Spinoza's Rationalism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Spinoza's Rationalism » Spinoza's Rationalism

Spinoza's Rationalism

Page: 1 2 3

Spinoza's Rationalism

TecnoTut
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 09, 2002
Location: Florida
Total Topics: 192
Total Posts: 4520

Posted 06/12/04 - 04:28 PM:	#1
The defining feature of Spinoza’s thought, clearly, is its uncompromising rationalism. Spinoza is a rationalist in at least three different senses: (i) metaphysical, (ii) epistemological, and (iii) ethical. That is, he maintains that (i) the universe embodies a necessary order, that (ii) this order is knowable by the human mind, and that (iii) the true good for humans consists in knowledge of this order and life governed by this order. What is distinctive of Spinoza’s brand of rationalism, however, is that it does not allow room for the creator-God, found in conventional monotheism, who is distinct from his own creation. Instead, Spinoza boldly identifies God with nature: God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things. All things which are, are in God. In addition to Spinoza’s philosophy being pantheistic, it is also naturalistic and deterministic. Since nature is all inclusive, it follows that nothing can be or even be conceived apart from it. What this means is that everything, including human actions, must be explicable in terms of nature’s universal and necessary laws. Moreover, given this identification, Spinoza claims that it also follows that knowledge of the order of nature specified through these laws is equivalent to the knowledge of God. Once again, in sharp opposition to the Judeao-Christian-Muslim tradition, Spinoza claims that one’s mind is capable of adequate knowledge of God (hence his excommunication from the synagogue).
He that dies pays all debts - Shakespeare's Stephano from The Tempest Truth is its own measure - Spinoza, Ethics IIp43s Those who deny [Aristotle's] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. - Ibn Sina (Avicenna)

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 252
Total Posts: 4915

Posted 06/12/04 - 04:59 PM:	#2
So from your point of view, what are the implications of Spinoza's epistemology. Spinoza created his point of view on the basis of God exisiting within the material beingness of the universe. Does that mean, therefore that God is in control of all events ? If so, how does that fit in relation to chaos and randomness : both of which exist at the quantum level? Furthermore, Does Spinozas' God die along with the last spluttering stars at the end of the universe..or would God be able to remove itself from substance ?
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 5417

Posted 06/12/04 - 05:21 PM:	#3
You cannot put the phrase, "I, your God, am a jealous god" in the mouth of Spinoza. His god is not created in the image of man but is "merely" an alias for nature. He is not a "personal god" but an abstract "life force". Spinoza's god controls via determinism but since he is not personal, it would be ludicrous to attribute personal qualities to him.
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 252
Total Posts: 4915

Posted 06/12/04 - 05:52 PM:	#4
rabeldin wrote: You cannot put the phrase, "I, your God, am a jealous god" in the mouth of Spinoza. His god is not created in the image of man but is "merely" an alias for nature. He is not a "personal god" but an abstract "life force". Spinoza's god controls via determinism but since he is not personal, it would be ludicrous to attribute personal qualities to him. Yet if Spinozas' God has a inter~alia presence in the material universe, which includes all emotions and senses, then it must follow that God can have "personal qualities" by extension of personal 'projection'. In this sense, I cannot see any reason why Spinozas' pantheism would not allow for both Anthropomorhic and Zoomorphic quailities to be invoked.
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 06/12/04 - 06:07 PM:	#5
Grammaticus wrote: So from your point of view, what are the implications of Spinoza's epistemology. Spinoza created his point of view on the basis of God exisiting within the material beingness of the universe. Does that mean, therefore that God is in control of all events ? If so, how does that fit in relation to chaos and randomness : both of which exist at the quantum level? Furthermore, Does Spinozas' God die along with the last spluttering stars at the end of the universe..or would God be able to remove itself from substance ? _______________________________________________________ For Spinoza, chance and accident are epistemic terms arising from ignorance of the causes of things. We call those events chance events which we are unable to predict. When you speak of God being in control, you imply a transcendent view of God. That is to say, God as distinct from his creation. But Spinoza's God is immanent. Deus sive Natura (God or nature) Which is to say that "Deus" and "Natura" are just two names for one and the same thing. God is both, "Natura Naturans" and "Natura Naturata." He is both the creation and also the creator. God is eternal, so there can be no such thing as God's extinction. And, since God is the Universe, there can be so such thing as the extinction of the Universe.

TecnoTut
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 09, 2002
Location: Florida
Total Topics: 192
Total Posts: 4520

Posted 06/12/04 - 07:08 PM:	#6
Grammaticus wrote: So from your point of view, what are the implications of Spinoza's epistemology. Spinoza created his point of view on the basis of God exisiting within the material beingness of the universe. Does that mean, therefore that God is in control of all events ? If so, how does that fit in relation to chaos and randomness : both of which exist at the quantum level? Furthermore, Does Spinozas' God die along with the last spluttering stars at the end of the universe..or would God be able to remove itself from substance ? I'll just expand on Gassendi's answer regarding the question of whether God (Nature) controls all events. Spinoza writes "In nature there is nothing contingent, but all things have been determined from the necessity of the divine nature to exist and produce an effect in a certain way." So, it is not control in some anthropomorphic-voluntary sense (hence Gassendi's comments about God not being distinct from the universe); but rather, in a sense of natural laws. Everything that happens is determined by two factors, in the manner of Hempel's account of scientific explanation, the standing nature of God, that is, the laws of nature, and previous conditions likewise determined back through infinite time. This makes him an uncompromising determinist, even with respect to human actions: “Men believe themselves to be free because they are conscious of their own actions and are ignorant of the causes by which they are determined.”
He that dies pays all debts - Shakespeare's Stephano from The Tempest Truth is its own measure - Spinoza, Ethics IIp43s Those who deny [Aristotle's] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. - Ibn Sina (Avicenna)

