The Courtier and the Heretic: Leibniz, Spinoza, and the Fate of God in the Modern World Kindle Edition

Children prefer stories to explanations, a fact that has led thinkers to convey their views in poems, plays, and novels rather than treatises alone. Stewart, a serious thinker, follows suit by expressing his perspectives on modern (post-Machiavelli) philosophy by means of a story about a short meeting between two seminal philosophers. Exchanges between living philosophers of equal greatness are almost non-existent. Locke refused to have a "dialogue" with Leibniz, and in the Platonic dialogues Socrates always outclasses his interlocutors, except for Parmenides, who is far superior to the young Socrates. So an account about the interaction between two great minds naturally arouses curiosity among us children.The story Stewart tells, however, is something of a nothing-burger. I don't want to spoil the non-ending, but fundamentally we don't know what went on between the two men, nor even how many days (or hours) they talked. Stewart is somewhat successful in building what scraps of evidence we have into an interesting narrative, and his speculations about what went on between the two are intriguing, but the real "story" is why the thought and way of life of these two men matters to us today.Temperamentally and intellectually I've always been closer to Leibniz, whose major works I have read and reread, so I was skeptical about Stewart's initial depiction of the young Leibniz as something of a mendacious kiss-ass, as opposed to the long-suffering philosopher's philosopher, Spinoza. But read on and you find that Stewart gives a nuanced picture of both men: he shows Leibniz's Bodhisattva side as well as Spinoza's pride, ambition and possible atheism. The author also shows that while Leibniz may well have been a Spinozist in some sense--this continues to be debated--he was alarmed at what he considered a reductionist teaching that undermines common belief in the divine, including the immortal soul. Stewart puts both men in a larger context, showing how their philosophies are a response to basic problems in the dualism of Descartes, and also showing how two opposing streams of modern thought can be traced to them. In reading the story, for example, I became aware of how much Nietzsche was influenced by Spinoza, both agreeing with and reacting to him. After finishing the book--and this is the highest compliment I can give Stewart--I dusted off my old copies of Spinoza's works.This stimulating book is a good gateway to early modern philosophy. As the (now) 76 reviews demonstrate, the nothing-burger turns out to be a very juicy steak for those who like to think upon philosophy and the philosopher's life.

I have read numerous books by and about Spinoza and, while doing so, became somewhat acquainted with Leibniz since he is frequently mentioned in books and articles about Spinoza. Other than what I what I was exposed to about Leibnitz as a result, I knew very little about him. Other reviewers have suggested that the author of The Courtier and the Heretic, Matthew Stewart, has a bias in favor of Spinoza and against Leibnitz. Those reviewers appear to allege that his bias calls into question Stewart's credibility regarding Leibniz. I have no way of assessing the validity of those allegations, but It is clear from reading this book that Stewart's conclusion is that Spinoza was motivated by a sincere, honest, and consistent belief in the theses presented in his various writings and that Leibniz was rarely sincere, honest, or consistent. Regardless, The Courtier and the Heretic provides a vivid picture of the powerful influence of religion and contentious environment present during the lifetimes of both Spinoza and Leibniz. If one is concerned that the Courtier and the Heretic is not a balanced look at these two brilliant men, that concern may be warranted. But it is also entirely possible, and maybe even probable, that whatever imbalance is represented is justified. Leibnitz, while a brilliant polymath, does seem to have been an almost unapologetic opportunist with more intellectual power than conviction. Whether this is an accurate description of Leibniz, his lasting influence pales in comparison to that of Spinoza, the latter the conclusion of a wide array of centuries of serious students of philosophy. The Courtier and the Heretic is very readable, thoughtful, and incisive. Recommended reading for anyone interested in learning more about two fascinating individuals who continue to be the subject of debate even to the present day.

Leibniz is an awesome character, especially when juxtaposed to the other awesome characters and political figures and scientific thinkers in his age. Mathew Stewart is just amazing at weaving this all together. He clearly has a great handle on all this material, gets the philosophy in detail, an even sticks in some irony or sarcasm. I am a huge fan of his books, and have purchased a bunch of them. Good stuff for biography buffs, people interested in political philosophy, mathematical philosophy, and even Jewish philosophy, as Baruch Spinoza plays a prominent role as well

Interesting scholarship, which views Leibniz as a reaction to Spinoza, in an a almost Hegelian dialectic manner. Spinoza is set as the first philosopher of "modernity" but the facts of his life are barely mentioned. Leibniz is set as his opponent, but with a self-conscious reserve that makes it seem like a pose or act. A lot of detail about one known mainly for disputing the invention of calculus.

This is an extremely well-written book that was very enjoyable to read. It details the lifestyles of two great philosophers in such a way that it is fun to learn about them. Their views were explained and portrayed as well as compared back and forth. I liked the way the author alternated between each of the philosophers. I personally recommend this book to anyone who enjoys philosophy or anyone who wants to learn about Leibniz or Spinoza. That means everyone.

