Think Least of Death: Spinoza on How to Live and How to Die by Steven Nadler (review)

IF 0.7 1区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.1353/hph.2023.a909133
John Grey
{"title":"Think Least of Death: Spinoza on How to Live and How to Die by Steven Nadler (review)","authors":"John Grey","doi":"10.1353/hph.2023.a909133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reviewed by: Think Least of Death: Spinoza on How to Live and How to Die by Steven Nadler John Grey Steven Nadler. Think Least of Death: Spinoza on How to Live and How to Die. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2020. Pp. x + 234. Hardback, $39.95. Think Least of Death is not just an interpretation of Spinoza, but a defense of his philosophy. Nadler develops Spinoza's arguments in ways that are intended both to reflect Spinoza's views and to persuade us that the views in question are true. He uses success language throughout to describe Spinoza's ideas (\"What Spinoza discovered, and what he wants us to know, is that . . .\" [11]) and arguments (\"Spinoza . . . has demonstrated, rigorously and a priori, that . . .\" [188]). Nadler is not just a Spinoza scholar here; he also thinks that Spinoza basically got it right. It would be a mistake, then, to evaluate Think Least of Death solely on its interpretive merits as a reading of Spinoza's Ethics. It is more fruitful to look at the places where Nadler not only describes, but apparently endorses, Spinoza's views. Following Nadler, I will focus here on the practical philosophy. Briefly put, Spinoza takes the right way of living to consist in adherence to the dictates of reason, which prescribe \"that everyone love himself, seek his own advantage . . . and 'absolutely, that everyone should strive to preserve his own being as far as he can'\" (191). These general principles issue in more specific directives based on facts about human nature. For instance, since the nature of the human mind is such that it always benefits from further understanding, reason directs us to strive for further understanding. To the extent that a human being lives in accordance with such dictates of reason, they will feel joyful, be free, and act virtuously. Conversely, when they are driven by their passions rather than reason, they will often feel sorrow, lack autonomy, and do things that are harmful to themselves and others. This is the source of whatever motivating power these directives have: necessarily, following them conduces to our self-interest. A crucial point for Nadler is that these facts about human nature are the same for each human being. This implies that \"there is in fact an objective, non-arbitrary determination of what constitutes a more perfect or ideal human being\" (28), the ideal that Spinoza variously refers to as the model of human nature or the free man. On Nadler's reading, Spinoza's notion of the free man (which he treats as equivalent to the model of human nature) is not \"some creature of the imagination or reflection of personal taste\" (29), but a representation of \"the ideal state toward which every individual [human] naturally and necessarily . . . strives\" (29). [End Page 708] A signal contribution of the book is to show that the free person's life is a realizable goal rather than an unattainable ideal. The free person is determined to act by reason alone, yes—but this is compatible with him or her also having passions, so long as those passions do not determine his or her behavior. A free person might feel fear at the prospect of death or suffering, but that fear will not determine what he or she does. Instead, the free person's actions will be determined by the guidance of reason and the positive affects (joy, love, self-esteem, and the like). Since the life of the free person is in principle attainable, Nadler proposes that we take the free person's life as a model for how we ourselves should live. For instance, when Spinoza writes that \"a free man always acts honestly\" (E 4P72), the implication is that we ourselves should always act honestly. Now, there is an apparent inconsistency in this position, nicely articulated by Don Garrett (\"'A Free Man Always Acts Honestly, Not Deceptively': Freedom and the Good in Spinoza's Ethics,\" in Nature and Necessity in Spinoza's Philosophy [New York: Oxford University Press, 2018], 441–61). The free man—living entirely according to the guidance of reason—always acts honestly. Yet reason also guides us to seek our own advantage, and sometimes the...","PeriodicalId":46448,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.2023.a909133","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Reviewed by: Think Least of Death: Spinoza on How to Live and How to Die by Steven Nadler John Grey Steven Nadler. Think Least of Death: Spinoza on How to Live and How to Die. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2020. Pp. x + 234. Hardback, $39.95. Think Least of Death is not just an interpretation of Spinoza, but a defense of his philosophy. Nadler develops Spinoza's arguments in ways that are intended both to reflect Spinoza's views and to persuade us that the views in question are true. He uses success language throughout to describe Spinoza's ideas ("What Spinoza discovered, and what he wants us to know, is that . . ." [11]) and arguments ("Spinoza . . . has demonstrated, rigorously and a priori, that . . ." [188]). Nadler is not just a Spinoza scholar here; he also thinks that Spinoza basically got it right. It would be a mistake, then, to evaluate Think Least of Death solely on its interpretive merits as a reading of Spinoza's Ethics. It is more fruitful to look at the places where Nadler not only describes, but apparently endorses, Spinoza's views. Following Nadler, I will focus here on the practical philosophy. Briefly put, Spinoza takes the right way of living to consist in adherence to the dictates of reason, which prescribe "that everyone love himself, seek his own advantage . . . and 'absolutely, that everyone should strive to preserve his own being as far as he can'" (191). These general principles issue in more specific directives based on facts about human nature. For instance, since the nature of the human mind is such that it always benefits from further understanding, reason directs us to strive for further understanding. To the extent that a human being lives in accordance with such dictates of reason, they will feel joyful, be free, and act virtuously. Conversely, when they are driven by their passions rather than reason, they will often feel sorrow, lack autonomy, and do things that are harmful to themselves and others. This is the source of whatever motivating power these directives have: necessarily, following them conduces to our self-interest. A crucial point for Nadler is that these facts about human nature are the same for each human being. This implies that "there is in fact an objective, non-arbitrary determination of what constitutes a more perfect or ideal human being" (28), the ideal that Spinoza variously refers to as the model of human nature or the free man. On Nadler's reading, Spinoza's notion of the free man (which he treats as equivalent to the model of human nature) is not "some creature of the imagination or reflection of personal taste" (29), but a representation of "the ideal state toward which every individual [human] naturally and necessarily . . . strives" (29). [End Page 708] A signal contribution of the book is to show that the free person's life is a realizable goal rather than an unattainable ideal. The free person is determined to act by reason alone, yes—but this is compatible with him or her also having passions, so long as those passions do not determine his or her behavior. A free person might feel fear at the prospect of death or suffering, but that fear will not determine what he or she does. Instead, the free person's actions will be determined by the guidance of reason and the positive affects (joy, love, self-esteem, and the like). Since the life of the free person is in principle attainable, Nadler proposes that we take the free person's life as a model for how we ourselves should live. For instance, when Spinoza writes that "a free man always acts honestly" (E 4P72), the implication is that we ourselves should always act honestly. Now, there is an apparent inconsistency in this position, nicely articulated by Don Garrett ("'A Free Man Always Acts Honestly, Not Deceptively': Freedom and the Good in Spinoza's Ethics," in Nature and Necessity in Spinoza's Philosophy [New York: Oxford University Press, 2018], 441–61). The free man—living entirely according to the guidance of reason—always acts honestly. Yet reason also guides us to seek our own advantage, and sometimes the...
