Πολιτική πραγματεία

by Baruch Spinoza, Μπαρούχ Σπινόζα, Άρης Στυλιανού (Translator)

Ο Μπαρούχ Σπινόζα γεννήθηκε στην Ολλανδία το 1632. Στη χώρα αυτή μεγάλωσε, διώχτηκε, αγάπησε ίσως, σκέφτηκε και έγραψε. Σχεδόν όλα τα έργα του, ανάμεσα στα οποία και η διάσημη "Ηθική", δημοσιεύτηκαν από φίλους του μετά το θάνατό του (1677).
Ο ίδιος λέγει στην "Πολιτική Πραγματεία":
"Όταν λοιπόν καταπιάστηκα με την πολιτική, δεν είχα πρόθεση να καταλήξω σε καινοφανή ή πρωτάκουστα συμπεράσματα, αλλά μόνο σε όσα συνάδουν κατά τον καλύτερο τρόπο με την πράξη· και επιδίωξα να τα αποδείξω με βέβαιους και αναμφίβολους συλλογισμούς, συνάγοντάς τα από την ίδια την κατάσταση της ανθρώπινης φύσης. Προκειμένου να εξετάσω ότι αφορά την επιστήμη αυτή με την ίδια ελευθερία πνεύματος στην οποία μας έχουν συνηθίσει τα μαθηματικά, αντί να περιγελάσω, να οικτίρω ή να καταραστώ τις ανθρώπινες πράξεις, μερίμνησα με ιδιαίτερη φροντίδα να τις κατανοήσω. Έτσι θεώρησα τα ανθρώπινα πάθη -όπως είναι η αγάπη, το μίσος, η οργή, ο φθόνος, η έπαρση, η ευσπλαχνία και οι υπόλοιπες διακυμάνσεις της ψυχής- όχι ως διαστροφές της ανθρώπινης φύσης αλλά ως ιδιότητες που της ανήκουν, όπως ακριβώς ανήκουν στη φύση της ατμόσφαιρας η ζέστη, το κρύο, η κακοκαιρία, ο κεραυνός και άλλα παρόμοια φαινόμενα. Ακόμη και αν είναι ενοχλητικά, ωστόσο είναι αναγκαία και έχουν καθορισμένες αιτίες, μέσω των οποίων προσπαθούμε να κατανοήσουμε τη φύση τους· και η ψυχή μας αντλεί τόση χαρά από την ορθή κατανόησή τους, όση αντλεί και από τη γνώση των πραγμάτων που ευχαριστούν τις αισθήσεις".

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Law

296 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1675

About the author

Controversial pantheistic doctrine of Dutch philosopher and theologian Baruch Spinoza or Benedict advocated an intellectual love of God; people best know Ethics , his work of 1677.

People came considered this great rationalist of 17th century.

In his posthumous magnum opus, he opposed mind–body dualism of René Descartes and earned recognition of most important thinkers of west. This last indisputable Latin masterpiece, which Spinoza wrote, finally turns and entirely destroys the refined medieval conceptions.

After death of Baruch Spinoza, often Benedictus de Spinoza, people realized not fully his breadth and importance until many years. He laid the ground for the 18th-century Enlightenment and modern Biblical criticism, including conceptions of the self and arguably the universe. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel said of all contemporaries, "You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all."

Reviews

[Mahnam · Rating 4 out of 5]

