Wim Klever is de Nestor van de Nederlandse Spinoza-scholars. Hij wordt dit jaar (2022) 92 jaar. Als emeritus-professor van de Erasmusuniversiteit, Rotterdam ontpopte hij zich tot een gedreven 'facebooker', die dit medium gebruikt om zijn ideeën over Spinoza, zijn filosofie en zijn tijdgenoten bij een breed publiek bekend te maken.
Wim Klever gaf toestemming om de volledige reeks van zijn Facebook-posts (99!) over de Historische Spinoza te publiceren op onze site. Voortaan zijn ze voor onze bezoekers, gegroepeerd én geïllustreerd, beschikbaar.
De FaceBook-bijdragen van Wim Klever zijn (meestal) in het Engels geschreven.
Wim Klever gaf toestemming om de volledige reeks van zijn Facebook-posts (99!) over de Historische Spinoza te publiceren op onze site. Voortaan zijn ze voor onze bezoekers, gegroepeerd én geïllustreerd, beschikbaar.
De FaceBook-bijdragen van Wim Klever zijn (meestal) in het Engels geschreven.
The text edition that W. Klever uses here follows the text of 1670
6 september 2015
TYPESETTERS MISTAKE IN TTP19, 10-12 WITH DRAMATIC CONSEQUENCES
No text edition is ever 100% faultless, also Spinoza's not. On the sixth line from the annexed page top and bottom the ablative word 'pietate' must be read as the accusative 'pietatem'. In this chapter Spinoza defends that ‘PIETAS ERGA PATRIAM SUMMA [EST] QUAM ALIQUIS PRAESTARE POTEST*’. The intended and praised piety consists of the practice of justice and charity according to the directives of the state. It is only the political authority that determines and specifies the 'CULTUS PIETATIS' by which any citizen is bound. The sentence after 219, as printed in the 1670 edition, is inconsistent and incomprehensible, if 'pietate' is not corrected in 'pietatem', because otherwise we would have to love all people independently of its utility for the republic. The point is not to love all people, but: that all people (subject) without exception have to perform piety, i.e., Loyalty and obedience, as it is strongly argued for in the context, and as Spinoza reiterates immediately: ‘ergo NEMO pietatem recte colere nec Deo obedire potest nisi omnibus summae potestatis decretis obtemperet**’. Internal as well as external enemies of the state must be opposed and hated. Therefore, Christ expecting his disciples to work in the diaspora commanded ‘ut omnes absolute pietatem colerent, quae omnia ostendunt religionem reipublicae utilitati accommodata semper fuisse***’.
With fullest right Bruder (my worn out Bruder) corrects in his 1847 OPERA in both cases the mistake by adding an 'm' to pietate. And so, improves the important chapter to a coherent whole. By the cancelling of the anti-Spinozistic and Christian misreading of the text Bruder's clever adaptation is extremely important in relation to the political situation today (innumerable migrants and fugitives in EU) and the question of our relation to THE OTHERS.
***
Translation (W. Schuermans)
* pietas erga patriam summa (est) quam aliquis praestare potest: piety (here: respectful love and loyalty) towards the fatherland is the piety that someone can show;
** ergo NEMO pietatem recte colere nec Deo obedire potest nisi omnibus summae potestatis decretis obtempere: consequently no one can rightly practice piety (here: reverent love and faithfulness) nor rightly serve God, unless he obeys all the decrees of the obeys highest authority;
*** ut omnes absolute pietatem colerent, quae omnia ostendunt religionem reipublicae utilitati accommodata semper fuisse: that they would all, without reservation, practice piety (here: respectful love and fidelity); All this clearly shows that religion has always been adapted to the interests of the state.
***
Facebook comments
* Michiel Wielema
In my view the first emendation may be correct (we are all obliged to practice piety), but not the second, since there the Hebrews are admonished to practice piety towards all the peoples among whom they will be scattered (i.e. all men, since they will be scattered per totum orbem) in their respective states and countries.
* Mark Behets
Wim, your interpretation of the Spinozistic pietas is solely based on the TTP, which was written for a political cause in the Dutch republic of that moment (cf. Krop, Spinoza: Een paradoxale icoon van Nederland). If you read the Ethica, you nowhere can find any restriction of pietas towards the fatherland.
* Wim Klever
Mark, 1) I don't share your suggestion about the purpose of the TTP being written for ... The TTP is primarily written as Spinoza's apology. 2) Krop is no authority for me; on the contrary! 3)E4/37s2 can be seen as a parallel, but for the rest is the Ethica a scientific treatise on a higher level: general physics.
Comment (W. Schuermans)
1 First and foremost: the concept of pietas, just like the concept of virtus, is rooted in the Ancient Roman sphere of life. Over time, especially since the Renaissance, both terms took on new meanings. Spinoza also gives his own meaning to both concepts. The choice of translation is determined by the context. The difficulty is often circumvented by translating pietas as 'piety'...
2 Karl Hermann Bruder (1812-1892) apparently based his double amendment on a thorough knowledge of Spinoza's philosophy, in particular his 'Politica'. His double amendment is therefore accepted by Prof. W. Klever. In the edition of the TTP by C. Gebhardt, the first pietate is amended to pietatem, the second is not. The most recent and now most authoritative TTP edition by Akkerman (1999, in Spinoza, Oeuvres, directed by P-F Moreau) follows Gebhardt. Copywriters and translators (usually) do not consider the issue worth a footnote.
TYPESETTERS MISTAKE IN TTP19, 10-12 WITH DRAMATIC CONSEQUENCES
No text edition is ever 100% faultless, also Spinoza's not. On the sixth line from the annexed page top and bottom the ablative word 'pietate' must be read as the accusative 'pietatem'. In this chapter Spinoza defends that ‘PIETAS ERGA PATRIAM SUMMA [EST] QUAM ALIQUIS PRAESTARE POTEST*’. The intended and praised piety consists of the practice of justice and charity according to the directives of the state. It is only the political authority that determines and specifies the 'CULTUS PIETATIS' by which any citizen is bound. The sentence after 219, as printed in the 1670 edition, is inconsistent and incomprehensible, if 'pietate' is not corrected in 'pietatem', because otherwise we would have to love all people independently of its utility for the republic. The point is not to love all people, but: that all people (subject) without exception have to perform piety, i.e., Loyalty and obedience, as it is strongly argued for in the context, and as Spinoza reiterates immediately: ‘ergo NEMO pietatem recte colere nec Deo obedire potest nisi omnibus summae potestatis decretis obtemperet**’. Internal as well as external enemies of the state must be opposed and hated. Therefore, Christ expecting his disciples to work in the diaspora commanded ‘ut omnes absolute pietatem colerent, quae omnia ostendunt religionem reipublicae utilitati accommodata semper fuisse***’.
With fullest right Bruder (my worn out Bruder) corrects in his 1847 OPERA in both cases the mistake by adding an 'm' to pietate. And so, improves the important chapter to a coherent whole. By the cancelling of the anti-Spinozistic and Christian misreading of the text Bruder's clever adaptation is extremely important in relation to the political situation today (innumerable migrants and fugitives in EU) and the question of our relation to THE OTHERS.
***
Translation (W. Schuermans)
* pietas erga patriam summa (est) quam aliquis praestare potest: piety (here: respectful love and loyalty) towards the fatherland is the piety that someone can show;
** ergo NEMO pietatem recte colere nec Deo obedire potest nisi omnibus summae potestatis decretis obtempere: consequently no one can rightly practice piety (here: reverent love and faithfulness) nor rightly serve God, unless he obeys all the decrees of the obeys highest authority;
*** ut omnes absolute pietatem colerent, quae omnia ostendunt religionem reipublicae utilitati accommodata semper fuisse: that they would all, without reservation, practice piety (here: respectful love and fidelity); All this clearly shows that religion has always been adapted to the interests of the state.
***
Facebook comments
* Michiel Wielema
In my view the first emendation may be correct (we are all obliged to practice piety), but not the second, since there the Hebrews are admonished to practice piety towards all the peoples among whom they will be scattered (i.e. all men, since they will be scattered per totum orbem) in their respective states and countries.
* Mark Behets
Wim, your interpretation of the Spinozistic pietas is solely based on the TTP, which was written for a political cause in the Dutch republic of that moment (cf. Krop, Spinoza: Een paradoxale icoon van Nederland). If you read the Ethica, you nowhere can find any restriction of pietas towards the fatherland.
* Wim Klever
Mark, 1) I don't share your suggestion about the purpose of the TTP being written for ... The TTP is primarily written as Spinoza's apology. 2) Krop is no authority for me; on the contrary! 3)E4/37s2 can be seen as a parallel, but for the rest is the Ethica a scientific treatise on a higher level: general physics.
Comment (W. Schuermans)
1 First and foremost: the concept of pietas, just like the concept of virtus, is rooted in the Ancient Roman sphere of life. Over time, especially since the Renaissance, both terms took on new meanings. Spinoza also gives his own meaning to both concepts. The choice of translation is determined by the context. The difficulty is often circumvented by translating pietas as 'piety'...
2 Karl Hermann Bruder (1812-1892) apparently based his double amendment on a thorough knowledge of Spinoza's philosophy, in particular his 'Politica'. His double amendment is therefore accepted by Prof. W. Klever. In the edition of the TTP by C. Gebhardt, the first pietate is amended to pietatem, the second is not. The most recent and now most authoritative TTP edition by Akkerman (1999, in Spinoza, Oeuvres, directed by P-F Moreau) follows Gebhardt. Copywriters and translators (usually) do not consider the issue worth a footnote.
