Join Now!

Topic: Spinoza...

creativesoul
132175_659_thumb
Joined Mon 04/16/07
Posts: 2984
Sat 06/21/08 06:03 PM
PART I: CONCERNING GOD



Prop. I. Substance is by nature prior to its modifications

Prop. II. Two substances, whose attributes are different, have nothing in common

Prop III. Things, which have nothing in common, cannot be one the cause of the other

Prop. IV. Two or more distinct things are distinguished one from the other either by the difference of the attributes of the substance, or by the differences of their modifications

Prop. V. There cannot exist in the universe two or more substances having the same nature or attribute

Prop. VI. One substance cannot be produced by another substance

Prop. VII. Existence belongs to the nature of substance

Prop. VIII. Every substance is necessarily infinite

Prop. IX. The more reality or being a thing has, the greater the number of its attributes

Prop. X. Each particular attribute of the one substance must be conceived through itself

Prop. XI. God, or substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality, necessarily exists

Prop. XII. No attribute of substance can be conceived, from which it would follow that substance can be divided

Prop. XIII. Substance absolutely infinite is indivisible

Prop. XIV. Besides God no substance can be granted or conceived

Prop. XV. Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived

Prop. XVI. From the necessity of the divine nature must follow an infinite number of things in infinite ways--that is, all things which fall within the sphere of infinite intellect

Prop. XVII. God acts solely by the laws of his own nature and is not constrained by anyone

Prop. XVIII. God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things

Prop. XIX. God and all the attributes of God are eternal

Prop. XX. The existence of God and his essence are one and the same

Prop. XXI. All things, which follow from the absolute nature of any attribute of God, must always exist and be infinite, or, in other words, are eternal and infinite through the said attribute

Prop. XXII. Whatever follows from any attribute of God, in so far as it is modified by a modification, which exists necessarily and as infinite through the said attribute, must also exist necessarily and as infinite

Prop. XXIII. Every mode, which exists both necessarily and as infinite, must necessarily follow either from the absolute nature of some attribute of God, or from an attribute modified by a modification, which exists necessarily and as infinite

Prop. XXIV. The essence of things produced by God does not involve existence

Prop. XXV. God is the efficient cause not only of the existence of things, but also of their essence

Prop. XXVI. A thing, which is conditioned to act in a particular manner, has necessarily been thus conditioned by God; and that which has not been conditioned by God cannot condition itself to act

Prop. XXVII. A thing, which has been conditioned by God to act in a particular way, cannot render itself unconditioned

Prop. XXVIII. Every individual thing, or everything which is finite and has a conditioned existence, cannot exist or be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned for existence and action by a cause other than itself, which also is finite and has a conditioned existence; and likewise this cause cannot in its turn exist or be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned for existence and action by another cause, which also is finite and has a conditioned existence, and so on to infinity

Prop. XXIX. Nothing in the universe is contingent, but all things are conditioned to exist and operate in a particular manner by the necessity of the divine nature

Prop. XXX. Intellect, in function finite, or in function infinite, must comprehend the attributes of God and the modifications of God, and nothing else

Prop. XXXI. The intellect in function, whether finite or infinite, as will, desire, love, etc., should be referred to passive nature, and not to active nature

Prop. XXXII. Will cannot be called a free cause, but only a necessary cause

Prop. XXXIII. Things could not have been brought into being by God in any manner or in any order different from that which has in fact obtained

Prop. XXXIV. God's power is identical with his essence

Prop. XXXV. Whatsoever we conceive to be in the power of God, necessarily exists

Prop. XXXVI. There is no cause from whose nature some effect does not follow


PART I: CONCERNING GOD


DEFINITIONS


I. BY THAT which is SELF-CAUSED, I mean that of which the essence involves existence, or that of which the nature is only conceivable as existent.

II. A thing is called FINITE AFTER ITS KIND, when it can be limited by another thing of the same nature; for instance, a body is called finite because we always conceive another greater body. So, also, a thought is limited by another thought, but a body is not limited by thought, nor a thought by body.

III. BY SUBSTANCE, I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself; in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception.

IV. BY ATTRIBUTE, I mean that which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance.

V. BY MODE, I mean the modifications ["Affectiones"] of substance, or that which exists in, and is conceived through, something other than itself.

