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

[P. M. Thorne]

TO GODLESS: iN THE ABOVE MESSAGE, I WROTE: I cannot be certain as to what you mean by religious fixes..........

For heaven's sake. Dummy me, of course, you were referring to those miserable comforters who tried to apply their own religious notions to my pain. I suppose the reason I did not recognize what you meant immediately, was because in actuality, they were not fixes most of the time, but seemed far more like Gotcha's. Be that as it may, just wanted you to know that I figured it out. Cheers. PMT

 

[P. M. Thorne]

DO YOU HAVE TO SIGN IN EVERYTIME?

CANUTE^^^^^^^

Canute: “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.”

Thorne: I understand, and maybe I said too much. It was not my intent to make you sad, but it is difficult to talk about such things unemotionally. Forgive me if it upset you.

Canute: 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.

Thorne: You did not write too much. Oh, but I do want to respond. You never write too much. I will respond to what I can. How is that? And, thank you for giving me so many comments and unidentified quotes. (Smile, just joking with you.)

Canute: 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'm not trying to pull the rug out from under your feet.

Thorne: You betcha, it is a deeper issue for me, and I suppose this was what I wanted you to understand. Sometimes people are seeing almost the same things, and it is more the words chosen that confound the issue, than the concept itself.

Naw, you are not pulling the rug out from under my feet, my friend. There is no rug under my feet! (Smile) That is to say, I believe I stand on solid ground. Spinoza did not give me faith in God; Spinoza gave me encouragement, nor did he did not give me the strength of my convictions, I had that. The philosopher made me feel okay with being true to my beliefs, as much outwardly as inwardly, and okay with having an almost indescribable way of looking at things. If I tried to write down exactly how I see things, there would be so many complexities, and seeming contradictions. This is because things are multi-sided, even issues, and yes! Beliefs worth a damn are complex!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Canute: “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.”

That sounds so smart, and like most folks, it does to me, because I totally agree. You said it so well. My goodness. Methinks, that you do not think highly of this writer.

See, this one is not so long, but wait until I give you my response on Spinoza. It may be a couple of days though. Even though I often take notes, they are more for me, of course, so I did not make note of where I found so much I thought I could share, because I had the impression you had tired of the matter, but I will find them. I am supposing that you might have been tired, just as I was, but not of the subject, but of the way we were battling. Darn it! You are quite a trooper, and I will keep that in mind, and try not worry so much about what I write, and you too, …do not worry. Deal?

Ask anyone; I am tough!

-PMT (I wrote this yesterday, but wanted to read it again before I sent it. What was that other thread we were sharing? I sent a response some days ago, but now I cannot recall the thread.

 

[Canute]

PMT

When you sign in it should give you the option of automatically remembering your password.

I don't remember the other thread either. In fact I've joined too many conversations and am getting confused about which is which and who's who.

Sorry about the poor referencing. I couldn't be bothered to retarce my steps when I muddled them up. I can be precise if you want to check any of them.

I don't have anything against Eric Fromm, but as a professional he should know better than to write something like that.

See ya[/QUOTE]

 

[Godless]

Uh? thanks.

PMT; I am an athiest however this does not mean I don't have a heart!.

My whole family have religions in their lives, my sister and her family are Catholics, my mom a deist, my father was an athiest. Can you imagine how I was brought up? LOL.

Well I'll explain; for the first part of my young child life I was Catholic, mainly cause I'm latino and that is what my mom was into back then. My teens I was not all devoted to any church, but mostly went to Christian churches with friends so that was then, by late teens and early twenties I became a Babtist. It was a twenty two years old, that I left the church and started to explain my self as an atheist. So you can bet I had a very religious upbringing somewhat!. I did not become an athiest over night, blame it on philosophy, psychology, and my interest in learning. History is what changed my mind, and later ancient history as far as anthropology, and the scientific study of evolution.

Everyone one of us have hardship, strugles, and grief for loved ones, atheists are not immune to life's chanlenges, and all of us deal with it one way or the other. Though I don't choose to be religious, however if it conforts someone after a loss, I don't see the harm in it. I don't want to debate with you religion per-se, but humanity. Even an athiest would be welcomed to grieve in a church for a loved one, this is human nature, putting beliefs aside in the moment of personal turmoil and loss. However deppresion can be hard to overcome, and it is hard to be "pleasing" others during these times, or to act accordingly to how they see fit. First lesson in life is to care for one self, even at the moment of griving, turmoil, chalenges, and hardships, whatever means one can acomplish this objective is in "my opinion" aloud, that is if praying, and or religiously attending the church to help yourself, with the confort of others, who sympathies with you. I realise most people are devoted somewhat to a religious denomination, some may wonder how an atheist deals with the problems, grief, loss, hardship, turmoil, and life's chanleges.? I would deal with it "one day at a time"

How do you know that “religious fixes and devotions are short lived for comfort of tragedies and hardship?”

I've lived it, and I've seen in it on others. i.e. Recently as far back as two years ago, "at my age this is recent" LOL. I was in love with a divorced woman she has three children, and an x-hubby that lived in the same town. Well when this dood got to know, me all he wanted was to kick my ass, then something awfull happened, the kids mom, "my x-girlfriend now" was out of town, and her naihbor called me at 6:00AM in the morning on Saturday. The childrens dad had been in accident and was pronounced dead at the scene. Her children wanted to see me, she explained. So I hop in my car drove 45 Miles at apx 100miles an hr. To confort them kids. and start contacting their mother. What hurt me the most, I was the one to tell her that her X-hubby was pronounced dead in an accident and then proceed to tell her the details. I will admit this broke me down, I too was crying in telling her this. Why would I grieve for a person that wanted just to kick my ass and away from his wife and kids?. I'm only human I too have emotions and grieve for the kids loss.

About two hours or so of me been there a preacher arrives, he was from their church, spends about 20min with the kids, and splits, yes they prayed. However the youngest felt uncomfortable, she did not want to talk about it, nor pray and mostly was been depresed. The preacher did not do much to confort her. when he left what I did notice is the kids were more in tune with us adults there, friends of my x-girlfriend, neighbors, there grandmom. After wards a few days latter their mom arrived, first thing that happened is she got into a fight with me!!, because of my atheism, and past life, Too much of a partier. LOL., anyhow she came with picking fights, and I just lefther home and split the scene!.
I realised latters though she was actually forcing them kids to church, though they felt uncomfortable, back then. And she was always wanting to confront the kids to thier loss, they felt uncomfortable to talk about it to her, weird is that they did not feel the same with me. Perhaps they needed someone who was not so mystical. I can't explain it.

Some people get more deppresed going to church after the loss of a loved one, though everyone there is trying to help you cope, the "fix" is that no one can posssibly know how you feel, though they act as if they know what your struggle must be like, they can't be you. And only you are going to lift your spirits and cope, though the help is only temporary! "this is what I meant".

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

Well to this I'm most gracious, thanks.

Godless.

 

[P. M. Thorne]

Just about sign off for today. I took the check mark out, maybe that will do it; however, would have expected the opposite. I was becoming also at one point, and just quit commenting so much, but I am more inclined to stick with a few than to mingle with many. Been reading some interesting stuff today. Will be sharing a little of it with you and will give you references, just in case you are interested in more. This way my messages will not become tedius reading.

Do you know of Leo Strauss and Errol Harris.
Are you familiar with J. Thomas Cook, and his connection with Amsterdam? Anyway, I have pages and pages of an address (history of Spinoza followers, commentators, etc., that he gave there. Found it last night in one of my files...Then today, I was looking for Harris and ran across this very long commentary about Spinoza meaning or not meaning what he said in just one incident. I could not help but be reminded of Apostle Paul, as translated in The New Jerusalem New Testament (Catholic publication), Paul said, "The more philosophied, the more stupid they became." Paul for a very well educated man. I always laugh when I read that.

Looking forward to further discussions, and will get back with you soon. It is my Happy Birthday, finished another decade. Whoopie. I have several errands and an engagement tomorrow, but will get back with you soon, maybe tomorrow evening. Gotta' go. Cheers, PMT

Have to go. The light is out in this room, and I cannot reach it!

 

[Godless]

Happy B'day PM, today 1-14-04 is my Mom's B'day so you can't be that bad.

Godless.

 

[P. M. Thorne]

CANUTE:

I am obliged to yet one more celebration this evening, so I must get my mind in tune or that. You know, however, that I would prefer to stick with this, but I am so bad about being sociable, but I do love all my friends, and they mean a lot to me. It is just that once I get involved in something, I really get involved. Further, I am hoping to learn more. Your tenacity and interest in this line of thought has provoked me to much study and research, and I have learned quite a bit from this exercise, and expect to learn much more. It just seems that the more I learn, the stronger my passion to learn more. Found some stuff I disagree with….yes, I disagree quite often with experts (no surprise to you!).

QUOTE:
“Again the modern student will stumble and grumble over the terminology of Spinoza. Writing in Latin, he was compelled to express his essentially modern thought in medieval and scholastic terms, there was no other language of philosophy which would have then been understood. So he uses the term substance where we should write, reality or essence; perfect where we should write complete; ideal for our object; objectively for subjectively, and formally for objectively. These are hurdles in the race, which will deter the weakling but stimulate the strong.

“In short, Spinoza is not to be read, he is to be studied; you must approach him as you approach Euclid, recognizing that in these brief two hundred pages a ma has written down in his lifetime’s thought with stoic sculptury of everything superfluous. Do not think to find its core by running over it rapidly; never in a work of philosophy was there so little that could be skipped without loss. Every part depends upon preceding parts; some obvious and apparently needless proposition turns out to be the cornerstone of an imposing development of logic. You will not understand any important section thoroughly till you have read and pondered the whole; though one need not say, with Jacobi’s enthusiastic exaggeration, that ‘no one has understood Spinoza to whom a single line of The Ethics remains obscure.’ Here, doubtless, says Spinoza, in the second part of this book, ‘the reader will become confused and will recollect many things which will bring him to a standstill; and, therefore, I pray him to proceed gently with me and form no judgment concerning these things until he shall have read all.’ * Read the book not all at once, but in small portions at many sittings. And having finished it, consider that you have but begun to understand it. Read then some commentary, like Pollock’s Spinoza, or Martineu’s Study of Spinoza, better, both. Finally, read ‘The Ethics’ again; it will be a new book to you. When you have finished it a second time you will remain forever a lover of philosophy.” *[Part II, supposition II, note] ~Will Durant … The Story of Philosophy (Spinoza)

[“So he uses the term substance where we should write, reality or essence” … from above] IN CONJUNCTION with the above, I offer the following:

“Harris places Spinoza in the context of his contemporaries, as well as ancient influential philosophers. He offers a nice account of Hegel’s criticisms of Spinoza’s conception of substance with a point-by-point defense in favor of Spinoza. The focus then shifts onto the clues that evidence how the unity of substance becomes diversified into finite modes.” See……Harris, Errol E. “The Concept of Substance in Spinoza and Hegel.” The Substance of Spinoza

The solution which Harris eventually proposes is that “this ‘following from’ is being actively produced, for God is actus purus, and his essence must be conceived dynamically, not statically” (206). A dynamic nature can actually produce. It is a process of self-actualization. Harris describes it as “transition from Natura naturans, the dynamic activity of God, to Natura naturata, the effects or products of that activity”
……………………..
Richie equates substance with God and then examines the implications of their synonymity. The main implication is that all else is not substance, but simply manifestations of the one substance. Substance is carefully distinguished from an individual/material existence (not “God the individual” is, but “being itself” is). In other words substance is pervasive reality and not ‘a substance.’ This is a very early article, but it is helpful because it is so old. It is concerned with fundamental, overarching problems that must always be kept in mind before attempting a detailed analysis……………..Ritchie finally develops an alternate conciliation of the two. He describes all the actual material things in the world (as well as all the psychical phenomena) as “manifestation of existence” (3). All else is not substantive, but manifestive of the one substance. The substance then is “simply completeness of existence…to say that ‘God is,’ is but to assert that ‘being is’” (Ritchie 3). It is not physical reality or psychical reality, but “it is the real itself” (5).
Ritchie, E. “Notes on Spinoza’s Conception of God.”
The Philosophical Review.
………………………….

“Hallett agrees that God or substance “exists or is actual as Natura naturata exhaustively and determinately realizing the infinite, indeterminate potency-in-act that is Natura naturans” (144). In other words, attributes and modes are the realizations of substance.”
>> I cannot give you the source of this at this time. Oops! However, all the above, following Durant’s comments came from: Spinoza on Substance, Anna
Swartz, Annotated Bibliography, the latter commentator whom she quotes is
H. F. Hallet.
.……………………..

You will note that I concentrated on “substance/reality” thinking that it would be simpler not to attempt covering so many things in one message. Therefore, rather than adding much to the quotes, I will take my leave. (ha, ha) Later, ……PMT

 

[Canute]

I can't follow all that, and I don't agree with it all.

What would be useful is some extracts from Spinoza that contradict my interpretation of him above directly. I find it hard to see where the above as an argument against it.

Btw - No offence to Will Durrant but I point blank refuse to start redefining Spinoza's terms in any other way than he defined him. The result will be chaos and confusion. Let's accept that the guy knew his own argument a lot better than we do. We have to interpret his terms, but we should never depart from his defintions.

The danger of doing this is that we will redefine 'substance' as meaning 'reality', which would be fatal to Spinoza's argument.

You say "The solution that Harris eventually proposes..." The solution to what exactly?
Canute

 

[P. M. Thorne]

Hello again,

GODLESS WROTE: “PMT; I am an athiest however this does not mean I don't have a heart!. ”

I have no doubt!

GODLESS: “I did not become an athiest over night, blame it on philosophy, psychology, and my interest in learning. History is what changed my mind, and later ancient history as far as anthropology, and the scientific study of evolution.”

As with many. I too love history and philosophy, and much of what I read was written long ago. However, I have more to say. So, guess I will say it. Yep, that is what I am going to do! Here goes:

Having spent so much of my life studying human behavior, I have learned a few things, in spite of myself. (Smile) One is that most people who come from a “Christian-type belief” of superstition and heavy dogma, tend to—when the light of reason blinds their eyes—toss out everything to do with Christianity, and, going forward, they assume that all of Christianity is as superstitious and ignorant as they once had been.

Wow! Are you annoyed with me, or what? Well, before you conclude that I am a specious and supercilious ass, please know, with whatever else you might think, that I spoke as I did only because I have seen and heard much to leave me with this deduction. It is an attitude that comes in waves of generalizations often accompanied with immense passion, and sometimes a kind of hatred (for having been deceived, and/or hurt, perhaps). The fact that—at least from my point of vision—these converts confuse, or erroneously affix any belief in my God and Creator, with superstition and naivety, or just plain stupidity is a bit insulting to me, and an offence to all the good God has provided for us all. Yet, no more offensive than the way much of Christianity has convoluted the good new Christ brought to this earth.

For whatever reason, what church-going folks have to say, have said, or will say, to trouble my heart, or disturb my sense of reasoning, affects not, (and never will), my relationship with my God.

Here is what I presume: I presume that because I believed in God, before the churches had a chance to get “to me” so to speak, and because I walked with God through nature and love and hope, my faith remained in spite of some real insults from the self-declared pious. My mother married the preacher in my seventh year on this earth. I could have written a book then. Hungry for kindness, stability, and feeling safe, I had opened my heart to a little church where they met. It was a church I was attending with my foster parents at the time. The pastors there were so sweet to me.

I quickly learned: People are people. If we are to be wise, we must avoid putting folks on pedestals and then stomping and cursing them when they fall off. We need to take some responsibility for our expectations.

I am not, and have not been easily impressed since age seven. I have only two heroes, and both came in adulthood. One is Spinoza and the other is a Finnish singer. What I find in common with these two remarkable fellows is their simplicity. It is refreshing to the soul. The interesting thing about these two is that, although, they remind me of Christ, insomuch as they show evidence of living a life much like Christ taught, the pious of that day or this, would never vote for them. The Finnish singer is employed as a drummer in a western band in Finland. I have never heard a more natural, gentle, kind delivery than his, (who has no classical training). His brother, whom I know has had classical training, and other than that being obvious, he too has a rather natural way of using his many talents. They did a CD together, and listening to it puts me in a place of quiet meditation or prayer. I find the music rather therapeutic, and most of my friends, who have heard it, agree.

These I have mentioned are ministers, but these are not the only ones. The truth is, we all are, whether we wish to be or not.

It surely seems to me that one of our biggest hurdles as sons of God, is in understanding that it has all been done. Accepting this, somehow joins me in some way to Spinoza, because I scarcely believe in miracles. I believe rather that our delight should be knowledge, wisdom and rightness, because what seems like miracles to those looking for them, is often just a matter of misunderstanding, or having mentally limited what is already ours just for the taking. I have heard folks sneer about “peace on earth.” Where is the peace they ask? Yet the words that such sayers forsook, say that the kingdom of God is within us. The prayer, “Thy Kingdom come,” then sounds a bit like some work needs to be done within each of us, does it not?

You may not appreciate my saying this, but dear heart, you are NOT Godless! Naw. All good things come from God, and you spoke well of this, when you said that you are not heartless. Of course, you sorrowed when those children lost their father, because you too are human as was he, and as they are. We humans have much in common. In that way, you showed forgiveness. Remember what Jesus said, “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.” After having read that so many times, one day it simply came to mind and hit me like a rush of air, and right then, it became mine!

People say what they say and do what they do, more because of whom they are than because of who I am. Not that they should not know if they have offended, and not that I do not make this known, if I feel it is really necessary, but I try to do it in a way as painless as possible. Regardless, I forgive. As I grew up, it had become considerably more difficult to forgive, until I owned those words.

I wanted to answer you, because you seemed so human and real and surely reminded me of a son of God. Nonetheless, and I mean this truly, if you feel more comfortable right now being called an Atheist, I understand. I do. Nonetheless, do believe me my friend: When you finally tire of the “I’m okay” labels, you will then be free to fly like a bird!

And, no, …..I do not attend any church regularly. In fact, I seldom see the inside of one. In addition, I do not take everything in the Bible literally. Moreover, I recognize that God has other Children.

My best to you. ~ PMT

 

[P. M. Thorne]

In post #1833, CANUTE WROTE: “Thanks to our disagreement I have spent a bit of time getting to know Spinoza better.”

That is just so cool.

MORE FROM CANUTE: 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.

More good news, says I. Whether we ever agree on anything, I want you to think for yourself. Now, whereas you did not give a rat’s tail what I want, I do. Smile, and I am happy that you are “getting to know Spinoza better,” and that you find something in his writings, or anyone’s writings that means something to you. These types of incidents are inspiring and tend to kindle, or re-kindle one’s desire to learn.

CANUTE: 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.

I would not take issue with what I think you mean by that.

CANUTE: 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.

I could not remain sincere and real if I tried to agree or disagree with that. It seems that one would need more background in Buddhism than I have to grasp just what that means.

CANUTE: 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.

This statement seems correct.

CANUTE: 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.

“Two attributes” I can accept, but “aspects” is a bit of a different statement.

CANUTE: 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?)

Here again, if you are attempting to use “aspect” as being a synonym for attribute, it does not really work. I quote once again: “Thought is an attribute of God, or God is a thinking thing.” … Extension is an attribute of God, or God is an extended thing.” And, “The actual being of ideas owns God as its cause, on in so far as he is considered as a thinking thing, not in so far as he is unfolded in any other attribute; that is, the ideas both of the attributes of God and of particular things do not own as their efficient cause their objects (ideate) or the things perceived, but God himself in so far as he is a thinking thing.” Spinoza

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

Yes, this is Spinoza’s apparent belief.

CANUTE: 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.

I see not sound reasoning here. “all that exists are attributes of these two things” What two things? As you say below, this (U-turn) makes no sense.

CANUTE: 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.

How am I to consider your apparent offence with Durant’s explanation of certain terms, when he was most likely but comparing Latin terms with English terms, if I am now expected to blindly accept what YOU, or someone whom you are reading, decide what Spinoza “really meant” when he used the term “exist.”

CANUTE: 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.

Yes, I agree, and I am familiar with your Spinoza, and do agree with much of what you say, but I still feel that you are on guard, like almost fearful that you might be proven wrong. Can you not understand that it is not my idea or my goal to prove anyone wrong? However, as I have before stated, when someone says that “anything can be proven with quotes from Spinoza,” that rather gives me a headache, or an ache somewhere.

CANUTE: 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.

Bless your heart. As I read this, I could harmony in the meaning that lies therein. Of all things, this is what I admire most in anyone. We do not always use all we know, of course; however, the reason we do not, is because we do not know it well enough. Because to truly know is what I call owning knowledge, or making some knowledge our own. When a truth becomes ours, we are then blessed with increased intuition, which Spinoza calls the highest form of knowledge. (Not a very good quote, but it will have to do for now.)

CANUTE QUOTES: “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.”

You quote this; therefore, I presume that you read it.

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

I think that was great. We have a bit of a different slant. It seems that we can read the same words and yet disagree, and I think this is okay. Your meanings give me new insight, because I am a learner first and foremost. We learn the most when we occupy our time with others who are learning. It is when one decides to be the teacher that problems may arise; therefore, any teaching that comes FROM us, comes best when it is the learner that made us the teacher.

Thank you so much for sharing. You worked hard on that as do I, and isn’t it fun?

Now, I will attempt to explain myself on my last submission, which, I am afraid, you misunderstood entirely. PMT

 

[P. M. Thorne]

Canute.............writes:I can't follow all that, and I don't agree with it all.
and......................he writes:
Btw - No offence to Will Durrant but I point blank refuse to start redefining Spinoza's terms in any other way than he defined him. [this does not ring very true in light of other statements you have made] The result will be chaos and confusion. [No, no. He is trying to avoid confusion, says he.]Let's accept that the guy knew his own argument a lot better than we do. We have to interpret his terms, but we should never depart from his defintions.

The danger of doing this is that we will redefine 'substance' as meaning 'reality', which would be fatal to Spinoza's argument. [Not at all, if I say I do not get the substance of what you are saying....or if I say "that was the substance of what he was saying," then knowing that in Latin, the word substance must be translated reality for clear understanding does not seem so strange. But, please back up with me, okay?]

If you will recall, I said that I had been doing some reading. The reading to which I referred, was just for me in the beginning. Then I wanted to follow up on Durants statements as quoted, to which you objected, because at first, it seemed very stange indeed. This was when I took advantage of some other information, which I also gave to you in quotes. Those last quotes were from a source which I noted at the end of them. Did you not see that?

CANURE WRITES: You say "The solution that Harris eventually proposes..." The solution to what exactly? [I did not say! The source for the quotes said......and "the solution" had to do with the paragraph above. All of these mentioned that "substance" meant reality, or referred to it in some way.

I am doing this on-line, and not in Word as I usually do; therefore, I cannot see everything at once here, but I hope this helps, and insofar as this not applying to your argument. It was not intended to. I just wanted to share.

Now, is that better!

Take care.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Canute : Yesterday at 04:48 PM.

 

[P. M. Thorne]

Canute: please ignore the line at the bottom. I pasted your whole message, and neglected to delete that last line before I submitting my responses. pmt

 

[Canute]

PMT

Just a couple of points.

I see no difference between an attribute and an aspect. If I'm wrong you'll have to explain why.

Good point about my redefinition of 'exists'. However this a subtle issue. There are contradictions in Spinoza in certain readings. Your extract suggested getting around this, if I remember right, by playing with definitions and then arriving at the idea of a dynamic God. However I haven't come across any passge where Spinoza suggests a dynamic God. By accepting that 'exist' is an ambiguous concept the contradictions are overcome without having to alter Spinoza's arguments in this way.

The trouble with 'reality' as a synonym for substance is that people use the term 'reality' in different ways, and Spinoza, because he doesn't use this word, has no chance to clarify how it should be used.

It's true that Spinoza argued that there is just one substance and that this is all there is, and that it follows from this that 'reality' can stand in for substance. But these days many people take 'reality' to be the physical or phenomemenal world, and no more than that. I therefore feel that it is dangerous to say that substance equals reality, it's true by one way of looking, false by another, and it may lead to misunderstandings.

Hence my focus on the word 'exist'. It has two meanings. This allows the (apparent) contradictions is Spinoza's writings to be resolved. By one meaning (scientific) it refers only to thought and extension, by another (metaphysical) it includes something that is neither thought nor extension (i.e. substance). Confusion arises if Spinoza is read using exclusively the first definition. (I say all this tentatively).

Therefore (this is the heart of the matter) if we take 'exist' in its scientific sense then Spinoza's God does not exist. However if we take 'exist' in a more metaphysically inclusive sense (as Spinoza does) then his God does exist. (This is why I have been arguing that his God both does and does not exist).

Regards
Canute

 

[P. M. Thorne]

TO CANUTE:

Well, now I know why I heard no more from you; I failed to respond to your last message. My apologies, and my response:

YOU…..”I see no difference between an attribute and an aspect. If I'm wrong you'll have to explain why.”

Hmm, before I expressed my concern, I did take the time to check one of my dictionaries and my most recent and most complete thesaurus, because I believed that these were not synonymous. I did not find “aspect” with attributes, nor did I find “attributes” with aspects. I was not meaning to be picky, but having been a writer for years, I do notice words, and you had expressed a concern of your own about not using different terms than the writer.

Now, for meanings:

>Aspect [looks] Syn. countenance, face, features, (see appearance)

\view: i.e., sight, panorama, prospect, outlook, scene, scenery, landscape, eyesore, blemish, site for sore eyes., etc.
\external appearance; i.e., demeanor, look, outward form or appearance, superficies, surface, form, shape, format, dimensions, outline, contour, silhouette, etc.
conduct, behavior, deportment, personal bearing, carriage, posture, mental attitude, outlook, mood, opinion, tone of voice, delivery, motion, etc.
\design; i.e., mode, style, structure, set, mold, light, appearance, tendency, convention, protocol, form;
\situation; i.e., position, orientation, direction bearings, latitude, longitude, side, frontage, altitude, topography, geography, location, site, setting, place, spot, setting, seat, venue, scene, scenery, locale, locality;
\appearance; i.e., surface appearance, outward appearance, outwardness, superficies, superficiality or superficialness, apparentness, seemingness, mien, impression, image public persona, outer face, façade, guise, appearances, externals, superficialities.
\nature; i.e., health, fitness, expression, demeanor, physic, anatomy, mesomorph, posture, stance, etc.
\viewpoint; i.e., standpoint, stand, view, impression, slant, bias, premise, theory.
\state; ranking, place, posture, footing, walk of life, class, echelon, etc.
\component; i.e., appendage, organ, feeler, facet, factor, workings, mechanism,
innards, guts, insides, etc.


>Attribute: Syn. pecularity, quality, trait, (see characteristic).

\ability; i.e., facility, faculty, capability, capacity, quality, mastery, tendency, endowment, natural power, innate ability, talent, skill, genius, flair, gift, know-how, etc.
\be grateful; i.e., be thankful for small mercies, appreciate, be obliged to or indebted, feel or have an obligation; express gratitude, thank, say thank you, extend gratitude or thanks, acknowledge, recognize, credit, give credit to, show gratitude, praise, applaud, give a hand, pay tribute, etc.

\property; (has to do with real estate)
\nature; i.e., nature of the beast, make up, quality, type, mold, pattern, etc.

NOTE: This “nature” is not listed in the same section as the one above for aspect, but do give some similarities, and this would be as close as I could come to connecting the words, but to no consequence, as the above has more to do with the anatomy, rather than one’s “nature.” \special feature; i.e., distinctive feature, singularity, quality, hallmark, trademark,
claim to fame, etc.

References:
The American College Dictionary
Webster’s New World Thesaurus
Bartlett’s Roget’s Thesaurus.


Well, that was quite an assignment. I would go to all that trouble for only a few people. Good thing you like Spinoza!

CANNUTE: by playing with definitions and then arriving at the idea of a dynamic God.

Be definite, if you are going to be accusing me of playing with definitions. All I did was quote someone more learned than both of us put together.

CANNUTE: The trouble with 'reality' as a synonym for substance is that people use the term 'reality' in different ways, and Spinoza, because he doesn't use this word, has no chance to clarify how it should be used.

The man wrote his Works in Latin, so how do you know what words he used? You know very well that translations from such old language needs some scrutiny, and that is why I gave you the quotes of the other commentators as well, so that you or I, (as I did not comprehend either), would not think Durant was trying to be unique, so to speak).

Following by_________________________________________ Anna Swartz Richie equates substance with God and then examines the implications of their synonymity. The main implication is that all else is not substance, but simply manifestations of the one substance. Substance is carefully distinguished from an individual/material existence (not “God the individual” is, but “being itself” is). In other words substance is pervasive reality and not ‘a substance.’ This is a very early article, but it is helpful because it is so old. It is concerned with fundamental, overarching problems that must always be kept in mind before attempting a detailed analysis.
Ritchie finally develops an alternate conciliation of the two. He describes all the actual material things in the world (as well as all the psychical phenomena) as “manifestation of existence” (3). All else is not substantive, but manifestive of the one substance. The substance then is “simply completeness of existence…to say that ‘God is,’ is but to assert that ‘being is’” (Ritchie 3). It is not physical reality or psychical reality, but “it is the real itself” (5).

quoted from: Ritchie, E. “Notes on Spinoza’s Conception of God.” The Philosophical Review. 11.1 (1902): 1-15.
_________________________________________________________________
I thought that was interesting, and went along with Durant’s comments about those few words. None of this came directly from my mind, but thank you for the compliment. In addition, the words, “dynamic nature” came from Errol E. Harris, not from me. He wrote two books. I can give the names if you like. Okie dokie? We can discuss what these good people say, understanding, of course, that these statements are from some of “those experts”. ………………………………………………..

CANNUTE: It's true that Spinoza argued that there is just one substance and that this is all there is, and that it follows from this that 'reality' can stand in for substance. But these days many people take 'reality' to be the physical or phenomemenal world, and no more than that. I therefore feel that it is dangerous to say that substance equals reality, it's true by one way of looking, false by another, and it may lead to misunderstandings.

In my opinion that is an acceptable concern; however, if it should have been reality, such as the substance of ones statement, or the “reality of his statement, then a deceptive word was used. I do not know! Therefore, I protest only insomuch as I am hoping that you will not simply brush off statements from “experts,” whom you suddenly seem to doubt, and that is good, one thing that I really like about you, but I did hope that you would be sufficiently objective until we could possibly find out more about it. Let me give you this quote from Elwes, and see what you think about it.

This is a footnote in his introduction:

“A translator has special opportunities for observing the extent of Spinoza’s knowledge of Latin. His sentences are grammatical and his meaning almost always clear. But his vocabulary is restricted; his style is wanting in flexibility, and seldom idiomatic; in fact the niceties of scholarship are wanting. He reminds me of a clever workman who accomplishes much with simple tools.”
It put me in mind of Aristotle’s experiments, inasmuch as he did such wonders with such simple means, and was so resourceful being without the niceties of a decent laboratory.

CANNUTE: Hence my focus on the word 'exist'. It has two meanings. This allows the (apparent) contradictions is Spinoza's writings to be resolved. By one meaning (scientific) it refers only to thought and extension, by another (metaphysical) it includes something that is neither thought nor extension (i.e. substance). Confusion arises if Spinoza is read using exclusively the first definition. (I say all this tentatively).

Therefore (this is the heart of the matter) if we take 'exist' in its scientific sense then Spinoza's God does not exist. However if we take 'exist' in a more metaphysically inclusive sense (as Spinoza does) then his God does exist. (This is why I have been arguing that his God both does and does not exist).

Okay, give me some more time to think about this.

Elwes says toward the end of his introduction: "Whatever my own shortcomings, I have never consciously eluded a difficulty by a paraphrase. Clearness has throughout been aimed at in preference to elegance. Though the precise meaning of some of the philosophical terms (e.g. idea) varies in different passages, I have, as far as possible, given a uniform rendering, not venturing to attempt greater subtlety than I found…………. “

I look forward to hearing more from you on this, if you are still interesting in talking about it.

Best regards, PMT

 

[P. M. Thorne]

Gosh! I did not do so well trying to use the sizes, did I? So sorry! I had it very nice on Word, but all the exceptions failed to transfer. Oh well, live and learn!

 

[Canute]

TO CANUTE:
Well, that was quite an assignment. I would go to all that trouble for only a few people. Good thing you like Spinoza!

I appreciate the effort you went to. From those definitions I would still argue that attribute and aspect are interchangeable terms when talking about 'reality' (God for instance).

This is how I see it. We observe, perceive, define and conceive of things in terms of their aspects. We have no choice for we cannot know the essence of things (the noumenal). These aspects are all we can observe or know of things. This is taking 'aspect' as 'external appearance' as per your quoted definition. ("syn: countenance, face, features, (see appearance)". Hence 'the world of appearances'.

Thus the only way we know of things is by their appearance, by their aspects. In this case if we observe (or deduce) that a thing has a particular attribute we can only know this because this attribute is an aspect of the thing. If it wasn't we couldn't know about it.

(This doesn't quite work when it comes to our own consciousness, but I'm leaving that to one side for now).

If we say that a thing has a certain attribute (the ability to fly for instance) then we can only say this because the ability to fly is one of its observed aspects. If God has infinite attributes then He has infinite aspects and vice versa.

Hmm. This is difficult to pin down. Another way at it might be to say that as all we can know of reality is its aspects (appearances) then attributes must be aspects. In some contexts they mean different things (partly for grammatical reasons) but in philosophical terms they seem to mean the same thing to me.

Be definite, if you are going to be accusing me of playing with definitions. All I did was quote someone more learned than both of us put together.

If I want to insult you I'll do a much better job than that. I was criticising the person you quoted, pointing out what I felt was faulty reasoning, not accusing you of anything, honest.

"The man wrote his Works in Latin, so how do you know what words he used? You know very well that translations from such old language needs some scrutiny, and that is why I gave you the quotes of the other commentators as well, so that you or I, (as I did not comprehend either), would not think Durant was trying to be unique, so to speak).

Ok. What I should have said was that I have never seen a translation of Spinoza that uses the term 'reality' instead of 'substance'.

Anna Swartz - "Richie equates substance with God and then examines the implications of their synonymity. The main implication is that all else is not substance, but simply manifestations of the one substance. Substance is carefully distinguished from an individual/material existence (not “God the individual” is, but “being itself” is). In other words substance is pervasive reality and not ‘a substance.’ This is a very early article, but it is helpful because it is so old. It is concerned with fundamental, overarching problems that must always be kept in mind before attempting a detailed analysis."

Brilliant quote. This is the issue in a nutshell. A substance is not a substance, the world is not substance but is just appearances, substance has no individual/material existence yet it exists, substance is Being but Being is not substance. Being exists yet it doesn't. God exists yet he doesn't. The contradictions are there for the same reasons they are there in Buddhist writings. Spinoza knocks spots off most other analytic philosophers. He understood the issue of self-reference, and was a prophet of logical positivism, in which all assertions about reality evaporate in self-reference.

I'd be happy narrowing our discussion down to the unpacking of this one quote. (I haven't commented on the second half because it seems less clear. Is Ritchie's paper online somewhere?)

... I protest only insomuch as I am hoping that you will not simply brush off statements from “experts,” whom you suddenly seem to doubt, and that is good, one thing that I really like about you, but I did hope that you would be sufficiently objective until we could possibly find out more about it.

I hope I wasn't being unobjective. I just felt that in this case the expert was wrong.

“A translator has special opportunities for observing the extent of Spinoza’s knowledge of Latin. His sentences are grammatical and his meaning almost always clear. But his vocabulary is restricted; his style is wanting in flexibility, and seldom idiomatic; in fact the niceties of scholarship are wanting. He reminds me of a clever workman who accomplishes much with simple tools.”[/SIZE]

I don't know the latin so couldn't comment. All I can say is that I find the translations of Spinoza perfectly adequate as an expression of his meaning. I rather object to this criticism of his writing. I'd want to be sure it's writer fully understood what Spinoza was saying before accepting it as true. What Spinoza was trying to say (imho) is very nearly unsayable, so he did a pretty good job.

It put me in mind of Aristotle’s experiments, inasmuch as he did such wonders with such simple means, and was so resourceful being without the niceties of a decent laboratory.

Hmm, I don't know. Imo Aristotle had all the means he needed, and more than most.

Elwes says toward the end of his introduction: "Whatever my own shortcomings, I have never consciously eluded a difficulty by a paraphrase. Clearness has throughout been aimed at in preference to elegance. Though the precise meaning of some of the philosophical terms (e.g. idea) varies in different passages, I have, as far as possible, given a uniform rendering, not venturing to attempt greater subtlety than I found…………. “

That's well put. The variation in meaning of Spinoza's terms mentioned here is what I was arguing applies to his use of the term 'exists'.

I look forward to hearing more from you on this, if you are still interesting in talking about it.

Of course. But perhaps we ought to narrow the discussion a bit. Is our main disagreement over whether Spinoza asserted that God exists? That how it seems to me. If so how about taking Ritchie's first quote above as a starting point.

Regards
Canute

 

[P. M. Thorne]

Here 'ya go.............whew...


CANUTE WRITES: “I appreciate the effort you went to. From those definitions I would still argue that attribute and aspect are interchangeable terms when talking about 'reality' (God for instance).”

You know what? I think you have your mind set and immovable. All I was doing was validating my point, and as I said, nowhere in the dictionary or two Thesauruses’ did I find those two words interchangeable. Methinks you are a turkey! But then, if you truly appreciate my efforts, which you are kind enough to note, then I must acknowledge your good manners.
.....
CANNUTE: This is how I see it. We observe, perceive, define and conceive of things in terms of their aspects. We have no choice for we cannot know the essence of things (the noumenal). These aspects are all we can observe or know of things. This is taking 'aspect' as 'external appearance' as per your quoted definition. ("syn: countenance, face, features, (see appearance)". Hence 'the world of appearances'.

Fine, but this does not give you a license to replace “attribute” with “aspect.”
.......
CANUTE: Thus the only way we know of things is by their appearance, by their aspects. In this case, if we observe (or deduce) that a thing has a particular attribute we can only know this because this attribute is an aspect of the thing. If it wasn't we couldn't know about it.

I disagree, and would really like for you to reconsider your take on this.
.......
CANUTE: (This doesn't quite work when it comes to our own consciousness, but I'm leaving that to one side for now).

An exception……hmm, is this a good sign (of some flexibility)? Nonetheless, I am not quite sure what you mean by this last statement, and because of this, I cannot know whether it works, -especially considering that I did not perceive that it worked at all.
.......
CANNUTE: If we say that a thing has a certain attribute (the ability to fly for instance) then we can only say this because the ability to fly is one of its observed aspects. If God has infinite attributes then He has infinite aspects and vice versa.

Are you really sure that you have given this matter credible consideration? “Capabilities” and “know-how” (attributes) are easily noted.

Where do you get that "aspects" equals essence? I am without evidence that aspect means essence. ……..One is more physical and the other (essence) is like an idea; that is, something we may notice but cannot describe physically, as we could with features or appearances. Is this not so?
..........
CANNUTE: Hmm. This is difficult to pin down. Another way at it might be to say that as all we can know of reality is its aspects (appearances) then attributes must be aspects. CANUTE: In some contexts, they mean different things (partly for grammatical reasons) but in philosophical terms they seem to mean the same thing to me.

Pardon my saying so, but that is ridiculous. Is wind not reality? Can we describe its looks? Is passion not reality? Can we put a face on it. Is poison gas not reality? Can we see it hovering in a room? not usually. And what about sympathy, or fear, or love, or other feelings that we hide; are these not reality? A quality is something I may perceive, but another may not; but an aspect….say a very large nose, may quickly be observed by anyone. Attributes are characteristics, not appearances, according to all I know about it.
.............
CANUTE: If I want to insult you I'll do a much better job than that. I was criticising the person you quoted, pointing out what I felt was faulty reasoning, not accusing you of anything, honest.

Now, there is an attribute I like, ~your humor. How would I draw that? One thing I have always liked about Brits is their humor and their cookies. I have never liked those really sweet cookies. I find them rather sickening. Even when I was little, if I saw cookies with a lot of decoration, I knew they would not be as good as say a raisin oatmeal cookie. One could say that I often judge food by its appearances, but I can truly determine the quality only through the experience of taste.
>>>>>
CANUTE: Ok. What I should have said was that I have never seen a translation of Spinoza that uses the term 'reality' instead of 'substance'.
Well put. I am right beside you on this one. When first I read that comment of Durant’s, it rather confused me. However, it was not substance and reality that confounded me. I see those as compatible, even in English. Rather, it was subjectivity and objectivity. Notwithstanding, knowing that he is/was a great historian, I believed that he had done much research before making such a statement, which he offered not as an opinion. (I do not always agree with Durant on opinion, but I have thus far found no fault with his facts.)

Anyway, I sent those commentaries by Richie and Harris, to indicate to you that Durant is not alone in this. Since those commentaries, I think I have found the Latin word for substance, vinculum substantiale. I do not know whether you are still in school, but if you have access to a Latin dictionary, perhaps you could shed some light on this from a layman’s perspective. I am interested in other commentaries about substance and reality, and have found some, but they have so much more that is covered. I need more time to get them into my head before I try to quote them. Therefore, I will continue my research as well, as time permits.
......
CANUTE: Brilliant quote. This is the issue in a nutshell. A substance is not a substance, the world is not substance but is just appearances, substance has no individual/material existence yet it exists, substance is Being but Being is not substance. Being exists yet it doesn't. God exists yet he doesn't. The contradictions are there for the same reasons they are there in Buddhist writings. Spinoza knocks spots off most other analytic philosophers. He understood the issue of self-reference, and was a prophet of logical positivism, in which all assertions about reality evaporate in self-reference.
Or, how about this: “Substance does not mean material matter, but reality.” Spinoza mentions this in one of his letters, I think. Once before I tried to find it and could not, only to come across it later. Now, I find myself again in a state of ignorance as to where it is. Wherever it is, apparently, it is not in a letter to Oldenberg, but I would not even swear to that. Dare I try to paraphrase? I think not.

“Substance is carefully distinguished from an individual/material existence. ……..In other words substance is pervasive reality and not ‘a substance.” [from Richie]

To me, this simply means what it says, that Spinoza’s use of the word substance, is not to be interpreted, material (matter), but means a pervasive reality. Was this not my point all along? Pervasive reality equals “permeate, dominant, extend its presence, omnipresent, universal……..”
............................................
CANUTE: I don't know the latin so couldn't comment. All I can say is that I find the translations of Spinoza perfectly adequate as an expression of his meaning. I rather object to this criticism of his writing. I'd want to be sure it's writer fully understood what Spinoza was saying before accepting it as true. What Spinoza was trying to say (imho) is very nearly unsayable, so he did a pretty good job.

Interesting, and respectful, response.
................
CANUTE: Hmm, I don't know. Imo Aristotle had all the means he needed, and more than most.

All the means he needed, huh? “He was compelled to fix time without a watch, to compare degrees of heat without a thermometer, to observe the heavens without a telescope, and the weather without a barometer. . . .Of all our mathematical, optical and physical instruments, he possessed only the rule and the compass, together with the most imperfect substitutes of some few others. Chemical analysis, correct measurements and weights, and a thorough application of mathematics to physics, were unknown. The attractive force of matter, the law of gravitation, electrical phenomena, the conditions of chemical combination, pressure of air and its effects, the nature of light, heat, combustion, etc., in short, all the facts on which the physical theories of modern science are based were wholly, or almost wholly, undiscovered.” [Grant, Aristotle, Edinburgh 1877, pg. 18]

Aristotle is sometimes given more credit than he deserves…for being accurate, but less than he deserves for all he accomplished, and he did provide a jump start for others, and yet he was not always accurate with his philosophical and other deductions. Example: (thought not a direct quote) “women are but unfinished men.” (Even so, one with knowledge regarding the anatomy can understand why he made such a statement; nonetheless, to hear such a thing now makes the statement sound totally absurd.)
...........
CANUTE: “That's well put. The variation in meaning of Spinoza's terms mentioned here is what I was arguing applies to his use of the term 'exists'.”

If this is what Elwes was saying. Spinoza did not write in English; therefore, if the word idea is different in different passages, was this because of the translation, or the Latin term? Elwes did say that he gave it a uniform rendering; therefore, I am not clear on his exact meaning.
............
CANUTE: Of course. But perhaps we ought to narrow the discussion a bit. Is our main disagreement over whether Spinoza asserted that God exists? That how it seems to me. If so how about taking Ritchie's first quote above as a starting point.

Have we disagreed on only one thing? It is your turn, so sik ‘em. PMT

 

[Canute]

You know what? I think you have your mind set and immovable.

You make this comment before I finish making my case, which seems a bit unfair, and I hadn't noticed that your mind was particularly movable on this point.

All I was doing was validating my point, and as I said, nowhere in the dictionary or two Thesauruses’ did I find those two words interchangeable.

I know - but I was disgreeing.

Methinks you are a turkey!

Nope, you're better at guessing nationalities than species.

CANUTE: This is how I see it. We observe, perceive, define and conceive of things in terms of their aspects. We have no choice for we cannot know the essence of things (the noumenal). These aspects are all we can observe or know of things. This is taking 'aspect' as 'external appearance' as per your quoted definition. ("syn: countenance, face, features, (see appearance)". Hence 'the world of appearances'.

Fine, but this does not give you a license to replace “attribute” with “aspect.”

You're right - but I hadn't finished making my case.

CANUTE: Thus the only way we know of things is by their appearance, by their aspects. In this case, if we observe (or deduce) that a thing has a particular attribute we can only know this because this attribute is an aspect of the thing. If it wasn't we couldn't know about it.

I disagree, and would really like for you to reconsider your take on this.

I will, but you'll have to give a reason, not just disagree.

CANUTE: If we say that a thing has a certain attribute (the ability to fly for instance) then we can only say this because the ability to fly is one of its observed aspects. If God has infinite attributes then He has infinite aspects and vice versa.

Are you really sure that you have given this matter credible consideration?

No, but I think so.

“Capabilities” and “know-how” (attributes) are easily noted.

Can't see why that's relevant.

Where do you get that "aspects" equals essence?

Aspects and essence are opposites, I don't think I suggested otherwise.

CANUTE: Hmm. This is difficult to pin down. Another way at it might be to say that as all we can know of reality is its aspects (appearances) then attributes must be aspects. CANUTE: In some contexts, they mean different things (partly for grammatical reasons) but in philosophical terms they seem to mean the same thing to me.

Pardon my saying so, but that is ridiculous. Is wind not reality?

Yes and no. Wind certainly exists, but only in the world of appearances, not outside the cave.

Can we describe its looks?

Yes, if by 'looks' we mean appearances. Wind has aspects and attributes.

Is passion not reality? Can we put a face on it. Is poison gas not reality? Can we see it hovering in a room? not usually. And what about sympathy, or fear, or love, or other feelings that we hide; are these not reality?

No, they aren't. Philosophically speaking 'reality' refers to essence, the 'noumenal', not appearances.

A quality is something I may perceive, but another may not; but an aspect….say a very large nose, may quickly be observed by anyone. Attributes are characteristics, not appearances, according to all I know about it.

We now have features, appearances, aspects, attributes and characteristics. All have overlapping meanings. When it comes to God (or reality) they start to overlap completely.

Thus if God has infinite attributes He also has infinite aspects, appearances, characteristsics etc. Yet Spinoza's God has no finite attributes. He therefore has two aspects. Or perhaps one might say that there's two ways of conceiving of him, neither of which is true. This is because we can only conceive of His aspects, not the essence which underlies these aspects.

This is similar to saying that fundamental entities have two aspects, attributes, characteristics, namely that of a wave and a particle, and that we cannot see beyond these (strictly contradictory) aspects to whatever it is that underlies them.

Since those commentaries, I think I have found the Latin word for substance, vinculum substantiale. I do not know whether you are still in school, but if you have access to a Latin dictionary, perhaps you could shed some light on this from a layman’s perspective. I am interested in other commentaries about substance and reality, and have found some, but they have so much more that is covered.

The problem with reality is that there is no correct term for it. This is why Lau Tsu said:

"There is something undifferentiated and yet complete, which is born before heaven and earth. Soundless and formless, it stands alone and does not change. It goes round and does not weary. It is capable of being the mother of the universe. I do not know its name. I call it the Tao."(9)

For most introspective philosophers reality is beyond conception. As mathemetician Robert Kaplan says:

“The world may not only be more singular than we think, it may be more singular than we can think. “

The point being that the ultimate reality, the substrate of existence if you like, is beyond dual aspects and appearances. Spinoza calls it substance for want of a better word, but in fact it is completely insubstantial, or rather, does not have the property of substance/non-substance.

Or, how about this: “Substance does not mean material matter, but reality.” Spinoza mentions this in one of his letters, I think.

Quite. Substance is a misleading term (so is 'reality'). I drew attention to the contradictions in your quoted extract to illustrate what I meant by saying that reality can only be discussed (or conceived) in terms of its contradictory aspects, a conclusion Spinoza arrived at and which is reflected in his writings.

“Substance is carefully distinguished from an individual/material existence. ……..In other words substance is pervasive reality and not ‘a substance.” [from Richie]

Agreed.

To me, this simply means what it says, that Spinoza’s use of the word substance, is not to be interpreted, material (matter), but means a pervasive reality. Was this not my point all along? Pervasive reality equals “permeate, dominant, extend its presence, omnipresent, universal……..”

But you cannot assign these attributes to substance. Yes it is omnipresent in a way, but not in another. Yes it has extension, but no it doesn't. Etc. Spinoza is very careful to avoid such assertions for this reason.

CANUTE: Hmm, I don't know. Imo Aristotle had all the means he needed, and more than most.

All the means he needed, huh? “He was compelled to fix time without a watch, to compare degrees of heat without a thermometer, to observe the heavens without a telescope, and the weather without a barometer. . . .Of all our mathematical, optical and physical instruments, he possessed only the rule and the compass, together with the most imperfect substitutes of some few others. Chemical analysis, correct measurements and weights, and a thorough application of mathematics to physics, were unknown. The attractive force of matter, the law of gravitation, electrical phenomena, the conditions of chemical combination, pressure of air and its effects, the nature of light, heat, combustion, etc., in short, all the facts on which the physical theories of modern science are based were wholly, or almost wholly, undiscovered.” [Grant, Aristotle, Edinburgh 1877, pg. 18]

I meant that none of these are needed to understand reality. They are scientific knowledge.

Aristotle is sometimes given more credit than he deserves

I agree. His ideas were handy for the Church so he became popular. But he wrote some nonsense imho...

Example: (thought not a direct quote) “women are but unfinished men.”

... but some good stuff as well.

CANUTE: "The variation in meaning of Spinoza's terms mentioned here is what I was arguing applies to his use of the term 'exists'.”

If this is what Elwes was saying. Spinoza did not write in English; therefore, if the word idea is different in different passages, was this because of the translation, or the Latin term? Elwes did say that he gave it a uniform rendering; therefore, I am not clear on his exact meaning.

That seems a bit evasive. Now perhaps you're being a bit inflexible.

Have we disagreed on only one thing? It is your turn, so sik ‘em.

I thought we were disgreeing on whether Spinoza's God exists or not. But I'm happy to disagree about anything.

 

[P. M. Thorne]

FOR CANUTE:

I trust that you are sincere about this subject. If one truly admires Spinoza, then why not honor him by giving earnest consideration to his writings? Right? I was so happy that you had begun reading his works for yourself. I do hope you continue, but this is probably because it is rewarding in some strange way, knowing that someone else holds him in such high regard.

Let me ask you this: What effect would it have on you, if you found out that Spinoza truly believed in the divine God of whom he wrote? Can you, with the help of your imagination and self-knowledge predict? Would this spoil the image you have of him so much that it would take him from the arms of your admired commentators and cast him out the way his people did?

It would make me so sad to think that I had any part at all in some thing that might lead to any such change in your opinion of him.

Okay, okay! That was the last serious thing, and now I promise to stick with our argument, -just as soon as I can be sure what it is! (Smile)*******
///////////////////////////////
FROM CANUTE’s POSTING: You make this comment before I finish making my case, which seems a bit unfair, and I hadn't noticed that your mind was particularly movable on this point.

Aw, did not mean to be unfair. Can not we both be immovable?
.................
CANUTE: I know - but I was disgreeing.

I got that part! Oh brother!
...................................
IN ANSWER TO:
Quote:
“Methinks you are a turkey!”

CANUTE WROTE: Nope, you're better at guessing nationalities than species.

A classic for sure. That is so funny!
...........................................
CANUTE: You're right - but I hadn't finished making my case.

So, what is this case to which you have now twice referred?
.......................
CANUTE: I will, but you'll have to give a reason, not just disagree. (In answer to: I disagree, and would really like for you to reconsider your take on this.)
I must do no such thing. Plainly, your thoughts, one way or the other, are not dependent upon my reasons. Therefore, you think what you may, and reconsider what you will. I have already given sufficient reason on this matter for a reconsideration, which has seemingly not fazed you! (Surprise, surprise!) With this in mind, why would I dare think that I could say anything to persuade you to rethink a conclusion that you have already packed away?
....................
CANUTE: Can't see why that's relevant.

Say what? You cannot see that my statement was relevant! You are smarter than that; or, are you making fun of me?
....................
CANUTE: Aspects and essence are opposites, I don't think I suggested otherwise.

I think I erred, and owe you an apology. Sorry about misreading your statement. I am usually more careful than that, but then not always!
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
CANUTE: Yes and no. Wind certainly exists, but only in the world of appearances, not outside the cave.

Oh Yay! Double talk and philosophical jargon.
........................
CANUTE: Yes, if by 'looks' we mean appearances. Wind has aspects and attributes.

Okay, describe for me winds aspects, I know its attributes. I cannot wait to read how you describe the features of wind. (I say features, because the word “appearances” in our discussion means looks, not generalities of indication).
...................
CANUTE: No, they aren't. Philosophically speaking 'reality' refers to essence, the 'noumenal', not appearances.

What if we speak from our hearts for just a moment. Is a baby not reality, or is it an essence? Am I not real? You have not seen me. How do you know I exist? Just how far shall we go while we speak philosophically.
.......................
CANUTE: We now have features, appearances, aspects, attributes and characteristics. All have overlapping meanings. When it comes to God (or reality) they start to overlap completely.

Do we? “Overlap,” meaning what? If you are saying these words are all interchangeable, then you are simply repeating your previous allegations, rather than offering some logical verification. I think you are bluffing a bit. Right?
..........
CANUTE: Thus if God has infinite attributes He also has infinite aspects, appearances, characteristsics etc. Yet Spinoza's God has no finite attributes. He therefore has two aspects. Or perhaps one might say that there's two ways of conceiving of him, neither of which is true. This is because we can only conceive of His aspects, not the essence which underlies these aspects.
........................
Uh, you are confusing me by using attributes and aspects to mean the same thing and switching about. Why must you do this? And what do you mean “essence underlies aspects.” Moreover, there is no way that we can conceive God’s aspects, because he has none, at least none that are visible to us. If you are speaking of attributes, I am still wondering, because you have quotes on “essence underlies aspects,” which also needs clarification. How can I discuss this if I do not know what the h…. you are trying to say?
Tell you what! This must not be a contest! So! let me tell you now that if it were, you would win. Hands down!
.................
CANUTE: This is similar to saying that fundamental entities have two aspects, attributes, characteristics, namely that of a wave and a particle, and that we cannot see beyond these (strictly contradictory) aspects to whatever it is that underlies them.

FROM YOUR PREV STMT: “This is because we can only conceive of His aspects, not the essence which underlies these aspects.”
FROM YOUR LAST STMT: we cannot see beyond these (strictly contradictory) aspects to whatever it is that underlies them.

Are you quoting from something, or somebody? Would you care to share?
..................
CANUTE: The problem with reality is that there is no correct term for it. This is why Lau Tsu said:

"There is something undifferentiated and yet complete, which is born before heaven and earth. Soundless and formless, it stands alone and does not change. It goes round and does not weary. It is capable of being the mother of the universe. I do not know its name. I call it the Tao."(9)

Yes, I am familiar with that quote, but Spinoza did not say, “I do not know what to call it, so I will call it God, did he, Canute?

In all deference to Tao, for you to say “there is no correct term for reality, is like saying there is no correct term for storm. All words are manmade, and “God” is just as good as “mother.” He, as father, is not dissimilar to she, as mother. Now, in all respect to you, (and I do respect you), who are you or me, to say there is no “correct” term. Different languages have different words for God, our father. You know this, so no need for me to say more here.

>You know what? If it is indeed Mother Earth, and God the Father, and we are the children, that does make about as much sense as anything; or is that too simple for us philosophers?
.......................
CANUTE: For most introspective philosophers reality is beyond conception. As mathemetician Robert Kaplan says: “The world may not only be more singular than we think, it may be more singular than we can think. “

….Absolutely. A very good statement, and here is another:

“For we know in part and we prophecy in part. But when that which is perfect is come then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. But now abide faith, hope, love, these three, but the greatest of these is love.” Taken from Paul’s first letter to the church at Corinth, Chapter 13: vss.9-13. See, Spinoza was not the only one with thoughts similar to what we now call Eastern philosophy. They just express it differently.
...................
CANUTE: The point being that the ultimate reality, the substrate of existence if you like, is beyond dual aspects and appearances. Spinoza calls it substance for want of a better word, but in fact it is completely insubstantial, or rather, does not have the property of substance/non-substance.

>How about some more Taoism?

“Men are born soft and supple; dead, they are stiff and hard. Plants are born tender and plaint; dead, they are brittle and dry.
Thus whoever is stiff and inflexible is a disciple of death. Whoever is soft and yielding is a disciple of life. The hard and stiff will be broken. The soft and supple will prevail.”

…………………….You are frustrating me, Sir!

I just thought it was time to inhale. You say things that almost scare me. “for want of a better word.” How dare you? You cannot possibly know this. Moreover, I say to you that Spinoza used a Latin word, which has been translated “substance.” Most seem to agree that this means reality, (as in the substance of a man’s speech, or the reality of his speech).

In any event, if the good philosopher had to grasp for a word, he would have said so. You do him and yourself an injustice by adding to and taking from his statements. You speak of properties, as though you are speaking of matter, but he said himself that he was not speaking of matter. How can you be so pompous? I know you are basically a good guy, with a cool sense of humor, and a great mind. Use it. Shame on you.
........................
CANUTE: Quite. Substance is a misleading term (so is 'reality'). I drew attention to the contradictions in your quoted extract to illustrate what I meant by saying that reality can only be discussed (or conceived) in terms of its contradictory aspects, a conclusion Spinoza arrived at and which is reflected in his writings.

Oops, I almost did it again. Your statement is well taken. Methinks I am getting defensive. If I say something stupid, just say so, like there is any chance that you might hesitate. Not.
...........................
Canute Quotes PMT:
“Substance is carefully distinguished from an individual/material existence. ……..In other words substance is pervasive reality and not ‘a substance.” [from Richie]

CANUTE: Agreed.

You say you agree, which is contradictory to some of your previous statements. Are you agreeing entirely, or to only a portion of that quote?
.................
CANUTE: But you cannot assign these attributes to substance. Yes it is omnipresent in a way, but not in another. Yes it has extension, but no it doesn't. Etc. Spinoza is very careful to avoid such assertions for this reason.
That he chose his words carefully, is a no-brainer.

Guess I will not disagree with that statement.
..................
CANUTE: I meant that none of these are needed to understand reality. They are scientific knowledge. [speaking of Aristotle]

Nor did I say that. Right? I was simple saying, or trying to, that Elwes’ comments on Spinoza’s use of Latin to philosophy reminded me of Aristotle’s rather clumsy resources, while both men were geniuses in their own right, their tools were awkward to some degree. Okay, so I did not make that clear. Help me out a little, will ya’.
………………………….
Quote:
Example: (thought not a direct quote) “women are but unfinished men.”
... but some good stuff as well.

_____ CUTE!
………………………………………….
CANUTE: That seems a bit evasive. Now perhaps you're being a bit inflexible.
………Oh, my goodness! Do you suppose? Any change of your following my example?
...................
CANUTE: I thought we were disgreeing on whether Spinoza's God exists or not.

And, I thought we were disagreeing on whether Spinoza believed that God existed. I made it quite clear some time back that I do not attempt to prove God to anybody, not even to you. Such a thing would be disrespectful to you, to God and to my innermost convictions.
But I'm happy to disagree about anything.

Oh boy!

I do have a thought about atheism, and what it might have meant when Elwes, (and even as recently as Durant), wrote about Spinoza. There was a time, not so long ago, when the majority considered anyone who was not a Christian or a Jew atheistic, including the “atheists.” At this present time, however, people are more inclined to think of Islamics and Buddhists in particular as “believers in a higher power,” rather than as atheists, whether the higher power is called Allah, emptiness or Taoism. Now think about it. What say you?

Until next time.

>> “The more you know, the less you understand….” (Guess who?) …PMT

 

[Canute]

=P. M. Thorne]FOR CANUTE:
I trust that you are sincere about this subject. If one truly admires Spinoza, then why not honor him by giving earnest consideration to his writings?

I have. You haven't convinced me that you have. You do not seem to even acknowledge the difference between appearances and reality, the very basis of Spinoza's metaphysic.

Right? I was so happy that you had begun reading his works for yourself. I do hope you continue, but this is probably because it is rewarding in some strange way, knowing that someone else holds him in such high regard.

You can be very patronising.

Let me ask you this: What effect would it have on you, if you found out that Spinoza truly believed in the divine God of whom he wrote?

I don't know what he believed, all we have is what he wrote. What he wrote left people confused about his views on God. He defines Him in such a way that to many he appears to be an atheist. This is an easily verified fact. Please post an extract where he makes both his belief and his definition clear and I will concede your point. Otherwise you'll have to keep an open mind.

So, what is this case to which you have now twice referred?

It's still there to read.

CANUTE: I will, but you'll have to give a reason, not just disagree. (In answer to: I disagree, and would really like for you to reconsider your take on this.)
I must do no such thing.

Fair enough. I'll have to ignore your point then, since you won't explain why I should pay attention to it.

Plainly, your thoughts, one way or the other, are not dependent upon my reasons. Therefore, you think what you may, and reconsider what you will. I have already given sufficient reason on this matter for a reconsideration, which has seemingly not fazed you! (Surprise, surprise!) With this in mind, why would I dare think that I could say anything to persuade you to rethink a conclusion that you have already packed away?

Do you always assume that it's down to the other persons intransigence when they disagree with you?

CANUTE: Can't see why that's relevant.

Say what? You cannot see that my statement was relevant! You are smarter than that; or, are you making fun of me?

Nope. Just couldn't see the relevance.

CANUTE: Yes and no. Wind certainly exists, but only in the world of appearances, not outside the cave.

Oh Yay! Double talk and philosophical jargon.

Of course its philosophical jargon, it's a philosophical discussion. But it's not double talk, or at least if it is then Spinoza talks it all the time. Are you really saying that you do not understand that 'reality' (roughly Spinoza's 'substance') lies beyond appearances? Can I suggest reading up on the 'problem of attributes'.

Okay, describe for me winds aspects, I know its attributes. I cannot wait to read how you describe the features of wind. (I say features, because the word “appearances” in our discussion means looks, not generalities of indication).

I am not saying that aspect and attribute have identical meanings. But 'aspects' are all we know of things (hence 'appearances'). We only know the attributes of a thing from its aspects (by observation, measurement etc). Thus attributes are what an entity has, and aspects are what we see of those attributes. In Eastern philosophy reality has aspects but no attributes. That is, the attributes of reality are its aspects. We can only know of the attributes of anything to the extent that those attributes are aspects. They are inextricably bound up in each other.

CANUTE: No, they aren't. Philosophically speaking 'reality' refers to essence, the 'noumenal', not appearances.

What if we speak from our hearts for just a moment. Is a baby not reality, or is it an essence? Am I not real? You have not seen me. How do you know I exist? Just how far shall we go while we speak philosophically.

Other people can explain this far better than me. Try a search on 'appearances and reality'.

CANUTE: We now have features, appearances, aspects, attributes and characteristics. All have overlapping meanings. When it comes to God (or reality) they start to overlap completely.

Do we? “Overlap,” meaning what? If you are saying these words are all interchangeable, then you are simply repeating your previous allegations, rather than offering some logical verification. I think you are bluffing a bit. Right?

I wasn't suggesting that they have identical meanings. But when it comes to reality (substance, God or whatever) they become entangled.

Actually there is an interesting point here. My disgreement with Spinoza stems from the fact that he deduced that God must have infinite attributes infinitely, but didn't see that as mortals we cannot distinguish between His aspects and His attributes. Thus Spinoza suggests that he deduced God's attributes, whereas I'd say he was deducing His aspects (the way He appears rather than what He is or isn't). This might sound like I'm contradicting my 'aspects/attributes' argument, but if you look you'll see that the problem arises precisely because of the difficulty of distinguishing between them.

Uh, you are confusing me by using attributes and aspects to mean the same thing and switching about. Why must you do this? And what do you mean “essence underlies aspects.”

I mean reality underlies appearances.

Moreover, there is no way that we can conceive God’s aspects, because he has none, at least none that are visible to us.

How can something have attributes but no aspects. The other way around is ok, but this seems illogical.

Tell you what! This must not be a contest! So! let me tell you now that if it were, you would win. Hands down!

It isn't a contest, it's a disagreement.

FROM YOUR PREV STMT: “This is because we can only conceive of His aspects, not the essence which underlies these aspects.”
FROM YOUR LAST STMT: we cannot see beyond these (strictly contradictory) aspects to whatever it is that underlies them.

Are you quoting from something, or somebody? Would you care to share?

No, it's just a accepted fact, asserted by every philosopher who ever wrote about the topic.

Yes, I am familiar with that quote, but Spinoza did not say, “I do not know what to call it, so I will call it God, did he, Canute?

Imvho that's exactly what he did, even if he did not say so.

In all deference to Tao, for you to say “there is no correct term for reality, is like saying there is no correct term for storm.

No. no. The Lao Tse quote is a fundamentally true statement (or non-statement) about reality (if you are a non-dual proponent). For Lao Tsu any characterisation of reality is false ex hypothesis. This is why 'non-dual' characterisations of ultimate reality are always dual (e.g. fullness/emptiness). By this view all assertions about reality are false.

If this is true then all such statements are refutable, and guess what, they are. Hence the 'undecidabilty' of metaphysical questions in Western philosophy.

>You know what? If it is indeed Mother Earth, and God the Father, and we are the children, that does make about as much sense as anything; or is that too simple for us philosophers?

Not too simple, but I would say logically incoherent. Where did God come from?

“For we know in part and we prophecy in part. But when that which is perfect is come then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. But now abide faith, hope, love, these three, but the greatest of these is love.” Taken from Paul’s first letter to the church at Corinth, Chapter 13: vss.9-13. See, Spinoza was not the only one with thoughts similar to what we now call Eastern philosophy. They just express it differently.

You'll have to explain what this has to do with Eastern philosophy. It doesn't even look like philosophy to me.

How about some more Taoism?

“Men are born soft and supple; dead, they are stiff and hard. Plants are born tender and plaint; dead, they are brittle and dry.
Thus whoever is stiff and inflexible is a disciple of death. Whoever is soft and yielding is a disciple of life. The hard and stiff will be broken. The soft and supple will prevail.”

Please explain the relevance of this to the discussion. Or are you just suggesting that one of us is inflexible?

You are frustrating me, Sir!

You think I don't feel the same?

I just thought it was time to inhale. You say things that almost scare me. “for want of a better word.” How dare you?

Well, it strikes me that 'substance' is not the ideal word for something that has no substance. Why do you think your expert wanted to call it 'reality' instead?

You do him and yourself an injustice by adding to and taking from his statements. You speak of properties, as though you are speaking of matter, but he said himself that he was not speaking of matter. How can you be so pompous? I know you are basically a good guy, with a cool sense of humor, and a great mind. Use it. Shame on you.

Good grief you are patronising. Perhaps it's accidental. However I think your mindset is blinding you to what I am actually saying.

CANUTE: Quite. Substance is a misleading term (so is 'reality'). I drew attention to the contradictions in your quoted extract to illustrate what I meant by saying that reality can only be discussed (or conceived) in terms of its contradictory aspects, a conclusion Spinoza arrived at and which is reflected in his writings.

Oops, I almost did it again. Your statement is well taken. Methinks I am getting defensive. If I say something stupid, just say so, like there is any chance that you might hesitate. Not.

Yeah, I can be heavy handed in responding sometimes. Sorry. But you must share some responsibility in this, you often disagree with things I haven't said instead of what I have.

Canute Quotes PMT:
“Substance is carefully distinguished from an individual/material existence. ……..In other words substance is pervasive reality and not ‘a substance.” [from Richie]

CANUTE: Agreed.

You say you agree, which is contradictory to some of your previous statements. Are you agreeing entirely, or to only a portion of that quote?

Where does it disagree? I agree with this statement completely. It repeats my point about Spinoza's use of the term 'substance', in that it should not be taken to imply 'substance'.

Nor did I say that. Right? I was simple saying, or trying to, that Elwes’ comments on Spinoza’s use of Latin to philosophy reminded me of Aristotle’s rather clumsy resources, while both men were geniuses in their own right, their tools were awkward to some degree. Okay, so I did not make that clear. Help me out a little, will ya’.

All I meant was that Aristotle had all he needed, and as much as any of have, to practice philosophy. A pedantic point. I'm a bit anti-science and don't think it helps to answer any important questions.

CANUTE: That seems a bit evasive. Now perhaps you're being a bit inflexible.
………Oh, my goodness! Do you suppose? Any change of your following my example?

I will absolutely deny any charge of being inflexible here. Imo you have not put a argument that requires any flexibility from me. I might be wrong, but you need to give me areason to change my mind, not just call me inflexible, which is a cop out. I note you criticise me rather than refute my charge.

CANUTE: I thought we were disgreeing on whether Spinoza's God exists or not.

And, I thought we were disagreeing on whether Spinoza believed that God existed.

Same thing.

I made it quite clear some time back that I do not attempt to prove God to anybody, not even to you. Such a thing would be disrespectful to you, to God and to my innermost convictions.

Ok. It's Spinoza we're concerned with.

I do have a thought about atheism, and what it might have meant when Elwes, (and even as recently as Durant), wrote about Spinoza. There was a time, not so long ago, when the majority considered anyone who was not a Christian or a Jew atheistic, including the “atheists.” At this present time, however, people are more inclined to think of Islamics and Buddhists in particular as “believers in a higher power,” rather than as atheists, whether the higher power is called Allah, emptiness or Taoism. Now think about it. What say you?

Ok, I've thought. Buddhists are atheists, don't know about Islam. Spinoza is thought by some to be an atheist because his God is unlike the God of most (perhaps all) other theists. Seems reasonable to me. Not everyone agrees, but then I didn't suggest they did.

>> “The more you know, the less you understand….” (Guess who?) …PMT

Lao Tsu says the same, as does Daoism and Buddhism generally. Spinoza was on the ball. I suspect that a full understanding of this statement is a prerequisite of any true understanding of existence, but that's just me.

This discussion is more than I can cope with time-wise. If we are going to continue can you cut it down to basics. I'll try and do the same.

May the sun always shine on your tent.

Canute