Aren’t the Catholic and Spinozistic views on freedom quite similar. I know the Catholic one to be freedom is action in accord with what is right or with moral dogma of the church. Similarly, IIRC Spinoza said that free actions accorded with reason. For both, I think that things like smoking and drug habits are not free.
I love Spinoza and have read
Ethics dozens of times (though I hasten to say I am no expert). Spinoza believes freedom as '*That thing is called free, which exists solely by the necessity of its own nature, and of which the action is determined by itself alone. *
God is not constrained or determined to action by anything but Himself. Humans on the other hand are “determined by something external to itself to a fixed and definite method of existence or action”. In essence, according to Spinoza, God is limited only by those attributes that define Him as God. For example, God cannot lie because it is outside of his nature to lie. He can create universe, because that is in His nature. Spinoza’s concepts of Morality are extensively detailed in
Ethics, and he uses terms such as ‘nobility’, ‘highest good…the knowledge of God’, living as a ‘reasoning’ rational being with the consequence of self control and ultimately leading to a filial response to our fellow man.
While I think these ideas are of themselves good, and I think any Catholic would say you go boy, my understanding of the Catholic concept of freedom is different. Free will, according to Catholic doctrine is man’s ability to choose between how he manifests his approach to his ‘natural appetite’ to seek after God. My understanding of what I have read is that Catholics typically see freedom as an expression of worship (or lack thereof).
I’m no expert, but from what I understand they are very different. I think Spinoza was pretty much a fatalist, so he re-described freedom to be something like being chained to a free master. For Spinoza, only God is free. I think for Catholics, using drugs is a free choice, whereas for Spinoza, there is no freedom of choice, but both would agree that the drug adict is not as free in a sense as one who is not adicted to drugs. The differnec is for Spinoza, this is the only sense that he would talk about freedom. Freedom for Spinoza is more like the American ideal that views it as the conditions that allow for one to flourish.
Best,
Leela
Spinoza was not a fatalist. His concept is as described, we are only free within the constraints of the necessity of our existence. While God is the only being Perfectly Free (meaning causation has no effect on Him), man has plenty of freedom of choice, he is just not free from the consequences of those around him (like the Fall of Adam).
