What do you think?
Rate this book
Breve tratado de Deus, do homem e do seu bem-estar
A Autêntica Editora apresenta a primeira tradução para o português desta obra clássica, que traz o Tratado de Baruch de Espinosa sobre Deus, o homem, o seu bem-estar e sua felicidade. Constituído de duas partes, seguidas de um apêndice, ela antecedeu Ética e é considerada um esboço de sua obra fundamental e uma das melhores introduções para leitores que desejam uma iniciação à filosofia espinosana. Foi nesta obra que Espinosa demonstrou, pela primeira vez, como conceber a nossa felicidade a partir da essência de Deus. Em o Breve Tratado, Spinoza trata dos aspectos fundamentais do ser humano, sua natureza, a religião, a liberdade humana e a união imediata com deus para a busca do bem-estar.
235 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1862
30 people are currently reading
586 people want to read
About the author
Baruch Spinoza
731 books2,055 followersControversial pantheistic doctrine of Dutch philosopher and theologian Baruch Spinoza or Benedict advocated an intellectual love of God; people best know
Ethics
, his work of 1677.
People came considered this great rationalist of 17th century.
In his posthumous magnum opus, he opposed mind–body dualism of René Descartes and earned recognition of most important thinkers of west. This last indisputable Latin masterpiece, which Spinoza wrote, finally turns and entirely destroys the refined medieval conceptions.
After death of Baruch Spinoza, often Benedictus de Spinoza, people realized not fully his breadth and importance until many years. He laid the ground for the 18th-century Enlightenment and modern Biblical criticism, including conceptions of the self and arguably the universe. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel said of all contemporaries, "You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all."
People came considered this great rationalist of 17th century.
In his posthumous magnum opus, he opposed mind–body dualism of René Descartes and earned recognition of most important thinkers of west. This last indisputable Latin masterpiece, which Spinoza wrote, finally turns and entirely destroys the refined medieval conceptions.
After death of Baruch Spinoza, often Benedictus de Spinoza, people realized not fully his breadth and importance until many years. He laid the ground for the 18th-century Enlightenment and modern Biblical criticism, including conceptions of the self and arguably the universe. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel said of all contemporaries, "You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
June 6, 2021
Kratka rasprava o Bogu, čovjeku i njegovoj sreći jedna je od knjiga kojoj sam se u životu najviše puta vraćao (ovo mi je već peto ili šesto čitanje). Spinoza ju je navodno napisao u svojoj dvadesetpetoj godini, mada je prepis izgubljenog originala u cjelosti pronađen i objavljen tek početkom prošlog vijeka. Iako se Etika, kako svojim obimom, tako i sistematičnošću, nameće, a uopšteno i drži za njegovo najreprezentativnije ostvarenje, ipak ostajem pri tome da Spinoza ovu genijalnu knjižicu nikada nije prevazišao.
Ovdje je Spinoza, između ostalog:
- demontirao zablude gorljivih hrišćana
- nokautirao zagovornike indeterminizma
- dao značajan doprinos razvoju psihologije
Ko voli da traži dlake u jajima naći će ih u isuviše racionalizovanom konceptu ljudske prirode (to ovdje, doduše, ne dolazi toliko do izražaja koliko u već pomenutoj Etici) Ipak, čak i u tim dijelovima se nalazi nekoliko sjajnih uvida, prije svega onda kada Spinoza ukazuje na besmislenost pojedinih ljudskih osobina, prvenstveno onih koje počivaju na iluziji indeterminizma. U prilog tome idu dva primjera:
Podsmeh i šala duguju se lažnom mišljenju i izražavaju nesavršenstvo onog koji se podsmeva ili šali. Počivaju na pogrešnom mišljenju, jer se smatra da je onaj kome se podsmeva sam prvi uzrok svojih postupaka i da ti postupci ne zavise nužno od Boga (poput svih drugih stvari u prirodi).
Čast i stid (po definiciji) nisu samo beskorisni – budući da počivaju na samoljublju i verovanju da je čovek sam prvi uzrok svojih postupaka i da otuda zavređuje pohvalu ili kuđenje – već i štetni, pa bi zato morali biti odbačeni.
Ova knjižica svakako zaslužuje opširan prikaz, a to će i dobiti poslije narednog čitanja. Sada ću vas pustiti da uživate u demontiranju antifatalističke dogme:
Rekli smo da su prolazne stvari izvan naše vlasti. Da se razumemo: time ne želimo reći da smo mi slobodan, ni od čega nezavistan uzrok; govoreći da su neke stvari u našoj vlasti, a da druge nisu, mi, u prvom slučaju, označavamo one koje stvaramo u saglasnosti s prirodom čiji smo deo; u drugom pak one koje, budući da su izvan nas, ne trpe s naše strane, nikakvu promenu, jer su veoma daleko od naše realne suštine ustanovljene prirodom.
