Syllabus

Spinoza's Theological-Political Treatise (TTP) provoked great controversy when it was published anonymously in 1670. It sought to overturn accepted ideas about Scripture, the relation of philosophy to theology, and the foundations of the state. More specifically, we find that: it challenged orthodox belief about the authorship of the Pentateuch; it claimed that theology was a product of human superstition whose ultimate function was to make the masses obedient to the state; it argued, perhaps taking Hobbes' doctrine to its logical conclusion, that natural right was identical with power; and it sought to show that liberty of opinion was beneficial to the state. Underlying these views, though unknown to most all its readers, was the radical philosophy Spinoza was in the process of articulating in his Ethics, which, partly due to the enormous hostility with which the TTP was received, was to remain unpublished in his lifetime. But then, as now, the TTP stands as a formidable work in its own right, as much in its interpretative and rhetorical strategies, which differed so profoundly from those of the Ethics, as in its fundamental claims about religion and the state. The purpose of this course is to investigate the TTP in detail, analyzing its methods as well as its conclusions. To that end, since it is impossible to neatly separate the threads of theological, philosophical, and political argument that wind their way through every chapter, we will approach the work through its own stated themes, paying close attention to its internal structure, its relation to the Ethics, and to its historical and intellectual context. In teaching this text, I want to explore not only how Spinoza was involved in and stimulated by perennial philosophical debates but also how he was deeply engaged in a contemporary political struggle over the future of the young Dutch Republic. We will learn about the relation of faith to reason, the nature of rights, the foundations of the state, and philosophical arguments for religious toleration.

Instruction

I envision the format of the course as follows. It will meet once a week as a seminar. Each session will last approximately 2 to 2-1/2 hours. Except for the first class, in which I will give an introductory lecture, the subsequent sessions will be a combination of lecture and discussion, focused on a brief student presentation. In each class, my own talk will aim to give some background information--for example, trying to show what debates Spinoza might have been involved in--and to underline the themes I hope the students will discuss. Each student presentation will be based on a short, written paper that will be due a few days before class and which all students will have been expected to read ahead of time. The central text of the course will of course be the TTP, but I will also insist that we read other contemporary texts that (either definitely or probably) influenced Spinoza, as well as important secondary sources produced by outstanding modern scholars. (Although much important work has been done by European scholars, I will assign only English-language texts in this course, with other texts, especially those in French, only recommended for those who have the language skills.)

1. Weekly Essays. a) Each Thursday I will distribute an essay topic, which will focus on a particular issue or argument in the text. Each student must write a short (around 3 page) essay on the topic, due by 12pm on Tuesday, which should be submitted electronically via Catalyst tools “Collect It” Dropbox for the course. You can enter Catalyst tools with your UW NetID at the following link: https://catalysttools.washington.edu/

Please note that late papers will not be accepted for credit. The paper will be graded either unsatisfactory (5 points), satisfactory (8 points), or good (10 points). There will be nine occasions to turn in an essay. You will be given 10 points for just showing up the first week. A total of 100 points will be possible for this assignment.

b) Each week one student will volunteer to present his or her paper for discussion in class on Thursday. The paper will be posted on the course Catalyst “Common View” site. You can enter Catalyst tools with your UW NetID at the following link: https://catalysttools.washington.edu/.

One student ("the discussant") each week will be assigned the task of critiquing the assigned paper. The discussant will be responsible for analyzing the content (i.e., the philosophical issues: interpretation, argument, objections, etc.) of the essay. The discussant will summarize his or her comments in writing (about one page in length) and at the end of class will give a copy to both the author of the essay and the professor. All other students are also expected to have read the chosen essay and be ready to discuss it in depth. You are also welcome to put your own comments on the Peer Review site. Completion of this task is worth a maximum of 15 points.

