Spinoza

[Hairnet]

(I am trying to tackle metaphysical issues first as the need was demonstrated to me by others here) (I will tackle them as I find them interesting).

I have heard/read Peikoff (can't remember) saying that Spinoza was an eloquent example of rationalism. Also Ayn Rand listed Spinoza with Aristotle and Plato as real philosophers. I have read a little of Spinoza and he is really odd.

I find it very shocking that Rand or Peikoff would say such nice things about Spinoza considering how different their philosophies are from Spinoza.

Does anyone know why they said these things?

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

Well, first of all we have to know that they actually said it, so, do you have a source?

Edited March 12, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[Jake_Ellison]

Plus, calling him a rationalist isn't meant as praise. Rand considered "thought" divorced from the perception of reality (rationalism) a form of mysticism.

[softwareNerd]

...do you have a source?

Here's what I came up with, searching the Objectivism CD:

Philosophy is the goal toward which religion was only a helplessly blind groping. The grandeur, the reverence, the exalted purity, the austere dedication to the pursuit of truth, which are commonly associated with religion, should properly belong to the field of philosophy. Aristotle lived up to it and, in part, so did Plato, Aquinas, Spinoza—but how many others? It is earlier than we think.

Apart from that, in We the Living, we're told that "Leo quoted Spinoza and Nietzsche;". I could not find any other references.

In OPAR, Dr. Peikoff has the following:

Because of the influence of religion, the code of sacrifice has always dominated the field of morality, as far back as historical evidence goes. A handful of Western thinkers did reject this code. The two with the best and fullest ethical systems were Aristotle and Spinoza, each of whom sought in his own way to uphold the value of life, the virtue of rationality, and the principle of egoism. But even these rare dissenters were influenced, both in method and content, by Platonic and by subjectivist elements.

and, this:

"All things excellent," said Spinoza, "are as difficult as they are rare." Since human values are not automatic, his statement is undeniable.

In another respect, however—and this is Ayn Rand's unique perspective—the task ahead is not difficult.

To save the world is the simplest thing in the world. All one has to do is think.

Edited March 12, 2010 by softwareNerd

[2046]

They are saying that these are among the few philosophers have been great influences to stand against the tide of irrationality, to reject intrinsicism, subjectivism, dualism, altruism, etc. in some ways, but because they lacked a proper basis, they failed to develop their ideas totally consistently. That's where Rand comes along and shuts out the negative and incorrect elements she saw and developed the legitimate and rational parts.

"Because of the influence of religion, the code of sacrifice has always dominated the field of morality, as far back as historical evidence goes. A handful of Western thinkers did reject this code. The two with the best and fullest ethical systems were Aristotle and Spinoza, each of whom sought in his own way to uphold the value of life, the virtue of rationality, and the principle of egoism. But even these rare dissenters were influenced, both in method and content, by Platonic and by subjectivist elements.

Although men in the West, roused by such dissent, did occasionally rebel against the moral creed of the religionists, there was no solid intellectual base to support their rebellion. As a result, it was always partial, compromised, and short-lived. The fresh new start petered out each time, defeated by its own unwitting deficiencies, contradictions, and moral concessions." Peikoff, OPAR

oops Snerd beat me to it. lol.

Edited March 12, 2010 by 2046

[khaight]

Well, first of all we have to know that they actually said it, so, do you have a source?

Peikoff discussed Spinoza at some length in his lectures on the history of philosophy. He's a bizarre mixture of rationality and... I'm not sure what to call it. Pantheistic mysticism? Spinoza is certainly unique. The main thing that stood out about him to me was his willingness to take the bull by the horns. Oftentimes, rationalist philosophers lose their nerve when their chains of deduction take them too far into the clouds. Not Spinoza. He had his premises, and he stuck to them and their implications to the bitter end.

Another positive about Spinoza: Apart from Aristotle and Rand, he's about the only philosopher in history to defend a type of egoism that isn't mere subjectivist whim-worship. That's rare, and refreshing. I also recall Peikoff saying that Spinoza argued that emotions are a product of thinking -- another position almost unheard of in philosophy apart from Rand.

[Hairnet]

Wow. Thank you. That makes sense.