Talk:Baruch Spinoza

Many things wrong with the lead and this article
Am I the only one who really doesn't understand the changes that have been over the past few months? I see whole paragraphs added without a proper source. The lead is a complete mess; apart from the weird first sentence "was a philosopher of Portuguese-Jewish origin, born in Amsterdam, the Dutch Republic" (which goes against the added source & is not used anywhere else), the lead contains original information, whereas a lead should be a reflection of the main article. So already there it goes against two principles of Wikipedia: WP:ETHNICITY and WP:LEAD. Another thing I could mention is the disproportionate length of some parts of the article (e.g. 'Family background' and 'Expulsion from the Jewish community'). I'm sorry, but there are so many weird things going on in this article (also the last sentence: 'He has been called "the renegade Jew who gave us modernity"', nice, I'm sure he has been called other things as well...). Poor Spinoza. 213.124.169.240 (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It is distressing to see this page seemingly supporting irrational, misrepresentative, biased attacks on Spinoza and his legacy.
 * (and I also thought the negative criticism he and his philosophy always faced used to presented here more objectively.)

2601:249:8280:65E0:E9EC:BF72:70D8:EE7F (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are referring to specifically, I am talking about the changes especially warshy and Amuseclio (amongst others) made and are making. It seems to me that the lead is one big mess, for the aforementioned reasons, but also the entire balance of the article is gone. There's an emphasis on Spinoza's biographical information (especially his family background, which is absurd) whereas the section of his philosophy is the most limited part of the entire article. 213.124.169.240 (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've decided to put a request for comments on this page, because it's getting more and more absurd here. The lead now reads that Spinoza was 'a leading Enlightenment philosopher'. This is highly contested, and if not, simply false; it certainly cannot be found in the majority of sources. 213.124.169.240 (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Name
His real name was Baruch de Espinoza. Why not naming the article with his correct name to start with (even if he is better known under Spinoza)? 94.109.209.132 (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * That was his Portuguese name. Educated people or travellers in that time period often translated their names in appropriate circumstances (Hebrew "Baruch" = Latin "Benedictus" etc), and didn't necessarily think that the original birth form of their name was their true "real" name.  Also see WP:COMMONNAME... AnonMoos (talk) 08:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * His Hebrew name was "Baruch". His Portuguese name was "Bento". He took the Latinized name "Benedictus" after he was expelled from the Portuguese Jewish community. See note b in the article. The fact that a reader posed the question on this talk page suggests the explanation in note b should be raised to the main article. There is an argument for the Wiki bio using only his surname for the article title. See the discussion elsewhere on this talk page. Spinoza's two major biographers in English Steven Nadler and Jonathan I. Israel use only his surname in the titles of their respective biographies of him, avoiding the issue of his first names.Amuseclio (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Amuseclio


 * I meant "Espinoza" was probably the Portuguese version of his last name... AnonMoos (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * On his seal Spinoza used the initials BDS, with DS for "de Spinoza". Jonathan Israel gives the name of Spinoza's father as "Michael (Miguel) Spinoza (Gabriel Alvares d'Espinoza)".Amuseclio (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Amuseclio

No Such Thing as a Secular Jew
We need better specificity of language. If someone of "Jewish" descent takes no part in the religion of Judaism, s/he may be Semitic (an ethnic/linguistic category), but the person is not Jewish. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C0:980:E520:15A:9EBE:744A:EBB2 (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but Jewishness is both an ethnicity and a religion, and there have been many proud ethnic Jews who wouldn't dream of denying their historical affiliation, but are not religiously observant. We even have Category:Jewish atheists on Wikipedia. AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Ludwig Wittgenstein (a Jew, for some definition of that word) might point out that we here appear to have two different concepts identified by the same written symbol "Jewish". Who's to say which is the "correct" mapping from word to meaning? GreenWeasel11 (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * In ancient times, the Hebrew word Yehudi could mean "Judahite" (a member of the tribe of Judah by genealogical descent), "Judean" (an inhabitant of the kingdom or region of Judea), or "Jew" (adherent of the monotheistic religion originally developed in Judea)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Personal Communication
I have used my personal communication with Jonathan Israel as a citation in the section "Speculation about his sexuality." Is there a way I can make that more credible, how, etc.? Or in short, what should I do? Fomer-k (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Fomer-k, that's original research. I don't know who Israel is but if they published this, you can cite that. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit by Amuseclio (20:09, 23 February 2024‎)
"Deleted section on speculating on Spinoza's sexuality, since there is no written evidence regarding it in the historical record. All else is speculation and not warranting inclusion in an encyclopedia article unless evidence surfaces."