Već smo, međutim, dokazali da stvar, koja se ne bi mogla da objasni sama sobom i čije postojanje ne pripada njenoj suštini, nužno mora da poseduje spoljašnji uzrok i da ovaj, primoran da je proizvede, to i čini na nužan način. Odatle sledi dakle da: hteti, u posebnom slučaju, ovo ili ono, tvrditi ili poricati nešto posebno o stvari, sve to kažem, nužno zavisi od nekog spoljašnjeg uzroka; a sledi još i da, saglasno definiciji uzroka koju smo dali, ovaj ne bi mogao da bude slobodan.
Jer, ako bismo upitali nekog zašto čovek hoće ovo ili ono, odgovara se: zato što ima volju za to. Međutim, budući da je volja, kao što je rečeno, samo opšta ideja ovog ili onog htenja i upravo stoga samo modus mišljenja, jedno ens rationis, a ne ens reale, njome se ne bi moglo ništa da stvori (nam ex nihilo nihil fit). I ja isto verujem, pošto smo dokazali da volja nije nešto što postoji u prirodi, već samo jedna fikcija, da ne bi trebalo ni pitati da li je ona slobodna ili nije. Ja to ne kažem samo o opštoj volji, koja je, kao što smo pokazali, modus mišljenja, već i o svakoj posebnoj volji, koja se, po nekima, sastoji u potvrđivanju ili poricanju ovoga ili onoga. Svakome koji bi obratio pažnju na naš dokaz, bilo bi to sasvim jasno. Pošto smo rekli da je razumevanje prosto trpljenje, to jest, opažaj suštine i postojanja u duši, tako da mi nikada ništa ne poričemo i ne tvrdimo nešto o stvari, već je to ona sama koja u nama tvrdi ili poriče nešto o sebi.
Sledstveno tome, kao što smo u slučaju volje rekli da ona nije drugo do ovo ili ono htenje, isto tako i želja nije drugo do ova ili ona želja, uslovljena ovom ili onom idejom. Jer želja nije nešto što odista postoji u prirodi, već stvar apstrahovana od ovog ili onog posebnog stanja želje; a želja koja ne postoji u stvarnosti, ne može biti uzrok bilo čega. Kad, dakle, kažemo da je želja slobodna, isto je što i reći da je ova ili ona želja uzrok same sebe, to jest, da je pre no što je nastala, stvorila ono što je postala, a to je besmisleno i nemoguće.
AMIN
Ovdje je Spinoza, između ostalog:
- demontirao zablude gorljivih hrišćana
- nokautirao zagovornike indeterminizma
- dao značajan doprinos razvoju psihologije
Ko voli da traži dlake u jajima naći će ih u isuviše racionalizovanom konceptu ljudske prirode (to ovdje, doduše, ne dolazi toliko do izražaja koliko u već pomenutoj Etici) Ipak, čak i u tim dijelovima se nalazi nekoliko sjajnih uvida, prije svega onda kada Spinoza ukazuje na besmislenost pojedinih ljudskih osobina, prvenstveno onih koje počivaju na iluziji indeterminizma. U prilog tome idu dva primjera:
Podsmeh i šala duguju se lažnom mišljenju i izražavaju nesavršenstvo onog koji se podsmeva ili šali. Počivaju na pogrešnom mišljenju, jer se smatra da je onaj kome se podsmeva sam prvi uzrok svojih postupaka i da ti postupci ne zavise nužno od Boga (poput svih drugih stvari u prirodi).
Čast i stid (po definiciji) nisu samo beskorisni – budući da počivaju na samoljublju i verovanju da je čovek sam prvi uzrok svojih postupaka i da otuda zavređuje pohvalu ili kuđenje – već i štetni, pa bi zato morali biti odbačeni.
Ova knjižica svakako zaslužuje opširan prikaz, a to će i dobiti poslije narednog čitanja. Sada ću vas pustiti da uživate u demontiranju antifatalističke dogme:
Rekli smo da su prolazne stvari izvan naše vlasti. Da se razumemo: time ne želimo reći da smo mi slobodan, ni od čega nezavistan uzrok; govoreći da su neke stvari u našoj vlasti, a da druge nisu, mi, u prvom slučaju, označavamo one koje stvaramo u saglasnosti s prirodom čiji smo deo; u drugom pak one koje, budući da su izvan nas, ne trpe s naše strane, nikakvu promenu, jer su veoma daleko od naše realne suštine ustanovljene prirodom.
Već smo, međutim, dokazali da stvar, koja se ne bi mogla da objasni sama sobom i čije postojanje ne pripada njenoj suštini, nužno mora da poseduje spoljašnji uzrok i da ovaj, primoran da je proizvede, to i čini na nužan način. Odatle sledi dakle da: hteti, u posebnom slučaju, ovo ili ono, tvrditi ili poricati nešto posebno o stvari, sve to kažem, nužno zavisi od nekog spoljašnjeg uzroka; a sledi još i da, saglasno definiciji uzroka koju smo dali, ovaj ne bi mogao da bude slobodan.
