Cheers, Ken Hanly Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> Angela recommends Etienne Balibar's & Eugene Holland's interpretations of
> Spinoza. It appears to me, however, that Balibar & Holland are trying to
> make Spinoza say what he doesn't say. Spinoza does not trust the masses,
> and, moreover, he is in fact quite contemptuous of them. Seymour Feldman
> correctly says in his introduction to Spinoza's _Theological-Political
> Treatise_ (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1998):
>
> ***** The particular situation in which Spinoza found himself was brought
> about by a mixture of political and religious factions and alliances that
> were ripping apart the Dutch republic, which had only recently won its
> independence from Spanish domination. The republican government, ruled by
> a merchant class favoring decentralization and moderate liberal policies in
> religion, was opposed by a royalist faction headed by the House of Orange,
> which wanted to transform the republic into a monarchy....The republicans
> sided with the more "liberal" Remonstrants, whereas the monarchists favored
> the more orthodox Contra-Remonstrants....
>
> ...[T]o whom is this book [_Theological-Political Treatise_] addressed?
> That Spinoza wrote it in Latin immediately rules out two groups: 1) the
> masses, or "vulgus," who, not knowing this language, would not be able to
> read the _TTP_; and 2) the Jews, most of whom did not know Latin. The
> former are, according to Spinoza, incapable of either understanding or
> appreciating the ideas in the _TTP_; moreover, if they did understand some
> of its contents, they would be utterly unreceptive to it and vigorously
> oppose it. Throughout the _TTP_ Spinoza exhibits a not too well disguised
> disdain for the masses. Assuming his theory of human nature, worked out in
> detail in Parts 3-5 of the _Ethics_, Spinoza claims that most people are
> ruled by passion, and hence are in "bondage." One specific consequence of
> this "imprisonment" is their addiction to superstition, false beliefs based
> on the unrestrained exercise of the imagination, and fanaticism. Since the
> road to liberation is long and difficult (_Ethics_ 5.42, Scholium), Spinoza
> had no illusion that most people would either undertake or complete this
> journey....
>
> For those who have, either through their own efforts or from study of
> Spinoza's philosophy, emancipated themselves from prejudice and
> superstition, the _TTP_ is superfluous....They have already been convinced
> that philosophy, which is concerned only with truth, is not harmful either
> to the state or to true religion. It leads to freedom and tranquility. If
> the masses, the Jews, and the philosophers are not, for diverse reasons,
> the audience for the _TTP_, who, then, are its intended audience?...[T]here
> is hope that an open-minded, educated person will be persuaded by arguments
> based upon logic and facts. (xvi-xix) *****
>
> Just as Hume rails against fanaticism and extremism ("Perhaps the
> _levellers_, who claimed an equal distribution of property, were a kind of
> _political_ fanatics, which arose from the religious species," _Enquiry
> Concerning the Principles of Morals_) in his defense of inequality,
> Spinoza's argument against fanaticism is in part motivated by the fear of
> the masses & of their demand for economic justice:
>
> ***** Indeed, those who have experienced the fickleness of the masses are
> almost reduced to despair; for the masses are governed solely by their
> emotions, not by reason; they rush wildly into everything, and are readily
> corrupted either by avarice or by luxurious living. Every single man
> thinks he knows everything, and wants to fashion the world to his
> liking....Vanity makes him despise his equals, nor will he be guided by
> them. Through envy of superior fame or fortune -- which is never equal for
> all men -- he desires another's misfortune and takes pleasure therein.
> There is no need for me to go through the whole catalogue, for everyone
> knows to what wickedness men are frequently persuaded by dissatisfaction
> with their lot and desire for change, by hasty anger, by disdain of
> poverty, and how their minds are engrossed and agitated by these emotions.
> (Spinoza, _Theological-Political Treatise_, p. 193) *****
>
> Now, as for the claim that Spinoza is less absolutist than Hobbes with
> regard to the State power, that is nonsense. For instance, here's Spinoza
> on treason:
>
> ***** A subject is said to have committed this crime [of treason] if he
> has attempted for any reason to seize for himself the sovereign power's
> right or to transfer it to another. I say 'if he has attempted,' for if
> men were to be condemned only after the deed was done, in most cases it
> would be too late for the state to try to do this after the seizure of its
> right or its transference to another. Again, I say without qualification
> 'he who for any reason attempts to seize for himself the sovereign power's
> right,' thus making no distinction between cases where either injury or
> gain to the entire state would have unquestionably resulted. Whatever be
> the reason for the attempt, he is guilty of treason and is rightly
> condemned. In war, indeed, there is complete agreement that this is fully
> justified. If a man leaves his post and approaches the enemy without his
> commander's knowledge, even though he has ventured on this action with good
> intentions -- but nevertheless his won -- and has overcome the enemy, he is
> rightly condemned to death because he has violated his oath and the
> commander's right. Now it is not universally realised quite so clearly
> that all citizens without exception are always bound by this right, yet the
> point at issue is exactly the same. For since the state must be preserved
> and governed solely by the policy of the sovereign power and it is
> covenanted that this right belongs absolutely to it alone, if anyone
> embarks on some undertaking of public concern on his own initiative and
> without the knowledge of the supreme council, he has violated the right of
> the sovereign power and is guilty of treason and is rightly and properly
> condemned, even if, as we have said, the state was sure to gain some
> advantage from his action. (Spinoza, p. 187) *****
>
> In many ways, Spinoza is much closer to Rousseau on the matter of
> sovereignty (which is to say, more illiberal & less hedonistic) than Hobbes
> is.
>
> It is interesting that our contemporary philosophers are creating something
> of a Spinoza renaissance, but the politics attributed to the born-again
> Spinoza -- who becomes, in the hands of Eugene Holland for instance, a
> patron saint of grassroots micro-politics & Spinozian Marxism -- bears
> little resemblance to what Spinoza actually stood for.
>
> Yoshie