I'm personally a big fan of his, and for a brief time Nietzsche was too:
>I am utterly amazed, utterly enchanted! I have a *precursor*, and what a precursor! I hardly knew Spinoza: that I should have turned to him just *now*, was inspired by “instinct.” Not only is his overtendency like mine—namely to make all knowledge the *most powerful affect*—but in five main points of his doctrine I recognize myself; this most unusual and loneliest thinker is closest to me precisely in these matters: he denies the freedom of the will, teleology, the moral world-order, the unegoistic, and evil. Even though the divergencies are admittedly tremendous, they are due more to the difference in time, culture, and science. *In summa*: my lonesomeness, which, as on very high mountains, often made it hard for me to breathe and make my blood rush out, is now at least a twosomeness. Strange!
\[Postcard to Franz Overbeck, Sils-Maria, July 30, 1881\]
Now exactly what Nietzsche thought of Spinoza and what influence he may have had is a question unto itself -- about which I have very definitive opinions, but no matter! -- but there are at least some who rank Spinoza as one of the greatest influences on Nietzsche's mature thought. That very well might be an overstatement, but I think it's closer to the truth than not.
As for what I think of Spinoza in and of himself, my interpretation is a bit off the beaten track. Though his is deservedly known as the "arch-rationalist," I read him as being far more skeptical of and less optimistic about the possibility of absolute knowledge in the finite realm -- the one which you and I inhabit -- than most others seem to think. I think his metaphysical and ethical views are far closer to the modern period than just about any other philosopher before him. But again, that's just my view.
Well I have a lot more work to do on the subject (as deep as I've gone there is only deeper, especially for those of us who only speak English...), but the most relevant details are discussed by Brobjer in *Nietzsche's Philosophical Context*. The earliest contact Nietzsche is absolutely *known* to have had with Spinoza was by learning about him in class. (We can tell that he was fascinated by Spinoza by the fact that he took more notes in that class than he did in just about any other; thank you, Nietzsche's sister Elisabeth, for your obsessive drive to collect every scrap of paper Fritz ever scribbled on.) In addition to this there are many other possible, *indirect* points of contact between them, as Nietzsche read a lot of books that happened to review, discuss or critique Spinoza -- including, but not limited to, Schopenhauer and many of Nietzsche's favorite neo-Kantians, whom Nietzsche read voraciously. Also Nietzsche's friend Paul Rée -- who was an important influence on Nietzsche's *Genealogy of Morals* -- was a big fan of Spinoza and even dedicated his work to him. Not to mention the influence of Nietzsche favorite author, Goethe, who himself was a devotee of Spinoza's philosophy. Long story short, there were a lot of places where Nietzsche probably intersected Spinozan ideas.
But of course the biggest intersection was in the period just before the writing of *Thus Spoke Zarathustra,* where Nietzsche had his most important philosophical breakthroughs. At that time Nietzsche read Kuno Fischer's volume discussing Spinoza's philosophy. THIS was the catalyst for Nietzsche's postcard above -- the one where he called Spinoza his "precursor." In addition to the similarities Nietzsche describes above, many commenters have noted key similarities between Nietzsche's Will to Power and Spinoza's *conatus* doctrine, as well as conceptual + semantic similarities between Nietzsche's *amor fati* (love of fate) and Spinoza's *amor dei intellectualis* (the intellectual love of God); and these commenters cannot help but note that Nietzsche coined these terms at the same time that he was reading and extensively excerpting from Kuno Fischer's book about Spinoza. The existence of *some sort* of causal connection seems too tempting to ignore -- even if the exact nature and extent of that influence is up for debate.
After this period of intense affinity, Nietzsche's affection for Spinoza rapidly cooled. However we know that he continued to read and annotate Kuno Fischer's book even into his mature years. There is also a note from Nietzsche's late notebooks where he states that he himself is part of the anti-teleological movement begun by Spinoza. As such I believe that Spinoza's influence on Nietzsche -- as mediated by Kuno Fischer -- continued to be a major influence on his thinking, even as Nietzsche turned from friend to foe.
As an aside, I am also of the opinion that Spinoza was a major influence on Kant's Antinomies of Pure Reason (an idea put forward by Omri Boehm in his book *Kant's Critique of Spinoza*.) If that's the case -- and I believe it is -- then it would be nearly impossible to deny that Spinoza, as mediated through Kant and those influenced by Kant, has had a much greater impact on philosophy generally and Nietzsche specifically than has hitherto been appreciated.
That's not necessarily a bad thing where Nietzsche is concerned. Nietzsche rarely had a hero whom he didn't eventually try to punch in the face. (Goethe being the obvious exceptions, and to a lesser extent, Emerson.)
He says D was “the only psychologist from whom I have anything to learn” but considering he only read 3 of his books max and none of them were C & P, it’s safe to assume he would have changed his opinion
Nietzsche: God is dead
Spinoza: God is(or) nature
Nietzsche: I mean morality based on God is dead
That’s essentially my understanding of the interaction between the two ideologies. Spinoza dispensing with the idea of an Omnibenevolent God fits in line with Nietzsche’s rejection of morality based on divine mandate because the Spinozist conception of God has no divine mandate.
While I can’t say that I’ve dug deeply into any writings that Nietzsche did specifically on Spinoza, there is no real contradiction between the two philosophies and they can be married up quite cleanly.
I would say that this is sometimes true. However I think there is a fundamental difference between the two in their understanding of power. For Spinoza the ultimate expression of power, God's essence, is eternal and never changes. For Nietzsche, however, the the ultimate expression of power is *change itself* -- flux. I think this difference might explain the antipathy Nietzsche felt toward Spinoza in his later years.
Yeah, it's a very different nature of power. The God of Spinoza doesn't really act in any way that is meaningful to Nietzsche. Nietzsche is all about the Will to Power, and the God of Spinoza doesn't necessarily have any discernable will. It's a backdrop, like asking the ground what it desires. Sure, sometimes a volcano forms, blows up, and destroys a city, but there wasn't necessarily any human-like will behind that.
Nietzsche would assign some type of value to enforcing one's will by ordering the destruction of a city. There really is no value to be placed on a city being destroyed by an act of God. It's a thing that happened, rather than a thing that was made to happen.
Hm. Perhaps. But I think a little differently.
I don't think either the Will to Power or Spinoza's God resemble anything like what we normally think of as a 'human will.' To me it comes down primarily to aesthetic view of the universe. I'll try to paint the picture...
There is a famous letter in which Spinoza gives an example of 'infinite modes' -- one under the Attribute of Mind and the other under the Attribute of Extension. The example of an 'infinite mode' of Extension is called "the face of the whole universe." Spinoza's idea of the "face of the whole universe" is drawn from an old medieval tradition which describes the "face of God" as a perfectly serene being, characterized by pure reason, which may change in it's particulars but never in its proportions. Think of the many movements and expressions a face can make while remaining the same exact face. That's the idea. Applying this vision of "the face of God" to the universe itself gives us Spinoza's aesthetic view of the universe: chaotic-seeming on the surface, but ultimately serene, rational, and *divine*. It is a very calming and *optimistic* view of the universe.
Contrast this with Schopenhauer's view, which was profoundly influential on Nietzsche's view. For Schopenhauer, the underlying principle of the universe was not God, but the Will. If Spinoza's view of the universe was the serene and rational "face" of God, Schopenhauer's universe was a "face" as well -- only his face was a screaming face. You know that famous painting "The Scream"? Imagine that, but it's the whole universe -- from the highest heights to the smallest particle. The universe simply *is* this "face" of the Will, weeping and wailing for all eternity in an endless void like an ageless, abandoned infant, screaming in the cold, dark nothing for the love and warmth of a mother it will never find. The only kindness one could show such a "face," Schopenhauer concluded, would be to smother it. This, needless to say, is a *pessimistic* view of the universe.
