======= E2: PROP. 44:
It is not in the nature of reason to regard things as contingent, but as
necessary.
Proof.--It is in the nature of reason to perceive things truly (E2P41),
namely (E1A6), as they are in themselves--that is (E1P29), not as
contingent, but as necessary. Q.E.D.
======= Corollary 1.--Hence it follows, that it is only through our
imagination that we consider things, whether in respect to the future or the
past, as contingent.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Friday, June 23, 2006
at which point the present memory is
E3: PROP. 2, Note:
...the decision of the mind, which is believed to be free, is not
distinguishable from the imagination or memory, and is nothing more than the
affirmation, which an idea, by virtue of being an idea, necessarily involves
(E2P49). Wherefore these decisions of the mind arise in the mind by the same
necessity, as the ideas of things actually existing. Therefore those who
believe, that they speak or keep silence or act in any way from the free decision of the mind
, do but dream with their eyes
open.
--------
...the decision of the mind, which is believed to be free, is not
distinguishable from the imagination or memory, and is nothing more than the
affirmation, which an idea, by virtue of being an idea, necessarily involves
(E2P49). Wherefore these decisions of the mind arise in the mind by the same
necessity, as the ideas of things actually existing. Therefore those who
believe, that they speak or keep silence or act in any way from the free decision of the mind
, do but dream with their eyes
open.
--------
======= TEI-P64(52) Note:
Observe that fiction regarded in itself, only differs from dreams in
that in the latter we do not perceive the external causes which we perceive
through the senses while awake. It has hence been inferred that
representations occurring in sleep have no connection with objects external
to us. We shall presently see that error is the dreaming of a waking man; if
it reaches a certain pitch it becomes delirium.
=======
Observe that fiction regarded in itself, only differs from dreams in
that in the latter we do not perceive the external causes which we perceive
through the senses while awake. It has hence been inferred that
representations occurring in sleep have no connection with objects external
to us. We shall presently see that error is the dreaming of a waking man; if
it reaches a certain pitch it becomes delirium.
=======
Monday, June 19, 2006
E2P17C=====
The mind is able to regard as present external bodies, by which the
human body has once been affected, even though they be no longer in
existence or present.
======
======= E2: PROP. 16, Corollary 2:
...the ideas, which we have of external bodies, indicate rather the constitution of our own body than the nature of
external bodies.
perception of externals is a decision of the mind to imagine a difference in the idea and the idea of itself.
The mind is able to regard as present external bodies, by which the
human body has once been affected, even though they be no longer in
existence or present.
======
======= E2: PROP. 16, Corollary 2:
...the ideas, which we have of external bodies, indicate rather the constitution of our own body than the nature of
external bodies.
perception of externals is a decision of the mind to imagine a difference in the idea and the idea of itself.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
eternity spinoza
E1: DEF. 8:
By eternity, I mean existence itself, in so far as it is conceived
necessarily to follow solely from the definition of that which is eternal.
the existent or eternal is the essence of itself and not
conditioned by time or space that is perception
By eternity, I mean existence itself, in so far as it is conceived
necessarily to follow solely from the definition of that which is eternal.
the existent or eternal is the essence of itself and not
conditioned by time or space that is perception
Sunday, June 04, 2006
more on previous
From: "Terry Neff" tneff@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Upanishad (Vedanta)
Hi Ethel and All,
To view the world through "Jewish", "Christian", "Moslem", "Sufi",
"Hindu", "Buddhist", "Taoists", etc. spectacles is, in terms that
Spinoza used in expressing the Ideas in The Ethics, to merely observe the
operations of our own Imagination as it has been shaped through our senses by our
own particular life experiences and studies. Once Spinoza began to realize
this he could not possibly have thought of his own Essential Nature as being
"Jewish", and it is, after all, our own Essential Nature which he shows
that he is helping us to discover.
Here are a few things that came to my mind with regard to the
statements you offered:
> Just to add some reality to this.
If we focus only on the things that our senses and memory present
to us, which is the ordinarily case with nearly everyone, myself included,
then we will think of those things together as "reality". But there is actually
only One Reality according to Spinoza and we know this only to the extent
that we Understand, through Reason or Intuition, not through the confused ideas
of our Imagination. So...
