Politischer Traktat: Sämtliche Werke, Band 5b. Zweisprachige Ausgabe

Von Baruch de Spinoza

In der unvollendet gebliebenen, posthum 1677 publizierten Streitschrift »Tractatus politicus« entwickelt Spinoza seine Politik-Theorie, wie ein Staat verfasst sein muss, damit er bei der zu realisierenden Freiheit der Individuen angesichts der Kräfte des affektiven Begehrens des Einzelnen ein friedvolles Leben der Menschen untereinander sicherstellen kann.

Für die vorliegende 2., durchgängig überarbeitete Auflage der Studienausgabe konnte jetzt die 2005 von Omero Prioetti herausgegebene kritische Neuausgabe des lateinischen Textes in Spinoza, Oeuvres, Bd. V herangezogen werden; sie bietet daher einen nochmals verbesserten Text.

• Sprache: Deutsch
• Herausgeber: Felix Meiner Verlag
• Erscheinungsdatum: 1. März 2010
• ISBN: 9783787322121

Baruch de Spinoza

Baruch de Spinoza wird 1632 als Sohn einer sephardischen Einwandererfamilie in Amsterdam geboren. Nach dem Besuch der Thoraschule löst er sich geistig vom orthodoxen Judentum, was schließlich 1656 zu seiner Exkommunikation aus der jüdischen Gemeinde führt. Er studiert daraufhin die Klassischen Sprachen und Philosophie, wird aber auf Grund seiner als atheistisch angesehenen Meinungen aus Amsterdam ausgewiesen. In Rijnsburg entstehen die Werke, die den Zeitgenossen zunächst wegen ihrer „Irrlehre“ als Endpunkt aller Philosophie erscheinen, Spinoza aber seit der Goethezeit zu einem philosophischen Klassiker werden ließen. Den Skandal, den der Theologisch-politische Traktat wegen seines Plädoyers für die Freiheit philosophischen Denkens in ganz Europa 1670 hervorruft, bewegt Spinoza dazu, sein Hauptwerk, die Ethik, erst posthum 1677 erscheinen zu lassen. Die Frage nach der Freiheit des Menschen wird pantheistisch in einem ethischen Rationalismus beantwortet. Baruch de Spinoza stirbt 1677 vermutlich an der Schwindsucht.

Buchvorschau

Rezensionen für Politischer Traktat

[pansociety · Bewertung: 5 von 5 Sternen]

Formidable reading; but no list of Pantheist thought can be complete without the leading publication by the founder of western Pantheism.

[ostrom_2 · Bewertung: 5 von 5 Sternen]

Difficult, exacting. But I think he got it right.

[charlesferdinand_1 · Bewertung: 5 von 5 Sternen]

A difficult book but worth it. And if you try the Latin, it is beautifully written (if even more difficult) It is one of the most thought provoking books I have ever read. As such it is much more interesting than the rather facile rationalism of Descartes, although Descartes is, of course much easier to understand. Interestingly, the Ethics begins with a thorough examination of human knowledge, and those conclusions actually undermine the basic thesis of the book.

[isatyajeet · Bewertung: 4 von 5 Sternen]

One quote review.
An excerpt from the book:

"The affirmations and the negations of 'God' always involve necessity or truth; so that, for example, if God said to Adam that He did not wish him to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it would have involved a contradiction that Adam should have been able to eat of it, and would, therefore, have been impossible that he should have so eaten, for the Divine command would have involved an eternal necessity and truth. But since Scripture nevertheless narrates that God did give this command to Adam, and yet that none the less Adam ate of the tree, we must perforce say that God revealed to Adam the evil which would surely follow if he should eat of the tree, but did not disclose that such evil would of necessity come to pass. Thus it was that Adam took the revelation to be not an eternal and necessary truth, but a law - that is, an ordinance followed by gain or loss, not depending necessarily on the nature of the act performed, but solely on the will and absolute power of some potentate, so that the revelation in question was solely in relation to Adam, and solely through his lack of knowledge a law, and God was, as it were, a lawgiver and potentate. From the same cause, namely, from lack of knowledge, the Decalogue in relation to the Hebrews was a law. We conclude, therefore, that God is described as a lawgiver or prince, and styled just, merciful, etc., merely in concession to popular understanding, and the imperfection of popular knowledge; that in reality God acts and directs all things simply by the necessity of His nature and perfection, and that His decrees and volitions are eternal truths, and always involve necessity."

The key words in the excerpt are: "solely through the lack of knowledge" - the whole anthropomorphic domain of law, ínjunction, moral command, et cetera, is based on our ignorance; and the proposed ontological ethics are deprived of the deontological dimension.
_______________________________

Also, "Cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your health."
But that is not prohibited obviously — (Nothing is, nothing can be) — you're just informed of a cáusal link.

[ghost_boy-691444 · Bewertung: 5 von 5 Sternen]

Read this book for two reasons: Spinoza is mentioned in all my philosophy introduction comics I have and George Eliot was a follower of Spinoza (I'll get to that later).

First off, this book might look like a quick read due to it's page numbers, but it's actually a difficult read. Not only is it not written in a way that's pleasing to my eyes at times, it's heavy in subject matter. It's mostly about his views on religion, more pin-pointing to a God, however there is some math and psychology elements in this book as well. I really liked the part on emotions.

Religion is a key part of Spinoza's philosophy. There is also a debate to exactly what he was religiously. At times this book isn't clear. We do know that he didn't like organized religion. He wasn't religiously Jewish or Christian (he was ethnically Jewish though). There is some question whether or not his God is what most people think of God or if it's a whole other type of God. George Eliot was the first person to translate this book into English. I haven't read her translation, so I can't compare, but I have read her views on Spinoza. She was evangelical, maybe too much, before reading him. After, she realized that she wasn't Christian. She questioned the religion and church too much. She eventually turned skeptic and atheist. She also became a better writer, but that's another story.

I, on the other hand, am an atheist, now. For a while I was struggling with not agreeing with religion (as a whole, not just Christianity) and the church (mostly the Catholic Church which I wasn't part of, but it's important to some people around me). Reading the Bible last year didn't help me either. I though, or I was told, I'd find peace and meditation reading passages. The Bible only seemed to cause me to have more anxiety. Too much genealogical boasting and contradicting ideas in the Bible for me to agree with. I liked it for the poetry and literary background, but that about all I can say respectfully. As I've mentioned before with Nietzsche and other philosophers, I give them credit for helping me with anxiety and seeing I feel more free and relaxed without religion and divine rules to follow.

Will this book turn you into a skeptic, atheist, or pantheists? Maybe or maybe not. Depends how much literature influences you. I hope this will make you more open to skepticism though. I believe we have a right to question the world around us, that's why we have science. One thing I know, Spinoza was a fan of science, logic, and reason.