This is an archive of past discussions about Baruch Spinoza. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Good catch Briandaugherty. The first mention of "Dutch" on the page goes to Netherlands, so I have fixed this. Thanks! warshy(¥¥)16:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
But the locations in the Netherlands where Spinoza lived, worked and was buried (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Voorburg & den Haag), are all within the provinces of Holland (North and South), so the use of "Holland" is not only accurate, but provides greater clarity. Bricology (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Baruch Spinoza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Baruch Spinoza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Baruch Spinoza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I vehemently object to 3 things I notice in the heading of this article:
1. "laying the groundwork for the 18th-century Enlightenment" I do not agree with this at all. If anyone "lay the groundwork" for the Enlightenment it would be Descartes for being the first modern rationalist, Francis Bacon for being the father of empiricism and the scientific method, or even Hobbes for being the first in a line of prominent political philosophers that includes Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, and the American founding fathers.
2. Separation of church and state is undoubtedly Locke's idea. In fact, Spinoza felt that the state should have sovereignty over outward expression of religion. I'm definitely taking this out unless anyone has a good reason to object.
3. Pantheism and determinism predate Spinoza by hundreds of years. They most certainly are not his ideas.
I know wiki articles tend to try and make anyone who isn't Hitler or Stalin look as great as possible but this is really stretching it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HBBorges (talk • contribs) 05:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
His approach to Biblical criticism was apparently fairly groundbreaking, though it's not discussed in any detail in the article... AnonMoos (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
We are told that Spinoza produced "modern conceptions of the self and the universe". The source is the stupid leftist rag, The New Republic. I will stop reading books about quantum mechanics and relativity and just read Spinoza instead. Meaningless peacock verbiage is banned in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.21.214 (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Kant was in the "influenced" list but there is not even proof that Kant has read Spinoza. Yuyuhunter 16:16 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I remember seeing clear proof from Kant's writing themselves that he was referring to issues that were first raised by Spinoza. When I locate those references I will include Kant again. Of course, my memory may always be wrong. Thank you, warshy(¥¥)18:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Probably antinomies of pure reason in the Critique of pure reason. Kant tries to show pure reason bumps into antinomies if it speculates on the world as being determined or undetermined. Still in the end, I prefer Spinoza. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SenseiSam (talk • contribs) 22:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Relationships with his sister or half-sister Rebecca
Material on his sister or half-sister Rebecca, which is spelled on the article as Rebekah, and sourced to Roger Scruton's book, is not confirmed by Nadler. Nadler does not make any mention of the court case between Baruch and Rebecca about the inheritance of their father Miguel (Michael), and I cannot see p. 21 of Scruton's book on the Google books sample I get, to which the reference for the material points. If someone has access to the content of page 21 in Scruton's book, I'd request they post a copy of the paragraph here, so we can make the language in the article adhere precisely to the source (the whole sentence is still a little awkward stylistically), and also add a note that the material is not confirmed by Nadler. Thanks, warshy(¥¥)17:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Dutch or Portuguese?
Listen, I've been watching everybody go back and forth and it's clear that 89.205.133.87 is in the minority when it comes to this issue. That being said, the source linked does describe Spinoza as being Dutch, and there is precedent in the short descriptions of other philosophers that their nationality be listed. Please use this as a spot for discussion on these two issues:
Is Spinoza Portuguese, Dutch, or both?
Does Spinoza's nationality belong in the short description?
- nationality does not belong in the short description as there is nothing particularly Dutch about his philosophy - I would advocate removing nationality from the short descriptions of other philosophers as well - Epinoia (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Anyone who knows anything about Spinoza can call him many thins, but the least likely adjective he or she would use is "Dutch." He spoke some Dutch, but that was not his spoken or his written language. Neither Nadler, nor Popkin, nor Scruton, which are the main modern sources for his biography call him "Dutch." (I don't know what source is being referred to above as saying he was Dutch. The discussion here is caused not by any serious content in the article itself, but by the "short description" and by a line in the Infobox. The "short description" itself was added to the article only recently, and the undue new line in the Infobox is being introduced by this IP, who is clearly trying to impose a modern "national" character to a subject for whom nationalism did not even exist in a post-19th century sense of the concept. warshy(¥¥)02:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Nationality should not be included in the short description. His family was of Portuguese origin, but would not have been welcome back in Portugal. Of course, the controversies over the nationality of Spinoza are as nothing compared to the controversies over Copernicus... -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
To address a few points:
1. @Warshy, I wonder, have you even read the authors you’re referring to? The source at the end of the sentence - that calls him a ‘Dutch Jewish philosopher’ written by Anthony Gottlieb, a historian of philosophy - is referring to the book by Nadler. Nadler himself is referring to Spinoza as being Dutch (and Jewish) throughout his works, e.g. already in the preface (!) of his biography when he calls him a Dutch intellectual. Also Popkin, how on earth can you say he didn’t call him a Dutch philosopher when he literally writes he’s a ‘Dutch Jewish philosopher’ in his biography of Spinoza in the Britannica? I can mention almost every author that has something to do with Spinoza who’s referring to him as Dutch, but another good example might be his main translator in English Edwin Curley, who refers to Spinoza as the ‘17th century Dutch philosopher’.
2. @Epinoia, to say there’s nothing particularly Dutch about Spinoza is really saying in other words that you don’t know anything about this subject. Apart from the fact that he was born and died in The Netherlands, his entire schooling was largely done in Dutch institutions and by Dutch scholars and scientists; his entire work is subject to the influence of Dutch Cartesianism (read e.g. ‘Spinoza and Dutch Cartesianism); and more importantly, Jonathan Israel showed in ‘Radical Enlightenment’ that Spinoza was part of a whole circle of rather extreme thinkers that were active in 17th century The Netherlands (most notably Adriaan Koerbagh).
3. This brings me to the third point, ‘Dutch’ refers here not exclusively to the nationality, but more to the cultural climate in which someone is brought up. That’s why it’s relevant. If you disagree with that fine, but then also change Descartes or Locke from being respectively a French and English philosopher.
4. Last but not least: I have to say that I’m extremely annoyed over the fact that people with almost or no knowledge whatsoever can dictate the process. Wasn’t it a rule that you should supply sources before anything can be published here? I mean, stuff like Spinoza is Portuguese, or there wasn’t a Dutch nationality in the 17th century, or there’s nothing Dutch about him... Not only the ignorance is stunning, but where are your sources? Where’s the evidence? This is simply own research, and to be more specific: own research about matters they know barely anything about. 89.205.133.155 (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Let us begin point by point. I have no idea who Anthony Gottlieb is, but it does not matter, since the reference is to Steven Nadler. A reference to Steven Nadler should be taken directly from his book, not from some review of his book by somebody else. I have Nadler's book in my hands. The only mention in Nadler's entire book about Spinoza's "Dutchness" is in the Preface, page XI, where he says that Spinoza was, among other things:
Metaphysical and moral philosopher, political and religious thinker, biblical exegete, social critic, grinder of lenses, failed merchant, Dutch intellectual, Jewish heretic.
From such a generic attempt at an initial appraisal of such a difficult and complex personality as Spinoza's, made of several different clauses, one will then try to use one of the clauses, completely out of context, as a source for the categorical and rather anachronistic s statement that Spinoza's "nationality" (a concept that did not exist in the 17th century) is Dutch? No. Anybody that has read any parts of Nadler's book will tell you that Nadler does not think that Spinoza was "Dutch" by any means. So this source for the statement is out.
I also happen to have Popkin's book in my hands. Nowhere in it does Popkin call Spinoza "Dutch" by his "nationality" either. For a 17th century philosopher that was born from Portuguese Jewish parents in Amsterdam, parents who had both just arrived in Amsterdam a few years before Spinoza was born, and parents who never even learned to speak the Dutch language themselves, to be now called of the "Dutch nationality" is a quite specious and anachronistic statement. No reliable sources would make such a preposterous and ignorant statement. warshy(¥¥)23:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@Warshy, you evidently have problems reading as I literally already gave the quote you are presenting us with. So we can conclude: Nadler apparently sees Spinoza as ‘Dutch’. Same goes for Popkin, who refers to him as a ‘Dutch Jewish philosopher’. That many authors do not refer to him regularly as such is logical, it’s obvious and also not necessary (when I’m writing an essay on any philosopher I’m never bothered with stating it, let alone multiple times). This last point is also the reason why I’m so baffled by this discussion: that it’s necessary to have a discussion on such an obvious matter.
What your opinion on this matter is, is not of relevance, but evidently this doesn’t withhold you from having an opinion about it, since you’re constantly engaged in own research.
Which brings me to the second point: the claim that there was no nationality in the 17th century. Again: this is simply not true. But apart from that, ‘Dutch’ here does not refer to nationality exclusively. I would say that it refers more to the kind of cultural background Spinoza grew up in. This is also the reason why (I would say) Dante Alighieri or Leonardo da Vinci are referred to as Italians, even though Italy as a nation did not exist until the late 19th century (in contrast to The Netherlands). For Spinoza that background - as I showed above with examples - was Dutch Jewish. Like Nadler, Popkin and many others are stating as well. Perhaps it’s an idea to a acknowledge the authority of authors besides yourself. E.g. Anthony Gottlieb, the main source for that particular sentence, who you don’t seem to know, wrote an entire book on the history of modern philosophy. 89.205.133.155 (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
To make a long, difficult, and deep discussion more simple, and to save us some time and anguish, let me state that there is consensus here that Spinoza's "nationality," which is still a point of contention, should not be mentioned in the short description. The short description of the page should be "17th century philosopher" as it is now, and this should not be changed further.
The second point of contention was regarding the "nationality" line in the Infobox. The Infobox for a long time had no "nationality" line. Instead, it has a "Residence: The Netherlands" line, which it still does, but it somehow does not show up. In Spinoza's case, for all the reasons already explained by the most reliable sources about his biography, which are Steven Nadler and Richard Popkin (and not Roger Scruton), the "nationality" line should not be there. Spinoza's case is much too complex to simply assign to it in an Infobox a simplistic and inaccurate tag of "Nationality: Dutch."
Now, the opening sentence of the lede of the page currently says that Spinoza "was a Dutch philosopher of Portuguese Sephardi origin." Gottlieb's review of Nadler's book, which is apparently being used as the main source for this new round of this cyclical discussion says "Dutch Jewish thinker of the 17th century". Up until 2019 the opening sentence used to say "Jewish-Dutch philosopher of Portuguese Sepharadi origin." My suggestion is now to change it to: "was a Dutch-Portuguese philosopher of Marrano origin." As the source for this, in addition to Nadler's book, Yirmiyahu Yovel's book should be also added:
Yovel, Yirmiahu, Spinoza and Other Heretics: The Marrano of Reason, Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 1989.
This would be in my view a good compromise for ending this round of discussion on "short characterizations" of the much too complex character of the philosopher Benedictus de Spinoza. Thank you, warshy(¥¥)18:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
This is getting weirder and weirder. A Dutch/Portuguese philosopher? You must be joking. Give me one source that uses this terminology. And then the addition of ‘Marrano’ origin is in my opinion equally absurd. Also, in what way is it contentious to say Spinoza is a Dutch philosopher when all the authors you just mentioned refer to him as such. Just because you don’t seem to understand it doesn’t mean it’s contentious.
Also, it’s very easy to say of all of sudden that there is consensus (which clearly isn’t the case) when all the authors that you previously used to support your views, wrote exactly the opposite of what you’re claiming.
E.g. you again used Nadler as a source for your suggestion, but how many times do I have to say that Nadler refers to him as ‘Dutch’ throughout his oeuvre. Another example of this is his entry on Spinoza in the Encyclopedia of the Modern World: ‘Spinoza, Baruch (Benedictus de Spinoza; 1632-1677), Dutch philosopher.’
Thirdly, you’re still talking about the nationality matter without really telling us where on earth you’re basing yourself upon, when you’re saying that there was no nationality in the 17th century.
Last but not least, in my opinion there should be uniformity between the articles. If the article on Descartes says he’s a French philosopher, then Spinoza is a Dutch philosopher. And no, your compromise is so utterly ridiculous in my view, and so out of touch with common knowledge, that it’s impossible to accept it. I think it’s time that you should adhere to the scientific consensus instead of your own views! 89.205.128.99 (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Nadler uses the word "Dutch" for Spinoza exactly one time, as already shown and explained above. Richard Popkin does not use it even once to describe Spinoza. Those are the two main reliable sources for biographical information in this article. I gave the precise reliable source for the use of the term "Marrano." The second chapter of Yovel's book, which is in the Bibliography of both Nadler and Popkin, is called "Spinoza, the Marrano of Reason" (pp. 15-39). Go read chapters 2 and 3 (The Split Mind: The Split Mind: New Jews in Amsterdam) to educate yourself a bit on Spinoza's real background. My conclusions above are thus all reliably sourced. To refer to them a "weird," "joke," and then to argue that I don't read the sources when it is clear that that is precisely what you refuse to do is already bordering on the ridiculous. I am done discussing the matter with you. I will wait for other, better informed and more intelligent WP editors to weigh in, and I will start implementing the consensus. warshy(¥¥)20:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
P.S.- To compare Descartes vis-a-vis French culture (which is the correct operative term for 17th century, instead of the anachronistic term "nationality") to Spinoza the Marrano/Jewish young immigrant to Amsterdam vis-a-vis Dutch culture just highligts you ignorance of all the deep and complex issues involved here. warshy(¥¥)20:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@Warshy, why do keep lying or simply ignoring what I said? Both Nadler and Popkin refer to Spinoza as ‘Dutch’, and apparently they do so when they feel it’s necessary to mention it. Nadler is doing that not only in his biography, already in the preface (logically), but also in the Encyclopedia of the Modern World: ‘Spinoza, Baruch (Benedictus de Spinoza; 1632-1677), Dutch philosopher.’ Popkin wrote a similar encyclopedic entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica, referring to him as ‘Dutch Jewish’ right at the start of his article. These are the authors you mentioned yourself, and now because the result doesn’t match your opinion, you’re going to ignore them? Why do you keep telling lies about this?
