Annotated Bibliography of Spinoza and the Sciences

  • Debra Nails
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 91)


Construed broadly, ‘sciences’ could be the rubric for almost the entire literature on Spinoza. Beginning at the border between physics and metaphysics, epistemology claims all the territory ever covered by the Greek ‘episteme’, and both psychology and political science fall in line. But a bibliography resulting from such a broad construal would be little more (and probably much less) than an amalgamation of such standard sources as Oko and Wetlesen. Within the wide compass of the philosophy and history of science, I have focused on issues in physics, chemistry and biology; adding such social-scientific works as selfconsciously attempt to be or to comment on the less social and more scientific; and adding finally what we have come to call ‘applied sciences’ such as medicine. Annotations are based on the cited articles and books themselves or the authors’ abstracts; occasionally, these are supplemented by reviews and descriptive passages from others’ works. (Lachterman, Wartofsky, and the anonymous chronicler(s) of the Association des Amis de Spinoza were particularly helpful in pointing to scientific aspects of articles that might otherwise have been overlooked.)


Garden City Annotate Bibliography Aristotelian Society Scientific Psychology Critical Essay 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agaësse, P.: 1969, ‘Le Spinoza de M. Gueroult’, Archives de philosophie 32, 288–296.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, B.: 1928, ‘Spinoza und die Psychoanalyse’, Chronicon Spinozanum 5.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, Samuel: 1921, Spinoza and Time; Being the Fourth ‘Arthur Davis Memorial Lecture’ delivered before the Jewish Historical Society at University College on Sunday, May 1, 1921/Nisan 23, 5681, George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Partially reprinted in S. Paul Kashap (ed.), Studies in Spinoza; Critical and Interpretive Essays, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1972, pp. 68–85.Google Scholar
  5. Allen, Harold J.: 1976, ‘Spinoza’s Naturalism and Our Contemporary Neo-Cartesians’, in James B. Wilbur (ed.), Spinoza’s Metaphysics, Van Gorcum, Assen, pp. 133–155.Google Scholar
  6. Aron, W.: 1965, ‘Baruch Spinoza et la medicine’, Revue d’histoire de la médecine hébraïque 18, No. 65, pp. 61–78Google Scholar
  7. No. 69, pp. 113–211.Google Scholar
  8. Aron, W.: 1966–67, ‘Freud et Spinoza’, Revue d’histoire de la médecine hébraïque 19, No. 3, pp. 101–116Google Scholar
  9. 20, pp. 53–70Google Scholar
  10. 149–160.Google Scholar
  11. Aster, Ernst von: 1922, Raum und Zeit in der geschichte der philosophie und physik, Rosl and Co., Munich.Google Scholar
  12. Bachelard, Gaston: 1933, ‘Physique et Métaphysique’, in Septimana Spinozana, Nijhoff, The Hague. From the perspective of engineering science, ascribes to metaphysics the character of a natura constructa beyond Nature.Google Scholar
  13. Baumann, Joh. Julius: 1868, Die Lehren von Raum, Zeit und Mathematik in der neueren Philosophie, Georg Reimer Verlag, Berlin. Sections on Descartes, Spinoza, Newton, et al. Google Scholar
  14. Bennett, Jonathan: 1980, ‘Spinoza’s Vacuum Argument’, Midwest Studies in Philosophy 5, 391–399. Treats Ethics 1, scholium to Proposition XV, and Letter IV to Oldenburg.Google Scholar
  15. Bernard, Walter: 1964, ‘Freud and Spinoza’, Psychiatry 9.Google Scholar
  16. Bernard, Walter: 1972, ‘Spinoza’s Influence on the Rise of Scientific Psychology — A Neglected Chapter in the History of Psychology’, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 8, pp. 208–215. Connects the ‘most important’ influence of Spinoza to the shaping of modern scientific psychology.Google Scholar
  17. Bernard, Walter: 1977, ‘Psychotherapeutic Principles in Spinoza’s Ethics’, in Siegfried Hessing (ed.), Speculum Spinozanum 1677–1977, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, Henley, and Boston, pp. 63–80. Gleans and briefly discusses eight principles from the Ethics thought to be of contemporary psychotherapeutic relevance.Google Scholar
