DOCSLIB.ORG

UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Spinoza: the Human Mind As an Understanding of the Nature of Its Body a Dissertation Submit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Spinoza: the Human Mind As an Understanding of the Nature of Its Body a Dissertation Submit UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Spinoza: The Human Mind as an Understanding of the Nature of its Body A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy by Antti Sakari Hiltunen 2019 © Copyright by Antti Sakari Hiltunen 2019 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Spinoza: The Human Mind as an Understanding of the Nature of its Body by Antti Sakari Hiltunen Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy University of California, Los Angeles, 2019 Professor John P. Carriero, Chair The thesis of this dissertation is that Spinoza thinks the human mind is an understanding of the nature of its body. What that means is that the human mind is at its basic level a cognitive structure. The mind’s basic operation and tendency is understanding, that is, the formation of true ideas. It does so by drawing upon from internal, intellectual resources inherent in the mind’s basic cognitive structure. Now, in particular, Spinoza thinks that the mind’s essential cognitive structure is a kind of an intellectual account of the causal operation of the human body, i.e. a rich and complex explanation (or better, a model) of the how and why the human body operates physiologically. Spinoza’s view is his solution to the Early Modern mind–body problem: what it is for the human mind to be united with this particular body? The premise of that problem is that mental activity is fundamentally different in kind from physiological activity. One ii way to reach Spinoza’s view is to consider his dissatisfaction with Descartes’ famous view of the mind as a thinking being whose essence (and thus operative principle) is independent of its body (or any other body). In Descartes’ view, then, the mind’s basic, essential structure is only accidentally related to its body. Spinoza recognizes that Descartes’ view requires an additional explanatory factor, the mind-body union, aside from the essences of the mind and the body. That third factor is what accounts for what it is for the human mind to be united to the human body. In Spinoza’s view, the postulation of such a third factor is explanatorily empty. Thus, he rejects Descartes’ view of the mind- body union, and also his view of the mind as it stands. For Spinoza thinks that the origin of difficulties in Descartes’ view was the notion of the mind as an agent whose essence is independent of its body. As a result, Spinoza thinks that the only way to work around that fundamental difference between mind and body is that the mind’s basic cognitive structure expresses the nature of this particular body. This does not mean that the mind is made of matter. Instead, the formation of mental states in this mind proceeds and presupposes the mind’s essential structure. That essential structure is an understanding of the physiological operations of this particular body. The mind-body union is, according to Spinoza, that the mind’s essence is a cognitive expression of its body. That relation of cognitive expression is the same as the relation between an understanding and its subject matter. iii The dissertation of Antti Sakari Hiltunen is approved. Alexander Jacob Julius Itay Neeman John P. Carriero, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2019 iv This work is dedicated to: my wife, Sukkyoung, my parents, Sirkku and Sakari, and my brother, Ville. v Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1 Descartes’ View: The Mind–Body Union by a Third Factor .............................................. 12 1.0 Motivation ....................................................................................................................... 12 1.1 The Mind’s Essence as an Encapsulated Mental Agent .............................................. 13 1.1.1 The Priority of the Intellect over the Bodily Senses and Imagination ................. 14 1.1.2 The Good of a Mental Agent .................................................................................. 19 1.1.3 Absoluteness of the Will........................................................................................ 23 1.1.4 Universality of the Intellect in Relation to the Human Body ................................. 26 1.2 The Human Body as an Automaton .............................................................................. 28 1.3 The Mind–Body Union ................................................................................................... 31 1.3.1 Explanandum: Mind’s Agency at one with Body’s Agency .................................. 32 1.3.2 Two Ways of Experiencing the Union with the Body............................................ 33 1.3.3 Pilot in a Vessel, Mind Being the Body and a Third Path ..................................... 37 1.3.4 Descartes’ Middle Path .......................................................................................... 41 1.4 Supervisory Function of the Mental Agent .................................................................. 47 1.5 Mind–Body Communication .......................................................................................... 