VI. BY GOD, I mean a being absolutely infinite--that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality.
Explanation.--I say absolutely infinite, not infinite after its kind: for, of a thing infinite only after its kind, infinite attributes may be denied; but that which is absolutely infinite, contains in its essence whatever expresses reality, and involves no negation.

VII. 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. On the other hand, that thing is necessary, or rather constrained, which is determined by something external to itself to a fixed and definite method of existence or action.

VIII. By ETERNITY, I mean existence itself, in so far as it is conceived necessarily to follow solely from the definition of that which is eternal.
Explanation. --Existence of this kind is conceived as an eternal truth, like the essence of a thing, and, therefore, cannot be explained by means of continuance or time, though continuance may be conceived without a beginning or end.

Axioms

I. Everything which exists, exists either in itself or in something else.

II. That which cannot be conceived through anything else must be conceived through itself.

III. From a given definite cause an effect necessarily follows; and, on the other hand, if no definite cause be granted, it is impossible that an effect can follow.

IV. The knowledge of an effect depends on and involves the knowledge of a cause.

V. Things which have nothing in common cannot be understood, the one by means of the other; the conception of one does not involve the conception of the other.

VI. A true idea must correspond with its ideate or object.

VII. If a thing can be conceived as non-existing, its essence does not involve existence.






Edited by creativesoul on Sat 06/21/08 06:04 PM
creativesoul
132175_659_thumb
Joined Mon 04/16/07
Posts: 2984
Sat 06/21/08 07:36 PM
James,

I posted this for the purposes of our discussing the issues of which you have with the writings regarding the quantum side that I do not recognize as existent.

These are Spinoza's propositions, definitions,and axioms, which are still regarded by many as the most inductively sound construct for the existence of 'God'.

flowerforyou
wouldee
268568_6860_thumb
Joined Sun 10/07/07
Posts: 3733
Sat 06/21/08 08:52 PM
flowerforyou

VI. BY GOD, I mean a being absolutely infinite--that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality.
Explanation.--I say absolutely infinite, not infinite after its kind: for, of a thing infinite only after its kind, infinite attributes may be denied; but that which is absolutely infinite, contains in its essence whatever expresses reality, and involves no negation.


That is interesting, indeed.

Thanks for sharing that, CS

flowerforyouheartbigsmile
creativesoul
132175_659_thumb
Joined Mon 04/16/07
Posts: 2984
Sat 06/21/08 09:59 PM
Howzit wouldee? flowerforyou

I am still attempting to absorb all that Spinoza's writings have to offer, quite humbly, may I add. I suspect that you may well understand quicker than I.

glasses









Eljay
141695_4797_thumb
Joined Tue 05/08/07
Posts: 771
Sun 06/22/08 12:09 AM
CS;

Quite interesting to say the least, and not something to be absorbed and understood in a single reading for sure. I look forward to contemplating this essay. Thanx.

lj
Jeanniebean
449761_4467_thumb
Joined Wed 01/30/08
Posts: 4164
Sun 06/22/08 12:37 AM
I can't make much sense out of his stuff. It does not resonate with me at all, so I really can't comment. I think he over thinks.

JB
Abracadabra
130401_2903_thumb
Joined Thu 04/12/07
Posts: 5844
Sun 06/22/08 01:11 AM
Hi Michael, I'm really busy with other things right now (I finally got my piano back together and tuned up bigsmile)

But I would like to comment that I already have a problem with Proposition #1. And I don't consider this to be trivial by any means.

QUOTE:
Prop. I. Substance is by nature prior to its modifications


In the 1600's (when Spinoza lived) it's was believed that the universe itself is static and eternal. For all they knew at that time, they earth and sun themselves could be eternal. They didn't even have any reason to suspect that the sun was ever going to burn out, or that the solar system had formed only four and a half billion years ago. They believed that the universe itself is eternal.

Here Spinoza is basically reflecting this idea. The idea that all that exists always had existed and merely modifies how it exits. He is speaking in terms of a 'tangible' universe. A natural substance that is prior to it modifications. This isn't how we see things today in light of the Big Bang, and a universe that is neither static or eternal.

So Spinoza is already starting out with Newtonian thinking in terms of absolute matter. He's probably thinking in terms of Newtonian absolute time and space as well.

QUOTE:
III. BY SUBSTANCE, I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself; in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception.


Again he just confirms that this is indeed his position.

He saying that everything that exists has always existed. Perhaps not in it's current state (modified form), but certain in terms of always existing in as an eternal substance.

