Errol Harris talks about a crypto-dialectic method that lies behind the geometrical disguise of Spinoza'sEthics.Spinoza's method, he argues, is not the linear formal deduction of traditional logic but a crypto-dialectical development of the structural implications of a systematic whole. Substance differentiates itself into infinite attributes and infinite modes. Each attribute is self-differentiated into a hierarchy of modes ranging from the most complex to the simplest. Harris calls this a dialectical scale or a crypto-dialectical development of the structural implications of a (...) systematic whole. The self-specification of the whole into attributes and modes provides the framework for a dialectical system. Spinoza's hypotheses are implications dialectically derived from his concept of substance, a concept of a whole which differentiates itself into infinite attributes and modes. Substance is not a hypothesis but is a postulate which s i absolutely certain. Everything follows from substance with dialectical necessity. Substance is the origin of all things and ideas. (shrink)

As críticas feitas a Espinosa no século XVII são as mesmas dirigidas a Maimônides cinco séculos antes. A maior surpresa não está na permanência das mesmas críticas apesar do tempo – a crítica ao racionalismo e naturalismo dos autores ao se referirem a Deus – mas no uso do pensamento de Maimônides para fundamentar as críticas a Espinosa. A “controvérsia maimonideana” e a “polêmica espinosista” possuem origem sócio-política e assumem a forma teológica daí decorrente. Faremos de modo breve uma comparação (...) entre Espinosa e Maimônides sobre alguns aspectos da profecia, considerando que o Tratado Teológico-político polemiza também com o Moreh. Embora muitos elementos da concepção maimonideana estejam presentes no TTP, a diferença entre os dois autores é espantosa. (shrink)

The relationship between reason and sharia has been one of the most important and controversial issues among religious thinkers. The main question of this article is "What is the effect of Ibn Rushd on Ibn Maimon in using reason in Shari'a?" Some of the points that we achieved in this research indicate the deep influence of Ibn Rushd on Ibn Maimon in the discussion of reason and Shari'a. In various passages of his works, Ibn Rushd warns of the dangers of (...) pure rationalism and restricts its use in sharia. He believes that the intellect alone cannot interpret and should be done by the people of Shari'a with the conditions explained in religion. Ibn Maimon also states that the use of reason in the sharia is conditional and believes that the Bible of Judaism sets the standard for the use of reason in the Shari'a, which is done by the people of the sharia. In applying the views of Ibn Rushd and Ibn Maimon, we encounter reasons that emphasize the influence of Ibn Rushd on Ibn Maimon in this issue. (shrink)