8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
1/39
Herder and Spinoza
Michael N. Forster
As is well known, a great flowering of Spinozism1occurred in German philosophy in the
late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Lessing, erder,2and Goethe! the German
"omantics Schleiermacher, Friedrich Schlegel, and No#alis! the German $dealists
Schelling and egel % all of them su&scri&ed to one or another #ersion of Spinoza's
monistic, deterministic metaphysics.
(hat was the source of this great flowering) Much of the credit for it has tended to go
to *aco&i and Mendelssohn, who in +- &egan a famous pu&lic dispute concerning the
/uestion whether or not Lessing had &een a Spinozist, as *aco&i alleged Lessing had
admitted to him shortly &efore his death in +-+. 0ut *aco&i and Mendelssohn were &oth
negati#ely disposed towards Spinoza. $n On the Doctrine of Spinoza in Letters to Mr.
Moses Mendelssohn1+-2, *aco&i, a champion of 3hristian fideism, represented
Spinoza's philosophy as the #ery epitome of all that was most wrong with philosophy's
reliance on reason. According to *aco&i, Spinoza's philosophy showed e#en more clearly
14his article cites Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicusfrom the following edition5
0. de Spinoza,A Theologico-Political Treatise; A Political Treatise, tr. "..M. 6lwes.4he article uses the following a&&re#iation for this work7edition5 Tractatus. 4he article
cites Spinoza'sEthicsfrom the edition5 0. de Spinoza, On the Ipro!eent of the"nderstanding; The Ethics; The #orrespondence, tr. "..M. 6lwes.24his article cites erder's works from two German editions, using the first letter of themain editor's surname as an a&&re#iation in each case5 G 8$ohann %ottfried &erder
'er(e, ed. 9. Gaier et al. S 8$ohann %ottfried &erder S)tliche 'er(e, ed. 0. Suphan
et al.
+
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
2/39
than other cases that such a reliance ine#ita&ly led to atheism and fatalism. Mendelssohn
had admittedly in an early work, hisPhilosophical #on!ersations1+2, tried to sal#age
Spinoza's reputation to a certain e:tent &y representing Spinoza's philosophy as a
significant al&eit inade/uate precursor of the true Lei&nizian;(olffian philosophy. 0ut
&y the time Mendelssohn wrote his more famous and influential replies to *aco&i, the
Morgenstunden1+-2 and To Lessing*s +riends1+- #ersion of it that
would a#oid such #ices, i.e. a #ersion that radically re#ised it in the spirit of Lei&niz and
(olff2.3So, prima facie at least, it seems rather unlikely that *aco&i and Mendelssohn can
deser#e much of the credit for the massi#e wa#e of positi#e appropriations of Spinoza's
philosophy that $ recently mentioned.
4hat wa#e's more likely main source surely lies in its own earliest e:emplars, Lessing,
erder, and Goethe, who, in sharp contrast to *aco&i and Mendelssohn, were all great
enthusiastsfor Spinoza's philosophy.40ut once this fact is recognized, it is only a short
further step towards realizing that the central figure here must ha#e &een &erder. For
Lessing's alleged late pri#ate confession of Spinozism, despite its undenia&le ,clatwhen
*aco&i re#ealed it, was am&iguous and philosophically unde#eloped % in sharp contrast to
erder's statement of Spinozism in %od Soe #on!ersations.5And Goethe's first
3For a helpful treatment of the *aco&i;Mendelssohn contro#ersy and of the twophilosophers' attitudes towards Spinoza, see F.3. 0eiser, The +ate of eason.43f. . Lindner,Das Pro/le des Spinozisus i Schaffen %oethes und &erders, pp.+?, +
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
3/39
enthusiasm for Spinoza, which pro&a&ly dates &ack to an engagement he had with the
Tractatus Theologico-Politicusin StraC&urg in ++,6and then continued in a &etter
known intensi#e engagement he had with theEthicsin +D7,7was in all likelihood
inspired &y erder, whom he first met in a life;changing encounter in StraC&urg in ++
at a time when erder was already deeply interested in the Tractatus,8and who was
likewise already taking a deep interest in theEthicsand its monistic metaphysics in
+D7.91Accordingly, Goethe would later continue to follow erder's lead in the
interpretation of Spinoza when they re;read Spinoza together in (eimar in the early
+-?'s,10
and he would enthusiastically endorse erder's interpretation of Spinoza in
%od Soe #on!ersationsof +-.112 $n short, erder was the central figure here.
Ea#id 0ell, in his illuminating &ook Spinoza in %eran1 fro 2345 to the Age of
%oethe, arri#es at a similar conclusion 1al&eit #ia a somewhat different route2. erder's
%od Soe #on!ersationsfrom +-, with its defense of a re#ised form of Spinoza's
metaphysical;religious monism and determinism, oiously played a central role in
generating the great wa#e of Spinozism that followed, and accordingly recei#es close
6See 0ollacher, i&id., pp. ? ff.7See i&id., p. --! also Lindner,Das Pro/le des Spinozisus, pp. D ff.83f. 0ollacher,Der 0unge %oethe, esp. pp. +@, +
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
4/39
attention from 0ell. 0ut, as 0ell shows 1following earlier German scholarship &y Jollrath
and Lindner2,12erder's interest in Spinoza also e:tends much further &ack in time than
that work5 at least as far &ack as +
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
5/39
especially &i&lical hermeneutics!15second, the political ideals of democracy and
li&eralism! and third, a distincti#e faculty;unifying, anti;dualistic, anti;idealistic, and
deterministic, or in short naturalistic, philosophy of mind. $ also want to suggest that
erder already took o#er Spinoza's metaphysical;religious monism as early as +D;
1around the same time as he took o#er the philosophy of mind ust mentioned2. $ndeed, $
hope to show that these positi#e influences e:ercised &y Spinoza on the young erder
constituted a sort of incremental se/uence that o#er time incorporated increasingly
fundamental le#els of Spinoza's thought5 &eginning with hermeneutics in the late +
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
6/39
1. Herder and the Tractatus
$t is a fundamental component of my account here that Spinoza's Tractatushad a maor
positi#e impact on erder's thought &efore Spinoza'sEthicsdid % erder drawing on the
former work for central principles of 1&i&lical2 interpretation and politics &efore he
&ecame seriously committed to #ersions of the latter work's philosophy of mind and
metaphysics. 4his is a fairly no#el and contro#ersial thesis. So $ would like to &egin &y
making a few preliminary o&ser#ations in its support.
A first point to note here is that it would &e #ery surprising if the young erder, as an
omni#orously well;read Lutheran clergyman o&sessi#ely concerned with /uestions of
&i&lical, and especially ld 4estament, interpretation, had somehow managed to o#erlook
the Tractatus, gi#en that the work was seminally important for those /uestions, and had
&een a stock fi:ture of disputations on &i&lical hermeneutics in the Lutheran world since
the +
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
7/39
Tractatus. For there is also a &ody of more direct e#idence that at e:actly the same time
as he was &eginning to take an interest in Spinoza'sEthicsin the way that 0ell has
already demonstrated, namely +
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
8/39
interpretation of the ld 4estament,+ragents for an Archaeolog1 of the East, erder
e:plicitly cites the Tractatusat one point 1specifically, in support of a certain
interpretation of the ld 4estament e:pression =sons of God>2, there&y cautiously
showing his knowledge of and respect for the work.23
Some additional historical points are rele#ant here as well5 Shortly after this first surge
of interest not only in theEthics&ut also in the Tractatusin +
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
9/39
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
10/39
amann from +! his search in +
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
11/39
or a:ioms.34erder e:plicitly ad#ocates ust the same sort of assimilation of the method
of interpretation to that of natural science in On Thoas A//t*s 'ritings.35Moreo#er, in
works from the rele#ant period he applies such an approach to interpreting the 0i&le in
particular.36
12 $n the TractatusSpinoza had maintained that =words gain their meaning solely
from their usage,>37so that a primary task of the interpreter of ancient te:ts is to
determine what the rele#ant word;usages were.38erder from an early period holds
e:actly the same #iew.39
12 Spinoza had also in the Tractatusemphasized the importance when interpreting an
ancient te:t such as the 0i&le of paying close attention to its distincti#e historical conte:t
1including the distincti#e condition of the language then in use2.40erder does ust the
same in works from the rele#ant period.41
1
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
12/39
sketches in On Thoas A//t*s 'ritings.43$t also persists as one of the most striking and
important features of his methodology of interpretation in later works, such as On the
#ognition and Sensation of the &uan Soul1+-2.
12 Spinoza had insisted in the Tractatuson the importance of sharply separating the
/uestion of the eaningof &i&lical te:ts from the /uestion of their truth.44Accordingly,
he was prepared to attri&ute false #iews to the prophets on many matters,45and e#en to
find numerous contradictions within the 0i&le 1&oth within the ld 4estament and within
the New2.464he early erder's approach to interpreting the 0i&le is strikingly similar5 he
too insists on distinguishing /uestions of meaning from /uestions of truth!47
attri&utes
many false &eliefs to &i&lical authors!48and e#en ascri&es contradictions to them.49
1-2 Spinoza had, though, in the Tractatusalso drawn a sharp distinction &etween the
oraldoctrines of the 0i&le 1i.e. doctrines that pertain to sal#ation and &lessedness2 %
which he considered to &e true, clear, and the sole proof of the 0i&le's di#ine origin % and
the 0i&le's theoreticalconceptions % which, on the contrary, he considered unrelia&le and
43GB5;
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
13/39
unclear.50erder in early works such as On the Di!init1 and "se of the 6i/ledraws ust
the same distinction.51
1@2 Spinoza had in the Tractatuse:plained the false &eliefs and e#en contradictions
that occur among the prophets' theoretical con#ictions in terms of God's ha#ing chosen
to adapt re#elation to the low le#el of understanding which they and their audience
possessed.52erder in his early writings on the 0i&le gi#es e:actly the same e:planation.53
1+?2 Spinoza had in the Tractatusemphasized thepoeticcharacter of the ld
4estament.54erder in his early writings on the ld 4estament, such as On the +irst
Docuentsand the+ragents for an Archaeolog1, does the same.55
4his emphasis
continued to &e a central feature of his approach to the ld 4estament in later works as
well, such as the re#ealingly titled On the Spirit of &e/re: Poetr11+-B2.
