Jack Stetter

Uncorrected proofs. Please cite published version. Abstract: This chapter compares two early modern accounts of war and the possibility of enduring peace between states. The first belongs to Spinoza. The second belongs to Kant. Kant can be credited with providing an influential account grounded in his cosmopolitanism that shaped subsequent policies in international relations and war theory, while Spinoza provides a subtle, though often overlooked, realist account. Specifically, the chapter contrasts Spinoza’s views in his Political Treatise (1677) with Kant’s views in Toward Perpetual Peace (1795). Spinoza argues that although the careful design of social and political institutions can go a long way towards eliminating the appeal of war to states while also promoting conditions that favor peace between states, the power for war is an essential feature of states and that states are by nature enemies. Kant, meanwhile, conceives the cosmopolitan conditions for a perpetual peace between states. Significantly, despite their dissimilarity, both Spinoza and Kant offer theories of war that stand outside of the dominant just war theory tradition.

Uncorrected proofs. Please cite published version. Abstract: A study of the interpretation and reception of Spinoza by Deleuze. Numerous core Deleuzian theses connect Deleuze’s thought to Spinoza, and Deleuze’s interest in Spinoza covers practically all aspects of Spinoza’s thought. Here I present the centrality of Deleuze’s understanding of Spinoza’s metaphysics of immanence to Deleuze’s broader Spinozist commitments. To that end, I survey the evolution of Deleuze’s reading of Spinoza in three parts. First, in Part 1, I look to Deleuze’s interpretation of Spinozist immanence in Expressionism in Philosophy (1968). Then, in Part 2, I examine Deleuze’s conception of the relation of Spinoza’s practical philosophy and the ‘plane of immanence’ in Spinoza: Practical Philosophy (1981). Finally, in Part 3, I turn to Deleuze’s and Guattari’s ultimate assessment of Spinoza’s significance as ‘the Christ of philosophers’ in What Is Philosophy? (1991). The chapter therefore aims to shed new light on both Deleuze’s own thought along with the meaning of immanence in Spinoza.

The paper argues that Spinoza may have deepened his conception of poetry as not only a resource for the understanding but as the highest peak of the understanding. I begin by reviewing selected literature on Spinoza’s views on language and show how Spinoza’s presentation of his philosophy builds on a conception of what language can do. I then make a succinct case for a reading of Ethics Part 5 Proposition 24, where we find an attempt at a poetic expression of thought, as Spinoza explores what he considers the highest form of knowledge: intuitive science. This is an original manuscript of an article published online by Taylor & Francis in the Australasian Philosophical Review on 20 Oct 2024.

The study of highly imagistic representations of Spinoza's philosophy found in popular, extra‐academic literature is essential for building a rational view on Spinoza's philosophy. Popular literature on Spinoza is an ineliminable condition of academic literature on Spinoza. The cementing of Spinoza's popularity belongs to a larger history of Spinoza's reception. This chapter examines two late‐nineteenth and early‐twentieth century works on Spinoza. Jules Prat's idiosyncratic blend of Spinozism and left‐wing French Republicanism stands out as a historically and philosophically rich approach to Spinoza that has hardly been studied thus far. The chapter also examines the fiction of Isaac Bashevis Singer and Bernard Malamud. One common feature to Singer and Malamud is the way that they root their Spinozists in a Jewish world. In this, they are forerunners of the ongoing popular preoccupation with Spinoza's own relation to Judaism.

Written by a team of leading international scholars, this critical reference work examines a crucial period in the history of philosophy from the perspective of themes and lines of thought that cut across authorial, disciplinary and national boundaries. Its fresh approach opens up new ways of conceptualising the history of early modern and Enlightenment thought. The book takes a problem-based approach to the history of philosophy, highlighting the continued richness and relevance of sixteenth- to eighteenth-century philosophy. The five sections of the book explore, in turn: historiography and broader structures of thought in the period; the intersection of philosophy and politics; life and the metaphysics of bodies; theories of knowledge, with a special emphasis on social epistemology; and themes that stretch the boundaries of cognition: art, cosmology, the infinite, and religion. The book will be of interest to specialists and students working within philosophy, politics, religious studies and literature.

