Philosophy Forums


A MUST read, you shall not regret

PrintPrint


Page: 1 2 3

A MUST read, you shall not regret
Hand of God
Amature

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2007
Location: London

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 55
Posted 07/20/07 - 07:37 AM:
quote post
#11
kwidgybo wrote:

Spinoza did not suggest abandoning the "pain passions" in favor of the "joy passions" but abandoning all passions.


Sorry, It was my bad language, this is where it got confusing: he reffered to the passive emotions such as jelousy as passions, there are no bad or good passions. He did not regard love and joy as passions (point out if I have misinterpretated). He divided up the value of emotions by adequate and inadequate ideas as you pointed out, the adequate ideas, as I remember was intuitive which he called the knowledge of God and ultimately the love of God, which is totallity, the cause of all causes. Whilst he implied that jelousy and envy are inadequate or knowledge of the first order. And that reasoning or science is the knowledge of the second order which is an intermediate. Yet, then, from what has been said, has he not divided the what we call negative and positive emotions? I belive he has, on one end he is advertising the love of God (acceptance of God and its necessity) and on the other end he is saying tame you jelousy (pain) and do not think inadequate ideas. What I was saying from my previous post is that you cannot separate joy (or love) from pain (or hatred) for they would cease to be meaningful without eachother. So, instead of promoting one catogery of emotions directed at God (love and joy) and downregulating the other catogery of emotions directed at our surroundings and ourselves (e.g hatred and envy), I am suggesting to desire to know no joy, love, and it will follwo automatically that you desire to know no hatred, envy etc.. for all emotions come as a package, friend. I have come upon this by reasoning, using logic, exactly what spinoza suggests us to do.

Now, about what I was suggesting to do instead, to achieve what spinoza called inituitve: I agree with spinoza's ideology of accepting casuality, but not the dividing of the emotions for it is absurd and more effectively impossible, spinoza never experienced or felt what he described in Ethics, no where near the full potential of what he calls inituitive, for it is impossible to achieve, for it requires the spliting up of emotions which cease to be meaningful upon their separation. Now, what I have thought of, is this, desire to know of God and accept the necessity of all things, but do not attempt to love God whilst simultaneously you are trying to tame the passions, for it is a waste of time as it is not logically possibe as I explained several times. I suggest to desire to know no joy, and thus it automatically follows that you desire to know no pain. Now, as I have said in my previous post, when one desires something, it does so because there is a type of intensity of joy that is associated with the idea of what it is that they desire, or they escape pain by desiring the idea that they desire, these two notions are one, and no different. Now, this very joy that is accompanied with the desire of knowing no joy, I claim, is true joy, ultimate freedom. Language, by its nature, is flawed, one can never understand fully someone elses idea, thought, or emotion by language, and thus you may never understand me, and your interpretations is all you will have, and so, if you do not understand it is perfectly normal, and logically acceptable.





Edited by Hand of God on 07/20/07 - 07:44 AM

"I do not seek joy, but I only seek the truth, from which joy automatically follows"
"I Love thee, because I Love God"
"We do what God is"
"Good and Evil are but only two words for *perfection*"
"I am who I am, you are who you are, and they are who they are, that is all and all is just"
kwidgybo
Hoping to Evolve Soon

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 18, 2007
Location: Clemson, SC

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 188
Posted 07/20/07 - 11:19 AM:
quote post
#12
Hand of God wrote:


Sorry, It was my bad language, this is where it got confusing: he reffered to the passive emotions such as jelousy as passions, there are no bad or good passions. He did not regard love and joy as passions (point out if I have misinterpretated). He divided up the value of emotions by adequate and inadequate ideas as you pointed out, the adequate ideas, as I remember was intuitive which he called the knowledge of God and ultimately the love of God, which is totallity, the cause of all causes. Whilst he implied that jelousy and envy are inadequate or knowledge of the first order. And that reasoning or science is the knowledge of the second order which is an intermediate. Yet, then, from what has been said, has he not divided the what we call negative and positive emotions? I belive he has, on one end he is advertising the love of God (acceptance of God and its necessity) and on the other end he is saying tame you jelousy (pain) and do not think inadequate ideas. What I was saying from my previous post is that you cannot separate joy (or love) from pain (or hatred) for they would cease to be meaningful without eachother. So, instead of promoting one catogery of emotions directed at God (love and joy) and downregulating the other catogery of emotions directed at our surroundings and ourselves (e.g hatred and envy), I am suggesting to desire to know no joy, love, and it will follwo automatically that you desire to know no hatred, envy etc.. for all emotions come as a package, friend. I have come upon this by reasoning, using logic, exactly what spinoza suggests us to do.

NO, I believe you have misinterpreted. Spinoza most definitely considered Love a passive emotion or passion, and thus a result of inadequate ideas. I believe he *may* have used the term "joy" to refer to a state without suffering, which is not a passion - but in this case he is not using the word joy the way we use it in common speech. Spinoza used terms with very specific meanings and it is easy to confuse them. Adequate ideas are not necessarily equated to knowledge of God or love of God. Spinoza defined 3 levels of knowledge: opinion or inadequate ideas that result in passions, reason or logic that result in adequate ideas, and self-evident ideas. This third category is rare, and is used primarily as a basis for the second level.

Thus, Spinoza found all passions, be they love or hate, to be inadequate ideas and to be avoided. So yes, he defines positive and negative emotions, but just as you have said, he shows that you cannot have one without the other, and in fact the goal is to have neither.

Now, about what I was suggesting to do instead, to achieve what spinoza called inituitve: I agree with spinoza's ideology of accepting casuality, but not the dividing of the emotions for it is absurd and more effectively impossible, spinoza never experienced or felt what he described in Ethics, no where near the full potential of what he calls inituitive, for it is impossible to achieve, for it requires the spliting up of emotions which cease to be meaningful upon their separation. Now, what I have thought of, is this, desire to know of God and accept the necessity of all things, but do not attempt to love God whilst simultaneously you are trying to tame the passions, for it is a waste of time as it is not logically possibe as I explained several times. I suggest to desire to know no joy, and thus it automatically follows that you desire to know no pain. Now, as I have said in my previous post, when one desires something, it does so because there is a type of intensity of joy that is associated with the idea of what it is that they desire, or they escape pain by desiring the idea that they desire, these two notions are one, and no different. Now, this very joy that is accompanied with the desire of knowing no joy, I claim, is true joy, ultimate freedom. Language, by its nature, is flawed, one can never understand fully someone elses idea, thought, or emotion by language, and thus you may never understand me, and your interpretations is all you will have, and so, if you do not understand it is perfectly normal, and logically acceptable.


Well, I think I understand you, for that is exactly what Spinoza DOES say. He does not "split the emotions". I think you may have misunderstood what he means by the 3rd kind of knowledge.

Spinoza's classic example of the intuitive, the 3rd kind of knowledge, is the fact that the sum of two angles in a triangle equal the complement of the 3rd angle. In fact, as far as I know, the only examples he ever gave of such knowledge were mathematical - geometric even.

- Kwi
eikosaedron
seeking enlightenment

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Canada

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72
Posted 07/20/07 - 12:37 PM:
quote post
#13
kwidgybo wrote:

Spinoza was a strict determinist - which is to say he did NOT believe we make decisions, rather that all ideas are caused by other ideas. He would argue that your memories, beliefs, attitudes, and desires are all the product of your experiences and THEY determine your decisions. At the same time he hints that we can (apparently) choose to allow ourselves to be driven by external ideas, or we can use reason to have only "adequate" ideas and thus be "free". It is not clear how this fits in with his strict determinism. This is one of the things that I have the most trouble with.
You are forgetting that you are part of the causal chain. Sure our decisions are ultimately entirely caused, but we still have the illusion of making them because to stop making them would be to act as though you aren't part of the causal chain.

"Knowing others is wisdom;
Knowing the self is enlightenment.
Mastering others requires force;
Mastering the self needs strength."

