7 ms·

In addition to being a very independent philosophical thinker, Spinoza was deeply interested in more practical study of nature, something that may have had to d

In addition to being a very independent philosophical thinker, Spinoza was deeply interested in more practical study of nature, something that may have had to do with his day job as a lens grinder. He published two short texts on probability and optics of the rainbow (the latter following Descartes). A philosopher interested in the real world: something that became quite a rarity in later times...

lukan 3y ago
"There are nowadays professors of philosophy, but not philosophers. Yet it is admirable to profess because it was once admirable to live. To be a philosopher is not merely to have subtle thoughts, nor even to found a school, but so to love wisdom as to live according to its dictates, a life of simplicity, independence, magnanimity, and trust. It is to solve some of the problems of life, not only theoretically, but practically. The success of great scholars and thinkers is commonly a courtier-like success, not kingly, not manly." Henry David Thoreau
- csours 3y ago
  > ... live [..] a life of simplicity, independence, ... Can one live a life of simultaneous simplicity and independence? It is commonly held that Thoreau faked it.
  - lukan 3y ago
    "It is commonly held that Thoreau faked it. " I think that is debatable and not concensus. But I actually do not know much about him besides the quote I shared. But I do know, that he tried to live his philosophy in real life and not just make nice sounding words, to make people think he is interesting. "Can one live a life of simultaneous simplicity and independence?" One can try. I know some people who succeded, but lots who failed.
    - csours 3y ago
      Maybe it is the effort and mindset that make the difference and not the outcome.
  - beedeebeedee 3y ago
    > It is commonly held that Thoreau faked it. That's pretty cynical and just a way to discard his (and others') beliefs. No human is independent categorically, but he did become much more independent in his beliefs and actions than most people. He might have done his laundry at his mom's house (or whatever facts people trot out to diminish him), but he did hike and paddle through the wilderness, and take deeply unpopular stands against war and other things. He is an admirable person who is worthy of paying attention to, and even emulating to achieve independent thought.
    - csours 3y ago
      > That's pretty cynical Yes > and just a way to discard his No > He might have done his laundry at his mom's house Removing his independence and adding making someone else responsible for complexity. It is a beautiful story. Lots of people have told beautiful stories. Some of those beautiful stories have been used in movements that have done a great deal of harm. Thus the cynicism. If a beautiful story resonates with you, by all means enjoy it.
      - u32480932048 3y ago
        I don't get the reflexive antipathy some people have towards any notion of independence or self-sufficiency. The most common class of comment is "tHeYrE nOt 100.0% sElF-rElIaNt, acktchually", which I'm not sure is an expectation that anyone actually has, as evidenced by the numerous discussions on buying gold, trade/barter, swap meets, etc. Any beautiful stories about dependence?
        MeImCounting 3y ago
        Many beautiful stories on inter-dependance. Many of these beautiful stories also happen to be true, in contrast with the attractive un-truths of independence.
        globalnode 3y ago
        independence is a worthy goal, but we live in the real world and have to get out hands dirty for money if we want to live. it seems Spinoza did just that and it caused him to die too young sadly. yes i also dont understand the reflexive anti independence attitude, but w/e, we can all have opinions.
  - reubenmorais 3y ago
    > Can one live a life of simultaneous simplicity and independence? Visit any place where family farming thrives and you'll see this is certainly possible.
    - csours 3y ago
      Modern farming is rather complex. Subsistence farming can be simple. Dying in childbirth is also pretty simple.
      - MonkeyClub 3y ago
        The two need not go hand-in-glove, you can farm in the 21st century and still have access to modern medicine.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    The word sacrifice doesn't appear, but TFA makes much of what Spinoza thought was worth trading for speaking truth. Excommunication, being "cursed" (cancelled). He boldly rejected all traditional religious identities which he felt "no longer had any real meaning, anyway". He turned down an offer to "become a professor at the University of Heidelberg, on the ground that holding an official position would expose him to even more attacks" In a sense, if truth is your guide, the more you lose, the more you gain, and Spinoza lived that right to the edge of poverty and non-existence that would have actually killed (starved) him. Which takes it back to that line near the start of the TFA: "Offending the wrong people, even for a moment, can blow up the career of anyone from a Y.A. novelist to an Ivy League president" What is a "career" (other than path that is out of ones control)? Paradoxically perhaps, those happy with the simplicity and independence of saying "fuck careers" have the greatest platform to speak truth from. Extant wealth, power, and notoriety are the gag of silence. But I see a world filled with more and more young people who have not, and have no hope of ever having a "career". That fills me with vast hope that truth is on the march again.
