I read the Modern Library edition published in 1927, wherein Joseph Ratner arranged selections from the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, On the Emendation of the Intellect, Ethics and Political Treatise (plus excerpts from the correspondence) into something resembling a cohesive whole. In editing out the more recursive bits and rearranging the pieces (but mostly following Spinoza’s own section headings), Ratner did away with the synthetic geometric method of the Ethics (which obscured as much as it revealed, according to some commentators) but made it easier to see how the different aspects of Spinoza’s thought―metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy―hang together.

I like the way that Spinoza takes God as a postulate. If there exists something infinite, self-causal, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, it’s God. But the idea of God as a person is illogical, and a God distinguished from Nature is absurd. God is just the fixed and unchangeable order of Nature or the chain of natural events or the natural laws according to which everything happens. Things cannot be different than they are because they are not. Nature/God has no plan and no purpose, as this would undercut its divinity; in its perfection, Nature/God can want for nothing. All final causes are nothing but human fictions. It is easier to imagine than it is to understand.

I like the way that Spinoza runs hard to the materialist side. The order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things. There is by necessity only one Substance. The human mind is a part of Nature as the human body is a part of Nature. The human mind is part of an infinite understanding that is determined (but emotions―which confirm the mind-body connection―run amok). Spinoza’s consideration of the mind-body problem leads into his discussion of free will. There is none. A man equidistant between food and drink would die of hunger and thirst (ref. Buridan’s Ass). Mind, appetite, and determination are the same thing. Yet, even without free will, men must control their desires, hopes, and fears in order to exercise the understanding that is the basis for human freedom and contentment.

When Spinoza notes 'in passing' that the joy of the drunkard is not the same as the joy of the philosopher, I could not help thinking of Monty Python's "Philosophers' Drinking Song."

I like how Spinoza admits that he does not know what to think about a man who hangs himself, or children, fools, and madmen.

Spinoza frequently concludes a particularly demanding section by saying something like ‘I have now very clearly explained all that I proposed to explain’ or ‘Hence we can clearly understand how it is that…’ and I’m thinking, Nope, it’s not all clear to me, that. The third part of the book, with chapters on “The Foundations of the Moral Life,” “Of Human Freedom,” and “Of Human Blessedness and the Eternity of the Mind,” is rich with wisdom and inspiration, though (and not a little hint of Buddhism). Now to dive into the secondary sources and commentaries. ( )