Espinosa: A Life - Research Paper Example

Espinosa: A Life Teacher: December 6, A summary of the work: Baruch de Spinoza was the child of the prominent businessman from the Portuguese-Jewish community. Baruch was an intelligent. However, Baruch de Spinoza was excommunicated from Jewish religion because he espoused a different concept of God and the Jewish religion as a whole1. The Talmud Torah Jewish leaders had issued the Cherem that formally excommunicated Baruch de Spinosa from all Jewish religious activities in Amsterdam. After Baruch de Spinosa was excommunicated from the Jewish Community, Baruch de Spinosa was later expelled from Amsterdam. Conteroversially, Espinosa denied the soul’s immortality. Likewise Baruch de Spinosa refused to accept that God is provident. Further, Baruch de Spinosa decided to call himself a citizen of Amsterdam, not as a Jew. After his expulsion from Amsterdam, Baruch de Spinosa would focus his time philosophical, political and religious arguments in order to thresh out the veracity of the current concept of the community during Baruch de Spinosa’s time period2. In 1667, Baruch de Spinosa would write a book explaining how the phenomenon of how the rainbow was able to create many different colors. The The Hague Publishing press published the supposed Baruch de Spinosa book The Algebraic Calculation of the Rainbow which showed that the rainbow was consigned to the flames3.Baruch de Spinosa studied Boyle’s Experiments and Considerations Concerning Colours book in order to get additional knowledge that will contribute to Baruch de Spinosa’s analysis of the rainbow colours. Likewise, Baruch de Spinosa would study Descartes’ and Snel’s law of refraction to get more knowledge about the rainbow formation 4.Baruch de Spinosa became famous as a political and religious thinker, social critic, moral philosopher, grinder of lenses, Jewish heretic, failed businessperson, biblical exegete, and metaphysical philosopher. Baruch de Spinosa would later become one of the most famous philosophers of Baruch de Spinosa’s time period as well as future time periods. Further, most of Baruch de Spinosa’s adult life was focused on research. The research included staying most of his time in his room. In his room, Baruch de Spinosa would tinker about the veracity of life’s many concepts. Baruch de Spinosa would read books and conduct experiments. Baruch de Spinosa preferred to be a loner. One of Baruch de Spinosa’s boredom-eliminating activities was spider catching5.Baruch de Spinosa would often converse with the Van der Spyck family. Baruch de Spinosa lived in the Van der Spyck’s home. Colerus was the Lutheran Preacher who stayed at the same Van de Spyck home together with Baruch de Spinosa. Furthermore, the author reiterates that Baruch de Spinosa’s brought many benefactos and sponsors. Many individuals wanted to donate money to Baruch de Spinosa, being a poor lens grinder. However, Baruch de Spinosa refused to accept the dole outs. Baruch de Spinosa refused to accept De Witt’s annuity offer. De Witt represented a huge political organization. De Witt, Huygens and Hudde would invite Baruch de Spinosa to help in the discussion of probabilities calculations. Likewise, Baruch de Spinosa was interested in creating a formula for coming up with probabilities, prompting Baruch de Spinosa to join the three thinkers6. Critique of the work including comparing it to what others have written about the person selected The work of Steven Adler is well done. The author shows several names of individuals who met or were part of Baruch de Spinosa’ life, concepts, and conversations. Wolfson affirmed Steven Adler’s story that Baruch de Spinosa was the first philosopher who broke away from religion. In fact, Wolfson recognized Baruch de Spinosa as the first modern philosopher. The Medieval philosophers include those who combined the human knowledge of the Greeks combined with the divine wisdom of the Jews in Alexandra. Seymour Feldman’s introduction to Spinoza’s Ethics indicated that Feldman praised Baruch de Spinosa as the first philosopher7. Further, Hergenhahn, proposed that Baruch de Spinosa rejected Descartes’ proposition that God, mind, and nature are three separate entities. Baruch de Spinosa is described as very interested in Descartes’ philosophies, including the Cartesian philosophical concepts. During Baruch de Spinosa’s time, many philosophers flocked to Netherlands because of the persecution in other European countries. The immigrating philosophers included Descartes and Locke. Netherlands, during Baruch de Spinosa’s time period, offered free