> You do know that Baruch Spinoza had a thorough classical Jewish
> education. Some of my teachers even think if he had lived around
> 100 BCE he would have been a famous talmudist.
So did he come out of his human mother's womb and say to himself;
"Let's see, where can I get the best education on this particular planet on
which I find myself being born?" or did he simply receive the education his
parents and the surrounding conditions presented to him and which they (his
parents and those other humans around him) had in turn received and understood
in their own way from those who came before them, etc.? Are the ideas
expressed in The Ethics dependent on, or derived from, "Jewish" ideas or from
simple Ideas common to all people and to all cultures, nations, etc.?
> Can one discuss Spinoza without understanding the role of the
> Talmud Torah (which was dispised by both Constantine and Hitler).
The ideas expressed in the Ethics remain the same even without
knowing who wrote it and what the author's background was. In a similar manner
one needs to know nothing about Euclid and his background or life in order
to follow and understand the Ideas expressed in The Elements of Geometry.
Spinoza wrote (pay particular attention to the last sentence):
======== TPT07-P48:
...Euclid, who only wrote of matters very simple and easily understood,
can easily be comprehended by anyone in any language; we can follow his
intention perfectly, and be certain of his true meaning, without having
a thorough knowledge of the language in which he wrote; in fact, a quite
rudimentary acquaintance is sufficient. We need make no researches
concerning the life, the pursuits, or the habits of the author; nor
need we inquire in what language, nor when he wrote, nor the vicissitudes of
his book, nor its various readings, nor how, nor by whose advice it has been
received....
========
Attempting to study the order and connection of Spinoza's
particular life experiences as they were affected by the conditions around him has
nothing to do with the Ideas expressed in the Ethics. The subject
matter and the Ideas expressed in the Ethics remain the same even if the author
had been unknown and the book had been left on the doorstep of a library or
some such.
> Also, in 8/2002 Israel embraced Spinoza by publishing a philosopher's
> stamp saying he was one of the Isralites greatest philosopbers ahead
> of his time. Also he might have been beyond his time:)
I do not see what this has to do with understanding the Ideas
Spinoza expressed in the Ethics. The fact that some particular group of folks
condemned Spinoza or hailed him as though he were "God" is irrelevant
to the Ideas he expressed.
> You realize that the curve in global knowledge follows the frequency
> wave and sometimes dips below "zero" IOW goes into a minus
> direction :)
I realize that Spinoza himself shows that:
======== E2: PROP. 41:
Knowledge of the first kind [Imagination] is the only source of falsity,
knowledge of the second [Reason] and third [Intuition] kinds is necessarily
true.
========
and...
======== E2: PROP. 44, Corollary 2:
--It is in the nature of reason to perceive things under a certain form
of eternity.
Proof.--It is in the nature of reason to regard things, not as contingent,
but as necessary (E2P44). Reason perceives this necessity of things
(E2P41) truly--that is (E1A6), as it is in itself. But (E1P16) this necessity
of things is the very necessity of the eternal nature of God; therefore,
it is in the nature of reason to regard things under this form of eternity.
We may add that the bases of reason are the notions (E2P38), which answer to
things common to all, and which (E2P37) do not answer to the essence of any
particular thing: which must therefore be conceived without any relation to
time, under a certain form of eternity.
========
Look in particular at the proof he offers above and then think about
what it is that you are referring to as "global knowledge". Is such "global knowledge"
of the First, Second, or Third Kind? (Hint: It can't be the
Second or Third kind if it varies over time which itself belongs to the First kind.)
> So perhaps you should be comparing the Talmud Torah with Indian philosophy. -
Or perhaps we might begin to Understand the difference between our own
Imagination and Intellect or Understanding, and begin to see that all these various
writings and philosophies are only particular treasure maps to
what their authors thought of as a treasure and which they apparently wanted to
share with their readers. The Actual Treasure itself is not found in or
changed by any particular map, even though some different maps may
refer to the same Actual Treasure. So, comparing one map with another as an
exercise in itself, apart from searching for the Actual Treasure, is of no real
value useless perhaps it leads one to realize that these are only maps, not
the treasure. And to insist that only one map is the true map is
meaningless once one begins to uncover the Actual Treasure within their own Being.
Anyway, Hans seems to me to have expressed a useful way of thinking about
Spinoza the man when he wrote:
Spinoza was a Buddhist, a Talmudist, a Cabbalist why not a Sufi (if he had lived in
Baghdad in 1000 "AD"), a shaman 1000 BC, some kind of healer or self-management
guru today?
Best Regards,
Terry
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Non Duality in Vedanta and Spinoza--the Buddha's Negation
Subject: Upanishad (Vedanta)
Dear Gary,
following your instruction, yesterday I have started to read Indian
philosophy. I myself am from the Indian subcontinent. Last night I
was reading the Upanishad ( I am not sure about the English spelling
of the name, western people call it usually Vedanta). And I found
that Upanishad is telling the same thing Spinoza teaches us.
There are 12 parts of Upanishad. I have so far read two of them.
In Koth-Upanishad, the teacher (it is a kind of a dialogue between a
teacher/sage/guru and his disciple) tells the disciple that the
Brahma expresses himself in the world, which is a continuous process.
Brahma loves us, while we love Brahma (this is not what Spinoza
tells, Spinoza tells that we should love God, but should not expect
that God will love us). there is no personal consciousness which is
independent, but all the consciousness are derived from the great
consciousness, that is, consciousness of consciousness, mind of the
minds........
Now, the writing style in Upanishad is rather easy to
understand/follow, while Bertrand Russell accuses Spinoza for an
abstruse style of writing.
Upanishad is interpretted in many ways. This is actually an age-old
eastern philosophical tradtion that the great and popular
philosophical books will be used to propagate new philosophies, that
is interpretting the old and popular philosophies in favour of the
new philosophy. Thus Shankar, a great sage in the 8th century
AD,interpretted Vedanta as monistic, which sounds similar to
Spinoza's monism.
Cheerz !
-Tahmidal
Message: 3
Date: Wed May 31, 2006 4:09 am (PDT)
From: "Gary Geiser" aahouse10@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Upanishad (Vedanta)
Hi Tahmidal,
Naturally, the God in the Upanishad "loves us" because the Upanishad
is exercising a dialectical logic, where we become more real than we
are to ourselves by our entering the opposite to ourselves which is the
One of which we are a finite expression.
Spinoza, however, exercises a logistical logic of 0 and 1. (We see
this in Descartes, Leibniz, Locke, and Hume). But Spinoza peculiar to
himself, reasons that man is a complex of modes, and he subsists insofar
as God is affected by a further modification of his substance in the
order of extension or thought taken to infinity.
The principle loss when we pass on to Buddhism, is that the Buddha
disgarded the dialectical logic in the Upanishad. Buddhism exercises an
agonistic logic of 1 and -1.
For example, the Upanishad says there is a soul, and the world is an
illusion. So the soul rises up to the One which is itself, as both the
One and the soul are dead, i.e. dreaming is left of what is real. So
there is the dialectical process of a unity of opposites: the soul and
God's dream of which we are a part, and how our perception of its
ultimate unreality, wins us our return to the One.
OK. But the Buddha exercises an agonstic logic: he argues that there
cannot be a soul if there is no world, so he "proves" that there is no
soul, because there is no world. These two opposed terms are
IRRECONCIABLE (1 and -1), and so they are proven both to not subsist!
Saturday, May 20, 2006
More on Spinoza and Music
Message 1
From: "ethel jean saltz" nietgal@yahoo.com
Date: Fri May 19, 2006 9:25pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Music
Actually, the Torah Scrolls is the musical rendition of the Pentateuch.
So yes Spinoza knows music.
Today the Pentateuch can be rendered by a jazz trio: keyboard, bass, drums.
It is now transliterated into Western notation.
There always has been music, it's a form of accoustics, of sounds and silences and it's an ancient form of communications.
It's the pulse of the Earth.
When I took those two years of college music ed, starting in 1998,
the hardest college subject I ever took, I asked how music "played" in the Electro-Magnetic Spectrum.
No one could really answer me.
Recently I purchased a more intensive poster of the EMS and the creator had added music to the poster with this caveat: Music, ocean waves, brain waves
are not part of the spectrum because they require a medium in order to exist.
That improved my understanding of physics.