    - prewett 3y ago
      > What is a "career" (other than path that is out of ones control)? Why would a career be out of your control? You control what skills you learn, what companies/projects you apply to. Sure, you're not in control of which companies/project accept you, but that doesn't mean that your career is out of your control. > But I see a world filled with more and more young people who have not, and have no hope of ever having a "career". That fills me with vast hope that truth is on the march again. That sounds like you've confused fatalism with truth. But it's more truthful to say that we are in a partnership with the world around us. The world gets a choice and we get a choice. Neither necessary gets their first choice, but both are active actors.
      - nonrandomstring 3y ago
        > Why would a career be out of your control? Because that's what it means literally, as in "The car careered off the road". It's a play in words, maybe a bit obscure for US Americans where capitalist work values have almost totally displaced the earlier meaning. But I'm not the first to point out the fact that "career" means this is somewhat ironic. > That sounds like you've confused fatalism with truth. Not sure what you mean. Those are distinct concepts. I'd like to explore that further if you'd like to clarify/expand. Thanks.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    Those things are not absolutes.
  - underlipton 3y ago
    >Can one live a life of simultaneous simplicity and independence? Don't they go hand-in-hand? Dependence necessarily involves social intrigue, considering others' needs alongside your own (if only so as not to bite the hand that feeds); an intricate web of considerations arises. This also opens the door to leverage relationships and the circumstances that are created by their dynamism; the complexity of society is in the interdependence of agents within it. Someone who is socially-independent is limited to simplicity. Even in nature, independence is simple: removed from the supportive natural infrastructure that your physiology depends on (e.g., in space), you quickly die. A very simple life indeed.
  - _yb2s 3y ago
    This idea that “Thoreau faked it” comes from people fundamentally misunderstanding what Thoreau was trying to do. His goal was to critically evaluate how you spend your time and energy, and focus it on what really deeply matters to you, and nothing else: to live deliberately and cut out the BS. He got tons of regular help and support for his unusual lifestyle experiment from his community and friends, and his cabin was not way out in the wilderness. And he is totally honest and up front about all of that- he was trying to live simply, not trying to win an episode of Naked and Afraid as New Englands most badass survivalist as people somehow seem to assume. What it means to live deliberately is different for each person, what would it even mean to “fake it?” I blame kids that were forced to read Walden in school, but lacked the life experience to comprehend it, for this common, but absurd misconception.
  - simonebrunozzi 3y ago
    Can you share more? First time I hear this.
- verisimi 3y ago
  I like the quote, but except this bit which is terrible, and undermines it all: > Yet it is admirable to profess because it was once admirable to live. Living is still admirable. Professing without living is just so many words.
slumberdisrupt 3y ago
Where exactly do you suppose philosophy went wrong? In any case I've heard this assertion from Neil deGrasse Tyson for years; it's philistine. The phrasing of the assertion totally gives away its limits: what is the real world, and who else but a philosopher is equipped to even ask that question? Then the question then becomes its opposite: where have the natural scientists gone who are interested in the real world?
- techno_tsar 3y ago
  The assertion is not grounded in reality at all. It’s a common myth among people who live in a STEM echo chamber. Personally, I don’t know why people who haven’t even done more than a cursory overview of philosophy feel entitled to make meta philosophical claims. My only explanation is that it’s a way to defend a dogma of naive scientism. Why? I don’t know, probably the same reasons why people cling onto religion.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - slumberdisrupt 3y ago