1++2 A further principle of Spinoza's in the Tractatus#ery closely connected to his
&i&lical hermeneutics was that miracles, in the sense of contra#entions of the natural
order, are not possi&le, and that God cannot &e known from miracles &ut only from the
natural order itself.564he early erder holds e:actly the same position.57
Now, it would certainly &e an e:aggeration to say that erder took o#er all of these
principles from Spinoza eclusi!el1! other sources, including 3hristian 0i&le scholars
whom erder discusses more e:plicitly 1e.g. Lowth, 6rnesti, Semler, and Michaelis2,
50Tractatus, pp. +??, ++D, [email protected] e.g. G@7+5D
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
14/39
clearly played important roles as well. For e:ample, principle 1B2, the reection of any
reliance on authority when interpreting the 0i&le, was a staple of Hrotestantism! principle
12, that words gain their meaning solely from their usage so that the interpreter needs to
focus on this, had &een strongly championed &y 6rnesti! #ersions of principles 1-2 and
1@2, concerning the 0i&le's moral 1or sal#ific2, rather than theoretical, purpose and its
condescension to the cultural le#el of its human authors and their audience, had already
&een championed &efore Spinoza &y Galileo! and principle 1++2, namely reecting
miracles and seeing God as instead re#ealed in the natural order, was a fa#orite principle
of erder's own teacher, the pre;critical Oant.
Still, gi#en the independent e#idence for erder's preoccupation with Spinoza's
Tractatusat the rele#ant period 1as descri&ed earlier2, the remarka&le e:tent of his
agreement with the work's principles of interpretation ust sketched a&o#e surely does
show that he was strongly influenced &y the work in this area.
Also, one should &ear in mind that in addition to directinfluence &y the Tractatus,
there is also likely to ha#e &een indirectinfluence. For some of the other authors who
influenced erder 1e.g. the 3hristian 0i&le scholars recently mentioned2 were pro&a&ly
themsel#es ultimately inde&ted to the Tractatus.
3. Political Philosophy
(hen one reads through erder's writings from the period +
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
15/39
+
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
16/39
of the &uan ace, which appeared contemporaneously with This Too a Philosoph1 of
&istor1in +, he argues more ela&orately that they had originally practiced
repu&licanism and freedom.65
ow is this sudden re#ersal in erder's political philosophy to &e e:plained) e was
certainly e:posed to #arious early influences that might ha#e helped to make him
sympathetic to his new political ideal. ne was his teacher Oant's commitment to
repu&licanism and li&erty. Another was his own positi#e e:perience of the limited form
of repu&licanism and li&erty that he had found practiced in "iga while li#ing there in
+
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
17/39
+-2. For, of course, classical Athens was the #ery model of democratic repu&licanism
and li&erty. And erder in the early draft of the Plasticfrom +? accordingly writes
with enthusiasm of =Greek freedom.>66
0ut $ want to suggest that another part of the more pro:imate e:planation pro&a&ly lies
in the influence of Spinoza's Tractatus. For among the most striking positions that
Spinoza puts forward in the Tractatusare a strong defense of &oth democracy and li&erty
1especially li&erty of thought and speech2.67Moreo#er, Spinoza had made a case in the
work that a political constitution of ust this sort had already &een practiced &y the
ancient e&rews during Moses' lifetime and for a period after his death 1&efore
e#entually gi#ing way to #irtual monarchy2.68Gi#en that, as we ha#e already seen, erder
&egan to fall under the influence of the Tractatusduring the period +
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
18/39
Let us now turn to the aspects and phases of erder's de#elopment that were influenced
&y Spinoza'sEthics1rather than &y his Tractatus2.