Just think about it.
One cannot do rock'n'roll in Iraq or Iran.
It's constituitonally prohibited.
Hitler used music politically and so did Stalin.
So did the Church from 450 to 1450.
Poetry and music have been considered a "couple," haven't they?
So I agree with Spinoza, it's that simple.
By the way, what got me to take music in the first place is my voice teacher trying to explain the Circle of Fifths.
Really magical.
Ethel Jean (Kowan) Saltz
THE BIBLE UNEARTHED -- Y'H'V'H Only!
From: "ethel jean saltz" nietgal@yahoo.com
Date: Fri May 19, 2006 9:25pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Music
Actually, the Torah Scrolls is the musical rendition of the Pentateuch.
So yes Spinoza knows music.
Today the Pentateuch can be rendered by a jazz trio: keyboard, bass, drums.
It is now transliterated into Western notation.
There always has been music, it's a form of accoustics, of sounds and silences and it's an ancient form of communications.
It's the pulse of the Earth.
When I took those two years of college music ed, starting in 1998,
the hardest college subject I ever took, I asked how music "played" in the Electro-Magnetic Spectrum.
No one could really answer me.
Recently I purchased a more intensive poster of the EMS and the creator had added music to the poster with this caveat: Music, ocean waves, brain waves
are not part of the spectrum because they require a medium in order to exist.
That improved my understanding of physics.
Just think about it.
One cannot do rock'n'roll in Iraq or Iran.
It's constituitonally prohibited.
Hitler used music politically and so did Stalin.
So did the Church from 450 to 1450.
Poetry and music have been considered a "couple," haven't they?
So I agree with Spinoza, it's that simple.
By the way, what got me to take music in the first place is my voice teacher trying to explain the Circle of Fifths.
Really magical.
Ethel Jean (Kowan) Saltz
THE BIBLE UNEARTHED -- Y'H'V'H Only!
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Ontological Questions
There are 2 messages in this issue, both from Gary Geiser aahouse10@yahoo.com. Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Metaphysics 2. Re: Digest Number 333
Message Date: Tue May 16, 2006 10:27 pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Metaphysics
Hi Tahmidal,
Don't forget that for Europe to secularize its institutions during the Age of Enlightenment it borrowed considerably from the East. In fact, the West is largely now a culture of the East: ruled-based behavior raised to an impersonal discipline, physical and mental hygiene, atheism, strong State authority, as against the superstition and aristocracy of Old Europe.
We can find in Spinoza - who is the architect of the Radical Enlightenment, the basic idea of detachment. This is deeply Eastern.
Further, Hume's subjectivist philosophy served to defend the atomization and subjectification of the individual against feudal hierarchy and bigotry.
md_hannan_05@yahoo.com wrote:
Gary,
(I am not much knowledgeable about western philosophic tradition. So, it is a kind of impertinence that I am joining and giving my opinion. This is, I would like to say, a kind of realisation of the self of an eastern human in western way, that is, putting my self in a historical realisation process with which it is difficult to identify with.)
I remember that many days ago I read an article by A. N. Whitehead where Whitehead wrote that Spinoza did not follow the path contemporary western philosophers took. Instead of subjective thinking, he followed the objective way of philosophising, like ancient Greeks.
Now, Gary, the point I want to make (which Whitehead also made) that in his Treatise of Human Nature, David Hume determinedly differentiated between `natural philosophy/science' and metaphysics, in many cases, whenever his discussion seems to go beyond subjective thinking, he readily stops to continue on and justifies it by saying that, `but this is not a matter of us, this belongs to the field of natural philosophy bla bla bla.........'
On the other hand, this is not true about Spinoza's doctrine of knowing. But well, I have to admit that I have not fully comprehended Spinoza's doctrine of knowledge. What is knowledge? Making a system, connecting things in a system (by cause and effect, which has been described by Hume as nothing but a tendency of human mind)? Is this the way the modes come to know?-Tahmidal ---
In spinoza-ethics@yahoogroups.com, Gary Geiser wrote:
Hume starts from the state of his body, and applies rules (admittedly through custom and habit) to it, and never builds from there.
Hegel took Spinoza very seriously, and combined him with the dialectical method to produce very interesting results. And he did so to get beyond Kant's impasse.