رساله سیاسی سعی دارد تا با در نظر داشتن پایه های فلسفی كه پیشتر در اثار دیگر اسپینوزا مطرح شدن، نظامی سیاسی معرفی كند كه بتواند تا حد ممكن به واقعیت جامعه نزدیك بشود ولی در عین حال بتواند نیازهای انبوهه ای آزاد را هم پاسخ بدهد.
فصول اول كتاب به تعاریف پایه و بررسی حق طبیعی انسان، تفاوت های زندگی در شرایطجنگی و وضعیت طبیعی میگذرد و به این نتیجه میرسد كه حق تنها در تقابل با قدرت تعریف شدنی است وگرنه در نبود جامعه و در شرایط وضع طبیعی هیچ حق خاصی برای هیچ تكینه ای وجود ندارد . نكته حایز اهمیت هم ارتباط حق با قدرت است كه نشان میدهد هرچه فرد یا انبوهه ای از قدرت بیشتری برخوردار باشد، حق بیشتری خواهد داشت.
فصول بعدی به بررسی ضرورت و انواع دولت می پردازد؛ سلطنت، اشراف سالاری و دموكراسی
در این فصول اسپینوزا ابتدا حكومتی را تعریف میكند كه در چارچوب تعریفی گونه خود بتواند بیشترین نزدیكی را به حكومت مطلق كه در ان ازادی هر تكینه در كنار رشد جمعی انبوهه فراهم می‌شود، داشته باشد. اما در ادامه دیگر تنها راه های بقای ان. دولت را توضیح میدهد حتی اگر از نیازهای انبوهه دور شده باشد.
متأسفانه در همان ابتدای فصل دموکراسی، اسپینوزا از دنیا می‌رود و این مهم ترین فصل رساله ناتمام میماند منتها واقعیتی كه نمیتوان از ان چشمپوشی كرد تضادهای موجود در همین فصول اخر است. درست است كه تلاش اسپینوزا جای تقدیر فراوان دارد و چنانچه در بستر زمانی خود بررسی شود حتی میشود ان را یكی از معدود و چه بسا تنها اثری دانست كه دموكراسی را به معنای مدرن ان نزدیك میكند اما باز هم نمیتوان از حفره های موجود بیتفاوت گذشت ؛ شاید اگر اسپینوزا فرصت ویرایش رساله خود را داشت با اثری منسجم تر رو به رو میشدیم. نكته ی دیگر كاستی است كه درنگاه جنسیتی او دیده میشود و من نمیتوانم ان را صرفا به زمان خود او و بر پایه تجربیاتش بگذارم كم كاری او در این زمینه بسیار روشن است. گرچه زنان دوران او واقعا در بردگی به سرمی بردند و كنترل حق خویش را نداشتند، اما اسپینوزا در خانواده ای مرفه متولد شده بود و با زنانی اشنا بود كه بیش از مرد دهقانی فقیر كنترل حق خویش را در دست داشته اند از طرفی با تاریخ هم اشنا بود و مسلما از نمونه هایی چون به فرض كلوپاترا بی اطلاع نبوده است و از همین رو خیلی عجیب است كه ضعف زنان را به ماهیت و نه به عرف ارتباط میدهد. یعنی از فردی با دقت موشکافانه او عجیب است وگرنه به راحتی توجیه میشود كه او هم در بند جبر زمان خود میزیست.
به هر روی رساله سیاسی تلاش قابل تقدیری در زمینه بررسی و پایه ریزی نظامی برای انبوهه ای ازاد به شمار می‌رود كه تاثیر زیادی بر پیشرفت تفكر سیاسی گذاشته‌ است.

[Արսեն Նազոյան · Rating 5 out of 5]

, Amazing book ,

[Tarcísio Rocha · Rating 4 out of 5]

Li o livro numa edição em português de Portugal traduzida do latim pelo Diego Pires Aurélio. O livro é relativamente curto e bem mais direto ao ponto para aqueles que se interessam pela filosofia política e pela filosofia do direito de Espinosa, ao contrário do Tratado Teológico-Político (TT-P) que tem vários dos capítulos iniciais dedicados à exegese e à crítica bíblica.
O livro é incompleto, quando Espinosa começa a falar da democracia – a mais natural das formas políticas – o livro é interrompido por sua morte. Espinosa retoma pontos principais da Ética relativos à liberdade e ao ¬direito natural. Depois retoma pontos já expostos no TT-P ao falar do direito dos poderes soberanos. O ponto alto do livro está no realismo político de Espinosa, isto é, mesmo concebendo a democracia como o melhor das formas políticas, devido os acontecimentos na Holanda, Espinosa é levado a reconsiderar suas opiniões a respeito de outras formas de governo, pois os Irmãos de Witt foram brutalmente assassinados por uma multidão enfurecida após tropas francesas de Luís XIV e tropas alemãs ocuparem os Países Baixos – este ano de 1672 ficou conhecido com rampjaar na história holandesa.
Em cada forma de governo há um afeto destes envolvidos: medo e esperança, em maior ou menor grau. A multitudo quando age por medo da morte, entrega o poder para aquele que pode garantir a sua segurança – clara referência a Hobbes – nasce uma monarquia. Numa aristocracia, a multitudo pensa que a diferença social da riqueza deve se manifestar da mesma da forma na diferença política do poder, e dessa maneira, aceita que haja a aristocracia. Na democracia, a multitudo age com esperança de vida, com desejo de governar e não ser governada, dessa maneira se constitui como povo.
Espinosa, então, argumenta em favor da existência de uma monarquia e uma aristocracia (de uma ou várias urbes) esticando ao limite máximo a liberdade que essas formas de governo podem se configurar. Na verdade, ele dilata as zonas fronteiriças da liberdade estabelecidas outrora, a partir da criação de um conselho e de reformulações de conceitos fundamentais do jusnaturalismo tradicional.
Espinosa identifica direito natural com potência, concebe o direito civil como uma criação humana, além disso coincide lei e direito, o que justifica sua hierarquização entre as formas de governo.
Na monarquia um conselho faria uma ponte entre a multitudo e o soberano, pois o soberano é incapaz de aferir a vontade da multitudo sozinho. Mas por que um monarca se importaria com a vontade da multitudo? Espinosa responde que a potência do monarca depende da potência da multidão que ele conduz, ele será feliz e virtuoso na medida em que fizer a vontade dela. Ele também estabelece critérios para a seleção dos membros do conselho, que não permita que qualquer pessoa se dedique ao posto.
Na aristocracia, os patrícios que comporiam o conselho, seriam repelidos a fazer aquilo que o seu desejo conduz, e induzidos a representar em alguma medida a multidão.
Sendo a liberdade, na verdade, uma libertação de causas externas, livre é aquele que age com o que há de melhor em sua natureza. Espinosa amplia esse raciocínio para o âmbito coletivo, mais livre é a cidade capaz de gerar mais paixões alegres, a que está mais sobre seu próprio juízo e não de outro. Apesar disso, os cidadãos, para gozarem dos bens da cidade, devem abrir mão da liberdade do estado natural e obedecer às leis da cidade. Uma república democrática é mais livre e potente, justamente por expressar a vontade da multitudo como as outras formas de governo não podem.
O realismo espinosano se manifesta novamente porque ele não tem em mente que todos os homens sejam livres, mas sim que tenham a possibilidade de ser livres na cidade. O alcance da sabedoria (saber das causas adequadas) depende, claro, de um esforço individual, porém necessita de um meio coletivo propício para se realizar. A utopia espinosana tem como meta uma cidade com mais homens sábios.
Em geral, é uma leitura fluida e fácil. Os conceitos principais como: potência, direito natural, liberdade, servidão, são comuns na outras obras e correspondências de Espinosa, mas apenas por esse livro é possível entender do que se trata.
Lamentamos o inacabamento do livro, justo no momento em que Espinosa falaria da democracia com mais detalhes. No momento mais exato da interrupção da escrita Espinosa tem uma fala sobre as mulheres bastante polêmica para seus leitores de hoje. Ele afirma que mulheres não estão sob a jurisdição própria. Talvez porque naquele tempo a participação política feminina se traduzia, na verdade, na participação velada do pater familias, o qual induziria sua esposa ou filha a fazer a sua vontade na política.


