 Welcome to this course on aspects of western philosophy module 12 lecture 12. This lecture will focus on Spinoza's pantheism, particularly with a focus on the notion of God nature relationship. As we have seen in the previous lecture, Spinoza often called as the God intoxicated philosopher. He has a very peculiar and unique conception of God, rather the notion of God plays a very central role in Spinoza's philosophy and we can see that this continues even in Leibniz who is the successor of Spinoza in the rationalist tradition. This notion of God occupying a central space in their philosophical system continues. And for Spinoza, he advocated an extremely unorthodox conception of God compared to many others philosophers, these predecessors particularly Descartes and also the scholastic thinkers, an extremely unorthodox conception which actually created a lot of problem for Spinoza in his life. So, he held a view of God derived by employing the geometrical method, that is another very peculiar feature of Spinoza. It is a kind of intellectualizing God, but not in that sense we understand the term intellectualizing. So, there is a concept of intellectual love of God which we will see in the course of this lecture. So, he held a view which is a notion of God is derived by employing the geometrical method which he employs in his magnum opus ethic and again he begins with self-evident axioms and deducing from it propositions which are equally evident. So, that is geometrical method and talks about the intellectual love of God. At the very outset when we talk about Spinoza's God, this is what comes to our mind and the very important point to be noted is that Spinoza's God is not a personal God, not the personal God of Catholic philosophy of Christianity, who is the father of the entire creation, who has created it and who has God personal characteristic features. But it is a very impersonal kind of notion which is very close to some of the Vedandic concepts like Bremen and all that, but of course, not one and the same, but there are similarities. Spinoza's pantheism is very close to some of the Indian philosophical insights, though there is no role for a personal God with whom man can relate in his personal life. Yet Spinoza lived a life of exceptional simplicity and modesty, a true spiritual moral exemplary was. So, that is what makes Spinoza distinct from all other philosophers. I have already mentioned it in my previous lecture, where when I quoted when I referring to observation by Russell that Spinoza many philosophers have intellectually surpassed him, no doubt, but ethically he was supreme and he was the most loveable among philosophers according to Russell, that is all because of this. So, you could see that the kind of exemplary character, moral character and integrity which is found in only among great men like Socrates, Buddha, we could find in Spinoza as well. And as I mentioned this very idea of no God is one of the central themes of his philosophy says that the mind's highest good is the knowledge of God. So in one sense we can say that the purpose of Spinoza's philosophy is to know God, to understand God and it is again the mind's highest virtue is to know God. So, the highest virtue of human mind, the very purpose of human life in that sense is to know God and it is very interesting to know God is to have an intellectual love of God that is to understand God as the principle which encompasses everything. That is why I said you know in one sense Spinoza's view is very close to the Ubanda Shaddi conception though there are very important and significant differences. To know God is to love God, we will explain what this love of God is in due course and to understand oneself and one's emotions. So, it is again the knowing God also involves a kind of self understanding to understand oneself and to understand oneself is to understand one's emotions and passions to have a perspective of the hall as God encompasses everything. Since God is the ultimate substance we have already seen it in the previous lecture that God is the only substance according to Descartes and God encompasses everything there is nothing is left out and if that is the case to know God is to have a perspective of the hall as God encompasses everything. But when we try to understand Spinoza's concept of God it is relevant it is very important also to sort of compare Spinoza's notion with his predecessors conceptions. Say for example, the definition of substance subscribed by the scholastic thinkers and Descartes because this notion of substance plays a very important role in the philosophies of all the three great rationalist philosophers Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz. We are going to see it in the next lecture how Leibniz has construed it and dealt with it. So, in one sense all of the begin with this notion of substance and gradually derive their concept of God from this notion in different ways. So, in Spinoza also this notion is very important and it follows certain traditional descriptions of God like infinite being infinite substance unique eternal and simple simple because it is indivisible. If something is divisible it will be composed of parts then each part will be different from the other part then there is question of relationship between the parts and whole all such of all sort of confusions arise. So, Spinoza maintains that substance which is equated with God is simple eternal unique and it is the infinite being and infinite substance and yet drastically different. These are all features of the notion of substance held