    I brought up Tyson because I watched a video recently where this guy argues that this whole perspective is an especially American phenomenon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD0S1rH8AiE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD0S1rH8AiE I'm sympathetic to this even if this lethargic attitude goes back to the religious period as you say. We can at least find the roots of it in the Enlightenment with Newton's "hypotheses non fingo".
nathan_compton 3y ago
> A philosopher interested in the real world: something that became quite a rarity in later times... Absolutely ridiculous. There are tons of contemporary, living, philosophers who are interested in literally every single one of the physical sciences. There are entire departments which specialize in philosophy of physics. There are philosophers that study biology, brains, computers, etc etc etc. I've literally been in rooms where you couldn't throw a rock without hitting a philosopher deeply interested in physical reality.
- mkoubaa 3y ago
  I disagree. Deeply interested in the idea of biology but not interested enough to work on biology puts you firmly out of the Spinoza category.
  - nathan_compton 3y ago
    You can work on biology without physically being in a lab. Many neuroscientist spend more time writing simulations and analyzing data than they spend in a lab. Like how much time in the lab do you require at a minimum to be a "bona fide" "serious" philosopher. Like I seriously want to know: how many philosophers have you personally met? How many conferences have you attended? How many papers did you read this year? Because only a person barely aware of what philosophers get up to could possibly believe that they aren't interested in reality.
    - mkoubaa 3y ago
      I consider writing simulations and analyzing data as working on biology. I don't consider pontificating about biology to be.
      - nathan_compton 3y ago
        Excuse my plain language, but it is dumb to baldly assert that all philosophy is pontificating.
ramraj07 3y ago
Yeah I gave up after trying to ask this simple question in philosophy forums: is there a justification for eating meat? And for the most part the answers from actual academics is no. Then the simple follow up is are you vegetarian. The answer is very commonly no. So everything is just theory for them. Like a cardiologist with heart disease (also common). No wonder it's all gone south.
- bloat 3y ago
  https://www.routledge.com/Why-Its-OK-to-Eat-Meat/Shahar/p/book/9780367172763 https://www.routledge.com/Why-Its-OK-to-Eat-Meat/Shahar/p/bo... Why It's Ok To Eat Meat By a philosophy professor at the University of New Orleans.
- eynsham 3y ago
  There is more to philosophy than moral philosophy, and I don’t see why philosophical findings would be devalued by the moral failings of philosophers any more than cardiological findings would be devalued by the alleged unhealthiness of cardiologists.
  - ramraj07 3y ago
    I totally see them being linked and as one of the reasons why there's a general failing of trust on expertise. Here's a clearer analogy; would you sign up with an obese personal trainer? I mean you might say that you personally would but the point stands that most people won't. It's not like I'm asking the philosopher's to cut a toe off to prove their mettle. This is such a simple lifestyle choice that millions of people take for ethical moral reasons anyway. Arguing that they're in a different branch of philosophy also sounds disengenous. I can try and give analogies for that we well but something tells there'll be mor nitpicking.
    - eynsham 3y ago
      If the only information I had about a personal trainer were their obesity, I wouldn’t. If I were satisfied that they had a long record of success, I would. Philosophers’ work can be and is best assessed by reading it. I do not think that pointing out the limited applicability of your point is remotely disingenuous. There is no guarantee that arguments you would give about other fields of philosophy would be convincing. That is not due to undesirable nitpicking but a general feature of argument.
eynsham 3y ago
What is the basis of your experience of philosophers? I know lots of philosophers who are well-versed and interested in, i.a., physics, mathematics, cognitive science, linguistics, biology, neuroscience, psychology, and history. Some of them even make contributions to those fields primarily of interest as works within the relevant field rather than of philosophical interest. This is considered a good thing in modern analytic philosophy. Armchair theorising is considered an important tool, but exclusive use thereof is considered unsound and unwise. I cannot speak for philosophy in general but the sort of milieu to which I've been exposed is not particularly small.
kragen 3y ago
the practical study of nature, including probability and optics, is part of philosophy — uncontroversially so in espinoza's time, however fashionable it may be to forget that in our own what would it even mean to be a scientist who does not prize knowledge?
novosel 3y ago
If I am not wrong, De Iride (On rainbows) is considered lost.