50 1.5.1 The Function of Passions Is to Align Mental and Bodily Activities .................... 50 1.5.2 Pain as a Signal from the Body .............................................................................. 54 1.5.3 Sensations and Passions as Signals for Action .................................................. 56 1.5.4 Mind’s Ignorance of the Body’s Operation ........................................................... 60 1.5.5 Pain, Sadness and Harm in Mind–Body Communication .................................... 63 2 Spinoza’s Criticism of Descartes’ Mind–Body Union ........................................................ 68 2.0 Motivation ....................................................................................................................... 68 2.1 Causal Interactionism Is Not the Main Problem for Spinoza ...................................... 70 2.2 The Mind’s Nature Is Too Different from the Body’s Nature ...................................... 71 2.3 Specific Ways in Which Descartes’ Mind is Too Distinct .......................................... 78 2.3.1 The Mind Is a Detached Supervisor of Its Body ................................................... 79 2.3.2 The Mind and Body Are by Default in an Active–Passive Relationship ............. 82 2.3.3 The Contingency of the Mind’s Relation to Its Body ............................................ 83 3 Spinoza’s View: Mind as an Understanding of the Causal Structure of its Body ............ 86 3.0 Motivation ....................................................................................................................... 86 3.1 Short Overview of the Thesis of the Mind as an Act of Understanding, with Examples ................................................................................................................................... 92 3.1.1 Cognition of Action Example ................................................................................. 98 vi 3.1.2 Example of a Passive Mental State ...................................................................... 101 3.1.3 Perception Example .............................................................................................. 104 3.2 The Mind as a Cognitive Model of the Causal Structure of its Body ........................ 107 3.2.1 Understanding and Adequate Ideas ................................................................... 107 3.2.2 Understanding is an Intrinsic Feature in an Adequate Idea .............................. 112 3.2.3 Why the Human Body Is Suitable for Causal Understanding ............................ 117 3.2.4 Mind as a Cognitive Activity ................................................................................. 121 3.2.5 The Human Mind Is an Understanding of the Nature of the Body ..................... 124 3.3 Cognitive Action Within the Model of the Body ........................................................ 131 3.3.1 Affirmation of the Present Existence of the Body ............................................... 131 3.3.2 Mental Acts are Causal Inference........................................................................ 137 3.4 Perceptions as Modes of Body Cognition .................................................................. 143 3.4.1 Feeling Changes in One’s Body ........................................................................... 151 3.4.2 Perceiving Other Bodies as Present .................................................................... 154 3.4.3 Passive Mental States Are Inadequate Understanding ..................................... 160 3.5 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 164 3.5.1 The Idea of the Body Is Not a Perception............................................................ 164 3.5.2 The Cognitive Model and Association of Ideas ................................................. 169 3.5.3 The Mind’s Task Is Not to Help the Body ............................................................ 172 3.5.4 Comparison with Leibniz’s View ......................................................................... 175 4 Life and Feeling in Spinoza's Purely Cognitive Mind ...................................................... 176 4.0 Motivation ....................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Expressions of Mind/Body Dualism in Thinspiration
    MIND OVER MATTER: EXPRESSIONS OF MIND/BODY DUALISM IN THINSPIRATION Annamarie O’Brien A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS August 2013 Committee: Dr. Marilyn Motz, Advisor Dr. Rebecca Kinney Dr. Jeremy Wallach © 2013 Annamarie O’Brien All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Dr. Marilyn Motz, Advisor Thinspiration images, meant to inspire weight-loss, proliferate online through platforms that encourage the circulation of user-generated content. Despite numerous alarmist critiques in mass media about thinspiration and various academic studies investigating ‘pro-anorexia’ sites, surprisingly little attention has been given to the processes of creation and the symbolic potential of thinspiration. This thesis analyzes the formal hybridity of thinspiration, and its use as an expressive medium. The particularities of thinspiration (including its visual characteristics, creative processes, and exhibition) may be considered carefully constructed instances of self- representation, hinging on the expression of beliefs regarding the mind and body. While these beliefs are deeply entrenched in popular body management discourse, they also tend to rely on traditional dualist ideologies. Rather than simply emphasizing slenderness or reiterating standard assumptions about beauty, thinspiration often evokes pain and sadness, and employs truisms about the transcendence of flesh and rebellion against social constraints. By harnessing individualist discourse and the values of mind/body dualism, thinspiration becomes a space in which people struggling with disordered eating and body image issues may cast themselves as active agents—contrary to the image of eating disorders proffered by popular and medical discourse. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I would like to thank my thesis committee chair, Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Groningen Spinoza's Theory of the Human Mind
    University of Groningen Spinoza’s Theory of the Human Mind: Consciousness, Memory, and Reason Marrama, Oberto IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2019 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Marrama, O. (2019). Spinoza’s Theory of the Human Mind: Consciousness, Memory, and Reason. University of Groningen. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 27-09-2021 SPINOZA’S THEORY OF THE HUMAN MIND: CONSCIOUSNESS, MEMORY, AND REASON 1A_BW_Marrama .job © Oberto Marrama, 2019. All rights reserved. ISBN 978-94-034-1568-0 (printed version) ISBN 978-94-034-1569-7 (electronic version) 1B_BW_Marrama .job Spinoza’s Theory of the Human Mind: Consciousness, Memory, and Reason PhD thesis to obtain the degree of PhD at the University of Groningen on the authority of the Rector Magnificus Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shortcomings of a Concept Inertia and Conatus in the Philosophy of Spinoza
    http://dx.doi.org/10.18778/8142-286-4.36 Alexandre Rouette Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Canada THE SHORTCOMINGS OF A CONCEPT INERTIA AND CONATUS IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF SPINOZA n the third part of the Ethics, Spinoza express the desire to talk about “human actions and appetites just as if it were a question of lines, planes, and bodies” (E3, Appendix).1 With this sentence, it seems clear that Spinoza sides with Hobbes and Descartes and that he wants to con- struct a mechanistic theory of the affects. In the same part of the Ethics, Spinoza also introduces the concept of conatus: “Each thing, as far as it can by its own power, strives to persevere in its being” (E3P6), Spinoza says. One will immedi- ately understand this concept of conatus as the core concept of his mechanistic theory of the affects, the concept without which this mechanistic account of the affects would be impossible. However, in the second part of the Ethics, there is another concept that could have accomplished that same goal, namely, the principle of inertia. In the words of Spinoza, “A body which moves or is at rest must be determined to motion or rest by another body, which has also been determined to motion or rest by another, and that again by another, and so on, to infinity” (E2L3). Inter- estingly enough, in the philosophy of Hobbes, the concept of endeavour/conatus is much nearer to the Spinozistic principle of inertia in its meaning than it is to the Spinozistic version of the conatus.
    [Show full text]
  • Alister Mcgrath's Anti-Mind-Body Dualism: Neuroscientific and Philosophical Quandaries for Christian Physicalism Brandon Rickabaugh* I
    TRINJ40NS (2019) 215-240 ALISTER MCGRATH'S ANTI-MIND-BODY DUALISM: NEUROSCIENTIFIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL QUANDARIES FOR CHRISTIAN PHYSICALISM BRANDON RICKABAUGH* I. INTRODUCTION Here is a staggering truth: the ontology of the human person currently embraced by the most vocal Christian scholars working on this issue is a view that almost no Christians thought plausible only 100 years ago. Until recently, the dominant view among Christian thinkers has been various forms of mind-body dualism (hereafter, dualism), according to which the human person comprises body and soul.1 In stark disagreement, many contemporary Christian scholars vigorously advance antidualism and defend physicalism (reductive or nonreductive), understanding the human person as fundamentally physical.2 These Christian physicalists proffer the strong impression of a uniform rejection of dualism across the neuroscientific, theological, and philosophical communities, as if dualism has been defeated, just as phlogiston was in in the 1770s. Here is another staggering truth: this certain-defeat-of-dualism narrative is demonstrably false. There is, in fact, a growing resurgence of dualism in philosophy. The recent Blackwell Companion Brandon Rickabaugh is a PhD candidate in the Department of Philosophy at Baylor University. This paper won the 2018-2019 Harold O. J. Brown Award for Student Scholarship. aSee Paul Gavarilyuk, "The Incorporeality of the Soul in Patristic Thought," in Christian Physicalism? Philosophical Theological Criticisms, ed. Keith Loftin and Joshua Farris (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2017), 1-26; and Thomas Atkinson, "Christian Physicalism: Against the Medieval Divines," in Loftin and Farris, Christian Physicalism?, 27-42. This isn't to say that dualism was the only view, as there is a tiny minority of Christian physicalists in the history of the church.
