Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Pantheism, Monism, and Spinoza

socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 1:05:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So Spinoza was a pantheist and a monist. Starting with the following definitions and seemingly plausible propositions, logic necessitates some weird pandeism or pantheism in his view.

God: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence."

Substance: "By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself, i.e., that whose concept does not require the concept of another thing, from which it must be formed."

Proposition 5: In nature, there cannot be two or more substances of the same nature or attribute.

Proposition 11: God, or a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists.

So we can take it as follows:

P1: Proposition 5 (from the definition of substance)
P2: Proposition 11 (from a modified ontological argument)
C: The universe exists (a) within a single substance (b) that is identical with God.

I'm sure it's not as simple as that but it's what I can make out at the moment. Discuss. Is his version of the ontological argument sound?[1] Does an infinitely existence God necessitate monism or pantheism? etc. etc. This forum feels dead so maybe this can spark some conversation.

[1] (The proof of this proposition consists simply in the classic "ontological proof for God's existence". Spinoza writes that "if you deny this, conceive, if you can, that God does not exist. Therefore, by axiom 7 ["If a thing can be conceived as not existing, its essence does not involve existence"], his essence does not involve existence. But this, by proposition 7, is absurd. Therefore, God necessarily exists, q.e.d.")
http://plato.stanford.edu...
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
tigers2005
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 7:18:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It sounds interesting, but who is to say that all the attributes of God can be found in other places in the universe? Some may be unique to only Him. I may have misunderstood the explanation though.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 4:30:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 1:05:13 AM, socialpinko wrote:
So Spinoza was a pantheist and a monist. Starting with the following definitions and seemingly plausible propositions, logic necessitates some weird pandeism or pantheism in his view.

The Fool: Careful "isms". didn't exist back then, They are back labeled into the mouths of past philosopher. Ism only cam in fashion with romantic/continental philosophy. For example Descartes is not a duelist, he himself says nothing about it, in fact he leaves it open that there can be an infinite amount of things, his argument was only that he can recognize The difference between corporeal and mental properties. Corporeal doesn't translate exactly into physical at all. Air was often considered non-corporeal. that is where breath as spirit and all on the biblical notions of god Breathing life into you, and being spirit which really meant air at the time of the bible,. In-spiriation means also to put air.

Even the talking about "views" is foreign to them these are later Ideological conceptions.

carefulM every later generalization Extrapolated there concepts backwards over history because that is the way they know things.

There is no Pantheism in Spinoza, more monism, nor pandeism as you can see with his system they would one and the same. These are future concepts which are backlabled into the mouths of them. But the philosopher themselves never say any of these things. IF you ever actually read any of these works and I mean The whole works for yourself. just try reading it without any of those installed conception. You will have an huge epiphany. Then you will KNOW philosophy.

There is no Epistemology, more then 120 years ago, they just rip pieces of information out of works that are meant to be understood as a continuous and coherent whole to fight modern conceptions.
back then there was not, moral philosophy or the categories that exist today,

Many like Spinoza Wrote in complete systems. IN Which you can;t really understand if if you don't read it in order. You can Rip anything out of it and then compare it.

Spinoza is responding, and or building of Descartes argument that he has a perfect idea and Idea could not have come from him since he is imperfect. (its NOT the ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT as it seems popular in the US. only)

Remember perfect meant complete. That is you can't use today;s meaning of the terms you need to study etymology along side philosophy, If you are interested in knowing what they are saying. You have to cleans your eyes of any notion of philosophy past them, because its not so broad back then It actually refers to something. Things like subjective didn't mean the same as today, subject was an object which was subjected to something. . .

and Spinoza is saying well if god is a perfect then he must be all things, because if he was missing anything,well he would be less then perfect.

If you don;t know the context you can't really known what they are referring too, and NO your professor probably does know any better.

Spinozas argument is not the ontological arguement @ all. Nor is Descartes first one,

God: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence."

Notice the way the Enlightement philosophers always start out telling you exactly what they will be using a word to refer to FIRST. This is before Continental-ism, built the temple of BABLE in-capictating humanity us from the ability to communicate the most simple and basic conceptions.

IT would be absolutely ABSURD and foreign to use the same word and refer to something else and then say we are viewing the same thing differently or that there is different types of the same. They would say, the only thing that is the same Is the word you are using. If you change usage you have changed the topic and have broken communication with me, you haven't responded to me, and you can't define something into existence so why would you even think of doing that.

Substance: "By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself, i.e., that whose concept does not require the concept of another thing, from which it must be formed."

Proposition 5: In nature, there cannot be two or more substances of the same nature or attribute.


The Fool: did you ever here that song from house of pain. Called. Jump around.

Proposition 11: God, or a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists.


Jump around.

So we can take it as follows:

P1: Proposition 5 (from the definition of substance)
P2: Proposition 11 (from a modified ontological argument)
C: The universe exists (a) within a single substance (b) that is identical with God.

Jump up and up and get down.

I'm sure it's not as simple as that but it's what I can make out at the moment. Discuss. Is his version of the ontological argument sound?[1] Does an infinitely existence God necessitate monism or pantheism? etc. etc. This forum feels dead so maybe this can spark some conversation.

[1] (The proof of this proposition consists simply in the classic "ontological proof for God's existence"FALSE KNOWLEDGE. Spinoza writes that "if you deny this, conceive, if you can, that God does not exist. Therefore, by axiom 7 ["If a thing can be conceived as not existing, its essence does not involve existence"], his essence does not involve existence. But this, by proposition 7, is absurd. Therefore, God necessarily exists, q.e.d.")

The Fool: And because its written here, in stanford it must now become more true.

http://plato.stanford.edu...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 5:48:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 4:30:32 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: And because its written here, in stanford it must now become more true.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

Crass though that was, I enjoyed the hell out of that too.
Tsar of DDO
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2012 10:35:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/30/2012 4:30:32 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
[...]

I read your entire response and found literally nothing productive or relevant. Just more complaining about describing past philosophies in a set called an "ism". I could get into the pragmatic considerations behind calling one group of philosophies "monism" and another "dualism" but I wouldn't expect a serious response anyway.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 3:11:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's not accurate to say that in Spinoza's view, the universe is identical to God. The universe is just part of God the way a hand is part of a human. Remember that to him, God has an infinite number of attributes, and each attribute is had to an infinite degree. The universe is just part of that. That means there are some things that are true of God that are not true of the universe, which means they are not identical.

I think if you grant that there is a being with an infinite number of attributes, each to an infinite degree, the rest of it may follow. If God has an infinite number of attributes, then whatever attributes are possible, God has it. That means that whatever attribute anything has, God has it, too, which means nothing can be distinguished from God. So everything is part of God. That's the thinking anyway.

But I think there's a problem with that. I don't think it follows that because God has an infinite number of attributes, that he necessarily has every attribute possible. After all, while we might say that the set of all real numbers is an infinite set, so is the set of all even numbers. But the set of all even numbers doesn't have any odd numbers in it. So it's possible to have an infinite set that doesn't exhaust the possibilities. In that case, it's possible that we have attributes that God doesn't have, even if God is infinite in the ways Spinoza said he was. That would mean we are not part of God.

I don't think Spinoza's argument works as an ontological argument unless you take "existence" as an attribute, which is the same mistake Anselm made. On the other hand, if you take "necessity" as an attribute, then maybe. I'm not sure it would follow that God has an infinite number of attributes, though. Some attributes may be mutually exclusive. I'm not sure there are an infinite number of attributes anyway. I'm not sure it makes sense to say that all attributes are had to an infinite degree either, because some attributes don't seem to come in degrees. That's why most people today who advocate some version of ontological argument say that God has all great-making properties to a maximal degree.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2013 11:42:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I can't even begin to unravel Spinoza's Logic, unless I dedicate a vast portion of my life to it. All I know is the guy was a deep deep thinker and he makes some very interesting points.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 12:10:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 3:11:57 AM, philochristos wrote:
It's not accurate to say that in Spinoza's view, the universe is identical to God. The universe is just part of God the way a hand is part of a human. Remember that to him, God has an infinite number of attributes, and each attribute is had to an infinite degree. The universe is just part of that. That means there are some things that are true of God that are not true of the universe, which means they are not identical.

Like how thought and extension are attributes of what we can perceive in substance (God), yet there are supposedly an infinite amount of them which we do not perceive.

I think if you grant that there is a being with an infinite number of attributes, each to an infinite degree, the rest of it may follow. If God has an infinite number of attributes, then whatever attributes are possible, God has it. That means that whatever attribute anything has, God has it, too, which means nothing can be distinguished from God. So everything is part of God. That's the thinking anyway.

But I think there's a problem with that. I don't think it follows that because God has an infinite number of attributes, that he necessarily has every attribute possible. After all, while we might say that the set of all real numbers is an infinite set, so is the set of all even numbers. But the set of all even numbers doesn't have any odd numbers in it. So it's possible to have an infinite set that doesn't exhaust the possibilities. In that case, it's possible that we have attributes that God doesn't have, even if God is infinite in the ways Spinoza said he was. That would mean we are not part of God.

Interesting.

I don't think Spinoza's argument works as an ontological argument unless you take "existence" as an attribute, which is the same mistake Anselm made. On the other hand, if you take "necessity" as an attribute, then maybe.

I've never seen any reading on the arguments about whether existence can be an attribute. Do you know of any? I don't think his ontological argument is valid either, though interestingly, I'm reading an intro to him by Karl Jaspers wherein he introduces the justification of God by way of a modal cosmological argument. Weird.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.