3 januari 2016
SPINOZA's LACOURTIANISM (1)
As is well known Spinoza's Tractatus Politicus is deeply influenced and in a certain sense programmed by the POLITYKE WEEGSCHAAL (1661) of V.H., the Dutch acronym for 'Van Hove' with which its author reveals his identity, which he more customarily indicates with 'de la Court'.
More than 30 years ago I started my research of this work, for which the Royal Library the Hague provided me with the text on microfiches. In 1988 I published in the ACTA POLITICA (xxxii) my first article on the 'koppelingsbeginsel' (coupling principle), my baptismal name for its foundation stone. In 2010 followed my second article on this subject in a broader context. And finally in 2013 Arthur Wetsteijn published an excellent and highly informative monography with the title DE RADICALE REPUBLIEK. JOHAN EN PIETER DE LA COURT: DWARSE DENKERS IN DE GOUDEN EEUW. ('dwarse' means: against the mainstream).
SPINOZA's LACOURTIANISM (1)
As is well known Spinoza's Tractatus Politicus is deeply influenced and in a certain sense programmed by the POLITYKE WEEGSCHAAL (1661) of V.H., the Dutch acronym for 'Van Hove' with which its author reveals his identity, which he more customarily indicates with 'de la Court'.
More than 30 years ago I started my research of this work, for which the Royal Library the Hague provided me with the text on microfiches. In 1988 I published in the ACTA POLITICA (xxxii) my first article on the 'koppelingsbeginsel' (coupling principle), my baptismal name for its foundation stone. In 2010 followed my second article on this subject in a broader context. And finally in 2013 Arthur Wetsteijn published an excellent and highly informative monography with the title DE RADICALE REPUBLIEK. JOHAN EN PIETER DE LA COURT: DWARSE DENKERS IN DE GOUDEN EEUW. ('dwarse' means: against the mainstream).
Pieter de la Court by G. Schalcken
6 januari 2016
SPINOZA's LACOURTIANISM (2)
The works of the brothers De la Court that started to be published from 1660 onwards under various titles and a great number of reprints were at first put on the agenda and recommended as well as criticized by Van den Emden in his KVNN (1662) and VPS (1665), because on the one hand they advocated an anti-monarchical popular government, but were on the other hand not consistent with their plea and let themselves easily force to change their ideal into an aristocracy under the influence of the great pensionary Jan de Witt. The brothers were also not exactly on the same line. Johan was the original author of CONSIDERATIEN VAN STAET but died before having published his 'philosophical' manuscript, which was on testamentary request then done by his brother Pieter, who however revised and adapted the text on various places. Already in the 2nd ed. (1661) with the new title POLITYKE WEEGSCHAAL he cancelled Johan's clear statement, that ‘the popular government is the most natural (naturelikste), most reasonable (redelikste), most peaceful (vreedsamigste) and most advantageous (voordeeligste) system for the inhabitants (ingezetenen)’. These words would later resound in Spinoza's political treatises.
The most essential element of the text, however, was not removed, namely Johan's definition of the STRUCTURE of a good government. In the next post I will present this definition in his own formula.
Added is a painting of Pieter de la Court by G. Schalcken.
SPINOZA's LACOURTIANISM (2)
The works of the brothers De la Court that started to be published from 1660 onwards under various titles and a great number of reprints were at first put on the agenda and recommended as well as criticized by Van den Emden in his KVNN (1662) and VPS (1665), because on the one hand they advocated an anti-monarchical popular government, but were on the other hand not consistent with their plea and let themselves easily force to change their ideal into an aristocracy under the influence of the great pensionary Jan de Witt. The brothers were also not exactly on the same line. Johan was the original author of CONSIDERATIEN VAN STAET but died before having published his 'philosophical' manuscript, which was on testamentary request then done by his brother Pieter, who however revised and adapted the text on various places. Already in the 2nd ed. (1661) with the new title POLITYKE WEEGSCHAAL he cancelled Johan's clear statement, that ‘the popular government is the most natural (naturelikste), most reasonable (redelikste), most peaceful (vreedsamigste) and most advantageous (voordeeligste) system for the inhabitants (ingezetenen)’. These words would later resound in Spinoza's political treatises.
The most essential element of the text, however, was not removed, namely Johan's definition of the STRUCTURE of a good government. In the next post I will present this definition in his own formula.
Added is a painting of Pieter de la Court by G. Schalcken.
Lezend in 'The Great Gatsby'
21 maart 2023
STATEMENT ABOUT MY MASTER
Spinoza an atheist and unbeliever? NOT AT ALL. He is a deeply religious philosopher from his early youth onwards. His ‘God, however, is not an imaginary personification at the source / behind of or above the UNIVERSE. At the other hand he is a true Christian, with greatest admiration / adhesion to and affinity with the historical Christ, as demonstrably present in the New Testament and retrievable in its scientific analysis as given in his THEOLOGICAL-POLITICAL TREATISE (1670), the result of which is radically different from and opposed to the so called false ‘Christianity’ of the church(es) named after him and unduly divinised by them.
STATEMENT ABOUT MY MASTER
Spinoza an atheist and unbeliever? NOT AT ALL. He is a deeply religious philosopher from his early youth onwards. His ‘God, however, is not an imaginary personification at the source / behind of or above the UNIVERSE. At the other hand he is a true Christian, with greatest admiration / adhesion to and affinity with the historical Christ, as demonstrably present in the New Testament and retrievable in its scientific analysis as given in his THEOLOGICAL-POLITICAL TREATISE (1670), the result of which is radically different from and opposed to the so called false ‘Christianity’ of the church(es) named after him and unduly divinised by them.
19 januari 2016
JOHANNES HUDDE (1)
In the secondary literature it is too much underestimated that Spinoza enjoyed contacts with and respect from many of the most prominent figures in Dutch society. In earlier FB-posts I emphasized his profitable relations with most learned philosophers, theologians, scientists like Meyer, Bouwmeester and Van Velthuysen. The latter was also politically active as a magistrate and member of the Utrecht Council, just like another of his correspondents, the merchant Willem Blijenbergh, who fulfilled during many years all kinds of various official top positions in the city of Dordrecht, too many to enumerate. Spinoza's relation with the great pensionary of Holland, Jan de Witt, are subject of discussion. In contemporary pamphlets De Witt was accused of supporting him. The contacts with the renowned top scientist Christian Huygens were close and frequent in his Voorburg period. But there is another important conversation with a scientist, the mathematician Hudde, who after his Leiden education also became politically active. In fact, he served the city of Amsterdam for 21 years as one of its burgomasters, mainly as a responsible expert in its water management and town extension.
PS: Meer over Johannes Hudde: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Hudde
JOHANNES HUDDE (1)
In the secondary literature it is too much underestimated that Spinoza enjoyed contacts with and respect from many of the most prominent figures in Dutch society. In earlier FB-posts I emphasized his profitable relations with most learned philosophers, theologians, scientists like Meyer, Bouwmeester and Van Velthuysen. The latter was also politically active as a magistrate and member of the Utrecht Council, just like another of his correspondents, the merchant Willem Blijenbergh, who fulfilled during many years all kinds of various official top positions in the city of Dordrecht, too many to enumerate. Spinoza's relation with the great pensionary of Holland, Jan de Witt, are subject of discussion. In contemporary pamphlets De Witt was accused of supporting him. The contacts with the renowned top scientist Christian Huygens were close and frequent in his Voorburg period. But there is another important conversation with a scientist, the mathematician Hudde, who after his Leiden education also became politically active. In fact, he served the city of Amsterdam for 21 years as one of its burgomasters, mainly as a responsible expert in its water management and town extension.
PS: Meer over Johannes Hudde: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Hudde
21 januari 2016
JOHANNES HUDDE (2)
This will become a long series, even a thriller with an astonishing finish, as I recently promised in Argentina to my Latin American friends. Johannes Hudde was born in 1628 from a regentesque family and accordingly predetermined to arrive high on the scale of the magistracy. After his Latin school Hudde was sent to the Leiden university for studying law after the preparatory courses in physics and philosophy in the Artes faculty. But under the influence of the lessons in mathematics of the famous professor Franciscus van Schooten Hudde’s interest was caught for this discipline. He became next to a few other brilliant students like the later grand pensionary Jan de Witt and Hendrik van Heuraat, a member of the small circle of intimates in the 'geometric society', which cooperated with him for the translation of Descartes' Géometrie in Latin, which was published in 1659-1661 in two volumes, together with two very important papers of Hudde: De maximis et minimis and De reductione aequationum. In the same years of his Leiden period also various other later acquaintances and friends of Spinoza, mostly students of medicine, walked in and out Rapenburg and student cafés among which also the since 1670 crypto-Spinozist on a Leiden cathedra, nominated with the support of Hudde, Burchard de Volder (cf. my article on him in Lias XV, 1988). Spinoza himself did not live far away from the city in the village Rijnsburg, on a walking distance for an afternoon. All those circumstances declare why so many Leideners were under Spinoza's correspondents and especially how and why Hudde later approached him with an unusually curious question.
