I am enamored with Spinoza, but I seriously doubt most of us can just pop in some headphones, listen to his cryptic geometical style for 9 hours and get it, haha.
Its a step in the history of consciousness, but not something to be revered. move on. Spinoza was terribly wrong about the universe/multiverse and is only a single step or page in the history of human consciousness. And he got it wrong, just like everyone before and after. There are no gods or philosopher kings. just vote.
Oppositum This seems to me to be extremely well thought out. However, I find myself drawn to Spinoza more than it may deserve because I am so dazzled by his brilliance that I cannot understand him.
Even if God is perfect and good, He created the imperfect, evil devil/demon. Much later Godel proved in the liar paradox, 'I am not a liar' that incorporating the opposite in the proposition leads to incompleteness and undecidable. Turing ingeniously solved this to prove the halting problem by employing 'self-reference' theorem, in which a Turing machine is superimposed on itself. Good or evil, opposites are ubiquitous,properties, followed as proved by Hegel. At the big bang dark energy and dark matter were produced with opposite properties, followed by production of particles and anti-particles, followed by production of matter and anti-matter (according to the Standard Model of particle physics).....and on to hot and cold, male and female, up and down etc., fine tuned to perfection by the intelligent designer enabling the delivery of life and evolution (Vishnu) with probability one, fulfilling the divine purpose.
***** You are not misinterpreting my words, but disagreeing only. Duality is ubiquitous. Even though Intelligent Designer fine tuned creation to perfection, yet he created it's dual, called evil, devil, demon as part of the perfect creation.
A rare pleasure, magnificently read...Thanks for sharing such a comforting text-genuinely sacred, rather than the manipulative superstitious nonsense who wanted to destroy such a beautiful thinker.
Excellent philosopher. One of the best. Truly, beauty and truth are the definitions of Ethica. Mr Paul Strathem does not give him his praise due, in his opinion.
Omg thank you for this. I’ve been stuck in part 2 of the Ethics, only to learn that I had a weird translation that was making the book way harder to understand. It wasn’t a bad translation, it just definitely wasn’t beginner-friendly by any means. It was very convoluted. So I started listening to this while reading along from a website that provides the same translation you read from. This translation is definitely way more concise, it gets to the point. It’s been so much easier to understand, I feel like I’m actually getting somewhere now
ah ah, very clever. you pretend to be paid for work...but this reader who spent his time doing this audiobook should not have rights no? Copyright is not on Spinoza but to the voice speaking, dumbs.
Inflation on the word absurdity on the beginning. but it is nice to find a philosopher who shares the same thoughts on God. God is all that exists and all infinite possibilities of substance, life and so on. Though to narrowly describe such an entity based on our language, whether it may be literal our mathematical or creatively. Will never be enough. Describing an infinite being with ifinite qualities and consisting of an infinite mass of infinite materia in infinite time and infinite powers, is actually probably the closest and most accurate description of God.
They're not really talking about the same thing. A counting task which can never be completed, and that which constitutes everything are not the same concept. It's like saying that walking in a straight line around the equator is an "infinity". It is, in a sense, because it has no end, but that does not mean that the task constitutes the totality of existence.
I believe Spinoza was actually criticizing the people who say there can't be infinities of different sizes -- not explicitly for that claim, but in the context of criticizing an argument made by others concerning the supposed impossibility of God's being an extended thing, who employ that hypothesis in their arguments (i.e., that one infinity cannot be larger than another.) Spinoza even says at one point, something like, "even if I should grant their arguments..." etc., implying that he at least remains agnostic about such propositions, if not even a little skeptical. It's true, he does go on to affirm that infinity "can have no measure," but that seems to me an entirely different claim from the former, and Spinoza seems to have thought so too. In other words, it should be consistent to deny that an infinity can have any intrinsic or absolute measure (that, after all, would amount to treating an infinity as finite) while still holding that some infinities can be larger than others. In the passage I believe you're referring to, I interpreted Spinoza actually to be rejecting (as a premise) the notion that infinities cannot be different "sizes," or at least remaining indifferent to the claim. I could be misinterpreting, but I distinctly remember that being the context. Presumably, Spinoza thinks that all sorts of infinities are contained within substance, and it also seems consistent with his view that a thing is limited according to its kind. It might be worth going back & reading that passage again -- if I understood right, it might be a pretty remarkable example of Spinoza prefiguring Cantor in a certain way. 👍
As i understand it. 0:59 the reason a body is limited by another body, but a body is not limited by a thought is because they have two different substances, and hence we can not mesure the quantity of their subtance next to eachother. They dont have the same quality, and so they dont represent levels of on the same scale- it would be like trying to mesure how tall something is in comparrason to how heavy another thing is.
His idea that God and the universe are the same (pantheism) is delightfully iconoclastic because the creator is not some bearded fellow in the sky to whom one can pray, etc. By making God infinite and thus not limited Spinoza renders God more perfect than the monotheistic gods, yet the Church and the Jews both repudiated him, which is rank hypocrisy. He showed up the Church and the rabbis as profoundly stupid by forcing them to acknowledge how limited and thus how imperfect was their God. Whitehead said basically the same thing at the end of Dialogues of Alfred North Whitehead where he says God is either IN the universe or nowhere. I love it. Spinoza's God does not require churches or synagogues or prayers any more than would a tree or flower. This was so revolutionary that even the Dutch kicked him out. I would love to see a clergyman read the first section of this book to his flock and see their reaction. More than likely they are bumpkins and would not have a clue what Spinoza is arguing. Not surprising, after all they are in church instead of having the presence of mind to go educate themselves.
As Bob Dylan once said: ''Don't criticise what you don't understand''! Like illiterate, self-righteous Kentuckians perfectly satisfied to say that educated New-Yorkers are a snobbish ''elite''... Are ya a modafawkin' Trump-voting hillbilly? Understand a couple things, THEN express genuine, valid opinions...
Wow, this seems really interesting. For example Spinoza wrote that with one substance it must be infinite, because it can only be either infinite or finite and if it was finite there has to be something else in addition to limit it. I wonder if "one" can be seen as finite but I will listen to hear what Spinoza says about that.
As a dutchman I agree with that. I have read the book many times, and still I have troubles understanding it (but it forces one to constantly pay attention) :-D
Indeed! But as the ''prince of philosophers'' said somehow, somewhere, whatever is truly useful, really sublime, satisfying, i.e., beyond anything perceived or conceived as ''beautiful'', is necessarily obtained through enormous effort. It may be argued that the greatest human achievements are not purely rational(istic)... yet surely the best, most noble things that a human can get, understand or enjoy are very difficult, painful and even downright painful before the beauty is seen, the mastery is ascertained, the understanding like the sun at dawn arises.
