>>Spinoza's argument against fanaticism is in part motivated by the fear of
>>the masses & of their demand for economic justice:
>
>You know, Yoshie, I don't have the time or attention right now to respond
>to all the stuff about Spinoza that you've misread, purposefully distorted,
>or just plain made up, but I gotta address this. It's obvious to me that
>your reading--or at least your interpretation--of Spinoza is second hand.
>And that's fine: we can't read everything, and we all look to other writers
>for guidance and insight. But because you have a shallow, one-dimensional
>understanding of Spinoza, your lack of nuanced thought and your overeager
>desire to condemn causes you to write statements like the above.
Since you don't have the "time or attention" to make any informed criticism, perhaps I should not respond either, but after the statement you quote, I provided textual evidence from Spinoza's _Theolgical-Political Treatise_. Here's the part I quoted:
> ***** Indeed, those who have experienced the fickleness of the masses are
> almost reduced to despair; for the masses are governed solely by their
> emotions, not by reason; they rush wildly into everything, and are readily
> corrupted either by avarice or by luxurious living. Every single man
> thinks he knows everything, and wants to fashion the world to his
> liking....Vanity makes him despise his equals, nor will he be guided by
> them. Through envy of superior fame or fortune -- which is never equal for
> all men -- he desires another's misfortune and takes pleasure therein.
> There is no need for me to go through the whole catalogue, for everyone
> knows to what wickedness men are frequently persuaded by dissatisfaction
> with their lot and desire for change, by hasty anger, by disdain of
> poverty, and how their minds are engrossed and agitated by these emotions.
> (Spinoza, _Theological-Political Treatise_, p. 193) *****
If you think I made this (and other quotes) up, you obviously have not bothered to read Spinoza. Hence your inability to argue with me on the basis of textual evidence.
If you want more evidence, here's another comment of Spinoza's on the masses:
***** Tyranny is most violent where individual beliefs, which are an inalienable right, are regarded as criminal. Indeed, in such circumstances the anger of the mob is usually the greatest tyrant of all. It was in giving way to the anger of the Pharisees that Pilate ordered the crucifixion of Christ, whom he knew to be innocent. Then again, it was with the purpose of casting down the rich from their privileged position that the Pharisees began to instigate religious inquisitions and to accuse the Sadducees of impiety. Following this example of the Pharisees, the vilest hypocrites, urged on by the same fury which they call zeal for God's law, have everywhere persecuted men whose blameless character and distinguished qualities have excited the hostility of the masses, publicly denouncing their beliefs and inflaming the savage crowd's anger against them. (Spinoza, _Theological-Political Treatise_, Chapter 18) *****
While Spinoza's argument against religious intolerance was in part motivated by his love of intellectual freedom (for whose advocacy he got ostracized from the Jewish community to which he originally belonged & generally condemned in the public sphere), it is also true that his politics was informed by his fear of the masses who might cast down the rich. This was a common sentiment among intellectuals in Spinoza's times, not unique to him at all.
Yoshie