Jer, ako bismo upitali nekog zašto čovek hoće ovo ili ono, odgovara se: zato što ima volju za to. Međutim, budući da je volja, kao što je rečeno, samo opšta ideja ovog ili onog htenja i upravo stoga samo modus mišljenja, jedno ens rationis, a ne ens reale, njome se ne bi moglo ništa da stvori (nam ex nihilo nihil fit). I ja isto verujem, pošto smo dokazali da volja nije nešto što postoji u prirodi, već samo jedna fikcija, da ne bi trebalo ni pitati da li je ona slobodna ili nije. Ja to ne kažem samo o opštoj volji, koja je, kao što smo pokazali, modus mišljenja, već i o svakoj posebnoj volji, koja se, po nekima, sastoji u potvrđivanju ili poricanju ovoga ili onoga. Svakome koji bi obratio pažnju na naš dokaz, bilo bi to sasvim jasno. Pošto smo rekli da je razumevanje prosto trpljenje, to jest, opažaj suštine i postojanja u duši, tako da mi nikada ništa ne poričemo i ne tvrdimo nešto o stvari, već je to ona sama koja u nama tvrdi ili poriče nešto o sebi.
Sledstveno tome, kao što smo u slučaju volje rekli da ona nije drugo do ovo ili ono htenje, isto tako i želja nije drugo do ova ili ona želja, uslovljena ovom ili onom idejom. Jer želja nije nešto što odista postoji u prirodi, već stvar apstrahovana od ovog ili onog posebnog stanja želje; a želja koja ne postoji u stvarnosti, ne može biti uzrok bilo čega. Kad, dakle, kažemo da je želja slobodna, isto je što i reći da je ova ili ona želja uzrok same sebe, to jest, da je pre no što je nastala, stvorila ono što je postala, a to je besmisleno i nemoguće.
AMIN
October 21, 2016
"God, or, what we regard as one and the same, Truth" - Spinoza
The far-reaching and radical nature of Spinoza's thought is in open display in sentences like the above. He denied that divinity was anything above and beyond reason, science, nature and truth. He was a deeply analytical mind who he liked to boil issues down to their essential elements; and often this search for "Truth" (at any cost) set the philosopher against the common wisdom of the age.
(Note: If one doesn't like to speak of God, please substitute "Nature" for every instance of it.)
The Short Treatise teaches essentially the same philosophy as the later and posthumous Ethics. It also combines some elements from his other writings, most notably from On the Improvement of the Understanding: Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect.
The Short Treatise is a brilliant first draft, metaphorically so, of the masterpiece that Ethics became. It contains some muddled metaphysical sections and theological quandaries. Overall, Ethics is the superior distillation of Spinoza's philosophy. But in a few areas the "Short Treatise" shines brighter. For example, it doesn't bog itself down in definitions and axiomatic deductions. It offers expanded commentary on some issues that Ethics bypasses in a few sentences. Reading the Short Treatise makes it easier to understand (even if not completely buy) Spinoza's noble attempt at a solution to the mind-body split, for example; and the sections on the passions are perfectly clear and easy to understand. The Short Treatise, in tone, is more passionate and warmer (at least in most parts) than the dry and frigid Ethics; but both books are chiseled to perfect analytical mold.
The blessed lens-maker liked to think mathematically and logically, almost machine-like. But he was also a human being. There are plenty of beautiful poetic phrases intermixed within the rigidly analytical framework. Spinoza, as the poet Novalis famously said, was a "God-intoxicated man."
When discussing the ontological absence of human free will - hardly an inspiring perspective according to most - which he believes he has sufficiently proven, he extols the servitude of man to the power of god (which he identifies with the determinism of the laws of nature) in terms infused with optimism and enthusiasm: "man, being a part of the whole of Nature, on which he depends, and by which also he is governed, cannot of himself do anything for his happiness and well-being [...]. It follows therefrom that we are truly servants, aye, slaves, of God, and that it is our greatest perfection to be such necessarily." He thinks this is actually a wonderful fate, "For, if we were thrown back upon ourselves, and thus not dependent on God, we should be able to accomplish very little, or nothing, and that would justly give us cause to lament our lot especially so in contrast with what we now see, namely, that we are dependent on that which is the most perfect of all".
Again, forget about the God-language and focus on the message. Our servitude to that which is the highest (Nature) is actually an empowering knowledge, because it enables us to avoid error and to choose the path of life that allows us to flourish with maximum capacity and to perfect ourselves.
Since the notion of God is a naturalistic notion, we should interpret Spinoza's vision of "servitude" to Nature as one of the natural scientist and philosopher, comparable to Francis Bacon or René Descartes, rather than of the theologian or the priest. Spinoza despised the fictions of the Church.
In fact, the Treatise devotes considerable time in the book to debunking the myths of the Devil, the immortality of the soul (which he only pays feeble lip service to while continuing to demolish its foundations), the notion that God speaks to humankind in words, the notion that the Laws of God are commandments comparable to human laws that can be broken, the notion that there is a Heaven or Hell with rewards and punishments, the notion that "sinning" is anything other than doing things that are detrimental to human well-being, and the notion that being "blessed" is anything other than doing things that are empowering to human well-being. His interpretation of Scripture - as evidenced in Theological-Political Treatise - is brutally secular; and the reason for the abhorrence of the theologians to his message is his claim that Nature is God.
