Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- List of abbreviations
- Texts and editions
- Introduction
- 1 A worm in the blood: some central themes in Spinoza's Ethics
- 2 A few further basic concepts
- 3 Emendative therapy and the Tractatus de Intellectus Emendatione
- 4 Method: analysis and synthesis
- 5 Maimonides and Gersonides
- 6 Definitions in Spinoza's Ethics: where they come from and what they are for
- 7 The third kind of knowledge and “our” eternity
- Bibliography
- Index of passages referred to and cited
- General index
5 - Maimonides and Gersonides
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- List of abbreviations
- Texts and editions
- Introduction
- 1 A worm in the blood: some central themes in Spinoza's Ethics
- 2 A few further basic concepts
- 3 Emendative therapy and the Tractatus de Intellectus Emendatione
- 4 Method: analysis and synthesis
- 5 Maimonides and Gersonides
- 6 Definitions in Spinoza's Ethics: where they come from and what they are for
- 7 The third kind of knowledge and “our” eternity
- Bibliography
- Index of passages referred to and cited
- General index
Summary
I have now examined the two main early modern sources for Spinoza's method, Hobbes and Descartes. We have seen the importance of synthesis and analysis, the different ways that they could be construed, the different functions ascribed to them, and finally the problems of reconciling them in a method not grounded in the imagination. But something is still lacking in this picture, there seems to be much more to the structure of Spinoza's method that has not been discussed: the didactic features of Spinoza's presentation and his attempts to instruct his readers. For Descartes this was, of course, the basic purpose of synthesis, and it was an important part of synthesis for Hobbes and Zabarella as well. In examining Maimonides and Gersonides I will stress some different didactic aspects of Spinoza's method. I would like to say at the outset that I in no way consider Spinoza to be a Maimonidean. I am interested in Maimonides for three reasons. First, part of Spinoza's own method (and I mean method broadly, not just the mos geometricus) seems to be a rejection of Maimonides, so by examining Maimonides we can learn about Spinoza. Second, in rejecting Maimonides, Spinoza still seems to hold on to some basic features of Maimonides' method. Third, Maimonides was also extensively criticized by Gersonides, whose affinities with Spinoza I have already emphasized. There are further affinities with Gersonides to be explored in the final section of this chapter.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Meaning in Spinoza's Method , pp. 123 - 143Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2003