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

Greetings, and thank you for responding.

Canute writes: 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.

Of course, I believe there is a difference between appearances and reality, but not between substance and reality.

Canute: Quote:
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.

Response: I was thrilled that you had decided to read Spinoza yourself, but I took no credit for it. It is not clear to me how that was patronizing? You need not be on guard with me. I am very straightforward and sometimes blunt, but I would never intentionally make light of your sincerity. You said yourself that this was all academic to you. This was why I said that I hope you are serious. Maybe I do not have a clear understanding of what you meant by “academic.” I thought you were saying that it was no big deal to you. Probably my ignorance mislead me.

Canute: 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.

I will keep an open mind.

Canute: It's still there to read.

But, you said that you “had not made” your case yet. How can it then, still be there to read, if it is not yet made?

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

Ouch!

Canute: 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.

Here is where we differ, because I do not experience that much difficulty differentiating. Crap! Maybe I do not know enough to be confused. I am truly not being contrary, but I cannot get with you on this for some reason. You suggested in this posting--to which I am now responding, that I read: Problems of Attributes. I will.

Canute:
Quote:
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.
I know.
…………….
Canute: Quote:
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.

I meant no more that what I said, Canute. Both statements are so concise and so the same, they almost sounded like quotes, in which case, I would be interested in knowing whom you were quoting.

Canute: ……..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.

I have some reservations, particularly here: [“By this view all assertions about reality are false.”]

FYI: I have transferred every post you have sent in this category to Word and keep these in memory, for reference. Therefore, do not ever get the idea that I take what you say lightly, no matter what kind of an impression I might leave when I get frustrated. I do a lot of corresponding on things dear to my heart, and/or to the hearts of others, but this—right now—is my most taxing. Moreover, no matter how you may perceive my words, I am really trying to understand what you are seeing that I am not seeing, without unnecessary compromise.

Canute: Where did God come from?

I cannot believe you asked that.
............................
Quote:
“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 writes: You'll have to explain what this has to do with Eastern philosophy. It doesn't even look like philosophy to me.

I will explain:

Canute wrote this: “For most introspective philosophers reality is beyond conception.” [I presumed that you were including Eastern philosophers]
Then you gave me a quote from Robert Kaplan: “The world may not only be more singular than we think, it may be more singular than we can think. “

If you will recall, I agreed and mentioned that it was a good statement, because I too believe that there are limits to what we mortals can conceive at this point. The last statement of that quote: “...it [the world] may be more singular than we can think,” reminded me of another well educated man, this being the Apostle Paul, who also believed that our ability to comprehend is now limited. Thus the quote from Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians.
.....................
Canute wrote:
Quote:
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?

To tell you the honest to God truth, I think I wanted you to know for sure that I was familiar with Taoism. So, why this passage? It is one of my favorites from what I have on Taoism; in fact, I used it in an article I wrote, about four or five years ago. The obvious reason was just to remind myself that I must be flexible. Flexible does not necessarily mean to give in but to be limber, or relaxed, I suppose. At first, I was just going to read it. You quote had reminded me of it, but then I decided to put it in, for reasons previously stated.
.....................
Canute: 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?

Well, as we have before discussed, because the Latin word meant reality. Excuse me, but you must stop saying he is mind, because there were several, and they cannot be mine. I have no experts, but I do know a lot more about Durant than the others. I love the way he writes, but no personal feeling for him other than appreciation for his work, and I was touched by his comments on Spinoza in The Story of Civilization, a ten-volume history of the world.
........................
Canute: Good grief you are patronising. Perhaps it's accidental. However I think your mindset is blinding you to what I am actually saying.

Hey, you already called me that once! But, thank you for suggesting that it may be accidental. In any event, I am being too intellectually intimate, and should maybe be more careful, lest we create a monster image in your mind, and call it me.
...........
Canute: Yeah, I can be heavy handed in responding sometimes. Sorry. But you must share some responsibility in this,

I shall.

Canute: “…you often disagree with things I haven't said instead of what I have.”

Often? I do not think “often” is correct. You make me sound like an idiot.
Canute: 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.

Oh, pooh. I was no more serious here than you were when you implied that Aristotle made a good deduction with his idea that women are simply unfinished men. So, you retort with “I note you criticise me rather than refute my charge.” Nice compliment there, fella!
.........................................
Canute:
Quote:
>> “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.

Resp: Well, of course, who else? That is why I said, “Guess who,” because I expected you to know I was still in Taoism.

Canute: 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.

Poor Canute. These are long! I am going to send this now, (before it gets any longer). :p So, if you want to, just run through this to see if there is anything worthy of your time, (and I mean that respectfully, so do not take it otherwise). There are some things I would like to share, for you comments, criticisms, and what have you. We seem to have been rehashing for a time. Getting acquainted, I suppose, but now that we have, I would like to proceed with this topic. You too, said you! I mean, that was what you were saying, more or less, was it not?

May the wind be always at your back.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ PMT
 
PMT

We seem to be at cross purposes much of the time. Fortunately neither of us are quick to get aggressive. I'm going to try and refocus.

We disagree on whether Spinoza's God was a God in any normal sense or, if He was a God, whether Spinoza considered that He existed or not. (These two are more or less equivalent from my perspective).

My feeling is that you think I'm trying to put Spinoza down, or prove that God doesn't exist. In a way I am, but only in a way.

I feel that Spinoza was a genius who very nearly produced a coherent mataphysic capable of explaining existence. I know of no other western philsopher who came closer to doing this, (but there's quite a few I don't know).

However I believe he failed. This is not because he made mistakes, but because he didn't quite finish the job. He did not resolve the contradictions in his views of God (substance, reality) or explain why those contradictions occured.

Non-dual philsophies do explain why those contradictions occur, why they must occur, (for their epistemelogical occurence follows from the ontology of reality), and how they can be resolved.

This explains why Spinoza's writings are of little scientific interest and cause problems for theists. It is the same reason that Buddhism is of little scientific interest and causes problems for theists.

I feel that you misunderstand my argument on this. Fundamentally I am arguing that Spinoza never managed to transcend dualist thinking, albeit that he came within a whisker of doing so.

I believe that reality cannot be properly understood within dual ways of reasoning and conceiving. There's no reason for you to agree with me, but I suspect the problem with discussing it is that this is not an issue you've explored much. I'm not suggesting that you know nothing about Daoism or Buddhism etc., but rather that you've read the texts as if they were to be interpreted as 'western' philosophical or religious texts, from the outside rather than the inside, as it were.

This is why I suggested the 'problem of attributes'. It is a way into the issues of duality vs. non-duality as world-views. There's a good conversation on this topic going on at another forum. I'll post a link if you want it. (Can't do it now without losing this post).

I'd rather discuss these underlying issues than keep bashing away at Spinoza's God, since I can't add anything much to what I've said about Him. Your objections to my view don't stick, not necessarily because you're wrong, but because we're at cross-purposes.

I don't know what to suggest. I'm happy to chat but I'll let you decide where to go from here.

Cheers
Canute
 
Here's what I think - your subconsious has a vast storage ability, and seeks to work out the answers of all your problems.
It also receives through lifes input (envirorment), a moral center.
It continues to work at solving your problems even though you are not conscious of the process intil it either finds the solution, or if it can not plays out in dreams a solution not possible otherwise.
Without this "relief valve" we would go insane.
The has been proven in goverment studies of sleep deprivation.
Now, when you deny your consious and do things in life against it, it keeps working on the solution.
Eventually when you've piled up too much it starts to turn off - like an overload.
It is "seared".....then it seems to quit bothering you about all those things you've done wrong.
It is still there but no longer "loud" enough for you to hear.
When people have a near death experiance, all those unresolved issues come flooding back to the surface.
I've tried too explain this in a way that a person who doesn't believe in God could still recognise. This is the way it's described in scientific terms and secular psychology.
But personally I believe in God, and the bible says when a person decides not to keep God in his consious, God after awhile leaves,(the kingdom of God is in you) and if they continue to refuse to hear God (who speaks through our subconsious sometimes in a still small voice) ....then He turns them over to a reprobate mind.

All you've ever done is being recorded, not only in your mind but also in the mind of God.
Your life is corrupt. The mind or spirit of man is eminity or at war with the Spirit of God, and will aways strive against whats right.
You must be born again, recive the Spirit of God and follow where it leads - making all the things right you can, that you have done against others.
This opens up the channel to hear from God through your consious.
If you don't you'll be turned over to the evil that you have obeyed instead of God all you're life, a reprobate mind.
You have an opportunity now while your still alive to still change the road your on, and begin to make repairations......
Don't wait till your heart takes that last beat, and all those things you've keep buried start coming at you...it's too late then.
 
Man is a crackpot, and the above Visitor's post proves it!!. LOL

Godless.
 
CANUTE: Oooo! We have visitors. W had better be good. You did a rather nice summation, and I will be getting back with you. PMT
 
Canute said:
Ok. I'm a strong atheist. Reasons? Because I think God is an anthropomorphic creation based on an incorrect understanding of reality, and because the idea of a creator God is metaphysically illogical. Mind you, if you define God as Spinoza did then one gets into grey areas. That's the trouble with God, everyone's got their own.
Click to expand...
----------
M*W: "God" is the energy that dwells within humanity. It's a creative energy. Call it what you may, "God" is energy, not divine, just unexplainable. No fairy tales.
 
Crackpot

I agree with your first bit about the subconscious. I remember buying a book called 'How to Make a Million Without Really Trying'. Needless to say it was rubbish. But it had one key idea that was very good and seemed very true. This was that at some deep level we always knew the solutions to our problems, and the right way to act. The author argued that we didn't usually listen to our inner messages, so our unconscious mind ceased to speak clearly to us. This could be overcome by taking the time to listen. (Use it or lose it was the point).

By doing this our actions would become consistent with our goals, and we would be more capable of achieving them. I'd say that there's a lot of truth in this, especially if one is following a typically non-contemplative western lifestyle.

However can't agree with the stuff about God I'm afraid.

Cheers
Canute
 
CANUTE WROTE:

We seem to be at cross purposes much of the time. Fortunately neither of us are quick to get aggressive. I'm going to try and refocus.

PMT RESPONDS:

Hello, Canute, Thank you for your words.

I have deliberately held back with you, and this undoubtedly added to my frustration. I did so, because I perceive that you are hanging onto your Eastern philosophy with both hands, and that you really like it, and I say, good for you. I know there is a lot of benefit to ones peace and tranquility in the Eastern ways. It is good to find something that helps make sense of things, and you should have the peace to enjoy it. I really tried to stick with the subject, without confronting other issues.

So, let me now -let you- know this much: You are correct in saying that most commentators believe that Spinoza was an atheist. I think, however, that the word, “atheist,” held a different meaning in Spinoza’s time. I know that the pious applied the word to anyone who held neither the Judean or the popular Christian theories and philosophies. I think it likely also that most of the commentators you have read are non-believers. It would make sense, but what bothers me is that most of the ones I have aread are also non-believers. One that I was reading said that Spinoza called the earth God. Now, that is a bit of a stretch. :rolleyes:

You are also correct about Spinoza not bringing his argument to a close, according to most of what I have read, this is a generally accepted deduction. He says enough to keep me busy, with or without a close.

Here is where we get lost from one another, you and I: I enjoy exploring ideas, but I am not looking for a better belief, just further enlightenment, and I do work towards keeping my mind open, because only when I am successful at this, do I have the mind of God.

I have never changed my mind about God. I never look to church or man for the bulk of my emotional support, nor do I look to man for guidance. I am no long a child. I know how to study, and my intuition is very well developed. When church -as such- disappointed me, God was still there. When the world kicked me in the butt, God was still there. For two years, I battled an absolutely awful illness that had suddenly beset me, with God always there. I never lost my joy; I never lost my peace, and I somehow found the strength to make it through the days. There were times when I was not sure if I was going to be able to catch my breath; there were times when I coughed until I did damage to my ribs, and thought the next one would surely rip my ribs apart.

This I have mentioned before, but I have something interesting to add to it, so bear with me. On one of my worst days of coughing violently, I put on a disc a friend had given me, and turned it up very loud, and concentrated so hard on the sounds, even though I had no idea what those brothers were saying. Soon I was not listening to the music, so much as I was part of the music.

Suddenly, it was as though my mind was in another place of thinking, a place with a very familiar feeling, as though one singer was himself known to me. It was a feeling like suddenly seeing an old friend for the first time in years. The pain subsided and the really hard coughing stopped for the night. I was bewildered, but too sick to think about it much until the next day, but boy, was I happy. I just felt good, in spite of feeling bad. :)

Here is what is interesting: The other day, I caught something on TV, where a man was helping a woman learn to meditate. He said that the m’s, n’s, a’s and o’s, in a word would make a good (is it called a mantra). (Excuse my ignorance if that is incorrect.) He instructed her to repeat her the word she chose over and over. She had chosen the word “amen.” She closed her eyes and said it over and over again, slowly, deliberately, but in a spirit of calm. (I am sure this all sounds familiar, and was not new to me either, but wait!)

When finished, the woman said something that just about blew me away. She said that she felt as though she had been to another place, a place familiar, a good place. I knew exactly what she meant. With me, during that first time becoming one with the music, it was like I was taken back to that unencumbered freedom of a child’s thinking. Every time I thought about the incident thereafter, I marveled at the many emotions it brought to play. The next day, and so on, I played that music again and again, from time to time. As I listened, I asked God to make me like that gentle stranger, who delivered his music in such a natural way, and had about the sweetest voice I had ever heard, so guileless and so safe. I guess I wanted to be sweet. (And, do not laugh!) Then it was almost like a light turned on in my mind, and it was then clear to me that I had all the attributes of the Finnish singer, but I had simply become afraid to use them. Most of my life I had been on my own. To protect myself and my young, I was on guard with the world, with the Christians, and with my emotions, lest I be sidetracked from my motherly duties. I was tough, I was strong, I was scared. Never afraid of dying, never afraid of going to hell or any such thing, never afraid of losing God, but always afraid that I might not do my best by my children, and might not always have a good job so that they were well cared for. At one time, I worked two jobs and attended night school. Wanting to help, I also had three foster boys at that time of proving to the world that I was super mom.

Now, with this illness, sometimes I could not make it to the kitchen to prepare myself a meal. The music came in the very early part of my long period of sickness; therefore, I had far to go with recovery, but through it all, my spirit remained strong. About a year ago, one of my doctors asked me how I could be so cheerful all the time. I told him I did not know, but I felt blessed. I told him it was easier than pretending! Besides, a lot of people have much worse. And such things often fail to warn us that they plan to turn our lives upside down, so to speak. “Let people think what they will, I have important business to attend,” became my motto, and this is what I told myself. What really happened was, I opened my heart to my own needs. I am so much better now and I am taking better care of myself too. Worry is no longer my pastime. I do not feel that it is up to me to keep everyone happy, and this gives me time and energy to pursue things that mean the most to me, and the freedom to love while being me, without fear of rejection. This is especially true regarding family.

Canute, I truly believe that the universe is designed in such a way that when our energy becomes focused, people and things come into our lives. When we are effectual and fervent, we can be of use, to ourselves and to others. I believe all that we need has been done, and that we can know that we have a Source that never fails. Peace on earth is, it exists in the hearts and minds of those who have chosen to own it.

Aside from being so frustrated at time, I enjoy our exchanges. Furthermore, I have every intention of reading more about Eastern philosophies, and many other things if I should live so long. It seems that as far as learning goes, I am always hungry for more. :)

I read your last post on this thread. You refer to “the West” much like others refer to Christians. I do not like to hear you slam the West. Growth and spirituality is an individual matter, still yet I fully appreciate your being disgruntled with what you refer to as the West. Yet, when you think about it, neither the East or the West have done much with what they know. I suppose this is another reason I do not think too much about conclusions. We have yet to properly apply what we already know. One good look at our world will tell us that.

Well, you know, of course, that if you go far enough West you will come to what we call East. J In truth, there is no East or West. God has no boundaries, nor does our thinking, and someday—and I believe this—we too shall have no boundaries.

Peace to you, Canute. I have some information on Spinoza that I will send on a separate posting. It is very interesting. As you have studied him so little on your own, and as some of this was new to me, I thought it worth repeating. You are okay, fella, and I will chat with you anytime. For as much as we disagreed, we did it in a rather peaceable way.

Let me see……Okay, here goes:

May the light of truth ever be at your feet. How is that? ~ PMT
 
P. M. Thorne said:
CANUTE WROTE:
Hello, Canute, Thank you for your words.

I have deliberately held back with you, and this undoubtedly added to my frustration. I did so, because I perceive that you are hanging onto your Eastern philosophy with both hands, and that you really like it, and I say, good for you.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you misunderstand. I'm not hanging onto anything. It is one of the fortunate aspects of exploring Being that one doesn't have to take things on faith or 'hang on' to anything. In fact quite the reverse, one must give up everything. Only then does one find out what's left, what one inevitably cannot give up. Properly done meditation is the practice of giving up everything.

I know there is a lot of benefit to ones peace and tranquility in the Eastern ways.
Click to expand...
There is, yes, but that's not a reason for following those ways.

Here is where we get lost from one another, you and I: I enjoy exploring ideas, but I am not looking for a better belief, just further enlightenment, and I do work towards keeping my mind open, because only when I am successful at this, do I have the mind of God.
Click to expand...
Are you really looking for further enlightenment? I feel that you are unprepared to do what Spinoza bravely did, namely properly explore the logical consistency of the Christian concept of God as an explanation of existence.

I have never changed my mind about God.
Click to expand...
Hmm.

Canute, I truly believe that the universe is designed in such a way that when our energy becomes focused, people and things come into our lives.
Click to expand...
I agree, except with the 'design' bit.

When we are effectual and fervent, we can be of use, to ourselves and to others. I believe all that we need has been done, and that we can know that we have a Source that never fails. Peace on earth is, it exists in the hearts and minds of those who have chosen to own it.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But I don't agree that this is anything to do with a creator God. I particularly agree that we can 'know' the source. But if the source is an objective and external God then this is not true. As Karl Popper argued, even if God does exist we cannot have certain knowledge of Him.

Aside from being so frustrated at time, I enjoy our exchanges. Furthermore, I have every intention of reading more about Eastern philosophies, and many other things if I should live so long. It seems that as far as learning goes, I am always hungry for more. :)
Click to expand...
You may be better off practicing rather than reading. Reading about Eastern philosophy is only helpful if it runs alongside practice. Think of it like playing the piano. No amount of reading helps and there's no way of explaining what it's like.

your last post on this thread. You refer to “the West” much like others refer to Christians. I do not like to hear you slam the West.
Click to expand...
I use 'West' as shorthand for a way of thinking. It's an unfair generalisation but it's difficult to find a better term. However this way of thinking runs through western religions, science and philosophy, so it's not a very unfair generalisation. (You won't like this but I find religion and science as wrong as each other as ways of understanding the world).

Yet, when you think about it, neither the East or the West have done much with what they know.
Click to expand...
I couldn't possibly disagree more.

I suppose this is another reason I do not think too much about conclusions. We have yet to properly apply what we already know. One good look at our world will tell us that.
Click to expand...
Looking at the world shows that we properly apply everything we know (or believe we know). Hence the world is as it is. The trouble is simply that in general people act on what they assume, not what they know. Certain knowledge is hard to get.

May the light of truth ever be at your feet. How is that? ~ PMT
Click to expand...
I shall look forwrd to having enlightened feet. :D

BTW. I usually leave aside the personal stuff but your family struggles rang a bell. Having been a single parent for a long time I appreciate your struggle as a working mum. They do grow up eventually, so I'm told.

Regards
Canute
 
CANUTE WRITES ~

You say, “I'm not hanging onto anything.” I will just have to take your word for that.

You wrote: “Are you really looking for further enlightenment? I feel that you are unprepared to do what Spinoza bravely did, namely properly explore the logical consistency of the Christian concept of God as an explanation of existence.”

Well, bless your heart. I cannot help what you think.

I saw that “Hmm!” :) Remember, I did not say that I had never changed my mind about eventualities, doctrine, people or the hereafter. I know God is, more than I know that your are. That assurance has never changed, nor have I ever feared any “hell.” However, some of the things that I had continuing problems have changed, but I must also point out that they never were that certain to me either. We learn only what we already know.

You wrote this: “You may be better off practicing rather than reading.”

Well, well. I am not sure that I have an answer for that. Oh my!

A QUOTE FROM YOUR POSTING: (1) Looking at the world shows that we properly apply everything we know (or believe we know). (2) Hence the world is as it is. The trouble is simply that in general people act on what they assume, not what they know. Certain knowledge is hard to get.
Therefore, I say again: We do not apply what we know, a statement similar to your second statement.

Yours: I shall look forwrd to having enlightened feet.

I presume that you understood that my little diddy meant “wishing for” a light so that your feet can see your pathway. Your sense of humor is rather subtle, but charming. I wish you much success with it. Tee hee. :cool:

……………………..On to the information I said I would send. I spent some time last night searching out and typing up several excerpts. I do not mind doing this when I can find the time as it helps me remember.

This information came from commentaries by W. N. A. Klever, titled, “Spinoza’s Life and Works.” He wrote:

Spinoza was — I cannot repeat it enough — a man of science rather than a twentieth-century kind of philosopher. Optics had his special interest. I must now say a few words more about this topic, because historians tend to neglect also this aspect of his work, in the opinion that it was only marginal. All biographical sources, however, stress that Spinoza was very much occupied with and interested in this field of research, on a theoretical level but also practically. When Liebniz called him an “insignis opticus” [Freydenthal 1899: 193], this was not a rhetorical trick in order to avoid the title (and praise) of the philosopher, but a telling assessment………Spinoza personally constructed microscopes and telescopes which were highly praised by the scientists of his day. Liebniz praised him as the maker of famous peeptubes and confessed in his letter to him(October 5, 1671) that ‘he would not easily find somebody who in this field of studies could judge better.” In his Observationes anatomicae, Kerckringh, a comrade of Spinoza’s in Van den Enden’s Latin school who had become a famous antatomist, wrote: ‘I own a first class microscope [microscopium praestantissimum] made by Benedictus Spinoza, that noble mathematician and philosopher, which enables me to see the lymphatic vascular bundles…Well this that I have clearly discovered by means of my marvelous instrument, is itself still more marvelous’ [Kerckringh 1670:177]

This in only one excerpt, but is mainly the part I thought might interest you Please know that this is just general stuff with no connection to any dispute of which I am aware.

Later, PMT
 
FOR CANUTE:

The following is something I have wanted to send to you for some time, but it too has nothing directly to do with our arguement, (which is rather on hold right now, correct?). I hope you enjoy it, and can find food for thought, which you do rather well.

Durant's Tribute to Spinoza.
From Will and Ariel Durant's "The Story of Civilization: Part VIII", Chapter XXII - Spinoza.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 35-10016, 1963, Pages 653-657.
{I have changed Durant's spelling of God in accordance with SpinScript:Note 4.}

page 653
IX. THE CHAIN OF INFLUENCE
[1] In the great chain of ideas that binds the history of philosophy into one noble groping of baffled human thought, we can see Spinoza's system forming in twenty centuries behind him, and sharing in shaping the modern world. First, of course, he was a Jew. Excommunicated though he was, he could not shed that intensive heritage, nor forget his years of poring over the {Hebrew Bible,} Old Testament, and the Talmud and the Jewish philosophers. Recall again the heresies that must have startled his attention in Ibn Ezra, Maimonides, Hasdai Crescas, Levi ben Gerson, and Uriel Acosta. His training in the Talmud must have helped to sharpen that logical sense which made the Ethics a classic temple of reason. "Some begin" their philosophy "from created things," he said, "and some from the human mind. I begin from GOD. That was the Jewish way.

[2] From the philosophers traditionally most admired he took little—though in his distinction between the world of passing things and the divine world of eternal laws we may find another form of Plato's division between individual entities and their archetypes in the mind of GOD. Spinoza's analysis of the virtues has been traced to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics? 180 But
page 654 "the the authority of Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates," he told a friend. "Has not much weight with me. 181 Like Bacon and Hobbes, he preferred Democritus, Epicurus, and Lucretius. His ethical ideal may echo the Stoics; we hear in it some tones of Marcus Aurelius; but it was fully consistent with Epicurus.

[3] He owed more to the Scholastic philosophers than he realized, for they came to him through the medium of Descartes. They too, like Thomas Aquinas in the great Summa, had attempted a geometrical exposition of philosophy. They gave him such terms as substantia, natura naturans, attributum, essentia, summum bonum, and many more. Their identification of existence and essence in GOD became his identification of existence and essence in substance. He extended to man their merger of intellect and will in GOD.

[4] Perhaps (as Bayle thought) Spinoza read Bruno. He accepted Giordano's

There. Hope you enjoy it. PMT
 
FOR CANUTE: Well, shoot. Not sure how that happened. Guess I got in too big of a hurry, but I have some business that call me away, so I must get on with my time on here. PMT

distinction between natura naturans and natura naturata; he may have taken term and idea from Bruno's conato de conservarsi; 182 he may have found in the Italian the unity of body and mind, of matter and spirit, of world and GOD, and the conception of the highest knowledge as that which sees all things in G-D—though the German mystics must have spread that view even into commercial Amsterdam.

[5] More immediately, Descartes inspired him with philosophical ideals, and repelled him with theological platitudes. He was inspired by Descartes' ambition to make philosophy march with Euclid in form and clarity. He probably followed Descartes in drawing up rules to guide his life and work. He adopted too readily Descartes' notion that an idea must be true if it is "clear and distinct." He accepted and universalized the Cartesian view of the world as a mechanism of cause and effect reaching from some primeval vortex right up to the pineal gland. He acknowledged his indebtedness to Descartes' analysis of the passions. 183

[6] The Leviathan of Hobbes, in Latin translation, obviously evoked much welcome in Spinoza's thought. Here the conception of mechanism was worked out without mercy or fear. The mind, which in Descartes was distinct from the body and was endowed with freedom and immortality, became, in Hobbes and Spinoza, subject to universal law, and capable of only an impersonal immortality or none at all. Spinoza found in The Leviathan an acceptable analysis of sensation, perception, memory, and idea, and an unsentimental analysis of human nature. From the common starting point of a "state of nature" and a "social compact" the two thinkers came to contrary conclusions: Hobbes, from his royalist circles, to monarchy; Spinoza, from his Dutch patriotism, to democracy. Perhaps it was through Hobbes that the gentle Jew was led to Machiavelli; he refers to him as "that most acute Florentine," and again as "that most ingenious..., foreseeing page 655 man."184 But he escaped the confusion of right with might, recognizing that this is forgivable only among individuals in the "state of nature," and among states before the establishment of effective international law.

[7] All these influences were tempered and molded by Spinoza into a structure of thought awe- inspiring in its apparent logic, harmony, and unity. There were cracks in the temple, as friends and enemies pointed out: Oldenburg ably criticized the opening axioms and propositions of the Ethics, 185 and Uberweg subjected them to a Germanically meticulous analysis. 186 The logic was brilliant, but perilously deductive; though based upon personal experience, it was an artistry of thought resting upon internal consistency rather than objective fact. Spinoza's trust in his reasoning (though what other guide could he have?) was his sole immodesty. He expressed his confidence that man can understand God, or essential reality and universal law; he repeatedly avowed his conviction that he had proved his doctrines beyond all question or obscurity; and sometimes he spoke with an assurance unbecoming in a spray of foam analyzing the sea. What if all logic is an intellectual convenience, a heuristic tool of the seeking mind, rather than the structure of the world? So the inescapable logic of determinism reduces consciousness (as Huxley confessed) to an epiphenomenon—an apparently superfluous appendage of psychophysical processes which, by the mechanics of cause and effect, would go on just as well without it; and yet nothing seems more real, nothing more impressive, than consciousness. After logic has had its say, the mystery, tam grande secreturn, remains

[8] These difficulties may have shared in the unpopularity of Spinoza's philosophy in the first century after his death; but resentment was more violently directed against his critique of the Bible, prophecies, and miracles, and his conception of God as lovable but impersonal and deaf. The Jews thought of their son as a traitor to his people; the Christians cursed him as a very Satan among philosophers, an Antichrist who sought to rob the world of all meaning, mercy, and hope. Even the heretics condemned him. Bayle was repelled by Spinoza's view that all things and all men are modes of the one and only substance, cause, or God; then, said Bayle, God is the real agent of all actions, the real cause of all evil, all crimes and wars; and when a Turk slays a Hungarian it is God slaying Himself; this, Bayle protested (forgetting the subjectivity of evil) was a "most absurd and monstrous hypothesis"187 Leibniz was for a decade (1676-86) strongly influenced by Spinoza. The doctrine of monads as centers of psychic force may owe something to orrmia quodarrtmodo anitaara. At one time Leibniz declared that only one feature of Spinoza's philosophy offended him—the rejection of final causes, or providential design, in the cosmic process.188 When the outcry against Spinoza's "atheism" became universal, Leibniz joined in it as part of his own conatus sese preservancli.

page 656
[9] Spinoza had a modest, almost a concealed, share in generating the French Enlightenment. The leaders of that combustion used Spinoza's Biblical criticism as a weapon in their war against the Church, and they admired his determinism, his naturalistic ethic, his rejection of design in nature. But they were baffled by the religious terminology and apparent mysticism of the Ethics. We can imagine the reaction of Voltaire or Diderot, of Helvtious or d'Holbach, to such statements as "The mental intellectual love towards God is the very love of God with which God loves himself." 189

[10] The German spirit was more responsive to this side of Spinoza's thought. According to a conversation (1780) reported by Friedrich Jacobi, Lessing not only confessed that he had been a Spinozist through all his mature life, but affirmed that "there is no other philosophy than Spinoza's." 190 It was precisely the pantheistic identification of nature and God that thrilled the Germany of the romantic movement after the Aufklarung under Frederick the Great had run its course. Jacobi, champion of the new Gefi~hlsphiloso-phie, was among the first defenders of Spinoza (1785); it was another German romantic, Novalis, who called Spinoza "der Gottbetrunkene Menscb"; Herder thought that he had found in the Ethics the reconciliation of religion and philosophy; and Schleiermacher, the liberal theologian, wrote of "the holy and excommunicated Spinoza." 191 The young Goethe was "converted" (he tells us) at his first reading of the Ethics; henceforth Spinozism pervaded his (nonsexual) poetry and prose; it was partly by breathing the calm air of the Ethics that he grew out of the wild romanticism of G//tz von Berlichingen and Die Leiden des jungen Werthers to the Olympian poise of his later life. Kant interrupted this stream of influence for a while; but Hegel professed that "to be a philosopher one must first be a Spinozist"; and he rephrased Spinoza's God as "Absolute Reason." Probably something of Spinoza's conams sese preservandi entered into Schopenhauer's "will to live" and Nietzsche's "will to power."

[11] England for a century knew Spinoza chiefly through hearsay, and denounced him as a distant and terrible ogre. Stillingfleet (1677) referred to him vaguely as "a late author [who] I hear is mightily in vogue among many who cry up anything on the atheistical side." A Scottish professor, George Sinclair (1685), wrote of "a monstrous rabble of men who, following the Hobbesian and Spinosian principle, slight religion and undervalue the Scripture." Sir John Evelyn (1690?) spoke of the Tractatus theologico-politicus as "that infamous book," a "wretched obstacle to the searchers of holy truth." Berkeley (1732), while ranking Spinoza among "weak and wicked writers," thought him "the great leader of our modern infidels." 192 As late as 1739 the agnostic Hume shuddered cautiously at the "hideous hypothesis" of "that famous atheist," the "universally infamous Spinoza." 193 Not till the romantic movement at the turn of the eighteenth page 657 into the nineteenth century did Spinoza really reach the English mind. Then he, more than any other philosopher, inspired the youthful metaphysics of Wordsworth, Coleridge, Shelley and Byron. Shelley quoted the Tractatus theologico-politicus in the original notes to Queen Mab, and began a translation of it, for which Byron pledged a preface; a fragment of this version came into the hands of an English critic, who, taking it for a work by Shelley himself, called it a "schoolboy speculation.., too crude for publication entire." George Eliot translated the Ethics with virile resolution, and James Froude194 and Matthew Arnold 195 acknowledged the influence of Spinoza on their mental development. Of all the intellectual products of man, religion and philosophy seem to endure the longest. Pericles is famous because he lived in the days of Socrates.

[12] We love Spinoza especially among the philosophers because he was also a saint, because he lived, as well as wrote, philosophy. The virtues praised by the great religions were honored and embodied in the outcast who could find a home in none of the religions, since none would let him conceive GOD in terms that science could accept. Looking back upon that dedicated life and concentrated thought, we feel in them an element of nobility that encourages us to think well of mankind. Let us admit half of the terrible picture that Swift drew of humanity; let us agree that in every generation of man's history, and almost everywhere, we find superstition, hypocrisy, corruption, cruelty, crime, and war: in the balance against them we place the long roster of poets, composers, artists, scientists, philosophers, and saints. That same species upon which poor Swift revenged the frustrations of his flesh wrote the plays of Shakespeare, the music of Bach and Handel, the odes of Keats, the Republic of Plato, the Principia of Newton, and the Ethics of Spinoza; it built the Parthenon and painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel; it conceived and cherished, even if it crucified, Christ. Man did all this; let him never despair.
[End]
 
Thanks. Mention of Novalis reminded me of 'The Novices of Sais'. A translation is on line somewhere. I think you'd like it.
 
Hey you! I gave a respectable response (above the ever-so-long quote), and you responded not, but to this bitty comment, you respond. Guess you were happy to receive a short reply.:)

Canute, I honestly thought you might want that quote, as it mentions so many comment by others as well as Durant's own. I am not big on poetry. "The Prisoner of Chillon" is so full of human interest, is special. (Lord Byron) I am certainly not inclined to be interested in romantic writings. So, why would you think I would? Or, am I on the wrong track here?

Cheers, 'n stuff. PMT
 
I thought you might be interested in that particular short story because Novalis was, as your extract said, strongly influenced by Spinoza. (Also because he writes a lot of sense). Mainly it's just a great piece of writing. I didn't respond to your long one only because I didn't have anything to say.

regards
Canute
 
CANUTE:

Maybe the site I found was not the best. I will give it another whirl, because I am not that familiar with it. CHEERS. pmt
 
I am a late entrant into this thread. I am an atheist. I do not see any meaning to life. Meanings ones create for life are only applicable to one self, and these meanings are relative to all, and are merely distractions from the illusory nature of existence. From all perspectives of existence, a quantum level, a cosmic level or a conscious level, ones individuality and existential value is rendered superflouous. There are many things in this life, I am unsure of, this universe is a perplexing place, but I am sure of one thing, and that is death. Wether today, tomorrow, in 10 years, in 50 years, death will ultimately come. I am sure that every experience, memory, relationship, pondering and attachment I have collected in life is going to vanish in the blink of an eye. I will cease to exist. Then what is the point of it all?

Billions of people have died invain. Millions of jews have been brutually put to death. Today, many innocent people die, and are quoted as statistics on CNN. Hundresds of thousand of malnourished children in 3rd world countries are dying every day. Then we have our so called advanced countries that are ignorant to each other, just graze the fields like sheep. Where you are born, what you are born as, how tall you are, what community, has a great bearing on your life.

Even if you spend your life helping others, what is the point, when 99.9% of human civlization could not even care less. I was born in a terrible family, up to the age of 20(I am 24 now) I had seen hell everyday. Today, I don't even know what to do with life. I've tried everything from education, fitness, filmmaking, web design, socialising with people, partying, drinking, playing games, watching television , sex and what not and it feels like one of those rats in a cage, running on a wheel, getting nowhere. Seriously, I think life is a curse. I find it intolerable sometimes, and painful other times. I don't know what I am suppose to do with it. I guess end it.

I wish I could believe in God and after life and all that jizz, but I am a logical person, and I cannot believe in something without have good reason to believe it. So the people saying, atheism, not beleiving in the after life etc, nullifies the meaning of life are right in my case. It does. Then again, you are deluding yourself, by choosing to believe in something that isn't even there.
 
Last edited:
Crazymikey

You're entitled to your opinion. But you say you are a logical person. If so then you will know that you have absolutely no idea what happens when you die. Also whether your life has any meaning or not does not necessarily depend on whether God exists or not. You are making assumptions based on temperament, not logic.

Canute
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top