For S., Man is literally a part of God/Nature. This God/Nature does not - sacrilege! - love humanity, although we can, and should, love God/Nature (since we should love whatever is great and awesome, and God/Nature is pretty great and awesome), although it does not care about our fates. And we should be happy that it does not care about our fates, because that liberates us. Everything is permitted that is permissible within the framework of the laws of nature. However, within our society, there are better and worse ways of treating one another, so we should learn to cooperate, and thus self-restrict our God-given license to do everything in our power to maximize our power.
Spinoza, while enthused with a deep understanding of the deep connections of nature, and evidently sympathetic to the spiritual mind-set of the mystic, had very little sympathy for the superstitious and supernatural beliefs of his compatriots, and his philosophy is best understood as a rebellion against the stupidity of the masses, the wickedness of the rulers, the top-down notion of morality inherent in Christian and moral teachings, and the superstition of organized religion.
Whether one has the patience to go down the rabbit hole, to suffer through the scholastic-sounding arguments, to accept the perverse terminology, and persevere to the crystal-clear conclusions (most people clearly do not), Spinoza's brilliance as an original thinker was absolutely unparalleled.
It boggles the mind that after 400 years of education and improvement, it still feels like Spinoza is looking at us, laughing - not from the past, but from the future. Most people are still embedded into the "fictions" and "superstitions" of organized religion. Most people still feel timid. Most people still do not understand the liberating potential of science. That is why we still need secular saints, Enlightenment mystics and trans-humanists. That is why we still need to read Spinoza.
The far-reaching and radical nature of Spinoza's thought is in open display in sentences like the above. He denied that divinity was anything above and beyond reason, science, nature and truth. He was a deeply analytical mind who he liked to boil issues down to their essential elements; and often this search for "Truth" (at any cost) set the philosopher against the common wisdom of the age.
(Note: If one doesn't like to speak of God, please substitute "Nature" for every instance of it.)
The Short Treatise teaches essentially the same philosophy as the later and posthumous Ethics. It also combines some elements from his other writings, most notably from On the Improvement of the Understanding: Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect.
The Short Treatise is a brilliant first draft, metaphorically so, of the masterpiece that Ethics became. It contains some muddled metaphysical sections and theological quandaries. Overall, Ethics is the superior distillation of Spinoza's philosophy. But in a few areas the "Short Treatise" shines brighter. For example, it doesn't bog itself down in definitions and axiomatic deductions. It offers expanded commentary on some issues that Ethics bypasses in a few sentences. Reading the Short Treatise makes it easier to understand (even if not completely buy) Spinoza's noble attempt at a solution to the mind-body split, for example; and the sections on the passions are perfectly clear and easy to understand. The Short Treatise, in tone, is more passionate and warmer (at least in most parts) than the dry and frigid Ethics; but both books are chiseled to perfect analytical mold.
The blessed lens-maker liked to think mathematically and logically, almost machine-like. But he was also a human being. There are plenty of beautiful poetic phrases intermixed within the rigidly analytical framework. Spinoza, as the poet Novalis famously said, was a "God-intoxicated man."
When discussing the ontological absence of human free will - hardly an inspiring perspective according to most - which he believes he has sufficiently proven, he extols the servitude of man to the power of god (which he identifies with the determinism of the laws of nature) in terms infused with optimism and enthusiasm: "man, being a part of the whole of Nature, on which he depends, and by which also he is governed, cannot of himself do anything for his happiness and well-being [...]. It follows therefrom that we are truly servants, aye, slaves, of God, and that it is our greatest perfection to be such necessarily." He thinks this is actually a wonderful fate, "For, if we were thrown back upon ourselves, and thus not dependent on God, we should be able to accomplish very little, or nothing, and that would justly give us cause to lament our lot especially so in contrast with what we now see, namely, that we are dependent on that which is the most perfect of all".
Again, forget about the God-language and focus on the message. Our servitude to that which is the highest (Nature) is actually an empowering knowledge, because it enables us to avoid error and to choose the path of life that allows us to flourish with maximum capacity and to perfect ourselves.
Since the notion of God is a naturalistic notion, we should interpret Spinoza's vision of "servitude" to Nature as one of the natural scientist and philosopher, comparable to Francis Bacon or René Descartes, rather than of the theologian or the priest. Spinoza despised the fictions of the Church.
In fact, the Treatise devotes considerable time in the book to debunking the myths of the Devil, the immortality of the soul (which he only pays feeble lip service to while continuing to demolish its foundations), the notion that God speaks to humankind in words, the notion that the Laws of God are commandments comparable to human laws that can be broken, the notion that there is a Heaven or Hell with rewards and punishments, the notion that "sinning" is anything other than doing things that are detrimental to human well-being, and the notion that being "blessed" is anything other than doing things that are empowering to human well-being. His interpretation of Scripture - as evidenced in Theological-Political Treatise - is brutally secular; and the reason for the abhorrence of the theologians to his message is his claim that Nature is God.
For S., Man is literally a part of God/Nature. This God/Nature does not - sacrilege! - love humanity, although we can, and should, love God/Nature (since we should love whatever is great and awesome, and God/Nature is pretty great and awesome), although it does not care about our fates. And we should be happy that it does not care about our fates, because that liberates us. Everything is permitted that is permissible within the framework of the laws of nature. However, within our society, there are better and worse ways of treating one another, so we should learn to cooperate, and thus self-restrict our God-given license to do everything in our power to maximize our power.
Spinoza, while enthused with a deep understanding of the deep connections of nature, and evidently sympathetic to the spiritual mind-set of the mystic, had very little sympathy for the superstitious and supernatural beliefs of his compatriots, and his philosophy is best understood as a rebellion against the stupidity of the masses, the wickedness of the rulers, the top-down notion of morality inherent in Christian and moral teachings, and the superstition of organized religion.
Whether one has the patience to go down the rabbit hole, to suffer through the scholastic-sounding arguments, to accept the perverse terminology, and persevere to the crystal-clear conclusions (most people clearly do not), Spinoza's brilliance as an original thinker was absolutely unparalleled.
It boggles the mind that after 400 years of education and improvement, it still feels like Spinoza is looking at us, laughing - not from the past, but from the future. Most people are still embedded into the "fictions" and "superstitions" of organized religion. Most people still feel timid. Most people still do not understand the liberating potential of science. That is why we still need secular saints, Enlightenment mystics and trans-humanists. That is why we still need to read Spinoza.
Read
June 8, 2018حكتب عنه، لكن ليس الآن
July 29, 2018
Ik ben al een tijdje gefascineerd door de filosofie van Spinoza, maar deze briefwisseling over zijn ideeën over god geven op een verrassend toegankelijke manier weer hoe hij daarover denkt. Het betreft hier zijn correspondentie met Henry Oldenburg, Lambert van Velthuysen, Albert Burgh, Nicolaas Stensen, Johannes Hudde, Jarig Jelles, Hugo Boxel, Georg H. Schuller en Eherenfried von Tschirnhaus. Blijkbaar zijn lang niet al die brieven bedoeld als persoonlijke schrijfsels, maar gaat het vaak ook om een soort pamfletten, bedoeld om gedrukt te worden en zo zijn filosofische gedachten te verspreiden. In elk geval viel mij op dat Spinoza's correspondenten doorgaans zeer gelovige christenen zijn, voor wie god alleen maar de geopenbaarde god met zijn toegedichte menselijke eigenschappen kan zijn. Ze zijn dan ook verbijsterd over hoe Spinoza zich god voorstelt: de natuur, zeg maar het heelal met alles wat het bevat. Sommige brieven zijn dan ook alleen maar pogingen om Spinoza weer op het rechte pad te krijgen. Hem wordt dan ook voortdurend verweten dat hij pantheïst of atheïst is.
Wie de Ethica van Spinoza met zijn geometrische definities, axioma's en stellingen onverteerbaar vindt, kan maar beter met deze brieven beginnen. Dankzij de uitgebreide toelichtingen van vertaler Karel D'huyvetters krijg je gaandeweg enig inzicht in zijn filosofie. Ik heb er alvast veel uit geleerd en tal van moeilijker concepten van zijn filosofie enigszins begrepen.
Wie de Ethica van Spinoza met zijn geometrische definities, axioma's en stellingen onverteerbaar vindt, kan maar beter met deze brieven beginnen. Dankzij de uitgebreide toelichtingen van vertaler Karel D'huyvetters krijg je gaandeweg enig inzicht in zijn filosofie. Ik heb er alvast veel uit geleerd en tal van moeilijker concepten van zijn filosofie enigszins begrepen.
May 12, 2022
Eu não sei nem se dá como avaliar obras filosóficas. Então a partir de agora as estrelas significam o quanto que eu entendi. Bem, Espinosa escreve do jeito truncado que você espera alguém tão antigo escrever, ele dialoga com conceitos que eu desconheço e acredito que a tradução retira o aspecto acessível que devora ser o original. Mas o pouco que consegui retirar é realmente sublime, e um pouco de luz ainda é alguma coisa.
April 12, 2020
One of the best philosophical works I've ever read.
October 5, 2023
This book is a a repetition of earlier translations of some of Spinoza's writings. accompanied by illuminating essays by modern scholars. Rigorous and detailed as it is, it's worth careful and slow reading by those who sincerely want to understand the towering influence of Spinoza's thought on our thinking today.
These days the reading public often sloughs off Benedict Spinoza for two reasons. The first is the label of "pantheist" attached to him. The other is that others among his contemporaries and successors who were influenced by Spinoza's meticulously crafted and influential insights (people like Leibniz, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Kant, Berkeley and even Albert Einstein), have been the main conduits for views that actually originated with Spinoza In Spinoza's time, however, the bulk of the western social, political and religious establishment considered Spinoza's writings wicked to the extreme.