It's curious that while Spinoza actually had a Buddhistic conception of detachment from bodily modifications, he embraced a hard Parmenidean ontology of Being, while Hume had a Buddhist ontology of subjectivity and accidents, yet was essentially concerned with breaking through every metaphysical standpoint, and just living life.
md_hannan_05@...> wrote:
Gary, I have not read Husserl. Therefore I thought I should read Husserl before continuing this discussion.
However, I think Hume's criticism of Spinoza is much relevant here. In Hume's `A Treatise on Human Nature : Part 1' he severely criticised Spinoza (and I believe it is all about knowledge). What do you think about it? - -Tahmidal
1. Re: Metaphysics 2. Re: Digest Number 333
Message Date: Tue May 16, 2006 10:27 pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Metaphysics
Hi Tahmidal,
Don't forget that for Europe to secularize its institutions during the Age of Enlightenment it borrowed considerably from the East. In fact, the West is largely now a culture of the East: ruled-based behavior raised to an impersonal discipline, physical and mental hygiene, atheism, strong State authority, as against the superstition and aristocracy of Old Europe.
We can find in Spinoza - who is the architect of the Radical Enlightenment, the basic idea of detachment. This is deeply Eastern.
Further, Hume's subjectivist philosophy served to defend the atomization and subjectification of the individual against feudal hierarchy and bigotry.
md_hannan_05@yahoo.com wrote:
Gary,
(I am not much knowledgeable about western philosophic tradition. So, it is a kind of impertinence that I am joining and giving my opinion. This is, I would like to say, a kind of realisation of the self of an eastern human in western way, that is, putting my self in a historical realisation process with which it is difficult to identify with.)
I remember that many days ago I read an article by A. N. Whitehead where Whitehead wrote that Spinoza did not follow the path contemporary western philosophers took. Instead of subjective thinking, he followed the objective way of philosophising, like ancient Greeks.
Now, Gary, the point I want to make (which Whitehead also made) that in his Treatise of Human Nature, David Hume determinedly differentiated between `natural philosophy/science' and metaphysics, in many cases, whenever his discussion seems to go beyond subjective thinking, he readily stops to continue on and justifies it by saying that, `but this is not a matter of us, this belongs to the field of natural philosophy bla bla bla.........'
On the other hand, this is not true about Spinoza's doctrine of knowing. But well, I have to admit that I have not fully comprehended Spinoza's doctrine of knowledge. What is knowledge? Making a system, connecting things in a system (by cause and effect, which has been described by Hume as nothing but a tendency of human mind)? Is this the way the modes come to know?-Tahmidal ---
In spinoza-ethics@yahoogroups.com, Gary Geiser wrote:
Hume starts from the state of his body, and applies rules (admittedly through custom and habit) to it, and never builds from there.
Hegel took Spinoza very seriously, and combined him with the dialectical method to produce very interesting results. And he did so to get beyond Kant's impasse.
It's curious that while Spinoza actually had a Buddhistic conception of detachment from bodily modifications, he embraced a hard Parmenidean ontology of Being, while Hume had a Buddhist ontology of subjectivity and accidents, yet was essentially concerned with breaking through every metaphysical standpoint, and just living life.
md_hannan_05@...> wrote:
Gary, I have not read Husserl. Therefore I thought I should read Husserl before continuing this discussion.
However, I think Hume's criticism of Spinoza is much relevant here. In Hume's `A Treatise on Human Nature : Part 1' he severely criticised Spinoza (and I believe it is all about knowledge). What do you think about it? - -Tahmidal
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Barenboim and Spinoza
From: "hans19682000" hans68@eunet.at
"For a more distinguished view on music and understanding and a certain applied Spinozism see Daniel Barenboim--
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2006/lecture1.shtml
"Barenboim's engagement for a real peace process in Palestine/Israel is an additional aspect of the ethico-political potential of non-esoteric Spinozism. "
"For a more distinguished view on music and understanding and a certain applied Spinozism see Daniel Barenboim--
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2006/lecture1.shtml
"Barenboim's engagement for a real peace process in Palestine/Israel is an additional aspect of the ethico-political potential of non-esoteric Spinozism. "
Monday, May 15, 2006
more postings
see below for claims about these postings
15 May 2006 15:58:13 -0000
From:
spinoza-ethics@yahoogroups.com Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To:
spinoza-ethics@yahoogroups.com
Subject:
[spinoza-ethics] Digest Number 333
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/VHeqlB/TM--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
There are 3 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Metaphysics
From: "md_hannan_05" md_hannan_05@yahoo.com
2. Re: Metaphysics
From: "Gary Geiser" aahouse10@yahoo.com
3. Re: Metaphysics
From: "md_hannan_05" md_hannan_05@yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message 1
From: "md_hannan_05" md_hannan_05@yahoo.com
Date: Sun May 14, 2006 7:19am(PDT)
Subject: Metaphysics
Gary,
I have not read Husserl. Therefore I thought I should read Husserl
before continuing this discussion.