    [Show full text]
  • SPINOZA's ETHICS: FREEDOM and DETERMINISM by Alfredo Lucero
    SPINOZA’S ETHICS: FREEDOM AND DETERMINISM by Alfredo Lucero-Montaño 1. What remains alive of a philosopher's thought are the realities that concern him, the problems that he addresses, as well as the questions that he poses. The breath and depth of a philosopher's thought is what continues to excite and incite today. However, his answers are limited to his time and circumstances, and these are subject to the historical evolution of thought, yet his principal commitments are based on the problems and questions with which he is concerned. And this is what resounds of a philosopher's thought, which we can theoretically and practically adopt and adapt. Spinoza is immersed in a time of reforms, and he is a revolutionary and a reformer himself. The reforming trend in modern philosophy is expressed in an eminent way by Descartes' philosophy. Descartes, the great restorer of science and metaphysics, had left unfinished the task of a new foundation of ethics. Spinoza was thus faced with this enterprise. But he couldn't carry it out without the conviction of the importance of the ethical problems or that ethics is involved in a fundamental aspect of existence: the moral destiny of man. Spinoza's Ethics[1] is based on a theory of man or, more precisely, on an ontology of man. Ethics is, for him, ontology. He does not approach the problems of morality — the nature of good and evil, why and wherefore of human life — if it is not on the basis of a conception of man's being-in-itself, to wit, that the moral existence of man can only be explained by its own condition.
    [Show full text]
  • Descartes' Optics
    Descartes’ Optics Jeffrey K. McDonough Descartes’ work on optics spanned his entire career and represents a fascinating area of inquiry. His interest in the study of light is already on display in an intriguing study of refraction from his early notebook, known as the Cogitationes privatae, dating from 1619 to 1621 (AT X 242-3). Optics figures centrally in Descartes’ The World, or Treatise on Light, written between 1629 and 1633, as well as, of course, in his Dioptrics published in 1637. It also, however, plays important roles in the three essays published together with the Dioptrics, namely, the Discourse on Method, the Geometry, and the Meteorology, and many of Descartes’ conclusions concerning light from these earlier works persist with little substantive modification into the Principles of Philosophy published in 1644. In what follows, we will look in a brief and general way at Descartes’ understanding of light, his derivations of the two central laws of geometrical optics, and a sampling of the optical phenomena he sought to explain. We will conclude by noting a few of the many ways in which Descartes’ efforts in optics prompted – both through agreement and dissent – further developments in the history of optics. Descartes was a famously systematic philosopher and his thinking about optics is deeply enmeshed with his more general mechanistic physics and cosmology. In the sixth chapter of The Treatise on Light, he asks his readers to imagine a new world “very easy to know, but nevertheless similar to ours” consisting of an indefinite space filled everywhere with “real, perfectly solid” matter, divisible “into as many parts and shapes as we can imagine” (AT XI ix; G 21, fn 40) (AT XI 33-34; G 22-23).
    [Show full text]
  • Vasubandhu's) Commentary on His "Twenty Stanzas" with Appended Glossary of Technical Terms
    AN INTRODUCTION AND TRANSLATION OF VINITADEVA'S EXPLANATION OF THE FIRST TEN VERSES OF (VASUBANDHU'S) COMMENTARY ON HIS "TWENTY STANZAS" WITH APPENDED GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS Gregory Alexander Hillis Palo Alto, California B.A., University of California, Santa Cruz, 1979 A Thesis Presented to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Virginia in Candidacy for the Degree of Master of Arts Department of Religious Studies University of Virginia May, 1993 ABSTRACT In this thesis I argue that Vasubandhu categorically rejects the position that objects exist external to the mind. To support this interpretation, I engage in a close reading of Vasubandhu's Twenty Stanzas (Vif!lsatika, nyi shu pa), his autocommentary (vif!lsatika- vrtti, nyi shu pa'i 'grel pa), and Vinrtadeva's sub-commentary (prakaraiJa-vif!liaka-f'ika, rab tu byed pa nyi shu pa' i 'grel bshad). I endeavor to show how unambiguous statements in Vasubandhu's root text and autocommentary refuting the existence of external objects are further supported by Vinitadeva's explanantion. I examine two major streams of recent non-traditional scholarship on this topic, one that interprets Vasubandhu to be a realist, and one that interprets him to be an idealist. I argue strenuously against the former position, citing what I consider to be the questionable methodology of reading the thought of later thinkers such as Dignaga and Dharmak:Irti into the works of Vasubandhu, and argue in favor of the latter position with the stipulation that Vasubandhu does accept a plurality of separate minds, and he does not assert the existence of an Absolute Mind.
