How to explain to someone universe has no prupose and there is no meaning of life?

[Canute]

Re: Greetings!

Originally posted by P. M. Thorne
CANUTE:

....“Although he talks about 'God' and about pantheism etc., in his understanding of God 'It' is, ultimately, an entity devoid of all attributes and without any will or purpose.”

You know, Canute, I could give you so many quotes from Spinoza’s Ethics, (finished only 3 years before his death), that would seem to contradict your statement (above). But, you do not want that.

Yes I do. If I'm wrong I want to know. If I'm right you ought to know. Please give the quotes and let's discuss them. I thought my view on this was uncontroversial but perhaps I'm wrong.

Go for whatever there is in Buddhism for you, with my blessing. Not that you need it, but I do not like it much when someone denounces Christ, or even Spinoza, Apostle Paul, or anyone that I love. In fact I do not care much for far-sweeping generalizations.

Nor me, and I haven't denounced anyone recently as far as I know.

 

[P. M. Thorne]

You wrote:

“I haven't denounced anyone recently as far as I know.”

….nor did I think that you had.

I will explain: Your previous posting evoked my usual concern for anyone misunderstanding the philosopher. Apparently, I was just as surprised as you of the difference in concept.

Interestingly, after an hour or so hitting the books, I suddenly realized that I did not wish to tell you anything, as I was not sure that you would care to hear it. You had not even asked whether I agreed.

Spinoza's writings in his preface in Vol. I, helped me more than I can really express. It was as if he validated my resistance to the status quo in Christendom, as I knew it, and to the ones who mocked faith of any kind. A rebel too he was, and accomplished his rebellion, as did I, without losing his faith. Amazing.

I liked that you and Buddhism had no qualms with him. But, if you change your mind, so be it.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

I offer my findings, and just hope this does not make you like Spinoza less. (Whose child is this?) Seriously, though, who else so earnestly followed the convictions of his heart, and lived accordingly? Who else, bucked centuries of religion, family, community, and turned down dollars more than once, and positions of honor, either because he felt he did not need the money, and/or because he wanted the freedom to write as he pleased. 'Did not publish all of it, but I doubt that he held anything back. He was impassioned and resolved to write what he felt had to be said. (Okay, I will hush.)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I THOUGHT WHAT I HAVE BELOW WOULD GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO ASK SPECIFICLY FOR OTHER QUOTES, OR FOR MORE ON ANY SUBJECT, BUT THIS TIME I TRIED TO KEEP IT FAIRLY SIMPLE. I cannot recall where I found the following, but it goes so well with our discussion.

Giordano Bruno’s influence:

“The writings of Giordno Bruno of the 16th Century carried such weight as to influence the development of modern thought, especially through Spinoza, in whose monistic system is found what is considered the most complete and precise expression of pantheism of all times. In it, God is the unlimited, all-inclusive substance, the first cause of the universe, with innumerable attributes, two of which, thinking and extension, are capable of being perceived.


These quotes are from Spinoza’s Ethics, CONCERNING GOD:

Definitions.

>IV. “By attribute, I mean that which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance.”

< III. “By substance I, mean that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself; in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception.”

..VI. “By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite—that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality.”

[This is so good!] " EXPLANATION: -----
I say absolutely infinite, not infinite after it kind: for, of a thing infinite only after its kind, infinite attributes may be denied; but that which is absolutely infinite, contains in its essence whatever expresses reality, and involves no negations.”

(pg. 62.) Prop. XIX “God, and all the attributes of God are eternal.”
Coroll I- Hence it follows that God’s existence like his essence is an eternal truth.
Coroll II- Secondly, it follows that God and all the attributes of God are unchangeable.

Prop. XXI “All things which follow from the absolute nature of any attribute of God must always exist and be infinite, or, in other words, are eternal and infinite through the said attribute.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

~~~~~~~Quotes from, OF THE NATURE AND ORIGIN OF THE MIND:

(pg. 83) Propositions.
Prop. I. Thought is an attribute of God, or God is a thinking thing.

(pg. 84)
Prop. II Extension is an attribute of God, or God is an extended thing.
………………………………
There! I will gladly discuss Spinoza any time. (smile)

And, it was your spelling, Sir! ….. of certain words that caused me to wonder if you were English! PMT

 

[Canute]

PMThorne

You say I have misunderstood Spinoza. In what way? .

It was not for nothing that he was accused of atheism. He argued that all things are in God, and that all things exist by the necessity of nature. He denied any personality to God, insisted that God had no intellect, no will, (and certainly no free will), no purpose, and no emotion. This is not the god of Abraham and many would say not God at all.

He concurs with non-dual philosophies in saying that both human minds and bodies have only a dependent existence, and neither are 'substances'. He identified God with the fundamental laws of nature (Spinoza's God is explicitly not a lawgiver) and denied the possibility of miracles.

"Hence he became, for later generations, the prototype of that supposed impossibility, the virtuous atheist". Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy.

 

[P. M. Thorne]

CANUTE:

QUOTE: “You say I have misunderstood Spinoza. In what way?” ~
~~~~~
Did I really say that? Why would I say that? Hmm. You told me yourself that you were not that familiar with Spinoza’s writings, but knew his conclusions. I apologize.
………………………………………………………………
QUOTE:
~~~~~ “It was not for nothing that he was accused of atheism. He argued that all things are in God, and that all things exist by the necessity of nature.” ~

Or from the necessity of his nature, insomuch as he created what we call Mother Nature. To wit:

Ethics….Prop. XVI. From the necessity of the divine nature must follow an infinite number of things in infinite ways—that is, all things which can fall within the sphere of infinite intellect.

Corollary I—Hence it follows that God is the efficient cause of all that can fall within the sphere of an infinite intellect.

Corollary II—It also follows that God is a cause in himself and not through an accident of his nature.

Corollary III—It follows, thirdly, that God is the absolutely first cause.
…………………………………………………………………
QUOTE:
~~~~~“He denied any personality to God, insisted that God had no intellect, no will, (and certainly no free will), no purpose, and no emotion. “

As for God having will or intellect, the philosopher says a lot. I give you a quote quite into his dissertation:

SPINOZA: “Further, (to say a word here concerning the intellect and the will which we attribute to God), if intellect and will appertain to the eternal essence of God, we must take these words in some significations quite different from those they usually bear. For intellect and will, which should constitute the essence of God, would perforce be as far apart as the poles from the human intellect and will, in fact, would have nothing in common with them but the name….” ~

This lies in his reasoning that there can be no miracles, -because God has created all things perfect and it would, therefore, not make sense that he would interrupt the natural flow, (or change the nature of a triangle, which he uses as an example of “unchangeable”), to accommodate one person or one people.

As for no purpose, where do you get that. It is absurd to think that a God who created all things, and shares eternity with them, and that without him there would be nothing, (all Spinoza’s conclusions), has no purpose.

No emotion? He might have made that statement. As with much of his writing, I would—if this be—have to read the entire text to know whether I would take issue with that. ]
……………………………………………………………………….
QUOTE:
~~~~~“This is not the god of Abraham and many would say not God at all.”

Oh come on, Canute! A good majority of Christians believe in a triune God. God in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Other Christians believe in a single God, if you will. Muslims, believe in a single God, Jews believe in a single God. Yet all of these I mention claim to be worshiping the God of Abraham.

I ask: Who is “the God” of Abraham to you, other than some storybook character, which is defined at will, and kept safely hidden in a book? I say, there is only “one God and Father of all, which is above all, through all, and in (us) all.”

What God is it then whom Spinoza denies?

I say: He is not denying God, but is denying the superstitious aspects thereof, and denying exclusions in God's workings. In his very many comments and explanation on Jewish history, as related to the Old Testament, he gives book, chapter and verse, where God is reported to have acknowledged that He had/has other “sheep” which are not of the Jewish “flock.”
…………………………………………………………..
QUOTE:
~~~~~“(Spinoza's God is explicitly not a lawgiver)” ~

I think the law might have already been, but because it was ignored a reminder was given. How anyone can explain Spinoza, as pertaining to godly matters, without understanding Judean-Christian philosophies is a marvel in itself. I mean this sincerely. Anyway, here goes.

I acknowledge that you are a smart guy, still…if you have any questions, let me know, and I will try, okay?

SPINOZA:
“But if we look to the doctrine which Paul especially desired to teach, we shall find nothing repugnant to our present contention; on the contrary, his doctrine is the same as ours, for he says (Rom iii.29) “that God is the God of the Jews and of the Gentiles, and “ (ch.ii 26,26) [quoting Paul] ‘But if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision he counted for circumcision?’ Further, in chap.iv.verse 9, he says that all alike, Jew and Gentile, were under sin, and that without commandment and law there is no sin.

[Do you understand the meaning of circumcision as to the spiritual implications of cutting off the flesh?]

“Wherefore it is most evident that to all men absolutely was revealed the law under which all lived—namely, the law which has regard to only true virtue, not the law established in respect to, and in the formation of, a particular state and adapted to the disposition of a particular people.

“Lastly, Paul concludes that since God is the God of all nations, that is, is equally gracious to all, and since all men equally live under the law, and under sin so also to all nations did God send His Christ, to free all men equally from the bondage of the law, that they should no more do right by the command of the law, but by the constant determination of their hearts. So that Paul teaches the same as ourselves.

[and I really like this]
When, therefore, he says, ‘To the Jews only were entrusted the oracles of God,’ we must either understand that to them only were the laws entrusted in writing, while they were given to other nations merely in revelation and conception, or else (as none but Jews would object to the doctrine he desired to advance) that Paul was answering only in accordance with the understanding and current ideas of the Jews, for in respect to teaching things which he had partly seen, partly heard, he was to the Greeks a Greek, and to the Jews a Jew.” ~
………………………………………………………………………………….

QUOTE:
~~~~~“and denied the possibility of miracles.” ~

As you probably do not hang around with Christians, I have to ask, do you have any idea what some Christians call miracles? —almost anything that pleases them, and makes them feel that God is treating them "special."

Canute, my friend, I am not sure at all that I believe in miracles, because I too believe that it has all been done; however, the other consideration to make is that, if it has all been done, then why be astounded with the evidence? The happenings many call miracles are, in truth normal for (all the possibilities of) heaven and earth. In addition to this, much is superstition and vain imagination, though I hate to bring that to fore.

Why would God show partiality? In olden times, demons took the blame for illnesses, and miracles took the credit for good things, all unexplainable. They knew no other way to identify things that confounded them. Human things, not about God, but about humans.
………………………………………………………
QUOTE:
~~~~~"Hence he became, for later generations, the prototype of that supposed impossibility, the virtuous atheist". Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy. ~

Speaking of Spinoza, I presume, (as I am sure I have read it before, and took no offence). Very pretty words and an interesting slogan.

However, I wonder if you could guess what I want to say? I think I will, just this once, and nothing personal here. I do not give a flying flip what the Penquin Dictionary of Philosophy has to say about what was in Spinoza’s heart.

Of course, most of Academia want him to be, and see him as, an Atheist. He is a well-known, his words have been and still are effective, and he was/is very well read, and intelligent and true to his beliefs and his purpose, as he saw it.

Christians readily accept that he is an atheist, partially because he spent a good deal of time pointing out errors in the Old Testament. They—most of them—could not handle that. In addition he admitted not understand the resurrection of Christ, because he found it inexplainable.

It is believed that it was mainly because of Christians that Spinoza was expunged from his family and all connections, with a funeral no less, and with curses to him and his children, and on and on, as well as to anyone who talked to him, gave him comfort, etc. The guy offended Christians then and still does.

Most colleges contain many atheists and agnostics. This mind set seems to happen to people often during their college years. It happened to Will Durant to the point that he enrolled in a Catholic college with a friend, while collaborating to get in good, and then convert the teachers to Atheism. However, Durant, by his own words, while reading/studying Spinoza changed his mind. I suppose because he realized that he should be following his own purpose instead of trying to convert people. Durant wrote a beautiful summary about the tremendous influence of Spinoza (on his life) in The Story of Civilization. Lovely compliment.

(When Durant had his first child, a little girl, he experienced the grace of God anew. I do not get the impression that he was a Bible toter, or a proselyte, but he apparently had something better than what was before he fell away, so to speak. Anything tried and tested has a better feeling of value. I would suppose that now his faith was something he believed rather than simply something he had been taught.)

Another man whom I recall giving Spinoza credit for having influenced him, was Einstein, an atheist, I believe. The man called Spinoza wrote many things on many subjects.


Later, PMT

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by P. M. Thorne
CANUTE:
~~~~~ “It was not for nothing that he was accused of atheism. He argued that all things are in God, and that all things exist by the necessity of nature.” ~

Or from the necessity of his nature, insomuch as he created what we call Mother Nature. To wit:

Ethics….Prop. XVI. From the necessity of the divine nature must follow an infinite number of things in infinite ways—that is, all things which can fall within the sphere of infinite intellect.

Corollary I—Hence it follows that God is the efficient cause of all that can fall within the sphere of an infinite intellect.

Corollary II—It also follows that God is a cause in himself and not through an accident of his nature.

Corollary III—It follows, thirdly, that God is the absolutely first cause.

Yes, but what sort of God, what did he mean by God? It was nothing like what theists generally call God.

By his view the creation of nature was very specifically not an act. It is/was inevitable.

QUOTE:
~~~~~“He denied any personality to God, insisted that God had no intellect, no will, (and certainly no free will), no purpose, and no emotion. “

As for God having will or intellect, the philosopher says a lot. I give you a quote quite into his dissertation:

SPINOZA: “Further, (to say a word here concerning the intellect and the will which we attribute to God), if intellect and will appertain to the eternal essence of God, we must take these words in some significations quite different from those they usually bear. For intellect and will, which should constitute the essence of God, would perforce be as far apart as the poles from the human intellect and will, in fact, would have nothing in common with them but the name….” ~

This lies in his reasoning that there can be no miracles, -because God has created all things perfect and it would, therefore, not make sense that he would interrupt the natural flow, (or change the nature of a triangle, which he uses as an example of “unchangeable”), to accommodate one person or one people.

As for no purpose, where do you get that. It is absurd to think that a God who created all things, and shares eternity with them, and that without him there would be nothing, (all Spinoza’s conclusions), has no purpose.

No emotion? He might have made that statement. As with much of his writing, I would—if this be—have to read the entire text to know whether I would take issue with that. ]

Your extracts here do not contradict what I said, if you look closely. Spinoza defines his words very carefully and rather differently to normal. I suspect that this was to confuse his dangerous critics. Even 'will' and 'intellect' are given new definitions.

The substance of what I posted was taken from a three page entry in the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy. This isn't a great source but usually dictionaries play it very safe, so it is not likely to be a controversial view.

~~~~~“This is not the god of Abraham and many would say not God at all.”

Oh come on, Canute! A good majority of Christians believe in a triune God. God in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Other Christians believe in a single God, if you will. Muslims, believe in a single God, Jews believe in a single God. Yet all of these I mention claim to be worshiping the God of Abraham.

Yes. But thjey all have attributes in common which Spinoza's God did not have, namely attributes. Many would say and still say that Spinoza's God is not a god in a meaningful sense.

I say: He is not denying God, but is denying the superstitious aspects thereof, and denying exclusions in God's workings. In his very many comments and explanation on Jewish history, as related to the Old Testament, he gives book, chapter and verse, where God is reported to have acknowledged that He had/has other “sheep” which are not of the Jewish “flock.”

I am not alone in concluding he was an atheist. In fact it's a common view. He certainly talks about God, but by his defintion it is not God in a sense that many theists would recognise.

QUOTE:
~~~~~“(Spinoza's God is explicitly not a lawgiver)” ~

I think the law might have already been, but because it was ignored a reminder was given.

Not by Spinoza's God, which performs no self-willed action.

How anyone can explain Spinoza, as pertaining to godly matters, without understanding Judean-Christian philosophies is a marvel in itself. I mean this sincerely.

Why?

Anyway, here goes.

I acknowledge that you are a smart guy, still…if you have any questions, let me know, and I will try, okay?

SPINOZA:
“But if we look to the doctrine which Paul especially desired to teach, we shall find nothing repugnant to our present contention; on the contrary, his doctrine is the same as ours, for he says (Rom iii.29) “that God is the God of the Jews and of the Gentiles, and “ (ch.ii 26,26) [quoting Paul] ‘But if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision he counted for circumcision?’ Further, in chap.iv.verse 9, he says that all alike, Jew and Gentile, were under sin, and that without commandment and law there is no sin.

[Do you understand the meaning of circumcision as to the spiritual implications of cutting off the flesh?]

“Wherefore it is most evident that to all men absolutely was revealed the law under which all lived—namely, the law which has regard to only true virtue, not the law established in respect to, and in the formation of, a particular state and adapted to the disposition of a particular people.

“Lastly, Paul concludes that since God is the God of all nations, that is, is equally gracious to all, and since all men equally live under the law, and under sin so also to all nations did God send His Christ, to free all men equally from the bondage of the law, that they should no more do right by the command of the law, but by the constant determination of their hearts. So that Paul teaches the same as ourselves.

[and I really like this]
When, therefore, he says, ‘To the Jews only were entrusted the oracles of God,’ we must either understand that to them only were the laws entrusted in writing, while they were given to other nations merely in revelation and conception, or else (as none but Jews would object to the doctrine he desired to advance) that Paul was answering only in accordance with the understanding and current ideas of the Jews, for in respect to teaching things which he had partly seen, partly heard, he was to the Greeks a Greek, and to the Jews a Jew.” ~

Don't see the relevance of this. Anyway it seems to be just Spinoza apologising for his unorthodoxy, trying to make his views sound acceptable.

QUOTE:
~~~~~“and denied the possibility of miracles.” ~

As you probably do not hang around with Christians, I have to ask, do you have any idea what some Christians call miracles? —almost anything that pleases them, and makes them feel that God is treating them "special."

Canute, my friend, I am not sure at all that I believe in miracles, because I too believe that it has all been done; however, the other consideration to make is that, if it has all been done, then why be astounded with the evidence? The happenings many call miracles are, in truth normal for (all the possibilities of) heaven and earth. In addition to this, much is superstition and vain imagination, though I hate to bring that to fore.

Why would God show partiality? In olden times, demons took the blame for illnesses, and miracles took the credit for good things, all unexplainable. They knew no other way to identify things that confounded them. Human things, not about God, but about humans.

Ok, you seem to agree with Spinoza, though for different reasons.

QUOTE:
~~~~~"Hence he became, for later generations, the prototype of that supposed impossibility, the virtuous atheist". Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy. ~

Speaking of Spinoza, I presume, (as I am sure I have read it before, and took no offence). Very pretty words and an interesting slogan.

However, I wonder if you could guess what I want to say? I think I will, just this once, and nothing personal here. I do not give a flying flip what the Penquin Dictionary of Philosophy has to say about what was in Spinoza’s heart.

Yes, I can tell that.

Of course, most of Academia want him to be, and see him as, an Atheist. He is a well-known, his words have been and still are effective, and he was/is very well read, and intelligent and true to his beliefs and his purpose, as he saw it.

Christians readily accept that he is an atheist, partially because he spent a good deal of time pointing out errors in the Old Testament. They—most of them—could not handle that. In addition he admitted not understand the resurrection of Christ, because he found it inexplainable.

Well, as you point out, most people think he was an atheist. I know you don't agree, but I also think he was one. I feel that what he writes about god is mostly right, (as far as I know what he said) but that he used the wrong word because he had to.

It is believed that it was mainly because of Christians that Spinoza was expunged from his family and all connections, with a funeral no less, and with curses to him and his children, and on and on, as well as to anyone who talked to him, gave him comfort, etc. The guy offended Christians then and still does.

Hmm. I thought it was the Jewish authorities he mostly upset. It was his doubts about Judaism that got him excommunicated.

Canute

 

[P. M. Thorne]

CANUTE WRITES: “Yes. But thjey all have attribute in common which Spinoza's God did not have, namely attributes. Many would say and have said that Spinoza's God is not a god in a meaningful sense.”

Clarification would be helpful, because I am trying right now to ascertain whether you read or possibly denied the quotes I sent regarding God’s attributes, according to Spinoza. As you did not even mention the quotes in reply, your statement (above) leaves me somewhat puzzled. I believe that nothing I do is totally in vain, but it would have been nice to have had a response of some sort.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;
YOU WROTE: “I am not alone in concluding he was an atheist.” [speaking of Spinoza]

I accept that, and understand why one would make the statement. However, for me, Canute, while appreciating anyone who reads for better understanding, ....when it comes to communicating, (though quotes and such are nice), I also like to hear one’s own thoughts; that is to say, having one’s own workings and growth expressed after he has digested the most helpful and interesting of what he has read. Only, then can you tell -to any significant degree- who that person is becoming.

What one refuses to accept, or even to read is also very telling, but much more difficult to ascertain. Do you not agree?

It is no news to me that I take things more seriously than most and that I am more personable about what I take seriously. Therefore, I am accustomed to the fact that some tend not to be quite so serious and not nearly so open. I can accept that, but it does not change me. To me Spinoza is a real person, deceased indeed, but real nonetheless, like Will Durant, Schopenhauer . . . Lord Byron, and my dear Aunt Nora.

Time means little to me, because I think of much in the terms of eternity, which puts time and death in parenthesis. Furthermore, I tend not to fix on any particular way of looking at things. So much of what I believe is in process!

All I know for sure regarding all that is, -is that God is! Do you understand what I am saying? To me, it is not a question of proving, or deciding, no more that it is a question of proving or deciding whether nature is. This prpbably puts us in different places; nonetheless, we have bumped into each other on this website. It would, therefore, be nice if we could each leave the other with something of value. I feel, however, that I am failing to do this.

YOU WROTE: “Don't see the relevance of this. Anyway it seems to be just Spinoza apologizing for his unorthodoxy, trying to make his views sound acceptable.”

All right; then, allow me then to attempt to bring to light my intended connection, or something like that!

Why would Spinoza make such an effort to defend the Apostle (Paul) in his statements regarding the circumcised and the uncircumcised, (which represented “cutting of the flesh,” —or traits of the old-Adam"-ic" nature of disobedience), or not having gone through such a surgery, and allegorize that difference... into one's spiritual state, regardless of tradition, that gives a desire sufficient to walk circumspectly, being a thing of the heart, rather than a matter of laws?

I simply could not/cannot imagine a philosopher of Judean origin, bothering to defend a Jew who had become a Christian—and especially by such controversial means—that being a comparison between Jews and Gentiles . . . which all contributes to uphold Christ’s statement that He came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it. (If you want more on this, let me know.)

In other writings of Paul's, he elaborates on this fact, by stating that the law was given to man to show ( or bring to his attention) that he was flawed. [“..For by the law is the knowledge of sin”] & another [For until the law, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no law.] Paul also gave a personal statement. He wrote: “………for I had not known lust, until the law said, Thou shalt not covet.” Such statements go amazingly well with some of Spinoza’s comments about law(s).

I hope I have offered sufficient reason for including this in my last answer to you. This recalling leaves me with a desire to expand with some thoughts of my own, which you might find not-so-far from your own, (that is, if we think more about how these things serve us and help us to grow than about the origin of the support we might have found for these beliefs).

Having been taught quite differently than many Christians, I had a good start is thinking differently as to certain truths.

I am convinced that the good teachers of this world left with us, commands/admonitions that would serve us.

I do not buy the theory that God gets all happy when I do not sin, nor do I fear that he scowls at me if I swear at some thoughtless driver, or commit any other deed that does not serve me well.

(If you will but edge into my philosophy for a moment, I will speak from my own post, understanding that you will step out again and compare it with your takings gathered from where you stand, okay?)

First and foremost: I BELIEVE THAT ALL IS DONE, or COMPLETE, with "ALL" meaning, all to which I have access in this world state. Secondly, just as man has used only a percentage of his brain, so goes what he knows, says I. I accept, therefore, that we now see through a glass darkly. Further, I am convinced with everything in me, that one day I shall understand fully. Whether this means that the earth and its inhabitance will gradually improve until knowledge truly becomes ours, which could be interpreted that this earth—as we know it—will pass away, or should it be that this world will literally go bye bye, and that we will reside elsewhere, I do not know.

Thoughts about a “new heaven and new earth,” come to me on occasion, while I dismiss earlier teachings, and it is not inconceivable to me that there will be a gradual refining of us mortals, or that longevity could increase with time to God only knows where. In fact, it surely will. It is also conceivable to me that “heaven” could mean almost any place besides earth, and so forth.

I am sure you can see where I am going with all this. The possibilities are endless, but the probabilities are almost as baffling. Yet, I spend little time on such thoughts, because they are, (though of some use), not nearly so relevant as thinking about now. And NOW! I have a source that has all-knowledge, all-wisdom, and is all forgiving, from which I –or anyone- may draw, without having some merit. That is to say, we, by the grace of God, have access to all good things. It is we who allow much of the devastation that we question. It is we, -that mess up lives.

One may, as C.S. Lewis points out so clearly in his: “Mere Christianity,” be born into something not even close to what we call normal, and then such a beginning can surely make life a bit like hell even while such a one tries to do his best. Yet, even while giving attention to such an unfortunate, we have to go back to man for the reasons. (Incidentally, that is about the only Christian writer that has truly impressed me. He speaks well, at least in that book.)
...........................................
Standing back, or quieting our minds, opening their portals, and listening…………we ought to have little difficulty realizing that we have a Source that can (make up for) what is lacking, and give us the strength and the courage to live with a peace even in the worst turmoil, a joy even in the deepest sorrow, and amazing strength, even in our weakest moments. Now, tell me how that differs so much from Buddhism. Forget what we call it. I can call a pear a frog, but it will probably taste much the same to each of us.

Now, I will go further to say that I believe that this Source of which I speak is within us. Yes! I believe that, and I believe that the statement, “The Kingdom of God is within you,” means just that. I believe that the statement, “Your body is a temple of the Holy Ghost,” (or Spirit), means just that. I believe that the statement “..One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and IN YOU ALL,” means the same thing. I truly do.

I understand that the Bible was written by men, but I know there are truths in it that can change men's lives, but there is no magic. Therefore, why would I challenge it -more than- other things written by men. Nay, they all err. Anything that man does will have flaws, and when we forget that, we are in trouble, and will consequently be robbed by our naivety.

Therefore, I ask you, do you really care to know me; are you seriously interested in what I perceive to be true? Do you care to know Spinoza? I can tell you this, Canute, if you ever know him, you will surely know in your heart that he refused to be denied. Conversely, if you do not know him, how can you possibly perceive what he “really meant?” I believe those are fair questions.

YOU WROTE: “It was his doubts about Judaism that got him excommunicated.” A flat statement, (not, “Why would you say this?”), in reply to what I had said which was that his excommunication came about mainly because of the Christians. This leads me to suppose that you presuppose that you are right, I am wrong, and that is that. Perhaps you did not “really mean that,” but I do not “know you, and can therefore speak only as to how it comes across.” So! Perhaps you simply misunderstood, and then made a statement as a possibility rather than a fact.(?)

I was not saying that the Christians directly caused the excommunication, but that it was because of them. The circumstances leading up to that horrendous out-casting convinces me that the Jews were very concerned about offending those Christians who had treated them so well after they had escaped a hell on earth to find such a place to dwell.

In addition to Spinoza’s behavior was their memory of another young man (about sixteen years prior) that had made statements about any hereafter being a myth, so to speak. That young man wound up dead by his own hands, after being forced to retract and then was humiliated beyond his ability to bear such intolerance. Now comes Spinosa, and a star pupil no less, but an upstart nonetheless, claiming errors in the Holy writ, and who would prove to be -not so easily upended by their disapproval. (I am sure that Spinoza was aware of the tragedy of Uriel a Costa, and maybe even remembered it.)

In addition to the remarkable incidents, of Spinoza’s dedication to freedom of speech and his resolve, those letters between him and Oldenburg are priceless in this regard. As the two travailed over the happening to do with Christ’s reported resurrection and ascension, did the philosopher back up, back down, give in? Not a bit!

I will let you be the judge of that for yourself, however, as I quote the latter part of the last letter (and there were many) to Mr. Oldenberg.

Spinoza closes with these words:
“He appeared to His disciples; but in these matters they might, without injury to Gospel teaching, have been deceived, as was the case with other prophets mentioned in my last letter. But Paul, to whom Christ afterwards appeared, rejoices, that he knew Christ not after the flesh, but after the spirit. Farewell, honourable Sir and believe me yours in all affection and zeal.”

-That took a lot of guts! It is no marvel that he is so well admired for living his convictions. The man had resolve. I doubt that he would ever make a statement of any kind the truth of which he did not wholly beleive, not from his well-developed mind and heart.

It is difficult to quote Spinoza, because he says so much about each matter, and yet, I made every attempt to give you the best I could, because you encouraged the quotes (re: attributes), so that we could discuss them, but instead you did not mention them in your reply. Perhaps it was an oversight. I hate to ever make a conclusion, because there are no absolutes with us, so correct me if I err. Regardless, I care not to offend you, and do make an effort to keep my words kind, because I am not as soft as you might think, and do attempt to temper my terms and phrasing, lest my passion proceed my wisdom, and I freely admit this. I do this for the sake of the seriousness of this matter as well.

PMT

 

[Canute]

PMT

I do not resopond to everything you write because you write a lot. I try to pick out what is directly relevant.

I am no expert on Spinoza. However your view on him contradicts the views of all other commentators that I have read. That may be because I've not read the ones who agree with you. Perhaps you could point me at a commentator who does.

I accept your beliefs about God and don't want to argue about it particularly. However I find the concept of of a Christian God illogical and not in accord with my experience of myself. On that we must therefore differ. However I find Spinoza's god far more plausible.

Quotations from Spinoza are all very well. But his writings are difficult, and can be used to back up almost any interpretation if selected carefully. That's why I prefer to stick to 'meta-analysis' of his writings, drawn from experts, rather than attempt an anlysis myself, for which I have neither the time nor the skill.

Let's agree to disagree.

Cheers
Canute

 

[P. M. Thorne]

Canute: I Am Unable To Get A Posted Message To Take. Thought I Would Try This, Just To See If It Works. Pmt

 

[P. M. Thorne]

CANUTE WRITES: “I do not resopond to everything you write because you write a lot. I try to pick out what is directly relevant.”

Then I must suppose, the quotes you asked me to send (so that we could discuss them) were not even worth acknowledging, but the other, was relevant.

CANUTE: I am no expert on Spinoza. However your view on him contradicts the views of all other commentators that I have read. That may be because I've not read the ones who agree with you. Perhaps you could point me at a commentator who does.

Of course not. Neither of us is. As for referring you, I thought I did. My intentions were such.

CANUTE: I accept your beliefs about God and don't want to argue about it particularly.

I choose not to defend my beliefs. Nor do I try to prove God as that would be most presumptuous of me; neither am/was I attempting to argue about what you call Spinoza’s God. Not at all! Initially, I was but letting you know that I disagreed with your statement about attributes, (that was when you asked for the quotes).

I apologize if my messages seem overly lengthy.

CANUTE: However I find the concept of a Christian God illogical and not in accord with my experience of myself.

Perhaps your experience ought to reach beyond yourself, --or maybe not. In any event, I truly do not understand the latter… [“and not in accord with my experience of myself”] part of your sentence.

Moreover, have I ever referred to God as “a Christian God? I think not.
………………………
CANUTE: On that we must therefore differ.

Must we? As I am quite dubious of what you mean by this God or that, I shall leave the matter up to you.
…………………
CANUTE: However I find Spinoza's god far more plausible.

Oh my! My friend! You pick for yourself a god, as you would choose a tie! Spinoza’s god, indeed!

CANUTE: That's why I prefer to stick to 'meta-analysis' of his writings, drawn from experts, rather than attempt an anlysis myself, for which I have neither the time nor the skill.

The problem is, Canute, experts disagree. You know this; so, What exactly does knowing this do to the word “experts?”

CANUTE: Quotations from Spinoza are all very well. But his writings are difficult, and can be used to back up almost any interpretation if selected carefully.

Uhhhh! I disagree. Darn it. Who told you that? That would be true only if you had a bunch of big kids that were too full of themselves to stick with something until it became as familiar to them as their driver’s licenses.

One cannot jump about in Spinoza’s writings, and quote this and that. Why do you think it took me so long to find what I thought might be the more definitive quotes. There were “Proofs,” and lengthy explanations, but the summary statement seemed most appropriate, and time was important.

True, Spinoza’s writings are challenging. Nonetheless, anyone serious about studying and knowing would immediately question some ridiculous attempt to misinterpret, as opposed to a valid misunderstanding. I have far to go, but usually, the second or third time I visit a comment, I understand something about it, even if I did not the first time or two! I can tell you this, what I -learn for me- is far more joyous than worrying about what someone might say or think about my supposed ignorance. One who continues his study, learns from time to time that he make a huh-oh once in a while, and re-evalutates.

While I know what I believe, and why I believe it, I also know that there is much of my knowing still in process, . . . and that beliefs can change. I read many commentaries, and enjoy doing so, but I also enjoy hearing thoughts of other individuals.


Of course, as you suggested, I can agree to disagree for now. Later!

PMT

 

[P. M. Thorne]

CANUTE: There! We are having dreadful weather here. I cannot get to my mail box! We have a solid sheet of ice, and oh boy, what a mess. Have not lost power right here, and there are the trees are not close enough to fall on us. That message may be a bit rough in spots, because I was afraid I would lose it again, and gave up on editing. PMT

 

[Canute]

CANUTE WRITES: “I do not respond to everything you write because you write a lot. I try to pick out what is directly relevant.”

Then I must suppose, the quotes you asked me to send (so that we could discuss them) were not even worth acknowledging, but the other, was relevant.

Sorry. I should have said that I don't respond to the bits that don't seem to need a response, which is what I actually meant.

Of course not. Neither of us is. As for referring you, I thought I did. My intentions were such.

Did you?

I apologize if my messages seem overly lengthy.

No, no, I didn't mean to say that.

CANUTE: However I find the concept of a Christian God illogical and not in accord with my experience of myself.

Perhaps your experience ought to reach beyond yourself, --or maybe not. In any event, I truly do not understand the latter… [“and not in accord with my experience of myself”] part of your sentence.

Theists generally don't. (But I'm not suggesting that means that they're wrong). To you God is fundamental, to me I am fundamental (given a couple of days to explain what I mean by 'I'.)

CANUTE: However I find Spinoza's god far more plausible.

Oh my! My friend! You pick for yourself a god, as you would choose a tie! Spinoza’s god, indeed!

I find Spinoza's concept of an attributeless and non-physical God the most logical version. (I know we don't agree about attributes). I feel he came close to what I feel is the truth. But I don't believe in 'God' so I don't spend much time on the details.

CANUTE: That's why I prefer to stick to 'meta-analysis' of his writings, drawn from experts, rather than attempt an anlysis myself, for which I have neither the time nor the skill.

The problem is, Canute, experts disagree. You know this; so, What exactly does knowing this do to the word “experts?”

The usual thing. Expertise does not mean infallibility. But one can assess their arguments, and this is often much better than trying to work out all the arguments as a non-expert.

CANUTE: Quotations from Spinoza are all very well. But his writings are difficult, and can be used to back up almost any interpretation if selected carefully.

Uhhhh! I disagree. Darn it. Who told you that? That would be true only if you had a bunch of big kids that were too full of themselves to stick with something until it became as familiar to them as their driver’s licenses.

I thought you just said that there are many expert interpretations. You can;t also argue that Spinoza isn't ambiguous. Spinoza's writing is notorious for its different interpretations.

One cannot jump about in Spinoza’s writings, and quote this and that. Why do you think it took me so long to find what I thought might be the more definitive quotes. There were “Proofs,” and lengthy explanations, but the summary statement seemed most appropriate, and time was important.

But this proves the point. In your view those quotes proved your argument. In my view they didn't. We interpret them differently.

I'll try to put my argument about Spinoza's God a bit more clearly when I've got time, so it doesn't sound so off the cuff.

Bye for now
Canute

 

[P. M. Thorne]

THIS IS FROM A FRIEND IN CHICAGO, AND, THOUGH IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE ARE INTO, YOU SEEM TO BE A BIT LIKE HIM, SO I THOUGHT I WOULD SHARE IT WITH YOU. WILL GET TO YOUR MESSAGE LATER. BE GOOD, OKAY?

I found this in a recent book I've been reading called 'For the Love of
Life' by Erich Fromm.

If human reason is to become an effective guide for our actions it
cannot be dominated by irrational emotions. Intelligence remains
intelligence, even if it is turned to evil purposes. Reason, however,
our awareness of reality as it is and not as we would like to see it so
that we can exploit it for our own ends - reason in this sense can be
effective only to the extent that we can put aside our irrational
emotions, that is, to the extent that we as human being become truly
human and that irrational drives cease to be the main motivation force
behind our actions.

 

[Canute]

I can agree with that, especially since it's totally tautological. But don't let's get rid of our rational emotions, that would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[Cyperium]

EVERYONE is welcome,here on this debate,but I especially call STRONG ATHEISTS-please,enter if there are any of the strong atheists in these forums at al-tell me also why are you strong atheists-I'm one o strong atheists,too...

You don't tell that to people! Cause you can't know that it is meaningless!

You could just as easy tell him a lie, let him find out for himself. He's just a kid for crying out loud! I would say something like "There may or may not be a God or meaning in life, but it's not wrong to believe it is.".

Cause that's a fact. It isn't wrong to believe it is, tell the child facts and let him find out what can't be teached for himself.

I just realized that it might not be a child that you were going to explain it too, but even with adults, you can give them your reasons but don't give them your belief - and make sure your reasons are facts.

 

[Ellimist]

Everyone has to figure these things out for themselves. Unless they are trying to be unnecessarily religious, then you need to kick them every now and then and make them realize that they have a brain and that they can use it. Make them think about what they are doing. Whether it is choosing atheism or religion (the extremes), they need to think about it. Up to them. It is that simple. I don't know why this thread is so long... gah.

 

[Canute]

PMT

I said I would flesh out my argument a bit. Here's an attempt.

Thanks to our disagreement I have spent a bit of time getting to know Spinoza better. (That’s the benefit of arguing). I suggested that Spinoza’s God is without attributes and therefore very close to a the ‘non-dual’ view of the nature of reality, but without the ‘apperception’ (minds perception of itself) so central to non-dual affirmation. This is why I feel Spinoza’s God is more logical than most other conceptions of Him. I also suggested, (for the same reasons), that it is debatable whether Spinoza’s God is a God at all by any traditional definition.

I argued that one reason I like this God is that He has no attributes, and yet He has infinite attributes. This apparent contradiction relates to the ‘oneness’ and ‘many-ness’ of what underlies Advaita or Buddhism, and to the two Brahmans etc.

However I see that whether Spinoza actually thought this is a matter of opinion. To me this contradicition is implicit in his writings, and many other interpreters agree. However as yet I haven’t found a passage that makes it explicit. I would argue that Spinoza was well aware that this contradiction followed from his arguments, but perhaps I am extrapolating beyond his actual thoughts.

I’m grateful to you for making me defend my position, since I’ve found Spinoza to be even more brilliant than I thought he was, and I already thought he was brilliant.

Here’s my thinking. Please disagree as you see fit. (I’ve tried to place all the quotes but have stupidly seperated some of them from the notes as to where they came from).

Spinoza claimed that bodies as an attribute of Extension and minds as attribute of Thought were two ways of perceiving one thing, i.e. Substance. They were intricately woven together but distinct.

This is fairly equivalent to the Buddhist teaching that mind and body are aspects of the emptiness that lies at the heart of all things.

For Spinoza Thought and Extension are attributes of God, the only ‘real’ substance. They are therefore not the essence of God. God is therefore neither Thought nor Extension, but whatever it is that has these attributes. The same applies to all other attributes that God may have.

To put it another way. Spinoza asserts that only one substance exists. Thought and Extension are two aspects of this substance, and therefore neither of these things can be that substance.

Therefore although God has infinite attributes, and has each of them infinitely, these are aspects only , the essence of God is beyond all attributes. (This is the well known philosophical ‘problem of attributes’ in disguise – what is left of an object when all its external attributes are removed?)

God is one, that is, only one substance can be granted in the universe. [I.14]

Alternatively, as Thought and Extension are the two fundamental attributes of all that we know to exist (or rather all that exists are attributes of these two things) then Spinoza’s God, in a particular sense, does not exist.

This seems illogical, since Spinoza argues that God does exist. The solution is to analyse what ‘exist’ really means whenever the term is used. I believe that on this issue, God’s existence, Spinoza was careful not to take his argument to its logical conclusion.

In effect Spinoza is making an argument about duality. All attributes have a dual polarity (hot/cold, finite/infinite, etc.) As God is one thing and embodies no contradictions all such attributes are aspects of God, not His essence.

"The more we understand singular things, the more we understand God" Ethics, part V, proposition 24

For Spinoza God was singular in all respects, without dual properties. Thus God’s existence is absolute, not relative. As all other things that exist have only a relative existence God does not exist in the same sense as other things that exist.

“Nature does not work with an end in view. For the eternal and infinite Being, which we call God or Nature, acts by the same necessity as that whereby it exists. . . . Therefore, as he does not exist for the sake of an end, so neither does he act for the sake of an end; of his existence and of his action there is neither origin nor end.” - Ethics [iv. Preface]

Thus God exists but does not act, and has no will or purpose.

“God is without passions, neither is he affected by any emotion of pleasure or pain . . . Strictly speaking, God does not love anyone. Ethics [V.17]

He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return. Ethics [V.19]

Thus God has no emotions or feelings, except inasmuch as sentient beings have them.

“God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things. All things which are, are in God. Besides God there can be no substance, that is, nothing in itself external to God.” [I.17]

Thus there is no opposite to God. ‘Nothing’ cannot exist. God, as the sole and singular substance in existence, is axiomatic and inevitable. There is something that exists beyond the world of attributes (the world of our conceptions and perceptions) that appears to be nothing, yet is the something that is fundamental to our existence. As in non-dual affirmation.

“Because we have found already before that there must be an infinite and perfect being, by which nothing else can be meant than such a being of which all in all must be predicated. Why? [Because] to a being which has any essence attributes must be referred, and the more essence one ascribes to it, the more attributes also must one ascribe to it, and consequently if a being is infinite then its attributes also must be infinite, and this is just what we call a perfect being.”

Thus God has infinite attributes as aspects, but is a substance or essence with no inherent attributes. (And thus no contradictory dual aspects, allowing it to be utterly singular). This (apparent) contradiction is derived from the same understanding that underlies the emptiness/fullness, eternal/timeless, something/nothing descriptions of fundamental reality in non-dual teachings. Our language has no words to deal with such a thing without contradiction, it is beyond words, since all words (and everything else that exists in the phenomenal world) are dual in nature, have only a dependent existence. Thus reality is beyond reasoning (but not beyond knowing).

“Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived. “ [I.15]

Imho Spinoza’s key insight was that epistemology and ontology become the same thing at the limit, as adherents of a non-dual worldview assert.

"The order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things " (EIIp7).

For Descartes knowledge of God was a way to secure oneself from doubt. But the doubt makes God and the divine aim of man’s understanding something external. Spinoza had it that nothing could be external to God, and certainly not man’s understanding of him.

Thus Mind is the idea of the body, (EIIp13, "The object of the idea constituting the human mind is the Body".) Further, the idea of the body in mind is nothing else than the same thing as the body itself, just conceived in another way. Since all there is are modes in the infinite Intellect, God, mind (as mode of Thought) as idea of a certain body (mode of Extension) are the same. He suggests that some of the "Hebrews" saw this as if through a cloud, when they saw that "God, God’s intellect and the things understood by him are one and the same "(EIIp7s).

With Aristotle, Popper et al (and Buddhism etc) he asserts, in different words, that certain knowledge is identical with the knower. By saying this he makes both an epistemilogical and an ontological claim, as do Buddhists (but probably not Aristotle and Popper).

The essence of a thing, and the idea of (that essence of) that thing, are the same, but not in our mind, only in God’s. Neither man nor all finite modes exist necessarily. No finite thing can be thought outside God, but God is not a part of a finite mode. If so, it would necessarily exist, which is absurd. Only God exists of necessity. A finite mode exists because other determinate modes, infinite and finite, cause its existence.

Therefore nothing exists that is not ‘epiphenomenal’ on a singular substance that exists, but which is essentially without attributes, and which does not exist in the same sense as those epiphenomena. As usual ‘exists’ has a dual meaning.

"Every thing is necessarily caused by another and another into (divine) infinity or God, for Spinoza. All ideas are in God’s infinite intellect in so far as they are true. (In this he concurs with Plato) . We know that they are true when we are certain by our active knowledge, not by looking for special signs of true ideas, as if ideas were "mute pictures on a panel" (EIIp49s2). Rather, a true idea involves an affirmation of its truth." (from an online essay).

This could come straight from Advaita Vedanta. To know the truth is to affirm it, to be it, to live it. To know the truth is to KNOW it. If we know something then we believe it utterly, and it is thus certain to be affirmed by our actions and words.

“Having so far discussed what God is, we shall say but a word, as it were, about his attributes: that those which are known to us consist of two only, namely, Thought and Extension; for here we speak only of attributes which might be called the proper attributes of God, through which we come to know him [as he is] in himself, and not [merely] as he acts [towards things] outside himself. All else, then, that men ascribe to God beyond these two attributes, all that (if it otherwise pertains to him) must be either an extraneous denomination, such as that he exists through himself, is Eternal, One, Immutable, &c., or, I say, has reference to his activity, such as that he is a cause, predestines, and rules all things: all which are properties of God, but give us no information as to what he is.”

“…In the first place, we do not see that they give us in it any attribute or attributes through which it can be known what the thing (God) is, but only some propria or properties which do, indeed, belong to a thing, but never explain what the thing is. For although self-subsisting, being the cause of all things, highest good, eternal and immutable, &c., are peculiar to God alone, nevertheless, from those properties we cannot know what that being, to whom these properties pertain is, and what attributes he has.”

“…It is now also time for us to consider the things which they ascribe to God, and which do not, however, pertain to him, [N1] such as omniscient, merciful, wise, and so forth, which things, since they are only certain modes of the thinking thing, and can by no means be, or be understood without the substances [N2] whose modes [N3] they are, can, consequently, also not be attributed to him, who is a Being subsisting without the aid of anything, and solely through himself.”

This is not a tidy argument, just a review of some of the ideas involved. But it may explain where I’m coming from.

Regards
Canute

 

[P. M. Thorne]

Canute Says:
I can agree with that, especially since it's totally tautological. But don't let's get rid of our rational emotions, that would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

............response............
I just copied three messages from you, so I had best begin catching up.

You are not as much like my friend as I thought. I had to smile that you analyze even this rather simply-put advice.

Sometimes, I make myself uncomfortable, always seeing exceptions to everything.
Once a friend made a very common statement at a very uncommon time. A little boy I knew, only four-years-old, had been very badly burned in a house fire. He lived in spite of his little body having third degree burns. The friend, speaking of someone having a close call, simply said, “God was just with him, that’s all.” It really hit me. I sat down at the table near her, and almost whispered, “Was God not with Kyle, Blanche? She answered that people just say things like that, and I responded that perhaps people should stop saying things like that.

In retrospect, I probably should have waited until later, but I was so sick of hearing such automatic B.S., and my poor friend, meaning no harm, had caught the blunt of it. If it had not been so soon after losing my own son, perhaps I would have not reacted in that way, who knows? But, at that time in my life I was loaded for bear, and it took me a while to level things out, but oh my goodness, what a period of growth.

Ha! See! How could I disagree that rational emotion is not to be condemned. I know that all that emotion, passion, and even anger provoked a war for truth within me, and ll it accelerated a mind that had grown so weary of platitudes and clichés, and the fiery darts of scriptures inappropriately used. Admittedly, I had to work on the leveling out part, but it was a process necessary to free me from a quagmire of trying to please everyone.

I have, still in my possession, a long letter I wrote just about three months after Mike’s death, denouncing all that had troubled me for years about Christendom. I purged my files for about three years, and then with the encouragement from reading Spinoza, stood my ground, and boy, was it painful at first. But, what a nice “now.” Now I understand Christ’s teaching in a different way, and even more than in my most eloquent and passionate moments in Bible School, and have learned more from Spinoza that I ever learned in a pew.

I have always been a rebel; the difference is; now I enjoy it.

Soon, I will reply to your other messages, the last of which will be a beneficial challenge, I am sure. Thank you.

PMT

 

[Godless]

The virtue of selfishness.

Admittedly, I had to work on the leveling out part, but it was a process necessary to free me from a quagmire of trying to please everyone.

PMT; it seems it took you a while to realize that the only person you need to understand and please is thyself!.

From whatever religious virtues one may follow, the main lesson of life is to "know your self", and the only person that needs any fulfilment and pleasing first is "one self". We are not here to please anyone, nor follows anyone else's mandate, virtues, or morals. When the fore fathers of the US wrote " The Right to the pursuit of happiness" they ment that man has a right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal, individual happiness and to work for his own achievements, as long as one respects the rights of others for their own pursuit.

Religious values contradict these values, they are a collective, which values the life of the collective giving little regard for the individual. Perhaps this is one of the reasons you had such a strugle, if you dug yourself out of a rut, this is good, however religious fixes and devotions are short lived for comfort of tragedies and hardship. But then this is just my opinion

Godless.

 

[Canute]

PMThorne

There's nothing I can say about your loss. I have not been there. If it happened to me I don't know if I'd cope. But I suppose one has no choice.

Apologies for posting so much. The Spinoza stuff was much for my own benefit. You don't have to comment if it's too much.

One thing. I'm now a little uncomfortable with my argument about Spinoza and God, since this is an academic point for me, but a deeper issue for you. I just want to make it clear that I am not, by arguing that Spinoza's God is not a God with any substance, suggesting a nihilistic view that leaves a vaccuum in which life and death have no meaning, as many atheistic views would have it. In other words I'm not trying to pull the rug out from under your feet. In fact quite the reverse, but I won't try and explain that now.

Canute Says:

You are not as much like my friend as I thought. I had to smile that you analyze even this rather simply-put advice.

I responded as I did because I thought Eric Fromm had not been honest. He attaches the word 'irrational' to 'emotions' throughout, which renders his comment completely empty of content. Of course we should control our irrational emotions. He picked on a straw man, and either simply assumes that emotions are irrational (which is irrational) or does not say anything at all about rational emotions. He argues for reason over irrational emotions, an argument that nobody would argue with.

 

[P. M. Thorne]

GODLESS OPENS HIS MESSAGE WITH THIS HEADING: “The virtue of selfishness.”


It amazes me how we sometimes just tromp along in the old cow trail. Is it any wonder that we use such a small percentage of our brains! I like to think that we are all in a process, and that we ought to trust one another to find his own way, (unless one is truly unable, for whatever reason). This is what I try to do, and the sum of it is respect.

GODLESS: "We are not here to please anyone…. nor follows anyone else's mandate,.”

This is just as good place a time as any to say that I appreciate your response. Not that I have not heard these things before, but this time my thoughts opened up a bit more, ~the key word here is “please.” Where in any philosophy by any of the great teachers are we told to “please” others? As I wrote above, and as you mentioned, we must respect, but to please is too much of the “good thing,” huh?

We can be so slow to unlearn! Even though I understood, in word, that everything God would have us do is not to put Him in a good mood, but to help us to use a better and more useful way, my inadequate thinking seemed to come off in layers. Also, maybe “thinking” is not the best word. Programming may be better, because so much of my thinking was contradictory to my behavior, and was more a result of my desire to please than about my gut feeling about myself and my purpose on this earth.

We do not always live what we know, but thank God, I have reached this place to a magnificent degree, (though there is more, I know). This is the most comfortable way to be, the most efficient way to be, and the way that serves my purpose best. I think I, and others who have experienced the same struggles, were confounded by the many directives to ignore our desires, in preference to others. I always felt like a rebel anyway, so I did try very hard to not be me, whether it showed or not!

As for following the mandates of others, did seem to always be aware of a need to humble myself, because I am by nature—it seems—a thinker; yet, an obligatory feeling to not leave the loving kindness of humble people, with what seemed like upscale thoughts, or to attempt to rise above them in any way, held me in a place that kept me uncomfortable. Finally, I realized that passing another in thought, did not lift me above them at all, but only made me true to myself, as you mentioned. I now think of different paths, rather than higher and lower, the latter being also a part of my childhood influences.

In retrospect, it was not so much how I thought, though that can always use some improvement, but it was my unwillingness to put it to work lest I hurt someone’s feelings, or offend them in any way. I thought I had it all figured out, but I can see that I was not entirely convinced. Interesting. Separating the word “please” from the act of respecting helps a lot. I still hate to inconvenience anyone—to a fault, I admit. This conclusion being based upon the fact that I go out of my way not to inconvenience even the dog! (Smile) True story!

GODLESS: “Religious values contradict these values, they are a collective, which values the life of the collective giving little regard for the individual. Perhaps this is one of the reasons you had such a strugle, if you dug yourself out of a rut, this is good…..”

I think of it more as being smothered, than a rut, because, as I mentioned before, I was not being true to my own thinking, which was very confusing. I sometimes did not know what to do, without compromising either myself, or “letting down” in some way those humble people who gave me such unworkable directives. They were giants in my life. If it were not for them, I could be void of some good qualities that have served me well, and if not for them, I would most likely have died, literally, at a very young age. To depart from their submissive ways, that actually helped them survive, seemed ungrateful, and like I thought I was better than them.

This desire to make everyone happy carried over into all areas of my life. Those maternal relatives were large in number, and cohesive in patterns. To humble me even more, my own parents were not only apart, but in those early years had little and nothing much to do with my survival. That is, I spent much of early in more homes than I can possibly count, with various and contradictory household rules. One would think that I would have become an expert in pleasing people, but I chose nature, and marveled at its wonders, whenever I could get away. The rest of the time I was often passive in behavior, but inside my head the wheels did turn.

GODLESS: “…….., however religious fixes and devotions are short lived for comfort of tragedies and hardship.”

You are an interesting correspondent, godless. Although, you mention from time to time that you are not a believer . . . (is that right?), yet, when uneducated remarks are made in some general way about believers, you defend their right to believe. I appreciate that sense of fairness and recognize that you have sufficient intelligence to know that people are complicated, and I would just bet that you venture away from absolutes, or not??

Now, let me ask you this: How do you know that “religious fixes and devotions are short lived for comfort of tragedies and hardship?” Actually, I cannot be certain as to what you mean by religious fixes, but have a fairly good idea, and would most likely agree. Devotions, as such, have never interested me. I get really serious about communing, and with me it is more of an attitude than a duty, if if a duty, it would have to be a duty to myself.

This morning as I marveled at all that we can be, and fail to be, I was reminded that it would make so sense to me to believe that this is all there is. God is just as real to me as anything else in this universe, and maybe more so. I cannot even conceive denying His existence. Brother godless, I can honestly say that I have peace in turmoil. Some Christians still need to understand that Jesus taught us a better way to live. If we even touch upon this with a sincere heart, we may then know that the peace is here now! and that it is we who simply fail to put it to use. I can say from more than one experience, that I, increasingly, find that I have joy in sorrow, though took a while to own, I have it. I have a strength that survives even my weakest moments. By “survives,” I am saying that it doesn’t go away and come back, but that it resides there in spite of circumstances. All these good things are mine, and can be owned by anyone who cares to work on their inner resolve. I do not know what the future holds, but in a way it is rather exciting, and I am really looking forward to whatever is beyond this life. In the meantime, I find my treasures in people like you, and people like me (if there are any), and admittedly most especially in my continuing journey through the writings of great teachers, capturing all that I can from these pages left for us. The Spirit that binds us, moves us into places that will serve our purpose, and into people that will teach us.

To lighten things a bit, I might jokingly say that I find enough fiction in non-fiction to do me. ~Smile!

Well this is long. Ha! Teach you to remark about my ignorance, huh? (smile)

Be of good cheer. You add considerably to the quality of these threads.

PMT