Abstract

One of the strengths of Spinoza’s philosophy is his recognition that what we can achieve politically depends in part on our affective capacities, an insight illustrated in his account of the distinction between ‘true religion’ and superstition. I argue that superstition, as Spinoza sees it, is an affective state. To be superstitious is to be subject to a pervasive and damaging kind of fear. False prophets, for example, harness the resources of imagination to encourage political division and superstitious anxiety. By contrast, defenders of true religion appeal to existing imaginative resources to foster devotion to God and promote cooperation. However, the boundary between these two strategies is far from distinct. Superstition may play a role in a harmonious way of life.