As a wannabe Spinozist 😉, I found this talk extremely enlightening, at least within the limitations of my natural right to understand. I sensed that great care was taken in the preparation and presentation of this talk and that of the associated discussion. 👍👏👏🙏
Spinoza was a humble, kind, brilliant man who inspired other great minds like Albert Einstein. As a physician who lost his childhood faith, Spinoza is a balm to the soul. ‘The intellectual love of god’ is why I love practicing medicine, always something new to learn.
Basically what it boils down to is that Hobbes thought there were "natural rights" because he thought that there was a god that was interested in giving them to people and capable of doing it. Spinoza thought that there were no "natural rights" because there was no god that was interested in, or capable of, giving them to people. Thus, Spinoza was saying that if you want to have rights you are going to have to band together with other people in your society and fight for them.
Spinoza did think there were natural rights, but in their raw, unnegotiated state they were basically our volitions, or impulses, or tropisms, unanswerable to moral edicts. The exercise of these natural rights is then curtailed, or modified via negotiations with others who also strive to exercise theirs, which thereby gives rise to ethics or normative social behaviours. God, as an purported agent or arbiter of such rights, is a mere fiction, useful to those who seek to justify their desires within social negotiations, thereby seeking advantage for themselves and others who conspire in their conception. This is why religion is such a pernicious and infantilising proposition - it is a cheat's appeal to an authority which does not truly exist, in order to win at a game they seek to pre-rig in their favour.
God doesn't really play a significant part in Hobbes's conception of natural rights. Plus, Spinoza can be said to rely extremely much on "God" as long as God is understood as a non-anthropomorphic infinite substance in which everything inheres. Hobbes and Spinoza actually start from a fairly similar position: in a "state of nature", which for Hobbes signifies a theoretical pseudo-historical device and for Spinoza an inescapable reality (since everything, state included, is part of God/Nature), every being has a right to use all the means necessary to further their capability to persevere in their being. The central difference (which was already noted by Spinoza) is that Hobbes doesn't really think that this natural right is inalienable: Hobbes thinks that when a subject has relinquished to a sovereign their unrestricted right to use any means necessary to survive, they're obligated by a covenant to uphold this state of affairs. Spinoza basically views this as legal mysticism and thinks that the instant following the sovereign's will becomes disadvantageous for the subjects, they have no obligation to keep following that will. So for Spinoza peaceful co-existence is actually more precarious than for Hobbes because Spinoza thinks that contracts are always subject to critical evaluation by those it involves. This precarity also explains partly Spinoza's early advocacy for democracy and why he thought it so important to form positive relationships within political communities: these affective ties can become a stronger glue and guarantee for peace than any formal contracts could ever hope to be.
@@WelkinShaman I find Spinoza's insistence on the word God to be unhelpful or misleading Perhaps he balked at doing away with it in order to not be assassinated or further harangued for heresy. Same goes for the term 'rights', which in his conception are closer to what we'd call volition or impulse. His intellectual optimism is remarkable, given his experience, but of course there is a defiantly optimistic streak in the Jewish tradition.
@@kuntyfucstik9340 I used to think like you do about Spinoza's use of the word "God" (that it is basically some form of verbal subterfuge on his part or some useless remnant from theological traditions), but nowadays I disagree. If you don't consider Spinoza's Nature as "God", there's room for a serious misunderstanding. This has to do with his distinction between Natura naturata and Natura naturans: to only regard Spinoza's God-Nature as "Nature" would, in my opinion, be to subsume it under Natura naturata, that is to say, the totality of all modes that follow from Nature's essence. Natura naturans, on the other hand, refers to Nature as the primal immanent cause of everything. I think it makes sense to call this active immanent cause "God" as long as it is understood that this has nothing to do with some personal deity who issues decrees. But in the end I think this is mostly a semantic question. As long as the distinction between Nature as the sole immanent cause of everything (Natura naturans) and Nature as the totality of all the effects that follow from the immanent cause (Natura naturata) is respected, I have no problem with talking only about "Nature" in a contemporary context. Regarding "right", I think Susan James really explicates this remarkably well in this talk. Spinoza understands the term "right" as "potentia", that is to say, as everything that follows from a given being's essence. The fish has a right to swim since this follows from what a fish is; a human has an inalienable right to think since thinking pertains to a human being's essence. Spinoza's conception of rights denies any sort of volition to agents. "Volition" is a term that relates precisely to the tradition of natural rights that Spinoza is critical of since it postulates a will that is separate from the actual effects that a being produces. This is a fiction according to Spinoza.
Spinoza lived as well as he thought. Nature is mysterious yet knowable. That the universe is knowable, even through a glass darkly, deserves the over used word, awesome.
so good . informative . 1st century Israel = 21st century Korea . You have to know that . Amazing historical events are taking place there . Longitude 127 Seoul Okinawa Soul Axis -- Bahai Faith Rael Jesus Huh kyung young Great veritas
Philosophy isn't a profession, it is a lifestyle! As you so-called philosophers try to analyze the real philosophers, you take the sole out of philosophy!
aron atakilt You could also view a profession as a way of life , or a way of life as a profession and perhaps you could also take the view , that the philosopher's that you refer to , put forward there ways of life or ( philosophies ) to be studied , critiqued , supported or to become ways of life for others and I believe to be able to adopt a way of life professionally and otherwise , we must look at all aspects of that philosophy from as many perspectives as possible in order for us to gain some belief in the said philosophy , after all we all believe the way we think is the ( right ) way , otherwise we would strive to change our thinking or adopt other ways of thinking .