PS: Meer over Johannes Hudde: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Hudde
JOHANNES HUDDE (2)
This will become a long series, even a thriller with an astonishing finish, as I recently promised in Argentina to my Latin American friends. Johannes Hudde was born in 1628 from a regentesque family and accordingly predetermined to arrive high on the scale of the magistracy. After his Latin school Hudde was sent to the Leiden university for studying law after the preparatory courses in physics and philosophy in the Artes faculty. But under the influence of the lessons in mathematics of the famous professor Franciscus van Schooten Hudde’s interest was caught for this discipline. He became next to a few other brilliant students like the later grand pensionary Jan de Witt and Hendrik van Heuraat, a member of the small circle of intimates in the 'geometric society', which cooperated with him for the translation of Descartes' Géometrie in Latin, which was published in 1659-1661 in two volumes, together with two very important papers of Hudde: De maximis et minimis and De reductione aequationum. In the same years of his Leiden period also various other later acquaintances and friends of Spinoza, mostly students of medicine, walked in and out Rapenburg and student cafés among which also the since 1670 crypto-Spinozist on a Leiden cathedra, nominated with the support of Hudde, Burchard de Volder (cf. my article on him in Lias XV, 1988). Spinoza himself did not live far away from the city in the village Rijnsburg, on a walking distance for an afternoon. All those circumstances declare why so many Leideners were under Spinoza's correspondents and especially how and why Hudde later approached him with an unusually curious question.
PS: Meer over Johannes Hudde: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Hudde
23 januari 2016
JOHANNES HUDDE (3)
Scholars have never paid special attention to Spinoza's correspondence with Hudde (Ep. 34, 35 & 36) in which he tried to demonstrate Gods unity on urgent request of the already famous mathematician Hudde, whose name was not mentioned in the Opera Posthuma. In 1677 the addressee, powerful top magistrate in the Amsterdam city council, was in the position to effectively prevent the disclosure of his former acquaintance with the now already officially condemned atheist to protect his undefiled renown and great authority. At the time (1664) Spinoza lived in Voorburg and had made a name as an expert in Descartes' physics by his PPC/CM (1663), just like Hudde with his co-edition of his geometry. The fact on itself of Hudde's questioning Spinoza is an acknowledgment of Spinoza's high position in the network of Dutch Cartesianism, but there is independent evidence for this in Olaus Borch's statement in his journal dd 1661-1662, which sounds: ‘that travelling around Leiden and Rijnsburg I was told that Spinoza was excellent in Cartesian philosophy, yea that he even superseded Descartes in many points by his clear concepts and demonstrable positions, BUT THAT THE AMSTERDAMMER HUDDE WHO PUBLISHED A TREATISE ON THE EXTREMES AS ATTACHMENT TO THE POSTHUMOUS GEOMETRICAL WORKS OF DESCARTES LEFT EVERYBODY FAR BEHIND HIM’.
Stenos testifies in his later publications, in which he in retrospect accuses Spinoza on account of his atheistic renewal and radicalisation of Descartes. (See my ‘Steno's statements on Spinoza ...). And by Oldenburg who much praises Spinoza's great ‘mathematicum ingenium’. Next time about Hudde's curious question itself, which bothered or troubled nobody else! Picture shows Amsterdam's city hall (now royal palace).
PS: Meer over Johannes Hudde: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Hudde
JOHANNES HUDDE (3)
Scholars have never paid special attention to Spinoza's correspondence with Hudde (Ep. 34, 35 & 36) in which he tried to demonstrate Gods unity on urgent request of the already famous mathematician Hudde, whose name was not mentioned in the Opera Posthuma. In 1677 the addressee, powerful top magistrate in the Amsterdam city council, was in the position to effectively prevent the disclosure of his former acquaintance with the now already officially condemned atheist to protect his undefiled renown and great authority. At the time (1664) Spinoza lived in Voorburg and had made a name as an expert in Descartes' physics by his PPC/CM (1663), just like Hudde with his co-edition of his geometry. The fact on itself of Hudde's questioning Spinoza is an acknowledgment of Spinoza's high position in the network of Dutch Cartesianism, but there is independent evidence for this in Olaus Borch's statement in his journal dd 1661-1662, which sounds: ‘that travelling around Leiden and Rijnsburg I was told that Spinoza was excellent in Cartesian philosophy, yea that he even superseded Descartes in many points by his clear concepts and demonstrable positions, BUT THAT THE AMSTERDAMMER HUDDE WHO PUBLISHED A TREATISE ON THE EXTREMES AS ATTACHMENT TO THE POSTHUMOUS GEOMETRICAL WORKS OF DESCARTES LEFT EVERYBODY FAR BEHIND HIM’.
Stenos testifies in his later publications, in which he in retrospect accuses Spinoza on account of his atheistic renewal and radicalisation of Descartes. (See my ‘Steno's statements on Spinoza ...). And by Oldenburg who much praises Spinoza's great ‘mathematicum ingenium’. Next time about Hudde's curious question itself, which bothered or troubled nobody else! Picture shows Amsterdam's city hall (now royal palace).
PS: Meer over Johannes Hudde: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Hudde
24 januari 2016
JOHANNES HUDDE (4)
Before starting my analysis of Spinoza's answer on Hudde's question, I wish to make a few remarks about the letters 34-36. These numberings are not original but the work of Gebhardt's often failing treatment of Spinoza's heritage in his so-called Heidelberger academic edition. Originally the editors inserted three letters in the OP on the 39th till 41st place.
The title 'amplissimo' was unavoidable for a magistrate. But a curious and problematic thing in this publication is the word 'versio' (translation) under the initials 'B.d.S.' in all three letters. Spinoza was not well acquainted with the Dutch language, which makes it improbable that Hudde would have approached him in Dutch, and he have answered him in this language. Second: theoretical or scientific discussions were always in Latin. Third, Spinoza, student of the excellent Latinist Van den Enden, perfectly mastered this tongue and Hudde was an excellent Latinist and as such employed by Van Schooten for the translation of Descartes' French Géométrie.
So why ought the letters have been written in Dutch? In their edition of the Shirley translation Rice and Barbone present the too artificial construction for letter 35: ‘the original, written in Dutch, is lost. The Latin version in the OP, was probably made by Spinoza. The Dutch edition of the O.P. prints a text that appears to be a retranslation from the Latin’. Sic!
All this is farfetched for nothing. There is a simple explanation. Hudde's name was not printed, maybe via his personal intervention but anyhow on behalf of his own position for excluding his association with Spinoza in public rumors. For the same purpose it would be advisable to rouse the impression that the recipient could not understand/write Latin and was uneducated. Nobody would then suspect his involvement. In this way the danger of any Spinozistic sympathy on his side would be easily averted. But an even stronger argument for the editor's intentional misleading of readers is the fact that an original Latin text of letter 34 with only a few minor unimportant differences is extant in the archives of the Royal Society London. So why would the others not have been written in Latin too?
PS: Meer over Johannes Hudde: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Hudde
JOHANNES HUDDE (4)
Before starting my analysis of Spinoza's answer on Hudde's question, I wish to make a few remarks about the letters 34-36. These numberings are not original but the work of Gebhardt's often failing treatment of Spinoza's heritage in his so-called Heidelberger academic edition. Originally the editors inserted three letters in the OP on the 39th till 41st place.
The title 'amplissimo' was unavoidable for a magistrate. But a curious and problematic thing in this publication is the word 'versio' (translation) under the initials 'B.d.S.' in all three letters. Spinoza was not well acquainted with the Dutch language, which makes it improbable that Hudde would have approached him in Dutch, and he have answered him in this language. Second: theoretical or scientific discussions were always in Latin. Third, Spinoza, student of the excellent Latinist Van den Enden, perfectly mastered this tongue and Hudde was an excellent Latinist and as such employed by Van Schooten for the translation of Descartes' French Géométrie.
So why ought the letters have been written in Dutch? In their edition of the Shirley translation Rice and Barbone present the too artificial construction for letter 35: ‘the original, written in Dutch, is lost. The Latin version in the OP, was probably made by Spinoza. The Dutch edition of the O.P. prints a text that appears to be a retranslation from the Latin’. Sic!
All this is farfetched for nothing. There is a simple explanation. Hudde's name was not printed, maybe via his personal intervention but anyhow on behalf of his own position for excluding his association with Spinoza in public rumors. For the same purpose it would be advisable to rouse the impression that the recipient could not understand/write Latin and was uneducated. Nobody would then suspect his involvement. In this way the danger of any Spinozistic sympathy on his side would be easily averted. But an even stronger argument for the editor's intentional misleading of readers is the fact that an original Latin text of letter 34 with only a few minor unimportant differences is extant in the archives of the Royal Society London. So why would the others not have been written in Latin too?
PS: Meer over Johannes Hudde: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Hudde
25 januari 2016
JOHANNES HUDDE (5)
Meyer had asked Spinoza an exposition on THE INFINITE (see Ep.12); now came Hudde with the very curious or unusual question concerning God's unicity, not while he doubted it or was upset by the church's dogma of the Trinity, but he required a strict mathematical demonstration of monotheism. Spinoza went at length of his capacity to satisfy the desire of the Amsterdam high magistrate. For a proof one needs 4 suppositions:
1) a definition only explicates a thing's essence;
2) it never refers a plurality or a number;
3) in case of an existing thing it has to mention its cause;
4) in or outside it.