In this paper, I inspect the grounds for the mature Spinozist argument for substance monism. The argument is succinctly stated at Ethics Part 1, Proposition 14. The argument appeals to two explicit premises: (1) that there must be a substance with all attributes; (2) that substances cannot share their attributes. In conjunction with a third implicit premise, that a substance cannot not have any attribute whatsoever, Spinoza infers that there can be no more than one substance. I begin the inspection with the analysis of the first premise, which is provided in the form of the four proofs of God’s existence in Ethics Part 1, Proposition 11. While demonstrating how Spinoza adopts a progressive approach, where the fourth proof of God’s existence is more successful and persuasive than the third, which is more successful than the second, etc., I also unpack concepts central to Spinoza’s thinking here, including the concepts of reason (ratio) and power (potesta or potentia). I then analyze the second premise of the Spinozist argument for substance monism, as established by Ethics Part 1, Proposition 4 in conjunction with Ethics Part 1, Proposition 5. I take up and respond to the objection attributed to Leibniz that a substance p can have the attributes x and y and a substance q can have the attributes y and z, and thus that substances can share some attributes while remaining distinct. Throughout the study, my attention is focused on the argumentative procedures Spinoza adopts. This yields a close, internalist reading of the text where Spinoza effectively embraces substance monism. In conclusion to this study, I underscore to the originality of Spinoza’s argument for seventeenth century theories of substance.

Le mémoire de Master 2. Soutenu en 2012 à Paris VIII sous la direction de Ch. Ramond. A study of Spinoza's account of "singular things" in the Ethics along with the classic French literature on the subject. TABLE DES MATIÈRES: INTRODUCTION GENERALE (p. 3 – 4) PREMIERE PARTIE : DE LA NATURE DE DIEU AUX CHOSES SINGULIERES (p. 5 – 97) INTRODUCTION (p. 5 – 16) : DU RAPPORT DE L’INFINIMENT INFINI ET DU FINI. Pourquoi l’Éthique commence par l’infiniment infini (Dieu). De l’immanentisme spinoziste. Abrégé de la réalité des choses singulières. Que celles-ci sont « en autre chose » et que cet autre est Dieu. Rôle important de la « cause de soi » dans l’ontologie spinoziste. Description de la démarche à suivre. PREMIER PAS (p. 17 – 39) : DE LA « CAUSE DE SOI ». Sur la définition de la « cause de soi ». De la méthode géométrique, et de la raison pour laquelle l’Éthique commence avec cette définition d’un Ens causa sui. Comment la notion de la « cause de soi » fonde l’idée de Dieu. Du monisme intégral chez Spinoza. De « l’esprit » du spinozisme et du déterminisme absolu. Du dédoublement de Dieu. INTERMEDE (p. 40– 60) : DE LA PROPOSITION 16 ET DES MODES INFINIS. Derechef, du dédoublement de Dieu, et en particulier, du renversement de la situation théorique du qualitatif et du quantitatif dans le système. Rôle de la Proposition 16 dans le système. Comment celle-ci scelle le passage de l’Ens causa sui à l’Ens effectus sui. Pourquoi I 16 est controversé. Comment I 16 nous apprend que Dieu ne produit nécessairement tout qu’à condition de produire de l’intelligible. De l’intellect de Dieu. Des modes, et des modes infinis en particulier. À propos du souci néoplatonicien. SECOND PAS (p. 61 – 91) : DE L’ESSENCE ET L’EXISTENCE DES CHOSES EN ÉI. Les Propositions 24 et 25. Comment Dieu scinde les essences des existences. Que toute chose finie est par essence dans un rapport intime avec sa cause infinie et verticale. Le Scolie de la Proposition 25. Sur la démonstration de la définition des « choses particulières ». Sur la controverse de l’attribut. Les Proposition 26 et 28. Comment les choses existent. De la causalité horizontale et de l’indéfini. Analyse de la notion de l’infini. De l’impossibilité de comprendre totalement l’existence d’une chose. Ce qui veut dire « Deus quatenus ». FIN DE LA PREMIERE PARTIE (p. 92 – 97) : DE LA NATURE NATURANTE ET LA NATURE NATUREE. Analyse du Scolie de la Proposition 29. De l’asymétrie du dédoublement de la Nature. Du salut spinoziste. DEUXIEME PARTIE : DE L’UNITE DES CHOSES SINGULIERES (p. 98 – 153) INTRODUCTION (p. 98 – 102) : DU RAPPORT DE L’ESSENCE A L’EXISTENCE. Ce qui se passe lorsqu’on quitte une Partie de l’Éthique. De ce qu’on a vu dans notre Première Partie. De la causalité verticale et de la causalité horizontale. Comment les essences peuvent-elles retrouver les existences, et vice versa. Description de la démarche à suivre. PREMIER PAS (p. 103 – 127) : DE L’ESSENCE Sur la définition d’une « essence ». De sa positivité. Que ce qu’un individu est par essence n’est que ce qu’il peut comprendre. De la Proposition 8, de son Corollaire et de son Scolie. Que l’existence de l’essence d’une chose ne se confond pas avec l’existence de la chose elle-même. Contre l’idée que les essences sont des choses « possibles ». Sur la notion des « grandeurs intensives » et sur la notion du « profondeur » chez Spinoza. SECOND PAS (p. 128 – 149) : DU CONATUS A LA PHYSIQUE Sur le concept du conatus. Du fait qu’il est l’essence actuelle d’une chose. Qu’on ne peut pas distinguer entre notre puissance ou effort pour persévérer dans l’être et l’être dans lequel nous nous persévérons. Du dynamisme introduit par le biais du conatus. Du rapport du quantitatif et du qualitatif, de l’idée des instants d’éternité, et du problème des essences qui sont instantanées. De la « petite physique » dans la Deuxième Partie de l’Éthique. Sur ses enjeux théoriques. Sur le matérialisme de Spinoza. De la définition de l’Individu comme rapport fixe de mouvement et de repos. Des corps simples, et que pour toute chose existante il n’est pas donné une essence. De la définition des choses singulières, et encore de la mutabilité ontologique de celles-ci. FIN DE LA DEUXIEME PARTIE (p. 150 – 153) : DE LA FINITUDE Sur l’Axiome de la Quatrième Partie de l’Éthique. Que certains rapports de mouvement et de repos en remplacent d’autres. Sur la raison pour laquelle tout rapport ne peut pas coexister. Que la destructibilité vient du biais de l’Étendue, et en particulier, du problème de l’espace. Que la chose singulière véhicule une tension entre la partie et le tout, et encore, du salut spinoziste. CONCLUSION GENERALE (p. 154 – 157) ENGLISH SUMMARY (p. 158 – 159) BIBLIOGRAPHIE (p. 160 – 165) TABLE DES MATIERES (p. 166 – 169)

