Hobbes and Spinoza on Sovereign Education

Philosophies

Thomas Cook¹  Boleslaw Z. Kabala² 

[1] Rawlings School of Divinity, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA 24515, USA;School of Humanities and Social Sciences, College of Undergraduate Studies, Colorado Christian University, Lakewood, CO 80226, USA;

关键词: Hobbes;    Spinoza;    education;    public education;   

DOI  :  10.3390/philosophies7010006

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Most comparisons of Thomas Hobbes and Baruch Spinoza focus on the difference in understanding of natural right. We argue that Hobbes also places more weight on a rudimentary and exclusive education of the public by the state. We show that the difference is related to deeper disagreements over the prospect of Enlightenment. Hobbes is more sanguine than Spinoza about using the state to make people rational. Spinoza considers misguided an overemphasis on publicly educating everyone out of superstition—public education is important, but modes of superstition may remain and must be offset by institutions and a civil religion. The differences are confirmed by Spinoza’s interest in the philosopher who stands apart and whose flourishing may be protected, but not simply brought about, by rudimentary public education. Spinoza’s openness to a wisdom-loving elite in a democracy also sets up an interesting parallel with Thomas Jefferson’s own commitment to the natural aristocracy needed to sustain republicanism. In demonstrating the 17th century philosopher’s skepticism toward using the state exclusively to promote rationality, even as he recognizes the importance of a sovereign pedagogical role and the protection of philosophy, we move to suggest that Spinoza is relevant to contemporary debates about public education and may reinvigorate moral and political discourse in a liberal democracy.

【 授权许可】

Unknown