Kenneth Seeskin

In Book I of the Ethics, Spinoza rejects any explanation that uses the will of God to explain natural phenomena. In his paper Spinoza’s argument is discussed by looking at a specific example of the view he was criticizing: Maimonides’ account of particularity. We will see that in some ways, Spinoza is right. But we will also see that Maimonides’ argument is not as naïve as a reader of Spinoza might think and that Spinoza’s own position is not immune from Maimonides’ attack on metaphysical determinism

This article discusses a respect in which modern thought differs from ancient: the role of hope. Although mentioned in ancient philosophy, hope is not a cardinal virtue, much less a presupposition of moral action. By contrast, hope takes center stage in the thought of Kant. Kant maintains that moral perfection is possible and always in the process of being realized but never actually comes to pass. No matter how much progress is made, there will always be something more to be accomplished. In this way, the gap between is and ought becomes smaller but is never completely closed. Because it gets smaller, hope is always justified; because it is never completely closed, hope is always needed. But Kant, by his own admission, can offer no systematic reason why human behavior always falls short of its goal. If it is possible to overcome evil, I am perfectly justified in hoping that one day it will be overcome. Kant rejects this position because it would put him dangerously close to Pelagius, whose works were declared heretical because they denied the doctrine of original sin