tutives, et définir génétiquement à partir de ses éléments formateurs (The
comparison between Nature and Scripture should be read in the sense of
grounding the latter on the former. […] It is Scripture that is an entity of na-
ture which should be described from the facts that are constitutive of it, and
explicated ontogenetically, starting with the elements out of, and by which, it
is formed)» (Id.,
Spinoza ou le crépuscule de la servitude
, cit., p. 61).
Mathematik für Philosophen
cit., p. 51.
Curley argues against this implication in Id.,
Notes on a Neglected Masterpiece
cit., pp. 80-81; his argument, however, does not proceed along the lines of Mon-
tag’s ontological argument, but in relation to the hermeneutics of Mei-
jer/Maimonides which functions at a different epistemological level and scope.
It is beyond the scope of the present topic to inquire further as to how,
to the extent that this nexus renders Scriptural hermeneutics problematic,
Spinoza’s science mirrors these problematics.