  18. Biasutti, F.: 1979, La Dottrina della scienza in Spinoza, Patron Editore, Bologna. Discusses Spinoza’s relation to the scientific revolution: Spinoza’s doctrine of science and his historical situation; examines the correspondence and books known to have been in Spinoza’s library.Google Scholar
  19. Bickel, Lothar: 1931, ‘Über Beziehungen zwischen Spinoza und der Psychoanalyse’, Zentralblatt für Psychotherapie und ihre Grenzgebiete 4. Reprinted in Lothar Bickel, Probleme und Ziele des Denkens, Humanitas Verlag, Zürich, 1939. Transi, by Walter Bernard (‘On Relationships between Psychoanalysis and a Dynamic Psychology’), and reprinted in Siegfried Hessing (ed.), Speculum Spinozanum 1677–1977, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, Henley, and Boston, pp. 81–89. Discusses similarities among Spinoza’s psychological ideas, psychoanalysis, and Constantin Brunner’s psychological ideas.Google Scholar
  20. Bidney, D.: 1940, The Psychology and Ethics of Spinoza; A Study in the History and Logic of Ideas, Yale University Press, New Haven. Second edition, Russell and Russell, New York, 1962.Google Scholar
  21. Bluh, Otto: 1964, ‘Newton and Spinoza’, in Proceedings of the International Congress on the History of Sciences, 10th, Ithaca, 1962, 2 vols. Actes du dixième Congrès international d’histoire des sciences, Actualités scientifiques et industrielles 1307, Hermann, Paris, pp. 701–703.Google Scholar
  22. Brunschvicq, Léon: 1923, Spinoza et ses contemporains, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris. See especially Chapter 9.Google Scholar
  23. Brunschvicq, Léon: 1933, ‘Physique et métaphysique’, in Septimana Spinozana, Nijhoff, The Hague, pp. 43–54. A mathematician’s approach: in accordance with geometrical and analytical physics, distinguishes between mechanistic and mathematical metaphysics.Google Scholar
  24. Brunt, N. A.: 1955, De wiskundige denkwijze in Spinoza’s philosophie en in de moderne natuurkunde [The Mathematical Mode of Thinking in Spinoza’s Philosophy and in Modern Physics], Mededelingen Vanwege het Spinozahuis 12, E. J. Brill, Leiden.Google Scholar
  25. Clay, J.: 1933, ‘Physik und Metaphysik’, in Septimana Spinozana, Nijhoff, The Hague. Looks to Spinoza’s metaphysics for logical possibilities confined by physics to the sphere of realities that can be perceived.Google Scholar
  26. Coert, J. H.: 1938, Spinoza’s betrekking tot de geneeskunde en haar beoefenaren [Spinoza’s Relation to Medicine and its Practitioners], Mededelingen Vanwege het Spinozahuis 4, E. J. Brill, Leiden.Google Scholar
  27. Corsano, A.: 1976, ‘Spinoza e la scienza contemporanea’, Bollettino di Storia della Filosofia 4, 51–58.Google Scholar
  28. Cremaschi, S.: 1981, ‘Concepts of Force in Spinoza’s Psychology’, in Theoria cum Praxi; Zum Verhältnis von Theorie und Praxis im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, Studia Leibnitiana Supplementa 20, Akten der III Internationalen Leibnizkongresses, Hannover, pp. 138–144. Discusses potentia, conatus, vis.Google Scholar
  29. Crommelin, Claude August: 1939, Spinoza’s natuurwetenschappelijk denken [Spinoza’s Thought on Natural Science], Mededelingen Vanwege het Spinozahuis 6, E. J. Brill, Leiden.Google Scholar
  30. Curley, E. M.: 1973, ‘Experience in Spinoza’s Theory of Knowledge’, in Marjorie Grene (ed.), Spinoza; A Collection of Critical Essays, Doubleday, Garden City, pp. 25–59. Examines Spinoza’s understanding of the structure of science, establishing the role of experimentation in relation to rational knowledge and intuitive knowledge.Google Scholar
  31. Daudin, H.: 1948, ‘Spinoza et la science expérimentale: sa discussion de l’expérience de Boyle’, in Revue d’Histoire des Sciences et de leurs Applications 12, Ann. Tom. II, Paris.Google Scholar
  32. De Vet, J. J. V. M.: 1983, ‘Was Spinoza De Auteur Van “Stelkonstige Reeckening Van Den Regenboog” En Van “Reeckening Van Kanssen’“[Was Spinoza Author of ‘Algebraic Computation of the Rainbow’ and of ‘Calculation of Probabilities’], Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 45, 602–639. Argues that Spinoza wrote neither treatise.Google Scholar
  33. Deleuze, Gilles: 1968, Spinoza et le problème de l’expression, Éditions de Minuit, Paris, Arguments 37.Google Scholar
  34. Deleuze, Gilles: 1983, Spinoza, philosophie pratique, Éditions de Minuit, Paris. Discusses the geometrical method and its relation to optics.Google Scholar
  35. Deregibus, Arturo: 1981, Bruno e Spinoza. La realtà dell’infinito e il problema della sua unità, 2 Vols., Giappichelli editore, Torino. Lengthy discussion of Spinoza’s work as marked by the mathematics of seventeenth century science.Google Scholar
  36. Donagan, Alan: 1973, ‘Spinoza’s Proof of Immortality’, in Marjorie Grene (ed.), Spinoza; A Collection of Critical Essays, Doubleday, Garden City, pp. 25–59. Discusses the notions of time, duration, eternity.Google Scholar
  37. Donagan, Alan: 1976, ‘Spinoza and Descartes on Extension: A Comment’, Midwest Studies in Philosophy 1, 31–33.Google Scholar
  38. Duchesneau, Francois: 1974, ‘Du modèle cartésien au modèle spinoziste de l’être vivant’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 3, 539–562. Examines Cartesian mechanistic models in the hypothetical explanation of physiological functions, the theory of organism, and Spinoza’s critique of the instrumental analogy underlying the automaton model.Google Scholar
  39. Edgar, William J.: 1976, ‘Continuity and the Individuation of Modes in Spinoza’s Physics’, in James B. Wilbur (ed.), Spinoza’s Metaphysics; Essays in Critical Appreciation, Van Gorcum, pp. 85–105.Google Scholar
  40. Escodi, J.: 1959, ‘Semelhancas entre Spinoza e Freud’, Corpo e alma, Anais 3 Congresso Nacional de Filosofia, Sao Paulo, pp. 403–410.Google Scholar
  41. Espagnat, B. d’: 1979, À la recherche du réel, Gauthier-Villars.Google Scholar
  42. Espagnat, B. d’: 1982, ‘Spinoza et la physique contemporaine’, Colloque Spinoza, Cerisy-La-Salle.Google Scholar
  43. Foti, Véronique M.: 1982, ‘Thought, Affect, Drive and Pathogenesis in Spinoza and Freud’, History of European Ideas 3, 221–236. Explores the basis for linking Spinoza’s psychology with psychoanalysis, finding that basis to be rather narrow.Google Scholar
  44. Foucher de Careil, L. A.: 1862, Leibniz, Descartes et Spinoza, Librairie Philosophique de Ladrange, Paris.Google Scholar
  45. Funkenstein, Arnos: 1976, ‘Natural Science and Social Theory: Hobbes, Spinoza and Vico’, in G. Tagliacozzo and D. P. Verene (eds.), Giambattista Vico’s Science of Humanity, Baltimore, pp. 187–212.Google Scholar
  46. Giorgiantonio, Michele: 1954, ‘Intorno ad un tentativo di ricostruzione della mecanica e della fisica di Spinoza’, Spinoza 22, 326–330.Google Scholar
  47. Groen, J. J.: 1972, Ethica en Ethologie: Spinoza’s leer der affecten en de moderne psychobiologie [Ethics and Ethology: Spinoza’s Theory of the Affects and Modern Psychobiology], Mededelingen Vanwege het Spinozahuis 29, E. J. Brill, Leiden.Google Scholar
  48. Gueroult, Martial: 1966, ‘La lettre de Spinoza sur l’infini’, Revue de métaphysique et de morale 71, 385–411. Included as Appendix 9 in Martial Gueroult, Spinoza, Vol. 1: Dieu, Éditions Montaigne, Paris, 1968. Transi, by Kathleen McLaughlin (‘Spinoza’s Letter on the Infinite’), and reprinted in Marjorie Grene (ed.), Spinoza, A Collection of Critical Essays, Doubleday, Garden City, 1973. On Letter XII to Louis Meyer.Google Scholar
  49. Gueroult, Martial: 1974, Spinoza, Vol. 2: L’âme, Éditions Montaigne, Paris. An analysis of Spinoza’s physics and theory of cognition.Google Scholar
  50. Hall, A. Rupert, and Marie Boas Hall: 1964, ‘Philosophy and Natural Philosophy: Boyle and Spinoza’, in Mélanges Alexandre Koyré, Histoire de la pensée 13, Vol. 2: L’aventure de l’esprit, pp. 241–256.Google Scholar
