[In the 18th century] Whether one reads the underground texts or those of the great Enlightenment authors, one has the impression that Spinozism was everywhere; but at the same time, it can be said, strictly speaking, there were no Spinozists (except as convenient phantoms for apologists); there were only thinkers who make use of Spinoza. Naturally, they could do so with more or less creativity, style, and depth.

What It Means

This is a placeholder explanation generated by the low-overhead model. It interprets "[In the 18th century] Whether one reads the underground texts or those of the great Enlightenment authors, one has the impression that Spinozism was everywhere; but at the same time, it can be said, strictly speaking, there were no Spinozists (except as convenient phantoms for apologists); there were only thinkers who make use of Spinoza. Naturally, they could do so with more or less creativity, style, and depth." in the context of "Pierre-François Moreau, “Spinoza’s Reception and Influence,” in The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza, Don Garrett, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 413" to mean that wisdom is timeless.