$t is important to o&ser#e here at the outset that what erder found attracti#e in
Spinoza'sEthicswas more its conclusions than its arguments. For from an early period of
his career erder had &een #ery skeptical a&out the #alue of a priori arguments in
philosophy. Accordingly, one already finds e#idence of his skepticism a&out Spinoza's
apriorism as early as +
1More on this anon.2
4hat /ualification noted, let us now consider how Spinoza's theories in theEthics
influenced erder's own thought. $t seems to me that they decisi#ely influenced &oth his
69See on this Jollrath,Die Auseinandersetzung, pp. +-;[email protected] esp. G5
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
19/39
metaphysical;religious position and his philosophy of mind, and that they did so at
around the same time in each case5 the mid;+?'s.
As Ea#id 0ell has shown, erder already &egan to take an interest in the metaphysical;
religious monism that Spinoza had propounded in theEthicsas early as + or something similar, and then goes on to say5 =An idea from
which our (est is /uite distant, and which Gleim could e:press so uni/uely5 that hea#en
is e#erywhere, that space and time disappear &efore God, &ut that e can only li#e where
there is thought, and where there is the purest thought, effecti#e lo#eI 4hat this is God,
God in e#ery point or rather in no point. $t is, as it acts, in eternity, raised a&o#e space
und time, em&races e#erything, flows together with e#erything that thinks and lo#es, and
710ell, Spinoza in %eran1, pp. + ff.72GB5+.73$ohann %ottfried &erder 6riefe, D5+?. Similarly, in March of + immermann
thanks erder for sending him the =Eutch Hlato,> which is almost certainly an allusion toSpinoza's work, and incidentally one which again re#eals the sense of danger in
&ecoming associated with Spinoza that pre#ailed at the time 1cf. Lindner,Das Pro/le
des Spinozisus, p.
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
20/39
so accomplishes all the works that occur in the world, is GodI % 4hese ideas sound
fanatical, &ut are the coldest, most factual metaphysics 1read Spinoza, the Ethics. . .2.>74
$n short, erder had already &ecome an enthusiastic follower of Spinoza's Ethics, and in
particular of its central principle of metaphysical;religious monism, &y the mid;+?'s 1a
full decade &efore the famousPantheisusstreit&etween *aco&i and Mendelssohn2.
$n terms of erder'spu/licphilosophical de#elopment, howe#er, it was actually
Spinoza'sphilosoph1 of indin theEthicsrather than this metaphysical;religious
principle that first impacted erder's writings. So let us consider the impact of Spinoza's
philosophy of mind in detail first.
Shortly after his more general con#ersion to Spinozism in +D;, as ust descri&ed,
erder pu&lished On the #ognition and Sensation of the &uan Soul1+-2, a work in
which he de#eloped a #ery distincti#e philosophy of mind. 4his philosophy of mind was
clearly influenced &y more than one predecessor 1including, for e:ample, Lei&niz and
aller2. 0ut &y no one more strongly than Spinoza. Let me focus on some of the work's
key doctrines in order to illustrate this fact.
4he work actually e:ists in three drafts5 a first from +, a second from +, and the
third, pu&lished draft from +-. ne central doctrine of the work % already present in the
earliest draft from + % is that cognition and #olition are at &ottom one 1erder also
says the same a&out cognition and sensation2. $n another work from +, To Preachers
+ifteen Pro!incial Letters, erder e:presses this doctrine in terms of a unity of
=understanding and will.>75Now this doctrine almost certainly already represents a de&t
74$ohann %ottfried &erder 6riefe, D5++.75G@7+5@@;+??.
B?
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
21/39
to Spinoza.76For Spinoza had written in theEthicsin a strikingly similar #ein that =will
and understanding are one and the same.>77
0ut Spinoza's influence on erder's work &ecomes e#en more striking in the final
draft from +-, where se#eral further doctrines reflect it as well. 4o &egin with the most
important of these5 Euring the +
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
22/39
separate them Ksic,> and he insists that =nops1cholog1is possi&le that is not in e#ery
step a determinateph1siolog1.>820ut Spinoza had already argued #ery similarly in the
Ethicsthat =mind and &ody . . . are one and the same indi#idual concei#ed now under the
attri&ute of thought, now under the attri&ute of e:tension.>83
4o &e more e:act a&out the nature of Spinoza's influence on erder here, this seems in
fact to ha#e &een a two;phase process. First, although, as $ recently mentioned, erder
during the +
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
23/39
&eing.>85Now it seems #irtually certain that the interpretation of the ld 4estament's
conception of spirit that erder is offering and philosophically endorsing here is taken
directly from Spinoza's Tractatus. For erder &ases it on the following more specific
reading of the ld 4estament's position that he gi#es a little earlier in the same passage5
=$s the human &eing dust alone, though) % NoI the earthen creature &lows7&reathes
Khaucht, &reathes Katet, li#es.>860ut in the TractatusSpinoza had gi#en precisely the
same analysis of the ld 4estament concept of ruagh, or spirit5 =(e must determine the
e:act signification of the e&rew word ruagh, commonly translated spirit. 4he word
ruaghliterally means wind, e.g. the south wind, &ut it is fre/uently employed in other
deri#ati#e significations. $t is used as e/ui#alent to, 1+2 0reath . . . 1B2 Life, or
&reathing . . .>87
Second, concerning the period of On the #ognition and Sensationitself5 erder already
en#isaged asort of intimate union &etween mind and &ody in the first draft from +.
0ut at that time his idea was still &asically that it consisted in a reduction of &odies to
minds, or monads, Q la Lei&niz.88owe#er, in the second draft from + erder added a
partly critical &ut partly positi#e e:plicit discussion of Spinoza. $n the course of it he
noted Spinoza's distinction &etween God's two known attri&utes, thought and e:tension
1or as erder calls the latter, =motion>2, made his well;known accusation that Spinoza
had failed to unite these 1an accusation he would later repeat in %od Soe
#on!ersations2, &ut also 1less famously, and here most importantly2 hinted that Spinoza
had nonetheless somehow aspiredto unite them, more specifically in a way that did not
85G5B.86G5BD
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
24/39
in#ol#e a reduction in either direction5 =0oth are properties of one &eing, which Spinoza
forgot or despairedto &ring closer together since he had remo#ed them so far from
himself.>89erder's own /uasi;physiological account of the mind in the second and third
drafts of On the #ognition and Sensationin terms of aller's phenomenon of =irritation
Keiz> can therefore &e seen as an attempt on erder's part to realize Spinoza*s goal of
esta/lishing an identit1 of ind and /od1 that does not sipl1 reduce one of the to the
other. For erder usually concei#es of =irritation> 1a phenomenon paradigmatically
e:emplified &y muscle fi&ers contracting in response to the application of a physical
stimulus &ut then rela:ing upon its remo#al2 as a phenomenon that com&ines physical
with primiti#e mental traits.90
3oncerning ne:t erder's switch from li&ertarianism to determinism, in the pu&lished
#ersion of On the #ognition and Sensationfrom +- he strikingly reects li&ertarianism
in fa#or of a form of determinism regarding the indi#idual human &eing5 =ne is a serf of
mechanism . . . and imagines oneself free! a sla#e in chains and dreams that they are
wreaths of flowers . . . ere it is truly the first germ of freedom to feel that one is not free
and what &onds hold one.>910ut now, Spinoza had argued #ery similarly in theEthics
that =men are mistaken in thinking themsel#es free! their opinion is made up of
89S-5B90$ actually think that erder's recently /uoted passage from +
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
25/39
consciousness of their own actions, and ignorance of the causes &y which they are
conditioned.>92
Moreo#er, in this case erder makes his de&t to Spinoza e:plicit, for immediately after
the passage ust /uoted in which he says that freedom is an illusion &ased on the reality of
a sort of sla#ery, and hints that recognizing this fact constitutes the first step towards a
truer sort of freedom 1=it is truly the first germ of freedom to feel that one is not free>2,
erder goes on to de#elop a more specific #ersion of such a line of thought which
Spinoza had already articulated in theEthics, and to attri&ute it to Spinoza e:plicitly5
=(here the spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 4he deeper, purer, and more di#ine our
cognition is, the purer, more di#ine, and more uni#ersal is our efficacy, and so the freer
our freedom . . . (e stand on higher ground, and with each thing onitsground, roam in
the great sensorium of God's creation, the flame of all thinking and feeling, lo!e. 4his is
the highest reason, and the purest, most di#ine #olition. $f we do not wish to &elie#e the
holy St. *ohn a&out this, then we may &elie#e the undou&tedly still more di#ine Spinoza,
whose philosophy and ethics re#ol#e entirely around this a:le.>93
Finally, as can also &e seen from this passage, erder's philosophy of mind in On the
#ognition and Sensationowes an additional intellectual de&t to Spinoza'sEthicsas well
1al&eit one that is likely to strike philosophers today as far less attracti#e than the others
discussed a&o#e25 namely, a doctrine that there is an ultimate unity of cognition and lo#e.
4his is, of course, a #ersion of Spinoza's famous doctrine, from near the end of the
Ethics, of an aor dei intellectualis.94
92Ethics, p. +?-.93G5D
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
26/39
$n short, se#eral of the most central and interesting doctrines in the philosophy of mind
that erder espouses in On the #ognition and Sensationfrom +- are largely due to
Spinoza's influence.
B
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
27/39
5. Metaphysical-religious Monism and Global eterminism
erder's ne:t and finalpu/licstep in his progressi#e appropriation of Spinoza's
philosophy concerns the e#en more philosophically fundamental le#el of etaph1sics
and religion, especially the doctrines of metaphysical;religious monism and glo&al 1i.e.
unrestricted2 determinism. 4his step is much &etter known than the preceding steps, at
least in general outline. So my discussion of it here can &e somewhat &riefer than would
otherwise &e warranted.
As we ha#e seen, erder already &egan to show an interest in this side of Spinoza's
thought in +
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
28/39
4hat contro#ersy largely ust ga#e erder the courage to =come out> as a Spinozist
1especially &y re#ealing pu&licly that the highly respected and much mourned Lessing
had also &een a Spinozist2. Accordingly, in a letter to Gleim from +-< erder roundly
declares, =$ch &in ein Spinozist,>97and then in +- he pu&lishes his most e:plicit,
detailed statement and defense of a neo;Spinozistic monism and determinism, the famous
%od Soe #on!ersations.
4he contro#ersy also prompted erder to de#elop and defend his own #ersion of
Spinoza's metaphysical;religious position more fully than &efore, howe#er. So let us
consider the form that this de#elopment and defense took.
As $ ha#e already mentioned, erder pu&lished %od Soe #on!ersationsin the wake
of *aco&i's On the Doctrine of Spinoza in Letters to Mr. Moses Mendelssohn 1+-2 and
Mendelssohn's replies to it,Morgenstunden1+-2 and To Lessing*s +riends1+-
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
29/39
re;cast in a =purified> form that a#oided the #ices in /uestion. *aco&i's work and
Mendelssohn's response caused a pu&lic furor. $n %od Soe #on!ersationserder
inter#ened. 4here he &roadly supports Lessing's side of the de&ate against *aco&i, and to
some e:tent also against Mendelssohn, &y defending a #ersion of =Spinozism> %98&ut a
#ersion that modifies the original in some significant respects, largely with a #iew to
defusing their o&ections.
A&o#e all5 1+2 erder champions Spinoza's &asic thesis of onisand, like Spinoza,
e/uates the single, all;encompassing principle in /uestion with God 1which of course
immediately challenges the *aco&i;Mendelssohn charge of atheism2. 0ut whereas
Spinoza had characterized this principle assu/stance, erder instead characterizes it as
force, orprial force.99
4his fundamental re#ision is closely connected with se#eral further ones that erder
makes, including the following5 1B2 Spinoza might with at least some plausi&ility &e
accused of ha#ing concei#ed the principle in /uestion as an inacti!e thing1his concept of
=su&stance> and his doctrine that time is somehow merely apparent &oth suggest this,
al&eit that other aspects of his position, e.g. his conception of su&stance as a causa sui
and as natura naturans, tend to contradict it2. 0y contrast, erder's fundamental re#ision
turns the principle more clearly into an acti!it1.
1D2 Spinoza's theory had attri&uted thoughtto the principle in /uestion, &ut had
reected conceptions that it had understanding, :ill, or intentions, or was a ind. 0y
98See esp. G5;-.99$nterestingly enough, erder already prefigures this fundamental mo#e in a semi;
Spinozist, semi;Lei&nizian aphorism from + 1SDB5+@@! cf. G5BD2.
B@
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
30/39
contrast, erder claims that it doesha#e understanding, will, and intentions.100Moreo#er,
gi#en that his general philosophy of mind identifies the mind with force, his fundamental
identification of the principle in /uestion as primal force also carries an implication that it
isa mind. Accordingly, already in %od Soe #on!ersationsof +- he descri&es God as
=the primal force of all forces, the soul of all souls,>101and a few years later in On the
Spirit of #hristianit1from +@- he characterizes God as a %eist, a mind. $n these ways,
erder in effect re;mentalizes Spinoza's God 1there&y further undermining the *aco&i;
Mendelssohn charge of atheism2.
12 (hereas Spinoza had concei#ed nature mechanistically, in keeping with his
3artesian intellectual heritage 1and had there&y pro#oked the *aco&i;Mendelssohn charge
of fatalism2, erder 1though officially agnostic a&out what force is2 rather tends to
concei#e the forces that are at work in nature as li!ing, or organic 1a conception of them
that he mainly owes to Lei&niz2.
12 erder &elie#es that Spinoza's original theory contained an o&ectiona&le residue
of dualism 1again inherited from Eescartes2, in its conception of the relation &etween
God's two known attri&utes, thought and e:tension, and similarly in its conception of the
relation &etweenfiniteminds and their &odies 1while he also, as we already saw from the
second draft of On the #ognition and Sensation, recognizes that Spinoza aspiredto
o#ercome such dualism2.1020y contrast, erder's own conception of God and is thought
as force, and of finite minds and their mental processes as likewise forces, is designed to
100See esp. G5B;-.101G5+?. 6mphasis added.102For this recognition in %od Soe #on!ersationsitself, see esp. G5?, ?@.
D?
