Home | Community | Message Board

Cannabis Seeds UK
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
Phil Majors - Critique my mini-essay on Spinozan ethics.
    #19126319 - 11/12/13 01:17 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

I have a take-home exam for Early Modern I'm cranking on. It's mini-essay answers, so no intro or b/s like that. While everyone is obviously welcome to read this, especially if you haven't had any exposure to Spinoza and his (in my view) beautiful cosmology, I'm primarily interested in the opinions of those who are familiar with the ideas of Spinoza. I just want to make sure I have adequately answered the question I've been asked. I'm not particularly interested in as to whether or not you find this model to be true, but comment if you feel you must.

Also, for reference, my source:

Baruch Spinoza - The Ethics (1677) (Parts I, II and V - I'm not sure why III-IV was omitted from my anthology, but I backed a claim from Part IV that was in the footnotes that seemed relevant.)

A note on my citation system:

(Book.Book#proposition(Pr)/Definition(D).Proposition(Pr)/Definition(D)#)

For example, (Pt.I D.6) = Part I, Definition 6

The question:

Explain the nature of god, nature and man in the philosophy of Spinoza.

My answer:

Spinoza's axiomatic cosmology defines God as a self-caused, indivisible, “absolutely infinite” (Pt.I D.6), necessarily existent substance with “infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence” (Pt.I D.6). Spinoza's definition of God is derived from his definition of the nature of substance. One substance cannot be the cause of another substance. Therefore, in the Spinozan model, there is only one substance, and that substance is God: the “immanent” rather than “transitive” cause of the world (Pt.I Pr.18). Because God's essence is eternal - “beyond duration or time” (Pt.I D.8) - all of which unfolds from God is predetermined. There is no free will in the Spinozan model, even for God, who “acts by the same necessity whereby he understands himself” (Pt.II Pr.3). And because God's attributes are infinite, modes – or “affections of [God's] substance” (Pt.I D.5) – can be finite in so far as those modes are necessary. Nature then is the whole of mixed modes. We can only know nature, our bodies and minds conceptually through active thought. “Thought...is one of God's infinite attributes”(Pt.II Pr1). Therefore, as our minds are expressions of God's infinite, eternal essence, they are immutable. And for Spinoza, our highest virtue is “knowledge of God” (Pt.IV Pr.28), which gives rise to loving Him. While we lack free will and are set on predetermined paths necessitated by God's existence, we are blessed with varying degrees of “freedom of mind” (Pt.V pref.); “virtue itself” (Pt.V Pr.42) that we use to attain such an understanding of God, thus expressing God's perfect, infinite self-love.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: Phil Majors - Critique my mini-essay on Spinozan ethics. [Re: millzy]
    #19126686 - 11/12/13 02:25 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

God damn, I say God damn. I say God damn the pusher man.

Hope this helps. :thumbup:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleOrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
Re: Phil Majors - Critique my mini-essay on Spinozan ethics. [Re: Icelander]
    #19126832 - 11/12/13 02:54 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)


The dealer for a nickel
Lord, will sell you lots of sweet dreams


A nickel?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
Re: Phil Majors - Critique my mini-essay on Spinozan ethics. [Re: millzy]
    #19165359 - 11/20/13 01:24 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Personally, I thought you should have fleshed out his "infinite attributes," which I think is a concept unique to Spinoza. One hears of God-without-attributes frequently from the more mystical esoteric side of religions, and 3 is also a common number, as in Christian trinitarian thought, Hindu trinitarian notions (e.g., Brahman-Vishnu-Shiva, Sat-Chit-Ananda), or a generalized pantheistic idea of God being the sum of all things, or in all things (panentheism).


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: Phil Majors - Critique my mini-essay on Spinozan ethics. [Re: millzy]
    #19166118 - 11/20/13 03:53 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

You could add something about Spinoza's ignorance of the current QM as well to critique it a bit in regards to predetermination. :cool:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: Phil Majors - Critique my mini-essay on Spinozan ethics. [Re: teknix]
    #19166153 - 11/20/13 04:00 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

I mean even in Spinoza's model, god could still encompass free-will. So I don't get how God is all encompassing yet can't encompass free will, is an argument for determinism?


Edited by teknix (11/20/13 04:05 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
Re: Phil Majors - Critique my mini-essay on Spinozan ethics. [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #19166666 - 11/20/13 05:57 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

MarkostheGnostic said:
Personally, I thought you should have fleshed out his "infinite attributes," which I think is a concept unique to Spinoza. One hears of God-without-attributes frequently from the more mystical esoteric side of religions, and 3 is also a common number, as in Christian trinitarian thought, Hindu trinitarian notions (e.g., Brahman-Vishnu-Shiva, Sat-Chit-Ananda), or a generalized pantheistic idea of God being the sum of all things, or in all things (panentheism).




really? from my learning so far infinite attributes is par for the course with the western god. descartes certainly goes on about them.

and teknik - adding those comments, while worthy of discussion, would fall under critique, which my professor wanted us to steer clear of for this assignment.

thanks again for reading everyone. :smile:


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinewindowlikcer
Stranger
Male
Registered: 11/14/11
Posts: 527
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
Re: Phil Majors - Critique my mini-essay on Spinozan ethics. [Re: millzy]
    #19169043 - 11/21/13 08:53 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

millzy said:
We can only know nature, our bodies and minds conceptually through active thought. “Thought...is one of God's infinite attributes”(Pt.II Pr1). Therefore, as our minds are expressions of God's infinite, eternal essence, they are immutable. And for Spinoza, our highest virtue is “knowledge of God” (Pt.IV Pr.28), which gives rise to loving Him. While we lack free will and are set on predetermined paths necessitated by God's existence, we are blessed with varying degrees of “freedom of mind” (Pt.V pref.); “virtue itself” (Pt.V Pr.42) that we use to attain such an understanding of God, thus expressing God's perfect, infinite self-love.




This is why Spinoza became caught in a loop when he tried to deal with consciousness, making of self-awareness an "idea-ideae". But consciousness cannot be an object of knowledge itself.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblemillzy
Male

Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
Re: Phil Majors - Critique my mini-essay on Spinozan ethics. [Re: windowlikcer]
    #19170938 - 11/21/13 04:13 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

windowlikcer said:
Quote:

millzy said:
We can only know nature, our bodies and minds conceptually through active thought. “Thought...is one of God's infinite attributes”(Pt.II Pr1). Therefore, as our minds are expressions of God's infinite, eternal essence, they are immutable. And for Spinoza, our highest virtue is “knowledge of God” (Pt.IV Pr.28), which gives rise to loving Him. While we lack free will and are set on predetermined paths necessitated by God's existence, we are blessed with varying degrees of “freedom of mind” (Pt.V pref.); “virtue itself” (Pt.V Pr.42) that we use to attain such an understanding of God, thus expressing God's perfect, infinite self-love.




This is why Spinoza became caught in a loop when he tried to deal with consciousness, making of self-awareness an "idea-ideae". But consciousness cannot be an object of knowledge itself.




you know, i think that might be a problem with how spinoza uses the term "freedom". if everything is predetermined i don't see how we could have freedom in the sense of limitless will as someone like descartes would perhaps define freedom. i'm looking over the ethics again to get my mind going for another paper i need to write as my term paper, and from what i'm getting from the scholium for proposition 31, it seems to me that spinoza is saying that the amount of freedom each mind gets is predetermined by god.

the original was also a work-in-progress that i posted. this is the final cut that i turned in:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spinoza's axiomatic cosmology defines God as a self-caused, indivisible, “absolutely infinite”(Pt.I D.6), necessarily existent substance with “infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence” (Pt.I D.6). Spinoza's definition of God is derived from his definition of the nature of substance. One substance cannot be the cause of another substance. Therefore, in the Spinozan model, there is only one substance, and that substance is God: the “immanent” rather than “transitive” cause of the world (Pt.I Pr.18). For Spinoza, God is the world. Because God's essence is eternal - “beyond duration or time” (Pt.I D.8) - all of which unfolds from God is predetermined. There is no free will in the Spinozan model, even for God, who “acts by the same necessity whereby he understands himself” (Pt.II Pr.3). And because God's attributes are infinite, modes – or “affections of [God's] substance” (Pt.I D.5) – can be finite in so far as those modes are necessary. Nature, and all that exists within it (including human bodies and minds), is then the whole of mixed modes, and can only be known conceptually through active thought. “Thought...is one of God's infinite attributes”(Pt.II Pr1). And as thinking human minds are expressions of God's infinite, eternal thought, they are immutable. For Spinoza, our highest virtue is “knowledge of God” (Pt.IV Pr.28), from which loving Him necessarily follows. While all is set on predetermined paths necessitated by God's existence, we are blessed with varying degrees of “freedom of mind” (Pt.V pref.); “virtue itself” (Pt.V Pr.42) which we use to attain knowledge of God, thereby circulating God's perfect, infinite self-love in which He dwells.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i used the term "circulating" because it seems as if spinoza is describing god as an eternal organism that lives on love, so to speak, and the minds he creates circulate that love back to him in varying degrees dependent on his necessarily existent nature.

by the way windowlicker, do you think i nailed spinoza as far as explaining his cosmology?

also, i had to answer the same question for berkeley. complete opposite of the spectrum from spinoza. this is my final cut for berkeley:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Berkeley famously argues esse est percipi aut percipere - “to be is to be perceived or to perceive” (pg. 435-6). Berkeley's empiricist cosmology supposes the world of human knowledge is perception itself. In the Berkelyan model there is no matter. There is only God, spirits - individual souls or human minds - and their relationships to ideas. Spirits are active; they are the agents of perception. Ideas are passive; they are the objects of perception that are particular and possessing of a nature that is dependent upon being perceived. Ideas cannot exist without a spirit to perceive them. Berkeley's model of perception defines ideas as all ideas, sensations and perceptions that are perceived by spirits. Moreover, Berkeley distinguishes a hierarchy of ideas consisting of “the laws of nature” (Pt.I 30)  and “images” (Pt.I 33). God is the distant “governing spirit whose will constitutes the laws of nature” (Pt.I 32). Because God is wise and benevolent, He regularly and coherently impresses the laws of nature onto the senses of spirits. Spirit's activity is twofold and is expressed through what Berkeley defines as “understanding” and “willing” (Pt.I 27). By perceiving the laws of nature, spirits understand them. By understanding the laws of nature, spirits willfully form relational systems of ideas necessary for survival and communication via the production of images, or copies, of perceptions of the laws of nature as presented by God. But because of the nature of spirit is such that it is unlike idea and therefore cannot be perceived, spirits cannot perceive themselves. Instead, Berkeley reasons, spirits formulate a “relative notion” (Pt.I 27) of themselves from which they are able to infer the existence of other, thereby enabling them to understand the world of perception in which they exist, thereby enabling them to further will. Therefore, nature is the coherence of spirit's perception by which it relatively functions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

thanks again for reading!


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* How many of you are actually philosophy majors?
( 1 2 all )
spud 3,350 24 04/25/07 07:50 AM
by fireworks_god
* nature vs modern medicine... editorial i wrote.. critique plz... Cracka_X 1,201 4 01/29/07 09:00 AM
by Seuss
* Jerry Springer vs. Dr. Phil
( 1 2 all )
Swami 2,603 25 05/25/05 10:54 AM
by Veritas
* A Critique on American Spirit CosmicJokeM 1,436 7 10/16/01 11:02 PM
by StrangeDays
* Critiquing your own theories DoctorJ 438 3 03/21/04 05:16 PM
by DoctorJ
* Dr. Phil CosmicJokeM 950 14 02/13/03 11:46 AM
by CosmicJoke
* Suicide Bombers and Other Mystics - A Critique
( 1 2 3 4 all )
DiploidM 5,111 70 06/07/06 05:20 PM
by fireworks_god
* Which intro Phil classes to take?l hubertd8 1,360 7 08/15/01 09:17 AM
by hubertd8

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
507 topic views. 1 members, 10 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.