It is also a lifestyle to be a satanist. Philosophy us a beautiful deception. instead: Believe in God, he shows you the real ugly TRUTH and better: saves you from it.
🤔Tell me by what POWER Yeshua(Jesus) raised LAZARUS from the DEAD, The Old Widow only Son, and the Daughter of Ruler of the Pharisees. both back to LIFE. Elijah pray to the LORD to revive the child. 1st Kings 17:22,23. Elisha pray to the LORD to revive the child. 2nd Kings 4:6. JESUS(Yeshua Hamashiach) said to dead LAZARUS in the tomb: " Lazarus come out" John 11:39-44. JESUS said to the Old Widow dead Son, "Young man, I say unto you, Arise". Luke 7:12-15. JESUS said to the Ruler of the pharisees dead Daughter. "Maid, Arise". Luke 8:49-55. ELIJAH(John Baptist) came preaching "REPENT: kingdom of Heaven is at hand". Matthew 3:2/Mal 3:1/4:5 YESHUA(Jesus) came preaching "REPENT: the kingdom of Heaven is at hand," Matthew 4:17/Mal 3:1 REPENT of your sin, and call upon the LORD(YHWH) and BELIEVE JESUS his Messiah that he SENT and gospels. Acts 2:38/John 3/16 JESUS CHRIST, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham, the Son of God. Matthew 1:1/Proverbs 30:4 1st chronicles 17:12-14 Genesis 17:1-8. The LORD(YHWH) bless you and save your Soul. Ezq18:4,21-23,27
![🌌 [David Elbaz] L’Univers est-il une illusion ?](/img/n.gif)
As a wannabe Spinozist 😉, I found this talk extremely enlightening, at least within the limitations of my natural right to understand. I sensed that great care was taken in the preparation and presentation of this talk and that of the associated discussion. 👍👏👏🙏
Spinoza was a humble, kind, brilliant man who inspired other great minds like Albert Einstein. As a physician who lost his childhood faith, Spinoza is a balm to the soul. ‘The intellectual love of god’ is why I love practicing medicine, always something new to learn.
This woman is GORGEOUS🤩
Basically what it boils down to is that Hobbes thought there were "natural rights" because he thought that there was a god that was interested in giving them to people and capable of doing it. Spinoza thought that there were no "natural rights" because there was no god that was interested in, or capable of, giving them to people. Thus, Spinoza was saying that if you want to have rights you are going to have to band together with other people in your society and fight for them.
Well..... not at all ...
Spinoza did think there were natural rights, but in their raw, unnegotiated state they were basically our volitions, or impulses, or tropisms, unanswerable to moral edicts. The exercise of these natural rights is then curtailed, or modified via negotiations with others who also strive to exercise theirs, which thereby gives rise to ethics or normative social behaviours. God, as an purported agent or arbiter of such rights, is a mere fiction, useful to those who seek to justify their desires within social negotiations, thereby seeking advantage for themselves and others who conspire in their conception. This is why religion is such a pernicious and infantilising proposition - it is a cheat's appeal to an authority which does not truly exist, in order to win at a game they seek to pre-rig in their favour.
God doesn't really play a significant part in Hobbes's conception of natural rights. Plus, Spinoza can be said to rely extremely much on "God" as long as God is understood as a non-anthropomorphic infinite substance in which everything inheres.
Hobbes and Spinoza actually start from a fairly similar position: in a "state of nature", which for Hobbes signifies a theoretical pseudo-historical device and for Spinoza an inescapable reality (since everything, state included, is part of God/Nature), every being has a right to use all the means necessary to further their capability to persevere in their being. The central difference (which was already noted by Spinoza) is that Hobbes doesn't really think that this natural right is inalienable: Hobbes thinks that when a subject has relinquished to a sovereign their unrestricted right to use any means necessary to survive, they're obligated by a covenant to uphold this state of affairs. Spinoza basically views this as legal mysticism and thinks that the instant following the sovereign's will becomes disadvantageous for the subjects, they have no obligation to keep following that will. So for Spinoza peaceful co-existence is actually more precarious than for Hobbes because Spinoza thinks that contracts are always subject to critical evaluation by those it involves. This precarity also explains partly Spinoza's early advocacy for democracy and why he thought it so important to form positive relationships within political communities: these affective ties can become a stronger glue and guarantee for peace than any formal contracts could ever hope to be.
@@WelkinShaman I find Spinoza's insistence on the word God to be unhelpful or misleading Perhaps he balked at doing away with it in order to not be assassinated or further harangued for heresy. Same goes for the term 'rights', which in his conception are closer to what we'd call volition or impulse. His intellectual optimism is remarkable, given his experience, but of course there is a defiantly optimistic streak in the Jewish tradition.
