Hobbes, Hume, Spinoza, and the Politics of Human Nature
Dec 3, 2020
auto_awesome
Exploring the political thought of Hobbes, Hume, and Spinoza and their views on human nature's influence on politics. Solutions for compliance in society proposed by Hobbes and Hume. The role of the state in addressing self-interest. Metaphysical and epistemological views of Spinoza, Hobbes, and Hume. The relationship between is and ought in moral philosophy. Dualism and tensions in political theory.
Hobbes emphasizes survival and fear, Hume focuses on societal cooperation and property rights, Spinoza advocates for reason and democracies.
Hobbes and Hume view experience as the foundation of knowledge, while Spinoza believes reason is primary.
Transition from states of nature to political orders is influenced by societal structures and historical, social, and economic factors.
Deep dives
Understanding Human Nature in Political Theory
In this podcast episode, the hosts delve into the ideas of Hobbes, Hume, and Spinoza regarding human nature and its role in political thought. They highlight the importance of survival and fear in Hobbes' perspective, emphasizing that people are driven by a constant concern for self-preservation and live under conditions of scarcity and subjectivity. Hume, on the other hand, argues that humans are sociable but tend to take advantage of strangers for the benefit of their family and friends. He proposes that conventions and property rights are necessary to prevent theft and corruption as societies grow larger. Spinoza, a rationalist, focuses on reason and its ability to govern human behavior. He believes that if individuals align their actions with reason, society can achieve better outcomes. He advocates for democracies, as larger groups are less likely to deviate from reason compared to a single ruler. Additionally, all three theorists recognize the importance of establishing a unified state and managing passions and desires through different mechanisms, such as fear, conventions, and reason.
Metaphysical and Epistemological Foundations
The podcast episode explores the metaphysical and epistemological premises of Hobbes, Hume, and Spinoza. They discuss how Hobbes and Hume, as empiricists, view experience as the foundation of human knowledge, while Spinoza, as a rationalist, believes that reason is the primary means of acquiring knowledge. This distinction shapes their understanding of human nature and its impact on politics. For Hobbes, survival is paramount, and fear and lack of knowledge of others' intentions drive human behavior. Hume argues that societal cooperation is strongest within small communities, but becomes difficult with strangers, prompting the need for property rights and conventions to prevent theft and ill treatment. Spinoza adds the element of reason, positing that a state must enable reason to triumph over passions, as larger groups are less likely to deviate from reason. They also touch on the relevance of freedom of speech in democratic societies and the differing insights on the relationship between reason, passion, and politics.
The Challenge of Building States from Natural Conditions
The podcast episode delves into the concept of states of nature, which pre-political conditions where individuals exist outside organized societies. The speakers acknowledge that while political theories often discuss the transition from such states to political orders, these transitions are often influenced by pre-existing societal structures. They note that individuals' motivations and values are shaped by the society they emerge from and that various historical, social, and economic factors influence political thought. The episode also touches on the challenge of translating other values into utilitarianism, as well as the difficulty of fully addressing the notion of the sensible nave in moral philosophy. They further emphasize that these theorists offer descriptive accounts of human nature and politics, exploring what people are motivated to do, rather than providing normative judgments on what people should do.
The Emphasis on Survival and Concrete Individualism
Hobbes and Spinoza prioritize survival as the basis of their political theories. They view reason as abstract and universal, while passion is seen as concrete and individual. Hobbes constructs the abstraction of the commonwealth out of individuals, representing the multitude without directly representing the beliefs or ideas of individuals. Spinoza concedes more to freedom of speech than Hobbes and emphasizes the need to maintain public peace. Both philosophers believe in the power of the state for self-preservation and stability.
The Role of Property Rights and Rule of Law
Hume places more emphasis on property rights and the growth of commerce, as he is less opposed to commerce and luxury within the state. He values a political form that allows for the development of commerce and luxury. Hobbes and Spinoza, on the other hand, focus on the power of the state and the guarantee of security as the primary role of the commonwealth. There is a contrast between the idea of artificial power in Hobbes and artificial laws in Hume. The British tradition tends to have a thinner representation of the state through survival and obedience, while the German tradition emphasizes a thicker representation and catharsis. The British theorists are more willing to tolerate inconsistency and hypocrisy in their theories, prioritizing survival and order maintenance.
