Talk:Tractatus Theologico-Politicus

message: The Scriptural Interpretation section has some problems. Even in the first sentence, we have "Spinoza was not only the real father of modern metaphysics and moral and political philosophy ...". The "real father"? This is silliness. I don't see why Jeremy Bentham, for instance, wouldn't be a better substitute for moral philosophy (though not the others).
The passage about scriptural interpretation takes an unnecessarily condescending view towards the more orthodox interpreters of scripture of Spinoza's time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.173.166 (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not neutral, and other problems 

message: So I added sections to the article. I think this will make it much easier to expand the article to an appropriate size given the importance of the topic. I think the sections should cover every major area which deserves treatment. Anyone have any thoughts/criticisms? A Friendly Spinozist (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization

message: So I thought I would begin work on this article by deleting all of the misinformation that I can identify. I have my rationale for each deletion here. 
1. "It is an early criticism of religious intolerance and a defense of secular government." 
This is inaccurate because, in fact Spinoza defends a theocratic form of government in chapter 19 of the TTP (Shirley translation page 284). For instance, Spinoza writes that "the sovereign is the interpreter of religion" and it is clear, in the context, that he means this as a normative claim. 
2. "To Spinoza, all "revealed" religion..."
Spinoza does NOT think that we should analyze revealed religion based on reason (See his discussion in Chapter 7, Shirley 141). This is Maimonides's view and Spinoza, at last on the surface, refutes it. Spinoza thinks we should divorce religion and philosophy as is said in the next paragraph. Now, there is a sense in which this point is right. Spinoza does favor reason over revealed religion and he does favor some kind of rational investigation into scripture. However, this point needs to be more nuanced and as it stands it is incorrect. I deleted it for now. A Friendly Spinozist (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Misinformation

message: Is this really known by the English title more often (in English) than by the Latin? I would not have thought so. Srnec (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: It looks more like the authors of this article want to see Spinoza's treatise through the glasses of some famous German readers by the end of the 18th century. I have removed the assumption that Spinoza was a "pantheist". This can be mentioned in this article as part of the reception history.
--Platonykiss (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinoza a pantheist philosopher? 

message: According to First Stadtholderless Period
Spinoza, in his Tractatus theologico-politicus, tried to give Van den Enden's political ideas a foundation in his own philosophy, by pointing out that demcocracy is the best form of government "approaching most closely to that freedom which nature grants to every man". Other than Thomas Hobbes, Spinoza posited that Man does not give up the rights he possesses in the state of Nature to the State, when he enters the social contract. To him therefore leaving Man as close as possible to that state of Nature is important, and he thinks that democracy accomplishes this best, as it is "the most natural" and "rational" form of government... Spinoza stressed the importance of unlimited toleration and freedom of expression.
These seemingly very important aspects of the treatise are not discussed in the current article.
Top.Squark (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systems of government in the treatise 

message: A recent work came out on the reception of this book came out, that may be of intrest to editors of this page:
"A Book Forged in Hell: Spinoza's Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of the Secular Age" by Steven Nadler
Should I get the chance to read it, I will cite it to update this article.
Wowaconia (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on Book about the subject 

message: Hello there. Kudos on your true encyclopedia editing work on this article. This note is just to let you know I will be reading your work with the utmost interest, and eventually, when time permits, I will also try to contribute here. So far, your ideas look great, and thanks for doing it and for waking me up again to the subject. Cheers, warshytalk 15:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  @Monozigote 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040102040653/http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/distance/spinoza/back1.html to http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/distance/spinoza/back1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: and other interested editors:
I now have in my own computer and accessible immediately at all times a digital version of the 'original' 1678 (above) Latin version of Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (TTP). Long overdue!
The first thing I learned, to my own amazement, is that already then, in the 1670s, i.e. still during Spinoza's lifetime, Spinoza and his Dutch publisher Jan Rieuwertsz were able to include all central quotes of the work from the Hebrew Bible directly in Hebrew character and Hebrew font, or rather typeface. I did not know that, and I could not have guessed it other than by looking at the text directly, myself.
But why is this new, rather undivulged fact so amazing? Because it means that Spinoza apparently did NOT intend the publication of the work to be for the common reader of the time, whoever they may have been. The publication of the work was intended solely for scholars who knew and could read both Latin and Hebrew. And the number of those scholars at the time was apparently not very large at all.
But beyond trying to put a tangible quantity on that number, Spinoza, with this fact, seems to be saying or implying that in order to be philosopher, the first basic requisite from a scholar is that he (or she) be able to read and understand both Latin and Hebrew. warshy (¥¥) 19:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  One amazing new and rather undivulged fact about the TTP 