Résumé (FR) : L'adhésion de Spinoza à la doctrine du monisme de la substance constitue le fondement de sa philosophie. Cependant, la manière dont nous pouvons comprendre cette doctrine est loin d'être évidente. Les problèmes dans son interprétation comprennent la difficulté à caractériser le rapport entre la substance et ses modes, la validité de l’argument spinoziste pour établir le monisme, et la cohérence de maintenir qu’il peut y avoir des idées fausses alors que toute idée est en Dieu. Nous soutenons ici que l’examen du contexte philosophique de l’élaboration du monisme de la substance et l’examen des contextes philosophiques entourant la réception du monisme de Spinoza, particulièrement en langue anglaise, fournissent des ressources importantes pour résoudre les difficultés susmentionnées. En effet, la réception de Spinoza en langue anglaise a été très peu étudiée jusqu’à présent. Or la réception de Spinoza en langue anglaise passe principalement par les controverses qui entourent la doctrine du monisme de la substance. Nous commençons en analysant la notion de substance dans le cadre aristotélicien, et nous montrons comment le pluralisme des substances a été progressivement fragilisé avant Spinoza. Après avoir ensuite inspecté l'argument spinoziste pour le monisme, nous analysons des interprétations du monisme avancées par ses premiers commentateurs, tels que F. Lamy. Par la suite, nous développons une historiographie inédite de la réception de Spinoza en langue anglaise et nous mettons en évidence les ressources fournies par ses commentateurs anglophones pour résoudre des difficultés interprétatives dans la théorie spinoziste du monisme de la substance.

Although Deleuze’s work on Spinoza is widely known, it remains poorly understood. In particular, Deleuze’s interpretation of Spinoza’s immanentism has not been treated sufficient care; that is, with an eye to the context of its elaboration and the way in which it gradually takes on different characteristics. With this paper, I offer a synoptic analysis of Deleuze’s views on immanence in Spinoza and examine how these change over the course of Deleuze’s career. There are three ascending stages here: a first one, where Deleuze’s attention is drawn to more recognizable issues in understanding Spinoza’s views on the deep metaphysical structure of reality; a second, more experimental one, where Deleuze questions what it means to be a reader of Spinoza in light of Spinoza’s theory of the body and affects; and a third, particularly iconoclastic stage, where Deleuze develops the theory of “the plane of immanence” as a way of articulating a meta-philosophical story about the place of non-philosophy at the heart of all philosophy. I trace each of these accounts, tie them together to tell a coherent and comprehensive narrative, and show what may be learned from this Spinoza that Deleuze portrays as drunk on immanence.