"It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything."
kwidgybo
Hoping to Evolve Soon

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 18, 2007
Location: Clemson, SC

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 188
Posted 07/20/07 - 01:21 PM:
quote post
#14
eikosaedron wrote:
You are forgetting that you are part of the causal chain. Sure our decisions are ultimately entirely caused, but we still have the illusion of making them because to stop making them would be to act as though you aren't part of the causal chain.

Certainly, the question is can I make the choice to stop making decisions, or is the decision to make decisions a product of prior causes of which I am not aware?

Definitely I have the illusion of making decisions because I am not aware of the causes that lead to my decisions, because they come from outside of me. Thus, I assume I have a choice and can decide to affect the chain on my own. In fact, there are a whole set of causes that led to the very moment where I make the choice and even determine the decision I make, thus I do not have a choice - only the illusion of it.

But if that is true, then if I decide to focus on adequate thoughts, by following only logic and reasoning based ultimately on intuitive notions, it is not because I decide to, but because external causes led me to, thus there is nothing I can choose that will either better or worsen my life compared to what it would be otherwise because I cannot choose.

Everything in my being wants to reject this notion. But in order to reject this notion I want to know where choice becomes available, and where the impetus for the decision comes from. The second, I assume, is God. The first, that is the problem.

- Kwi
Hand of God
Amature

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2007
Location: London

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 55
Posted 07/22/07 - 11:41 PM:
Subject: Has this experience got a name?
quote post
#15
kwidgybo wrote:


Well, I think I understand you, for that is exactly what Spinoza DOES say. He does not "split the emotions". I think you may have misunderstood what he means by the 3rd kind of knowledge.


I read sections of the Ethics again, which relate to the third kind of knowledge, and I have concluded that your interpretation is more correct. So this is what happend: I misinterpretated Spinoza's expression of the third kind of knowlege, inappropiately criticised him, and by using reasoning of my mind I "came" up with my own ideology of the third kind of knowledge, which is, as you pointed out, exactly what Spinoza was trying to express! what a wonderful exprience this has been, for now I have personalised Spinoza's ideology of the third kind of knowledge and thus I do not regret one minute for making my error of misintepretation but without your guidence I might have been led asstray, so I thank you. However this is a perfect example of how language, by its nature, cannot convey perfectly ones thought's or feelings, for only our interpretation is the gate way to some one elses mind, but we can get close.

kwidgybo wrote:

Spinoza's classic example of the intuitive, the 3rd kind of knowledge, is the fact that the sum of two angles in a triangle equal the complement of the 3rd angle. In fact, as far as I know, the only examples he ever gave of such knowledge were mathematical - geometric even.



I have thought of this example that Spinoza stated, but cannot interpretate the meaning that he was trying to convey, what are your interpretations of this example?

Best wishes

"I do not seek joy, but I only seek the truth, from which joy automatically follows"
"I Love thee, because I Love God"
"We do what God is"
"Good and Evil are but only two words for *perfection*"
"I am who I am, you are who you are, and they are who they are, that is all and all is just"
Morrandir
Ich habe mich aufgehoben
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2004
Location: The Finnest Land

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 2968
Posted 07/23/07 - 01:19 AM:
quote post
#16
philosofear wrote:

Its an interesting theory however I think Spinoza failed to differentiate between reason and causality.


That's quite an interesting interpretation given that Spinoza's point was exactly that there IS NO DIFFERENCE between reason and causality. The often-referred remark "Causa sive ratio" (Cause or reason) refers to Spinoza, who did indeed distinguish the terms yet based a lot of his philosophy on the idea that there is no difference. They are two aspects on the same thing, or two layers: since extension and thinking are two modi of the same all-encompassing substance, cause and reason are two modi of the same relation.

~M~

Philosophy is disciplined bewilderment.

A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty.

http://www.beyondappearances.com
kwidgybo
Hoping to Evolve Soon

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 18, 2007
Location: Clemson, SC

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 188
Posted 07/23/07 - 07:54 AM:
quote post
#17
Hand of God wrote:


I read sections of the Ethics again, which relate to the third kind of knowledge, and I have concluded that your interpretation is more correct. So this is what happend: I misinterpretated Spinoza's expression of the third kind of knowlege, inappropiately criticised him, and by using reasoning of my mind I "came" up with my own ideology of the third kind of knowledge, which is, as you pointed out, exactly what Spinoza was trying to express! what a wonderful exprience this has been, for now I have personalised Spinoza's ideology of the third kind of knowledge and thus I do not regret one minute for making my error of misintepretation but without your guidence I might have been led asstray, so I thank you. However this is a perfect example of how language, by its nature, cannot convey perfectly ones thought's or feelings, for only our interpretation is the gate way to some one elses mind, but we can get close.

I have been reading Spinoza intensively for about 6 months - the secondary sources such as Hampshire are invaluable. Language is most definitely an issue, as he tried to express things that do not have clear words in the common vernacular. The Short Treatise and Treatise on Understanding the Intellect also include more info on the levels of knowledge. When you find you make a breakthrough in understanding like that it is a wonderful thing!

I have thought of this example that Spinoza stated, but cannot interpretate the meaning that he was trying to convey, what are your interpretations of this example?

The 3rd kind of knowing involved things that are self-intuitive. Spinoza loved mathematics - that's why the Ethics is written as a geometric exposition - and he felt mathematics was one of these self-intuitive ideas. That a triangle is what what it is, without being caused by anything else. It is abstract, so there is no physical cause. One need not reason about anything else, it's "truth" is self-evident. At that time, historically, there was much argument as to whether self-evident ideas existed. Descartes referred to them without example (don't quote me on that, I'm not a Descartes expert). Spinoza thought much of Descartes, but disagreed with him on a number of issues as well.

The concept of clear and adequate ideas needed a basis that was not an infinite regression, and thus self-evident ideas were seen as important. Spinoza believed in these - mathematics was a prime example and he felt there were other examples. Obviously Descartes felt "thought" itself was self-evident (I think therefore I am).

I have pondered this quite a bit myself. I have had a few experience I think might qualify, but I'm still trying to understand Spinoza better in this area.

- Kwi

kwidgybo
Hoping to Evolve Soon

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 18, 2007
Location: Clemson, SC

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 188
Posted 07/23/07 - 07:50 PM:
quote post
#18
Hand of God,

check out this site - it has a really nice hypertext of much of Spinoza's work:

http://home.earthlink.net/~tneff/index.html

- Kwi
philosofear
Enquirer
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2007
Location: My mind

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 328
Posted 07/23/07 - 09:45 PM:
quote post
#19
To tell you the truth Spinoza kind of pisses me off, for example consider a conversation with him.

Me-"Hey Spinoza I think your philosophy is bullshit!
Spinoza-"Your thinking that my philosophy is bullshit is the result of all your previous thoughts and all infinite occurences prior to those thoughts which have led to this exact moment and your exact amount of frustration at this endless circle of my philosophy. You can only be happy knowing that all your actions are predetermined, then again your happiness in this is also predetermined, and me saying this is predetermined..."

Does it ever end???? shaking head

"Its turtles all the way down!" -some old lady
kwidgybo
Hoping to Evolve Soon

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 18, 2007
Location: Clemson, SC

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 188
Posted 07/24/07 - 06:30 AM:
quote post
#20
philosofear wrote:
To tell you the truth Spinoza kind of pisses me off, for example consider a conversation with him.

Me-"Hey Spinoza I think your philosophy is bullshit!
Spinoza-"Your thinking that my philosophy is bullshit is the result of all your previous thoughts and all infinite occurences prior to those thoughts which have led to this exact moment and your exact amount of frustration at this endless circle of my philosophy. You can only be happy knowing that all your actions are predetermined, then again your happiness in this is also predetermined, and me saying this is predetermined..."

Does it ever end???? shaking head


Spinoza wasn't really into predetermination so much as causal determination. In particular, his "3rd kind of knowledge" that we were discussing is not predetermined, exactly. His philosophy has more to do with how to be happy than with everything being predertermined.

- Kwi
Download thread as

Page: 1 2 3



Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.