Last but not least, I fail to see the ‘deep’ and ‘complex’ issues here. But that could be my lack of intelligence. To repeat however, Spinoza is Dutch qua nationality, but more in terms of the cultural environment he grew up in and was subject to (as I’ve shown above). The same goes for his Jewish background. This is the reason why nearly every scholar refers to him as ‘Dutch’ or ‘Dutch Jewish’. And I think it’s time for you to realize that, instead of fabricating your own narrative. But perhaps more intelligent writers can make that clear to you. 89.205.128.99 (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- it doesn't look like consensus will be reached - WP:NOCONSENSUS says, "lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit" - if anyone wants to take it further I suggest following the guidelines in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - Epinoia (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but the bold edit was his, and it will have to go back to the version before his bold edit. And he cannot impunely just accuse me of "lying" here, when I am quoting directly from Nadler's book. He never quoted directly from Nadler's book, which he has never read anyhow. I am not referring to some other Encyclopedia entry either of the authors, Nadler or Popkin, may have written elsewhere. And this would have to be verified anyhow, which he is far from doing. I, on the other hand, am referring to their extensive books on the subject, which make absolutely clear all the complex issues regarding one term definitions of the character or person, which I keep referring to. Thank you, warshy(¥¥)00:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- the current short description does not include the nationality: {{short description|17th-century philosopher}} - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The edits I made in the first place were against an anonymous person who changed it on the 22nd of april, without discussing this matter and without adhering to the scientific consensus. If you want to revert anything then that date should be used.
In my opinion matters like this should always be based upon the opinion of experts. As I’ve shown above, they mostly mention him as either ‘Dutch’ or ‘Dutch Jewish’. Since Popkin called him ‘Dutch Jewish’ and since the source at the end of the sentence refers to him as ‘Dutch Jewish’ as well, I would suggest Spinoza is ‘a Dutch Jewish philosopher’ to be placed in the lead.
With regard to the nationality: someone who was born and died in a certain country simply has that nationality, whether you agree with that or not, or whether someone sees him as such or not, it’s all irrelevant. And yes, of course there was a nationality in the 17th century in The Netherlands, in the same way as there was one in France or England. And if we look at the articles of Descartes and Locke we see that’s it’s mentioned there without any problem. So does uniformity no longer matter? 89.205.128.99 (talk) 11:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Neither Descartes nor Locke were newly arrived immigrants in the countries specified for them. But beyond newly arrived immigrants (Portuguese in the case of Spinoza),neither of them belonged to the Jewish religious minority, whose status as such (Jews) was not yet altogether defined neither in France of England, nor in the Netherlands at the time. Jews were accepted as a matter of fact at the time in the cosmopolitan city of Amsterdam, but their legal status was not altogether clear and defined. The general population mostly referred to these newly arrived Marranos as Portuguese, not as Jews. The Calvinist Reformed Church in the United Provinces was sentencing alleged atheists to death, and there was a present threat on Spinoza's life since the time he was excommunicated from the Jewish community and until his death at the young age of 44. The case of Koerbagh is just another confirmation of this fact. To compare the social and religious status of Descartes or Locke to that of Spinoza is just a reflection of the sheer superficiality of 21st century Wikipedia edit warring concerning "nationalities" in the 17th century. Enough of this. I am out. warshy(¥¥)16:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
You’re so obsessed with the origins of his family that you seem to forget the fact that Spinoza wasn’t an immigrant at all; he was born in the Netherlands and died there as well. Not quite the definition of an immigrant.
Once again you’re making statements without supplying sources. E.g. you’re stating that the status of Jews wasn’t defined in The Netherlands. Now this is simply not true as it is common knowledge that there was a ‘jew-regulation’ in the Netherlands at the time, which meant that jews were accepted as long as they behaved and didn’t marry Christians or converted them. Johan van Oldenbarnevelt was an important proponent of this policy.
Second example (though not relevant to this discussion) your statement that the Calvinist Reformed Church was sentencing alleged atheists to death. This is of course complete nonsense, the Church wasn’t in the position to sentence anyone, and apart from that, Koerbagh of course wasn’t sentenced to death, but sentenced to forced labour. I even doubt if atheism could have resulted in a death sentence at all, but since you never supply sources and since you don’t bother to read them properly (and since you’re ‘out’) we have to remain unknowing about this.
In conclusion, there’s no reason to assume that the status - namely the fact that they were a subject of a certain state - of Spinoza’s nationality was qua essence any different than that of Descartes or Locke. In fact, I would even dare say that Spinoza is more Dutch than Descartes or Locke are French and English, since Spinoza wrote all of his work in his own country, whereas Locke and Descartes both wrote their major works in The Netherlands. 89.205.128.137 (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Nice. Since you apparently seem to think you know so much about the history of the Netherlands in the 17th century and even about Spinoza's own circumstances, maybe you can tell me what languages Spinoza knew, to what level or degree he knew and used these languages, and what languages Spinoza used to communicate with others in speaking and in writing? Thank you, warshy(¥¥)19:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I prefer to base myself upon the works of researchers and their field of expertise. Apart from that, I know the history of my own country of course, in that light a mistake in that field is perhaps more notable for me than it is for you. However this doesn’t mean that you can’t know this, as long as you read the works on Spinoza carefully. Now with regard to that, it’s such an obvious matter to me that he was ‘Dutch’ and that he was part of an entire circle of very radical thinkers that were active in The Netherlands, that I’m surprised that anyone can argue the opposite. On top of that, there were a great deal of different people living in The Netherlands at that time. Very similar (I suppose) to the United States. I don’t know everything about Spinoza, and I’m not claiming I do, again: I simply base myself upon the writings of authorities in that field.
Now to answer your question, I know Spinoza spoke Portuguese, Dutch and if I remember correctly also French. I know he couldn’t speak English and of course he could read and write Latin (perhaps he learned that in the Latin School in Amsterdam, since I know there is agreement that he went there). My question however is, what does this tell us about the matter we are discussing? In my opinion this doesn’t say anything about his nationality. Or is Martin van Buren a Dutch president because he spoke Dutch? 89.205.128.137 (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Have you read Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicus? I have read it, but alas only in English as the "A Theologico-Political Treatise" (the Elwes translation). If you read it you'd know that Spinoza was among other things a 17th century Hebraist, one of those people that knew and taught the Christian professors and clergy of the time how to read and understand the language of the Hebrew Scriptures. We don't know much about the man Spinoza, other than from his writings, mostly in Latin. I don't believe he himself wrote any of his intellectual works in Dutch/Nederlands, and no historian really knows how good was his command of spoken or written Nederlands. His published correspondence is also all in just Latin, nothing in any other language that I know of. From his Latin writings it appears that Spinoza was a pretty smart guy, nay most probably a genius. If he knew any Nederlands at all, it does not stand to reason that he did not know any English at all, as many seem to affirm. His most frequent correspondent was Henry Oldenburg, the Secretary of the Royal Society in London at the time. Oldenburg lived in London, but he was really more German in language and culture than English. Their friendship and extensive correspondence started from a day they spent together when Spinoza lived among the Collegiants in Rijnsburg, between 1661 and 1663. On that day they spent together, apparently, what language did they actually speak? Did they really speak only in Latin to each other? No historian I know of addresses this question directly. As Oldenburg, who was almost 15 years Spinoza's senior, knew German, English, French, and Latin, I believe he may have had some understanding of Nederlands too. Maybe a mix of Latin, Nederlands, and English did the job on that occasion? No one really knows. What appears certain is that Spinoza's mother tongue was Portuguese, and that as a kid he learned Hebrew in the Amsterdam Portuguese community's school. There is serious academic debate as to the level of Spinoza's Latin prose as literature. History is no science. Thank you, be well. warshy(¥¥)22:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Spinoza definitely could write Dutch very well as he used it in his correspondences with fellow intellectuals (especially with Willem van Blijenbergh). It is known that he could speak it, though to what extent is to my knowledge not known. Since Portuguese was his native language, it’s quite possible that he never spoke that language after he got expelled from his community and from that point on used Dutch as his first language. He could also speak German, so he possibly spoke that language when talking to Oldenburg. Although Oldenburg also definitely spoke Dutch, so perhaps they were talking in that language.
With regard to writing Dutch, apart from his letters, he wrote his works in Latin, the lingua franca of Europe at the time. But also of course considering the controversial nature of his works, it would’ve been quite foolish for him to write it in Dutch (as Koerbagh did); if I remember correctly he asked one of his correspondences to not translate a certain work in Dutch exactly for that reason. The tolerance in the Dutch republic was certainly not unlimited.
I can recommend to you the two volumes of the translations Curley made, as they include all the letters as well. Spinoza was sometimes very funny, and also indeed a genius. I saw on your page that you live in Michigan; I know Curley was affiliated with the university of Michigan, perhaps he still gives lectures there? Kind regards! 89.205.128.137 (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Now again some idiot, who goes by the name of ‘Grandthinker‘, changed everything without discussing & without supplying sources. When is this going to end? Every random guy without the slightest idea of what he’s talking about can edit this page! Same goes for this guy with ip 143... unbelievable this. 89.205.129.220 (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I’m really fed up with these edits, it’s more than ridiculous. On Wikipedia it’s supposed to be a rule that you supply sources before editing, but no one seems to do that here. All the authors that were mentioned above refer to Spinoza as a ‘Dutch philosopher’, which is common knowledge for Christ sake, but for some reason people keep removing that. What the hell is going on here? I think it’s time that admins should monitor this page, because it’s deteriorating more and more. We now have a situation where a sentence is supported by a source that clearly backs its content, but people, such as that guy with ip 143, keep changing the sentence without even removing its source! It’s ridiculous. 89.205.129.220 (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Then how would you describe this behavior? People are constantly writing nonsense on that page without providing sources, without even looking at the sources! I wish you were so quick to paying attention to the kind of nonsense that is written on that article instead of lecturing me! 89.205.129.220 (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Dear all the user 89.205.129.220 was righteously blocked from Wikipedia, as everyone he knows, his editions were disrespectful with all of us have being saying for days know. Spinoza was clearly not a Dutch, he was a Portuguese Jewish who happened to be brought up in Holland, as many did given the Portuguese persecution at that time. I remember, in the most important biography of Spinoza, Nadler remind us that a letter where Spinoza "apologies" for his "low level of Dutch" and explain that was not his native language (Portuguese were). Nadler also recalls the fact that when Spinoza was born, the children of immigrants were not considered Dutch, something quite similar these days to what happens in Countries like the U.K. and Russia. Just when Spinoza was over 20 that Dutch republic start recognising as a national those born in Holland, till there Spinoza was just a Jewish Portuguese living in Netherlands, that is the reason for nome of the most important specialists in Spinoza call him Dutch.
That has been said, I am going to edit the article for a version near to the consensus we have here. And do ask for every pay attention to the article, if 89.205.129.220 or any other user come to change this topic again without trying to change the consensus we achieved, please denounce them. As everyone knows, you just can change the article with a new consensus. Please don't left time to denounce users like 89.205.129.220 who does't respect the consensus of a majority, they will certainly be blocked such as 89.205.129.220 user was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.107.150.86 (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
To begin with, I don’t see any consensus here, so what are you talking about?
Secondly, it’s common practice on Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia for that matter) to cite sources. You and mister ‘Grandthinker’ have not done so every time you’ve edited the article. With the exception of course of semi-citing Steven Nadler just now, which is probably the worst idea to do, because Nadler on numerous occasions refers to him as a Dutch philosopher. I’ve mentioned and quoted this several times above; which alone shows that you haven’t bothered following the discussion at all. But to do it again for the record: Nadler e.g. already in the preface of his biography refers to Spinoza as a ‘Dutch intellectual’ (Warshy already gave the full quote above), another example in the Encyclopedia of the Modern World, Nadler writes: ‘Spinoza, Baruch (Benedictus de Spinoza; 1632-1677), Dutch philosopher.’ Popkin (another authority on Spinoza) does exactly the same, and many other scholars likewise (I already gave the example of Curley). So seriously, what on earth are you talking about?
Then a last remark on the persistent (ridiculous) assumption that Spinoza is an immigrant or Portuguese. I’ve already shown above that Spinoza’s upbringing was largely done in Dutch institutions, but not only that: his philosophy simply can’t be viewed independently from the Dutch culture, its intellectual climate and the developments in the Dutch republic in the 17th century. Frankly, I don’t understand how you could make a claim like that if you had the slightest understanding of what his philosophy is dealing with. Not to mention the fact that he was born and died in The Netherlands. Perhaps this is why every authority refers to Spinoza as Dutch and not as Portuguese? 89.205.134.186 (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Spinoza: Letter in Dutch to Willem Blijenbergh, see transcription in the metadata.
Dear all, here is a letter by Spinoza in Dutch, to Willem Blijenbergh. For all practical purposes, Spinoza was Dutch: he was born in Amsterdam, used the Amsterdam courts, went to the school van Embden, had Dutch friends, sold lenses to Dutch scientists, praised Dutch politics in his Tractatus, wrote texts in Dutch. (You might call him Portuguese-Dutch, also ok.) Cheers, Hansmuller (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Why Baruch and not Benedictus as Spinoza himself would have preferred?