Jimmy Wales, a co-founder of Wikipedia, articulated that an encyclopedia's aim is to encapsulate "the sum of all human knowledge, but sum meaning summary." However, should speculations about individuals or events be considered part of historical knowledge? Biographies by authors such as Colerus, Nadler, and Israel delve into historical conjectures about figures like Spinoza, offering analyses. Similarly, encyclopedias, like Bayle's, explore numerous historical speculations regarding Spinoza, despite the absence of conclusive evidence. For instance, Bayle discusses Clara Maria van den Enden and the theatre/synagogeu attack while Colerus recounts, in addition to the latter, the instance of Counselor of the State's visit to Spinoza. (All of this is to be found in the other two biographies too.) In short, I believe the answer is a partial yes.

So, I wish to undo the deletion. @Amuseclio Fomer-k (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I am new to looking at the Baruch Spinoza article, but my impression was that the section on Spinoza's sexuality was disproportionate in size relative to its importance, especially since the conclusion was speculative. I thought one quote in particular was much too long. Curiocurio (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, I would agree with that. Someone, however, revised the section after I wrote it. I was referring to that, much much shorter version. Fomer-k (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Fomer-k posted a new section entitled “Sexuality” on 7 February 2024 of 7,380 characters. If I’m reading the information about Fomer-k correctly, this editor registered on Wikipedia on 24 January 2024. To date (24-2-24), this editor has posted 72 global edits. Fomer-k’s usename appears in red. The user has not provided any biographical information on the user page. Some of the editor’s contributions have a strikethrough on the History of contributions, something I’ve never encountered in 10 years of editing, but perhaps another editor or an administrator could enlighten me.
 * Response from User:Amuseclio.

For those wanting to weigh in on the discussion of whether to revert the deletion of that section of the article, I give here the text of Fomer-k's original edit followed by the the subsequent revisions:

[Original text start]

