AgoraAn open square of thought

Baruch de Spinoza

1632–1677

A first way ina deliberate simplification – the portrait says more

God and nature are one and the same, everything happens by necessity, and freedom means understanding that necessity instead of fighting it.

Placement

Rationalism · Western Europe · Metaphysics, Ethics, Religion, Politics & Law

God or Nature: there is only one single substance. Freedom lies in understanding the necessity from which everything follows.

Key ideas

  • Deus sive Natura
  • Monism
  • Conatus
  • Freedom of thought

Open in the star map

Influence

Influenced by 3

  • Hasdai Crescas

    influenced by ✓

    In a letter to Lodewijk Meyer (1663) Spinoza cited ‘Rab Chasdai’ for a proof of God that holds even if the series of causes is infinite. B. Spinoza, letter to L. Meyer (1663); H. Crescas, Or Adonai; SEP “Hasdai Crescas”

    Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata

    Hasdai Crescas › c. 1340–1411

  • Niccolò Machiavelli

    influenced by ✓

    In the Political Treatise (1677) Spinoza called Machiavelli ‘most acute’ and suggested The Prince may have meant to warn a free people against entrusting itself to one ruler. B. Spinoza, Tractatus politicus (1677); SEP “Spinoza’s Political Philosophy”

    Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata

    Niccolò Machiavelli › 1469–1527

  • Thomas Hobbes

    influenced by ✓

    Spinoza took Hobbes’ thesis that natural right extends as far as power (Theological-Political Treatise, 1670), but kept natural right intact in the civil state (letter to Jelles, 1674). B. Spinoza, Tractatus theologico-politicus (1670); letter to J. Jelles (1674); SEP “Spinoza’s Political Philosophy”

    Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata · InPhO

    Thomas Hobbes › 1588–1679

Influenced 20

  • Johann Gottlieb Fichte

    influenced ✓

    Fichte’s Wissenschaftslehre (1794) put the absolute I where Spinoza had put substance, and Fichte saw in Spinoza’s system the consistent form of dogmatism. J. G. Fichte, Grundlage der gesammten Wissenschaftslehre (1794); Erste Einleitung in die Wissenschaftslehre (1797); SEP “Johann Gottlieb Fichte”

    Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata

    Johann Gottlieb Fichte › 1762–1814

  • Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

    influenced ✓

    Hegel held that thinking must begin with Spinoza’s substance, yet in the Phenomenology (1807) demanded that the true be grasped not only as substance but also as subject. G. W. F. Hegel, Phänomenologie des Geistes (1807), Preface; Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie (1833), “Spinoza”; SEP “Hegel”

    Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata · InPhO

    Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel › 1770–1831

  • Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling

    influenced ✓

    Schelling told Hegel in 1795 that he had become a Spinozist and presented his identity philosophy in Spinoza’s geometrical manner (Presentation of My System, 1801). F. W. J. Schelling, letter to Hegel, 4 Feb. 1795; Darstellung meines Systems der Philosophie (1801); SEP “Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling”

    Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata · InPhO

    Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling › 1775–1854

  • Friedrich Nietzsche

    influenced ✓

    In a postcard to Overbeck (1881) Nietzsche hailed Spinoza as his precursor, who like him denied free will, purposes, a moral world order and evil. F. Nietzsche, postcard to F. Overbeck, 30 July 1881; SEP “Friedrich Nietzsche”

    Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata · InPhO

    Friedrich Nietzsche › 1844–1900

  • Henri Bergson

    influenced ✓

    In ‘Philosophical Intuition’ (1911) Bergson took Spinoza as his example of a simple intuition behind a complex system, felt beneath the geometrical apparatus of the Ethics. H. Bergson, “L’intuition philosophique” (1911), in La Pensée et le mouvant (1934); SEP “Henri Bergson”

    Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata · InPhO

    Henri Bergson › 1859–1941

  • Louis Althusser

    influenced ✓

    Althusser drew on Spinoza for his concept of structural causality and said of himself and his circle ‘we were Spinozists’ (Elements of Self-Criticism, 1974). L. Althusser, Lire le Capital (1965); Éléments d’autocritique (1974); SEP “Louis Althusser”

    Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata · InPhO

    Louis Althusser › 1918–1990

Show all (20)Show fewer
  • Johann Gottfried Herder

    influenced ✓

    In God: Some Conversations (1787) Herder defended Spinoza against Jacobi’s charge of atheism, reinterpreting his substance as the primal force active in all things. J. G. Herder, Gott. Einige Gespräche (1787); SEP “Johann Gottfried von Herder”

    Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata

    Johann Gottfried Herder › 1744–1803

  • Friedrich Schleiermacher

    influenced

    In On Religion (1799) Schleiermacher asked his readers to offer a lock of hair to the shade of ‘the holy, rejected Spinoza’, pervaded by the world-spirit. F. Schleiermacher, Über die Religion. Reden an die Gebildeten unter ihren Verächtern (1799), Second Speech; SEP “Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher”

    Evidence: AI draft

    Friedrich Schleiermacher › 1768–1834

  • Friedrich Hölderlin

    influenced

    In Tübingen Hölderlin made excerpts from Jacobi’s Letters on Spinoza (c. 1790–91), and ‘hen kai pan’, one and all, became a watchword he shared with Hegel. F. Hölderlin, excerpts from F. H. Jacobi, Über die Lehre des Spinoza in Briefen (c. 1790–91); D. Henrich, Der Grund im Bewußtsein (1992)

    Evidence: AI draft

    Friedrich Hölderlin › 1770–1843

  • Novalis

    influenced

    Novalis called Spinoza ‘a God-intoxicated man’ and in his notebooks (1798–1800) engaged with Spinoza’s identity of God and nature. Novalis, Das allgemeine Brouillon (1798–99); Fragmente und Studien (1799–1800); SEP “Novalis”

    Evidence: AI draft

    Novalis › 1772–1801

  • Ludwig Feuerbach

    influenced ✓

    In Principles of the Philosophy of the Future (1843) Feuerbach read Spinoza’s identification of God and nature as a step from theism towards materialism, likening him to Moses. L. Feuerbach, Grundsätze der Philosophie der Zukunft (1843); Geschichte der neuern Philosophie von Bacon von Verulam bis Benedict Spinoza (1833); SEP “Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach”

    Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata

    Ludwig Feuerbach › 1804–1872

  • Miguel de Unamuno

    influenced

    Unamuno built The Tragic Sense of Life (1913) on Spinoza’s conatus, the striving of each thing to persist in its being, read as the hunger for immortality. M. de Unamuno, Del sentimiento trágico de la vida (1913); B. de Spinoza, Ethica (1677), Part III; J. Marías, Miguel de Unamuno (1943)

    Evidence: AI draft

    Miguel de Unamuno › 1864–1936

  • Albert Einstein

    influenced ✓

    Einstein said he believed in ‘Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists’, not in a God concerned with human fates and actions (1929). A. Einstein, cable to Rabbi H. Goldstein (24 Apr. 1929); “Religion und Wissenschaft” (1930); M. Jammer, Einstein and Religion (1999)

    Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata · InPhO

    Albert Einstein › 1879–1955

  • Lev Vygotsky

    influenced ✓

    Vygotsky turned to Spinoza’s monism against Descartes’ dualism of passions to seek a unified theory of emotions (Učenie ob emocijach, written 1931–33, publ. 1984). L. S. Vygotsky, Učenie ob emocijach (written 1931–33; publ. 1984), Eng. “The Teaching about Emotions” (1999); R. van der Veer and J. Valsiner, Understanding Vygotsky (1991)

    Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata

    Lev Vygotsky › 1896–1934

  • Erich Fromm

    influenced ✓

    Fromm took Spinoza’s Ethics as a model of humanistic ethics, in which virtue is the realisation of one’s own powers (Man for Himself, 1947). E. Fromm, Man for Himself: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics (1947); B. Spinoza, Ethica (1677)

    Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata

    Erich Fromm › 1900–1980

  • Arne Næss

    influenced

    Næss read Spinoza’s Ethics as a philosophy of active emotions and self-realisation and made it a main source of his ecosophy (Freedom, Emotion and Self-Subsistence, 1975; 1989). A. Næss, Freedom, Emotion and Self-Subsistence: The Structure of a Central Part of Spinoza’s Ethics (1975); Ecology, Community and Lifestyle (1989)

    Evidence: AI draft

    Arne Næss › 1912–2009

  • Gilles Deleuze

    influenced ✓

    Deleuze read Spinoza as a philosopher of expression and immanence and asked with him what a body can do (Spinoza et le problème de l’expression, 1968). G. Deleuze, Spinoza et le problème de l’expression (1968); Spinoza. Philosophie pratique (1970; 1981); SEP “Gilles Deleuze”; SEP “Baruch Spinoza”

    Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata · InPhO

    Gilles Deleuze › 1925–1995

  • Antonio Negri

    influenced ✓

    In The Savage Anomaly (1981) Negri read Spinoza as the thinker of potentia, the constitutive power of the multitude, against potestas, the power of constituted order. A. Negri, L’anomalia selvaggia. Saggio su potere e potenza in Baruch Spinoza (1981)

    Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata · InPhO

    Antonio Negri › 1933–2023

  • Hassan Hanafi

    influenced

    Hanafi translated Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise into Arabic with a long introduction (1971), taking it as a model for historical criticism of sacred texts. H. Hanafi (tr.), Risala fi l-lahut wa-l-siyasa (1971)

    Evidence: AI draft

    Hassan Hanafi › 1935–2021

  • Viola Cordova

    influenced

    In her dissertation The Concept of Monism in Navajo Thought (1992) Cordova compared the Navajo (Diné) concept of Holy Wind with Spinoza’s monism to interpret it. V. F. Cordova, The Concept of Monism in Navajo Thought (PhD diss., University of New Mexico, 1992); J. K. McNeley, Holy Wind in Navajo Philosophy (1981)

    Evidence: AI draft

    Viola Cordova › 1937–2002

Criticism

Criticized by 7

  • Anne Conway

    criticised by

    Conway charged that Spinoza confounds God and creatures in one substance, and distinguished three kinds of being: God, Christ and creatures (Principles, 1690, ch. 9). A. Conway, Principia philosophiae antiquissimae et recentissimae (1690), chs. 5–6, 9; SEP “Anne Conway”

    Evidence: AI draft

    Anne Conway › 1631–1679

  • Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz influenced

    influenced ✓

    In 1676 Leibniz visited Spinoza in The Hague, showed him a proof that a most perfect being is possible and later annotated the posthumously printed Ethics (1677). G. W. Leibniz, Quod ens perfectissimum existit (The Hague, 1676); M. R. Antognazza, Leibniz: An Intellectual Biography (2009); SEP “Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz”

    Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata · InPhO

    criticised by

    Leibniz rejected Spinoza’s blind necessity, which leaves God neither choice nor goodness (Theodicy, 1710, §173), adding that Spinoza would be right were there no monads. G. W. Leibniz, Essais de Théodicée (1710), §§173–174; letter to Bourguet, Dec. 1714 (GP III 575)

    Evidence: AI draft

    Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz › 1646–1716

  • Pierre Bayle

    criticised by

    Bayle called Spinoza’s single substance ‘the most absurd and monstrous hypothesis’: God would be both the Germans and the Turks killing each other (Dictionnaire, 1697, ‘Spinoza’). P. Bayle, Dictionnaire historique et critique (1697), art. “Spinoza”, remark N; SEP “Pierre Bayle”

    Evidence: AI draft

    Pierre Bayle › 1647–1706

  • John Toland

    criticised by

    Toland argued in Letters to Serena (1704, Letter IV) that Spinoza’s system lacks a principle, since it fails to explain motion, which Toland held essential to matter. J. Toland, Letters to Serena (1704), Letters IV–V; S. H. Daniel, John Toland: His Methods, Manners, and Mind (1984)