  51. Hall, A. Rupert, and Marie Boas Hall: 1978, ‘Le monde scientifique à l’époque de Spinoza’, Revue de Synthèse 99, 19–30.Google Scholar
  52. Hallett, Harold Foster: 1930, Aeternitas: A Spinozistic Study, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  53. Hallett, Harold Foster: 1949, ‘On a Reputed Equivoque in the Philosphy of Spinoza’, Review of Metaphysics 3, 189–212.Google Scholar
  54. Reprinted in S. Paul Kashap (ed.), Studies in Spinoza; Critical and Interpretive Essays, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1972, pp. 168–188. Uses physiological and physical arguments to explore whether Spinoza employs the term ‘idea’ equivocally (as the mental correlate of the body’s state, and as the objective essence of a thing extrinsic to that body).Google Scholar
  55. Hallett, Harold Foster: 1957, Benedict de Spinoza, Athlone Press, London.Google Scholar
  56. Hampshire, Stuart: 1961, Spinoza, Barnes and Noble, New York. Includes observations on the biological aspect of Spinoza’s metaphysics with special reference to modern developments in physical and biological science.Google Scholar
  57. Hardin, C. L.: 1978, ‘Spinoza on Immortality and Time’, in Robert W. Shahan and J. I. Biro (eds.), Spinoza: New Perspectives, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, pp. 129–138. Argues, contra Donagan and Kneale, for Spinoza’s expression of the relation between eternity and duration, attributing to Spinoza a theory of time wherein temporal passage is a sensory, and therefore confused, representation of the causal order.Google Scholar
  58. Hassing, R. F.: 1980, ‘The Use and Non-use of Physics in Spinoza’s Ethics”, Southwestern Journal of Philosophy 11, 41–70.Concentrates on Ethics II and selected letters, concluding that Spinoza’s concept of conatus is not derived from physics.Google Scholar
  59. Hedman, Carl: 1975, ‘Toward a Spinozistic Modification of Skinner’s Theory of Man’, Inquiry 18, 325–335. Uses Spinoza’s notion of conatus to modify the Skinnerian position without giving up the “‘scientific’ approach to human behavior”.Google Scholar
  60. Hicks, G. Dawes: 1918, ‘The “Modes” of Spinoza and the “Monads” of Leibniz’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 18, 329–362.Google Scholar
  61. (Hitchcock, Major General) United States Army: 1846, The Doctrines of Spinoza and Swedenborg Identified; in so far as They Claim a Scientific Ground’, in Four Letters, Boston, pp. 187–192. Published anonymously.Google Scholar
  62. Hubbeling, H. G.: 1978, Spinoza, Verlag Karl Alber, Freiburg. Maintains that Spinoza adopts Cartesian physics (see especially pp. 65–70).Google Scholar
  63. Jacob, Pierre: 1974, ‘La politique avec la physique à l’âge classique; Principe d’inertie et conatus: Descartes, Hobbes et Spinoza’, Dialectiques 6, 99–121.Google Scholar
  64. Joachim, Harold Henry: 1940, Spinoza’s Tractatus de Intellectus Emendatione, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  65. Jonas, Hans: 1965, ‘Spinoza and the Theory of Organism’, Journal of the History of Philosophy 3, 43–58.Google Scholar
  66. Reprinted in Marjorie Grene (ed.), Spinoza; A Collection of Critical Essays, Doubleday, Garden City, 1973, pp. 259–278. Describes the advance in the account of organic existence (beyond Cartsian dualism and mechanism) made possible by Spinoza’s metaphysics.Google Scholar
  67. Jonas, Hans: 1980, ‘Parallelism and complementarity: On the Psycho-Physical Problem in the Succession of Niels Bohr’, in Richard Kennington (ed.), The Philosophy of Baruch Spinoza, Studies in Philosophy and the History of Philosophy 7, Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C., pp. 121–130. Article in the present volume is a corrected reprint of this.Google Scholar
  68. Kaplan, A.: 1978, ‘Spinoza and Freud’, (in Hebrew) in Z. Lavi et al. (eds.), Spinoza Studies, Three Hundred Years in Memoriam, The University of Haifa Press, Haifa, pp. 85–110.Google Scholar
