Second Reading of Bertrand Russell

Having now read chapters 10-17 of Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy, I now understand the connection between the theories of Spinoza and Hobbes. The first chapter explains how Spinoza’s political theory derives from Hobbes. He holds that in a state of nature there is no right or wrong, for wrong consists in disobeying the law. He holds that the sovereign can do no wrong, and agrees with Hobbes that the Church should be subordinate to the state which in other words suggests that the church should have less importance than the State’s impact on society.  Although he disagrees with Hobbes in thinking democracy is the most natural form of government. Spinoza holds freedom of opinion important however, has the opinion that religious questions should be decided by the state. Russell suggests he means that they should be decided by the State rather than the Church.

Everything, according to Spinoza, is ruled by an absolute logical necessity. There is no such thing as free will in the mental sphere or chance in the physical world. Everything that happens is a manifestation of God’s inscrutable nature and it is logically impossible that events should be other than they are. This leads to difficulties in regard to sin. A critic asks if everything is decreed by God and is therefore good, was it good that Nero should kill his mother? Was it good that Adam ate the apple? I believe these critics are trying to imply, if everything ordered by God is good then why do such negative and bad events happen.

Spinoza answers that what was positive in these acts was good, and only what was negative was bad but negation exists only from the view of finite creatures. In God there is no negation and therefore the evil in what to us seem sin does not exist when they are viewed as parts of the whole.

Spinoza believes that the knowledge of evil is an inadequate knowledge. God has no knowledge of evil because there is no evil to be known. Spinoza also says ‘a free man thinks of nothing less than of death; and his wisdom is a meditation not of death, but of life.' This makes me think he is almost saying live every day like it’s your last and don’t be afraid of death as nothing a man can do can make him immortal so don’t waste time fearing death. See it as a cause of nature that happens for a good reason.

Leibniz was influenced by Spinoza, and visited him in 1676. He spent a month in frequent discussions with him, and secured part of the ethics in manuscript. In later years he minimized his contacts with saying he met him once and Spinoza had told some good anecdotes about politics.

Leibniz’s has fur arguments for the existence of God:

1)      The ontological argument

2)      The cosmological argument

3)      The argument from eternal truths

4)      The argument from the pre-established

The ontological argument depends upon the distinction between existence and essence. Any ordinary person or thing on the one hand exists, and on the other hand has certain qualities, which make up his or its essence. In the case of God, defined as the most perfect being, St Anselm, followed by Descartes, maintains that essence does imply existence, on the ground that a Being who possess all other perfections is better if he exists than if he does not.

The cosmological argument is a form of the First-Cause argument which derived from Aristotle’s argument of the unmoved mover. It points out that everything finite has a cause, which in turn had a cause and so on. This series of previous causes cannot be infinite and the first term in the series must itself be uncaused. There is therefore an uncaused cause of everything, and it is God. This is trying to suggest that something already existed to create and cause everything else, and that is God but I think this is difficult to understand because surely God needed to be created so what existed before him, if he does exist?                                                                                                                                                    Everything has to have a sufficient reason according to Leibniz’s philosophy. Leibniz’s argument does not depend upon the view that the universe must have had a beginning in time.

The argument from the eternal truths suggests all statements that have only to do with essence, not with existence, are either always true or never true. Those that are always true are called eternal truths. Truths are part of the content of the eternal mind.

The argument from the pre-established harmony is only valid for those who accept his windowless monads which all mirror the universe. Since all the clocks keep time with each other without any casual interaction, there must have been a single outside cause that regulated all of them.

 Chapter 12 of Russell’s book three explains philosophical liberalism. Early liberalism stood for religious toleration. It was Protestant but of a latitudinarian kind rather than fanatical and it regarded the wars of religion as silly. It favoured the rising middle class rather than the monarchy and aristocracy. The divine right of Kings was rejected in favour of the view that every community has a right, at any rate initially, to chose its own form of government.

It was opposed to everything medieval, both in philosophy and in politics, because medieval theories had been used to sanction the powers of the Church and King, to justify persecution and to obstruct the rise of science.

Individualism penetrated into philosophy. Descartes' 'I think therefore I am', made the basis of knowledge different for each person, since for each the starting-point was his own existence, not that of other individuals or of the community.