Hegel or Spinoza by Pierre Macherey (PDF)

Description

Hegel or Spinoza is the first English-language translation of the modern classic Hegel ou Spinoza. Published in French in 1979, it has been widely influential, particularly in the work of the philosophers Alain Badiou, Antonio Negri, and Gilles Deleuze. Hegel or Spinoza is a surgically precise interrogation of the points of misreading of Spinoza by Hegel. Pierre Macherey explains the necessity of Hegel’s misreading in the kernel of thought that is “indigestible” for Hegel, which makes the Spinozist system move in a way that Hegel cannot grasp. In doing so, Macherey exposes the limited and situated truth of Hegel’s perspective—which reveals more about Hegel himself than about his object of analysis. Against Hegel’s characterization of Spinoza’s work as immobile, Macherey offers a lively alternative that upsets the accepted historical progression of philosophical knowledge. He finds in Spinoza an immanent philosophy that is not subordinated to the guarantee of an a priori truth. Not simply authorizing a particular reading—a “good” Spinoza against a “bad” Hegel—Hegel or Spinoza initiates an encounter that produces a new understanding, a common truth that emerges in the interval that separates the two.

User’s Reviews

Editorial Reviews: Review “Pierre Macherey not only demonstrates how Hegel misread Spinoza, but also offers against the backdrop of the Hegelian dialectic an exciting and original interpretation of Spinoza’s thought. The alternative—Hegel or Spinoza—thus becomes a powerful and significant dividing line for politics and thought. And Macherey forces you to choose which side you are on.” —Michael Hardt, coauthor of Empire, Multitude, and Commonwealth”Hegel or Spinoza is a classic. Both Spinoza and Hegel emerge from Macherey’s work in nearly unrecognizable forms, allowing us to read them in unprecedented ways.” —Warren Montag, author of Bodies, Masses, Power: Spinoza and His Contemporaries About the Author Pierre Macherey is professor emeritus at Université Lille Nord de France. Susan M. Ruddick is associate professor of geography at the University of Toronto.

