223 / 298
Vico’s Ring
223
The above sketch of Spinoza’s approach to the study of phys-
ical phenomena was meant to point to the “methodological”
commonalities
524
that are behind Spinoza’s program of «inter-
preting Scripture» and «interpreting Nature»
525
. In both scenarios,
the «method» employed, if this is the correct term after all that
has been said so far, is an exercise in Spinozan epistemology that
cannot be factored/quotiented
526
out of Spinoza’s ontology, or
understood in isolation of it. On a certain level, it is not prob-
lematic to describe Spinoza’s requirement of investigating Scrip-
ture in the same way as nature, as a «great intuition»
527
; on a dif-
ferent level, however, it might be argued that such isomorphism
is the strictly “logical” consequence he drew from his ontology,
specifically his “monism”, the singularity of “substance” (with its
infinite attributes and modes, to be sure) with respect to both the
physical and human world. The world of humans is also a world
of “bodies”, and Scripture is the product of such “bodies”,
and
Scripture itself is a material object, not ontologically different
from other parts of material nature
528
. Spinoza coined the phrase
Deus, sive Natura
(
God, or Nature
), and he might as well also have
introduced the phrase
Scriptura, sive Natura
(
Scripture, or Nature
)
529
.
The study of Scripture
qua
study of Nature is then the inescapa-
ble consequence
530
. To conclude this reflection, it would be
amiss not to raise the corresponding implication, that is to say,
since for Spinoza Scripture is to be dealt with as Nature, being
part of Nature, the relationship should therefore be invertible, or
bijective
531
, and the natural sciences should be viewed and ap-
proached by the same principles as the study of Scripture
532
. Spi-
noza’s explicit and systematic outline of his interpretive method-
ology in
TTP
could therefore fruitfully, be transferred and ap-
plied to his treatment of the natural sciences, where we do not
have a similarly explicit articulation, such that his critical assess-
ments of experimentation, on the one hand, and scientific theo-
rizing, on the other hand, become intelligible as being compliant