How to explain to someone universe has no prupose and there is no meaning of life? [Archive]

Fraggle Rocker

12-10-03, 09:00 PM

I'm not sure I can answer your question but I can help you get off the wrong track.

Your friend was not dead. People who lie there with no pulse and no breathing, but then their heart and lungs start working again-- those people are not dead!

The definition of "death" is the cessation of life. Not the temporary illusion of the cessation of life, but the absolute cessation of life, no fooling. There are thousands of cases of people who appear to be dead and then get up and walk away. There's no paradox, the fact is simply that they were not dead.

This is nothing more than an admittedly rather extreme yet not at all uncommon case of incorrect diagnosis. Just like a doctor who says you have the flu and it turns out to be just food poisoning is wrong. A doctor who says you are dead and it turns out that your heart just stopped beating for a few minutes is also wrong.

What is going on in your brain at that time is not a so-called "near death experience." Your brain is alive! It's woefully low on oxygen so a lot of wacky things are going on in it. Just like when it's got too much alcohol or THC or any number of chemical imbalances. Chemical imbalances make the brain act crazy and make you feel like you're having experiences that aren't really happening.

When this is caused by drugs, they call them "hallucinations." When it's caused by lack of oxygen, they call them "near death experiences." Well, they're wrong, just as wrong as the doctors who said you were dead. They're just hallucinations.

A good scientific definition of death is the irreversible cessation of brain activity. This can only happen after so many synapses have degraded that even if they got your blood pumping oxygen into your brain again, there's no "you" left in there. All your thoughts and memories vanished when the synaptic structure fell apart. Then you are dead. This takes about five minutes, so to be on the safe side we can say that if your brain has been deprived of oxygen for ten minutes, all the synapses have failed and you're gone. (As in the case of that poor dead lady in Florida that the other Stupid Bush intervened to make a Perpetual Vegetable. Her brain was deprived of oxygen for ten full minutes. She is dead!) It doesn't matter that they can keep your heart and lungs and other organs working for fifty more years by hooking them up to machines. Your body may be alive the same way a philodendron is alive, but you are dead.

And the same is true in reverse. Your heart and lungs may not be working for a few minutes, but if your synapses are still intact, you're still alive, no matter what is or is not going on in your mind.

Don't confuse a doctor's mistake with a preview of the afterlife.

I'm in your camp when it comes to belief in the supernatural. But it's not fair to tell religionists that they're wrong just because somebody's brain was a little short on oxygen and the particular hallucination they had did not feature God and the angels.

No more than it would be fair to say that if somebody's hallucination did feature that scenario, it proves that religion is true.

These "near death experiences" are red herrings that distract both religionists and atheists from even coming close to having a realistic dialog. It's time to recognize them for what they are: just one more type of doctor error.

thefountainhed

12-10-03, 09:38 PM

What then is the purpose of this thread? What is the purpose of sharing or even forcing your belief unto others?

VitalOne

12-10-03, 09:44 PM

Well...if you use logic you can see that everything non-living, and living has a clear goal...atoms strive to stay noble or be noble, bacteria/cells/animals/plants want to keep themselves alive in some form...so if the universe has no purpose...why does everything have a clear goal? why does everything just happen to want to be in a certain state? Why does being in that certain state make the animal/person happy? Please don't give me answers like "it just does". That's like a theists saying god "just does" exist.

A4Ever

12-11-03, 04:22 AM

Staying alive or taking on a certain constellation like an atom, is a different kind of purpose than strife for universal love or something like that.

But you have a good point. In relatively small configurations of reality, the rules of the game can be knwown, and you can call these rules purpose.

A 'higher purpose"... that's another ball game. It is the source of eternal unhappiness for man.

If happiness was to be found somewhere or in something, somebody would have already put it into small bottles to sell it.

So a working definition is: no known purpose, but the power to create purpose, maybe that being the purpose.

Gravage

12-11-03, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by Fraggle Rocker
I'm not sure I can answer your question but I can help you get off the wrong track.

Your friend was not dead. People who lie there with no pulse and no breathing, but then their heart and lungs start working again-- those people are not dead!

The definition of "death" is the cessation of life. Not the temporary illusion of the cessation of life, but the absolute cessation of life, no fooling. There are thousands of cases of people who appear to be dead and then get up and walk away. There's no paradox, the fact is simply that they were not dead.

This is nothing more than an admittedly rather extreme yet not at all uncommon case of incorrect diagnosis. Just like a doctor who says you have the flu and it turns out to be just food poisoning is wrong. A doctor who says you are dead and it turns out that your heart just stopped beating for a few minutes is also wrong.

What is going on in your brain at that time is not a so-called "near death experience." Your brain is alive! It's woefully low on oxygen so a lot of wacky things are going on in it. Just like when it's got too much alcohol or THC or any number of chemical imbalances. Chemical imbalances make the brain act crazy and make you feel like you're having experiences that aren't really happening.

When this is caused by drugs, they call them "hallucinations." When it's caused by lack of oxygen, they call them "near death experiences." Well, they're wrong, just as wrong as the doctors who said you were dead. They're just hallucinations.

A good scientific definition of death is the irreversible cessation of brain activity. This can only happen after so many synapses have degraded that even if they got your blood pumping oxygen into your brain again, there's no "you" left in there. All your thoughts and memories vanished when the synaptic structure fell apart. Then you are dead. This takes about five minutes, so to be on the safe side we can say that if your brain has been deprived of oxygen for ten minutes, all the synapses have failed and you're gone. (As in the case of that poor dead lady in Florida that the other Stupid Bush intervened to make a Perpetual Vegetable. Her brain was deprived of oxygen for ten full minutes. She is dead!) It doesn't matter that they can keep your heart and lungs and other organs working for fifty more years by hooking them up to machines. Your body may be alive the same way a philodendron is alive, but you are dead.

And the same is true in reverse. Your heart and lungs may not be working for a few minutes, but if your synapses are still intact, you're still alive, no matter what is or is not going on in your mind.

Don't confuse a doctor's mistake with a preview of the afterlife.

I'm in your camp when it comes to belief in the supernatural. But it's not fair to tell religionists that they're wrong just because somebody's brain was a little short on oxygen and the particular hallucination they had did not feature God and the angels.

No more than it would be fair to say that if somebody's hallucination did feature that scenario, it proves that religion is true.

These "near death experiences" are red herrings that distract both religionists and atheists from even coming close to having a realistic dialog. It's time to recognize them for what they are: just one more type of doctor error.

Yes,but if those 8 million people could see what they could and have that near-death experience(and my friend was one of them) and had clinical death,than their brain is activa,,than why brain doesn't have any of electrical impulses,even the weakest ones?Someone explained that brain is like plain's blackbox,which I agree with.But,I have to agree with when you said ifthey felt like they were flying thru medical rooms,than they weren't dead,they were very close to death(clinical death),but still brain SHOULD have some functions.To really prove if they were outside their body just when the doctor has visited them at the same time,than we could say there is something ther,but if they were only dreaming this,thinking they are outside of their bodies is really stupid idea.

Q25

12-12-03, 11:36 PM

Gravage

12-15-03, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by Q25
if universe had no purpose it wouldnt exist,;)

Wrong,ask Hawking and and the law of Wave function of the universe,which has observational proof that the universe is uncaused.It was very lucky that our solar system has apeared with life at all.

Cyperium

12-16-03, 04:53 AM

I never heard of such a wavefunction. So it is proven that the universe is uncaused? Give link and everything/anything that shows that proof.

Katazia

12-18-03, 03:48 PM

Q25,

if universe had no purpose it wouldnt exist, Your conclusion does not follow from the premise. Purpose is defined as something intended. As yet we have nothing to indicate that anything that exists was the result of an intention. What we do observe are unintentional evolutionary processes.

Godless

12-19-03, 01:22 PM

How to explain to someone universe has no prupose and there is no meaning of life?

First of all that is not my view, "that the universe has no purpose", this is still to be determined, whether a god exists or not, wouldn't answer such a question, because what would be the purpose of god?. Certainly god wouldn't give purpose to the universe, while there are black holes, planetary collisions with astroid, etc.. destruction and a violent place...what kind of god is that, not benevolent.

As to the meaning of life, well that is a more personel answer. Even though I'm an atheist I don't consider that my life has no meaning, it has meaning to me. Why the hell do people think that if one is an atheist, does not accept the god concept, one's life has no meaning?. That is insulting.

What meaning does a theists life has? other than the illusion that after he dies, he will be in some form of bliss for beign a moron bible zealot?. And the illusion that all those he does not approve of will end up in hell. PLEASEEEEE!!!

That is not meaning to life, that is an illusion that he will receive a reward after he is death!.

Godless.

Canute

12-19-03, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Gravage
EVERYONE is welcome,here on this debate,but I especially call STRONG ATHEISTS-please,enter if there are any of the strong atheists in these forums at al-tell me also why are you strong atheists-I'm one o strong atheists,too...
Ok. I'm a strong atheist. Reasons? Because I think God is an anthropomorphic creation based on an incorrect understanding of reality, and because the idea of a creator God is metaphysically illogical. Mind you, if you define God as Spinoza did then one gets into grey areas. That's the trouble with God, everyone's got their own.

ConsequentAtheist

12-20-03, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by Canute
Mind you, if you define God as Spinoza did then one gets into grey areas. What grey areas? How is pantheism anything other than superfluous?

Canute

12-20-03, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
What grey areas? How is pantheism anything other than superfluous?
If He is defined as a Jehovah's Witness would define Him then to me the concept is illogical. However Spinoza's God of no attributes (a heretical view) makes much more sense. The definitions vary so much among theists that it's hard to generalise.

Panpsychism (NOT pantheism) has always been popular among philosophers (and still is) for quite logical reasons. It won't be superfluous until we have a theory of existence that works. Until then no logically consistent theory will be superfluous, they're all contenders.

Katazia

12-20-03, 11:10 AM

Canute,

The universe "is" and calling it God is unecessary, i.e. it is superfluous, as Consequent correctly states.

Canute

12-20-03, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Katazia
Canute,

The universe "is" and calling it God is unecessary, i.e. it is superfluous, as Consequent correctly states.
Hmm. Well it's not very superfluous if you believe in God. You can argue that's it's superfluous if you like, but you can't state it as a fact. Not unless you're claiming to know.

tablariddim

12-20-03, 04:54 PM

The universe creates and recreates itself, that is its purpose.
Life, mimics the universe, because it is born of it.

Meaning of life is to achieve sentience, to experience what the universe is and to evolve accordingly. All life on earth, is like the nerve endings in a tiny part of the universe, a miniscule part of its consciousness, therefore, when the life experiences, so does the universe by default.

Katazia

12-20-03, 05:26 PM

Canute,

Hmm. Well it's not very superfluous if you believe in God. You can argue that's it's superfluous if you like, but you can't state it as a fact. Not unless you're claiming to know.Why? The ‘universe’ is the name we use to describe everything there is. Pantheists call it ‘God’ instead. Isn’t this simply an alias?

Kat

Canute

12-20-03, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Katazia
Canute,

Why? The ‘universe’ is the name we use to describe everything there is. Pantheists call it ‘God’ instead. Isn’t this simply an alias?

Kat
I don't have the slightest interest in or knowledge of pantheism, as I said before.

You said that the concept of God is superfluous. I said it wasn't. Now you're supposed to tell me why I'm wrong.

It's no good saying that we've explained the existence of the universe so we don't need any extra concepts. We haven't.

Katazia

12-20-03, 06:02 PM

Canute,

You said that the concept of God is superfluous. You appear to have misunderstood and miss-read. The statements referred to Pantheism being superfluous.

Here is something to help you with Pantheism (http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/faqs.htm)

Kat

Canute

12-21-03, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Katazia
Canute,

You appear to have misunderstood and miss-read. The statements referred to Pantheism being superfluous.
Kat
So you're ok with panentheism but not pantheism?

Katazia

12-21-03, 11:19 AM

Canute - I suspect we may be in agreement.

Canute

12-21-03, 12:02 PM

Well no - I'm not ok with theism of any kind. But we know we each mean, which is good.

Katazia

12-21-03, 03:04 PM

I'm not ok with theism of any kind.Umm - and neither am I.

Canute

12-21-03, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Katazia
Umm - and neither am I.
I understand your 'umm'. I wasn't disgreeing with your conclusion, I was disagreeing with your reasoning.

Katazia

12-21-03, 06:38 PM

I think we should start again. I'm no longer sure whether I agree or disagree or with what I might be agreeing or disagreeing about.

Unless you disagree of course.:confused: :)

Medicine*Woman

12-21-03, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Katazia
Canute,

Why? The ‘universe’ is the name we use to describe everything there is. Pantheists call it ‘God’ instead. Isn’t this simply an alias?

Kat

----------
M*W: Yes, "God" is an alias for the universe and everything in it. It should more properly be called "We" or "We are that we are."

P. M. Thorne

12-22-03, 12:25 AM

PANTHEISM: THERE ARE REPORTEDLY TWO DEFINITIONS. HOWEVER, THEY BOTH FOLLOW THAT GOD AND NATURE ARE ONE. Spinoza did write pantheism; it is left to his students to determine exactly what he meant.

One take on Pantheism litterally puts nature as God, and this seems to match the definition in one of my dictionaries. This, however, does not seem to coincide with Spinoza's writings. Rather, from what I get from him is, God is nature just as God is us, which is a bit different. I back this difference with the following: He also writes that it is innate in man to believe in God. He writes there is nothing in Nature contrary to the intellectual love of God. His writings also show that he believes in good and evil, and he talks about having the mind of God. In fact, some have called him, the man obsessed with God. Others (probably Christians, I am sorry to say), have called him anything but Godly. I think I prefer yet another title, that may have come from Will Durant. This being, "The gentle philosopher."

The other definition for Pantheism, seems not to allow for such a personal God. As follows:

DICTIONARY: The doctrine that all forces manifestations, etc., of the universe are God. (Now, this is more toward Medicine Woman's idea of God, I believe.

[Forgive me M.W. if I am wrong about your definition :D ]

LOOK, I HAVE WHOLE THING ON PANTHEISM, AND ONLY READ IT ONCE, SO I WILL LOOK IT UP IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE ME TO, AND PROVIDE BETTER DEFINITIONS.
.................................................P M T

Canute

12-22-03, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by Katazia
I think we should start again. I'm no longer sure whether I agree or disagree or with what I might be agreeing or disagreeing about.

Unless you disagree of course.:confused: :)

Argh. If you look back you'll see I asked you a question about panetheism vs. pantheism. You didn't answer but just said you agreed. I had to guess what you meant, which led to a muddle.

I was trying to pint out that you couldn't logically argue that God was a superfluous concept, whether or not He in fact exists. But no big deal.

Canute

12-22-03, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by P. M. Thorne
[B]PANTHEISM: THERE ARE REPORTEDLY TWO DEFINITIONS. HOWEVER, THEY BOTH FOLLOW THAT GOD AND NATURE ARE ONE.
Yes, but there is quite an important difference (if you're into such things) between types. Pantheism says that God is everything, whereas panentheism says that everything is in God. When you unpick the logic of these views they're actually very different.

Spinoza did write pantheism; it is left to his students to determine exactly what he meant... etc
As you point out later many Christians would call Spinoza a heretic. This is the problem. Although he talks about 'God' and about pantheism etc., in his understanding of God 'It' is, ultimately, an entity devoid of all attributes and without any will or purpose.

This is much more like Brahman or emptiness than any Christian God. Thus although Spinoza is a pantheist on paper, I'd say he was really a panpsychist, and had abandoned God in all but name, in favour of a more Eastern metaphysic.

Whether he was conscious of doing this it's hard to tell. He didn't dare publish his deeper thoughts during his lifetime, and may have held some things back even posthumously. What is telling is that Christians find difficult contradictions in his writings but Buddhist do not.

P. M. Thorne

12-22-03, 04:48 PM

A NOTE TO CANUTE: I promise to get back to you as soon as time permits on your posting, but here is some information to mall over, if you care to. I have reams and reams of notes on various things, so bear with me in trying to deliver something of value.
Regards...

I am unable to cannot locate—at this moment, information, previously mentioned, regarding the two concepts of Pantheism, but the defining the same is more varied than one might think.

(1) The following are quotes that were handy, regarding Pantheism.

(2) After this, I quote comments regarding the philosopher, Spinoza.

(3) Finally, I give you some words from Spinoza himself, not about Pantheism, but to present a side of Spinoza that is not often discussed. The errors he observed in his day, which are amazingly similar to the complaints of many in our day. This just blows my mind. Thought some of you might enjoy the commonality.

1-a “Modern pantheism is often misunderstood. It has nothing to do with "pantheon" or "polytheism"- belief in many Gods. It is neither theism nor atheism, but transcends both.
~ Paul Harrison

1-b “Taken in the strictest sense, i.e. as identifying God and the world, Pantheism is simply Atheism.” ~ Edward A. Pace

1-c “With some exceptions, pantheism is non-theistic, but it is not atheistic. Broadly defined it is the view that (1) "God is everything and everything is God ... the world is either identical with God or in some way a self-expression of his nature" (Owen 1971: 74). Similarly, it is the view that (2) everything that exists constitutes a "unity" and this all-inclusive unity is in some sense divine (MacIntyre 1967: 34). A slightly more specific definition is given by Owen (1971: 65) who says (3) "‘Pantheism’ ... signifies the belief that every existing entity is, only one Being; and that all other forms of reality are either modes (or appearances) of it or identical with it." Even with these definitions there is dispute as to just how pantheism is to be understood and who is and is not a pantheist. ~Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

2-a “Baruch (or Benedictus) Spinoza is one of the most important philosophers -- and certainly the most radical -- of the early modern period. ……………………Of all the philosophers of the seventeenth-century, perhaps none have more relevance today than Spinoza.” ~ Steven Nadler

3-a From Spinoza himself, talking about the strife and nonsense in religious groups:

“Inquiry into the cause of this anomaly leads me unhesitatingly to ascribe it to the fact, that the ministries of the Church are regarded by the masses merely as dignities, her offices as posts of emolument—in short, popular religion may be summed up as respect for ecclesiastics. The spread of this misconception inflamed every worthless fellow with an intense desire to enter holy orders, and thus the love of diffusing God’s religion degenerated into sordid avarice and ambition.

Every church became a theatre, where orators, instead of church teachers, harangued, caring not to instruct the people, but striving to attract admiration, to bring opponents to public scorn, and to preach only novelties and paradoxes, such as would tickle the ears of their congregation. This state of things necessarily stirred up an amount of controversy, envy, and hatred, which no lapse of time could appease; so that we can scarcely wonder that of the old religion nothing survives but its outward forms (even these, in the mouth of the multitude, seem rather adulation than adoration of the Deity), and that faith has become a mere compound of credulity and prejudices—aye, prejudices too, which degrade man from rational being to beast, which completely stifle the power of judgment between true and false, which seem, in fact, carefully fostered for the purpose of extinguishing the last spark of reason !

Piety, great God ! and religion are become a tissue of ridiculous mysteries; men, who flatly despise reason, who reject and turn away from understanding as naturally corrupt, these, I say, these of all men, are thought, O lie most horrible ! to possess light from on High. Verily, if they had but one spark of light from on High, they would not insolently rave, but would learn to worship God more wisely, and would be as marked among their fellows for mercy as they now are for malice; if they were concerned for their opponents’ souls, instead of for their own reputations, they would no longer fiercely persecute, but rather be filled with pity and compassion.

Furthermore, if any Divine light were in them, it would appear from their doctrine. I grant that they are never tired of professing their wonder at the profound mysteries of Holy Writ; still I cannot discover that they teach anything but speculations of Platonists and Aristotelians, to which (in order to save their credit for Christianity) they have made Holy Writ conform; -not content to rave with the Greeks themselves, they want to make the prophets rave also; showing conclusively, that never even in sleep have they caught a glimpse of Scripture’s Divine nature.

The very vehemence of their admiration for the mysteries plainly attests, that their belief in the Bible is a formal assent rather than a living faith: and the fact is made still more apparent by their laying down beforehand, as a foundation for the study and true interpretation of Scripture, the principle that it is in every passage true and divine. Such a doctrine should be reached only after strict scrutiny and thorough comprehension of the Sacred Books (which would teach it much better, for they stand in need of no human fictions), and not be set up on the threshold, as it were, of inquiry.

As I pondered over the facts that the light of reason is not only despised, but by many even execrated as a source of impiety, that human commentaries are accepted as divine records, and that credulity is extolled as faith; as I marked the fierce controversies of philosophers raging in Church and State, the source of bitter hatred and dissension, the ready instruments of sedition and other ills innumerable, I determined to examine the Bible afresh in a careful, impartial, and unfettered spirit, making no assumptions concerning it, and attributing to it no doctrines, which I do not find clearly therein set down. . . . . . . . . .”

// -UNABRIDGED ELWES TRANSLATION. VOL. 1; WORKS OF SPINOZA –Peter Smith, a book published by DOVER PUBLICATIONS, INC. NY., NY. International Standard Book Number: 0-486-20249-6; Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 55-2221.\\

I will add nothing to any of these quotes. I hope someone enjoys reading them, or perhaps something above will stir up a desire to go find something either complimentary too, or in opposition, and that you will always be blessed with an open mind. MY BEST TO ALL, ~PMT

P. M. Thorne

12-24-03, 05:01 PM

CANUTE:

QUOTING YOU: ………”Pantheism says that God is everything, whereas panentheism says that everything is in God. When you unpick the logic of these views they're actually very different.”

Yes.

Actually, I am not much into labels, and use them only to try to reach some level of commonality, and to make or understand a point, as I am supposing you do as well. As for those you mention, one is old, -very very old-, and the other is relatively new. Whereas I respect the desire to bring us all together, I happen to believe this will be accomplished a brick at a time, so to speak. I appreciate the thought, and your thoughtfulness, so let me try this another way, so bear with me, okay?

We settled in Alma, which is, as I recall, about fifty miles from Van Buren when I was twelve. Even though we had come from Oregon, I was fascinated with so much of this state's own natural beauty. From the colorful centipedes, to the many, many rocks, the variety of fish, bugs, snakes, and the night howlings of the wild animals. It was all so strange and such a marvel to me.

Early in the mornings, I would leave with the dog and explore for miles, then be home just in time for supper. Whenever they had time to hear, I would share the wonders of the day with my parents. On the days I did not go, I would simply ponder and daydream. It seemed I enjoyed everything. As I chopped wood, releasing the wonderful smells, or carried water from the natural spring that was all but hidden down the hill behind our house, I felt so much a part of it all.

There were other reasons--having nothing to do with the state-- that kept me close to nature during those months we were there. My stepfather had a marvelous garden, with almost anything one could want. Various kinds of mellons, and several kinds of lima beans, corn so high that even "Oklahoma" would have to take notice, and all the other things one finds in a garden so complete and healthy, met our eyes as we ascended the hill to the back of our house. There was a "pour-off" filled with fish, from creeks on either side. It was a big, round hole, deep and full of wonders.

We had White Rock chickens, with short glistening while feathers, hogs that squealed with delight when they saw one of us coming with the slop bucket. No food was wasted. It was one of the most marvelous times in my life, and one of the worst, with the worst also caused mostly by nature.

For sure, we cannot pick and choose, or I would have passed up the terrible draught that came, the awful fire that took a good portion of our roof and attic, the rains that ensued, bringing ugly muddy water and floods that were almost unimmaginable, cutting us off entirely for a time. The horrible illness of my mother that we thought would surely take her from us, seems to go on forever, before she was to have any relief.

My point here is ............that none of that god-awful experience could ever take away from, or even put a dent in, the joy of those quiet times, the wonders, or the glory of God's creation that I had experienced to my very soul in those quiet times that Frisky accompanied me in my peaceful journeys.

And the message is: I believe with all my heart that when we see the beauty of God's grace, while exploring all that he has given us, we will have claimed the power and will recognize the source, and then! when bad times come, though they be devastating, they cannot take away the good that we know is ours, and we can survive with our joy and peace intact.

I believe that we must read and search, think and divide, purge and ponder, until we are drenched with the joy that comes with enlightenment and the developments of our intuition, (on-the-spot, discernment). Once there, we feel no need to chase after miracles, and spend no time looking for signs.