by the scholastic philosophers as well as by Descartes. But at the same time while holding to all these features the Spinoza's concept is different drastically different from scholastic and Cartesian views with regard to the good world relationship. It is with regard to this aspect where God is related to the world where Spinoza is unique and different and here Spinoza is critically appropriated the scholastic and the Cartesian views. He says that scholasticism and Descartes failed to understand the implications of conceiving God as an infinite being or substance. So, for example in Descartes also we have seen that even for Descartes God is the only substance. If you try to understand the concept of substance by means of its definition God is the only substance and he construed two other substances for him they are relative substances or they are imperfect substances they are not really substance in the real sense of the term. So Spinoza would remind us that if you follow this traditional definition in its strict terms we cannot hold to the picture which was held by scholasticism as well as by Descartes. Substance must be infinite finite things are not substances and independent of God they must be in God. So though in Descartes also there is a concept of dependency he when he talks about mind and body and construed them as relative substances he held that these relative substances depend on God. So, there is a concept of dependency but which Spinoza clarifies this he would say that they must be in God whatever is is in God and nothing can exist or be conceived without God. So, for Spinoza there is only God everything is part of that. God encompasses everything in scholasticism and Descartes we have seen that every finite being is dependent on God I have already explained this God is present in all finite things upholding them in existence. So, these are all fairly agreeable to Spinoza but he says that the relationship between God and world should be more radical finite things are modifications of God finite things in this world whether it is mind or a body as modifications of God. So, but for Spinoza there cannot be anything independent of God everything God should encompass everything then if that is the case then these finite substances which we encounter are not independent of God but they are only modifications of God and nature is not ontologically distinct from God. So, in that sense the nature we see around the universe we see around are not different from God infinite God comprises in himself all reality. So, God is the only substance. So, this is the view which says that which categorically asserts that God is the only substance and there can be or be conceived no other substance than God and everything that exist is either God or a mode of God it is either God or a mode of God a mode of God cannot be different from God in fundamental terms it is not completely different from God. So, then again God or substance consisting of infinite attributes each of which expresses eternal and infinite essences. So, this is something which you have already seen in the previous lecture. So, I am not elaborating that. So, he basically says that there are infinite attributes of God each attribute is infinite and Spinoza also provides like following his predecessors. He also attempts providing proof for the existence of God and I am not elaborating it I will just give an out view of kind of very rough estimation of Spinoza's proof here. So, in the first proof he says that if God does not exist then God's essence does not involve existence, but God is a substance and the essence of a substance does involve assistance hence God exist. So, it is a kind of logic derivation from the very concept of substance as something which is perfect and infinite. Then in the second proof he says that if God does not exist then there should be some reason or cause that prevents God from existing and if at all there is such a reason then that reason must be of the same nature of God since things of distinct nature have nothing in common and if that reason that has the same nature of God prevents God from existing then there is some aspect of God's nature that prevents God from existing which is a contradiction. So, and to affirm contradiction to a being who is absolutely infinite and in the highest degree perfect is absurd so God exist. So, this is the way Spinoza derives the existence of God and let me also remind you that Spinoza's God I just mentioned it in the beginning it is not the ordinary notion of God the God of religious traditions, but and it is not a personal God of religions and theology particularly the Catholic or Abrahamic religions what they propagate a concept of personal God. So, he opposes that and individuality or personality imply determination or limitation the precise reason is this that any individuality or any personality attributed to an object it attributes limitations to that object. So, any determination is a limitation or any attribution is a limitation any attribution is a limitation when I say that this is a black computer I am also limiting it to a black computer I am also saying that it is not a white computer or it is not a table or it is not a chair I am rather saying that it is a specific entity and excluding all other entities from its being. So, if I determine God as something if I then I would be limiting God to something so any personality any attribution of personality involves attribution of limitations which is not acceptable to Spinoza's concept of God which is absolutely infinite and encompasses virtually