Associate Professor, the Sage School of Philosophy, and Himan Brown Faculty Fellow, Cornell University.

My main research interests are in the history of philosophy of mind and history of metaphysics, early modern philosophy, idealism, panpsychism, Jewish philosophy, and philosophical theology. My teaching interests include in addition animal ethics, continental philosophy and philosophy of art.

I am affiliated with the Jewish Studies Program at Cornell, and the Groningen Centre for Medieval and Early Modern Thought, Netherlands. I am an Associate Editor and the Book Review Editor for Philosophical Review, and an editor for PhilPapers.


Spinoza on universals” (forthcoming in the Blackwell Companion to Spinoza, ed. Y. Melamed). Spinoza on one of the oldest problems in metaphysics and on the nature of reason. Penultimate draft: Hubner universals Blackwell final draft

“Spinoza on the limits of explanation” (2020). Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. Early view published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12711 Penultimate draft: Spinoza limits penult

A paper on why the standard readings of Spinoza’s attribute barrier are wrong, and why in particular we can appeal to physical things in order to understand mental things.

Representation and Mind-Body Identity in Spinoza’s philosophy” (forthcoming), Journal of the History of Philosophy. Penultimate draft: Hubner rep mb identity final draft

The paper offers a new reading of Spinoza’s claim that minds and bodies are “one and the same thing”, commonly understood as a claim about the identity of a referent under two different descriptions. This paper proposes instead that Spinoza’s texts and his larger epistemological commitments show that he takes mind-body identity to be 1) an identity grounded in an intentional relation, and 2) an identity of one thing existing in two different ways.

“Intentionality” (forthcoming). Encyclopedia of Early Modern Philosophy and the Sciences, edited by Dana Jalobeanu and Charles T. Wolfe.

“Spinoza on universals” (forthcoming), Blackwell Guide to Spinoza, edited by Yitzhak Melamed

Spinoza on Intentionality, Materialism, and Mind-body Relations”, Philosophers’ Imprint 2019. Published version: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/phimp/3521354.0019.043/–spinoza-on-intentionality-materialism-and-mind-body?view=image Penultimate version: Hubner_Dependence_penult

This paper examines a relatively neglected element of Spinoza’s theory of mind, the intentional relation between human minds and bodies. Prima facie textual evidence suggests, and some readers agree, that the existence of this intentional relation commits Spinoza to an ontological and explanatory dependence of certain properties of minds on properties of bodies. The paper argues that such materialist accounts of the human mind contradict Spinoza’s fundamental epistemological commitments (to mind-body identity, to an explanatory barrier between attributes, and to a causal account of cognition). The paper offers an alternative interpretation of the mind-body relation, one grounded in Spinoza’s theory of representation. It show that although Spinoza indeed appeals to physical properties in explaining the essential constitution of the human mind, such appeals should not be understood as references to an extra-mental reality. Instead, they should be understood as references to the body as the immanent essential intentional object of the human mind, that is, to the body as represented (or, to use Spinoza’s scholastic terminology, the body as merely “objectively real”). So understood, Spinoza’s account of the human mind in its essential intentional body-directedness does not commit him to an explanatory or ontological dependence of minds on some extra-mental reality, and thus also does not undermine the aforementioned more general epistemological and metaphysical commitments.

Spinoza and the inferential nature of thought“, in Mind, Body, Morality: New Perspectives on Descartes and Spinoza, ed. M. Reuter & F. Svensson; penultimate version: huebner inference

The paper argues that for Spinoza thought as such is inferential: to think is to grasp the consequences or implications of what is being represented. It argues that approaching Spinoza’s epistemology through this inferential framework allows us to see many prima facie disparate epistemological doctrines – bearing on understanding, truth, adequacy, mental causality and the difference between intellect and imagination – as part of a single, unified account.

The trouble with feelings, or on Spinoza’s identification of power and essence“, Journal of History of Philosophy, 2017. Penultimate version:
Huebner, affects, power, essence

Spinoza claims both that a thing’s essence is identical to power , and that emotions are fundamentally variations in this power. The conjunction of these two theses creates difficulties for his metaphysics and ethics alike. The three main worries concern the coherence of Spinoza’s accounts of essence, diachronic identity, and emotional “bondage”, and put in question Spinoza’s ability to derive ethical and psychological doctrines from his metaphysical claims. In response to these difficulties, the paper offers a new interpretation of Spinoza’s account of affects and his doctrine of the identity of power and essence. It shows that what is fundamental to his ontology of affects is the relation of modification or determination, a relation central to his ontology more generally. The paper argues that we cannot simply identify power and essence but should instead take affects to modify or determine essences as particular exercises of power (particular desires, appetites, volitions). That is, Spinozistic essences should be viewed as intrinsically determinable with affects supplying the determinations, and as consisting not in rigid sets of determinate properties, but in ranges of variable properties.

Spinoza on essences, universals and beings of reason”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 2015:
HUEBNER_universals, essences

The article proposes a new solution to a long-standing dispute concerning the universality of “essences” or “natures” in Spinoza’s metaphysics. Contrary to the standard reading it argues that Spinoza recognizes the existence of fully rational general notions, which represent mind-dependent ‘beings of reason’ (merely ideal but non-illusory entities). I show that Spinoza holds that we construct such notions on the basis of similarities among particular things in nature, and that he regards this as a key constituent of reasoning. The paper argues that the unique essences of formally-real particulars coexist in Spinoza’s view with merely ideal more general essences, endowed with objective reality alone. The article proposes a new interpretation of Spinoza’s view of universals and general notions more generally: contrary to the standard reading of Spinoza as uniformly rejecting all such notions, it shows that Spinoza takes some of them to be rationally valid – just in case they are constructed on the basis of an adequate idea of an actual resemblance obtaining among the properties of formally-real particulars. Finally, the paper argues for the importance of two overlooked elements of Spinoza’s ontology – universals and beings of reason.

