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.