How does Spinoza’s “Democracy” differ from that of Hobbes?

Field focuses on the role in political theory of the concept of potentia of the people—power understood as the informal, natural power of the people—as distinct from potestas understood as the formal arrangement of power under the constitution of a given state. In a close analysis of the arguments of Hobbes and Spinoza on popular power and sovereignty, the book critiques democratic interpretations of both theories. While correct about that, the book neglects fundamental dissimilarities in their views of popular power. Of profound importance is the meaning of the concept “multitude”: unlike Hobbes, Spinoza distinguishes between the great mass of individuals and “the wise,” seeing the “multitude” as encompassing most kings. Also, there is a great gulf between their understandings of the “common good.” For Spinoza, obedience to the sovereign, Hobbes’s desideratum, is only compatible with freedom in the context of a state directed to the common good.

The Logic of Law

Like other early Christian writers, Nemesius condemns any theory which denies that humans are by nature free. Though he believes that the human body is an instrument, he passionately rejects the idea that ‘humankind is a mere instrument’. He cannot tolerate any reduction of humans to the status of a tool, whether by ‘pagans’ (in theories of fate), or by Christians (in theories of providence). In this chapter, we reconstruct Nemesius’ theories of human freedom and divine providence. The bishop believes that human laws—and, hence, crime and punishment—are inconceivable in the absence of human choice. Since all cities have laws, he reasons, humans must have a natural power of choice. From this cosmopolitan line of reasoning (which has roots in Greek antiquity), Nemesius derives a subtle theory of divine world-governance in the final pages of his (unfinished) treatise.

Self and Dignity: The Spirituality of Survival

This paper examines the nature of spirit and spirituality as organic response to threat in the context of a global pandemic. Drawing from the fields of neuroscience, philosophy and theology, the author defines spirit as the biological capacity of a living organism to maintain homeostasis in response to changes in its environment. The capacity of individual human organisms to respond to changes that are perceived as threats to homeostasis with passive and active power is posited as a spirituality that is crucial for the survival of the human species. The paper represents a form of secular spirituality that is synonymous with the natural power of organic life.

Dialectical view of the binary oppositions of the principles of criminal procedure

The binary system of principles of criminal procedure is determined by the policy of correlation of the basic concepts of criminal procedure-adversarial and inquisitional. This policy is not based on natural «power», but on the legislative «status» of ideas. Competitive ideas gained their right to primacy not in the real struggle of criminal procedure technologies, but as a result of the strong-willed legitimation of competitive ideology. Binary oppositions in the system of principles are not independent elements, but only tools for describing and expressing a more General (one for two) idea, which is not directly called a law. Therefore, binary oppositions in the system of principles that modern science offers seem to us rather conditional.

The Lockean Prerogative, Natural Law, and Political Power

In this paper, I argue that Lockean prerogative power is political and not natural. After introducing two arguments in favour of the notion of prerogative as a natural power I offer two arguments contra this view. First, I claim that Locke’s conception of executive power is not unitary; rather, he distinguishes between natural and political executive power. Second, I distinguish two types of public good; the general public good and the specific public good. Drawing on these two distinctions, I respond to the arguments in favour of a natural prerogative and argue that they fail.