervenes in human affairs, instead proposing that divinity is inherent in understanding and experiencing the natural world.
Key Philosophical Perspectives:
-Spinoza argued that getting closer to God meant gaining deeper scientific and philosophical knowledge
-He believed true spiritual growth came through rational understanding rather than religious dogma
-His concept of God was pantheistic - seeing the divine as present in all of nature and human experience

Approach to Religion
Spinoza recognized that people are drawn to religious practices not just for theological reasons, but for human needs of community, ritual, and emotional connection. He critiqued religious institutions while understanding their psychological importance.
After his excommunication, Spinoza continued developing his philosophical ideas, living humbly as a lens grinder and writing influential works that challenged traditional religious thinking. His major work "The Ethics" explored metaphysical views on God, nature, and human existence, positioning him as one of the first secular Jewish philosophers in Europe.
Ultimately, Spinoza sought to transform religious understanding from fear and superstition to a rational, compassionate engagement with the universe's inherent divinity.

[Richard Magahiz · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think this audiobook comes in at a little under the ninety minutes advertised, but then again, its subject died at a relatively early age. I knew only the bare minimum about this philosopher and haven't read his work, so it was nice to have some idea of a few of the main ideas and the daring innovations he is associated with. It was clear that he didn't fit in with the time and place he occupied, and that the only way he could make his ideas known was to do what he did and have the bulk of it released only after his death. How much easier and more conducive it would have been for him to live in modern Western society! But then the rational approach he was after would not have been out there to influence the Enlightenment and it's anyone's guess where we would be by now. I'm not sure I can quite agree with Spinoza's pantheistic identification of the cosmos as a whole with anything I would call God, which puts the main argument in favor of existence the medieval Ontological Argument which never seemed sound to me anyhow.

There were a couple of times while listening to the narration I had to laugh out loud at some of the little jokes the author put in about his subject. I hadn't read any of his other books before but I expect this to be sort of a calling card of his style. Overall this gave just a bit more than a taste of what Spinoza's life and thinking were about, and I think anyone wondering whether they want to find out more would be able to make up their mind from such an introduction.

[Theo Milos · Rating 2 out of 5]

Spinoza was a famous philosopher, alongside Lebinz, during the 1600s. He is most famous for his Ethics and was well-respected when he lived. The philosopher lived in Holland, was a jew, and was very religious; basing much of his thoughts theologically (on God).

He saw the world in a rational and abstract way. Here are some things that he thought: The universe must be the way it is and had to be created because no other universe or lack of one was possible. Every human body is a part of God's body. Thus, when we harm others, we harm ourselves. The happiness of each of us depends on the happiness of all. The universe is God and thus without meaning, and at the same time its own meaning.

Spinoza believed that a government was necessary but its power should be limited. We must have the freedom to think what we think (and have whatever opinion) but the action must be constrained by the state. There is a difference between thinking and acting.