DOCSLIB.ORG

The Influence of Benedict De Spinoza on John Locke's Political

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Influence of Benedict De Spinoza on John Locke's Political A New Lens on Liberal Modernization: The Influence of Benedict de Spinoza on John Locke's Political Philosophy © David Manopoli HIST 4000 Professor Cash 4/25/2013 2 This essay will argue that there is an intellectual link between the philosophies of Benedict de Spinoza and John Locke. When one examines their major works and Spinoza’s letters with Henry Oldenburg, there is strong evidence that Spinoza influenced Locke. While the essay will address their epistemologies, primary emphasis will be on their political philosophies in order to address the thesis of Jonathan Israel that Spinoza’s political works had a direct influence on modern democratic institutions. By influencing Locke, and Locke in turn influencing the American Revolution, Spinoza has left a mark on American democracy, providing a new perspective on the development of political theory. A great deal of progress in Western society can be traced to the Age of Enlightenment, which has been strongly argued by many historians. Peter Gay’s work, The Enlightenment: An Interpretation, goes to great lengths to show the advances in humanities, sciences, social perspectives, and politics that were made in 18th century Europe, leading to major revolutions in North America and France. Jonathan Israel’s work on the Enlightenment is vast and defends Gay’s modernization thesis, beginning with Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity in 2001 and followed by two more works in 2006 and 2011 which trace the origins of modern democracy to the radical strain of philosophers in the 17th and 18th centuries. However, the impact of these philosophers on political conditions both in their time and on ours has been hotly debated among Enlightenment scholars. The central figure in Israel’s interpretation is Baruch Spinoza. Simply put, Spinoza’s radical philosophy is more responsible for the shift in Western philosophy towards secularism and democratic ideas than other European philosophers, whom Israel designates as more moderate by contemporary standards. While no one doubts that Spinoza’s philosophy was considered radical during his time, or that it caused responses of strong praise and condemnation, critics of Israel’s thesis have questioned whether Spinoza’s political philosophy was really as influential at its time and as relevant to modern democracy as Israel claims. 3 The guiding questions for this essay are whether Spinoza really made such a drastic impact on political philosophy, and whether Spinoza can actually be linked to modern democracy. Wim Klever, a Dutch scholar on Spinoza, argues in “Locke’s Disguised Spinozism” that he did: Locke’s own philosophy was profoundly shaped by Spinoza’s works. Klever points to the evidence that Locke possessed and read Spinoza’s major works and borrowed many of Spinoza’s ideas which show up in Locke’s work. Klever then shows direct textual similarities in their works and letters, and similarities in their ideas regarding epistemology, secularism, and political theory. This essay will evaluate the validity of these similarities with emphasis on the political theories of Spinoza and Locke. Intellectual connections between Spinoza and Locke will be established, followed by textual similarities. Then, their epistemologies will be compared and used to explain their similar stances on secularism and political structure. Finally, the connection between Locke and the American Revolution will be explored. Moreover, this essay will evaluate Klever’s argument by examining the same sources: namely Spinoza’s Principles of Cartesian Philosophy (1663), Ethics (1677), Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (1670), Tractatus Politicus (1676), and Spinoza’s letters, alongside Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), Reasonableness of Christianity (1695), Second Treatise on Government (1689), and Letter Concerning Toleration (1689). From this, the connection between the political ideas of Locke and the American Revolution will be examined to determine whether Spinoza, through Locke, made an impact on modern democratic ideas and institutions. These investigations will reveal that Spinoza had a