1:55 Biographical Sketch 6:19 Spinoza's Fans 10:08 Philosophical Influences 12:22 Spinoza's Metaphysics 29:32 Spinoza's God 33:22 Was Spinoza an Atheist, Pantheist or Panentheist 44:45 Perceptions of Spinoza 48:11 Spinoza and Judaism 54:06 Spinoza and the Love of God 56:25 Spinoza and Kabbalah/Mysticism 1:17:39 Reconsidering the Cherem
It is a very good discussion. I am enjoying it very much. As regards the influences on Spinoza, I wonder whether there could have been an influence from Ibn Sina on Spinoza - perhaps an indirect one in the form of circulation from Arabic Philosophy -. I mainly refer therewith to Spinoza's concept of G-o-d as it is described in the Appendix to the First Part of the Ethica and to Spinoza's refusal of the final causes exposed in the Appendix: on this specific theme, it seems to me that Spinoza is quite different from the Stoics and not too much far from Ibn Sina's views on G-o-d and from Ibn Sina's negation of the presence of a finality in the actions of G-o-d - since the presence of a finality and of a previous act of choice in G-o-d's mind would contradict, in Ibn Sina's view, the perfect actuality of G-o-d -. Mine is only a hypothesis: I have no proof for this.
What if Spinoza were neither a pantheist nor a panentheist? Should perhaps the vision of Spinoza become different, inasmuch as Spinoza is not easily categorisable? Has Spinoza perhaps found something completely new? Sometimes I have the impression that Spinoza is a measure for himself, so to speak. Excellent discussion and conversation, anyway: more of this again.
Spinoza's theory of negation is not well understood and is definitely not the standard negation of the false or the not true. Instead of the extensional conceptions of negation we are all familiar with, it looks like Spinoza used implicitly at least an intensional conception of negation when dealing with eternal attributes of the substance, intensional means with reference to some other basis of comparison than the categorization of a proposition as true. And the theory of negation makes a huge difference when trying to understand how an attribute of substance is the infinite expression of its eternal essence (negation has that special structure when it comes to the eternal vs. the finite modes of that expression) but that our experience is limited to the finite modes of these attributes, even though there is the infinite expression of every attribute of substance (which is the absolute infinite containing no limitation or contradiction.) Shaul touched on this when he pointed to the false image we have of 'mundane' reality as being wholly finite: there are, on this interpretation, an infinite 'number' of alien properties predicated on infinite attributes of reality beyond our cognition (reminiscent of a two-worlds interpretation of Kant) and this is atheist, not panentheist since the attributes aren't transcendent but only, to borrow infelicitously from Kant, transcendental, e.g., it's epistemological, not metaphysical. One could use, instead of a pseudo-Kantian story, talk about alien properties in terms of a realist possible worlds framework a la David Lewis but would definitely have to reject the classical logic metalanguage to do so. There is some indication that Spinoza's metaphysics was an embryonic attempt at a sort of truthmaking ontology not be anachronistic but rather it's a helpful interpretive device to understand why negation behaves so oddly in his proofs. Much love for the intelligent, articulate and compassionate discussion.
I don't believe in my grandmother's God ;therefore I am an atheist to her, but I believe in God. She doesn't believe in my God, therefore to me she's an atheist.
@@SeekersofUnity nice! I suspect Spinoza had some influence from the Ralbag; of all the Rabbis he mentions in the TTP, with the exception of ibn ezra, gets relatively nice treatment from Spinoza. And his cosmogony reminds me of certain passages in the ethics.
To make an obvious point: to say that we are God is not to say that my individual ego is God. God cannot be reduced thus to one of 'his' modes. Perhaps better to say that we are in God. We live and move and have our being within God.
I love all this talk of philosophy and god and existence but don't you think the fundemental starting point would be to have absolute beleif in god before talking about him it makes sense am not referring to either of you bytheway just in genral and why would I as an athiest spend time debating the non existence of a god I don't beleive exists all the while talking about him and mentioning him as though he does exist I feel there is a descrepency of intellect at play here and bytheway great discussion guys.
I have never understood why people would call a unity in being and within existence _mundane,_ while calling a hard division between God, humans and existence _profound_ and _meaningful._
@@ThePathOfEudaimonia Nature herself has that by itself the same quality and “unity of being”, as does a drawn circle. Realize that the term “unity of being”, connotes a philosophical-metaphysical distinction that one has been brought to the table. For in order to evoke, maintain , and sustain a love of Her, one has to recognize a transcendental quality. Pantheism, in identifying God with the universe berefts God of all moral, and personal, and even numinous qualities. As opposed to the differentiated -or as you call it, “hard division between God, humans and existence” that *panentheism* maintains.
Ya, I'm fascinated by Eastern Orthodox theology, particularly their notion of Deification. Are you knowledgeable in Orthodox thought? I'd love to talk to someone that is.
Seekers of Unity yeah the idea of theosis, partaking in the divine , becoming little g god as it were. That idea really made me do a double take when I first encountered Orthodox Christianity. Another idea that just floored me when I first learned of it is the so called energy/essence distinction. Orthodoxy really is profoundly sophisticated philosophically. If we’re to believe it is the original church as it was so long ago then Christianity has really shed its most viable parts imo. Protestant and catholic theology is comparatively lacking in sophistication as far as I can tell.
Seekers of Unity I’m still not all that well-versed in the theology though admittedly. I’ve been told the thinkers I need to start with to get orthodoxy are St. Gregory of Palamas and St. Maximus.
Yes yes yes, such a cool lineage and theology to check out. And then you have the Modern brilliant thinkers who were Eastern Orthodox like Nikolai Berdyaev, Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn. I'm curious, what's your background?