lukan 3y ago

"There are nowadays professors of philosophy, but not philosophers. Yet it is admirable to profess because it was once admirable to live. To be a philosopher is not merely to have subtle thoughts, nor even to found a school, but so to love wisdom as to live according to its dictates, a life of simplicity, independence, magnanimity, and trust. It is to solve some of the problems of life, not only theoretically, but practically. The success of great scholars and thinkers is commonly a courtier-like success, not kingly, not manly." Henry David Thoreau

csours 3y ago
> ... live [..] a life of simplicity, independence, ... Can one live a life of simultaneous simplicity and independence? It is commonly held that Thoreau faked it.
- lukan 3y ago
  "It is commonly held that Thoreau faked it. " I think that is debatable and not concensus. But I actually do not know much about him besides the quote I shared. But I do know, that he tried to live his philosophy in real life and not just make nice sounding words, to make people think he is interesting. "Can one live a life of simultaneous simplicity and independence?" One can try. I know some people who succeded, but lots who failed.
  - csours 3y ago
    Maybe it is the effort and mindset that make the difference and not the outcome.
- beedeebeedee 3y ago
  > It is commonly held that Thoreau faked it. That's pretty cynical and just a way to discard his (and others') beliefs. No human is independent categorically, but he did become much more independent in his beliefs and actions than most people. He might have done his laundry at his mom's house (or whatever facts people trot out to diminish him), but he did hike and paddle through the wilderness, and take deeply unpopular stands against war and other things. He is an admirable person who is worthy of paying attention to, and even emulating to achieve independent thought.
  - csours 3y ago
    > That's pretty cynical Yes > and just a way to discard his No > He might have done his laundry at his mom's house Removing his independence and adding making someone else responsible for complexity. It is a beautiful story. Lots of people have told beautiful stories. Some of those beautiful stories have been used in movements that have done a great deal of harm. Thus the cynicism. If a beautiful story resonates with you, by all means enjoy it.
    - u32480932048 3y ago
      I don't get the reflexive antipathy some people have towards any notion of independence or self-sufficiency. The most common class of comment is "tHeYrE nOt 100.0% sElF-rElIaNt, acktchually", which I'm not sure is an expectation that anyone actually has, as evidenced by the numerous discussions on buying gold, trade/barter, swap meets, etc. Any beautiful stories about dependence?
      - MeImCounting 3y ago
        Many beautiful stories on inter-dependance. Many of these beautiful stories also happen to be true, in contrast with the attractive un-truths of independence.
      - globalnode 3y ago
        independence is a worthy goal, but we live in the real world and have to get out hands dirty for money if we want to live. it seems Spinoza did just that and it caused him to die too young sadly. yes i also dont understand the reflexive anti independence attitude, but w/e, we can all have opinions.
- reubenmorais 3y ago
  > Can one live a life of simultaneous simplicity and independence? Visit any place where family farming thrives and you'll see this is certainly possible.
  - csours 3y ago
    Modern farming is rather complex. Subsistence farming can be simple. Dying in childbirth is also pretty simple.
    - MonkeyClub 3y ago
