Abstract

Spinoza tried to defend freedom of conscience in his political writings. To this end, he offers two arguments, one negative and the other positive. Negative arguments emphasize that a person’s right to judgment cannot be completely eradicated, and positive arguments emphasize the utility of protecting freedom of conscience. I argue that if Spinoza wants to criticize tyranny, he must emphasize positive arguments, even though he emphasizes negative ones more. I respond to Curley’s criticism of Spinoza by emphasizing positive argument.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call