In the preface to his Treatise on Theology and Politics, Spinoza describes his desire to give his readers a way to interpret the sacred books in order to pick out the word of God and the natural knowledge revealed by it while ignoring the messages that were implanted in order to promote obedience. He thinks that the key to a free State is the ability of its members to assent to whatever beliefs they want as long as their actions reflect obedience only to God's desire for his followers to be just and kind, rather than being forced to adhere to a flawed doctrine of beliefs (Treatise, 7).
His first justification for this position is, as Sol described, that people resort to superstitions only when unusual things happen. Whether good or bad, events that trigger superstition are fleeting and therefore must be made of "affects" rather than reason because reason is constant (Treatise, 2). If reason is constant, the true Scripture and word of God actually are rooted in reason (Treatise, 6), superstition has no reason, and it was the cornerstone of the Church's teachings, we can infer that since each political leader points to a different supposed godly truth to attain the obedience of his people, they must all be doing so under the guise of something other than the true word of God, which is completely rooted in love, in order to keep their people afraid and basically subservient. True dedication to God's word would grant spiritual sovereignty to the body of people who followed it. Additionally, by heeding the clergy as upstanding citizens and rewarding them for this behavior with money it opened the doors for greedy people to make their move into the Church for less than admirable reasons. Corruption in the Church lead to public displays of excess which then overshadowed any resolve to reiterate the true word of God (Treatise, 4).
Leading a State with the Church's fundamentally flawed doctrines built into its infrastructure will, then, lead to a fundamentally flawed state. Instead, a State should be governed with the natural rights of its individuals in mind because they are the ones who give the State power when they hand over their obedience. At first glance these points seem to be contradictory- Spinoza first talks about freedom and natural rights and then adds that if a person gives his power of defending himself to someone else that he hands these rights over to them. (Treatise, 8) What he means by this is that if a person who is granted freedom of mind willfully hands over this power to defend himself, he would only be doing so to a State that reflects his own beliefs. If a just person hands over his power to a State we can assume that the State is also just and will behave in accordance with at least the fundamentals behind the word of God and act in the best interest of its people.
Does this last point follow? Will just individuals only hand over their power to a governing body that is just or would they sacrifice their ideals for the protection that would come with a militant State? Does this then mean that they weren't just in the first place?
Nice post Julianne, I'm just curious if by, "natural rights of its individuals in mind" you mean the same sort of natural rights as Spinoza. It seems to me he more means a natural right to be those rights of the "animal kingdom" so to speak (pg. 7), and those rights that exist outside of the "social contract" that people give up to remain in the society.
ReplyDeleteI agree with "rewarding them for this behavior with money it opened the doors for greedy people to make their move into the Church for less than admirable reasons". Once someone is rewarded with money they will always have a sense of wanting more. One may do certain things that one may have never done until he or she is rewarded with money.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that people hand over their power to a state because they believe it is just, but instead because civilization necessitates certain rules be followed and if people want to be part of civilization, they are forced, in a way, to abide. They still maintain certain human rights, which are protections from the state, because these institutions can intrinsically be corrupt and often are not just, so the people must have a means of protecting themselves against this. Also, not all individuals in a society are just, either. To be part of a greater society, one has to forgo some rights in order to maintain peace, so that people’s selfish goals are somehow kept in check and they can’t do as they please whenever they want to the detriment of others.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say that "if a just person hands over his power to a State we can assume that the State is also just," you're reasoning is flawed. A person can only hand over just power, he has no other kind. They cannot handover power to an unjust body, they must take it from others, thereby undercutting their goal of state protection.
ReplyDeleteDuring the time, everyone was allowed freedom of thought and freedom of worship. Spinoza disregards the possibility of a reliance on a “natural light” of reason. (5) By casting the nature light aside, Spinoza reaches a “simple thought of a divine mind.” (6) Spinoza personally believes religious scriptures, rather than interpretations, are most effective at conveying religious law. Supreme power is then simply a response to natural rights conferred by religious texts. A sovereign power is able to reach an agreement with its subjects. This sovereign maintains control of issues of piety through this compliance. Therefore those “individuals” expressing discontent with the ruling power are left at odds with the faithful majority. Spinoza favors the power of a state able to abide by religious law to its fullest extent.
ReplyDelete