  69. Kayser, Rudolph: 1946, Spinoza: Portrait of a Spiritual Hero, transl, by Amy Allen and Maxim Newmark, Philosophical Library, New York. Reprinted by Greenwood, New York, 1968. Introduction by Albert Einstein.Google Scholar
  70. Kegley, Jacquelyn Ann K.: 1975, ‘Spinoza’s God and LaPlace’s World Formula’, in Akten Des II Internationalen Leibnizkongresses, Vol. 3, Steiner, Wiesbaden, pp. 25–35. Describes Spinoza’s God as ‘an incorporated world formula’ including determinism, objective unity of law yielding scientific explanation, and rejection of teleology; identifies LaPlace’s formula and Spinoza’s ‘ideal Metaphysic’ as containing the dominant scientific and philosophic ideas of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.Google Scholar
  71. Klever, W. N. A.: 1982, ‘Spinoza’s Methodebegrip’ [Spinoza’s Concept of Method], Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte 74, 28–49. Compares Spinoza’s epistemology (“knowledge is acquired in an autonomous movement”) to the contemporary methodology in science. Subsequent issues of the same volume carry an objection of Hein Bobeldijk and a reply from Klever.Google Scholar
  72. Kneale, Martha: 1968–69, ‘Eternity and Sempiternity’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 69, 223–238.Google Scholar
  73. Reprinted in Marjorie Grene (ed.), Spinoza; A Collection of Critical Essays, Doubleday, Garden City, 1973, pp. 227–240. Discusses the question whether an eternal object can or must be sempiternal as well, and suggests that Spinoza changed his mind on the issue.Google Scholar
  74. Kneale, Martha: 1972, ‘Leibniz and Spinoza on Activity’, in H. G. Frankfort (ed.), Leibniz; A Collection of Critical Essays, Garden City, pp. 215–237.Google Scholar
  75. Kouznetsov, Boris: 1967, ‘Spinoza et Einstein’, Revue de synthèse 88, 45–46, 3è série, 31–52.Google Scholar
  76. Lachterman, David R.: 1978, ‘The Physics of Spinoza’s Ethics’, in Robert W. Shahan and J. I. Biro (eds.), Spinoza: New Perspectives, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, pp. 71–112. Offers an explication of Spinoza’s physical conceptions (e.g., motion and rest, extension) in providing a foundation for his ethics, and looks beyond such conceptions for the models by which they are governed.Google Scholar
  77. Lecrivain, André: 1977–78, ‘Spinoza et la physique cartésienne’, Cahiers Spinoza, Éditions Réplique, Paris, 1, pp. 235–265Google Scholar
  78. 2, pp. 93–206. Forms the basis for Lecrivain’s article in the present volume which is a condensed redevelopment and extension of the former.Google Scholar
  79. Lewis, Douglas: 1976, ‘Spinoza on Extension’, Midwest Studies in Philosophy 1, 26–31.Google Scholar
  80. McKeon, Richard: 1928, The Philosophy of Spinoza; The Unity of His Thought, Longmans, Green and Co., New York. Describes Spinoza’s lively interest in experimental science and his epistemology. See especially pp. 130–157.Google Scholar
  81. McKeon, Richard: 1965, ‘Spinoza on the Rainbow and on Probability’, in Harry A. Wolf son Jubilee Volume, 3 vols., American Academy for Jewish Research, Saul Lieberman, Jerusalem, pp. 533–559.Google Scholar
  82. Matheron, A.: 1969, Individu et communauté chez Spinoza, Éditions de Minuit, Paris. A thorough analysis of Spinoza’s concept of a physical system.Google Scholar
  83. Meerloo, Joost A. M.: 1965, ‘Spinoza: A Look at His Psychological Concepts’, American Journal of Psychiatry 121, 890–894.Google Scholar
  84. Meerloo, Joost A. M.: 1976, ‘Intuition as a Cluster of Cognitive Functions’, Methodology and Science 9.Google Scholar
  85. Mollenhauer, Bernhard: 1941, ‘Spinoza and the Borderland of Science’, Personalist 22, 64–72.Google Scholar
  86. Nails, Debra: 1979, ‘Conatus versus Eros/Thanatos; On the Principles of Spinoza and Freud’, Dialogue 21, 33–40. Looks at descriptions of physical, biological, and psychological phenomena to establish that Spinoza’s conatus does the work of both eros and thanatos.Google Scholar