Sexuality
As to the sexual orientation of Spinoza, most contemporary and later writers including his biographers are silent, as so too are all the remaining historical documents. One exception, however, is Margaret Gullan-Whur, who in her biography (the first English language biography of Spinoza, in 1998, even before Nadler's ) "on hitherto unnoticed grounds" suggests -provocatively- that "that the young Dutch merchant Simon de Vries may have wanted, or even had, a homosexual friendship with the philosopher" and speculates that Baruch Spinoza was/may have been a closeted homosexual (or at least bisexual). The relevant passage reads: "'The deep but unequal affection that grew between Simon and Benedictus has, I think, been underestimated. That Simon adored Benedictus is clear from his open sentiments, his unquestioning acceptance of the philosopher’s advice, his persistent generosity and, I believe on grounds given below, an erotic interest in him.'" Then, to support the erotic dimension of the said interest, she points out to a parallel between Terence’s "The Eunuch" and Simon's letter to Spinoza. To quote in full, "'In that play a young Roman, Chaera, desperately desiring a slave-girl, envies the eunuch who serves her: ‘O fortunatum istum eunuchum,’ he moans, ‘talking with her, living under the same roof with her, sometimes taking his meals with her, at times sleeping near her.’ Simon, familiar with the plays, wrote to Benedictus: Fortunate, yes most fortunate, is your companion Casuarius who dwells beneath the same roof, and can converse with you on the highest matters at breakfast, at dinner, and on your walks. But although we are physically so far apart, you have frequently been present in my thoughts, especially when I am immersed in your writings and hold them in my hand.'" She continues by asking: "'What are we to make of Simon’s perceptibly physical yearning, and Benedictus’s deflection of it? There is no signed ending to either this or his next letter to Simon. Both end abruptly. Or have passages been erased? Human sexuality is subtle, and while any male visitors are likely to have shared, as was the custom, the ample depths of the ledikant, its curtains close over the relations they witnessed. The philosopher was, I have stressed, of sensuously warm Mediterranean blood, and physical embraces were the currency of his own people, as they were for the Dutch. Only once was he accused of promiscuity: a physician in The Hague declared, twenty years after Spinoza died, that he had excited youths to ‘show no respect for women, and to give themselves over to debauchery’. No evidence has been found for this, nor, despite a recent suggestion in a Dutch novel, for an attraction to men. Nonetheless, it seems right to mention on the last count that same-sex bonds were neither uncommon nor much noticed in the Dutch Republic of the seventeenth century. A long period of toleration separated the violent persecution of homosexuals in the sixteenth century from the organised witch-hunt of the eighteenth, when punishment by fire and water was revived for some instances of ‘the abominable sin of sodomy’. In the eighteenth century, public humiliations and banishments would be the norm.'" She then abruptly ends her discussion of the topic by echoing Spinoza's "sedative" response to Simon: "'Benedictus, now a miserable exception to this common animal appetite, knew that to the Dutch Reformed Church no carnal lapse equalled in depravity a denial of the supernatural power of God and the authority of His ministers. His concern during Jan’s visit was the latter. He therefore replied to Simon: There is no reason for you to envy Casearius. Indeed, there is no one who is more of a trouble [odiosus] to me, and no one with whom I have had to be more on my guard. So I should like you and all our acquaintances not to communicate my opinions to him until he will have reached a more mature age. As yet he is too boyish, unstable, and eager for novelty rather than for truth. Still, I am hopeful that he will correct these youthful faults in a few years’ time. Indeed, as far as I can judge from his character, I am reasonably sure of this; and so his nature wins my affection.'" It is interesting to note that throughout the relevant parts of the book, no argument is made, nor any evidence brought up regarding the sexuality of Spinoza (not Simon de Vries). Instead, the point is swiftly passed over -so swift that it doesn't even seem like a speculation at all, and accordingly, not many have engaged with this argument. Those who have, for the most part, have been dismissive and agnostic, pointing out the lack of evidence presented by Gullan-Wuhr: "'The author does proffer a new slant on Spinoza: a mooted homosexual attachment to the young Dutch merchant, Simon de Vries. Yet it is hardly surprising that this was 'hitherto unnoticed', since her grounds for it amount to little more than a metaphor de Vries uses in a letter.'" And "'Gullan-Whur may have been right about this but we simply dont know enough to say one way or another. I dont think one should speculate about a person's sexuality without having some more concrete evidence than this.'" [End of original text]


 * Amuseclio revised the lengthy section above by Fomer-k to this (below) on 21 February 2024 with the edit summary, “→‎Sexuality: edited section for concision on Gullan-Whur's speculation about Spinoza's sexuality. The citation to Jonathan Israel's "personal communication" needs to specify to whom he was writing.”


 * [Revised text, start]

Sexuality
As to the sexual orientation of Spinoza, most contemporary and later writers including his major biographers are silent, as are all the extant historical documents. The one exception is Margaret Gullan-Whur, who provocatively speculates in her 1998 biography "that the young Dutch merchant Simon de Vries may have wanted, or even had, a homosexual friendship with the philosopher". Gullan-Whur writes concerning the connection between de Vries and Spinoza: "'The deep but unequal affection that grew between Simon and Benedictus has, I think, been underestimated. That Simon adored Benedictus is clear from his open sentiments, his unquestioning acceptance of the philosopher’s advice, his persistent generosity and, I believe on grounds given below, an erotic interest in him.' She points out to a parallel between Terence’s 'The Eunuch' and de Vries's letter to Spinoza." Spinoza deflects the sentiment in de Vries's letter. Gullan-Whur makes no argument nor produces any evidence regarding the sexuality of Spinoza (not Simon de Vries). Other Spinoza scholars have largely not engaged with Gullan-Whur's speculation, but one commentator is dismissive, pointing out the lack of evidence. "The author does proffer a new slant on Spinoza: a mooted homosexual attachment to the young Dutch merchant, Simon de Vries. Yet it is hardly surprising that this was "hitherto unnoticed", since her grounds for it amount to little more than a metaphor de Vries uses in a letter." A personal communication from biographer Jonathan Israel states, "Gullan-Whur may have been right about this but we simply dont know enough to say one way or another. I dont think one should speculate about a person's sexuality without having some more concrete evidence than this." [end of revised text]


