Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Spinoza on Philosophy and Religion: The Averroistic Sources

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Rationalists: Between Tradition and Innovation

Part of the book series: The New Synthese Historical Library ((SYNL,volume 65))

Abstract

Carlos Fraenkel argues that Spinoza, who is often presented as having laid the foundations of modernity, shared the philosophical and religious concerns of medieval Islamic and Jewish philosophers to a remarkable extent. In this context, Fraenkel is particularly interested in the impact of the Muslim philosopher Averrores, mediated through the Jewish Renaissance Averroist Elijah Delmedigo (d. 1493), on Spinoza’s philosophical-religious project.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See e.g. Israel, who attempts to trace what he considers to be the distinctive features of modernity back to Spinoza (2001 and 2006). Compare also Goetschel (2004).

  2. 2.

    See in particular TTP 7.

  3. 3.

    See in particular TTP 12–15.

  4. 4.

    See Chap. 7 and 15.

  5. 5.

    Cf. the title of TTP 15 (A 482; G iii. 180). I quote the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus in the new edition prepared by Fokke Akkerman (1999) (=A and page no.). I add references to Carl Gebhardt’s edition (1925) (=G, volume no., and page no.), according to which I also quote all other writings of Spinoza.

  6. 6.

    The following paragraph summarizes what I elaborated in Fraenkel (2008b).

  7. 7.

    Al-Fârâbî’s most elaborate discussion of religion is the Kitâb al-milla (Book of Religion).

  8. 8.

    See e.g. Taḥsîl al-sa‘âda, Ar. 185; Eng. 45, quoted by Averroes in his Commentary on Plato’s Republic, 30. Cf. Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, 1.8–9.

  9. 9.

    See Fraenkel (2008a).

  10. 10.

    TTP Preface; Spinoza elaborates the method in TTP 7.

  11. 11.

    See TTP 15.

  12. 12.

    In the Preface to the TTP, Spinoza describes “skepticism” as the “one obstacle” that prevents potential philosophers from philosophizing (A 74; G iii. 12). Cf. Epistola 30.

  13. 13.

    For a discussion of why Spinoza adopted the dogmatic position in his early writings, why he rejected it in the TTP, and why he continued making use of it even after dismissing it, see again Fraenkel (2008a).

  14. 14.

    See the programmatic passages in Guide 1, Introduction and Guide 2.2.

  15. 15.

    For the following paragraph, see the more detailed discussion in Fraenkel (2010).

  16. 16.

    Cf. Stroumsa (2005).

  17. 17.

    See in particular Guide 1.35.

  18. 18.

    Note that the pagination of the Arabic and the English are the same in the edition I used.

  19. 19.

    For this argument, see in particular Faṣl al-maqâl, 8; 19; 24–25. Cf. Kitâb al-kashf, Ar. 132–135; Eng. 16–19.

  20. 20.

    For the metaphor of the physician, see also Kitâb al-kashf, Ar.181; Eng. 67.

  21. 21.

    See Faṣl al-maqâl, 29–32; to have shown that allegorical interpretation is strictly reserved to philosophers is, according to Kitâb al-kashf, Ar. 132–133; Eng. 16–17, one of the main results of the Faṣl al-maqâl.

  22. 22.

    Cf. Stroumsa (2005), 20.

  23. 23.

    Cf. TTP 14.

  24. 24.

    Cf. Ivry (1988).

  25. 25.

    See Dictionnaire, 384–391.

  26. 26.

    For the Hebrew translation, see N. Golb (1956–57).

  27. 27.

    See already Hübsch (1882–83). Cf. Ivry (1983) and Motzkin (1987). For scholars who claim that Delmedigo is closer to Latin Averroists than to Averroes, see below, n. 34.

  28. 28.

    See Cogitata Metaphysica 2.12 and Behinat ha-dat, 93.

  29. 29.

    On the goal of the Mosaic Law, see Behinat ha-dat, 75–76; on the difference between the Mosaic Law and philosophy with respect to method, see in particular 92–94.

  30. 30.

