Thanks to Google Books, I have just read The True Intellectual System of the Universe (1678) by Ralph Cudworth (1617-88). This is an immense book. The 1837 edition that I read is well over a thousand pages of closely-packed text, and much of the argument is carried on by quotations in Greek and Latin, which I can read, and in Hebrew, which I cannot.
Its main purpose is to attack the revived atomic materialism of the Greeks. Cudworth believed, probably rightly, that this tended to atheism. Though he is hardly ever named, the most important target is Thomas Hobbes, by whose influence atomic materialism was introduced into English scientific and moral philosophy.
I will not deny Cudworth’s great learning. I say only that he shares fully in an uncritical approach to the remains of Antiquity that was common to his age; and that his point is carried more by verbal trickery and question-begging, and by arguments from dubious authority, than by the mode of reasoning one finds in the eighteenth century. I am not convinced by any of his specific claims.
For an example of his thought, I supply the key texts in his debate with Hobbes over the reality of witchcraft. There are, to any system of thought, internal and external opinions. In my own case, I believe that the Great War was regrettable and mistaken, and that the Falklands War was regrettable but necessary. These opinions are external to my general libertarianism. My belief in limited government and the rule of law would be unaffected if either was reversed. Equally, my musical and literary tastes are external. My belief in free speech, on the other hand, is internal to my general libertarianism.
Where Hobbes and Cudworth are concerned, their respective opinions about witchcraft are fully internal. Hobbes is a materialist. There is, for him, nothing but atoms in various kinds of motion. It follows from this that any claim of magical power is a lie or a delusion. To accept any such claims would, in itself, refute his general system. He does not deny that there are people who are called or call themselves witches, and he believes that they should be punished so far as their actions may tend to a breach of the peace. But he has no time for the existence of spiritual entities.
Cudworth is a Platonist. He believes that we are surrounded by invisible but powerful beings. Some of these are good, others bad; and it is possible for them to communicate with us and to exchange promises. From this, it follows that witchcraft and demonic possession are possible. They are also evidence for his general system. To deny their reality might not overturn his general system, but would bring it into serious doubt
For this reason, the opinions of Hobbes and Cudworth on witchcraft are relevant to any consideration of their wider views.
Here is Hobbes on witchcraft (from Chapter Two, “Of Imagination,” of Leviathan):
From this ignorance of how to distinguish dreams, and other strong fancies, from vision and sense, did arise the greatest part of the religion of the Gentiles in time past, that worshipped satyrs, fauns, nymphs, and the like; and nowadays the opinion that rude people have of fairies, ghosts, and goblins, and of the power of witches. For, as for witches, I think not that their witchcraft is any real power, but yet that they are justly punished for the false belief they have that they can do such mischief, joined with their purpose to do it if they can, their trade being nearer to a new religion than to a craft or science. And for fairies, and walking ghosts, the opinion of them has, I think, been on purpose either taught, or not confuted, to keep in credit the use of exorcism, of crosses, of holy water, and other such inventions of ghostly men. Nevertheless, there is no doubt but God can make unnatural apparitions: but that He does it so often as men need to fear such things more than they fear the stay, or change, of the course of Nature, which he also can stay, and change, is no point of Christian faith. But evil men, under pretext that God can do anything, are so bold as to say anything when it serves their turn, though they think it untrue; it is the part of a wise man to believe them no further than right reason makes that which they say appear credible. If this superstitious fear of spirits were taken away, and with it prognostics from dreams, false prophecies, and many other things depending thereon, by which crafty ambitious persons abuse the simple people, men would be would be much more fitted than they are for civil obedience.
Here is Cudworth on witchcraft. He is much more diffuse than Hobbes, and his opinion fills up dozens of pages, and is not continuously expressed. But it includes an endorsement of the death penalty – by hanging or burning – for those who communicate with evil spirits. Here are three passages from Book III, Chapter VI:
As for wizards and magicians, persons who associate and confederate themselves in a peculiar manner with these evil spirits, for the gratification of their own revenge, lust, ambition, and other passions; besides the Scriptures, there hath been so full an attestation given to them by persons unconcerned in all ages, that those our so confident exploders of them, in this present age, can hardly escape the suspicion of having some hankering towards Atheism….