For example, Spinoza employed systematic and detailed reasoning to deny utterly the concept of "miracles." Seeing God as the total and overwhelming power of nature, Spinoza believed that everything that occurs conforms with the Almighty's laws of science. So the idea of "supernatural" is, in Spinoza's view, inherently contradictory and actually an affront to God. "Miracles" in Spinoza's view, are merely an emotional fabrication to give emphasis and significance to events being described.
Spinoza may be called the founder of Biblical Criticism, in his insistence in taking into account the era and cultural environment in which Scripture was written, and analyzing the language of the times, taking into consideration the deficiency of different languages and difficulties in translating them one to the other. Nevertheless he believed that. with correct linguistic analysis, each individual can for himself discern spiritual meaning to the utterances of the prophets or assertions of scripture.
As for good and evil, Spinoza concluded that everything has to be the way it is, including God Himself, and that absolute concepts of "right" or "wrong" are prejudices of the human mind. One particularly controversial consequence of Spinoza's views is his rejection of prayer as a means of appealing to God, since everything that happens is a manifestation of God, so the universe is bound by it. It is not surprising, then, that Spinoza rejected the idea of free will.
It is also not surprising that Spinoza's philosophy went over like a lead balloon among Europe's intelligentsia. One might discern that Spinoza's attitude can be aligned with the Biblical Job's utter acceptance of God's universal reality, but it was easy for Spinoza's enemies to dismiss him as essentially either an atheist or a pantheist. But others saw him as a "God-intoxicated" person who saw God everywhere. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Spinoza, there is no question that many attitudes in the West today can be traced to him, and that he was an early inspirer of humanity's modern foray into rigorous and rational thought. This book is an excellent compendium of all you need to know about Spinoza.
These days the reading public often sloughs off Benedict Spinoza for two reasons. The first is the label of "pantheist" attached to him. The other is that others among his contemporaries and successors who were influenced by Spinoza's meticulously crafted and influential insights (people like Leibniz, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Kant, Berkeley and even Albert Einstein), have been the main conduits for views that actually originated with Spinoza In Spinoza's time, however, the bulk of the western social, political and religious establishment considered Spinoza's writings wicked to the extreme.
For example, Spinoza employed systematic and detailed reasoning to deny utterly the concept of "miracles." Seeing God as the total and overwhelming power of nature, Spinoza believed that everything that occurs conforms with the Almighty's laws of science. So the idea of "supernatural" is, in Spinoza's view, inherently contradictory and actually an affront to God. "Miracles" in Spinoza's view, are merely an emotional fabrication to give emphasis and significance to events being described.
Spinoza may be called the founder of Biblical Criticism, in his insistence in taking into account the era and cultural environment in which Scripture was written, and analyzing the language of the times, taking into consideration the deficiency of different languages and difficulties in translating them one to the other. Nevertheless he believed that. with correct linguistic analysis, each individual can for himself discern spiritual meaning to the utterances of the prophets or assertions of scripture.
As for good and evil, Spinoza concluded that everything has to be the way it is, including God Himself, and that absolute concepts of "right" or "wrong" are prejudices of the human mind. One particularly controversial consequence of Spinoza's views is his rejection of prayer as a means of appealing to God, since everything that happens is a manifestation of God, so the universe is bound by it. It is not surprising, then, that Spinoza rejected the idea of free will.
It is also not surprising that Spinoza's philosophy went over like a lead balloon among Europe's intelligentsia. One might discern that Spinoza's attitude can be aligned with the Biblical Job's utter acceptance of God's universal reality, but it was easy for Spinoza's enemies to dismiss him as essentially either an atheist or a pantheist. But others saw him as a "God-intoxicated" person who saw God everywhere. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Spinoza, there is no question that many attitudes in the West today can be traced to him, and that he was an early inspirer of humanity's modern foray into rigorous and rational thought. This book is an excellent compendium of all you need to know about Spinoza.
Read
February 21, 2022Le vrai titre est "Court traité de Dieu, de l’homme et de la santé de son âme", c'est une sorte de résumé de l'Ethique de Spinoza en bien plus accessible sur sa métaphysique, son anthropologie et son éthique.
August 9, 2025
Me costó sudor y esfuerzo entender el principio, sobre todo cuando tienes prejuicios o conocimientos previos del pensamiento de Spinoza, resulta muy confuso. Hacia el final todo se hila perfectamente y su filosofía se hace mucho más clara de lo que era en un inicio.
April 11, 2025
Iemand zat nog volledig in zijn dogmatische sluimer...
April 17, 2013
This is a review of a 1958 paperback, entitled The Book of God (published by Philosophical Library), which is based on Spinoza's "Short Treatise on God, Man and His Well-Being."