This just doesn't fit with my current view of reality. It doesn't fit with what I believe to understand about both the Big Bang and Quantum physics.

QUOTE:
Prop. VI. One substance cannot be produced by another substance

Prop. VII. Existence belongs to the nature of substance

Prop. VIII. Every substance is necessarily infinite


He just goes on and on and on with this.

One substance cannot be produced by another substance? According to Quantum Mechanics there is only one "substance" - the quantum field.

Existence belongs to the nature of substance? I don't so. According to Quantum Mechanics existence is fleeting.

Every substance is necessarily infinite? (I think he probably mean "eternal", or unchanging).

In case he's all wrong taking about "substances" anyway.

He's definitely attempting to construct a "Physical Pantheism". A pantheism based on the idea that the physical universe itself is eternal and unchanging (except in form).

But we know now that this isn't true.

Even if Spinoza knew about the time dilation of Einstein's relativity I'm sure that alone would have blown his mind. Not to imply that he couldn't handle it, but it would have certainly given him pause for thought to change his views. Add to that the Big Bang, and Quantum Theory, and Spinoza would be erasing his blackboard to start all over again.

He would have to. None of his premises here are valid premises in light of what we know about the nature of the physical world. He's totally retro.

In all seriousness Michael, this just isn’t even worth considering in light of today’s knowledge base.
Abracadabra
130401_2903_thumb
Joined Thu 04/12/07
Posts: 5844
Sun 06/22/08 01:13 AM
QUOTE:

James,

These are Spinoza's propositions, definitions,and axioms, which are still regarded by many as the most inductively sound construct for the existence of 'God'.

flowerforyou


Well, all I can say is that I'm not among the "many" who feel that way.

I don't know what else to tell you. I can't imagine a modern scientist accepting this. It simply isn't in agreement with modern science.
Jeanniebean
449761_4467_thumb
Joined Wed 01/30/08
Posts: 4164
Sun 06/22/08 07:05 AM
QUOTE:
Prop. VIII. Every substance is necessarily infinite



The term "substance" does not resonate with me. It conjures up images of green slime for some reason.

As far as the statement above, that would be an infinite green slime.

noway

If I were looking for truth, (and I am) and I picked up a book by Spinoza, it would be in my hands less than 60 seconds, then discarded.

JB
Edited by Jeanniebean on Sun 06/22/08 08:01 AM
ArtGurl
128464_2512_thumb
Joined Sun 04/08/07
Posts: 8061
Sun 06/22/08 09:23 AM
Admittedly I have not read much Spinoza but I am not seeing this as contradictory to what JB and Abra seem to believe based upon their own descriptions. Particularly JB's descriptions of the law of attraction and in the ability to manifest.

From where does something manifest if there isn't something to manifest from? Whether it be thought form or something else it is still energy transforming into matter. But if there were no 'substance' ... no energy or pool of potential... then are you suggesting that something arises from nothing?

JB has stated in previous threads that there can be no 'nothing' ... there is always 'something' ... and I agree with that ...

I am curious how is this different?


Jeanniebean
449761_4467_thumb
Joined Wed 01/30/08
Posts: 4164
Sun 06/22/08 09:46 AM
QUOTE:
JB has stated in previous threads that there can be no 'nothing' ... there is always 'something' ... and I agree with that ...


It would depend upon how you want to define "something." Is "something" a "substance?"

How does Spinoza define "substance?"

Matter and/or energy?

(BTW we now know that Matter = energy)

If a "thing" has to have "substance" or has to be "material" or "matter" or even "energy" then a condition described as "nothing" would mean the absence of "matter or energy."

If neither matter or energy exist, then what does exist?

Nothing?

How can nothing EXIST? It can't ~~because in order to exist it must be "something."

Something is matter or energy. Can anything else be defined as something?

The question hinges on whether you define consciousness as something or nothing.

What is the nature of consciousness?

Is consciousness energy? If consciousness is energy then it is also matter or the potential to become matter. (E=mc2)

If consciousness is defined as nothing, then you can say that something did arise from nothing.

In the simplest and barest terms, I define consciousness as the will to exist.