The harmless reader cannot know yet what is properly at stake in this answering letter on ‘id quod mihi indicasti’ (what you have intimated to me). Of course: in all secrecy! In order to let my reader not in obscurity, the question of a radicalizing Cartesian is: matter being substantial and infinite and God traditionally being conceived as a pure spirit, creating the world, constitutes the problem of two divine infinites! And that is impossible.
I added a photo of Brugmans' 6-volume history of Amsterdam, in which many interesting details about Hudde's strong political career as burgomaster (19 times)!
PS: Meer over Johannes Hudde: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Hudde
JOHANNES HUDDE (5)
Meyer had asked Spinoza an exposition on THE INFINITE (see Ep.12); now came Hudde with the very curious or unusual question concerning God's unicity, not while he doubted it or was upset by the church's dogma of the Trinity, but he required a strict mathematical demonstration of monotheism. Spinoza went at length of his capacity to satisfy the desire of the Amsterdam high magistrate. For a proof one needs 4 suppositions:
1) a definition only explicates a thing's essence;
2) it never refers a plurality or a number;
3) in case of an existing thing it has to mention its cause;
4) in or outside it.
The harmless reader cannot know yet what is properly at stake in this answering letter on ‘id quod mihi indicasti’ (what you have intimated to me). Of course: in all secrecy! In order to let my reader not in obscurity, the question of a radicalizing Cartesian is: matter being substantial and infinite and God traditionally being conceived as a pure spirit, creating the world, constitutes the problem of two divine infinites! And that is impossible.
I added a photo of Brugmans' 6-volume history of Amsterdam, in which many interesting details about Hudde's strong political career as burgomaster (19 times)!
PS: Meer over Johannes Hudde: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Hudde
Johannes Hudde (1628 -1704)
26 januari 2016
JOHANNES HUDDE (6)
Letter 34's closing sentence offers complementary evidence for what we knew already from Borch's communication: the question on how to prove God's unicity was innocent language referring to a completely new super Cartesian worldview shared by both discussants S + H. Spinoza's second letter (35) shows that he was not content about Hudde's first reaction ('a bit obscure'!). Hudde then came back with an adaptation or improvement of his status quaestionis: ‘whether there is only one being which subsists through its (!) own sufficiency or force’. This provocative formulation is neutral ('ens' instead of 'God'). Spinoza now enumerates the logical properties required by such a fully autonomous entity. It has to/will be
1. eternal,
2. simple,
3. infinite instead of only indeterminate,
4. indivisible (divisibility would mean weakness) and
5. without any imperfection (on account of its substantial auto-sufficiency).
‘This thing I will call God’. The series of properties culminates in the fifth: the all comprehensivity of perfections, which preludes on Hudde's (and Spinoza's own) rejection of the world's bifurcation into a creating almighty pure Spirit and the created matter or extension.
PS: Meer over Johannes Hudde: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Hudde
------
PS: Erroneously and to my distress I deleted a post on Hudde, in which I Introduced the subject of Letter 34. The main thing I asked attention for was the evidence in the final sentence, in which Spinoza intimated by 'quod mihi indicasti', that his letter is a continuation of an earlier discussion between the two about their common ground and shared principles.
JOHANNES HUDDE (6)
Letter 34's closing sentence offers complementary evidence for what we knew already from Borch's communication: the question on how to prove God's unicity was innocent language referring to a completely new super Cartesian worldview shared by both discussants S + H. Spinoza's second letter (35) shows that he was not content about Hudde's first reaction ('a bit obscure'!). Hudde then came back with an adaptation or improvement of his status quaestionis: ‘whether there is only one being which subsists through its (!) own sufficiency or force’. This provocative formulation is neutral ('ens' instead of 'God'). Spinoza now enumerates the logical properties required by such a fully autonomous entity. It has to/will be
1. eternal,
2. simple,
3. infinite instead of only indeterminate,
4. indivisible (divisibility would mean weakness) and
5. without any imperfection (on account of its substantial auto-sufficiency).
‘This thing I will call God’. The series of properties culminates in the fifth: the all comprehensivity of perfections, which preludes on Hudde's (and Spinoza's own) rejection of the world's bifurcation into a creating almighty pure Spirit and the created matter or extension.
PS: Meer over Johannes Hudde: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Hudde
------
PS: Erroneously and to my distress I deleted a post on Hudde, in which I Introduced the subject of Letter 34. The main thing I asked attention for was the evidence in the final sentence, in which Spinoza intimated by 'quod mihi indicasti', that his letter is a continuation of an earlier discussion between the two about their common ground and shared principles.
8 Mei 2017
JOHANNES HUDDE (7)
Ep. 36 (May 1666) is a turning point in Spinoza's demonstration of the cosmic unity. Since Hudde was not yet quite convinced by Spinoza's procedure up till now, he does his utmost to explain more clearly the sense or meaning (sensum) of his argument. Hudde had apparently a problem with the third property of the autonomous being, namely its infinity. To his view indeterminacy differs from infinity, which is wrong according to Spinoza, who, then, gives an example that clarifies, indeed, the whole background of the discussion. ’If the term extension includes necessary existence, it will be as impossible to conceive extension as non-existent as to think existence as non-extended’.
This last sentence was corrupt in the OP, which has by a type of failure: ‘ac extensionem sine extensione impossibile erit concipere’ instead of ‘ac existentiam sine extensione imposibile erit concipere’ (as first corrected by Bruder and later again by Klever). Even the landmark edition of Spinoza's Complete Works by Ed Curley (2016) is based on the corrupt OP and continues its nonsensical phrase.
The ape has come out of the sleeve. The infinite Pure Spirit must exist and therefore must coincide with eternal matter. And cannot be different, 'as you and I agree'.
Translation of E. Curley (2016)
JOHANNES HUDDE (7)
Ep. 36 (May 1666) is a turning point in Spinoza's demonstration of the cosmic unity. Since Hudde was not yet quite convinced by Spinoza's procedure up till now, he does his utmost to explain more clearly the sense or meaning (sensum) of his argument. Hudde had apparently a problem with the third property of the autonomous being, namely its infinity. To his view indeterminacy differs from infinity, which is wrong according to Spinoza, who, then, gives an example that clarifies, indeed, the whole background of the discussion. ’If the term extension includes necessary existence, it will be as impossible to conceive extension as non-existent as to think existence as non-extended’.
This last sentence was corrupt in the OP, which has by a type of failure: ‘ac extensionem sine extensione impossibile erit concipere’ instead of ‘ac existentiam sine extensione imposibile erit concipere’ (as first corrected by Bruder and later again by Klever). Even the landmark edition of Spinoza's Complete Works by Ed Curley (2016) is based on the corrupt OP and continues its nonsensical phrase.
The ape has come out of the sleeve. The infinite Pure Spirit must exist and therefore must coincide with eternal matter. And cannot be different, 'as you and I agree'.
Translation of E. Curley (2016)
Old street in Amsterdam-City
9 mei 2017
JOHANNES HUDDE (8)
Hudde was fully on Spinoza's anti-Cartesian side, as Borch reported in his journal and is now emphasized by Spinoza himself. Apart from a different assessment of elements in the argumentation, both Spinoza and Hudde assert that extension belongs to God, who can no longer be understood as a pure spirit (the Creator) like in the theological tradition and chez Descartes. Both would subscribe to Parmenides' well- known proposition: ‘to gar auto noein te kai einai (in which 'einai' is conceived as 'physikôs'). Extension and thought are identical: the same thing, 'unicum ens', which radical position will soon be unconditionally subscribed to by Locke in his 'thinking matter' (Essay concerning human understanding). The great mathematician and prominent Amsterdam politician Hudde was a co-Spinozist. In the same letter 56 he was, moreover, consulted by his friend as the mathematical expert for some advice on the construction of a new grinding machine.
Attached a view on an old street in Amsterdam-city.
JOHANNES HUDDE (8)
Hudde was fully on Spinoza's anti-Cartesian side, as Borch reported in his journal and is now emphasized by Spinoza himself. Apart from a different assessment of elements in the argumentation, both Spinoza and Hudde assert that extension belongs to God, who can no longer be understood as a pure spirit (the Creator) like in the theological tradition and chez Descartes. Both would subscribe to Parmenides' well- known proposition: ‘to gar auto noein te kai einai (in which 'einai' is conceived as 'physikôs'). Extension and thought are identical: the same thing, 'unicum ens', which radical position will soon be unconditionally subscribed to by Locke in his 'thinking matter' (Essay concerning human understanding). The great mathematician and prominent Amsterdam politician Hudde was a co-Spinozist. In the same letter 56 he was, moreover, consulted by his friend as the mathematical expert for some advice on the construction of a new grinding machine.
Attached a view on an old street in Amsterdam-city.
10 mei 2017
JOHANNES HUDDE (9)
When corresponding with Spinoza the learned Hudde was already a member of the Amsterdam city council and would shortly later become one of the four burgomasters, a consular magistracy he would during his life exercise not less than 19 times between 1672-1703. As such he practically enjoyed autocratic power in various sections of the society, among which also justice. He earned great merits for his introduction of a system for cleaning the stinking water in the semi-circular canals by means of 'rosmolens' (horse mills) at the river Amstel. He also calculates the average water level (Amsterdam Peil: AP) and regulated the keeping up of this level in the wide environment (up to 50 KM around the city). Actually, he acted as a first-class water manager for half Holland. In the village I now live (on 60 km distance of Amsterdam) there is still an old sluice, which has a so-called 'Hudde stone', marking with a line the required level. I personally saw it when the sluice was restored. He also was part of the Directory of the VOC (United East India Company), by which he became powerful and rich.
