Que opinião tem mais razão? Reflexões em torno das noções de opinião e obstinação na democracia

É conhecida a ênfase de pensadores dos séculos XXVII e XVIII na defesa da noção de tolerância religiosa. Hoje tida como um dos sustentáculos do estado democrático de direito, as discussões em torno da tolerância conheceram um longo percurso até o seu reconhecimento como virtude cívica. O propósito do artigo é discutir as noções de opinião e obstinação sob a perspectiva da política e da filosofia, especialmente nas obras de John Locke e Pierre Bayle. A conclusão mostra que este debate traz reflexões fecundas capazes de iluminar certos debates políticos contemporâneos, mais precisamente a onipresença da violência material e simbólica gerada pela obstinação e pela disseminação de fundamentalismos nas redes sociais.

Tolerancia política en Pierre Bayle

La doctrina de la tolerancia bayleana suele ser analizada atendiendo a sus componentes morales, no tanto a su articulación política. En este artículo defenderemos que la soberanía indivisible que propone Bayle es indisociable de su doctrina de la tolerancia que implica una estricta separación entre la obligación política y la adhesión religiosa voluntaria, lo que permite, al mismo tiempo, proteger la libertad individual de conciencia y el pluralismo confesional. Por esa razón, entendemos que la tolerancia bayleana está articulada en términos puramente políticos, no religiosos o morales.

1. Human nature

‘Human nature’ looks at the theory of human nature developed by Hume in Books One and Two of A Treatise of Human Nature. In these books, Hume’s theory of nature is presented as an account of the faculty of understanding, of the passions, and of the relation between them. The biographical context for this theory of human nature is important here, in terms of the intellectual crisis that Hume went through in the early 1730s. Key influences on Hume’s theory of human nature included Pierre Bayle, Bernard Mandeville, and John Locke. Hume reformulated his theory of human nature in his later works. There are limitations of the theory as can be revealed in remarks made by Hume about racial difference.

Cudworth, Bayle y Hume: sobre el ateísmo estratonista

Uno de los debates más interesante en torno a la razonabilidad del materialismo ateo se dio entre los siglos XVII y XVIII a partir de que el anglicano Ralph Cudworth recuperó, para confutarla, una antigua versión atribuida al peripatético Estratón de Lampsaco. Esta versión, y las ideas de Cudworth al respecto, llegan al Continente por obra de Jean Le Clerc, donde rápidamente caen bajo la crítica de Pierre Bayle. Bayle, en efecto, muestra que la posición de Cudworth era menos sólida de lo que se suponía y que, por lo tanto, la hipótesis estratonista no había sido confutada ni mucho menos. David Hume, por su parte, tomó nota de este debate y lo reutilizó como parte importante de sus Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, desde donde alcanzó su más amplia difusión.

Seventeenth-Century Calvinism and Early Enlightenment Thought

Analysing a number of interactions between Calvinists and Early Enlightenment philosophers—and the receptions of John Calvin in these—this chapter shows a complex and persistent presence of Calvin and Calvinists in philosophical debates during the early Enlightenment period. Among Calvinists, Descartes found both opponents and followers. Reformed Cartesians have occasionally appealed to Calvin (e.g. on accommodation and the sensus divinitatis), praised the Reformer (Heidanus, Burman), or neglected him (van Til). The philosopher Arnold Geulincx has been protected (Heidanus.) and published (van Til) by Calvinists, before they began to associate him with Spinoza (Tuinman, Andala, Driessen). Thomas Hobbes quoted Calvin incidentally, but Calvinists usually opposed his philosophy. Thus, the jurist Ulrik Huber used Calvin’s teachings on the testimonium Spiritus sancti against Hobbes—an appeal to Calvin that Huber repeated against another philosopher’s claim that reason alone was able to demonstrate the divinity of scripture. In order to refute Spinozists, Reformed minister Carolus Tuinman translated Calvin’s treatise against the libertines (1545). Responding to Huguenot Pierre Bayle, the Lutheran philosopher G. W. Leibniz wrote favourably about Calvin’s teachings on predestination and providence, as he had done also about Calvin’s views on the Eucharist.