According to wikipedia this dude was accused of being atheist and the Catholic Church put his works on the list of forbidden books. I was confused then when he started talking about "The proposition that God does not exist is absurd, therefore, God exists". But damn, the stuff around 1:20:00 ish. "People can hear sounds which are in harmony or discordant...ppl think that God likes harmony. How odd that people's beliefs about what God likes match what the people themselves like". Or that's what I took away from that section? Idk, this is background noise for playing Hypixel minecraft.
The late Christopher Hitchens apparently held Spinoza in the highest esteem. I am not sure if I am correct in saying this but I believe he said he was indebted to Spinoza. Could someone familiar with Spinoza and Hitchens try to explain then how the latter could have supported and believed in the lie that is called the War of Terror. This seems to me to be completely irrational on the part of Hitchens.
***** Of course there is terrorism, but did the iraq war decrease or increase terrorism? If the war on terror were a legit protection against terrorism that would be one thing, but it only breeds more terror and makes us less safe. ISIS would not exist without the war on terror. There is a difference between the legit protection and the orwellian war on terror. you should know this, but I can't blame you for being another sheep.
***** Yeah, the war on terror is a success like the war on drugs. Ii can't believe you have an internet connection and fall for the orwellian terms like "war on terror' and "WMD" which can mean mustard, yes the same shit you slather on hot dogs. Your ignorance is the reason ISIS even exists. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and you are a fucking idiot if you think it did. But you and the other sheep are the ones they rely on for consent because you believe anything they say. Pathetic.
+Veritas Vos Liberabit Well despite you presumptuous tone in the spirit of goodwill I will reply. I grew up in apartheid South Africa where anyone who fought that diabolical system was labelled interchangeably with either the T word or the C word (terrorist or communist) or both. As a friend said when you go into another persons house, take his possessions, murder his wife and children and trash his home well there is a good chance that he might become a terrorist. Most people in less powerful countries don't have the arms and resources to resist the might of the U.S and allies militaries so they just make do as best they can, or if they aspire to some form of power might take bribes from them. Some despite the futility resist and become what the MSM calls (if they are Muslim and only Muslim for some reason) terrorists. Yes people are driven to do horrific deeds when you drive them insane with brute might and force. Hitchens proudly proclaimed in endless diatribes his lack of belief in God. One thing that became clear when he supported the rape and pillage of Iraq and Afghanistan is the he certainly believed might was right and that the most physically powerful was somehow the best. Quite frankly I ended up not being very impressed with him..I can imagine him admiring himself in the mirror as he fell more and more in love with his intellect. Nothing comes from violence. Nothing ever could. If you want to stop terrorism stop occupying other people's lands as Chomsky points out over and over again.
+Veritas Vos Liberabit By your logic "war on terror was an initiative to bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice" this means you support holding huge numbers of people hostage due to the deeds of others. Lets say someone from your town goes and murders someone in a neighboring town. Do you feel that you should suffer as a result of this and should be held somehow accountable simply because you happen to live near the perpetrators? This is the logic of invading countries far away as result of 9/11. I can only imagine that you, like so many Americans, are able to find this acceptable because you somehow believe that ALL Muslims should suffer because of the actions of a few.
Proposition 502 - If Spinoza had a Playstation he would not have completed this book Proof - QED GTA5. Namely - It's a PLAYSTATION!!!! Note - Luckily his Mom bought him a voluminous cloak instead...
Not to be contrary or anything but in recent times I have been thinking that the western world has over-proportionately viewed the German people as being evil hateful unkind etc. in the decades following the WW2. I wonder if this hasn't been an veiled attempt to overlook the terrible evils that ALL of the western world has been engaged in over past centuries - colonialism, slavery, American imperialism, capitalism/consumerism now bringing the earth to the brink of destruction through global-warming etc, Recently I had occasion to talk to a German guy who told me how kind and considerate people are in modern day Germany. Also it should be noted that the country is a leader in terms of eco-consciousness, solar energy etc. I think German bashing has had its day do you not think? Perhaps an overreaction to your comment but maybe cause for thought.
I read a book called, "A history of the German Resistance 1933-1945," by Peter Hoffmann. It is an excellent account of many members of the Germanic citizenry who did everything in their power to oppose the NAZI party's onerous and murderous policies. "The History of the German Resistance is the most comprehensive and authoritative account ever published of the German opposition's struggle against Hitler, covering all the serious attempts to overthrow or assassinate him leading up to the failed attempt of 20 July 1944. Extensive notes, a full bibliography, maps, plans, diagrams, and a comprehensive index complete this indispensable and definitive account." McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP, Oct 8, 1996 - History - 853 pages I also traveled in Germany extensively in 1970-1971. I met many younger Germans who were friendly, outgoing and freedom-loving people. I also met many ex-Nazi's who were very unfriendly, spooky and scary. Those guys are almost all dead now. The young people I met are now in charge of their country... *Their philosophers have been dismal and enervating at times; while other German philosophic pundits and deep-thinkers are joyous and invigorating philosophically!. One cannot accurately generalize when speaking of an entire people...