For Spinoza, God is first cause (God creates and is not "Himself" created). God creates the eternal laws of nature. God is perfection. Humans use reason to seek God's perfection and become united with "Him." Reason overrules the bad passions (e.g., if we hate and have sorrow, we do not know God) in favor of the good and, thereby, we come closer to our unification with God (Reason "advances us toward perfection"). The object of our love is God who enables us to overcome our lesser passions. God is eternal and imperishable. In being united with God, we are "born again" and have "eternal duration."
Interestingly, but perhaps not typically regarded this way, Spinoza seems aligned with Plato (God, as perfection, is Form for All), and the Stoics (deny negative passions through reason), and Taoism (align ourselves with the laws of nature).
Spinoza is said to be naturalistic (laws of nature) and pantheistic (God is everywhere) and, as perfection, "He" is not to be bargained with. As such, Spinoza threatened the old religious order that had God as a patriarchical, authoritarian figure, up there, messing with us, and Spinoza understandably had to be cautious about his thinking (e.g., "...as the character of the age in which we live is not unknown to you," he writes to his friends, "I would beg of you most earnestly to be very careful about the communication of these things to others.")
Spinoza's thought is a creative blend of religion and the emerging science of his time. However, regarding his current relevance, the God language is not necessary and gets in the way. We can have eternal laws of nature (modern physics) without attributing them to God. Is it wise or healthy to deny fear and aversion? If we are God's "slaves" (Spinoza's language), how can we be joined with Him? If we attain perfection by being united with God, are we not God ourselves? If so, how does our finiteness match up with God's infiniteness? Despite Spinoza's naturalism, it is hard not to see him trying to bring God through the back door as a supernatural being of some sort. Why is God a "Him" and why capitalized (Nature for Spinoza is a "she")? His language has the eternal laws of nature as subsidiary creations of God. Some "beingness" precedes the laws of nature, and Beingness pervades his God language. If Spinoza is about matter and substance (the "eternal laws of nature"), why do we seek God as "this incorporeal object"? Incorporeality allows for eternal and unchangeable existence, but we now know that the only eternal cosmic truth is Change itself.
For Spinoza, God is first cause (God creates and is not "Himself" created). God creates the eternal laws of nature. God is perfection. Humans use reason to seek God's perfection and become united with "Him." Reason overrules the bad passions (e.g., if we hate and have sorrow, we do not know God) in favor of the good and, thereby, we come closer to our unification with God (Reason "advances us toward perfection"). The object of our love is God who enables us to overcome our lesser passions. God is eternal and imperishable. In being united with God, we are "born again" and have "eternal duration."
Interestingly, but perhaps not typically regarded this way, Spinoza seems aligned with Plato (God, as perfection, is Form for All), and the Stoics (deny negative passions through reason), and Taoism (align ourselves with the laws of nature).
Spinoza is said to be naturalistic (laws of nature) and pantheistic (God is everywhere) and, as perfection, "He" is not to be bargained with. As such, Spinoza threatened the old religious order that had God as a patriarchical, authoritarian figure, up there, messing with us, and Spinoza understandably had to be cautious about his thinking (e.g., "...as the character of the age in which we live is not unknown to you," he writes to his friends, "I would beg of you most earnestly to be very careful about the communication of these things to others.")
Spinoza's thought is a creative blend of religion and the emerging science of his time. However, regarding his current relevance, the God language is not necessary and gets in the way. We can have eternal laws of nature (modern physics) without attributing them to God. Is it wise or healthy to deny fear and aversion? If we are God's "slaves" (Spinoza's language), how can we be joined with Him? If we attain perfection by being united with God, are we not God ourselves? If so, how does our finiteness match up with God's infiniteness? Despite Spinoza's naturalism, it is hard not to see him trying to bring God through the back door as a supernatural being of some sort. Why is God a "Him" and why capitalized (Nature for Spinoza is a "she")? His language has the eternal laws of nature as subsidiary creations of God. Some "beingness" precedes the laws of nature, and Beingness pervades his God language. If Spinoza is about matter and substance (the "eternal laws of nature"), why do we seek God as "this incorporeal object"? Incorporeality allows for eternal and unchangeable existence, but we now know that the only eternal cosmic truth is Change itself.
April 25, 2023
Obra que sustenta e inicia os grandes pilares da filosofia de Espinosa e surgiu como preâmbulo da sua maior obra intitulada "Ética". A existência desta obra permanecia uma dúvida, em virtude da ausência de um manuscrito físico que o comprovasse. Foi mais tarde descoberto por acaso.
O ensaio filosófico de Espinosa recupera ideias cartesianas, segundo as quais Deus é uma substância ilimitada e perfeita, como tal cognoscivel. Nós, homens, somos portadores da sua representação de Deus, o que nos permite inferir sobre a sua existência. Falar de Deus surge como falar da natureza das substâncias e da dualidade existência-essência, chave para compreender o conceito de Deus.
