Tractat teologicopolític [part IV]
- Idioma:
- anglès
- Completesa:
- Obra completa
- Autoria:
- Escrita per l'autor
- Estat del text:
- Sense soroll d'escaneig detectat (mesura automàtica sobre tot el text, no revisada a mà)
- Extensió:
- ~28.600 paraules · 136 passatges
Cita aquesta obra
- APABaruch Spinoza. (n.d.). A Theological-Political Treatise [Part IV] [Tractat teologicopolític [part IV]]. Digital reproduction: SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/ca/works/baruch-spinoza/a-theological-political-treatise-part-iv
- MLABaruch Spinoza. A Theological-Political Treatise [Part IV] [Tractat teologicopolític [part IV]]. Digital reproduction, SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/ca/works/baruch-spinoza/a-theological-political-treatise-part-iv.
- ChicagoBaruch Spinoza. A Theological-Political Treatise [Part IV] [Tractat teologicopolític [part IV]]. Digital reproduction, SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/ca/works/baruch-spinoza/a-theological-political-treatise-part-iv.
Referència de l'edició que reprodueix SigPhi: SigPhi n'és la reproducció digital, no l'editor. L'any de l'edició no consta a les metadades (per això «n.d.») i el traductor només hi surt quan consta.
De què tracta
Quarta i última part de la traducció d'Elwes: els capítols polítics, del dret natural a la llibertat de pensament.
Context i història
Publicat sense nom d'autor el 1670, amb peu d'impremta fals, i prohibit el 1674: era el llibre més perillós del seu segle i els contemporanis ho van entendre de seguida. La tesi que ho aguanta tot és que la llibertat de filosofar no amenaça la pietat ni la pau de l'Estat, sinó que suprimir-la és el que les destrueix. Per arribar-hi, Spinoza fa una cosa que ningú no havia fet amb aquest rigor: llegir l'Escriptura com un document històric, escrit per homes per a homes, on la profecia és imaginació vívida i no coneixement, i els miracles no poden ser cap prova, perquè res no passa fora de l'ordre de la natura. D'aquí ve la crítica bíblica moderna. Els capítols finals treuen la conseqüència política: el pacte transfereix el poder però no la capacitat de pensar, i per això l'Estat que vol manar sobre les opinions es fa mal a si mateix. La traducció anglesa és la d'Elwes, del 1883, repartida en quatre parts al corpus.
Context editorial, no una font citable: a diferència dels passatges de l'obra, aquestes dades no es poden contrastar amb el corpus.
different hands. (83) I say, has attempted, for if punishment were not to overtake him till he had succeeded, it would often come too late, the sovereign rights would have been acquired or transferred already. (16:84) I also say, has attempted, for whatever reason, to seize the sovereign power, and I recognize no difference whether such an attempt should be followed by public loss or public gain. (85) Whatever be his reason for acting, the crime is treason, and he is rightly condemned: in war, everyone would admit the justice of his sentence. (86) If a man does not keep to his post, but approaches the enemy without the knowledge of his commander, whatever may be his motive, so long as he acts on his own motion, even if he advances with the design of defeating the enemy, he is rightly put to death, because he has violated his oath, and infringed the rights of his commander. (87) That all citizens are equally bound by these rights in time of peace, is not so generally recognized, but the reasons for obedience are in both cases identical. (88) The state must be preserved and directed by the sole authority of the sovereign, and such authority and right have been accorded by universal consent to him alone: if, therefore, anyone else attempts, without his consent, to execute any public enterprise, even though the state might (as we said) reap benefit therefrom, such person has none the less infringed the sovereign’s right, and would be rightly punished for treason. (16:89) In order that every scruple may be removed, we may now answer the inquiry, whether our former assertion that everyone who has not the practice of reason, may, in the state of nature, live by sovereign natural right, according to the laws of his desires, is not in direct opposition to the law and right of God as revealed.…