Pindar1984 Spinoza uses neither the word schadenfreude or skadefryd in this Anglo translation, nor in the original text. Yet he describes it succinctly in the passage referenced as part of the negative human condition. ~^~_~^~ Peace, BLuZie
Baruch....wer ist die macht..die denn Schöpfer nennt wie ein Wurm.. und dieser Welt ist für ihn eine armeise....diese Meldung geht um Globus....💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙
Why Spinoza’s god failed epically. Spinoza’s god is spot on. What epically failed is Spinoza’s description of his god in a theistic fashion, therefore giving theists with an anthropomorphic concept of a god an opportunity to analogize their concept with his concept, thus extending humankind’s doubt regarding the human concept of god’s existence. The following is from the School of Life video on Spinoza. The Ethics is one of the world's most beautiful books. It contains a calming perspective, a restoring take on life. It replaces the god of superstition with a wise and consoling pantheism, and yet, Spinoza's work failed utterly to convince any but a few to abandon traditional religion and to move toward a rationalist and wise system of belief. Spinoza failed to understand, like so many philosophers before and since, that what leads people to religion isn't just reason, but far more importantly; emotion, belief, fear and tradition. People stick with their beliefs because they like the ritual, the communal meals, the yearly traditions, the beautiful architecture, the music, the lovely language in their synagogue [or mosque,] or church. Spinoza's Ethics arguably contains a lot more wisdom than the bible, but because it comes without any of the bible's supporting structure, it remains a marginal work… If we are ever to replace traditional beliefs we must remember just how much religion is helped along by ritual, tradition, art, and a desire to belong, all things that Spinoza, despite his great wisdom, ignored at his peril, in his bold attempt to replace the bible. Spinoza's god failed epically because he described his god as an ‘’other entity’’, and entity outside the individual, and this was his critical mistake. Whether or not you choose to ‘’believe’’ in a god or gods, spiritualism, mysticism, magic, miracles, or anything supernatural, that is your individual ‘’belief’’ selection. None of those ‘’beliefs’’ are necessary for you to come to a full understanding of individual human unendarkenment, individual human enlightenment, individual human happier-ness. I am talking about what every ‘’wise’’ man and ‘’wise’’ woman, every ‘’sage’’ and ‘‘seer’’, throughout human history, has been attempting to elucidate for humankind. You do not have to ‘’believe’’ in anything but yourself to achieve individual human unendarkenment, individual human enlightenment, individual human happier-ness. Daily rigorous utilization of your intelligence, conscience, and common sense capabilities is all that is necessary. I am an everyman. If I can do it, anyone can. Belonging to a community of intelligent, truth-seeking, individuals is exceedingly more rewarding than belonging to any of the also-ran organizations of people who only think they know. Stephen Kirby thehappierproject@gmail.com
Small error detected: although most people call Spinoza a pan-theist, he actually wasn't: he was a Pan-Deist. Both are Monistic philosophies but: *Pantheism:* god (who is personal) and The Universe (Nature) are One. 1. A personal god is always limited by his personality, or to put it in other words: a certain amount of personal traits that _define_ god, will also _limit_ god. 2. Anyone with a 'personality' is / could _become_ meddlesome: because [some] of the things that happen, we take personal (on an emotional level), and then we become [act] personal (be meddlesome) 3. The Universegod believed to be personal is perfect for people who believe in this eye-for-an-eye doctrine called [instant] KARMA! *xD* 4. But The Universe isn't out there to 'get us' (i.e isn't personal) and therefore pantheism is utter nonsensical. *
Spinoza didn't believe in any god, he included that part in his book so that his other work could be published in a theocratic world. Just like Descartes. If they didn't proof god they could have been excomunicated or even burned.
As a student and teacher of Spinoza's philosophy I beg to tell you that you, similar to others, most people are only able to see a small glimpse of Spinoza's truth. You equate success and promise with the masses approval. Spinoza's work will on affect only the few who have an awake intelligence that includes "Intuition" plus reason, is necessary to understand the clarity of his ideas. If you truly understood Spinoza you would not have written that he failed, but that the individual must rise above their preconditioning, their habits, patterns of being and beliefs. How can you fill new wine is old bottles? How can new ideas enter the mind that is confused in tradition? Learn how, wayofspinoza.com
@@smhsophie Hmmm, you're a transient, so what exactly do you know about Spinoza, that you think I didn't get from School of Life? That it seems that you make the assumption that SOL is my only resource. That would be an error. So, let's here it! Let's hear what you purport to know.
If rationalism is true I'll give it a go: it's the experiences that exist without concepts, therefore with or without our consciousness, even our perceptions of things, a person therefore exists and is caused to exist by another, from an external cause, it's a bit irrational but true.
If God has an essence but no existence, which is absurd, then God must exist, right? Considering that there's no essence in a being other than what is written then God is just words and thoughts, considering that God is seen but is not solid or visible, then that's absurd, if God wasn't there to stop evil and suffering then it's Satan not God, and if he hides his divine love in the many people, then God necessarily doesn't exist, it's what people say (that God exists), it's not true!
If i understood correctly. Substance is something which we dont define in relations to something else, but rather in relations to itself. But i find this wierd, because, what is that which is defined only through itself? I suppose the only thing which is defined through itself is the universe, or in his argument god. Since we dont have another universe to mesjre the universe against, so we mesure the universe with itself
@@archibaldgregory1348 Can you please elaborate? The right ending of my thought is "leads to the impossible/inexistante/false conclusions, as in, I can think of a "200kg, natural animal, with 10m long legs, a 50m long tail, with small wings, flying at 200km/h on planet earth... You just followed a logical thought, but it is impossible/inexistante/false, nonetheless logical!
So, if God is infinite and conditions everything, then God is also the source of evil and suffering as well as good and health. I can buy that as long as you're using the word "God" as a synonym of "infinite", which I guess is what Spinoza is doing here. As far a deity that demands to be worshipped, what use could a god possibly have for worship? If God is infinite and conditions everything, good and evil, it would be illogical to condemn something to hell you, yourself have conditioned because it cannot worship you, by your own design.
It's really the multiverse that's omnipresent, therefore it's absurd to think this one thing is a duality, therefore God is a concept used to model our behaviour on: victorious, vain, proud, whatnot, am I right? If there's one substance in the universe then there's one person and that's it, which is absurd, therefore God is a solipsist. It's a logical error for a solipsist to have elaborate arguments that the thing which exists doesn't exist, and that we're alive but we don't exist, which is absurd! And therefore if the divine nature uncreated is God, which is supernatural, it's a rational impossibility, the concept is therefore created by people therefore a thing has to be created.
@Lily Shanti God is inexistent, and it's irrational to believe in God, I think God is No-Name, he's the Nothing! Be it you have no concept, you don't know what you're talking about.
I wholly disagree with these teachings. Science has taught us that everything is interconnected, not distinct and separate as Spinoza goes to great lengths in order to prove. The entire work rests on shaky foundations and crumbles. But this is to be expected from a work from centuries past.
I appreciate his philosophical approach to God as opposed to the religious approaches. However, his "proof" of God's existence is plain ridiculous. He basically defined God as a being that must necessarily exist in order for everything else to exist. That's illogical, dishonest and a desperate move to justify belief in God. You can't define God into existence. That's not proof. If I choose to define God as a "red, round, salty object with a green protrusion on top" then my tomato salad consists of Gods. That's some truly undeniable proof of polytheism! Apparently most of this book's subsequent philosophical arguments collapse once you realise this fundamental error. If his intention was to show that God and Existence are identical, then why use the word "God" at all? There is also no reason for this "God" to be a conscious being.
@@cmoe2073 Here is the full text of the book: www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/3800/pg3800.txt Near the beginning he defines God: "VI. By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite--that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality." Later he uses several propositions and proofs to establish that this God necessarily exists. He goes as far as to say that God is the "first cause" and that nothing can exist outside God. The problem is that his definition of God, his starting point, is completely arbitrary. He cunningly defines "God" in such a way so that his existence becomes necessary for everything else to exist. What if you replace the word "God" with the word "Cthullhu", the mythical god-like monster from Lovecraft's horror story? Does that mean that Cthullhu somehow exists? This doesn't work. You can't define beings into existence like that. Also the fact that you can vaguely imagine an infinite being doesn't mean that this being actually exists.
He's arguing for his definition which he has decided to call God as it has certain similarities with the theistic notion of God and kabbalistic views of God.
I believe you're thinking about it all wrong Spinoza defines God as something which is infinite, that has the inbuilt attribute of existence Nowhere does he say that this is the God who was mentioned in the Bible. Well, then why not use a different word? The problem is, what better word can you think of to describe this concept? Additionally, Spinoza is Jewish, so God is naturally his word for something infinite. Well, not the Germanic word "God" but what translates to it in its original language. The Bibles are the best attempt by a portion of humanity to describe the infinite, and while the attributes of such a being are clearly arbitrary (e. g. why isn't God a red tomato) it is obvious why humans would have it resemble them. Actually, this is the very point of Spinoza, that these attempts at "describing" such an infinite being, if it does exist, are ultimately futile by attributing a core set of characteristics. So he wants to strip God, which is humanity's best representation of the infinite for him, of all his supposed characteristics.
If this material is what made Spinoza a genius then we need to go back over everything he said one more time. A-Theist? I seriously doubt he was an A-Theist as he constantly refers to 'god' as a given, no further proof needed? I do believe he spent too much time in the third floor of that house alone thinking about 'the body that is moving and the body that is still' and what it all means in big picture. I got though about 3 hrs while trying to sleep, I'll see if another day I can pump out a few more hours searching for something 'revealing' or just scrap the rest?
@@InfamousTub Well perhaps 'Tubbie' only geniuses like yourself can understand but I have serious doubt those that claim they understand do understand anything!
Most young folks of the post-analogue generation cannot stay focused on such arid stuff for long - therefore few of them manage to see Spinoza's eternal light through the unending darkness of their boredom. Older folks, IF and only IF the power of their wits allow it... will see the relevance, truth & enjoy the austere beauty of this masterpiece more readily because any mind with an extended experience of existence will hear many memory bells ringing, many intuitive reminiscences acting as concrete examples of these seemingly immaterial concepts. ;-) Try a lil' harder old-timer!
If extended substance can be divided, then that's an absurdity. God is not a consciousness, if I'm conscious then it exists, therefore it's not matter which forms all being, but consciousness, God's not something which is part of consciousness. God's not omnipotent, he's incapable of doing other things, therefore I wouldn't call it God.
@@jojones4685 It lays no proof whatsoever, and can't be searched for, I'm now a skeptic, and therefore believe that if I see a thing, even with my senses, under normal conditions, I could be mistaken, therefore science can only tell me God is unknown to us.
@Lily Shanti I see that the community agrees with Spinoza's conception of God, I don't, nor do I agree with Spinoza, I only come to these communities to wake people up of false beliefs and philosophies. What I said was absolutely accurate, even though before I turned to objectivity, hence my belief of philosophy is the truth, and your belief of Spinoza is true for you. I don't find God anywhere within my perception, I'm still an idealist who believes consciousness exists, and unconsciousness and matter don't. I understand that God is a manmade construct, and we evolve further without him.
@Lily Shanti It's simple really, they don't, but that doesn't mean you can't decide on a right belief for yourself, I think Spinoza is right for you, whereas atheism might be right for me.
@Lily Shanti In your reality. maybe your perception and experience, God might be real to you, but I can't see or touch God so he isn't there, and I know he isn't there. I'm absolutely right to a point but that's where you need to be careful, you might be sucked into believing things that don't happen.
1:30:35 part 2
3:22:00 part 3
5:47:00 part 4
8:03:09 part 5
Thanks! ^^
Thank you so much 🙏🏿
Gracias amigo
you´re a true hero!
I am enamored with Spinoza, but I seriously doubt most of us can just pop in some headphones, listen to his cryptic geometical style for 9 hours and get it, haha.
Yes it is definitely something that needs to be read and reread, but if you already grasp the basics it is nice to listen to
For sure :)
Oppositum You need multiple rewinds to get it, that's for sure. But it is a very very good version to be listened to.
Its a step in the history of consciousness, but not something to be revered. move on. Spinoza was terribly wrong about the universe/multiverse and is only a single step or page in the history of human consciousness. And he got it wrong, just like everyone before and after. There are no gods or philosopher kings. just vote.
Oppositum This seems to me to be extremely well thought out. However, I find myself drawn to Spinoza more than it may deserve because I am so dazzled by his brilliance that I cannot understand him.
The preface to part 4 is phenomenal! As imposing as it is beautiful... philosophy in its highest form.
One of the greatest books ever written . His proofs of his propositions based on his axioms and definitions are astonishingly beautiful.
Even if God is perfect and good, He created the imperfect, evil devil/demon. Much later Godel proved in the liar paradox, 'I am not a liar' that incorporating the opposite in the proposition leads to incompleteness and undecidable.
Turing ingeniously solved this to prove the halting problem by employing 'self-reference' theorem, in which a Turing machine is superimposed on itself.
Good or evil, opposites are ubiquitous,properties, followed as proved by Hegel.
At the big bang dark energy and dark matter were produced with opposite properties, followed by production of particles and anti-particles, followed by production of matter and anti-matter (according to the Standard Model of particle physics).....and on to hot and cold, male and female, up and down etc., fine tuned to perfection by the intelligent designer enabling the delivery of life and evolution (Vishnu) with probability one, fulfilling the divine purpose.
*****
Thank you.
*****
You are not misinterpreting my words, but disagreeing only.
Duality is ubiquitous.
Even though Intelligent Designer fine tuned creation to perfection, yet he created it's dual, called evil, devil, demon as part of the perfect creation.
invent philosophy
Duality ("evil" vs "good") is made up: thought into existense by frightened people of the Old Days :-o
Spinoza, truly the prince of philosophers!!
I have come 7 times watching this. One for each axiom.
That's my Netflix and I'm eating popcorn
Bigbrain time
Haha chips and dip for me
Lol
Amazing - Antony Ferguson sounds like a text-to-speech bot.
Thanks for sharing. This is definitely a life saviour, help me to accelerate my readings and understandings so much ;)
+Olivia Wang You are very welcome
A rare pleasure, magnificently read...Thanks for sharing such a comforting text-genuinely sacred, rather than the manipulative superstitious nonsense who wanted to destroy such a beautiful thinker.
Excellent philosopher. One of the best. Truly, beauty and truth are the definitions of Ethica. Mr Paul Strathem does not give him his praise due, in his opinion.
I don't know who had more to drink, myself before listening or Spinoza before writing it.
Omg thank you for this. I’ve been stuck in part 2 of the Ethics, only to learn that I had a weird translation that was making the book way harder to understand. It wasn’t a bad translation, it just definitely wasn’t beginner-friendly by any means. It was very convoluted. So I started listening to this while reading along from a website that provides the same translation you read from. This translation is definitely way more concise, it gets to the point. It’s been so much easier to understand, I feel like I’m actually getting somewhere now
Brillant, very beautiful. Thank you.
