Not sure if this is the right forum, but--maybe we can talk about Spinoza and his concept of God for a while

[vulcanlogician]

But it's not like Spinoza rebuked things like compassion. He thought only love can set us free. Ideally we humans would be free through simple understanding. But, in actuality, we need positive emotions like love and compassion to set us free.

 

[Balthazzar]

The ideal person in Spinoza's view wouldn't feel pity or compassion. And that seems dangerous. But neither would they feel fear or hatred. Once you remove fear and hatred from the equation, things become a lot less dangerous.

Vulcan philosophy 101. I prefer the emotional side of the equation due to life experiences being both greater and worse in severity. Logic and reason isn't isolated to non emotional personality types. It may be more dangerous due to the emotional surging effects derived from our experiences, but isn't this the purpose of life - Experience?

 

[vulcanlogician]

Spinoza thought of positive emotions a lot like Wittgenstein's ladder. You use them to ascend, but then you kick the ladder away afterward, as it is superfluous.

 

[vulcanlogician]

They aren't unnecessary to begin with. They are very much needed. We need love to counteract hate. We need courage to counteract fear. But once we're above the level of fear, courage is no longer needed.

 

[Balthazzar]

Spinoza thought of positive emotions a lot like Wittgenstein's ladder. You use them to ascend, but then you kick the ladder away afterward, as it is superfluous.

Stoic it would appear ... It can be a lot like that, yes. They matter, though. Emotions, I mean - They help create the experience we call life. I'm not an adrenaline junkie or anything, but sometimes the positive side of the emotional equation makes the other negative side worth it. The ride is a lot like a roller coaster.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Stoic it would appear ... It can be a lot like that, yes.

Many philosophers have written papers comparing Spinozism to Stoicism. Spinoza himself can be directly quoted as being highly sympathetic to Stoicism. So it's very astute of you to notice that.

Spinoza was no "denyer" of the positive and negative side of things. He thought love destroys hate. In fact, he thought love is necessary, because it is necessary to destroy hate at a practical level.

 

[vulcanlogician]

But ultimately...

 

[vulcanlogician]

"Odium nunquam potest esse bonum."

--Spinoza

 

[metis]

Did Christ preach they deserve hell or in fact did he preach that they deserve the kingdom of heaven but were choosing hell by not following him?

Probably both.

He was critical of the jews actually, that they discriminated against others (read the story of the good samaritan)

Jesus was a Jew working from a liberal Pharisee paradigm, or so it seems. Whether he saw himself as such is impossible to tell.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, I'm pretty sure that this much has been evidenced. Another way to articulate the thought is God is and we are in God, and being in God we experience God. Through our experiences we know God and belong to the God "head" as a network of the substance that is mind, which is how we know ourselves as "children" of, produced by the substance that is God.

OK, I'm not getting into dark matter, black holes, matter or substance being God. I don't think black holes think anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

"Odium nunquam potest esse bonum."

--Spinoza

I don't know if he ever said that bad things can be bad.

 

[YoursTrue]

The op asked what our thoughts were on Spinoza. I answered accordingly. I have no problem with you standing on conviction in God and Moses, etc. This isn't about proving to you anything, but about how we viewed Spinoza's thoughts about God. There can certainly be logos or logoi utilized that aren't so religiously attuned, even from a guy like me, a dedicated - 30 plus year Christian. The question and honestly, the only reason I ever play both sides of the coin, is due to our differences .... What are they, why, and to help bridge the divides. So, no argument from me, but I could play the role of an Atheist and still be faithful to my understanding of God and truth and honor both faithfully, even with a few expected shortcomings as I go. We all fall short, right?

OK, thank you for that. (1) i don't agree with Spinoza's ideas about God, and (2) if I were in high school or college and heard such way-out ideas, even though I didn't believe in God back then, I'd think Spinoza was off his rocker slightly if not a lot. Meaning "way out there..." with substance of his mind I guess.

 

[YoursTrue]

The ideal person in Spinoza's view wouldn't feel pity or compassion. And that seems dangerous. But neither would they feel fear or hatred. Once you remove fear and hatred from the equation, things become a lot less dangerous.

I won't ask why. I think the viewpoint is ridiculous.

 

[YoursTrue]

But it's not like Spinoza rebuked things like compassion. He thought only love can set us free. Ideally we humans would be free through simple understanding. But, in actuality, we need positive emotions like love and compassion to set us free.

Spinoza was lost. Anyway, I think (but I don't KNOW that for a fact) that he will come back in the resurrection and have a chance to understand more. I hope so anyway. Acts 24:15 - New Living Translation
I have the same hope in God that these men have, that he will raise both the righteous and the unrighteous.

 

[Balthazzar]

OK, I'm not getting into dark matter, black holes, matter or substance being God. I don't think black holes think anyway.

I don't think my nostrils think, but they are part of me, and I do have the ability to think.

 

[Balthazzar]

OK, thank you for that. (1) i don't agree with Spinoza's ideas about God, and (2) if I were in high school or college and heard such way-out ideas, even though I didn't believe in God back then, I'd think Spinoza was off his rocker slightly if not a lot. Meaning "way out there..." with substance of his mind I guess.

I guess I find it to be the more logical position and most likely also. The universe gave birth to consciousness which gave birth to intelligence, which motivates an interest in understanding how it all works. The substance of the universe is everything and we are made from that substance. So, if way out there implies reaching across the universal abyss I'll agree, being that the universe would be the substance of God in Spinoza's view.

 

[metis]

I'd think Spinoza was off his rocker slightly if not a lot. Meaning "way out there..." with substance of his mind I guess.

So, was Einstein also "off his rocker" when he said he believed in "Spinoza's God"?

 

[YoursTrue]

So, was Einstein also "off his rocker" when he said he believed in "Spinoza's God"?

Yup.

 

[YoursTrue]

I guess I find it to be the more logical position and most likely also. The universe gave birth to consciousness which gave birth to intelligence, which motivates an interest in understanding how it all works. The substance of the universe is everything and we are made from that substance. So, if way out there implies reaching across the universal abyss I'll agree, being that the universe would be the substance of God in Spinoza's view.

Your analogy is like nostrils -- bye for now

 

[Spice]

Possibly, I don't know. I haven't reached that point, and I'm not sure if I truly want to, due to the ramifications of the potential fall involved in a stance like that one. I will agree that they are better avoided, just not always possible.

Getting there is part of the evolutionary journey, IMO. I know I've improved, but a loonngggg way to go.