According to Negri, at the present time when the definition of modernity set up by Hegel, Spinozism is no more historical point of reference, but a living and efficient paradigm. Postmodern Spinoza has been revived as a militant of subversive resistance and a philosopher of revolutionary materialist ontology. The representatives of these interpretations are Althusser, Macherey and Deleuze. The common position of these thinkers is a anti-Hegelian Spinozism. Negri and Hardt who have been greatly influenced by Deleuze among these philosophers present Spinozan philosophy as a ontological ethics and set the multitudes as the new collective subjects of revolt. But, iek want to return to the Hegelian critique of Spinoza, and to repeat it in a contemporary meaning. Spinozan ethics is one without deontology, that is to say reduces itself to ontology, for there is no master signifier of commands and prohibitions in it. That is why he calls Spinozism the ideology of late capitalism that everything is permitted in. In spite of this perspective, later iek recognizes a parallax view in Sponozan philosophy. and regards him as the philosopher as such. But the Spinozan parallax is still symmetrical. In this respect, it is necessary to transform Spinozan One as a neutral medium(storage) of modes into the immanent gap of Hegelian One. This is what is called the transition of substance into subject. From the standpoint of Lacanian Hegel presented by iek, the multitude as Beautiful Soul proposed by Negri and Hardt is never a revolutionary subject, for it is in connection with religious contexts. So, The limitations of the Spinozan immediacy of absolute democracy and the multitude are as much evident as the fateful ones of the Beautiful Soul is. In order to be revolutionary, politics should still be based on the Hegelian elements like sovereign state, centripetal force, and the system of liberty.
Main Scope: Ethics, Political Philosophy, Western Modern Philosophy
Keyword: Ontological Ethics, Ethics without Deontology, Spinoza, Hegel