    [Show full text]
  • Descartes and Spinoza
    OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Thu Dec 29 2016, NEWGEN 229 chapter nine Descartes and Spinoza Two Approaches to Embodiment Alison Peterman 1. Introduction Descartes1 (1596– 1650) and Spinoza (1632– 1677) each gave us interest- ing and infuential approaches to answering what I’ll call “embodiment question”: what is the relationship between a mind and its body— the one that it seems to inhabit, feel, control or otherwise be uniquely involved with?2 In Spinoza we fnd (at least) three diferent answers, the ingenuity of all of which is attested to by their long reception in the philosophical tradition. Descartes was an important infuence on Spinoza, but on many others, too, ushering in the era of the “mind- body 1 I am grateful to Colin Chamberlain, Michael Della Rocca, Keota Fields, Kristin Primus, and Alison Simmons for discussion, and also to the other contributors to this volume. 2 Tis question is broader than one than one about the constitutive or essential relationship between a mind and its body. 229 02_acprof-9780190490447_Ch7-11.indd 229 12/29/2016 2:13:15 AM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Thu Dec 29 2016, NEWGEN 230 230 Embodiment problem” in the form that many philosophers still grapple with. Here, I’ll by no means attempt a comprehensive treatment of their contribu- tions. Instead I will try to uncover an unnoticed similarity between the two, and apply it to understanding the coherence of Spinoza’s account of embodiment. I’ll argue that Descartes and Spinoza both approach the embodiment question in two diferent ways: one approach starts with some metaphysical commitments about the kinds of entities, properties, and interactions there are in the world, and the other starts by attending to the experience of an embodied subject.
    [Show full text]
  • The Manifest Image and the Scientific Image(1)
    (1) The Manifest Image and the Scientific Image Bas C. van Fraassen Princeton University (published: pp. 29-52 in D. Aerts (ed.). Einstein Meets Magritte: The White Book -- An Interdisciplinary Reflection. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1999.) PART ONE. WORLDVIEWS IN COLLISION (?) .................................... 2 1. The Clash ........................................................... 2 2. The three main differences between the Images ....................... 3 PART TWO. THE PLAGUE OF IRREMEDIABLE VAGUENESS .......................... 4 3. Deconstructing the Manifest Image ................................... 4 4. Deconstructing the Scientific Image ................................. 5 5. Philosophical choices in response ................................... 7 PART THREE. AN INCOHERENT FICTION ....................................... 8 6. The Images as philosophical miscreants .............................. 8 6.1 What is this thing called the Manifest Image? ................... 8 6.2 And what of that thing called the Scientific Image? ............. 9 6.3 The dialectic that engenders the dichotomy ...................... 9 7. The very idea of images .......................................... 10 PART FOUR. REAL LIFE WITH SCIENCE ..................................... 11 8. A new beginning .................................................... 12 9. The continuity of common sense and science in method ............... 13 10. Perspectival discourse and relativity ............................ 13 11. Value- and function-laden discourse .............................
