Summary of History of Political Thought University of Amsterdam Political Science First Year. I studied for this exam and recieved a 7. I have shared this to my friends and they have also passed the resit with this. Also, I have received recommendations to sell my notes. Email me questions if there...
Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677)
● dutch philosopher
● radical metaphysics: God=nature
● kicked out of Jewish community
● biblical criticism
● author of theological political treatise
● against Hobbes: free speech
Theological political treatise
● remarkable defence of freedom of thought and speech
○ main argument is not grounded in value of free speech
○ practically impossible and hence counter-productive to try to restrict free speech→
any attempt to regulate what to think will lead to more dispute
● liberal conclusion built on Hobbesian principles
Spinoza and Hobbes
● their social contract theories agree on many points:
○ both of them believe that humans have natural right to everything outside of the state
○ state of nature is full of hostility→ conflict, violence
○ a legally unbounded sovereign must be empowered to secure trust and settle conflict
○ in their actions, citizens must obey the civil law in all things
○ government power extends over religious affairs as well
○ peace and self-preservation are main reasons for entering a state
■ for spinoza, security involves ‘freedom from fear’
Spinoza on right
● Hobbes’s right to everything
○ in a condition of war, the right of self-defence permits individuals to do everything→
radical (war of all against all) ex) enslaving, dominating
● Spinoza’s right to everything
○ God is nature(the things that exist)
○ everything in nature “has a sovereign right to everything that it can do; the right of
nature extends as far as its power extents; the power of nature is the very power of
God who has the supreme right to do all things”
○ whatever we do we have a right to do, no limits other than our own power
○ if I engage something i do so by the power of my nature=god’s power
○ we act by our own power we act upon God, animations of God
○ brings out the idea that right and power are equivalent
○ rights are bounded by power
No free speech in Hobbes
● rulers have a duty to secure peace and stability
○ this requires rooint evil doctrines which incite people to sedition out of the citizens’
mind and gently instil others→ censorship
, ● Spinoza: controlling freedom of thought and speech is impossible→ main claim
○ don’t indoctrinate people but let them freely think
○ people will always have the power and right to think freely
○ it is human nature
○ citizens cannot renounce the ability to make up their own minds→ we inevitably
communicate their thoughts to others
○ repressing free speech is counter-productive since it undermines trust and inspires
spirited resistance
○ rulers lack the power and right to control civil opinions
● toleration is the best policy given to human nature
Compare rights-based arguments
● Locke’s argument for religious toleration
○ political rulers have not been authorized by the people to take care of our spiritual
welfare
○ people cannot be compelled to believe things by force; religious compulsion is in vain
● Hobbes: political control over religion for reasons of social stability
● Spinoza: any regulation of religious beliefs is counter-productive
Upshot
● Spinoza formulates an internal critique of Hobbes
○ given Hobbes’s own principles and goals, he ought to allow free speech
■ human nature + peace requirement is not complete state control
● Locke voices external criticisms against Hobbes
○ arguments based on principles not shared by opponent
■ possibility of private property outside the state
● Liberal conclusions ←→ liberal principles
Locke (1632-1704)
● English philosopher and scientist
● personal secretary of Shaftesbury
● had to flee England because he was involved in revolution, plotting regicide
● exciled in Holland
● Author of Two treatises of government
● belief in property rights and rights in ourselves outside of state (not dependent on gov.)
Locke’s state of nature
● freedom means independence not licence
○ rejects Hobbes’ idea of freedom: true freedom is limied by morality
○ humans are free by nature but not to do whatever we want
● norms of justice still apply
○ the state of nature is not always a state of war
○ it can be a peaceful condition because morality applies
Main differences with Hobbes:
● right to use force is heavily curtailed
, ○ no right to invade and kill preventively for personal defence
○ morality determines when we can use force; we can only use it when someone else
harms you first
● Freedom is not licence
○ no general right to do what you think is right
○ all have the right to punish injustices
○ outside of the state, if someone uses violence without justification, we all have the
right to punish wrongdoers
● state of nature is not necessarily state of war
○ some extent a system of law enforcement outside the state
○ make sure people act socially
● property and binding contracts exist outside of the state
Locke on meaning of property
● respect person’s property
● property: includes both life, liberty and estates
● rights in their persons and external goods (I owe my actions, my freedom, my reputation,
myself etc.)
Property in the state of nature
● the earth belongs to all of us
● every man has a property in his person
● i am my own master and also my labor (what i work on) → whatever i mix m y labor with
becomes mine
● unclear how this argument works exactly
● don’t need other’s approval
● if i start growing corn on a land, it becomes mine because i worked on it
Limits to appropriation
● Spoilage condition: when something goes to spoil, it is not mine it becomes everyone’s again
● Sufficiency condition: we need to leave enough for everyone else, not everything is mine;
important that we don’t take everything that exists; only enough to take as much resources
Money corrupts but doesn’t rot
● Pace Hobbes: no security, for labor is productive
● spoilage conditions overcome by money
○ money allows us to gain more property
Locke on inequality
● beloved by the right: inequality does not matter
○ limitation: whether I leave certain things to decay; if i save money i don’t leave
anything to waste
● he was not a laissez-faire thinker
Social contract theories
● Hobbes, Spinoza
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller shfly1207. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $13.55. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
