On the Improvement of the Understanding: v. 2 [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

This is a well known and widely read book, ever since its first publication, in latin, in 1677. It is an extraordinary example of multum in parvo - much in little: it has earned for its author a first-class position in the history of philosophy. Benedictus de Spinoza (1632-1677) is unquestionably one of the world's greatest philosophers. In the Encyclopaedia Brittanica he is described as "author of one of the greatest metaphysical systems in the history of philosophy". Bertrand Russell in his History of Western Philosophy (available through Amazon) calls him "the noblest and most lovable of the great philosophers". Karl Jaspers, in his Introduction to Philosophy (again available through Amazon - Way to Wisdom) mentions that "Spinoza is the metaphysician who with traditional and Cartesian concepts expresses a philosophical faith. He is original in the metaphysical mood which he alone possessed among the philosophers of his time. Of the philosophers of his century he alone has followers today". Spinoza's importance in philosophy derives, I believe, from the following points: (i) Spinoza's metaphysical edifice rests almost entirely on reason. Reason (Spinoza tells us that "clear reason is infallible", The Ethics, Part I, Prop. XV) is, in his system, both the source of all knowledge, and also the means of clarifying and arranging all items of knowledge so obtained. (ii) Spinoza identifies God with Nature. Nature is given an all-encompassing, metaphysical meaning and is also called Substance ("Substantia sive Deus sive Natura", "Substance otherwise God otherwise Nature"). Accordingly, Spinoza belongs to the naturalist school of thought, along with most of the presocratic philosophers (Thales, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Parmenides, Democritus, Leucipus) and the stoic philosophers (Epicurus, Chrysiphus, Seneca, Lucretius). Nature is seen both as an active causal principle (natura naturans) and as the effect of said principle (natura naturata) (The Ethics, Part I, Prop. XXIX). (iii) Spinoza puts forward a logically coherent system of ethics. In fact, he chose so to name his main metaphysical work, and has added the subtitle: demonstrated in a geometrical manner ("Ethica, more geometrico demonstrata"). The Ethics is laid out in the form of definitions, axioms, propositions, demonstrations of said propositions, and scholia. In Spinoza's system ethical values are logically derived from first principles. So much so, that a moral life is identified as "a way of living under the guidance of reason" (The Ethics, Part IV, Prop. XLVI). The moral precepts arrived at, by a process of logical analysis, are as strict as moral precepts based on religious faith. (iv) Spinoza establishes a novel point of view in the age-old question of the existence of good and evil. Spinoza identifies good with knowledge, in particular with knowledge of God, and proceeds to deny the existence of evil. He explicitly states that "God has no knowledge of evil" (The Ethics, Part IV, Preface). Again, "The knowledge of evil is inadequate knowledge" (The Ethics, Part IV, Prop. LXIV). (v) Spinoza transcends logic itself in distinguishing three kinds of knowledge: (a) knowledge from hearsay, (b) knowledge arrived at by logical analysis, and (c) intuitive knowledge. By means of this "third kind of knowledge" we may experience an immediate, intuitive intimation of God ("cognitio Dei intuitiva", The Ethics, Part V, Prop. XXV). Accordingly, Spinoza is both a rationalist and a mystic. (vi) Spinoza's personal character and life was fully in accord with his teaching. He was always honest, truthful, and, in the words of B. Russell, "showed throughout his life a rare indifference to money. The few who knew him loved him, even if they disapproved of his principles". Spinoza's metaphysical system, far from being one-sided and simplistic, has been a constant source of inspiration and reappraisal to many thinkers.

I knew before reading this book that I liked Spinoza's philosophies on God and life, and I was looking forward to a more in depth study on his thoughts. This book, however, was not what I had in mind. The text was difficult to follow. It could be because it was published originally in 1883 and translated from Latin. For beginners, like myself, I wouldn't recommend it. For me, this book was too mathmatically formulated. Also, there were so many references throughout the book to other paragraphs that it was distracting. All in all, good ideas but not a fun read.