everything. There is nothing external to God and independent of him and again does not act according to ends or purposes beyond himself. The traditional conception of God is that someone who looks around and sees what is happening in the world how people behaves the behavior of people how people behave their thoughts their desires everything is controlled everything is looked upon everything is sort of regulated or judged. So, that is why they have a concept of judgment last judgment or a particular day everything will be judged by God. So, this concept according to Spinoza is problematic because it seems that then God would be acting according to ends or purposes beyond himself something which human beings do something which human beings think and act. So, if God is forced to act on the basis of what people do in this world what people think in this world then you cannot conceive that God as an independent entity. So, God in order to be independent in order to be infinite in order to be absolutely free and absolute being need not be acting according to ends or purposes beyond himself. In every sense we ascribe to God will or intellect. So, this is what I have just described you know the will God as a will or an intellect God as a first and only free course the essence of all things as of their existence as a regulating foods God controls everything God looks us God watches us God judges us, but and God is a creator of everything. But Spinoza tells us that this is due to our limitations this conceptualization of God as someone who watches us someone who judges us someone who acts on the basis of what we do is due to our limitations to seek human meaning. This is an attempt to seek our own meaning to an entity which is really outside our intellect God is beyond such attributions and beyond all limitations. Now, when you talk about God and religion ordinary perceptions of religions are opposed categorically opposed by Spinoza in he denies the personal God of the Christian theology and opposes the idea of the government of the world according to certain purposes denies the notion of the freedom of the will identifies God with the necessary loss of the physical universe. So, this is in summary what he opposes and what he asserts on the one hand the government of the world according to certain purposes is opposed again he denies the validity of what we call as a freedom of will and he asserts that God identifies God with the necessary loss of the physical universe. So, he ascribes to a notion of necessity and if everything is necessary the whole notion of freedom of will is actually irrelevant freedom of will can operate when there is no necessity when there is absolute freedom. So, God and design is again another notion all determination is negation intelligence or will cannot be attributed to God who is not a person. So, God or substance does not think or plan and decide. So, it is something like conceiving God as a person who thinks and plan and take decisions and acts. So, this picture of God this metaphor of God as a creator is something which Spinoza opposes does not act according to conscious purpose and design and God is not a puppeteer. So, like a puppeteer who would be sitting behind us and making us all play a whole drama this is not the kind of picture which Spinoza happy about in ascribing to God. God according to him does not control the word by pulling strings like a puppeteer then what is it? It is not an outer cause of the movements of things someone who stands outside and controls what is happening here in this world. And again against the idea that God does everything for the sake of the good God is not outside of things and independent of them. This is what Spinoza repeatedly reminds us it is not a something totally different from the world which he had created, but God is not outside of things God is in it or everything is in God. God is not a person who looks outside of him to a world and model his actions accordingly this is as I already indicated a limitation to attribute limitations to God. Now, if that is the case then how do we understand the whole notion of divine control because if there is no notion of divine control the notion of divinity itself seems to be irrelevant. So, Spinoza also concept with his account of this notion of divine control as I have already mentioned God acts according to the laws of the physical universe he has already mentioned and here he says that controls the world through natural laws. So, God controls the world definitely controls the world, but not in the sense that a person controls something that is not the real kind of metaphor which we should we should be using in order to understand the divine control. But God controls the world through natural laws everything in the material world happens through necessity and God is the inner cause of everything that happens in nature. Since God is the inner cause that everything happens in nature then everything should be necessary nothing can be contingent because if anything is contingent then God is not perfect. So, in that sense it is all interrelated again hence God is not different from nature. This is a very unique contribution of Spinoza rather Spinoza makes a deviation from many of his predecessors a major a radical deviation from many of his predecessors with regard to this aspect where he says that God is not different from nature where he identifies God with nature. So, this is called Pantheism God is nature and nature is God. So, there is no basic distinction between God and nature this is what makes Spinoza very important in today's world particularly in today's world I mentioned because there is an emerging ecological consciousness in today's world because of the ecological crisis modern man encounters due to our developmental activities. So, philosophical movements like deep ecology have influence by Spinoza's pantheistic philosophy which identifies God with nature and nature with God and we are part of nature. We are not different from nature it is not nature and man, but man is nature man is part of nature. So, hence God is not different from nature if God is not different from nature then man is also God to some extent. So, that is a unique aspect of Pantheism this is what I said initially that Spinoza's views come very close to Indian philosophical views particularly to the pantheistic assumptions about the universal reality and human the man's relationship with that universal reality the Bremen-Atman relationship and so on and so forth. God is not an external transcendent cause acting on it from without. God is the imminent principle in the world I have already explained this God is the imminent principle not something which stays outside and regulates what is happening here, but something which is immersed in it as the Upanishads say something which is enveloping the entire world the Isha Vasu Upanishad Isha Vasya Mitham Sarvam. So, it says that the whole universe is enveloped by Isha. So, similarly Spinoza would also say that God is imminent encompassing the entire thing and if that is the case if everything is God endures everything if God encompasses everything and anything that happens according to the imminent necessity of God's nature then what is the role of the free will whether free will has any role at all if everything is determined then there is no free will and if there is no free will the entire ethical theory which is constructed built upon the scholastic philosophical assumptions need to be reworked the entire Catholic philosophy works because there is free will later on we will see that Immanuel Kant faces this challenge he faces up this challenge and he says he was also trying to accommodate the notion of free will and he says that free will is a necessary postulate for morality, but Spinoza interestingly denies free will because everything is determined there is an inner necessity that pervades the entire universe. So, he says that the central concept of theology which is a whole debate between determinism and free will Spinoza in this context introduces the notion of logical necessity there is nothing contingent in the nature of things he says he asserts that there cannot be anything anything that just happens without any necessity he says that anything that happens in this universe is as a result of necessary happening it is happening because of some necessity some inner necessity fundamental principle of this inner necessity is God whatever happens is part of the eternal timeless world as God sees it because world and God are identical world is God and God is God is world all things are determined by the necessity of certain divine nature for existing and working in a certain way and God necessarily causes the contingent finite things. So, now in this context we can introduce Spinoza's pantheism in a more systematic manner God is a source of everything that is God is the imminent principle I have already explained all these things God is a world and the world in him God and the world are one God is not near creator of the world as theologians would conceive who create something separate from him God is the permanent subtractum or the essence in all things God is the active principle or source of all reality identifying God with nature or God with world and in this context we come across two concepts natura naturans and natura naturata God as conceived as the active principle or source of all reality is termed as natura naturanus it is the Latin term meaning nature nurturing or nature doing what nature does in that active sense of the term naturanus the present participle of natura and the suffix and is akin to the English suffix ing so that continuous the self causing activity of nature this is what is indicated by natura naturans and nature in the active sense of the term and natura naturata on the other hand is as the plurality of objects which we see around the effects or products of the principle these objects are naturally the effects or products and the past participle of natura natura and nature considered as a passive product of an infinite causal chain again natura naturanus is in itself and is conceived through itself because that is where it is conceived as that active principle the attributes of substance expressed as an eternal and infinite essence that is God who is the free cause and natura naturata whatever follows from the necessity of God's nature or from God's attributes and all the modes of God's attributes insofar as they are considered as things which are in God and can neither be nor be conceived without God. So, these are two ways to conceive God natura naturanus as the active principle behind it and natura naturata as the objects which are the effect of it. So, both are in one sense identical one is one and the same, but conceived or perceived on one perspective it is natura naturans and another perspective it is natura naturata and let us now see the some of the very important implications of spinosa's views everything is ruled by an absolute logical necessity this is underlined in spinosa's philosophy no free will in the mental sphere. So, this is where spinosa's philosophical