    Strictly speaking, these are different methods belonging to the same discipline, i.e., logic. On the inclusion of the Rhetoric and Poetics into Aristotle’s Organon and its philosophical implications, see Black (1990). Delmedigo (Behinat ha-dat, 75) briefly refers to the different methods of “logic” (ha-limmud ha-kolel).

  31. 31.

    See Behinat ha-dat, 76–78.

  32. 32.

    According to Delmedigo, the disclosure of the allegorical interpretation of angels led to conflict and strife between philosophers and kabbalists in the Jewish community (see Delmedigo, Behinat ha-dat, 93–94). His account of the conflict is clearly modelled on Averroes’ description of the emergence of factions in Islam as a consequence of the disclosure of allegorical interpretations. See Faṣl al-maqâl, 29–32.

  33. 33.

    Note that this passage comes in the context of Delmedigo’s discussion of rabbinic aggadot.

  34. 34.

    This interpretation was first proposed by Julius Guttmann in a critical response to Hübsch (see above, n. 27). The quotation is from Guttmann (1927), 197–198. It was reiterated by Geffen (1973–74) and Ross (1984), 48–54; Ross’s assessment is the most differentiated to date.

  35. 35.

    See Fraenkel (forthcoming).

  36. 36.

    What follows is my understanding of Delmedigo’s position set forth in Behinat ha-dat, 77–85.

  37. 37.

    See in particular Guide 2.13–25. For the concept of scientific progress, see in particular 2.19 and 2.24. For considerations of probability, see 2.23. Note that Delmedigo is critical of Maimonides’ attempt to settle the matter through scientific arguments.

  38. 38.

    See Faṣl al-maqâl, 9–10 and 19–20.

References

  • Black, Deborah. 1990. Logic and Aristotle’s “Rhetoric” and “Poetics” in medieval Arabic philosophy. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraenkel, Carlos. 2008a. Could Spinoza have presented the Ethics as the true content of the Bible? Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy 4, eds. Daniel Garber and Steven Nadler, 1–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraenkel, Carlos. 2008b. Philosophy and exegesis in Al-Fârâbî, Averroes, and Maimonides. Laval Théologique et Philosophique 64: 105–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraenkel, Carlos. 2010. Legislating truth: Maimonides, the Almohads, and the 13th century Jewish Englishtenment. In Studies in the history of culture and science presented to Gad Freudenthal, eds. Resianne Fontai et al., 209–23 Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraenkel, Carlos. Forthcoming. Reconsidering the case of Elijah Delmedigo’s Averroism and its impact on Spinoza. In Renaissance Averroism and its aftermath: Arabic philosophy in early modern Europe, eds. Anna Akasoy and Guido Guiglioni.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geffen, David. M. 1973–74. Insights into the life and thought of Elijah Del Medigo based on his published and unpublished works. Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 61–2: 69–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goetschel, Willi. 2004. Spinoza’s modernity. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guttmann, Julius. 1927. Elias del Medigos Verhältnis zu Averroes in seinem Bechinat ha-Dat. In Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Abrahams, ed. A. Kohut, 192–208. New York: Press of the Jewish Institute of Religion.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hübsch, Adolph. 1882–3. Elia Delmedigos Bechinat ha-Dath und Ibn Roshd’s Facl al-maqal. Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 31: 552–63, 32: 28–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Israel, Jonathan. 2001. Radical enlightenment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Israel, Jonathan. 2006. Enlightenment contested. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ivry, Alfred. 1983. Remnants of Jewish Averroism in the Renaissance. In Jewish thought in the sixteenth century, ed. Bernard. D. Cooperman, 243–265. Cambridge: Harvard University Center for Jewish Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivry, Alfred. 1988. Averroes and the West: The first encounter/non-encounter. In A straight path: Studies in medieval philosophy and culture, ed. Ruth Link-Salinger, 142–158.Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Motzkin, A. L. 1987. Elija del Medigo, Averroes and Averroism. Italia 6: 7–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pines, Shlomo. 1963. Translator’s Introduction. In The Guide of the Perplexed, by Maimonides, trans. Shlomo Pines, lvii–cxxxiv. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J. J. 1984. Introduction [Hebrew]. In Elijah Delmedigo, Sefer behinat ha-dat. Critican edition with introduction and commentary by J. J. Ross. Tel Aviv: Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, Leon. 1922. The Abscondita Sapientiae of Joseph del Medigo. Chronicon Spinozanum 2: 54–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroumsa, Sarah. 2005. Philosophes Almohades? Averroes, Maimonide, et l’idéologie almohade. In Los Almohades: Problemas y perspectivas, eds. P. Cressier, M. Fierro and L. Molina, 1137–1162. Vol. 2. Madrid: CSIC.