@@kuntyfucstik9340 I used to think like you do about Spinoza's use of the word "God" (that it is basically some form of verbal subterfuge on his part or some useless remnant from theological traditions), but nowadays I disagree. If you don't consider Spinoza's Nature as "God", there's room for a serious misunderstanding. This has to do with his distinction between Natura naturata and Natura naturans: to only regard Spinoza's God-Nature as "Nature" would, in my opinion, be to subsume it under Natura naturata, that is to say, the totality of all modes that follow from Nature's essence. Natura naturans, on the other hand, refers to Nature as the primal immanent cause of everything. I think it makes sense to call this active immanent cause "God" as long as it is understood that this has nothing to do with some personal deity who issues decrees. But in the end I think this is mostly a semantic question. As long as the distinction between Nature as the sole immanent cause of everything (Natura naturans) and Nature as the totality of all the effects that follow from the immanent cause (Natura naturata) is respected, I have no problem with talking only about "Nature" in a contemporary context.
Regarding "right", I think Susan James really explicates this remarkably well in this talk. Spinoza understands the term "right" as "potentia", that is to say, as everything that follows from a given being's essence. The fish has a right to swim since this follows from what a fish is; a human has an inalienable right to think since thinking pertains to a human being's essence. Spinoza's conception of rights denies any sort of volition to agents. "Volition" is a term that relates precisely to the tradition of natural rights that Spinoza is critical of since it postulates a will that is separate from the actual effects that a being produces. This is a fiction according to Spinoza.
Beautiful talk, really enters into a very interesting subject that is usually overlook with Spinoza. Thank you very much
Spinoza lived as well as he thought. Nature is mysterious yet knowable. That the universe is knowable, even through a glass darkly, deserves the over used word, awesome.
I feel this is a more correct view, rights as conceived today are made not discovered. This takes us out of gods hands and into each others.
Any chance to get the script?
Spinoza the great opened our eyes on philosophical world
Sincere Thanks to all those who propagates his valuable teachings.
very pleasant ! much enjoyed!Thanks !
I wish that questions from some people/ reporters can be shorter than ....like a novel. Questions should be right to the point.
Her smile is so beautiful and cute
Martin Butler
thank you
Nachural white
so good . informative .
1st century Israel = 21st century Korea . You have to know that .
Amazing historical events are taking place there .
Longitude 127 Seoul Okinawa Soul Axis -- Bahai Faith Rael
Jesus Huh kyung young Great veritas
You spake in Breach of the Interpretation Act. Thus, Orwell might account you as an enabler of Fascism.
Philosophy isn't a profession, it is a lifestyle!
As you so-called philosophers try to analyze the real philosophers, you take the sole out of philosophy!
aron atakilt
You could also view a profession as a way of life , or a way of life as a profession and perhaps you could also take the view , that the philosopher's that you refer to , put forward there ways of life or ( philosophies ) to be studied , critiqued , supported or to become ways of life for others and I believe to be able to adopt a way of life professionally and otherwise , we must look at all aspects of that philosophy from as many perspectives as possible in order for us to gain some belief in the said philosophy , after all we all believe the way we think is the ( right ) way , otherwise we would strive to change our thinking or adopt other ways of thinking .
Rubbish.
It is also a lifestyle to be a satanist. Philosophy us a beautiful deception. instead: Believe in God, he shows you the real ugly TRUTH and better: saves you from it.
🤔Tell me by what POWER Yeshua(Jesus) raised LAZARUS from the DEAD, The Old Widow only Son, and the Daughter of Ruler of the Pharisees. both back to LIFE.
Elijah pray to the LORD to revive the child. 1st Kings 17:22,23.
Elisha pray to the LORD to revive the child. 2nd Kings 4:6.
JESUS(Yeshua Hamashiach) said to dead LAZARUS in the tomb: " Lazarus come out" John 11:39-44.
JESUS said to the Old Widow dead Son, "Young man, I say unto you, Arise". Luke 7:12-15.
JESUS said to the Ruler of the pharisees dead Daughter. "Maid, Arise". Luke 8:49-55.
ELIJAH(John Baptist) came preaching "REPENT: kingdom of Heaven is at hand". Matthew 3:2/Mal 3:1/4:5
YESHUA(Jesus) came preaching "REPENT: the kingdom of Heaven is at hand," Matthew 4:17/Mal 3:1
REPENT of your sin, and call upon the LORD(YHWH) and BELIEVE JESUS his Messiah that he SENT and gospels. Acts 2:38/John 3/16
JESUS CHRIST, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham, the Son of God. Matthew 1:1/Proverbs 30:4
1st chronicles 17:12-14
Genesis 17:1-8.
The LORD(YHWH) bless you and save your Soul. Ezq18:4,21-23,27
well said. "lifestyle" is the perfect definition of philosophy as a profession- the real word for the profession is: philosophaster.
So in other words, blah blah blah.