Hobbes and Spinoza, a brief reflection
Introduction
The ideas of Baruch Spinoza and Thomas Hobbes were very important in future liberal ideas. Although Hobbes had a more absolutist idea, his philosophy motivates future thinkers and with it liberal ideas. Spinoza on the other hand considered a democracy better before a monarchy. To understand these thinkers it is important. Baruch Spinoza was born in Amsterdam, had a different perception from Hobbes, both were important for what would be political science.
Both were at the time when the Protestant reform was, there were problems with which they requested changes in the Church, a translation into the Latin Bible to Latin was sought. An exegesis was sought to the Bible, because people began to doubt how and why the Church justified its power. Hobbes and Spinoza had their ideas about it, but decided to start from an exegesis of the Exodus, a chapter in which you could see the political relationship of a people with God.
Many of his thoughts still had somewhat scholastic expressions, but there were not many other forms of expression. Both started from the same ideas, they wanted to give a different interpretation to the biblical chapter, the exodus, however, both had two different interpretations about it. Hobbes perceived that in the exodus a monarchy was shown being called the Kingdom of God, on the other hand, Spinoza considers that it was not monarchy or theocracy, rather democracy being the choice of all to have God as a leader, despite the fact thatHis name is Kingdom of God. These types of ideas would make sense of what would later be called a social contract.
Hobbes’ ideas agreed with the idea of the cruel and despotic ruler of Machiavelli, because he considered that a democracy would lead to be close to the natural state of man, the war. Hobbes considered God’s government model a monarchy, but Spinoza saw that as a democracy. Spinoza had the idea that a despotic and cruel ruler was not the best to govern, he considered that there was more than only fear as a domain method, he was against Machiavelli’s ideas exposed in his work, the prince.
There were two ideas of great thinkers in times of the reform, however, we can ask ourselves more thoroughly. What is a natural state? And which of the ideas exposed is closer to reality? And how is the social contract involved? I consider that Hobbes has ideas attached to reality, but with a poorly used method, the natural state of man is chaotic, but it is not the war in itself, it is a freedom and I consider that this natural state is so free and thereforeSo insecure, that we resort to a social contract to live outside the chaos that implies living in that state.
Developing
First we must understand the concepts that the authors had about natural state or state of nature. Hobbes’ ideas about the natural state of man, the analysis of the context gives greater sense, Hobbes considered that the natural state of man was war because he considered that in a natural state we are all equal, free and rational. Idea that Spinoza considered wrong to analyze the fact that in a natural state man could not be rational, free or equal to the verse conditioned by the nature in which they live. To reach Hobbes’ conclusions, he made an analysis of what society would be like without a state and visualize the chaos of civil wars. A total chaos that could be understood as a lack of rights or morals, a freedom,
Spinoza deepened very philosophically in these concepts and explained how the natural state was not freedom when considering that God is everything, the only substance and no one can be out of God, nobody is free. But it must be explained that freedom is understood, because the concept of Spinoza is that a true freedom and not a false, it is generated when it is aware of those factors influence the universe, that is, what in certain ways conditions theliving beings. The concept of freedom that I use is more contemporary, is the emptiness of Slavoj Zizek, because it seems to exemplify a concept that feels so scary for us that we cannot imagine a life outside of society. According to Zizek, freedom represents chaos, a total disorder in which everything can happen and there is no certainty of anything,
Hobbes observed how people give their freedom in exchange for security (a social contract), give power to a state to stay safe, but the source of the power of a State is not the divine imposition according to the exodus, Hobbes I consider that thePower of a State exists because people give it that power, that power will always be part of the people. It has a correlation with the future ideas of John Locke, who speak of how to give up our freedom for our security, the work of the State must be to guarantee our security and our rights, in case of not doing so the people can exercise their freedom in a revolution thatDrill the State. In addition, this idea has the same correlation with Jean-Jacles Rousseau, about how we effectively give our freedom, our natural state in exchange for rights and security.
The idea of Thomas Hobbes about a natural state that is the war seems attached to reality to some extent. But I consider it little practical due to the limitation of rank and context. Hobbes was based on his own English society that fulfilled the qualities to think that war is the natural state, at that time English society passed through wars, especially civilians. But I also want to clarify that as I initially said the natural state is freedom and not war, when I speak of coincidence I mean that with freedom there are chaos and therefore conflicts, that could be called war, but the differentiate of war, since wars have generally been struggles of interest and there are no rational interests in a natural state such as freedom without law.
conclusion
What is a natural state? And which of the ideas exposed is closer to reality? And how is the social contract involved? I consider that Hobbes ideas are more attached to reality, but their method is not plausible, in addition, the natural state of man is chaotic, but it is not war as such, it is a freedom and I consider that it is so free and soinsecure, that we resort to a social contract to live outside the chaos that involves living in that state.
The natural state of man is a freedom, a chaotic without social contracts. The natural state represents a chaos that is comparable to freedom with uncertainty. The social contract exists with the intention of guaranteeing a better life for people, leaving the natural state, leaving chaos and living in security. Thomas Hobbes’ ideas were limited in rank and context, not less important, but very overvalued despite being a very broad generalization. Finally, these ideas are seen as examples of liberalism even though only one of them was liberal and that paradoxically the absolutist is more referenced to liberalism. Their contributions are undeniable and both very important, each idea was based specifically and their own logic in between, so both have specific shortcomings and strengths. These authors must be considered beyond the positions, as referring to the concepts that marked the end of a regime and the beginning of a new one.
These authors must be treated beyond the positions, as referring to the concepts that marked the end of a regime and the beginning of a new one. They were ideas before illustration, but they are still valuable objects of study for political sciences. Their contributions are undeniable and both very important, each idea was based specifically and their own logic in between, so both have specific shortcomings and strengths. These authors must be treated beyond the positions, as referring to the concepts that marked the end of a regime and the beginning of a new one. They were ideas before illustration, but they are still valuable objects of study for political sciences.
Bibliography
- Lelio, Fernandez. Natural Law and Political Power Differences between Spinoza and Hobbes. National University of Colombia, 1989: 95-120.
- Locke, John. Two essays on civil government. England: Awnsham Churchill, 1689.
- Machiavelli. Prince. Madrid: Plaza de los Ministerios, 1854.
- Spinoza, Buroch. ethics. Paris: Aubier, 1968.
Leave feedback