Kabbalah, Sufism and Vedanta seem to be describing the same God ; three metaphorical men grasping a metaphorical elephant (in this case, Elephant ) in a metaphorical dark room and describing the same Reality from different perspectives.
@@AA-sn9lz to be fair, a lot of eastern mysticism and philosophy seem to have a comparable view. Maybe he was firmilar with the quote but not uwere it came from. I thought it was a hindu quote myself. 🤷♂️
@@AA-sn9lz Jainism is a strand of thought in hinduism. The discussion on veda, uoanishad, rituals in brahmanas, aranyakas all started these thinking / discussing of indian tradition. By hindu i mean geographically, not in a religious term.
I think there's something there about Ein Sof, The Endless One, but the eventual divergence of these schools illustrates the impossibility of truly comprehending the totality of Ein Sof. I think there's a beauty to it, almost a fractal like pattern emerging in metaphysics very core.
Without having an open mind to understand other people’s comprehension of God, we lose out on important attributes of God we may not have ever otherwise known.
@@SeekersofUnity Spinoza Fun Fact #31 - He may have made one of the first known protest placards in history. Following the lynching of the De Witt brothers, the leaders of the Dutch Republic on 20 August 1672, he painted a sign that read "ULTIMI BARBARORUM - ([You are all] the Ultimate Barbarians!*" that he wished to place in his window in protest of the anti-republican killing (you can see a painting of their bodies post lynching with a google search of "The Corpses of the De Witt Brothers" by Jan de Baen, but NSFW). His landlady refused to let him put up the sign, however, because obviously....if they will lynch the De Witt brothers what do you think they will do to the atheist Jew? At any rate - it just might be that if you have protested anything using a sign, Spinoza might very well be able to claim "first!" There are some questions about the story - it may be apocryphal - but I've always appreciated. Great videos guys - Thanks for all the hard work both of you do! Viva Spinoza! *It's hard to translate onacuz English aint got a vocative case.
Let’s hope Spinoza would say today, De Witt lives Matter ;) Thanks for that fun fact. What a legend he was. Thank you Justin for your amazing work over at Esoterica. How’d your audience appreciate your Spinizzile vid?
@@SeekersofUnity I think it went over pretty well. Though a 40 minute episode on Spinoza probably shows more of my enthusiasm about Spinoza, זי"ע than anything else :) I think folks found it interesting that the terms 'pantheism' and 'nihilism' were literally invented to describe his philosophy. Such a shocking historical response. And of course, the Deleuze Necronomicon thing is a gas. Maybe I'll have to do an episode on Deleuze and Guattari's concept of "Becoming-Sorcerer" which is how they understand the power of Spinoza's philosophy.
‘Ziya’ I love it. Hahah ya, we all know you’re a Spinoza geek and we love it. The Deleuze blew my minds too. Thanks for bringing that to our awareness. And yes 💯 I’d love to collab on some modern philosophers and their interaction with mysticism and esotericism respectively. Very keen to learn from you ☺️
I must say, I am grateful for your presentation. For a person like myself, with little formal education, and with only recreational musings in the field of philosophy, a presentations such as this gives me things to contemplate and journeys to embark in; in my quest for adventure and realization.
Came here from Let’s Talk Religion! Didn’t think I’d finish the video but this was pure joy and you make it easy to follow and understand. It’s clear how much effort you put into this. You’ve earned a new sub. Well done and thank you 🙏🏽
Yep, me too. I work at a hospital in Brooklyn named after all of our favorite 12th century Spanish Jewish mystic. I appreciate the intellectual vigor of this presentation. I am mystified when I stare at the stars while thinking about what I understand of ‘the heavens’ but I remain an agnostic. Meaningless suffering seems antithetical to a providential, all powerful, loving g-d. I do still find it amazing that Spinoza’s ‘g-d’ is alluded to by the pre-Maccabean Greeks like Epicurus. The idea that a god that sometimes intervenes in actual history (ie the exodus from Egypt or sends a Christ. Or miraculously heals a cancer in some lucky ‘children’) but allows for random mudslides or earthquakes to suffocate a 5 year old in the middle of her sleep, is intolerable to my conscience. G-d is a projection of our ancestors imagination onto their lives of ignorance, violence, starvation and infectious diseases. Revelation is our own, not from g-d
I’ve been thinking a lot about this for about a decade, and it seems to me that the closest thing to “hope” that Spinoza’s work might not be uncomplicatedly atheistic or incompatible with Abrahamic monotheism is the possibility of panentheism-that there is more to God than the overlap with observable modes. But he really does seem to foreclose personality of any type, including non-anthropomorphic and purely spiritual personality. It would seem to me that some form of personality would have to be included in the possibilities for God beyond the one-to-one parity with the observable universe, but I just don’t see that in Spinoza’s own words anywhere, as much as I have searched for some little hint or wink from him in that direction. It really seems not to be there. I can see a theoretical compatibilism between many of his key insights and a more classical theism or a religious panentheism, but I doubt that Spinoza himself would have agreed with it. I think it’s probably time for believers like us to admit that Spinoza was a great mind worthy of immense respect, but is not really useful in constructing a religious worldview based on love, which requires relationship, which requires personality of some measure.
I came to the conclusion over 2 decades ago, in my immature mind, as an early 20 something year old that the closest approximation of “truth” is panentheism. It wasn’t perfect, but it was something that in my thirst for comprehension of “what is”, seemed to match both my limited reason, and my strong intuition. I rejected monotheism outright as a child, and considered myself agnostic for many years until I had a “breakthrough” experience. From that point on, I searched and searched, and panentheism (which almost everyone confuses with pantheism) was the only one that “felt” right, but even back then I knew it was only a term which cannot express concept fully. Now 20 years later after being a bit more well read and continuing my search, I’ve come to the same conclusion. Panentheism is the closest approximation, at least in my mind, for me to attempt to explain “God” as I see it. But it is ever elusive and still a mystery. How can a seemingly finite mind truly comprehend infinity? That all being said, I am just now getting into Spinoza, so I am limited in my understanding, but as with most philosophers, I take what is useful and insightful, but I never confuse the territory for the map.
Thank you for your excellent podcast, giving us an overview of the importance of Spinoza's philosophy. As a student of Spinoza's philosophy, I have studied Spinoza's Ethics extensively, and I believe to really understand Spinoza, you must live his ideas. I have more than a theoretical concept. After 40 years of work, I now teach, mentor, and coach those who want to live, understand, and love as Spinoza did.
An excellent presentation of Spinoza's thinking. I've been reading Spinoza and about Spinoza for more than 50 years; therefore, I can confidently say that your presentation is well on the mark and should be helpful to all.
A segment from 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within'... My new understandings of what many call 'God -The Holy Spirit' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE... Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing. The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists. Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything. NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us.
I thought someone should be speechless, same as plotinus, the one, I came up with petri dish God, sociology wise it's primarily atheist so figuring out how to have mutuality is a feigned reality more like deception it seems except it does point out that analysis of interactions can be deemed low class in comparison to the damage thats already being experienced by Jesus's worldwide dominion, maybe leaving one to make up an alternative God to turn the tide, idk maybe take over God the father for ur benefit using the same ongoing understanding, whilst assuming what will will be the reaction, oh and it's not as deceptive to gain mutuality with atheist because they can use the Christian afterlife theme to live this life into the next, so they can comfortably I've this life, I believe testing proves it thru introducing deism as a word an seeing how some maybe passionately atheist and maybe even feed off the foolish Christian, when further analysis may show perhaps using gravy if necessary that people would assume there isn't much difference in beliefs, even an agnostic atheist told me he might believe there's something but not Jesus God, and one of my grandpa's told me he believed Jesus existed but he wasn't who he said he was, and I came up with a heaven and hell that to some maybe as important as each other by the idea an stuff that binds the remembering of why.
To those who have had an NDE, or a conversation with the Light, understand that Spinoza filled himself with, and was drunk on God He mirrored the thought of Plato " This world indeed is a living being, endowered with a soul and intelligence. It is a single living entity, containing all other living entities which by their nature are all related. The Cosmos is a single living Creature which contains all living creatures within it."
My interpretation is that he just shares the few that 'god' or'gods' in earlier times were just concepts humans made up for there lack of understanding of the natural processes. And that everything is made up off "stuff". The greeks first came up with something similar to todays standard model of the atom. Even todays physics has limits if its about the "substance" of those particles...and we end up on a "substance" that resembles vibriting strings (harmonys?) It is still awe inspiring and miraculous that we exist - you and me consist mainly of empty space with some particles moving constanly, kept together on the substomic level by strong and calculatable but unexplainable forces. Call it god if you want. But "it" does not write books or sends all knowing messiahs. God has no gender, race or favorite prayer.
Somebody is certainly drunk. So what, though? Do drunken people create gods? Not unless their name is Paul. Paul was exhibiting obvious symptoms of methanol poisoning when Christ appeared to him. ;-)
The way I see it we are in a sort of a simulation, created by God to let us experience free will and materialism briefly. God is the universe but is, like us also outside the universe. I love the universe, I'm no longer frightened. I just discovered I'm a Panentheist, cool:)
💚 From Syria.... we are all One pure Love and One pure Awareness.... " The soul given to each of us is moved by the same living Spirit that moves the Universe. " ~ Albert Einstein
Thank you Farial. May our hearts be united by that spirit, in love. Jews, Palestinians, Syrians, Muslims, Christians... all God’s children and precious images of the One. May we learn to love and see that in one other and end this mental and spiritual illness we call hatred and instead become allies with humanity and divinity as one. This is our sacred calling. ❤️ from Israel
@@SeekersofUnity Thank you beautiful soul and Amen💚💚💚 " Peace is your natural state. It is the mind that obstructs the natural state. " ~ Ramana Maharshi
Thank you Borouch. I think we have three or four more Spinoza vids up on the channel already, and two more coming in the next two weeks, Inshallah. You can check them out here: ru-vid.com/group/PL_7jcKJs6iwV18De29_S_POaPb0YwoP-C
How great to be taught to well understand Spinoza in 3 sessions while other books and teachers mostly fall short wasting time and leaving confusion. TY
He doesn’t say the world is illusory, he says there is an eternal idea of every thing and eternal reasons it manifested in the circumstances it did. Everything is “there” in Eternity.
From what I have come to understand within my own experiences of gnosis, the Universe is made God through humans - hence 'made in its image'. The Universe (matter and energy) is only made conscious through conscious beings, therefore we can liken it to a person in deep sleep, whom is only made conscious by the passage of dreams. The dreamer is then only made aware of itself when the subjects of these dreams realise they are just that, dreams, and created by the dreamer (mystcal experience = a lucid dream for the Universe/God). It is when this 'fourth wall' is broken, and the dreams return back to the dreamer, that the dreamer understands a little more of itself. In this regard, if the human race were to disappear, the Universe would fall back into a deep, dreamless sleep until the next species to reach our level of consciousness allowed it to dream of itself as God oncemore.
This channel is a blessing. You came on my radar via your conversation with Dr. Vervaeke. Loved your Freud / Mysticism video. Keep it up! You're doing "God's Work."
we all need to understand God if of course its possible, by getting closer to is attributes, Spinoza is maybe one of the greatest philosopher and understanding philosophy is in God nature.sorry my english is bad i am french.
As Solomon Maimon put it "The atheist system of theology, if one can call it that, entirely dispenses with the concept of a primary cause(since as a necessary idea of reason, its use is, according to the critical system, only of regulative value). All effects are attributed to particular causes known or unknown. This assumes no connetion whatsoever among the different effects, because otherwise the reason for the connection would have to be sought beyond the connection. Spinoza's system, by contrast, proceeds from the idea that one and the same substance is the immediate cause of all effects, which should therefore be viewed as predicates of the same subject. matter and spirit are, for spinoza, one and the same substance, which appears now under this and now under that attribute. This single substance is, he writes, not only the sole possible self-subsisting Being (independent of all external causes), but also the only one that exists solely for itself, whose modi (these attributes limited in a particular way) make up all so-called beings except it. Every particular effect in nature is ascribed not to its proximate cause(which is simply a mode), but to the primary cause or substance, which is common to all beings. In this system unity is real; variety, though, merely ideal. In the atheistic system, precisely the opposite is the case. Variety is real, grounded in the nature of the things themselves, While the unity one sees in the order and laws of nature is merely accidental, according to this system. Thus, we tend to define our arbitrary system for the purpose of knowledge. It is hard to fathom how spinoza's system could have been made out to be atheistic, since the two systems are diametrically opposed. The atheist system denies the existence of G-d; Spinoza's denies the existence of the world. Thus, it should really be called acosmic".
He doesn’t say everything is God. He says everything is IN God, and God is unique. Nothing else is God though, even though he does give a recipe forJOINING God’s eternal life and bliss.
great exposition! since we ourselves are modes of two of god's infinite attributes, we are already god being those modes, so it would be illogical to try and deny our own existence by claiming atheism. What distinguishes Spinoza's view from simple materialism/pantheism is indeed the fact that there are also infinite attributes that we, as the modes we are, do not (yet?) express/experience. I also love the Borges poem, since I am always going on about how all religions and philosophies are poems, forms of art and literature, expressing how we understand ourselves at least as much as how we understand "god". And that characterization certainly does not take anything away from them.
It is assumed that modes are infinite and not finite. Also, there are only two modes we know of thought and extension. Any other mode cannot be described and thus, speculation.
Spinoza's God without question can be clearly viewed as a supreme diety that exists solely by itself yet has split it's essence into innumerable versions in order to create and or manifest innumerable experiences. All for the purpose and objective of coming to know it's own nature and being in a more indepth means. This Eternal Presence seeks to know every single part of itself and seems to do so living out the experiences created and manifested by again , the different versions of this divine force. Nathan Barnes : Intellectual Physics Inc.
Love Spinoza ❤️ He is one of the greatest atheists of all time 😋 As the famous theist philosopher Richard Swinburne puts it, a theist is one who believes that there is a God who is a ' person/mind without a body (i.e. a spirit) who is eternal, free, able to do anything, knows everything, is perfectly good, is the proper object of human worship and obedience, the creator and sustainer of the universe. This is how theism is understood in academic circles. Under this definition, Spinoza's pantheism/monism and atheism (the denial of theism) are fully compatible.
I don’t agree. I think Spinoza’s God shares many of the qualities we would traditionally assign to God. Able to do everything - I’d argue yes. Spinoza’s God is the cause of everything. Everything that can and will happen happens through God, so He is all-powerful in this sense. Knows everything - All things known are known in (the mind of) God, so I think Spinoza’s God qualifies for omniscience as well. Perfectly good - I can’t definitively argue that Spinoza’s God is perfectly good, or evil for that matter. As for God’s free will, I’d say that Spinoza lived before the discovery of purely random quantum outcomes. The reason I think randomness is significant to free will is that I don’t think there is a distinction between pure randomness and free will. Pure randomness is simply God choosing. (Rather than “playing dice” as it is often said) Regardless, an atheist considers there to be no evidence for God, while Spinoza finds God self-evident. A universe which is God can be understood as inherently purposeful, even if that God acts according to certain laws. Most atheists on the other hand, would say that the universe itself cannot have a purpose.
@@olbluelips Well, technically, Spinoza's god is everything. That's not so different from the atheist saying nature is everything and everything happens through nature. Atheists/naturalists don't necessarily say the universe doesn't have a purpose. I don't think it is problematic for atheists to accept there is a telos inherent in nature, itself. But as far as I am aware, Spinoza rejected teleology and was a moral anti-realist/relativist. Spinoza's god/nature was neither good nor bad because he didn't consider good and bad objective/intrinsic properties at all. I know that God was part of his language, but arguably Spinoza's naturalistic monism is a variety of atheism. The difference may only be verbal, not substantial.
@@anteodedi8937 I see your point. Rejection of telos is not exactly in line with most ideas of God. I do think Spinoza’s monism can be understood through either a materialist or idealist perspective as well. From a materialist view, it may be that Spinoza’s God is superfluous. From an idealist view, God seems at least worth talking about, because he is quite literally a being, even if not human-like in any conceivable way, nor purpose-driven I’m only like a third through the Ethics anyway so I have to be careful not to step on a mine that could have been avoided by reading the text before commenting…
@@olbluelips Great. I think it is a mistake to interpret Spinoza's view as either materialism or idealism. He has this kind of unique view, something like parallelistic monism, where a single substance has both physical and mental properties/attributes. Kind of weird view, nonetheless a very interesting philosopher.
@@anteodedi8937 Fair enough. I guess I just can’t resist the temptation to describe one in terms of the other. There’s a lot more nuance to Spinoza than I initially thought
I appreciate the acceptance of my sneakiness :) (or at least an aspect of my sneakiness, i hate to attempt to take a mile when an inch is offered in good faith)
Great video. If you ever sell merch (as humourous a notion for a comparative mysticism channel as that is) you should include a shirt and/or button with a picture of Spinoza with the legend "With Atheists like these, who needs Theists?".
@@lepidoptera9337 I do not personally like the weather at the moment-- where I live. But, I understand that the sun continues to shed light on the planets. In our world, it is always Summer and Winter. It is always day and night. This happens simultaneously. But, one may say there is Spring and Autumn. I would tell one to step back and see things from an even broader vantage. (No one enjoys being persecuted. It's like the weather.)
@@lepidoptera9337 So, you rely on a poor grasp of physics. (Gravity is the response of two numeric bases that arrive simultaneously at a point of reconciliation.)
Awesome explanation of the different perspectives on this problem! Just curious: what do you think about highly logical methods (like Spinoza's) of reaching otherwise mystical conclusions?
If there's a purpose for life. It is so that God may know itself. Stars cannot see, planets cannot hear, stones cannot think or feel. Life can. Life is little bits of God, experiencing its own existence.
Thank you for this presentation. It was well done. However, I don’t think we should say “this is not the God of the Abrahamic religions or the Bible and Quran,” as if these religious traditions had only one conception of God. I don’t see a major difference between Spinoza’s God and the God of the Islamic Philosophers or Sufi conceptions, for instance. But I benefited from your video. Thank you.
The Borges poem is very cool but it contradicts the Ethics at the end where it denies Spinoza’s God loves humans. That’s the twist ending in Chapter 5!
I have loved Schopenhauer’s World as Will and Representation for years but I think Spinoza wins and God is absolutely the appropriate name for his concept. By Chapter 5 of the Ethics we understand that his “atheist” God loves humanity and is the source of our happiness and salvation!
I wish this infinite thread had a beginning. Either way, what Spinoza lacked was a personal relationship with God giving new meaning to ‘In God We Trust’.
For me, the ultimate unity between the transcendent, infinite creator God, and the contingent particulars of nature is itself also an aspect of the sublime mystery of God. Because of this paradoxical divine truth, perfect union with God can be indistinguishable from atheism, when viewed from a certain perspective. I've long viewed the crucifixion of Christ as a powerful symbol of this impossible, but necessary unity between the sacred and the profane (God and nature).
This is the type of content and discussion mainstream and pop science seem to be greatly lacking. I mean I get it....... science is about what we can know and for the general public, this is outside of their level of comprehension or what they are interested in. However, I think we need this all the more this day an age as well as nihilism akin to Emil Cioran's mindset.
Unlike Spinoza, who seeks God in the external world, Leibniz sees inner evidence for God. He points to the compelling connection between 'eternal truths' (such as dealt with in mathematics, e.g.) and 'something' in which these are necessarily rooted and which he identifies as the 'understanding' of God. His starting point is not some concept of 'God', but the immaterial infrastructure of rational thought in which everyone tacitely trusts who argues reasonably: logic - and in particular mathematics. For example - as Leibniz wrote in a note of 1677 [1]: "It is true, and even necessary, that the circle is the largest isoperimetric figure, even if no circle ever existed in reality. Likewise, even if neither I nor you nor any other human being ever existed." Since there are necessary truths about mathematical objects independently of matter and even if no human mind had ever thought them, we must conclude with Leibniz that there is something that constitutes their being. According to Leibniz, this 'something' is the Logos God [Jn 1-1]. Leibniz in his "Monadology": "If there were no eternal substance, there would be no eternal truths ... In God is the source not only of existences but also of essences, insofar as they are real or potentially real. This is because the understanding of God is the realm of eternal truths and of the ideas on which they depend, since without Him there would be nothing real in the possibilities - not only nothing existent, but also nothing possible ... God's infinite mind embraces the ideas of all potential beings, that is, of all real beings and of all those that can be thought, because they imply no contradiction." Obviously, this is not a worldly object named "God" that some new atheists caricature (and rightly reject), but a God compatible with the "Logos" who, according to the Evangelist John, "was in the beginning" - Eν αρχη ην o λoγoς [John 1-1]. In this context, it is noteworthy that some theoretical physicists believe that even matter ultimately arises from (quantum) logic [ e.g. John A. Wheeler: “It from bit”]. The late Martin I. Kober, who further developed Carl F. von Weizsäcker's quantum theory of primordial alternatives before he sadly passed away in 2021 at the young age of 38, left us this message in his last published article: "The crucial thing about these considerations is that... [in Weizsäcker's theory] no spacetime, no background structure at all and therefore no field theoretical concepts whatsoever are assumed. As with Hegel, the entire world is spanned over pure logic, more precisely, over pure quantum logic. Apart from time, there really only exists logic, which floats in the void. This corresponds exactly to the claim of Christian theology that God created the world from the Logos.” [ arxiv.org/pdf/1809.02469.pdf , pp. 101 f. ; in German ] "Mathematics and the mathematicians - steps to the throne of God ?" Walter Heitler, the father of quantum electrodynamics, titles a chapter of his book "The Nature and the Divine" [2]. Leibniz would agree. [1] Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe. Ed. Academy of Sciences of Berlin. Series VI, philosophische Schriften, 4,18. Darmstadt, Leipzig, and Berlin, 1923 ff. [2] Walter Heitler, Die Natur und das Göttliche, 3rd edition, Klett & Balmer, Zug 1976, ISBN 3-264-90010-6 [ Translated from German ]
Jorge Luis Borges BARUCH SPINOZA A golden mist in the west illuminates the window. The unremitting manuscript awaits, already laden with infinity. Someone construes God in the shadows. A man gives birth to God, a Jew with sad eyes and sallow skin; time carries him like a leaf borne on a flowing river. No matter. A stubborn wizard fashions God with delicate geometry; from his infirmity, from his nothingness, he proceeds to define God with words. He was endowed with prodigal love, the love that doesn’t expect to be loved. ( Translated by James Burnham)
Speaking about the oneness of God, I suppose that the One is only the ultimate emanation (primo manifest) of Him as He (Ahad) stands beyond singularity... Considering He, the Unmanifested Holy, the undivided All (Samad) ( so subdivided by nothingness) we express Him by “1/0” (1 subdivided by 0) which is the philosophical concept of the continuum infinite... Like infinity ♾in maths, He is the unlimited absolute, unbounded “even by reality itself”, so He can’t be contain by existence (therefore He is Uncreated like the unquantified ♾) and yet the creator (source) from which all creations are extracted into existence in the same way as all numbers (even the irrational and the imaginary ones) that emerge from the womb of ♾ ....i would point that God is not a being (creation ) contained in the domain of existence but the omnipresence of the eccentric truth that holds reality from falling apart ...... As a believer i assume the God don’t existe (if existence is finite) but He is the Omni-truth . The contrast between God and substance can be understood by “the image ” of the contrast between a soul and the expressed speech that eminent from or a neurological circuit and the thought that generates it ... in those 2 exemples the holiness of the source remains perfectly complete separated , independent from its creation, yet as being separated from its source The expressed creation (speech, though ) starts to fad in the finite dimension of it existence(ABRACADABRA= God creates as He speaks and not by giving birth through dissociation or extraction of parts from Himself )...through this reasoning I consider that the macrocosme is not by definition God but His creative spirit , a network of divine tendencies that connects different levels of reality to Him.....as you said “as below so above” the below image of the macrocosme (divine spirit) is projected as a human body that connects the soul (the creative source) to each cell (projection of the microcosm below) ......
For me, at least,, your point about attitude is everything when assessing Spinosa’s God. Is there reverence a state of wonder and gratitude? This changes everything so in the end again it becomes a choice.
New subscriber here, and I wanted to say that, in addition to your obvious scholarly and rhetorical gifts, I'm also becoming quite fond of your subtle, wry wit. Thank you so much for sharing your wonderful thoughts and words here.
@@SeekersofUnity I only wish I'd found your channel sooner. It's kind of amazing to me actually, how much the topics that you cover are EXACTLY the ones that I've become interested in over the past 2-3 years. There must be something in the air. ...besides all of the greenhouse gases and cultural discord. 😁
"Simply put, if Jesus is "God", there is no God, and the person who declares there is no God is an atheist. Thus, if taken this way, Christianity's Jesus is an atheistic system."
I think that the interpretations of Spinoza as atheist do not take into the due consideration Spinoza's meditations on the eternal part of our intellect, for instance, and on the whole concept of Amor Dei Intellectualis. Generally speaking, I find - I can of course be mistaken - that the second half of Book V of the Ethica is often left out of consideration or not considered in its value. I tend to the opinion that the whole Ethica could and should be so to speak re-read from the beginning, when one is arrived at the end of it with one eye fixed on the very end of the Ethica on the other eye reading again the whole contents: the whole definitions of Part I and so on through the whole Ethica does assume a new sense through the perspective which the reader acquires at the end of the Ethica.
Yes. This is the exact line of thinking we follow in the final installment in the series: The Case for Spinoza's Mysticism ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qjHkyHS_tQk.html Spot on ;)
Sir, as per the Vedas 3 entities namely God, Mul Prakriti (the primordial substance) and the souls are separate and exists eternally. These 3 entities are the three reasons for which the Universe to be created and dissolved again and again. God is infinite and constant, he doesn't changes himself into matters as per pantheism but create matters from Mul Prakriti (the primordial substance) by putting a distortion into the Mul Prakriti (primordial substance) and the force at which God Almighty apply to the primordial substance is known as the Kal (time force). In western world the time is only defined as an interval between two events but here in Vedic scriptures 'Kal element' (time element) is also a force and a matter. We used to read in science books that there are four fundamental forces but the time force is the most primal one and the smallest possible. After creating a distortion in primordial substance by God almighty consecutively 5 elements forms and then the Parmanu (sub atomic particles in Sanskrit) came into existence and this takes millions of years as God Almighty apply the smallest force possible which is the Time force. The five elements which forms one after another are Mahatva tatva, Manas tatva, Pran and Marut strings, Chhand strings and then the quarks.
Thank you Andrew. I’m a fan of Buber, have been for while. He’s been a longstanding inspiration of mine. We’ll definitely have to get to him unpack him for the audience and discuss his deep and complex relationship with mysticism.
Pantheism: Nature is God. We know that Nature exists. Therefore, God exists. But why call it 'God'? Just call it 'Nature'. But that's what atheists believe: Only Nature exists. So, Pantheism=Atheism. "I believe in God, only I spell it Nature"- attributed to Frank Lloyd Wright
Ok, i don't know if kadish was around in the 1600s, but, if i remember right, kadish is the prayer, used at funerals, praising that thing as beyond our comprehension, which, would make sense to me as the foundation for a blasphemy charge. Given that his philosophy seems to present a comprehensible thing.
Kadish has been used in Jewish mourning since at least the 13th century, as attested to in the halachic work, Ohr Zarua. The words go back as far as the Geonim in the 10th century, found in the siddur of Amram Gaon.
Great presentation of Spinoza and his works!! Spinoza is not a pure pantheist, nor a pure deist and cannot be classified as an atheis. Is he a philosopher or a theologist ? You pin-pointed this complexity about his thoughts and subjects.
There are many comments about unifying the various manifest religious paths via Spinoza's ideas. But doesn't it go further? From a physics perspective we also have the underlying nature of all reality whichgives rise to what we actually perceive. At present our best model is that of Quantum Field Theory, which posits a field of potential exisiting throughout all of spacetime. The vibrational modes of this field ultimately giving rise to what we perceive as matter. There may yet be a deeper level, eg String Theory but it wouldn't matter (no pun intended) it would still contain the same principles as those put forward by Spinoza. As a Buddhist I would go even further. The basic non-dual state mentioned in Buddhism, sunyata, and the two forms of reality, 'absolute' and 'conventional', also fit. As a footnote, and from my perspective, arguments about patheism vs panenthism are merely those of perspective and not anywhere nearly as significant as many make out - but what do I know? (Nothing is the answer!)
I have been reading independently. It's really long and complicated stories... I see, that you haven't figured out everything yet in doing more in-depth research. Things get even more interesting to learn more many things. Please do so, because it's really worth reading.
I too think that the double value, so to speak, of natura as natura naturans and natura naturata is the key point of the interpretation. In my opinion, the interpretations of Spinoza as either a materialist or as an atheist, or as both of the above have insisted only on Spinoza's concept of natura naturata, thus forgetting or at least not taking in the due consideration the concept of natura naturans. Deus sive natura does hot hold only for the manifestations we see of G-o-d, but also for the G-o-d as factor of His manifestations. Moeover, G-o-d as having infinite attributes cannot be identified with the material natura in which human beings live; in other words, natura is not simply and not only the material natura. G-o-d is, as factor, something else and something more than His manifestations; likewise, natura is something else and something more than the material nature.
Wonderful, dude. Sorry to say, but your edition (obvious visible cuts) distracted me throughout the piece. But more than enjoyable, your presentation was soothing and useful to me. Thanks.
Thank you Mário. Allow me to apologize for the copious cutting, I’m somewhat dyslexic so often struggle reading my own scripts smoothly. I often have to take multiple takes of a sentence or paragraph and patch it together in editing. My apologies for the distraction. I’m glad it still was able to be enjoyable, soothing and useful nonetheless. Thank you.
Beautiful treatise. Yet one worry, all this Spinoza, or any reality (of God) is either this or that. The what is, isn't what can be spoken about. It isn't this, nor that, nor both, nor neither. It is all of those and in between. :) But it isn't man's words. They can never be more than fingers pointing to the moon, never the moon. Though some people might have been moons, not their words, but their 'knowing'. Spinoza was probably one of them, seeking to help see people through the clutter. Who knows.
Spinoza fan checking in. I call it the God-thing. I can still talk to it and worship it. the God-thing still loves us, else why would it create us? Ponder that.
If I am self-causing, ie the origin of my own necessity, would that make me Godlike? JHW as is well known means "I am". Seems like Spinoza was on a path to Godhood to me.
Hmm? Do you think it was, or was not a devious attempt to undermine Spinoza’s, ‘God is all, all is God’ in the Declaration of Independence when Jefferson first uses the term ‘natures god’ before changing it to the ‘Creator’?
Spinoza does not equate the God with the Universe. The Universe is just one expression of God. Said differently, the Universe is an infinitely small subset of the God. Spinoza's God has much more attributes than the Universe. So, Spinoza's Nature is not equal to the Universe we inhabit, as it is often interpreted. Also, the immortality of soul is a derivation within Spinoza's philosophy, which for modern science is a tabu. There are many other differences between what modern science claims and Spinoza's philosophy.
In the Ancient Kemetic, Egyptian Astronomical Theology, there was only a Primeval Ocean and that Atum slept within it Atum awoke and became all the Neteru, gods and goddesses of the Ancient Kemetic pantheon, when in truth is the Universe and everything in it In truth, from an Ancient Egyptian point of view, what human beings calls G-d, in the Kemetic system and spirituality G-d is an infinite ocean in which innumerous bubbles are formed and within these bubbles you have creations taking place Atum, Aleph Tau Mem, is the synthesis of all the forces and laws of Nature from a mathematical point of view Atum is the original substance having infinite potential, possibilities, attributes and modes of existence and possibilities that becomes everything Ancient Kemetic Creation narratives are purely mathematical and spiritual
*Spinoza and Albert Einstein were monotheists; neither Pantheists nor Atheists but people/clergy do not understand Spinoza's words correctly. Because majority of People do not understand cryptic chants of Mystics/Sufis.* *Two statements:* "He is every House", or "He is in every House". These two statements are 100% different. First statement leads to pantheism but second leads to Monotheism. Quran is successor of Original Torah or you can say it: updated version of Original Torah. Both, Original Torah and Quran are from God. *Many verses of Quran support monotheism of Spinoza but what Sneaky sectarian Mullahs and freak Imams follow is not from Quran but from tons of their fabricated stories of hadiths. Quran repeatedly makes clear that God is OMNIPRESENT* We read in Quran 50:16 that God is closer to man than even his neck-vein, and listens even what soul of person Whispers. In 50:16, God is Verbatim and God has used for himself WE as majestic plural. Original Translation of Quran 50:16 is as under: Quran 50:16 NOW, VERILY, *it is We* who have created man, *and We know* what his innermost self whispers within him: for *We are closer to him* than his neck-vein (Asad). 57:4 God is with you wherever you may. 2:115 Whichever direction you turn, there is presence of God. *God is OMNIPRESENT* 2:255 Throne of God is extended to whole universe 58:7 ART THOU NOT aware that God knows all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth? *Never can there be a secret confabulation between three persons without His being the fourth of them, nor between five without His being the sixth of them; and neither between less than that, or more, without His being with them wherever they may be.* But in the end, on Resurrection Day, He will make them truly understand what they did: for, verily, God has full knowledge of everything. (Asad) Quran also tells: Nothing is like God (Verse of Genesis which says: that God created man in his own image is 101% Fabrication. It could never have existed in Original Torah). Quran tells: No vision can grasp Him but He encompasses all Vision. We read in Quran 7:143, what happened when Moses wished to see God with his human eyes: Quran 7:143 (God says) And when Moses came [to Mount Sinai] at the time *set by Us,* and his Sustainer spoke unto him, he said: 'O my Sustainer! Show [Thyself] unto me, so that I might behold Thee!' Said [God]: 'Never canst thou see Me. However, behold this mountain: if it remains firm in its place, then - only then - wilt thou see Me. *And as soon as his Sustainer revealed His glory to the mountain, He caused it to crumble to dust; and Moses fell down in a swoon.* And when he came to himself, he said: 'Limitless art Thou in Thy glory! Unto Thee do I turn in repentance; and I shall [always] be the first to believe in Thee!' (Asad) 57:3 He(God) is the First and the Last, *and the Outward as well as the Inward:* and He has full knowledge of everything. (Asad) *Quran 24:35* God is the Light of the heavens and the earth. *The parable of His light* is, as it were, that of a niche containing a lamp; the lamp is [enclosed] in glass, the glass [shining] like a radiant star: [a lamp] lit from a blessed tree - an olive-tree that is neither of the east nor of the west the oil whereof [is so bright that it] would well-nigh give light [of itself] even though fire had not touched it: *light upon light!* God guides unto His light him that wills [to be guided]; and [to this end] God propounds parables unto men, since God [alone] has full knowledge of all things. (Asad)