The author does a remarkable job of analyzing, explicating and comparing the thoughts of Spinoza and Leibniz. His style of expression makes even the most abstruse aspects of these philosopher's thoughts clear and understandable. Even speculations are well reasoned and sensible. An invaluable assistance to understanding these two philosophers and their responses to the coming of the modern age. An excellent choice in the study of Spinoza and Leibniz, and well worth the effort of close perusal.

It is a brilliant idea to compare and contrast these two philosophers - not only in respect of their ideas, but also in respect of their personalities, life-styles and the historical settings in which they operated. They are both very difficult philosophers, and it is one of the many virtues of this sparkling book that they are made as accessible to the general public as they can be. Even so, the relevant passages will still be rather hard going for readers new to the ideas. Particularly close reading is required for chapter 16 near the end of the book, in which Stewart shows that Leibniz was entangled with Spinozism even when the differences between the two men’s philosophies appear at their starkest.As for the description of their personalities, they come to life in the most vivid way. The different sides of Spinoza are arrestingly described, as is the vanity, the restless and pushy worldliness and the basic insecurity of Leibniz, of whose varied secular career we are also given an entertaining account.Leibniz was a polymathic and imaginative thinker, but Stewart’s picture of him leaves one with the impression that, especially in his relationship with Spinoza, he was thoroughly duplicitous: flattering in his correspondence with him, but denouncing him in letters written to others. Stewart plays fair and provides what excuses he (and other authors) can find for Leibniz (pp. 114 to 119), but there is no doubt that Spinoza emerges from his pages as much the more admirable, honest, austere and courageous human being.In 1670 Spinoza had published his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, which caused such a European-wide storm of obloquy that he had arranged for his other books and papers to be published only after his death. Among these papers were letters he had received from Leibniz, and Leibniz was now terrified that their publication would compromise him: not simply because he had been in correspondence with Spinoza after the publication of the Tractatus and had even visited him for several days in 1676, just four months before Spinoza’s sudden death, but also because Leibniz’s papers show a constant battle within himself: there was so much of Spinoza’s thought which he found persuasive, and yet so much which he found undermining not only the orthodox idea of God, but, he thought, the very basis of morality. In his later writings Leibniz occasionally confessed that he had once been tempted by Spinoza’s ideas, but it became an obsession with him to brand Spinoza as a dangerous atheist and to ascribe non-existent Spinozist views to such as Isaac Newton and John Locke.Leibniz thought that belief in a personal and benevolent God and in the immortality of the soul was necessary for human well-being and happiness; but, as Stewart several times points out, it was the beliefs themselves rather than their truth that mattered to him. He does not in fact seem to have been a very religious person himself: his faithful assistant Eckhart said that in the 19 years during which they worked together, he rarely saw him in church and never saw him take communion. And on his deathbed he refused the Last Sacraments.I cannot help coming away from this book with the idea that not only was Spinoza by far the greater personality of the two, but also the clearer thinker. In grappling with Spinoza, Leibniz had to engage in intellectual fancies and contortions that seem to me totally absurd. I am probably missing something, since Bertrand Russell would call Leibniz “one of the supreme intellects of all time”, and Stewart’s own concluding pages express a sympathy for what Leibniz was all about which I cannot share.The irony is that Leibniz was so frightened by the unorthodoxy of his own “solution” in La Monadologie that, like Spinoza in the case of his Ethics, he did not dare to have it published in his life-time. Curiously, Stewart does not mention that. And, describing the pathos of Leibniz’s last years, Stewart suggests that at the end of his life he had come to the conclusion that this was not, after all, the best of all possible worlds.

Recomendo essa obra a todos que querem compreender o cerne das principais querelas ontológicas e axiológicas de nosso tempo. Enquanto Spinoza abole a ideia de um Deus pessoal, assumindo a liberdade como expressão da necessidade que define o indivíduo por oposição à ideia da liberdade como exercício de escolhas, rejeita noções como possibilidade/probabilidade como norte do universo, além de sua peremptória negação de qualquer cisão que separe o reino humano da esfera da Natureza e suas leis; Leibniz afirma uma visão de mundo que é hegemônica no cerne da maioria das pessoas: a pessoalidade de Deus, a tese da possibilidade de infinitos mundos, a defesa da liberdade como livre-arbítrio, o privilégio do homem dentro de tudo que foi gerado por Deus, etc. Nessas duas figuras, cujos pensamentos e condutas de vida foram tão antagônicas, delineiam-se as principais querelas sobre como concebemos o ser humano e sua inserção no mundo.

Acceptable delivery, a bit beat up but perfect for the price.I have not had time to completely read the book, but of the few pages I have read, I know that I will enjoy it.

A unique book! A masterpiece! I enjoyed every single page. I wish there were more works of this perfection. Thanks