Why Benedictus de Spinoza is called Baruch Spinoza on Wikimedia? Certainly Spinoza would have disapproved. He signed his correspondence and his books as Benedictus. Baruch was his name as a Jewish boy in Amsterdam, not as the international philosopher he aspired to be and indeed became in his own lifetime. So Benedictus is his name. OK?
According to the tradition in the Netherlands in the literature and on public monuments in Amsterdam and elsewhere, Spinoza (1632-1677) is historically and recently always called "Benedictus de Spinoza", never "Baruch". His acronym "BdS" is always explained as "Benedictus de Spinoza", not as "Baruch". "Baruch" is only used in the source of Spinoza's Portugese language ban (1656) from his Amsterdam synagogue, but nowhere else. Spinoza wanted to be a modern philosopher and he wrote and published in Latin, so he latinized his name as everybody did. So why Baruch, his name as a child, compare say "Billy Shakespeare"? Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
PS Correction: True, Benedictus was also registered as Baruch Espinosa at his elementary school Ets Haim in Amsterdam. The entry was erased. Baruch Espinosa erased from pupil list, Ets Haim school, Amsterdam, 17th centuryHansmuller (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Requested move 5 July 2020
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Baruch Spinoza → Benedictus de Spinoza – Cannot move this page, because of existing redirect (?) Spinozas only works (Principia.. and Beginzelen..) published in his lifetime state "Benedictus de Spinoza" as the author (File:Principia philosophiae cartesianae.jpg and File:Title page. Renatus Des Cartes - Beginzelen der wysbegeerte, 1664.jpg). In his adult life he was internationally known as "Benedictus de Spinoza" (as he wanted it), as is the case in philosophy handbooks today. We should respect the name he chose for himself as an author, although indeed he was born as Baruch Espinosa (not Baruch Spinoza by the way). On monuments in Amsterdam and elsewhere in the Netherlands Spinoza is referred to as "Benedictus de Spinoza" or simply as "Spinoza", but never as "Baruch". I can supply a more extensive motivation if desired and have tried to start a discussion here, but there seems to be no interest. The Dutch wikipedia, let's say Spinozas natural habitat, has already chosen for the Wikipedia article name w:nl:Benedictus de Spinoza instead of Baruch Spinoza. Thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC) OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Page mover's note: I originally moved the page to Benedictus de Spinoza as requested, per this RMTR request by Hansmuller. That move has since been reversed by DrKay. I'm submitting this RM for the community to determine the consensus on what this article's title should be. OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per DrKay. I don't believe I've ever personally read the "Benedictus" version in English, and ngrams seems to confirm that Baruch is the form used. SnowFire (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Neither. By an extremely large margin (ngrams says more than a factor of 50) this person is known as "Spinoza" without a first name. No other notable person is thus known. So I propose that the article be called just "Spinoza" with the other two as redirects. Zerotalk08:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Benedict or Benedictus @OhKayeSierra @DrKay @SnowFire @Zero0000 @Warshy Wikidata also calls him "Benedictus" (I did not change that, "Benedict" is fine with me as a compromise, although slightly wrong of course). I put references on the article for Benedict(us), his usual name in Encyclopedia Britannica. Ngram probably reflects the power of Wikipedia itself of promoting "Baruch", like a self-fulfilling prophesy, citogenesis like in other cases I could cite. Besides, there is the historical truth we should pursue at Wikipedia. Spinoza never called himself "Baruch", philosophical literature for ages calls him Benedictus (Anglo-Saxons change his name to Benedict). While he respected and cited Jewish thinkers, he did no view himself as a Jewish thinker himself. Identity politics, which could motivate some to call him Baruch, are foreign to Spinoza's philosophy of the independence and freedom of the individual. To my knowledge in documents he is called Baruch only twice, the elementary school registration of Ets Haim, and the ban from the Amsterdam synagogue.
Please respect a Dutch Jewish philosopher and call him by the name he chose.
Wikipedia should serve "educational purposes" according to the by-laws of the Wikimedia Foundation.
We should not mislead people and perpetuate a misunderstanding but instead should teach that in truth Benedict(us) was Spinoza's name, right? Encyclopedia Brittanica concurs. Thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Correction: apologies, i should have looked at the ngram itself: ngram 1700-2018 makes Baruch the winner, but of course Benedict and Benedictus are also used. In continental Europe at least and in philosophy handbooks, Benedict(us) is the standard name. Jonathan Israel calls him "Benedict de (Baruch) Spinoza" in his heavy tomes. Hansmuller (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Per DrKay's Ngrams which you notice yourself, "Baruch" beats out "Benedictus" at a rate of over 15:1 in Google Books. The claim that "Benedictus" is the standard name does not hold up to scrutiny (and if by "continental Europe" you mean "in non-English languages", it's not relevant). Nobody is questioning that he signed his works in the era as "Benedictus", you don't need to add a picture of his signature to the Infobox or anything, but he was still referred to in later English-language works as "Baruch Spinoza" (or, per Zero, just plain "Spinoza"). It's certainly nonsense to claim this is citogenesis, where Wikipedia makes up a fact: he's been referred to as "Baruch" prominently for far longer than Wikipedia has existed. Now, if you have actual evidence of a strong, unforced WP:ABOUTSELF claim where Spinoza renounced "Baruch" rather than merely be known as Benedict, maybe you could argue it'd be a convert-to-Islam Muhammad Ali situation... but... I don't believe that's the case here, where Spinoza had some sort of conversion-to-Latin experience. Per the article, he was essentially a secular Jew; it's not like he disowned Baruch, but merely used Benedict with philosophical circles later in his life. Even in the Netherlands, Spinoza may well have not wanted to flaunt a Portuguese or Hebrew name. In an unclear case we should fall back on WP:COMMONNAME. SnowFire (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@Snowfire Dear Snowfire,
I corrected my argument above.
We don't need an explicit renouncement by Spinoza of Baruch, he simply published and wrote letters as Benedictus. There was no point in renouncing a name he did not use. The argument is put on its head.
Can you give academic references for calling Spinoza "Baruch Spinoza" as an author and philosopher? Is there any academic (work) to back you up on Baruch? It is clear from all recent and older books on philosophy that Spinoza as an author and philosopher should be referred to as Benedict(us)[1][2]. Many books by Jonathan Israel...
Spinoza never signed as "Baruch" but as Benedictus, it's shown in the infobox. Theree is only a full name Benedictus signature...
What is the academic status of Google Ngram, the only argument for Baruch? It is important that Wikipedia should use peer-reviewed academic sources, is Ngram validated?
in the racist 1930's Spinoza was sometimes called Baruch in Dutch newspapers, but that is old hat. Wikipedia here should follow the Dutch Wikipedia, where it was discussed before.
