Talk:Baruch Spinoza

message: His real name was Baruch de Espinoza. Why not naming the article with his correct name to start with (even if he is better known under Spinoza)? 94.109.209.132 (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That was his Portuguese name.  Educated people or travellers in that time period often translated their names in appropriate circumstances (Hebrew "Baruch" = Latin "Benedictus" etc), and didn't necessarily think that the original birth form of their name was their true "real" name.  Also see WP:COMMONNAME... AnonMoos (talk) 08:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: His Hebrew name was "Baruch". His Portuguese name was "Bento". He took the Latinized name "Benedictus" after he was expelled from the Portuguese Jewish community. See note b in the article. The fact that a reader posed the question on this talk page suggests the explanation in note b should be raised to the main article.  There is an argument for the Wiki bio using only his surname for the article title. See the discussion elsewhere on this talk page. Spinoza's two major biographers in English Steven Nadler and Jonathan I. Israel use only his surname in the titles of their respective biographies of him, avoiding the issue of his first names.Amuseclio (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant "Espinoza" was probably the Portuguese version of his last name... AnonMoos (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: On his seal Spinoza used the initials BDS, with DS for "de Spinoza".  Jonathan Israel gives the name of Spinoza's father as "Michael (Miguel) Spinoza (Gabriel Alvares d'Espinoza)".Amuseclio (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: We need better specificity of language. If someone of "Jewish" descent takes no part in the religion of Judaism, s/he may be Semitic (an ethnic/linguistic category), but the person is not Jewish.  -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C0:980:E520:15A:9EBE:744A:EBB2 (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but Jewishness is both an ethnicity and a religion, and there have been many proud ethnic Jews who wouldn't dream of denying their historical affiliation, but are not religiously observant.  We even have :Category:Jewish atheists on Wikipedia. AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ludwig Wittgenstein (a Jew, for some definition of that word) might point out that we here appear to have two different concepts identified by the same written symbol "Jewish". Who's to say which is the "correct" mapping from word to meaning? GreenWeasel11 (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: In ancient times, the Hebrew word Yehudi could mean "Judahite" (a member of the tribe of Judah by genealogical descent), "Judean" (an inhabitant of the kingdom or region of Judea), or "Jew" (adherent of the monotheistic religion originally developed in Judea)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Such Thing as a Secular Jew 

message: I have used my personal communication with Jonathan Israel as a citation in the section "Speculation about his sexuality." Is there a way I can make that more credible, how, etc.? Or in short, what should I do? Fomer-k (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Communication 

message: "Deleted section on speculating on Spinoza's sexuality, since there is no written evidence regarding it in the historical record. All else is speculation and not warranting inclusion in an encyclopedia article unless evidence surfaces." 
Jimmy Wales, a co-founder of Wikipedia, articulated that an encyclopedia's aim is to encapsulate "the sum of all human knowledge, but sum meaning summary." However, should speculations about individuals or events be considered part of historical knowledge? Biographies by authors such as Colerus, Nadler, and Israel delve into historical conjectures about figures like Spinoza, offering analyses. Similarly, encyclopedias, like Bayle's, explore numerous historical speculations regarding Spinoza, despite the absence of conclusive evidence. For instance, Bayle discusses Clara Maria van den Enden and the theatre/synagogeu attack while Colerus recounts, in addition to the latter, the instance of Counselor of the State's visit to Spinoza. (All of this is to be found in the other two biographies too.) In short, I believe the answer is a partial yes. 
So, I wish to undo the deletion. @Amuseclio Fomer-k (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I am new to looking at the Baruch Spinoza article, but my impression was that the section on Spinoza's sexuality was disproportionate in size relative to its importance, especially since the conclusion was speculative. I thought one quote in particular was much too long. Curiocurio (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I would agree with that. Someone, however, revised the section after I wrote it. I was referring to that, much much shorter version. Fomer-k (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit by Amuseclio (20:09, 23 February 2024‎) 

