Re: "Pure Philosophy"

[J Laari <jlaari@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 16 Feb 1996, Justin Schwartz wrote:

"Jukka worries that I will become upset that he is 'socializing pure
philosophy.'"

Well, I meant that when I'm hustling with Spinoza there's sociologisms
inherent in my approach, especially when I'm painting with broad brush
trying, for example, locate Sp. in the history of thought... Basically
it was meant to be joke.

"I recall thinking very well of Stuart Hampshire's little book Spinoza.
In addition I have, but have not read, a book on S by Henry Allison. I
know Allison's work as a Kant scholar,w hich is absoolutely first rate.
On the basis of this I recommend the Spinoza book. Wolfson struck me,
whgen I read some bits and pieces if him, as very scholarly, but not
interpretive or analytic. He was mainly interested in tracing S's
sources, or so I seem to remember."

Yes, Hampshire's book, especially revised edition, is good. He takes
problem areas or themes and presents his view of Sp. economically and
lucidly. Allison's rev.ed. isn't bad either (I've only looked at it, but
what he wrote was no-nonsense). Wolfson: yes, it's primarily on sources
and as such still valuable, but I wouldn't say that there's neither
analysis nor interpretation in it.

Yours, Jukka L


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------