Spinoza worked on his philosophy in the belief that, provided it was constructed on entirely rational lines, in accordance with the model set by Euclid’s geometry, then it would be accepted without doubt by educated readers and would be approved by the political leaders of his day. In practice, his work fell far short of that ideal and today we have Gödel to thank for showing its intrinsic impossibility. Euclid himself was toppled from his throne a century later. Indeed Spinoza’s own work admitted the possibility of reaching mutually conflicting views from the same starting point. In particular, it was apparent that people may on the one hand be motivated by Reason, so that error and dispute could be traced to mistakes in the reasoning process, but they could also be motivated by passion, with very different outcomes. The first shaped his Ethics, the second his Politics. If Spinoza’s philosophy had in fact attained logical perfection it would still have been rejected by his contemporaries. This became increasingly evident even to Spinoza himself. Knowing that, he deferred publication of his Ethics until after his death.

The author is not impressed by Spinoza’s claim to have relied strictly on Reason in his philosophy because it incorporates so much that is clearly no more than the reiteration of contemporary prejudices, of which she is most aggravated by his strident misogyny. I found her comment on this more than witty; arguments used to show that women are unfit to rule would make better sense if they were used to show that men are unfit to rule.

"Spinoza took care not to let his theory of mind be trapped in contemporary empirical theory... He was interested only in working from those laws of nature that could be taken as unarguably true – common notions governing all instances of a kind... According to Spinozistic principles then, any claim about the nature of women must be derived from an axiom or common notion and any claim made about women which could not be inferred from such a notion was suspect... Spinoza gives no demonstration of his view of women’s mentality in Ethics. He merely asserts that certain mental weaknesses are womanly... Yet in Ethics Part 3, and in later writings, the superstition and bias that strangled the rational faculties of women could also grip men in insane passion. ... Further, males are shown to be weakened by a humiliating affect traditionally associated with their gender. ‘Nor are they thought to be less mad who burn with Love, and dream, both day and night, only of a lover... Men generally judge [women’s] ability only by their beauty.’ Spinoza made men victims of female seduction. He claimed that women induced irrationality and distorted political decisions... Yet he used this male weakness as evidence for his view that women, not men, were unfit to rule.” It is a delight to observe a woman skewering Spinoza’s misogyny using his own methods.

This book traces many examples where the content of Spinoza’s philosophy is attributable to and explained by contemporary events. Indeed, the book’s objective is really to identify these links. The associated account of Dutch history would be fascinating in its own right, were it not mercilessly selective. Instead, it is largely confusing, not least because detailed accounts of some events are set beside total silence on others. The upshot, nevertheless, is that his writings cannot be viewed as the dispassionate work of a timeless thinker. Happily, this does not have to be as big a problem as it might appear, because what can be rescued is not the content, the material that is so obviously of its own time and place, but the methodology and the attitude which are arguably of lasting value and absolutely relevant to our own time.

”...examination of Spinoza’s life and character serve to confirm that certain logical flaws are integral to his thinking and are therefore ineradicable. ... We may today get the most from Spinoza if we take the ... approach of appealing not to ‘the letter’ of his work, but to his general treatment of issues which concern us. Then, I believe, we find answers which spring from the mainstream of his philosophical thought – his metaphysical theory of the interrelatedness within nature of all natural phenomena, physical and mental – from which he believed deductions concerning particular cases should be made. Many such deductions are shockingly relevant to current affairs and contemporary personal situations... His requirement was that we reason out our predicament either by investigating its causes or by appealing to some common notion. While it would be satisfying to be able to intuit the truth of our situation, the bulk of Spinoza’s doctrine dictates that this option is not available to us. Instead, our decision making procedures must consider each experience of pain, loneliness, guilt, fear, obsession, appetite and financial or other anxiety as an event of kind so-and-so, taking into account our own internal drive. Moral dilemmas and practical choices are with equal profit examined against this grid. ... We should look at our ...predicaments not only in terms of what the harm or good in doing x must be when any human, considered independently of a specific historical or cultural domain, does x, but in terms of what is the harm or good for a person of our disposition. It must not be forgotten that Spinoza, stunningly, vests the ultimate obligation of any individual wholly in that individual, reasoning self.”

A must read for all young women.