I attach photos of two famous Amsterdam towers.
JOHANNES HUDDE (9)
When corresponding with Spinoza the learned Hudde was already a member of the Amsterdam city council and would shortly later become one of the four burgomasters, a consular magistracy he would during his life exercise not less than 19 times between 1672-1703. As such he practically enjoyed autocratic power in various sections of the society, among which also justice. He earned great merits for his introduction of a system for cleaning the stinking water in the semi-circular canals by means of 'rosmolens' (horse mills) at the river Amstel. He also calculates the average water level (Amsterdam Peil: AP) and regulated the keeping up of this level in the wide environment (up to 50 KM around the city). Actually, he acted as a first-class water manager for half Holland. In the village I now live (on 60 km distance of Amsterdam) there is still an old sluice, which has a so-called 'Hudde stone', marking with a line the required level. I personally saw it when the sluice was restored. He also was part of the Directory of the VOC (United East India Company), by which he became powerful and rich.
I attach photos of two famous Amsterdam towers.
Philippus van Limborch
(1633-1712)
31 januari 2016 (sic)
JOHANNES HUDDE (10)
During his stay in Holland as an English refugee Locke became a very intimate friend and confidant of the Amsterdam remonstrant professor Philippus van Limborch. In 1695, eight years after the Glorious Revolution, during which he returned to England, he received a letter from Van Limborch, in which young Hudde's famous question to Spinoza returns. The dear latitudinarian friend informs him about a discussion he had with prominent men, among which During his stay in Holland as an English refugee Locke became a very intimate friend and confidant of the Amsterdam remonstrant professor Philippus van Limborch. In 1695, eight years after the Glorious Revolution, during which he returned to England, he received a letter from Van Limborch, in which young Hudde's famous question to Spinoza returns. The dear latitudinarian friend informs him about a discussion he had with prominent men, among which also Hudde, about Locke's The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695). All of them much praised it. Hudde had read it [this Spinozistically inspired book, WK] twice and specially appreciated its argument. [He was not short-sighted and, of course, perceived its source, WK]. According to him the author had most strongly (‘solidissime’) defended the belief. ‘On this occasion, as usually happens, the discussion digressed to other subjects, and in fact to the arguments with which the unity of God is most solidly proved. The same leading man declared he was seeking for some irrefragable arguments by which it may be proved that an eternal being, or a being existing of itself or in every respect perfect, is only one. He found some things wanting in Hugo Grotius' De veritate religionios christianae. He added that he had heard that your treatise concerning the Human Understanding is being translated in French; that he values your judgment highly and exceedingly desires that translation. He asked me whether in that treatise you had also established the unity of a being existing of itself (‘unitatem entis a se existentis’). I replied that I did not know, having never read that treatise, since it is written in a language I do not know. He therefore wanted me seriously to recommend it to you that, if you have left this question untouched in your treatise, you will willingly enlarge your treatise by establishing it and will solidly establish the unity of an independent being. It seems to me clear that an independent being that embraces all perfection in itself is unique. He desired, however, that this should be proved in such a way that the argument should nowhere be laboured. [....] Let what you write be so managed that he cannot suspect that I have to some extent revealed his identity to you, because that would displease him …’ Burgomaster Hudde is afraid for infection of his name by public knowledge about his contact with an unorthodox philosopher who is already decried and accused (by Stillingfleet) as another atheist on account of his reasonableness.
JOHANNES HUDDE (10)
During his stay in Holland as an English refugee Locke became a very intimate friend and confidant of the Amsterdam remonstrant professor Philippus van Limborch. In 1695, eight years after the Glorious Revolution, during which he returned to England, he received a letter from Van Limborch, in which young Hudde's famous question to Spinoza returns. The dear latitudinarian friend informs him about a discussion he had with prominent men, among which During his stay in Holland as an English refugee Locke became a very intimate friend and confidant of the Amsterdam remonstrant professor Philippus van Limborch. In 1695, eight years after the Glorious Revolution, during which he returned to England, he received a letter from Van Limborch, in which young Hudde's famous question to Spinoza returns. The dear latitudinarian friend informs him about a discussion he had with prominent men, among which also Hudde, about Locke's The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695). All of them much praised it. Hudde had read it [this Spinozistically inspired book, WK] twice and specially appreciated its argument. [He was not short-sighted and, of course, perceived its source, WK]. According to him the author had most strongly (‘solidissime’) defended the belief. ‘On this occasion, as usually happens, the discussion digressed to other subjects, and in fact to the arguments with which the unity of God is most solidly proved. The same leading man declared he was seeking for some irrefragable arguments by which it may be proved that an eternal being, or a being existing of itself or in every respect perfect, is only one. He found some things wanting in Hugo Grotius' De veritate religionios christianae. He added that he had heard that your treatise concerning the Human Understanding is being translated in French; that he values your judgment highly and exceedingly desires that translation. He asked me whether in that treatise you had also established the unity of a being existing of itself (‘unitatem entis a se existentis’). I replied that I did not know, having never read that treatise, since it is written in a language I do not know. He therefore wanted me seriously to recommend it to you that, if you have left this question untouched in your treatise, you will willingly enlarge your treatise by establishing it and will solidly establish the unity of an independent being. It seems to me clear that an independent being that embraces all perfection in itself is unique. He desired, however, that this should be proved in such a way that the argument should nowhere be laboured. [....] Let what you write be so managed that he cannot suspect that I have to some extent revealed his identity to you, because that would displease him …’ Burgomaster Hudde is afraid for infection of his name by public knowledge about his contact with an unorthodox philosopher who is already decried and accused (by Stillingfleet) as another atheist on account of his reasonableness.
John Locke (1632-1704)
13 mei 2017
JOHANNES HUDDE (11)
Locke was already captivated by 'Spinozism', when reading in Oxford in Boyle's company Spinoza's PPC/CM in 1663 and annotating in his journal: ‘Quid aliud scripsit praeter haec ?’ In his Dutch time he had gathered all kind of information chez friends of Spinoza and knew very well where the discussion between Spinoza and Hudde was about from the Opera Posthuma, which he owned. His answer on Van Limborch's letter, via Coste given in French, was clear : ‘Je suis enclin à croire que l'unité de Dieu peut être aussi évidemment démontré que son existence’. And he said it was his intention to add in the forthcoming fourth impression of the Essay a few arguments in this sense despite the dangers in expressing this proposition.
Well, this is unmistakeably Locke's declaration about his adherence to Spinoza's 'deus sive natura'.
JOHANNES HUDDE (11)
Locke was already captivated by 'Spinozism', when reading in Oxford in Boyle's company Spinoza's PPC/CM in 1663 and annotating in his journal: ‘Quid aliud scripsit praeter haec ?’ In his Dutch time he had gathered all kind of information chez friends of Spinoza and knew very well where the discussion between Spinoza and Hudde was about from the Opera Posthuma, which he owned. His answer on Van Limborch's letter, via Coste given in French, was clear : ‘Je suis enclin à croire que l'unité de Dieu peut être aussi évidemment démontré que son existence’. And he said it was his intention to add in the forthcoming fourth impression of the Essay a few arguments in this sense despite the dangers in expressing this proposition.
Well, this is unmistakeably Locke's declaration about his adherence to Spinoza's 'deus sive natura'.
Bisschop Stillingfleet ca. 1690
15 mei 2017
JOHANNES HUDDE (12)
Locke had answered to Van Limborch that he was inclined to Hudde's co-spinozistic concept of God's unicity, but also that he required highest secrecy, because by bishop Stillingfleet had accused him for his heretical position. Thereupon there developed a correspondence between the two about the best way to formulate the answer for the Magnificus. Must the word 'corporeus' be included in the thinking substance? They unduly fear it would hurt the Cartesian Amsterdam burgomaster and Locke feared for his own safety. Accidentally Van Limborch was in this period visited by his friend, the famous crypto-Spinozist, the Leiden prof. De Volder, who was consulted for advice and provided the solution: ‘it is impossible that thought has no knowledge of extension’. He excluded the existence of a 'cogitatio per se' in favour of ‘rem vel substantiam cogitantem, ... finitam vel infinitam’. Locke fully agrees with this proposal of De Volder, secretly communicated to him. And so, Locke actually defines God with Spinoza as the thinking substance. He joins Spinoza.
JOHANNES HUDDE (12)
Locke had answered to Van Limborch that he was inclined to Hudde's co-spinozistic concept of God's unicity, but also that he required highest secrecy, because by bishop Stillingfleet had accused him for his heretical position. Thereupon there developed a correspondence between the two about the best way to formulate the answer for the Magnificus. Must the word 'corporeus' be included in the thinking substance? They unduly fear it would hurt the Cartesian Amsterdam burgomaster and Locke feared for his own safety. Accidentally Van Limborch was in this period visited by his friend, the famous crypto-Spinozist, the Leiden prof. De Volder, who was consulted for advice and provided the solution: ‘it is impossible that thought has no knowledge of extension’. He excluded the existence of a 'cogitatio per se' in favour of ‘rem vel substantiam cogitantem, ... finitam vel infinitam’. Locke fully agrees with this proposal of De Volder, secretly communicated to him. And so, Locke actually defines God with Spinoza as the thinking substance. He joins Spinoza.