    [Show full text]
  • Reflexive Monism
    Reflexive Monism Max Velmans, Goldsmiths, University of London; email [email protected]; http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/psychology/staff/velmans.php Journal of Consciousness Studies (2008), 15(2), 5-50. Abstract. Reflexive monism is, in essence, an ancient view of how consciousness relates to the material world that has, in recent decades, been resurrected in modern form. In this paper I discuss how some of its basic features differ from both dualism and variants of physicalist and functionalist reductionism, focusing on those aspects of the theory that challenge deeply rooted presuppositions in current Western thought. I pay particular attention to the ontological status and seeming “out- thereness” of the phenomenal world and to how the “phenomenal world” relates to the “physical world”, the “world itself”, and processing in the brain. In order to place the theory within the context of current thought and debate, I address questions that have been raised about reflexive monism in recent commentaries and also evaluate competing accounts of the same issues offered by “transparency theory” and by “biological naturalism”. I argue that, of the competing views on offer, reflexive monism most closely follows the contours of ordinary experience, the findings of science, and common sense. Key words: Consciousness, reflexive, monism, dualism, reductionism, physicalism, functionalism, transparency, biological naturalism, phenomenal world, physical world, world itself, universe itself, brain, perceptual projection, phenomenal space, measured space, physical space, space perception, information, virtual reality, hologram, phenomenological internalism, phenomenological externalism, first person, third person, complementary What is Reflexive Monism? Monism is the view that the universe, at the deepest level of analysis, is one thing, or composed of one fundamental kind of stuff.
    [Show full text]
  • CG Jung and the Inheritance of Immanence
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Middle Tennessee State University: Journals@MTSU C. G. Jung and the Inheritance of Immanence C.G. Jung and the Inheritance of Immanence: Traces of Spinozistic, Nietzschean, and Freudian Influence in Analytical Psychology Christopher Myers Abstract Carl Jung, the founder of analytical psychology, was heavily influenced by both Nietzsche and Freud, both of whom were influenced, as Yovel notes in his The Adventures of Immanence, by Spinoza. Through his years of collaboration with Freud and his long-lasting fascination with Nietzsche (combined with Jung’s own semi-mystical tendencies, Jung became more of a Spinozian, than Nietzschean or Freudian. These Spinozistic traces can be detected in the framework of analytical psychology. A comparison is presented on the views of Spinoza, Nietzsche, Freud, and Jung on historical religion, the source of human motivation, and the liberating power of self- knowledge. Middle Tennessee State University 69 Scientia et Humanitas: A Journal of Student Research his investigation explores the intellectual genealogy that links seventeenth-cen- tury rationalist and Jewish ex-communicant, Baruch Spinoza, to the founder of analyticalT psychology, Carl Gustav Jung. In Spinoza and Other Heretics: The Adventures of Immanence, Yirmiyahu Yovel describes Spinoza’s influence upon Nietzsche and Freud. In Philosophical Issues in the Psychology of C.G. Jung, Marilyn Nagy investigates the inspiration of Plato, Kant, Schopenhauer and others on Jung. However, no effort has been made to in- vestigate the possibility that Spinozism might have trickled into Jungian thought through Nietzsche and Freud.
    [Show full text]
  • The Curious Case of Baruch Spinoza in Walter Ben­Ja­Min’S “Toward the Critique of Violence”
    The Curious Case of Baruch Spinoza in Walter Ben ja min’s “Toward the Critique of Violence” MASSIMO PALMA abstract Although Baruch Spinoza was im por tant for think ers of his gen er a tion, Walter Ben ja­ min seems to have com pletely ig nored the phi los o pher. Spinoza’s name ap pears just a few times in Ben ja min’s works, and Spinoza’s thought never seems to have been rel e vant to him. The only place where Ben ja min quotes a text of Spinoza’s, al beit be tween the lines, is in “Toward the Critique of Violence” (1921). Still, in this essay Ben ja min is far from enthu si as tic about the au thor of the Ethics. He names Spinoza as a pro po nent of nat u ral law the o ry, which Ben ja min dismisses in his search for a cri te rion with which to judge Gewalt. This ar ti cle seeks to in ves ti gate Ben ja min’s ap par ent hos til ity to Spinoza and to reexamine the re la tion ship be tween the two, from both a the o ret i cal and a po lit i cal per spec tive. keywords Walter Ben ja min, Baruch Spinoza, le gal vi o lence, nat u ral law, mi gra tion The names of Walter Ben ja min and Baruch Spinoza rarely ap pear along side one an other in the lit er a ture on Ben ja min.
    [Show full text]