I’ve read the book in the Portugal portuguese edition, translated from latin by Diogo Pires Aurélio. This book is relatively short and straight to the point for those who are interested in political philosophy and philosophy of right. In contrast to Political-Theology Treaty (PTT) which has a lot of early chapters dedicated to biblical exegesis and criticism.
The book is incomplete, when Spinoza starts to write about democracy – the most natural of forms of government – it is interrupted by his death. Spinoza return to Ethic’s principal points related to freedom and to natural right. Then, he returns to PPT points when he writes about the right of sovereign powers. The highlight of this book is in Spinoza’s political realism, i. e., even conceiving the democracy as the best among others forms of government, because of some events in Netherlands. Spinoza was prompted to rethink his opinions about other forms of government, since the Witt Brothers were brutally murdered by an enraged crowd after French troops of Louis XIV and German troops occupy Netherlands – the year 1672 became known as rampjaar in Netherlands history.
On each form of government there is one of this affections involved: fear and hope, to a greater or lesser degree. The multitude when acting by fear of death, give its power to the one who can ensure the security – clear reference to Hobbes – a monarchy is born. In an aristocracy, the multitude thinks that the social gap of wealth must manifest in the same way on different politics of power, and thus, it accepts that there may be an aristocracy. In democracy, the multitude acts with life hope and with desire to rule and not to be ruled, and in this way a people is constituted.
Spinoza, then, argue in favor of the existence of a monarchy and an aristocracy (with one or many towns) enlarging to the maximum the freedom that those forms of government can achieve. Actually, he dilates the border areas of freedom established in the past, from the creation of a council and from the reformulations of fundamental concepts of traditional natural law.
Spinoza identifies natural right with potency, conceives civil right as a human creation, furthermore he coincides law with right, which justifies his raking between the forms of government.
On monarchy, the council would be a bridge between the multitude and the ruler, since the ruler is unable to assess multitude’s will by himself. But why would the ruler care about the multitude’s will? Spinoza answers that the ruler’s potency rely on multitude’s potency that he drives, he will be happy and virtuous insofar as he makes its will. He also establishes criteria for the selection of council members, that won’t allow that a random person dedicate itself to the position.
On aristocracy, the pratricians who would compose the council, would be repelled to do what their desire leads them to, and they would be induced to represent the multitude to some extent.
Being freedom, actually, a release from external causes, free is the one who acts with the best of its own nature. Spinoza increases this reasoning to the collective context, more free is the town able to generate more happy passions, and is more free the town able to be more on his own judgment and not on judgment of another. Nevertheless, the citizens, to enjoy assets of town, they must relinquish natural state and obey town’s laws. A democratic republic is more free and more potent, exactly for expressing the multitude’s will like other forms of government can’t do.
Spinoza’s realism manifests again because he doesn’t keep in mind that every men will be free, but that they actually have the possibility to be free in the town. Reaching wisdom (knowing about adequate causes) depends, of course, on individual effort, but it needs a favorable collective environment to achieve it. The Spinoza’s utopia aims a town with more wise men.
Overall, this is a fluid and easy reading. The main concepts such as: potency, natural right, freedom, servitude, are usual in Spinoza’s other books and letters, but only by this book is possible to understand what they’re about.
We regret the incompleteness of this book, just when Spinoza would write about democracy with more details. At the exact moment of the interruption of writing Spinoza has quite polemic speech about women for today’s readers. Spinoza claims that women are not under their own authority. Perhaps because at that time the women politic participation was, actually, a veiled participation of pater familias, which would induce his wife or daughter to make his will on politic.

[Laurent Dv]

Ce livre se divise en deux parties : le traité politique et un grand corpus de lettres
1) Dans ce court traité, Spinoza présente brièvement sa philosophie politique en reprenant les grands thèmes traditionnels : le droit naturel et positif, l'aspect social de l'homme, l'Etat, la division classique des types de gouvernement (monarchie, aristocratie et république, qui désigne la démocratie). Il ne préfère pas un régime à un autre mais défend que la réussite de chacun dépend du contexte de chaque pays : il présente les conditions de succès et propose des conseils à cette fin.
2) Ce sont des lettres sur la philosophie et la science (surtout l'optique, en physique) que Spinoza et des connaissances à lui se sont échangées. On trouve à la fois des partisans (Henri d'Oldenburg) et des opposants (Guillaume de Blyenbergh). Ce format épistolaire nous permet d'avoir un Spinoza assez accessible sur tout un tas de sujets comme :
- Sa métaphysique
- Son épistémologie
- Dieu
- La nécessité, la contrainte, le hasard, la contingence, le libre-arbitre et la liberté,
- L'étendue et la pensée
- Le corps et l'âme
- Le lien entre Dieu et la nature (il dément expressément être panthéiste)
- La création
- Les spectres (ou anges et démons)
- L'incarnation (qu'il rejette car n'a pas de sens selon lui)
- La résurrection du Christ (qu'il interprète spirituellement)
- L'infaillibilité de la Bible (selon lui, les auteurs ont pu faire des erreurs, en ont même fait sans que cela amoindrisse ou diminue son autorité et la portée de son message)
- Les miracles qu'il associe à l'ignorance
On trouve des notes et des commentaires qui permettent d'avoir le contexte des lettres, de savoir qui sont les différents auteurs. Les parties où les auteurs perdent patience ou se moquent des autres (surtout Spinoza) sont forts amusants.

[Kenny · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating book to read in the context of Spinoza's always intriguing politics. It is especially interesting to try and read Spinoza's politics as a movement beyond the politics of his day and into a radical horizontalism. There are certainly extreme difficulties to this: the book, unfinished as it is, concludes with Spinoza commenting that democracy exists only when women, children, foreigners and delinquents are not allowed to vote. However, this comment occurs in the context of his having introduced, in the previous chapter, his claim that all political regimes will always collapse and be remade in a new style by its people, often by violent means. He seems far more cynical here than elsewhere about politics, reserving the belief that any form of government will collapse, albeit due to reasons not internal to its own nature (for Spinoza, both the "inevitable fate" of states promised by history, and human affects at large, are exteriorities). He is also occasionally extremely wily, making subtle though clear attacks on the rule of the United Provinces in which he lived, even condemning the state execution of the DeWitt brothers (though not by name), in whom beforehand he had a deep faith.

[João Ferreira · Rating 3 out of 5]

2,5/5 Calma Benê.

[Willy Schuyesmans · Rating 4 out of 5]

Boeiende inzichten van Spinoza over diverse staatsvormen zoals monarchie, aristocratie en (helaas) maar een aanzet over democratie, want het boek bleef onafgewerkt door zijn vroege dood. Wel interessant hoe hij een maatschappij ziet functioneren volgens de principes en gemoedstoestanden die hij in zijn Ethica heeft uiteengezet. En ja, de mens blijkt van nature alleen bekommerd om zijn eigen voortbestaan, maar dat hoeft niet te betekenen dat verstandig samenleven daar niet de goede weg naartoe kan zijn.

[Lucas Surjus · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an interesting work.

Spinoza explains with a crystal clear development the main aspects of his philosophy of the absolute immanence, and how it applies to politics, which will be understood as not a stretch, but instead a inevitable effect of the human nature.

He goes on to detail how he believes the governments should be configured. First monarchy, then aristrocracy and finally democracy, which unfortunately he wasn't able to finish before dying.

