Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-14T13:12:12.584Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2025

Edited by
Karolina Hübner  and
Justin Steinberg
Karolina Hübner
Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Justin Steinberg
Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Spinoza Lexicon , pp. 1 - 40
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Recommended Reading

Douglas, A. X. (2022). Spinoza’s theophany: The expression of God’s nature by particular things. Journal of Early Modern Studies, 11(2), 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melamed, Y. Y. (2012). Omnis determinatio est negatio: Determination, negation, and self-negation in Spinoza, Kant, and Hegel. In Förster, E. & Melamed, Y. (eds.), Spinoza and German Idealism (pp. 175–96). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Salgado Borge, A. (2022). Spinoza on essence constitution. Philosophia, 50, 987–99.Google Scholar
Schmaltz, T. (1997). Spinoza’s mediate infinite mode. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 35(2), 199–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shein, N. (2018). Not wholly finite: The dual aspect of finite modes in Spinoza. Philosophia, 46, 433–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Recommended Reading

Den Uyl, D. (2000). Why read the Political Treatise. In Spinoza, Political Treatise, trans. S. Shirley (pp. vii–xviii). Hackett.Google Scholar
Goldenbaum, U. (2013). Sovereignty and obedience. In Clarke, D. M. & Wilson, C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy in Early Modern Europe (pp. 500–24). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matheron, A. (1988). Individu et communauté chez Spinoza. New edn. Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Prokhovnik, R. (1997). From democracy to aristocracy: Spinoza, reason and politics. History of European Ideas, 23(2–4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinberg, J. (2018). Spinoza’s Political Psychology: The Taming of Fortune and Fear. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Recommended Reading

Hübner, K. (2015). Spinoza on essences, universals, and beings of reason. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 96(2), 58–88.Google Scholar
Newlands, S. (2015). Spinoza’s early anti-abstractionism. In Melamed, Y. (ed.), Young Spinoza: A Metaphysician in the Making (pp. 255–71). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Parkinson, G. H. R. (1969). Language and knowledge in Spinoza. Inquiry, 12(1), 15–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, M. (2019). Spinoza on beings of reason [entia rationis] and the analogical imagination. In Ramond, C. & Stetter, J. (eds.), Spinoza in Twenty-First-Century American and French Philosophy: Metaphysics, Philosophy of Mind, Moral and Political Philosophy (pp. 235–56). Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Schliesser, E. (2018). Spinoza and the philosophy of science: Mathematics, motion, and being. In Della Rocca, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Spinoza (pp. 155–89). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Recommended Reading

James, S. (1997). Passion and Action: The Emotions in Seventeenth-Century Philosophy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jaquet, C. (2018). Affects, Actions and Passions in Spinoza: The Unity of Body and Mind, trans. T. Reznichenko. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Sangiacomo, A., & Nachtomy, O. (2018). “Spinoza’s rethinking of activity: From the Short Treatise to the Ethics.” Southern Journal of Philosophy, 56(1), 101–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sévérac, P. (2005). Le devenir actif chez Spinoza. Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Yovel, Y. (ed). (1999). Desire and Affect: Spinoza as Psychologist. Little Room Press.Google Scholar
Wartofsky, M. W. (1979). “Action and passion: Spinoza’s construction of a scientific psychology.” In Wartofsky, , Models: Representation and the Scientific Understanding (pp. 183–97). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Recommended Reading

Bennett, J. (1984). A Study of Spinoza’s Ethics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gueroult, M. (1974). Spinoza, vol. ii: L’Ame (Éthique, 2). Aubier-Montaigne.Google Scholar
McAllister, B. (2014). Adequate and inadequate ideas in Spinoza. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 31, 119–36.Google Scholar

