The Free Man

A general idea of the free man and the commonwealth

Spinoza’s “free man” is one who lives in a civil state or what Hobbes would term as the commonwealth. Understanding the “free man” negatively then, he is not one who lives his existence unencumbered by any structure as Nietzsche would idealize. Spinoza’s line of thought seems Aristotelian in fact i.e. that the “free man” lives in a polis and in this polis, he is more fit and calibrated to live by the guidance of reason alone [by IV4P67] to ultimately preserve his being i.e. principle of the conatus. Not all man have the acumen to live by reason wholly. In fact, in the Schollium of IV4P68, Spinoza establishes once again that only God has adequate ideas and men, inadequate knowledge and ideas of things and hence, man do not always act from the guidance of reason [IV4P43]. [By IV4P56] Most man have a weak mind. For instance, the love of self-esteem derived from opinion of the multitude can unleash a “monstrous lust” of man to crush each other to obtain it [IV4P58]. The one who triumphs – the proud man who thinks more highly of himself than is just – can be very envious men who hate people and are led by jealousy [IV4P57]. Others – the despondent man – underestimate their power and ability to act. Thus as shown, men are led by affects excessively (like the greedy man or ambitious man) or deficiently (resulting in melancholy and sadness) and do not often act by the guidance of reason. If allowed to live by their natures, judging things solely from the necessity of their natures and temperaments (and inadequately as elucidated), man will be simply led by their desires and impulses prone to the vicissitudes of external influences and affects and can be disasterous. To live freely as a free man thus entails living in a civil state binded by a Hobbesian notion of law lex naturalis objectified in the power of the sovereign that has authority over all which can introduce notions of justice and injustice for instance, aiding man to live according to reason and not destroy each other. The state with a greater power of acting can then correct or rectify man’s weaknesses so that he can live his best.

Who is the free man?

Spinoza’s “free man” as established is one who lives by the guidance of reason. As such, several things follow. In IV4P71, Spinoza asserts that only the free men know the essence of friendship i.e. being truly thankful to one another. This proposition is asserted on the basis that only the free man who seeks virtue (the best) for himself will desire it for others because when others enjoy the good, man himself (in the former sense) will be gratified by other’s striving and attainment of these other men [IV4P37]. As such, the free man will strive to benefit one another or be disposed to act for others (albeit on the basis of his own). This is contradistinguished from selfish men – who act solely on his own basis led by a desire to attain his own objective. The latter will not be disposed to think for others but wholly for himself and his own good. In a civil state, when everyone is more able to live a life guided by reason, this proposition seems realizable. But Spinoza himself admits that men are weak minded and the ideal of all men living by reason is nearly impossible. Men will tend to be led by their own desires and impulses. Hence, this conception of the free man is just prototypical and logically and rationally right but not empirically realizable in reality.

Also, by IV4P67, The free man thinks about life and not death. Again, this makes rational sense because the “free man” led by the sway of reason is one who understands by reason the perseverance of his being and as a direct corollary, will seek and desire all the good that acts towards a greater perfection of his being. Hence, things that lead him to a lesser perfection, he will not even think about it. This is also since the “free man” who acts by reason will have adequate ideas or relatively more adequate ideas (since only God can have adequate ideas) and so, correspondingly, he will not have notions of evil which is sadness itself – a passage to lesser perfection. The free man will thus always think of life - positive connotations, and how it can lead him to a best life. But Spinoza also writes on how human bodies are always affected by many other external bodies. If there are then weak-minded men (bodies) who are guided by passions of fear and timidity such as the superstitious who are propelled by speculations of the evil (“sinful” actions towards God) and notions of death (or the life-after-death), then by the former proposition, man (free as he is) as finite modes and bodies will inevitably be affected in one way or another by these people whose ideas when affect him will inadvertently lead him to a lesser perfection.

The free man also if he lives by reason will act honestly because he only acts towards the perseverance of his own being. He will not deceptively claim that he strives “for others” which is contrary to the virtue of his essence. But insofar as man lives in a polis with men who are weak minded and who have predilections for flattery and all the related vices (of the parasites), the free men cannot live without deceiving. To live well especially if such people hold more influence then him and influence his life, the free man then have to stage in the Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical sense, “a face” to deal with them (which means living deceptively). In relation to this, I think Spinoza’s IV4P70 (of a free man who lives among the ignorant striving to avoid their favours) cannot hold insofar as we consider the firstly the intermingling networks in society and imperfections of men.