2. Final Essay. Each student will be required to write a twelve to fifteen page essay on a topic of his or her choice. This essay will not be written the night before it is due! The following is the schedule of assignments each student must meet to pass this requirement:

a) Topic Statement with Annotated Bibliography. Due Thursday, November 12th (Week 7). You must turn in a brief statement of the projected topic of the paper that states: i) the problem you propose to discuss; ii) your tentative thesis; and iii) a brief sketch of the argument you will make. In addition, I expect an annotated bibliography that cites at least three sources (books, articles, etc.) with a brief presentation of how the author in each case addresses your proposed topic (i.e., brief outline of the argument, interpretation, etc.). Completion of this assignment is worth a maximum of 25 points.

b) Outline. Due Thursday, November 19th (Week 8). You must turn in a complete outline of your paper. It is to include: i) a full presentation of your topic (including problem and thesis); ii) a detailed, point by point, presentation of your argument (including references to the specific primary and secondary texts that support your points); iii) possible objections to your argument; iv) your response to the objections; and v) conclusion. Completion of this assignment is worth a maximum of 25 points.

c) Preliminary Draft and Abstract. Due Thursday, December 3rd (Week 9). This should be a complete draft of your essay. Please hand in two copies. At the same time, you must also turn in an abstract of your essay (one page or less in length). This should be a summary of your thesis, argument, and conclusion. Make enough copies of your abstract to distribute one to each of your fellow students and one to me. Completion of this assignment is worth a maximum of 100 points.

d) Comments. Due Thursday, December 10th (Week 10) You will be given the preliminary draft one of your fellow student's essays upon which you will expected to comment in depth. I expect comments on both the style and the content of the essay. These are to be both critical and constructive comments: How can the essay be improved? You are to write up your comments, which should be no more than two pages and no less than one page in length (double-spaced). Make two copies of your comments; at the end of the paper conference (see below) give one of them to me and the other to the author. Completion of this assignment is worth a maximum of 35 points.

e) Paper Conference. Thursday, December 17th, 4:30-6:20pm. The conference will be devoted to a presentation and discussion of paper topics. Each author will give a five-minute, prepared presentation of his or her paper. This need not be a summary (each student will already have read the abstract) but might focus on one or two key points. The assigned commentator will then give a five minute response, in which he or she will address the points raised by the author's presentation or some other interesting aspect of the paper. There will then be time for questions and reactions from the other students. Participation in the paper conference is worth a maximum of 25 points.

f) Final Draft. Due Friday, December 18th, at noon. In your final draft I expect you to revise your essay in light of all the comments (both regarding style and content) you received. Of course you are not restricted to these comments alone. In the two weeks between handing in the preliminary and final draft, you will hopefully be thinking yourself how to improve the final product. Grading of the final draft will be based on both the quality of the completed work and also the extent to which you have improved the rough draft. Completion of this assignment is worth a maximum of 75 points.

For each day that you are late in completing any one of the requirements of the final essay, your grade will automatically be reduced by 10 points.

3. Participation. I expect all students to participate actively in class discussion. In determing your final grade, especially if it is on a borderline, I will consider the quality of your regular participation, and improvement over the semester. In other words, I reserve the right to adjust the final grade above or below what is indicated by your final point score on the basis of participation and effort.

Nota Bene: (1) Cheating in any form (including plagiarism, of course) will result in automatic referal to the Dean’s office. You are assumed to understand the university rules concerning inappropriate academic conduct. Please see the Student code and the following website for information: http://depts.washington.edu/grading/issue1/honesty.htm#plagiarism. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the instructor.

(2) In order to pass this course students are required to: a) have enough total points (i.e., at least 212 points); and also b) receive passing grades in both major components of the course, i.e., at least 67 points in the weekly writing assignments (including comments), and at least 146 points total from the various components of the final essay. If you have enough total points to pass but do not receive pass both the weekly assignments and the final essay you will fail the course. Absolutely no exceptions will be made to this policy.

Disabled Student Services. If you would like to request academic accommodations due to a disability, please contact Disabled Student Services, 448 Schmitz, (206) 543-8924 (V/TTY). If you have a letter from Disabled Student Services indicating you have a disability that requires academic accommodations, please present the letter to me at the beginning of the course so we can discuss the accommodations you might need for the class.

