Of all the great modern philosophers, Spinoza is probably the most interesting in relation to human life, and is certainly the most lovable and high-… - Benedictus de Spinoza

While Schelling was wrestling with Plato, Spinoza, and Kant, his contemporary Hegel was struggling with Spinoza exclusively. In Hegel, Spinoza reached the height of his influence upon the German mind. Hegel was the most influential, although not the most original, German philosopher since the days of Kant. His system was more an absorption of other systems than an original creation. Therein lies the secret of his influence. He brought all the philosophical tendencies and moods of his time to a conclusion. With him the pantheism of his period attained its highest development and became the conscious and necessary connection of the mind and the world. During his entire philosophical career, Hegel constantly wrestled with Spinoza and for a time was entirely in his clutches. It was while under this influence that Hegel said that in order to refute Spinoza one must first accept him. In his lectures on the history of philosophy he says, "That Spinoza is the main point in modern philosophy, it is either Spinozism or no philosophy at all." He defended Spinoza against the reproach that his philosophy was atheistic and destructive of morality. In his later years, however, when he became more conservative, he changed his attitude toward Spinoza. He said, "that the philosophy of the "Amsterdam hermit" was an antiquated point of view, that his method was 'wooden,' that his proofs were formal tortures, that the attributes did not emanate from the substance and that the modi did not emanate from the attributes." But it was reserved for his old age to discover that Spinozism was philosophically objectionable because it did not tally with Christianity.

The Ethics is a book of concepts (the second kind of knowledge), but also of affects (the first kind) and percepts (the third kind) too. Thus the paradox in Spinoza is that he's the most philosophical of philosophers, the purest in some sense, but also the one who more than any other addresses non-philosophers and calls forth the most intense non-philosophical understanding. That is why absolutely anyone can read Spinoza, and be very moved, or see things quite differently afterward, even if they can hardly understand Spinoza's concepts. Conversely, a historian of philosophy who understands only Spinoza's concepts doesn't fully understand him.

BUENO Y MALO (bonum-malum) Es bueno lo que favorece la relación de movimiento y reposo (M-R) que articula las partes del cuerpo humano (E3P39); lo que ayuda a acercarse al modelo ideal de naturaleza humana elegido como guía estratégica de la conducta (E4Praef.); lo que concuerda con la propia naturaleza, especialmente en términos racionales (E4P40); también lo es cuanto promueve el desarrollo de la racionalidad (E4P27 y A5); y, finalmente, todo lo que reporta con certeza alguna utilidad, mientras que es nocivo aquello que lo impide (E4Def1 y 2). Como es obvio, se llama malo a lo contrario en los cinco sentidos mencionados, toda vez que es algo derivado y está en función de lo bueno. No hay un bien o un mal absolutos, sino unas relaciones valorativas adaptadas a la situación (E4Praef.), lo que no supone un puro relativismo, sino una inteligencia flexible de lo que conviene.