28.01.2015 Views

BENEDICT DE SPINOZA: Theological-Political Treatise

BENEDICT DE SPINOZA: Theological-Political Treatise

BENEDICT DE SPINOZA: Theological-Political Treatise

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>Theological</strong>-<strong>Political</strong> <strong>Treatise</strong><br />

readily determine which opinions are subversive in a given state. It is those<br />

views which, simply by being put forward, dissolve the agreement by which<br />

each person surrenders their right to act according to their own judgment.<br />

For example, it is seditious for anyone to hold that a sovereign power does<br />

not have an autonomous right or that one should not keep a promise or<br />

that everyone should live according to their own judgment, and other<br />

views of this kindwhich are directly contrary to the aforesaid agreement. It<br />

is subversive not so much because of the judgments and opinions in<br />

themselves as because of the actions which such views imply. By the very<br />

fact that someone thinks such a thing, they are tacitly or explicitly breaking<br />

the pact that they made with the sovereign. Accordingly, all other opinions<br />

which do not imply such an act as breaking an agreement or vengeance or<br />

anger, etc., are not subversive ^ except perhaps in a state which is corrupt<br />

in some way, where superstitious and ambitious people who cannot tolerate<br />

free-minded persons, have achieved such reputation and prominence<br />

that their authority exerts greater in£uence with the common people than<br />

243 that of the sovereign powers. However, we would not wish to deny that<br />

there are some views which can be published and propagated with malicious<br />

intention though in themselves they appear to be purely concerned<br />

with truth and falsehood. But we have already determined what these are<br />

in chapter 15 and in a way that ensured that reason would nevertheless<br />

remain free.<br />

If ¢nally we remember that everyone’s loyalty to the state, like their faith<br />

in God, can only be known from their works, that is, from their charity<br />

towards their neighbour, it will not be doubted that the best state accords<br />

everyone the same liberty to philosophize as we showed that faith likewise<br />

allows.<br />

[10] Undeniably, there are sometimes some disadvantages in such freedom.<br />

But what was ever so cleverly designed that it entailed no disadvantages<br />

at all Trying to control everything by laws will encourage vices<br />

rather than correcting them. Things which cannot be prevented must<br />

necessarily be allowed, even though they are often harmful. How many<br />

evils arise from extravagance, from envy, greed, drunkenness, and so on!<br />

These are nevertheless tolerated because they cannot be prevented by<br />

authority of the law, even though they really are vices. How much more<br />

should liberty of judgment be conceded, which is without question avirtue<br />

and cannot be suppressed. Further, the disadvantages which do arise from<br />

254

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!