Spinoza

“Thus no one can act against the sovereign’s decisions without prejudicing his authority, but they can think and judge and consequently also speak without any restriction, provided they merely speak or teach by way of reason alone, not by trickery or in anger or from hatred or with the intention of introducing some alteration in the state on their own initiative.”  – Baruch Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise (1670).

Baruch Spinoza is well-known for his pantheistic beliefs which undergird his metaphysical position. Here, he makes a claim of the authority of the sovereign, or ruler. This statement contains a few underlying premises, which based on my metaphysical stance, differ in interpretation compared to Spinoza. 

I will proceed by dissecting Spinoza’s argument into three key parts: the sovereign’s authority, the limitations of our actions and speech, and what intent we should act or speak with. Then, I will discuss the drawbacks of his position – primarily, his reliance on rationality. Finally, I will advocate democracy as the least ineffective alternative – as while theoretically it may fall short, practically it is our best option.

Spinoza’s Argument

Spinoza seems to view the sovereign’s authority as an unchallengeable edifice. Or more accurately put, it is possible to confront it, but that one must face the consequences of doing so, which he implies is severe. It would make sense for a climber to challenge a tall mountain, but be ready for the consequences if he falls. This could be seen as a product of the times, as he lived during a time period where monarchs were commonplace, and historically any downfall of a monarch led to relatively tumultuous times (as if things were any more stable even when monarchs remained steadfast, as corruption, war, and disaster were not uncommon).

Yet, Spinoza determines the sovereign’s position to be absolute, perhaps because it is the only solution he knows. If democracy existed during his time, it is quite possible that, as a lover of rationality, he would have enthusiastically supported the system as a gathering of rational minds. I, too, living in the modern world accustomed to the democratic and capitalistic institutions of our time, view them as the only viable option. This dominating ethos is seen throughout all of the West – even in the East. “Communism has clearly never worked!” proclaim many. Those who dissent are often relegated to the intellectual sidelines as fringe thinkers or in the rare occasion, tolerated by the mainstream. 

Despite this, Spinoza’s argument could be influenced by more than a simple historical discourse. Spinoza’s emphasis on a natural order to things determined by an overarching system could lead him to believe that a certain order to things is natural – and what is happens to have become that “should.” In a sense, this can be likened to the heavenly mandate – only this telos is immanent, not transcendent.

What then can we do under this absolute force? Act against it? Surely not, lest we incur the wrath of the government, deservedly so. Rather, we can think. As individuals, Spinoza claims it is within our right to freedom of speech. His influences can clearly be seen today in the First Amendment and in the forebears of modern champions of free speech, such as Enlightenment thinkers John Locke and Rousseau. 

But the validity of this free speech seems conditional on the rationality of those who use it. Spinoza conditions this use of free speech on the impartiality of the free thinkers who live under the sovereign. They must not use it to achieve a specific end, worst of all seek to change the state of government for personal gain. Rather, if they seek to rationally follow the natural order of things, Spinoza believes that this will naturally lead to the best result, in a sort of “invisible hand” mechanism.

We Aren’t Rational

Yet, anyone living today can see that we aren’t the rational beings that Spinoza purported we were. Perhaps we would like to be rational in theory, but the practical effects are clear evidence that suggest we aren’t following the “natural order” that Spinoza suggested as all-good. 

That stark drawback prevents Spinoza’s system from functioning properly. Theoretically, a dictator could work. Plato’s philosopher king is ideally wiser, more knowledgeable, and more compassionate than all others. Yet, centralizing all the power onto a single individual who isn’t as capable in their conscience nor competence plainly leads to disaster. In modern cases, it leads to tyrants, figureheads, and perhaps even regret for a vote being placed.

Simply put, our sovereigns that we are supposed to trust aren’t rational and neither are we. In the case that the sovereign isn’t rational, we have no power to change that. John Locke asserted that we have the right to overthrow the government in this case, as they have broken their side of the social contract by failing to provide the best for the people. Yet, we do not have the power to enforce this contract, and Spinoza states that we do not even have the right to do so in the first place. 

On the other hand, in the case that the people are not rational, this leads to the contaminated discourse that Spinoza proscribes. Irrational people would have their decisions and words colored by their perspectives and fail to consider that their thoughts are biased from the very start – unlike the striving, rational beings that Spinoza espouses. 

How then, can we mitigate the margins of error that result from our irrationalities? 

Our Only Option

To recognize our irrationalities might lead some to a nihilistic resignation that we may never reach objectivity. Instead of this passivity, active participation in this democracy might be the best option we have. Not because principally democracy operates under the strongest mechanisms, but because this is what we know. 

Democracy is currently the best system we have available to us. While in the future, as philosophies and politics develop, newer and superior systems may become known to us, adapting to current systems of democracy provides the best way to maximize benefits and provide a flexible way to evolve our thoughts and ideas.