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
31/39
o#ercome this alleged residual dualism, since erder understands forces to &e of their
#ery nature e:pressed in the &eha#ior of e:tended &odies.103
1
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
32/39
!. "he #ormation of German $omanticism and German %dealism
4his article has focused on four sets of principles which, $ ha#e suggested, erder largely
took o#er from Spinoza in a sort of progressi#e appropriation of Spinoza's philosophy
that &egan in the late +
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
33/39
addition to the three forerunners already discussed in this article, namely Lessing, erder,
and erder's follower Goethe, the founders of German "omanticism, Schleiermacher,
Friedrich Schlegel, and No#alis, all adopted it as well, as did the most important later
representati#es of German $dealism, Schelling and egel.1084his was all largely the result
of erder's espousal of neo;Spinozism, especially in %od Soe #on!ersations, and
largely took o#er erder's modifications of Spinoza's position. For e:ample, when
Schleiermacher adopted Spinoza's metaphysical;religious monism in the +@?'s he
incorporated into it erder's conception of the single principle in /uestion as a primal
force. Moreo#er, as $ ha#e argued in detail elsewhere, so too did egel at first, al&eit that
he e#entually arri#ed #ia an immanent criti/ue of such a conception at an e#en more
radical account of the single principle in /uestion 1as well as of thefinitemind2 which
#irtually identifiedit with its manifestations in physical &eha#ior.109egel also took o#er
erder's re#ision of Spinoza's conception of the ontological status of space modeled on
Spinoza's conception of the ontological status of time, namely as a mere appearance of
an eternal God 1idealist acosmism2, as his own interpretation of Spinoza. $n addition,
egel took o#er erder's re;mentalizing of Spinoza's su&stance, like erder re;
concei#ing it as %eist, or mind 1al&eit while making it clearer than erder had that this
was not an interpretation of Spinoza &ut a re#ision2. 4o gi#e yet another e:ample,
Schelling's philosophy of nature % and in its train egel's as well % drew much of its
inspiration from erder's sketch of nature towards the end of %od Soe #on!ersations
as a self;de#eloping hierarchical system of li#ing forces grounded in the primal force,
1084he earlier German $dealists, Oant and Fichte, were also influenced &y Spinoza's
metaphysical position, al&eit in less oious and straightforward ways. See on thisLinder,Das Pro/le des Spinozisus, pp. +
DD
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
34/39
God, and as proceeding #ia the sort of opposition &etween forces that is paradigmatically
e:emplified in the magnet.110
A similar picture emerges concerning the closely related Spinoza;erder doctrine of
glo&al determinism5 Schleiermacher's #ersion of Spinozism in the +@?'s included this
feature. So too, somewhat later, did egel's mature philosophy, in which not only finite
spirits &ut also A&solute Spirit are concei#ed as su&ect to necessity.
4urning to the philosophy of mind, Scheiermacher, &eginning in his most emphatically
Spinozistic period, the +@?'s, &ut then continuing in his later lectures on psychology,
took o#er all three of the main Spinoza;erder naturalistic principles in the philosophy of
mind that ha#e &een discussed in this article in order to form the core of his own
philosophy of mind5 the denial of any sharp distinction &etween cognition and #olition!
the denial of dualism and of Lei&nizian reductions of the &ody to the mind, in fa#or of a
non;reducti#e mental;physical monism! and the espousal of a form of determinism. 4he
same is true, mutatis mutandis, of egel.
3oncerning the political ideals of democracy and li&erty, the continuity from Spinoza
and erder into German "omanticism and German $dealism is less consistent, &ut still
significant. For e:ample, Friedrich Schlegel was &oth a radical democrat and a li&eral
during the +@?'s 1pu&lishing a short essay championing these political principles in
+@
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
35/39
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
36/39
&. "he %ntrinsic 'alue of "hese Principles
4he influence that all these Spinozistic principles taken o#er &y erder e:erted on the
su&se/uent de#elopment of German philosophy is e:traordinary. 0ut their intrinsic #alue
is hardly less so.
4hat intrinsic #alue ought to &e fairly self;e#ident and uncontro#ersial where the
following principles are concerned5 the Spinozistic reection of inspirational, allegorical,
and authority;&ased approaches to interpreting the 0i&le in fa#or of a more rigorous
approach! the rest of the Spinozistic methodology of interpretation! the Spinozistic
championing of democracy and li&erty o#er such contrary political principles as a&solute
monarchy! and the Spinozistic reection of faculty;di#iding, dualistic or idealistic, and
li&ertarian models of the mind in fa#or of their naturalistic opposites. 14he relati#ely self;
e#ident intrinsic #alue of these principles has &een part of my reason for focusing on
them so hea#ily in the present article.2
0ut perhaps a case could e#en &e made for the intrinsic #alue of Spinozistic
metaphysical monism as well. For such a principle is suscepti&le to different #ersions and
#ariants. Spinoza himself identified the single principle in /uestion as God, and
concei#ed it in a way that accorded e/ual status to the attri&utes of thought and e:tension.