Recommended Reading

Bennett, J. (1984). A Study of Spinoza’s Ethics. Hackett.Google Scholar
Della Rocca, M. (2003). The power of an idea: Spinoza’s critique of pure will. Noûs, 37(2), 200–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, D. (2002). Spinoza’s conatus argument. In Koistinen, O. and Biro, J. (eds.), Spinoza: Metaphysical Themes (pp. 127–58). Oxford.Google Scholar
Garrett, D. (2009). Spinoza on the essence of the human body. In Koistinen, O. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza’s Ethics (pp. 284–302). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, S. (1997). Passion and Action: The Emotions in Seventeenth-Century Philosophy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kisner, M. J. (2011). Spinoza on Human Freedom: Reason, Autonomy and the Good Life. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeBuffe, M. (2009). The anatomy of the passions. In Koistinen, O. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza’s Ethics (pp. 188–222). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, M. (2009). The power of reason in Spinoza. In Koistinen, O. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza’s Ethics (pp. 223–48). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marshall, G. (formerly Eugene). (2008). Spinoza’s cognitive affects and their feel. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 16(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, G. E. (2013). The Spiritual Automaton: Spinoza’s Science of the Mind. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Recommended Reading

Deleuze, G. (1990). Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza. Zone.Google Scholar
Giancotti, E. (1999). The theory of the affects in the strategy of Spinoza’s Ethics. In Yovel, Y. (ed.), Desire and Affect: Spinoza as Psychologist (pp. 129–38). Little Room Press.Google Scholar
Malinowski-Charles, S. (2004). Affects et conscience chez Spinoza: L’automatisme dans le progrès éthique. Olms.Google Scholar
Rice, L. C. (1999). Action in Spinoza’s account of affectivity. In Yovel, Y. (ed.), Desire and Affect: Spinoza as Psychologist (pp. 155–68). Little Room Press.Google Scholar

Recommended Reading

Della Rocca, M. (2003). The power of an idea: Spinoza’s critique of pure will. Noûs, 37(2), 200–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, M. (2019). Affirmation, judgment, and epistemic theodicy in Descartes and Spinoza. In Ball, B. & Schuringa, C. (eds.), The Act and Object of Judgment (pp. 26–44). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, G. E. (2014). The Spiritual Automaton: Spinoza’s Science of the Mind. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, S. (2014). Spinoza on the unity of will and intellect. In Perler, D. & Corcilius, K. (eds.), Partitioning the Soul: Debates From Plato to Leibniz (pp. 245–70). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Steinberg, D. (2005). Belief, affirmation, and the doctrine of conatus in Spinoza. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 43(1), 147–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinberg, D. (2018). Two puzzles concerning Spinoza’s conception of belief. European Journal of Philosophy, 26(1), 261–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Recommended Reading

Hübner, K. (2015). Spinoza on essences, universals, and beings of reason. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 97, 58–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renz, U. (2018). The Explainability of Experience: Realism and Subjectivity in Spinoza’s Theory of the Human Mind. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Della Rocca, M. (2010). Getting his hands dirty: Spinoza’s criticism of the rebel. In Melamed, Y. and Rosenthal, M. A. (eds.), Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise: A Critical Guide (pp. 168–91). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sangiacomo, A. (2019). Spinoza on Reason, Passions, and the Supreme Good. Oxford University Press. Chapter 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinberg, J. (2019). Bodies politic and civic agreement. In Armstrong, A., Green, K., & Sangiacomo, A. (eds.), Spinoza and Relational Autonomy: Being with Others (pp. 132–48). Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Recommended Reading

Blom, H. W. (2003). The moral and political philosophy of Spinoza. In Parkinson, G. H. R. (ed.), The Renaissance and 17th Century Rationalism (pp. 315–46). Routledge History of Philosophy 4. Routledge.Google Scholar
Field, S. L. (2020). Potentia: Hobbes and Spinoza on Power and Popular Politics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinberg, J. (2018). Spinoza’s Political Psychology: The Taming of Fortune and Fear. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Recommended Reading

Grey, J. (2013). “Use them at our pleasure”: Spinoza on Animal Ethics. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 30(4), 367–88.Google Scholar
James, S. (2021). Spinoza on the constitution of animal species. In Melamed, Y. (ed.), A Companion to Spinoza (pp. 365–74). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Perler, D. (2014). Spinoza über Tiere. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 96(2), 232–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, C. (2021). Being consistently biocentric: On the (im)possibility of a Spinozist animal ethics. Journal for Critical Animal Studies, 18(1), 52–72.Google Scholar
Sharp, H. (2011). Animal affects: Spinoza and the frontiers of the human. Journal for Critical Animal Studies, 9(1), 48–68.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. (1999). For they do not agree in nature with us: Spinoza on the lower animals. In Wilson, M. (ed.), Ideas and Mechanism: Essays on Early Modern Philosophy (pp. 178–95). Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Recommended Reading