      The two need not go hand-in-glove, you can farm in the 21st century and still have access to modern medicine.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  The word sacrifice doesn't appear, but TFA makes much of what Spinoza thought was worth trading for speaking truth. Excommunication, being "cursed" (cancelled). He boldly rejected all traditional religious identities which he felt "no longer had any real meaning, anyway". He turned down an offer to "become a professor at the University of Heidelberg, on the ground that holding an official position would expose him to even more attacks" In a sense, if truth is your guide, the more you lose, the more you gain, and Spinoza lived that right to the edge of poverty and non-existence that would have actually killed (starved) him. Which takes it back to that line near the start of the TFA: "Offending the wrong people, even for a moment, can blow up the career of anyone from a Y.A. novelist to an Ivy League president" What is a "career" (other than path that is out of ones control)? Paradoxically perhaps, those happy with the simplicity and independence of saying "fuck careers" have the greatest platform to speak truth from. Extant wealth, power, and notoriety are the gag of silence. But I see a world filled with more and more young people who have not, and have no hope of ever having a "career". That fills me with vast hope that truth is on the march again.
  - prewett 3y ago
    > What is a "career" (other than path that is out of ones control)? Why would a career be out of your control? You control what skills you learn, what companies/projects you apply to. Sure, you're not in control of which companies/project accept you, but that doesn't mean that your career is out of your control. > But I see a world filled with more and more young people who have not, and have no hope of ever having a "career". That fills me with vast hope that truth is on the march again. That sounds like you've confused fatalism with truth. But it's more truthful to say that we are in a partnership with the world around us. The world gets a choice and we get a choice. Neither necessary gets their first choice, but both are active actors.
    - nonrandomstring 3y ago
      > Why would a career be out of your control? Because that's what it means literally, as in "The car careered off the road". It's a play in words, maybe a bit obscure for US Americans where capitalist work values have almost totally displaced the earlier meaning. But I'm not the first to point out the fact that "career" means this is somewhat ironic. > That sounds like you've confused fatalism with truth. Not sure what you mean. Those are distinct concepts. I'd like to explore that further if you'd like to clarify/expand. Thanks.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  Those things are not absolutes.
- underlipton 3y ago
  >Can one live a life of simultaneous simplicity and independence? Don't they go hand-in-hand? Dependence necessarily involves social intrigue, considering others' needs alongside your own (if only so as not to bite the hand that feeds); an intricate web of considerations arises. This also opens the door to leverage relationships and the circumstances that are created by their dynamism; the complexity of society is in the interdependence of agents within it. Someone who is socially-independent is limited to simplicity. Even in nature, independence is simple: removed from the supportive natural infrastructure that your physiology depends on (e.g., in space), you quickly die. A very simple life indeed.
- _yb2s 3y ago
  This idea that “Thoreau faked it” comes from people fundamentally misunderstanding what Thoreau was trying to do. His goal was to critically evaluate how you spend your time and energy, and focus it on what really deeply matters to you, and nothing else: to live deliberately and cut out the BS. He got tons of regular help and support for his unusual lifestyle experiment from his community and friends, and his cabin was not way out in the wilderness. And he is totally honest and up front about all of that- he was trying to live simply, not trying to win an episode of Naked and Afraid as New Englands most badass survivalist as people somehow seem to assume. What it means to live deliberately is different for each person, what would it even mean to “fake it?” I blame kids that were forced to read Walden in school, but lacked the life experience to comprehend it, for this common, but absurd misconception.
- simonebrunozzi 3y ago
  Can you share more? First time I hear this.
verisimi 3y ago
I like the quote, but except this bit which is terrible, and undermines it all: > Yet it is admirable to profess because it was once admirable to live. Living is still admirable. Professing without living is just so many words.

