Hobbescu ve Spinozacı Devlet ve Hukuk Felsefesine Karşılaştırmalı Bir Bakış
Avrupa’da sömürge yarışlarının tayin ettiği 17. yy. döneminin iki önemli düşünürü Hobbes ve Spinoza’nın içkinci politik meşruiyet arayışlarında, teorilerinde pek çok ortaklıklar bulunmaktadır. İki düşünür de materyalist bir hatta ilerleyerek felsefeyi ve politik teoriyi teolojiden ayıklamaya çalışmışlardır. Bu sayede politik iktidarı meşrulaştırmayı toplumsal bir hipotetik rıza ya da gücün verdiği bir güvenlik duygusuna dayandırırken tutarlı bir ontolojiyi de inşa etmişlerdir. İki düşünürün de konumlandığı aynı rotadaki hattın zorunlu öncülü nominalizmdir. Bu öncül üzerinde evrenselcilik iki düşünür için de boşa düşürülmüş, doğal hak Spinoza’da güce, Hobbes’ta insan doğasına dayandırılmıştır. Dolayısıyla iki düşünür için de egemenin politik meşruiyetinin tesisinde onu yetkilendirecek onay mercii toplumsalın, dahası tarihselin dışında apolitik bir otorite değildir. Bu çalışmada Hobbes ve Spinoza’nın felsefe tarihindeki konumları karşılaştırmalı bir okumaya tabi tutulacaktır. İki düşünür de denizaşırı sömürgecilik yarışında iddialı bir rekabetteki iki devletin çalkantılı bir döneminde eserlerini vermiştir. Çalışmanın amacı eşzamanlı iki düşünür Hobbes ve Spinoza’nın felsefelerini sırasıyla politik meşruiyet, doğal hak, sosyal sözleşme, nominalizm başlıkları üzerinden incelemek ve iki düşünürün benzerliklerini ve ayrılıklarını ortaya koyabilmektir. İki düşünür de teolojik tartışmalardan ayıklanmış bir politik teoriyi içeriklendirirken doğal hakkın yükümlülük ve ödev temelinde inşa edildiği eski düşünce geleneğinden hak ve doğaya yaslanarak bir kopuşu gerçekleştirmişlerdir. Sosyal sözleşme ise Hobbes’un açıkça temellendirdiği bir varsayımken, Spinoza sözleşme kavramına mesafeli yaklaşmıştır. Spinoza’nın sonsuz tözü doğal hakkın da sınırlarını başka bir dayanağa ihtiyaç duymaksızın tesis ederken Hobbes kapitalizmin şafağında ortaya çıkan bireyin özelliklerini teşhis ederek bireyin doğasını kalkış noktası yapmıştır.
A Comparative Approach to the Hobbes’ And Spinoza’s Philosophy of The State and Law
The thought of Hobbes and Spinoza, as the two decisive figures of the 17. century, which is determined by the colonial races of the capitalist order of Europe has many commonalities in the search for an immanent political legitimacy. Both thinkers tried to separate theology from philosophy and political theory in a materialist way. In this way, while basing the legitimation of political power on a social consent or a sense of security given by power, they also built a coherent ontology. The necessary predecessor of the line on the same route in which both thinkers are positioned is nominalism. Wich nullifies univarsalism for both thinkers. Natural right was based on power in Spinoza, on human nature in Hobbes. Therefore, for both thinkers, the authority of the sovereign as for establishment of his political legitimacy is not an apolitical authority other than the social one. But the basis that leads to this conclusion is the subject itself in Hobbes, and nature itself as the eternal substance in Spinoza. In this paper, the positions of Hobbes and Spinoza in the history of philosophy will be subjected to a cross reading. Both thinkers write their works during a turbulent period of both states that were assertive in the overseas colonial race. The aim of the paper is to examine the philosophies of two thinkers, by limiting them to the titles of political legitimacy, natural right, social contract, and nominalism and to reveal the similarities and differences of the two thinkers. While both thinkers contented a political theory that was separated from theological debates, they made a break from the old intellectual tradition in which natural right was built on the basis of obligation and duty, by relying on right and nature. While the social contract is an assumption that Hobbes clearly grounded, Spinoza approached the concept of contract at a distance. While Spinoza’s eternal substance finds its limits on nature without the need for any other support, Hobbes identified the characteristics of the individual that emerged at the dawn of capitalism and made the nature of the individual the point of departure.
Two contemporary thinkers, Hobbes and Spinoza, built their political theories on the search for an inherent political legitimacy. With this common approach, it is possible to talk about the effects of the bourgeois revolutions of the era. However, since both thinkers are located in different political positions, differences in approaches such as partnerships in their thoughts are also important. Hobbes prepared his works in the period of bourgeois revolutions in England, and Spinoza in the Dutch United Provinces, where the Calvinists triumphed over the Catholics. While Hobbes is in favor of a monarchy that controls the church in England, Spinoza is against the monarchy advocated by the Oranges in the Netherlands, but both thinkers seek a theoretical basis for worldly power that is not subject to political power and the Roman Catholic church.
In this paper the philosophies of the two thinkers will be examined under the titles of political legitimacy, natural right, social contract, and nominalism. Both thinkers extracted the legitimacy of political power from their theological references. Conflict continues between the Puritans supported by the bourgeois class and the Anglican Church supported by the aristocracy in England, which broke away from the dominance of the Catholic Church. Hobbes takes a pro-royalist stance in the midst of this conflict. In the Netherlands, too, the Catholic dominance ended in favor of the Calvinists, but the political tension continues among the different Calvinist sects, corresponding to different social classes. In this context, Spinoza also stands in favor of the liberal Dewitt regime.
Natural right was chosen as the second concept in which the two thinkers were compared. Hobbes brought an innovation to the concept of natural right with his diagnosis of self-interest-oriented individual on the brink of capitalism. Natural right is based on universal human nature in Hobbes. From this point of view, he also revealed the conclusion that a right of resistance is natural if the sovereign cannot ensure the safety of his subjects. By the concept of natural right, Spinoza means the laws of nature that operate with the necessity of nature, thus rendering the concept of natural right meaningless. For Spinoza, there is no right that one cannot afford. Therefore, there can be no talk of the right to resist the power.
Social contract is the second concept of the comparison. Hobbes presents a theory of social contract in which the sovereign is not a party and the subjects guarantee their own security. By putting forward a theory of social contract, Hobbes also speaks of a fictional state of nature. This fictional state of nature is an undesirable state in Hobbes where confusion and insecurity dominate. However, with the social contract, a civilized state has been passed. In this civilized state, a moral plane has emerged, since there will be an objective power to decide the good and the bad. Spinoza, on the other hand, did not construct a social contract based on the premise that the right is determined by the natural law of the power to right. Since the state will take care of the interests parallel to the interests of the citizens, it is not necessary for the individual to take a position against the state anyway.
Another comparison of the two thinkers was made through nominalism versus realism, from the two founding camps in the history of philosophy. Nominalism stands against universals in philosophy. Hobbes states that universals are assumptions, instead of universal and absolute principles, he qualifies human actions as just or unjust to the extent that they serve the purpose or create an obstacle. A similar approach applies to Spinoza. Spinoza also states that things cannot be judged as good or bad by themselves. In order to reach the assumption of a universal, individual particulars must already exist. This approach also corresponds to the classification of types of knowledge in Spinoza's epistemology. The subject acquires knowledge by compiling irregular receptions.