Herman Boerhave (1668-1738)
3 februari 2016 (sic)
JOHANNES HUDDE (13)
The deadlock in the communication between the three idiosyncratic figures is solved by the happy accident that the Leiden crypto-Spinozistic professor De Volder (see my LIAS-article on him 1988) spent a few holydays to visit his old friend Van Limborch, who immediately attacked him with their embarrassment: Hudde's question, on which they could not give a satisfying reaction. De Volder said that he had already often conversed with Hudde about his concerns and emphasized in his presence, that ‘it is excluded that thought cannot have knowledge of extension’ (fieri autem non posse quin Cogitatio cognitionem sit habitura Extensionis). Locke, then, who had already great problems with the cartesian idea of an infinite Cogitatio on itself, seemed to be very charmed by De Volder's remark upon Van Limborch's report. And he had nothing against including it in the next edition of his Essay. In his poor Latin: ‘Nullo modo mihi in animum inducere possum cogitationem per se existere, sed rem vel substantiam cogitantem, ... finitam vel infinitam’ (in no way I can imagine an on itself existing thinking, but only a finite or infinite thinking thing or substance). Herewith Locke declares himself an adherent of De Volder's Spinozism, which will return in his 'Thinking Matter' of his Essay. Burchard de Volder ( 1643-1709) was a philosopher and a medic. His most famous student was Herman Boerhave.
JOHANNES HUDDE (13)
The deadlock in the communication between the three idiosyncratic figures is solved by the happy accident that the Leiden crypto-Spinozistic professor De Volder (see my LIAS-article on him 1988) spent a few holydays to visit his old friend Van Limborch, who immediately attacked him with their embarrassment: Hudde's question, on which they could not give a satisfying reaction. De Volder said that he had already often conversed with Hudde about his concerns and emphasized in his presence, that ‘it is excluded that thought cannot have knowledge of extension’ (fieri autem non posse quin Cogitatio cognitionem sit habitura Extensionis). Locke, then, who had already great problems with the cartesian idea of an infinite Cogitatio on itself, seemed to be very charmed by De Volder's remark upon Van Limborch's report. And he had nothing against including it in the next edition of his Essay. In his poor Latin: ‘Nullo modo mihi in animum inducere possum cogitationem per se existere, sed rem vel substantiam cogitantem, ... finitam vel infinitam’ (in no way I can imagine an on itself existing thinking, but only a finite or infinite thinking thing or substance). Herewith Locke declares himself an adherent of De Volder's Spinozism, which will return in his 'Thinking Matter' of his Essay. Burchard de Volder ( 1643-1709) was a philosopher and a medic. His most famous student was Herman Boerhave.
4 februari 2016 (sic)
JOHANNES HUDDE (14)
During his involvement in the discussion between Van Limborch and Hudde about God's unity and unicity (1695) Locke explicitly agreed with De Volder's Spinozistic intervention about the impossibility of any on itself existing and non-extended Spirit / thought. His 'thinking matter' (Essay 4.3 6) was already before this correspondence his most logical, albeit incomprehensible, position: as an effect of his early reading of and fascination by Spinoza's Opera Posthuma. Locke's philosophy is a carefully disguised reception of Spinoza, of his epistemology and political theory, as I have demonstrated in my monography. I deeply regret the Locke scholar's deafness for my abundant textual evidence, caused by his remaining a foreigner to Spinoza's text.
JOHANNES HUDDE (14)
During his involvement in the discussion between Van Limborch and Hudde about God's unity and unicity (1695) Locke explicitly agreed with De Volder's Spinozistic intervention about the impossibility of any on itself existing and non-extended Spirit / thought. His 'thinking matter' (Essay 4.3 6) was already before this correspondence his most logical, albeit incomprehensible, position: as an effect of his early reading of and fascination by Spinoza's Opera Posthuma. Locke's philosophy is a carefully disguised reception of Spinoza, of his epistemology and political theory, as I have demonstrated in my monography. I deeply regret the Locke scholar's deafness for my abundant textual evidence, caused by his remaining a foreigner to Spinoza's text.
|
|
On the left an essay of W. Klever on Locke; On the right Prof. Dr. Klevers Bruder edition of Spinoza’s works.
6 februari 2016 (sic)
JOHANNES HUDDE (15)
This is, still existing in its full glory, the OUDE KERK of Amsterdam, in which Hudde's bones are buried under a grave stone with his name.
JOHANNES HUDDE (15)
This is, still existing in its full glory, the OUDE KERK of Amsterdam, in which Hudde's bones are buried under a grave stone with his name.
Dr. & Prof. Em. Wim Klever
9 juni 2022 (herinnering van 9 juni 2016)
It is in my view certainly worthwhile to republish this inventory of the results of my research as a Spinoza scholar before or shortly after my obligatory being pensioned in 1995, now 27 years ago.
23 RES GESTAE of Dr. & Prof. Em. Wim Klever
RE-VIEWING MYSELF and looking back on my life as a Spinoza scholar, I wish to confess that I am proud on what I have found and demonstrated in my research:
- that a comma was misplaced in Ep. 58: conditioned inertia.
- that the character 'm' was 2x unduly cancelled in TTP19.
- that TP11's 'sui iuris' means 'economically independent'.
- that the 'non' in TIE to note about 'vim nativam' is spurious.
- that E5/11d must be changed into 'imago seu affectio'.
- that 'sibi' in E2/47s means not: X c Y , but X c X and Y c Y.
- that 'quantitas quietis' (PPC2/22) Is eye-opener f physica S.
- that 'vel cedat' badly fails after 'praestet' in E2/13s.
- that Leiden-OP notes by Tschirnhaus are hugely valuable.
- discovery Van den Enden's VPS (1665) & KVNN (1662).
- that assessment of TTP & TP is impossible without Frans van den Ende.
- that Mandeville's Fable exploits Sp's anthropology E 3.
- Locke is a disguised but excellent interpreter of Spinoza E2.
- that Hume's Treatise processes science of Spinoza's Ethica.
- that Spinoza advocates nationalism & direct democracy.
- that Bouwmeester's suggestion (Ep.37) lead Sp. to E5.
- that TTP follows/defends Meyer's method PSSI (1665).
- that J.H. Glazemaker is the addressee of Ep. 84.
- discovery of Borch's explosive info about Fran s van den Ende 1661.
- that ETHICA is overall a physical treatise.
- the clue of Hudde's question for proving God's unicity.
- centrality Lacourtian coupling principle in Spinoza's TP.
- that Leiden-prof. De Volder was a crypto-spinozist.
It is in my view certainly worthwhile to republish this inventory of the results of my research as a Spinoza scholar before or shortly after my obligatory being pensioned in 1995, now 27 years ago.
23 RES GESTAE of Dr. & Prof. Em. Wim Klever
RE-VIEWING MYSELF and looking back on my life as a Spinoza scholar, I wish to confess that I am proud on what I have found and demonstrated in my research:
- that a comma was misplaced in Ep. 58: conditioned inertia.
- that the character 'm' was 2x unduly cancelled in TTP19.
- that TP11's 'sui iuris' means 'economically independent'.
- that the 'non' in TIE to note about 'vim nativam' is spurious.
- that E5/11d must be changed into 'imago seu affectio'.
- that 'sibi' in E2/47s means not: X c Y , but X c X and Y c Y.
- that 'quantitas quietis' (PPC2/22) Is eye-opener f physica S.
- that 'vel cedat' badly fails after 'praestet' in E2/13s.
- that Leiden-OP notes by Tschirnhaus are hugely valuable.
- discovery Van den Enden's VPS (1665) & KVNN (1662).
- that assessment of TTP & TP is impossible without Frans van den Ende.
- that Mandeville's Fable exploits Sp's anthropology E 3.
- Locke is a disguised but excellent interpreter of Spinoza E2.
- that Hume's Treatise processes science of Spinoza's Ethica.
- that Spinoza advocates nationalism & direct democracy.
- that Bouwmeester's suggestion (Ep.37) lead Sp. to E5.
- that TTP follows/defends Meyer's method PSSI (1665).
- that J.H. Glazemaker is the addressee of Ep. 84.
- discovery of Borch's explosive info about Fran s van den Ende 1661.
- that ETHICA is overall a physical treatise.
- the clue of Hudde's question for proving God's unicity.
- centrality Lacourtian coupling principle in Spinoza's TP.
- that Leiden-prof. De Volder was a crypto-spinozist.
22 mei 2022 (herinnering 20 mei 2014)
TOLAND PLAGIARIZING SPINOZA's CRITIQUE ON DESCARTES' PHYSICS
The peculiar freethinker and volatile ink-slinger John Toland (1670-1722), who never met Spinoza in any other way as St. Paul met Christ, is the fifth in our row of authentic followers and expositors of Spinoza's new physics. In his 1704-LETTERS TO SERENA (fictive princess) Spinoza is the subject of the fourth and fifth letter. The author's quasi-intention is to REFUTE Spinoza (explained in letter four is Descartes) and to replace his system by his own theory, that motion is essential to matter (letter five is Spinoza!). The well-informed reader does know, of course, that acc. to Spinoza motion is the immediate mode in which extension exists. The foundation of his point is Letter 81 (no moles quiescens) in the Correspondence, which says "that matter never was nor ever can be a sluggish, dead, and inactive lump or in a state of absolute repose". He appropriates Spinoza's intellectual performance as being his own theory! His forgery is evident. The case is the exact reversal of the so-called pseudo-refutations of Spinoza. It is the difference between honest self-protection and deceptive self-exposure.
