Tratado teológico-político [parte IV]
- Idioma:
- inglés
- Estado:
- Obra completa
- Autoría:
- Escrita por el autor
- Estado del texto:
- Sin ruido de escaneo detectado (medición automática sobre todo el texto, no revisada a mano)
- Extensión:
- ~28.600 palabras · 136 pasajes
Cita esta obra
- APABaruch Spinoza. (n.d.). A Theological-Political Treatise [Part IV] [Tratado teológico-político [parte IV]]. Digital reproduction: SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/es/works/baruch-spinoza/a-theological-political-treatise-part-iv
- MLABaruch Spinoza. A Theological-Political Treatise [Part IV] [Tratado teológico-político [parte IV]]. Digital reproduction, SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/es/works/baruch-spinoza/a-theological-political-treatise-part-iv.
- ChicagoBaruch Spinoza. A Theological-Political Treatise [Part IV] [Tratado teológico-político [parte IV]]. Digital reproduction, SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/es/works/baruch-spinoza/a-theological-political-treatise-part-iv.
Referencia de la edición que reproduce SigPhi: SigPhi es su reproducción digital, no el editor. El año de la edición no consta en los metadatos (por eso «n.d.») y el traductor solo aparece cuando consta.
De qué trata
Cuarta y última parte de la traducción de Elwes: los capítulos políticos, del derecho natural a la libertad de pensamiento.
Contexto e historia
Publicado sin nombre de autor en 1670, con pie de imprenta falso, y prohibido en 1674: era el libro más peligroso de su siglo y los contemporáneos lo entendieron enseguida. La tesis que lo sostiene todo es que la libertad de filosofar no amenaza la piedad ni la paz del Estado, sino que suprimirla es lo que las destruye. Para llegar ahí, Spinoza hace algo que nadie había hecho con este rigor: leer la Escritura como un documento histórico, escrito por hombres para hombres, donde la profecía es imaginación vívida y no conocimiento, y los milagros no pueden probar nada, porque nada ocurre fuera del orden de la naturaleza. De ahí viene la crítica bíblica moderna. Los capítulos finales sacan la consecuencia política: el pacto transfiere el poder pero no la capacidad de pensar, y por eso el Estado que quiere mandar sobre las opiniones se daña a sí mismo. La traducción inglesa es la de Elwes, de 1883, repartida en cuatro partes en el corpus.
Contexto editorial, no una fuente citable: a diferencia de los pasajes de la obra, estos datos no se pueden comprobar contra 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.…