Anthropological Principles of Hobbes and Spinoza on Government (A Historical Overview)
Subject Areas : Geneology of philosophical schools and Ideas
Bayan
Karimy
1
(PhD in Philosophy, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran)
Seyyed Mustafa
Shahraeini
2
(Associate Professor, Philosophy Department, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, Tehran, Iran)
Keywords: historical development of political philosophy, Hobbes, Spinoza, human nature, government, security, perfection,
Abstract :
Hobbes and Spinoza are among the philosophers who believe in the necessity of dealing with political philosophy. They maintain that their political philosophies are systematically related to metaphysics and the anthropology that originates in it. In this regard, their views are clearly different from those of their predecessors and even from those of Descartes, who is almost contemporary with them. Spinoza has been influenced by Hobbes in some respects; however, because of the differences between the logic and general philosophy of each of them, there are some noteworthy differences between these two philosophers’ anthropological interpretations and the functions of their political philosophy. The main purpose of the present paper is to highlight the historical background of political philosophy in ancient Greece, particularly during the Middle Ages. While challenging this historical background, it also aims to discover the explicit and implicit metaphysical and anthropological principles and assumptions underlying the views of Hobbes and Spinoza regarding a desirable government and report the differences and similarities between them. The authors intend to demonstrate that Spinoza’s political philosophy is based on ethics and reason. The distinctive feature of his philosophy is its love of human beings and reason. On the other hand, Hobbes’ political philosophy is based on the senses, and its distinctive feature is having a pessimistic view of human beings and presenting a material interpretation of their nature. Accordingly, the principle of preserving the essence in Hobbes’ view is limited to preserving the body, and a superior government means absolute monarchy, the sole purpose of which is protecting the lives of its citizens and establishing security in society. Nevertheless, in Spinoza’s view, protecting the essence is beyond the protection of the body and extends to reason, perhaps even more than the body, because human essence mainly depends on their reason rather than their body. Hence a superior government in Spinoza’s view is of a democratic nature. He also emphasizes the role of government in promoting the human culture and the necessity of educational and ethical policy-making.
اسپینوزا، باروخ (1364) اخلاق، ترجمۀ محسن جهانگیری، تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.
اسپینوزا، باروخ (1374) اصلاح فاهمه، ترجمة اسماعیل سعادت، تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.
اسپینوزا، باروخ (1392) رسالۀ سیاسی، ترجمة ایمان گنجی و پیمان غلامی، تهران: نشر روزبهان.
پارکینسن، جی. اچ. (1392) تاریخ فلسفۀ راتلج: دوران نوزایی و عقل¬گرایی قرن 17، ترجمة سیدمصطفی شهرآیینی، تهران: حکمت.
هابز، توماس (1393) لویاتان، ترجمة حسین بشیریه، تهران: نشر نی.
Curley, E. (2006). Kissinger, Spinoza and Genghis Khan. The Cambridge companion to Spinoza. ed. by D. Garrett. pp. 315-342. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Del Lucchese, F. (2009). Democracy, multitude and the third kind of knowledge in the works of Spinoza. European Journal of Political Theory. Vol. 8, pp. 339-63.
Geismann, G. (1991). Spinoza; beyond Hobbes and Rousseau. The Journal of the history of ideas. Vol. 52, No.1, pp. 35-53.
Hobbes, T. (1839a). The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury.Vol. 1. Collected and ed. by W. Moleswortth and J. B. Henrietta Street. London: Covent Garden.
Hobbes, T. (1839b). The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury. Vol. 3. Collected and ed. by W. Moleswortth & J. B. Henrietta Street. London: Covent Garden.
Hobbes, T. (1839c). The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury. Vol. 4: Collected and ed. by W. Moleswortth and J. Bonhn Henrietta Street. London: Covent Garden.
Hobbes, T. (1998). On the Citizen (De Cive). T. Richard & M. Silverthorn(eds). Trans. by M. Silverthorn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Israel, J. (2004). The intellectual origins of modern democratic Republicanism (1660-1720). European journal of political theory. Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 7-36.
Jarrett, C. (2007). Spinoza: a guide for the perplexed. London: Continuum.
Kossman, E. H. (2000). Political thought in the Dutch Republic: three studies. Edita-the Publishing House of the Ray (Rayal).
Machiavelli, N. (1961). The Prince. trans. with an introduction by G. Bull. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin books.
McShea, R. (1971). Human nature and history. The Monist Philosophy of Spinoza. Oxford University Press. Vol. 55, pp. 602-616.
Prokhovnik, R. (2004). Spinoza and republicanism. New York: McMillan.
Rosenthal, M. A. (2001). Tolerance as a virtue in Spinoza’s ethics. Journal of the History of Philosophy. Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 535-57.
Smith, S. B. (2003). Spinoza’s book of life: freedom and redemption in the ethics. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Smith, S. B. (2005). What kind of democrat was Spinoza?. political theory. Vol. 33, No. 1., pp. 6-27.
Sorell, T. (2003). Seventeenth-century materialism: Gassendi and Hobbes. in the Renaissance and seventeenth-century rationalism: Routledge history of philosophy, ed. by G. H. R. Parkinson, pp. 219-238. London and New York: Routledge.
Spinoza, B. (2007). Theological-Political Treatise. ed. by J. Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, L. (1965). On the spirit of Hobbes’s political philosophy. in Hobbes Studies. ed. by K. C. Brown. London: Basic Blackwell.
Thayer, V. T. (1922). A comparison of the ethical philosophies of Spinoza. The Monist, vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 553-568.
Verbeek, T. (2003). Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise. London: Routledge.
Ward, L. (2011). Benedict Spinoza on the naturalness of democracy. Canadian Political Science Review. Vol. 5, No.1, pp. 55-73.
Yurdusev, N. (2006). Tomas Hobbes and international relations: from realism to rationalism. Australian Journal of International Affairs. Vol. 60, pp. 305-321.