Spinoza and the Problem of Hagiography

This is the first of a several part series addressing Spinoza and the problem of hagiography. No understanding of modern Jewry is complete without a reckoning with Spinoza. Unfortunately, while the thought of this person has been terribly significant in the shaping of the modern enterprise, his action has been equally significant, but only terrible. Thousands of Christians in the late seventeenth and eighteenth century developed their view of Judaism from Spinoza's books. One could say that what Spinoza writes about Judaism also constitutes thought, but referring to it as action places what he has written on this topic within the realm of בן אדם לחברו an area where Spinoza is a much more questionable figure. For this reason, this post and subsequent posts in this series are about Spinoza and hagiography. One usually sees hagiography disappear as time develops and a person comes under increasing scrutiny, but in the case of Spinoza, accounts up to this very day cast him as a saint.

And here is the rest of it.

This matter is most important because it is a proxy for a larger discussion about traditional Judaism and its dissipation before the modern enterprise. Those that praise Spinoza's person too much betray their desire to cast the modern enterprise too favorably. It is not enough for Spinoza to be a great thinker. His conduct must also win praise. After all, Spinoza's choice - to become a philosopher - was made in juxtaposition to the more traditional alternative of becoming a rabbi. Rabbis are praised for their capacity to think, but if their conduct is poor, they are not revered. Therefore, Spinoza - though he is the anti-rabbi - must abide by the same criterion as rabbis do in the sense that he can not only be a great thinker; he must also be a great person. In other words, if his conduct is questionable, his thought suffers in the eyes of modern and aspiring modern Jews. For this reason, his conduct must be described as good for those who are committed to his thought. And the problem of hagiography ensues.

In upcoming posts, I will be discussing the following scholars, who respond to Spinoza - Leo Strauss, Hermann Cohen, Steven Nadler, and Rebecca Newberger Goldstein. Strauss and Cohen provide a most excellent critique of Spinoza's character and played no small role in reframing the discussion around this most controversial Jew. Newberger Goldstein tends toward the hagiographical, apparently not taking into account the writings of Strauss and Cohen. As for Nadler, I am still reading his book.

I hope to demonstrate that the critique of Spinoza's character is legitimate in order to strike a blow to any current or future hagiographical accounts of him. Nevertheless, I do not mean to belittle his importance as a thinker, and I will give credit where it is his due, as he is one of the founders of the modern political enterprise - liberal democracy - which I cherish. I hope to convince readers that his work must be affirmed, but his person is not one to which we should pay any allegiance.