Our Inevitable Third Spinoza Controversy

The Spinoza Controversy - a debate over the correct use and inherent limits of human reason which swept through the German world of letters around 1800 - is usually treated as an interesting historical episode which came and went like any other intellectual debate during that tumultuous time in European intellectual life. This work presents a different view of the Controversy, arguing that it was never satisfactorily resolved, and must continually return to confront the West, particularly at times when our ability to make sense of the world by declaring it to be merely a zone in which only necessity-relations are real gets put under particular pressure. The Controversy arguably returned once to the discourse after the First World War; Snow argues that it is now time to recognize that its third iteration has begun. The West's ongoing annihilation and literal vanishing of the natural world of our direct experience, and the rapid proliferation of novel types of pseudo-worlds and even entire private rationalities, both imply the need to radically rethink the proper construction and use of the ontology of necessity, including why it should not in fact be used as - and cannot in fact coherently continue to serve us as - our primary way of understanding nature and existence. The radical critique of the ontology of necessity first offered two hundred years ago by the "losing" side of the Controversy forms a vital starting point for re-navigating the Controversy today. The stakes of the Controversy this time around are nothing less than the individual's freedom and even survival as a full subject, and the possible unraveling of Western reason itself, which if it is allowed to happen - if the Controversy is not arbitrated differently this third time around - will have been predicted, in essence, two hundred years ago during the first appearance of this intriguing, crucial, and yet at its heart compellingly simple debate.