 * Discussion. The original section was entirely too long and was not written in the style usual for encyclopedia entries. For Amuseclio, the editor’s use of Gullan-Whur’s speculation about Spinoza to further speculate is problematic. The quote in her work “I also blame no one for my claim that Spinoza was a lonely and emotional man who lacked close friends. This belief is based on the best available evidence – Spinoza’s own words – and it defies opinion that he had life-long devotees, although on hitherto unnoticed grounds I suggest that the young Dutch merchant Simon de Vries may have wanted, or even had, a homosexual friendship with the philosopher.”(p. xiii).


 * Comment by Amuseclio: The new section by Fomer-k on Spinoza’s sexuality, cites Gullan-Whur p.xiii, but then goes further saying "and [she] speculates that Baruch Spinoza was/may have been a closeted homosexual (or at least bisexual).


 * Comment by Amuseclio: Going from speculation about de Vries’s purported homosexual longings to saying that Spinoza “was/may have been a closeted homosexual (or at least bisexual)” goes far beyond Gullan-Whur states, in my opinion.


 * Comment by Amuseclio: Amuseclio was interested to see that a personal communication (to whom?) from Jonathan I. Israel was included in the section. I am in agreement with Israel’s cautious statement, but also troubled that a personal communication made its way into Wikipedia.
 * Comment by Amuseclio: Some evidence points to Simon Joosten de Vries’s (c. 1633-67) feelings about Spinoza, but the historical record is silent on Spinoza himself. I think it would be worthwhile if there to be a Wiki bio of de Vries. Israel notes that it is unclear when Spinoza became acquainted with the Collegiants, of which de Vries was one. (p. 262).


 * Yes, speculation does make its way into biographer’s assessments of their subjects. Jonathan Israel includes thoughts of Spinoza scholar Yosef Kaplan about Spinoza’s reaction to his grandfather’s posthumous circumcision. His grandfather was circumcised prior to being buried in a marginal part of Beth Haim cemetery. This could have been yet another reason that Spinoza was hostile to religious authorities, since it was public knowledge. “[T]he long-remembered ‘uncircumcision’ of his grandfather was humiliatingly commemorated and marked out for all to see by his resting place’s peculiar location in relation to the rest of the cemetery and the graves of Spinoza’s other deceased relatives.  For his grandfather’s grave was located outside the bounds of the cemetery proper separated from the graves of his honoured forebears, at the fringe reserved for uncircumcised marginal types not fully belonging to the community.”(J. Israel, ‘’Spinoza, Life & Legacy’’, 128-29).


 * On 21 February 2024 Amuseclio edited the section heading to read “Speculation on Spinoza’s sexuality” rather than “Sexuality”.


 * On 23 February 2024 Amuseclio deleted the section “Speculation about Spinoza’s sexuality” with the edit summary, “moved section on views on women to the discussion of the TP. Deleted section on speculating on Spinoza's sexuality, since there is no written evidence regarding it in the historical record. All else is speculation and not warranting inclusion in an encyclopedia article unless evidence surfaces).

Cordially to the Wiki community, Amuseclio (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Amuseclio
 * Conclusion: Amuseclio is interested in other editors’ opinions about the removal of the section on Spinoza’s sexuality, so please do weigh in on the discussion. As a longtime Wiki editor, holder of a PhD in History, 35 years of teaching at R1 institutions, director of multiple PhD dissertations, my professional judgment is that the section should not be restored to Spinoza’s Wiki bio. I look forward to community response.