Spinoza's State of Nature:

Is it even more extreme than Hobbes's?

 

        Are there any moral constraints in the SN?

        Are there duties to God in the SN?

 

Why are there no laws of reason in the State of Nature?

Where do laws of reason come from?

 

        According to Hobbes, the Golden Rule summarizes all the Laws of Nature.  Does Spinoza agree?  According to Spinoza, what is the universal law of human nature?

 

        Recall what Hobbes says about agreements to pay ransom made by prisoners of war and agreements to pay a thief when made under threat of death.  Does Spinoza agree with Hobbes on the question of whether they are binding?

 

According to Spinoza, what makes a compact valid?

 

What is necessary for the Golden Rule to be binding?  Why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SPINOZA'S SOVEREIGN

 

What is Spinoza's definition of a sovereign?

 

According to Spinoza is there any important distinction between a sovereign by institution and a sovereign by acquisition?

 

According to Spinoza, do citizens have any inalienable rights?

 

Why are citizens obliged to fulfill the commands of the sovereign power "however absurd these may be"?(203)

 

Can the sovereign wrong a subject or commit injustice?

 

What is the advantage of democracy over monarchy?

 

What is Spinoza's definition of freedom?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spinoza's First Argument for Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Speech

 

Why does Spinoza think that "the true aim of government is liberty"?

 

Is Spinoza advocating a right to freedom of thought and to freedom of speech?

 

Not strict rights but proper course of action.

 

What is the fact on which Spinoza bases his first argument for freedom of thought? 

 

What is the analogy to "luxury, envy, drunkenness, and the like"?

 

Why does he think that the argument also extends to speech?

 

What kinds of speech does he exclude from the argument?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spinoza's Second (Consequentialist) Argument for Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Speech

 

(1) The uselessness of laws limiting thought or speech.

(2) The problem of criminalizing men of enlightenment, who love virtue and the liberal arts.  "Such freedom is absolutely necessary for progress in science and the liberal arts."(210)

(3) Why the laws are bound to punish those don't deserve punishment.  [Consider the example of loyalty oaths during the 1950's]

(4) Freedom of judgment enables men to live together in harmony.

(5) The prosperity of Amsterdam.  [Compare The Rise of the Creative Class, a study on the relation between tolerance and economic development.]

(6) Intolerance breeds conflict. 

        The surprising claim:  Suppression of opinion increases conflict; tolerance of opinion reduces conflict.  This would not have been predicted a priori.

 

        What is the ironic twist to Spinoza's last paragraph?