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐The philosophy of Spinoza has been receiving a great deal of attention recently, both in Europe and the United States. In reading some of the recent literature on Spinoza, I found frequent reference to Pierre Macherey’s book, “Hegel or Spinoza”, first published in French in 1977. Upon learning that the book had been translated into English in 2011, I wanted to read it. Susan Ruddick, associate professor of geography at the University of Toronto, did the translation and also wrote an important introduction to the volume. Pierre Macherey (b. 1937) may not be as familiar to American readers as other contemporary French thinkers. He is professor emeritus at Universite Lille Nord de France and a literary critic as well as a philosopher. Macherey was a student and colleague of Louis Althusser. He writes from a distinctly Marxist perspective.Hegel and Spinoza are frequently paired together for philosophical study. In the late 19th Century, British commentators such as H.H. Joachim read Spinoza through Hegelian eyes. With their emphasis on absolute substance and on the nature of reason, the two thinkers have commonalities. As Macherey shows, Hegel wrote extensively on Spinoza throughout his career. He was highly critical of Spinoza for the lack of teleology in his thought and for his conception of substance, which Hegel found abstract and static and which ignored subject or spirit, or what Hegel called geist.In a study such as this, there are at least three thinkers involved: Hegel, Spinoza, and Macherey himself. Macherey takes an engaged look at the relationship between the two earlier philosophers. He writes in commenting on an instance of Hegel’s alleged misreading of his predecessor: “Here we should not be led astray by the cult of the literal. What Hegel read in Spinoza — and all authentic reading is in its own way violent or it is nothing but the mildness of a paraphrase– matters just as much as what he actually said, or rather, what counts, is the reaction of these two discourses upon each other, because it offers an invaluable insight for each of them.” (p. 113)Macherey aims to counteract an evolutionary reading of philosophy, much like Hegel’s own, in which Spinoza’s thought is regarded as a stage on the way to a phiosophically more complete system. Hegel misread Spinoza, Macherey argues, to fit his predecessor into his own manner of thinking while Spinoza for his part had already rejected and rebutted the teachings of the latter philosopher, especially as it involved teleology and idealism. Macherey’s book has the character of an imaginary debate and discussion between the two thinkers exploring their commonalities and divergencies. Macherey’s approach is historicist in that he finds both thinkers were products of their times. Macherey writes:”The truth of philosophy is as much in Spinoza as it must also be in Hegel: that is, it is not entirely in one or the other but somewhere between the two, in the passage that is effected between the one and the other….When two systems of thought as well described as those of Spinoza and Hegel react to one another, that is, at the same time one against the other and one with the other, something must emerge,which coming from both properly belongs to neither but rather to the interval that separates them, constituted as their common truth.”Macherey offers a telling parallel in showing the relationship between Hegel and Spinoza. In 1673, Spinoza rejected an offer of a chair in philosophy at the Academy of Heidelburg on grounds that acceptance would interfere with his intellectual freedom. In 1816, Hegel accepted the offer of a similar position while carefully and prudently negotiating for increased benefits, including free housing. Macherey observes that Spinoza’s philosophy “reveals the point of view of a recluse, a reprobate, a rebel, transmitted by word of mouth.” In contrast, “the philosophy of Hegel is instructed from on high to pupils below: Spinoza’s philosophy is transmitted to disciples in an egalitarian manner. Here a difference emerges that we must take seriously.” This little story illuminates much of a complex book.In her introduction, Ruddick aptly observes that Macherey’s book is written in such a way that it will eliminate “all but the most serious of readers.” Stylistically,this book is extraordinarily frustrating and difficult. In reading it, I could readily sympathize with the turn of English and American philosophy beginning in the early 20th Century which aimed to eliminate Hegelian obscurantism and metaphysics from philolosophy. That tendency remains much alive today. With that said, there is much to be learned from this book about Spinoza as Macherey describes his thought as showing a philosophy of immanence — a term that has been adopted by many modern students. Macherey’s Spinoza is essentially a thorough-going materialist who rejects theological explanations. His Spinoza also rejects simple foundationalism, such as found in Cartesianism, while not becoming a relativist. In his long discussions about the geometrical method of the Ethics, Spinoza’s doctrine of substance, attributes, and modes, and transcendence and particularity, Macherey offers much insight into Spinoza. Macherey finds that Spinoza lacks the “dialectic” developed by Hegel; and he opts for a materialistic nontelelogical dialectic of the type he finds in Marxism. Most readers, myself included, will not want to follow Macherey in this path.In sum, this is not a book for those with a casual interest in Spinoza or for readers who do not wish to explore the labyrinths of contemporary French philosophy. For those readers with a serious interest in Spinoza and a willingness to consider some of the ways in which his thought has been appropriated and interpreted, this book can be worthwhile.Robin Friedman

⭐This new translation of Macherey’s 1979 text is an excellent contribution to the rising tide of Spinoza literature in contemporary philosophy. Macherey’s text was instrumental in disarming the Hegelian reading of Spinoza, as well as in resituating the latter thinker as a thinker of immanent materialism. Macherey argues that Spinoza’s system eludes Hegel because of the significant absence of contradiction in the Ethics, not to mention Spinoza’s understanding of positive determination. Moreover, Macherey argues (rather convinvingly, I might add), that Spinoza’s conception of the infinity of substance is that of an ensemble of non-totalizable parts is brilliant exegesis in its own right. Perhaps not always fair insofar as it recuperates some stale old charactures of Hegelianism, but still a fantastic text.

⭐A brilliant work that has meanwhile become a classic in Spinoza scholarship. Great text for deep engagement with, as well as introduction to, both authors.

⭐Very disappointing. So unnecessarily convoluted even for a reader with a Ph.D. in philosophy who finds great value in both philosophers.

⭐This is a great translation of a seminal text in Spinoza studies. An English translation was long overdue, and the translator has done all Anglophone Spinoza scholars a great service in easing our access to this very careful study. I hope she dedicates her talents to Gueroult’s work next.

Keywords

Free Download Hegel or Spinoza in PDF format
Hegel or Spinoza PDF Free Download
Download Hegel or Spinoza 2011 PDF Free
Hegel or Spinoza 2011 PDF Free Download
Download Hegel or Spinoza PDF
Free Download Ebook Hegel or Spinoza