credible influence on Locke, and Locke on the American Revolution, which supports Israel’s claim that Spinoza influenced the 4 establishment of modern democracy by using the United States as the example. Supporting this interpretation offers a new perspective on the development of philosophy in Age of Enlightenment and its culmination in modernity today. However, there are some caveats: these influences must not be overstated. Klever goes so far to call Spinoza the “philosophical master of Locke,”1 and this essay will argue that Klever’s interpretation ignores significant differences in their philosophies, primarily their epistemologies. While Spinoza and Locke did differ on specific points, the chronology of their work and the similarity in their political philosophies support the thesis that Spinoza had a direct influence on Locke's political thought. Both arrived to the same point from their epistemologies that human beings have natural rights based upon their natural faculties. Furthermore, though Locke went on to substantially influence the American Revolution, it would be wrong to behold him as the sole ideological father of the Revolution in the context of colonial politics and history at the time. The connection is there, but it is subtle and complex. Klever first places Spinoza in the context of 17th century philosophy. René Descartes’ philosophy made a significant impact on academia at the time, but many thinkers had objections. One such thinker was Spinoza, who outlined his understanding and objections to Cartesianism in his Principles of Cartesian Philosophy. Spinoza’s main objections regarded substance duality, Descartes’ treatment of the will and intellect, and free will.2 Some scholars at the time were impressed with Spinoza’s work and were very curious about his own views.3 The three that are most important to this discourse were Henry Oldenburg, Robert Boyle, and John Locke, who were colleagues at the Royal Society of London. Boyle and Spinoza had regular discourse with 1 Wim Klever. “Locke’s Disguised Spinozism.” Retrieved 3/25/2013 from http://www.benedictusdespinoza.nl/lit/Locke%27s_Disguised_Spinozism.pdf, 1. 2 Michael L. Morgan, ed., Spinoza: Complete Works, translated by Samuel Shirley (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2002), 119n6. 3 Klever, “Disguised,” 1 and 1n5. 5 each other through Henry Oldenburg, and this is where Locke – a friend and colleague to Boyle – became exposed to Spinoza.4 “It is well established” that Locke obtained Spinoza’s subsequent works “immediately after their publication,”5 Klever demonstrates. Locke had Spinoza’s work in his library, not only exposing himself to Spinoza’s literary works but also to the discussions of Spinozist ideas during his time in Amsterdam between 1683 and 1688 – during which he composed most of his major publications. There is even material evidence in Locke’s annotated King James Bible where he makes note of Spinoza’s claim in the first chapter of his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (henceforth referred to as TTP) that the Jews attribute God as the cause of things occurring.6 Furthermore, Klever points to contemporaries of Locke who made note of the Englishman’s agreements and similarities with Spinoza; particularly Pierre Des Maizeaux’s letter to Jean Barbeyrac in 1706 and William Carroll’s dissertation in the same year.7 In sum: it can be demonstrated that, on a material and social level, Locke knew of Spinoza, both reading and reflecting upon Spinoza’s philosophy while in England and Amsterdam. It should also be noted that the time frame of Locke’s writing is disputed among scholars. Locke asserted that he began writing his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (henceforth referred to as ECHU) in 1671, which would mean Spinoza’s major works could not have reached him yet. However, Klever notes G.A.J Rogers, an editor of Locke’s Essay, who points to a particular letter Locke had written which changes his timeframe. In correspondence to Edward Clarke in 1686, Locke wrote that he was finishing the fourth and fifth books of ECHU after “five 4 Ibid., 15. See also: Letter 25 in Complete Works, wherein Oldenburg notes the interest that the Royal Society had in Spinoza’s notions. 5 Ibid., 1. 6 Baruch Spinoza. Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, in Spinoza: Complete Works, translated by Samuel Shirley and edited by Michael L. Morgan (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2002), 395-396. 7 Klever, “Disguised,” 2-3. 6 or six years”8 of working on the entire project – which places his starting point as 1680-1681, in line with the chronology of Spinoza’s influence. Klever does note Mark Goldie’s insistence that Locke made an error in his letter, but finds this unconvincing.9 Klever then proceeds to demonstrate the intellectual and textual similarities shared between Spinoza and Locke by providing an exhaustive number of examples underscoring the influence of Spinoza’s epistemology and politics on those of Locke. For instance, the discussions about innate motion between Spinoza and Oldenburg in Letters 6, 11, 13, and 32 seem to show up in certain places in Locke’s ECHU.10 When Spinoza criticizes Boyle for seeking “cause from purpose,”11 Oldenburg replies that Boyle “made use of the Epicurean principles” of “innate motion in particles.”12 Klever argues that Locke, intimate with this correspondence, addresses Boyle’s error as an assumption and makes a direct note of the Epicureans in the ECHU;13 innate motion was “a mortal sin in the new science.”14 In Letter 13, discourse on an “experiment… to measure an eventual difference between horizontal and vertical air pressure,”15 shows up later in ECHU.16 An example of a woodworm in a letter concerning human perspective, which appears in Letter 3217, also re- appears in ECHU.18 8 Ibid., 23. 9 Ibid. Klever seems to think that this later authorship is most likely in light of Rogers’ “Introduction,” in G.A.J. Rogers, ed., Locke’s Philosophy: Content and Context (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 9-12; and Letter 886 in John Locke, The Correspondence of John Locke: Volume 3, ed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Spinoza's Political Theory: Naturalism, Determinism And
    Open Journal of Philosophy, 2017, 7, 105-115 http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojpp ISSN Online: 2163-9442 ISSN Print: 2163-9434 Spinoza’s Political Theory: Naturalism, Determinism and Institutionalism Jan-Erik Lane Public Policy Institute, Belgrade, Serbia How to cite this paper: Lane, J.-E. (2017). Abstract Spinoza’s Political Theory: Naturalism, De- terminism and Institutionalism. Open Jour- Spinoza has a formidable reputation as an abstract philosopher in the ratio- nal of Philosophy, 7, 105-115. nalist school of the 17th century. This standard image of him stems from his https://doi.org/10.4236/ojpp.2017.72007 elegant Ethics, examining men and women with the Euclidean method of Received: March 25, 2017 axioms, corollaries and implications. He launched a fascinating theory about Accepted: May 24, 2017 moral naturalism and ethical determinism, much debated by other great phi- Published: May 27, 2017 losophers. However, he also has two political texts, one on religion and Copyright © 2017 by author and another on political regime. They are much more reader friendly and the ar- Scientific Research Publishing Inc. guments are simple, following from the foundations in Ethics. At least, Spi- This work is licensed under the Creative noza so believed. This paper presents systematically the political theory in Commons Attribution International Tractatus Politicus, which has received too little attention. License (CC BY 4.0). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access Keywords Naturalism, Determinism, Hobbes, Kierkegaard, Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy, Institutionalism and Choice 1. Introduction Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) dealt with general philosophy, the philosophy of re- ligion and political philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Spinoza on the Body Politic