message: Up to this day, whenever I wanted to read some passage of the TTP I would go to my old Elwes translation (Dover Publications Inc., New York, 1951).
Not any more. Following my starting to study the Latin text of the work, I have found today two online sources that I would like to recommend to any other students of Spinoza out there.
1) The full Latin text (with the option of the parallel French text also available) given as external link on the page is good for the Latin text, at
http://spinozaetnous.org/wiki/Tractatus_theologico-politicus
2) For the English version, the 1862 Wikisource text given at the main TTP page (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Theologico-Political_Treatise_1862) turns out to be, I have concluded today, far superior to the later (1883) Elwes translation.
This conclusion is based on the simple fact that Elwes inaccurately translated the basic initial Spinoza concept of cognitione naturalis or cognitione naturalis (natural knowledge) as 'ordinary knowledge.' Though the translation 'ordinary' is not technically wrong or incorrect, it is nonetheless inaccurate and flawed. It is in fact, in my view, so inaccurate and flawed, that the consequence of following it is to ultimately completely misunderstand the entire basis of Spinoza's philosophy, which is indeed, again in my own view, the very basic concept of natural knowledge.
The basic purpose of the TTP, I have concluded, is to separate and distinguish this Natural Knowledge, from which philosophical knowledge ultimately proceeds, from the other type of human knowledge, i.e. Revealed Knowledge, which Spinoza calls cognitione prophetica or prophetic knowledge. The bulk of Spinoza's book is dedicated to analyzing and revealing the sources of Prophetic or Revealed Knowledge in Scripture, and to critique it and separate it from the other type of knowledge Spinoza is himself truly engaged on, which is natural and philosophical knowledge. To inaccurately render this initial and basic Natural Knowledge as "ordinary" is very misleading, in my view, and it will utlimately lead to a basic misunderstanding of the entire basis of Spinoza's philosophy. warshy (¥¥) 21:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Wikisource 1862 English text as compared to the Elwes translation 

message: It turns out that the first chapter of the TTP really begins with two crucial and basic definitions for the understanding of Spinoza's philosophy. The first concept, defined in the first paragraph of the work is Prophetia (Prophecy) or Revelatio (Revelation), and this is Spinoza's definition of it:
 Prophecy or revelation is certain knowledge communicated by God to man.
And, following this initial definition, Spinoza then defines the second concept, in the second paragraph, the concept of cognitione naturalis (natural knowledge. For Spinoza, the definition of Natural Knowledge follows then logically from the first definition, as follows:
 ex cujus jam tradita definitione sequitur cognitionem naturalem, prophetiam vocari posse. Nam ea, quae lumine naturali cognoscimus, a sola Dei cognitione, ejusque aeternis decretis dependent. 
The first sentence of the second paragraph of the TTP given above is crucial, in my view, for the proper understanding of all of Spinoza's philosophy, and that is the reason I give it above in the original Latin version. Because, so far I could not find a good English translation of the passage, and in order to achieve it, I had to go first to French version, which says:
 et déjà on doit conclure, de la définition qui vient d'être donnée, que la connaissance naturelle peut être aussi appelée prophétie, car les choses que nous savons par la lumière naturelle dépendent entièrement de la connaissance de Dieu et de ses éternels décrets.
Compare this to the 1862 English translation, which says:
 From the definition given above, it follows that all natural knowledge may be entitled Prophecy; for what we know by the light of nature depends entirely on a knowledge of God and his eternal decrees.
Or, to Elwes's version of 1883, which is much worse, as I already noted above, and which says:
 Now it is evident, from the definition above given, that prophecy really includes ordinary knowledge; for the knowledge which we acquire by our natural faculties depends on our knowledge of God and His eternal laws;
And so, using Spinoza's original text, and the three very different translations/interpretations of it given above, I feel obliged to be able to provide a better English translation of the sentence. My suggested translation follows the 1862 English text very closely, but with some very important, nay fundamentel modifications:
 From the definition given above, it follows that natural knowledge can also be called Prophecy; for what we know by the light of nature depends entirely on the knowledge of God and of his eternal decrees.
And here, following this initial sentence, Spinoza goes on comparing prophetic knowledge to natural knowledge, and trying to define the differences between these two types of knowledge, and the roles and limitations of one vis-a-vis the other. But if in one initial sentence we find so many versions and interpretations, the problem of the correct interpretation now gets compounded. Still, without a clear understanding of the differences between the two types of knowledge for Spinoza, his philosophy as a whole cannot be properly understood, in my view. And so, here we are. warshy (¥¥) 19:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Natural Knowledge for Spinoza 

message: I have added a section Spinoza's pejorative views on women, which his two most prominent biographers, Steven Nadler and Jonathan Israel, remark on.  If readers know of any other commentary than what is cited the new section please do add it. Amuseclio (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinoza's views on women