  87. Nesher, Dan: 1978, ‘Methodological Changes in Spinoza’s Concept of Science: The Transition from “On the Improvement of the Human Understanding” to Ethics’, (in Hebrew) in Z. Lavi et al. (eds.), Spinoza Studies, Three Hundred Years in Memoriam, The University of Haifa Press, Haifa, pp. 53–64.Google Scholar
  88. Nesher, Dan: 1979, ‘On the “Common Notions” in Spinoza’s Theory of Knowledge and Philosophy of Science’, in M. Brinker, M. Dascal, and Dan Nesher (eds.), Baruch de Spinoza, A Collection of Papers on His Thought, University Publishing Projects, Ltd., Tel Aviv, pp. 35–52.Google Scholar
  89. Parkinson, G. H. R.: 1954, Spinoza’s Theory of Knowledge, Clarendon Press, Oxford. See especially pp. 12–14 and 157–162.Google Scholar
  90. Pollock, Frederick: 1873, ‘The Scientific Character of Spinoza’s Philosophy’, The Fortnightly Review 19 (N.S. 13), 567–585.Google Scholar
  91. Pollock, Frederick: 1878, ‘Benedict de Spinoza’, Popular Science Monthly, supp. 11, 444–458.Google Scholar
  92. Ramirez, E. Roy: 1981, ‘Spinoza, en torno al movimiento’, Revista de filosofia 19, Universidad de Costa Rica, pp. 45–48. Includes Spinoza’s concept of conservation of motion in the historical and intellectual context that led to Newton’s first law of motion.Google Scholar
  93. Rensch, Bernhard: 1972, ‘Spinoza’s Identity Theory and Modern Biophilosophy’, Philosophical Forum 3, 193–207. Uses selected scientific results of modern biology and physics to assess aspects of Spinoza’s identity theory of mind and matter, and his determinism.Google Scholar
  94. Rice, Lee C.: 1971, ‘Spinoza on Individuation’, Monist 55. Reprinted in Maurice Mandelbaum and Eugene Freeman (eds.), Spinoza: Essays in Interpretation, Open Court Publ. Co., LaSalle, Illinois, 1975, pp. 195–214. Examines the lemmas following Proposition XIII of Part II of the Ethics to sketch Spinoza’s view of a physical system and to determine what Spinoza meant by ‘individus’.Google Scholar
  95. Ritchie, Eliza: 1902, ‘The Reality of the Finite in Spinoza’s System’, Philosophical Review, 16–29.Google Scholar
  96. Rivaud, Albert: 1924–26, ‘La physique de Spinoza’, Chronicon Spinozanum 4, 24–57.Google Scholar
  97. Roth, Leon: 1929, Spinoza, E. Benn, London.Google Scholar
  98. Runes, Dagobert (ed.): 1951, Spinoza Dictionary, Philosophical Library, New York. Foreword by Albert Einstein.Google Scholar
  99. Sachs, Mendel: 1976, ‘Maimonides, Spinoza and the Field concept in Physics’, Journal of the History of Ideas 37, 125–131.Google Scholar
  100. Semerari, G.: 1978, ‘L’idea Delia Scienza in Spinoza’, Annali della Facolta di Lettere e Filosofia 21, 205–218.Google Scholar
  101. Stein, Ludwig: 1890, Leibniz und Spinoza, Georg Reimer Verlag, Berlin. Includes a collection of letters by Leibniz about Spinoza and his work. See Die Spinozafreundliche Periode (1676–79), pp. 60–110.Google Scholar
  102. Thijssen-Schoute, C. L.: 1954, Lodewijk Meyer en diens verhouding tot Descartes en Spinoza [Louis Meyer and his Relation to Descartes and Spinoza], Mededelingen Vanwege het Spinozahuis 11, E. J. Brill, Leiden.Google Scholar
  103. Usmani, M. A.: 1964, ‘Spinoza: A First Rate Scientific Rationalist’, Pakistan Philosophical Congress II, 258–262.Google Scholar
  104. van Deventer, Ch. M.: 1921, Spinoza’s leer De Natura Corporum beschouwd in betrekking tot Descartes’ mechanika [Spinoza’s Doctrine De Natura Corporum Considered in Relation to Cartesian Mechanics], Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte 15, 265–293. Maintains that Spinoza’s theory of bodies has a purely Cartesian character.Google Scholar
  105. van der Hoeven, P.: 1973a, De Cartesiaanse Fysica in het Denken van Spinoza [Cartesian Physics in the Thought of Spinoza], Mededelingen Vanwege het Spinozahuis 30, E. J. Brill, Leiden.Google Scholar
  106. van der Hoeven, P.: 1973b, ‘Over Spinoza’s Interpretatie van de Cartesiaanse Fysicaen Betekenis daarvan voor het System der Ethica’ [On Spinoza’s Interpretation of Cartesian Physics and Its Meaning for the Ethical System], Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 35, 27–86. The first part of the article is devoted to Spinoza’s critique of Cartesian physics, particularly of Descartes’s notions of an ‘instant du temps’; the second is an examination of the structural importance of Cartesian physics to Spinoza’s Ethics.Google Scholar