slumberdisrupt 3y ago

Where exactly do you suppose philosophy went wrong? In any case I've heard this assertion from Neil deGrasse Tyson for years; it's philistine. The phrasing of the assertion totally gives away its limits: what is the real world, and who else but a philosopher is equipped to even ask that question? Then the question then becomes its opposite: where have the natural scientists gone who are interested in the real world?

techno_tsar 3y ago
The assertion is not grounded in reality at all. It’s a common myth among people who live in a STEM echo chamber. Personally, I don’t know why people who haven’t even done more than a cursory overview of philosophy feel entitled to make meta philosophical claims. My only explanation is that it’s a way to defend a dogma of naive scientism. Why? I don’t know, probably the same reasons why people cling onto religion.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- slumberdisrupt 3y ago
  I brought up Tyson because I watched a video recently where this guy argues that this whole perspective is an especially American phenomenon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD0S1rH8AiE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD0S1rH8AiE I'm sympathetic to this even if this lethargic attitude goes back to the religious period as you say. We can at least find the roots of it in the Enlightenment with Newton's "hypotheses non fingo".

nathan_compton 3y ago

> A philosopher interested in the real world: something that became quite a rarity in later times... Absolutely ridiculous. There are tons of contemporary, living, philosophers who are interested in literally every single one of the physical sciences. There are entire departments which specialize in philosophy of physics. There are philosophers that study biology, brains, computers, etc etc etc. I've literally been in rooms where you couldn't throw a rock without hitting a philosopher deeply interested in physical reality.

mkoubaa 3y ago
I disagree. Deeply interested in the idea of biology but not interested enough to work on biology puts you firmly out of the Spinoza category.
- nathan_compton 3y ago
  You can work on biology without physically being in a lab. Many neuroscientist spend more time writing simulations and analyzing data than they spend in a lab. Like how much time in the lab do you require at a minimum to be a "bona fide" "serious" philosopher. Like I seriously want to know: how many philosophers have you personally met? How many conferences have you attended? How many papers did you read this year? Because only a person barely aware of what philosophers get up to could possibly believe that they aren't interested in reality.
  - mkoubaa 3y ago
    I consider writing simulations and analyzing data as working on biology. I don't consider pontificating about biology to be.
    - nathan_compton 3y ago
      Excuse my plain language, but it is dumb to baldly assert that all philosophy is pontificating.

ramraj07 3y ago

Yeah I gave up after trying to ask this simple question in philosophy forums: is there a justification for eating meat? And for the most part the answers from actual academics is no. Then the simple follow up is are you vegetarian. The answer is very commonly no. So everything is just theory for them. Like a cardiologist with heart disease (also common). No wonder it's all gone south.

bloat 3y ago
https://www.routledge.com/Why-Its-OK-to-Eat-Meat/Shahar/p/book/9780367172763 https://www.routledge.com/Why-Its-OK-to-Eat-Meat/Shahar/p/bo... Why It's Ok To Eat Meat By a philosophy professor at the University of New Orleans.
eynsham 3y ago
There is more to philosophy than moral philosophy, and I don’t see why philosophical findings would be devalued by the moral failings of philosophers any more than cardiological findings would be devalued by the alleged unhealthiness of cardiologists.
- ramraj07 3y ago
  I totally see them being linked and as one of the reasons why there's a general failing of trust on expertise. Here's a clearer analogy; would you sign up with an obese personal trainer? I mean you might say that you personally would but the point stands that most people won't. It's not like I'm asking the philosopher's to cut a toe off to prove their mettle. This is such a simple lifestyle choice that millions of people take for ethical moral reasons anyway. Arguing that they're in a different branch of philosophy also sounds disengenous. I can try and give analogies for that we well but something tells there'll be mor nitpicking.
  - eynsham 3y ago
    If the only information I had about a personal trainer were their obesity, I wouldn’t. If I were satisfied that they had a long record of success, I would. Philosophers’ work can be and is best assessed by reading it. I do not think that pointing out the limited applicability of your point is remotely disingenuous. There is no guarantee that arguments you would give about other fields of philosophy would be convincing. That is not due to undesirable nitpicking but a general feature of argument.

eynsham 3y ago

What is the basis of your experience of philosophers? I know lots of philosophers who are well-versed and interested in, i.a., physics, mathematics, cognitive science, linguistics, biology, neuroscience, psychology, and history. Some of them even make contributions to those fields primarily of interest as works within the relevant field rather than of philosophical interest. This is considered a good thing in modern analytic philosophy. Armchair theorising is considered an important tool, but exclusive use thereof is considered unsound and unwise. I cannot speak for philosophy in general but the sort of milieu to which I've been exposed is not particularly small.

kragen 3y ago

the practical study of nature, including probability and optics, is part of philosophy — uncontroversially so in espinoza's time, however fashionable it may be to forget that in our own what would it even mean to be a scientist who does not prize knowledge?

novosel 3y ago

If I am not wrong, De Iride (On rainbows) is considered lost.