Spinoza, Baruch. The Complete Works. Ed. M. Morgan. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co., 2002 (ISBN: 0-87220-620-3)

The following books are suggested secondary sources and can be checked out at the library:

Curley, Edwin. Behind the Geometrical Method: A Reading of Spinoza’s Ethics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988. (B3974 .C87 1988)

Donagan, Alan. Spinoza. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988. (B3998 .D66 1988)

Garrett, Don, ed. Cambridge Companion to Spinoza. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. (B3998 .C32 1996)

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Ed. E. Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co., 1994. (JC153 .H65 1994b)

Nadler, Steven. Spinoza: A Life. Cambridge University Press, 1999. (B3999.I4 N33 2001)

Preus, J. Samuel. Spinoza and the Irrelevance of Biblical Authority. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. (B3985.Z7 P74 2001)

Ravven, Heidi M. and Goodman, Lenn E. Jewish Themes in Spinoza’s Philosophy. Albany: SUNY Press, 2002. (B3999.J8 J48 2002)

Smith, Steven B. Spinoza, Liberalism, and the Question of Jewish Identity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997. (B3985.Z7 S55 1997)

Strauss, Leo. Persecution and the Art of Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988. (323.443 St82p)

Strauss, Leo. Spinoza’s Critique of Religion. New York: Schocken Books, 1982. (320.1 Sp47tzstE)

Wolfson, H.A.. The Philosophy of Spinoza. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962. (B3998 .W65 1958 v.1-2)

Yovel, Y. Spinoza and Other Heretics, vol. 1. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989. (B3998 .Y67 1989 v.1)

The point of my introductory lecture will be to outline Spinoza's own development, his place within contemporary 17th century philosophy, and the relation of his work to historical trends in philosophy and politics. I will try to sketch his life, beginning with his youth in the world of the Dutch Marrano community in Amsterdam, his decisive break with it, during which time he probably formulated many of his most trenchant criticisms of religion, and subsequent involvement with the Collegiant community. I will also attempt to trace the history of the Dutch Republic, its struggle and ultimate break with its Spanish masters, and the internal conflict between the House of Orange, with its pretensions to monarchy, and the merchant elite who were committed to some form of a participatory republic for the new state. It is certainly somewhere in the intersection of the trajectory of Spinoza's intellectual life and that of the nascent Dutch Republic that we find the genesis of the TTP.

Selected background reading: Garrett, ch. 1; Nadler, chs 1-5; Yovel, chs. 1-3.

Secondary Reading: E. Curley, “Notes on a Neglected Masterpiece (II): The Theological-Political Treatise as a Prolegomenon to the Ethics,” in Cover and Kulstad, Central Themes in Early Modern Philosophy, (Hackett, 1990).

<-- RETURN TO TOP

WEEK TWO: HOW TO READ THE TTP (October 8)

The central question of this session will be that of Leo Strauss: "How to Study Spinoza's Theologico-Political Treatise"? We will look closely at the preface to the TTP, and some other related texts in Spinoza's work, in order to see where Spinoza himself apparently believed he was going. But we will also discuss some important secondary texts and their views on how to make sense of the rhetorical and argumentative structure of the TTP. We will return to these questions throughout the course.

Primary Reading: TTP, preface; Political Treatise, chapter 1; Letter 30

Related Primary Sources: Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, introduction to the first part.

Secondary Sources: Strauss, "How to Study Spinoza's Theologico-Political Treatise" (in Persecution and the Art of Writing); Donagan, chapter 2; Smith, ch. 2; Wolfson, volume 1, chapter 1 ("Behind the Geometrical Method"); Yovel, ch. 5.

<-- RETURN TO TOP

WEEK THREE: PROPHECY (October 15)

Why does Spinoza begin the TTP with an analysis of prophecy? In this session we will examine the epistemological status of prophecy. What are the conditions of prophecy? What kind of knowledge does the prophet have? What is the status of Christ in this schema? Why is this an important topic for Spinoza? We will compare Spinoza's views on this subject with those of Maimonides and Hobbes.

