Talk:Baruch Spinoza

Lacking informations about the biography

The current WP article can be improved with the following biographical informations:

• The family of Baruch Spinoza moved to live in an area called the Ancient Synagogue which was located near the house of the painter Rembrandt.
• Spinoza had three other brethren and come from a family of Marranos.
• The first biographies of Spinoza were published by Jean Maximilien Lucas in 1677 and by John Köhler in 1705.
• When he was still a teenager, Spinoza got impressed by the public wipping death of the Jewish Uriel da Costa who had been accused of heresy.
• Spinoza studied at the Jewish-Portuguese Synagogue of Amsterdam not solely the Talmud and the Old Testament, but also the Jewish Cabbala;
• He had an intense and long-time correspondence with an entourage of merchants, physicians and nobles which included Simon de Vries, Pieter Balling and Jarig Jelles, among the most faithful, but also Hugo Boxel, Bijenbergh, Henry OldenBurg, Tschirnhaus and, in his last times, Leibniz.

It remains an open issue to find English-language sources to be cited in the WP article. Hope someone will help in doing that.

All this information is already pretty much in the article. I don't see much here that is must for an encyclopedic article on Spinoza that is not already there, but any part of the above additions can easily be found in the English language extensive bibliography that is already used and cited in the article. Any of the "facts" mentioned above, if anyone deems them to be absolutely necessary in the article (I do not), can be found in one of the English language reliable sources already used in the article. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 21:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The point of Spinoza being defined as an atheist or not is moot and shows the worst side of Wikipedia

There's the Wikipedia that cites facts to be easily accessible online. Then there's the Wikipedia where people wage ideological war by writing with an agenda, in this case professional atheists determined to define a theological ethicists whom wrote about god as an "atheist" as to bean count revered historical figures on their side. It's a superficial and frankly stupid argument that is mere semantics and people that argue like this I'm positive don't actually read any of this stuff or else they wouldn't be so shallow. 2600:1012:B10D:9025:75EE:B323:2A70:7743 (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Spinoza was called an atheist in his time because his concept of the divine was different from traditional concepts. Today he would probably be referred to as "spiritual but not religious." His time with the protestant Collegiants (related to the Quakers) demonstrates his deep interest in spirituality and communication with the divine. Spinoza was once credited with being the author of the Collegiant text The Light upon the Candlestick - Epinoia (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

He did not believe in a personal god, but he did not reject all concepts of the divine. AnonMoos (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The article does not say that he was an atheist, it just describes the controversy over time about defining him as an atheist. The controversy was/is real and it is all duly referenced. In terms of organized religion of the 17th century there is no surprise that he could be called an atheist, since he did not care the least for organized religion. And yet, according to the Ethics the true object of the philosopher is "the knowledge of God," nothing else. warshy ^(¥¥) 15:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Spinoza's first name

Before my edit, the entry read, " In the Netherlands he used the Portuguese name Bento," with a reference to Nadler 2001, p. 42, and a clarification requested. I do not have a copy of Nadler 2001, and Google Books does not have p. 42. But Nadler 1999, which came out in paperback in 2001, discusses Spinoza's first name on page 42. Therefore, I think that the previous editor may have meant Nadler 1999. But Nadler 1999, p. 42, does not state what was in the entry and in need of clarification. Rather, it has the sentence I quoted in place of the sentence previously there. I think that my edit takes care of the problem.Maurice Magnus (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

One more thing. Why does the entry begin Baruch (de) Spinoza; that is, why the parentheses around "de"? The first words of the Preface in Nadler 1999 are "Baruch de Spinoza." If anyone knows Spinoza's name, it would seem to be Nadler. But I don't want to remove the parentheses unilaterally.Maurice Magnus (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Singling out of Steven Nadler in "Reconsideration in modern times"

In the "Reconsideration in modern times" section, why is Steven Nadler the only named member of the committee? He is later quoted (without citation!) but that does not require him to be introduced in the previous sentence. Furthermore, I object to academics being described with "of the University of X" as many academics will not hold a permanent job at a particular university until later in their career, and even late-career scholars may move around to different institutions.

Full text of the section in question below:

In December 2015, the present-day Amsterdam Jewish community organised a symposium to discuss lifting the cherem, inviting scholars from around the world to form an advisory committee at the meeting, including Steven Nadler of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. A debate was held in front of over 500 people, discussing (according to Nadler) "what were Spinoza's philosophical views, what were the historical circumstances of the ban, what might be the advantages of lifting the cherem, and what might be the disadvantages?".