    Google Scholar 

Bibliography of Primary Sources

  • Al-Fârâbî. 2005. Kitâb al-hurûf [The Book of Letters]. Edited by M. Mahdi. Beirut: Dâr al-mashriq, 1969, Eng. trans. of Book 2 in Medieval Islamic philosophical writings. ed. Muhammad Khalidi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Fârâbî. 2001. Kitâb al-milla [The Book of Religion]. Edited by M. Mahdi. Beirut, 1968. Eng. trans. by C. Butterworth in The Political Writings: Selected Aphorisms and Other Texts. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Fârâbî. 1962. Taḥsîl al-sa‘âda [The Attainment of Happiness]. Edited by J. Al-Yasin, Beirut, 1981. Eng. trans. by M. Mahdi in Al-Farabi’s Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Averroes. 1974. Commentary on Plato’s Republic. Translated into Hebrew by S. B. Judah of Marseilles. Edited with Eng. trans. by E. I. J. Rosenthal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Also translated by R. Lerner as Averroes on Plato’s Republic. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Averroes. 2001. Faṣl al-maqâl [Decisive Treatise]. Ed. George Hourani, trans. Charles Butterworth, with corrections by Muhsin Mahdi. Provo: Brigham Young University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Averroes. 1956 and 1957. Faṣl al-maqâl [Decisive Treatise]. Edited with Hebrew translation, N. Golb, as “The Hebrew Translation of Averroes’ Faṣl Al-Maqâl” in Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 25: 91–113, 26: 41–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Averroes. 2001. Kitâb al-kashf [The Book of Exposition]. Edited by M. Qasim. Cairo, 1964. Eng. trans. by I. Najjar in Faith and Reason in Islam. Oxford: Oneworld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayle, Pierre. 1697 and 1730. Dictionnaire historique et critique. 1. Edition, 1697. 4. Edition, Amsterdam: Brunel et al., 1730.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmedigo, Elijah. 1984 Sefer behinat ha-dat [The Examination of Religion]. Edited by J. J. Ross. Tel Aviv: The Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maimonides. Dalâlat al-hâ’irîn [Guide of the Perplexed]. Edited by S. Munk and Y. Yoel. Jerusalem, 1931. Translated into Hebrew by S. ibn Tibbon as Moreh ha-Nevukhim, edited by Y. Even-Shmuel. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1987. Eng. trans. S. Pines, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spinoza, Benedict. Opera. Edited by Carl Gebhardt. 4 vols. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1925.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spinoza, Benedict. Tractatus-Theologico Politicus. Edited by Fokke Akkerman with French translation by Jacqueline Lagrée and Pierre-François Moreau in Oeuvres. Vol. 3. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, McGill University, Leacock Building, 855 Sherbrooke Street, West Montréal, Québec, H3A 2T7, Canada

    Carlos Fraenkel

Authors
  1. Carlos Fraenkel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlos Fraenkel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Philosophy, McGill University, Sherbrooke St. West 855, Montreal, H3A 2T7, Québec, Canada

    Carlos Fraenkel

  2. Dépt. Philosophie, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, Québec, Canada

    Dario Perinetti

  3. , Department of Philosophy, Concordia University, de Maissoneuve Blvd. 1455, Montreal, H3G 1M8, Québec, Canada

    Justin E. H. Smith

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fraenkel, C. (2010). Spinoza on Philosophy and Religion: The Averroistic Sources. In: Fraenkel, C., Perinetti, D., Smith, J. (eds) The Rationalists: Between Tradition and Innovation. The New Synthese Historical Library, vol 65. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9385-1_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation