Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

I will defend any part of Spinoza's Ethics

ShabShoral
Posts: 4,199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 1:06:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Either here or in a debate (a debate is preferrable).

I'm most comfortable with the first part, but I can do any part if necessary.
: At 10/2/2017 3:00:43 AM, YYW wrote:
: Bossy: You are Regina.

:Inferno wrote:
:You sound rather gay.

-- And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

"I believe that my powers of mind are surely such that I would have become in a
certain sense a resolver of all problems. I do not believe that I could have remained in
error anywhere for long. I believe that I would have earned the name of Redeemer,
because I had the nature of a Redeemer. "
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,603
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 7:14:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2015 1:06:45 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Either here or in a debate (a debate is preferrable).

I'm most comfortable with the first part, but I can do any part if necessary.

Interesting quote,
"[W]hatsoever is contrary to nature is also contrary to reason, and whatsoever is contrary to reason is absurd, and, ipso facto, to be rejected
Omnivores are a part of what is nature
Omnivores eat meat also
People are omnivores
People eat meat
Peaople are animals
People are also meat
Eating meat is reasonable, so people eating people is reasonable?
Or I'm hungry and am not following what contrary to nature means? Lol
After all, numerous examples of cannibalism in humans have resulted in survival of said humans.
Btw, I am so on board with adopting cannibalism worldwide to combat world hunger.
ShabShoral
Posts: 4,199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 7:26:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2015 7:14:38 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/27/2015 1:06:45 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Either here or in a debate (a debate is preferrable).

I'm most comfortable with the first part, but I can do any part if necessary.

Interesting quote,
"[W]hatsoever is contrary to nature is also contrary to reason, and whatsoever is contrary to reason is absurd, and, ipso facto, to be rejected
Omnivores are a part of what is nature
Omnivores eat meat also
People are omnivores
People eat meat
Peaople are animals
People are also meat
Eating meat is reasonable, so people eating people is reasonable?
Or I'm hungry and am not following what contrary to nature means? Lol
After all, numerous examples of cannibalism in humans have resulted in survival of said humans.
Btw, I am so on board with adopting cannibalism worldwide to combat world hunger.

Uh, I mean, I guess? I actually have no problem with cannibalism, but your argument relies on the assumption that all types of meat are inherently equatable.

I don't really see how this is supposed to be a problem...
: At 10/2/2017 3:00:43 AM, YYW wrote:
: Bossy: You are Regina.

:Inferno wrote:
:You sound rather gay.

-- And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

"I believe that my powers of mind are surely such that I would have become in a
certain sense a resolver of all problems. I do not believe that I could have remained in
error anywhere for long. I believe that I would have earned the name of Redeemer,
because I had the nature of a Redeemer. "
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,603
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 7:33:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2015 7:26:41 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 10/27/2015 7:14:38 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/27/2015 1:06:45 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Either here or in a debate (a debate is preferrable).

I'm most comfortable with the first part, but I can do any part if necessary.

Interesting quote,
"[W]hatsoever is contrary to nature is also contrary to reason, and whatsoever is contrary to reason is absurd, and, ipso facto, to be rejected
Omnivores are a part of what is nature
Omnivores eat meat also
People are omnivores
People eat meat
Peaople are animals
People are also meat
Eating meat is reasonable, so people eating people is reasonable?
Or I'm hungry and am not following what contrary to nature means? Lol
After all, numerous examples of cannibalism in humans have resulted in survival of said humans.
Btw, I am so on board with adopting cannibalism worldwide to combat world hunger.

Uh, I mean, I guess? I actually have no problem with cannibalism, but your argument relies on the assumption that all types of meat are inherently equatable.

I don't really see how this is supposed to be a problem...
As long as you agree. Seems reasonable to me. And when I refer to meat, I am using the generic term in which it refers to all kinds of meat which are edible, digestible, free from disease, etc. And yes, that would qualify the majority of meat. I'm sure there might be animals that carnivores don't eat because they will die, such as that Chinese fish that needs proper preparation or it has poison that can kill you....but in general the point is people can eat people and survive and get nourishment from them so Spinoza thinks human cannibalism is reasonable.
ShabShoral
Posts: 4,199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 11:30:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Debate with Insignifica: http://www.debate.org...

If anyone else wants to debate the same resolution, I can just copy my argument from that debate.
: At 10/2/2017 3:00:43 AM, YYW wrote:
: Bossy: You are Regina.

:Inferno wrote:
:You sound rather gay.

-- And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

"I believe that my powers of mind are surely such that I would have become in a
certain sense a resolver of all problems. I do not believe that I could have remained in
error anywhere for long. I believe that I would have earned the name of Redeemer,
because I had the nature of a Redeemer. "
ShabShoral
Posts: 4,199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2017 4:33:55 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/27/2015 1:06:45 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Either here or in a debate (a debate is preferrable).

I'm most comfortable with the first part, but I can do any part if necessary.
: At 10/2/2017 3:00:43 AM, YYW wrote:
: Bossy: You are Regina.

:Inferno wrote:
:You sound rather gay.

-- And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

"I believe that my powers of mind are surely such that I would have become in a
certain sense a resolver of all problems. I do not believe that I could have remained in
error anywhere for long. I believe that I would have earned the name of Redeemer,
because I had the nature of a Redeemer. "
3RU7AL
Posts: 1,326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2017 1:13:53 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/30/2015 11:30:27 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
Debate with Insignifica: http://www.debate.org...

If anyone else wants to debate the same resolution, I can just copy my argument from that debate.

This debate has been removed by Customer Support. (??)
Believing in "objective reality" is just like believing in heaven.

Please adhere to obvious epistemological limits.
ShabShoral
Posts: 4,199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2017 12:53:00 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/9/2017 1:13:53 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 10/30/2015 11:30:27 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
Debate with Insignifica: http://www.debate.org...

If anyone else wants to debate the same resolution, I can just copy my argument from that debate.

This debate has been removed by Customer Support. (??)

http://www.debate.org...
: At 10/2/2017 3:00:43 AM, YYW wrote:
: Bossy: You are Regina.

:Inferno wrote:
:You sound rather gay.

-- And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

"I believe that my powers of mind are surely such that I would have become in a
certain sense a resolver of all problems. I do not believe that I could have remained in
error anywhere for long. I believe that I would have earned the name of Redeemer,
because I had the nature of a Redeemer. "
3RU7AL
Posts: 1,326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2017 4:50:08 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2017 12:53:00 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 10/9/2017 1:13:53 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 10/30/2015 11:30:27 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
Debate with Insignifica: http://www.debate.org...

If anyone else wants to debate the same resolution, I can just copy my argument from that debate.

This debate has been removed by Customer Support. (??)

http://www.debate.org...

An infinite substance exists and exists alone.

I'm not convinced anything can properly be considered "infinite".
Believing in "objective reality" is just like believing in heaven.

Please adhere to obvious epistemological limits.
ShabShoral
Posts: 4,199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2017 5:01:01 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2017 4:50:08 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 10/10/2017 12:53:00 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 10/9/2017 1:13:53 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 10/30/2015 11:30:27 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
Debate with Insignifica: http://www.debate.org...

If anyone else wants to debate the same resolution, I can just copy my argument from that debate.

This debate has been removed by Customer Support. (??)

http://www.debate.org...

An infinite substance exists and exists alone.

I'm not convinced anything can properly be considered "infinite".

He uses the term infinite in a very specific (and not really contemporary) way - here's one of his letters dealing with it: http://www.sacred-texts.com...
: At 10/2/2017 3:00:43 AM, YYW wrote:
: Bossy: You are Regina.

:Inferno wrote:
:You sound rather gay.

-- And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

"I believe that my powers of mind are surely such that I would have become in a
certain sense a resolver of all problems. I do not believe that I could have remained in
error anywhere for long. I believe that I would have earned the name of Redeemer,
because I had the nature of a Redeemer. "
3RU7AL
Posts: 1,326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2017 7:26:45 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2017 5:01:01 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 10/10/2017 4:50:08 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 10/10/2017 12:53:00 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 10/9/2017 1:13:53 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 10/30/2015 11:30:27 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
Debate with Insignifica: http://www.debate.org...

If anyone else wants to debate the same resolution, I can just copy my argument from that debate.

This debate has been removed by Customer Support. (??)

http://www.debate.org...

An infinite substance exists and exists alone.

I'm not convinced anything can properly be considered "infinite".

He uses the term infinite in a very specific (and not really contemporary) way - here's one of his letters dealing with it: http://www.sacred-texts.com...

Anything "infinite" could not possibly be divisible.

Anything "infinite" would preclude all other possible substance.

I can cut a piece of bread in two, therefore nothing is infinite.

I don't think it's appropriate for Spinoza to try and rope the word into meaning something more like "seemingly infinite" or "virtually infinite" or "apparently eternal".
Believing in "objective reality" is just like believing in heaven.

Please adhere to obvious epistemological limits.
reece
Posts: 445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2017 7:55:02 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/27/2015 1:06:45 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Either here or in a debate (a debate is preferrable).

I'm most comfortable with the first part, but I can do any part if necessary.

This is from me reading 10sec of Wiki:

"The human Mind cannot be absolutely destroyed with the Body, but something of it remains which is eternal."

Do you stand by that?
ShabShoral
Posts: 4,199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2017 8:46:03 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2017 7:26:45 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 10/10/2017 5:01:01 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 10/10/2017 4:50:08 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 10/10/2017 12:53:00 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 10/9/2017 1:13:53 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 10/30/2015 11:30:27 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
Debate with Insignifica: http://www.debate.org...

If anyone else wants to debate the same resolution, I can just copy my argument from that debate.

This debate has been removed by Customer Support. (??)

http://www.debate.org...

An infinite substance exists and exists alone.

I'm not convinced anything can properly be considered "infinite".

He uses the term infinite in a very specific (and not really contemporary) way - here's one of his letters dealing with it: http://www.sacred-texts.com...

Anything "infinite" could not possibly be divisible.

Anything "infinite" would preclude all other possible substance.

I can cut a piece of bread in two, therefore nothing is infinite.

I don't think it's appropriate for Spinoza to try and rope the word into meaning something more like "seemingly infinite" or "virtually infinite" or "apparently eternal".

Spinoza addresses this point directly. The "divisible bread" is merely a way of viewing reality; it is an act of imagination to aid the senses. He posits that, in the understanding, there is only the infinite:

If you ask, why we are by nature so prone to attempt to divide extended substance, I answer, that quantity is conceived by us in two ways, namely, by abstraction or superficially, as we imagine it by the aid of the senses, or as substance, which can only be accomplished through the understanding. So that, if we regard quantity as it exists in the imagination (and this is the more frequent and easy method), it will be found to be divisible, finite, composed of parts, and manifold. But, if we regard it as it is in the understanding, and the thing be conceived as it is in itself (which is very difficult), it will then, as I have sufficiently shown you before, be found to be infinite, indivisible, and single.

Again, from the fact that we can limit duration and quantity at our pleasure, when we conceive the latter abstractedly as apart from substance, and separate the former from the manner whereby it flows from things eternal, there arise time and measure; time for the purpose of limiting duration, measure for the purpose of limiting quantity, so that we may, as far as is possible, the more readily imagine them. Further, inasmuch as we separate the modifications of substance from substance itself, and reduce them to classes, so that we may, as far as is possible, the more readily imagine them, there arises number, whereby we limit them. Whence it is clearly to be seen, that measure, time, and number, are merely modes of thinking, or, rather, of imagining. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that all, who have endeavoured to understand the course of nature by means of such notions, and without fully understanding even them, have entangled themselves so wondrously, that they have at last only been able to extricate themselves by breaking through every rule and admitting absurdities even of the grossest kind. For there are many things which cannot be conceived through the imagination but only through the understanding, for instance, substance, eternity, and the like; thus, if anyone tries to explain such things by means of conceptions which are mere aids to the imagination, he is simply assisting his imagination to run away with him.
: At 10/2/2017 3:00:43 AM, YYW wrote:
: Bossy: You are Regina.

:Inferno wrote:
:You sound rather gay.

-- And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

"I believe that my powers of mind are surely such that I would have become in a
certain sense a resolver of all problems. I do not believe that I could have remained in
error anywhere for long. I believe that I would have earned the name of Redeemer,
because I had the nature of a Redeemer. "
ShabShoral
Posts: 4,199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2017 8:47:52 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2017 7:55:02 PM, reece wrote:
At 10/27/2015 1:06:45 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Either here or in a debate (a debate is preferrable).

I'm most comfortable with the first part, but I can do any part if necessary.

This is from me reading 10sec of Wiki:

"The human Mind cannot be absolutely destroyed with the Body, but something of it remains which is eternal."

Do you stand by that?

Yup
: At 10/2/2017 3:00:43 AM, YYW wrote:
: Bossy: You are Regina.

:Inferno wrote:
:You sound rather gay.

-- And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

"I believe that my powers of mind are surely such that I would have become in a
certain sense a resolver of all problems. I do not believe that I could have remained in
error anywhere for long. I believe that I would have earned the name of Redeemer,
because I had the nature of a Redeemer. "
3RU7AL
Posts: 1,326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2017 9:52:06 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2017 8:46:03 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 10/10/2017 7:26:45 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 10/10/2017 5:01:01 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 10/10/2017 4:50:08 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 10/10/2017 12:53:00 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 10/9/2017 1:13:53 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 10/30/2015 11:30:27 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
Debate with Insignifica: http://www.debate.org...

If anyone else wants to debate the same resolution, I can just copy my argument from that debate.

This debate has been removed by Customer Support. (??)

http://www.debate.org...

An infinite substance exists and exists alone.

I'm not convinced anything can properly be considered "infinite".

He uses the term infinite in a very specific (and not really contemporary) way - here's one of his letters dealing with it: http://www.sacred-texts.com...

Anything "infinite" could not possibly be divisible.

Anything "infinite" would preclude all other possible substance.

I can cut a piece of bread in two, therefore nothing is infinite.

I don't think it's appropriate for Spinoza to try and rope the word into meaning something more like "seemingly infinite" or "virtually infinite" or "apparently eternal".

Spinoza addresses this point directly. The "divisible bread" is merely a way of viewing reality; it is an act of imagination to aid the senses. He posits that, in the understanding, there is only the infinite:

If you ask, why we are by nature so prone to attempt to divide extended substance, I answer, that quantity is conceived by us in two ways, namely, by abstraction or superficially, as we imagine it by the aid of the senses, or as substance, which can only be accomplished through the understanding. So that, if we regard quantity as it exists in the imagination (and this is the more frequent and easy method), it will be found to be divisible, finite, composed of parts, and manifold. But, if we regard it as it is in the understanding, and the thing be conceived as it is in itself (which is very difficult), it will then, as I have sufficiently shown you before, be found to be infinite, indivisible, and single.

Again, from the fact that we can limit duration and quantity at our pleasure, when we conceive the latter abstractedly as apart from substance, and separate the former from the manner whereby it flows from things eternal, there arise time and measure; time for the purpose of limiting duration, measure for the purpose of limiting quantity, so that we may, as far as is possible, the more readily imagine them. Further, inasmuch as we separate the modifications of substance from substance itself, and reduce them to classes, so that we may, as far as is possible, the more readily imagine them, there arises number, whereby we limit them. Whence it is clearly to be seen, that measure, time, and number, are merely modes of thinking, or, rather, of imagining. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that all, who have endeavoured to understand the course of nature by means of such notions, and without fully understanding even them, have entangled themselves so wondrously, that they have at last only been able to extricate themselves by breaking through every rule and admitting absurdities even of the grossest kind. For there are many things which cannot be conceived through the imagination but only through the understanding, for instance, substance, eternity, and the like; thus, if anyone tries to explain such things by means of conceptions which are mere aids to the imagination, he is simply assisting his imagination to run away with him.

Ok, I appreciate your level of detail, and it almost "clicked" for me for a second.

You're suggesting that the noumenal world is "one infinite unity" and it is our imaginations that create the phenomenal world.

This hypothesis is provably false.

If there was any "one infinite unity" it would necessarily supersede all possible existence, both "real" and "imaginary". "infinite" cannot be contained to one (or three) dimensions.

"Infinite" cannot possibly be constrained by any conceivable thing.
Believing in "objective reality" is just like believing in heaven.

Please adhere to obvious epistemological limits.
reece
Posts: 445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2017 1:49:39 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2017 8:47:52 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 10/10/2017 7:55:02 PM, reece wrote:
At 10/27/2015 1:06:45 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
Either here or in a debate (a debate is preferrable).

I'm most comfortable with the first part, but I can do any part if necessary.

This is from me reading 10sec of Wiki:

"The human Mind cannot be absolutely destroyed with the Body, but something of it remains which is eternal."

Do you stand by that?

Yup

What did he mean by it? If you don't know, just give me your interpretation.