It is OK with me to call him simply Spinoza, but if we need a first name....
"Baruch Spinoza" makes no sense historically, then it should be Baruch Espinosa (his elementary school/his synagogue ban)
Please protect his signature on the article, and the above references to Brittanica and Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which were removed.
Hansmuller: Thanks for your reply. Yes, Baruch : Benedict is about 2:1. So... that's kind of the end of the debate on a historical figure this old, barring a usage shift in recent sources. That's really all there is to it. Everything else you bring up is not responsive to Wikipedia naming policy, such as whether the name "makes sense historically" or whether it's used in Dutch Wikipedia or the like. Wikipedia goes with the (English) sources, no matter how "incorrect" they are, barring a few special situations. If sources called him "Zucchini Spinoza" at a rate of 2:1 then Wikipedia would too, no matter how incorrect. Additionally, Britannica is not a particularly impressive source - it's just a tertiary source, which is low on the list. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources and routinely ignores what Britannica has done.
For academic sources, you can search Google Scholar: example. It seems both "Baruch" and "Benedict" are used, although per Zero, academic sources seem to just use "Spinoza" unadorned most frequently.
I'm the wrong person to talk to about signatures. I think that infobox field should be deprecated everywhere across Wikipedia, and this conversation shows why - it's a WP:OR magnet aside from being trivial. His signature (and 99.99% of signatures, the likes of John Hancock excepted) just doesn't matter, sorry. If you want to argue it DOES matter, then you need secondary sources which discuss the signature and why they think it's relevant to talk about, not primary images of a signature (WP:SECONDARY). Your opinion that it's important and my opinion that it isn't are irrelevant, it's sources that count. That said, this is a larger issue than just this article so I'm happy to let it go for the moment. SnowFire (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@Snowfire: Thanks for your reply.
Your comparison with the Muhammad Ali situation would run for Spinoza as follows: he only was a boxer under the name of Muhammad Ali (Benedictus), he never boxed as Cassius Clay (Baruch). Spinoza never signed Baruch on any work or letter. This article is of course predominantly about Spinoza the author (Benedictus) and not about the school boy or the banned youth (Baruch).
The mention that Benedictus is referred to simply as Spinoza is true, but irrelevant because we discuss his first name...
The Brittanica is not valuable as a reference? Not better than that Collins dictionary, see below?
? Can you give me authorative references for Baruch? The Collins dictionary used now at the top of the article as a lonely proponent of "Baruch" has to yield to the 5 references I gave for Benedict, you surely agree. You should give an academic argument for changing the filename back. Have you done some work on philosophy articles anyway?
What counts is the scholarly use in recent authorative works like Jonathan Israels widely sold but also accurate books, you agree?
What is the academic status of Ngram?
Your use of Google Scholar is indiscrimate and inconclusive (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=%22Baruch+Spinoza%22&btnG=): the results are NOT the top notch standard books used for say, a university philosophy course. You might search for Benedict Spinoza etc. as well. Google Scholar does not pretend to signal the best works etcetera.
We should not vandalise signatures anyway, there was a signature of less quality before.
Difference filename and article first line: On Wikipedia, the title of an articles does NOT per se have to be closely corresponding to (or even identical with) the first description in the text. So an article "Baruch Spinoza" could start with the statement "Benedict Spinoza....first called Baruch...". So while not moving the page to Benedict we could still with the normal Wikipedia peer review propose this type of first line. It is an independent matter, which is up for the normal scrutiny by the editing community here.
@DrKay Procedural: DrKay changed the title back from Benedictus to Baruch, only because (s)he had the power to do so, while the change was not contested or controversional: on the Talk page nobody was interested for a month either way... You and DrKay are the only champions of "Baruch" and there is the rule Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
@OhKayeSierra @DrKay @Zero0000 @Warshy Mission and conclusion: The mission of Wikimedia is educational according to its bylaws, so we should use the best knowledge available. Wikipedia is not a Google plebiscite by Ngram, although popular use can be an important factor to consider. There are no academic arguments for "Baruch" but there are many for "Benedict". That should logically result in "Benedict" for the philosopher and author, all academics would agree.
Hansmuller: I think we're going in circles here. I'll just say that your change is contested (especially to "Benedictus" which, as already noted, is overwhelmed 15:1 in ngram!). You're free to disagree with DrKay & my stance, but please don't claim we aren't opposing you and so the issue is uncontroversial. The Google Scholar link I gave above shows plenty of academic sources using "Baruch", I'm not sure why you are so set in not accepting that they exist or demanding I provide some source that's up to your satisfaction. Finally, while I hesitate to bring it up, but if we were going to litigate this on grounds of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS / WP:ABOUTSELF, then there would be if anything a stronger argument for honoring Spinoza's Hebrew name Baruch, since there's a good argument he corresponded with a Latin name only due to societal pressure of an anti-Semitic era. (But I don't want to get side-tracked on that, common name in English is my actual argument.) SnowFire (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Strongly oppose this idea. Are we going to move Leibniz and Descartes too? Obama? Yzerman? Einstein? Jurišić Šturm? In any case, I deny that Spinoza is his common name. The most obscure individuals are most commonly known by one name after being introduced. One does not repeatedly say Pavle Jurišić Šturm. —Srnec (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't know the facts of this case, but I'm sure that "42ft" is the length of a refractive telescope, which can't be compared to the mirror diameter of a reflective telescope. That's why the talk is of grinding lens, not mirrors. Zerotalk05:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
In connection to the previous discussion on the reverted move of the title of this article, from the correct "Benedictus de Spinoza" back to the awkward "Baruch Spinoza":
The only serious arguments for Baruch Spinoza/de Spinoza/Spinosa etcetera are statistical in nature: 1. Google Ngram 2. Google Scholar, websites which both provide statistics of the historical use of words, in books and in scholarly publications. Two questions crop up:
Is the statistical argument valid for an encyclopedia? Can anybody argue this? We need peer-reviewed conclusions and the rationally based best expert opinion. These all point to chosing Benedict(us) over Baruch. The eminent Encyclopedia Brittannica concurs.
Are Google Ngram and Scholar reliable sources anyway? We don't know. Both websites have no academic pretensions it seems and are not peer-reviewed or checked, isn't it? Computers always can produce any numbers, but are those numbers correct? Often not so. Have Google Ngram and Google Scholar been peer-reviewed and thoroughly tested and vetted? We need to know first before we can consider using their results in an encyclopedia.
A further argument was ventured, that Spinoza would have bowed to social pressure by NOT choosing Baruch as his author's name on the only two books published during his lifetime. This seems pure speculation up to now without any base in fact or logic. We need a reliable source for this speculation.
Can anybody please prove "Baruch" academically?
Or please move this article to the proper name "Benedictus de Spinoza" or "Benedict de Spinoza"?