Spinoza’s thinking substance and the necessity of modes”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 2014:
HUEBNER_spinozas thinking substance

The paper pursues two problems: that of the relation of being to thought in Spinoza’s metaphysics and that of acosmic criticisms of that s metaphysics. It offers a new account of Spinoza’s conception of “substance”, the fundamental building block of reality. It shows that it can be demonstrated apriori within Spinoza’s metaphysical framework that (i) contrary to British and German Idealist readings, for Spinoza there can be no substance that is not determined or modified by some other, dependent entity produced by this substance; and that (ii) there can be no substance (and hence no being) that is not a thinking substance.

Negation and the reality of the finite”, in The Young Spinoza, ed. Yitzhak Melamed (Oxford UP, 2015). Penultimate version:

This article continues my work on the problem of the relation of thought to being, my efforts to illuminate the role of beings of reason in Spinoza’s metaphysics; and my engagement with German and British Idealist readings of Spinoza’s metaphysics. The paper shows that several common responses to the charge of acosmism (according to which only an infinite, undifferentiated substance genuinely exists, and all representations of finite things are illusory) fail. It also tackles a prominent argument for acosmic interpretations, according to which a finite thing’s constitutive reference to negation (the fact that by definition it is limited by, and limits, other things) excludes it from a purely positive realm of Spinozistic reality. I argue that we can avoid an acosmic conclusion by appealing to the idea of rational beings of reason, and by denying that negation is necessary either for the metaphysical constitution of finite things or for their being known. I show that we must distinguish the well-founded ideality of representations of finite things from mere illusoriness, insofar as for Spinoza we can have true knowledge of what is known only abstractly. Finite things can be seen as well-founded beings of reason. The article proposes that within Spinoza’s framework it is possible to represent a finite thing without drawing on representations of mind-dependent entities. The paper clarifies how Spinoza understands (i) finitude; (ii) the role of negation in metaphysical constitution; (iii) the distinction between illusion and mind-dependence; and (iv) the difference between finite and substantial thought. It also explores the idea that according to Spinoza finite thought and substantial thought represent reality in different ways.

On the significance of formal causes in Spinoza’s metaphysics“, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 2015:
huebner_formal causes

This paper challenges the prevalent view that Spinoza’s idea of a “cause” is fundamentally that of a mechanistic cause. On such a view, Spinoza’s metaphysics is modeled primarily on the physical sciences, and the paradigmatic case of causality is an inertial collision of two bodies. In the paper, I argue that Spinoza instead understands causality primarily as formal causality, and so models causal relations on inferential relations between essences and properties that follow from these essences. The paper also enters into the long-running debate over the relation of causality to thought within Spinoza’s metaphysics, arguing that a framework of formal causes is necessary to provide any potential purely logical characterization of causal relations with the necessary constraints.

“Spinoza’s parallelism doctrine and metaphysical sympathy“, in Sympathy: Oxford Philosophical Concepts, ed. Eric Schliesser, series ed. Christia Mercer (Oxford UP, 2015). Penultimate version:
Huebner_parallelism [uncorr proofs]

This paper offers a new interpretation of Spinoza’s doctrine of parallelism. It argues Spinoza reinterprets the ancient doctrine of metaphysical sympathy among ostensibly disconnected and distant beings in terms of fully intelligible relations of 1) identity between formal and objective reality, and in terms of 2) “real identity,” grounded in Spinoza’s substance-monism. Finally, the paper argues against the standard reading of mind-body pairs as “numerically identical”.

Spinoza on being human and human perfection”,in Essays on Spinoza’s Ethical Theory, ed. Matthew Kisner, and Andrew Youpa (Oxford UP, 2014):
HUEBNER,_beingHuman [scan]

This paper combines foundational interpretative investigation into Spinoza’s notion of “essence” with a further inquiry into the relation between Spinoza’s metaphysics and ethics. I show that contrary to prevailing interpretations, Spinoza’s metaphysics does have room for a rational conception of a shared human nature (so for a ‘species-essence’ common to multiple individuals). I also argue that Spinoza associates being “human” with the possession of the causal power to reason (that is, to produce adequate general ideas). The article also offers a new account of one of the most perplexing concepts of Spinoza’s ethics, that of an ideal “model” of human nature, arguing for the coherence of thinking of human beings as entirely free in Spinoza’s framework.

Spinoza’s unorthodox metaphysics of the will,” in The Oxford Handbook on Spinoza, ed. Michael Della Rocca (Oxford UP, 2018 / 2013 online):
Penultimate version: HUEBNER_MetaphofWill

The article offers a new interpretation of Spinoza’s conatus doctrine, focusing on Spinoza’s argument for this doctrine. It examines the consequence of a non-teleological account of human action for Spinoza’s moral philosophy, and in particular for our understanding of the nature of the three moral phenomena that Spinoza grounds in “striving”: volition, desire and appetite. The article combines foundational interpretative work on Spinoza’s notion of causality with an inquiry into the relation between Spinoza’s metaphysics and his ethics. It examines how two of Spinoza’s basic metaphysical commitments result in highly unorthodox and counter-intuitive ethical doctrines. More specifically, it shows that Spinoza’s naturalism (the belief that all things are subject to the same rules) and his rejection of teleology (purposefulness in nature) result in a nontraditional understanding of the nature of will and desire: these become universal in scope (and so come to characterize animals and even inanimate objects as much as human beings), but at the same time cease to be end-directed (such that we can no longer rationally claim that we do p because we desire some “good”).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s