    _full_journalsubtitle: A Journal for the Study of Science, Technology and Medicine in the Pre-modern Period _full_abbrevjournaltitle: ESM _full_ppubnumber: ISSN 1383-7427 (print version) _full_epubnumber: ISSN 1573-3823 (online version) _full_issue: 1 _full_issuetitle: The Body Politic from Medieval Lombardy to the Dutch Republic _full_alt_author_running_head (neem stramien J2 voor dit article en vul alleen 0 in hierna): 0 _full_alt_articletitle_running_head (rechter kopregel - mag alles zijn): From the King’s Two Bodies to the People’s Two Bodies _full_is_advance_article: 0 _full_article_language: en indien anders: engelse articletitle: 0 46 Early Science and Medicine 25 (2020) 46-72 Terpstra www.brill.com/esm From the King’s Two Bodies to the People’s Two Bodies: Spinoza on the Body Politic Marin Terpstra Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands [email protected] Abstract In this article, using Spinoza’s treatment of the image of the political body, I aim to show what happens to the concept of a healthy commonwealth linked to a monarchist model of political order when transformed into a new context: the emergence of a democratic political order. The traditional representation of the body politic becomes problematic when people, understood as individual natural bodies, are taken as the starting point in political theory. Spinoza’s understanding of the composite body, and the assumption that each body is composed, raises the question of the stability or instability of this composition. This has implications for the way one looks
    [Show full text]
  • The Curious Case of Baruch Spinoza in Walter Ben­Ja­Min’S “Toward the Critique of Violence”
    The Curious Case of Baruch Spinoza in Walter Ben ja min’s “Toward the Critique of Violence” MASSIMO PALMA abstract Although Baruch Spinoza was im por tant for think ers of his gen er a tion, Walter Ben ja­ min seems to have com pletely ig nored the phi los o pher. Spinoza’s name ap pears just a few times in Ben ja min’s works, and Spinoza’s thought never seems to have been rel e vant to him. The only place where Ben ja min quotes a text of Spinoza’s, al beit be tween the lines, is in “Toward the Critique of Violence” (1921). Still, in this essay Ben ja min is far from enthu si as tic about the au thor of the Ethics. He names Spinoza as a pro po nent of nat u ral law the o ry, which Ben ja min dismisses in his search for a cri te rion with which to judge Gewalt. This ar ti cle seeks to in ves ti gate Ben ja min’s ap par ent hos til ity to Spinoza and to reexamine the re la tion ship be tween the two, from both a the o ret i cal and a po lit i cal per spec tive. keywords Walter Ben ja min, Baruch Spinoza, le gal vi o lence, nat u ral law, mi gra tion The names of Walter Ben ja min and Baruch Spinoza rarely ap pear along side one an other in the lit er a ture on Ben ja min.
    [Show full text]
  • Enacting Knowledge: Spinoza's Dynamic of Politics
    ORBIT-OnlineRepository ofBirkbeckInstitutionalTheses Enabling Open Access to Birkbeck’s Research Degree output Enacting knowledge: Spinoza’s dynamic of politics https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/40421/ Version: Full Version Citation: Marston, Stephanie (2019) Enacting knowledge: Spinoza’s dy- namic of politics. [Thesis] (Unpublished) c 2020 The Author(s) All material available through ORBIT is protected by intellectual property law, including copy- right law. Any use made of the contents should comply with the relevant law. Deposit Guide Contact: email Enacting Knowledge: Spinoza’s Dynamic of Politics Stephanie Marston Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Birkbeck College, University of London 2019 1 Abstract The central claims of my thesis are that Spinoza’s philosophy of mind and affect entails that human knowledge is distinctively creative; and that understanding this makes it possible to understand Spinoza’s political philosophy as grounded in the interplay between knowing and the effects of knowledge. I develop the arguments underpinning these claims to show that the tensions commonly perceived in Spinoza’s political philosophy are a manifestation of its dynamism and creativity. The first part of my thesis proposes that, within Spinoza’s metaphysics, individual modes should be understood as distinguished by their effects on other modes, rather than by essence. I proceed from this interpretive premise to an explication of Spinoza’s theory of knowledge: situating it within the philosophy of mind adumbrated in Part 2 of the Ethics, I develop a reading of Spinoza’s epistemology as a theory of ‘affective knowing’. I argue that his account of knowledge formation implies a necessary interdependence among the three kinds of knowledge discussed in E2p40s2, with all knowledge shaped by both the knower’s encounters with other modes and her own acting.
