[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ theme_builder_area=”post_content” _builder_version=”4.27.5″ _module_preset=”default”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.27.5″ _module_preset=”default” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_column _builder_version=”4.27.5″ _module_preset=”default” type=”4_4″ theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.5″ _module_preset=”default” theme_builder_area=”post_content” hover_enabled=”0″ sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n
By the Grand Preceptor of the Sovereign Grand Lodge of Portugal, Professor Fernando Casqueira<\/p>\n
Baruch (or Benedictus) Spinoza (1632-1677), one of the great philosophers of Modern Philosophy, is considered the founder of modern biblical criticism. The son of Portuguese Sephardic parents who took refuge in Amsterdam because of the persecution of the Jews, he was a profound student of the Bible and of the Talmud. His work \u201cEthics\u201d, written in the form of postulates, became celebrated for its rationalising thought, set against mere superstitious belief.<\/p>\n
One of the essential AXES, unavoidable in any reflection on Freedom of Thought, rests on the defence of that very freedom, taking as its central point the notion of the SUPREME GOOD.<\/p>\n
The meaning of that \u201cSupreme Good\u201d (which relates to Human Freedom) would rest on doctrinal principles engaged in various fields, such as METAPHYSICS \/ PSYCHOLOGY \/ EPISTEMOLOGY \/ ETHICS \/ THEOLOGY, though three classical formulations may be singled out: in Aristotle (with the idea of eudaimonia, or the fully realised life);<\/p>\n
Plato (in whom the Good is the supreme reality, the source of truth);<\/p>\n
Saint Augustine (the Good is God, the ultimate end of the Soul).<\/p>\n
– Traditional philosophical thought holds that the Supreme Good implies that which is desirable in itself; that which gives meaning to all other goods; that which fully realises human nature. Accordingly, the Supreme Good is not an object but a state of realisation, aligned with the truth of Being.<\/p>\n
In Spinoza’s philosophy, the Supreme Good and Human Freedom are not independent concepts: they imply one another, which allows the following question to be put: if there is a supreme good to be attained (an objective), are we free to decide arbitrarily to attain it? Or are we already \u201cdestined\u201d to attain that objective regardless of our will?<\/p>\n
THE CLASSICAL PHILOSOPHICAL ANSWER DOES NOT ELIMINATE FREEDOM of choice, because freedom is not doing as one pleases but the freedom to choose rationally, acting so as to attain a given end (the satisfaction of a need); freedom of CHOICE and not freedom to ACT arbitrarily (there is no free will, since everything has a CAUSE).<\/p>\n
FREEDOM, then, is not choosing without cause (the more we understand causes, the less passive we become), but ACTING out of one’s own nature, with greater power and less dependence on external causes. It should be noted that he distinguished internal from external causality. External causality meant an outward constraint, and therefore ran counter to the idea of freedom. Internal causality, deriving from our own nature, from our own essence, was what would be consistent with the idea of freedom, and what allowed him rationally to call free will into question and to accept a certain determinism.<\/p>\n
– Freedom, I repeat, is bound to necessity (nature) and to the rational understanding of that necessity. But FREEDOM is also THE POWER TO ACT WITH UNDERSTANDING.<\/p>\n
– To be free is not to escape necessity, but to UNDERSTAND NECESSITY AND TO ACT (with understanding, using REASON) ACCORDING TO THE POWER OF OUR NATURE.<\/p>\n
Let it be made clear that he would tend to admit a DETERMINIST notion, out of the deep conviction (and demonstration) THAT EVERYTHING HAPPENS ACCORDING TO A NECESSARY ORDER OF NATURE (GOD), AND THAT FREEDOM THEREFORE CANNOT MEAN THE ABSENCE OF DETERMINATION.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, that is FREE which exists and acts – or is constrained – solely by the necessity (whose cause is rationally thought, and known through study) of its own nature (I recall that for him \u201cnature\u201d articulates the idea of GOD).<\/p>\n
It is worth insisting that FREEDOM and NECESSITY (in Spinoza) are not opposites.<\/p>\n
In addition, he recalled that FREEDOM grows where there is understanding (rational knowledge) of the AFFECTS (here he develops a complex theory of the affects and of love, which we shall not set out now), an increase in the power to act (the theory of the Conatus) and rational self-determination (through study and awareness)<\/p>\n
Finally, and again in brief allusion (since here too the conceptual and theoretical density is great and complex), FREEDOM is not only individual, for it has political implications: \u201cA just State will be one that favours the freedom of its citizens, not fear and servitude\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
By the Grand Preceptor of the Sovereign Grand Lodge of Portugal, Professor Fernando Casqueira Baruch (or Benedictus) Spinoza (1632-1677), one of the great philosophers of Modern Philosophy, is considered the founder of modern biblical criticism. The son of Portuguese Sephardic parents who took refuge in Amsterdam because of the persecution of the Jews, he was […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":12036,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12179","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-sem-categoria"],"yoast_head":"\n