However, I think Hume's criticism of Spinoza is much relevant here. In
Hume's `A Treatise on Human Nature : Part 1' he severely criticised
Spinoza (and I believe it is all about knowledge). What do you think
about it?
-Tahmidal
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message 2
From: "Gary Geiser" aahouse10@yahoo.com
Date: Mon May 15, 2006 1:02am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Metaphysics
Hi Tahmidal
I took a course on that work by Hume. As I recall, Hume has laws of
association, but he's comparing simple ideas to one another in ways that
are descriptive, like with contrast, contiguity, and so on.
Spinoza is starting from association as metonymy strictly. X subsists
insofar as God is affected by Y, and not insofar as X is about Y, or Y
about X.
Thus, X is envious, not because Y is beautiful, but because the state
of X's body is affected by both himself and Y, and the confusion
produces the impression that Y is beautiful (a purely subjective
construction). X perceives God affected by Y on the same spot X does for every
perception, where X imagines the world to be about himself.
Hume starts from the state of his body, and applies rules (admittedly
through custom and habit) to it, and never builds from there.
Hegel took Spinoza very seriously, and combined him with the
dialectical method to produce very interesting results. And he did so to get
beyond Kant's impasse.
It's curious that while Spinoza actually had a Buddhistic conception
of detachment from bodily modifications, he embraced a hard Parmenidean
ontology of Being, while Hume had a Buddhist ontology of subjectivity
and accidents, yet was essentially concerned with breaking through every
metaphysical standpoint, and just living life.
md_hannan_05 <md_hannan_05@yahoo.com> wrote:
Gary,
I have not read Husserl. Therefore I thought I should read Husserl
before continuing this discussion.
However, I think Hume's criticism of Spinoza is much relevant here. In
Hume's `A Treatise on Human Nature : Part 1' he severely criticised
Spinoza (and I believe it is all about knowledge). What do you think
about it?
-Tahmidal
This is one of the lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home of
Slow Reading: http://www.freelance-academy.org To unsubscribe by
e-mail, mailto:spinoza-ethics-unsubscribe@egroups.com
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "spinoza-ethics" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
spinoza-ethics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo!
Messenger with Voice.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message 3
From: "md_hannan_05" md_hannan_05@yahoo.com
Date: Mon May 15, 2006 5:09am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Metaphysics
Gary,
(I am not much knowledgeable about western philosophic tradition. So,
it is a kind of impertinence that I am joining and giving my opinion.
This is, I would like to say, a kind of realisation of the self of an
eastern human in western way, that is, putting my self in a
historical realisation process with which it is difficult to identify
with.)
I remember that many days ago I read an article by A. N. Whitehead
where Whitehead wrote that Spinoza did not follow the path
contemporary western philosophers took. Instead of subjective
thinking, he followed the objective way of philosophising, like
ancient Greeks.
Now, Gary, the point I want to make (which Whitehead also made) that
in his Treatise of Human Nature, David Hume determinedly
differentiated between `natural philosophy/science' and metaphysics,
in many cases, whenever his discussion seems to go beyond subjective
thinking, he readily stops to continue on and justifies it by saying
that, `but this is not a matter of us, this belongs to the field of
natural philosophy bla bla bla.........'
On the other hand, this is not true about Spinoza's doctrine of
knowing. But well, I have to admit that I have not fully comprehended
Spinoza's doctrine of knowledge. What is knowledge? making a system,
connecting things in a system (by cause and effect, which has been
described by Hume as nothing but a tendency of human mind)? Is this
the way the modes come to know?