I shall not discourse here, of that power also which evil genii, spirits, may possibly have upon those that have either mancipated themselves unto them, or otherwise forfeited that ordinary protection which divine providence commonly affordeth to all, by acting immediately upon the spirits of the brain, and thereby endeavour to give an account of those phenomena of wizards and witches vulgarly talked of, their seeming transportations in the air, nocturnal conventicles and junketings, and other such like things, as seem plainly contradictions and unreconcilable to philosophy. But we have already said enough to prove that sense is nothing but seeming and appearance….
To conclude ; all these extraordinary phenomena of apparitions, witchcraft, possessions, miracles, and prophecies, do evince that spirits, angels or demons, though invisible to us, are no fancies, but real and substantial inhabitants of the world; which favours not the atheistic hypothesis : but some of them, as the higher kind of miracles and predictions, do also immediately enforce the acknowledgement of a Deity; a being superior to nature, which therefore can check and control it; and which comprehending the whole, foreknows the most remotely distant and contingent events.
We should not necessarily incline to Hobbism because Hobbes held what we now regard as a reasonable opinion of witchcraft. But anyone who is firmly convinced that witchcraft is a real danger that must be put down by the most revolting punishments is probably not to be followed in any of his other opinions. Anyone who does choose to follow him has probably not read him in full, but only in some modern abridgement or, what is more likely, in a footnote.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have never read Cudworth on witchcraft, I must confess I have only read his Treatise on morality and his Treatise on free will (both come to less than 200 pages in the Cambridge edition).
I know that the great legal thinkers of the day (Seldon and Hales) are said to have taken witchcraft for granted. Although only a few years later Chief Justice Sir John Holt was openly mocking the idea in the court room. And Sir John Holt was no follower of Hobbes – on the contrary Sir John Holt was a passionate defender of constitutional liberties and held that not even Parliament should be allowed to violate the fundamental principles of natural justice.
It should be stressed that if the state wants to kill someone as a “witch” (or because they do not colour of their eyes) Thomas Hobbes would NOT have helped the victim – he might say “there is no such as witchcraft”, but he would not have risked his life to save them. This is because “tyranny” (he uses the word) is “but the name of sovereignty” to Thomas Hobbes – he is no friend of a “student of the common law of England” (and not because of some disagreement on the existence of witchcraft).
The idea that because all people are not treated justly no one should be treated justly is one I find rather odd.
Certainly 17th century lawyers (and philosophers) might indeed have treated those accused of witchcraft unjustly – but that is no reason for treating all persons unjustly.
It should be remembered that Thomas Hobbes did not just “not believe in witches” – Thomas Hobbes did not believe in the existence of PERSONS, people were just flesh robots to Hobbes – hence his lack of interest in (indeed contempt for) constitutional liberties.
It should be stressed that this was NOT inevitable for materialist. After all Epicurus is supposed to have been a materialist – yet he defended the existence of persons (human agency – free will).
Yes some people interested in Plato believed in the human person – an example being Johannes Scotus Eriugena (Irish later in France – dates 815 to 877, the Irish keeping the study of Greek alive in Northern Europe during the Dark Ages).
But Aristotelians also defended the existence of the human person (denied that we were just flesh robots with no moral value than a piece of offal) – such as Alexander of Aphrodisias (150 to 210) the “Commentator” whose teachings on Aristotle were recovered and spread in Europe in later centuries.
I repeat – some people who have believed in the existence of the human person (free will – moral responsibility) have also believed in witches – therefore side with Thomas Hobbes and allow the state to treat everyone as flesh robots, is a rather odd argument.
It is the old “if everyone is not treated justly, no one should be” position – which leads some moderns to see no difference between Julius C. and Cato the Younger (after all neither opposed slavery). Or to see no principles in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 – after all it did not lead to freedom for Catholics in Ireland (quite the contrary). Or to see no difference between the limited monarchy of the Hapsburgs and the tyranny of the Ottomans (indeed to see the Ottomans as better – after all they were “religiously tolerant” and a poor person had a chance to reach “the highest ranks of the state).
To put it another way……
“The proto Whigs treated some people with injustice – so we should be Hobbesians and let the state treat everyone like that”.
Makes just about as much sense.
I am of course NOT directly quoting from Sean Gabb – because, as his habit, he cloaks his intentions under fair speech. So I have translated him – to make the intentions clear.
And, to anyone who protests, I would remind that it is not me who has brought Thomas Hobbes into this discussion – Dr Gabb has.
And to pretend that Hobbes was mainly concerned with combating the mistaken idea that there were witches, is flat wrong.
The main concern of Thomas Hobbes was to undermine belief in the human person (and traditional natural justice) and to replace it with the idea that people were just flesh robots (without free will – without moral responsibility or moral value) to pave the way for an absolute and unlimited state. Of the sort that, for example, existed in the Ottoman Empire of his day. This would be “peace” – the peace of tyranny.
A few words missing here and there, such a “like” in “like the colour of their eyes”, and “thing” in “there is no such thing as witchcraft”, but it will do.
On looking at the 200 pages again (after quite awhile) it is clear that Cudworth is not uncritical of Plato (or any Classical writer), nor does he seem particularly interests in spirits – even critical of the use of some such means in in philosophy.
So Dr Gabb’s presentation is mistaken, but it would not matter if he was correct about Cudworth. Thomas Hobbes, and those who follow him, would still be guilty of pushing a false (and vile) set of principles.
The more I check Cudworth’s actual work (“A Treatise Concerning Eternal and Immutable Morality” with “A Treatise of Freewill” – Cambridge University Press 1996, edited by Sarah Hutton), the odder Dr Gabb’s post is.
For example Cudworth does not appear to be very hostile to the idea that matter is made of atoms – on the contrary he is respectful to Democritus and his theories concerning physical science. The idea that Cudworth is writing to refute atomic physics does not seem to be true.
As for the Falklands and the First World War I am not sure what the relevance is, but Dr Gabb’s position is wildly illogical. It is indeed just to oppose a power, Argentina, that has invaded some islands inhabited by two thousand people who do NOT wish to be ruled by Argentina. But then to OPPOSE resistance to Germany in 1914 – when the German academic and political elite were clear that their final objective was not just to destroy France, but to destroy BRITAIN. To replace Britain on the world stage Britain had to be destroyed, if not in 1914 then a few years later after the full resources of Europe were concentrated under German control.
It makes no sense, none, to oppose the invasion of some small islands – but NOT to oppose the conquest of Europe and the planned destruction of Britain itself.
Still back to the central point.
Neither Thomas Hobbes or Ralph Cudworth were really interested in “witches” – this is a minor concern for either of them. The actual point of contention was not the existence of witches, but the existence of PERSONS. Whether humans were just flesh robots with no moral responsibility and moral value, or whether humans are persons – agents.
True “all witches are persons, so if there are no persons there are no witches” -[ but surely the important matter of dispute is whether or not there are PERSONS?
No one is claiming “if there are no witches there are no persons”.
Oh by the way…..
The name of Mr Hobbes is used by Cudworth (and even when Cudworth does not say “Mr Hobbes” he will say something like “the author of The Leviathan”) and the attacks upon him do not concentrate upon physics (after all Thomas Hobbes was not actually wonderfully good at physics – he was not a great scientist, even in mathematics he was on the wrong side of some of the debates of his day).
An attack is far more likely to be on what Dr Gabb would call the “verbal trickery” of Hobbes – the sort of word games that determinists tend to use, for example saying that because I must inevitably either get out of this chair or not get out of this chair, if I do not get out of this chair it is inevitable that I stay in it, and if I do not stay in this chair it is inevitable that I get out of it, so whatever happens is inevitable, so determinism is “proved”.
Verbal trickery of this sort (which falsely pretends to be logic) is rightly mocked.