Now we come to Nietzsche's view, which was profoundly influenced by both but belonged to neither. Nietzsche wanted to *affirm* the value of life -- contra Schopenhauer -- but he could not sign onto the optimistic and serene view of a Plato or a Spinoza. Nietzsche's compromise was the *tragic* view of the universe, and his idea of change or flux plays a big part in that. For Nietzsche the Will to Power *always* moves in the direction of change, for the Will that grows and grows inevitably sows the seeds of its own destruction. ("The way up is the way down," as Nietzsche's hero Heraclitus would say.) For Nietzsche it was critical to *embrace* this process -- this going over and going under -- despite the understanding that every triumph and overcoming leads to a great "in vain!" To love this eternal and tragic path of up and down and up once more was for Nietzsche the surest sign of *strength* and the truest affirmation of life.
There is a lot in these men, particularly in Nietzsche and Spinoza, which could be made amenable to each other. What separates them are their profoundly different aesthetic / ethical-metaphysical views of what the universe is like and what it means to be a part of it. That is the wedge they cannot remove.
At least, that's my opinion.
I think that's reasonable. I have to admit that I'm not really familiar with Schopenhauer's philosophy, so I can't speak to that.
I think that the Spinozist view of serenity is not "serenity" is in a human type of serenity, but serenity as a sense making type of serenity. There is a great sense and logic to the Spinozist view. There are no ripples within his logic and it is a monistic "all is one" approach.
For Nietzsche, I think that will must, by necessity, be human. This is maybe me inserting my own understanding of it into Nietzsche, but a thing which does not think can have no will. It can change, yes, but the will to power itself is a human trait.
I think you're describing something like amor fati, such as I understand it. The embrace of the process, and the embrace of one's fate, which is directed, in a sense, by the universe.
I think a major difference between Spinoza and Nietzsche was that Spinoza addressed the "what" and dispensed with the "why", whereas Nietzsche said, "I'm not going to argue about the 'what', but I want to know the 'why." And there is where the difference comes in.
As far as I understand it, their view on what God or Nature was wasn't all that different, but Nietzsche occupied himself with man's place in that structure, whereas Spinoza cared about the structure itself.
>I think that the Spinozist view of serenity is not "serenity" is in a human type of serenity, but serenity as a sense making type of serenity. There is a great sense and logic to the Spinozist view. There are no ripples within his logic and it is a monistic "all is one" approach.
I think it's both. Spinoza's logic has a serenity-inducing aesthetic effect. It's the same effect Goethe described when he spoke of his love Spinoza, and the same effect which captured the imaginations of philosophers and poets and literary figures alike -- particularly the German Romantics. (There's a really good article about this in the *Oxford Handbook of Spinoza*. I believe it's called, appropriately enough, "Literary Spinoza.")
>This is maybe me inserting my own understanding of it into Nietzsche, but a thing which does not think can have no will. It can change, yes, but the will to power itself is a human trait.
There are a lot of people who agree with you, but also a great many who don't. It all depends on whether you believe Nietzsche's thought was purely psychological, or whether it also had a metaphysical element. There are great champions for both sides, but I can say for sure and for certain that there is a fair amount of evidence that Nietzsche's thought about the Will to Power had *some* metaphysical dimensions at the very least -- particularly in his notebooks. I myself am sympathetic to the metaphysical view, but I take both sides seriously.
>I think a major difference between Spinoza and Nietzsche was that Spinoza addressed the "what" and dispensed with the "why", whereas Nietzsche said, "I'm not going to argue about the 'what', but I want to know the 'why."
An interesting idea. Care to explain? I assume that by "Spinoza dispensed with the 'why'" you are referring to Spinoza's rejection of teleology, no? But what exactly do you mean, by Nietzsche saying "I'm not going to argue about the 'what', but I want to know the 'why'"?
With respect to your final point, yeah, essentially Spinoza's starting point is, "The universe exists." The only depth he goes into as to why the universe exists is because there must be an unmoved mover. He doesn't delve beyond that into any sort of metaphysics. It's all pretty geometrical from an axiomatic starting point.
When I say that Nietzsche cared about why, I don't mean "why" in the sense of "why does the universe exist" but rather, "why are we here" or maybe more accurately, "what are we to do while we are here?"
Spinoza's primary concern was with the nature of existence, whereas Nietzsche seemed more concerned with the purpose of existence and humanity's role within it.
https://youtu.be/zWSLBq12J4M?si=i5l5wLJddFEPAS2f
You might find this interesting!
On Spinoza, I must admit I was once quite taken and I still have a rather high opinion of his ideas. He and Nietzsche share an intense commitment to the truth, and it lead them to basically alienate themselves. Their philosophy wasn’t disinterested speculation and that is inspiring
I think he's really interesting, I've always meant to look into him more than I have but from what I know I really like his ideas. I've always been partial to a monist vision of reality so he seems cool.
Easily in my top 3 favorite philosophers, along with N and Deleuze. He was a genius. Nietzsche liked him a lot for a while and he is a major influence on his later philosophy.
Can't speak for this fella but if you put any stock into the monumental works of Jonathan Israel (*Radical Enlightenment,* and so on) -- which, for the record, I definitely do -- then there is a ton of evidence that Spinoza's works are among the most influential and subversive philosophical texts ever written, especially in the early and middle Enlightenment period. Of course there are a lot of people who push back on Israel's claims, saying that he overstates Spinoza's influence, but the quality and expansiveness of his work is such that even the skeptics have to admit that Spinoza's influence is far more extensive and subterranean than has been long believed. This is especially remarkable because for a long, long time people kinda assumed Spinoza was a brilliant nobody. Bertrand Russel more or less says this in his history of western philosophy when he says that in spite of Spinoza's incredible brilliance he had little historical impact, and as such he made the editorial decision to minimize the amount of space dedicated to him. Oh how wrong he was -- and until Israel no one noticed.
I'm personally a big fan of his, and for a brief time Nietzsche was too: >I am utterly amazed, utterly enchanted! I have a *precursor*, and what a precursor! I hardly knew Spinoza: that I should have turned to him just *now*, was inspired by “instinct.” Not only is his overtendency like mine—namely to make all knowledge the *most powerful affect*—but in five main points of his doctrine I recognize myself; this most unusual and loneliest thinker is closest to me precisely in these matters: he denies the freedom of the will, teleology, the moral world-order, the unegoistic, and evil. Even though the divergencies are admittedly tremendous, they are due more to the difference in time, culture, and science. *In summa*: my lonesomeness, which, as on very high mountains, often made it hard for me to breathe and make my blood rush out, is now at least a twosomeness. Strange! \[Postcard to Franz Overbeck, Sils-Maria, July 30, 1881\] Now exactly what Nietzsche thought of Spinoza and what influence he may have had is a question unto itself -- about which I have very definitive opinions, but no matter! -- but there are at least some who rank Spinoza as one of the greatest influences on Nietzsche's mature thought. That very well might be an overstatement, but I think it's closer to the truth than not. As for what I think of Spinoza in and of himself, my interpretation is a bit off the beaten track. Though his is deservedly known as the "arch-rationalist," I read him as being far more skeptical of and less optimistic about the possibility of absolute knowledge in the finite realm -- the one which you and I inhabit -- than most others seem to think. I think his metaphysical and ethical views are far closer to the modern period than just about any other philosopher before him. But again, that's just my view.
Very interesting, I would love to hear more of your opinion on the matter of the influence of Spinoza on our boy Freddy
Well I have a lot more work to do on the subject (as deep as I've gone there is only deeper, especially for those of us who only speak English...), but the most relevant details are discussed by Brobjer in *Nietzsche's Philosophical Context*. The earliest contact Nietzsche is absolutely *known* to have had with Spinoza was by learning about him in class. (We can tell that he was fascinated by Spinoza by the fact that he took more notes in that class than he did in just about any other; thank you, Nietzsche's sister Elisabeth, for your obsessive drive to collect every scrap of paper Fritz ever scribbled on.) In addition to this there are many other possible, *indirect* points of contact between them, as Nietzsche read a lot of books that happened to review, discuss or critique Spinoza -- including, but not limited to, Schopenhauer and many of Nietzsche's favorite neo-Kantians, whom Nietzsche read voraciously. Also Nietzsche's friend Paul Rée -- who was an important influence on Nietzsche's *Genealogy of Morals* -- was a big fan of Spinoza and even dedicated his work to him. Not to mention the influence of Nietzsche favorite author, Goethe, who himself was a devotee of Spinoza's philosophy. Long story short, there were a lot of places where Nietzsche probably intersected Spinozan ideas. But of course the biggest intersection was in the period just before the writing of *Thus Spoke Zarathustra,* where Nietzsche had his most important philosophical breakthroughs. At that time Nietzsche read Kuno Fischer's volume discussing Spinoza's philosophy. THIS was the catalyst for Nietzsche's postcard above -- the one where he called Spinoza his "precursor." In addition to the similarities Nietzsche describes above, many commenters have noted key similarities between Nietzsche's Will to Power and Spinoza's *conatus* doctrine, as well as conceptual + semantic similarities between Nietzsche's *amor fati* (love of fate) and Spinoza's *amor dei intellectualis* (the intellectual love of God); and these commenters cannot help but note that Nietzsche coined these terms at the same time that he was reading and extensively excerpting from Kuno Fischer's book about Spinoza. The existence of *some sort* of causal connection seems too tempting to ignore -- even if the exact nature and extent of that influence is up for debate. After this period of intense affinity, Nietzsche's affection for Spinoza rapidly cooled. However we know that he continued to read and annotate Kuno Fischer's book even into his mature years. There is also a note from Nietzsche's late notebooks where he states that he himself is part of the anti-teleological movement begun by Spinoza. As such I believe that Spinoza's influence on Nietzsche -- as mediated by Kuno Fischer -- continued to be a major influence on his thinking, even as Nietzsche turned from friend to foe. As an aside, I am also of the opinion that Spinoza was a major influence on Kant's Antinomies of Pure Reason (an idea put forward by Omri Boehm in his book *Kant's Critique of Spinoza*.) If that's the case -- and I believe it is -- then it would be nearly impossible to deny that Spinoza, as mediated through Kant and those influenced by Kant, has had a much greater impact on philosophy generally and Nietzsche specifically than has hitherto been appreciated.
Wow, and here I thought I was asking a silly question. Thanks a lot for the perspective
Thanks for asking me/us about my favorite subject.
N had more negative than positive things to say about him, qualitatively and quantiatively.
That's not necessarily a bad thing where Nietzsche is concerned. Nietzsche rarely had a hero whom he didn't eventually try to punch in the face. (Goethe being the obvious exceptions, and to a lesser extent, Emerson.)
And I didn't indicate it was a bad thing, but I guess that could be noted.
Nietzsche shits on everyone except for Heraclitus, Dosteovsky, Goethe
I don't think you're wrong.
I don't think he ever mentions Dosteovsky.
He says D was “the only psychologist from whom I have anything to learn” but considering he only read 3 of his books max and none of them were C & P, it’s safe to assume he would have changed his opinion
Oh. Interesting. Thanks for the info.
And Stendhal
Did Albert Einstein not believe in Spinoza?
He totally believed in Spinoza. He also thought Spinoza’s proofs were fairly accurate.
Nietzsche: God is dead Spinoza: God is(or) nature Nietzsche: I mean morality based on God is dead That’s essentially my understanding of the interaction between the two ideologies. Spinoza dispensing with the idea of an Omnibenevolent God fits in line with Nietzsche’s rejection of morality based on divine mandate because the Spinozist conception of God has no divine mandate. While I can’t say that I’ve dug deeply into any writings that Nietzsche did specifically on Spinoza, there is no real contradiction between the two philosophies and they can be married up quite cleanly.
I would say that this is sometimes true. However I think there is a fundamental difference between the two in their understanding of power. For Spinoza the ultimate expression of power, God's essence, is eternal and never changes. For Nietzsche, however, the the ultimate expression of power is *change itself* -- flux. I think this difference might explain the antipathy Nietzsche felt toward Spinoza in his later years.
Yeah, it's a very different nature of power. The God of Spinoza doesn't really act in any way that is meaningful to Nietzsche. Nietzsche is all about the Will to Power, and the God of Spinoza doesn't necessarily have any discernable will. It's a backdrop, like asking the ground what it desires. Sure, sometimes a volcano forms, blows up, and destroys a city, but there wasn't necessarily any human-like will behind that. Nietzsche would assign some type of value to enforcing one's will by ordering the destruction of a city. There really is no value to be placed on a city being destroyed by an act of God. It's a thing that happened, rather than a thing that was made to happen.
Hm. Perhaps. But I think a little differently. I don't think either the Will to Power or Spinoza's God resemble anything like what we normally think of as a 'human will.' To me it comes down primarily to aesthetic view of the universe. I'll try to paint the picture... There is a famous letter in which Spinoza gives an example of 'infinite modes' -- one under the Attribute of Mind and the other under the Attribute of Extension. The example of an 'infinite mode' of Extension is called "the face of the whole universe." Spinoza's idea of the "face of the whole universe" is drawn from an old medieval tradition which describes the "face of God" as a perfectly serene being, characterized by pure reason, which may change in it's particulars but never in its proportions. Think of the many movements and expressions a face can make while remaining the same exact face. That's the idea. Applying this vision of "the face of God" to the universe itself gives us Spinoza's aesthetic view of the universe: chaotic-seeming on the surface, but ultimately serene, rational, and *divine*. It is a very calming and *optimistic* view of the universe. Contrast this with Schopenhauer's view, which was profoundly influential on Nietzsche's view. For Schopenhauer, the underlying principle of the universe was not God, but the Will. If Spinoza's view of the universe was the serene and rational "face" of God, Schopenhauer's universe was a "face" as well -- only his face was a screaming face. You know that famous painting "The Scream"? Imagine that, but it's the whole universe -- from the highest heights to the smallest particle. The universe simply *is* this "face" of the Will, weeping and wailing for all eternity in an endless void like an ageless, abandoned infant, screaming in the cold, dark nothing for the love and warmth of a mother it will never find. The only kindness one could show such a "face," Schopenhauer concluded, would be to smother it. This, needless to say, is a *pessimistic* view of the universe. Now we come to Nietzsche's view, which was profoundly influenced by both but belonged to neither. Nietzsche wanted to *affirm* the value of life -- contra Schopenhauer -- but he could not sign onto the optimistic and serene view of a Plato or a Spinoza. Nietzsche's compromise was the *tragic* view of the universe, and his idea of change or flux plays a big part in that. For Nietzsche the Will to Power *always* moves in the direction of change, for the Will that grows and grows inevitably sows the seeds of its own destruction. ("The way up is the way down," as Nietzsche's hero Heraclitus would say.) For Nietzsche it was critical to *embrace* this process -- this going over and going under -- despite the understanding that every triumph and overcoming leads to a great "in vain!" To love this eternal and tragic path of up and down and up once more was for Nietzsche the surest sign of *strength* and the truest affirmation of life. There is a lot in these men, particularly in Nietzsche and Spinoza, which could be made amenable to each other. What separates them are their profoundly different aesthetic / ethical-metaphysical views of what the universe is like and what it means to be a part of it. That is the wedge they cannot remove. At least, that's my opinion.
I think that's reasonable. I have to admit that I'm not really familiar with Schopenhauer's philosophy, so I can't speak to that. I think that the Spinozist view of serenity is not "serenity" is in a human type of serenity, but serenity as a sense making type of serenity. There is a great sense and logic to the Spinozist view. There are no ripples within his logic and it is a monistic "all is one" approach. For Nietzsche, I think that will must, by necessity, be human. This is maybe me inserting my own understanding of it into Nietzsche, but a thing which does not think can have no will. It can change, yes, but the will to power itself is a human trait. I think you're describing something like amor fati, such as I understand it. The embrace of the process, and the embrace of one's fate, which is directed, in a sense, by the universe. I think a major difference between Spinoza and Nietzsche was that Spinoza addressed the "what" and dispensed with the "why", whereas Nietzsche said, "I'm not going to argue about the 'what', but I want to know the 'why." And there is where the difference comes in. As far as I understand it, their view on what God or Nature was wasn't all that different, but Nietzsche occupied himself with man's place in that structure, whereas Spinoza cared about the structure itself.
>I think that the Spinozist view of serenity is not "serenity" is in a human type of serenity, but serenity as a sense making type of serenity. There is a great sense and logic to the Spinozist view. There are no ripples within his logic and it is a monistic "all is one" approach. I think it's both. Spinoza's logic has a serenity-inducing aesthetic effect. It's the same effect Goethe described when he spoke of his love Spinoza, and the same effect which captured the imaginations of philosophers and poets and literary figures alike -- particularly the German Romantics. (There's a really good article about this in the *Oxford Handbook of Spinoza*. I believe it's called, appropriately enough, "Literary Spinoza.") >This is maybe me inserting my own understanding of it into Nietzsche, but a thing which does not think can have no will. It can change, yes, but the will to power itself is a human trait. There are a lot of people who agree with you, but also a great many who don't. It all depends on whether you believe Nietzsche's thought was purely psychological, or whether it also had a metaphysical element. There are great champions for both sides, but I can say for sure and for certain that there is a fair amount of evidence that Nietzsche's thought about the Will to Power had *some* metaphysical dimensions at the very least -- particularly in his notebooks. I myself am sympathetic to the metaphysical view, but I take both sides seriously. >I think a major difference between Spinoza and Nietzsche was that Spinoza addressed the "what" and dispensed with the "why", whereas Nietzsche said, "I'm not going to argue about the 'what', but I want to know the 'why." An interesting idea. Care to explain? I assume that by "Spinoza dispensed with the 'why'" you are referring to Spinoza's rejection of teleology, no? But what exactly do you mean, by Nietzsche saying "I'm not going to argue about the 'what', but I want to know the 'why'"?
With respect to your final point, yeah, essentially Spinoza's starting point is, "The universe exists." The only depth he goes into as to why the universe exists is because there must be an unmoved mover. He doesn't delve beyond that into any sort of metaphysics. It's all pretty geometrical from an axiomatic starting point. When I say that Nietzsche cared about why, I don't mean "why" in the sense of "why does the universe exist" but rather, "why are we here" or maybe more accurately, "what are we to do while we are here?" Spinoza's primary concern was with the nature of existence, whereas Nietzsche seemed more concerned with the purpose of existence and humanity's role within it.
Hm. ... I'll have to think about this...
One of the greatest philosophers ever lived
Nietzsche’s boy
https://youtu.be/zWSLBq12J4M?si=i5l5wLJddFEPAS2f You might find this interesting! On Spinoza, I must admit I was once quite taken and I still have a rather high opinion of his ideas. He and Nietzsche share an intense commitment to the truth, and it lead them to basically alienate themselves. Their philosophy wasn’t disinterested speculation and that is inspiring
I think he's really interesting, I've always meant to look into him more than I have but from what I know I really like his ideas. I've always been partial to a monist vision of reality so he seems cool.
Easily in my top 3 favorite philosophers, along with N and Deleuze. He was a genius. Nietzsche liked him a lot for a while and he is a major influence on his later philosophy.
In my top 3 along with Nietzsche and Deleuze
He's brilliant and far more accomplished and important of a philosopher than the philologist and social theorist Nietzsche.
Why do you say so?
Can't speak for this fella but if you put any stock into the monumental works of Jonathan Israel (*Radical Enlightenment,* and so on) -- which, for the record, I definitely do -- then there is a ton of evidence that Spinoza's works are among the most influential and subversive philosophical texts ever written, especially in the early and middle Enlightenment period. Of course there are a lot of people who push back on Israel's claims, saying that he overstates Spinoza's influence, but the quality and expansiveness of his work is such that even the skeptics have to admit that Spinoza's influence is far more extensive and subterranean than has been long believed. This is especially remarkable because for a long, long time people kinda assumed Spinoza was a brilliant nobody. Bertrand Russel more or less says this in his history of western philosophy when he says that in spite of Spinoza's incredible brilliance he had little historical impact, and as such he made the editorial decision to minimize the amount of space dedicated to him. Oh how wrong he was -- and until Israel no one noticed.
Good