We will see the signs in nature, and catch our breath, we will see them in what we so carelessly call coincidences, and we will stop to ponder, but we will not need them to keep us, because we will feel safe with the wonder of things bigger than us, we will be comfortable with that which pulls us together, that which quickens our hearts and minds, and we shall understand the folly of thinking that we are islands.

---------------------------------------

HERE, I QUOTE YOU......“Although he talks about 'God' and about pantheism etc., in his understanding of God 'It' is, ultimately, an entity devoid of all attributes and without any will or purpose.”

You know, Canute, I could give you so many quotes from Spinoza’s Ethics, (finished only 3 years before his death), that would seem to contradict your statement (above). But, you do not want that.

Aside from that, my rather minor issues with Buddhism are not that important either. So, we have a bit of a disagreement about those two things. Whereas, I do not mind telling you what I think, I care not to over do it. I will try to answer any questions, as you have also been willing to do, but I shall not assume that you want more of my point of view than you say.

Go for whatever there is in Buddhism for you, with my blessing. Not that you need it, but I do not like it much when someone denounces Christ, or even Spinoza, Apostle Paul, or anyone that I love. In fact I do not care much for far-sweeping generalizations.

It is always good to hear from you. Do share your thoughts and discoveries anytime you wish. Agreeing is not necessary. Respect is, and you have that. That which comes with “listening” can be so fulfilling as we open our minds to ideas that transform us into more insightful and peaceful human beings. PMT

Canute

12-28-03, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by P. M. Thorne
[B]CANUTE:

....“Although he talks about 'God' and about pantheism etc., in his understanding of God 'It' is, ultimately, an entity devoid of all attributes and without any will or purpose.”

You know, Canute, I could give you so many quotes from Spinoza’s Ethics, (finished only 3 years before his death), that would seem to contradict your statement (above). But, you do not want that.
Yes I do. If I'm wrong I want to know. If I'm right you ought to know. Please give the quotes and let's discuss them. I thought my view on this was uncontroversial but perhaps I'm wrong.

Go for whatever there is in Buddhism for you, with my blessing. Not that you need it, but I do not like it much when someone denounces Christ, or even Spinoza, Apostle Paul, or anyone that I love. In fact I do not care much for far-sweeping generalizations.
Nor me, and I haven't denounced anyone recently as far as I know.

P. M. Thorne

12-28-03, 07:46 PM

You wrote:

“I haven't denounced anyone recently as far as I know.”

….nor did I think that you had.

I will explain: Your previous posting evoked my usual concern for anyone misunderstanding the philosopher. Apparently, I was just as surprised as you of the difference in concept.

Interestingly, after an hour or so hitting the books, I suddenly realized that I did not wish to tell you anything, as I was not sure that you would care to hear it. You had not even asked whether I agreed.

Spinoza's writings in his preface in Vol. I, helped me more than I can really express. It was as if he validated my resistance to the status quo in Christendom, as I knew it, and to the ones who mocked faith of any kind. A rebel too he was, and accomplished his rebellion, as did I, without losing his faith. Amazing.

I liked that you and Buddhism had no qualms with him. But, if you change your mind, so be it.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

I offer my findings, and just hope this does not make you like Spinoza less. (Whose child is this?) Seriously, though, who else so earnestly followed the convictions of his heart, and lived accordingly? Who else, bucked centuries of religion, family, community, and turned down dollars more than once, and positions of honor, either because he felt he did not need the money, and/or because he wanted the freedom to write as he pleased. 'Did not publish all of it, but I doubt that he held anything back. He was impassioned and resolved to write what he felt had to be said. (Okay, I will hush.)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I THOUGHT WHAT I HAVE BELOW WOULD GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO ASK SPECIFICLY FOR OTHER QUOTES, OR FOR MORE ON ANY SUBJECT, BUT THIS TIME I TRIED TO KEEP IT FAIRLY SIMPLE. I cannot recall where I found the following, but it goes so well with our discussion.

Giordano Bruno’s influence:

“The writings of Giordno Bruno of the 16th Century carried such weight as to influence the development of modern thought, especially through Spinoza, in whose monistic system is found what is considered the most complete and precise expression of pantheism of all times. In it, God is the unlimited, all-inclusive substance, the first cause of the universe, with innumerable attributes, two of which, thinking and extension, are capable of being perceived.

These quotes are from Spinoza’s Ethics, CONCERNING GOD:

Definitions.

>IV. “By attribute, I mean that which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance.”

< 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.”

..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.”

[This is so good!] " EXPLANATION: -----
I say absolutely infinite, not infinite after it 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 negations.”

(pg. 62.) Prop. XIX “God, and all the attributes of God are eternal.”
Coroll I- Hence it follows that God’s existence like his essence is an eternal truth.
Coroll II- Secondly, it follows that God and all the attributes of God are unchangeable.

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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

~~~~~~~Quotes from, OF THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND:

(pg. 83) Propositions.
Prop. I. Thought is an attribute of God, or God is a thinking thing.

(pg. 84)
Prop. II Extension is an attribute of God, or God is an extended thing.
………………………………
There! I will gladly discuss Spinoza any time. (smile)

And, it was your spelling, Sir! ….. of certain words that caused me to wonder if you were English! :( PMT

Canute

12-29-03, 06:46 AM

PMThorne

You say I have misunderstood Spinoza. In what way? .

It was not for nothing that he was accused of atheism. He argued that all things are in God, and that all things exist by the necessity of nature. He denied any personality to God, insisted that God had no intellect, no will, (and certainly no free will), no purpose, and no emotion. This is not the god of Abraham and many would say not God at all.

He concurs with non-dual philosophies in saying that both human minds and bodies have only a dependent existence, and neither are 'substances'. He identified God with the fundamental laws of nature (Spinoza's God is explicitly not a lawgiver) and denied the possibility of miracles.

"Hence he became, for later generations, the prototype of that supposed impossibility, the virtuous atheist". Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy.

P. M. Thorne

12-30-03, 02:57 AM

CANUTE:

QUOTE: “You say I have misunderstood Spinoza. In what way?” ~
~~~~~
Did I really say that? Why would I say that? Hmm. :confused: You told me yourself that you were not that familiar with Spinoza’s writings, but knew his conclusions. I apologize.
………………………………………………………………
QUOTE:
~~~~~ “It was not for nothing that he was accused of atheism. He argued that all things are in God, and that all things exist by the necessity of nature.” ~

Or from the necessity of his nature, insomuch as he created what we call Mother Nature. To wit:

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

Corollary I—Hence it follows that God is the efficient cause of all that can fall within the sphere of an infinite intellect.

Corollary II—It also follows that God is a cause in himself and not through an accident of his nature.

Corollary III—It follows, thirdly, that God is the absolutely first cause.
…………………………………………………………………
QUOTE:
~~~~~“He denied any personality to God, insisted that God had no intellect, no will, (and certainly no free will), no purpose, and no emotion. “

As for God having will or intellect, the philosopher says a lot. I give you a quote quite into his dissertation:

SPINOZA: “Further, (to say a word here concerning the intellect and the will which we attribute to God), if intellect and will appertain to the eternal essence of God, we must take these words in some significations quite different from those they usually bear. For intellect and will, which should constitute the essence of God, would perforce be as far apart as the poles from the human intellect and will, in fact, would have nothing in common with them but the name….” ~

This lies in his reasoning that there can be no miracles, -because God has created all things perfect and it would, therefore, not make sense that he would interrupt the natural flow, (or change the nature of a triangle, which he uses as an example of “unchangeable”), to accommodate one person or one people.

As for no purpose, where do you get that. It is absurd to think that a God who created all things, and shares eternity with them, and that without him there would be nothing, (all Spinoza’s conclusions), has no purpose.

No emotion? He might have made that statement. As with much of his writing, I would—if this be—have to read the entire text to know whether I would take issue with that. ]
……………………………………………………………………….
QUOTE:
~~~~~“This is not the god of Abraham and many would say not God at all.”

Oh come on, Canute! A good majority of Christians believe in a triune God. God in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Other Christians believe in a single God, if you will. Muslims, believe in a single God, Jews believe in a single God. Yet all of these I mention claim to be worshiping the God of Abraham.

I ask: Who is “the God” of Abraham to you, other than some storybook character, which is defined at will, and kept safely hidden in a book? I say, there is only “one God and Father of all, which is above all, through all, and in (us) all.”

What God is it then whom Spinoza denies?

I say: He is not denying God, but is denying the superstitious aspects thereof, and denying exclusions in God's workings. In his very many comments and explanation on Jewish history, as related to the Old Testament, he gives book, chapter and verse, where God is reported to have acknowledged that He had/has other “sheep” which are not of the Jewish “flock.”
…………………………………………………………..
QUOTE:
~~~~~“(Spinoza's God is explicitly not a lawgiver)” ~

I think the law might have already been, but because it was ignored a reminder was given. How anyone can explain Spinoza, as pertaining to godly matters, without understanding Judean-Christian philosophies is a marvel in itself. :confused: I mean this sincerely. Anyway, here goes.

I acknowledge that you are a smart guy, still…if you have any questions, let me know, and I will try, okay?

SPINOZA:
“But if we look to the doctrine which Paul especially desired to teach, we shall find nothing repugnant to our present contention; on the contrary, his doctrine is the same as ours, for he says (Rom iii.29) “that God is the God of the Jews and of the Gentiles, and “ (ch.ii 26,26) [quoting Paul] ‘But if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision he counted for circumcision?’ Further, in chap.iv.verse 9, he says that all alike, Jew and Gentile, were under sin, and that without commandment and law there is no sin.

[Do you understand the meaning of circumcision as to the spiritual implications of cutting off the flesh?]

“Wherefore it is most evident that to all men absolutely was revealed the law under which all lived—namely, the law which has regard to only true virtue, not the law established in respect to, and in the formation of, a particular state and adapted to the disposition of a particular people.

“Lastly, Paul concludes that since God is the God of all nations, that is, is equally gracious to all, and since all men equally live under the law, and under sin so also to all nations did God send His Christ, to free all men equally from the bondage of the law, that they should no more do right by the command of the law, but by the constant determination of their hearts. So that Paul teaches the same as ourselves.

[and I really like this]
When, therefore, he says, ‘To the Jews only were entrusted the oracles of God,’ we must either understand that to them only were the laws entrusted in writing, while they were given to other nations merely in revelation and conception, or else (as none but Jews would object to the doctrine he desired to advance) that Paul was answering only in accordance with the understanding and current ideas of the Jews, for in respect to teaching things which he had partly seen, partly heard, he was to the Greeks a Greek, and to the Jews a Jew.” ~
………………………………………………………………………………….

QUOTE:
~~~~~“and denied the possibility of miracles.” ~

As you probably do not hang around with Christians, I have to ask, do you have any idea what some Christians call miracles? —almost anything that pleases them, and makes them feel that God is treating them "special."

Canute, my friend, I am not sure at all that I believe in miracles, because I too believe that it has all been done; however, the other consideration to make is that, if it has all been done, then why be astounded with the evidence? The happenings many call miracles are, in truth normal for (all the possibilities of) heaven and earth. In addition to this, much is superstition and vain imagination, though I hate to bring that to fore.

Why would God show partiality? In olden times, demons took the blame for illnesses, and miracles took the credit for good things, all unexplainable. They knew no other way to identify things that confounded them. Human things, not about God, but about humans.
………………………………………………………
QUOTE:
~~~~~"Hence he became, for later generations, the prototype of that supposed impossibility, the virtuous atheist". Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy. ~

Speaking of Spinoza, I presume, (as I am sure I have read it before, and took no offence). Very pretty words and an interesting slogan.

However, I wonder if you could guess what I want to say? I think I will, just this once, and nothing personal here. I do not give a flying flip what the Penquin Dictionary of Philosophy has to say about what was in Spinoza’s heart.

Of course, most of Academia want him to be, and see him as, an Atheist. He is a well-known, his words have been and still are effective, and he was/is very well read, and intelligent and true to his beliefs and his purpose, as he saw it.

Christians readily accept that he is an atheist, partially because he spent a good deal of time pointing out errors in the Old Testament. They—most of them—could not handle that. In addition he admitted not understand the resurrection of Christ, because he found it inexplainable.

It is believed that it was mainly because of Christians that Spinoza was expunged from his family and all connections, with a funeral no less, and with curses to him and his children, and on and on, as well as to anyone who talked to him, gave him comfort, etc. The guy offended Christians then and still does.

Most colleges contain many atheists and agnostics. This mind set seems to happen to people often during their college years. It happened to Will Durant to the point that he enrolled in a Catholic college with a friend, while collaborating to get in good, and then convert the teachers to Atheism. However, Durant, by his own words, while reading/studying Spinoza changed his mind. I suppose because he realized that he should be following his own purpose instead of trying to convert people. Durant wrote a beautiful summary about the tremendous influence of Spinoza (on his life) in The Story of Civilization. Lovely compliment.

(When Durant had his first child, a little girl, he experienced the grace of God anew. I do not get the impression that he was a Bible toter, or a proselyte, but he apparently had something better than what was before he fell away, so to speak. Anything tried and tested has a better feeling of value. I would suppose that now his faith was something he believed rather than simply something he had been taught.)

Another man whom I recall giving Spinoza credit for having influenced him, was Einstein, an atheist, I believe. The man called Spinoza wrote many things on many subjects.

Later, PMT

Canute

12-30-03, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by P. M. Thorne
CANUTE:
~~~~~ “It was not for nothing that he was accused of atheism. He argued that all things are in God, and that all things exist by the necessity of nature.” ~

Or from the necessity of his nature, insomuch as he created what we call Mother Nature. To wit:

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

Corollary I—Hence it follows that God is the efficient cause of all that can fall within the sphere of an infinite intellect.

Corollary II—It also follows that God is a cause in himself and not through an accident of his nature.

Corollary III—It follows, thirdly, that God is the absolutely first cause.
Yes, but what sort of God, what did he mean by God? It was nothing like what theists generally call God.

By his view the creation of nature was very specifically not an act. It is/was inevitable.

QUOTE:
~~~~~“He denied any personality to God, insisted that God had no intellect, no will, (and certainly no free will), no purpose, and no emotion. “

As for God having will or intellect, the philosopher says a lot. I give you a quote quite into his dissertation:

SPINOZA: “Further, (to say a word here concerning the intellect and the will which we attribute to God), if intellect and will appertain to the eternal essence of God, we must take these words in some significations quite different from those they usually bear. For intellect and will, which should constitute the essence of God, would perforce be as far apart as the poles from the human intellect and will, in fact, would have nothing in common with them but the name….” ~

This lies in his reasoning that there can be no miracles, -because God has created all things perfect and it would, therefore, not make sense that he would interrupt the natural flow, (or change the nature of a triangle, which he uses as an example of “unchangeable”), to accommodate one person or one people.

As for no purpose, where do you get that. It is absurd to think that a God who created all things, and shares eternity with them, and that without him there would be nothing, (all Spinoza’s conclusions), has no purpose.

No emotion? He might have made that statement. As with much of his writing, I would—if this be—have to read the entire text to know whether I would take issue with that. ]
Your extracts here do not contradict what I said, if you look closely. Spinoza defines his words very carefully and rather differently to normal. I suspect that this was to confuse his dangerous critics. Even 'will' and 'intellect' are given new definitions.

The substance of what I posted was taken from a three page entry in the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy. This isn't a great source but usually dictionaries play it very safe, so it is not likely to be a controversial view.

~~~~~“This is not the god of Abraham and many would say not God at all.”

Oh come on, Canute! A good majority of Christians believe in a triune God. God in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Other Christians believe in a single God, if you will. Muslims, believe in a single God, Jews believe in a single God. Yet all of these I mention claim to be worshiping the God of Abraham.
Yes. But thjey all have attributes in common which Spinoza's God did not have, namely attributes. Many would say and still say that Spinoza's God is not a god in a meaningful sense.

I say: He is not denying God, but is denying the superstitious aspects thereof, and denying exclusions in God's workings. In his very many comments and explanation on Jewish history, as related to the Old Testament, he gives book, chapter and verse, where God is reported to have acknowledged that He had/has other “sheep” which are not of the Jewish “flock.”
I am not alone in concluding he was an atheist. In fact it's a common view. He certainly talks about God, but by his defintion it is not God in a sense that many theists would recognise.

QUOTE:
~~~~~“(Spinoza's God is explicitly not a lawgiver)” ~

I think the law might have already been, but because it was ignored a reminder was given.
Not by Spinoza's God, which performs no self-willed action.

How anyone can explain Spinoza, as pertaining to godly matters, without understanding Judean-Christian philosophies is a marvel in itself. :confused: I mean this sincerely.
Why?

Anyway, here goes.

I acknowledge that you are a smart guy, still…if you have any questions, let me know, and I will try, okay?

SPINOZA:
“But if we look to the doctrine which Paul especially desired to teach, we shall find nothing repugnant to our present contention; on the contrary, his doctrine is the same as ours, for he says (Rom iii.29) “that God is the God of the Jews and of the Gentiles, and “ (ch.ii 26,26) [quoting Paul] ‘But if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision he counted for circumcision?’ Further, in chap.iv.verse 9, he says that all alike, Jew and Gentile, were under sin, and that without commandment and law there is no sin.

[Do you understand the meaning of circumcision as to the spiritual implications of cutting off the flesh?]

“Wherefore it is most evident that to all men absolutely was revealed the law under which all lived—namely, the law which has regard to only true virtue, not the law established in respect to, and in the formation of, a particular state and adapted to the disposition of a particular people.

“Lastly, Paul concludes that since God is the God of all nations, that is, is equally gracious to all, and since all men equally live under the law, and under sin so also to all nations did God send His Christ, to free all men equally from the bondage of the law, that they should no more do right by the command of the law, but by the constant determination of their hearts. So that Paul teaches the same as ourselves.

[and I really like this]
When, therefore, he says, ‘To the Jews only were entrusted the oracles of God,’ we must either understand that to them only were the laws entrusted in writing, while they were given to other nations merely in revelation and conception, or else (as none but Jews would object to the doctrine he desired to advance) that Paul was answering only in accordance with the understanding and current ideas of the Jews, for in respect to teaching things which he had partly seen, partly heard, he was to the Greeks a Greek, and to the Jews a Jew.” ~
Don't see the relevance of this. Anyway it seems to be just Spinoza apologising for his unorthodoxy, trying to make his views sound acceptable.

QUOTE:
~~~~~“and denied the possibility of miracles.” ~

As you probably do not hang around with Christians, I have to ask, do you have any idea what some Christians call miracles? —almost anything that pleases them, and makes them feel that God is treating them "special."

Canute, my friend, I am not sure at all that I believe in miracles, because I too believe that it has all been done; however, the other consideration to make is that, if it has all been done, then why be astounded with the evidence? The happenings many call miracles are, in truth normal for (all the possibilities of) heaven and earth. In addition to this, much is superstition and vain imagination, though I hate to bring that to fore.

Why would God show partiality? In olden times, demons took the blame for illnesses, and miracles took the credit for good things, all unexplainable. They knew no other way to identify things that confounded them. Human things, not about God, but about humans.
Ok, you seem to agree with Spinoza, though for different reasons.

QUOTE:
~~~~~"Hence he became, for later generations, the prototype of that supposed impossibility, the virtuous atheist". Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy. ~

Speaking of Spinoza, I presume, (as I am sure I have read it before, and took no offence). Very pretty words and an interesting slogan.

However, I wonder if you could guess what I want to say? I think I will, just this once, and nothing personal here. I do not give a flying flip what the Penquin Dictionary of Philosophy has to say about what was in Spinoza’s heart.
Yes, I can tell that.

Of course, most of Academia want him to be, and see him as, an Atheist. He is a well-known, his words have been and still are effective, and he was/is very well read, and intelligent and true to his beliefs and his purpose, as he saw it.

Christians readily accept that he is an atheist, partially because he spent a good deal of time pointing out errors in the Old Testament. They—most of them—could not handle that. In addition he admitted not understand the resurrection of Christ, because he found it inexplainable.
Well, as you point out, most people think he was an atheist. I know you don't agree, but I also think he was one. I feel that what he writes about god is mostly right, (as far as I know what he said) but that he used the wrong word because he had to.

It is believed that it was mainly because of Christians that Spinoza was expunged from his family and all connections, with a funeral no less, and with curses to him and his children, and on and on, as well as to anyone who talked to him, gave him comfort, etc. The guy offended Christians then and still does.
Hmm. I thought it was the Jewish authorities he mostly upset. It was his doubts about Judaism that got him excommunicated.

Canute

P. M. Thorne

01-03-04, 05:37 PM

CANUTE WRITES: “Yes. But thjey all have attribute in common which Spinoza's God did not have, namely attributes. Many would say and have said that Spinoza's God is not a god in a meaningful sense.”

Clarification would be helpful, because I am trying right now to ascertain whether you read or possibly denied the quotes I sent regarding God’s attributes, according to Spinoza. As you did not even mention the quotes in reply, your statement (above) leaves me somewhat puzzled. I believe that nothing I do is totally in vain, but it would have been nice to have had a response of some sort.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;
YOU WROTE: “I am not alone in concluding he was an atheist.” [speaking of Spinoza]

I accept that, and understand why one would make the statement. However, for me, Canute, while appreciating anyone who reads for better understanding, ....when it comes to communicating, (though quotes and such are nice), I also like to hear one’s own thoughts; that is to say, having one’s own workings and growth expressed after he has digested the most helpful and interesting of what he has read. Only, then can you tell -to any significant degree- who that person is becoming.

What one refuses to accept, or even to read is also very telling, but much more difficult to ascertain. Do you not agree?

It is no news to me that I take things more seriously than most and that I am more personable about what I take seriously. Therefore, I am accustomed to the fact that some tend not to be quite so serious and not nearly so open. I can accept that, but it does not change me. To me Spinoza is a real person, deceased indeed, but real nonetheless, like Will Durant, Schopenhauer . . . Lord Byron, and my dear Aunt Nora.

Time means little to me, because I think of much in the terms of eternity, which puts time and death in parenthesis. Furthermore, I tend not to fix on any particular way of looking at things. So much of what I believe is in process!

All I know for sure regarding all that is, -is that God is! Do you understand what I am saying? To me, it is not a question of proving, or deciding, no more that it is a question of proving or deciding whether nature is. This prpbably puts us in different places; nonetheless, we have bumped into each other on this website. It would, therefore, be nice if we could each leave the other with something of value. I feel, however, that I am failing to do this.

YOU WROTE: “Don't see the relevance of this. Anyway it seems to be just Spinoza apologizing for his unorthodoxy, trying to make his views sound acceptable.”

All right; then, allow me then to attempt to bring to light my intended connection, or something like that!

Why would Spinoza make such an effort to defend the Apostle (Paul) in his statements regarding the circumcised and the uncircumcised, (which represented “cutting of the flesh,” —or traits of the old-Adam"-ic" nature of disobedience), or not having gone through such a surgery, and allegorize that difference... into one's spiritual state, regardless of tradition, that gives a desire sufficient to walk circumspectly, being a thing of the heart, rather than a matter of laws?

I simply could not/cannot imagine a philosopher of Judean origin, bothering to defend a Jew who had become a Christian—and especially by such controversial means—that being a comparison between Jews and Gentiles . . . which all contributes to uphold Christ’s statement that He came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it. (If you want more on this, let me know.)

In other writings of Paul's, he elaborates on this fact, by stating that the law was given to man to show ( or bring to his attention) that he was flawed. [“..For by the law is the knowledge of sin”] & another [For until the law, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no law.] Paul also gave a personal statement. He wrote: “………for I had not known lust, until the law said, Thou shalt not covet.” Such statements go amazingly well with some of Spinoza’s comments about law(s).

I hope I have offered sufficient reason for including this in my last answer to you. This recalling leaves me with a desire to expand with some thoughts of my own, which you might find not-so-far from your own, (that is, if we think more about how these things serve us and help us to grow than about the origin of the support we might have found for these beliefs).

Having been taught quite differently than many Christians, I had a good start is thinking differently as to certain truths.

I am convinced that the good teachers of this world left with us, commands/admonitions that would serve us.

I do not buy the theory that God gets all happy when I do not sin, nor do I fear that he scowls at me if I swear at some thoughtless driver, or commit any other deed that does not serve me well.