Jean-Claude Milner’s Le sage trompeur (2013), a controversial recent piece of French Spinoza literature, remains regrettably understudied in the English-speaking world. Adopting Leo Strauss’ esoteric reading method, Milner alleges that Spinoza dissimulates his genuine analysis of the causes of the persecution and survival of the Jewish people within a brief “manifesto” found at the end of the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (TTP), Chapter 3. According to Milner, Spinoza holds that the Jewish people themselves are responsible for the hatred of the Jewish people, and that the engine of their longevity is the hatred they engender. Additionally, claims Milner, Spinoza covertly insinuates that the solution to this persistent state of hatred consists in the mass apostasy of the Jewish people under the leadership of a Sabbatai Zevi-like figure. This article presents the Milner–Spinoza controversy to the English-speaking public along with the larger context of French-language scholarship on Spinoza’s relation to Judaism. While refuting Milner’s reading of Spinoza, I simultaneously clarify relevant elements of Spinoza’s discussions of Judaism in the TTP, such as Spinoza’s examination of Jewish identity and the nature of divine election, Spinoza’s understanding of the causes of national hatred, and Spinoza’s appeals to Portuguese, Spanish, Chinese, and Turkish political history. This is an original manuscript of an article published by Oxford University Press in Modern Judaism: A Journal of Jewish Ideas and Experience on 05 May 2020.

François Lamy, a Benedictine monk and Cartesian philosopher whose extensive relations with Arnauld, Bossuet, Fénélon, and Malebranche put him into contact with the intellectual elite of late-seventeenth-century France, authored the very first detailed and explicit refutation of Spinoza’s Ethics in French, Le nouvel athéisme renversé. Regrettably overlooked in the secondary literature on Spinoza, Lamy is an interesting figure in his own right, and his anti-Spinozist work sheds important light on Cartesian assumptions that inform the earliest phase of Spinoza’s critical reception in the seventeenth-century. I begin by presenting Lamy’s life and the contentious state of Spinoza’s French reception in the 1680 and 1690s. I then discuss a central argument in Lamy’s refutation, namely the Cartesian objection that Spinoza’s account of the conceptual independence of attributes is incompatible with the theory of substance monism. Contrasting Lamy’s objection with questions put to Spinoza by de Vries and Tschirnhaus, I maintain that by exhibiting the direction Spinoza’s views on substance and attribute took in maturing we may accurately assess the strength of Spinoza’s position vis-à-vis his Cartesian objector, and I argue that, in fact, Spinoza’s mature account of God as an expressive ens realissimum is not vulnerable to Lamy’s criticism. In conclusion, I turn to Lamy’s objection that Spinoza’s philosophy is question-begging in view of Spinoza’s account of God, and I exhibit what this point of criticism tells us about the intentions of the first French Cartesian rebuttal of the Ethics.

Over the last few decades, Spinoza scholarship has developed in the United States, providing new perspectives on the work of this major philosopher. Spinoza in 21st-Century American and French Philosophy unites for the first time French and American scholars in conversation with each other and illustrates the fecundity of bringing together analytic and Continental scholarly traditions. Spinoza in 21st-Century American and French Philosophy gives readers a unique opportunity to discover the most consequential and sophisticated aspects of American and French Spinoza research today. Featuring chapters by American scholars with French experts responding to these, the book is structured according to the themes of Spinoza's philosophy, including metaphysics, philosophy of mind, moral philosophy and political philosophy. The contributions consider the full range of his work, with chapters addressing the Ethics, his ideas on individuals and community, and the nature of embodiment, among other topics.

Nous cherchons ici à étudier la signification du fait qu’un État, chez Spinoza, peut se comprendre intégralement comme étant une « âme » singulière. Nous montrons en quoi cette compréhension de l’État comme « âme » permet d’expliciter les éléments centraux de la théorie de l’obéissance chez Spinoza, et en quoi le succès du projet politique spinoziste n’est envisageable que de cette perspective. Nous soulevons en conclusion un paradoxe : Spinoza écrit (TP 3/8) que nul ne cède de sa faculté de juger ; et à force de tirer sur ce fil, nous montrons que Spinoza y aborde de façon discrète et indirecte la possibilité de la disparition de l’État, dans la mesure même où il aura réussi à encourager l’obéissance et à faire en sorte que « l’âme » de tous devienne un bien commun.