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
《少想死亡:斯宾诺莎谈如何生与如何死》作者:史蒂文·纳德勒
书评:少想死亡:斯宾诺莎如何生活和如何死亡,作者:史蒂文·纳德勒。少想死亡:斯宾诺莎谈如何生与如何死。普林斯顿,新泽西州:普林斯顿大学出版社,2020。第x + 234页。精装,39.95美元。《少想死亡》不仅仅是对斯宾诺莎的诠释,也是对他的哲学的辩护。纳德勒发展了斯宾诺莎的论点,意在反映斯宾诺莎的观点,并说服我们,这些观点是正确的。他自始至终使用成功的语言来描述斯宾诺莎的思想(“斯宾诺莎发现了什么,他想让我们知道什么,是……”[11])和论点(“斯宾诺莎……”)。严格且先验地证明……”[188])。纳德勒在这里不仅仅是斯宾诺莎学者;他还认为斯宾诺莎基本上是对的。那么,仅仅根据斯宾诺莎《伦理学》的解读价值来评价“最少思考死亡”是错误的。更有收获的是,看看纳德勒不仅描述,而且显然赞同斯宾诺莎观点的地方。跟随纳德勒的脚步,我将在这里重点讨论实践哲学。简单地说,斯宾诺莎认为正确的生活方式在于坚持理性的命令,它规定“每个人都爱自己,寻求自己的利益……”当然,每个人都应该尽其所能地维护自己的存在”(191)。这些一般原则根据有关人性的事实发出更具体的指令。例如,由于人类心灵的本质是这样的,它总是受益于进一步的理解,理性指导我们争取进一步的理解。在某种程度上,一个人按照这种理性的指令生活,他们会感到快乐,自由,并有道德的行为。相反,当他们被激情而不是理性所驱使时,他们往往会感到悲伤,缺乏自主权,并做出对自己和他人有害的事情。这就是这些指令所具有的激励力量的来源:遵循它们必然有助于我们的自身利益。对纳德勒来说,至关重要的一点是,这些关于人性的事实对每个人来说都是一样的。这意味着“事实上存在着一种客观的、非武断的决定,决定着什么构成了一个更完美或更理想的人”(28),这种理想被斯宾诺莎不同地称为人性或自由人的模型。在纳德勒的解读中,斯宾诺莎的自由人概念(他将其等同于人性的模式)不是“想象的产物或个人品味的反映”(29),而是“每个个体(人类)自然且必然走向的理想状态……”的一种表现。努力”(29)。这本书的一个显著贡献是表明自由人的生活是一个可以实现的目标,而不是一个无法实现的理想。是的,自由的人决定仅凭理性行事,但这与他或她也有激情是相容的,只要这些激情不决定他或她的行为。一个自由的人可能会对死亡或痛苦的前景感到恐惧,但这种恐惧不会决定他或她的行为。相反,自由的人的行为将由理性的指导和积极的影响(快乐,爱,自尊,等等)决定。既然自由人的生活在原则上是可以实现的,纳德勒建议我们把自由人的生活作为我们自己应该如何生活的榜样。例如,当斯宾诺莎写道“一个自由的人总是诚实行事”(E 4P72)时,其含义是我们自己也应该诚实行事。现在,唐·加勒特(Don Garrett)很好地阐述了这一立场的明显不一致(““自由人总是诚实行事,而不是欺骗”:斯宾诺莎伦理学中的自由与善”,《斯宾诺莎哲学中的自然与必然性》[纽约:牛津大学出版社,2018],441-61)。自由的人——完全按照理性的指导生活——总是诚实地行事。然而,理性也引导我们寻求自己的利益,有时……
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
72
期刊介绍: Since January 2002, the Journal of the History of Philosophy has been published by The Johns Hopkins University Press. For subscriptions, change of address, and back issues, please contact Subscription Services. In addition to photocopying allowed by the "fair use" doctrine, JHP authorizes personal or educational multiple-copying by instructors for use within a course. This policy does not cover photocopying for commercial use either by individuals or publishers. All such uses must be authorized by JHP.
期刊最新文献
Cassirer and Heidegger in Davos: The Philosophical Arguments by Simon Truwant (review) “The Season of Exaggerated Hopes”: Richard T. Greener in the Reconstruction University Constance Naden’s Metaphysics: Hylo-Idealism’s Ideal Known World and Unknown Matter Philosophy and the Language of the People: The Claims of Common Speech from Petrarch to Locke by Lodi Nauta (review) Materialism from Hobbes to Locke by Stewart Duncan (review)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1