Irvin Yalom: The Spinoza Problem
Book review
Irvin Yalom’s (b. 1931) The Spinoza Problem: A Novel (Basic Books 2013) intertwines history and philosophy, offering a fresh perspective on two distinct but connected lives. Yalom masterfully blends historical fact with fiction, crafting a narrative that explores profound philosophical questions through the lives of two men separated by three centuries. The novel centers on the intriguing “Spinoza problem,” weaving together the stories of Nazi officer Alfred Rosenberg (1893-1946), who corresponded closely with Hitler, and the Jewish philosopher Spinoza (1632-1677), who lived in Amsterdam, a city more liberal than other European cities at the time. Despite the vast temporal gap between their lives, Yalom skillfully intertwines their stories in successive chapters, making the reader feel the continuity of the story.
If you like reading about philosophy, here's a free, weekly newsletter with articles just like this one: Send it to me!
Alfred Rosenberg pursued a “Spinoza problem” as it is extraordinary to him that a Jewish man could produce such ideas and be mentioned in Goethe’s books. This fascination is evident when he reflects: "…My professor claimed that Spinoza was the most intelligent man who ever walked the earth. And yet how could such thoughts have come from a Jew?" (Yalom p. 148). This quote illustrates Rosenberg’s deep-seated anti-Semitism and the cognitive dissonance he experiences reconciling Spinoza’s genius with his own prejudiced worldview. During World War II, his Einsatzgruppe started searching for this enigmatic man’s (Spinoza’s) library.1 Rosenberg was deeply curious about the books Spinoza read during his lifetime and what inspired his thoughts.
While Rosenberg was fixated on uncovering the secrets of Spinoza’s library, Yalom simultaneously delves into Spinoza’s personal life, focusing on his character, thoughts, and most significantly, his excommunication.2 Instead of using the word excommunication, Yalom employs the Hebrew term cherem3, which more accurately conveys its meaning.
The debate regarding Spinoza’s excommunication (cherem) continues to this day. According to Steven Nadler, the exact reasons for the cherem remain unknown.4 There are various claims about Spinoza’s excommunication; one addressed in Yalom’s novel suggests that Spinoza went to the Dutch court instead of the Jewish court for a case. Yalom emphasizes the magnitude of this incident in a conversation between Spinoza and his brother Gabriel, where Gabriel says to Spinoza, “Bento, our father is dead; our older brother is dead. You are the head of the family. Yet you insult us all by turning to the Dutch court” (Yalom, p. 34). It indicates the tension between Spinoza’s actions and the expectations of his community, demonstrating the gravity of his decision and its profound impact on his family.
Another discussion concerning Spinoza involves his views on God. In his novel, Yalom provides hints about Spinoza’s views on God through conversations with Spinoza and his Jewish friends or acquaintances. Spinoza says, “I submit that God has no wishes about how, or even if, we glorify Him. Allow me, then, Jacob, to love God in my own fashion” (Yalom, p.13). This quote is significant as it encapsulates Spinoza’s radical approach to religion and God, challenging traditional beliefs and indicating why his views were seen as controversial. These thoughts were considered extreme by the Jewish community at that time and raised suspicions about Spinoza being an atheist. Nadler informs us that Spinoza can be interpreted either as a pantheist, historically the most common view, or as an atheist, according to some critics and advocates.5 However, Melamed offers a different perspective, explaining that while pantheism equates God with nature, panentheism suggests that all bodies and thoughts are within God but do not fully define Him. Thus, considering these distinctions, it is clear that Spinoza is a panentheist rather than a pantheist.6
Yet, for Rosenberg, who was obsessed with Spinoza, his cherem showed the following: "…he was excommunicated by the Jews in his twenties and never again had contact with a Jew. So he was not truly a Jew. He was a mutation – the Jews recognized he was not a Jew…" (Yalom, p.118). It clearly shows Rosenberg’s twisted thinking and anti-Jewish views, as he struggles to accept Spinoza’s Jewish identity with his own biases. For example, Rosenberg cannot believe that someone as intelligent as Spinoza could be Jewish. He says Spinoza must be a “mutation” because, in his prejudiced view, Jews are not capable of such profound thoughts. This struggle to accept Spinoza’s Jewish identity highlights Rosenberg’s deep-seated biases and irrational logic.