HerbertMcCheese-Wang (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

In reply to the "Furthermore," much of the information on Wikipedia is subject to change and has to be updated occasionally. People die, for example. Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I, for one, do not consider that more contemporary section that relevant or important. It is more like just a current events anecdote at most. I would start by checking the sources on it, if it really bothered me. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 15:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

We could delete the section including Steven Nadler of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. A debate was held in front of over 500 people, discussing, Nadler said, "what were Spinoza's philosophical views, what were the historical circumstances of the ban, what might be the advantages of lifting the cherem, and what might be the disadvantages?". and the section would still make sense. HerbertMcCheese-Wang (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. warshy ^(¥¥) 19:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Nationality

I see some edit-warring on this topic. So, is he Dutch or not? Synotia (moan) 20:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

He clearly was, and this discussion has already been held & resolved some time ago. This is also why the first source mentions Spinoza explicitly as a Dutch philosopher. Why don't people read the sources or the archives of these pages? And why do people edit on subjects they know very little about? Very annoying. Awater01 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, I think you are having a wrong approach. People having a different opinion mean there is a debate, you seem to be calling “dumb” everyone with a different opinion. And Portuguese Jews were REFUGEES in Amsterdam, they were not citizens. If you spend a little while reading the sources added, there is one by Nadler who explicitly says Amsterdam Jewish community were made of refugees and not of Dutch citizens (what is pretty obvious for any historian). I have to remember you that being born in most of European countries doesn’t make a person a citizen, till these days it’s like this in Europe. That is why Portuguese Jewish community called themselves “the Portuguese notion”. But in fact they are what we would call nowadays “stateless people”. Interesting nowadays that Spinoza is well regarded, people from Netherlands try call him Dutch or people from Portugal try to call him Portuguese or even some Hispanic trying to call him Spanish, but the reality is that in that time those Jews were just stateless people expelled from their country tolerated by Dutch republic. If you have read Nadler biography you’d know that one of the reasons Nadler give to Spinoza strong excommunication is a fear that they could lose their status of refugees in the Dutch republic of Jews carried on replicating Spinoza ideas. PepGuardi (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

What you are doing is WP:OR and simply not allowed. Having said that, it's not relevant how the people of the Netherlands or the people of Portugal call him, the only thing that's relevant is how scholars generally refer to him. If you took the time to read the sources in the article, and now on the discussion page as well, then you would've known he's almost always referred to as a Dutch philosopher.

Apart from this, what makes you think I haven't read Nadler? I happen to know for a fact that Nadler is referring to Spinoza as being Dutch (and Jewish) throughout his works, for example already in the preface (!) of his biography, when he calls him 'a Dutch intellectual'. Are you sure you have read the work yourself?

Last but not least, I'm not calling everyone dumb, but it is in my opinion dumb behavior to start talking about things one not only evidently knows little about, but also in a rather aggressive manner that involves a refusal of reading sources, lots of WP:OR and in the end an edit war. Awater01 (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

You undid a stable version, called people ignorant, just to add “Dutch” before philosopher??? Please show one single place where Nadler called Spinoza a “Dutch philosopher”??? This simply does not exist. And you know why? Because at the time Jews were just refugees in Amsterdam, everyone knows that, you should have spend a time reading the article before undoing a stable version by calling people ignorant. In this article Nadler (Spinoza most important biographer) is pretty clear “The Amsterdam Portuguese-Jewish leaders knew this, and—still sensitive about their status in the Netherlands as noncitizens” https://www.neh.gov/article/why-spinoza-was-excommunicated so Nadler is wrong and you right? Man the stable version you undid just avoided this discussion, it says Spinoza was born in Dutch republic having a Portuguese Jewish Origen, so clear and straight forward to avoid this kind of discussion, I mean you are simply disrupting Wikipedia to impose your option over everyone. Wikipedia should be as impersonal as possible and you seem a nationalist Dutch, sorry but this is not the right place for this PepGuardi (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, here the already mentioned examples from the previous discussion:

- Edwin Curley: 'the 17th century Dutch philosopher’

- Anthony Gottlieb: ‘a Dutch Jewish philosopher’

- Richard Popkin: 'Dutch philosopher'

- Steven Nadler: 'Dutch intellectual', 'the 17th-century Dutch thinker'

Just out of curiosity: are we going to have this discussion every 6 months? Because this is getting slightly absurd. Awater01 (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@PepGuardi: I already gave you the answer: in the preface of the very book you're talking about! You clearly haven't read it. It's really astonishing, the confidence with which you're bragging your ignorance. Awater01 (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)