Object of intense discussion among Spinoza’s interpreters, the unfinished chapter XI of the Political Treatise presents what seems to be the reasons of the exclusion of women in democracy. Opposed to this interpretation, we aim to show the presence of the “counterdiscourse” in the concerned passage. At the end, we stress that this problem allows todiscerne how the notions of myth and history are linked in Spinoza.

I address an apparent conflict between Spinoza’s concepts of immanent causation and acting/doing [agere]. Spinoza apparently holds that an immanent cause undergoes [patitur] whatever it does. Yet according to his stated definition of acting and undergoing in the Ethics, this is impossible; to act is to be an adequate cause, while to undergo is to be merely a partial cause. Spinoza also seems committed to God’s being the adequate cause of all things, and, in a well-known passage, appears to deny (...) categorically that God is capable of undergoing. How then can God also be the immanent cause of all things, as Spinoza claims? On the basis of a close reading of the passage in question, I argue that Spinoza actually distinguishes between two senses of undergoing. An immanent cause undergoes not by being a partial cause but rather by being the metaphysical subject of its effect. While this sense of undergoing has its roots in scholasticism, Spinoza’s willingness to attribute such a capacity to undergo to God is idiosyncratic and reveals important ways in which his understanding of essence, perfection, and causation differs from the scholastic model. (shrink)

La filosofía política de Spinoza se basa en los conceptos de potencia y multitud, pues, para él, el poder se define por la potencia de la multitud. La cohesión de la multitud es capital para que tenga potencia política. Pero esta cohesión no deriva de la homogeneidad de los individuos, sino que la fuerza de la multitud depende de la riqueza y la diversidad de sus individuos, juntamente con la unión que proporciona la búsqueda del bien común. De esa manera (...) la pluralidad y riqueza de individuos diversos, autónomos y críticos, no debilita la comunidad política, sino que la potencia, ni la individualidad se pierde en la multitud, sino que se fortalece. (shrink)

This paper explores the common ground in the views on natural law, justice and sociopolitical development in Hume and Spinoza. Spinoza develops a radically revisionary position in the natural law debate, building upon the bold equation of right and power. Hume is best interpreted as offering a skeptical–empirical reworking of traditional natural law theories, which maintains much of the practical purport of these theories, while providing it with a new, metaphysically less firm, but also less problematic, foundation. What the two (...) philosophers have in common is that they formulate realist revisions of the natural law tradition in the light of their more general naturalistic, secular philosophical commitments. Both philosophers, moreover, point to the slow development of man’s insight in the laws of nature, arising through a gradual accumulation of experiential insights. These insights are never wholly ‘liberated’ from the historical and imaginative perspective in which they arise. Accordingly, although rational progress brings the systems of justice and politics of different groups of people closer to each other, they necessarily retain, sometimes fundamentally incompatible, divergences. In the tradition of Machiavellian political realism, therefore, both Spinoza and Hume plead for judging political orders according to their own merits: do they, in their own specific ways, bring about a sufficient degree of order and liberty? (shrink)