intellectual discussions8. Furthermore, another author insists that Baruch de Spinosa’s Ethica, which was published after his death, transcends the author as one of the most radical and denigrated philosophers of all time. Baruch de Spinosa had espoused an extremely natural concept of God, classifying God as a mere substance. Substance equates to nature. Consequently, Baruch de Spinosa classified God as a mere nature. Consequently, Jewish members were angry at Baruch de Spinosa , branding him as a heretic. The author insisted that it was right to excommunicate Baruch de Spinosa9 . Placement of the work within the historical debate on the person’s role in history. Baruch de Spinosa was fitted against Descartes as the greatest philosopher of all time. Both philosophers were popular within the free Netherlands philosophical community. Some people insist that Baruch de Spinosa, being the first Philosopher, should be crowned the greatest philosopher of all time. Baruch de Spinosa’s Ethic work questions the providence of God. The book was published after Baruch de Spinosa’ death 10. Main theses. The main thesis of the book is that Baruch de Spinosa is a heretic. Another thesis of the book is that Baruch de Spinosa is one of the best philosophers of all time. The book brings out several of Baruch de Spinosa’s concepts that contradict the established religious theories of Baruch de Spinosa’s time period. For example, Baruch de Spinosa insists that Jesus Christ is not a God. Baruch de Spinosa states that Jesus Christ’s resurrection was a fairy tale. Fairy tales are untrue stories. Baruch de Spinosa uses logic to explain that Jesus Christ did not have the powers that the bible stories and other religious sources present. In fact, Baruch de Spinosa even goes further by questioning the veracity of Jesus Christ’s resurrection. Since there is no scientific explanation to prove that resurrection can be done, Baruch de Spinosa quickly goes into full throttle to cast doubt on the Jewish and other Christian religion’s Jesus Christ resurrection story. Further, the Baruch de Spinosa espouses that the human soul will not live forever. Baruch de Spinosa uses logic to explain this theory. Since no one has seen the human soul live forever, therefore Baruch de Spinosa creates his one philosophical concept that the soul will die at the same time when the physical body of the person also dies. The concept contradicts the Jewish and Christian religious teachings that states the soul will live forever. The Baruch de Spinosa concept of the soul destroys the religious teaching that the soul goes to heaven after the person dies. The same Baruch de Spinosa concept of the soul indicates that the soul will not suffer the agonies of being burned forever in the fires of Hades (hell). Baruch de Spinosa insists that the human soul cannot separate from the human body. Consequently, when the body dies, the soul also dies11. Furthermore, Baruch de Spinosa theorizes that God has an attribute extension, not omnipotent. Baruch de Spinosa insists that God is not provident. A provident individual means that he or she can appear at any time or any place at the same time. God is not able to transcend absolutely. Baruch de Spinosa insists that God is not the creator of the heavens and the earth. Instead, Baruch de Spinosa espouses that God is nature itself12. How are these theses presented in the book. The theses are presented in the book as part of the preface. Next, the author discusses the points shown in the preface. The author offers several evidences in the body of the book to convince the readers that the thesis statement is correct. The author gives names of individuals in the body of the different book chapters in order to persuade the book readers to read the book. Book organization. The book is organized in clear manner and the arguments logical. The book is separated into different chapters. Each chapter focuses on one topic. The chapter topics include The author inserts evidences on the related chapters. Consequently, the readers will feel that there is flow in the author’s discussion of the life of Baruch de Spinosa. Author’s prejudices. Analyzing the above data, the author seems to be prejudiced. Steven Nadler is professor of Philosophy and Director of George Mosse Weinstein school for Jewish Studies in the University of Wisconsin, Madison State. Analyzing his job, there is a high probability that most of Mr. Nadler’s students are Jews. Steven Nadler wrote the book to express his prejudiced sentiments to his Jewish students. Logically, the Jewish students would walk out