Book Review: "A Book Forged in Hell" by Steven Nadler

I have to admit that even when I was studying my modules of Western Philosophy whilst doing my Master's Degree, Spinoza was not my strong suit nor did he interest me very much. I knew a bit about his philosophy and his rationalisations and I had read parts of the book that The Book Forged in Hell speaks of. But I think the one thing that this book did is reignite a want to know more about philosophies I perhaps need to learn more about. I may not have had that much of an interest before, but this book has definitely created somewhat of a curiosity in me. Yes, before you ask - I read it on my phone...

The author opens the book by looking at how Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (1670) created shockwaves in the philosophy and religion communities. (For the sake of the review, I will be shortening the name of this text to a reference only). It was not only a controversial book, but it was blasphemous - and 1670 the religious communities pretty much ruled over the lives of the people who belonged to them. A lot of people told Spinoza not to publish it, even friends and people who thought on common lines. As a defence of intellectual freedom and logic, Spinoza's book was considered to go against the teachings of every major religion. The author takes us back through his life to look over what led up to this grand philosophical text. This frame is really interesting because it puts the book into a context. The title is exciting but it isn't enough to tell us the 'why' and Nadler makes it so clear that even if you'd never heard of Spinoza in your life, you could probably understand this background section.

The author traces Spinoza’s early years in Amsterdam’s Portuguese-Jewish community, his excommunication, and the intellectual independence that followed. He talks about how the family business went under and how Spinoza's own brother died, he worked hard but for little in return. It was quite a breaking background. Spinoza had to stop in his tracks to take up his brother's mantle and even then, it didn't quite work. The excommunication was just the last nail in the coffin in the story of how Spinoza experienced the hardships of religious authority and how challenging it probably made your life considerably worse because of the power it held. Again, the context is simple enough to understand and in this, we can also gather that Spinoza didn't just spring up out of nowhere. He was an active member of life and the only crime he committed was to ask simple questions. The answer was simply an attempt at silencing him.

The author also puts Spinoza in a turbulent political climate, which would make anyone question what role faith was playing. There were tensions between republicans and Orangists, debates over freedom of thought, and anxieties about heterodoxy. The Dutch Republic here is a paradox: they are tolerant of some free-thinkers and they feel threatened by others. To me it seems like they are trying to say "think freely, but only in the style that we allow". A question of the highest powers in the country was definitely not something that was allowed, let alone the book that Spinoza would soon write on rational thought and freedom.

Spinoza saw the Bible as a document, not a divine set of facts and that was the first thing that got him into trouble. I knew this before but it was interesting seeing Nadler situate it in all of the political and historical aspects of Spinoza's own life. As an expanded thought, Spinoza’s textual critique was: arguing that the Bible is a collection of disparate writings, full of contradictions, shaped by human authors and political agendas. So you can see why the religious communities of the time were so upset with his book. The whole book itself sort of teeters atop of this idea and the idea that the Bible was packed full of 'political agendas' was even more angering. Spinoza was basically saying that this was not the word of God at all, but just some sort of philosophical text written by people who wanted to push out any free-thought idea in favour of their own systems. I'm not saying whether that is true or false, it isn't my place to say, but Spinoza's book definitely made a lot of people at the time very angry.

The idea of having a vivid imagination was more believable than having some sort of divine mysticism, which is another point Spinoza makes in his text. He tries to completely dismantle this clerical authority that the various religious heirarchies thought they had over the normal person's life. He also insists that miracles violate the rational order of nature and therefore cannot occur. Scriptural “miracles,” he argues, are misinterpretations of natural phenomena. His big critique is basically that the clergy and other religious institutions were purposefully pushing down any aspect of free thinking in any way, shape or form - even explaining away misunderstandings as some religious intervention. But the very freedom of thought Spinoza was arguing for was essential because suppressing ideas breeds instability. Instability is what everyone was seeing basically everywhere around them.

When the book is released, there's censorship, there's pamphlets denouncing it, there is a complete and utter uproar. But the style in which it paved the way for enlightenment thought and the Age of Reason to come was undeniable. I have to say that though I didn't know much about the story of this book before, I am so glad that I have had the time to sit down and read it now. It was fantastic, enthralling and the book itself is so important for freedom of thought. Maybe you should take a read of it.