Scan barcode
A review by jbjcubs
Nature's God: The Heretical Origins of the American Republic by Matthew Stewart
3.0
This book reminds me, in so many ways, of a long-period comet.
At many points along the 'journey' the reader can see quite clearly a glowing core of radical (Enlightenment) thought that exists in the writings of many of America's Founding Fathers and their contemporaries.
This core burns brightest, in my opinion, as Stewart's account moves within the wider orbits of seventeeth- and eighteenth-century discussions of freedom and the coequivalency of the terms 'nature' and 'God'; discussions which themselves evolved from the Pre-Socratics and ancient Hellenistic schools. The juxtaposition of quotes and philosophical contexts found throughout the chapters show that the first Americans were indeed the intellectual children of Bruno, Gassendi, Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza and Locke on these important points.
Yet, long-term comets also spend a considerable amount of time heading away from the Sun, and so too does This book. Page upon page is devoted to the larger questions of seventeenth-century philosophy: the mind-body relationship, materialism, immortality of the soul, and the nature of revealed religion (to name but a few). Still more distance between the main subject and these 'satellite' subjects appears in the heavy examination of the era's reception of ancient, and particularly Epicurean, philosophy.
These lengthy passages left me longing for a return back to the book's main consideration. Chapter Three, 'Epicurus's Dangerous Idea', is a particularly good example of where too much of the history of philosophy crowds out the main concern, leaving the American question far behind and fading into the deep background on seemingly every page. Less may very well be more in instances such as these.
There are some bold claims made throughout and two particularly caught my attention:
First, 'Spinoza is the principal architect of the radical political philosophy that achieves its ultimate expression in the American Republic, and Locke is its acceptable face. So- called Lockean liberalism is really just Spinozistic radicalism adapted to the limitations of the common understanding of things.'
This is, in many ways an extension of Jonathan Israel's strong thesis, which posits, contra the history of philosophy in the Anglo-American tradition, that Spinoza is the pivot on which the seventeenth and subsequent centuries turns. Stewart takes the next step by extending the argument to the American colonies. It's a bold extension to be sure but Stewart sells the case convincingly through close textual readings and knocks Locke's contributions down a few pegs in the process.
Second, 'Liberalism became possible only after it was understood that souls do not have rights.'
A move to link an emergent political philosophy with the wider discussions taking place around the world regarding the soul and the afterlife. This is a claim that is worth considering, for as Stewart argues, if the soul is immortal then governments and religions, which often make claims to owning them in some capacity, can never truly surrender their sovereignty and man can never have any useful notion of freedom to direct his own earthly affairs.
In sum, this was a good but long-to-read book and not quite written as advertised. The influence of radical thought is discernible throughout, and the reader will take away that the Founders' God is certainly not what most either assume it is or have been told it is. But like the long-term comet, I felt the discussion strayed far away from the central premise for extended periods, and that as a result, I began to wish that the conversation would quickly return again to where it shone brightest, namely the American reception of radical philosophy.
At many points along the 'journey' the reader can see quite clearly a glowing core of radical (Enlightenment) thought that exists in the writings of many of America's Founding Fathers and their contemporaries.
This core burns brightest, in my opinion, as Stewart's account moves within the wider orbits of seventeeth- and eighteenth-century discussions of freedom and the coequivalency of the terms 'nature' and 'God'; discussions which themselves evolved from the Pre-Socratics and ancient Hellenistic schools. The juxtaposition of quotes and philosophical contexts found throughout the chapters show that the first Americans were indeed the intellectual children of Bruno, Gassendi, Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza and Locke on these important points.
Yet, long-term comets also spend a considerable amount of time heading away from the Sun, and so too does This book. Page upon page is devoted to the larger questions of seventeenth-century philosophy: the mind-body relationship, materialism, immortality of the soul, and the nature of revealed religion (to name but a few). Still more distance between the main subject and these 'satellite' subjects appears in the heavy examination of the era's reception of ancient, and particularly Epicurean, philosophy.
These lengthy passages left me longing for a return back to the book's main consideration. Chapter Three, 'Epicurus's Dangerous Idea', is a particularly good example of where too much of the history of philosophy crowds out the main concern, leaving the American question far behind and fading into the deep background on seemingly every page. Less may very well be more in instances such as these.
There are some bold claims made throughout and two particularly caught my attention:
First, 'Spinoza is the principal architect of the radical political philosophy that achieves its ultimate expression in the American Republic, and Locke is its acceptable face. So- called Lockean liberalism is really just Spinozistic radicalism adapted to the limitations of the common understanding of things.'
This is, in many ways an extension of Jonathan Israel's strong thesis, which posits, contra the history of philosophy in the Anglo-American tradition, that Spinoza is the pivot on which the seventeenth and subsequent centuries turns. Stewart takes the next step by extending the argument to the American colonies. It's a bold extension to be sure but Stewart sells the case convincingly through close textual readings and knocks Locke's contributions down a few pegs in the process.
Second, 'Liberalism became possible only after it was understood that souls do not have rights.'
A move to link an emergent political philosophy with the wider discussions taking place around the world regarding the soul and the afterlife. This is a claim that is worth considering, for as Stewart argues, if the soul is immortal then governments and religions, which often make claims to owning them in some capacity, can never truly surrender their sovereignty and man can never have any useful notion of freedom to direct his own earthly affairs.
In sum, this was a good but long-to-read book and not quite written as advertised. The influence of radical thought is discernible throughout, and the reader will take away that the Founders' God is certainly not what most either assume it is or have been told it is. But like the long-term comet, I felt the discussion strayed far away from the central premise for extended periods, and that as a result, I began to wish that the conversation would quickly return again to where it shone brightest, namely the American reception of radical philosophy.