Bouveresse, R. (1992). Spinoza et Leibniz: L’idée d’animisme universel. J. Vrin.Google Scholar
Della Rocca, M. (2008). Spinoza. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, M. (2019). Spinoza’s panpsychism. In Seager, W. (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Panpsychism (pp. 36–43). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marrama, O. (2017). Consciousness, ideas of ideas and animation in Spinoza’s Ethics. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 25(3), 506–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perler, D. (2014). Spinoza über Tiere. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 96(2), 232–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, M. D. (1999). Objects, ideas and “minds”: Comments on Spinoza’s theory of mind. In Wilson, , Ideas and Mechanism: Essays on Early Modern Philosophy (pp. 126–40). Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Recommended Reading

Curley, E. (2015). Resurrecting Leo Strauss. In Schröder, W. (ed.), Reading between the Lines: Leo Strauss and the History of Early Modern Philosophy (pp. 129–70). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
James, S. (2012). Spinoza on Philosophy, Religion, and Politics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lærke, M. (2021). Spinoza and the Freedom of Philosophizing. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadler, S. (2011). A Book Forged in Hell: Spinoza’s Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of the Secular Age. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, S. B. (1997). Spinoza, Liberalism, and the Question of Jewish Identity. Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Recommended Reading

Balibar, E. (1998). Spinoza and Politics. Verso.Google Scholar
Feuer, L. (1958). Spinoza and the Rise of Liberalism. 1st edn. Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Field, S. L. (2020). Political power and depoliticized acquiescence: Spinoza and aristocracy. Constellations: An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory, 27(4), 670–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haitsma Mulier, E. O. G. (1980). The Myth of Venice and Dutch Republican Thought in the Seventeenth Century, trans. Moran, G. T.. Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Verbeek, T. (2018). Spinoza on aristocratic and democratic government. In Melamed, Y. & Sharp, H. (eds.), Spinoza’s Political Treatise: A Critical Guide (pp. 145–60). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Recommended Reading

Curley, E. M. (1988). Behind the Geometrical Method: A Reading of Spinoza’s Ethics. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deleuze, G. (1990). Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza. Zone.Google Scholar
Della Rocca, M. (2012). “Rationalism, idealism, monism, and beyond.” In Förster, E. and Melamed, Y. Y. (eds.), Spinoza and German Idealism (pp. 7–26). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hübner, K. (2021). “Spinoza on the limits of explanation.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 103(2), 341–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lennon, T. M. (2005). “The rationalist conception of substance.” In Nelson, Alan (ed.), A Companion to Rationalism (pp. 12–30). Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, M. (2006). “Substance, attribute, and mode in Spinoza.” Philosophy Compass, 1(2), 144–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melamed, Y. (2013). “Spinoza’s metaphysics of thought: Parallelisms and the multifaceted structure of ideas.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 86(3), 636–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newlands, S. (2018). Reconceiving Spinoza. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shein, N. (2009). “The false dichotomy between objective and subjective interpretations of Spinoza’s theory of attributes.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 17(3), 505–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shein, N. (2018). “Spinoza’s theory of attributes.” In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/spinoza-attributesGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • A
  • Edited by Karolina Hübner, Cornell University, New York, Justin Steinberg, Cornell University, New York
  • Book: The Cambridge Spinoza Lexicon
  • Online publication: 09 January 2025
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • A
  • Edited by Karolina Hübner, Cornell University, New York, Justin Steinberg, Cornell University, New York
  • Book: The Cambridge Spinoza Lexicon
  • Online publication: 09 January 2025
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • A
  • Edited by Karolina Hübner, Cornell University, New York, Justin Steinberg, Cornell University, New York
  • Book: The Cambridge Spinoza Lexicon
  • Online publication: 09 January 2025
Available formats
×