$n doing so, he was closely followed &y the early Schelling and the early egel with their
=philosophy of identity.> 0y contrast, the mature egel, while he likewise identified the
single principle in /uestion with God, ele#ated thought 1or mind2 o#er e:tension 1or
nature2 in his reworking of the principle. 4hen, finally, the tradition of Feuer&ach, Mar:,
D
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
37/39
and su&se/uent naturalistic philosophy dropped the identification of the single principle
in /uestion with God, and recast it with an opposite inflection to egel's, maintaining a
priority of the material o#er the mental rather than con#ersely.111My own philosophical
intuitions, like those of many contemporary philosophers, sympathize most with the last
of these #ersions or #ariants5 atheistic materialism. (hile it would not &e correct to say
that this was Spinoza's own #ersion of his principle,112it does argua&ly still constitute a
descendant and #ariant of his principle. 4o this e:tent at least, his principle could perhaps
&e said to contain an insight that continues to hold philosophical promise today.
(oncluding (omment
Like Lessing &efore him, erder was committed to a profound cosmopolitanism. Again
like Lessing &efore him, he was there&y ena&led to repudiate the anti;semitism that
corrupted so many of his German contemporaries % including his famous teacher Oant
1himself officially a =cosmopolitan,> &ut one whose =cosmopolitanism> was more
hospita&le to some appalling anti;semitic, racist, and misogynist #iews than to all
people2. 0eyond that, he was also there&y ena&led to sympathize deeply with *udaism as
a religious and cultural tradition. "ecall in this connection his early remark concerning
his own approach to the ld 4estament5 =$ read orientally, *ewishly, anciently,
111For a helpful account of Feuer&ach and Mar:'s #ariants of Spinozism, see R. Ro#el,
Spinoza and Other &eretics, chs. D and .112Ea#id 0ell is certainly right to reect materialist interpretations of Spinoza % such as
Lindner's and Adler's % as interpretations.
D
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
38/39
poetically.>1134his cosmopolitan open;mindedness towards *udaism also ena&led Lessing
and erder to take seriously, and e#entually to em&race, the thought of the greatest
*ewish philosopher of the modern period, Spinoza. 0y doing so, they not only redressed a
great cultural inustice, turning Spinoza from &eing a pariah in Germany into one of the
most cele&rated philosophers of the age, &ut also, in the process, won for German
philosophy a &ody of #itally important ideas that would go on to enrich it for generations
to come.114
)ibliography
0eiser, F.3.Enlightenent< e!olution< and oanticis, 3am&ridge, Mass.5 ar#ard9ni#ersity Hress, +@@B
% The +ate of eason, 3am&ridge, Mass.5 ar#ard 9ni#ersity Hress, +@-
0ell, E. Spinoza in %eran1 fro 2345 to the Age of %oethe, London5 $nstitute ofGermanic Studies, 9ni#ersity of London, +@-
0ollacher, M.Der 0unge %oethe und Spinoza, 4P&ingen5 Ma: Niemeyer, +@&egel-$ahr/uch,
B?++
aym, ".&erder nach seine Le/en und seinen 'er(en, 0erlin5 Gaertner, +--?erder, *.G.$ohann %ottfried &erder S)tliche 'er(e, ed. 0. Suphan et al., 0erlin5
(eidmann, +-%
> $ohann %ottfried &erder 'er(e, ed. 9. Gaier et al., Frankfurt am Main5Eeutscher Olassiker Jerlag, +@-%
%$ohann %ottfried &erder 6riefe, (eimar5 ermann 0hlaus Nachfolger,
+@
1134his approach e#entually reached its finest flowering in his On the Spirit of &e/re:
Poetr11+-B2.114$ would like to thank the organizers and participants from two conferences at which
this article was originally presented for their hospitality, encouragement, /uestions, and
criticisms5 a conference on Spinoza and German philosophy that was organized at *ohnsopkins 9ni#ersity in the spring of B?+? &y 6ckart Frster and Ritzhak Melamed, and a
conference on erder across the disciplines that was organized under the auspices of the
9ni#ersity of slo near 0ergen in the spring of B?+? &y Oristin Gesdal. $n addition tothe aforementioned organizers, $ would also especially like to thank the following
participants5 Fred 0eiser, 0rady 0owman, Michael Eella "occa, Haul Franks, Eon
Garrett, Haul Guyer, "o&ert Norton, Lina Steiner, Allen (oodT, and *ohn ammito.
D-
8/11/2019 M. Fortser, 'Herder and Spinoza'
39/39
$srael, *.$.adical Enlightenent Philosoph1 and the Ma(ing of Modernit1 2395-2495,
:ford5 :ford 9ni#ersity Hress, B??+
Lindner, .Das Pro/le des Spinozisus i Schaffen %oethes und &erders, (eimar5Arion Jerlag, +@
Top Related