Although Rosenberg did not want to accept the fact that Spinoza was Jewish and believed that a genius could not be Jewish, another perspective on this matter states that while Spinoza’s cherem removed him from the Amsterdam Jewish community (clal ha-edah) and congregation (clal ha-kehilah), it could not remove him from the people of Israel (clal yisrael).7
One aspect I particularly enjoyed about the novel was Yalom’s clear distinction at the end between historical facts and fictional elements. He bases the accounts of Spinoza and Rosenberg on their actual conversations, writings, and observations, while the characters he created as their friends are entirely fictional. Throughout the novel, Rosenberg is portrayed as a serious figure, deeply immersed in Nazi ideology and profoundly troubled by the Spinoza problem. In October 1946, Rosenberg was tried at the Nuremberg Trials and went to his execution quietly.
Rosenberg’s story concludes with his demise; in contrast, Spinoza’s legacy continued to resonate long after his death. Although Spinoza passed away at a young age, he left behind philosophical works that always made his voice heard. They are timeless, universal, and thought-provoking. Israel’s first Prime Minister, Ben-Gurion, a Spinoza admirer himself, discussed the issue of Spinoza’s cherem. He remarked, “One cannot easily blame the Jewish community of seventeenth-century Amsterdam. Their situation was fragile, and the traumatized community had the right to protect their unity. However, today the Jewish people do not have the right to permanently exclude the immortal Spinoza from the Community of Israel” (Yalom, p.259). Ben-Gurion emphasized that the Hebrew language is lacking without Spinoza’s works. In fact, soon after his article was published, the Hebrew University translated and published Spinoza’s complete works in Hebrew.
While the novel is engaging and thought-provoking, there are some potential weaknesses worth mentioning. The pacing of the novel, for instance, may feel uneven to some readers due to the alternating chapters between Spinoza and Rosenberg. This structure, while interesting, can sometimes disrupt the flow of the narrative. Additionally, the development of secondary characters, such as Spinoza’s friends or Rosenberg’s associates, could be seen as lacking depth. These characters often serve more as plot devices rather than fully fleshed-out individuals, which might detract from the overall immersion in the story. Furthermore, Yalom’s narrative style, though intellectually stimulating, relies heavily on philosophical discourse. This approach might be challenging for readers who are not familiar with the historical contexts or philosophical debates surrounding Spinoza and Rosenberg.
In conclusion, Yalom’s The Spinoza Problem: A Novel masterfully weaves historical fact and fiction. By juxtaposing the lives of Spinoza and Rosenberg, Yalom illustrates Rosenberg’s fixation on the Spinoza problem and his ideological rigidity, contrasting it with Spinoza’s free and universal ideas that have resonated through the centuries.
◊ ◊ ◊
Özlem Karakus on Daily Philosophy:
Notes
-
Spinoza’s entire library was dispersed after his death, but in 1900, a Dutch businessman named Georges Rosenthal initiated an inventory to reassemble the collection as it originally was, adhering to the dates and editions of the works. This new library – though none of the works belonged to Spinoza – was handed over to the newly opened Spinozahuis Museum in Rijnsburg, located in the house where Spinoza lived. The library, which was seized by a Nazi reconnaissance team in 1942 on the orders of Alfred Rosenberg, the National Socialist Party ideologue who was deeply interested in the “Spinoza Problem” – the idea that a Jew could possess the genius to influence a giant like Goethe – was returned to Rijnsburg in 1946 (author’s translation from Turkish language, p.22). For more information, see Frederic Lenoir (2022): Spinoza Mucizesi (Original name: Le Miracle De Spinoza). Türkiye İş Bankası Yayınları. ↩︎
-
The date of the excommunication is: July 27, 1656 ↩︎
-
It is also fascinating to note that the original biblical meaning of cherem refers to something set apart from ordinary use or contact, either because it is deemed an abomination by God or because it is dedicated to Him. For more information, see Tirzah Ben-David (1997): Spinoza: Jewish Philosopher or Heretic?. European Judaism: A Journal for the New Europe. Autumn 1997, Vol. 30, No., pp. 112-119. ↩︎
-
Steven M. Nadler (2001): The Excommunication of Spinoza: Trouble and Toleration in the “Dutch Jerusalem”. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies. Vol. 19 no. 4, 2001, p. 40-52. Project MUSE, https://doi.org/10.1353/sho.2001.0116. ↩︎
-
Steven Nadler (2020): Think Least of Death: Spinoza on How to Live and How to Die. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, p.6. ↩︎
-
Yitzhak Y. Melamed (2018): Cohen, Spinoza and the Nature of Pantheism, Jewish Studies Quarterly. Vol. 2, p. 171-180, DOI 10.1628/jsq-2018-0007 ↩︎
-
Julie E. Cooper (2019): Heretic or Traitor? Spinoza’s Excommunication and the Challenge That Judaism Poses to the Study of Religious Diversity. Political Theology, p.13. DOI:10.1080/1462317X.2019.1679525 ↩︎