    [Show full text]
  • The Social Contract in Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicus
    Title The Social Contract in Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicus Author(s) Ueno, Osamu Citation Philosophia Osaka. 4 P.55-P.67 Issue Date 2009-03 Text Version publisher URL https://doi.org/10.18910/6476 DOI 10.18910/6476 rights Note Osaka University Knowledge Archive : OUKA https://ir.library.osaka-u.ac.jp/ Osaka University Philosophia OSAKA No.4, 2009 55 Osamu UENO (Osaka University) The Social Contract in Spinoza's Tractatus Theologico-Politicus 1 Recent studies on Spinoza have focused on the remarkable fact that the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (TTP), published anonymously in 1670, includes the notion of a social contract, but that the later Tractatus Politicus (TP), another political work, left unfinished by the death of the author, contains no mention of this construct. Many authors have argued that the latter work presents an original idea that stands apart from contractarian thought. However, this position accounts for only half of the issue in question. If it is true that Spinoza’s genuine political philosophy involves non-contractarian thought, why does the earlier TTP draw on social contract theory? Did this earlier reference reflect a mere manner of talking or did it represent a theory that Spinoza originally embraced but later abandoned as obsolete? If neither of these, what does it mean? This is the problem I address in this paper. I will first examine earlier studies and discuss their inadequacies and will then reconstruct the argument presented by Spinoza in the TTP. In the conclusion, I will show that Spinoza’s social contract is part of a “grammar of piety” which, in my opinion, is the theoretical object constantly present throughout the TTP.
    [Show full text]
  • Spinoza: a Guide for the Perplexed
    SPINOZA: A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED Continuum Guides for the Perplexed Adorno: A Guide for the Perplexed – Alex Thomson Deleuze: A Guide for the Perplexed – Claire Colebrook Existentialism: A Guide for the Perplexed – Stephen Earnshaw Gadamer: A Guide for the Perplexed – Chris Lawn Hobbes: A Guide for the Perplexed – Stephen J. Finn Husserl: A Guide for the Perplexed – Matheson Russell Kierkegaard: A Guide for the Perplexed – Clare Carlisle Levinas: A Guide for the Perplexed – B. C. Hutchens Merleau-Ponty: A Guide for the Perplexed – Eric Matthews Quine: A Guide for the Perplexed – Gary Kemp Rousseau: A Guide for the Perplexed – Matthew Simpson Sartre: A Guide for the Perplexed – Gary Cox Wittgenstein: A Guide for the Perplexed – Mark Addis SPINOZA: A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED CHARLES E. JARRETT Continuum International Publishing Group The Tower Building 80 Maiden Lane 11 York Road Suite 704 London SE1 7NX New York, NY 10038 www.continuumbooks.com © Charles Jarrett 2007 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or trans- mitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including pho- tocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Thanks are due to the following publishers for permission to reprint portions of Samuel Shirley’s translations of Spinoza’s works. Spinoza. Complete Works; translated by Samuel Shirley and others; edited, with introduction and notes, by Michael L. Morgan. Copyright © 2002 by Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Reprinted by permission of Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved. Baruch Spinoza. Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, translated by Samuel Shirley.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Position of Spinoza's Political Thought
    Title The Possessor of Free Will and Sovereignty : On the position of Spinoza's political thought Author(s) Kashiwaba, Takehide Citation 北海道大学文学研究科紀要, 115, 1-20 Issue Date 2005-02-28 Doc URL http://hdl.handle.net/2115/34084 Type bulletin (article) この論文に対し、訂正版が発表されています。このページの下部の「HUSCAP内関連資料」のリンクから、 Note 訂正版をご覧ください。 File Information 115_PL1-20.pdf Instructions for use Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers : HUSCAP The Possessor of Free Will and Sovereignty: On the position of Spinoza's political thought Takehide Kashiwaba Introduction Spinoza's position in the history of political philosophy has been primarily that of a forerunner to Liberalism!. It is certain that in Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Spinoza defends freedom of speech and thought, and although in what was to become his last work, Tractatus Politicus, he argues even in favor of the monarchy and aristocracy as political systems, he nevertheless places importance on the free people of the state. For example, regardless of how absolute the sovereignty of a commonwealth may be, Spinoza asserts that "no one is able to transfer to another his natural right or faculty to reason freely and to form his own judgment on any matters whatsoever, nor can he be compelled to do so" (TTP 20/242, d. TP3/8/287). Rather than the freedom of speech of the individual being in opposition to the sovereignty and peace of the state, on the contrary, it is a prerequisite for the maintenance of the state (TTP20/ 246-7). It is upon the state to facilitate the growth of the minds and bodies of humankind, and to ensure that each individual can live freely and harmoniously exercising reason.
    [Show full text]
  • Spinoza's Political Treatise Edited by Yitzhak Y
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-17058-2 — Spinoza's Political Treatise Edited by Yitzhak Y. Melamed , Hasana Sharp Frontmatter More Information Spinoza’s Political Treatise Spinoza’s Political Treatise constitutes the very last stage in the develop- ment of his thought, as he left the manuscript incomplete at the time of his death in 1677. On several crucial issues – for example, the new conception of the “free multitude”–the work goes well beyond his Theological- Political Treatise (1670), and arguably presents ideas that were not fully developed even in his Ethics. This volume of newly commissioned essays on the Political Treatise is the first collection in English to be dedicated specifically to the work, ranging over topics including political explana- tion, national religion, the civil state, vengeance, aristocratic government, and political luck. It will be a major resource for scholars who are interested in this important but still neglected work, and in Spinoza’s political philosophy more generally. yitzhak y. melamed is the Charlotte Bloomberg Professor of Philosophy at Johns Hopkins University. He is the coeditor of Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise: A Critical Guide (Cambridge, 2010) and Spinoza and German Idealism (Cambridge, 2012), the editor of Spinoza’s Ethics: A Critical Guide (Cambridge, 2017), and the author of Spinoza’s Metaphysics: Substance and Thought (2013). hasana sharp is Associate Professor of Philosophy at McGill University. She is author of Spinoza and the Politics of Renaturalization (2011), and coeditor of Between Spinoza and Hegel (2012) and Feminist Philosophies of Life (2016). © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-17058-2 — Spinoza's Political Treatise Edited by Yitzhak Y.
    [Show full text]
  • From Reality Without Mysteries to the Mysteryof the World: Marilena Chaui's Reading of Spinoza'stractatus Theologico-Politic
    philosophies Article From Reality without Mysteries to the Mystery of the World: Marilena Chaui’s Reading of Spinoza’s Tractatus Theologico-Politicus Viviane Magno Department of Law, Pontifical Catholic University in Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 22541-041, Brazil; [email protected] Abstract: This article offers an overview of Marilena Chaui’s reading of the Tractatus Theologico- Politicus (TTP). Chaui has published numerous books and essays on Baruch Spinoza. Her two- volume study The Nerve of Reality is the culmination of a decades-long engagement with the Dutch philosopher, and her research has been a valuable resource for generations of Latin American scholars. From this extensive output, we focus on Chaui’s main texts on the theological-political, concentrating on her analysis of the concept of superstition and the philosophical language of the TTP, which Chaui calls a “counter-discourse”. Spinoza’s enduring relevance for the interpretation of contemporary phenomena is clarified by Chaui’s analysis of the TTP, which establishes a fundamentally political understanding of superstition. Citation: Magno, V. From Reality without Mysteries to the Mystery of Keywords: Baruch de Spinoza; theological-political treatise; political philosophy; superstition; the World: Marilena Chaui’s Reading Marilena Chaui of Spinoza’s Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. Philosophies 2021, 6, 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/ philosophies6020045 1. Introduction This article seeks to introduce readers to the work of Brazilian philosopher Marilena Academic Editors: Henri Krop and Chaui, with particular focus on her valuable contributions to the study of the Tractatus Pooyan Tamimi Arab Theologico-Politicus (TPP). This is no small task, since Chaui’s work, devoted to different aspects of the work of Baruch Spinoza, spans more than five decades.