A Spinoza quote to end here for now:
“
"Do what you're good at and be happy" (Bene agere et laetari)
”
— Benedictus de Spinoza, Ethica part 4 proposition 50
There's a bunch of academic references by eminent professors given in the article. You can find multiple academic sources for yourself that call him Baruch; do a web or library search. DrKay (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
^Dutton, Blake D. "Benedict De Spinoza (1632—1677)". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy A peer-review academic resource. Retrieved 7 July 2019.
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.Cite error: The <ref> tag name cannot be a simple integer (see the help page).
Spinoza had three other brethren and come from a family of Marranos.Cite error: The <ref> tag name cannot be a simple integer (see the help page).
The first biographies of Spinoza were published by Jean Maximilien Lucas in 1677 and by John Köhler in 1705.Cite error: The <ref> tag name cannot be a simple integer (see the help page).
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.Cite error: The <ref> tag name cannot be a simple integer (see the help page).
Spinoza studied at the Jewish-Portuguese Synagogue of Amsterdam not solely the Talmud and the Old Testament, but also the Jewish CabbalaCite error: The <ref> tag name cannot be a simple integer (see the help page).;
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)
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)
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?".
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)
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. (Personal attack removed) 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?
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 (Personal attack removed) 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’
- 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)
Man Nadler is clear in the text I mentioned, Jewish were refugees in Amsterdam at that time, they were not citizens, why you are ignoring that fact?? And if a topic is so frequently disputed like you said “every 6 months”, then the smartest thing to do is writing a text as impersonal as possible? What is the problem with the text you are undoing??? It says “Baruch (de) Spinoza (24 November 1632 – 21 February 1677)was a philosopher of Portuguese-Jewishorigin, born in Amsterdam, the Dutch Republic, and mostly known under the Latinizedpen nameBenedictus de Spinoza”. This text is as pragmatic as possible and avoid any discussion on his Nationality. (Personal attack removed) PepGuardi (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Like I said, it has already been discussed previously; to start with, you're simply not correct, he had a citizenship, and secondly 'Dutch' refers to more than just nationality, it also refers to his ethnicity in broader terms. But more importantly, it is completely irrelevant, as the only thing that matters is what the scientific community generally writes; and in that light I think I have made myself more than clear in the comment above. But you have evidently not only problems understanding that you have to provide sources when making statements, you also have to read them. Preferably also the ones I provided above. Awater01 (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I mean do you have any idea that in terms of ethnicity Spinoza has nothing to do with Dutch? All his family are Jews from Portugal, so you arguing that Spinoza had Dutch ethnicity is so terribly wrong, all historians are pretty clear on that matter. Nadler (Spinoza most important biographer) is pretty clear “The Amsterdam Portuguese-Jewish leaders knew (…) about their status in the Netherlands as noncitizens” https://www.neh.gov/article/why-spinoza-was-excommunicated in order to avoid this kind of endless discussion, it is better to keep the stable version (that you single handedly undid), the stable version avoids going to this discussion and states simple facts pragmatically “Spinoza was a philosopher of Portuguese-Jewish origin born in the Dutch Republic”. PepGuardi (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2023 (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)
On page i of the second edition of Steven Nadler's biography, Spinoza, A Life, Cambridge University Press 2018, it reads "SPINOZA / Bento (Benedictus, Baruch) Spinoza (1632-77) was one of the most important philosophers of all time[.]" On p. xi, the first sentence of the Preface to the Second Edition, Nadler writes "It has been almost three hundred and fifty years since the death of the philosopher Bento/Benedictus de Spinoza...". Nadler clearly changed his view on Spinoza’s first name, since in the Preface to the First Edition, republished starting on p. xiii of the second edition, he calls him “Baruch de Spinoza.” In the main text of the second edition, Nadler writes that “In most of the documents and records contemporary with Spinoza’s years within the Jewish community, his name is given as ‘Bento.’ The only exceptions are the membership roll of the Ets Haim educational society, the book of offerings listing contributions to the congregation, and the herem document in which he is excommunicated, all of which refer to him as 'Baruch,' the Hebrew translation of Bento: ‘blessed’." Nadler 2nd ed. 2018, 51. Nadler titles Chapter 3, in which this text appears, as “Bento/Baruch” (pp. 50-7). Chapter 7 is titled “Benedictus.” Perhaps worth nothing is that the Dutch Wikipedia titles the article "Benedictus de Spinoza", <https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedictus_de_Spinoza>. I suggest there is an argument to be made to title this Wiki bio "Benedictus de Spinoza," the name he chose and under which he published, with further explanation of the Bento/Baruch antecedents. Amuseclio (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Amuseclio
Thanks for the work you've been doing here. It still requires a lot of work, of course. I have only the first edition (1999) of the Nadler book and wasn't aware there was a second one. I think, if your correct that he's changing his mind, this is a good move on Nadler's part. And I agree with you that the article name should be changed here too. Spinoza had completely rejected the Jewish religion long before he was excommunicated, and he never identified himself as a Jew (or even a former one) in any way, shape, or form in any of his public writings. (I really think that the name of his English WP page makes him turn on his grave to this day! :)) The problem is that there were already two very long discussions on this issue in the past 10 years or so, and the change was always rejected, mostly on technical grounds (you know, ngrams and that type of stuff, which I don't know much about). I didn't participate directly in any of those discussions, still observing from the side and trying to learn how wikipedia really works. I would support a formal request at this point. Thank you, warshy(¥¥)18:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
An intermediate step would be to quote Nadler on the name variations, as Amuseclio quoted above. Incidentally, in Nadler's 2020 book "Think Least of Death: Spinoza on How to Live and How to Die" he summarises thus: "Bento was Spinoza's given name in the Portugese-Jewish community of Amsterdam. Baruch was the Hebrew name used in the synagogue, and Benedictus is the Latin version of his name that appears in his published writings. All three names mean 'blessed'." (page 203). Personally I think the page title should be just "Spinoza", which is the COMMONNAME by a very large margin. Zerotalk05:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I was also thinking that WP:SINGLENAME might be permissable here given the extreme lack of ambiguity with Spinoza's surname, yet, as has been outlined above, the huge ambiguity over what the appropriate or even accurate first name might be. It's not a totally different case to that of Fibonacci, which is one of the examples in the guideline, for whom there are multiple iterations of the name, but you could easily assert "Leonardo" as the first name, yet it is not due to other complications and WP:COMMONNAME input. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Removed article tag "written as an advertisement" pending discussion
I have removed the article tag by an editor whose sole posting on the article is the tag. If other editors concur with the characterization, I am interested in hearing the arguments. I often find article tags off-putting, coloring my view of an article even before I read it. I'd prefer having a discussion here on the talk page. Amuseclio (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Amuseclio
Spinoza family background
