Benedict (Baruch) Spinoza

For his entry to History of Political Philosophy, Stanley Rosen focuses on Baruch Spinoza, although he is known as Benedict Spinoza in this essay. Regardless, Rosen sees Spinoza as playing an important part in the development of political philosophy as he was the first to lay out a philosophical and systematic defense of democracy, a defense that was rooted in Spinoza’s mechanical outlook and in his rejection of traditional philosophy. Though Spinoza did reject traditional philosophy, and can thus be seen as one of the earliest purely modern thinkers, it is important to remember that Spinoza did have some conception of an eternal order that regulated the merely human order. Even then, though this idea certainly harkens back to the traditional philosophers, Spinoza shifts his conception of the eternal order to make it quite different than the traditional philosopher’s conception of that order as he roots the order in a more scientific view than had been done before.

            Spinoza’s view of the order causes him to have a Stoic conception of freedom as Spinoza sees freedom as being the passive acceptance of the consequences of the eternal order. Again, though this may appear to be a traditional idea, Spinoza shifts this to a highly modern conception as he thinks that the people who have done this the best were the scientists and the politicians who had a scientific understanding of politics. What this means is that for Spinoza there is a deep connection between science and the practice of politics. This connection also means there can be a new way to understand the connection between the human and the non-human, a move that would attempt to move philosophy away from anthropocentricism. By moving away from anthropocentricism, Spinoza thought that reason was to be placed above the passions as for Spinoza; the passions were seen as more human than reason.

In Spinoza’s views toward order, we can see one of the clearest differences between him and Hobbes because while Hobbes thought society created order, for Spinoza all society does is recognize it. One of the implications of this element of Spinoza’s thought is that he is significantly less authoritarian than Hobbes as because order is prior to human society, Spinoza can allow for a greater recognition of human differences than Hobbes could. Such a view allows Spinoza to have a more robust conception of human freedom and democracy, provided of course that neither attempt to undermine the social order.

Despite his views on the possibility of freedom and democracy, order is still central to Spinoza’s thought as he wanted to direct all sciences to a single end, a goal which includes the mathematization of all sciences. Despite his interest in seeing all of science directed toward a single end, it is important to remember that Spinoza ultimately rejects teleology as he sees it as an example of the passions taking precedent over reason. Ultimately Spinoza wishes to see teleology eliminated as he thinks philosophers should focus on things as they are and not as they appear to be.

Spinoza also does not want to stop at merely subjugating politics to reason, but also wants to do the same to religion. One of the applications of his attempt to subjugate politics to reason is Spinoza’s idea that what the best state looks like as well what changes are needed to get at that state are seen as scientific questions. For Spinoza, the best state will be rooted in reason as people are only free when they obey by reason. This of course stands in stark contrast to Hobbes who sees the state as ultimately being rooted in fear and it is by fear that people obey it. This does give Spinoza a far more robust conception of the possibilities of society as society is now seen as not merely for protection, but also a method in which people’s capacity to reason can be enhanced. This leads Spinoza to seeing democracy as the best form of government because it was the best reflection of the state of nature due to its being rooted in reason and limits to power. Also important to Spinoza’s understanding of democracy is his contention that democracy best understood the limits to brute force. It is important to remember that despite Spinoza’s enthusiasm for democracy, and while he does allow all to vote, he thinking that the holding of office should be restricted.  In addition to democracy, Spinoza also has a great admiration of freedom, though the freedom he is most concerned with is the freedom of philosophers and philosophizing. And though Spinoza is well aware that his move towards democracy and freedom will require a revolution, for Spinoza if this revolution is properly backed by reason, it will be bloodless. As mentioned before, in addition to politics, Spinoza also wishes to subjugate religion to reason. Though Spinoza does not completely reject scripture, he does feel that philosophers have let their own biases color their interpretation of it. Thus Spinoza wishes to move towards a more scientific understanding of scripture as he feels that this will help philosophers avoid biases. By freeing reason in matters of religion, Spinoza ultimately wishes to create a more robust understanding of God.    

Though Spinoza is willing to grant a large degree of freedom, there are still definite limits on this as once a person consents to a sovereign, that person has both a desire and obligation to obey that sovereign. Still, Spinoza’s focus on both freedom and unity eventually leads to great tensions between those two concepts and one area this can be seen in is Spinoza’s view of the relationship between the sovereign and religion as Spinoza sees religious force as being solely rooted in the sovereign and not in divine law. For Spinoza this means that religious freedom is necessary for the well-being of the sovereign’s power as it allows the state to maintain unity in the face of religious diversity.