theory opposes some of the traditional conceptions of ethics and religious beliefs everything that happens is a manifestations of God's inscrutable nature and events are what they are necessarily and they cannot be otherwise. So, there is a fundamental necessity that operates in this universe that is functioning in the workings of this entire universe this because of owing to this necessity there is no room there is no space for free will. So, here spinosa comes face to face in conflict with the established theology as I have already indicated because he undercuts some of the fundamental concepts of theologians then how can we account for sin for example, this is a very important question in for Christianity what about evil the entire Christian philosophy or the Christian theology is based on this concept of sin original sin then evil the dichotomy between good and evil all these things are pertinent for Christianity, but spinosa opposes all of them how does we account for the personal immortality of the soul. And spinosa's response is quite interesting he says that from the outset we can see that from his responses we can see that he is against the orthodox doctrine of sin and he proclaims that there is no evil no sin and no free will in a system because everything happens due to an inner necessity which is the nature of God all that is negative exist only from the point of view of finite creatures because God cannot be and there is nothing that exist independent of God everything that exist is God or in him and if that is the case there cannot be anything negative because no negation can be attributed nothing negative can be attributed to God without really committing a logical contradiction there is no negations in God viewed from the perspective of the whole evil or sin do not exist and the dichotomy between good and evil is an unreal dichotomy good and evil are not element in things there is no good and evil in themselves they are all our ways of understanding it our ways of attributing meaning to what is happening around us our way of understanding things or making sense of the world around us they are only modes of thinking they are subjective notions one and the same thing can be at the same time good bad and indifferent for different people and for the same person so all these indicate according to spinosa that these dichotomies fundamentally a false dichotomy and he also opposes the notion of personal immortality which is again a very central doctrine of Christianity spinosa rejects it there is no personal immortality spinosa proposes an impersonal idea of liberation the Christian theology would never conceive God and man as one and the same God is supreme soul and human soul is also immortal but it is essentially a creation of God but spinosa concept of immortality is a kind of impersonal notion or of liberation becoming more and more one with God so it is not that you are understanding yourself as a mere creation of God who is the supreme being but rather becoming one and one more one and more one with God is the whole notion of pantheistic theology if at all we can call it there is such a thing as a pantheistic theology nothing can be different from God and the again the Christian concepts like hope fear and uncertainty wisdom consistent viewing the world as God sees it under the aspect of eternity everything is fixed and certain future is fixed as the past we cannot alter it with our actions hope and fear of Christianity are the result of viewing the future as uncertain this is again another very important aspect where he opposes the established Christian theology which believes in hope say for example hope is one of the central notions of Christian theology or Catholic philosophy hope in heaven and again faith in God and son of God these are all very important for Christian theology but what Spinoza says is that wisdom consistent viewing the world as God sees it under the aspect of eternity everything as part of God and everything is fixed and certain and future is as fixed as the past we cannot change our future so there is no question of hope so that we will change our future to a better one and it is a result of a lack of wisdom to conceive to have hope hoping to alter our future is the result of a lack of wisdom according to him and in this context bondage evil and ignorance human mind has an adequate knowledge of the eternal and infinite essence of God this is what Spinoza begins with there is something which human mind possesses originally possesses the knowledge of God but passions distract and obscure its intellectual vision of the hall this is again you know we can see similarities between the Indian philosophy and Spinoza in Indian philosophy also some of the thinkers say that it is the ragas the passions which are the result of our all confusions in this world so here he says that the original vision which human beings possess about God's wisdom or about the infinite essence of God is obscured by the passions and all wrong action is due to intellectual error which is the result of this passion distracted obscure picture of the world we are in bondage in proportion as what happens to us in determined by outside causes and we are free in proportion as we are self determined so long as we allow ourselves to be determined by forces outside us by causes outside us by our passions and desires and emotions we are bounded and we are free in proportion as we are self determined and for Spinoza the notion of self determination refers to reason determined by reason universal rationality is a rationalist so