I have added a section on Spinoza's family background. I realize this revives information that was included in the Spinoza article and discussed on thr talk page nearly 20 years ago. Some editors think that the article's emphasis should be on Spinoza's philosophy, i.e., why is he important in that context. I note that there are separate articles on various of Spinoza's published works. Obviously, there should be discussion of the major points of his philosophy in the biographical article. But as a social historian, I am keenly interested in his *biography* and the larger context that shaped his life and thought. The new (Sept 2023) 1,300-page biography by the amazing Jonathan I. Israel has much food for thought about Spinoza's life and work, more than satisfying my curiosity about Spinoza's life. I think there is material there that should be incorporated into his Wiki bio. As with Spinoza, I prefer to avoid acrimonious disputes. "Caute". Please! No edit wars! With best wishes to follow Wiki editors, Amuseclio (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Amuseclio
Seems like you have already read a good chunk of the 1,300 page new book by Israel. I wasn't even aware it was published, before I saw you quoting him, and did not imagine it would be so massive. But knowing Israel and his historiography pretty well, it does not surprise me in the least. I really don't know how a guy can write that much. I saw your new section, and fitting Israel's style it is really full of little details. I don't think it has to include so much little details as Israel works, but it does not bother me. I think it can stay there for the time being, as Israel's new massive tome gets digested by the history students as ourselves. Kudos to you on a lot of work, in the meantime. Be well, warshy(¥¥)20:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
A lot of assertions about Spinoza in this article are taken from the Scrutton 2002 source. I was never able to access the whole little book online, but in my view it should be now completely obsolete in light of the Nadler and Israel biographies. One thing I would to really improve this article (in my view only, of course) is check all the facts that are attributed to the Scrutton source, and if they are not corroborated by more recent material, I would remove them. If they are corroborated, then I would replace the source in the ref with the more recent material. Just a suggestion. Thank you, warshy(¥¥)22:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I haven't read the Nadler book, but the citations here, as well as the book blurb (which I'm about to quote from), make me highly suspicious of it as a reliable source. "At the heart of Spinoza's Heresy is a mystery"... "this only deepens the mystery"... "a number of possible explanations for Spinoza's ban, Nadler turns to the variety of traditions in Jewish religious thought". That immediately sounds like a.) highly speculative theory. b.) a preoccupation with concepts that should be irrelevant to this page (except in so far as Spinoza might be cited as explicitly addressing such traditions). 2601:249:8280:65E0:FA65:C583:E88:7B76 (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
This is easy enough to do, although a bit tedious. But then a lot of the work of an historian is tedious, lol. I've just ordered the book and will start in on the task when it arrives. When I was teaching, I sometimes read some of these "very short" Oxford volumes. But they are just a starting point. I'd like Wikipedia to do better than that for Benedictus.Amuseclio (talk) 04:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Amuseclio
I agree that the section on Spinoza's philosophy needs significant expansion. I have started working on the subsection on the TTP, which I added as a topic in this biographical article. The TTP, TP, and Ethics all have separate articles and should be where his philosophy is explicated. I am already adding text to the separate article on the TTP, with historical background. Before there was a solely a link the Dutch Golden Age. That was not particularly helpful to readers who were looking for targeted historical context. I encourage other editors to contribute. Amuseclio (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Amuseclio
Further reading section needs culling
The large number of entries is unwieldy and mixes high importance items with ones of seemingly marginal importance. Earlier I put a link to the list of works about Spinoza at the head of this section. Many of the items in the Further reading section should be moved there in my view, and I encourage other editors to help with doing this. At the moment there are higher priority tasks to improve the article. Amuseclio (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Amuseclio
@Amuseclio, the problem is I think that the article loses itself in too much details and information, starting already in the lead of the article; which is completely flawed in my opinion. Talking about a further expansion of this and that, is therefore inappropriate in my view when the beginning is already problematic and the entire article in general is full of information that is not always relevant. My suggestion would be: rewrite the entire lead, with adherence to WP:ETHNICITY, WP:INTEGRITY and WP:LEAD, and then critically assess the biographical section of the article for superfluous information. 213.124.169.240 (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Many things wrong with the lead and this article
Am I the only one who really doesn't understand the changes that have been over the past few months? I see whole paragraphs added without a proper source. The lead is a complete mess; apart from the weird first sentence "was a philosopher of Portuguese-Jewish origin, born in Amsterdam, the Dutch Republic" (which goes against the added source & is not used anywhere else), the lead contains original information, whereas a lead should be a reflection of the main article. So already there it goes against two principles of Wikipedia: WP:ETHNICITY and WP:LEAD. Another thing I could mention is the disproportionate length of some parts of the article (e.g. 'Family background' and 'Expulsion from the Jewish community'). I'm sorry, but there are so many weird things going on in this article (also the last sentence: 'He has been called "the renegade Jew who gave us modernity"', nice, I'm sure he has been called other things as well...). Poor Spinoza. 213.124.169.240 (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
It is distressing to see this page seemingly supporting irrational, misrepresentative, biased attacks on Spinoza and his legacy.
(and I also thought the negative criticism he and his philosophy always faced used to presented here more objectively.)
I don't know what you are referring to specifically, I am talking about the changes especially warshy and Amuseclio (amongst others) made and are making. It seems to me that the lead is one big mess, for the aforementioned reasons, but also the entire balance of the article is gone. There's an emphasis on Spinoza's biographical information (especially his family background, which is absurd) whereas the section of his philosophy is the most limited part of the entire article. 213.124.169.240 (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I've decided to put a request for comments on this page, because it's getting more and more absurd here. The lead now reads that Spinoza was 'a leading Enlightenment philosopher'. This is highly contested, and if not, simply false; it certainly cannot be found in the majority of sources. 213.124.169.240 (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Name
His real name was Baruch de Espinoza. Why not naming the article with his correct name to start with (even if he is better known under Spinoza)? 94.109.209.132 (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
That was his Portuguese name. Educated people or travellers in that time period often translated their names in appropriate circumstances (Hebrew "Baruch" = Latin "Benedictus" etc), and didn't necessarily think that the original birth form of their name was their true "real" name. Also see WP:COMMONNAME... AnonMoos (talk) 08:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
His Hebrew name was "Baruch". His Portuguese name was "Bento". He took the Latinized name "Benedictus" after he was expelled from the Portuguese Jewish community. See note b in the article. The fact that a reader posed the question on this talk page suggests the explanation in note b should be raised to the main article. There is an argument for the Wiki bio using only his surname for the article title. See the discussion elsewhere on this talk page. Spinoza's two major biographers in English Steven Nadler and Jonathan I. Israel use only his surname in the titles of their respective biographies of him, avoiding the issue of his first names.Amuseclio (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Amuseclio
On his seal Spinoza used the initials BDS, with DS for "de Spinoza". Jonathan Israel gives the name of Spinoza's father as "Michael (Miguel) Spinoza (Gabriel Alvares d'Espinoza)".Amuseclio (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Amuseclio
-- AnonMoos (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