JB



Edited by Jeanniebean on Sun 06/22/08 09:47 AM
Redykeulous
56634_8935_thumb
Joined Thu 11/09/06
Posts: 2929
Sun 06/22/08 11:19 AM
I think before you can discuss Spinoza there has to be some information about the philosophy of Descartes’s metaphysical dualism. This dichotomy, though brilliant for the time, created a divide that other, future thinkers, like Spinoza, Leibniz, the Humanists and the Empiricists attempted to fill. Spinoza was among the first and his body of work is consumed to this day by every would-be thinker. The reason Spinoza is so widely acclaimed is actually because his theories, his thoughts have not succeeded in filling in the gab created by Descartes. Instead he created a fabulous work of words that leaves a fill in the gap opportunity. I’ll get back to that idea.

Spinoza, like other of his contemporary philosophers, reacted to the metaphysical and epistemological arguments supporting God and the nature of Its existence.

Spinoza reasoned that substances, by their nature, must be self-contained. I find this reasoning odd, to say the least as he also determined that there can be only one substance and therefore that substance must be God, so his words, ‘their nature’ make little sense, unless there is more than one God. (that’s philosophy for another time) Now, Spinoza came about this by using some of the arguments stated in the OP.

In the NATURAL, the substance is God, therefore, anything of substance, not natural, is a modification of God, or a creation of the natural substance. Being a modified creation, it is illusory, as only its essence is the natural (of God). But, as God is eternal and because any attribute OF God, must also be eternal, so then are all the modifications of the extension of the Gods’ attributes.

Furthermore, according to Spinoza, infinity does exist, it exists as the many essences of creation. An essence of substance is an attribute and among these infinite attributes is the substance consisting of mind and body. Here, then, is the dualism that Descartes began.

Another reaction to Descartes, beginning at the same pantheistic view is put forth by a Spinoza contemporary, Leibniz (Wilhelm von Leibniz). However he breaks down the idea of substance as being completely self-contained. This goes along with the idea that all substance must be self-contained, obviously any reasonable thought would tell you that this would create an infinite number of simple substances. He calls these simple substances monads and God is the super-monad. Now monads do not perceive in the same way as the creation or substance perceives. LOL – this can get pretty in depth.

The point I’d like to make gets back to the last sentence in my first paragraph. Spinoza set the stage with his philosophy for almost all the great thinkers who have come after. The reason this occurred is that Spinoza considered information for his theories from a very limited source. In so doing he ignored points that he felt were crystal clear but they were not.

One of the greatest faults with the theories of Spinoza and Leibniz and every other who followed in this dualistic thinking is that they fail to take into consideration the brain of thinking and free willed individuals.

How have they done this? They strictly structured their theories in the definitions they have created for the metaphysical and psychophysical dualism they attempt to explain.

If you’re still with me and are interested in learning more about the error in this dualistic thinking – please let me know. Otherwise I won’t waste my time.

I LIKE THE NEW THREAD CREATIVE.!
Edited by Redykeulous on Sun 06/22/08 11:22 AM
Abracadabra
130401_2903_thumb
Joined Thu 04/12/07
Posts: 5844
Sun 06/22/08 11:28 AM
QUOTE:

From where does something manifest if there isn't something to manifest from?


I'm not saying that there isn't something to manifest from. However what I am saying is that what we manifest from is not physical. And this is in perfect harmony with what quantum mechanics has to say.

It's difficult to speak about the quantum field sensibly because the quantum field does not satisfy common sense. However there are certain features of it that we can speak of. It has "properties" but these aren't properties that can be directly measured. These are only properties that can be assigned to it indirectly based on what arises from it.

I can see where someone could try to apply Spinoza's philosophy to the quantum field but clearly that is not what Spinoza himself was attempting to model. He was clearly viewing the physical universe and everything in it as preexisting.

Let's look at his axioms.


QUOTE:
I. Everything which exists, exists either in itself or in something else.


Quantum mechanics says that everything arises from the quantum field. No way does anything arise from itself or is already in something else.

No we could argue that the quantum field is all that "exists" and everything arises from it. An we could try to claim that this is the idea that Spinoza had in mind. But it doesn't work that way. The quantum field itself has no physical existence. In other words it is entirely undetectable in anyway until something arises from it. Therefore according to Spinoza the quantum field has no 'existence' and therefore cannot come into being. Clearly Spinoza has no clue how the quantum field behaves.

As I say, we can only claim that it has properties by observing what arises from it. But until something arises from it's entirely non-physical.

QUOTE:
II. That which cannot be conceived through anything else must be conceived through itself.


Well again, Spinoza here is attempting to say that everything that already exists, already exists, and that all it can do is change form. But that's not how we believe things are today.

QUOTE:
III. From a given definite cause an effect necessarily follows; and, on the other hand, if no definite cause be granted, it is impossible that an effect can follow.


This totally flies in the face of Quantum Mechanics. They idea of cause and effect must be totally abandoned. That's ancient physics. That's not what modern quantum physics is saying.

QUOTE:
IV. The knowledge of an effect depends on and involves the knowledge of a cause.


Nope, this is no longer true. This is not how the quantum field works. Spinoza is describing the same philosophy upon which Newtonian physics was build. Notions of absolute matter, absolutely time, absolute space. Those notions are all gone bye-bye. Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity forbid them.

QUOTE:
V. Things which have nothing in common cannot be understood, the one by means of the other; the conception of one does not involve the conception of the other.


This goes back to the idea that the world is made of independent "substances". Something like Earth, wind, fire and water. But that's totally retro thinking. Today everything is seen from arising from the non-physical quantum field.

QUOTE:
VI. A true idea must correspond with its ideate or object.


All Spinoza seems to be trying to say here is that if something isn't physical, or it can't be comprehended as a precise idea then it isn't worthy of consideration. He seems to be denouncing the spiritual world here and demanding that everything either be physical or be understand as a physical ideate. An ideate that can be comprehended in common sense terms. But no one comprehends the nature of the quantum field, not even quantum physicists. It defies common sense. It's defies logic. Yet its properties have been observed indirectly by the things that arise from it.

It's a mystery of how it can be the way that it is. No one can explain the quantum field. Not even physicists, yet they have surrendered to the fact that this is what gives rise to the physical universe we see around us. In fact, we call it a 'quantum field' we have given a name to it as though it is a thing but it truly defies any properties of a thing. Some people have said that the quantum field is spirit. Perhaps they are right.

QUOTE:
VII. If a thing can be conceived as non-existing, its essence does not involve existence.


This is the final nail in Spinoza's coffin. The quantum field has been conceived as non-existing, at least in any physical sense. It cannot be detected in and of itself. It is non-existent in that sense. Yet it is totally involved with existence because everything physical arises from it.

These axioms of Spinoza are genuinely atheistic axioms. He's trying to defined "God" as solely the physical universe. And he's trying to claim that whatever is not physical can have no existence. He's trying to deny the idea of spirit, and claim that what you see around you is God.

Well, I totally agree that everything that is physical is a direct manifestation of 'God'. Where I disagree with Spinoza is in his attempt to claim that "God" is only this physical universe and nothing beyond it. This is where we part ways.

We know now that the elemental ideas of the world being made up of a handful of immutable substances like say, earth, wind, fire and water, is not true. We know now that the physical world arises from the quantum field. And that the quantum field has properties that we can't even between to 'conceive' even as an ideate. This totally blows away Spinoza's axiom VI. And ultimately all his other axioms.

This view of the notion of a pantheistic "God" is truly and atheistic notion that the physical universe is God. Spinoza is trying to say that the physical universe always was, and always will be and that we are a manifestation of this physical world (physical God).

His ideas utterly denounce any idea of spirit, or that the world could have arisen from something that we might consider to be intangible or even inconceivable. Yet, this is precisely what we believe to be the case today,...

The physical world arises from a non-physical
- Spinoza says definitely not.

We call that non-physical source "The Quantum Field", but just because we give it a name doesn't imply that it's a physical thing.

Cause and effect break down on the quantum level.
- Spinoza demands that cause and effect drives everything.

There are no true elemental immutable substances in this world everything arises from the non-physical quantum field.
- Spinoza demands the existence of immutable infinite substances.

I could go on, but I think I'll stop here and go play the piano. bigsmile

Let me just say that Spinoza's philosophy does not lead to 'God' but rather it leads to atheism.

Although, keep in mind too, Spinoza believed that the physical world is immutable, infinite and eternal. Therefore from his point of view to say that we are a direct manifestation of that infinite and internal physical entity is to say that we are God (or at least a direct manifestation of God). And that idea would be eternal, because he thought the physical universe itself is eternal.

All Spinoza is really doing is denying any possibility of non-physical existence. He's claiming that there is no need for "spirit" or the non-physical because the physical universe is eternal.

But that's not what we believe to be the case today. We believe that the physical world is fleeting and that it arose from the non-physical.

Spinoza's out. It simply doesn't agree with modern thinking.

I mean if you like it fine, but I don't see how it can work in the face of modern knowledge.

Me go play piano now.


Abracadabra
130401_2903_thumb
Joined Thu 04/12/07
Posts: 5844
Sun 06/22/08 11:38 AM
Just as a quick summary of the above garbage for those who don't enjoy long posts:

Spinoza thought the physical universe is eternal and immutable. Therefore he was happy saying that the physical universe is "God". Therefore he denied the need to speak about any spirit giving rise to the physical world. Spinoza was claiming that very concept of spirit is not required, and therefore their is no need to make up something you can't even conceive as an idea.

Modern discoveries since Spinoza's day have shown that the physical world is not eternal, it is not made of immutable substances, and that it does indeed arise from something that is totally inconceivable and non-physical.

Spinoza was wrong, but not because he wasn't smart. He simply had the wrong information to work from.
Redykeulous
56634_8935_thumb
Joined Thu 11/09/06
Posts: 2929
Sun 06/22/08 11:50 AM
It took me so long to think about and write my last post (in between my errands) I forgot to read what was written. Sorry.

Abra and JB - What Spinoza thought of as substance is not substance consistent with your ideas. Spinoza has attempted to break down his idea of 'natural' or original substance by connecting or defining particualar vocabulary down to the minutest pattern.

This is EXACTLY the problem that I was stating as existing in my last post.

The dualism occurs because the substance is considered to be only two possible forms. Mental & spiritual (God) and physical and spatial, the extended subtance of God, such as our bodies and every other physical perception, trees, flowers, dogs etc.

In this dualism 'reality' consists of the substances 'mental and physical'.

According to the philosophy of Cartesian's and followers, tehre are only two ultimate and irreducible kinds of reality mental and physical. That one kind of substance cannot be a form of, or reduced to , the other.

This thinking BEGINS with the idea that God exists. It does not prove anything except for the idea that one can create any kind theory if one begins an exploration with the belief that a God does exist.

Furthermore, there has been no consideration give to the mental precesses of the human mind. For certainly there are many things that have been created, that exist becasue of our mental processes.

These can not be in any way consistent with perception of the extended substance or connections made between extended substances unless there is free will. But free will would allow that the mind functions "seperately" from the nature of God. But Spinoza has already defined the irriducible nature of God as being mind and spirit.

Since the time of Spinoza a many great thinkers have used his thoughts, ideas and theories as a step ladder. With each new idea comes a new way to think about our state of being.

Spinoza was great, but he was great in the same way that Aristotle, Plato, and Descartes were. He was not right, his thoughts and ideas were guided by the information at hand and information in his mind. Thanks to his writing them down, we have grown.
Edited by Redykeulous on Sun 06/22/08 11:53 AM
Redykeulous
56634_8935_thumb
Joined Thu 11/09/06
Posts: 2929
Sun 06/22/08 12:23 PM
Abra wrote:

QUOTE:
Spinoza thought the physical universe is eternal and immutable. Therefore he was happy saying that the physical universe is "God". Therefore he denied the need to speak about any spirit giving rise to the physical world. Spinoza was claiming that very concept of spirit is not required, and therefore their is no need to make up something you can't even conceive as an idea.


This is not a good summation of the philosophy of Spinoza. He made good rationalizations considering two things. First, that his thought process began with the assumption that there is a God and secondly, he is working within the confines of predetermined dualistic metaphysics, which at the time, were thought to be truth.

The idea was that substance took two forms, I explained this in my previous posts. Spinoza did not limit the capacity of the substance of God, in fact he extended the substance of God to the infinite by stating that part of every creation of God was a ‘modification’ and hense an extension.

Spirit is required, that is the part that is real, as far as reality goes for the natural. It is the physical that is illusory – that is the manifested, modified, part of God.


QUOTE:
Modern discoveries since Spinoza's day have shown that the physical world is not eternal, it is not made of immutable substances, and that it does indeed arise from something that is totally inconceivable and non-physical.

Spinoza was wrong, but not because he wasn't smart. He simply had the wrong information to work from.


The part of ‘substance’ that you refer to as physical is not eternal, only the natural version of substance is eternal and that is God. We are not eternal as physical beings, according to Spinoza, the only actual reality is mental as it is the only attribute of God that is natural. Therefore it is eternal. However, it is not separate from the nature of God, therefore it contains no individuality.

Yes Spinoza was wrong, because he began his thought process from the bottom up (There is a God so…..) and also because he did not allow for the mental and the physical to be one in substance, therefore there can be no individuality and whatever we have created, be it a game or an alphabet or math, it is of no substance what-so-ever, because it is not a modification of creation, but rather an illusion of a mental process that can not exist outside the substance that is God.
Abracadabra
130401_2903_thumb
Joined Thu 04/12/07
Posts: 5844
Sun 06/22/08 12:26 PM
QUOTE:

Spinoza was great, but he was great in the same way that Aristotle, Plato, and Descartes were. He was not right, his thoughts and ideas were guided by the information at hand and information in his mind. Thanks to his writing them down, we have grown.


Exactly.

I'm not suggesting that Spinoza wasn't a great thinker. Not in the least. He was just working with the information that he had at hand. Can't blame the man for his lack of information.

There's nothing wrong with his construct. He just built it all on false premsies. Just about every single one of his axioms doesn't hold water in light of today's knowledge.

Spinoza was building on false premises. He had no way of knowing they were false.

Given his premises as true, I'd agree with him!

But sadly his premises are all false. frown



Redykeulous
56634_8935_thumb
Joined Thu 11/09/06
Posts: 2929
Sun 06/22/08 12:32 PM
Yes Abra, you are correct. I just wanted to make sure you understood why Spinoza was a great thinker and why he was so loved and revered thoughout the centuries.

Sometimes wrong is the right way to create new paths. Without the wrongs of Spinoza we would not have had so many paths from which to choose.
Redykeulous
56634_8935_thumb
Joined Thu 11/09/06
Posts: 2929
Sun 06/22/08 12:34 PM
By the way, what happened to Creative?

Creative we had and finished a whole philisophical discsussion and you weren't ever here. noway

Of course we may yet hear from others this evening.

this was fun, now I gotta do something more constructive to my present situation.
Abracadabra
130401_2903_thumb
Joined Thu 04/12/07
Posts: 5844
Sun 06/22/08 12:46 PM
QUOTE:

Abra wrote:

QUOTE:
Spinoza thought the physical universe is eternal and immutable. Therefore he was happy saying that the physical universe is "God". Therefore he denied the need to speak about any spirit giving rise to the physical world. Spinoza was claiming that very concept of spirit is not required, and therefore their is no need to make up something you can't even conceive as an idea.


This is not a good summation of the philosophy of Spinoza. He made good rationalizations considering two things. First, that his thought process began with the assumption that there is a God and secondly, he is working within the confines of predetermined dualistic metaphysics, which at the time, were thought to be truth.


Well, I confess that I'm looking at this specifically from a physical point of view. Or at least a phenonemnological point of view. However, I would say that judging by Spinoza's axiom he was indeed doing this as well to a large degree.

QUOTE:
Yes Spinoza was wrong, because he began his thought process from the bottom up (There is a God so…..) and also because he did not allow for the mental and the physical to be one in substance, therefore there can be no individuality and whatever we have created, be it a game or an alphabet or math, it is of no substance what-so-ever, because it is not a modification of creation, but rather an illusion of a mental process that can not exist outside the substance that is God.


Well, I don't know about that. He seemed to believe that any ideate could be considered as 'object'. I think he simply meant that if you have an idea that you can't consider as an object then it's not truly a comprehendable idea.

Of course, here I'm using the term "object" very abstractly (as I'm sure Spinoza was too). In other words even 'actions' are consdiered to be 'objects' because they are really just realtionships between objects.

In other words, things like games, languages, and math, are all truly nothing more than concepts of physical realationships. They can be reduced to 'objective' ideas.

And if they can't be reduced to an objective idea, then Spinoza would argue they weren't true ideas in the first place. In other words, and idea that you can't comprehend in terms of what you already believe to understand would be an incomprehensible idea. You can't very well comprehend that which we claim to not be able to comprehend. bigsmile

I think I know exactly where Spinoza was coming from.

He just had false axioms about the world in which we live.

Quantum mechanics is incomprehensible not because we aren't smart enough to comprehend it, but because it's fundamentally incomprehensible to us becasue the only things that are comprehensible to us are ideas that we can understand.

We can't understand the true nature of the quantum field. That's actully been proven.

In other words an ideate that we cannot concieve exists. Therefore Spinoza's whole argument fall apart because he does not allow for such a thing.

Community > Religion Chat

Post Reply