— 283 the spiritual and political growth of the individual himself, the accumulation of knowledge and critical assessment of such elements; containing human consciousness should have been enriched by the development of other, possible points of view on the forms of the religious political and their relationships. We noted in passing what significance Arab philosophy, and in particular the philosophy of Avverroes, brought with it for the formation of individualism, his thoughts on the comparative assessment of religions. Of these, two religions laid claim to world-historical significance (Christianity and Mohammedanism), and one was and remained, despite the narrow national framework, strong in its antiquity and in its connection with the first two.
For any religion, comparison with other religions and a critical attitude towards it is a difficult test, from which the mind of the confessor does not always emerge convinced and almost always shaken in the unconditional truths of dogma and cult, especially if the religion claims to have a unique and universal meaning. “For a believer, such a state is often the beginning of liberation from the first initial dogma. An ism is committed on the chain of dogma, despite the fact that the force of relimi and the force of vbra are exclusively recognized as the relaments of the predicate of truth.
On the other hand, for any political doctrine, criticism of it does not always serve to strengthen it in the consciousness of the citizen. And the whole history of the philosophy of the state is, in essence, NOTHING other than a continuous critika and the creation of seven renewed doctrines. Taking these notes into account, we should remember that by the time of Spinoza a great deal had happened in the field of religious and political literature. Spinoza lived in the era of the great schism of Catholic Christian dogma, which had developed over centuries. On the other hand, all Jewish wisdom, related to him by blood, was studied by him, like an expert, whom his native environment tried in every possible way to retain.
p yen VIEY
He was well aware of the two opposing directions of this wisdom—one under the influence of Avicebron, and on the other side Avicena and Avverroes.
Spinoza was a tense, intellectual contemporary. work caused by brutal sectarian strife.
For the philosopher, who experienced in the depths of his soul the struggle of different norms of understanding and remained alone both in life and in the memory of people for nearly a hundred years after his death, who went to the grave incomprehensible and cursed, it became clear that among all the changing judges and opinions one property remains immutably abiding human nature.
The property of the mind to understand and be critical of the life of dogma. This property, according to Spinoza, should be consistent with recognition on the part of the state of the right to freedom of thought and the right to freedom of belief.
If we remember what a central role in the explanation of the human personality, its psychology, its ethics and its relationship to forms of cohabitation is occupied in Spinoza’s system by reason, then your demand, on the part of the philosopher, for freedom of thought is consistent.
Freedom of thought is nothing more than the main condition for realizing the desire of every being to remain in its individuality (w $10 ezze retzeuegerage). To exercise and apply one’s rational ability, which, according to Spinoza, constitutes the quintessential human being, is the task of human life. But this is unthinkable without freedom. Consequently, if the state must provide conditions for the use of the reasonable abilities of people, then it must guarantee freedom to its citizens as a constitution.
If the state adheres to a different policy in relation to freedom of thought and expression, then it violates the law.
— 985 the race of a rational being and undermine its own existence, since the state is nothing more than a contract united and organized by a collection of individuals.
Destroying the nature of the individual, that is, the nature of its parts, it cannot but destroy itself.
In Spinoza, we find not only an individualistic, but also a completely democratic view of the state.