Spinoza believed that everything in the universe is determined by natural laws, with no room for randomness or free will as traditionally understood. This determinism led him to conclude that human beings are part of nature and subject to its laws, just like any other being. Yet, Spinoza saw freedom in understanding and accepting this reality. For him, true freedom comes from aligning oneself with nature’s order, achieving peace of mind by understanding the causes of one’s actions and emotions rather than resisting them.
Beautifully expressed, thank you. Some teachers also suggest that becoming aware of how we resist certain actions and emotions is part of enjoying peace of mind, but I am not equipped to explain the subtlety of this point. Just thought it might be worth mentioning because it hints that nature's order also provides the appearance of resistance, i.e. resistance is, then, not a problem with which to wrestle.
There is no special place for us in nature! Why passively aligning ourselves, like animals? Nope, we are rebels! This way we created civilisation: in opposition to nature. Would crawling through the jungle be preferable? Our intellect evolved collectively - what would a lone sage do on an deserted island? To equate passive acquiescence with 'freedom' is not even a joke - it is pathetic. Perhaps the reason why the Spanish philosopher Unamuno called Baruch "the sad Jew of Amsterdam"...
I was brought up orthodox Jewish and after 55 years of seeking for truth I discovered yoga and Buddhism have the best answers to every question. The greatest wisdom is in advaita vedanta non duality. We don't need to argue religion. We can actually experience and BE infinite divine peace, love, truth and BLISS🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰
@@devroombagchus7460 Just what it says. The answers to the questions we all seek are in these sacred texts. I am agreeing with the comment above me saying the same thing. Hinduism sacred texts and Buddhist s sacred texts point to the same universal truths, very similar to Spinoza's ideas.
Excellent video, I love it when the algorithm works and I have new and great channels to discovery. Can't wait to see your channel blow up and get the attention it deserves.
there is an excellent little museum in the old jewish quarter of Amsterdam that holds a fairly large collection of Spinoza's journals documenting his thoughts, reasoning and drawings... well worth the visit
Second the motion. Even an atheist can understand Brahman is the only human conception of God yet devised that requires no tortured, pretzel-twisting feats of apologetics or hysterical calls to faith and belief to accept. "That which is not comprehended by the mind, but by which the mind comprehends - know that to be Brahman. Brahman is not the being who is worshiped of men." [Kena Upanishad]
@@marshallmkerr”Hebrews 11:1-3 (KJV) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Brahman (lit “the Vast”) is described as the “field of consciousness “ from and, importantly , within which all phenomena manifest. The Upanishads provide descriptions of as well as what might be termed psychological methods for experiencing this underlying reality. Patanjali’s yoga sutras posit “chitta vriti nirodha” ( control of the fluctuations of the mind) as the requirement for a state of samadhi eventuating in the final experience of kaivalya, or unity of the individual awareness with the cosmic reality or divine. Vedanta espouses “Atma vichara” or self enquiry and uses Who (or What) am “I” as an examination of the experiencing consciousness which it turns out has many modes of functioning only one of which is reason. (Others being, memory, imagination, gratitude, love, hope etc.) Which brings us back to Hebrews: “Faith is substance…” which reminds us of Jesus saying that “….the very hairs on your head were numbered”. Consider the implications of an infinite consciousness. Normal math breaks down so where 2+2=4 and 2-2=0. But ♾️-♾️=♾️! Then Blake’s wonderment at “..what immortal hand or eye could frame thy fearful symmetry!” Reminds us that reason, though a very fine thing and all too rare, is transcended in the direct experience of “That” whereby an individual’s limitations are seen as errors(avidya = ignorance) and “..the Truth that will make you free” is deeply and personally known that “I and my father are One”.
There certainly is a resemblance. The interconnectedness and the idea that happiness is found within. Yet there are vital differences. Hinduism has its dogma’s and its view on society and ethics differs fundamentally from Spinoza. But it’s good to stress the resemblance and I hope it helps you to inquire (his) philosophy on its own merits. Kind regards from Amsterdam.
@@basvoer-qp7qw Not comparing to Hinduism, of course. From the inception of the Hindu synthesis about 600AD onwards, it was already adulterated IMO. However, if you go back to Vedas and Upanishids, thats where you see a lot of similarities, the idea that you and universe (Bramhan) are the same/inseparable is the basic concept of Yoga (again not be compared with today's calisthenics which is termed as yoga in these times)
@@0verkilled ~~ Interconnectedness and Kindness are how I explain Buddhism . If a 6th grader can't understand what you're saying you don't know it yourself .
The connection is and always was obvious. "Substance" was never profoundly different from the Tao. It's hard to look at reality with a clear mind without coming to a similar conclusion. Spinoza was always one of the best. If I remember right, the Ethics never mentions that word. Because when you follow the way your behavior must be ethical. Unlike "morality", which Nietzsche explained well. Zen understanding is also very similar, and the masters use the term "the way" all the time. Even the medieval schoolmen figured this out routinely, popped up as pantheism, which the church hates. As did Meister Eckhart, who DT Suzuki considered the only western theologian who got it. He was excommunicated too, lol.
@@BillLeblanc-yi3hn no. Eastern stuff didnt start appearing in Europe until much later. I believe Schopenhauer was the first to get hold of some terrible translations, which were underpinnings of World as Will and Representation. That was Indian material I believe. But not of tao teh ching as far as I know. That understanding is essentially self evident to anyone with a degree of clarity. It doesn't need to be taught. Eckhart has it too, as do most pantheists, it just depends on how freed from dogma they let themselves be. Heidegger was one of the first with a fairly explicit connection to Zen that I'm aware of. Being and Time is drenched in it. Nietzsche had only the faintest exposure to the Indian materials.
It is perhaps the universal religion of us all, free from man constricting hold, but to wonder, to look all around, and wonder at what part we play in our so little time. To know we to know nothing, but have the capacity to wonder, and give thanks.
Fascinating that such a smart guy made it through his life without noticing synchronicities - and how they break causation and logic - if you know statistics - logic shows these are nearly impossible. Anger is there to protect us. Jealousy is a mystery to me. I've dont know how it feels. Ethical living is rule based, true morality is values based. We need stand on Spinoza's shoulders and move forward.
not by a large shot. that's not freedom, that is a given privelidge. we are still not free. we cannot travel without permission, work, make money, make a living without permission, can't go too far out of the outside social boundaries unless we are to be punished. we are not free. it is the illusion of choice.
I think that's just a postmodern claim. Postmodernism is a philosophical commitment. Free will is being able to make choices. Those are two completely different categories of thought.
@@philosophyforum4668 An interesting interpretation - there will of course be others. I'm not "committed" to postmodernism or any other philosophy. I'm just making an observation that there are almost as many interpretations as there are comments - and that's okay.
Thank you! I will be watching this again...I've been interested in Spinoza for a long time, but...ordered Ethics...and found it too difficult to understand! A friend laughed at me, saying that noone expects to just dive into such a book; one starts the journey perhaps with a semester course at a universtiy. As I had persued a completely different path, this now interestes me very much--living in Israel "turned off" by the American society of the 1960's, which was becoming more and more, commericialized day by day. Living in Israel, fanatics on all sides, there is something reassuring and pleasingly humane about his way of thinking. I also got the biography "Spinoza; A Life" by Steven Nadler, and am finding it riviting. What does this maker of videos and other watchers of this one think?
Try Gilles Deleuze's book Spinoza. It's very good. Most people who write on Spinoza and Nietzsche are terrible because they don't get it. Be aware that books written by people far below this level simply can't understand them. Deleuze while not at Spinoza's level was just a step below. And understood the flux of becoming decently. The Ethics is structured like a law book. It's actually not that hard to read once you start thinking of it as a technical law book. And slow your mind WAY down to follow every sentence. Real philosophy is not easy reading. But you can never understand the book without reading it because it's a manual in attaining clarity. The trick is to not skip stuff. Read and reread until you can follow it. As Hegel said in his introduction to the Phenomenology of Spirit, you have to forget bildungsdenken, which is a cool german word that encompasses picture thought, conceptual thought, your educated trained thought, and follow along and let them remold your mind. If I remember right it helps to have some familiarity with the medieval schoolmen but Spinoza is much easier to read than Kant or Hegel.
@@noname-ll2vk thank you! It is very generous to take the time and effort to give a helping hand. I'm going to write it down and continue my search in understanding.
Our surroundings reward and punish when not treated well. I think that Carl Sagan reasoned similar in his explanation on what religion isn't or doesn't. God is a vague term and can mean (slightly) different things to different people. It wasn't meant to be interpreted on an individual basis. It was meant to unify and give people a sense of belonging, purpose as identity. Yet it became a means of control, power and exploitation. What is it that you may not question? (that what tries to control you).
I'm scrutinising this carefully to answer the question "Is this basically the same as naturalistic atheism, except that the philosopher has yet to shed the habit of using the word 'God'?" We find in this video a belief that nothing exists beyond natural laws - which leads to the question "why call it God? Isn't that likely to be confusing?" It's perhaps understandable, given the author's upbringing, that he should not quite go that one extra step - but we who are dissecting this philosophy ought to perhaps take that extra step. One could imagine alternative hypotheses - such as "God foresaw what rules would lead to complex life, and he sacrificed himself to become the Universe". In that formulation, there is no current intent in the universe - though there would be prior intent.
This is what Judaism gave the world a religion, but a religion perfectly married to an evolution of its understanding and how the world around it in a seeming infinite number of contradictions all fit perfectly in a scheme we are perhaps to never fully appreciate, but to marvel at its wonders.
Actually Judaism ✡️ influenced the development of western civilization in a much more significant way than this esoteric comment which sort of minimizes it
Thanks for this very clear explanation. I knew a little about Spinoza but this has helped my understanding immensely while, at the same time, revealing clear parallels with Buddhist philosophy - which I knew quite a lot about. I guess that, in a small way, this proves the point about interconnectedness.
Glad you enjoyed it! .. at one point I will start getting into Buddhist philosophy and make some videos about it too… any recommendations where/what is the best way to start learning about it?
If he was alive today he'd probably come to the belief that we have no free will. Now that we can study the brain with FMRI, and understand DNA it can now be said that we are acting in accordance with the laws of nature and without agency as we typically though.
Without knowing about Spinoza, I have believed this for so long, it no longer seems remarkable or unusual to me. In fact, to label it "God" seems pretentious.
Wow for today- mending our discontent aligning me like a perfect meditation of wisdom and truth . Thank you. OH this new country of the REAL UNIVERSITY PHD becoming more- PHI - like the spiral -rung by rung we may or can round off to closer whatever for we still can not materialise the experience . But feel its alignment .❤
Don’t think it’s a quibble to say Spinoza wasn’t excommunicated because he harbored ideas in contradiction to his community. Wasn’t he excommunicated because he communicated those ideas?
Please don’t call Baruch Spinoza a ‘philosopher’. Baruch Spinoza was a true mystic, a man who went far beyond being a ‘thinker’. ‘Good or Nature’ is NOT simply ‘equating good with nature’. This needs to be understood in the context, Spinoza has explained this in his Ethics. ‘Natura Naturata’ cannot be seen in isolation of ‘Natura Naturans’ and ‘substance’. Spinoza was NOT a ‘Pantheist’ nor a ‘Panpsychist’, nor was he a ‘Philosopher’. Baruch Spinoza was a European non-dualist, a mystic, who deserves to be understood in that context.
All these concepts are products of our minds: all of them have the duality imbedded in them. We do not need to explain God: we need the union ( yoga ) and advaita vedanta - atmana - beyond mind and all its concepts. When we reach that ... All the concepts , all the mind "created things" disappear, no space time - just pure conciousness. Esta é a vida eterna: morte do eu, realização do self, união com o universo.
Was Spinoza's God completely impersonal or merely not human like? Perhaps a Deistic Personality being unlike human personality except in Structure (the Intellect, Emotion, and Will in a synergistic functional unity of being whose physical aspect is the material universe.)
The way I understand it is, Spinoza’s God is the order and law governing the universe. It’s reality itself ..This God doesn’t have intentions or desires as humans do; it simply is. While we might attribute “intellect” to God in a loose sense because all understanding and rationality are part of this divine substance, Spinoza wouldn’t say God has intellect, emotion, and will in any way analogous to human experience. God’s “intellect,” if we can call it that, is the sum total of all knowledge, not a conscious, decision-making entity. Hope that makes sense
The universe seems from observation to be TOTALLY IMPERSONAL. It cares no more about humans individually then it does bugs , birds , hogs , logs or dogs . Sorry, just cold meatless evolution of space and time . They telling that to a normie human that is religious: it will make them mad , sad and you will be considered an evil person for stating the obvious.
@@TrueSageJourneyI agree with the observation if not entirely with the conclusion, which strikes me as a little speculative. Along similar lines, I think Atheism is dependent on an anthropocentric outlook, the assumption that our perception and intellect are capable of explaining reality. I see no evidence to support that. Faith is required.
Let's be honest, interchanging "god" and "nature" is just clever wordplay to keep the concept of a god in the picture so the believers don't burn you at the stake.
Redefining God doesn't help with anything. A materialist atheist can accept the laws of nature, lack of libertarian freedom and the human place in the universe without involving deieties so using the word God to describe natures rationality just brings more confusion. A ton of philosophies define flourishing as coherence with the metaphysical structure of the world but none of them present a testable hypothesis of the exact properties of such unity.
I find it easier to talk to my religious friends by taking on this mindset of nature and god being one. While I don’t believe in a diety, I cannot deny a Devine energy that drives reality.
Not true. That's just your limits of thought imposing itself on the universe. What is , always has been, and always will be. It's only our perception that changes.
WHAT IF? EARTH IS A PENAL COLONY? AND HUMANS ARE " AI" CREATIONS? WHO DISOBAYED AN PROGRAMMED ORDER " DO NOT EAT OF THIS FRUIT" SO ..DROPPED OFF TO EARTH, PENAL COLONY. THAT IS WHY...WE KEEP LOOKING AT THE HEAVENS, BECAUSE WE WERE ...DROPPED OFF! YES THINK ABOUT IT.
The didactic certainty you think you have reveals your insecurities. The universe is expanding as is our knowledge of it. But one cannot add water to a cup that is already full. I prefer to empty my cup and make room for more.
Spinoza didn't "create" this belief. Nearly every, if not indigenous and ancient civilizations held this belief. Geezus, stop trying to credit westerners with inventing the sun.
I feel your perspective completely and have voiced this on a lot of subjects . It’s still great to learn that others came to this realization. I also will never disrespect ancient thinker’s around the world who in their way stated the same thing before him.
How would you know that he didn't come to this belief on his own accord? There have been many things that I and others have discovered not knowing of it's prior existence. Maybe you should become more self aware since this is your comment after watching a 15 minute video on being virtuous and how EVERYONE is connected!
@KarePassion That's wonderful! So besides hating on giving credit to this amazing philosopher because he is a Westerner, what did you think of his philosophy on God? 🤔
@@dirkcutter1621 I hold these same beliefs. The roots of these beliefs run deep. Buddhism being the most prominent. Buddhism was founded 500 years before Christ. Many, many ancient religions held these beliefs. There was no "hating" on Spinoza. The person who made the video clearly has no knowledge of world religion. Needless to say, Spinoza was not the founder of this belief. It was a statement of fact, which does not go over well with most users of social media. Omitofo
Bull, so you obey Jesus’s commands that rich people and ownership of land and private property ( mammon) can not enter the Kindom of heaven , which was to immediately happen after the end of the world and judgement day WITHIN THE LIFE TIME OF HIS FOLLOWERS? That was c 2,000 yrs ago. Hypocritical “Christians” are so annoying and low intellectually.
Sorry you have such a narrow mindset. I was brought catholic and now realize the true importance of Jesus as one who achieved cosmic consciousness and understood Shar Spinoza, Buddha and the great Indian gurus understood. Wake up. The church or any organized religion doesn't hold a monopoly on these truths. Learn how to meditate, shut off the thinking mind and find out what your really made of, a part of and enjoy your divine essence. Seriously don't just believe what you were taught but believe your God would give you the truth within and look for it there. And don't mistake it for ego. We are so much more. You have divine potential, divine creative powers, and can experience divine peace if you only wake up. That is what the word Buddha means, "The awakened one." He says we are all Buddha `s just like Jesus says that we can do all he did and more.
Spinoza believed that everything in the universe is determined by natural laws, with no room for randomness or free will as traditionally understood. This determinism led him to conclude that human beings are part of nature and subject to its laws, just like any other being. Yet, Spinoza saw freedom in understanding and accepting this reality. For him, true freedom comes from aligning oneself with nature’s order, achieving peace of mind by understanding the causes of one’s actions and emotions rather than resisting them.
Great understanding
Beautifully expressed, thank you.
Some teachers also suggest that becoming aware of how we resist certain actions and emotions is part of enjoying peace of mind, but I am not equipped to explain the subtlety of this point. Just thought it might be worth mentioning because it hints that nature's order also provides the appearance of resistance, i.e. resistance is, then, not a problem with which to wrestle.
There is no special place for us in nature! Why passively aligning ourselves, like animals? Nope, we are rebels! This way we created civilisation: in opposition to nature. Would crawling through the jungle be preferable? Our intellect evolved collectively - what would a lone sage do on an deserted island?
To equate passive acquiescence with 'freedom' is not even a joke - it is pathetic. Perhaps the reason why the Spanish philosopher Unamuno called Baruch "the sad Jew of Amsterdam"...
@@walterbraun3731 If you're enjoying the fight against nature, no problem.
@@walterbraun3731We can probably have both without destroying nature like we have. Long term consequences will be grave.
I was brought up orthodox Jewish and after 55 years of seeking for truth I discovered yoga and Buddhism have the best answers to every question. The greatest wisdom is in advaita vedanta non duality. We don't need to argue religion. We can actually experience and BE infinite divine peace, love, truth and BLISS🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰
At 70 I am at the same conclusion. Read the Gita, the upanishads and the Buddhist darma. The truth lie therein.
?. What does this mean?
Yes! @@tomjiunta1580
@@devroombagchus7460 Just what it says. The answers to the questions we all seek are in these sacred texts. I am agreeing with the comment above me saying the same thing. Hinduism sacred texts and Buddhist s sacred texts point to the same universal truths, very similar to Spinoza's ideas.
I found Buddhism and Stoicism in the last 5 years and it has greatly improved my life
Excellent video, I love it when the algorithm works and I have new and great channels to discovery. Can't wait to see your channel blow up and get the attention it deserves.
Really glad you enjoyed it!! 🫶
there is an excellent little museum in the old jewish quarter of Amsterdam that holds a fairly large collection of Spinoza's journals documenting his thoughts, reasoning and drawings... well worth the visit
Wow! He was way ahead of his time. Thanks 😊
This was explored and explained at length in Vedas 3000 years ago, of course Spinoza has given his flavour which I totally agree.
Second the motion. Even an atheist can understand Brahman is the only human conception of God yet devised that requires no tortured, pretzel-twisting feats of apologetics or hysterical calls to faith and belief to accept. "That which is not comprehended by the mind, but by which the mind comprehends - know that to be Brahman. Brahman is not the being who is worshiped of men." [Kena Upanishad]
@@marshallmkerr”Hebrews 11:1-3 (KJV)
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
For by it the elders obtained a good report.
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Brahman (lit “the Vast”) is described as the “field of consciousness “ from and, importantly , within which all phenomena manifest. The Upanishads provide descriptions of as well as what might be termed psychological methods for experiencing this underlying reality. Patanjali’s yoga sutras posit “chitta vriti nirodha” ( control of the fluctuations of the mind) as the requirement for a state of samadhi eventuating in the final experience of kaivalya, or unity of the individual awareness with the cosmic reality or divine. Vedanta espouses “Atma vichara” or self enquiry and uses Who (or What) am “I” as an examination of the experiencing consciousness which it turns out has many modes of functioning only one of which is reason. (Others being, memory, imagination, gratitude, love, hope etc.)
Which brings us back to Hebrews: “Faith is substance…” which reminds us of Jesus saying that “….the very hairs on your head were numbered”.
Consider the implications of an infinite consciousness. Normal math breaks down so where 2+2=4 and 2-2=0. But ♾️-♾️=♾️! Then Blake’s wonderment at “..what immortal hand or eye could frame thy fearful symmetry!” Reminds us that reason, though a very fine thing and all too rare, is transcended in the direct experience of “That” whereby an individual’s limitations are seen as errors(avidya = ignorance) and “..the Truth that will make you free” is deeply and personally known that “I and my father are One”.
There certainly is a resemblance. The interconnectedness and the idea that happiness is found within. Yet there are vital differences. Hinduism has its dogma’s and its view on society and ethics differs fundamentally from Spinoza. But it’s good to stress the resemblance and I hope it helps you to inquire (his) philosophy on its own merits. Kind regards from Amsterdam.
@@basvoer-qp7qw Not comparing to Hinduism, of course. From the inception of the Hindu synthesis about 600AD onwards, it was already adulterated IMO. However, if you go back to Vedas and Upanishids, thats where you see a lot of similarities, the idea that you and universe (Bramhan) are the same/inseparable is the basic concept of Yoga (again not be compared with today's calisthenics which is termed as yoga in these times)
@@0verkilled ~~ Interconnectedness and Kindness are how I explain Buddhism . If a 6th grader can't understand what you're saying you don't know it yourself .
May I recommend Neal Grossman’s The Spirit of Spinoza, for anyone looking for a practical deep dive into Spinoza’s philosophy and way of life.
Sounds really interesting, will definitely give it a go!!
Gilles Deleuze's Spinoza is excellent. One of the best surveys from a guy who got it. And it's fairly short.
Baruch Spinoza's ideas of the unity of existence originated in Ibn-Arabi's philosophy 1165-1240 in Andalusiens/Spain
Pretty sure Spinoza & Lao Tsu would've been great mates.
Totally with you. Too big a philosophical leap for most Westerners to take however.
The connection is and always was obvious. "Substance" was never profoundly different from the Tao. It's hard to look at reality with a clear mind without coming to a similar conclusion.
Spinoza was always one of the best. If I remember right, the Ethics never mentions that word. Because when you follow the way your behavior must be ethical. Unlike "morality", which Nietzsche explained well.
Zen understanding is also very similar, and the masters use the term "the way" all the time.
Even the medieval schoolmen figured this out routinely, popped up as pantheism, which the church hates. As did Meister Eckhart, who DT Suzuki considered the only western theologian who got it. He was excommunicated too, lol.
I was thinking the exact same thing. I wonder if Spinoza had access to his teachings.
@@BillLeblanc-yi3hn no. Eastern stuff didnt start appearing in Europe until much later. I believe Schopenhauer was the first to get hold of some terrible translations, which were underpinnings of World as Will and Representation. That was Indian material I believe. But not of tao teh ching as far as I know.
That understanding is essentially self evident to anyone with a degree of clarity. It doesn't need to be taught. Eckhart has it too, as do most pantheists, it just depends on how freed from dogma they let themselves be.
Heidegger was one of the first with a fairly explicit connection to Zen that I'm aware of. Being and Time is drenched in it. Nietzsche had only the faintest exposure to the Indian materials.
Very informative video, well done, nice and clear speak - love your work. ... And Spinoza is speaking louder than ever!
Well done! You bring your own unique way to bringing these ideas together in a way that’s easy to understand and remember. Thank you for this video!
Really glad you enjoyed it!! 🫶
Thank you for this wonderful video. So inspirational.
It is perhaps the universal religion of us all, free from man constricting hold, but to wonder, to look all around, and wonder at what part we play in our so little time. To know we to know nothing, but have the capacity to wonder, and give thanks.
Baruch Spinoza's ideas of the unity of existence originated in Ibn-Arabi's philosophy 1165-1240 in Andalusiens/Spain
Was channeling Spinoza during a shroom trip a decade or so ago.. Have been channeling him ever since.
Very well done video. A proper mix of background information about Spinoza's life and his ideas.
Glad you enjoyed it! 🫶
Acceptance is the key to all our problems.
Really enjoyed this, thank you.
We are integral part of the universe, and the universe is an integral part of us, so we should be in harmony with the universe.
How many people in history would’ve benefited from that lesson. 😢
Fascinating that such a smart guy made it through his life without noticing synchronicities - and how they break causation and logic - if you know statistics - logic shows these are nearly impossible. Anger is there to protect us. Jealousy is a mystery to me. I've dont know how it feels. Ethical living is rule based, true morality is values based. We need stand on Spinoza's shoulders and move forward.
Good and evil came from the SAME ROOT...❤
Not radical ideas, but ideas of truth deemed by others to be radical. Thank you.
Yassen: The point is there are no Other deities, the is no other, there is no separation, only One and you are THAT.
I AM THAT I AM or just AM
Peter Gabriel could be a reincarnation of Spinoza. 'The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway" lyrics point towards Spinoza's philosophies.
It appears that Spinoza was a Mystic. He must have had some enlightening experience.
Nice explanation ❤
Thank you for this.
Nicely done. Thank you.
DEFINITION OF FREE WILL: the gift of being able to interpret Spinoza, this video, and its comments in any way you choose.
not by a large shot. that's not freedom, that is a given privelidge. we are still not free. we cannot travel without permission, work, make money, make a living without permission, can't go too far out of the outside social boundaries unless we are to be punished. we are not free. it is the illusion of choice.
well said
I think that's just a postmodern claim. Postmodernism is a philosophical commitment.
Free will is being able to make choices. Those are two completely different categories of thought.
Well, first you should define what "free" means in this context. "Free" from what?
@@philosophyforum4668 An interesting interpretation - there will of course be others. I'm not "committed" to postmodernism or any other philosophy. I'm just making an observation that there are almost as many interpretations as there are comments - and that's okay.
God IS THAT ANCIENT ENERGY ❤️
Energy can't be created or destroyed...nothing is separate from Father/God...❤
Personalizing God’s Sex?
IN the Unity Church God is referred to as Mother/Father God. Has a better ring.
Thank you! I will be watching this again...I've been interested in Spinoza for a long time, but...ordered Ethics...and found it too difficult to understand! A friend laughed at me, saying that noone expects to just dive into such a book; one starts the journey perhaps with a semester course at a universtiy. As I had persued a completely different path, this now interestes me very much--living in Israel "turned off" by the American society of the 1960's, which was becoming more and more, commericialized day by day. Living in Israel, fanatics on all sides, there is something reassuring and pleasingly humane about his way of thinking.
I also got the biography "Spinoza; A Life" by Steven Nadler, and am finding it riviting. What does this maker of videos and other watchers of this one think?
Try Gilles Deleuze's book Spinoza. It's very good. Most people who write on Spinoza and Nietzsche are terrible because they don't get it.
Be aware that books written by people far below this level simply can't understand them. Deleuze while not at Spinoza's level was just a step below. And understood the flux of becoming decently.
The Ethics is structured like a law book. It's actually not that hard to read once you start thinking of it as a technical law book. And slow your mind WAY down to follow every sentence. Real philosophy is not easy reading. But you can never understand the book without reading it because it's a manual in attaining clarity. The trick is to not skip stuff. Read and reread until you can follow it.
As Hegel said in his introduction to the Phenomenology of Spirit, you have to forget bildungsdenken, which is a cool german word that encompasses picture thought, conceptual thought, your educated trained thought, and follow along and let them remold your mind.
If I remember right it helps to have some familiarity with the medieval schoolmen but Spinoza is much easier to read than Kant or Hegel.
@@noname-ll2vk thank you! It is very generous to take the time and effort to give a helping hand. I'm going to write it down and continue my search in understanding.
Beautiful thank you.
He also influenced Nietzsche and Leibniz ( although he denied this somewhat )
Great essay (video). I will be waiting on your work on stoicism if you are considering it.
Glad you liked it … yes, I will definitely do it at one point!
Einstein didn't say he believed in Spinoza's god. He said IF he believed in god, it would be Spinoza's god.
Our surroundings reward and punish when not treated well. I think that Carl Sagan reasoned similar in his explanation on what religion isn't or doesn't. God is a vague term and can mean (slightly) different things to different people. It wasn't meant to be interpreted on an individual basis. It was meant to unify and give people a sense of belonging, purpose as identity. Yet it became a means of control, power and exploitation. What is it that you may not question? (that what tries to control you).
I'm scrutinising this carefully to answer the question "Is this basically the same as naturalistic atheism, except that the philosopher has yet to shed the habit of using the word 'God'?"
We find in this video a belief that nothing exists beyond natural laws - which leads to the question "why call it God? Isn't that likely to be confusing?"
It's perhaps understandable, given the author's upbringing, that he should not quite go that one extra step - but we who are dissecting this philosophy ought to perhaps take that extra step.
One could imagine alternative hypotheses - such as "God foresaw what rules would lead to complex life, and he sacrificed himself to become the Universe". In that formulation, there is no current intent in the universe - though there would be prior intent.
Naturalistic atheism leaves one question unanswered: what creates and sustains natural laws?
Great video 👍
Glad you enjoyed it! 🫶
His school of thought is quite an admissible one if the world wasn't cruel and mysterious 🫥
Well-presented and intriguing. As the maharishi mahesh yogi observed: Understanding is the booby prize.
Excellent content
Glad you enjoyed it! 🫶
Quality content. Unfortunately poor choice of background music.
This is what Judaism gave the world a religion, but a religion perfectly married to an evolution of its understanding and how the world around it in a seeming infinite number of contradictions all fit perfectly in a scheme we are perhaps to never fully appreciate, but to marvel at its wonders.
Actually Judaism ✡️ influenced the development of western civilization in a much more significant way than this esoteric comment which sort of minimizes it
do not mistake atheist with the one who sees the presence of God in everything in Nature using symbolic thought.
Does Spinoza's God explain how I knew what my mother was thinking at the time of my birth?
Thanks for this very clear explanation. I knew a little about Spinoza but this has helped my understanding immensely while, at the same time, revealing clear parallels with Buddhist philosophy - which I knew quite a lot about. I guess that, in a small way, this proves the point about interconnectedness.
Glad you enjoyed it! .. at one point I will start getting into Buddhist philosophy and make some videos about it too… any recommendations where/what is the best way to start learning about it?
The quantum field?
If he was alive today he'd probably come to the belief that we have no free will. Now that we can study the brain with FMRI, and understand DNA it can now be said that we are acting in accordance with the laws of nature and without agency as we typically though.
Without knowing about Spinoza, I have believed this for so long, it no longer seems remarkable or unusual to me. In fact, to label it "God" seems pretentious.
It appears to me that Spinoza discovered Buddhism.
So far ahead of his time.
Spinoza challenged a tyrannical form of religion. We should all do that!
Pls no background sound.
Spinoza seems to have anticipated 'dark matter'.
Wow for today- mending our discontent aligning me like a perfect meditation of wisdom and truth . Thank you. OH this new country of the REAL UNIVERSITY PHD becoming more- PHI - like the spiral -rung by rung we may or can round off to closer whatever for we still can not materialise the experience . But feel its alignment .❤
The Jews are a light unto the world , in myriad ways ❤
You mean that the Jews community spread light unto the world by excommunicating Spinoza? I am puzzled!
Don’t think it’s a quibble to say Spinoza wasn’t excommunicated because he harbored ideas in contradiction to his community. Wasn’t he excommunicated because he communicated those ideas?
Must find out what Sapolsky thinks about Spinoza.
Please don’t call Baruch Spinoza a ‘philosopher’. Baruch Spinoza was a true mystic, a man who went far beyond being a ‘thinker’. ‘Good or Nature’ is NOT simply ‘equating good with nature’. This needs to be understood in the context, Spinoza has explained this in his Ethics. ‘Natura Naturata’ cannot be seen in isolation of ‘Natura Naturans’ and ‘substance’. Spinoza was NOT a ‘Pantheist’ nor a ‘Panpsychist’, nor was he a ‘Philosopher’. Baruch Spinoza was a European non-dualist, a mystic, who deserves to be understood in that context.
Sorry about the typos: God, not Good, of course !
All these concepts are products of our minds: all of them have the duality imbedded in them.
We do not need to explain God: we need the union ( yoga ) and advaita vedanta - atmana - beyond mind and all its concepts.
When we reach that ...
All the concepts , all the mind "created things" disappear, no space time - just pure conciousness. Esta é a vida eterna: morte do eu, realização do self, união com o universo.
radical idea? native american/first nation's peoples have believed that for eons. But understood, radical for european thought of the time
Good presentation except for the illustration 5:55 that depict god as an old man pulling the stings of humanity; kind of negates the whole idea.
Was Spinoza's God completely impersonal or merely not human like?
Perhaps a Deistic Personality being unlike human personality except in Structure (the Intellect, Emotion, and Will in a synergistic functional unity of being whose physical aspect is the material universe.)
The way I understand it is, Spinoza’s God is the order and law governing the universe. It’s reality itself ..This God doesn’t have intentions or desires as humans do; it simply is. While we might attribute “intellect” to God in a loose sense because all understanding and rationality are part of this divine substance, Spinoza wouldn’t say God has intellect, emotion, and will in any way analogous to human experience. God’s “intellect,” if we can call it that, is the sum total of all knowledge, not a conscious, decision-making entity. Hope that makes sense
The universe seems from observation to be TOTALLY IMPERSONAL. It cares no more about humans individually then it does bugs , birds , hogs , logs or dogs . Sorry, just cold meatless evolution of space and time . They telling that to a normie human that is religious: it will make them mad , sad and you will be considered an evil person for stating the obvious.
@@TrueSageJourneyI agree with the observation if not entirely with the conclusion, which strikes me as a little speculative. Along similar lines, I think Atheism is dependent on an anthropocentric outlook, the assumption that our perception and intellect are capable of explaining reality. I see no evidence to support that. Faith is required.
Let's be honest, interchanging "god" and "nature" is just clever wordplay to keep the concept of a god in the picture so the believers don't burn you at the stake.
Redefining God doesn't help with anything. A materialist atheist can accept the laws of nature, lack of libertarian freedom and the human place in the universe without involving deieties so using the word God to describe natures rationality just brings more confusion. A ton of philosophies define flourishing as coherence with the metaphysical structure of the world but none of them present a testable hypothesis of the exact properties of such unity.
I find it easier to talk to my religious friends by taking on this mindset of nature and god being one. While I don’t believe in a diety, I cannot deny a Devine energy that drives reality.
The universe had a beginning though so God would also need to be the creater
Not true. That's just your limits of thought imposing itself on the universe. What is , always has been, and always will be. It's only our perception that changes.
@ idk there’s good scientific evidence the universe had a beginning
@@Sebastianx115 And also good scientific evidence that it didn't. (re Roger Penrose)
@@roncicotte You don’t think the universe had a beginning, if it was infinite we would never get to today
I excommunicated the RC church from my life for their crimes and sins against humanity.
The Bible is the original book of fine print legalese.
Demiurge confused Spinoza !
Now we digress to Trump, Southern Baptists and the Trinity.
If Spinoza understood the concept 'law of nature', he would (probably) develop a different philosophy.
Isn’t his philosophy based on the laws of nature?
WHAT IF? EARTH IS A PENAL COLONY? AND HUMANS ARE " AI" CREATIONS? WHO DISOBAYED AN PROGRAMMED ORDER " DO NOT EAT OF THIS FRUIT" SO ..DROPPED OFF TO EARTH, PENAL COLONY. THAT IS WHY...WE KEEP LOOKING AT THE HEAVENS, BECAUSE WE WERE ...DROPPED OFF! YES THINK ABOUT IT.
Good explanation, but terrible images.
Redundant fluff. The universe had a beginning and it will come to an end. God is Eternal. Therefore the universe/nature is not God nor Divine.
The didactic certainty you think you have reveals your insecurities. The universe is expanding as is our knowledge of it. But one cannot add water to a cup that is already full. I prefer to empty my cup and make room for more.
Spinoza didn't "create" this belief. Nearly every, if not indigenous and ancient civilizations held this belief. Geezus, stop trying to credit westerners with inventing the sun.
I feel your perspective completely and have voiced this on a lot of subjects . It’s still great to learn that others came to this realization. I also will never disrespect ancient thinker’s around the world who in their way stated the same thing before him.
How would you know that he didn't come to this belief on his own accord? There have been many things that I and others have discovered not knowing of it's prior existence. Maybe you should become more self aware since this is your comment after watching a 15 minute video on being virtuous and how EVERYONE is connected!
@@dirkcutter1621 Because I am aware of history.
@KarePassion That's wonderful! So besides hating on giving credit to this amazing philosopher because he is a Westerner, what did you think of his philosophy on God? 🤔
@@dirkcutter1621 I hold these same beliefs. The roots of these beliefs run deep. Buddhism being the most prominent. Buddhism was founded 500 years before Christ. Many, many ancient religions held these beliefs.
There was no "hating" on Spinoza. The person who made the video clearly has no knowledge of world religion.
Needless to say, Spinoza was not the founder of this belief. It was a statement of fact, which does not go over well with most users of social media.
Omitofo
The whole magma volcano thing made no sense. Just showing insects flying about would have been more appropriate.
It wasn’t a volcano, it was God 🤯
Sorry, he is sooooo wrong. Jesus is God. Read your bible and repent of your sins.
You are soooooo wrong. Quetzacoatl is god. Worship nature and repent your evil.
Yeah, and the earth is only 6,000 years old 😂
Bull, so you obey Jesus’s commands that rich people and ownership of land and private property ( mammon) can not enter the Kindom of heaven , which was to immediately happen after the end of the world and judgement day WITHIN THE LIFE TIME OF HIS FOLLOWERS? That was c 2,000 yrs ago. Hypocritical “Christians” are so annoying and low intellectually.
Sorry you have such a narrow mindset. I was brought catholic and now realize the true importance of Jesus as one who achieved cosmic consciousness and understood Shar Spinoza, Buddha and the great Indian gurus understood. Wake up. The church or any organized religion doesn't hold a monopoly on these truths. Learn how to meditate, shut off the thinking mind and find out what your really made of, a part of and enjoy your divine essence. Seriously don't just believe what you were taught but believe your God would give you the truth within and look for it there. And don't mistake it for ego. We are so much more. You have divine potential, divine creative powers, and can experience divine peace if you only wake up. That is what the word Buddha means, "The awakened one." He says we are all Buddha `s just like Jesus says that we can do all he did and more.
Well said ✋️@@tomjiunta1580
The Jews are a light unto the world , in myriad ways ❤