But Toland is a gifted writer on Spinoza's music, funny and often clarifying. He directs himself in his role as a naturalistic scientist against the putative metaphysical Spinoza and then, declares motion to be responsible for everything happening and existing in the world, "as much Force being necessary to keep bodies at rest as to move them, wherefore local motion and Rest are only relative terms, perishable modes, and no positive or real beings".
"They (the best philosophers and metaphysicians) own that all the phenomena of Nature must be explained by motion, by the action of all things on one another, according to mechanic Principles". A natural inertia, as defended by less intelligent philosophers, is an impossibility in the new science of nature.
Toland's plundered plumes are Spinoza's. His book is 'Spinoza in disguise'.
TOLAND PLAGIARIZING SPINOZA's CRITIQUE ON DESCARTES' PHYSICS
The peculiar freethinker and volatile ink-slinger John Toland (1670-1722), who never met Spinoza in any other way as St. Paul met Christ, is the fifth in our row of authentic followers and expositors of Spinoza's new physics. In his 1704-LETTERS TO SERENA (fictive princess) Spinoza is the subject of the fourth and fifth letter. The author's quasi-intention is to REFUTE Spinoza (explained in letter four is Descartes) and to replace his system by his own theory, that motion is essential to matter (letter five is Spinoza!). The well-informed reader does know, of course, that acc. to Spinoza motion is the immediate mode in which extension exists. The foundation of his point is Letter 81 (no moles quiescens) in the Correspondence, which says "that matter never was nor ever can be a sluggish, dead, and inactive lump or in a state of absolute repose". He appropriates Spinoza's intellectual performance as being his own theory! His forgery is evident. The case is the exact reversal of the so-called pseudo-refutations of Spinoza. It is the difference between honest self-protection and deceptive self-exposure.
But Toland is a gifted writer on Spinoza's music, funny and often clarifying. He directs himself in his role as a naturalistic scientist against the putative metaphysical Spinoza and then, declares motion to be responsible for everything happening and existing in the world, "as much Force being necessary to keep bodies at rest as to move them, wherefore local motion and Rest are only relative terms, perishable modes, and no positive or real beings".
"They (the best philosophers and metaphysicians) own that all the phenomena of Nature must be explained by motion, by the action of all things on one another, according to mechanic Principles". A natural inertia, as defended by less intelligent philosophers, is an impossibility in the new science of nature.
Toland's plundered plumes are Spinoza's. His book is 'Spinoza in disguise'.
20 mei 2022 (herinnering 20 mei 2014)
DESCARTES' HALLUCINATION ACCORDING TO OVERKAMP
In our series posts on Spinoza's critique on and innovation of Descartes' physics and his being closely followed by Cuffeler, Tschirnhaus and De Volder, I'll ask today attention for a fourth disciple: Heydericius Overkamp. He is a specially interesting case. Promoted at the Leiden University to doctor medicinae in 1677, he fell in disgrace when publishing in 1683 in Amsterdam a running but critical commentary on Descartes under the title NADER ONDERSOEK (investigation) OVER HET TWEEDE DEEL VAN DE BEGINZELEN DER WYSBEGEERTE VAN RENATUS DES CARTES. Because of this 80-page book, in which the name of Spinoza is not mentioned, his name was cancelled in the catalogus promotorum and his doctor-title withdrawn. He was punished as an unworthy academician. His remark to PRINCIPIA PHILOSOPHIAE 2/26 (no more action is needed for motion than for rest) sounds: ‘Sir Descartes reveals us here a truth of all truths (een waarheyt aller waarheden), which he establishes here but which he again contradicts hereafter, namely that the cause for rest is really the same as the cause of motion’. The later proposition referred to cannot be another than art. 37' in which Descartes proposes his principle of inertia.
‘Let us take -in order not to blame this great man and not to pride ourselves too much - for a clear understanding of the question the example of a millstone, which lies on the earth at rest. Now Descartes observes that the stone must always be quietly situated there until we move it with force from its place. The question is however wherefrom it comes that it lies there so rockfest and why a child is unable to shove it. He answers that the reason is that each thing, as far as it can (zo veel als het kan) always remains in the same state and never changes except by external causes. But this answer does not satisfy me, since the fact that the millstone remains there so firm does not originate from the stone itself, which is unintelligible and even against his own assumptions in PP4. Because he argues there that each thing considered alone is more light than heavy.
A millstone does not lie there by itself but is pressed to it by a fluid swerving around the earth. This fluid pressing all bodies compels it to remain there so that we cannot push it from its place unless we gain the victory over this universal pressure of the bodies, namely by a horizontal pressure which is stronger than the vertical pressure.’ ‘Nobody has any power to remain in the state in which it is’.
"The words REST, FORCE, POWER, CONATUS etc declare nothing".
Overkamp finds himself under Spinoza's roof.
DESCARTES' HALLUCINATION ACCORDING TO OVERKAMP
In our series posts on Spinoza's critique on and innovation of Descartes' physics and his being closely followed by Cuffeler, Tschirnhaus and De Volder, I'll ask today attention for a fourth disciple: Heydericius Overkamp. He is a specially interesting case. Promoted at the Leiden University to doctor medicinae in 1677, he fell in disgrace when publishing in 1683 in Amsterdam a running but critical commentary on Descartes under the title NADER ONDERSOEK (investigation) OVER HET TWEEDE DEEL VAN DE BEGINZELEN DER WYSBEGEERTE VAN RENATUS DES CARTES. Because of this 80-page book, in which the name of Spinoza is not mentioned, his name was cancelled in the catalogus promotorum and his doctor-title withdrawn. He was punished as an unworthy academician. His remark to PRINCIPIA PHILOSOPHIAE 2/26 (no more action is needed for motion than for rest) sounds: ‘Sir Descartes reveals us here a truth of all truths (een waarheyt aller waarheden), which he establishes here but which he again contradicts hereafter, namely that the cause for rest is really the same as the cause of motion’. The later proposition referred to cannot be another than art. 37' in which Descartes proposes his principle of inertia.
‘Let us take -in order not to blame this great man and not to pride ourselves too much - for a clear understanding of the question the example of a millstone, which lies on the earth at rest. Now Descartes observes that the stone must always be quietly situated there until we move it with force from its place. The question is however wherefrom it comes that it lies there so rockfest and why a child is unable to shove it. He answers that the reason is that each thing, as far as it can (zo veel als het kan) always remains in the same state and never changes except by external causes. But this answer does not satisfy me, since the fact that the millstone remains there so firm does not originate from the stone itself, which is unintelligible and even against his own assumptions in PP4. Because he argues there that each thing considered alone is more light than heavy.
A millstone does not lie there by itself but is pressed to it by a fluid swerving around the earth. This fluid pressing all bodies compels it to remain there so that we cannot push it from its place unless we gain the victory over this universal pressure of the bodies, namely by a horizontal pressure which is stronger than the vertical pressure.’ ‘Nobody has any power to remain in the state in which it is’.
"The words REST, FORCE, POWER, CONATUS etc declare nothing".
Overkamp finds himself under Spinoza's roof.
6 mei 2022 (herinnering 6 mei 2014)
DESCARTES' FICTION ABOUT INERTIA AS A NATURAL LAW
Spinoza's critique and hard-line opposition against mainstream Cartesianism was elaborated by his close intimates, among which his 'summus amicus' Cufferler, who lived with him in The Hague. In the first part of his 'PANTOSOPHIAE PRINCIPIA' (1684) he twice referred to his master. ‘How we acquire the knowledge of God is more than enough (abunde satis) explained in B. D. S.' Ethica, which golden book will never perish ...’; and ‘As this is taught by a certain philosopher of a great name, whose immature -how terrible - decease from the literary world can never be enough deplored, as is testified by his very learned writings, which circulate in the hands of nearly all people, although they are understood by very few’.
Descartes is certainly his tangent in the following fragment: I claim that from the inborn truths that everything moving is moved by something else and nothing by itself, we can infer that every moving body must be moved by another body CONTIGUOUS to it and moving and this body in its turn must be moved by another contiguous and moving body etc.’.
That my text correction of the OP-edition of Letter 58 must be correct confirms this fragment: ‘that the mind is determined to its operation ... by a certain external cause, in the same way as a STONE is determined by VICINAL moving bodies to start AND TO CONTINUE its motion in this or that direction’.
In the 2nd part Cuffeler comes again to a frontal attack on Descartes where he writes on ‘the FICTION of certain laws of motion, which are DREAMT to be by nature installed into things, which would be the cause of certain motions that we remark in singular bodies, like these, that a moving body as far as it can will so long move until its motion is impeded by another body; or like this law, that a resting body, as far as it can, will remain in its state until that body is disturbed from it by another’. This is, according to Cuffeler, a folly (ineptia).
And further: ‘Descartes does not less HALLUCINATE when he tries to illustrate and explicate the said laws of nature with the example of projectiles. If, however, another reason than the above-mentioned law of nature exists for the perseverance in motion of projectiles after their leaving the throwing hand, then we have a compelling argument for maintaining that Descartes has not confirmed these laws by the example of projectiles and has not succeeded in logically (legitim) explaining them’.