of his class if Mr. Nadler espoused that Baruch de Spinosa’s concept of Jesus, God, and the soul is correct. If Mr. Nadler is Jewish, he would immediately be excommunicated by his Jewish students (http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/rembrandts-jews-steven-nadler/1005904672). Because of his position as teacher of Jewish Studies, Mr. Nadler discriminatingly presents evidences to generate a conclusion without gathering the evidences that will prove Baruch de Spinosa is not a heretic. Mr. Nadler cannot present evidences to prove that Baruch de Spinosa is a normal philosophical person who wants evidences presented before accepting religion’s hypothesis that God is Provident, Jesus Christ Resurrection, the soul lives forever, and other concepts. Mr. Nadler needs the Jewish patrons to feed his family. In obvious bias manner, Steven Nadler only gives evidences to pin down Baruch de Spinosa as a heretic, possibly in order to please his paying Jewish studies students and other Jewish benefactors or sponsors. The author offers voluminous events and to bring the people to the side of the author. The prejudice arose because the author did not present any evidence that will prove that Baruch de Spinosa is correct, especially with his current job as teacher of Jewish studies to Jewish students. Moreover, the author did not present the evidences of Baruch de Spinosa that would prove that Baruch de Spinosa’s concepts are true and valid. To be fair, the author should introduce the two sides of the story. To be neutral, the author should present evidence to prove that Baruch de Spinosa’s concepts are true or valid. Next, the author should give the decision to the book readers. The book readers will scrutinized the updated book that contains evidence that will support and contradict Baruch de Spinosa’s concepts. After scrutinizing the updated book, the book readers can easily make their own unique decision regarding Baruch de Spinosa’s being a heretic or a rationalist. Further, the author states that Baruch de Spinosa did not believe that Jesus Christ is the true son of God literally. Baruch de Spinosa negated that Jesus Christ did not resurrect after three days, as espoused by many religious groups. Baruch de Spinosa went further as to espouse the there was nothing out of the ordinary when Jesus Christ was born. Baruch de Spinosa insists that Jesus Christ was just an ordinary mortal, without any special powers or gift. Baruch de Spinosa espoused that one does not have to accepting Jesus Christ is God’s anointed son, as propagated by the Protestant or Evangelical Christian sects. The Baruch de Spinosa concept of Jesus contradicts the religious concept that Jesus Christ was God who took a flesh nature13. During October, 1671, Baruch de Spinosa’s friend, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz conversed with Baruch de Spinosa. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz graduate from the law departemtn fo the University of Altorf. Leibniz worked as the Elector of Mains having the responsibilities of a cultural and diplomatic adviser. Further Leibniz and Baruch de Spinosa would extensively discuss the Tractatus Theologico- Politicus statements as well as the optics topics of their time. In fact, Jellesz, Colerus, and Lucas affirmed that they are studying Baruch de Spinosa’ wrote a book on the optics subject, a short treatise14. The friendship between Leibniz and Baruch de Spinosa focused on scientific exchange of information. In the discussion of light rays, Baruch de Spinosa informed Leibniz that that A Note on Advanced Optics that light glass lenses refract light creating an aperture of different models of polished glasses15. How the prejudices effect the author’s view of the subject. Analyzing the above discussion, the prejudices affect the authors’ view of the subject. By focusing on evidences that can complete a book, Steven Nadler’s view of the subject is biased. The author only gathered evidences that were available. The available evidences include the decisions Jewish court to excommunicate Baruch de Spinosa. The evidences that pin Baruch de Spinosa as heretic forces the author to come up with the more logical view that Baruch de Spinosa is a heretic and should be excommunicated and expelled. Author’s conclusion and conclusion prejudices. Analyzing the above data, the author has conclusions mentioned in the book. The author’s conclusions show that Baruch de Spinosa is a heretic. As teacher of Jewish studies to Jews, the author’s prejudices contribute to gathering several evidences to prove that his conclusion