-Tahmidal
--- In spinoza-ethics@yahoogroups.com, Gary Geiser
wrote:
Hi Tahmidal
I took a course on that work by Hume. As I recall, Hume has laws
of association, but he's comparing simple ideas to one another in
ways that are descriptive, like with contrast, contiguity, and so on.
Spinoza is starting from association as metonymy strictly. X
subsists insofar as God is affected by Y, and not insofar as X is
about Y, or Y about X.
Thus, X is envious, not because Y is beautiful, but because the
state of X's body is affected by both himself and Y, and the
confusion produces the impression that Y is beautiful (a purely
subjective construction). X perceives God affected by Y on the same
spot X does for every perception, where X imagines the world to be
about himself.
Hume starts from the state of his body, and applies rules
(admittedly through custom and habit) to it, and never builds from
there.
Hegel took Spinoza very seriously, and combined him with the
dialectical method to produce very interesting results. And he did so
to get beyond Kant's impasse.
It's curious that while Spinoza actually had a Buddhistic
conception of detachment from bodily modifications, he embraced a
hard Parmenidean ontology of Being, while Hume had a Buddhist
ontology of subjectivity and accidents, yet was essentially concerned
with breaking through every metaphysical standpoint, and just living
life.
This is one of the lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home
of Slow Reading:
e-mail, mailto:spinoza-ethics-unsubscribe@egroups.com
15 May 2006 15:58:13 -0000
From:
spinoza-ethics@yahoogroups.com Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To:
spinoza-ethics@yahoogroups.com
Subject:
[spinoza-ethics] Digest Number 333
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/VHeqlB/TM--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
There are 3 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Metaphysics
From: "md_hannan_05" md_hannan_05@yahoo.com
2. Re: Metaphysics
From: "Gary Geiser" aahouse10@yahoo.com
3. Re: Metaphysics
From: "md_hannan_05" md_hannan_05@yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message 1
From: "md_hannan_05" md_hannan_05@yahoo.com
Date: Sun May 14, 2006 7:19am(PDT)
Subject: Metaphysics
Gary,
I have not read Husserl. Therefore I thought I should read Husserl
before continuing this discussion.
However, I think Hume's criticism of Spinoza is much relevant here. In
Hume's `A Treatise on Human Nature : Part 1' he severely criticised
Spinoza (and I believe it is all about knowledge). What do you think
about it?
-Tahmidal
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message 2
From: "Gary Geiser" aahouse10@yahoo.com
Date: Mon May 15, 2006 1:02am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Metaphysics
Hi Tahmidal
I took a course on that work by Hume. As I recall, Hume has laws of
association, but he's comparing simple ideas to one another in ways that
are descriptive, like with contrast, contiguity, and so on.
Spinoza is starting from association as metonymy strictly. X subsists
insofar as God is affected by Y, and not insofar as X is about Y, or Y
about X.
Thus, X is envious, not because Y is beautiful, but because the state
of X's body is affected by both himself and Y, and the confusion
produces the impression that Y is beautiful (a purely subjective
construction). X perceives God affected by Y on the same spot X does for every
perception, where X imagines the world to be about himself.
Hume starts from the state of his body, and applies rules (admittedly
through custom and habit) to it, and never builds from there.
Hegel took Spinoza very seriously, and combined him with the
dialectical method to produce very interesting results. And he did so to get
beyond Kant's impasse.
It's curious that while Spinoza actually had a Buddhistic conception
of detachment from bodily modifications, he embraced a hard Parmenidean
ontology of Being, while Hume had a Buddhist ontology of subjectivity
and accidents, yet was essentially concerned with breaking through every
metaphysical standpoint, and just living life.
md_hannan_05 <md_hannan_05@yahoo.com> wrote:
Gary,
I have not read Husserl. Therefore I thought I should read Husserl
before continuing this discussion.
However, I think Hume's criticism of Spinoza is much relevant here. In
Hume's `A Treatise on Human Nature : Part 1' he severely criticised
Spinoza (and I believe it is all about knowledge). What do you think
about it?
