John Dunn

Hope abandoned

Wednesday, 14 August 2024 at 22:11

Baruch Spinoza

Hope abandoned

Coleridge lamented that Spinoza’s ‘error consisted not so much in what he affirms, as in what he has omitted to affirm or rashly denied . . . that he saw God in the ground only and exclusively, in his Might alone and his essential Wisdom, and not likewise in his moral, intellectual, existential and personal Godhead’. In short, Spinoza’s Ethics lacked the theoretical basis for an ethics. The Spinozist God, as the eternal actualisation of the universe, need not impinge upon the temporal actualisation of events at a human level. Such a condition was tantamount to Hell for Coleridge, a world in which all hope had been abandoned.

If like Spinoza, I had contemplated God as the infinite Substance (Substantia Unica) as the incomprehensible mindless, lifeless, formless Substans of all Mind, Life and Form—there would be for me neither Good nor Evil – Yet Pain, & Misery would be—& would be hopeless.

From Child of Encounter

© John Dunn.

Mortal blows against Spinoza

Tuesday, 13 August 2024 at 22:01

Mortal blows against Spinoza

If Coleridge believed, as he wrote in Biographia Literaria, that Fichte had struck a ‘mortal blow’ against Spinoza, then Coleridge himself had struck another in the guise of the ancient mariner. By the time Coleridge had shot down the shibboleth of an external materialist realism, he was mentally prepared to leave the larval Spinozism, for the flight into German idealism. That his art had anticipated life was explained in Biographia Literaria. Coleridge must have been referring to the Rime of the Ancient Mariner when he explained how works of imagination open up spaces into which we have yet to grow, just as ‘the chrysalis of the horned fly’ leaves ‘room in its involucrum for antennae yet to come’.

From Child of Encounter

© John Dunn.

Shooting the shibboleth

Monday, 12 August 2024 at 21:32

Shooting the shibboleth

Theshooting down of the shibboleth bird was unpremeditated and impulsive, achildlike act of spontaneity, creativity and imagination or, in Coleridge’s own terms, a divine act that asserted individuality and set the mariner apart. The mariner lived on, delivered from anonymity. The rest of the crew, the ‘they’, all died, anonymously, en masse. Whilst the ship of fools went down, redolent of a descent into Hell, he was reborn, destined to proclaim the shocking terror of the truth, a destinythat, ultimately, Coleridge felt he had failed to fulfil in real life.

From Child of Encounter

© John Dunn.

Distinctly human act

Sunday, 11 August 2024 at 21:58

Distinctly human act

Commentators upon The Ancient Marinerare often puzzled by the abruptness of the Mariner’s sudden and inexplicable act of shooting down such a benign and harmless overgrown seagull. But this is exactly what makes this event the central point of the poem, indeed the whole crux of the poem. The central point is that there was no reason. The shooting of the albatross was an allegorical blow against the age of reason. This was a wilful act and, therefore, a distinctly human act, certainly by Coleridge’s later definition in Biographia Literaria.

From Child of Encounter

© John Dunn.

Revolt against Spinozism

Friday, 9 August 2024 at 21:35

Revolt against Spinozism

Pushed to its logical conclusion, the necessitarian philosophy of Priestley would finally terminate in the pantheism of Spinoza, which, indeed, was its root source, as it was for Locke, Hartley, Newton, Condillac and other necessitarians for whom the youthful Coleridge had once had an intense and committed enthusiasm.111 This was exactly the undifferentiated pantheism that Henry More had recognised in Spinoza’s kabbalism more than a hundred years before. Coleridge’s famous turn against the necessitarianism of Priestley, Hartley and others was a ‘bargain-basement’ revolt that augured the real thing in Coleridge’s later open revolt against Spinozism. And it was in the Rime of the Ancient Mariner that the first shot of the revolution was fired.

From Child of Encounter

© John Dunn.

Theo-tyranny

Thursday, 8 August 2024 at 21:50

Theo-tyranny

…in April 1799, when Coleridge, then attending lectures in Göttingen, received word that his infant son Berkeley had died back in England. In a consolatory letter to his wife he wrote, ‘But the living God is everywhere, & works everywhere - and where is there room for Death? .. . I confess that the more I think, the more I am discontented with the doctrines of Priestley’. This reflection augurs a crucial turning-point in Coleridge’s intellectual life, after which he was no longer prepared to accept Priestley’s ‘bargain- basement Spinozism’. Coleridge was touching on a fundamental issue in this letter. If ‘every Thing is God’, then He, not the individual moral agent, must accept responsibility for human shortcomings. Such is the passivity of the individual under such a theo-tyranny that all his humanity is diminished. He is left with only an ‘animal faith’. The individual is reduced to a passive receptor of sense-experience, a Lockean tabula rasa.

From Child of Encounter

© John Dunn.

What the Atheists assert

Wednesday, 7 August 2024 at 21:58

Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Thomas Phillips

What the Atheists assert

When composing the Ancient Mariner, Coleridge was already having doubts about what Thomas McFarland has described as Joseph Priestley’s ‘bargain-basement Spinozism’. Already in March 1796, when he was still calling himself a necessitarian, Coleridge confided in a letter his difficulty reconciling Priestley’s theism with his materialist monism: ‘How is it that Dr Priestley is not an atheist?—He asserts in three different Places, that God not only does, but is, every thing. But if God be every thing, every Thing is God: —which is all, the Atheists assert—’.

From Child of Encounter

© John Dunn.