He sees democracy as the ideal form of government, and tries to explain how could it originally develop without the use of brute force, and argues that this is noted by the fact that such form of government is no more, no less than the inevitable effect of the collective manifestation of each citizen's individual conatus (will to exist).

Each citizen's right, though, is limited exactly at where his capacity ends. In other words, the citizen's right is equal to his power. On the same line, he points the legitimacy of the Stae's sovereignty on merely the fact that it is evidently the sum of each citizen's power (right), which the final product is "everyone's power", hence: full rights, which is - and can only be - a characteristic of the state.

Natural law in it's "natural state" - i.e. pre-State (a hypothetical condition Spinoza denies, but still) - doesn't grant the people full rights on all things. On the contrary, actually. He argues that in order to have ANY right (ANY power), humans have to give up on some of them so they can group and have better chances at Nature.

This is his paradox of freedom: it only exists on obidience. It's something like this: There's no freedom in a (hypothetical) state of Nature because that concept doesn't even exist. There has to be slavery so that freedom can exist.

Still, he says some really dumb stuff about women on his final chapter. But... I ain't looking for a guy to marry, and he wrote that shit in 1677.

Definetly worth reading.

[Shulamith Farhi · Rating 5 out of 5]

A compelling attempt to theorize sovereignty on the basis of rationality rather than religious authority. The critiques of monarchy and aristocracy remain powerful. One especially interesting point concerns the question of toleration, as it relates to the unity of the sovereign - Spinoza is unique for arguing that the only way to guarantee toleration is through a sovereign that tolerates no internal division.

This book is intended not as an answer to every political question but as a fiction that models how to go about answering these questions. As such, the ugly bits, especially S displaying and endorsing abhorrent chauvinism, aren't necessarily fatal for the radical project of the book, and are best understood as bits of the fiction it is up to us to update. It is rather fitting that the chapter on democracy is unfinished - S knew democracy was the most rational system, but didn't have the resources to defend or prove this position. Those resources only became available with Hegel and Marx, who are the legitimate heirs to the kind of theory Spinoza pursues here. The chapter on democracy was finished, but not by S - it wasn't until Rosa Luxemburg's break with Bernstein in Reform or Revolution that an answer to the question posed by Spinoza first became viable.

[Jeff · Rating 3 out of 5]

Spinoza's Political Treatise (Tractatus Politicus) was his last, unfinished work before his death in 1677. Spinoza opens by wiping the slate clean of all previous political philosophers, who "conceive men not as they are, but as they would like them to be. As a result, for the most part it is not ethics they have written, but satire [...] no men are regarded as less fit for governing a state than theoreticians or philosophers." He doesn't write in a grand rhetorical style, but in a few paragraphs Spinoza blows up the foundation on which all would-be philosopher kings from Plato onwards built their moralizing power fantasies on top of. Most political philosophers since Spinoza have entirely ignored this, which is why their books are both ponderous and useless.

Spinoza witnessed the fall of the Dutch Republic and began writing the Political Treatise several years after mob violence overthrew the government, lynched and partially cannibalized the de Witt brothers, and brought William of Orange to power. So his thoughts are maybe relevant to today. The first five chapters, in conversation with Hobbes and Machiavelli, are in Spinoza's typical calm and logical style. A lot of radical ideas are emphatically not highlighted and in a way by not emphasizing them with grand rhetorical flourishes they end up being a lot more jarring and thought-provoking. The parallelism between power and right (which echoes Spinoza's parallelism between mind and body elsewhere in his writing) is a real challenge for anyone educated in an aspirationally rights-based society! But at the same time, Spinoza would not have been spiraling and struggling like liberal thinkers have at the blatant illegalities of the current administration - "he can't do that!" for liberal thinkers is a question of prohibition and law, whereas for Spinoza it was just power.

The remaining six chapters examine the ideal structure and form of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. They're heavily on conversation with similar works by Machiavelli and others, and without being immersed in that discourse they were pretty incomprehensible to me. Unfortunately, Spinoza was only able to get a few paragraphs into his chapter on the ideal forms of democracy before his death, and these show the regressive trap that his mode of political thinking can fall into.

[Zlat · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ο Σπινόζα στην πολιτική πραγματεία αναλύει τα τρία είδη πολιτεύματος (μοναρχία, αριστοκρατία, δημοκρατία) με γνώμονα το δίκαιο. Δίκαιο είναι η απονομή στον καθένα αυτού που του ανήκει με βάση τον φυσικό νόμο (την διατήρηση της ζωής του) και το δίκαιο του καθενός πηγάζει από την δύναμη του. Μιλώντας τώρα για το κράτος, την συνένωση των δυνάμεων κάποιων ανθρώπων, το δίκαιο πηγάζει από το μέγεθος του. Εκτός από τον φυσικό νόμο, οι πολίτες (μέλη του κράτους) θεσμοθετούν νόμους για την καλύτερη δυνατή απόδοση δικαίου. Η ελευθερία των ανθρώπων πρέπει να είναι δυνατή μέσα στο κράτος, χωρίς όμως να είναι απεριόριστη αλλά και χωρίς να επιβάλλεται από τον φόβο της τιμωρίας. Η ελευθερία στο κράτος πρέπει να είναι φαινομενική έτσι ώστε οι πολίτες να ζουν καθοδηγούμενοι από θεμιτά πάθη τα οποία δεν θα μπορέσουν να το καταστρέψουν. Αυτό βασίζεται στην άποψη του Σπινόζα ότι οι άνθρωποι δεν είναι στην πραγματικότητα ελεύθεροι αλλά τους κυριαρχούν τα πάθη. Ένα αρκετά ενδιαφέρον συμπέρασμα είναι ότι μια μορφή κράτους η οποία μπορεί να λειτουργεί αιώνια είναι αυτή κατά την οποία το κράτος βασίζεται στις πόλεις και όχι σε μία μεγάλη χώρα (όπως η Γερμανία ή οι ΗΠΑ) και η διοίκηση είναι αποκεντρωμένη με κάθε πόλη να είναι αυτόνομη ως προς την φύλαξη της και τις οικονομικές δραστηριότητες, ενώ ταυτόχρονα ένα κεντρικό συμβούλιο με εκπροσώπους όλων των πόλεων να χειρίζεται τα θέματα που αφορούν τις πόλεις από κοινού. Σημαντικό θέμα στην όλη διοικητική δομή είναι ότι το μέγεθος της εκπροσώπησης είναι ανάλογο του μεγέθους της πόλης και λειτουργεί ως κίνητρο για την ανάπτυξη τους. Τέλος όσον αφορά τα δημοκρατικά πολιτεύματα ο Σπινόζα τα εξισώνει με τα αριστοκρατικά από την στιγμή που μια συγκεκριμένη μερίδα του πληθυσμού έχει το δικαίωμα να συμμετέχει στα κοινά (ενήλικοι άντρες με περιουσία, χωρίς χρέη και καλή διαγωγή).

Το μεγαλύτερο μέρος του βιβλίου αναλύει τα μοναρχικά και αριστοκρατικά καθεστώτα και με ποια δομή θα μπορούσαν να λειτουργήσουν καλύτερα. Το βιβλίο είναι ημιτελές αλλά είναι μια πολύ καλή σύνοψη της πολιτικής σκέψης του Σπινόζα και αναλύει βασικές έννοιες της πολιτικής.

[Yor · Rating 5 out of 5]

"4. Assim, por direito de natureza entendo as próprias leis ou regras da natureza segundo as quais todas as coisas são feitas, isto é, a própria potência da natureza, e por isso o direito natural de toda a natureza, e consequemente de cada indivíduo, estende-se até onde se estende a sua potência. Consequentemente, aquilo que cada homem faz segundo as leis da sua natureza fá-lo segundo o supremo direito de natureza e tem tanto direito sobre a natureza quanto o valor da sua potência.

5. Se, portanto, a natureza humana fosse constituída de tal maneira que os homens vivessem unicamente segundo o prescrito pela razão, sem se esforçarem por outras coisas, então o direito de natureza, na medida em que se considera ser próprio do gênero humano, seria determinado só pela potência da razão. Porém os homens são conduzidos mais pelo desejo cego do que pela razão, e por conseguinte a sua potência ou direito natural deve definir-se não pela razão, mas por qualquer apetitie pelo qual eles são determinados a agir e com o qual se esforçam por consevar-se. Reconheço, sem dúvida, que aqueles desejos que não nascem da razão não são tanto ações como paixões humanas. Mas uma vez que estamos aqui a tratar da potência ou direito universal da natureza, não podemos admitir nenhuma diferença entre os desejos que em nós são gerados pela razão e os que são gerados por outras causas, pois tanto estes como aqueles são efeitos da natureza e explicam a força natural pela qual o homem se esforça por perseverar no seu ser. O homem, com efeito, seja sábio ou ignorante, é parte da natureza e tudo aquilo por que cada um é determinado a agir deve atribuir-se à potência da natureza, na medida em que esta pode definir-se pela natureza desde ou daquele homem. Porque o homem, quer se conduza pela razão ou só pelo desejo, não age senão segundo as leis e as regras da natureza, isto é (pelo art. 4 do presente cap.), por direito de natureza." - Pág. 12-13 / Cápitulo 2.

[Juan Cris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Spinoza expone en esta obra tardía cómo ha de organizarse el Estado. Para él, este es el garante de la paz, la seguridad de la vida y el bienestar ciudadano. Tras justificar la necesidad del gobierno político regido por el derecho, estructura el tratado en varias partes, en las que detalla la manera de organizarse de la monarquía (no absoluta); la aristocracia centralizada (una ciudad) o descentralizada (varias ciudades, un solo Estado), lo más parecido a la democracia representativa actual; y la democracia, capítulo que deja incompleto pues le sorprende la muerte, y que habría venido a ser algo así como la democracia directa. Llama la atención su preocupación por los contrapesos constantes en esas estructuras para que no se soborne a líderes políticos ni jueces: consejos con muchos ciudadanos, órganos de control de cada consejo, voto secreto, etc. Como Maquiavelo, basa su pensamiento y la organización estatal en la razón y en la utilidad.  Ideas avanzadas que retomará Rousseau poco después para  "El contrato social". En el capítulo sobre la monarquía, expone como buen ejemplo el de la corona de Aragón. También incluye una comparación con el Ulises homérico para reprender a jueces parciales (ah!, los cantos de sirenas). La obra se interrumpe justo cuando está justificando la imposibilidad de la mujer como sujeto político. A pesar sus ideas avanzadas, de la ética que desprende todo su pensamiento, Spinoza no dejaba de ser un hombre del siglo XVII.

[Giovany Jacome · Rating 4 out of 5]

Spinoza se ha convertido en uno de mis filósofos de cabecera. En este tratado, intenta comprender la naturaleza de los tres tipos de Estado que han existido (monarquía, aristocracia, democracia) a partir de sus planteamientos desarrollados en la Ética. Estudia y analiza cómo somos los seres humanos, y no cómo deberíamos ser. Por lo que exhibe cierto realismo cercano al de Maquiavelo pero alejándose de su pesismismo respecto al ser humano. Pues Spinoza muestra optimismo hacia la capacidad que tenemos los seres humanos para conquistar la libertad y la alegría. Sin embargo, este camino es sumamente arduo. Además que para lograrlo necesitamos los unos de los otros, por lo que la discusión sobre la mejor forma de organización social y política no es nada banal.
Aunque me quedo con el Tratado teológico-político. La fuerza argumentativa de Spinoza en este tratado me parece más destacable que en el Tratado político.

[Gareth · Rating 5 out of 5]

Spinoza's work brings us to a unity in the State through an emphasis on approaching politics through understanding how they actually are, rather than how we think they should be. Spinoza asserts that the emotional should be acknowledged and incorporated rather than suppressed, but that it is through the our commonality (in reason) that we can unite in cooperation. This then provides all with an investiture in the State, demanding of the sovereign an ongoing accommodation of the citizenry, and of the citizens an engaged stance whereby they continually reassess their relation to the sovereign and in so doing are able to keep the sovereign honest to an extent. Groundbreaking and invigorating to read, I was haunted throughout by a consideration of how radical this may have seemed upon its release.

[Paulo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Um livro que aparentemente sente o impacto do tempo.

Baruch Spinoza aborda a origem do Estado, justificando-o quanto ao bem comum e que é impossível agradar a todos.

Analisa a Monarquia, a Aristocracia e a Democracia, sugerindo modelos, a seu ver, ideais.

Entretanto, discordo de idéias tais como não remunerar o exército em tempos de paz (recebe o botim, nas guerras) e 1% do valor total das exportações como salário dos senadores.

Ou mesmo. a idéia ultrapassada do autor que as mulheres não se equiparam aos homens no tocante à governança ...

[Milo Galiano · Rating 4 out of 5]

No me acordé de poner este. Me lo leí hace meses. No es nada agradable este señor y no quiero saber nada de él. Lo único que me gusta es que me hace pensar.

Este tratado no llegó a terminarlo nunca. El proyecto era: monarquía, aristocracia y democracia. De los dos capítulos de la democracia solo terminó uno y es bastante pésimo. Aun así, es de los 3 tochos asquerosos estos, el menos original formalmente, pero el más claro de los 3 (TTP y Ética).

[Ceena · Rating 4 out of 5]

موخوره‌ی نگری در انتهای کتاب می‌توانست در ابتدای کتاب گنجانده شود.
اسپینوزا بار دیگر با باریک‌بینی خاص خود از متافیزیک به ماتریالیسم خاص خود اینبار در اوج مانیفست قدرت سیاست می‌رسد. متاسفانه رساله در اوج خود و در فصل دولت دموکراتیک با مرگ او ناتمام میماند ولی آنچه ارزشمند است واکاوی دقیق او از دولت سیاسی و حقوق طبیعی انسان درون این دولت‌ها به شیوه‌ی زیبایی است که در اخلاق نشان داده.

