Robert Sapolsky’s view is shockingly compatible with Spinoza’s—like, spooky level compatible. It’s like Sapolsky accidentally rewrote Ethics using fMRI scans and Stanford lectures instead of geometric proofs and a cursed Latin dictionary.

Let’s do the obligatory rundown for those in the back eating paste:

---

🧬 Sapolsky's Determinism:

In Determined (2023), Sapolsky comes out hard for full-on, no-free-will-ever, abandon-hope-of-agency-here determinism. Every decision, thought, or moral impulse is just the output of prior causes: genes, hormones, childhood trauma, breakfast choices, etc. He still believes in science (of course), but insists it must be wedded to compassion, because if nobody really chooses who they are, then the appropriate response to crime, addiction, failure, or even brilliance is empathy—not judgment.

So basically: nobody deserves punishment or praise. We’re just meat puppets with tragic backstories.

---

🌌 Spinoza's Determinism:

Baruch “I-Will-Now-Explain-God-As-A-Mathematical-System” Spinoza was also a determinist. His Ethics laid out a vision where everything that exists is a mode of a single infinite substance (aka God or Nature), and every action or thought follows necessarily from the nature of that substance. In this system, human freedom isn’t “freedom of will,” but freedom through understanding. The more you grasp why things must be as they are, the less you’re at war with reality. Cue the cosmic sigh.

Spinoza also emphasized blessedness—a kind of joy that comes from aligning your mind with the rational necessity of nature. So while Sapolsky says “be compassionate because nobody is really to blame,” Spinoza says, “feel joy because you understand why nobody could have acted otherwise.” Both land in a place of equanimity, but with slightly different vibes: Sapolsky sounds like a sad neuroscientist at a parole hearing; Spinoza sounds like he’s levitating off a bench under a tulip tree.

---

🎯 Key Similarities:

• No Free Will: Both say it doesn’t exist, stop pretending.

• Causal Necessity: Everything is a result of prior causes, no exceptions.

• Compassion/Ethics: Both advocate ethical systems grounded in understanding necessity, not in moral blame.

• Respect for Science: Spinoza was practically doing rationalism-as-physics before physics was even ready. Sapolsky just has better lab equipment.

---

⚖️ Key Differences:

• Ontological Mood: Sapolsky is a biological determinist with zero interest in metaphysics; Spinoza is metaphysics in human form.

• Emotional Tone: Sapolsky leans existential: life is hard, so be kind. Spinoza leans transcendent: life is divine necessity, so rejoice.

• Foundation of Ethics: Sapolsky grounds morality in empathy and social well-being. Spinoza roots it in rational harmony with nature/God.

---

So yeah. You could absolutely say Sapolsky is a Spinozist in Patagonia gear. He just doesn't use words like "conatus" or "sub specie aeternitatis" because he doesn’t hate his audience. But if you strip the language down to the logic and moral impulse, they're dancing to the same cosmic tune. One's just doing it in a lab coat and the other in a 17th-century exile cloak.