A brilliantly clear reading brings this gold to life.
Wow this is literally saving me from hours of university lectures, thanks a lot!
If someone could timestamp the chapters I would be very grateful. I think most people would appreciate it.
I can't thank you enough for this great production ❤ Spinoza is my hero and favourite philosopher
To know more, Spinoza changed my life. WayofSpinoza.com
Spiritual-logical foundational- fundamentals, and loving it.
It's easiest to understand sped-up to x1.25.
X1.75 🔥☠️
Nobody has the right to claim copyright to ma 17th century book.
ah ah, very clever. you pretend to be paid for work...but this reader who spent his time doing this audiobook should not have rights no? Copyright is not on Spinoza but to the voice speaking, dumbs.
Anna Maria Zanchi Nope the reader gets paid once at production. The producer (audible) gets money for reproduction.
1:59:58 "Bodies at rest stay at rest unless moved by another body" did this guy inspire Issac Newton?
This is hardcore philosophy!
Pure Logik.
What if it's just a load of old ballocks
Inflation on the word absurdity on the beginning. but it is nice to find a philosopher who shares the same thoughts on God. God is all that exists and all infinite possibilities of substance, life and so on.
Though to narrowly describe such an entity based on our language, whether it may be literal our mathematical or creatively. Will never be enough. Describing an infinite being with ifinite qualities and consisting of an infinite mass of infinite materia in infinite time and infinite powers, is actually probably the closest and most accurate description of God.
Well said :-)
Too bad Spinoza lived before Cantor’s proof that infinities can have different sizes. A monumental achievement of the mind nonetheless.
They're not really talking about the same thing. A counting task which can never be completed, and that which constitutes everything are not the same concept.
It's like saying that walking in a straight line around the equator is an "infinity". It is, in a sense, because it has no end, but that does not mean that the task constitutes the totality of existence.
I believe Spinoza was actually criticizing the people who say there can't be infinities of different sizes -- not explicitly for that claim, but in the context of criticizing an argument made by others concerning the supposed impossibility of God's being an extended thing, who employ that hypothesis in their arguments (i.e., that one infinity cannot be larger than another.) Spinoza even says at one point, something like, "even if I should grant their arguments..." etc., implying that he at least remains agnostic about such propositions, if not even a little skeptical.
It's true, he does go on to affirm that infinity "can have no measure," but that seems to me an entirely different claim from the former, and Spinoza seems to have thought so too. In other words, it should be consistent to deny that an infinity can have any intrinsic or absolute measure (that, after all, would amount to treating an infinity as finite) while still holding that some infinities can be larger than others.
In the passage I believe you're referring to, I interpreted Spinoza actually to be rejecting (as a premise) the notion that infinities cannot be different "sizes," or at least remaining indifferent to the claim. I could be misinterpreting, but I distinctly remember that being the context. Presumably, Spinoza thinks that all sorts of infinities are contained within substance, and it also seems consistent with his view that a thing is limited according to its kind. It might be worth going back & reading that passage again -- if I understood right, it might be a pretty remarkable example of Spinoza prefiguring Cantor in a certain way. 👍
Very excellent book, read superbly.
Have you done Divergence and Repetition, that one is so hardcore
Might have to steal some of these wise words and pass it off as my own thoughts :-) ..I'm sure Mr Spinoza wouldn't mind !
***** That's very true Austin :-)
As i understand it.
0:59 the reason a body is limited by another body, but a body is not limited by a thought is because they have two different substances, and hence we can not mesure the quantity of their subtance next to eachother.
They dont have the same quality, and so they dont represent levels of on the same scale- it would be like trying to mesure how tall something is in comparrason to how heavy another thing is.
This audiobook is so well done I had to download it. The translation was excellent and the strange but vivid verbose wording is a feast for the ears.
masterpiece simply
I think old Baruch has been drinking the lense cleaning fluid
His idea that God and the universe are the same (pantheism) is delightfully iconoclastic because the creator is not some bearded fellow in the sky to whom one can pray, etc. By making God infinite and thus not limited Spinoza renders God more perfect than the monotheistic gods, yet the Church and the Jews both repudiated him, which is rank hypocrisy. He showed up the Church and the rabbis as profoundly stupid by forcing them to acknowledge how limited and thus how imperfect was their God. Whitehead said basically the same thing at the end of Dialogues of Alfred North Whitehead where he says God is either IN the universe or nowhere. I love it. Spinoza's God does not require churches or synagogues or prayers any more than would a tree or flower. This was so revolutionary that even the Dutch kicked him out. I would love to see a clergyman read the first section of this book to his flock and see their reaction. More than likely they are bumpkins and would not have a clue what Spinoza is arguing. Not surprising, after all they are in church instead of having the presence of mind to go educate themselves.
Proposition 500: there are too many propositions.
Proof: This is the 500th proposition, meaning 499 propositions more than is required.
As Bob Dylan once said: ''Don't criticise what you don't understand''! Like illiterate, self-righteous Kentuckians perfectly satisfied to say that educated New-Yorkers are a snobbish ''elite''... Are ya a modafawkin' Trump-voting hillbilly? Understand a couple things, THEN express genuine, valid opinions...
Wow, this seems really interesting. For example Spinoza wrote that with one substance it must be infinite, because it can only be either infinite or finite and if it was finite there has to be something else in addition to limit it. I wonder if "one" can be seen as finite but I will listen to hear what Spinoza says about that.
excellent greetings from Guatemala
thanks for sharing Klaudio Marashi
yan kumar You're welcome ! :)
Part III 03:22:00
Best to use the pause button a lot, and let each idea sink in.
I wish there were bookmarks for chapters so we could click into them to listen to specific sections of the text.
confusing, difficult, hopefully eventually rewarding
As a dutchman I agree with that. I have read the book many times, and still I have troubles understanding it (but it forces one to constantly pay attention) :-D
Man this is tough to understand fully!
Big-time props 4 trying my friend!!! It helps to listen several times and rewind when u get lost.... Enjoy!!!!!
Peace, Bluzie
*****
Indeed! But as the ''prince of philosophers'' said somehow, somewhere, whatever is truly useful, really sublime, satisfying, i.e., beyond anything perceived or conceived as ''beautiful'', is necessarily obtained through enormous effort. It may be argued that the greatest human achievements are not purely rational(istic)... yet surely the best, most noble things that a human can get, understand or enjoy are very difficult, painful and even downright painful before the beauty is seen, the mastery is ascertained, the understanding like the sun at dawn arises.
Im starting to think maybe taking several mind altering drugs beforehand might help.
😂😂
Goodness! _You are not alone._
💬
@8:26:00
@7:50:00
@6:43:00
@6:22:00
@1:22:00
@4:58:00
@7:07:00
@7:44:30
If you check out Assembly Theory this makes more sense
The substance is of the unseen geometric pattern that is within.