[Jesse · Rating 3 out of 5]

There's some interesting stuff here, especially in his description of what it would take to create a monarchy that was both stable and avoided tyrannizing the people. It's a shame that his chapter on democracy ends abruptly after two pages, with the only real content being "women shouldn't be able to vote, they're clearly inferior in power/skill to men in all societies, the Amazons weren't real".

[Munta · Rating 2 out of 5]

Büyük bir hayal kırıklığıydı benim için. Spinoza'dan beklediğim akılcı bir analiz örgüsü yok ve çok keyfi çıkarımlar var. Bitmemiş bir çalışması sonuçta fakat çok bilim ve felsefe dışı, ütopik bir politika kitabı.

[Pepe Llopis Manchón · Rating 5 out of 5]

Spinoza tiene uno de los pensamientos más auténticos y más hermosos.

[Janice]

Passion and reason in politics. Oh, and women.

[Alex · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some outdated ideas, some good ones

[Louis Mertens de Leur · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nogal radicaal, maar valid.

[Nate Cos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good precursor to the Ethics and a good book to read after the leviathan.

[Enrique Blasco · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dura crítica (y apreciación) al análisis político de Maquiavelo. La comprensión de la transformación del entorno natural que sigue, sin embargo, latente en el ser humano hace fantástico este libro.

[Facufigueroa_ · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tras un mes de lectura intensa puedo decir que estamos ante una obra inacabada, extensa conceptualmente no más en páginas pero cuyo contenido condensa toda la filosofía de Spinoza teniendo en el mismo tratado contenido y referencias a el tratado teológico político y la ética. De los 11 capítulos que contiene , en varios dialoga con el maquiavelo de los discursos sobre la primera década. Su posición frente a las mujeres en las últimas dos páginas hacen de este libro también polémico” si los hombres fueran iguales a las mujeres por naturaleza ambos gobernarían paralelamente”. La propuesta de una democracia constituida por un consejo que esté compuesto por una multitud común y “libre” que afirme la vida en potencia y cuyo propósito sea administrar la “cosa pública” guiándose por la razón, es decir, siendo libres en tanto que podemos actuar según las causas adecuadas que se perciben por sí sin recurrir a nada externo me parece fascinante. Me parece revolucionario que Spinoza no vea a la democracia tampoco como un consejo donde lo importante sea un criterio cuantitativo sino más bien la libertad y la voluntad de escoger patricios para el consejo ya no sobre un criterio hereditario sino de elección. El hecho también de que la soberanía se defina por el derecho de la potencia de ma multitud también es increíble. El rol que le otorga al senado cuyo propósito es delegar y promulgar leyes(lo que él va entender como “el alma del estado”) es fascinante por el vínculo explícito que tiene con los “síndicos” que es un consejo aparte cuya función es mantener la transparencia del estado político y evitar el quebrantamiento de toda ley. El rol que le otorga a la aristocracia en tanto consejo supremo constituido por patricios cuya proporción numérica es la misma que la multitud es fundamental. Otro rasgo a hacer dilucidar es que acá el rol del estado es La Paz y la seguridad mientras que en el tratado teológico político es la libertad. También es interesante señalar el contraste entre el derecho propio que es actuar conforme a nuestro propio ser y “afirmar la necesidad de la acción”(libertad) con respecto al derecho ajeno cuyo dominio se fundamenta en un dominio mental y de posesión física. Por último me parece necesaria remarca la distancia entre las leyes de la razón humana misma que buscan la utilidad y la conservación del ser y las leyes de la naturaleza misma que son otras infinitas leyes que no se corresponden a la naturaleza de la razón humana porque ven su propia utilidad, en cambio, las leyes de la naturaleza intentan detallar y explicar el por qué se producen ciertas causas. 10/10 Spinoza

[ehk2 · Rating 2 out of 5]

"İnsanlar akıldan ziyade kör arzuyla davranırlar" (s.16). Peki, bu kadar doğru öncüllerden, Makyavelli ve Hobbes'dan bu kadar etkilenmiş bir düşünceden, nasıl bu denli 'rasyonel', akılcı, en ufak detayına dek belirlenmiş bir kurguya dayalı bir siyaset beklenebilir! Sanırım bu Spinoza hakkında genel bir sorunsal. Etika'yı okumak lazım.

[Searchingthemeaningoflife Greece · Rating 5 out of 5]

[...]Γιατί μια πολιτική κοινωνία  η οποία δεν έχει εξαλείψει τις αιτίες των στάσεων, στην οποία ένας πόλεμος είναι πάντα επίφοβος και στην οποία , τέλος, οι νόμοι συχνά παραβιάζονται, δεν διαφέρει πολύ από την φυσική κατάσταση, όπου καθένας ζει σύμφωνα με την ιδιοσυγκρασία του, αλλά και με μεγάλο κίνδυνο της ζωής του.[...]

[Aleks · Rating 5 out of 5]

Divine.