-Tahmidal
This is one of the lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home of
Slow Reading: http://www.freelance-academy.org To unsubscribe by
e-mail, mailto:spinoza-ethics-unsubscribe@egroups.com
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "spinoza-ethics" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
spinoza-ethics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo!
Messenger with Voice.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message 3
From: "md_hannan_05" md_hannan_05@yahoo.com
Date: Mon May 15, 2006 5:09am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Metaphysics
Gary,
(I am not much knowledgeable about western philosophic tradition. So,
it is a kind of impertinence that I am joining and giving my opinion.
This is, I would like to say, a kind of realisation of the self of an
eastern human in western way, that is, putting my self in a
historical realisation process with which it is difficult to identify
with.)
I remember that many days ago I read an article by A. N. Whitehead
where Whitehead wrote that Spinoza did not follow the path
contemporary western philosophers took. Instead of subjective
thinking, he followed the objective way of philosophising, like
ancient Greeks.
Now, Gary, the point I want to make (which Whitehead also made) that
in his Treatise of Human Nature, David Hume determinedly
differentiated between `natural philosophy/science' and metaphysics,
in many cases, whenever his discussion seems to go beyond subjective
thinking, he readily stops to continue on and justifies it by saying
that, `but this is not a matter of us, this belongs to the field of
natural philosophy bla bla bla.........'
On the other hand, this is not true about Spinoza's doctrine of
knowing. But well, I have to admit that I have not fully comprehended
Spinoza's doctrine of knowledge. What is knowledge? making a system,
connecting things in a system (by cause and effect, which has been
described by Hume as nothing but a tendency of human mind)? Is this
the way the modes come to know?
-Tahmidal
--- In spinoza-ethics@yahoogroups.com, Gary Geiser
wrote:
Hi Tahmidal
I took a course on that work by Hume. As I recall, Hume has laws
of association, but he's comparing simple ideas to one another in
ways that are descriptive, like with contrast, contiguity, and so on.
Spinoza is starting from association as metonymy strictly. X
subsists insofar as God is affected by Y, and not insofar as X is
about Y, or Y about X.
Thus, X is envious, not because Y is beautiful, but because the
state of X's body is affected by both himself and Y, and the
confusion produces the impression that Y is beautiful (a purely
subjective construction). X perceives God affected by Y on the same
spot X does for every perception, where X imagines the world to be
about himself.
Hume starts from the state of his body, and applies rules
(admittedly through custom and habit) to it, and never builds from
there.
Hegel took Spinoza very seriously, and combined him with the
dialectical method to produce very interesting results. And he did so
to get beyond Kant's impasse.
It's curious that while Spinoza actually had a Buddhistic
conception of detachment from bodily modifications, he embraced a
hard Parmenidean ontology of Being, while Hume had a Buddhist
ontology of subjectivity and accidents, yet was essentially concerned
with breaking through every metaphysical standpoint, and just living
life.
This is one of the lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home
of Slow Reading:
e-mail, mailto:spinoza-ethics-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Spinoza: Tranquility
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 23:18:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: ethel jean saltz
Subject: Re: Digest Number 327
I'm not Gary, of course, but it would be helpful for
the group if you would cite a particular usage by
Spinoza of the word "tranquility" and tell us how you
interpret it. Especially interesting in using more
than English versions to talk to each other and
understand each other.
It's effecting my whole life now, the use of words
that are translated into many languages, like the
Bible. Especially now that I have had my DNA
analyzed by National Geographic and I find there is
such a thing as an Ashkenazi Jew. I am one in my
blood line. Guess that makes me a tranquil racist?
Guess Spinoza would be delighted with all this brand
new knowledge. Guess he would have tranquilly asked
back in 1600, asked his fellow Christian scholars, now
we can test God's DNA, even find out if he's male or
female :) Remember Spinoza was only 400 years ago.
Look at how the universal human knowledge base has
expanded since then. It's really all quantum theory
now.
Remember also, the Baruch/Benedictus means "blessed"
and so this is one more quantum that points to Ego in
Spinoza. When he delights in the word "blessed",
isn't it self-promotion? With his Jewish education,
he learned how to use a word the way the standup
comedians do today.
Friday, December 16, 2005
Monday, December 12, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)