Criador perfeito do que na Terra alberga o conceito de perfeição: a natureza, onde a essência e existência se assumem num só. É é a partir da natureza que partimos para o conhecimento direto de Deus, pois é a natureza aquilo que contém Deus, uma criação direta do mesmo. Deus é a sua única e própria causa é é imutável, como o prova a natureza e o seu status quo, o seu conatus, a sua essência, nunca diferente no curso dos tempos. A partir deste conceito de criação e de natureza, é nos concedida o raciocínio para decifrar o Homem e o que à volta dele se constrói. O Homem é dotado de uma essência imutável, doada por Deus. Essência essa que contém apenas coisas e ações.
Espinosa define o Homem como um ser escravo das paixões, libertando-se do jugo da paixão através da razão. Define paixão como um estado primeiro, de opiniões voláteis, sem conclusões sólidas. Uma forma falaciosa de conhecimento, ao contrário da crença, que nos permite chegar ao conhecimento claro e daí passar para as coisas que merecem ser verdadeiramente amadas (paixão distante da opinião). A paixão revela-se o destino da natureza humana, sendo o amor uma emoção da qual jamais nos livraremos, portanto cabe à razão guiar-nos pelas paixão verdadeiras: amar o que não é perecível. O homem procura sempre amar o perfeito, procuramos instintivamente o perfeito, pelo que amaremos sempre o que mais perto da perfeição se assemelha: Deus. Amando Deus, símbolo da perfeição, fazemos o uso perfeito do intelecto, afastando-nos, assim, de todo e qualquer sentimento desprovido da razão: tristeza, ódio e repulsa. Daqui inferimos que somos criaturas de Deus, seus servidores eternos e é assim que conseguimos a distância de todas as coisas más.
A defesa dos ideais panteistas e deterministas valeram a Espinosa excomunhão e perseguição, causas que motivaram a destruição e encobrimento de algumas das suas obras e escritos.
O ensaio filosófico de Espinosa recupera ideias cartesianas, segundo as quais Deus é uma substância ilimitada e perfeita, como tal cognoscivel. Nós, homens, somos portadores da sua representação de Deus, o que nos permite inferir sobre a sua existência. Falar de Deus surge como falar da natureza das substâncias e da dualidade existência-essência, chave para compreender o conceito de Deus.
Criador perfeito do que na Terra alberga o conceito de perfeição: a natureza, onde a essência e existência se assumem num só. É é a partir da natureza que partimos para o conhecimento direto de Deus, pois é a natureza aquilo que contém Deus, uma criação direta do mesmo. Deus é a sua única e própria causa é é imutável, como o prova a natureza e o seu status quo, o seu conatus, a sua essência, nunca diferente no curso dos tempos. A partir deste conceito de criação e de natureza, é nos concedida o raciocínio para decifrar o Homem e o que à volta dele se constrói. O Homem é dotado de uma essência imutável, doada por Deus. Essência essa que contém apenas coisas e ações.
Espinosa define o Homem como um ser escravo das paixões, libertando-se do jugo da paixão através da razão. Define paixão como um estado primeiro, de opiniões voláteis, sem conclusões sólidas. Uma forma falaciosa de conhecimento, ao contrário da crença, que nos permite chegar ao conhecimento claro e daí passar para as coisas que merecem ser verdadeiramente amadas (paixão distante da opinião). A paixão revela-se o destino da natureza humana, sendo o amor uma emoção da qual jamais nos livraremos, portanto cabe à razão guiar-nos pelas paixão verdadeiras: amar o que não é perecível. O homem procura sempre amar o perfeito, procuramos instintivamente o perfeito, pelo que amaremos sempre o que mais perto da perfeição se assemelha: Deus. Amando Deus, símbolo da perfeição, fazemos o uso perfeito do intelecto, afastando-nos, assim, de todo e qualquer sentimento desprovido da razão: tristeza, ódio e repulsa. Daqui inferimos que somos criaturas de Deus, seus servidores eternos e é assim que conseguimos a distância de todas as coisas más.
A defesa dos ideais panteistas e deterministas valeram a Espinosa excomunhão e perseguição, causas que motivaram a destruição e encobrimento de algumas das suas obras e escritos.
November 10, 2018
A descrição de alguns autores sobre o Breve Tratado se confirmou com essa leitura: aí se encontra um dos ensaios teóricos que serão consolidados geometricamente na Ética. Há algumas diferenças entre as duas obras, mas que não fazem diferir de forma drástica a argumentação da segunda com relação com a primeira. Começando com Deus já dado, Spinoza o prova a priori e a posteriori, enquanto que na Ética sua argumentação parte da noção de substância infinita, compreendida por infinitos atributos; vê-se já as divisões dos gêneros de conhecimento, que serão aprofundadas e sistematizadas em 3 na sua obra principal; o Breve Tratado procede por capítulos temáticos, enquanto que na Ética ele é dividido em 5 partes, cada uma procedendo por definições, axiomas e proposições (forma geométrica associável aos pontos, retas e figuras). No entanto, o texto já demonstra uma consistência rigorosa, que chega a sua perfeição máxima na sua obra prima (e última).
Read
February 23, 2019A first "quick enlightment" to the IMMPORTALITY of the READERs - seriously!!
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews