![]() ![]() On the one hand, one is said to be sui iuris to the extent that one is rational and to the extent that one is rational, one will steadfastly obey the laws of the state. Spinoza's use of the phrase “sui iuris” in the Tractatus Politicus gives rise to the following paradox. This interpretation renders intelligible and consistent the various claims that Spinoza makes about sovereign absolutism in the Political Treatise. ![]() His treatment of “absolute sovereignty” in the political works is akin to his treatment of “substance” and “God” in the Ethics: he draws out revisionist implications from a recognizable, even anodyne, conceptual gloss, transfiguring the concept from within a common framework. I argue that Spinoza is able to show that, when tied to a proper understanding of authority, absolute sovereignty is not only compatible with, but actually necessitates, power-sharing and constitutionalism. ![]() I offer an interpretation of Spinoza’s conception of absolutism that aims to resolve these problems. And he seems to use the concept of “absolute sovereignty” in inconsistent ways. He seems to embrace a form of absolutism that is incompatible with his defense of mixed government and constitutional limits on sovereign power. Spinoza’s treatment of absolute sovereignty raises a number of interpretative questions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |