Spinoza in the Light of Classical and Contemporary Western Philosophy

Cover Page

Cite item


The article concerns the main lines of reception of the philosophical ideas of B. Spinoza. Estimates of the work of this thinker, his role and importance have undergone significant changes in the course of the development of Western European and Russian philosophical thought. It focuses on the study of the transformations occurred in the approach and nature of evaluations of the main philosophical ideas of Spinoza in the Western European philosophical space, primarily in Germany and France. At the same time, we can state that the peak of interest in the philosophy of Spinoza in these national traditions seriously diverges in time. Initially, we can talk about the predominance of interest in Spinoza’s philosophy on the part of German-speaking thinkers. For a long time, Spinoza’s philosophy was characterized as atheistic and, in connection with this, was subjected to fierce criticism. It is the German enlighteners who are credited with reviving interest in Spinoza’s philosophy at a new level. At the same time, the philosophical views of this thinker not only cease to be assessed as atheistic, but are sometimes perceived in the exact opposite way - as imbued with genuine religious faith. F. Schleiermacher can be considered here as a striking example of such an approach to Spinoza’s philosophy. In the future, interest in Spinoza’s philosophy was maintained in the German-speaking philosophical space due to the reception of his ideas by Hegel, Feuerbach, and Neo-Kantians. In French-language philosophy, interest in Spinoza wakes up much later - in the middle-second half of the 20th century, which is associated primarily with such name as Deleuze. However, this “French Renaissance” of Spinoza’s philosophy can be considered as no less significant than the Renaissance of the age of German Enlightenment. It was “French Spinozism” that brought the study of Spinoza’s philosophy to the international level, significantly expanding their conceptual framework.

About the authors

Ludmila E. Kryshtop

Рeoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)

Author for correspondence.
Email: kryshtop-le@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1012-5953

Doctor of Science (Philosophy), Рrofessor

6, Miklukho-Maklaya str., Moscow, 117198, Russian Federation

Mohammad Malla

Рeoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)

Email: malla-m@rudn.ru
PhD student in Philosophy 6, Miklukho-Maklaya str., Moscow, 117198, Russian Federation