Spinoza's God is similar to Ramanuja's Vishistadwaita, where the universe itself is Godly.
“philosophieren ist spinozieren„ said Hegel. BDS GOAT
1:30:38 Part 2 on the origin and nature of the mind.
Thanks for sharing
***** You are very welcome ! :)
According to wikipedia this dude was accused of being atheist and the Catholic Church put his works on the list of forbidden books. I was confused then when he started talking about "The proposition that God does not exist is absurd, therefore, God exists". But damn, the stuff around 1:20:00 ish. "People can hear sounds which are in harmony or discordant...ppl think that God likes harmony. How odd that people's beliefs about what God likes match what the people themselves like". Or that's what I took away from that section? Idk, this is background noise for playing Hypixel minecraft.
My favorite philosopher! *^_^*
💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙melde dich du unbeschreibliche Macht zu uns ....du gibst uns schon zeichen dass es dich gibt....
The late Christopher Hitchens apparently held Spinoza in the highest esteem. I am not sure if I am correct in saying this but I believe he said he was indebted to Spinoza. Could someone familiar with Spinoza and Hitchens try to explain then how the latter could have supported and believed in the lie that is called the War of Terror. This seems to me to be completely irrational on the part of Hitchens.
+David Watermeyer He was either bought off or threatened by the Bush admin.
*****
Of course there is terrorism, but did the iraq war decrease or increase terrorism? If the war on terror were a legit protection against terrorism that would be one thing, but it only breeds more terror and makes us less safe. ISIS would not exist without the war on terror. There is a difference between the legit protection and the orwellian war on terror. you should know this, but I can't blame you for being another sheep.
*****
Yeah, the war on terror is a success like the war on drugs. Ii can't believe you have an internet connection and fall for the orwellian terms like "war on terror' and "WMD" which can mean mustard, yes the same shit you slather on hot dogs. Your ignorance is the reason ISIS even exists. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and you are a fucking idiot if you think it did. But you and the other sheep are the ones they rely on for consent because you believe anything they say. Pathetic.
+Veritas Vos Liberabit Well despite you presumptuous tone in the spirit of goodwill I will reply. I grew up in apartheid South Africa where anyone who fought that diabolical system was labelled interchangeably with either the T word or the C word (terrorist or communist) or both.
As a friend said when you go into another persons house, take his possessions, murder his wife and children and trash his home well there is a good chance that he might become a terrorist. Most people in less powerful countries don't have the arms and resources to resist the might of the U.S and allies militaries so they just make do as best they can, or if they aspire to some form of power might take bribes from them. Some despite the futility resist and become what the MSM calls (if they are Muslim and only Muslim for some reason) terrorists.
Yes people are driven to do horrific deeds when you drive them insane with brute might and force.
Hitchens proudly proclaimed in endless diatribes his lack of belief in God. One thing that became clear when he supported the rape and pillage of Iraq and Afghanistan is the he certainly believed might was right and that the most physically powerful was somehow the best.
Quite frankly I ended up not being very impressed with him..I can imagine him admiring himself in the mirror as he fell more and more in love with his intellect.
Nothing comes from violence. Nothing ever could.
If you want to stop terrorism stop occupying other people's lands as Chomsky points out over and over again.
+Veritas Vos Liberabit By your logic "war on terror was an initiative to bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice" this means you support holding huge numbers of people hostage due to the deeds of others.
Lets say someone from your town goes and murders someone in a neighboring town. Do you feel that you should suffer as a result of this and should be held somehow accountable simply because you happen to live near the perpetrators?
This is the logic of invading countries far away as result of 9/11. I can only imagine that you, like so many Americans, are able to find this acceptable because you somehow believe that ALL Muslims should suffer because of the actions of a few.
01:18:00
fancy seeing you here :)
Part IV 5:47:00
Wow fukkenell…it has been the hardest book. Hard to keep up with.
Thank you kindly ✍️
Proposition 502 - If Spinoza had a Playstation he would not have completed this book
Proof - QED GTA5. Namely - It's a PLAYSTATION!!!!
Note - Luckily his Mom bought him a voluminous cloak instead...
This is the best comment i’ve ever read
Bookmark 3:35:00
Excellent 🙏🏼💪🏼
4:09:22-:32 - Schadenfreude... Only the Germans have a word for feeling joy at someone's misery
Germanic languages yes, in Danish it's called "skadefryd". So human :-)
Not to be contrary or anything but in recent times I have been thinking that the western world has over-proportionately viewed the German people as being evil hateful unkind etc. in the decades following the WW2. I wonder if this hasn't been an veiled attempt to overlook the terrible evils that ALL of the western world has been engaged in over past centuries - colonialism, slavery, American imperialism, capitalism/consumerism now bringing the earth to the brink of destruction through global-warming etc, Recently I had occasion to talk to a German guy who told me how kind and considerate people are in modern day Germany. Also it should be noted that the country is a leader in terms of eco-consciousness, solar energy etc. I think German bashing has had its day do you not think? Perhaps an overreaction to your comment but maybe cause for thought.
I read a book called, "A history of the German Resistance 1933-1945," by Peter Hoffmann. It is an excellent account of many members of the Germanic citizenry who did everything in their power to oppose the NAZI party's onerous and murderous policies. "The History of the German Resistance is the most comprehensive and authoritative account ever published of the German opposition's struggle against Hitler, covering all the serious attempts to overthrow or assassinate him leading up to the failed attempt of 20 July 1944. Extensive notes, a full bibliography, maps, plans, diagrams, and a comprehensive index complete this indispensable and definitive account." McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP, Oct 8, 1996 - History - 853 pages
I also traveled in Germany extensively in 1970-1971. I met many younger Germans who were friendly, outgoing and freedom-loving people. I also met many ex-Nazi's who were very unfriendly, spooky and scary. Those guys are almost all dead now. The young people I met are now in charge of their country... *Their philosophers have been dismal and enervating at times; while other German philosophic pundits and deep-thinkers are joyous and invigorating philosophically!. One cannot accurately generalize when speaking of an entire people...
Pindar1984
Spinoza uses neither the word schadenfreude or skadefryd in this Anglo translation, nor in the original text. Yet he describes it succinctly in the passage referenced as part of the negative human condition.
~^~_~^~ Peace, BLuZie
***** Thanks for your comment bluz. Will check it out. All good things.
Bro, I can't understand, what should I read before reading this?
The entire western canon apparently
had to slowwwwww down the play speed so my mind don't short circuit
1:09:38 touching on divine simplicity?