is untenable. The author does not sway from his original thesis that Baruch de Spinosa is a heretic for espousing a logical and natural concept of God, Jesus Christ, and other religious teachings of the Jewish and Christian religious groups. Further, the author’s own prejudices as professor of Jewish Studies to Jewish students maks the author generate selfishly biased conclusions. The prejudices prevent the Jewish Studies professor of Jewish students from offering evidences that the Jewish teachings about God, Jesus Christ and the human soul is wrong, which Baruch de Spinosa espouses, giving an unbiased conclusion. The prejudices prevent the unfair insensitive author from gathering evidences that will support Baruch de Spinosa’s concepts on religion. The prejudices prevent the readers from making their own informed decision and conclusion. Justice must be served by writing a book that offers evidences to prove Baruch de Spinosa believes the Jewish have not given any evidences to back up their religious teachings about God, Jesus Christ and the human soul. Biography and time period. Analyzing the above discussion, the biography relates to the time when the story is written. The author repeated includes the dates when the events occurred. The event dates vividly show that the events in the Baruch de Spinosa life occurred during the 1600s. The discussion of Descartes and Locke indicates that the biography shows Baruch de Spinosa lived during the 1600s. Effect of biography. The biography created a huge dent in the strong Jewish and Christian teachings. Baruch de Spinosa’s espousing of a different concept of God repulses many Jewish and Christian devotees. The Baruch de Spinosa concept of God and Jesus Christ may contribute to the current atheism movement. The atheists have the same concept as Baruch de Spinosa. However, the atheists do not believe that god exists. On the other hand, Baruch de Spinosa believes that there is a god. However, god is classified as nature, not provident. Other historian’s interpretion of Steven Adler book and author’s intention. The other historians interpret the source, its meaning and the author’s intent as valid. One historianaffirmed Nadler’s work by including Nadler’s discussion of Baruch de Spinosa’s heresy in his book16. Similarly, Daniel Burt recommends reading the Nadler book, being one of the finest discussion of Baruch de Spinosa’s life17. The other authors enumerate evidences that affirm Baruch de Spinosa’s heretic concepts. For example, Seymour Feldman’s introduction to Spinoza’s Ethics indicated that Feldman praised Baruch de Spinosa as the first philosopher18. Another author, Hergenhahn, proposed that Baruch de Spinosa rejected Descartes’ proposition that God, mind, and nature are three separate entities. Baruch de Spinosa is described as very interested in Descartes’ philosophies, including the Cartesian philosophical concepts19. Views between the main biography and the other sources The main biography has similar views as the other sources that I have found and read. The above three authors show strong evidences that Baruch de Spinosa is a heretic. The three authors do not present evidences that prove Baruch de Spinosa’s concept of God and other religious teachings is correct. The three authors, Hergenhahn, Baruch de Spinosa, and Floris Der Burg, present evidences to persuade readers to make their own conclusions. Instead, the three authors present evidences to dissuade the readers from making a more informed conclusion on whether Baruch de Spinosa is a heretic or normal person. Evidently, the above references persuade the readers to affirm that Baruch de Spinosa is a heretic, not a person who wants more tenable proof that the teachings of the Bible are true and not simply made up. The thesis statement, Baruch de Spinosa is one of the top philosophers of all time is correct. Works Cited: Burt, Daniel, The Biography Book. New York: Greenwood Press, 2001. Print. Steven Nadler, Steven. Spinoza: A Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Print. Der Burg, Floris. Davidson and Spinoza. New York: Ashgate Press, 2007. Print. Hergenhahn, Ber. An Introduction to the History of Psychology, New York: Cengage Learning Press, 2008. Print. Brekelmans, Christianus. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, New York: VandenHoeck Press, 2008. Print. New, Melvin. In Proximity. New York, University Press, 2001. Print. Barnes & Noble. Rembrandt’s Jews. Retrieved December 6, 2012 from < http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/rembrandts-jews-steven-nadler/1005904672> Read More