[Note from Finn: what follows is a discussion between Alberto Moreiras and Nick Nesbitt pertaining to the Spinoza seminar, as posted to our previous blog, reposted here to carry on the conversation.]
Alberto Moreiras: The point I was trying to make is that the attempt at making the Spinozian multitude into a prefiguration of communism runs counter to Spinozism, in my opinion. There is of course a long tradition behind this that includes Althusser. I think that is why this is an issue worth studying. I am just starting with Spinoza myself, so I can’t be sure that my thesis is correct. But my thesis, precarious, is: the Spinozian multitude is only the potential site for an exercise in Republican freedom understood as the freedom to become one’s own. This is thoroughly consistent with the modern metaphysics of subjectivity, and therefore something that, in the last analysis, calls for contestation. My own interest is in thinking Republicanism otherwise.
Nick Nesbitt: I’m still curious/intrigued by the triggers for your nostalgic reading of Spinoza, since I don’t see it myself. What would be helpful for me would maybe (but perhaps it’s a question for a later seminar on the Ethics) be to investigate and present on Spinoza’s concept of adequate truth, since, along with perfectibility, it seems to be the strand of thought in S. that runs counter to the nostaligc reading you’re offering. Two good sites for starting the investigation I’ve found are the Lazzeri book I brought along, as well (surprisingly, given his Cartesianism) as Aliqué’s Lecons sur Spinoza.
Alberto Moreiras: It is a nostalgia for the state of nature, that is, for an immediate and unmediated accord with the world. It is the sort of unconscious nostalgia all of us more or less share, but he in a very major way. His mother died when he was very young, remember, and he was marked by a double expulsion. You don’t easily overcome those things. Without that nostalgia for a return to unmediated and unbarred pleasure, why would you want to become one with the world—what a bother. Too much to take on. The notion of reason as accord with natural laws and the notion of beatitude as supreme accord with the whole as such reinforce this. It is also why he would refuse to think about death. So I would be ready to claim that this is in fact the bottom line of every one of Spinoza’s thoughts!! Having said that, I am more than willing to pursue this through every nook and cranny of Spinozism. But I think you are right. We need to be patient, finish the Tractatus, and then get into the Ethics. I’ll have to get a hold of the two books you mention.
Tue, 04/22/2008
[Note from Finn: what follows is a discussion between Alberto Moreiras and Nick Nesbitt pertaining to the Spinoza seminar, as posted to our previous blog, reposted here to carry on the conversation.]
Alberto Moreiras: The point I was trying to make is that the attempt at making the Spinozian multitude into a prefiguration of communism runs counter to Spinozism, in my opinion. There is of course a long tradition behind this that includes Althusser. I think that is why this is an issue worth studying. I am just starting with Spinoza myself, so I can’t be sure that my thesis is correct. But my thesis, precarious, is: the Spinozian multitude is only the potential site for an exercise in Republican freedom understood as the freedom to become one’s own. This is thoroughly consistent with the modern metaphysics of subjectivity, and therefore something that, in the last analysis, calls for contestation. My own interest is in thinking Republicanism otherwise.
Nick Nesbitt: I’m still curious/intrigued by the triggers for your nostalgic reading of Spinoza, since I don’t see it myself. What would be helpful for me would maybe (but perhaps it’s a question for a later seminar on the Ethics) be to investigate and present on Spinoza’s concept of adequate truth, since, along with perfectibility, it seems to be the strand of thought in S. that runs counter to the nostaligc reading you’re offering. Two good sites for starting the investigation I’ve found are the Lazzeri book I brought along, as well (surprisingly, given his Cartesianism) as Aliqué’s Lecons sur Spinoza.
Alberto Moreiras: It is a nostalgia for the state of nature, that is, for an immediate and unmediated accord with the world. It is the sort of unconscious nostalgia all of us more or less share, but he in a very major way. His mother died when he was very young, remember, and he was marked by a double expulsion. You don’t easily overcome those things. Without that nostalgia for a return to unmediated and unbarred pleasure, why would you want to become one with the world—what a bother. Too much to take on. The notion of reason as accord with natural laws and the notion of beatitude as supreme accord with the whole as such reinforce this. It is also why he would refuse to think about death. So I would be ready to claim that this is in fact the bottom line of every one of Spinoza’s thoughts!! Having said that, I am more than willing to pursue this through every nook and cranny of Spinozism. But I think you are right. We need to be patient, finish the Tractatus, and then get into the Ethics. I’ll have to get a hold of the two books you mention.
»