DESCARTES' FICTION ABOUT INERTIA AS A NATURAL LAW
Spinoza's critique and hard-line opposition against mainstream Cartesianism was elaborated by his close intimates, among which his 'summus amicus' Cufferler, who lived with him in The Hague. In the first part of his 'PANTOSOPHIAE PRINCIPIA' (1684) he twice referred to his master. ‘How we acquire the knowledge of God is more than enough (abunde satis) explained in B. D. S.' Ethica, which golden book will never perish ...’; and ‘As this is taught by a certain philosopher of a great name, whose immature -how terrible - decease from the literary world can never be enough deplored, as is testified by his very learned writings, which circulate in the hands of nearly all people, although they are understood by very few’.
Descartes is certainly his tangent in the following fragment: I claim that from the inborn truths that everything moving is moved by something else and nothing by itself, we can infer that every moving body must be moved by another body CONTIGUOUS to it and moving and this body in its turn must be moved by another contiguous and moving body etc.’.
That my text correction of the OP-edition of Letter 58 must be correct confirms this fragment: ‘that the mind is determined to its operation ... by a certain external cause, in the same way as a STONE is determined by VICINAL moving bodies to start AND TO CONTINUE its motion in this or that direction’.
In the 2nd part Cuffeler comes again to a frontal attack on Descartes where he writes on ‘the FICTION of certain laws of motion, which are DREAMT to be by nature installed into things, which would be the cause of certain motions that we remark in singular bodies, like these, that a moving body as far as it can will so long move until its motion is impeded by another body; or like this law, that a resting body, as far as it can, will remain in its state until that body is disturbed from it by another’. This is, according to Cuffeler, a folly (ineptia).
And further: ‘Descartes does not less HALLUCINATE when he tries to illustrate and explicate the said laws of nature with the example of projectiles. If, however, another reason than the above-mentioned law of nature exists for the perseverance in motion of projectiles after their leaving the throwing hand, then we have a compelling argument for maintaining that Descartes has not confirmed these laws by the example of projectiles and has not succeeded in logically (legitim) explaining them’.
30 april 2022 (herinnering 30 april 2014)
This is the cover of my privately published book, written in the year that I had serious heart problems and I received in open surgery a new aorta valve for improving my respiration.
The reasons why I ask now, after 14 years, again attention for this scholarly work are 1) that there are no copies left and I lost also my file, and 2) that its content is to my great regret either not enough and only half known or consciously / maliciously neglected c.q. bashed among specialists in Spinoza's physics while not fitting to their traditional view.
I intend to present in successive posts parts of its sections, which enable a new view on Spinoza's position, revolutionary not only in the history of physics, but also for understanding his Ethica (1677).
A first remark concerns the title which is inspired by a sentence in Boerhaave's DISPUTATIO PHILOSOPHICA INAUGURALIS (1690) in which he cleverly immunizes himself against persecution with a kind of logical fork: "But indeed, either do I do not understand the enigmas of this Jewish Sphinx òr the man who assents to them must be addicted to a paradoxical wisdom". The young doctor was on his way not only to become the most famous medical professor of the 18th century, but also unmistakably a follower of the sphinx. See my "Boerhaave Sequax Spinozae" (2006).
This is the cover of my privately published book, written in the year that I had serious heart problems and I received in open surgery a new aorta valve for improving my respiration.
The reasons why I ask now, after 14 years, again attention for this scholarly work are 1) that there are no copies left and I lost also my file, and 2) that its content is to my great regret either not enough and only half known or consciously / maliciously neglected c.q. bashed among specialists in Spinoza's physics while not fitting to their traditional view.
I intend to present in successive posts parts of its sections, which enable a new view on Spinoza's position, revolutionary not only in the history of physics, but also for understanding his Ethica (1677).
A first remark concerns the title which is inspired by a sentence in Boerhaave's DISPUTATIO PHILOSOPHICA INAUGURALIS (1690) in which he cleverly immunizes himself against persecution with a kind of logical fork: "But indeed, either do I do not understand the enigmas of this Jewish Sphinx òr the man who assents to them must be addicted to a paradoxical wisdom". The young doctor was on his way not only to become the most famous medical professor of the 18th century, but also unmistakably a follower of the sphinx. See my "Boerhaave Sequax Spinozae" (2006).
27 oktober 2020
An interesting point for better understanding Spinoza’s position.
Dutch language-use of his master van den Enden in Spinoza’s text. The master had a special preference for the word ‘zaak’, meaning the thing. He actually was a radical realist. He described himself, as one can see on the scanned coverpage of his VPS as “Who most loves things” (meest van zaken houdt), sometimes abbreviated in his signature M.V.Z.H. as in his KVNN (1662).
Well, in the KV Spinoza defines God as the “denkende uitgebreide ZAAK” (thinking extended thing), later to become the prominent ‘substantia’ in the Ethica (1675).
But in the earlier TTP one suddenly meets in ch.III the very colloquial word combination for announcing a heavy accent on a forthcoming conclusion: ‘Sed res est’ (the thing is). This expression is unknown in classical Latin and will certainly not be found in Sallustius, Tacitus or Cicero. The student of the teacher Latin imitates his Dutch!
An interesting point for better understanding Spinoza’s position.
Dutch language-use of his master van den Enden in Spinoza’s text. The master had a special preference for the word ‘zaak’, meaning the thing. He actually was a radical realist. He described himself, as one can see on the scanned coverpage of his VPS as “Who most loves things” (meest van zaken houdt), sometimes abbreviated in his signature M.V.Z.H. as in his KVNN (1662).
Well, in the KV Spinoza defines God as the “denkende uitgebreide ZAAK” (thinking extended thing), later to become the prominent ‘substantia’ in the Ethica (1675).
But in the earlier TTP one suddenly meets in ch.III the very colloquial word combination for announcing a heavy accent on a forthcoming conclusion: ‘Sed res est’ (the thing is). This expression is unknown in classical Latin and will certainly not be found in Sallustius, Tacitus or Cicero. The student of the teacher Latin imitates his Dutch!
26 oktober 2020
Spinoza has to be called a physicist and opticus, apart from ethicist.
Spinoza has to be called a physicist and opticus, apart from ethicist.
23 oktober 2017
Yesterday I was reading the extremely rich and very detailed passageTTP 6/53:
“Raro admodum fit, ut homines rem aliquem, ut gesta est, ita simpliciter narrent, ut nihil sui iudicii narrationi inmisceant; imo, quum aliquid novi vident aut audiunt, nisi maxime a suis praeconceptis opinionibus caveant, iis plerumque ita praeoccupabuntur, ut plane ALIUD, quam quod vident aut contigisse audiunt, PERCIPIANT, praesertim si res acta captum narrantis aut audientis superat, et maxime, si ad eius rem referat, ut ipsa certo modo contingat”.
This sentence deserves special attention from those who in actual political discussions talk so easily about ‘facts’.
Yesterday I was reading the extremely rich and very detailed passageTTP 6/53:
“Raro admodum fit, ut homines rem aliquem, ut gesta est, ita simpliciter narrent, ut nihil sui iudicii narrationi inmisceant; imo, quum aliquid novi vident aut audiunt, nisi maxime a suis praeconceptis opinionibus caveant, iis plerumque ita praeoccupabuntur, ut plane ALIUD, quam quod vident aut contigisse audiunt, PERCIPIANT, praesertim si res acta captum narrantis aut audientis superat, et maxime, si ad eius rem referat, ut ipsa certo modo contingat”.
This sentence deserves special attention from those who in actual political discussions talk so easily about ‘facts’.
18 oktober 2020
And read it with loud voice and the right accent!
CÓRPORIBÚS CAECÍS IGITÚR NATÚRA GERÍT RES
(Lucretius, DE RERUM NATURA 1/328)
"With blind (i.e. Invisible) bodies Nature is doing its stuff"
Lucretius is a main source of Spinoza's physics. The quote is a rhythmic verse to learn by heart.
Sorry that I quote Spinoza in Latin, but you may search the indicated place in any translation. It is worth the trouble.
And read it with loud voice and the right accent!
CÓRPORIBÚS CAECÍS IGITÚR NATÚRA GERÍT RES
(Lucretius, DE RERUM NATURA 1/328)
"With blind (i.e. Invisible) bodies Nature is doing its stuff"
Lucretius is a main source of Spinoza's physics. The quote is a rhythmic verse to learn by heart.
Sorry that I quote Spinoza in Latin, but you may search the indicated place in any translation. It is worth the trouble.
16 oktober 2020
Wittgenstein’s ÜBER GEWISZHEIT constituted my farewell to the postwar dominating Logical Positivism in epistemology. His TRACTATUS LOGICO-PHILOSOPHICUS (1921) does not only qua title remind us of Spinoza, but also its content is close to Spinoza, albeit his name is nowhere mentioned. In fact it initiated my ‘conversion’ to Spinoza. From admiring Wittgenstein I turned adoring Spinoza and loving myself as mode / expression of the Universe.
Wittgenstein’s ÜBER GEWISZHEIT constituted my farewell to the postwar dominating Logical Positivism in epistemology. His TRACTATUS LOGICO-PHILOSOPHICUS (1921) does not only qua title remind us of Spinoza, but also its content is close to Spinoza, albeit his name is nowhere mentioned. In fact it initiated my ‘conversion’ to Spinoza. From admiring Wittgenstein I turned adoring Spinoza and loving myself as mode / expression of the Universe.
