Spinoza's Religion: A New Reading of the Ethics

A Scholar's Engagement With Spinoza

Clare Carlisle's book "Spinoza's Religion: A New Reading of the Ethics" (2021) offers an interpretation of Spinoza that is both scholarly and erudite and deeply felt. Professor of Philosophy at King's College London, Carlisle has written on Kierkegaard and has edited George Elliot's translation of Spinoza's "Ethics", the first translation into English. Kierkegaard seems an unlikely philosopher to pair with Spinoza, but Carlisle puts his thought, and much else, to good use in her understanding of Spinoza.

Carlisle does not dwell upon her own background in this study, but what she says is important. She grew up "without a religion" while becoming fascinated with Spinoza and philosophy as an undergraduate. Carlisle says that she has been drawn deeply into questions about God and religious life and has learned from Eastern religion and from Catholic mysticism while not seeing herself clearly within any religious category. In a way contrary to how many people view religion, she says "I have come to think that religion, for me, is not a matter of identity at all." I agree. Carlisle's discussion of how her study of Spinoza has helped her own search for religious understanding frames the book and the interpretation of Spinoza's thought that she develops. She writes:

"[A]lthough I have studied and taught philosophy and theology for more that twenty years, and should perhaps be expected to have formed opinions about religious questions, I have until quite recently felt rather tentative and uncertain about my relationship to these questions. My experience did not match the ready-made images of religionI saw around me, and so I wondered whether I was getting something wrong. For example, the questions, 'Does God exist?' and 'Do you believe in God' confused me. Neither 'yes' nor 'no' feels like the right answer, and this is not because I am agnostic, but because the wording of these questions seems somehow to lead away from what is meaningful and important to me. 'Are you religious' is, similarly, a perplexing question, to which the best answer I can offer is a not-very-illuminating 'yes and no'. Reading Spinoza more deeply and pursing the question of his religion has helped me think more clearly and confidently about my own religious inclinations -- and to understand my own resistance to the ways religion is usually represented and discussed".

In addition to her own search for religious understanding, Carlisle draws on many sources. She shows a thorough familiarity with the contemporary literature on Spinoza, from America and Britain and from the Continent. (The bibliography is a joy to read in itself as are the detailed endnotes.) But the sources on which she draws for her interpretation are perhaps more important. Scholars of Spinoza tend to emphasize either his relationship to the philosophical thought of his contemporaries, particularly Descartes, or his relationship to the Jewish philosophy he studied in his youth, particularly the thought of Maimonides. Carlisle argues that after his Excommunication, age 23, from the Jewish community, Spinoza had little contact with and evidenced little interest in Judaism but rather lived and philosophized within a Christian community. While Spinoza was highly critical of much Christian theology and was far from a convert, Carlisle finds some broad parallels between Christian thought and Spinoza. In particular, she often tries to elucidate Spinoza's views by comparison to the thought of Aquinas, Anselm, and Augustine.

Carlisle offers a detailed reading of both the "Ethics" and the "Theological Political Treatise" and tries to show how Spinoza's great works are related. Unsurprisingly, she finds Spinoza's religious teaching ambiguous in view of the competing interpretations that tend to be offered. She tries to work between the secularist, naturalistic interpretation on one hand in the romantic picture of the "God intoxicated man" on the other hand. Her chief insight is that readers tend to rely too heavily and uncritically on Spinoza's phrase "God or Nature" in understanding his thought. Relying solely on this phrase "God or Nature" encourages interpretations of Spinoza as a naturalist or as a pantheist. But that phrase needs to be read in light of a more fundamental, developed teaching of Spinoza which Carlisle finds in "Being-in-God" which she describes as "the fundamental tenet of Spinoza's thought". It is found at first in Part One, proposition 15 of the "Ethics", "Whatever is, is in God" and is referred to and expounded upon by Spinoza repeatedly throughout the work. Much of Carlisle's reading of Spinoza is based upon her understanding this proposition and following it through the various parts of the "Ethics".

Expanding upon "Being-in-God", Carlisle argues that Spinoza's thought is more akin to panentheism than to either naturalism or pantheism. Reality, for Spinoza. consists of the single substance and of modes, which are dependent upon substance. The dependent, partial modes, including human beings do not exhaust substance but are "in" it or "participate in" it. In successive chapters of her book, Carlisle explores what it means for modes, such as persons, to "participate in" substance as a matter of ontology, epistemology, psychology, and ethics. Her discussions are complex and frequently deeply insightful.

In chapter 6, "Acquiescentia", Carlilse develops Spinoza's statement in Book Four of the "Ethics", pP.52, that "Self-esteem is really the highest we can hope for" and ties this statement in with her understanding of humans being modes participating in God. This becomes a pivotal concept for Carlisle's understanding of religion in Spinoza as she writes: "{T]he thing itself is very simple. Do we feel anxious or contented? Are we agitated or at peace. Spinoza offers this feeling of being ourselves as a guide to the depth of our self-understanding, the adequacy of our metaphysics and our theology, the truth of our religion." As Carlisle works through the "Ethics", her chapters are arranged as concentric circles, almost as independent essays which say similar things about Spinoza and his understanding of religion but with different emphases. The focus is on an ultimately non-dualistic understanding of the relationship between persons and God. And she rejects what she understands as modernity's and secularism's attempts to objectify religion by defining it in terms of creeds. She argues that Spinoza held to instead a concept of religion more akin to the ancient and medieval concepts of virtue; it is internalized and individual and shows in one's acceptance of oneself and lovingkindness towards others. Carlisle sees religion and philosophy as practiced by Spinoza not as a doctrine but as a way of life. Spinoza devoted his life and his gifts to his search for wisdom and understanding. It is this focus and commitment in living a human life that constitutes the religious search.

"Spinoza's Religion" is a splendid and moving book that reminded me of the inspiration I have drawn from Spinoza at many times during my life. Carlisle's book has the rare accomplishment of being deeply personal and intellectually challenging. Not the least of the book's virtues is how it shows philosophers re-engaging with broad questions of reality when these questions, not long ago, had seemingly been abandoned. Readers with a passion for Spinoza and for philosophy will love this book.

Robin Friedman