Question for Bosse de Nage.

This is concerning something you posted in another thread that I consider extremely interesting.

This depends, of course, if you feel you have done the reading of Spinoza to talk with me about the subject. Feel free to recommend me some books on this also.

But, to put it frankly (I'm already having trouble wrapping my mind around the necessary questions):

Do you think Spinoza's God has a conciousness? Or is aware of itself?

Since it does not "does not understand, or will, or perceive, or feel", and is just altogether existence and being, does this qualify it as a God in the language we use? Some omnipotent being capable of anything.

Originally posted by Moritsune
This is concerning something you posted in another thread that I consider extremely interesting.

This depends, of course, if you feel you have done the reading of Spinoza to talk with me about the subject. Feel free to recommend me some books on this also.

But, to put it frankly (I'm already having trouble wrapping my mind around the necessary qu this qualify it as a God in the language we use? Some omnipotent being capable of anything.

Baruch Spinoza?

The philosopher from the mid-seventeenth century? I've only read about his philosophy in Swedish. Something about the substance being the very thing that properties are attached to. Like something is red, but also a wall and a colour. The substance, as I recall, is God. Therefore God is not outside the world (transcendental) but part of the everything in the world (immanent). As such, there is no beginning of the world, nor any end. The world is eternal because the world is God and God is eternal.

As I recall from previous discussions I've had about his philosophy Spinozas idea about God was an all knowing, perfect God. The world was perfect and the only way we couldn't see it as perfect is because we're not perfect. We're only bits and pieces of the entire complexity. God is that entire complexity.

I would also be most interested in hearing what Bosse or anyone else with more insight to Spinoza's philosophy has to say, because I've read this some time ago, and my memory has a way of distorting most of what I learn, over time. 🙂

Originally posted by Moritsune
This is concerning something you posted in another thread that I consider extremely interesting.

This depends, of course, if you feel you have done the reading of Spinoza to talk with me about the subject. Feel free to recommend me some books on this also.

But, to put it frankly (I'm already having trouble wrapping my mind around the necessary qu ...[text shortened]... this qualify it as a God in the language we use? Some omnipotent being capable of anything.

There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that Spinoza took God to be identical to the Natural world.

Originally posted by Moritsune
Do you think Spinoza's God has a conciousness? Or is aware of itself?

Spinoza's God contains the universe. Whether the universe is conscious or self-aware is a question that continues to occupy minds much better than mine. I think it is. I suppose I'm a raving pantheist.

Clearly, this is not the God of the Old Testament, the Koran, or what-not. Well, so much the better.

^^^^ This is oddly comforting to me.

Knowing that even back then people were gnawing at well established opinions. So much so that their questions would still be very much relevant today.

Do you happen to have any more reading on Spinoza in mind other than the link you posted in another thread Bosse?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Spinoza's God contains the universe. Whether the universe is conscious or self-aware is a question that continues to occupy minds much better than mine. I think it is. I suppose I'm a raving pantheist.

Clearly, this is not the God of the Old Testament, the Koran, or what-not. Well, so much the better.

What does the universe think about, in your view? Does it wonder how its own consciousness emerges from a strictly material universe?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Spinoza's God contains the universe. Whether the universe is conscious or self-aware is a question that continues to occupy minds much better than mine. I think it is. I suppose I'm a raving pantheist.

Clearly, this is not the God of the Old Testament, the Koran, or what-not. Well, so much the better.

If Spinoza's God contains the universe, how can it be the universe? Do you mean the observable universe?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
If Spinoza's God contains the universe, how can it be the universe? Do you mean the observable universe?

Does this help?

The things we see that are transient and finite are the temporary modifications, or "modes," of the attributes.

http://www.friesian.com/spinoza.htm


Spinoza's God is everything and everlasting; the universe is neither (maybe?).

Originally posted by no1marauder
Does this help?

The things we see that are transient and finite are the temporary modifications, or "modes," of the attributes.

http://www.friesian.com/spinoza.htm


Spinoza's God is everything and everlasting; the universe is neither (maybe?).

"I now go on to my third point, and show from Scripture that the decrees and mandates of God, and consequently His providence, are merely the order of nature - that is, when Scripture describes an event as accomplished by God or God's will, we must understand merely that it was in accordance with the law and order of nature, not, as most people believe, that nature had for a season ceased to act, or that her order was temporarily interrupted. But Scripture does not directly teach matters unconnected with its doctrine, wherefore it has no care to explain things by their natural causes, nor to expound matters merely speculative."

This is from Chapter 6 of the Theologico-Political Treatise, "On Miracles". But throughout this work we find Spinoza engaging in a naturalistic reduction of theistic terms. Spinoza explicitly identifies God with the natural world, His will with the "fixed and immutable" order of nature, etc.

Originally posted by bbarr
There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that Spinoza took God to be identical to the Natural world.

Does that mean that he is only a theist in nomine, that his
identification of God as identical to the Natural World -- as
opposed to the Natural World's being part of God's infinitude --
means that he is in actuality an atheist?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Does that mean that he is only a theist in nomine, that his
identification of God as identical to the Natural World -- as
opposed to the Natural World's being part of God's infinitude --
means that he is in actuality an atheist?

Nemesio

Yes, there is abundant textual evidence that Spinoza was an atheist. The evidence was so abundant that he wrote the TTP, in part, to address charges of atheism aimed at him (and this didn't help his case). But his discussion of prophesy, the Hebrews as "chosen", miracles, and proper scriptural interpretation indicate that he took God-talk to be strictly reducible, without remainder, to Natural-world talk.

Originally posted by bbarr
...he took God-talk to be strictly reducible, without remainder, to Natural-world talk.

And, I assume, that it is the fact that there is no remainder, that
makes him in actuality an atheist, right?

Why then would he maintain otherwise? I mean, I realize that in the
17th century, it would have been rather unpopular to say that he was
an atheist, but especially after his excommunication* and abandonment
by family, it seems he had little to lose by not saying it. That is, he
seems rather a sharp guy who was pretty in touch with what he thought
and how he concluded things; why would he staunchly insist that he
was a theist (albeit highly unorthodox)?

Nemesio

*-That is, a Jewish 'excommunication.'

Originally posted by Nemesio
And, I assume, that it is the fact that there is no remainder, that
makes him in actuality an atheist, right?

Why then would he maintain otherwise? I mean, I realize that in the
17th century, it would have been rather unpopular to say that he was
an atheist, but especially after his excommunication* and abandonment
by family, it seems he had little t ...[text shortened]...
was a theist (albeit highly unorthodox)?

Nemesio

*-That is, a Jewish 'excommunication.'

Shame?

^^^ Doubtful in my opinion KBH

I would presume that what he wanted was acceptance and respect from his intellectual peers.

Originally posted by Moritsune
^^^ Doubtful in my opinion KBH

I would presume that what he wanted was acceptance and respect from his intellectual peers.

Thus, he was shamed into groveling for it. Intellectual honesty demands a stand regardless of how others around us receive it. Perhaps even rejection stands in the wings, waiting to reward the cast of our meager singular vote.