In its International section on the weekend of Mar. 2, The New York Times published a wonderful piece by Dutch writer Ian Buruma on the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza. Born a Sephardic Jew in Amsterdam in 1632, Spinoza’s ideas were central to the evolution of what has come to be known as the European Enlightenment.
As Man is gifted with the ability to Reason, Spinoza saw the application of that faculty to the pursuit of what is both True and Good as a fundamental human obligation, one which could only be fulfilled in Democracies ruled by Rational Men committed to the Principles of Freedom of Thought and Expression. Unfortunately, Buruma points out, Spinoza was born into no such world. While he never openly declared himself an atheist, his rejection of a number of traditionally accepted religious ideas such as the immortality of the soul, led to his demonization by Catholics, Anglicans, Calvinists etc., as well by those of the religion to which he was born. His beliefs, Buruma says, “so enraged the rabbis of his Sephardic synagogue in Amsterdam that he was banished from the Jewish community for life at the age of 23.”
Having painted Spinoza as a heroic defender of Reason, the article in question proceeds to apply the lessons of his life to our contemporary political scene. Religious Dogma, Buruma asserts, continues to be the enemy of Freedom of Thought, various Islamic regimes as well as certain Christian fundamentalist groups in America being guilty of such intolerance. While the treatment of Women, genitally mutilated by the millions in places like Iran, is inarguably despicable, Christian “dogmatism” on issues such as abortion is hardly comparable, the sanctity of Human Life clearly worthy of Rational debate. It is a debate, however, I have no intention of pursuing at this moment. But it is interesting that Buruma proceeds to mention that the contemporary Left may also be guilty of dogmatic intolerance. “In the United States and increasingly in many parts of Europe,” he says, “other kinds of ideological thinking, some of them with commendable goals, such as social justice, put pressure on intellectual freedom as well.” In his closing paragraphs, he readily admits the absurdity of Identity Politics, of the Left’s idiotic conflation of the rational insights provided by Math and Science, with so-called White Supremacism. The suggestion that Rationality is Racist, he says, is “problematic.” But is it merely problematic, or in fact an indication of the widespread intellectual bankruptcy of the contemporary Left? Spinoza, we are told, “was against tribalism of any kind.” Is not “tribalism” basically a synonym for Identity Politics? Is not the impulse to lash out viciously at anyone critical of the ideas or behavior of a designated group, however objectionable they may be, an exercise in tribalism at its irrational worst? Is not the elevation of George Floyd, a Black career criminal, to the status of Cultural Hero, an absurdity dripping with tribalism?
My point is simply that Buruma’s N.Y. Times article, while only casually suggesting that the “commendable” goals of the Left may have led it to embrace certain irrational ideas and policies in some areas, actually celebrates an Enlightenment Intellectual who would have been appalled at the way most everyone on the contemporary Left has come to see the world. Ironic, of course, that a newspaper whose pages frequently pulsate with articles defending the “tribal” rights of certain groups, should publish one implying such tribalism to be utterly stupid!