he would say that so long as we are able to regulate our actions control ourselves determine ourselves by means of our reason rational abilities we are free and so long as we give away to our passions and other outside passions essentially function in human mind as a result of certain stimuli received from the outside world I have passion to possesses desire to have that so depending on what is happening in the outside world so if I allow myself to be determined by causes outside me I am bounded and evil is unreal there is no evil to be known only appearance and appearance of evil is the result of incomplete vision something like the Akyanam in Indian philosophy ignorance and result of regarding parts of the universe as if they were self subsistent this is the problem when you resolve it is all the evil or the appearance of evil is the result of incomplete vision what you mean by incomplete vision incomplete vision according to Spinoza is the result of regarding parts of the universe as if they were self subsistent actually nothing is self subsistent there is only one substance and that is God and God alone is self subsistent everything in this universe everything in this world is nothing but a modifications of God so if you conceive them as independent from each other and independent from God that is because you lack the complete vision which is the result of your passion distracted perceptions and conceptions and it is on this view Spinoza basis is ethical theory his philosophy is fundamentally ethical and religious and individual human goal is perfection or happiness as I already mentioned in the beginning of this lecture that to know God is a purpose the ultimate purpose of human life and God of human life is to know God to know God is the mind's highest good and the highest virtue and aim of philosophy is to facilitate this and bondage in this context it is very interesting in this context the Christian theologians would understand bondage as something which is related to the original sin committed by Adam and Eve but here bondage is the inability to free oneself from emotions and freedom is something which you attain by means of reason you overcome your emotions you overcome your passions with the employment of reason and to act according to virtue is to act under the guidance of reason so virtue is or virtuous action is intimately linked with rational judgments or ability to employ reason to live and to perceive one's being to seek what is useful to oneself and passions are emotions springing from inadequate ideas passions are those emotions in which we appear to ourselves to be passive in the power of outside forces they come from outside and controllers and regulators we cannot do anything so this is what happens when we are subjected to passions and passion is different in different people may conflict with each other and to overcome passion is to overcome ignorance and evil and Spinoza suggest a way to overcome this by forming a clear and distinct idea about our emotions to listen to the voice of reason and understanding so this is what I meant this is what I said earlier to really listen to the reason which is there in you which is there you are understanding to understand that all things are necessary nothing is accidental everything follows the necessity of God's being everything is follows everything that is because everything is encompassed by the by God God is the ultimate principle of everything one has to clarify and distinctly understand oneself and one's emotions and this is to love God this what is meant by the intellectual love of God so intellectual love of God is nothing but understanding the world understanding the things in the world that everything happens necessarily nothing is accidental and everything is part of the whole God things under the species of eternity this is called things as sub-specian eternitatis things as contained in God things as following from the necessity of divine nature conceive things in their relation to the infinite causal system of nature so everything is part of that everything is a modification of that that ultimate infinite being or principle and things as part of the logically connected infinite system this is what to know God means to conceive ourselves and other things as part of the logically connected infinite system which means that we all constitute chains of that system we are not independent of that we are in it we are not independent of that we are there is nothing like we can go out of it or come in when we want we are in it it is a kind of necessity we are all part of the logically connected infinite system or we are all part of that infinite being from this knowledge arises pleasure or satisfaction of mind by knowing that you are part of that eternity that principle of eternity your modification of that principle of eternity you are not independent of that this results in a kind of pleasure or a satisfaction of the mind this pleasure accompanied by the idea of God as eternal cause is the intellectual love of God and the love of God for man and the minds intellectual love towards God is one and the same thing so this is what intellectual love of God love towards God must hold the chief place in the mind the understanding of everything as part of God is love of God that God alone exists everything is a modification of God that understanding that realization is the love of God so in that sense intellectual love of God is not an intellectual affair it is a kind of to some extent an experiential affair where you understand everything you yourself everything part of that manifestation of that modification of that eternal being union of thought and emotion because there is no thought and emotion cannot be separated and again the apprehension of truth of the whole truth is apprehended as the whole containing everything and compassing everything nothing is left out it contains nothing negative as nothing can be negated from the whole and it involves a peculiar form of joy not the mere emotion of pleasure so this is what I said something which is which can be compared to the ananda of Indian tradition a kind of bliss where realize which is the result of the realization that you are one with that you are not different from that and when all objects are referred to God the idea of God will fully occupy the mind so there would not be nothing anything else but only the idea of God because everything is a modification of God and the intellectual love of the mind towards God is part of the infinite love where with God loves himself the inevitable consequence of us acquiring understanding and loving God is not because no one can hate God logically it is impossible to hate God a man who loves God cannot want God to love him it is not something which needs to be reciprocated because if you think that God should also love you then you are attributing personality or individuality to God which is limiting God. And if man who loves God and wants God to love him then he would desire that God whom he loves should not be God it is logically absurd the very love of God with which God loves himself not in so far as he is infinite but in so far as he can be expressed through the essence of the human mind considered under the species of eternity so that is the intellectual love. And here is what Bertrand Russell when he writes about Spinoza makes an assessment about Spinoza's ethics he says that this classical work deals with three distinct matters it begins with a metaphysics then deals with the psychology of the passions and the will and finally sets forth an ethic based on the preceding metaphysics and psychology and Russell observes that we cannot accept his method but that is because we cannot accept his metaphysics his metaphysics is the view that everything is encompassed by the substance there is only one and only one substance God God encompasses everything everything that we come across in this world every individual mind or body is nothing but a modification of God so that is his metaphysics we cannot believe that I come back to Russell we cannot believe that the interconnections of the parts of the universe are logical because we hold that scientific laws are to be discovered by observation not by reasoning alone so you have here in this observation we can find the empiricist in Russell making an observation about the rationalist philosopher Spinoza he cannot we cannot believe that the interconnections of parts of the universe are logical so according to Spinoza everything is a result of a logical necessity the necessity of God that inheres everything that underlies everything that is something which Russell finds problematic because we hold that scientific laws are to be discovered by observation not by reasoning alone but for Spinoza I come back to Russell but for Spinoza the geometrical method was necessary and was bound up with the most essential parts of his doctrine so this was an attempt to give a summary of Spinoza's philosophy one of the most interesting philosophers in the entire history of western thought because there is hardly anyone before or after him who has proposed a pantheistic conception of the universe which is which identifies God or the ultimate principle with nature and man and again there is no other thinker in the history of western philosophy who would conceive the ultimate goal of human life consisting in realizing or becoming more and more one with God so this whole notion of becoming one with God would be considered by Christian theologians as blabbermouths they cannot accept it because for them God alone is unreal and not only for Christian theologians for the entire Abrahamic tradition this is unacceptable and for that reason as we have seen in the previous this lecture and the previous lecture Spinoza faced lot of problems in his life he had faced opposition from the established church and faced many problems he has even faced an attempt of executing him and then even with regard to publication his works he faced problems and Russell makes an interesting comment that Labanus who is the immediate successor of Spinoza in the rationalist tradition who established some very important contacts with Spinoza had lot of discussions with Spinoza and was also influenced by Spinoza developed a philosophy which is very close to Spinoza's philosophical position but because Labanus knew that this is going to sort of invite some criticism and opposition he did not publish that work and he rather had a different philosophy which is very popular philosophy so Spinoza was such an important philosopher very influential in the sense that he is presenting a very unique theory very important in the sense that he belongs to a tradition which is called the rationalist tradition but at the same time and also a period which is not as a modern period philosophy but at the same time exhibited exhumbrary modern character and integrity and lived the life of a true philosopher more religious than any other religious philosophers and theologians and that is the reason why we would agree with Bertrand Russell to say that Spinoza is arguably the most lovable among all philosophers thank you.