message: As to the sexual orientation of Spinoza, most contemporary and later writers including his major biographers are silent, as are all the extant historical documents. The one exception is Margaret Gullan-Whur, who provocatively speculates in her 1998 biography "that the young Dutch merchant Simon de Vries may have wanted, or even had, a homosexual friendship with the philosopher".  Gullan-Whur writes concerning the connection between de Vries and Spinoza:
 Spinoza deflects the sentiment in de Vries's letter. Gullan-Whur makes no argument nor produces any evidence regarding the sexuality of Spinoza (not Simon de Vries). Other Spinoza scholars have largely not engaged with Gullan-Whur's speculation, but one commentator is dismissive, pointing out the lack of evidence. "The author does proffer a new slant on Spinoza: a mooted homosexual attachment to the young Dutch merchant, Simon de Vries. Yet it is hardly surprising that this was "hitherto unnoticed", since her grounds for it amount to little more than a metaphor de Vries uses in a letter." A personal communication from biographer Jonathan Israel states, "Gullan-Whur may have been right about this but we simply dont know enough to say one way or another. I dont think one should speculate about a person's sexuality without having some more concrete evidence than this."Jonathan Israel, in personal communication, directly quoted with mistakes in punctuation, 26 December 2023 
[end of revised text]
**Discussion. The original section was entirely too long and was not written in the style usual for encyclopedia entries. For Amuseclio, the editor’s use of Gullan-Whur’s speculation about Spinoza to further speculate is problematic. The quote in her work “I also blame no one for my claim that Spinoza was a lonely and emotional man who lacked close friends.  This belief is based on the best available evidence – Spinoza’s own words – and it defies opinion that he had life-long devotees, although on hitherto unnoticed grounds I suggest that the young Dutch merchant Simon de Vries may have wanted, or even had, a homosexual friendship with the philosopher.”(p. xiii).
*Comment by Amuseclio: The new section by Fomer-k on Spinoza’s sexuality, cites Gullan-Whur p.xiii, but then goes further saying "and [she] speculates that Baruch Spinoza was/may have been a closeted homosexual (or at least bisexual).  
*Comment by Amuseclio: Going from speculation about de Vries’s purported homosexual longings to saying that Spinoza “was/may have been a closeted homosexual (or at least bisexual)” goes far beyond Gullan-Whur states, in my opinion.
*Comment by Amuseclio: Amuseclio was interested to see that a personal communication (to whom?) from Jonathan I. Israel was included in the section.  I am in agreement with Israel’s cautious statement, but also troubled that a personal communication made its way into Wikipedia.
 
*Comment by Amuseclio: Some evidence points to Simon Joosten de Vries’s (c. 1633-67) feelings about Spinoza, but the historical record is silent on Spinoza himself. I think it would be worthwhile if there to be a Wiki bio of de Vries. Israel notes that it is unclear when Spinoza became acquainted with the Collegiants, of which de Vries was one. (p. 262).
*Yes, speculation does make its way into biographer’s assessments of their subjects.  Jonathan Israel includes thoughts of Spinoza scholar Yosef Kaplan about Spinoza’s reaction to his grandfather’s posthumous circumcision. His grandfather was circumcised prior to being buried in a marginal part of Beth Haim cemetery. This could have been yet another reason that Spinoza was hostile to religious authorities, since it was public knowledge. “[T]he long-remembered ‘uncircumcision’ of his grandfather was humiliatingly commemorated and marked out for all to see by his resting place’s peculiar location in relation to the rest of the cemetery and the graves of Spinoza’s other deceased relatives.  For his grandfather’s grave was located outside the bounds of the cemetery proper separated from the graves of his honoured forebears, at the fringe reserved for uncircumcised marginal types not fully belonging to the community.”(J. Israel, ‘’Spinoza, Life & Legacy’’, 128-29).
*On 21 February 2024 Amuseclio edited the section heading to read “Speculation on Spinoza’s sexuality” rather than “Sexuality”.
*On 23 February 2024 Amuseclio deleted the section “Speculation about Spinoza’s sexuality” with the edit summary, “moved section on views on women to the discussion of the TP. Deleted section on speculating on Spinoza's sexuality, since there is no written evidence regarding it in the historical record. All else is speculation and not warranting inclusion in an encyclopedia article unless evidence surfaces).
*Conclusion: Amuseclio is interested in other editors’ opinions about the removal of the section on Spinoza’s sexuality, so please do weigh in on the discussion.  As a longtime Wiki editor, holder of a PhD in History, 35 years of teaching at R1 institutions, director of multiple PhD dissertations, my professional judgment is that the section should not be restored to Spinoza’s Wiki bio. I look forward to community response. 
Cordially to the Wiki community, Amuseclio (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexuality