Modern thinkers and present problems : $b an approach to modern philosophy through its historySinger, Edgar A. (Edgar Arthur)
Philosophy
Modern thinkers and present problems : $b an approach to modern philosophy through its history
Singer, Edgar A. (Edgar Arthur)
Philosophers; Philosophy -- History
There is much likeness but an all-important difference between Bruno
and Spinoza, whose names a curious fate linked together first in
general condemnation, then in general praise. The two were alike in
this, that if anything more lonely can be conceived than the fugitive
existence of Bruno, it is the monk-like reclusion of Spinoza; if
anything more desolate than the infinite wind-swept universe of Bruno,
it is this same universe bereft of the quivering life and all-inspiring
purpose that Bruno found in it, this world left on our hands a rolling
mechanism fatal and purposeless. But the difference is profound. The
philosophy, yes, one may boldly say the religion of Spinoza, sustained
him from day to day, from hour to hour. Bruno’s was rather the poet’s
vision, vivid enough while it lasted, but dispelled by the shock of
reality to return only at such moments as that in which his life went
out. Is it in the power of a thought, is it in the temperament of a man
that this difference lies explained?
Spinoza’s thought, whatever its worth, owned a distinguished lineage.
When in 1658 he was excommunicated by the Jews at Amsterdam, he turned
with eager curiosity to the learning if not to the faith of the
Christians. In particular the Dutch physician, Francis Van den Ende,
himself a freethinker, became his teacher and friend. From him Spinoza
acquired his knowledge of Latin and German, by him was initiated into
the sciences and introduced to the works of Giordano Bruno and of
one other destined to play a determining part in his thought, René
Descartes--“the father of modern philosophy” as he is sometimes called.
Descartes, whose life overlaps that of Bruno at the one end and of
Spinoza at the other, is founder of the school of thought the historian
calls Rationalistic. Now a rationalist is obviously enough one who is
bent on following his reason, but reason as opposed to what? We think
first of reason as opposed to authority and revelation; but although
rationalism came inevitably to discard these sources of belief--had
already discarded them in the thought of our very Spinoza--the father
of rationalism had left some room for both; partly because it might
furnish a convenient refuge if the official church with which he
desired to live in comfortable relation should press him; partly
because Descartes was in one or two respects less of a rationalist
than his school.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account