  107. van der Hoeven, P.: 1974, ‘The Significance of Cartesian Physics for Spinoza’s Theory of Knowledge’, in J. G. van der Bend (ed.), Spinoza on Knowing, Being and Freedom, Assen, pp. 114–125.Google Scholar
  108. van Os, C. H.: 1946, Tijd, Maat en Getal [Time, Measure and Number], Mededelingen Vanwege het Spinozahuis 7, E. J. Brill, Leiden. On Spinoza’s letter on the infinite (Letter XII to Louis Meyer).Google Scholar
  109. VanZandt, Joe D.: 1973–75, ‘On Substance’, Auslegung 1–2, 85–107. Sets out conditions for philosophie and scientific understanding along Spinozistic lines.Google Scholar
  110. von Dunin Borkowski, Stanislaus, S. J.: 1933, ‘Die Physik Spinozas’, in Septimana Spinozana, Nijhoff, The Hague, pp. 85–101. Maintains that Spinoza denied in his physics the conception of extension as mass, and substituted for it the control of space by the field of power; discusses corpuscles of aetherial fluid.Google Scholar
  111. Vygotskii, L. S.: 1970, ‘Spinoza’s Theory of the Emotions in Light of Contemporary Psychoneurology’ (in Russian), Voprosy filosofii, No. 6, 119–130. Transl, by Edward E. Berg for Soviet Studies in Philosophy 10 (1972), 362–382. Written 1932–34 and published posthumously. Identifies Spinoza as the first thinker to establish philosophically the very possibility of a true scientific explanatory psychology of human beings and to mark out a path for its subsequent development. Various contemporaries (e.g. Lange and Kilthey) are compared with respect to descriptive versus explanatory psychologies.Google Scholar
  112. Wartofsky, Marx W.: 1973, ‘Action and Passion: Spinoza’s Construction of a Scientific Psychology’, in Marjorie Grene (ed.), Spinoza; A Collection of Critical Essays, Doubleday, Garden City, pp. 329–353.Google Scholar
  113. Reprinted in Marx Wartofsky, Models; Representation and the Scientific Understanding, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 48, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1979, pp. 231–254. Within the context of the relation between scientific theory and metaphysics, shows how Spinoza elaborates the physics of bodies to take into account the activities of human beings.Google Scholar
  114. Wartofsky, Marx W.: 1977, ‘Nature, Number and Individuals: Motive and Method in Spinoza’s Philosophy’, Inquiry 20, 457–479.Google Scholar
  115. Reprinted in Marx Wartofsky, Models; Representation and the Scientific Understanding, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 48, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1979, pp. 255–276. Concerned with individuation: the contradiction between (a) the view that substance (God and Nature) is simple, eternal, and infinite, and (b) the claim that substance contains infinite differentiation — determinate and finite modes, i.e., individuals.Google Scholar
  116. Wetlesen, Jon: 1969, ‘A Reconstruction of Basic Concepts in Spinoza’s Social Psychology’, Inquiry 12, 105–132.Google Scholar
  117. Wheeler, John A.: 1980, ‘Beyond the Black Hole’, in Harry Wolf (ed.), Some Strangeness in the Proportion, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.Google Scholar
  118. Wolf, A.: 1927, ‘Spinoza’s Conception of the Attributes of Substance’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian society, N.S. 27, 177–192.Google Scholar
  119. Wolff, E.: 1954, ‘Spinoza and Cantor’, Revue de Synthèse 75, 161–163.Google Scholar
  120. Wolfson, Harry Austryn: 1934, The Philosophy of Spinoza, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Reprinted 1983. See especially Chapter 10, ‘Duration, Time, and Eternity’.Google Scholar
  121. Wood, L.: 1926, Theories of Space and Time in Spinoza, Ithaca, N.Y.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Debra Nails

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations