The Riddle of Spinoza's God
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 มิ.ย. 2024
- Baruch Spinoza, one of the West's finest minds, has been called a ‘blasphemous and dangerous atheist’ and one who was ‘drunk on God.’ Explore with us what lies beneath the riddle of Spinoza God.
Beginning with a two-minute recap of Spinoza’s Metaphysics before embarking with Spinoza on his project of redefining God, God as Substance and God as Nature. We’ll look briefly at Spinoza argument for the existence of God, as he conceives it. We’ll pose two questions, one of quality and one of attitude, to take a stab at solving the question of whether Spinoza was a theist, an atheist, a pantheist, or a panentheist.
We’ll conclude with a look at the Pantheism Controversy that shook 18th century Europe in the wake of Spinoza’s thought, of whispered deathbed confessions that left the faith of Europe and the legacy of the Enlightenment hanging in the balance, and as a treat for those stay till the very end, a poem about Spinoza from Jorge Louis Borges about the true creation of the Ethics. After all is said and done, one thing’s for sure, this ain’t your grandmothers God.
Made in collaboration with Filip Holm @LetsTalkReligion check out his accompanying video: • What is Spinoza's God?
Filip and I had a wonderful convo on the question of Comparative Mysticism. Check it out: • Talking Mysticism with...
00:00 No God but Spinoza’s
01:47 Recap of Spinoza’s Metaphysics
04:51 Redefining God
05:47 God as Substance
10:28 Spinoza’s Argument for God
12:40 Spinoza as Pantheist
14:00 Not Your Grandmother’s God
17:27 Spinoza on Nature
19:12 God or Nature
20:41 Pantheist or Atheist?
23:08 A Question of Quality
28:10 A Question of Attitude
33:33 The Pantheism Controversy
37:43 Was Spinoza a Panentheist?
40:19 Summary
41:55 Poem
Check out our Spinoza series:
The Metaphysics of Spinoza: • The Metaphysics of Spi...
Spinoza's Secret for a Blessed Life: • Spinoza’s Secret for a...
The Case for Spinoza’s Mysticism: • The Case for Spinoza's...
Did Spinoza Learn Kabbalah: • Did Spinoza Know Kabba...
Spinoza, Atheist or Kabbalist: • Spinoza - Atheist or K...
Some other Philosophers we covered:
Giordano Bruno: • The Real Story of Gior...
John Scotus Eriugina: • The Philosopher Who Tr...
Abraham Abulafia: • Abraham Abulafia | The...
SoU Spinoza Playlist: • Baruch Spinoza
SoU Pantheism Series: • Pantheism
Recommended Readings:
• Yovel, Yirmiyahu (ed.), 1991. God and Nature: Spinoza’s Metaphysics, Leiden: Brill.
• Mason, Richard. 1997. The God of Spinoza: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Copleston, F. (1946). Pantheism in Spinoza and the German Idealists. Philosophy, 21(78), 42-56.
Join us:
facebook: / seekersofunity
instagram: / seekersofunity
twitter: / seekersofu
website: www.seekersofunity.com
Thank you to our beloved Patrons: Isaac, Reb MeAH, Frederick, Ben, Miguel, Rodney, Adam, Alexandra, Curly Joe, Chelsea, Jonathan, Charley and Alex.
Join them in supporting us: / seekers
#Spinoza #Pantheism #Philosophy
![ทททททททท #27 [หลุยส์ เค โตมายังไง ณ สระบุรี]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CaKoYw_Xmtg/mqdefault.jpg)
Kabbalah, Sufism and Vedanta seem to be describing the same God ; three metaphorical men grasping a metaphorical elephant (in this case, Elephant ) in a metaphorical dark room and describing the same Reality from different perspectives.
That's an example from Jainism, which is conveniently absent in your comment. I wonder why
@@AA-sn9lz to be fair, a lot of eastern mysticism and philosophy seem to have a comparable view.
Maybe he was firmilar with the quote but not uwere it came from. I thought it was a hindu quote myself. 🤷♂️
@@AA-sn9lz Jainism is a strand of thought in hinduism. The discussion on veda, uoanishad, rituals in brahmanas, aranyakas all started these thinking / discussing of indian tradition. By hindu i mean geographically, not in a religious term.
The Christian mystics are there too, just unheard due to the noise of Paul’s followers. Read what Jesus had to say about The Light.
I think there's something there about Ein Sof, The Endless One, but the eventual divergence of these schools illustrates the impossibility of truly comprehending the totality of Ein Sof. I think there's a beauty to it, almost a fractal like pattern emerging in metaphysics very core.
Dude, your channel is criminally under-rated!
Thanks for the compliment bro. Time to get to out there 😉
totally.
Without having an open mind to understand other people’s comprehension of God, we lose out on important attributes of God we may not have ever otherwise known.
Now there's an interesting idea. Thank you.
Love it! Thank you so much for this collaboration! More Spinoza for the people!
My absolute pleasure. Give the people not what they want, but what they need 😉
@@SeekersofUnity Spinoza Fun Fact #31 - He may have made one of the first known protest placards in history. Following the lynching of the De Witt brothers, the leaders of the Dutch Republic on 20 August 1672, he painted a sign that read "ULTIMI BARBARORUM - ([You are all] the Ultimate Barbarians!*" that he wished to place in his window in protest of the anti-republican killing (you can see a painting of their bodies post lynching with a google search of "The Corpses of the De Witt Brothers" by Jan de Baen, but NSFW). His landlady refused to let him put up the sign, however, because obviously....if they will lynch the De Witt brothers what do you think they will do to the atheist Jew? At any rate - it just might be that if you have protested anything using a sign, Spinoza might very well be able to claim "first!" There are some questions about the story - it may be apocryphal - but I've always appreciated. Great videos guys - Thanks for all the hard work both of you do!
Viva Spinoza!
*It's hard to translate onacuz English aint got a vocative case.
Let’s hope Spinoza would say today, De Witt lives Matter ;) Thanks for that fun fact. What a legend he was. Thank you Justin for your amazing work over at Esoterica. How’d your audience appreciate your Spinizzile vid?
@@SeekersofUnity I think it went over pretty well. Though a 40 minute episode on Spinoza probably shows more of my enthusiasm about Spinoza, זי"ע than anything else :) I think folks found it interesting that the terms 'pantheism' and 'nihilism' were literally invented to describe his philosophy. Such a shocking historical response. And of course, the Deleuze Necronomicon thing is a gas. Maybe I'll have to do an episode on Deleuze and Guattari's concept of "Becoming-Sorcerer" which is how they understand the power of Spinoza's philosophy.
‘Ziya’ I love it. Hahah ya, we all know you’re a Spinoza geek and we love it. The Deleuze blew my minds too. Thanks for bringing that to our awareness. And yes 💯 I’d love to collab on some modern philosophers and their interaction with mysticism and esotericism respectively. Very keen to learn from you ☺️
Thank you for your excellent podcast, giving us an overview of the importance of Spinoza's philosophy. As a student of Spinoza's philosophy, I have studied Spinoza's Ethics extensively, and I believe to really understand Spinoza, you must live his ideas. I have more than a theoretical concept. After 40 years of work, I now teach, mentor, and coach those who want to live, understand, and love as Spinoza did.
I must say, I am grateful for your presentation. For a person like myself, with little formal education, and with only recreational musings in the field of philosophy, a presentations such as this gives me things to contemplate and journeys to embark in; in my quest for adventure and realization.
I’ve been thinking a lot about this for about a decade, and it seems to me that the closest thing to “hope” that Spinoza’s work might not be uncomplicatedly atheistic or incompatible with Abrahamic monotheism is the possibility of panentheism-that there is more to God than the overlap with observable modes. But he really does seem to foreclose personality of any type, including non-anthropomorphic and purely spiritual personality. It would seem to me that some form of personality would have to be included in the possibilities for God beyond the one-to-one parity with the observable universe, but I just don’t see that in Spinoza’s own words anywhere, as much as I have searched for some little hint or wink from him in that direction. It really seems not to be there. I can see a theoretical compatibilism between many of his key insights and a more classical theism or a religious panentheism, but I doubt that Spinoza himself would have agreed with it. I think it’s probably time for believers like us to admit that Spinoza was a great mind worthy of immense respect, but is not really useful in constructing a religious worldview based on love, which requires relationship, which requires personality of some measure.
I came to the conclusion over 2 decades ago, in my immature mind, as an early 20 something year old that the closest approximation of “truth” is panentheism. It wasn’t perfect, but it was something that in my thirst for comprehension of “what is”, seemed to match both my limited reason, and my strong intuition.
I rejected monotheism outright as a child, and considered myself agnostic for many years until I had a “breakthrough” experience. From that point on, I searched and searched, and panentheism (which almost everyone confuses with pantheism) was the only one that “felt” right, but even back then I knew it was only a term which cannot express concept fully.
Now 20 years later after being a bit more well read and continuing my search, I’ve come to the same conclusion. Panentheism is the closest approximation, at least in my mind, for me to attempt to explain “God” as I see it. But it is ever elusive and still a mystery. How can a seemingly finite mind truly comprehend infinity?
That all being said, I am just now getting into Spinoza, so I am limited in my understanding, but as with most philosophers, I take what is useful and insightful, but I never confuse the territory for the map.
Came here from Let’s Talk Religion! Didn’t think I’d finish the video but this was pure joy and you make it easy to follow and understand. It’s clear how much effort you put into this. You’ve earned a new sub. Well done and thank you 🙏🏽
Thank you so much 🙏🏼 So glad you liked it.
Yep, me too. I work at a hospital in Brooklyn named after all of our favorite 12th century Spanish Jewish mystic. I appreciate the intellectual vigor of this presentation. I am mystified when I stare at the stars while thinking about what I understand of ‘the heavens’ but I remain an agnostic. Meaningless suffering seems antithetical to a providential, all powerful, loving g-d. I do still find it amazing that Spinoza’s ‘g-d’ is alluded to by the pre-Maccabean Greeks like Epicurus.
The idea that a god that sometimes intervenes in actual history (ie the exodus from Egypt or sends a Christ. Or miraculously heals a cancer in some lucky ‘children’) but allows for random mudslides or earthquakes to suffocate a 5 year old in the middle of her sleep, is intolerable to my conscience.
G-d is a projection of our ancestors imagination onto their lives of ignorance, violence, starvation and infectious diseases. Revelation is our own, not from g-d
An excellent presentation of Spinoza's thinking. I've been reading Spinoza and about Spinoza for more than 50 years; therefore, I can confidently say that your presentation is well on the mark and should be helpful to all.
Thank you Tony. That means a lot to us 🙏🏼
Thank you! Spinoza has become a real fascination for me and this tied a few things together in my mind.
You’re most welcome 🙏🏼
Prayer doesn't always change things for you, but it always changes you for things.
Whew! Loved that last reflection. Great stuff, as usual!! Food for the soul.
This channel is a blessing. You came on my radar via your conversation with Dr. Vervaeke. Loved your Freud / Mysticism video. Keep it up! You're doing "God's Work."
Thank you Aaron. I’m glad you found us. Welcome 🙏🏼
This video was amazing. I am eagerly waiting to learn more about spinoza from you.
Thank you Borouch. I think we have three or four more Spinoza vids up on the channel already, and two more coming in the next two weeks, Inshallah. You can check them out here: th-cam.com/play/PL_7jcKJs6iwV18De29_S_POaPb0YwoP-C.html
this was excellent! thank you so much for this great series on Spinoza, cant wait for the next one. Subscribed
Thank you so much. I’m so glad you enjoyed it. I just finished filming the next one, off to editing 😘 Lmk what you think of it.
This was the next one btw:
Spinoza’s Secret for a Blessed Life
th-cam.com/video/MC1JVerhHjY/w-d-xo.html
😉
Thank you for sharing that poem!!! That was just fascinating. Well done.
You’re most welcome Clara. Thank you 🙏🏼
A huge thank you to Filip from Let's Talk Religion for collabing on this video. Check out his vid here: th-cam.com/video/gioaH2kFaIM/w-d-xo.html
This was so cool; exactly what I’ve been looking for for years! I’d love to get some book recommendations from you.
Glad it was helpful. Welcome.
Confessions of A Crap Artist, by Phillip K. Dick
The way I see it we are in a sort of a simulation, created by God to let us experience free will and materialism briefly.
God is the universe but is, like us also outside the universe.
I love the universe, I'm no longer frightened. I just discovered I'm a Panentheist, cool:)
Welcome 🤗
Bless you for this fabulous work; for what it's worth in my opinion Spinoza was no atheist, but struggled to define a God he could live with.
Thank you Jason. Well said 👌🏻
I won't comment
I thought someone should be speechless, same as plotinus, the one, I came up with petri dish God, sociology wise it's primarily atheist so figuring out how to have mutuality is a feigned reality more like deception it seems except it does point out that analysis of interactions can be deemed low class in comparison to the damage thats already being experienced by Jesus's worldwide dominion, maybe leaving one to make up an alternative God to turn the tide, idk maybe take over God the father for ur benefit using the same ongoing understanding, whilst assuming what will will be the reaction, oh and it's not as deceptive to gain mutuality with atheist because they can use the Christian afterlife theme to live this life into the next, so they can comfortably I've this life, I believe testing proves it thru introducing deism as a word an seeing how some maybe passionately atheist and maybe even feed off the foolish Christian, when further analysis may show perhaps using gravy if necessary that people would assume there isn't much difference in beliefs, even an agnostic atheist told me he might believe there's something but not Jesus God, and one of my grandpa's told me he believed Jesus existed but he wasn't who he said he was, and I came up with a heaven and hell that to some maybe as important as each other by the idea an stuff that binds the remembering of why.
I meant an imaginary heaven that seems good enough with a story I tell that is probably part of everyone's life
@@johnmaina8619 whoops you already did 😂
I totally agree with all contents, which are excellent as usual. Moreover, the last five minutes are really super: I am delighted. Wonderful.
Thank you Gianluigi. So glad you enjoyed it :)
A brilliantly clear and succinct exposition. Well done.
Thank you Garry.
I really enjoyed your presentation of the topic!!! 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
💚 From Syria.... we are all One pure Love and One pure Awareness....
" The soul given to each of us is moved by the same living Spirit that moves the Universe. " ~ Albert Einstein
Thank you Farial. May our hearts be united by that spirit, in love. Jews, Palestinians, Syrians, Muslims, Christians... all God’s children and precious images of the One. May we learn to love and see that in one other and end this mental and spiritual illness we call hatred and instead become allies with humanity and divinity as one. This is our sacred calling. ❤️ from Israel
@@SeekersofUnity Thank you beautiful soul and Amen💚💚💚
" Peace is your natural state. It is the mind that obstructs the natural state. " ~ Ramana Maharshi
Great content I need to go clean the garage but I have to watch this it's so informative.
Have fun cleaning. I hope the vid is good cleaning company.
New subscriber here, and I wanted to say that, in addition to your obvious scholarly and rhetorical gifts, I'm also becoming quite fond of your subtle, wry wit. Thank you so much for sharing your wonderful thoughts and words here.
Aw, thank you brother. I'm so glad to have such sweet and appreciative people like yourself join our ranks. Welcome :)
@@SeekersofUnity I only wish I'd found your channel sooner.
It's kind of amazing to me actually, how much the topics that you cover are EXACTLY the ones that I've become interested in over the past 2-3 years. There must be something in the air. ...besides all of the greenhouse gases and cultural discord. 😁
No moment like the present (to work on reducing greenhouse gasses and cultural discord ;)
@@SeekersofUnity How will u get China and India to beat this path?
great exposition! since we ourselves are modes of two of god's infinite attributes, we are already god being those modes, so it would be illogical to try and deny our own existence by claiming atheism. What distinguishes Spinoza's view from simple materialism/pantheism is indeed the fact that there are also infinite attributes that we, as the modes we are, do not (yet?) express/experience. I also love the Borges poem, since I am always going on about how all religions and philosophies are poems, forms of art and literature, expressing how we understand ourselves at least as much as how we understand "god". And that characterization certainly does not take anything away from them.
It is assumed that modes are infinite and not finite. Also, there are only two modes we know of thought and extension. Any other mode cannot be described and thus, speculation.
Thank you a lot for all the knowledge you are sharing with us ! The poem of Jorge Luis Borges deserves to be a psychedelic rock song ! 🔥🔥🔥
This is extraordinarily good. Thank you.
You’re most welcome Matthew. Thank you 🙏🏼
Amazing work! :)
Thank you Sisters 🙏🏼
Just discovered your channel, excellent work:) Any interest in doing an analysis on Martin Buber's I and thou?
Thank you Andrew. I’m a fan of Buber, have been for while. He’s been a longstanding inspiration of mine. We’ll definitely have to get to him unpack him for the audience and discuss his deep and complex relationship with mysticism.
Excellent channel. Thanks! (btw in some aspects his philosophy reminds me of certain Sufi teachings, ie Ibn Arabi.)
Thank you Hassan. Yes certainly, we’re exploring that matrix of similarities and unity here on the channel. Welcome home 🙏🏼
we all need to understand God if of course its possible, by getting closer to is attributes, Spinoza is maybe one of the greatest philosopher and understanding philosophy is in God nature.sorry my english is bad i am french.
From what I have come to understand within my own experiences of gnosis, the Universe is made God through humans - hence 'made in its image'.
The Universe (matter and energy) is only made conscious through conscious beings, therefore we can liken it to a person in deep sleep, whom is only made conscious by the passage of dreams. The dreamer is then only made aware of itself when the subjects of these dreams realise they are just that, dreams, and created by the dreamer (mystcal experience = a lucid dream for the Universe/God).
It is when this 'fourth wall' is broken, and the dreams return back to the dreamer, that the dreamer understands a little more of itself. In this regard, if the human race were to disappear, the Universe would fall back into a deep, dreamless sleep until the next species to reach our level of consciousness allowed it to dream of itself as God oncemore.
thank you for your insight
Interesting take. Not my take. But Interesting.
Absolutely amazing
Great video. If you ever sell merch (as humourous a notion for a comparative mysticism channel as that is) you should include a shirt and/or button with a picture of Spinoza with the legend "With Atheists like these, who needs Theists?".
Love it 👌🏻😋
Thanks for watching. Glad you enjoyed.
I'd buy one. That's awesome!
Many thanks for this sublieme summary
🙏🏼
absolutely beautiful! Thank you so much。
Excellent thank you.
Interestingly, I watched the entire previous video without understanding attributes and modes, but then after the recap here, it somehow all clicked.
I’m glad to hear that
All is excellent.
Yooooooo new fave channel
Thank you so much ☺️ Welcome.
To those who have had an NDE, or a conversation with the Light, understand that Spinoza filled himself with, and was drunk on God
He mirrored the thought of Plato " This world indeed is a living being, endowered with a soul and intelligence. It is a single living entity, containing all other living entities which by their nature are all related. The Cosmos is a single living Creature which contains all living creatures within it."
What is the exact source of this lovely quote?
Except there's remarkable differences between these two thinkers
My interpretation is that he just shares the few that 'god' or'gods' in earlier times were just concepts humans made up for there lack of understanding of the natural processes.
And that everything is made up off "stuff".
The greeks first came up with something similar to todays standard model of the atom.
Even todays physics has limits if its about the "substance" of those particles...and we end up on a "substance" that resembles vibriting strings (harmonys?)
It is still awe inspiring and miraculous that we exist - you and me consist mainly of empty space with some particles moving constanly, kept together on the substomic level by strong and calculatable but unexplainable forces.
Call it god if you want.
But "it" does not write books or sends all knowing messiahs.
God has no gender, race or favorite prayer.
Somebody is certainly drunk. So what, though? Do drunken people create gods? Not unless their name is Paul. Paul was exhibiting obvious symptoms of methanol poisoning when Christ appeared to him. ;-)
@@NewPipeFTWSo essentially atheism, and I don’t say that with bile, although I personally disagree.
Love Spinoza ❤️ He is one of the greatest atheists of all time 😋
As the famous theist philosopher Richard Swinburne puts it, a theist is one who believes that there is a God who is a ' person/mind without a body (i.e. a spirit) who is eternal, free, able to do anything, knows everything, is perfectly good, is the proper object of human worship and obedience, the creator and sustainer of the universe. This is how theism is understood in academic circles. Under this definition, Spinoza's pantheism/monism and atheism (the denial of theism) are fully compatible.
I don’t agree. I think Spinoza’s God shares many of the qualities we would traditionally assign to God.
Able to do everything - I’d argue yes. Spinoza’s God is the cause of everything. Everything that can and will happen happens through God, so He is all-powerful in this sense.
Knows everything - All things known are known in (the mind of) God, so I think Spinoza’s God qualifies for omniscience as well.
Perfectly good - I can’t definitively argue that Spinoza’s God is perfectly good, or evil for that matter.
As for God’s free will, I’d say that Spinoza lived before the discovery of purely random quantum outcomes. The reason I think randomness is significant to free will is that I don’t think there is a distinction between pure randomness and free will. Pure randomness is simply God choosing. (Rather than “playing dice” as it is often said)
Regardless, an atheist considers there to be no evidence for God, while Spinoza finds God self-evident. A universe which is God can be understood as inherently purposeful, even if that God acts according to certain laws. Most atheists on the other hand, would say that the universe itself cannot have a purpose.
@@olbluelips Well, technically, Spinoza's god is everything. That's not so different from the atheist saying nature is everything and everything happens through nature.
Atheists/naturalists don't necessarily say the universe doesn't have a purpose. I don't think it is problematic for atheists to accept there is a telos inherent in nature, itself.
But as far as I am aware, Spinoza rejected teleology and was a moral anti-realist/relativist. Spinoza's god/nature was neither good nor bad because he didn't consider good and bad objective/intrinsic properties at all.
I know that God was part of his language, but arguably Spinoza's naturalistic monism is a variety of atheism. The difference may only be verbal, not substantial.
@@anteodedi8937 I see your point. Rejection of telos is not exactly in line with most ideas of God. I do think Spinoza’s monism can be understood through either a materialist or idealist perspective as well. From a materialist view, it may be that Spinoza’s God is superfluous. From an idealist view, God seems at least worth talking about, because he is quite literally a being, even if not human-like in any conceivable way, nor purpose-driven
I’m only like a third through the Ethics anyway so I have to be careful not to step on a mine that could have been avoided by reading the text before commenting…
@@olbluelips Great. I think it is a mistake to interpret Spinoza's view as either materialism or idealism. He has this kind of unique view, something like parallelistic monism, where a single substance has both physical and mental properties/attributes. Kind of weird view, nonetheless a very interesting philosopher.
@@anteodedi8937 Fair enough. I guess I just can’t resist the temptation to describe one in terms of the other. There’s a lot more nuance to Spinoza than I initially thought
Wonderful!
Great video
Thank you 🙏🏼
I understand about half of what you're saying, but, I like listening to your voice.
Thank you Dee 🙏🏼
As Solomon Maimon put it "The atheist system of theology, if one can call it that, entirely dispenses with the concept of a primary cause(since as a necessary idea of reason, its use is, according to the critical system, only of regulative value). All effects are attributed to particular causes known or unknown. This assumes no connetion whatsoever among the different effects, because otherwise the reason for the connection would have to be sought beyond the connection. Spinoza's system, by contrast, proceeds from the idea that one and the same substance is the immediate cause of all effects, which should therefore be viewed as predicates of the same subject. matter and spirit are, for spinoza, one and the same substance, which appears now under this and now under that attribute. This single substance is, he writes, not only the sole possible self-subsisting Being (independent of all external causes), but also the only one that exists solely for itself, whose modi (these attributes limited in a particular way) make up all so-called beings except it. Every particular effect in nature is ascribed not to its proximate cause(which is simply a mode), but to the primary cause or substance, which is common to all beings. In this system unity is real; variety, though, merely ideal. In the atheistic system, precisely the opposite is the case. Variety is real, grounded in the nature of the things themselves, While the unity one sees in the order and laws of nature is merely accidental, according to this system. Thus, we tend to define our arbitrary system for the purpose of knowledge. It is hard to fathom how spinoza's system could have been made out to be atheistic, since the two systems are diametrically opposed. The atheist system denies the existence of G-d; Spinoza's denies the existence of the world. Thus, it should really be called acosmic".
This is the type of content and discussion mainstream and pop science seem to be greatly lacking. I mean I get it....... science is about what we can know and for the general public, this is outside of their level of comprehension or what they are interested in. However, I think we need this all the more this day an age as well as nihilism akin to Emil Cioran's mindset.
Wonderful, dude. Sorry to say, but your edition (obvious visible cuts) distracted me throughout the piece. But more than enjoyable, your presentation was soothing and useful to me. Thanks.
Thank you Mário. Allow me to apologize for the copious cutting, I’m somewhat dyslexic so often struggle reading my own scripts smoothly. I often have to take multiple takes of a sentence or paragraph and patch it together in editing. My apologies for the distraction. I’m glad it still was able to be enjoyable, soothing and useful nonetheless. Thank you.
Spinoza's God without question can be clearly viewed as a supreme diety that exists solely by itself yet has split it's essence into innumerable versions in order to create and or manifest innumerable experiences. All for the purpose and objective of coming to know it's own nature and being in a more indepth means. This Eternal Presence seeks to know every single part of itself and seems to do so living out the experiences created and manifested by again , the different versions of this divine force.
Nathan Barnes : Intellectual Physics Inc.
How great to be taught to well understand Spinoza in 3 sessions while other books and teachers mostly fall short wasting time and leaving confusion. TY
Thank you Michael. Glad i could be of service.
God cannot help Himself: he must be God. Many rabbinic thinkers have expressed themselves similarly.
Thank you for this presentation. It was well done. However, I don’t think we should say “this is not the God of the Abrahamic religions or the Bible and Quran,” as if these religious traditions had only one conception of God. I don’t see a major difference between Spinoza’s God and the God of the Islamic Philosophers or Sufi conceptions, for instance.
But I benefited from your video. Thank you.
Delicious food for thought. Ultimately, Borges's poem is the answer to all questions about Spinoza.
Thank you very much. It was and is wonderful.
You're most welcome Gianluigi. Glad you enjoyed it.
For me, the ultimate unity between the transcendent, infinite creator God, and the contingent particulars of nature is itself also an aspect of the sublime mystery of God.
Because of this paradoxical divine truth, perfect union with God can be indistinguishable from atheism, when viewed from a certain perspective.
I've long viewed the crucifixion of Christ as a powerful symbol of this impossible, but necessary unity between the sacred and the profane (God and nature).
Very good.
Thank you friend 🙏
I appreciate the acceptance of my sneakiness :) (or at least an aspect of my sneakiness, i hate to attempt to take a mile when an inch is offered in good faith)
For me, at least,, your point about attitude is everything when assessing Spinosa’s God. Is there reverence a state of wonder and gratitude? This changes everything so in the end again it becomes a choice.
I wish it was possible to give more than one like to this video.
Thank you Marcelo. You can give it a share ;) That’s worth at least three likes 😋
If there's a purpose for life. It is so that God may know itself.
Stars cannot see, planets cannot hear, stones cannot think or feel. Life can.
Life is little bits of God, experiencing its own existence.
Thank you 🙏
You’re most welcome 😊
I have been reading independently. It's really long and complicated stories... I see, that you haven't figured out everything yet in doing more in-depth research. Things get even more interesting to learn more many things. Please do so, because it's really worth reading.
Way to go
I wish this infinite thread had a beginning. Either way, what Spinoza lacked was a personal relationship with God giving new meaning to ‘In God We Trust’.
Alright! This gonna be a good one!!!
You bet 😉
@@SeekersofUnity 'someone is constructing God in the twilight'. 😃 I love it when you end with a poem.
I really enjoyed how you broke down and presented the opposing views on Spinoza's philosophy. This was a great video, and I'm looking fwd to the next in this series. Thank you. I appreciate you.
☺️ Thank you so much Francis. I’m so glad you liked it. I appreciate you :)
Why philosopher's stopped talking about god after the birth of Charles Darwin?
They didn't? Philosophers are debating about God even today.
I think that the interpretations of Spinoza as atheist do not take into the due consideration Spinoza's meditations on the eternal part of our intellect, for instance, and on the whole concept of Amor Dei Intellectualis. Generally speaking, I find - I can of course be mistaken - that the second half of Book V of the Ethica is often left out of consideration or not considered in its value. I tend to the opinion that the whole Ethica could and should be so to speak re-read from the beginning, when one is arrived at the end of it with one eye fixed on the very end of the Ethica on the other eye reading again the whole contents: the whole definitions of Part I and so on through the whole Ethica does assume a new sense through the perspective which the reader acquires at the end of the Ethica.
Yes. This is the exact line of thinking we follow in the final installment in the series: The Case for Spinoza's Mysticism
th-cam.com/video/qjHkyHS_tQk/w-d-xo.html Spot on ;)
Great presentation of Spinoza and his works!! Spinoza is not a pure pantheist, nor a pure deist and cannot be classified as an atheis. Is he a philosopher or a theologist ? You pin-pointed this complexity about his thoughts and subjects.
Thank you Anna. I’m glad you enjoyed it.
Sir, as per the Vedas 3 entities namely God, Mul Prakriti (the primordial substance) and the souls are separate and exists eternally.
These 3 entities are the three reasons for which the Universe to be created and dissolved again and again.
God is infinite and constant, he doesn't changes himself into matters as per pantheism but create matters from Mul Prakriti (the primordial substance) by putting a distortion into the Mul Prakriti (primordial substance) and the force at which God Almighty apply to the primordial substance is known as the Kal (time force). In western world the time is only defined as an interval between two events but here in Vedic scriptures 'Kal element' (time element) is also a force and a matter. We used to read in science books that there are four fundamental forces but the time force is the most primal one and the smallest possible.
After creating a distortion in primordial substance by God almighty consecutively 5 elements forms and then the Parmanu (sub atomic particles in Sanskrit) came into existence and this takes millions of years as God Almighty apply the smallest force possible which is the Time force.
The five elements which forms one after another are Mahatva tatva, Manas tatva, Pran and Marut strings, Chhand strings and then the quarks.
Speaking about the oneness of God, I suppose that the One is only the ultimate emanation (primo manifest) of Him as He (Ahad) stands beyond singularity... Considering He, the Unmanifested Holy, the undivided All (Samad) ( so subdivided by nothingness) we express Him by “1/0” (1 subdivided by 0) which is the philosophical concept of the continuum infinite... Like infinity ♾in maths, He is the unlimited absolute, unbounded “even by reality itself”, so He can’t be contain by existence (therefore He is Uncreated like the unquantified ♾) and yet the creator (source) from which all creations are extracted into existence in the same way as all numbers (even the irrational and the imaginary ones) that emerge from the womb of ♾ ....i would point that God is not a being (creation ) contained in the domain of existence but the omnipresence of the eccentric truth that holds reality from falling apart ...... As a believer i assume the God don’t existe (if existence is finite) but He is the Omni-truth .
The contrast between God and substance can be understood by “the image ” of the contrast between a soul and the expressed speech that eminent from or a neurological circuit and the thought that generates it ... in those 2 exemples the holiness of the source remains perfectly complete separated , independent from its creation, yet as being separated from its source The expressed creation (speech, though ) starts to fad in the finite dimension of it existence(ABRACADABRA= God creates as He speaks and not by giving birth through dissociation or extraction of parts from Himself )...through this reasoning I consider that the macrocosme is not by definition God but His creative spirit , a network of divine tendencies that connects different levels of reality to Him.....as you said “as below so above” the below image of the macrocosme (divine spirit) is projected as a human body that connects the soul (the creative source) to each cell (projection of the microcosm below) ......
Ok, i don't know if kadish was around in the 1600s, but, if i remember right, kadish is the prayer, used at funerals, praising that thing as beyond our comprehension, which, would make sense to me as the foundation for a blasphemy charge. Given that his philosophy seems to present a comprehensible thing.
Kadish has been used in Jewish mourning since at least the 13th century, as attested to in the halachic work, Ohr Zarua. The words go back as far as the Geonim in the 10th century, found in the siddur of Amram Gaon.
@@SeekersofUnity thank you
7:14 Nothing exists outside of God. That is the Sufi perspective.
The Sufi are a religious minority that is being persecuted by mainstream Muslims. Ain't god great? ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 I do not personally like the weather at the moment-- where I live. But, I understand that the sun continues to shed light on the planets. In our world, it is always Summer and Winter. It is always day and night. This happens simultaneously. But, one may say there is Spring and Autumn. I would tell one to step back and see things from an even broader vantage. (No one enjoys being persecuted. It's like the weather.)
@@stevenwilgus5422 Gravity makes the sun shine, but gods make people kill other people.
@@lepidoptera9337 So, you rely on a poor grasp of physics. (Gravity is the response of two numeric bases that arrive simultaneously at a point of reconciliation.)
@@lepidoptera9337 (troll)
is that a cabin? sweet...
There are many comments about unifying the various manifest religious paths via Spinoza's ideas. But doesn't it go further? From a physics perspective we also have the underlying nature of all reality whichgives rise to what we actually perceive. At present our best model is that of Quantum Field Theory, which posits a field of potential exisiting throughout all of spacetime. The vibrational modes of this field ultimately giving rise to what we perceive as matter. There may yet be a deeper level, eg String Theory but it wouldn't matter (no pun intended) it would still contain the same principles as those put forward by Spinoza. As a Buddhist I would go even further. The basic non-dual state mentioned in Buddhism, sunyata, and the two forms of reality, 'absolute' and 'conventional', also fit. As a footnote, and from my perspective, arguments about patheism vs panenthism are merely those of perspective and not anywhere nearly as significant as many make out - but what do I know? (Nothing is the answer!)
Neil. You’re on the ball. Thank you for that insightful comment 🙏🏼
Unlike Spinoza, who seeks God in the external world, Leibniz sees inner evidence for God. He points to the compelling connection between 'eternal truths' (such as dealt with in mathematics, e.g.) and 'something' in which these are necessarily rooted and which he identifies as the 'understanding' of God. His starting point is not some concept of 'God', but the immaterial infrastructure of rational thought in which everyone tacitely trusts who argues reasonably: logic - and in particular mathematics.
For example - as Leibniz wrote in a note of 1677 [1]: "It is true, and even necessary, that the circle is the largest isoperimetric figure, even if no circle ever existed in reality. Likewise, even if neither I nor you nor any other human being ever existed."
Since there are necessary truths about mathematical objects independently of matter and even if no human mind had ever thought them, we must conclude with Leibniz that there is something that constitutes their being. According to Leibniz, this 'something' is the Logos God [Jn 1-1]. Leibniz in his "Monadology": "If there were no eternal substance, there would be no eternal truths ... In God is the source not only of existences but also of essences, insofar as they are real or potentially real. This is because the understanding of God is the realm of eternal truths and of the ideas on which they depend, since without Him there would be nothing real in the possibilities - not only nothing existent, but also nothing possible ... God's infinite mind embraces the ideas of all potential beings, that is, of all real beings and of all those that can be thought, because they imply no contradiction."
Obviously, this is not a worldly object named "God" that some new atheists caricature (and rightly reject), but a God compatible with the "Logos" who, according to the Evangelist John, "was in the beginning" - Eν αρχη ην o λoγoς [John 1-1].
In this context, it is noteworthy that some theoretical physicists believe that even matter ultimately arises from (quantum) logic [ e.g. John A. Wheeler: “It from bit”]. The late Martin I. Kober, who further developed Carl F. von Weizsäcker's quantum theory of primordial alternatives before he sadly passed away in 2021 at the young age of 38, left us this message in his last published article: "The crucial thing about these considerations is that... [in Weizsäcker's theory] no spacetime, no background structure at all and therefore no field theoretical concepts whatsoever are assumed. As with Hegel, the entire world is spanned over pure logic, more precisely, over pure quantum logic. Apart from time, there really only exists logic, which floats in the void. This corresponds exactly to the claim of Christian theology that God created the world from the Logos.” [ arxiv.org/pdf/1809.02469.pdf , pp. 101 f. ; in German ]
"Mathematics and the mathematicians - steps to the throne of God ?" Walter Heitler, the father of quantum electrodynamics, titles a chapter of his book "The Nature and the Divine" [2]. Leibniz would agree.
[1] Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe. Ed. Academy of Sciences of Berlin. Series VI, philosophische Schriften, 4,18. Darmstadt, Leipzig, and Berlin, 1923 ff.
[2] Walter Heitler, Die Natur und das Göttliche, 3rd edition, Klett & Balmer, Zug 1976, ISBN 3-264-90010-6
[ Translated from German ]
Jorge Luis Borges
BARUCH SPINOZA
A golden mist in the west illuminates
the window. The unremitting manuscript
awaits, already laden with infinity.
Someone construes God in the shadows.
A man gives birth to God, a Jew
with sad eyes and sallow skin;
time carries him like a leaf
borne on a flowing river.
No matter. A stubborn wizard fashions
God with delicate geometry;
from his infirmity, from his nothingness,
he proceeds to define God with words.
He was endowed with prodigal love,
the love that doesn’t expect to be loved.
( Translated by James Burnham)
Beautiful treatise. Yet one worry, all this Spinoza, or any reality (of God) is either this or that. The what is, isn't what can be spoken about. It isn't this, nor that, nor both, nor neither. It is all of those and in between. :) But it isn't man's words. They can never be more than fingers pointing to the moon, never the moon. Though some people might have been moons, not their words, but their 'knowing'. Spinoza was probably one of them, seeking to help see people through the clutter. Who knows.
Could you do Deleuze
Not yet. But maybe soon.
Spinoza's God/Nature/Substance has no qualia, will, etc. , but somehow this nature is the source of consciousness. Does Spinoza offer a logical coherent explanation for how is this possible? Also, I understand that some modes are not conscious (stones), but others are (humans). Does he offer any logical explanations for how come the so-called complexity of the idea of the body translates into consciousness? Or is it fair to say that Spinoza only assumes all of that?
There’s a bit of divided opinion amongst scholars about Spinoza’s theory of consciousness. Many believe that he has none or has a hopelessly confused one (Miller et. al.). Many pinpoint his theory of consciousness in his discussion the ‘ideas of ideas’ but Nadler in his Spinoza and Consciousness, present a more sympathetic evaluation of Spinoza’s idea of consciousness as the reflection in Thought of the complexity of Extension, for for every extended object here is also the Thought of it. His theory fits nicely with modern theories of embodied consciousness. Check out Nadler’s essay for more: www.jstor.org/stable/30166314?seq=1
@@SeekersofUnity Thanks, I've already read Nadler's work. Here's my issue: from what I understand, in a nutshell, we cannot talk about consciousness (qualia, will, etc.) in Spinozism as an emergent thing/process from atoms, due to parallelism. But we could draw a parallel between materialism and Spinozism in the sense that in both consciousness is basically a complex thing. Right? But I see the main problem in both, ie why does a complex thing posses qualia and another less complex doesn't? Is it fair to say that Spinoza doesn't answer this question, but he only starts from the premise that complexity means consciousness? Fundamentally speaking, doesn't share the same problems as materialism?
Is the understanding that for Spinoza, although he doesn’t say this, consciousness is an emergent property at a sufficient level of complexity, in parallel to complexity in extension?
@@SeekersofUnity A. Yes, emergent B. No, it is not something emergent, it is just there from the nature, ie it is what it is and we don't have an explanation for why it is like that, so we just have to accept it C. Neither A nor B - I am missing something. What am I missing here? Thank you!
You’ve gone past my Spinoza knowledge. You’re on your own on this question 🙏🏼 best of luck
I too think that the double value, so to speak, of natura as natura naturans and natura naturata is the key point of the interpretation. In my opinion, the interpretations of Spinoza as either a materialist or as an atheist, or as both of the above have insisted only on Spinoza's concept of natura naturata, thus forgetting or at least not taking in the due consideration the concept of natura naturans. Deus sive natura does hot hold only for the manifestations we see of G-o-d, but also for the G-o-d as factor of His manifestations. Moeover, G-o-d as having infinite attributes cannot be identified with the material natura in which human beings live; in other words, natura is not simply and not only the material natura. G-o-d is, as factor, something else and something more than His manifestations; likewise, natura is something else and something more than the material nature.
Precisely.
His view on God is like ibn arabi
What does that actually mean?
He, Spinoza, seems to have been of a belief that God and the universe are one.Kabbalh is a form of Panentheism rather than Pantheism on the surface or I'm now thinking that the difference twixt the two may be moot since Pantheism means the universe is God and Panentheism the universe in God but if it's in God then surely it is made of God material as what else is there?
Correct. But Panentheism retains space for divine transcendence, amongst other things.
Hmm? Do you think it was, or was not a devious attempt to undermine Spinoza’s, ‘God is all, all is God’ in the Declaration of Independence when Jefferson first uses the term ‘natures god’ before changing it to the ‘Creator’?
If I am self-causing, ie the origin of my own necessity, would that make me Godlike? JHW as is well known means "I am". Seems like Spinoza was on a path to Godhood to me.
I love spinoza
does he try to account for creation at all?
We discuss that in part one of this series, ‘The Metaphysics of Spinoza’ check it out ;)
But how can God not be conscious if he is consciousness itself? Consciousness must be conscious, right ?
What is consciousness without unconsciousness?
@@SeekersofUnity Is like white only exist in comparison to black? So it must both exist for one or another to be able to exist? But how can IT be conscious and unconscious at the same time? Analogy: Or is something like animals (or us when) living in the present moment and we ONLY ARE but don't realise?😕 OR maybe, something and nothing cancel eachother? And result.. nothing-something!! But what is that??😖😖 what is something-nothing or nothing-something? I'm not native.. pls give me some insight.. my brain hurts
Looks like spinoza translated The great Aviccena in dutch language
COLERIDGE! Holla!!!!
Spinoza fan checking in. I call it the God-thing. I can still talk to it and worship it. the God-thing still loves us, else why would it create us? Ponder that.
Shame on me, old subbie of Filip and Dr Sledeg, and not subscribed here, misshap corrected!!!
Welcome Amin. Not a moment too soon.
That´s so advaita!
In the Ancient Kemetic, Egyptian Astronomical Theology, there was only a Primeval Ocean and that Atum slept within it
Atum awoke and became all the Neteru, gods and goddesses of the Ancient Kemetic pantheon, when in truth is the Universe and everything in it
In truth, from an Ancient Egyptian point of view, what human beings calls G-d, in the Kemetic system and spirituality G-d is an infinite ocean in which innumerous bubbles are formed and within these bubbles you have creations taking place
Atum, Aleph Tau Mem, is the synthesis of all the forces and laws of Nature from a mathematical point of view
Atum is the original substance having infinite potential, possibilities, attributes and modes of existence and possibilities that becomes everything
Ancient Kemetic Creation narratives are purely mathematical and spiritual
I believe in Einstein's God, i.e., Spinoza's God!
TIME TIMING SPINOZA'S THOUGHTS OF GOD.
I think Spinoza was affected by Aristotels philosophy. I know Spinoza spread secularism
Why's the bearded man wearing two shirts in a sauna?
Spinoza does not equate the God with the Universe. The Universe is just one expression of God. Said differently, the Universe is an infinitely small subset of the God. Spinoza's God has much more attributes than the Universe. So, Spinoza's Nature is not equal to the Universe we inhabit, as it is often interpreted. Also, the immortality of soul is a derivation within Spinoza's philosophy, which for modern science is a tabu. There are many other differences between what modern science claims and Spinoza's philosophy.