The preface of the TTP covers a various selection of ideas which are each seperable into their own discourses. If there was an underlying theme of the preface it would have to be exactly what our syllabus labels it to be, and that is "Religion and Politics". Being that this is the preface to the TTP, Spinoza touches upon many things with a particular ambiguity, leaving room for interpretation and only allows the "philosophical reader" (TTP 15) to touch the surface of the works underlying points. The genesis of religion and the acceptance of religion by the masses, to religion's role in civil law, to subjectivity in perspectives and last but not least a proposal for the lawmakers of all epochs of time to consider pushing for ideological freedom; these are the points which I will attempt to address. Let me begin with what I feel is one of the most important points in the TTP's preface, the notion that is explored and elaborated in the first few sections; this idea of fear and superstition being responsible for the creation of and acceptance of religion. Fear, Spinoza says, is directly related to the instances in which prophets, people, and kingdoms become religious. It is only when the solider fears for his life that she/he prays in the name of the holy. "...Superstition must be just as variable and unstable as all absurd leaps of the mind and powerful emotions..." (TTP 5). It is this notion of superstition being a passion which is seperate from reasoning and thus falls in the realm of instability which means that religion is causally unstable. It is under these circumstances of religion that politics is introduced "Kings are adored as gods" (TTP 5). The points in section seven show religions power in tandom with politics; in a monarchy it is this fear and acceptance of religion which causes people to accept the government's fight, because it is in the name of religion and in the name of YOUR being. (It is this section which introduces "all words"/all forms of discourse to be free, a point which I will address soon) In this religious state, (including that of the Muslims, Christians and Jews) according to Spinoza, reason is impious, it is this notion which allows for the controlling of people and the coercion of unorthodox intellectual discourse.
Two more points which are worthy of note is this idea of subjectivity and Spinoza's proposal. In section 12 Spinoza elaborates on the notion of ideological freedom and subjectivity, "...human beings have very different minds and find themselves comfortable with very different beliefs." (TTP 12). Spinoza goes on to say taht this subjectivity is an innate right which should be allowed to be explored throughly and it is this which lawmakers should not deny anybody. A greater claim can be drawn from this idea of subjectivity, Spinoza can be understood as criticizing current civil laws, religously and egoistically thought of as being correc through their own subjective opinion which, Spinoza feels is absolutely wrong. I am-as we all are-confined within my own subjective understanding of Spinoza, It is this idea that Spinoza nails. (and the former ideas, but for lack of a possible onslaught by my classmates I do not directly refer to them.)
It is interesting how Spinoza tackles the subjectivity in the preface. But what I found most interesting is how many people are prone to rationalize the most irrational. I think it’s a way to cope with uncertainty, by having this unworldly, unseen, all-knowing thing called God pulling all the strings. This could be why religion is so personal and at the same time so, I hate to use the word rampant. This being the case no one sees or interprets it the same way, leading back to the subjectivity and lack of clear “law”.
ReplyDeleteIn the religious-political context, taking advantage of the poor and downtrodden by selling their own idea of God and "message" is relatively easy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete[edited]
ReplyDeleteAs far as I understand, Spinoza in his 12th paragraph (TTP 10), wants to separate our beliefs from an organized religion, since we are all individuals with separate beliefs and different minds. He states that everyone should "be allowed liberty of their own judgement and authority the fundamentals of faith according to their own minds," but then that "justice and charity will be esteemed by everyone." While this would be great in theory, this seems to me like a contradiction, since justice is also built from the groundwork of religious rules. Therefore, if everyone will have their own beliefs, or rather different interpretations of their beliefs, they will have separate ideas of justice. It would not be possible to have a united idea of justice if everyone's morals are different. A lot of the morals that we have stem from religion, and therefore how we act (whether with the idea of "an eye for an eye," or "turning the cheek") depend on what we believe to be true. Furthermore, the idea of charity would also change without a unified set of rules and beliefs, because the "everyone" that Spinoza writes about that would esteem justice and charity would not be able to come to an agreement about what these words mean.
On page 11. Spinoza states that only the people that hold the sovereign power would decide what is just and unjust (line 12). So while common people would have freedom of thought and speech, their actions would be regulated. On the one hand, Spinoza is stating that we should have freedom to think and believe what we choose, on the other hand he's saying that some other person will get to decide what is wrong and what is right for us. Doesn't that bring us back to square one?
I think Irina makes a good point. I can not imagine a unified system of justice when the meaning of morals is different for each individual.
ReplyDeleteBut I believe Spinoza would feel the most important part would be to "obey God in a spirit of sincerity and freedom', as he says on page 10, section 12. If the point is to achieve the greatest knowledge, which means true love of God, then it should be sincere. Not forced by anyone human law, which is only conventional.