Primary Reading: TTP, chapters 1-2; Ethics, part 2.

Related Primary Sources: Hobbes, Leviathan, chaps. 36, 41; Maimonides, The Guide, part II, chapters 32-48;

Secondary Sources: Strauss, Spinoza's Critique of Religion, chap. 6. Rosenthal, “Why Spinoza Chose the Hebrews,” in Ravven and Goodman.

<-- RETURN TO TOP

WEEK FOUR: DIVINE AND CEREMONIAL LAW (October 22)

It is in the chapters about law that Spinoza sets forth the distinction between the laws of nature, which are ultimately grounded in God, and the laws of man, which are a product of convention and designed for political purposes. We will explore how this crucial distinction is related to his rejection of final causes in the appendix to part one of the Ethics. We will also ask what place man has in the divine plan and what view Spinoza has of providence. Following these questions, we will compare Spinoza's views on the subject of natural law with those of Hobbes, and his views on providence with those of Maimonides and Calvin.

Primary Reading: TTP, chapters, 4-5; Ethics, appendix to part 1; Letters 42, 54, 56.

Related Secondary Sources: Hobbes, Leviathan, chapters 14-15; Maimonides, The Guide, part III, chapters 8-24; Calvin, selection from the Institutes.

Secondary Sources: Edwin Curley, “The State of Nature and its Law in Hobbes and Spinoza,” Philosophical Topics (19) 1 (1991): 97-117.

WEEK FIVE: MIRACLES (October 29)

Here we will focus on what is perhaps the culmination of Spinoza's critique of revealed religion, his discussion of miracles. We will examine how Spinoza's views about knowledge and natural law work together to undermine some traditional religious views about miracles. At the same time, we will try to figure out what Spinoza thinks the scriptural descriptions of apparent miracles are really about. We will see that the discussion in chapter 6 caps Spinoza's criticism of religious doctrines about divine providence. It may also be interesting to compare Spinoza's critique of miracles to that of a later philosopher, David Hume.

Primary Readings: TTP, chapter 6.

Related Primary Sources: Hobbes, Leviathan, chap. 37; Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, chapter 10.

Secondary Sources: Curley, "Spinoza on Miracles" in Boscherini, Proceedings of the First Congress on Spinoza (Naples: 1985); Parkinson, G.H.R., "Spinoza on Miracles and Natural Law."

<-- RETURN TO TOP

WEEK SIX: THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE (November 5)

In a sense, we will be returning to the same questions we raised during week 2 but now applied more specifically to Scripture. It should be apparent by now that Spinoza looked at Scripture in a profoundly different way than believers of the time, whether Jewish or Christian, could have done. We will examine why Spinoza thinks other systems of interpretation are false, and look carefully at the principles of interpretation that he proposes. We will return to Leo Strauss' question and ask whether the TTP ought to be interpreted along the same principles as Scripture, and, if so, what results might occur.

Primary Reading: TTP, chapters 7-13.

Related Primary Sources: Hobbes, Leviathan, chapters 33-35; Maimonides, Guide, I,1. Lodewijk Meyer, Philosophy as the Interpreter of Holy Scripture.

Secondary Sources: Strauss, Spinoza's Critique, chapter 10; Smith, ch. 3; Preus; Rosenthal, “Persuasive Passions: Rhetoric and the Interpretation of Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise,” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, volume 85, 2003.

<-- RETURN TO TOP

WEEK SEVEN: FAITH, THEOLOGY, AND PHILOSOPHY (November 12) [Paper Outline Due]

In chapter 14, Spinoza introduces what he believes to be the "key-stone of the present treatise"--namely, that faith and philosophy are fundamentally distinct. We will discuss what Spinoza thinks their respective roles are, and what the dangers are that arise when these roles are confused. In light of Spinoza's views on the interpretation of Scripture and the use of faith, we will see what he thinks the "great utility" of revelation ultimately is.