    Evidence: AI draft

    John Toland › 1670–1722

  • Immanuel Kant

    criticised by

    Kant objected that Spinoza’s single substance turns the purposive unity of nature into mere inherence and cannot explain purposiveness (Critique of the Power of Judgment, 1790). I. Kant, Kritik der Urteilskraft (1790), §§ 72–73; Was heißt: sich im Denken orientieren? (1786)

    Evidence: AI draft

    Immanuel Kant › 1724–1804

  • Moses Mendelssohn influenced

    influenced ✓

    In his Philosophical Dialogues (1755) Mendelssohn praised Spinoza as a forerunner of Leibniz, arguing that Leibniz had found pre-established harmony in his work. M. Mendelssohn, Philosophische Gespräche (1755); SEP “Moses Mendelssohn”

    Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata

    criticised by

    In Morning Hours (1785) Mendelssohn rejected Spinoza’s pantheism but argued that a ‘purified pantheism’ differs from theism in no point that matters for religion and morals. M. Mendelssohn, Morgenstunden (1785), Lectures XIII–XIV; SEP “Moses Mendelssohn”

    Evidence: AI draft

    Moses Mendelssohn › 1729–1786

  • Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi

    criticised by

    Jacobi judged Spinozism the only consistent philosophy of demonstration and therefore fatalism and atheism (Letters on Spinoza, 1785; 2nd ed. 1789). F. H. Jacobi, Über die Lehre des Spinoza in Briefen an den Herrn Moses Mendelssohn (1785; 2nd ed. 1789); SEP “Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi”

    Evidence: AI draft

    Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi › 1743–1819

Criticizes 2

  • Maimonides influenced by

    influenced by ✓

    Spinoza knew Maimonides’ Guide closely; H. A. Wolfson (1934) traced much of the Ethics’ vocabulary of God and the intellect to it and other medieval Jewish sources. H. A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of Spinoza (1934); SEP “Baruch Spinoza”

    Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata · InPhO

    criticised

    Spinoza rejected Maimonides’ rule that Scripture must be read allegorically wherever it conflicts with reason, which bent the Bible to Aristotle (Theological-Political Treatise, 1670, ch. 7). B. Spinoza, Tractatus theologico-politicus (1670), ch. 7; Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed II.25; SEP “Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise”

    Evidence: AI draft

    Maimonides › 1138–1204

  • René Descartes influenced by

    influenced by ✓

    Spinoza’s first published book, Principles of Cartesian Philosophy (1663), set out Descartes’ Principles in geometrical order, with his Metaphysical Thoughts appended. B. Spinoza, Renati Des Cartes Principiorum philosophiae pars I et II, more geometrico demonstratae (1663), with Cogitata metaphysica; SEP “Baruch Spinoza”

    Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata · InPhO

    criticised

    Spinoza called Descartes’ account of the mind steering the body through the pineal gland ‘more occult than any occult quality’ (Ethics, 1677, V, Preface). B. Spinoza, Ethica (1677), V, Praefatio; II P48–49 (against free will); SEP “Baruch Spinoza”

    Evidence: AI draft

    René Descartes › 1596–1650

Works

Position

Spinoza’s Ethics, built like a geometry book, argues that there is only one substance: God or Nature. Mind and matter are not separate things but two attributes of this single reality, and everything follows from it with necessity – there is no free will in the usual sense and no purpose in nature. Every being strives to persist in its existence (conatus). We are unfree when driven by passions we do not understand; freedom is understanding necessity, and the highest happiness is the intellectual love of God. In politics he defended freedom of thought and the historical reading of the Bible. Long condemned as an atheist, he later inspired Goethe, German idealism and Einstein.

Life & context

Born in Amsterdam in 1632 into a family of Portuguese-Jewish merchants, Spinoza was expelled from the Jewish community in 1656 for his views. He lived modestly in Rijnsburg, Voorburg and The Hague, grinding lenses and corresponding with leading scholars. He declined a professorship in Heidelberg to keep his independence. His Ethics was published only after his death in 1677.

Further main works

  • Principles of Cartesian Philosophy (1663)
  • Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect (1677)

Appears in

Sources: Wikipedia · Wikidata

As of November 2026 · Sources · Improve this page · How Agora is made

Open in the star map