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 06/12/04 - 07:23 PM:	#7
“Men believe themselves to be free because they are conscious of their own actions and are ignorant of the causes by which they are determined.”[/QUOTE] _____________________________________________________ This quote has to be understood in a certain way. Spinoza thinks that free will is an illusion. But Spinoza believes both in divine and in human freedom. In fact, the final part of The Ethics is called, Of Human Freedom Spinoza holds that human freedom consists in freedom from the bondage of the passions Part 4 of The Ethics ) is called, Of Human Bondage. (Somerset Maugham's fine novel, Of Human Bondage is a fictional account of this state). For Spinoza, human freedom, but not, of course, free-will, is perfectly consistent with determinism, and, indeed, requires it. Spinoza's account of human freedom is very like Davidson's in that he thinks that human freedom is the result of having reasons for our actions. It is also closely related both ancient Stoicism, and to Freud's injunction "Where Id was, let Ego be."

TecnoTut
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 09, 2002
Location: Florida
Total Topics: 192
Total Posts: 4520

Posted 06/12/04 - 07:57 PM:	#8
Gassendi1 wrote: This quote has to be understood in a certain way. Spinoza thinks that free will is an illusion. But Spinoza believes both in divine and in human freedom. In fact, the final part of The Ethics is called, Of Human Freedom Spinoza holds that human freedom consists in freedom from the bondage of the passions Part 4 of The Ethics ) is called, Of Human Bondage. (Somerset Maugham's fine novel, Of Human Bondage is a fictional account of this state). For Spinoza, human freedom, but not, of course, free-will, is perfectly consistent with determinism, and, indeed, requires it. Spinoza's account of human freedom is very like Davidson's in that he thinks that human freedom is the result of having reasons for our actions. It is also closely related both ancient Stoicism, and to Freud's injunction "Where Id was, let Ego be." Spinoza does indeed make a distinction between the non-existence of freewill and the existence of human freedom. Unfortunately, the extent to which we can free ourselves from bondage is limited. The trouble is that reason often lacks affective power. This is because the strength of reason is a function of the strength of the mind alone. The strength of the passions is a function of the strength of their external causes, which in many cases, according to Spinoza, is greater. In such cases, reason is unable to overrule passion: “With this I have shown the cause why men are moved more by opinion than by true reason, and why the true knowledge of good and evil arouses disturbances of the mind, and often yields to lust of every kind.” This ties in with Hume's dictum that reason is and ought to be slave to the passions. Such is the life of bondage.
He that dies pays all debts - Shakespeare's Stephano from The Tempest Truth is its own measure - Spinoza, Ethics IIp43s Those who deny [Aristotle's] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. - Ibn Sina (Avicenna)

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 06/12/04 - 08:17 PM:	#9
TecnoTut wrote: Spinoza does indeed make a distinction between the non-existence of freewill and the existence of human freedom. Unfortunately, the extent to which we can free ourselves from bondage is limited. The trouble is that reason often lacks affective power. This is because the strength of reason is a function of the strength of the mind alone. The strength of the passions is a function of the strength of their external causes, which in many cases, according to Spinoza, is greater. In such cases, reason is unable to overrule passion: “With this I have shown the cause why men are moved more by opinion than by true reason, and why the true knowledge of good and evil arouses disturbances of the mind, and often yields to lust of every kind.” This ties in with Hume's dictum that reason is and ought to be slave to the passions. Such is the life of bondage. _______________________________________________________ True enough. Yet, despite the difficulty of attaining it, Spinoza does believe that human freedom can be achieved. And, in the final soaring and encouraging words of The Ethics he says: "If the way which I have pointed out as leading to this result seems exceedingly hard, it may nevertheless be discovered. Needs must it be hard, since it is so seldom found. How would it be possible, if salvation were ready to our hand, and could without great labour be found, that it should be by almost all men neglected? But all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare."

Utter Cunt
pope of deicide

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 02, 2003
Location: Muspellheim
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 108

Posted 06/12/04 - 08:25 PM:	#10
TecnoTut wrote: Spinoza does indeed make a distinction between the non-existence of freewill and the existence of human freedom. Unfortunately, the extent to which we can free ourselves from bondage is limited. The trouble is that reason often lacks affective power. This is because the strength of reason is a function of the strength of the mind alone. The strength of the passions is a function of the strength of their external causes, which in many cases, according to Spinoza, is greater. In such cases, reason is unable to overrule passion: “With this I have shown the cause why men are moved more by opinion than by true reason, and why the true knowledge of good and evil arouses disturbances of the mind, and often yields to lust of every kind.” This ties in with Hume's dictum that reason is and ought to be slave to the passions. Such is the life of bondage. Well said. Could you supply the reference of that quotation?
The sum of the entire history of civilization is thus: Man invented God in order not to kill himself.

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.