Primary Reading: TTP, chapters 14-15.

Related Primary Sources: Hobbes, Leviathan, chapters 12,44; Maimonides, “Sanhedrin: Perek Helek” from Commentary on the Mishnah (in Maimonides Reader, ed. I. Twersky, Behrman House).

Secondary Sources: Smith, ch. 4; Rosenthal, “Spinoza’s Dogmas of Universal Faith and the Problem of Religion,” Philosophy and Theology, volume 13 (1), 2001, 53-72.

<-- RETURN TO TOP

WEEK EIGHT: THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE STATE (November 19) [Annotated Bibliography and Abstract Due]

At this point, the political dimension of the text becomes fully articulated. We will analyze in some detail the central arguments Spinoza gives for the creation and nature of the state. We will discuss his idea of "natural right" and how it compares with that of Hobbes. We will look at his description of human nature and its famous pessimism. We will also examine the idea of a social contract, comparing it again to that of Hobbes and to that of Spinoza's other political work, the unfinished Political Treatise. We will ask why Spinoza chose to begin his explicit discussion of political theory here, in chapter 16, and how it fits in with the rest of the work.

Primary Reading: TTP, chapter 16; Political Treatise, chapters 1-2; Correspondence, letter 50 (on the difference between Hobbes and Spinoza); Ethics, Part 4, Proposition 37.

Secondary Sources: Curley, “Kissinger, Spinoza, and Genghis Khan,” in Garrett; Smith, ch. 5; Tuck, Natural Rights Theories, chapter 6; Wernham, introduction to the Political Works.

After having examined the theoretical foundations of Spinoza's political theory, we will turn to the specific example he gives of the Hebrew Republic under Moses and after. Spinoza's discussion of the Hebrew state is remarkable for two primary reasons: first, for its dispassionate analysis of the causes of its rise and fall; and second, for its analysis of how theology functioned as an ideology. Spinoza's use of Scripture as an example for his political theory should remind us of Machiavelli's use of Livy, and we will explore this comparison, not only in method but also in the use by both men of such concepts as "virtue" and "fortune." We will try to figure out what lessons Spinoza wanted to draw from this example and how they related to the political situation of 17th century Holland.

Related Primary Sources: Hobbes, Leviathan, chapter 40; Machiavelli, The Prince, and The Discourses, selected chapters; Descartes, Letter to Elisabeth (on Machiavelli).

Secondary Sources: Rosenthal, "Two Collective Action Problems in Spinoza’s Social Contract Theory," History of Philosophy Quarterly, volume 15 (4), October 1998, 389-409.

We will conclude the course with a discussion of two important themes that structure Spinoza's work: first, the relation between religion and the state; and second, the extent of freedom of thought. We will examine the interrelation of these two themes and how Spinoza attempts to resolve the tensions that arise between the desire of the individual to think freely and the apparent need of the state to control its subjects. We will look in retrospect at how the previous chapters have led to this point, and try to reconstruct the argument that Spinoza was trying to make for freedom of thought within the state. In what way is liberty of opinion beneficial? And how does Spinoza justify his view? What does the example of Spinoza's own city, Amsterdam, show?

Related Primary Sources: Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. 42; Pierre Bayle, Compel Them to Enter; John Locke, A Letter on Toleration.

Secondary Sources: Smith, ch. 6; Rosenthal, “Spinoza’s Republican Argument for Tolerance,” Journal of Political Philosophy, volume 11 (3), September 2003, 320-337; Rosenthal, “Tolerance as a Virtue in Spinoza’s Ethics,” Journal of the History of Philosophy, volume 34 (4), October 2001, 535-557; Rosenthal, “Spinoza on Why the Sovereign Can Command Men’s Tongues But Not Their Minds,” forthcoming in Nomos volume on “Toleration and Its Limits.”

Students will present brief summaries of their research papers with comments from fellow students.