Most Helpful Customer Reviews
61 of 68 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The purest and most beautiful philosophical system, December 30, 2000
Spinoza's "Ethics" urges the reader to live a life in accordance with the laws of reason, whose consummation is blessedness through the knowledge of God. His naturalist postulate of God as synonomous with the whole of the natural world was perhaps the most inspired and original reformulation of the concept of God. One can even go so far as to say that his theism, as it were, was the most realistic, as it rejected all forms of anthropomorphism, all figurative and personal epithets in reference to God, such as the conception of God held by traditional theology, as the creator of the universe "ex nihilo". As such, the "Ethics" is patently anti-creationist. Not surprisingly, his position led him into being denounced (with good reason) as a freethinker, a heretic and atheist. His argument can briefly be summarised as follows. He takes as his most basic premise that in order to know a thing, one must first of all acquire a complete knowledge of the cause of the thing. Substance, he defined as that whose conception does not depend on the conception of another thing from which it must be formed. In other words, that which can be known through itself can not have an external cause. Thus, Spinoza defined substance as the cause of itself, (causa sui) and that it is therefore explained through itself and not by reference to another cause. It should be noted that this may seem self-contradictory (as in how can something uncaused be the source of its own causation prior to the act of causation itself?) though Spinoza clearly means this in a logical, and not causal, sense. Substance does not depend on another for its existence nor for its attributes and modifications. Consequently, Spinoza implied that the essence of substance implies existence, and substance must be conceived as existing. In consequence, he reached the proposition that substance must be infinite. For to be finite means to be limited, and limited by some other substance of the same nature, that is having the same attribute. By attribute, he defines the intellectual perception of the essence of a substance. Therefore, there could not be two substances, since both having the same essence would be indistinguishable from each other. Therefore, if there can not be two or more substances possessing the same attribute substance must be infinite. It was this substance, held to be infinite, which Spinoza identified with God, whom he understood as an absolutely infinite being or substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses external and infinite essence. Two of these attributes are known to us, that is thought and extension. Finite minds are modes of God under the attribute of thought, and finite bodies are modes of God under the attribute of extension. Thus, nature is not ontologically distinct from God. Both, are in fact, the same. Admittedly, Spinoza has had as many admirers as critics, such as Schopenhauer, who dismissed his philosophy as a merely cunning play on words in its identification of God and nature, a device for enriching the language through a mere redescription of nature. Others have objected to the rigour and exactitude of his logical method, which was an offshoot of, though a powerful rebuttal of, his mentor, Descartes. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the elegant simplicity and personal charm of his style is what makes him truly one of the most "lovable of the great philosophers," to quote Bertrand Russell. His philosophy, it has also been said, still provides an alternative to atomistic science, and was notable for the direct influence it had on Romanticism, particularly on the most towering figure of Romantic science itself, Goethe, the last "Universal Man".
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
25 of 28 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent Philosophy, Horrible Translation!, November 10, 2005
This review is from: Ethics (Oxford Philosophical Texts) (Paperback)
This is one of the most important works of modern philosophy, I suggest you read it, but please do not pick up this translation which is absolutely riddled with out-right errors. For example, in Part I Definition 2 Spinoza rights: "The thing is called finite in its own kind which cannot be limited by another of the same nature." This is a total blunder, it should read as it does in the original: "The thing is called finite in its own kind which CAN be limited by another of the same nature." This error completely misunderstands the entire premise of Spinoza's entire argument! Please pick up another edition and enjoy.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
16 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
For Spinoza Fans., March 25, 1999
Highly recommended for its informative Introduction, less-archaic translations, and Endnotes. Page 260 Endnote 1: "Spinoza's definitions are of the kind now commonly called 'stipulative'; that is, they tell the reader how Spinoza proposes to use certain words. Spinoza is not concerned (as a Dictionary is concerned) to describe the standard uses of words. His Purpose, as he observes in the Ethics (E3:Def.XX.Expl.) is to explain, not the meaning of words, but the nature of things. One may compare what is done by scientists, when they introduce new technical terms, or give old words a new sense, with a view to explaining what it is that interests them."
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