Philosophical Father of Assembly Theory
A timeless classic. Thank you
7:22 why cant the substance of one thing be caused by another things
Baruch....wer ist die macht..die denn Schöpfer nennt wie ein Wurm.. und dieser Welt ist für ihn eine armeise....diese Meldung geht um Globus....💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙
52:17 Pt. I Prop 25
Who is the translstor?
Why Spinoza’s god failed epically.
Spinoza’s god is spot on. What epically failed is Spinoza’s description of his god in a theistic fashion, therefore giving theists with an anthropomorphic concept of a god an opportunity to analogize their concept with his concept, thus extending humankind’s doubt regarding the human concept of god’s existence.
The following is from the School of Life video on Spinoza.
The Ethics is one of the world's most beautiful books. It contains a calming perspective, a restoring take on life. It replaces the god of superstition with a wise and consoling pantheism, and yet, Spinoza's work failed utterly to convince any but a few to abandon traditional religion and to move toward a rationalist and wise system of belief.
Spinoza failed to understand, like so many philosophers before and since, that what leads people to religion isn't just reason, but far more importantly; emotion, belief, fear and tradition. People stick with their beliefs because they like the ritual, the communal meals, the yearly traditions, the beautiful architecture, the music, the lovely language in their synagogue [or mosque,] or church.
Spinoza's Ethics arguably contains a lot more wisdom than the bible, but because it comes without any of the bible's supporting structure, it remains a marginal work…
If we are ever to replace traditional beliefs we must remember just how much religion is helped along by ritual, tradition, art, and a desire to belong, all things that Spinoza, despite his great wisdom, ignored at his peril, in his bold attempt to replace the bible.
Spinoza's god failed epically because he described his god as an ‘’other entity’’, and entity outside the individual, and this was his critical mistake.
Whether or not you choose to ‘’believe’’ in a god or gods, spiritualism, mysticism, magic, miracles, or anything supernatural, that is your individual ‘’belief’’ selection.
None of those ‘’beliefs’’ are necessary for you to come to a full understanding of individual human unendarkenment, individual human enlightenment, individual human happier-ness.
I am talking about what every ‘’wise’’ man and ‘’wise’’ woman, every ‘’sage’’ and ‘‘seer’’, throughout human history, has been attempting to elucidate for humankind.
You do not have to ‘’believe’’ in anything but yourself to achieve individual human unendarkenment, individual human enlightenment, individual human happier-ness.
Daily rigorous utilization of your intelligence, conscience, and common sense capabilities is all that is necessary.
I am an everyman. If I can do it, anyone can.
Belonging to a community of intelligent, truth-seeking, individuals is exceedingly more rewarding than belonging to any of the also-ran organizations of people who only think they know.
Stephen Kirby thehappierproject@gmail.com
Small error detected:
although most people call Spinoza a pan-theist, he actually wasn't: he was a Pan-Deist. Both are Monistic philosophies but:
*Pantheism:* god (who is personal) and The Universe (Nature) are One.
1. A personal god is always limited by his personality, or to put it in other words: a certain amount of personal traits that _define_ god, will also _limit_ god.
2. Anyone with a 'personality' is / could _become_ meddlesome: because [some] of the things that happen, we take personal (on an emotional level), and then we become [act] personal (be meddlesome)
3. The Universegod believed to be personal is perfect for people who believe in this eye-for-an-eye doctrine called [instant] KARMA! *xD*
4. But The Universe isn't out there to 'get us' (i.e isn't personal) and therefore pantheism is utter nonsensical.
*
Spinoza didn't believe in any god, he included that part in his book so that his other work could be published in a theocratic world. Just like Descartes. If they didn't proof god they could have been excomunicated or even burned.
As a student and teacher of Spinoza's philosophy I beg to tell you that you, similar to others, most people are only able to see a small glimpse of Spinoza's truth. You equate success and promise with the masses approval. Spinoza's work will on affect only the few who have an awake intelligence that includes "Intuition" plus reason, is necessary to understand the clarity of his ideas. If you truly understood Spinoza you would not have written that he failed, but that the individual must rise above their preconditioning, their habits, patterns of being and beliefs. How can you fill new wine is old bottles? How can new ideas enter the mind that is confused in tradition? Learn how, wayofspinoza.com
you cited School of Life, that's your first mistake man
@@smhsophie Hmmm, you're a transient, so what exactly do you know about Spinoza, that you think I didn't get from School of Life? That it seems that you make the assumption that SOL is my only resource. That would be an error. So, let's here it! Let's hear what you purport to know.
This is not from Penguin Classics. It's different. They don't match.
It's a translated work so should differ.
@1:13:36 part 1 appendix
i love you benedictus (mooi)
If rationalism is true I'll give it a go: it's the experiences that exist without concepts, therefore with or without our consciousness, even our perceptions of things, a person therefore exists and is caused to exist by another, from an external cause, it's a bit irrational but true.
concepts can exist without us thinking of them. also experiences/empiricism is concept based as experiences mean nothing unless we interpret them.
Badass.
The universe is God's consciousness that is of geometric order.
7:41
(timestamp)
If God has an essence but no existence, which is absurd, then God must exist, right? Considering that there's no essence in a being other than what is written then God is just words and thoughts, considering that God is seen but is not solid or visible, then that's absurd, if God wasn't there to stop evil and suffering then it's Satan not God, and if he hides his divine love in the many people, then God necessarily doesn't exist, it's what people say (that God exists), it's not true!
1:18:00
1:00 substance definition
If i understood correctly.
Substance is something which we dont define in relations to something else, but rather in relations to itself.
But i find this wierd, because, what is that which is defined only through itself?
I suppose the only thing which is defined through itself is the universe, or in his argument god.
Since we dont have another universe to mesjre the universe against, so we mesure the universe with itself
So...Spinoza himself cannot exist or be conceived? I guess that is the paradox of philosophy, it tends to negate itself.
Spiniza is an aspect of existence i.e Spinoza is a part of substance which is God
he was totally wrong, for, as it follows, it is not clear to this moderately attentive reader
loled
This has to be the most painful read in my whole life so far. Great university course choice 😹
The proof that the sentence "That has no logik" is an oximoron. Everything has logik but some things lead to the Absurd.
that is a logical conclusion and therefore lead to this absurd reply
@@archibaldgregory1348 Can you please elaborate?
The right ending of my thought is "leads to the impossible/inexistante/false conclusions, as in, I can think of a "200kg, natural animal, with 10m long legs, a 50m long tail, with small wings, flying at 200km/h on planet earth... You just followed a logical thought, but it is impossible/inexistante/false, nonetheless logical!
@@traxikscifi8105 oo ooo oo 🐒
@@archibaldgregory1348 Ah! Ok. Thank you!
So, if God is infinite and conditions everything, then God is also the source of evil and suffering as well as good and health. I can buy that as long as you're using the word "God" as a synonym of "infinite", which I guess is what Spinoza is doing here. As far a deity that demands to be worshipped, what use could a god possibly have for worship? If God is infinite and conditions everything, good and evil, it would be illogical to condemn something to hell you, yourself have conditioned because it cannot worship you, by your own design.
Why I don’t understand him?
Weltschmerz good to know lol
Lily Shanti I’m just a beginner in philosophy really but thank you, your kind
Everything is basically the same thing in a different form, all his thought is derived from that starting point.
It's really the multiverse that's omnipresent, therefore it's absurd to think this one thing is a duality, therefore God is a concept used to model our behaviour on: victorious, vain, proud, whatnot, am I right? If there's one substance in the universe then there's one person and that's it, which is absurd, therefore God is a solipsist. It's a logical error for a solipsist to have elaborate arguments that the thing which exists doesn't exist, and that we're alive but we don't exist, which is absurd! And therefore if the divine nature uncreated is God, which is supernatural, it's a rational impossibility, the concept is therefore created by people therefore a thing has to be created.
@Lily Shanti God is inexistent, and it's irrational to believe in God, I think God is No-Name, he's the Nothing! Be it you have no concept, you don't know what you're talking about.
if there are multiple "universes" (as in finitudes of space that contain bodies) then we should just expand our definition of universe
Martin Mary Anderson Patricia Martinez Anthony
Pt 5 8:03:09
I wholly disagree with these teachings. Science has taught us that everything is interconnected, not distinct and separate as Spinoza goes to great lengths in order to prove. The entire work rests on shaky foundations and crumbles. But this is to be expected from a work from centuries past.
Difficult to follow
omg
TikTok would love this.
I appreciate his philosophical approach to God as opposed to the religious approaches. However, his "proof" of God's existence is plain ridiculous. He basically defined God as a being that must necessarily exist in order for everything else to exist. That's illogical, dishonest and a desperate move to justify belief in God. You can't define God into existence. That's not proof. If I choose to define God as a "red, round, salty object with a green protrusion on top" then my tomato salad consists of Gods. That's some truly undeniable proof of polytheism! Apparently most of this book's subsequent philosophical arguments collapse once you realise this fundamental error. If his intention was to show that God and Existence are identical, then why use the word "God" at all? There is also no reason for this "God" to be a conscious being.
Disprove his philosophy
Line by line....
Post it here...""?""
@@cmoe2073 Here is the full text of the book: www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/3800/pg3800.txt
Near the beginning he defines God: "VI. By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite--that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality."
Later he uses several propositions and proofs to establish that this God necessarily exists. He goes as far as to say that God is the "first cause" and that nothing can exist outside God. The problem is that his definition of God, his starting point, is completely arbitrary. He cunningly defines "God" in such a way so that his existence becomes necessary for everything else to exist. What if you replace the word "God" with the word "Cthullhu", the mythical god-like monster from Lovecraft's horror story? Does that mean that Cthullhu somehow exists? This doesn't work. You can't define beings into existence like that. Also the fact that you can vaguely imagine an infinite being doesn't mean that this being actually exists.
He's arguing for his definition which he has decided to call God as it has certain similarities with the theistic notion of God and kabbalistic views of God.
I think he considers God to be existence due to kabbalistic ideas of God
I believe you're thinking about it all wrong
Spinoza defines God as something which is infinite, that has the inbuilt attribute of existence
Nowhere does he say that this is the God who was mentioned in the Bible. Well, then why not use a different word? The problem is, what better word can you think of to describe this concept?
Additionally, Spinoza is Jewish, so God is naturally his word for something infinite. Well, not the Germanic word "God" but what translates to it in its original language.
The Bibles are the best attempt by a portion of humanity to describe the infinite, and while the attributes of such a being are clearly arbitrary (e. g. why isn't God a red tomato) it is obvious why humans would have it resemble them. Actually, this is the very point of Spinoza, that these attempts at "describing" such an infinite being, if it does exist, are ultimately futile by attributing a core set of characteristics. So he wants to strip God, which is humanity's best representation of the infinite for him, of all his supposed characteristics.
If this material is what made Spinoza a genius then we need to go back over everything he said one more time. A-Theist? I seriously doubt he was an A-Theist as he constantly refers to 'god' as a given, no further proof needed? I do believe he spent too much time in the third floor of that house alone thinking about 'the body that is moving and the body that is still' and what it all means in big picture. I got though about 3 hrs while trying to sleep, I'll see if another day I can pump out a few more hours searching for something 'revealing' or just scrap the rest?
Just quit now, you're too stupid to get the rest
@@InfamousTub Well perhaps 'Tubbie' only geniuses like yourself can understand but I have serious doubt those that claim they understand do understand anything!
I got tired of listening after 32 min. Not young enouth to concentrate.
Most young folks of the post-analogue generation cannot stay focused on such arid stuff for long - therefore few of them manage to see Spinoza's eternal light through the unending darkness of their boredom. Older folks, IF and only IF the power of their wits allow it... will see the relevance, truth & enjoy the austere beauty of this masterpiece more readily because any mind with an extended experience of existence will hear many memory bells ringing, many intuitive reminiscences acting as concrete examples of these seemingly immaterial concepts. ;-) Try a lil' harder old-timer!
59:55
13:55
If extended substance can be divided, then that's an absurdity. God is not a consciousness, if I'm conscious then it exists, therefore it's not matter which forms all being, but consciousness, God's not something which is part of consciousness. God's not omnipotent, he's incapable of doing other things, therefore I wouldn't call it God.
You as a conscious being are part of 'God' as well as every other conscience being, therefore God is conscious.
@@jojones4685 It lays no proof whatsoever, and can't be searched for, I'm now a skeptic, and therefore believe that if I see a thing, even with my senses, under normal conditions, I could be mistaken, therefore science can only tell me God is unknown to us.
@Lily Shanti I see that the community agrees with Spinoza's conception of God, I don't, nor do I agree with Spinoza, I only come to these communities to wake people up of false beliefs and philosophies. What I said was absolutely accurate, even though before I turned to objectivity, hence my belief of philosophy is the truth, and your belief of Spinoza is true for you. I don't find God anywhere within my perception, I'm still an idealist who believes consciousness exists, and unconsciousness and matter don't. I understand that God is a manmade construct, and we evolve further without him.
@Lily Shanti It's simple really, they don't, but that doesn't mean you can't decide on a right belief for yourself, I think Spinoza is right for you, whereas atheism might be right for me.
@Lily Shanti In your reality. maybe your perception and experience, God might be real to you, but I can't see or touch God so he isn't there, and I know he isn't there. I'm absolutely right to a point but that's where you need to be careful, you might be sucked into believing things that don't happen.
Baruch was Tribe of Israel a Black man