So, in Spinoza’s political philosophy, the starting point is the identification of the individual’s power with his right in the natural state. Spinoza has this trait in common with Hobbes. But while Hobbe, introducing the individual into political cohabitation, gradually takes away all his rights, Spinoza raises the question not about the selection of rights, but about the possibility of influencing the political environment on the natural power (right) of the individual and its possible transformation. Here he differs radically from the English thinker. Hobbes, anticipating the later remark of his compatriot, came to the conclusion that the state (like parliament) can do everything. It can completely regenerate a person—from a rough and wild animal into a meek (apparently) and obedient lamb. Such a conclusion is too premature, unfounded and straightforward. This straightforwardness, by the way, was credited to Hobbes by many historians of legal philosophy under the name of logical logic. But life doesn't always fit into shapes human laws, which, in the words of Renan, we would passionately wish to impose on her.
Spinoza comprehended human nature more deeply and found that its properties are not so easily amenable to the action of a political union.
Spinoza finally reaches the very essence of the problem of political individualism. He argues that human nature has properties that can be adapted to political cohabitation by the material force of government power and the complex apparatus of the state exerted on them, but cannot be eradicated or, so to speak, completely nationalized (which is what Hobbes thought to achieve). To do this, according to Spinoza, a person would have to renounce his inherent and innate properties, that is, cease to be a person in the true sense of the word.
Spinoza's citizen remains to a certain extent a free man, while Hobbes's citizen becomes a slave. '). Hobbes, personifying the state, depersonalizes the citizen *). The bearer of sovereignty, the monarch, gives shape to state life, in which the citizen is part of a huge mechanism and loses the right to any kind of self-determination. On the contrary, Spinoza does not abandon, following the example of Hobbes, individualistic prerequisites and the construction of an ideal state form. Right is natural power. Hence, the most desirable government is the one that has the greatest natural strength. That's what a democracy is like. And the opposite form of a right-handed monarch shows the same situation. The power of the monarch is firm and strong,
D) Compare T. Ro]. With. \. $3-5 and ice.
2) Spinoza openly speaks out against violence against citizens because Plato’s spirit is brought to virtue and perfection, and through THEM to bliss.
How long will we have support and not confrontation among the people'). It is close to disintegration - if the resistance and confrontation of the people, who have nothing to oppose, take precedence over the weakened monarchical power.
This right of resistance on the part of the people, which remains with them even in the state, can be seen as adopted by Spinoza, developed by the Tyranomachus and their followers, the Levellers. The right to resist, according to Spinoza, is obviously the same inalienable right as the right to freedom of thought, expressing and the right to freedom of belief. An ideal state guarantees the inviolability of the rights of citizens?).
Thus, political individualism found its support base in the natural law doctrine, from which it has not left until our times.
With its help, the individual presented to the state his subjective legal claims to a certain area of self-determination, now placed in greater or lesser independence from state government.
The right of nature, proclaimed by Stoicism, gradually turned into the right of human nature. The right of human nature is identified with the strength and power of the individual and turns into individual right. Spinoza's natural law doctrine already poses and positively resolves the question: can the individual right of a natural individual be inherent in a citizen of a state? Spinoza, answer positively. This is a necessary condition for individual existence in a political union. In Spinoza, the consequence of this necessity is a brilliant defense of the right to freedom of thought and expression, the right to freedom of belief, and the right to resist oppression. These rights cannot be removed by
1) Tgasyo TVeo]. Ro]. With. 7.
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]