عنوان

Censuring the Teutonic Philosopher?

شماره

LA108365

زبان متن نوشتاري يا گفتاري و مانند آن

انگلیسی

عنوان اصلي

Censuring the Teutonic Philosopher?

نام عام مواد

[Article]

نام نخستين پديدآور

Douglas Hedley

محل نشرو پخش و غیره

Leiden

نام ناشر، پخش کننده و غيره

Brill

متن يادداشت

This essay examines Henry More's engagement with Jacob Böhme and compares the sympathetic critique of Böhme with More's much more negative evaluation of Spinoza. More directs his criticism of Böhme at the similarities between Spinoza and Böhme: their materialism and confusion of God and world. The present essay suggests, however, that the perception of shared Platonism informs More's more favourable approach to the Silesian. The problem of what "Platonism" means in this context is thus also addressed. Böhme's writings were valued by More because of a shared metaphysics that rejected both radical dualism and pantheism, and the Platonic theology of the goodness of God and the freedom of man, together with the rejection of predestination. Spinoza, on the other hand, is rejected because of his radical determinism, his denial of any substantial distinction between good and evil, and the transcendent being of the divine. This essay examines Henry More's engagement with Jacob Böhme and compares the sympathetic critique of Böhme with More's much more negative evaluation of Spinoza. More directs his criticism of Böhme at the similarities between Spinoza and Böhme: their materialism and confusion of God and world. The present essay suggests, however, that the perception of shared Platonism informs More's more favourable approach to the Silesian. The problem of what "Platonism" means in this context is thus also addressed. Böhme's writings were valued by More because of a shared metaphysics that rejected both radical dualism and pantheism, and the Platonic theology of the goodness of God and the freedom of man, together with the rejection of predestination. Spinoza, on the other hand, is rejected because of his radical determinism, his denial of any substantial distinction between good and evil, and the transcendent being of the divine. This essay examines Henry More's engagement with Jacob Böhme and compares the sympathetic critique of Böhme with More's much more negative evaluation of Spinoza. More directs his criticism of Böhme at the similarities between Spinoza and Böhme: their materialism and confusion of God and world. The present essay suggests, however, that the perception of shared Platonism informs More's more favourable approach to the Silesian. The problem of what "Platonism" means in this context is thus also addressed. Böhme's writings were valued by More because of a shared metaphysics that rejected both radical dualism and pantheism, and the Platonic theology of the goodness of God and the freedom of man, together with the rejection of predestination. Spinoza, on the other hand, is rejected because of his radical determinism, his denial of any substantial distinction between good and evil, and the transcendent being of the divine. This essay examines Henry More's engagement with Jacob Böhme and compares the sympathetic critique of Böhme with More's much more negative evaluation of Spinoza. More directs his criticism of Böhme at the similarities between Spinoza and Böhme: their materialism and confusion of God and world. The present essay suggests, however, that the perception of shared Platonism informs More's more favourable approach to the Silesian. The problem of what "Platonism" means in this context is thus also addressed. Böhme's writings were valued by More because of a shared metaphysics that rejected both radical dualism and pantheism, and the Platonic theology of the goodness of God and the freedom of man, together with the rejection of predestination. Spinoza, on the other hand, is rejected because of his radical determinism, his denial of any substantial distinction between good and evil, and the transcendent being of the divine.

تاريخ نشر

2018

توصيف ظاهري

54-74

عنوان

Aries

شماره جلد

18/1

شماره استاندارد بين المللي پياييندها

1570-0593

اصطلاح موضوعی

Cambridge Platonists

اصطلاح موضوعی

Henry More

اصطلاح موضوعی

Jacob Böhme

اصطلاح موضوعی

metaphysics

اصطلاح موضوعی

Platonic theology

اصطلاح موضوعی

Spinoza

مستند نام اشخاص تاييد نشده

Douglas Hedley

شماره بازیابی

10.1163/15700593-01801004

نام الکترونيکي

فرمت انتشار

p

نوع ماده

[Article]

کد کاربرگه

275578

سطح دسترسي

a

تكميل شده

Y