Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site inmet
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!drutx!mtuxo!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxr!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ima!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Liberalism, Part IV
Message-ID: <28200741@inmet>
Date: Mon, 17-Mar-86 00:30:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200741
Posted: Mon Mar 17 00:30:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Mar-86 21:03:34 EST
References: <364@gargoyle.UUCP>
Lines: 63
Nf-ID: #R:gargoyle.UUCP:364:inmet:28200741:000:2502
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw    Mar 16 00:30:00 1986


[    Adam Reed (ihnp4!npois!adam)]
>Of the other two names on the list - Hobbes and Spinoza - neither
>qualifies as a Liberal.

Right about Hobbes. I must really object on  behalf  of  Spinoza,
not to nitpick, but because he is one of my favorites.

>Spinoza held that individual will, and thus  individual  freedom,
>was an illusion.

A very simplistic view of Spinoza's determinism. Suffice it here
to say that his whole teaching was on how to *achieve* individual
freedom. 

>His pantheistic metaphysics led to an ethics based on the premise
>that  "Whatever  exists  is God". The political corrolary of this
>view is acquiescence in whatever exists.

It certainly was not for him. He discussed at length which
forms of government are preferable to others.

>The Panglossian secularization of the above ("All is for the best in
>the best of all possible worlds") was the intellectual foundation of
>early conservatism, and was mercilessly ridiculed, from an
>uncompromising classical Liberal perspective, by Voltaire.

Pangloss was, of course, a caricature of  Leibnitz's  philosophy,
not Spinoza's. (To whom the quote above belongs).  Voltaire had a
high opinion of Spinoza (without really understanding him).

>While Spinoza's refusal of a royal pension from Louis  XIV  tells
>us  a  great deal about his personal integrity, the fact that the
>pension was offered tells us even more about the  political  uses
>and implications of his philosophy.

No such uses were, of course, made.

Louis's interests in Holland had nothing to do  with  philosophy.
He  made, however, a show of encouraging culture. The pension was
on condition of Spinoza dedicating a book to the  king.   It  may
have also had to do with party politics in Holland, in which Spi-
noza was, for a while, involved. In that case - the pension offer
was an attempt to neutralize an *opponent*.

There is absolutely no doubt that had someone explained to Louis
XIV the contents of *any* of Spinoza's books, the ultra-catholic
Sun King would forthwith become his enemy.

In philosophy, Spinoza was a proponent of free inquiry, of  indi-
vidualism,  of  rational  self-interest,  and  of  reason  as the
supreme vurtue.

In political theory, he was an advocate of democracy based
on freedom of opinion.

In practical politics, he was a friend and supporter of De Witt,
the leader of the liberal, republican party.

(None of the above purports to explain Spinoza's philosophy,
just to defend his liberal reputation).

		Jan Wasilewsky