in the state of nature, wrong doing is impossible; or if anyone does wrong, it is to himself, not to another. For no one by law of nature is bound to please another, unless he chooses, nor to hold anything to be good or evil, but what he himself, according to his own temperament, pronounces to be so; and to speak generally, nothing is forbidden by the law of nature, except what is beyond everyone’s power.
[..]men are chiefly guided by appetite, without reason; yet for all this they do not disturb the course of nature, but follow it of necessity. And therefore a man ignorant and weak of mind, is no more bound by natural law to order his life wisely, than a sick man is bound to be sound of body.
Spinoza in his posthumous work, the political treatise
Additional reading:
THAT IN A FREE STATE EVERY MAN MAY THINK WHAT HE LIKES, AND SAY WHAT HE THINKS
Random thoughts 
You are going big on Spinoza. Sounds like Rousseau except different.
LikeLike
I don’t think I will read his ethics though. I started many years ago and gave it up. I will end with his Political treatise and read some history that has caught my interest
LikeLike
Rather you than me. When I look at our world, philosophers/political thinkers of our past don’t seem to be regarded highly. Merely Mammon.
LikeLike
Which I think, is a great loss to us.
Only bad books sell. Maybe I should write one on fashion 🙂
LikeLike
Erotica. Fantasy. Romance.
LikeLike
Not my cup of tea, as they say.
LikeLike
Just a tip if you want a supposed bestseller 🙂 Oh, and kiddie books too. ‘Mak’s philosophy for seven-year-olds’ maybe?
LikeLike
Philosophy for 7 year olds has been written already: Sophie’s world
LikeLiked by 1 person
Teenagers. You need to start them younger. This is your opportunity, friend 🙂
LikeLike
I believe, in agreement with Rousseau, that at a younger age we should not bother children with disputations on opinions uncertain but to train them only on what is certain, or that which is almost certain
LikeLike
More interesting thoughts. Good stuff, my friend.
LikeLike
I thought so too.
LikeLike
Rich. Brilliant. 🙂
LikeLike
I agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not so certain that “no one by law of nature is bound to please another”. I mean as an evolved primate species who is social, and whose behavior is centered around reciprocal altruism to build bonds so that we choose to cooperate instead of going it alone to improve our chances of survival, nature does kind of tie groups of us together. But overall I agree with the general meaning of the passage. Good stuff. Interesting reading. 🙂
LikeLike
In your response you say we choose…. and that is the point he is making that without choosing to live in society, we have no obligation to like our neighbours. Question is do we have a choice? That to me is the bigger question.
It sure was interesting reading and even his conclusion that the only worship he knows is the love of justice and charity, that this is the only message of scripture is, I think, undoubtedly acceptable to many.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see what you’re saying. And I am of the no free will camp, or at least not in the way people normally think of free will. So I was say no, we do not have a choice. 🙂
LikeLike
We are in agreement
LikeLiked by 1 person