(If you will but edge into my philosophy for a moment, I will speak from my own post, understanding that you will step out again and compare it with your takings gathered from where you stand, okay?)

First and foremost: I BELIEVE THAT ALL IS DONE, or COMPLETE, with "ALL" meaning, all to which I have access in this world state. Secondly, just as man has used only a percentage of his brain, so goes what he knows, says I. I accept, therefore, that we now see through a glass darkly. Further, I am convinced with everything in me, that one day I shall understand fully. Whether this means that the earth and its inhabitance will gradually improve until knowledge truly becomes ours, which could be interpreted that this earth—as we know it—will pass away, or should it be that this world will literally go bye bye, and that we will reside elsewhere, I do not know.

Thoughts about a “new heaven and new earth,” come to me on occasion, while I dismiss earlier teachings, and it is not inconceivable to me that there will be a gradual refining of us mortals, or that longevity could increase with time to God only knows where. In fact, it surely will. It is also conceivable to me that “heaven” could mean almost any place besides earth, and so forth.

I am sure you can see where I am going with all this. The possibilities are endless, but the probabilities are almost as baffling. Yet, I spend little time on such thoughts, because they are, (though of some use), not nearly so relevant as thinking about now. And NOW! I have a source that has all-knowledge, all-wisdom, and is all forgiving, from which I –or anyone- may draw, without having some merit. That is to say, we, by the grace of God, have access to all good things. It is we who allow much of the devastation that we question. It is we, -that mess up lives.

One may, as C.S. Lewis points out so clearly in his: “Mere Christianity,” be born into something not even close to what we call normal, and then such a beginning can surely make life a bit like hell even while such a one tries to do his best. Yet, even while giving attention to such an unfortunate, we have to go back to man for the reasons. (Incidentally, that is about the only Christian writer that has truly impressed me. He speaks well, at least in that book.)
...........................................
Standing back, or quieting our minds, opening their portals, and listening…………we ought to have little difficulty realizing that we have a Source that can (make up for) what is lacking, and give us the strength and the courage to live with a peace even in the worst turmoil, a joy even in the deepest sorrow, and amazing strength, even in our weakest moments. Now, tell me how that differs so much from Buddhism. Forget what we call it. I can call a pear a frog, but it will probably taste much the same to each of us.

Now, I will go further to say that I believe that this Source of which I speak is within us. Yes! I believe that, and I believe that the statement, “The Kingdom of God is within you,” means just that. I believe that the statement, “Your body is a temple of the Holy Ghost,” (or Spirit), means just that. I believe that the statement “..One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and IN YOU ALL,” means the same thing. I truly do.

I understand that the Bible was written by men, but I know there are truths in it that can change men's lives, but there is no magic. Therefore, why would I challenge it -more than- other things written by men. Nay, they all err. Anything that man does will have flaws, and when we forget that, we are in trouble, and will consequently be robbed by our naivety.

Therefore, I ask you, do you really care to know me; are you seriously interested in what I perceive to be true? Do you care to know Spinoza? I can tell you this, Canute, if you ever know him, you will surely know in your heart that he refused to be denied. Conversely, if you do not know him, how can you possibly perceive what he “really meant?” I believe those are fair questions.

YOU WROTE: “It was his doubts about Judaism that got him excommunicated.” A flat statement, (not, “Why would you say this?”), in reply to what I had said which was that his excommunication came about mainly because of the Christians. This leads me to suppose that you presuppose that you are right, I am wrong, and that is that. Perhaps you did not “really mean that,” but I do not “know you, and can therefore speak only as to how it comes across.” So! Perhaps you simply misunderstood, and then made a statement as a possibility rather than a fact.(?)

I was not saying that the Christians directly caused the excommunication, but that it was because of them. The circumstances leading up to that horrendous out-casting convinces me that the Jews were very concerned about offending those Christians who had treated them so well after they had escaped a hell on earth to find such a place to dwell.

In addition to Spinoza’s behavior was their memory of another young man (about sixteen years prior) that had made statements about any hereafter being a myth, so to speak. That young man wound up dead by his own hands, after being forced to retract and then was humiliated beyond his ability to bear such intolerance. Now comes Spinosa, and a star pupil no less, but an upstart nonetheless, claiming errors in the Holy writ, and who would prove to be -not so easily upended by their disapproval. (I am sure that Spinoza was aware of the tragedy of Uriel a Costa, and maybe even remembered it.)

In addition to the remarkable incidents, of Spinoza’s dedication to freedom of speech and his resolve, those letters between him and Oldenburg are priceless in this regard. As the two travailed over the happening to do with Christ’s reported resurrection and ascension, did the philosopher back up, back down, give in? Not a bit!

I will let you be the judge of that for yourself, however, as I quote the latter part of the last letter (and there were many) to Mr. Oldenberg.

Spinoza closes with these words:
“He appeared to His disciples; but in these matters they might, without injury to Gospel teaching, have been deceived, as was the case with other prophets mentioned in my last letter. But Paul, to whom Christ afterwards appeared, rejoices, that he knew Christ not after the flesh, but after the spirit. Farewell, honourable Sir and believe me yours in all affection and zeal.”

-That took a lot of guts! It is no marvel that he is so well admired for living his convictions. The man had resolve. I doubt that he would ever make a statement of any kind the truth of which he did not wholly beleive, not from his well-developed mind and heart.

It is difficult to quote Spinoza, because he says so much about each matter, and yet, I made every attempt to give you the best I could, because you encouraged the quotes (re: attributes), so that we could discuss them, but instead you did not mention them in your reply. Perhaps it was an oversight. I hate to ever make a conclusion, because there are no absolutes with us, so correct me if I err. Regardless, I care not to offend you, and do make an effort to keep my words kind, because I am not as soft as you might think, and do attempt to temper my terms and phrasing, lest my passion proceed my wisdom, and I freely admit this. I do this for the sake of the seriousness of this matter as well.

PMT

Canute

01-04-04, 07:51 AM

PMT

I do not resopond to everything you write because you write a lot. I try to pick out what is directly relevant.

I am no expert on Spinoza. However your view on him contradicts the views of all other commentators that I have read. That may be because I've not read the ones who agree with you. Perhaps you could point me at a commentator who does.

I accept your beliefs about God and don't want to argue about it particularly. However I find the concept of of a Christian God illogical and not in accord with my experience of myself. On that we must therefore differ. However I find Spinoza's god far more plausible.

Quotations from Spinoza are all very well. But his writings are difficult, and can be used to back up almost any interpretation if selected carefully. That's why I prefer to stick to 'meta-analysis' of his writings, drawn from experts, rather than attempt an anlysis myself, for which I have neither the time nor the skill.

Let's agree to disagree.

Cheers
Canute

P. M. Thorne

01-08-04, 04:00 PM

Canute: I Am Unable To Get A Posted Message To Take. Thought I Would Try This, Just To See If It Works. Pmt

P. M. Thorne

01-08-04, 04:05 PM

CANUTE WRITES: “I do not resopond to everything you write because you write a lot. I try to pick out what is directly relevant.”

Then I must suppose, the quotes you asked me to send (so that we could discuss them) were not even worth acknowledging, but the other, was relevant.

CANUTE: I am no expert on Spinoza. However your view on him contradicts the views of all other commentators that I have read. That may be because I've not read the ones who agree with you. Perhaps you could point me at a commentator who does.

Of course not. Neither of us is. As for referring you, I thought I did. My intentions were such.

CANUTE: I accept your beliefs about God and don't want to argue about it particularly.

I choose not to defend my beliefs. Nor do I try to prove God as that would be most presumptuous of me; neither am/was I attempting to argue about what you call Spinoza’s God. Not at all! Initially, I was but letting you know that I disagreed with your statement about attributes, (that was when you asked for the quotes).

I apologize if my messages seem overly lengthy.

CANUTE: However I find the concept of a Christian God illogical and not in accord with my experience of myself.

Perhaps your experience ought to reach beyond yourself, --or maybe not. In any event, I truly do not understand the latter… [“and not in accord with my experience of myself”] part of your sentence.

Moreover, have I ever referred to God as “a Christian God? I think not.
………………………
CANUTE: On that we must therefore differ.

Must we? As I am quite dubious of what you mean by this God or that, I shall leave the matter up to you.
…………………
CANUTE: However I find Spinoza's god far more plausible.

Oh my! My friend! You pick for yourself a god, as you would choose a tie! Spinoza’s god, indeed!

CANUTE: That's why I prefer to stick to 'meta-analysis' of his writings, drawn from experts, rather than attempt an anlysis myself, for which I have neither the time nor the skill.

The problem is, Canute, experts disagree. You know this; so, What exactly does knowing this do to the word “experts?”

CANUTE: Quotations from Spinoza are all very well. But his writings are difficult, and can be used to back up almost any interpretation if selected carefully.

Uhhhh! I disagree. Darn it. Who told you that? That would be true only if you had a bunch of big kids that were too full of themselves to stick with something until it became as familiar to them as their driver’s licenses.

One cannot jump about in Spinoza’s writings, and quote this and that. Why do you think it took me so long to find what I thought might be the more definitive quotes. There were “Proofs,” and lengthy explanations, but the summary statement seemed most appropriate, and time was important.

True, Spinoza’s writings are challenging. Nonetheless, anyone serious about studying and knowing would immediately question some ridiculous attempt to misinterpret, as opposed to a valid misunderstanding. I have far to go, but usually, the second or third time I visit a comment, I understand something about it, even if I did not the first time or two! I can tell you this, what I -learn for me- is far more joyous than worrying about what someone might say or think about my supposed ignorance. One who continues his study, learns from time to time that he make a huh-oh once in a while, and re-evalutates.

While I know what I believe, and why I believe it, I also know that there is much of my knowing still in process, . . . and that beliefs can change. I read many commentaries, and enjoy doing so, but I also enjoy hearing thoughts of other individuals.

Of course, as you suggested, I can agree to disagree for now. Later!

PMT

P. M. Thorne

01-08-04, 04:09 PM

CANUTE: There! We are having dreadful weather here. I cannot get to my mail box! We have a solid sheet of ice, and oh boy, what a mess. Have not lost power right here, and there are the trees are not close enough to fall on us. That message may be a bit rough in spots, because I was afraid I would lose it again, and gave up on editing. PMT

Canute

01-08-04, 05:16 PM

CANUTE WRITES: “I do not respond to everything you write because you write a lot. I try to pick out what is directly relevant.”

Then I must suppose, the quotes you asked me to send (so that we could discuss them) were not even worth acknowledging, but the other, was relevant.
Sorry. I should have said that I don't respond to the bits that don't seem to need a response, which is what I actually meant.

Of course not. Neither of us is. As for referring you, I thought I did. My intentions were such.
Did you?

I apologize if my messages seem overly lengthy.
No, no, I didn't mean to say that.

CANUTE: However I find the concept of a Christian God illogical and not in accord with my experience of myself.

Perhaps your experience ought to reach beyond yourself, --or maybe not. In any event, I truly do not understand the latter… [“and not in accord with my experience of myself”] part of your sentence.
Theists generally don't. (But I'm not suggesting that means that they're wrong). To you God is fundamental, to me I am fundamental (given a couple of days to explain what I mean by 'I'.)

CANUTE: However I find Spinoza's god far more plausible.

Oh my! My friend! You pick for yourself a god, as you would choose a tie! Spinoza’s god, indeed!
I find Spinoza's concept of an attributeless and non-physical God the most logical version. (I know we don't agree about attributes). I feel he came close to what I feel is the truth. But I don't believe in 'God' so I don't spend much time on the details.

CANUTE: That's why I prefer to stick to 'meta-analysis' of his writings, drawn from experts, rather than attempt an anlysis myself, for which I have neither the time nor the skill.

The problem is, Canute, experts disagree. You know this; so, What exactly does knowing this do to the word “experts?”

The usual thing. Expertise does not mean infallibility. But one can assess their arguments, and this is often much better than trying to work out all the arguments as a non-expert.

CANUTE: Quotations from Spinoza are all very well. But his writings are difficult, and can be used to back up almost any interpretation if selected carefully.

Uhhhh! I disagree. Darn it. Who told you that? That would be true only if you had a bunch of big kids that were too full of themselves to stick with something until it became as familiar to them as their driver’s licenses.
I thought you just said that there are many expert interpretations. You can;t also argue that Spinoza isn't ambiguous. Spinoza's writing is notorious for its different interpretations.

One cannot jump about in Spinoza’s writings, and quote this and that. Why do you think it took me so long to find what I thought might be the more definitive quotes. There were “Proofs,” and lengthy explanations, but the summary statement seemed most appropriate, and time was important.
But this proves the point. In your view those quotes proved your argument. In my view they didn't. We interpret them differently.

I'll try to put my argument about Spinoza's God a bit more clearly when I've got time, so it doesn't sound so off the cuff.

Bye for now
Canute

P. M. Thorne

01-09-04, 01:08 PM

THIS IS FROM A FRIEND IN CHICAGO, AND, THOUGH IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE ARE INTO, YOU SEEM TO BE A BIT LIKE HIM, SO I THOUGHT I WOULD SHARE IT WITH YOU. WILL GET TO YOUR MESSAGE LATER. BE GOOD, OKAY?

I found this in a recent book I've been reading called 'For the Love of
Life' by Erich Fromm.

If human reason is to become an effective guide for our actions it
cannot be dominated by irrational emotions. Intelligence remains
intelligence, even if it is turned to evil purposes. Reason, however,
our awareness of reality as it is and not as we would like to see it so
that we can exploit it for our own ends - reason in this sense can be
effective only to the extent that we can put aside our irrational
emotions, that is, to the extent that we as human being become truly
human and that irrational drives cease to be the main motivation force
behind our actions.

Canute

01-09-04, 02:09 PM

I can agree with that, especially since it's totally tautological. But don't let's get rid of our rational emotions, that would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Cyperium

01-10-04, 03:56 PM

EVERYONE is welcome,here on this debate,but I especially call STRONG ATHEISTS-please,enter if there are any of the strong atheists in these forums at al-tell me also why are you strong atheists-I'm one o strong atheists,too...You don't tell that to people! Cause you can't know that it is meaningless!

You could just as easy tell him a lie, let him find out for himself. He's just a kid for crying out loud! I would say something like "There may or may not be a God or meaning in life, but it's not wrong to believe it is.".

Cause that's a fact. It isn't wrong to believe it is, tell the child facts and let him find out what can't be teached for himself.

I just realized that it might not be a child that you were going to explain it too, but even with adults, you can give them your reasons but don't give them your belief - and make sure your reasons are facts.

Ellimist

01-11-04, 01:46 AM

Everyone has to figure these things out for themselves. Unless they are trying to be unnecessarily religious, then you need to kick them every now and then and make them realize that they have a brain and that they can use it. Make them think about what they are doing. Whether it is choosing atheism or religion (the extremes), they need to think about it. Up to them. It is that simple. I don't know why this thread is so long... gah.

Canute

01-11-04, 11:36 AM

PMT

I said I would flesh out my argument a bit. Here's an attempt.

Thanks to our disagreement I have spent a bit of time getting to know Spinoza better. (That’s the benefit of arguing). I suggested that Spinoza’s God is without attributes and therefore very close to a the ‘non-dual’ view of the nature of reality, but without the ‘apperception’ (minds perception of itself) so central to non-dual affirmation. This is why I feel Spinoza’s God is more logical than most other conceptions of Him. I also suggested, (for the same reasons), that it is debatable whether Spinoza’s God is a God at all by any traditional definition.

I argued that one reason I like this God is that He has no attributes, and yet He has infinite attributes. This apparent contradiction relates to the ‘oneness’ and ‘many-ness’ of what underlies Advaita or Buddhism, and to the two Brahmans etc.

However I see that whether Spinoza actually thought this is a matter of opinion. To me this contradicition is implicit in his writings, and many other interpreters agree. However as yet I haven’t found a passage that makes it explicit. I would argue that Spinoza was well aware that this contradiction followed from his arguments, but perhaps I am extrapolating beyond his actual thoughts.

I’m grateful to you for making me defend my position, since I’ve found Spinoza to be even more brilliant than I thought he was, and I already thought he was brilliant.

Here’s my thinking. Please disagree as you see fit. (I’ve tried to place all the quotes but have stupidly seperated some of them from the notes as to where they came from).

Spinoza claimed that bodies as an attribute of Extension and minds as attribute of Thought were two ways of perceiving one thing, i.e. Substance. They were intricately woven together but distinct.

This is fairly equivalent to the Buddhist teaching that mind and body are aspects of the emptiness that lies at the heart of all things.

For Spinoza Thought and Extension are attributes of God, the only ‘real’ substance. They are therefore not the essence of God. God is therefore neither Thought nor Extension, but whatever it is that has these attributes. The same applies to all other attributes that God may have.

To put it another way. Spinoza asserts that only one substance exists. Thought and Extension are two aspects of this substance, and therefore neither of these things can be that substance.

Therefore although God has infinite attributes, and has each of them infinitely, these are aspects only , the essence of God is beyond all attributes. (This is the well known philosophical ‘problem of attributes’ in disguise – what is left of an object when all its external attributes are removed?)

God is one, that is, only one substance can be granted in the universe. [I.14]

Alternatively, as Thought and Extension are the two fundamental attributes of all that we know to exist (or rather all that exists are attributes of these two things) then Spinoza’s God, in a particular sense, does not exist.

This seems illogical, since Spinoza argues that God does exist. The solution is to analyse what ‘exist’ really means whenever the term is used. I believe that on this issue, God’s existence, Spinoza was careful not to take his argument to its logical conclusion.

In effect Spinoza is making an argument about duality. All attributes have a dual polarity (hot/cold, finite/infinite, etc.) As God is one thing and embodies no contradictions all such attributes are aspects of God, not His essence.

"The more we understand singular things, the more we understand God" Ethics, part V, proposition 24

For Spinoza God was singular in all respects, without dual properties. Thus God’s existence is absolute, not relative. As all other things that exist have only a relative existence God does not exist in the same sense as other things that exist.

“Nature does not work with an end in view. For the eternal and infinite Being, which we call God or Nature, acts by the same necessity as that whereby it exists. . . . Therefore, as he does not exist for the sake of an end, so neither does he act for the sake of an end; of his existence and of his action there is neither origin nor end.” - Ethics

Thus God exists but does not act, and has no will or purpose.

[i]“God is without passions, neither is he affected by any emotion of pleasure or pain . . . Strictly speaking, God does not love anyone. Ethics [V.17]

He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return. Ethics [V.19]

Thus God has no emotions or feelings, except inasmuch as sentient beings have them.

“God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things. All things which are, are in God. Besides God there can be no substance, that is, nothing in itself external to God.”

Thus there is no opposite to God. ‘Nothing’ cannot exist. God, as the sole and singular substance in existence, is axiomatic and inevitable. There is something that exists beyond the world of attributes (the world of our conceptions and perceptions) that appears to be nothing, yet is the something that is fundamental to our existence. As in non-dual affirmation.

[i]“Because we have found already before that there must be an infinite and perfect being, by which nothing else can be meant than such a being of which all in all must be predicated. Why? [Because] to a being which has any essence attributes must be referred, and the more essence one ascribes to it, the more attributes also must one ascribe to it, and consequently if a being is infinite then its attributes also must be infinite, and this is just what we call a perfect being.”

Thus God has infinite attributes as aspects, but is a substance or essence with no inherent attributes. (And thus no contradictory dual aspects, allowing it to be utterly singular). This (apparent) contradiction is derived from the same understanding that underlies the emptiness/fullness, eternal/timeless, something/nothing descriptions of fundamental reality in non-dual teachings. Our language has no words to deal with such a thing without contradiction, it is beyond words, since all words (and everything else that exists in the phenomenal world) are dual in nature, have only a dependent existence. Thus reality is beyond reasoning (but not beyond knowing).

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

Imho Spinoza’s key insight was that epistemology and ontology become the same thing at the limit, as adherents of a non-dual worldview assert.

[i]"The order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things " (EIIp7).

For Descartes knowledge of God was a way to secure oneself from doubt. But the doubt makes God and the divine aim of man’s understanding something external. Spinoza had it that nothing could be external to God, and certainly not man’s understanding of him.

Thus Mind is the idea of the body, (EIIp13, "The object of the idea constituting the human mind is the Body".) Further, the idea of the body in mind is nothing else than the same thing as the body itself, just conceived in another way. Since all there is are modes in the infinite Intellect, God, mind (as mode of Thought) as idea of a certain body (mode of Extension) are the same. He suggests that some of the "Hebrews" saw this as if through a cloud, when they saw that "God, God’s intellect and the things understood by him are one and the same "(EIIp7s).

With Aristotle, Popper et al (and Buddhism etc) he asserts, in different words, that certain knowledge is identical with the knower. By saying this he makes both an epistemilogical and an ontological claim, as do Buddhists (but probably not Aristotle and Popper).

The essence of a thing, and the idea of (that essence of) that thing, are the same, but not in our mind, only in God’s. Neither man nor all finite modes exist necessarily. No finite thing can be thought outside God, but God is not a part of a finite mode. If so, it would necessarily exist, which is absurd. Only God exists of necessity. A finite mode exists because other determinate modes, infinite and finite, cause its existence.

Therefore nothing exists that is not ‘epiphenomenal’ on a singular substance that exists, but which is essentially without attributes, and which does not exist in the same sense as those epiphenomena. As usual ‘exists’ has a dual meaning.

"Every thing is necessarily caused by another and another into (divine) infinity or God, for Spinoza. All ideas are in God’s infinite intellect in so far as they are true. (In this he concurs with Plato) . We know that they are true when we are certain by our active knowledge, not by looking for special signs of true ideas, as if ideas were "mute pictures on a panel" (EIIp49s2). Rather, a true idea involves an affirmation of its truth." (from an online essay).

This could come straight from Advaita Vedanta. To know the truth is to affirm it, to be it, to live it. To know the truth is to KNOW it. If we know something then we believe it utterly, and it is thus certain to be affirmed by our actions and words.

“Having so far discussed what God is, we shall say but a word, as it were, about his attributes: that those which are known to us consist of two only, namely, Thought and Extension; for here we speak only of attributes which might be called the proper attributes of God, through which we come to know him [as he is] in himself, and not [merely] as he acts [towards things] outside himself. All else, then, that men ascribe to God beyond these two attributes, all that (if it otherwise pertains to him) must be either an extraneous denomination, such as that he exists through himself, is Eternal, One, Immutable, &c., or, I say, has reference to his activity, such as that he is a cause, predestines, and rules all things: all which are properties of God, but give us no information as to what he is.”

“…In the first place, we do not see that they give us in it any attribute or attributes through which it can be known what the thing (God) is, but only some propria or properties which do, indeed, belong to a thing, but never explain what the thing is. For although self-subsisting, being the cause of all things, highest good, eternal and immutable, &c., are peculiar to God alone, nevertheless, from those properties we cannot know what that being, to whom these properties pertain is, and what attributes he has.”

“…It is now also time for us to consider the things which they ascribe to God, and which do not, however, pertain to him, [N1] such as omniscient, merciful, wise, and so forth, which things, since they are only certain modes of the thinking thing, and can by no means be, or be understood without the substances [N2] whose modes [N3] they are, can, consequently, also not be attributed to him, who is a Being subsisting without the aid of anything, and solely through himself.”

This is not a tidy argument, just a review of some of the ideas involved. But it may explain where I’m coming from.

Regards
Canute

P. M. Thorne

01-11-04, 02:32 PM

Canute Says:
I can agree with that, especially since it's totally tautological. But don't let's get rid of our rational emotions, that would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

............response............
I just copied three messages from you, so I had best begin catching up.

You are not as much like my friend as I thought. I had to smile that you analyze even this rather simply-put advice.

Sometimes, I make myself uncomfortable, always seeing exceptions to everything.
Once a friend made a very common statement at a very uncommon time. A little boy I knew, only four-years-old, had been very badly burned in a house fire. He lived in spite of his little body having third degree burns. The friend, speaking of someone having a close call, simply said, “God was just with him, that’s all.” It really hit me. I sat down at the table near her, and almost whispered, “Was God not with Kyle, Blanche? She answered that people just say things like that, and I responded that perhaps people should stop saying things like that.

In retrospect, I probably should have waited until later, but I was so sick of hearing such automatic B.S., and my poor friend, meaning no harm, had caught the blunt of it. If it had not been so soon after losing my own son, perhaps I would have not reacted in that way, who knows? But, at that time in my life I was loaded for bear, and it took me a while to level things out, but oh my goodness, what a period of growth.

Ha! See! How could I disagree that rational emotion is not to be condemned. I know that all that emotion, passion, and even anger provoked a war for truth within me, and ll it accelerated a mind that had grown so weary of platitudes and clichés, and the fiery darts of scriptures inappropriately used. Admittedly, I had to work on the leveling out part, but it was a process necessary to free me from a quagmire of trying to please everyone.

I have, still in my possession, a long letter I wrote just about three months after Mike’s death, denouncing all that had troubled me for years about Christendom. I purged my files for about three years, and then with the encouragement from reading Spinoza, stood my ground, and boy, was it painful at first. But, what a nice “now.” Now I understand Christ’s teaching in a different way, and even more than in my most eloquent and passionate moments in Bible School, and have learned more from Spinoza that I ever learned in a pew.

I have always been a rebel; the difference is; now I enjoy it.

Soon, I will reply to your other messages, the last of which will be a beneficial challenge, I am sure. Thank you.

PMT

Godless

01-11-04, 03:00 PM

The virtue of selfishness.

Admittedly, I had to work on the leveling out part, but it was a process necessary to free me from a quagmire of trying to please everyone.

PMT; it seems it took you a while to realize that the only person you need to understand and please is thyself!.

From whatever religious virtues one may follow, the main lesson of life is to "know your self", and the only person that needs any fulfilment and pleasing first is "one self". We are not here to please anyone, nor follows anyone else's mandate, virtues, or morals. When the fore fathers of the US wrote " The Right to the pursuit of happiness" they ment that man has a right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal, individual happiness and to work for his own achievements, as long as one respects the rights of others for their own pursuit.

Religious values contradict these values, they are a collective, which values the life of the collective giving little regard for the individual. Perhaps this is one of the reasons you had such a strugle, if you dug yourself out of a rut, this is good, however religious fixes and devotions are short lived for comfort of tragedies and hardship. But then this is just my opinion ;)

Godless.

Canute

01-12-04, 03:57 AM

PMThorne

There's nothing I can say about your loss. I have not been there. If it happened to me I don't know if I'd cope. But I suppose one has no choice.

Apologies for posting so much. The Spinoza stuff was much for my own benefit. You don't have to comment if it's too much.

One thing. I'm now a little uncomfortable with my argument about Spinoza and God, since this is an academic point for me, but a deeper issue for you. I just want to make it clear that I am not, by arguing that Spinoza's God is not a God with any substance, suggesting a nihilistic view that leaves a vaccuum in which life and death have no meaning, as many atheistic views would have it. In other words I'm not trying to pull the rug out from under your feet. In fact quite the reverse, but I won't try and explain that now.

Canute Says:

You are not as much like my friend as I thought. I had to smile that you analyze even this rather simply-put advice.
I responded as I did because I thought Eric Fromm had not been honest. He attaches the word 'irrational' to 'emotions' throughout, which renders his comment completely empty of content. Of course we should control our irrational emotions. He picked on a straw man, and either simply assumes that emotions are irrational (which is irrational) or does not say anything at all about rational emotions. He argues for reason over irrational emotions, an argument that nobody would argue with.

P. M. Thorne

01-13-04, 03:55 PM

GODLESS OPENS HIS MESSAGE WITH THIS HEADING: “The virtue of selfishness.”

It amazes me how we sometimes just tromp along in the old cow trail. Is it any wonder that we use such a small percentage of our brains! I like to think that we are all in a process, and that we ought to trust one another to find his own way, (unless one is truly unable, for whatever reason). This is what I try to do, and the sum of it is respect.

GODLESS: "We are not here to please anyone…. nor follows anyone else's mandate,.”

This is just as good place a time as any to say that I appreciate your response. Not that I have not heard these things before, but this time my thoughts opened up a bit more, ~the key word here is “please.” Where in any philosophy by any of the great teachers are we told to “please” others? As I wrote above, and as you mentioned, we must respect, but to please is too much of the “good thing,” huh?

We can be so slow to unlearn! Even though I understood, in word, that everything God would have us do is not to put Him in a good mood, but to help us to use a better and more useful way, my inadequate thinking seemed to come off in layers. Also, maybe “thinking” is not the best word. Programming may be better, because so much of my thinking was contradictory to my behavior, and was more a result of my desire to please than about my gut feeling about myself and my purpose on this earth.

We do not always live what we know, but thank God, I have reached this place to a magnificent degree, (though there is more, I know). This is the most comfortable way to be, the most efficient way to be, and the way that serves my purpose best. I think I, and others who have experienced the same struggles, were confounded by the many directives to ignore our desires, in preference to others. I always felt like a rebel anyway, so I did try very hard to not be me, whether it showed or not!

As for following the mandates of others, did seem to always be aware of a need to humble myself, because I am by nature—it seems—a thinker; yet, an obligatory feeling to not leave the loving kindness of humble people, with what seemed like upscale thoughts, or to attempt to rise above them in any way, held me in a place that kept me uncomfortable. Finally, I realized that passing another in thought, did not lift me above them at all, but only made me true to myself, as you mentioned. I now think of different paths, rather than higher and lower, the latter being also a part of my childhood influences.

In retrospect, it was not so much how I thought, though that can always use some improvement, but it was my unwillingness to put it to work lest I hurt someone’s feelings, or offend them in any way. I thought I had it all figured out, but I can see that I was not entirely convinced. Interesting. Separating the word “please” from the act of respecting helps a lot. I still hate to inconvenience anyone—to a fault, I admit. This conclusion being based upon the fact that I go out of my way not to inconvenience even the dog! (Smile) True story!

GODLESS: “Religious values contradict these values, they are a collective, which values the life of the collective giving little regard for the individual. Perhaps this is one of the reasons you had such a strugle, if you dug yourself out of a rut, this is good…..”

I think of it more as being smothered, than a rut, because, as I mentioned before, I was not being true to my own thinking, which was very confusing. I sometimes did not know what to do, without compromising either myself, or “letting down” in some way those humble people who gave me such unworkable directives. They were giants in my life. If it were not for them, I could be void of some good qualities that have served me well, and if not for them, I would most likely have died, literally, at a very young age. To depart from their submissive ways, that actually helped them survive, seemed ungrateful, and like I thought I was better than them.

This desire to make everyone happy carried over into all areas of my life. Those maternal relatives were large in number, and cohesive in patterns. To humble me even more, my own parents were not only apart, but in those early years had little and nothing much to do with my survival. That is, I spent much of early in more homes than I can possibly count, with various and contradictory household rules. One would think that I would have become an expert in pleasing people, but I chose nature, and marveled at its wonders, whenever I could get away. The rest of the time I was often passive in behavior, but inside my head the wheels did turn.

GODLESS: “…….., however religious fixes and devotions are short lived for comfort of tragedies and hardship.”

You are an interesting correspondent, godless. Although, you mention from time to time that you are not a believer . . . (is that right?), yet, when uneducated remarks are made in some general way about believers, you defend their right to believe. I appreciate that sense of fairness and recognize that you have sufficient intelligence to know that people are complicated, and I would just bet that you venture away from absolutes, or not??

Now, let me ask you this: How do you know that “religious fixes and devotions are short lived for comfort of tragedies and hardship?” Actually, I cannot be certain as to what you mean by religious fixes, but have a fairly good idea, and would most likely agree. Devotions, as such, have never interested me. I get really serious about communing, and with me it is more of an attitude than a duty, if if a duty, it would have to be a duty to myself.

This morning as I marveled at all that we can be, and fail to be, I was reminded that it would make so sense to me to believe that this is all there is. God is just as real to me as anything else in this universe, and maybe more so. I cannot even conceive denying His existence. Brother godless, I can honestly say that I have peace in turmoil. Some Christians still need to understand that Jesus taught us a better way to live. If we even touch upon this with a sincere heart, we may then know that the peace is here now! and that it is we who simply fail to put it to use. I can say from more than one experience, that I, increasingly, find that I have joy in sorrow, though took a while to own, I have it. I have a strength that survives even my weakest moments. By “survives,” I am saying that it doesn’t go away and come back, but that it resides there in spite of circumstances. All these good things are mine, and can be owned by anyone who cares to work on their inner resolve. I do not know what the future holds, but in a way it is rather exciting, and I am really looking forward to whatever is beyond this life. In the meantime, I find my treasures in people like you, and people like me (if there are any), and admittedly most especially in my continuing journey through the writings of great teachers, capturing all that I can from these pages left for us. The Spirit that binds us, moves us into places that will serve our purpose, and into people that will teach us.

To lighten things a bit, I might jokingly say that I find enough fiction in non-fiction to do me. ~Smile!

Well this is long. Ha! Teach you to remark about my ignorance, huh? (smile)

Be of good cheer. You add considerably to the quality of these threads.

PMT

P. M. Thorne

01-13-04, 04:07 PM

TO GODLESS: iN THE ABOVE MESSAGE, I WROTE: I cannot be certain as to what you mean by religious fixes..........

For heaven's sake. Dummy me, of course, you were referring to those miserable comforters who tried to apply their own religious notions to my pain. I suppose the reason I did not recognize what you meant immediately, was because in actuality, they were not fixes most of the time, but seemed far more like Gotcha's. Be that as it may, just wanted you to know that I figured it out. Cheers. PMT

P. M. Thorne

01-13-04, 04:28 PM

DO YOU HAVE TO SIGN IN EVERYTIME?

CANUTE^^^^^^^

Canute: “There's nothing I can say about your loss. I have not been there. If it happened to me I don't know if I'd cope. But I suppose one has no choice.”

Thorne: I understand, and maybe I said too much. It was not my intent to make you sad, but it is difficult to talk about such things unemotionally. Forgive me if it upset you.

Canute: Apologies for posting so much. The Spinoza stuff was much for my own benefit. You don't have to comment if it's too much.

Thorne: You did not write too much. Oh, but I do want to respond. You never write too much. I will respond to what I can. How is that? And, thank you for giving me so many comments and unidentified quotes. (Smile, just joking with you.)

Canute: One thing. I'm now a little uncomfortable with my argument about Spinoza and God, since this is an academic point for me, but a deeper issue for you………. I'm not trying to pull the rug out from under your feet.

Thorne: You betcha, it is a deeper issue for me, and I suppose this was what I wanted you to understand. Sometimes people are seeing almost the same things, and it is more the words chosen that confound the issue, than the concept itself.

Naw, you are not pulling the rug out from under my feet, my friend. There is no rug under my feet! (Smile) That is to say, I believe I stand on solid ground. Spinoza did not give me faith in God; Spinoza gave me encouragement, nor did he did not give me the strength of my convictions, I had that. The philosopher made me feel okay with being true to my beliefs, as much outwardly as inwardly, and okay with having an almost indescribable way of looking at things. If I tried to write down exactly how I see things, there would be so many complexities, and seeming contradictions. This is because things are multi-sided, even issues, and yes! Beliefs worth a damn are complex!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Canute: “I responded as I did because I thought Eric Fromm had not been honest. He attaches the word 'irrational' to 'emotions' throughout, which renders his comment completely empty of content. Of course we should control our irrational emotions. He picked on a straw man, and either simply assumes that emotions are irrational (which is irrational) or does not say anything at all about rational emotions. He argues for reason over irrational emotions, an argument that nobody would argue with.”

That sounds so smart, and like most folks, it does to me, because I totally agree. You said it so well. My goodness. Methinks, that you do not think highly of this writer.

See, this one is not so long, but wait until I give you my response on Spinoza. It may be a couple of days though. Even though I often take notes, they are more for me, of course, so I did not make note of where I found so much I thought I could share, because I had the impression you had tired of the matter, but I will find them. I am supposing that you might have been tired, just as I was, but not of the subject, but of the way we were battling. Darn it! You are quite a trooper, and I will keep that in mind, and try not worry so much about what I write, and you too, …do not worry. Deal?

Ask anyone; I am tough!

-PMT (I wrote this yesterday, but wanted to read it again before I sent it. What was that other thread we were sharing? I sent a response some days ago, but now I cannot recall the thread.

Canute

01-13-04, 05:18 PM

PMT

When you sign in it should give you the option of automatically remembering your password.

I don't remember the other thread either. In fact I've joined too many conversations and am getting confused about which is which and who's who.

Sorry about the poor referencing. I couldn't be bothered to retarce my steps when I muddled them up. I can be precise if you want to check any of them.

I don't have anything against Eric Fromm, but as a professional he should know better than to write something like that.

See ya[/QUOTE]

Godless

01-13-04, 10:10 PM

Uh? thanks.

PMT; I am an athiest however this does not mean I don't have a heart!. ;)

My whole family have religions in their lives, my sister and her family are Catholics, my mom a deist, my father was an athiest. Can you imagine how I was brought up? LOL.

Well I'll explain; for the first part of my young child life I was Catholic, mainly cause I'm latino and that is what my mom was into back then. My teens I was not all devoted to any church, but mostly went to Christian churches with friends so that was then, by late teens and early twenties I became a Babtist. It was a twenty two years old, that I left the church and started to explain my self as an atheist. So you can bet I had a very religious upbringing somewhat!. I did not become an athiest over night, blame it on philosophy, psychology, and my interest in learning. History is what changed my mind, and later ancient history as far as anthropology, and the scientific study of evolution.

Everyone one of us have hardship, strugles, and grief for loved ones, atheists are not immune to life's chanlenges, and all of us deal with it one way or the other. Though I don't choose to be religious, however if it conforts someone after a loss, I don't see the harm in it. I don't want to debate with you religion per-se, but humanity. Even an athiest would be welcomed to grieve in a church for a loved one, this is human nature, putting beliefs aside in the moment of personal turmoil and loss. However deppresion can be hard to overcome, and it is hard to be "pleasing" others during these times, or to act accordingly to how they see fit. First lesson in life is to care for one self, even at the moment of griving, turmoil, chalenges, and hardships, whatever means one can acomplish this objective is in "my opinion" aloud, that is if praying, and or religiously attending the church to help yourself, with the confort of others, who sympathies with you. I realise most people are devoted somewhat to a religious denomination, some may wonder how an atheist deals with the problems, grief, loss, hardship, turmoil, and life's chanleges.? I would deal with it "one day at a time"

How do you know that “religious fixes and devotions are short lived for comfort of tragedies and hardship?”

I've lived it, and I've seen in it on others. i.e. Recently as far back as two years ago, "at my age this is recent" LOL. I was in love with a divorced woman she has three children, and an x-hubby that lived in the same town. Well when this dood got to know, me all he wanted was to kick my ass, then something awfull happened, the kids mom, "my x-girlfriend now" was out of town, and her naihbor called me at 6:00AM in the morning on Saturday. The childrens dad had been in accident and was pronounced dead at the scene. Her children wanted to see me, she explained. So I hop in my car drove 45 Miles at apx 100miles an hr. To confort them kids. and start contacting their mother. What hurt me the most, I was the one to tell her that her X-hubby was pronounced dead in an accident and then proceed to tell her the details. I will admit this broke me down, I too was crying in telling her this. Why would I grieve for a person that wanted just to kick my ass and away from his wife and kids?. I'm only human I too have emotions and grieve for the kids loss.

About two hours or so of me been there a preacher arrives, he was from their church, spends about 20min with the kids, and splits, yes they prayed. However the youngest felt uncomfortable, she did not want to talk about it, nor pray and mostly was been depresed. The preacher did not do much to confort her. when he left what I did notice is the kids were more in tune with us adults there, friends of my x-girlfriend, neighbors, there grandmom. After wards a few days latter their mom arrived, first thing that happened is she got into a fight with me!!, because of my atheism, and past life, Too much of a partier. LOL., anyhow she came with picking fights, and I just lefther home and split the scene!.
I realised latters though she was actually forcing them kids to church, though they felt uncomfortable, back then. And she was always wanting to confront the kids to thier loss, they felt uncomfortable to talk about it to her, weird is that they did not feel the same with me. Perhaps they needed someone who was not so mystical. I can't explain it.

Some people get more deppresed going to church after the loss of a loved one, though everyone there is trying to help you cope, the "fix" is that no one can posssibly know how you feel, though they act as if they know what your struggle must be like, they can't be you. And only you are going to lift your spirits and cope, though the help is only temporary! "this is what I meant".

Be of good cheer. You add considerably to the quality of these threads.

Well to this I'm most gracious, thanks.

Godless.

P. M. Thorne

01-13-04, 10:11 PM

Just about sign off for today. I took the check mark out, maybe that will do it; however, would have expected the opposite. I was becoming also at one point, and just quit commenting so much, but I am more inclined to stick with a few than to mingle with many. Been reading some interesting stuff today. Will be sharing a little of it with you and will give you references, just in case you are interested in more. This way my messages will not become tedius reading.

Do you know of Leo Strauss and Errol Harris.
Are you familiar with J. Thomas Cook, and his connection with Amsterdam? Anyway, I have pages and pages of an address (history of Spinoza followers, commentators, etc., that he gave there. Found it last night in one of my files...Then today, I was looking for Harris and ran across this very long commentary about Spinoza meaning or not meaning what he said in just one incident. I could not help but be reminded of Apostle Paul, as translated in The New Jerusalem New Testament (Catholic publication), Paul said, "The more philosophied, the more stupid they became." Paul for a very well educated man. I always laugh when I read that.

Looking forward to further discussions, and will get back with you soon. It is my Happy Birthday, finished another decade. Whoopie. I have several errands and an engagement tomorrow, but will get back with you soon, maybe tomorrow evening. Gotta' go. Cheers, PMT

Have to go. The light is out in this room, and I cannot reach it!

Godless

01-14-04, 05:48 AM

Happy B'day PM, today 1-14-04 is my Mom's B'day so you can't be that bad. :)

Godless.

P. M. Thorne

01-15-04, 03:40 PM

CANUTE:

I am obliged to yet one more celebration this evening, so I must get my mind in tune or that. You know, however, that I would prefer to stick with this, but I am so bad about being sociable, but I do love all my friends, and they mean a lot to me. It is just that once I get involved in something, I really get involved. Further, I am hoping to learn more. Your tenacity and interest in this line of thought has provoked me to much study and research, and I have learned quite a bit from this exercise, and expect to learn much more. It just seems that the more I learn, the stronger my passion to learn more. Found some stuff I disagree with….yes, I disagree quite often with experts (no surprise to you!).

QUOTE:
“Again the modern student will stumble and grumble over the terminology of Spinoza. Writing in Latin, he was compelled to express his essentially modern thought in medieval and scholastic terms, there was no other language of philosophy which would have then been understood. So he uses the term substance where we should write, reality or essence; perfect where we should write complete; ideal for our object; objectively for subjectively, and formally for objectively. These are hurdles in the race, which will deter the weakling but stimulate the strong.

“In short, Spinoza is not to be read, he is to be studied; you must approach him as you approach Euclid, recognizing that in these brief two hundred pages a ma has written down in his lifetime’s thought with stoic sculptury of everything superfluous. Do not think to find its core by running over it rapidly; never in a work of philosophy was there so little that could be skipped without loss. Every part depends upon preceding parts; some obvious and apparently needless proposition turns out to be the cornerstone of an imposing development of logic. You will not understand any important section thoroughly till you have read and pondered the whole; though one need not say, with Jacobi’s enthusiastic exaggeration, that ‘no one has understood Spinoza to whom a single line of The Ethics remains obscure.’ Here, doubtless, says Spinoza, in the second part of this book, ‘the reader will become confused and will recollect many things which will bring him to a standstill; and, therefore, I pray him to proceed gently with me and form no judgment concerning these things until he shall have read all.’ * Read the book not all at once, but in small portions at many sittings. And having finished it, consider that you have but begun to understand it. Read then some commentary, like Pollock’s Spinoza, or Martineu’s Study of Spinoza, better, both. Finally, read ‘The Ethics’ again; it will be a new book to you. When you have finished it a second time you will remain forever a lover of philosophy.” *[Part II, supposition II, note] ~Will Durant … The Story of Philosophy (Spinoza)

[“So he uses the term substance where we should write, reality or essence” … from above] IN CONJUNCTION with the above, I offer the following:

“Harris places Spinoza in the context of his contemporaries, as well as ancient influential philosophers. He offers a nice account of Hegel’s criticisms of Spinoza’s conception of substance with a point-by-point defense in favor of Spinoza. The focus then shifts onto the clues that evidence how the unity of substance becomes diversified into finite modes.” See……Harris, Errol E. “The Concept of Substance in Spinoza and Hegel.” The Substance of Spinoza

The solution which Harris eventually proposes is that “this ‘following from’ is being actively produced, for God is actus purus, and his essence must be conceived dynamically, not statically” (206). A dynamic nature can actually produce. It is a process of self-actualization. Harris describes it as “transition from Natura naturans, the dynamic activity of God, to Natura naturata, the effects or products of that activity”
……………………..
Richie equates substance with God and then examines the implications of their synonymity. The main implication is that all else is not substance, but simply manifestations of the one substance. Substance is carefully distinguished from an individual/material existence (not “God the individual” is, but “being itself” is). In other words substance is pervasive reality and not ‘a substance.’ This is a very early article, but it is helpful because it is so old. It is concerned with fundamental, overarching problems that must always be kept in mind before attempting a detailed analysis……………..Ritchie finally develops an alternate conciliation of the two. He describes all the actual material things in the world (as well as all the psychical phenomena) as “manifestation[s] of existence” (3). All else is not substantive, but manifestive of the one substance. The substance then is “simply completeness of existence…to say that ‘God is,’ is but to assert that ‘being is’” (Ritchie 3). It is not physical reality or psychical reality, but “it is the real itself” (5).
Ritchie, E. “Notes on Spinoza’s Conception of God.”
The Philosophical Review.
………………………….

“Hallett agrees that God or substance “exists or is actual as Natura naturata exhaustively and determinately realizing the infinite, indeterminate potency-in-act that is Natura naturans” (144). In other words, attributes and modes are the realizations of substance.”
>> I cannot give you the source of this at this time. Oops! However, all the above, following Durant’s comments came from: Spinoza on Substance, Anna
Swartz, Annotated Bibliography, the latter commentator whom she quotes is
H. F. Hallet.
.……………………..

You will note that I concentrated on “substance/reality” thinking that it would be simpler not to attempt covering so many things in one message. Therefore, rather than adding much to the quotes, I will take my leave. (ha, ha) Later, ……PMT

Canute

01-15-04, 06:43 PM

I can't follow all that, and I don't agree with it all.

What would be useful is some extracts from Spinoza that contradict my interpretation of him above directly. I find it hard to see where the above as an argument against it.

Btw - No offence to Will Durrant but I point blank refuse to start redefining Spinoza's terms in any other way than he defined him. The result will be chaos and confusion. Let's accept that the guy knew his own argument a lot better than we do. We have to interpret his terms, but we should never depart from his defintions.

The danger of doing this is that we will redefine 'substance' as meaning 'reality', which would be fatal to Spinoza's argument.

You say "The solution that Harris eventually proposes..." The solution to what exactly?
Canute

P. M. Thorne

01-16-04, 02:28 PM

Hello again,

GODLESS WROTE: “PMT; I am an athiest however this does not mean I don't have a heart!. ”

I have no doubt!

GODLESS: “I did not become an athiest over night, blame it on philosophy, psychology, and my interest in learning. History is what changed my mind, and later ancient history as far as anthropology, and the scientific study of evolution.”

As with many. I too love history and philosophy, and much of what I read was written long ago. However, I have more to say. So, guess I will say it. Yep, that is what I am going to do! Here goes:

Having spent so much of my life studying human behavior, I have learned a few things, in spite of myself. (Smile) One is that most people who come from a “Christian-type belief” of superstition and heavy dogma, tend to—when the light of reason blinds their eyes—toss out everything to do with Christianity, and, going forward, they assume that all of Christianity is as superstitious and ignorant as they once had been.

Wow! Are you annoyed with me, or what? Well, before you conclude that I am a specious and supercilious ass, please know, with whatever else you might think, that I spoke as I did only because I have seen and heard much to leave me with this deduction. It is an attitude that comes in waves of generalizations often accompanied with immense passion, and sometimes a kind of hatred (for having been deceived, and/or hurt, perhaps). The fact that—at least from my point of vision—these converts confuse, or erroneously affix any belief in my God and Creator, with superstition and naivety, or just plain stupidity is a bit insulting to me, and an offence to all the good God has provided for us all. Yet, no more offensive than the way much of Christianity has convoluted the good new Christ brought to this earth.

For whatever reason, what church-going folks have to say, have said, or will say, to trouble my heart, or disturb my sense of reasoning, affects not, (and never will), my relationship with my God.

Here is what I presume: I presume that because I believed in God, before the churches had a chance to get “to me” so to speak, and because I walked with God through nature and love and hope, my faith remained in spite of some real insults from the self-declared pious. My mother married the preacher in my seventh year on this earth. I could have written a book then. Hungry for kindness, stability, and feeling safe, I had opened my heart to a little church where they met. It was a church I was attending with my foster parents at the time. The pastors there were so sweet to me.

I quickly learned: People are people. If we are to be wise, we must avoid putting folks on pedestals and then stomping and cursing them when they fall off. We need to take some responsibility for our expectations.

I am not, and have not been easily impressed since age seven. I have only two heroes, and both came in adulthood. One is Spinoza and the other is a Finnish singer. What I find in common with these two remarkable fellows is their simplicity. It is refreshing to the soul. The interesting thing about these two is that, although, they remind me of Christ, insomuch as they show evidence of living a life much like Christ taught, the pious of that day or this, would never vote for them. The Finnish singer is employed as a drummer in a western band in Finland. I have never heard a more natural, gentle, kind delivery than his, (who has no classical training). His brother, whom I know has had classical training, and other than that being obvious, he too has a rather natural way of using his many talents. They did a CD together, and listening to it puts me in a place of quiet meditation or prayer. I find the music rather therapeutic, and most of my friends, who have heard it, agree.

These I have mentioned are ministers, but these are not the only ones. The truth is, we all are, whether we wish to be or not.

It surely seems to me that one of our biggest hurdles as sons of God, is in understanding that it has all been done. Accepting this, somehow joins me in some way to Spinoza, because I scarcely believe in miracles. I believe rather that our delight should be knowledge, wisdom and rightness, because what seems like miracles to those looking for them, is often just a matter of misunderstanding, or having mentally limited what is already ours just for the taking. I have heard folks sneer about “peace on earth.” Where is the peace they ask? Yet the words that such sayers forsook, say that the kingdom of God is within us. The prayer, “Thy Kingdom come,” then sounds a bit like some work needs to be done within each of us, does it not?

You may not appreciate my saying this, but dear heart, you are NOT Godless! Naw. All good things come from God, and you spoke well of this, when you said that you are not heartless. Of course, you sorrowed when those children lost their father, because you too are human as was he, and as they are. We humans have much in common. In that way, you showed forgiveness. Remember what Jesus said, “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.” After having read that so many times, one day it simply came to mind and hit me like a rush of air, and right then, it became mine!

People say what they say and do what they do, more because of whom they are than because of who I am. Not that they should not know if they have offended, and not that I do not make this known, if I feel it is really necessary, but I try to do it in a way as painless as possible. Regardless, I forgive. As I grew up, it had become considerably more difficult to forgive, until I owned those words.

I wanted to answer you, because you seemed so human and real and surely reminded me of a son of God. Nonetheless, and I mean this truly, if you feel more comfortable right now being called an Atheist, I understand. I do. Nonetheless, do believe me my friend: When you finally tire of the “I’m okay” labels, you will then be free to fly like a bird!

And, no, …..I do not attend any church regularly. In fact, I seldom see the inside of one. In addition, I do not take everything in the Bible literally. Moreover, I recognize that God has other Children.

My best to you. ~ PMT

P. M. Thorne

01-16-04, 07:49 PM

In post #1833, CANUTE WROTE: “Thanks to our disagreement I have spent a bit of time getting to know Spinoza better.”

That is just so cool.

MORE FROM CANUTE: I’m grateful to you for making me defend my position, since I’ve found Spinoza to be even more brilliant than I thought he was, and I already thought he was brilliant.

More good news, says I. Whether we ever agree on anything, I want you to think for yourself. Now, whereas you did not give a rat’s tail what I want, I do. Smile, and I am happy that you are “getting to know Spinoza better,” and that you find something in his writings, or anyone’s writings that means something to you. These types of incidents are inspiring and tend to kindle, or re-kindle one’s desire to learn.

CANUTE: Spinoza claimed that bodies as an attribute of Extension and minds as attribute of Thought were two ways of perceiving one thing, i.e. Substance. They were intricately woven together but distinct.

I would not take issue with what I think you mean by that.

CANUTE: This is fairly equivalent to the Buddhist teaching that mind and body are aspects of the emptiness that lies at the heart of all things.

I could not remain sincere and real if I tried to agree or disagree with that. It seems that one would need more background in Buddhism than I have to grasp just what that means.

CANUTE: For Spinoza Thought and Extension are attributes of God, the only ‘real’ substance. They are therefore not the essence of God. God is therefore neither Thought nor Extension, but whatever it is that has these attributes. The same applies to all other attributes that God may have.

This statement seems correct.

CANUTE: To put it another way. Spinoza asserts that only one substance exists. Thought and Extension are two aspects of this substance, and therefore neither of these things can be that substance.

“Two attributes” I can accept, but “aspects” is a bit of a different statement.

CANUTE: Therefore although God has infinite attributes, and has each of them infinitely, these are aspects only, the essence of God is beyond all attributes. (This is the well known philosophical ‘problem of attributes’ in disguise – what is left of an object when all its external attributes are removed?)

Here again, if you are attempting to use “aspect” as being a synonym for attribute, it does not really work. I quote once again: “Thought is an attribute of God, or God is a thinking thing.” … Extension is an attribute of God, or God is an extended thing.” And, “The actual being of ideas owns God as its cause, on in so far as he is considered as a thinking thing, not in so far as he is unfolded in any other attribute; that is, the ideas both of the attributes of God and of particular things do not own as their efficient cause their objects (ideate) or the things perceived, but God himself in so far as he is a thinking thing.” Spinoza

CANUTE: “God is one, that is, only one substance can be granted in the universe. [I.14]”

Yes, this is Spinoza’s apparent belief.

CANUTE: Alternatively, as Thought and Extension are the two fundamental attributes of all that we know to exist (or rather all that exists are attributes of these two things) then Spinoza’s God, in a particular sense, does not exist.

I see not sound reasoning here. “all that exists are attributes of these two things” What two things? As you say below, this (U-turn) makes no sense.

CANUTE: This seems illogical, since Spinoza argues that God does exist. The solution is to analyse what ‘exist’ really means whenever the term is used. I believe that on this issue, God’s existence, Spinoza was careful not to take his argument to its logical conclusion.

How am I to consider your apparent offence with Durant’s explanation of certain terms, when he was most likely but comparing Latin terms with English terms, if I am now expected to blindly accept what YOU, or someone whom you are reading, decide what Spinoza “really meant” when he used the term “exist.”

CANUTE: For Spinoza God was singular in all respects, without dual properties. Thus God’s existence is absolute, not relative. As all other things that exist have only a relative existence God does not exist in the same sense as other things that exist.

Yes, I agree, and I am familiar with your Spinoza, and do agree with much of what you say, but I still feel that you are on guard, like almost fearful that you might be proven wrong. Can you not understand that it is not my idea or my goal to prove anyone wrong? However, as I have before stated, when someone says that “anything can be proven with quotes from Spinoza,” that rather gives me a headache, or an ache somewhere.

CANUTE: This could come straight from Advaita Vedanta. To know the truth is to affirm it, to be it, to live it. To know the truth is to KNOW it. If we know something then we believe it utterly, and it is thus certain to be affirmed by our actions and words.

Bless your heart. As I read this, I could harmony in the meaning that lies therein. Of all things, this is what I admire most in anyone. We do not always use all we know, of course; however, the reason we do not, is because we do not know it well enough. Because to truly know is what I call owning knowledge, or making some knowledge our own. When a truth becomes ours, we are then blessed with increased intuition, which Spinoza calls the highest form of knowledge. (Not a very good quote, but it will have to do for now.)

CANUTE QUOTES: “Having so far discussed what God is, we shall say but a word, as it were, about his attributes: that those which are known to us consist of two only, namely, Thought and Extension; for here we speak only of attributes which might be called the proper attributes of God, through which we come to know him [as he is] in himself, and not [merely] as he acts [towards things] outside himself. All else, then, that men ascribe to God beyond these two attributes, all that (if it otherwise pertains to him) must be either an extraneous denomination, such as that he exists through himself, is Eternal, One, Immutable, &c., or, I say, has reference to his activity, such as that he is a cause, predestines, and rules all things: all which are properties of God, but give us no information as to what he is.”

You quote this; therefore, I presume that you read it.

CANUTE: This is not a tidy argument, just a review of some of the ideas involved. But it may explain where I’m coming from.

I think that was great. We have a bit of a different slant. It seems that we can read the same words and yet disagree, and I think this is okay. Your meanings give me new insight, because I am a learner first and foremost. We learn the most when we occupy our time with others who are learning. It is when one decides to be the teacher that problems may arise; therefore, any teaching that comes FROM us, comes best when it is the learner that made us the teacher.

Thank you so much for sharing. You worked hard on that as do I, and isn’t it fun?

Now, I will attempt to explain myself on my last submission, which, I am afraid, you misunderstood entirely. PMT

P. M. Thorne

01-16-04, 08:06 PM

Canute.............writes:I can't follow all that, and I don't agree with it all.
and......................he writes:
Btw - No offence to Will Durrant but I point blank refuse to start redefining Spinoza's terms in any other way than he defined him. [this does not ring very true in light of other statements you have made] The result will be chaos and confusion. [No, no. He is trying to avoid confusion, says he.]Let's accept that the guy knew his own argument a lot better than we do. We have to interpret his terms, but we should never depart from his defintions.

The danger of doing this is that we will redefine 'substance' as meaning 'reality', which would be fatal to Spinoza's argument. [Not at all, if I say I do not get the substance of what you are saying....or if I say "that was the substance of what he was saying," then knowing that in Latin, the word substance must be translated reality for clear understanding does not seem so strange. But, please back up with me, okay?]

If you will recall, I said that I had been doing some reading. The reading to which I referred, was just for me in the beginning. Then I wanted to follow up on Durants statements as quoted, to which you objected, because at first, it seemed very stange indeed. This was when I took advantage of some other information, which I also gave to you in quotes. Those last quotes were from a source which I noted at the end of them. Did you not see that?

CANURE WRITES: You say "The solution that Harris eventually proposes..." The solution to what exactly? [I did not say! The source for the quotes said......and "the solution" had to do with the paragraph above. All of these mentioned that "substance" meant reality, or referred to it in some way.

I am doing this on-line, and not in Word as I usually do; therefore, I cannot see everything at once here, but I hope this helps, and insofar as this not applying to your argument. It was not intended to. I just wanted to share. :mad:

Now, is that better! :cool:

Take care.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Canute : Yesterday at 04:48 PM.

P. M. Thorne

01-16-04, 08:08 PM

Canute: please ignore the line at the bottom. I pasted your whole message, and neglected to delete that last line before I submitting my responses. pmt

Canute

01-17-04, 06:30 AM

PMT

Just a couple of points.

I see no difference between an attribute and an aspect. If I'm wrong you'll have to explain why.

Good point about my redefinition of 'exists'. However this a subtle issue. There are contradictions in Spinoza in certain readings. Your extract suggested getting around this, if I remember right, by playing with definitions and then arriving at the idea of a dynamic God. However I haven't come across any passge where Spinoza suggests a dynamic God. By accepting that 'exist' is an ambiguous concept the contradictions are overcome without having to alter Spinoza's arguments in this way.

The trouble with 'reality' as a synonym for substance is that people use the term 'reality' in different ways, and Spinoza, because he doesn't use this word, has no chance to clarify how it should be used.

It's true that Spinoza argued that there is just one substance and that this is all there is, and that it follows from this that 'reality' can stand in for substance. But these days many people take 'reality' to be the physical or phenomemenal world, and no more than that. I therefore feel that it is dangerous to say that substance equals reality, it's true by one way of looking, false by another, and it may lead to misunderstandings.

Hence my focus on the word 'exist'. It has two meanings. This allows the (apparent) contradictions is Spinoza's writings to be resolved. By one meaning (scientific) it refers only to thought and extension, by another (metaphysical) it includes something that is neither thought nor extension (i.e. substance). Confusion arises if Spinoza is read using exclusively the first definition. (I say all this tentatively).

Therefore (this is the heart of the matter) if we take 'exist' in its scientific sense then Spinoza's God does not exist. However if we take 'exist' in a more metaphysically inclusive sense (as Spinoza does) then his God does exist. (This is why I have been arguing that his God both does and does not exist).

Regards
Canute

P. M. Thorne

01-27-04, 09:11 PM

TO CANUTE:

Well, now I know why I heard no more from you; I failed to respond to your last message. My apologies, and my response:

YOU…..”I see no difference between an attribute and an aspect. If I'm wrong you'll have to explain why.”

Hmm, before I expressed my concern, I did take the time to check one of my dictionaries and my most recent and most complete thesaurus, because I believed that these were not synonymous. I did not find “aspect” with attributes, nor did I find “attributes” with aspects. I was not meaning to be picky, but having been a writer for years, I do notice words, and you had expressed a concern of your own about not using different terms than the writer.

Now, for meanings:

>Aspect [looks] Syn. countenance, face, features, (see appearance)

\view: i.e., sight, panorama, prospect, outlook, scene, scenery, landscape, eyesore, blemish, site for sore eyes., etc.
\external appearance; i.e., demeanor, look, outward form or appearance, superficies, surface, form, shape, format, dimensions, outline, contour, silhouette, etc.
conduct, behavior, deportment, personal bearing, carriage, posture, mental attitude, outlook, mood, opinion, tone of voice, delivery, motion, etc.
\design; i.e., mode, style, structure, set, mold, light, appearance, tendency, convention, protocol, form;
\situation; i.e., position, orientation, direction bearings, latitude, longitude, side, frontage, altitude, topography, geography, location, site, setting, place, spot, setting, seat, venue, scene, scenery, locale, locality;
\appearance; i.e., surface appearance, outward appearance, outwardness, superficies, superficiality or superficialness, apparentness, seemingness, mien, impression, image public persona, outer face, façade, guise, appearances, externals, superficialities.
\nature; i.e., health, fitness, expression, demeanor, physic, anatomy, mesomorph, posture, stance, etc.
\viewpoint; i.e., standpoint, stand, view, impression, slant, bias, premise, theory.
\state; ranking, place, posture, footing, walk of life, class, echelon, etc.
\component; i.e., appendage, organ, feeler, facet, factor, workings, mechanism,
innards, guts, insides, etc.

>Attribute: Syn. pecularity, quality, trait, (see characteristic).

\ability; i.e., facility, faculty, capability, capacity, quality, mastery, tendency, endowment, natural power, innate ability, talent, skill, genius, flair, gift, know-how, etc.
\be grateful; i.e., be thankful for small mercies, appreciate, be obliged to or indebted, feel or have an obligation; express gratitude, thank, say thank you, extend gratitude or thanks, acknowledge, recognize, credit, give credit to, show gratitude, praise, applaud, give a hand, pay tribute, etc.

\property; (has to do with real estate)
\nature; i.e., nature of the beast, make up, quality, type, mold, pattern, etc.

NOTE: This “nature” is not listed in the same section as the one above for aspect, but do give some similarities, and this would be as close as I could come to connecting the words, but to no consequence, as the above has more to do with the anatomy, rather than one’s “nature.” \special feature; i.e., distinctive feature, singularity, quality, hallmark, trademark,
claim to fame, etc.

References:
The American College Dictionary
Webster’s New World Thesaurus
Bartlett’s Roget’s Thesaurus.

Well, that was quite an assignment. I would go to all that trouble for only a few people. Good thing you like Spinoza!

CANNUTE: by playing with definitions and then arriving at the idea of a dynamic God.

Be definite, if you are going to be accusing me of playing with definitions. All I did was quote someone more learned than both of us put together.

CANNUTE: The trouble with 'reality' as a synonym for substance is that people use the term 'reality' in different ways, and Spinoza, because he doesn't use this word, has no chance to clarify how it should be used.

The man wrote his Works in Latin, so how do you know what words he used? You know very well that translations from such old language needs some scrutiny, and that is why I gave you the quotes of the other commentators as well, so that you or I, (as I did not comprehend either), would not think Durant was trying to be unique, so to speak).

Following by_________________________________________ Anna Swartz Richie equates substance with God and then examines the implications of their synonymity. The main implication is that all else is not substance, but simply manifestations of the one substance. Substance is carefully distinguished from an individual/material existence (not “God the individual” is, but “being itself” is). In other words substance is pervasive reality and not ‘a substance.’ This is a very early article, but it is helpful because it is so old. It is concerned with fundamental, overarching problems that must always be kept in mind before attempting a detailed analysis.
Ritchie finally develops an alternate conciliation of the two. He describes all the actual material things in the world (as well as all the psychical phenomena) as “manifestation[s] of existence” (3). All else is not substantive, but manifestive of the one substance. The substance then is “simply completeness of existence…to say that ‘God is,’ is but to assert that ‘being is’” (Ritchie 3). It is not physical reality or psychical reality, but “it is the real itself” (5).

quoted from: Ritchie, E. “Notes on Spinoza’s Conception of God.” The Philosophical Review. 11.1 (1902): 1-15.
__________________________________________________ _______________
I thought that was interesting, and went along with Durant’s comments about those few words. None of this came directly from my mind, but thank you for the compliment. In addition, the words, “dynamic nature” came from Errol E. Harris, not from me. He wrote two books. I can give the names if you like. Okie dokie? We can discuss what these good people say, understanding, of course, that these statements are from some of “those experts”. ………………………………………………..

CANNUTE: It's true that Spinoza argued that there is just one substance and that this is all there is, and that it follows from this that 'reality' can stand in for substance. But these days many people take 'reality' to be the physical or phenomemenal world, and no more than that. I therefore feel that it is dangerous to say that substance equals reality, it's true by one way of looking, false by another, and it may lead to misunderstandings.

In my opinion that is an acceptable concern; however, if it should have been reality, such as the substance of ones statement, or the “reality of his statement, then a deceptive word was used. I do not know! Therefore, I protest only insomuch as I am hoping that you will not simply brush off statements from “experts,” whom you suddenly seem to doubt, and that is good, one thing that I really like about you, but I did hope that you would be sufficiently objective until we could possibly find out more about it. Let me give you this quote from Elwes, and see what you think about it.

This is a footnote in his introduction:

“A translator has special opportunities for observing the extent of Spinoza’s knowledge of Latin. His sentences are grammatical and his meaning almost always clear. But his vocabulary is restricted; his style is wanting in flexibility, and seldom idiomatic; in fact the niceties of scholarship are wanting. He reminds me of a clever workman who accomplishes much with simple tools.”
It put me in mind of Aristotle’s experiments, inasmuch as he did such wonders with such simple means, and was so resourceful being without the niceties of a decent laboratory.

CANNUTE: Hence my focus on the word 'exist'. It has two meanings. This allows the (apparent) contradictions is Spinoza's writings to be resolved. By one meaning (scientific) it refers only to thought and extension, by another (metaphysical) it includes something that is neither thought nor extension (i.e. substance). Confusion arises if Spinoza is read using exclusively the first definition. (I say all this tentatively).

Therefore (this is the heart of the matter) if we take 'exist' in its scientific sense then Spinoza's God does not exist. However if we take 'exist' in a more metaphysically inclusive sense (as Spinoza does) then his God does exist. (This is why I have been arguing that his God both does and does not exist).

Okay, give me some more time to think about this.

Elwes says toward the end of his introduction: "Whatever my own shortcomings, I have never consciously eluded a difficulty by a paraphrase. Clearness has throughout been aimed at in preference to elegance. Though the precise meaning of some of the philosophical terms (e.g. idea) varies in different passages, I have, as far as possible, given a uniform rendering, not venturing to attempt greater subtlety than I found…………. “

I look forward to hearing more from you on this, if you are still interesting in talking about it. :)

Best regards, PMT

P. M. Thorne

01-27-04, 09:14 PM

Gosh! I did not do so well trying to use the sizes, did I? So sorry! I had it very nice on Word, but all the exceptions failed to transfer. Oh well, live and learn!

Canute

01-28-04, 04:46 AM

TO CANUTE:
Well, that was quite an assignment. I would go to all that trouble for only a few people. Good thing you like Spinoza!
I appreciate the effort you went to. From those definitions I would still argue that attribute and aspect are interchangeable terms when talking about 'reality' (God for instance).

This is how I see it. We observe, perceive, define and conceive of things in terms of their aspects. We have no choice for we cannot know the essence of things (the noumenal). These aspects are all we can observe or know of things. This is taking 'aspect' as 'external appearance' as per your quoted definition. ("syn: countenance, face, features, (see appearance)". Hence 'the world of appearances'.

Thus the only way we know of things is by their appearance, by their aspects. In this case if we observe (or deduce) that a thing has a particular attribute we can only know this because this attribute is an aspect of the thing. If it wasn't we couldn't know about it.

(This doesn't quite work when it comes to our own consciousness, but I'm leaving that to one side for now).

If we say that a thing has a certain attribute (the ability to fly for instance) then we can only say this because the ability to fly is one of its observed aspects. If God has infinite attributes then He has infinite aspects and vice versa.

Hmm. This is difficult to pin down. Another way at it might be to say that as all we can know of reality is its aspects (appearances) then attributes must be aspects. In some contexts they mean different things (partly for grammatical reasons) but in philosophical terms they seem to mean the same thing to me.

Be definite, if you are going to be accusing me of playing with definitions. All I did was quote someone more learned than both of us put together.
If I want to insult you I'll do a much better job than that. :p I was criticising the person you quoted, pointing out what I felt was faulty reasoning, not accusing you of anything, honest.

"The man wrote his Works in Latin, so how do you know what words he used? You know very well that translations from such old language needs some scrutiny, and that is why I gave you the quotes of the other commentators as well, so that you or I, (as I did not comprehend either), would not think Durant was trying to be unique, so to speak).
Ok. What I should have said was that I have never seen a translation of Spinoza that uses the term 'reality' instead of 'substance'.

Anna Swartz - "Richie equates substance with God and then examines the implications of their synonymity. The main implication is that all else is not substance, but simply manifestations of the one substance. Substance is carefully distinguished from an individual/material existence (not “God the individual” is, but “being itself” is). In other words substance is pervasive reality and not ‘a substance.’ This is a very early article, but it is helpful because it is so old. It is concerned with fundamental, overarching problems that must always be kept in mind before attempting a detailed analysis."
Brilliant quote. This is the issue in a nutshell. A substance is not a substance, the world is not substance but is just appearances, substance has no individual/material existence yet it exists, substance is Being but Being is not substance. Being exists yet it doesn't. God exists yet he doesn't. The contradictions are there for the same reasons they are there in Buddhist writings. Spinoza knocks spots off most other analytic philosophers. He understood the issue of self-reference, and was a prophet of logical positivism, in which all assertions about reality evaporate in self-reference.

I'd be happy narrowing our discussion down to the unpacking of this one quote. (I haven't commented on the second half because it seems less clear. Is Ritchie's paper online somewhere?)

... I protest only insomuch as I am hoping that you will not simply brush off statements from “experts,” whom you suddenly seem to doubt, and that is good, one thing that I really like about you, but I did hope that you would be sufficiently objective until we could possibly find out more about it.
I hope I wasn't being unobjective. I just felt that in this case the expert was wrong.

“A translator has special opportunities for observing the extent of Spinoza’s knowledge of Latin. His sentences are grammatical and his meaning almost always clear. But his vocabulary is restricted; his style is wanting in flexibility, and seldom idiomatic; in fact the niceties of scholarship are wanting. He reminds me of a clever workman who accomplishes much with simple tools.”[/SIZE]
I don't know the latin so couldn't comment. All I can say is that I find the translations of Spinoza perfectly adequate as an expression of his meaning. I rather object to this criticism of his writing. I'd want to be sure it's writer fully understood what Spinoza was saying before accepting it as true. What Spinoza was trying to say (imho) is very nearly unsayable, so he did a pretty good job.

It put me in mind of Aristotle’s experiments, inasmuch as he did such wonders with such simple means, and was so resourceful being without the niceties of a decent laboratory.
Hmm, I don't know. Imo Aristotle had all the means he needed, and more than most.

Elwes says toward the end of his introduction: "Whatever my own shortcomings, I have never consciously eluded a difficulty by a paraphrase. Clearness has throughout been aimed at in preference to elegance. Though the precise meaning of some of the philosophical terms (e.g. idea) varies in different passages, I have, as far as possible, given a uniform rendering, not venturing to attempt greater subtlety than I found…………. “
That's well put. The variation in meaning of Spinoza's terms mentioned here is what I was arguing applies to his use of the term 'exists'.

I look forward to hearing more from you on this, if you are still interesting in talking about it.
Of course. But perhaps we ought to narrow the discussion a bit. Is our main disagreement over whether Spinoza asserted that God exists? That how it seems to me. If so how about taking Ritchie's first quote above as a starting point.

Regards
Canute

P. M. Thorne

02-01-04, 06:03 PM

Here 'ya go.............whew...

CANUTE WRITES: “I appreciate the effort you went to. From those definitions I would still argue that attribute and aspect are interchangeable terms when talking about 'reality' (God for instance).”

You know what? I think you have your mind set and immovable. All I was doing was validating my point, and as I said, nowhere in the dictionary or two Thesauruses’ did I find those two words interchangeable. Methinks you are a turkey! But then, if you truly appreciate my efforts, which you are kind enough to note, then I must acknowledge your good manners.
.....
CANNUTE: This is how I see it. We observe, perceive, define and conceive of things in terms of their aspects. We have no choice for we cannot know the essence of things (the noumenal). These aspects are all we can observe or know of things. This is taking 'aspect' as 'external appearance' as per your quoted definition. ("syn: countenance, face, features, (see appearance)". Hence 'the world of appearances'.

Fine, but this does not give you a license to replace “attribute” with “aspect.”
.......
CANUTE: Thus the only way we know of things is by their appearance, by their aspects. In this case, if we observe (or deduce) that a thing has a particular attribute we can only know this because this attribute is an aspect of the thing. If it wasn't we couldn't know about it.

I disagree, and would really like for you to reconsider your take on this.
.......
CANUTE: (This doesn't quite work when it comes to our own consciousness, but I'm leaving that to one side for now).

An exception……hmm, is this a good sign (of some flexibility)? Nonetheless, I am not quite sure what you mean by this last statement, and because of this, I cannot know whether it works, -especially considering that I did not perceive that it worked at all.
.......
CANNUTE: If we say that a thing has a certain attribute (the ability to fly for instance) then we can only say this because the ability to fly is one of its observed aspects. If God has infinite attributes then He has infinite aspects and vice versa.

Are you really sure that you have given this matter credible consideration? “Capabilities” and “know-how” (attributes) are easily noted.

Where do you get that "aspects" equals essence? I am without evidence that aspect means essence. ……..One is more physical and the other (essence) is like an idea; that is, something we may notice but cannot describe physically, as we could with features or appearances. Is this not so?
..........
CANNUTE: Hmm. This is difficult to pin down. Another way at it might be to say that as all we can know of reality is its aspects (appearances) then attributes must be aspects. CANUTE: In some contexts, they mean different things (partly for grammatical reasons) but in philosophical terms they seem to mean the same thing to me.

Pardon my saying so, but that is ridiculous. Is wind not reality? Can we describe its looks? Is passion not reality? Can we put a face on it. Is poison gas not reality? Can we see it hovering in a room? not usually. And what about sympathy, or fear, or love, or other feelings that we hide; are these not reality? A quality is something I may perceive, but another may not; but an aspect….say a very large nose, may quickly be observed by anyone. Attributes are characteristics, not appearances, according to all I know about it.
.............
CANUTE: If I want to insult you I'll do a much better job than that. I was criticising the person you quoted, pointing out what I felt was faulty reasoning, not accusing you of anything, honest.

Now, there is an attribute I like, ~your humor. How would I draw that? One thing I have always liked about Brits is their humor and their cookies. I have never liked those really sweet cookies. I find them rather sickening. Even when I was little, if I saw cookies with a lot of decoration, I knew they would not be as good as say a raisin oatmeal cookie. One could say that I often judge food by its appearances, but I can truly determine the quality only through the experience of taste.
>>>>>
CANUTE: Ok. What I should have said was that I have never seen a translation of Spinoza that uses the term 'reality' instead of 'substance'.
Well put. I am right beside you on this one. When first I read that comment of Durant’s, it rather confused me. However, it was not substance and reality that confounded me. I see those as compatible, even in English. Rather, it was subjectivity and objectivity. Notwithstanding, knowing that he is/was a great historian, I believed that he had done much research before making such a statement, which he offered not as an opinion. (I do not always agree with Durant on opinion, but I have thus far found no fault with his facts.)

Anyway, I sent those commentaries by Richie and Harris, to indicate to you that Durant is not alone in this. Since those commentaries, I think I have found the Latin word for substance, vinculum substantiale. I do not know whether you are still in school, but if you have access to a Latin dictionary, perhaps you could shed some light on this from a layman’s perspective. I am interested in other commentaries about substance and reality, and have found some, but they have so much more that is covered. I need more time to get them into my head before I try to quote them. Therefore, I will continue my research as well, as time permits.
......
CANUTE: Brilliant quote. This is the issue in a nutshell. A substance is not a substance, the world is not substance but is just appearances, substance has no individual/material existence yet it exists, substance is Being but Being is not substance. Being exists yet it doesn't. God exists yet he doesn't. The contradictions are there for the same reasons they are there in Buddhist writings. Spinoza knocks spots off most other analytic philosophers. He understood the issue of self-reference, and was a prophet of logical positivism, in which all assertions about reality evaporate in self-reference.
Or, how about this: “Substance does not mean material matter, but reality.” Spinoza mentions this in one of his letters, I think. Once before I tried to find it and could not, only to come across it later. Now, I find myself again in a state of ignorance as to where it is. Wherever it is, apparently, it is not in a letter to Oldenberg, but I would not even swear to that. Dare I try to paraphrase? I think not.

“Substance is carefully distinguished from an individual/material existence. ……..In other words substance is pervasive reality and not ‘a substance.” [from Richie]

To me, this simply means what it says, that Spinoza’s use of the word substance, is not to be interpreted, material (matter), but means a pervasive reality. Was this not my point all along? Pervasive reality equals “permeate, dominant, extend its presence, omnipresent, universal……..”
............................................
CANUTE: I don't know the latin so couldn't comment. All I can say is that I find the translations of Spinoza perfectly adequate as an expression of his meaning. I rather object to this criticism of his writing. I'd want to be sure it's writer fully understood what Spinoza was saying before accepting it as true. What Spinoza was trying to say (imho) is very nearly unsayable, so he did a pretty good job.

Interesting, and respectful, response.
................
CANUTE: Hmm, I don't know. Imo Aristotle had all the means he needed, and more than most.

All the means he needed, huh? “He was compelled to fix time without a watch, to compare degrees of heat without a thermometer, to observe the heavens without a telescope, and the weather without a barometer. . . .Of all our mathematical, optical and physical instruments, he possessed only the rule and the compass, together with the most imperfect substitutes of some few others. Chemical analysis, correct measurements and weights, and a thorough application of mathematics to physics, were unknown. The attractive force of matter, the law of gravitation, electrical phenomena, the conditions of chemical combination, pressure of air and its effects, the nature of light, heat, combustion, etc., in short, all the facts on which the physical theories of modern science are based were wholly, or almost wholly, undiscovered.” [Grant, Aristotle, Edinburgh 1877, pg. 18]

Aristotle is sometimes given more credit than he deserves…for being accurate, but less than he deserves for all he accomplished, and he did provide a jump start for others, and yet he was not always accurate with his philosophical and other deductions. Example: (thought not a direct quote) “women are but unfinished men.” (Even so, one with knowledge regarding the anatomy can understand why he made such a statement; nonetheless, to hear such a thing now makes the statement sound totally absurd.)
...........
CANUTE: “That's well put. The variation in meaning of Spinoza's terms mentioned here is what I was arguing applies to his use of the term 'exists'.”

If this is what Elwes was saying. Spinoza did not write in English; therefore, if the word idea is different in different passages, was this because of the translation, or the Latin term? Elwes did say that he gave it a uniform rendering; therefore, I am not clear on his exact meaning.
............
CANUTE: Of course. But perhaps we ought to narrow the discussion a bit. Is our main disagreement over whether Spinoza asserted that God exists? That how it seems to me. If so how about taking Ritchie's first quote above as a starting point.

Have we disagreed on only one thing? :p It is your turn, so sik ‘em. PMT

Canute

02-02-04, 05:42 AM

[quote]You know what? I think you have your mind set and immovable. You make this comment before I finish making my case, which seems a bit unfair, and I hadn't noticed that your mind was particularly movable on this point.

All I was doing was validating my point, and as I said, nowhere in the dictionary or two Thesauruses’ did I find those two words interchangeable.
I know - but I was disgreeing.

Methinks you are a turkey!
Nope, you're better at guessing nationalities than species.

CANUTE: This is how I see it. We observe, perceive, define and conceive of things in terms of their aspects. We have no choice for we cannot know the essence of things (the noumenal). These aspects are all we can observe or know of things. This is taking 'aspect' as 'external appearance' as per your quoted definition. ("syn: countenance, face, features, (see appearance)". Hence 'the world of appearances'.

Fine, but this does not give you a license to replace “attribute” with “aspect.”
You're right - but I hadn't finished making my case.

CANUTE: Thus the only way we know of things is by their appearance, by their aspects. In this case, if we observe (or deduce) that a thing has a particular attribute we can only know this because this attribute is an aspect of the thing. If it wasn't we couldn't know about it.

I disagree, and would really like for you to reconsider your take on this.
I will, but you'll have to give a reason, not just disagree.

CANUTE: If we say that a thing has a certain attribute (the ability to fly for instance) then we can only say this because the ability to fly is one of its observed aspects. If God has infinite attributes then He has infinite aspects and vice versa.

Are you really sure that you have given this matter credible consideration?
No, but I think so.

“Capabilities” and “know-how” (attributes) are easily noted.
Can't see why that's relevant.

Where do you get that "aspects" equals essence?
Aspects and essence are opposites, I don't think I suggested otherwise.

CANUTE: Hmm. This is difficult to pin down. Another way at it might be to say that as all we can know of reality is its aspects (appearances) then attributes must be aspects. CANUTE: In some contexts, they mean different things (partly for grammatical reasons) but in philosophical terms they seem to mean the same thing to me.

Pardon my saying so, but that is ridiculous. Is wind not reality?
Yes and no. Wind certainly exists, but only in the world of appearances, not outside the cave.

Can we describe its looks?
Yes, if by 'looks' we mean appearances. Wind has aspects and attributes.

Is passion not reality? Can we put a face on it. Is poison gas not reality? Can we see it hovering in a room? not usually. And what about sympathy, or fear, or love, or other feelings that we hide; are these not reality?
No, they aren't. Philosophically speaking 'reality' refers to essence, the 'noumenal', not appearances.

A quality is something I may perceive, but another may not; but an aspect….say a very large nose, may quickly be observed by anyone. Attributes are characteristics, not appearances, according to all I know about it.
We now have features, appearances, aspects, attributes and characteristics. All have overlapping meanings. When it comes to God (or reality) they start to overlap completely.

Thus if God has infinite attributes He also has infinite aspects, appearances, characteristsics etc. Yet Spinoza's God has no finite attributes. He therefore has two aspects. Or perhaps one might say that there's two ways of conceiving of him, neither of which is true. This is because we can only conceive of His aspects, not the essence which underlies these aspects.

This is similar to saying that fundamental entities have two aspects, attributes, characteristics, namely that of a wave and a particle, and that we cannot see beyond these (strictly contradictory) aspects to whatever it is that underlies them.

Since those commentaries, I think I have found the Latin word for substance, vinculum substantiale. I do not know whether you are still in school, but if you have access to a Latin dictionary, perhaps you could shed some light on this from a layman’s perspective. I am interested in other commentaries about substance and reality, and have found some, but they have so much more that is covered.
The problem with reality is that there is no correct term for it. This is why Lau Tsu said:

"There is something undifferentiated and yet complete, which is born before heaven and earth. Soundless and formless, it stands alone and does not change. It goes round and does not weary. It is capable of being the mother of the universe. I do not know its name. I call it the Tao."(9)

For most introspective philosophers reality is beyond conception. As mathemetician Robert Kaplan says:

“The world may not only be more singular than we think, it may be more singular than we can think. “

The point being that the ultimate reality, the substrate of existence if you like, is beyond dual aspects and appearances. Spinoza calls it substance for want of a better word, but in fact it is completely insubstantial, or rather, does not have the property of substance/non-substance.

Or, how about this: “Substance does not mean material matter, but reality.” Spinoza mentions this in one of his letters, I think.
Quite. Substance is a misleading term (so is 'reality'). I drew attention to the contradictions in your quoted extract to illustrate what I meant by saying that reality can only be discussed (or conceived) in terms of its contradictory aspects, a conclusion Spinoza arrived at and which is reflected in his writings.

“Substance is carefully distinguished from an individual/material existence. ……..In other words substance is pervasive reality and not ‘a substance.” [from Richie]
Agreed.

To me, this simply means what it says, that Spinoza’s use of the word substance, is not to be interpreted, material (matter), but means a pervasive reality. Was this not my point all along? Pervasive reality equals “permeate, dominant, extend its presence, omnipresent, universal……..”
But you cannot assign these attributes to substance. Yes it is omnipresent in a way, but not in another. Yes it has extension, but no it doesn't. Etc. Spinoza is very careful to avoid such assertions for this reason.

CANUTE: Hmm, I don't know. Imo Aristotle had all the means he needed, and more than most.

All the means he needed, huh? “He was compelled to fix time without a watch, to compare degrees of heat without a thermometer, to observe the heavens without a telescope, and the weather without a barometer. . . .Of all our mathematical, optical and physical instruments, he possessed only the rule and the compass, together with the most imperfect substitutes of some few others. Chemical analysis, correct measurements and weights, and a thorough application of mathematics to physics, were unknown. The attractive force of matter, the law of gravitation, electrical phenomena, the conditions of chemical combination, pressure of air and its effects, the nature of light, heat, combustion, etc., in short, all the facts on which the physical theories of modern science are based were wholly, or almost wholly, undiscovered.” [Grant, Aristotle, Edinburgh 1877, pg. 18]
I meant that none of these are needed to understand reality. They are scientific knowledge.

Aristotle is sometimes given more credit than he deserves
I agree. His ideas were handy for the Church so he became popular. But he wrote some nonsense imho...

Example: (thought not a direct quote) “women are but unfinished men.”
... but some good stuff as well. :D

CANUTE: "The variation in meaning of Spinoza's terms mentioned here is what I was arguing applies to his use of the term 'exists'.”

If this is what Elwes was saying. Spinoza did not write in English; therefore, if the word idea is different in different passages, was this because of the translation, or the Latin term? Elwes did say that he gave it a uniform rendering; therefore, I am not clear on his exact meaning.
That seems a bit evasive. Now perhaps you're being a bit inflexible.

Have we disagreed on only one thing? :p It is your turn, so sik ‘em.
I thought we were disgreeing on whether Spinoza's God exists or not. But I'm happy to disagree about anything. :)

P. M. Thorne

02-06-04, 03:34 AM

FOR CANUTE:

I trust that you are sincere about this subject. If one truly admires Spinoza, then why not honor him by giving earnest consideration to his writings? Right? I was so happy that you had begun reading his works for yourself. I do hope you continue, but this is probably because it is rewarding in some strange way, knowing that someone else holds him in such high regard.

Let me ask you this: What effect would it have on you, if you found out that Spinoza truly believed in the divine God of whom he wrote? Can you, with the help of your imagination and self-knowledge predict? Would this spoil the image you have of him so much that it would take him from the arms of your admired commentators and cast him out the way his people did?

It would make me so sad to think that I had any part at all in some thing that might lead to any such change in your opinion of him.

Okay, okay! That was the last serious thing, and now I promise to stick with our argument, -just as soon as I can be sure what it is! (Smile)*******
///////////////////////////////
FROM CANUTE’s POSTING: You make this comment before I finish making my case, which seems a bit unfair, and I hadn't noticed that your mind was particularly movable on this point.

Aw, did not mean to be unfair. Can not we both be immovable?
.................
CANUTE: I know - but I was disgreeing.

I got that part! Oh brother! :rolleyes:
...................................
IN ANSWER TO:
Quote:
“Methinks you are a turkey!”

CANUTE WROTE: Nope, you're better at guessing nationalities than species.

A classic for sure. That is so funny!
...........................................
CANUTE: You're right - but I hadn't finished making my case.

So, what is this case to which you have now twice referred?
.......................
CANUTE: I will, but you'll have to give a reason, not just disagree. (In answer to: I disagree, and would really like for you to reconsider your take on this.)
I must do no such thing. Plainly, your thoughts, one way or the other, are not dependent upon my reasons. Therefore, you think what you may, and reconsider what you will. I have already given sufficient reason on this matter for a reconsideration, which has seemingly not fazed you! (Surprise, surprise!) With this in mind, why would I dare think that I could say anything to persuade you to rethink a conclusion that you have already packed away?
....................
CANUTE: Can't see why that's relevant.

Say what? You cannot see that my statement was relevant! You are smarter than that; or, are you making fun of me?
....................
CANUTE: Aspects and essence are opposites, I don't think I suggested otherwise.

I think I erred, and owe you an apology. Sorry about misreading your statement. I am usually more careful than that, but then not always! :)
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
CANUTE: Yes and no. Wind certainly exists, but only in the world of appearances, not outside the cave.

Oh Yay! Double talk and philosophical jargon.
........................
CANUTE: Yes, if by 'looks' we mean appearances. Wind has aspects and attributes.

Okay, describe for me winds aspects, I know its attributes. I cannot wait to read how you describe the features of wind. (I say features, because the word “appearances” in our discussion means looks, not generalities of indication).
...................
CANUTE: No, they aren't. Philosophically speaking 'reality' refers to essence, the 'noumenal', not appearances.

What if we speak from our hearts for just a moment. Is a baby not reality, or is it an essence? Am I not real? You have not seen me. How do you know I exist? Just how far shall we go while we speak philosophically.
.......................
CANUTE: We now have features, appearances, aspects, attributes and characteristics. All have overlapping meanings. When it comes to God (or reality) they start to overlap completely.

Do we? “Overlap,” meaning what? If you are saying these words are all interchangeable, then you are simply repeating your previous allegations, rather than offering some logical verification. I think you are bluffing a bit. Right?
..........
CANUTE: Thus if God has infinite attributes He also has infinite aspects, appearances, characteristsics etc. Yet Spinoza's God has no finite attributes. He therefore has two aspects. Or perhaps one might say that there's two ways of conceiving of him, neither of which is true. This is because we can only conceive of His aspects, not the essence which underlies these aspects.
........................
Uh, you are confusing me by using attributes and aspects to mean the same thing and switching about. Why must you do this? And what do you mean “essence underlies aspects.” Moreover, there is no way that we can conceive God’s aspects, because he has none, at least none that are visible to us. If you are speaking of attributes, I am still wondering, because you have quotes on “essence underlies aspects,” which also needs clarification. How can I discuss this if I do not know what the h…. you are trying to say?
Tell you what! This must not be a contest! So! let me tell you now that if it were, you would win. Hands down!
.................
CANUTE: This is similar to saying that fundamental entities have two aspects, attributes, characteristics, namely that of a wave and a particle, and that we cannot see beyond these (strictly contradictory) aspects to whatever it is that underlies them.

FROM YOUR PREV STMT: “This is because we can only conceive of His aspects, not the essence which underlies these aspects.”
FROM YOUR LAST STMT: we cannot see beyond these (strictly contradictory) aspects to whatever it is that underlies them.

Are you quoting from something, or somebody? Would you care to share?
..................
CANUTE: The problem with reality is that there is no correct term for it. This is why Lau Tsu said:

"There is something undifferentiated and yet complete, which is born before heaven and earth. Soundless and formless, it stands alone and does not change. It goes round and does not weary. It is capable of being the mother of the universe. I do not know its name. I call it the Tao."(9)

Yes, I am familiar with that quote, but Spinoza did not say, “I do not know what to call it, so I will call it God, did he, Canute?

In all deference to Tao, for you to say “there is no correct term for reality, is like saying there is no correct term for storm. All words are manmade, and “God” is just as good as “mother.” He, as father, is not dissimilar to she, as mother. Now, in all respect to you, (and I do respect you), who are you or me, to say there is no “correct” term. Different languages have different words for God, our father. You know this, so no need for me to say more here.

>You know what? If it is indeed Mother Earth, and God the Father, and we are the children, that does make about as much sense as anything; or is that too simple for us philosophers?
.......................
CANUTE: For most introspective philosophers reality is beyond conception. As mathemetician Robert Kaplan says: “The world may not only be more singular than we think, it may be more singular than we can think. “

….Absolutely. A very good statement, and here is another:

“For we know in part and we prophecy in part. But when that which is perfect is come then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. But now abide faith, hope, love, these three, but the greatest of these is love.” Taken from Paul’s first letter to the church at Corinth, Chapter 13: vss.9-13. See, Spinoza was not the only one with thoughts similar to what we now call Eastern philosophy. They just express it differently.
...................
CANUTE: The point being that the ultimate reality, the substrate of existence if you like, is beyond dual aspects and appearances. Spinoza calls it substance for want of a better word, but in fact it is completely insubstantial, or rather, does not have the property of substance/non-substance.

>How about some more Taoism?

“Men are born soft and supple; dead, they are stiff and hard. Plants are born tender and plaint; dead, they are brittle and dry.
Thus whoever is stiff and inflexible is a disciple of death. Whoever is soft and yielding is a disciple of life. The hard and stiff will be broken. The soft and supple will prevail.”

…………………….You are frustrating me, Sir!

I just thought it was time to inhale. You say things that almost scare me. “for want of a better word.” How dare you? You cannot possibly know this. Moreover, I say to you that Spinoza used a Latin word, which has been translated “substance.” Most seem to agree that this means reality, (as in the substance of a man’s speech, or the reality of his speech).

In any event, if the good philosopher had to grasp for a word, he would have said so. You do him and yourself an injustice by adding to and taking from his statements. You speak of properties, as though you are speaking of matter, but he said himself that he was not speaking of matter. How can you be so pompous? I know you are basically a good guy, with a cool sense of humor, and a great mind. Use it. Shame on you.
........................
CANUTE: Quite. Substance is a misleading term (so is 'reality'). I drew attention to the contradictions in your quoted extract to illustrate what I meant by saying that reality can only be discussed (or conceived) in terms of its contradictory aspects, a conclusion Spinoza arrived at and which is reflected in his writings.

Oops, I almost did it again. Your statement is well taken. Methinks I am getting defensive. If I say something stupid, just say so, like there is any chance that you might hesitate. Not.
...........................
Canute Quotes PMT:
“Substance is carefully distinguished from an individual/material existence. ……..In other words substance is pervasive reality and not ‘a substance.” [from Richie]

CANUTE: Agreed.

You say you agree, which is contradictory to some of your previous statements. Are you agreeing entirely, or to only a portion of that quote?
.................
CANUTE: But you cannot assign these attributes to substance. Yes it is omnipresent in a way, but not in another. Yes it has extension, but no it doesn't. Etc. Spinoza is very careful to avoid such assertions for this reason.
That he chose his words carefully, is a no-brainer.

Guess I will not disagree with that statement.
..................
CANUTE: I meant that none of these are needed to understand reality. They are scientific knowledge. [speaking of Aristotle]

Nor did I say that. Right? I was simple saying, or trying to, that Elwes’ comments on Spinoza’s use of Latin to philosophy reminded me of Aristotle’s rather clumsy resources, while both men were geniuses in their own right, their tools were awkward to some degree. Okay, so I did not make that clear. Help me out a little, will ya’.
………………………….
Quote:
Example: (thought not a direct quote) “women are but unfinished men.”
... but some good stuff as well.

_____ CUTE!
………………………………………….
CANUTE: That seems a bit evasive. Now perhaps you're being a bit inflexible.
………Oh, my goodness! Do you suppose? Any change of your following my example?
...................
CANUTE: I thought we were disgreeing on whether Spinoza's God exists or not.

And, I thought we were disagreeing on whether Spinoza believed that God existed. I made it quite clear some time back that I do not attempt to prove God to anybody, not even to you. Such a thing would be disrespectful to you, to God and to my innermost convictions.
But I'm happy to disagree about anything.

Oh boy! :o

I do have a thought about atheism, and what it might have meant when Elwes, (and even as recently as Durant), wrote about Spinoza. There was a time, not so long ago, when the majority considered anyone who was not a Christian or a Jew atheistic, including the “atheists.” At this present time, however, people are more inclined to think of Islamics and Buddhists in particular as “believers in a higher power,” rather than as atheists, whether the higher power is called Allah, emptiness or Taoism. Now think about it. What say you?

Until next time.

>> “The more you know, the less you understand….” (Guess who?) …PMT

Canute

02-06-04, 06:22 AM

=P. M. Thorne]FOR CANUTE:
I trust that you are sincere about this subject. If one truly admires Spinoza, then why not honor him by giving earnest consideration to his writings?
I have. You haven't convinced me that you have. You do not seem to even acknowledge the difference between appearances and reality, the very basis of Spinoza's metaphysic.

Right? I was so happy that you had begun reading his works for yourself. I do hope you continue, but this is probably because it is rewarding in some strange way, knowing that someone else holds him in such high regard.
You can be very patronising.

Let me ask you this: What effect would it have on you, if you found out that Spinoza truly believed in the divine God of whom he wrote?
I don't know what he believed, all we have is what he wrote. What he wrote left people confused about his views on God. He defines Him in such a way that to many he appears to be an atheist. This is an easily verified fact. Please post an extract where he makes both his belief and his definition clear and I will concede your point. Otherwise you'll have to keep an open mind.

So, what is this case to which you have now twice referred?
It's still there to read.

CANUTE: I will, but you'll have to give a reason, not just disagree. (In answer to: I disagree, and would really like for you to reconsider your take on this.)
I must do no such thing.
Fair enough. I'll have to ignore your point then, since you won't explain why I should pay attention to it.

Plainly, your thoughts, one way or the other, are not dependent upon my reasons. Therefore, you think what you may, and reconsider what you will. I have already given sufficient reason on this matter for a reconsideration, which has seemingly not fazed you! (Surprise, surprise!) With this in mind, why would I dare think that I could say anything to persuade you to rethink a conclusion that you have already packed away?
Do you always assume that it's down to the other persons intransigence when they disagree with you?

CANUTE: Can't see why that's relevant.

Say what? You cannot see that my statement was relevant! You are smarter than that; or, are you making fun of me?
Nope. Just couldn't see the relevance.

CANUTE: Yes and no. Wind certainly exists, but only in the world of appearances, not outside the cave.

Oh Yay! Double talk and philosophical jargon.
Of course its philosophical jargon, it's a philosophical discussion. But it's not double talk, or at least if it is then Spinoza talks it all the time. Are you really saying that you do not understand that 'reality' (roughly Spinoza's 'substance') lies beyond appearances? Can I suggest reading up on the 'problem of attributes'.

Okay, describe for me winds aspects, I know its attributes. I cannot wait to read how you describe the features of wind. (I say features, because the word “appearances” in our discussion means looks, not generalities of indication).
I am not saying that aspect and attribute have identical meanings. But 'aspects' are all we know of things (hence 'appearances'). We only know the attributes of a thing from its aspects (by observation, measurement etc). Thus attributes are what an entity has, and aspects are what we see of those attributes. In Eastern philosophy reality has aspects but no attributes. That is, the attributes of reality are its aspects. We can only know of the attributes of anything to the extent that those attributes are aspects. They are inextricably bound up in each other.

CANUTE: No, they aren't. Philosophically speaking 'reality' refers to essence, the 'noumenal', not appearances.

What if we speak from our hearts for just a moment. Is a baby not reality, or is it an essence? Am I not real? You have not seen me. How do you know I exist? Just how far shall we go while we speak philosophically.
Other people can explain this far better than me. Try a search on 'appearances and reality'.

CANUTE: We now have features, appearances, aspects, attributes and characteristics. All have overlapping meanings. When it comes to God (or reality) they start to overlap completely.

Do we? “Overlap,” meaning what? If you are saying these words are all interchangeable, then you are simply repeating your previous allegations, rather than offering some logical verification. I think you are bluffing a bit. Right?
I wasn't suggesting that they have identical meanings. But when it comes to reality (substance, God or whatever) they become entangled.

Actually there is an interesting point here. My disgreement with Spinoza stems from the fact that he deduced that God must have infinite attributes infinitely, but didn't see that as mortals we cannot distinguish between His aspects and His attributes. Thus Spinoza suggests that he deduced God's attributes, whereas I'd say he was deducing His aspects (the way He appears rather than what He is or isn't). This might sound like I'm contradicting my 'aspects/attributes' argument, but if you look you'll see that the problem arises precisely because of the difficulty of distinguishing between them.

Uh, you are confusing me by using attributes and aspects to mean the same thing and switching about. Why must you do this? And what do you mean “essence underlies aspects.”
I mean reality underlies appearances.

Moreover, there is no way that we can conceive God’s aspects, because he has none, at least none that are visible to us.
How can something have attributes but no aspects. The other way around is ok, but this seems illogical.

Tell you what! This must not be a contest! So! let me tell you now that if it were, you would win. Hands down!
It isn't a contest, it's a disagreement.

FROM YOUR PREV STMT: “This is because we can only conceive of His aspects, not the essence which underlies these aspects.”
FROM YOUR LAST STMT: we cannot see beyond these (strictly contradictory) aspects to whatever it is that underlies them.

Are you quoting from something, or somebody? Would you care to share?
No, it's just a accepted fact, asserted by every philosopher who ever wrote about the topic.

Yes, I am familiar with that quote, but Spinoza did not say, “I do not know what to call it, so I will call it God, did he, Canute?
Imvho that's exactly what he did, even if he did not say so.

In all deference to Tao, for you to say “there is no correct term for reality, is like saying there is no correct term for storm.
No. no. The Lao Tse quote is a fundamentally true statement (or non-statement) about reality (if you are a non-dual proponent). For Lao Tsu any characterisation of reality is false ex hypothesis. This is why 'non-dual' characterisations of ultimate reality are always dual (e.g. fullness/emptiness). By this view all assertions about reality are false.

If this is true then all such statements are refutable, and guess what, they are. Hence the 'undecidabilty' of metaphysical questions in Western philosophy.

>You know what? If it is indeed Mother Earth, and God the Father, and we are the children, that does make about as much sense as anything; or is that too simple for us philosophers?
Not too simple, but I would say logically incoherent. Where did God come from?

“For we know in part and we prophecy in part. But when that which is perfect is come then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. But now abide faith, hope, love, these three, but the greatest of these is love.” Taken from Paul’s first letter to the church at Corinth, Chapter 13: vss.9-13. See, Spinoza was not the only one with thoughts similar to what we now call Eastern philosophy. They just express it differently.
You'll have to explain what this has to do with Eastern philosophy. It doesn't even look like philosophy to me.

How about some more Taoism?

“Men are born soft and supple; dead, they are stiff and hard. Plants are born tender and plaint; dead, they are brittle and dry.
Thus whoever is stiff and inflexible is a disciple of death. Whoever is soft and yielding is a disciple of life. The hard and stiff will be broken. The soft and supple will prevail.”
Please explain the relevance of this to the discussion. Or are you just suggesting that one of us is inflexible?

You are frustrating me, Sir!
You think I don't feel the same?

I just thought it was time to inhale. You say things that almost scare me. “for want of a better word.” How dare you?
Well, it strikes me that 'substance' is not the ideal word for something that has no substance. Why do you think your expert wanted to call it 'reality' instead?

You do him and yourself an injustice by adding to and taking from his statements. You speak of properties, as though you are speaking of matter, but he said himself that he was not speaking of matter. How can you be so pompous? I know you are basically a good guy, with a cool sense of humor, and a great mind. Use it. Shame on you.
Good grief you are patronising. Perhaps it's accidental. However I think your mindset is blinding you to what I am actually saying.

CANUTE: Quite. Substance is a misleading term (so is 'reality'). I drew attention to the contradictions in your quoted extract to illustrate what I meant by saying that reality can only be discussed (or conceived) in terms of its contradictory aspects, a conclusion Spinoza arrived at and which is reflected in his writings.

Oops, I almost did it again. Your statement is well taken. Methinks I am getting defensive. If I say something stupid, just say so, like there is any chance that you might hesitate. Not.
Yeah, I can be heavy handed in responding sometimes. Sorry. But you must share some responsibility in this, you often disagree with things I haven't said instead of what I have.

Canute Quotes PMT:
“Substance is carefully distinguished from an individual/material existence. ……..In other words substance is pervasive reality and not ‘a substance.” [from Richie]

CANUTE: Agreed.

You say you agree, which is contradictory to some of your previous statements. Are you agreeing entirely, or to only a portion of that quote?
Where does it disagree? I agree with this statement completely. It repeats my point about Spinoza's use of the term 'substance', in that it should not be taken to imply 'substance'.

Nor did I say that. Right? I was simple saying, or trying to, that Elwes’ comments on Spinoza’s use of Latin to philosophy reminded me of Aristotle’s rather clumsy resources, while both men were geniuses in their own right, their tools were awkward to some degree. Okay, so I did not make that clear. Help me out a little, will ya’.
All I meant was that Aristotle had all he needed, and as much as any of have, to practice philosophy. A pedantic point. I'm a bit anti-science and don't think it helps to answer any important questions.

CANUTE: That seems a bit evasive. Now perhaps you're being a bit inflexible.
………Oh, my goodness! Do you suppose? Any change of your following my example?
I will absolutely deny any charge of being inflexible here. Imo you have not put a argument that requires any flexibility from me. I might be wrong, but you need to give me areason to change my mind, not just call me inflexible, which is a cop out. I note you criticise me rather than refute my charge.

CANUTE: I thought we were disgreeing on whether Spinoza's God exists or not.

And, I thought we were disagreeing on whether Spinoza believed that God existed.
Same thing.

I made it quite clear some time back that I do not attempt to prove God to anybody, not even to you. Such a thing would be disrespectful to you, to God and to my innermost convictions.
Ok. It's Spinoza we're concerned with.

I do have a thought about atheism, and what it might have meant when Elwes, (and even as recently as Durant), wrote about Spinoza. There was a time, not so long ago, when the majority considered anyone who was not a Christian or a Jew atheistic, including the “atheists.” At this present time, however, people are more inclined to think of Islamics and Buddhists in particular as “believers in a higher power,” rather than as atheists, whether the higher power is called Allah, emptiness or Taoism. Now think about it. What say you?
Ok, I've thought. Buddhists are atheists, don't know about Islam. Spinoza is thought by some to be an atheist because his God is unlike the God of most (perhaps all) other theists. Seems reasonable to me. Not everyone agrees, but then I didn't suggest they did.

>> “The more you know, the less you understand….” (Guess who?) …PMT
Lao Tsu says the same, as does Daoism and Buddhism generally. Spinoza was on the ball. I suspect that a full understanding of this statement is a prerequisite of any true understanding of existence, but that's just me.

This discussion is more than I can cope with time-wise. If we are going to continue can you cut it down to basics. I'll try and do the same.

May the sun always shine on your tent.

Canute

P. M. Thorne

02-07-04, 03:29 AM

Greetings, and thank you for responding.

Canute writes: I have. You haven't convinced me that you have. You do not seem to even acknowledge the difference between appearances and reality, the very basis of Spinoza's metaphysic.

Of course, I believe there is a difference between appearances and reality, but not between substance and reality.

Canute: Quote:
Right? I was so happy that you had begun reading his works for yourself. I do hope you continue, but this is probably because it is rewarding in some strange way, knowing that someone else holds him in such high regard.
You can be very patronising.

Response: I was thrilled that you had decided to read Spinoza yourself, but I took no credit for it. It is not clear to me how that was patronizing? You need not be on guard with me. I am very straightforward and sometimes blunt, but I would never intentionally make light of your sincerity. You said yourself that this was all academic to you. This was why I said that I hope you are serious. Maybe I do not have a clear understanding of what you meant by “academic.” I thought you were saying that it was no big deal to you. Probably my ignorance mislead me.

Canute: Please post an extract where he makes both his belief and his definition clear and I will concede your point. Otherwise you'll have to keep an open mind.

I will keep an open mind.

Canute: It's still there to read.

But, you said that you “had not made” your case yet. How can it then, still be there to read, if it is not yet made?

Canute: Do you always assume that it's down to the other persons intransigence when they disagree with you?

Ouch!

Canute: Actually there is an interesting point here. My disgreement with Spinoza stems from the fact that he deduced that God must have infinite attributes infinitely, but didn't see that as mortals we cannot distinguish between His aspects and His attributes. Thus Spinoza suggests that he deduced God's attributes, whereas I'd say he was deducing His aspects (the way He appears rather than what He is or isn't). This might sound like I'm contradicting my 'aspects/attributes' argument, but if you look you'll see that the problem arises precisely because of the difficulty of distinguishing between them.

Here is where we differ, because I do not experience that much difficulty differentiating. Crap! Maybe I do not know enough to be confused. I am truly not being contrary, but I cannot get with you on this for some reason. You suggested in this posting--to which I am now responding, that I read: Problems of Attributes. I will.

Canute:
Quote:
Tell you what! This must not be a contest! So! let me tell you now that if it were, you would win. Hands down!
It isn't a contest, it's a disagreement.
I know.
…………….
Canute: Quote:
FROM YOUR PREV STMT: “This is because we can only conceive of His aspects, not the essence which underlies these aspects.” FROM YOUR LAST STMT: we cannot see beyond these (strictly contradictory) aspects to whatever it is that underlies them.Are you quoting from something, or somebody? Would you care to share?

No, it's just a accepted fact, asserted by every philosopher who ever wrote about the topic.

I meant no more that what I said, Canute. Both statements are so concise and so the same, they almost sounded like quotes, in which case, I would be interested in knowing whom you were quoting.

Canute: ……..This is why 'non-dual' characterisations of ultimate reality are always dual (e.g. fullness/emptiness). By this view all assertions about reality are false. If this is true then all such statements are refutable, and guess what, they are. Hence the 'undecidabilty' of metaphysical questions in Western philosophy.

I have some reservations, particularly here: [“By this view all assertions about reality are false.”]

FYI: I have transferred every post you have sent in this category to Word and keep these in memory, for reference. Therefore, do not ever get the idea that I take what you say lightly, no matter what kind of an impression I might leave when I get frustrated. I do a lot of corresponding on things dear to my heart, and/or to the hearts of others, but this—right now—is my most taxing. Moreover, no matter how you may perceive my words, I am really trying to understand what you are seeing that I am not seeing, without unnecessary compromise.

Canute: Where did God come from?

I cannot believe you asked that.
............................
Quote:
“For we know in part and we prophecy in part. But when that which is perfect is come then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. But now abide faith, hope, love, these three, but the greatest of these is love.” Taken from Paul’s first letter to the church at Corinth, Chapter 13: vss.9-13. See, Spinoza was not the only one with thoughts similar to what we now call Eastern philosophy. They just express it differently.

Canute writes: You'll have to explain what this has to do with Eastern philosophy. It doesn't even look like philosophy to me.

I will explain:

Canute wrote this: “For most introspective philosophers reality is beyond conception.” [I presumed that you were including Eastern philosophers]
Then you gave me a quote from Robert Kaplan: “The world may not only be more singular than we think, it may be more singular than we can think. “

If you will recall, I agreed and mentioned that it was a good statement, because I too believe that there are limits to what we mortals can conceive at this point. The last statement of that quote: “...it [the world] may be more singular than we can think,” reminded me of another well educated man, this being the Apostle Paul, who also believed that our ability to comprehend is now limited. Thus the quote from Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians.
.....................
Canute wrote:
Quote:
How about some more Taoism? “Men are born soft and supple; dead, they are stiff and hard. Plants are born tender and plaint; dead, they are brittle and dry.Thus whoever is stiff and inflexible is a disciple of death. Whoever is soft and yielding is a disciple of life. The hard and stiff will be broken. The soft and supple will prevail.”

Please explain the relevance of this to the discussion. Or are you just suggesting that one of us is inflexible?

To tell you the honest to God truth, I think I wanted you to know for sure that I was familiar with Taoism. So, why this passage? It is one of my favorites from what I have on Taoism; in fact, I used it in an article I wrote, about four or five years ago. The obvious reason was just to remind myself that I must be flexible. Flexible does not necessarily mean to give in but to be limber, or relaxed, I suppose. At first, I was just going to read it. You quote had reminded me of it, but then I decided to put it in, for reasons previously stated.
.....................
Canute: Well, it strikes me that 'substance' is not the ideal word for something that has no substance. Why do you think your expert wanted to call it 'reality' instead?

Well, as we have before discussed, because the Latin word meant reality. Excuse me, but you must stop saying he is mind, because there were several, and they cannot be mine. I have no experts, but I do know a lot more about Durant than the others. I love the way he writes, but no personal feeling for him other than appreciation for his work, and I was touched by his comments on Spinoza in The Story of Civilization, a ten-volume history of the world.
........................
Canute: Good grief you are patronising. Perhaps it's accidental. However I think your mindset is blinding you to what I am actually saying.

Hey, you already called me that once! But, thank you for suggesting that it may be accidental. In any event, I am being too intellectually intimate, and should maybe be more careful, lest we create a monster image in your mind, and call it me.
...........
Canute: Yeah, I can be heavy handed in responding sometimes. Sorry. But you must share some responsibility in this,

I shall.

Canute: “…you often disagree with things I haven't said instead of what I have.”

Often? I do not think “often” is correct. You make me sound like an idiot.
Canute: I will absolutely deny any charge of being inflexible here. Imo you have not put a argument that requires any flexibility from me. I might be wrong, but you need to give me areason to change my mind, not just call me inflexible, which is a cop out. I note you criticise me rather than refute my charge.

Oh, pooh. I was no more serious here than you were when you implied that Aristotle made a good deduction with his idea that women are simply unfinished men. So, you retort with “I note you criticise me rather than refute my charge.” Nice compliment there, fella!
.........................................
Canute:
Quote:
>> “The more you know, the less you understand….” (Guess who?) …PMT
Lao Tsu says the same, as does Daoism and Buddhism generally. Spinoza was on the ball. I suspect that a full understanding of this statement is a prerequisite of any true understanding of existence, but that's just me.

Resp: Well, of course, who else? That is why I said, “Guess who,” because I expected you to know I was still in Taoism.

Canute: This discussion is more than I can cope with time-wise. If we are going to continue can you cut it down to basics. I'll try and do the same.

Poor Canute. These are long! I am going to send this now, (before it gets any longer). :p So, if you want to, just run through this to see if there is anything worthy of your time, (and I mean that respectfully, so do not take it otherwise). There are some things I would like to share, for you comments, criticisms, and what have you. We seem to have been rehashing for a time. Getting acquainted, I suppose, but now that we have, I would like to proceed with this topic. You too, said you! I mean, that was what you were saying, more or less, was it not?

May the wind be always at your back.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ PMT

Canute

02-07-04, 08:20 AM

PMT

We seem to be at cross purposes much of the time. Fortunately neither of us are quick to get aggressive. I'm going to try and refocus.

We disagree on whether Spinoza's God was a God in any normal sense or, if He was a God, whether Spinoza considered that He existed or not. (These two are more or less equivalent from my perspective).

My feeling is that you think I'm trying to put Spinoza down, or prove that God doesn't exist. In a way I am, but only in a way.

I feel that Spinoza was a genius who very nearly produced a coherent mataphysic capable of explaining existence. I know of no other western philsopher who came closer to doing this, (but there's quite a few I don't know).

However I believe he failed. This is not because he made mistakes, but because he didn't quite finish the job. He did not resolve the contradictions in his views of God (substance, reality) or explain why those contradictions occured.

Non-dual philsophies do explain why those contradictions occur, why they must occur, (for their epistemelogical occurence follows from the ontology of reality), and how they can be resolved.

This explains why Spinoza's writings are of little scientific interest and cause problems for theists. It is the same reason that Buddhism is of little scientific interest and causes problems for theists.

I feel that you misunderstand my argument on this. Fundamentally I am arguing that Spinoza never managed to transcend dualist thinking, albeit that he came within a whisker of doing so.

I believe that reality cannot be properly understood within dual ways of reasoning and conceiving. There's no reason for you to agree with me, but I suspect the problem with discussing it is that this is not an issue you've explored much. I'm not suggesting that you know nothing about Daoism or Buddhism etc., but rather that you've read the texts as if they were to be interpreted as 'western' philosophical or religious texts, from the outside rather than the inside, as it were.

This is why I suggested the 'problem of attributes'. It is a way into the issues of duality vs. non-duality as world-views. There's a good conversation on this topic going on at another forum. I'll post a link if you want it. (Can't do it now without losing this post).

I'd rather discuss these underlying issues than keep bashing away at Spinoza's God, since I can't add anything much to what I've said about Him. Your objections to my view don't stick, not necessarily because you're wrong, but because we're at cross-purposes.

I don't know what to suggest. I'm happy to chat but I'll let you decide where to go from here.

Cheers
Canute

TheVisitor

02-07-04, 10:32 AM

Here's what I think - your subconsious has a vast storage ability, and seeks to work out the answers of all your problems.
It also receives through lifes input (envirorment), a moral center.
It continues to work at solving your problems even though you are not conscious of the process intil it either finds the solution, or if it can not plays out in dreams a solution not possible otherwise.
Without this "relief valve" we would go insane.
The has been proven in goverment studies of sleep deprivation.
Now, when you deny your consious and do things in life against it, it keeps working on the solution.
Eventually when you've piled up too much it starts to turn off - like an overload.
It is "seared".....then it seems to quit bothering you about all those things you've done wrong.
It is still there but no longer "loud" enough for you to hear.
When people have a near death experiance, all those unresolved issues come flooding back to the surface.
I've tried too explain this in a way that a person who doesn't believe in God could still recognise. This is the way it's described in scientific terms and secular psychology.
But personally I believe in God, and the bible says when a person decides not to keep God in his consious, God after awhile leaves,(the kingdom of God is in you) and if they continue to refuse to hear God (who speaks through our subconsious sometimes in a still small voice) ....then He turns them over to a reprobate mind.

All you've ever done is being recorded, not only in your mind but also in the mind of God.
Your life is corrupt. The mind or spirit of man is eminity or at war with the Spirit of God, and will aways strive against whats right.
You must be born again, recive the Spirit of God and follow where it leads - making all the things right you can, that you have done against others.
This opens up the channel to hear from God through your consious.
If you don't you'll be turned over to the evil that you have obeyed instead of God all you're life, a reprobate mind.
You have an opportunity now while your still alive to still change the road your on, and begin to make repairations......
Don't wait till your heart takes that last beat, and all those things you've keep buried start coming at you...it's too late then.

Godless

02-07-04, 10:46 AM

Man is a crackpot, and the above Visitor's post proves it!!. LOL

Godless.

P. M. Thorne

02-07-04, 08:40 PM

CANUTE: Oooo! We have visitors. W had better be good. You did a rather nice summation, and I will be getting back with you. PMT

Medicine*Woman

02-07-04, 10:57 PM

Ok. I'm a strong atheist. Reasons? Because I think God is an anthropomorphic creation based on an incorrect understanding of reality, and because the idea of a creator God is metaphysically illogical. Mind you, if you define God as Spinoza did then one gets into grey areas. That's the trouble with God, everyone's got their own.
----------
M*W: "God" is the energy that dwells within humanity. It's a creative energy. Call it what you may, "God" is energy, not divine, just unexplainable. No fairy tales.

Canute

02-08-04, 08:04 AM

Crackpot

I agree with your first bit about the subconscious. I remember buying a book called 'How to Make a Million Without Really Trying'. Needless to say it was rubbish. But it had one key idea that was very good and seemed very true. This was that at some deep level we always knew the solutions to our problems, and the right way to act. The author argued that we didn't usually listen to our inner messages, so our unconscious mind ceased to speak clearly to us. This could be overcome by taking the time to listen. (Use it or lose it was the point).

By doing this our actions would become consistent with our goals, and we would be more capable of achieving them. I'd say that there's a lot of truth in this, especially if one is following a typically non-contemplative western lifestyle.

However can't agree with the stuff about God I'm afraid.

Cheers
Canute

P. M. Thorne

02-09-04, 11:06 PM

CANUTE WROTE:

We seem to be at cross purposes much of the time. Fortunately neither of us are quick to get aggressive. I'm going to try and refocus.

PMT RESPONDS:

Hello, Canute, Thank you for your words.

I have deliberately held back with you, and this undoubtedly added to my frustration. I did so, because I perceive that you are hanging onto your Eastern philosophy with both hands, and that you really like it, and I say, good for you. I know there is a lot of benefit to ones peace and tranquility in the Eastern ways. It is good to find something that helps make sense of things, and you should have the peace to enjoy it. I really tried to stick with the subject, without confronting other issues.

So, let me now -let you- know this much: You are correct in saying that most commentators believe that Spinoza was an atheist. I think, however, that the word, “atheist,” held a different meaning in Spinoza’s time. I know that the pious applied the word to anyone who held neither the Judean or the popular Christian theories and philosophies. I think it likely also that most of the commentators you have read are non-believers. It would make sense, but what bothers me is that most of the ones I have aread are also non-believers. One that I was reading said that Spinoza called the earth God. Now, that is a bit of a stretch. :rolleyes:

You are also correct about Spinoza not bringing his argument to a close, according to most of what I have read, this is a generally accepted deduction. He says enough to keep me busy, with or without a close.

Here is where we get lost from one another, you and I: I enjoy exploring ideas, but I am not looking for a better belief, just further enlightenment, and I do work towards keeping my mind open, because only when I am successful at this, do I have the mind of God.

I have never changed my mind about God. I never look to church or man for the bulk of my emotional support, nor do I look to man for guidance. I am no long a child. I know how to study, and my intuition is very well developed. When church -as such- disappointed me, God was still there. When the world kicked me in the butt, God was still there. For two years, I battled an absolutely awful illness that had suddenly beset me, with God always there. I never lost my joy; I never lost my peace, and I somehow found the strength to make it through the days. There were times when I was not sure if I was going to be able to catch my breath; there were times when I coughed until I did damage to my ribs, and thought the next one would surely rip my ribs apart.

This I have mentioned before, but I have something interesting to add to it, so bear with me. On one of my worst days of coughing violently, I put on a disc a friend had given me, and turned it up very loud, and concentrated so hard on the sounds, even though I had no idea what those brothers were saying. Soon I was not listening to the music, so much as I was part of the music.

Suddenly, it was as though my mind was in another place of thinking, a place with a very familiar feeling, as though one singer was himself known to me. It was a feeling like suddenly seeing an old friend for the first time in years. The pain subsided and the really hard coughing stopped for the night. I was bewildered, but too sick to think about it much until the next day, but boy, was I happy. I just felt good, in spite of feeling bad. :)

Here is what is interesting: The other day, I caught something on TV, where a man was helping a woman learn to meditate. He said that the m’s, n’s, a’s and o’s, in a word would make a good (is it called a mantra). (Excuse my ignorance if that is incorrect.) He instructed her to repeat her the word she chose over and over. She had chosen the word “amen.” She closed her eyes and said it over and over again, slowly, deliberately, but in a spirit of calm. (I am sure this all sounds familiar, and was not new to me either, but wait!)

When finished, the woman said something that just about blew me away. She said that she felt as though she had been to another place, a place familiar, a good place. I knew exactly what she meant. With me, during that first time becoming one with the music, it was like I was taken back to that unencumbered freedom of a child’s thinking. Every time I thought about the incident thereafter, I marveled at the many emotions it brought to play. The next day, and so on, I played that music again and again, from time to time. As I listened, I asked God to make me like that gentle stranger, who delivered his music in such a natural way, and had about the sweetest voice I had ever heard, so guileless and so safe. I guess I wanted to be sweet. (And, do not laugh!) Then it was almost like a light turned on in my mind, and it was then clear to me that I had all the attributes of the Finnish singer, but I had simply become afraid to use them. Most of my life I had been on my own. To protect myself and my young, I was on guard with the world, with the Christians, and with my emotions, lest I be sidetracked from my motherly duties. I was tough, I was strong, I was scared. Never afraid of dying, never afraid of going to hell or any such thing, never afraid of losing God, but always afraid that I might not do my best by my children, and might not always have a good job so that they were well cared for. At one time, I worked two jobs and attended night school. Wanting to help, I also had three foster boys at that time of proving to the world that I was super mom.

Now, with this illness, sometimes I could not make it to the kitchen to prepare myself a meal. The music came in the very early part of my long period of sickness; therefore, I had far to go with recovery, but through it all, my spirit remained strong. About a year ago, one of my doctors asked me how I could be so cheerful all the time. I told him I did not know, but I felt blessed. I told him it was easier than pretending! Besides, a lot of people have much worse. And such things often fail to warn us that they plan to turn our lives upside down, so to speak. “Let people think what they will, I have important business to attend,” became my motto, and this is what I told myself. What really happened was, I opened my heart to my own needs. I am so much better now and I am taking better care of myself too. Worry is no longer my pastime. I do not feel that it is up to me to keep everyone happy, and this gives me time and energy to pursue things that mean the most to me, and the freedom to love while being me, without fear of rejection. This is especially true regarding family.

Canute, I truly believe that the universe is designed in such a way that when our energy becomes focused, people and things come into our lives. When we are effectual and fervent, we can be of use, to ourselves and to others. I believe all that we need has been done, and that we can know that we have a Source that never fails. Peace on earth is, it exists in the hearts and minds of those who have chosen to own it.

Aside from being so frustrated at time, I enjoy our exchanges. Furthermore, I have every intention of reading more about Eastern philosophies, and many other things if I should live so long. It seems that as far as learning goes, I am always hungry for more. :)

I read your last post on this thread. You refer to “the West” much like others refer to Christians. I do not like to hear you slam the West. Growth and spirituality is an individual matter, still yet I fully appreciate your being disgruntled with what you refer to as the West. Yet, when you think about it, neither the East or the West have done much with what they know. I suppose this is another reason I do not think too much about conclusions. We have yet to properly apply what we already know. One good look at our world will tell us that.

Well, you know, of course, that if you go far enough West you will come to what we call East. J In truth, there is no East or West. God has no boundaries, nor does our thinking, and someday—and I believe this—we too shall have no boundaries.

Peace to you, Canute. I have some information on Spinoza that I will send on a separate posting. It is very interesting. As you have studied him so little on your own, and as some of this was new to me, I thought it worth repeating. You are okay, fella, and I will chat with you anytime. For as much as we disagreed, we did it in a rather peaceable way.

Let me see……Okay, here goes:

May the light of truth ever be at your feet. How is that? ~ PMT

Canute

02-10-04, 04:16 AM

[COLOR=DarkGreen]CANUTE WROTE:
Hello, Canute, Thank you for your words.

I have deliberately held back with you, and this undoubtedly added to my frustration. I did so, because I perceive that you are hanging onto your Eastern philosophy with both hands, and that you really like it, and I say, good for you.
I'm afraid you misunderstand. I'm not hanging onto anything. It is one of the fortunate aspects of exploring Being that one doesn't have to take things on faith or 'hang on' to anything. In fact quite the reverse, one must give up everything. Only then does one find out what's left, what one inevitably cannot give up. Properly done meditation is the practice of giving up everything.

I know there is a lot of benefit to ones peace and tranquility in the Eastern ways.
There is, yes, but that's not a reason for following those ways.

Here is where we get lost from one another, you and I: I enjoy exploring ideas, but I am not looking for a better belief, just further enlightenment, and I do work towards keeping my mind open, because only when I am successful at this, do I have the mind of God.
Are you really looking for further enlightenment? I feel that you are unprepared to do what Spinoza bravely did, namely properly explore the logical consistency of the Christian concept of God as an explanation of existence.

I have never changed my mind about God.
Hmm.

Canute, I truly believe that the universe is designed in such a way that when our energy becomes focused, people and things come into our lives.
I agree, except with the 'design' bit.

When we are effectual and fervent, we can be of use, to ourselves and to others. I believe all that we need has been done, and that we can know that we have a Source that never fails. Peace on earth is, it exists in the hearts and minds of those who have chosen to own it.
Agreed. But I don't agree that this is anything to do with a creator God. I particularly agree that we can 'know' the source. But if the source is an objective and external God then this is not true. As Karl Popper argued, even if God does exist we cannot have certain knowledge of Him.

Aside from being so frustrated at time, I enjoy our exchanges. Furthermore, I have every intention of reading more about Eastern philosophies, and many other things if I should live so long. It seems that as far as learning goes, I am always hungry for more. :)
You may be better off practicing rather than reading. Reading about Eastern philosophy is only helpful if it runs alongside practice. Think of it like playing the piano. No amount of reading helps and there's no way of explaining what it's like.

your last post on this thread. You refer to “the West” much like others refer to Christians. I do not like to hear you slam the West.
I use 'West' as shorthand for a way of thinking. It's an unfair generalisation but it's difficult to find a better term. However this way of thinking runs through western religions, science and philosophy, so it's not a very unfair generalisation. (You won't like this but I find religion and science as wrong as each other as ways of understanding the world).

Yet, when you think about it, neither the East or the West have done much with what they know.
I couldn't possibly disagree more.

I suppose this is another reason I do not think too much about conclusions. We have yet to properly apply what we already know. One good look at our world will tell us that.
Looking at the world shows that we properly apply everything we know (or believe we know). Hence the world is as it is. The trouble is simply that in general people act on what they assume, not what they know. Certain knowledge is hard to get.

May the light of truth ever be at your feet. How is that? ~ PMT
I shall look forwrd to having enlightened feet. :D

BTW. I usually leave aside the personal stuff but your family struggles rang a bell. Having been a single parent for a long time I appreciate your struggle as a working mum. They do grow up eventually, so I'm told.

Regards
Canute

P. M. Thorne

02-10-04, 03:46 PM

CANUTE WRITES ~

You say, “I'm not hanging onto anything.” I will just have to take your word for that.

You wrote: “Are you really looking for further enlightenment? I feel that you are unprepared to do what Spinoza bravely did, namely properly explore the logical consistency of the Christian concept of God as an explanation of existence.”

Well, bless your heart. I cannot help what you think.

I saw that “Hmm!” :) Remember, I did not say that I had never changed my mind about eventualities, doctrine, people or the hereafter. I know God is, more than I know that your are. That assurance has never changed, nor have I ever feared any “hell.” However, some of the things that I had continuing problems have changed, but I must also point out that they never were that certain to me either. We learn only what we already know.

You wrote this: “You may be better off practicing rather than reading.”

Well, well. I am not sure that I have an answer for that. Oh my!

A QUOTE FROM YOUR POSTING: (1) Looking at the world shows that we properly apply everything we know (or believe we know). (2) Hence the world is as it is. The trouble is simply that in general people act on what they assume, not what they know. Certain knowledge is hard to get.
Therefore, I say again: We do not apply what we know, a statement similar to your second statement.

Yours: I shall look forwrd to having enlightened feet.

I presume that you understood that my little diddy meant “wishing for” a light so that your feet can see your pathway. Your sense of humor is rather subtle, but charming. I wish you much success with it. Tee hee. :cool:

……………………..On to the information I said I would send. I spent some time last night searching out and typing up several excerpts. I do not mind doing this when I can find the time as it helps me remember.

This information came from commentaries by W. N. A. Klever, titled, “Spinoza’s Life and Works.” He wrote:

Spinoza was — I cannot repeat it enough — a man of science rather than a twentieth-century kind of philosopher. Optics had his special interest. I must now say a few words more about this topic, because historians tend to neglect also this aspect of his work, in the opinion that it was only marginal. All biographical sources, however, stress that Spinoza was very much occupied with and interested in this field of research, on a theoretical level but also practically. When Liebniz called him an “insignis opticus” [Freydenthal 1899: 193], this was not a rhetorical trick in order to avoid the title (and praise) of the philosopher, but a telling assessment………Spinoza personally constructed microscopes and telescopes which were highly praised by the scientists of his day. Liebniz praised him as the maker of famous peeptubes and confessed in his letter to him(October 5, 1671) that ‘he would not easily find somebody who in this field of studies could judge better.” In his Observationes anatomicae, Kerckringh, a comrade of Spinoza’s in Van den Enden’s Latin school who had become a famous antatomist, wrote: ‘I own a first class microscope [microscopium praestantissimum] made by Benedictus Spinoza, that noble mathematician and philosopher, which enables me to see the lymphatic vascular bundles…Well this that I have clearly discovered by means of my marvelous instrument, is itself still more marvelous’ [Kerckringh 1670:177]

This in only one excerpt, but is mainly the part I thought might interest you Please know that this is just general stuff with no connection to any dispute of which I am aware.

Later, PMT

P. M. Thorne

02-10-04, 03:59 PM

FOR CANUTE:

The following is something I have wanted to send to you for some time, but it too has nothing directly to do with our arguement, (which is rather on hold right now, correct?). I hope you enjoy it, and can find food for thought, which you do rather well.

Durant's Tribute to Spinoza.
From Will and Ariel Durant's "The Story of Civilization: Part VIII", Chapter XXII - Spinoza.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 35-10016, 1963, Pages 653-657.
{I have changed Durant's spelling of God in accordance with SpinScript:Note 4.}

page 653
IX. THE CHAIN OF INFLUENCE
[1] In the great chain of ideas that binds the history of philosophy into one noble groping of baffled human thought, we can see Spinoza's system forming in twenty centuries behind him, and sharing in shaping the modern world. First, of course, he was a Jew. Excommunicated though he was, he could not shed that intensive heritage, nor forget his years of poring over the {Hebrew Bible,} Old Testament, and the Talmud and the Jewish philosophers. Recall again the heresies that must have startled his attention in Ibn Ezra, Maimonides, Hasdai Crescas, Levi ben Gerson, and Uriel Acosta. His training in the Talmud must have helped to sharpen that logical sense which made the Ethics a classic temple of reason. "Some begin" their philosophy "from created things," he said, "and some from the human mind. I begin from GOD. That was the Jewish way.

[2] From the philosophers traditionally most admired he took little—though in his distinction between the world of passing things and the divine world of eternal laws we may find another form of Plato's division between individual entities and their archetypes in the mind of GOD. Spinoza's analysis of the virtues has been traced to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics? 180 But
page 654 "the the authority of Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates," he told a friend. "Has not much weight with me. 181 Like Bacon and Hobbes, he preferred Democritus, Epicurus, and Lucretius. His ethical ideal may echo the Stoics; we hear in it some tones of Marcus Aurelius; but it was fully consistent with Epicurus.

[3] He owed more to the Scholastic philosophers than he realized, for they came to him through the medium of Descartes. They too, like Thomas Aquinas in the great Summa, had attempted a geometrical exposition of philosophy. They gave him such terms as substantia, natura naturans, attributum, essentia, summum bonum, and many more. Their identification of existence and essence in GOD became his identification of existence and essence in substance. He extended to man their merger of intellect and will in GOD.

[4] Perhaps (as Bayle thought) Spinoza read Bruno. He accepted Giordano's

There. Hope you enjoy it. PMT

P. M. Thorne

02-10-04, 04:02 PM

FOR CANUTE: Well, shoot. Not sure how that happened. Guess I got in too big of a hurry, but I have some business that call me away, so I must get on with my time on here. PMT

distinction between natura naturans and natura naturata; he may have taken term and idea from Bruno's conato de conservarsi; 182 he may have found in the Italian the unity of body and mind, of matter and spirit, of world and GOD, and the conception of the highest knowledge as that which sees all things in G-D—though the German mystics must have spread that view even into commercial Amsterdam.

[5] More immediately, Descartes inspired him with philosophical ideals, and repelled him with theological platitudes. He was inspired by Descartes' ambition to make philosophy march with Euclid in form and clarity. He probably followed Descartes in drawing up rules to guide his life and work. He adopted too readily Descartes' notion that an idea must be true if it is "clear and distinct." He accepted and universalized the Cartesian view of the world as a mechanism of cause and effect reaching from some primeval vortex right up to the pineal gland. He acknowledged his indebtedness to Descartes' analysis of the passions. 183

[6] The Leviathan of Hobbes, in Latin translation, obviously evoked much welcome in Spinoza's thought. Here the conception of mechanism was worked out without mercy or fear. The mind, which in Descartes was distinct from the body and was endowed with freedom and immortality, became, in Hobbes and Spinoza, subject to universal law, and capable of only an impersonal immortality or none at all. Spinoza found in The Leviathan an acceptable analysis of sensation, perception, memory, and idea, and an unsentimental analysis of human nature. From the common starting point of a "state of nature" and a "social compact" the two thinkers came to contrary conclusions: Hobbes, from his royalist circles, to monarchy; Spinoza, from his Dutch patriotism, to democracy. Perhaps it was through Hobbes that the gentle Jew was led to Machiavelli; he refers to him as "that most acute Florentine," and again as "that most ingenious..., foreseeing page 655 man."184 But he escaped the confusion of right with might, recognizing that this is forgivable only among individuals in the "state of nature," and among states before the establishment of effective international law.

[7] All these influences were tempered and molded by Spinoza into a structure of thought awe- inspiring in its apparent logic, harmony, and unity. There were cracks in the temple, as friends and enemies pointed out: Oldenburg ably criticized the opening axioms and propositions of the Ethics, 185 and Uberweg subjected them to a Germanically meticulous analysis. 186 The logic was brilliant, but perilously deductive; though based upon personal experience, it was an artistry of thought resting upon internal consistency rather than objective fact. Spinoza's trust in his reasoning (though what other guide could he have?) was his sole immodesty. He expressed his confidence that man can understand God, or essential reality and universal law; he repeatedly avowed his conviction that he had proved his doctrines beyond all question or obscurity; and sometimes he spoke with an assurance unbecoming in a spray of foam analyzing the sea. What if all logic is an intellectual convenience, a heuristic tool of the seeking mind, rather than the structure of the world? So the inescapable logic of determinism reduces consciousness (as Huxley confessed) to an epiphenomenon—an apparently superfluous appendage of psychophysical processes which, by the mechanics of cause and effect, would go on just as well without it; and yet nothing seems more real, nothing more impressive, than consciousness. After logic has had its say, the mystery, tam grande secreturn, remains

[8] These difficulties may have shared in the unpopularity of Spinoza's philosophy in the first century after his death; but resentment was more violently directed against his critique of the Bible, prophecies, and miracles, and his conception of God as lovable but impersonal and deaf. The Jews thought of their son as a traitor to his people; the Christians cursed him as a very Satan among philosophers, an Antichrist who sought to rob the world of all meaning, mercy, and hope. Even the heretics condemned him. Bayle was repelled by Spinoza's view that all things and all men are modes of the one and only substance, cause, or God; then, said Bayle, God is the real agent of all actions, the real cause of all evil, all crimes and wars; and when a Turk slays a Hungarian it is God slaying Himself; this, Bayle protested (forgetting the subjectivity of evil) was a "most absurd and monstrous hypothesis"187 Leibniz was for a decade (1676-86) strongly influenced by Spinoza. The doctrine of monads as centers of psychic force may owe something to orrmia quodarrtmodo anitaara. At one time Leibniz declared that only one feature of Spinoza's philosophy offended him—the rejection of final causes, or providential design, in the cosmic process.188 When the outcry against Spinoza's "atheism" became universal, Leibniz joined in it as part of his own conatus sese preservancli.

page 656
[9] Spinoza had a modest, almost a concealed, share in generating the French Enlightenment. The leaders of that combustion used Spinoza's Biblical criticism as a weapon in their war against the Church, and they admired his determinism, his naturalistic ethic, his rejection of design in nature. But they were baffled by the religious terminology and apparent mysticism of the Ethics. We can imagine the reaction of Voltaire or Diderot, of Helvtious or d'Holbach, to such statements as "The mental intellectual love towards God is the very love of God with which God loves himself." 189

[10] The German spirit was more responsive to this side of Spinoza's thought. According to a conversation (1780) reported by Friedrich Jacobi, Lessing not only confessed that he had been a Spinozist through all his mature life, but affirmed that "there is no other philosophy than Spinoza's." 190 It was precisely the pantheistic identification of nature and God that thrilled the Germany of the romantic movement after the Aufklarung under Frederick the Great had run its course. Jacobi, champion of the new Gefi~hlsphiloso-phie, was among the first defenders of Spinoza (1785); it was another German romantic, Novalis, who called Spinoza "der Gottbetrunkene Menscb"; Herder thought that he had found in the Ethics the reconciliation of religion and philosophy; and Schleiermacher, the liberal theologian, wrote of "the holy and excommunicated Spinoza." 191 The young Goethe was "converted" (he tells us) at his first reading of the Ethics; henceforth Spinozism pervaded his (nonsexual) poetry and prose; it was partly by breathing the calm air of the Ethics that he grew out of the wild romanticism of G//tz von Berlichingen and Die Leiden des jungen Werthers to the Olympian poise of his later life. Kant interrupted this stream of influence for a while; but Hegel professed that "to be a philosopher one must first be a Spinozist"; and he rephrased Spinoza's God as "Absolute Reason." Probably something of Spinoza's conams sese preservandi entered into Schopenhauer's "will to live" and Nietzsche's "will to power."

[11] England for a century knew Spinoza chiefly through hearsay, and denounced him as a distant and terrible ogre. Stillingfleet (1677) referred to him vaguely as "a late author [who] I hear is mightily in vogue among many who cry up anything on the atheistical side." A Scottish professor, George Sinclair (1685), wrote of "a monstrous rabble of men who, following the Hobbesian and Spinosian principle, slight religion and undervalue the Scripture." Sir John Evelyn (1690?) spoke of the Tractatus theologico-politicus as "that infamous book," a "wretched obstacle to the searchers of holy truth." Berkeley (1732), while ranking Spinoza among "weak and wicked writers," thought him "the great leader of our modern infidels." 192 As late as 1739 the agnostic Hume shuddered cautiously at the "hideous hypothesis" of "that famous atheist," the "universally infamous Spinoza." 193 Not till the romantic movement at the turn of the eighteenth page 657 into the nineteenth century did Spinoza really reach the English mind. Then he, more than any other philosopher, inspired the youthful metaphysics of Wordsworth, Coleridge, Shelley and Byron. Shelley quoted the Tractatus theologico-politicus in the original notes to Queen Mab, and began a translation of it, for which Byron pledged a preface; a fragment of this version came into the hands of an English critic, who, taking it for a work by Shelley himself, called it a "schoolboy speculation.., too crude for publication entire." George Eliot translated the Ethics with virile resolution, and James Froude194 and Matthew Arnold 195 acknowledged the influence of Spinoza on their mental development. Of all the intellectual products of man, religion and philosophy seem to endure the longest. Pericles is famous because he lived in the days of Socrates.

[12] We love Spinoza especially among the philosophers because he was also a saint, because he lived, as well as wrote, philosophy. The virtues praised by the great religions were honored and embodied in the outcast who could find a home in none of the religions, since none would let him conceive GOD in terms that science could accept. Looking back upon that dedicated life and concentrated thought, we feel in them an element of nobility that encourages us to think well of mankind. Let us admit half of the terrible picture that Swift drew of humanity; let us agree that in every generation of man's history, and almost everywhere, we find superstition, hypocrisy, corruption, cruelty, crime, and war: in the balance against them we place the long roster of poets, composers, artists, scientists, philosophers, and saints. That same species upon which poor Swift revenged the frustrations of his flesh wrote the plays of Shakespeare, the music of Bach and Handel, the odes of Keats, the Republic of Plato, the Principia of Newton, and the Ethics of Spinoza; it built the Parthenon and painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel; it conceived and cherished, even if it crucified, Christ. Man did all this; let him never despair.
[End]