And the Moon be still as bright - The Martian Chronicles - Ray Bradbury

The subtitle of this biography of Thomas Jefferson is "In Pursuit of Reason" and that theme is expanded upon in the quote by Jefferson with which Cunningham chose to head the text: It rests now with ourselves alone to enjoy in peace and concord the blessings of self-government, so long denied to mankind: to show by example the sufficiency of human reason for the care of human affairs and that the will of the majority, the Natural law of every society, is the only sure guardian of the rights of man. That quote captures how Jefferson saw the connections between his life, reason and politics. You can see it in his passion for education, architecture, books, in so many of the details of his life and expressed so eloquently in his speeches and writings. His intellect was so dazzling, his defense of liberty and democracy so inspiring--and then there's slavery. It's said slavery is America's "original sin." Except there was nothing original about it. It was as old and wide-spread as mankind when America was young. So I do tend to make allowances for the times. But the picture Cunningham presents makes the question of slavery and Jefferson, if not exactly worse, well, then complicated, and very perplexing. As a young lawyer, Jefferson took on cases that challenged the ownership of slaves--for free. Early on he'd make arguments in such cases about the right of every human being to freedom as their birthright. He'd write a condemnation of slavery into the Declaration of Independence (cut by others) and wrote a provision--which didn't pass--into a draft of the Virginia constitution emancipating slaves. For the rest of his life he maintained the institution of slavery was evil and threatened the very republic he had helped create. Yet Flexner, in his biography of George Washington, compared Washington's treatment of his slaves to Jefferson--and the contrasts are telling. There was no rumor Washington ever sexually exploited his slaves, and he refused to sell them or even move them without their consent. He grew increasingly disturbed by slavery and towards the end of his life turned his beloved Mount Vernon upside down to prepare his slaves to be freed, and he did so in his will, providing pensions for those not able to work as well as providing for the education of those still children. You can't say any of that in defense of Jefferson according to Flexner. Cunningham does deny Jefferson's slave Sally Hemings was ever his mistress, saying that belongs "to fiction, not history." (The book was published in 1987, before the DNA tests in 1998 that substantiated the Jefferson/Hemings relationship). Cunningham also claimed Jefferson "never grew wealthy on slave labor" but admitted Jefferson sold slaves "to pay his creditors." He also admitted that Jefferson, unlike Washington, never intended to free his slaves. So in the end it's hard not to conclude that when it comes to slavery, Washington did better, while you can't deny that Jefferson knew better--that he did know owning human beings demeaned the owned and owner both. I don't think anything I read in this biography really resolves that conundrum. The other issue the biographies of Washington and Adams I recently read brought to the fore was Jefferson's conduct as one of the founders of the first American political parties, the Democratic-Republicans, particularly in opposition to Alexander Hamilton and his Federalists. Flexner's account reflected well on neither Jefferson nor Hamilton. Ferling, in his biography of Adams, excoriates Hamilton and the Federalists, claiming they served to "enrich the few" and "foster corruption," that Hamilton had a "low, cunning dishonesty" and Washington was Hamilton's "puppet." I didn't expect Cunningham would take the Federalist side in this, and I think I can detect an understandable bias towards the subject of his biography, but to his credit he's much more fair than Ferling to both sides, presenting actions that do not reflect well on Jefferson and his Democratic-Republicans, even if he doesn't address some of the worst things of which Flexner accuses Jefferson. And he makes it clear Washington was no puppet but tried hard to reconcile Jefferson and Hamilton, both members of his cabinet. And really, in the end I find it hard to be shocked or condemn Jefferson for *gasp* acting like a politician rather than an aloof philosopher-king. Rather, in the end, despite his flaws, the biography leaves me with a great appreciation of all that Jefferson contributed to America. Flexner justifiably claimed for George Washington that he promulgated and preserved a republican form of government. Ferling highlighted the ways John Adams secured American independence, not just in breaking from Great Britain, but in avoiding domination by Britain or France. If Jefferson's contribution could be summed up in one word, it would be: democracy. Jefferson's legacy included fostering religious freedom, public education, widening of the political franchise and helping to create the American political party as a way to channel political conflict and the will of the people. This is a fairly short biography--only 349 pages. Given all Jefferson witnessed, participated in and accomplished in his long life, this can only give an outline of this complex man and his accomplishments, but there's certainly plenty I learned reading the book, and I certainly was never bored.

Ooh, Kafka. That's my man, right there. Here's hoping the book's as intriguing as it looks.