  1. Kimelev YuA. Filosofija religii. Sistematicheskij ocherk. [Philosophy of Religion. Systematic Study]. Moscow: Nota Bene; 1998. (In Russian).
  2. Spalding JJ. Vertraute Briefe, die Religion betreffend. Breslau; 1784. (In German).
  3. Kant I. Kritik der Urteilskraft. In: Kant I. Werke in 6 Bd. Hrsg. von W. Weischedel. Bd. 5. Darmstadt: WBG; 1994. (In German).
  4. Kant I. Kritika sposobnosti suzhdenija. In: Kant I. Sobr. soch. v 8 t. T. 5. Moscow: ChORO; 1994. (In Russian).
  5. Bianco B. Kant e il “Pantheismusstreit”. Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica. 1976;68(3):461—476. (In Spanish).
  6. Jakobi FH. Über die Lehre des Spinoza in Briefen an den Herrn Moses Mendelssohn. Breslau; 1785. (In German).
  7. Christ K. Jacobi und Mendelssohn. Eine Analyse des Spinozastreits. Würzburg; 1988. (In German).
  8. Bianco B. Freiheit gegen Fatalismus. Zu Joachim Langes Kritik an Wolff. In: Halle. Aufklärung und Pietismus. Hrsg. von N. Hinske. Heidelberg; 1989. S. 111—155. (In German).
  9. Mendelssohn M. Morgenstunden oder Vorlesungen über das Daseyn Gottes. In: Mendelssohn M. Ausgewählte Werke. Studienausgabe. Bd. 2. Hrsg. von Ch. Schulte, A. Kennecke, G. Jurewicz. Darmstadt: WBG; 2009. S. 215—334. (In German).
  10. Mendelssohn M. Moses Mendelssohn an die Freunde Lessings. Ein Anhang zu Herrn Jakobi Briefwecksel über die Lehre des Spinoza. In: Mendelssohn M. Ausgewählte Werke. Bd. 2. Hrsg. von Ch. Schulte, A. Kennecke, G. Jurewicz. Darmstadt; 2009. S. 337—367. (In German).
  11. Schoeps JH. Moses Mendelssohn. Königstein: Jüdischer Verlag; 1979. (In German).
  12. Christ K. Jacobi und Mendelssohn. Eine Analyse des Spinozastreits. Würzburg: Königshausen&Neumann; 1988. (In German).
  13. Mendelssohn M. Philosophische Gespräche. In: Mendelssohn M. Ausgewählte Werke. Bd. 1. Hrsg. von Ch. Schulte, A. Kennecke, G. Jurewicz. Darmstadt: WBG; 2009. S. 9—39. (In German).
  14. Niewöhner Fr. „Es hat nicht jeder das Zeug zu einem Spinoza“. Mendelssohn als Philosoph des Judentums. In: Moses Mendelssohn und die Kreise seiner Wirksamkeit / Hrsg. von M. Albrecht, EJ. Engel, N. Hinske. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1994. S. 291—313.
  15. Lamm JA. Schleiermacher’s Post-Kantian Spinozism: The Early Essays on Spinoza, 1793-94. The Journal of Religion. 1994;74(4):476—505.
  16. Schleiermacher FD. Rechi o religii. [On Religion: Speeches] In: Schleiermacher FD. Rechi o religii k obrazovannym ljudjam, ee prezirajushhim. Monologi. [On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers. Monologues]. Saint Petersburg: Aleteia publ.; 1994. P. 43—274. (In Russian).
  17. Hegel HWF. Lekcii po istorii filosofii. [Lectures of History of Philosophy]. Book 3. Saint Petersburg: Nauka; 1994. (In Russian).
  18. Feuerbach LA. Istorija filosofii. Sobr. proizv. v treh tt. [History of Philosophy. Selected Works in 3 vols]. Vol.1. Moscow: Mysl’; 1974. (In Russian).
  19. Windelband W. Istorija novoj filosofii v ee svjazi s obshhej kul’turoj i otdel’nymi naukami: v 2 t. T.1. Ot Vozrozhdenija do Prosveshhenija. [A History of Philosophy, Volume II: Renaissance, Enlightenment, Modern]. Moscow: Giperboreja.; Kuchkovo pole; 2007. (In Russian).
  20. Fischer K. Istorija novoj filosofii. Spinoza, ego zhizn’, sochinenija i uchenie. [History of Modern Philosophy. Spinoza, His Life, Work and Teachings]. Saint Petersburg: D. E. Zhukovski Publ.; 1906. (In Russian).
  21. Stetter J., Ramond Ch. (ed.) Spinoza in Twenty-First-Century American and French Philosophy: Metaphysics, Philosophy of Mind, Moral and Political Philosophy. London, New-York: Bloomsbury Academic; 2019.
  22. Gueroult M. Spor ob atribute. [The Controversy on Attribute]. Logos. 2007; 59(2):29—58. (In Russian).
  23. Holland E. Spinoza and Marx. Cultural Logic. 1998;(3):1-17.
  24. Deleuze G. Jempirizm i subjektivnost’: opyt o chelovecheskoj prirode po Jumu. Kriticheskaja filosofija Kanta: uchenie o sposobnostjah. Bergsonizm. Spinoza [Empiricism and Subjectivity. An Essay on Hume’s Theory of Human Nature. Kant’s Critical Philosophy: The Doctrine of the Faculties. Bergsonism. Spinoza]. Moscow: PERSJE; 2001. (In Russian).
  25. Simkins J. On the Development of Spinosa’s Account of Human Religion. Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies. 2014;5(1):52—72.
  26. Jong de MG. Spinoza’s Philosophy and Nihilism God? Truth, and Freedom in an Uncaring Universe. [MA Thesis in Philosophy]. Utrecht: University Press; 2017.
  27. Lord B. Spinoza’s Ethics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; 2010.
  28. Douglas A. Was Spinoza a Naturalist? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. 2015; (96):77—99.
  29. Melamed YY. Spinoza’s Ethics. A Critical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2017.
  30. Hubner K. Spinoza on the Limits of Explanation. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 2021;(103):341—358.
  31. Melamed YY. Spinoza’s Metaphysics: Substance and Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.
  32. Lin M. Substance, Attribute, and Mode in Spinoza. Philosophy Compass. 2006;1(2):144—153.
  33. Norell TA. Comprehension of Spinoza’s God. Through the Dichotomy of Labels. [MA Thesis in Philosophy of Religion]. Lund: University Press; 2015.

Copyright (c) 2022 Kryshtop L.E., Malla M.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies