Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Spinoza Pantheism Defined
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 1 of 96 (378389)
01-20-2007 2:36 PM


There has been a lot of misinformation concerning Pantheism on the forum lately, particularly in regard to attempts to conflate Spinoza Pantheism with various New Age belief systems. Although the primary perpetrator of this misinformation has retracted, I believe it is important to state exactly what Spinoza Pantheism means.
For this reason, I am going to define Spinoza Pantheism as best I understand it and ask other members of this forum if they agree with such a definition. This definition will include what Spinoza Pantheism is, and what it is not. Spinoza is notoriously difficult to quote from in any more than one sentence to convey a complex idea, so I will rely on some commentary as necessary.
First, I would like to define what is meant by God under Spinoza Pantheism, which is more complex than commonly thought, and is a difficult task at best.
God is the essential nature/essence that underlies all of reality observed and unobserved. Therefore God is within all of reality and all reality is a part, albeit a minute part, of God. This is what is meant by the term substance as used by Spinoza. Substance is not merely matter, as commonly understood according to our most popular definition but rather means the underlying essence in this sense of the word.
From Wikipedia at Baruch Spinoza - Wikipedia
quote:
He contended that everything that exists in Nature/Universe is one Reality (substance)and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are part. Spinoza argued that God and Nature were two names for the same reality, namely the single substance (meaning "to stand beneath" rather than "matter") that underlies the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications, that all things are determined by Nature to exist and cause effects, and that the complex chain of cause and effect are only understood in part. That humans presume themselves to have free will, he argues, is a result of their awareness of appetites while being unable to understand the reasons why they want and act as they do.
To elaborate further, from page 409 of Constantine’s Sword by James Carroll:
quote:
“Nothing exists save the one substance - the self-contained, self-sustaining, and self-explanatory system which constitutes the world.” This is Roger Scruton’s summary of Spinoza”s metaphysics. “This system may be understood in many ways: as God or Nature; as mind or matter; as creator or created; as eternal or temporal. It can be known adequately and clearly through its attributes, partially and confusedly through its modes . All things that exist, exist necessarily, in throroughgoing interdependence.” This is a philosophy of “both-and,” not “either-or” and it has tremendous implications for religion and politics. If God lives in all that is, then a human being may have no great need of the mediating institutions of church or synagogue to be in contact with the divine.
This definition does not mean that everyone is God, or that God is simply the sum of all observable parts of the universe. It also is not equivalent to Deism, which as best I understand implies a God that is separate from creation and which initially creates the universe and then does not personally interfere with its workings.
There are several implications to any religion that considers an impersonal God the underlying essence or ”substance’ of the universe.
Such a belief does not allow for an anthropomorphic image of an all-powerful male God with white skin and flowing beard such as in Michelangelo’s paintings or the concept of Santa Claus. Concepts such as gender, race, even emotion, do not apply to a supreme being that is obviously far greater than a mere projection of the believer. Often, pantheists are accused of atheism because the definition of religion, among both the majority of believers and atheists, demands an anthropomorphic deity. This is a clear misrepresentation of not only Pantheism, but also Taoism and Buddhism.
God is impersonal and therefore not the source of good and evil as is commonly understood in Western religion. Good and evil are subjective terms that are real only in relation to the observer. Therefore there is no such thing as an absolute morality. To illustrate this Spinoza states:
quote:
“Music is good to the melancholy, bad to those who mourn, and neither good nor bad to the deaf”
Spinoza Pantheism is deterministic, which means that even God did not have free will in creating the universe, rather the creation is a necessary action of God by definition. It also means the individual does not have free will but only the illusion of choice.
The business of free-will vs. determinism is one of the few areas where I am not in complete agreement with Spinoza. However, Spinoza was obviously unaware of quantum mechanics and while he may have been wrong in this particular case under each and every scenario, I do believe that most of what we call free-will is an illusion.
Because all people are in essence, a part of God, all people are equal. As mentioned before, such a belief has political significance.
From page 102 of the Courtier and the Heretic by Matthew Stewart
quote:
Spinoza’s advocacy of democracy on the basis of individual rights was extraordinarily bold for its time, and it qualifies him as the first modern political philosopher. He was indisputably the forerunner of the theorists who would later underwrite the Constitution of the United States, the French Revolution, and the rest of the secular, liberal, and democratic order of the day,
Spinoza was the first person to my knowledge to criticize the common interpretation of the Bible and actually die of something other than at a burning stake. He insisted that one must think when reading the Bible and not simply act as a fundamentalist dullard who shuts off their mind to all but the authority of temporal rulers.
From Chapter VII of the Theological-Political Treatise by Spinoza himself:
quote:
When people declare, as all are ready, to do, that the Bible is the Word of God teaching man true blessedness and the way of salvation, they evidently do not mean what they say; for the masses take no pains at all to live according to Scripture, and we see most people endeavouring to hawk about their own commentaries as the word of God, and giving their best efforts, under the guise of religion, to compelling others to think as they do: we generally see, I say, theologians anxious to learn how to wring their inventions and sayings out of the sacred text, and to fortify, them with Divine authority. Such persons never display less scruple or more zeal than when they are interpreting Scripture or the mind of the Holy Ghost; if we ever see them perturbed, it is not that they fear to attribute some error to the Holy Spirit, and to stray from the right path, but that they are afraid to be convicted of error by others, and thus to overthrow and bring into contempt their own authority. But if men really believed what they verbally testify of Scripture, they would adopt quite a different plan of life: their minds would not be agitated by so many contentions, nor so many hatreds, and they would cease to be excited by such a blind and rash passion for interpreting the sacred writings, and excogitating novelties in religion. On the contrary, they would not dare to adopt, as the teaching of Scripture, anything which they could not plainly deduce therefrom: lastly, those sacrilegious persons who have dared, in several passages, to interpolate the Bible, would have shrunk from so great a crime, and would have stayed their sacrilegious hands.
And further on:
quote:
The history of a Scriptural statement comprises -
I. The nature and properties of the language in which the books of the Bible were written, and in which their authors were accustomed to speak. We shall thus be able to investigate every expression by comparison with common conversational usages.
Now all the writers both of the Old Testament and the New were Hebrews: therefore, a knowledge of the Hebrew language is before all things necessary, not only for the comprehension of the Old Testament, which was written in that tongue, but also of the New: for although the latter was published in other languages, yet its characteristics are Hebrew.
II. An analysis of each book and arrangement of its contents under heads; so that we may have at hand the various texts which treat of a given subject. Lastly, a note of all the passages which are ambiguous or obscure, or which seem mutually contradictory.
I call passages clear or obscure according as their meaning is inferred easily or with difficulty in relation to the context, not according as their truth is perceived easily or the reverse by reason. We are at work not on the truth of passages, but solely on their meaning. We must take especial care, when we are in search of the meaning of a text, not to be led away by our reason in so far as it is founded on principles of natural knowledge (to say nothing of prejudices): in order not to confound the meaning of a passage with its truth, we must examine it solely by means of the signification of the words, or by a reason acknowledging no foundation but Scripture.
I will illustrate my meaning by an example. The words of Moses, "God is a fire" and "God is jealous," are perfectly clear so long as we regard merely the signification of the words, and I therefore reckon them among the clear passages, though in relation to reason and truth they are most obscure: still, although the literal meaning is repugnant to the natural light of reason, nevertheless, if it cannot be clearly overruled on grounds and principles derived from its Scriptural "history," it, that is, the literal meaning, must be the one retained: and contrariwise if these passages literally interpreted are found to clash with principles derived from Scripture, though such literal interpretation were in absolute harmony with reason, they must be interpreted in a different manner, i.e. metaphorically.
How many self described Christians refuse to understand the above 350 years later.
While Spinoza strove to understand the Bible, his conclusions concerning religion are not normally associated with Christianity. He held God is worshiped best by using one’s intelligence to understand God, which is basically equivalent to understanding nature. Therefore, of all religions, Spinoza Pantheism holds science in the greatest respect because the act of doing science is holy. To put it simply God is best revealed through the study of the works of God (nature) rather than the words of men (Bible, Quran, etc.).
Spinoza also holds that there is no personal immortality but rather only the impersonal immortality of the truth. The more truth on holds, the more knowledge of nature, the more parts of that person are immortal.
To learn more about Spinoza Pantheism (and there is much, much more), I find one of the best concise sources is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at Baruch Spinoza (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) .
Here is a quote from that source to help whet your appetite:
quote:
What, in the end, replaces the passionate love for ephemeral "goods" is an intellectual love for an eternal, immutable good that we can fully and stably possess, God. The third kind of knowledge generates a love for its object, and in this love consists not joy, a passion, but blessedness itself. Taking his cue from Maimonides's view of human eudaimonia, Spinoza argues that the mind's intellectual love of God is our understanding of the universe, our virtue, our happiness, our well-being and our "salvation". It is also our freedom and autonomy, as we approach the condition wherein what happens to us follows from our nature (as a determinate and determined mode of one of God's attributes) alone and not as a result of the ways external things affect us. Spinoza's "free person" is one who bears the gifts and losses of fortune with equanimity, does only those things that he believes to be "the most important in life", takes care for the well-being of others (doing what he can to insure that they, too, achieve some relief from the disturbances of the passions through understanding), and is not anxious about death. The free person neither hopes for any eternal, otherworldly rewards nor fears any eternal punishments. He knows that the soul is not immortal in any personal sense, but is endowed only with a certain kind of eternity. The more the mind consists of true and adequate ideas (which are eternal), the more of it remains ” within God's attribute of Thought ” after the death of the body and the disappearance of that part of the mind that corresponds to the body's duration. This understanding of his place in the natural scheme of things brings to the free individual true peace of mind.
Of course all of Spinoza’s works are directly available full text online so one can learn what he was talking about from the source if one so chooses.
I find it interesting that Spinoza through intense study of the Bible and Judaism independently came to similar conclusions concerning the nature of God and reality as Lao Tse and Taoism did some 2000 years earlier.
To emphasize why Spinoza is relevant today, please allow me to provide some fulfilled prophecy from his pen.
From The Courtier and the Heretic, page 181:
quote:
Because he rose so high above history in some sense, too, Spinoza foresaw its general direction with an often uncanny prescience. He described a secular, liberal, democratic order a full century before the world provided any durable examples of the same. Two centuries before Darwin proposed a theory to explain how the grand design of nature evolves through natural processes, without need of a designer, he effectively announced that such an explanation was inevitable. In an age where the brain was generally thought to be about as complex as a bowl of custard, he anticipated insights from the neurosciences that would be three centuries in coming. The world he describes is in many ways the modern one within which we live.
It is for these reasons I consider Spinoza the true prophet of God in a similar manner in which one considers Mohammed the true prophet of God in Islam. Therefore I consider my belief a religion.
What I seek to debate includes the question is the above a reasonable definition of Spinoza Pantheism and if so, do these beliefs qualify as a religion as opposed to a clever form of atheism?
Faith and Belief I would think.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Rob, posted 01-20-2007 11:56 PM anglagard has replied
 Message 17 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-23-2007 2:11 AM anglagard has replied
 Message 32 by anastasia, posted 01-23-2007 8:13 PM anglagard has replied
 Message 33 by anastasia, posted 01-23-2007 8:36 PM anglagard has replied
 Message 50 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-23-2007 11:54 PM anglagard has replied
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2007 9:15 PM anglagard has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 4 of 96 (378724)
01-21-2007 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Rob
01-20-2007 11:56 PM


Re: 'either'-or vs 'both-and'
What I wanted to address is the both-and argument. This is the inclusive element that does have a connection to the points I was making in the other thread minus the egotheism.
I am unclear about what you mean by the argument of either-or vs. both-and.
For example, it is clear in modern psychology that the mind-body dichotomy is false. The mind requires the body and the body requires the mind in order for both to exist. One could say that the mind and the body are different attributes of the same being. Therefore the individual is both-and body and mind rather than either-or body or mind.
How does: "Not only does it emerge, but let me give you some shocking news... even in India, we look both ways before crossing the street. It is either the bus, or me. Not both of us!" refute the concept of body-mind interdependence?
For that matter how does the parable of the bus refute all examples of the concept of interdependence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Rob, posted 01-20-2007 11:56 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 4:15 PM anglagard has not replied
 Message 6 by anastasia, posted 01-21-2007 4:29 PM anglagard has replied
 Message 18 by Phat, posted 01-23-2007 5:23 AM anglagard has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 7 of 96 (378745)
01-21-2007 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by anastasia
01-21-2007 4:29 PM


Re: 'either'-or vs 'both-and'
Anastasia writes:
This is not a preaching mission, but that is pretty close to how I have come to understand the Trinity. Add in the third element of actions flowing from the body and mind, and you have the Holy Spirit.
Evidently, when one considers the Trinity, Christianity has it's own element of both-and as opposed to either-or.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by anastasia, posted 01-21-2007 4:29 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by anastasia, posted 01-21-2007 5:39 PM anglagard has not replied
 Message 9 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-21-2007 6:02 PM anglagard has not replied
 Message 11 by Rob, posted 01-23-2007 12:29 AM anglagard has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 43 of 96 (379375)
01-23-2007 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by anastasia
01-23-2007 8:13 PM


Thanks
Anastasia writes:
Ok, anglagard, I am going to try to get on topic and specifically address your post and defintions. Some things are to me, unclear, but hopefully they will be uncovered.
Thank you.
I will address your questions soon. At the moment am a bit busy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by anastasia, posted 01-23-2007 8:13 PM anastasia has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 44 of 96 (379382)
01-23-2007 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Rob
01-23-2007 9:31 PM


Re: I hope you don't find 'the Bible' offensive!
Rob, please feel free to actually address the OP. In the meantime, I want you to know that I did not create this topic in order to provide you with an avenue for your personal vendettas or to read the Bible in bits and pieces according to your whim.
Edited by anglagard, : gramer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Rob, posted 01-23-2007 9:31 PM Rob has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 54 of 96 (379678)
01-25-2007 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Archer Opteryx
01-23-2007 11:54 PM


The Beautiful, the Sublime, and the Rational
Yes
IMO, the Tao represents the beautiful poetry, while Spinoza represents the cold logic, of the same truth.
To me, the three most beautiful works on religion I have read are the Tao, the Bhagavad Gita, and the New Testament. Each speaks eternal truths to an identical need but different culture. It is the exclusionary nature of some Christians (among other religions) and some denominations, sects, or cults which by their very actions and statements alone disprove any claim to love or knowledge of God.
Edited by anglagard, : clean up

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-23-2007 11:54 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-25-2007 2:00 AM anglagard has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 67 of 96 (380192)
01-26-2007 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by anastasia
01-23-2007 8:13 PM


On Topic Response
Anastasia writes:
Would it be correct to say that everything is a part of God? And if so, are there different concentrates of God in different things? Can God be seperated into small pieces and still be totally the same, or are there different 'aspects' of God showing up in different places? Do the mountains show one thing, the trees another? If that is true, I would not understand how the sum of all visible and invisible things would not equal God, unless you say God does not rely on these things for existance. If he doesn't, I would think He must have created them, or they must be seperate from God, and not relying on Him for existance, but on some other force.
Try looking at it this way. All material things are made of atoms, or even more specifically, subatomic particles/waves, yet each category of things, such as mountains, trees, and people are distinct entities. This is roughly similar to saying there is an underlying substance (atoms) and different entities that emanate from that substance (attributes). The analogy is not perfect as substance and attributes in this case means more than just the material, but it may help to explain what Spinoza means by one substance underlying all attributes.
Obviously, but just to be fair, christianity does not presume to say that God has looks or gender, it is just a traditional pictorial image. If you HAD to draw a picture of God in Spinoza's terms, what would it look like? I see the point, though, that having God look like a human would be a non sequitar, while in christianity having a seperate God who 'speaks' thru things in human terms would lend itself to a 'personal' image.
The fact that some people must anthropomorphize their deities tends to diminish both them and their religion IMO. Some people prefer their deities to be more than just human, considering all the anger, violence, and petty jealousies such a false and pathetic caricature of God allows.
In Spinoza’s terms there could be no drawing because one can’t draw everything that is both observed and unobserved.
See, I don't view God as a source of good amd evil. Good is when all things work together in harmony, evil is when they clash, and the only way that evil itself exists is because of free-will. I don't want to get all biblical about it; this is my understanding. If God just winds an eternally running clock, all things which he has made will run smoothly forever, because all things He made were good. Give men a tiny bit of freedom, and some things might not go as smoothly. Since we are not God, we have to learn the hard way what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. Give us the intelligence to gain technological advance, and things can go even more hay-wire without the knowledge of right and wrong. So, as I see it, God gave us free-will, and then, conscience...a little nagging that says something doesn't feel right, even if we cover it or don't understand exactly WHAT is wrong. Therefore obeying your conscience in any religion = good. Free-will...brings evil. Knowledge of good and evil, helps temper it. This of course only works if we are SEPERATE from God in essence, or I would think that we would do good by default.
I hold with Spinoza that good and evil are subjective terms. This forum is riddled with threads trying to assert that good and evil are somehow absolute concepts that exist independent of the observer. So far as I know, not once has anyone come close to rationally making a decent case for morality to be anything but subjective.
Also, how could a supposedly all-powerful God permit evil to exist if it is “out there?” There is only one choice if good and evil are objective realities independent of the observer, god created evil and god allows evil to persist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by anastasia, posted 01-23-2007 8:13 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by jar, posted 01-26-2007 6:13 PM anglagard has replied
 Message 75 by anastasia, posted 01-26-2007 7:30 PM anglagard has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 68 of 96 (380209)
01-26-2007 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by anastasia
01-23-2007 8:36 PM


Terminology
quote:
anglagard writes:
The business of free-will vs. determinism is one of the few areas where I am not in complete agreement with Spinoza.
and;
quote:
It is for these reasons I consider Spinoza the true prophet of God in a similar manner in which one considers Mohammed the true prophet of God in Islam. Therefore I consider my belief a religion.
Anastasia writes:
This is like saying I believe Jesus was a prophet of God, and I am a Christian, but I don't agree with everything Jesus said. It would tell me at first glance that Spinoza is not a prophet but a theologian or theoreticist. He has attempted to explain God, Jesus has said He IS God. There's a paradox...in pantheism we are all part of God, and in christinaity, we are all trying to understand the seperate God. Yet, when it comes to prophets, Spinoza makes a valiant attempt to explain God, and Jesus claims to BE God.
Well, I am not a Christian because I don’t believe Jesus is God, and the son of God, in a literal sense. Spinoza refers to Jesus as “first among men.”
I believe that God is the underlying substance of the universe observed and unobservable. I do not believe that Jesus is the underlying substance of the universe observed and unobservable because when Jesus walked among the people as a person, he became at best, less than all. How could Jesus be Jesus, and Pilate, and Tiberius Caesar and Alpha Centauri? This is the difference between monism and dualism inherent in the difference between Spinoza Pantheism and Christianity.
Just to clarify, one could be a Christian and still have much of their “soul” reunited with God under a pantheistic model. The opposite is not usually considered true, although a few members of this forum have a different and IMO amazingly more tolerant interpretation.
Also, when I use the term prophet, I mean a human and therefore fallible person, not a deity. I am using the term prophet because Spinoza has a far better track record than pretty much anyone else in history at actually predicting the future before such events took place. Also, his “prophecies” were a lot more specific and a lot less horrific.
Of course, Spinoza has proof of existance, and we can't argue that years of tradition have put words into his mouth. but, I can argue that in pantheism, we are ALL prophets, as none of us is empowered by the 'substance' of an Impersonal Nature to 'understand' or proclaim Itself. In this light, we ARE God, in the way Jesus is, as we ALL can personally, perfectly, proclaim God's existance. Well, scratch the perfectly part. But we all would proclaim God if we were part of Him/It/She and yet in theism we do proclaim God indirectly as a creation or a painting.
Spinoza clearly states that there are three levels of knowledge present in humans and that few make it a common practice to reach the third level. Therefore all people are not equal in the understanding or love of God.
From The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy at Spinoza, Benedict De | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
quote:
With this distinction between adequate and inadequate perception in place, Spinoza introduces a set of further distinctions. He begins with inadequate perception, which he now calls knowledge of the first kind, and divides it into two parts. The first consists of knowledge from random experience (experientia vaga). This is knowledge "from singular things which have been represented to us through the senses in a way which is mutilated, confused, and without order for the intellect"(P40S2). The second consists of knowledge from signs (ex signis), "for example, from the fact that, having heard or read certain words, we recollect things, and form certain ideas of them, like those through which we imagine the things"(P40S2). What links both of these forms of knowledge is that they lack a rational order. It is obvious that knowledge from random experience follows the order of the affections of the human body, but so does knowledge from signs. A Roman who hears the word 'pomum', for instance, will think of an apple, not because there is any rational connection between the word and the object, but only because they have been associated in his or her experience.
When we reach what Spinoza calls the second kind of knowledge, reason (ratio), we have ascended from an inadequate to an adequate perception of things. This type of knowledge is gained "from the fact that we have common notions and adequate ideas of the properties of things" (P40S2). What Spinoza has in mind here is what was just indicated, viz., the formation of adequate ideas of the common properties of things and the movement by way of deductive inference to the formation of adequate ideas of other common properties. Unlike in the case of knowledge of the first kind, this order of ideas is rational.
We might think that in attaining this second kind of knowledge we have attained all that is available to us. However, Spinoza adds a third type, which he regards as superior. He calls this intuitive knowledge (scientia intuitiva) and tells us that it "proceeds from an adequate idea of the formal essence of certain attributes of God to the adequate knowledge of the [formal] essence of things"(P40S2). Unfortunately, Spinoza is once again obscure at a crucial junction, and it is difficult to know what he has in mind here. He seems to be envisioning a type of knowledge that gives insight into the essence of some singular thing together with an understanding of how that essence follows of necessity from the essence of God. Furthermore, the characterization of this kind of knowledge as intuitive indicates that the connection between the individual essence and the essence of God is grasped in a single act of apprehension and is not arrived at by any kind of deductive process. How this is possible is never explained.
Problems of obscurity aside, we can still see something of the ideal at which Spinoza is aiming. Inadequate ideas are incomplete. Through them we perceive things without perceiving the causes that determine them to be, and it is for this reason that we imagine them to be contingent. What Spinoza is offering with the third kind of knowledge is a way of correcting this. It is important to note, however, that he is not proposing that we can have this knowledge with respect to the durational existence of any particular item. As we have already seen, this would require having ideas of all of the temporal causes of a thing, which are infinite. Rather, he is proposing that we can have it with respect to the essence of a singular thing as it follows from the essence of God. To have this kind of knowledge is to understand the thing as necessary rather than contingent. It is, to use Spinoza's famous phrase, to regard it sub quadam specie aeternitatis, under a certain aspect of eternity.
Sorry, I keep thinking about this and editing. It is really neither here nor there that you think Spinoza is a prophet. If that is your opinion only, then that can not detract from the over-all value of the philosophy. I am sure folks have not all agreed with Jesus, maybe doctored things up, or just become so programmed to understanding what He said. Add to that the fact of His divinity, and it would be hard to argue with Him.
I think jar and to some extent you and Phat are doing a decent job of presenting your case for your beliefs, so please keep up the good work. Rest assured I do read and consider your points.
Still, I am curious; could a star be a prophet? If so, to whom? other stars, or people as well? Would it have to deviate from normal star behavior to send the message, and would that be like God interfering in a personal way? Also, do you think that only humans would have prophets, if all things are equal? Or do humans have a special role in the universe wherein prophecy is more relevent?
Don’t get too hung up on my terminology as I am speaking somewhat symbolically in terms that are commonly bandied about on this forum. To me, if a person predicts a lot of what the modern world is like over 300 years before it happens, they must have some insight and should at least be taken seriously.
Btw...christianity is deterministic as well.
Is it as deterministic? Seems like just a bit ago you were illustrating that free will in humans was needed for evil to exist independent of God.
Edited by anglagard, : add subtitle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by anastasia, posted 01-23-2007 8:36 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by anastasia, posted 01-26-2007 7:02 PM anglagard has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 71 of 96 (380227)
01-26-2007 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by jar
01-26-2007 6:13 PM


Re: On Evil
jar writes:
I would like to ask a few questions about "Evil".
When a lion kills a zebra is it being Evil?
When lightning starts a forest fire that burns down homes is it Evil?
When a mosquito bites someone and they get Malaria, is it Evil?
Let's see how it works under the good/bad/indifferent test?
Case 1: Good for the lion, bad for the zebra, and indifferent to the termite.
Case 2: Good for any plants that need fire and/or room to germinate, bad for the homeowner, indifferent to the geese flying nearby.
Case 3: Good for the parasite, bad for the person, and indifferent to the ant.
If course even these determinations are snap judgments based upon assumptions and may lack all the pertinent facts to determine if they are good, bad, or indifferent. For example what if the zebra had rabies, the houses were meth labs, or Mao got the malaria? Could throw the calculations off quite a bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by jar, posted 01-26-2007 6:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by jar, posted 01-26-2007 7:10 PM anglagard has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 74 of 96 (380235)
01-26-2007 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by jar
01-26-2007 7:10 PM


Re: On Evil
jar writes:
But those are good/bad/indifferent tests.
How about Evil?
Is Evil simply "Bad"?
OK lets see if we can define our terms like all good (not evil) philosophers.
First hit in Google is Wikipedia:
quote:
In religion and ethics, Evil refers to the "bad" aspects of the behaviour and reasoning of human beings ” those which are deliberately void of conscience, and show a wanton penchant for destruction. Evil is sometimes defined as the absence of a good which could and should be present; the absence of which is a void in what should be. In most cultures, the word is used to describe acts, thoughts, and ideas which are thought to (either directly or causally) bring about affliction and death ” the opposite of goodness, which itself refers to aspects which are life-affirming, peaceful, and constructive.
Looks like in religion and ethics, evil requires a human agent to initiate, therefore the actions of lions, fire, and mosquitos can't be considered evil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by jar, posted 01-26-2007 7:10 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 01-26-2007 7:33 PM anglagard has replied
 Message 78 by anastasia, posted 01-26-2007 7:36 PM anglagard has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 79 of 96 (380249)
01-26-2007 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by jar
01-26-2007 7:33 PM


Re: On Evil
jar writes:
Does the latter part of that imply intent?
Yes, intent is implied. Isn't intent a subjective human action?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 01-26-2007 7:33 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by jar, posted 01-26-2007 8:17 PM anglagard has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 82 of 96 (380267)
01-26-2007 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by jar
01-26-2007 8:17 PM


Re: On Evil
jar writes:
I am not sure intent is an action. The behavior is the action, but is intent?
Intent is an action of the mind but it is not an action of behavior. Using the term action in regard to intent is confusing however, so it would have been better to use something like "a subjective human motivation."
Going back to your definition, so you can help me work this through, it contained:
It's actually Wikipedia's definition used for convenience to illustrate the difference between evil and bad to answer your question if they are synonomous. I do not claim personal ownership of the entire definition nor do I necessarily agree with all parts of said definition.
Often someone who does Evil may not Intend to do Evil. To use the old and worn example of Hitler, "Did Hitler intend Evil in the Final Solution?"
He and his supporters probably didn't view it as evil as they personally benefitted. Somehow I don't believe Nazi's were global utilitarians, nor would the greater part of the world population. In fact, subjective or not, the term 'evil' would probably be a common descriptor among most people.
How does one qualify "Deliberately" "void" "of conscience" or "wanton" "penchant" "for destruction"?
You got me, maybe we should ask the author.
Apparently, the Wiki definition is not real useful beyond showing that evil requires a human agent.
My original 'intent' is that terms such as bad, evil, good, etc. are subjective. I don't see anything yet disputing this point. Now if we need to find a good or even perfect definition of good, evil, bad, etc. to continue, we may be here a long time. Perhaps we could find a better definition of the terms that we may mutually agree on just for the sake of discussion as opposed to finding the 'ideal' definitions. Do you have any suggestions?
Or would the task prove too difficult, thereby confirming their subjective nature?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by jar, posted 01-26-2007 8:17 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2007 9:46 PM anglagard has replied
 Message 84 by jar, posted 01-26-2007 10:16 PM anglagard has replied
 Message 88 by anastasia, posted 01-26-2007 10:54 PM anglagard has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 85 of 96 (380285)
01-26-2007 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by RAZD
01-26-2007 9:46 PM


Re: On Evil
RAZD writes:
You say lions can't be evil, but we don't know how they see it.
If the definition of evil requires a human agent, then lions can't be evil. If the definition is extended beyond just applying to humans, than perhaps lions could be called evil according to lion standards, but it would stil be subjective.
Who could divine what the absolute standards are for good or bad lion behavior, or for that matter even primate behavior, when we can't even agree on standard definitions of good, bad, or evil human behavior that work across all cultures and all times under all circumstances?
Sociability and cooperation are usually considered good traits but is their opposite bad? Are hermits bad or to the extreme, evil?
Still seems subjective to me.
Just because moral judgments are subjective does not provide an excuse for making no moral judgments. We all have to do it to the best of our understanding to live as social beings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2007 9:46 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2007 10:48 PM anglagard has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 86 of 96 (380294)
01-26-2007 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by jar
01-26-2007 10:16 PM


Re: On Evil - Clarification
jar writes:
Folk, you for example, say stuff like "God would not allow Evil."
Logically, if God is separate from creation, and God is all-powerful, and God is intimately involved with human affairs, and God is against all evil even if it is a subjectively-derived human idea, then by definition evil should not exist.
Now if God has nothing to do with any subjectively-derived human idea of evil, and such an idea is entirely a human construct, then what any given human may call evil could exist. This may also apply to any deity that simply created and is not further concerned with human actions.
Therin lies the rub. When some members call evil an objective reality that exists outside of human judgment, some theological problems concerning an all-good, all-powerful, hands-on managment deity begin to appear.
That is my point, I hope this helps to clarify what I said, which was evidently not well-defined and lent itself to some misunderstanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 01-26-2007 10:16 PM jar has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 92 of 96 (380614)
01-28-2007 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Archer Opteryx
01-23-2007 2:11 AM


Re: philosophy & religion
Archer Opterix writes:
Have you posted a faith statement here? I would welcome a chance to read one from you.
Not yet, but here is as close as I have come to the traditional EvC faith statement.
Message 129

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-23-2007 2:11 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024