    [Show full text]
  • The Limits of Multitude
    malcolm bull THE LIMITS OF MULTITUDE How can a blind multitude, which often does not know what it wants . undertake so vast and difficult an enterprise as a system of legislation? Rousseau, The Social Contract The worst of all the multitude Did something for the common good Mandeville, The Grumbling Hive ithin contemporary radical politics, there are a lot of questions to which there are many possible answers, and one question to which there is none. There are innumerable blueprints for utopian futures that are, Win varying degrees, egalitarian, cosmopolitan, ecologically sustainable, and locally responsive, but no solution to the most intractable problem of all: who is going to make it happen? Almost all the agencies through which political change was effected in the twentieth century have either disappeared or been seriously weakened. Of these, the most powerful was the Communist state, responsible, in agrarian societies, both for gruesome repression and for dramatic improvements in human well-being. Within industrialized nations, Communist and social democratic parties, and for a period even the Democratic Party in the United States, intermittently succeeded in achieving significant social and economic reforms, of which the endur- ing legacy is the welfare state; in this regard, they were aided by the trade unions, which simultaneously brought about a partial redistribution of wealth. In their turn, party and union provided (often unwillingly) the institutional and rhetorical matrix for fluid social movements of much greater ambition and inventiveness. How the achievements of these actors are judged is now, in a sense, irrelevant, for almost all have ceased to be effective political agents.
    [Show full text]
  • Spinoza on the Spirit of Friendship by David Belcheff a Thesis Presented
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ASU Digital Repository Spinoza on the Spirit of Friendship by David Belcheff A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts Approved April 2014 by the Graduate Supervisory Committee: Eugene Clay, Co-chair Norbert Samuelson, Co-chair Peter Foley ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY May 2014 ABSTRACT Baruch de Spinoza (1632-1677) is most often treated as a secular philosopher in the literature. But the critical-historical and textual analyses explored in this study suggest that Spinoza wrote the Ethics not as a secular project intended to supersede monotheism for those stoic enough to plumb its icy depths, but rather, and as is much less often assumed, as a genuinely Judeo-Christian theological discourse accounting for the changing scientific worldviews and political realities of his time. This paper draws upon scholarship documenting Spinoza's involvement with Christian sects such as the Collegiants and Quakers. After establishing the largely unappreciated importance of Spinoza's religious or theological thought, a close reading of the Ethics demonstrates that friendship is the theme that ties together Spinoza's ethical, theological, political, and scientific doctrines. i For Tanya ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many thanks to Dr. Norbert M. Samuelson, not least of all for introducing me to Spinoza. Being able to work closely with Dr. Samuelson has given me a privileged insight into the works of Gersonides and of other medieval Jewish thinkers from which many of Spinoza’s important insights sprang. Humble thanks to Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Treatise
    C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/12996981/WORKINGFOLDER/MELAM/9781107170582PRE.3D i [1–14] 23.4.2018 7:55PM Spinoza’s Political Treatise Spinoza’s Political Treatise constitutes the very last stage in the develop- ment of his thought, as he left the manuscript incomplete at the time of his death in 1677. On several crucial issues – for example, the new conception of the “free multitude”–the work goes well beyond his Theological- Political Treatise (1670), and arguably presents ideas that were not fully developed even in his Ethics. This volume of newly commissioned essays on the Political Treatise is the first collection in English to be dedicated specifically to the work, ranging over topics including political explana- tion, national religion, the civil state, vengeance, aristocratic government, and political luck. It will be a major resource for scholars who are interested in this important but still neglected work, and in Spinoza’s political philosophy more generally. yitzhak y. melamed is the Charlotte Bloomberg Professor of Philosophy at Johns Hopkins University. He is the coeditor of Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise: A Critical Guide (Cambridge, 2010) and Spinoza and German Idealism (Cambridge, 2012), the editor of Spinoza’s Ethics: A Critical Guide (Cambridge, 2017), and the author of Spinoza’s Metaphysics: Substance and Thought (2013). hasana sharp is Associate Professor of Philosophy at McGill University. She is coeditor of Between Spinoza and Hegel (2012) and Feminist Philosophies of Life (2016). Her book Spinoza and the Politics of Renaturalization (2011) explores Spinoza’s rejection of human exception- alism for political and feminist theory.
    [Show full text]