Prop 1 - Substance is by nature prior to its modificationsSubstance is prior to modificications (modes), this makes both logical and ontological sense, in that substance is that which is in in itself and is conceived through itself, in that it is a self sufficient, self caused entity that cannot be contingent upon anything external. Spinoza presents his proof through definitions 3 and 5 as it logically follows, however here I will give more context. This establishes substance as the ontological foundation of reality in that God is not the divine creator of the world, but rather that god is the world, within all that exists. In such substance which is infinite, eternal and indivisible. This rejects the classic view of god (maybe why he got kicked out of the jewish church) that god sits apart from the world. In this modes, or determinations of substance, are not substances in themselves but exist within the substance, in such they are dependent on its existence. In link to Axiom 1, “Everything that is, is either in itself or in another.” (pls read the other writing on axioms for clarification) which reaffirms the ontological priority of substance over its modes, modes are in substance but substance is not in any mode. This reflects Spinoza's claim that all that exists as finite expressions of the infinite attributes of god, this undermines the notion of a transcendent deity, in that Spinoza's god is positioned as necessary to the constitution of all being.
>>24951508How does it feel to be a human skinwalker?
>>24951508Very wrong. Read Spinoza
>>24951517There is literally nothing wrong in what OP presented.>>24951508Yes, I think this is very straightforwardly reasonable from what Spinoza posits regarding substance, God and his modes. I just think there are gaps in what it means from finite modes being derived from infinite modes and the chain of causation of both and between both being indeterminate/infinite. Now, regarding Spinoza's God, I beileve there is no conception of God deserving more hatred than his and I don't mean in any logical, scientific sense (perhaps this is debatable as it reminds me of Advaita Vendata's conception, although it is more naturalized and would be less inconsistent). If Spinoza's God is true, Marquis de Sade is our only true Christ.
>>24951508>i love spinoza even tho im a materialist!!Where lies the contradiction, exactly? Spinoza was a crypto-nihilist atheist jew.
>>24952143i say i love spinoza even tho im a materialist bc he is my fave philosopher even tho he is a rationalist :3 and even tho rationalism and
>>24952143Spinoza was very critical of Francis Bacon for his philosophy, you don't know what you're talking about. /pol/ has mindbroken you
'tard moment
>>24952519You’ll never be a woman
>>24951508It's a standard mystic ontology you'd find in buddhism, advaita, neo-plationism, etc. The substance is what your experience is made of right now, and it twists and moves to represent forms which you'd call the universe and yourself. If you want to stick with materialism you'd call it the quantum field and stop there, the religions would say the field is sequent to God.
Spinoza posits God as the first cause. If you keep reading he makes it clear he conceives of God as an entity with free will but who always acts in accord with his nature, as distinguished from humans who acts from external causation.
>>24952519>even tho im a materialist bc he is my fave philosopher even tho he is a rationalist :3Spinozism is the most logical conclusion of rationalism.>>24952683Read Jacobi's thorough refutation of Spinoza.
>>24953212So… a basic deist like all the other deists? The time and place he lived in is only reason he’s revolutionary
>>24953212>>24953212>he makes it clear he conceives of God as an entity with free will>but who always acts in accord with his natureWord games. Spinoza may as well be saying here that his God is intelligent, but is not in possession of his own will.
>>24953246He was a continuation and correction of Descartes. Most of what endures in him is the implications of his deism in terms of his stoicism and ethics and his idea of every organism being driven by the will to power (conatus), and that this will is more satisfied by the unity of humanity into a common organism
>>24953248Free will here means not subject to external causation. And Spinoza reminds us that his position is completely consistent with Christian theology which says God's intellect, nature and will are identical
>>24953250I understand perfectly what he means and the cult around him on this board confuses me to no end. Did you all just discover deism yesterday?
>>24953258If you think Spinoza's ethics is just an argument for deism then you clearly haven't read it. It's called ethics because it is, primarily, about ethics. Spinoza just opens with God as a deconstruction of Christian theology in order to pave the way for the rest. Spinoza is fundamentally and consciously a continuation of Descartes's work but heavily influenced by Judaism and especially Calvinism, or at least couched in Calvinist ideas
>>24953268It's also nothing at all like conventional design, and arguably isn't deism as all, since deism is normally defined as a creator who is hands-free after the creation, leaving humans to their will without intervening. Whereas Spinoza identifies creation with sustaining, according to his letters, as the same thing. God for Spinoza is the ultimate agent of every act. Not just creation
>>24953268Yeah I noticed the touches of Descartes in ethics when I read it a few months ago. God as a force. God as unable to contradict himself because he is merely pure Being.
>>24953277It isn't just touched of Descartes, Spinoza's epistemology is from Descartes and he uses the same criteria of truth for basic ideas. Therefore he is fundamentally a rationalist which is why he took so much issue with Bacon whom he claimed didn't prove but only asserted
>>24953252>Free will here means not subject to external causation. Free will is not defined by causa sui, its defined by voluntary intention. If Spinoza's God is no separate to that of a mechanistic necessity--and it cannot be anything else, because by God's "infinite nature" it is so, then truthfully it cannot be stated with any sort of conviction that God is in possession of its own will. No matter which way you put it, Spinozism leads to an endless downstream of mechanism.>And Spinoza reminds us that his position is completely consistent with Christian theology which says God's intellect, nature and will are identicalCalvinism is not Christianity.
>>24953300Catholicism says the same thing
>>24953305What makes you think I'm a Catholic either?
>>24953306Going to say Catholics aren't Christians either?Does God ever act contrary to his will? And does God ever conceptualize contrary to his will? Spinoza actually proves his position on his own of course
>>24953307>Going to say Catholics aren't Christians either?Yes. Most of them are at least.>Does God ever act contrary to his will? And does God ever conceptualize contrary to his will?Of course not, but that doesn't vindicate Spinoza's deist clockmaker God. For one thing, we're debating if Spinoza God carries an autonomous will, which I do not believe to be the case.
>>24951515 quite nice <33
>>24953319But you believe God's will is distinct from his nature?
>>24953323His nature is that of a perfect sovereign, not a crassly immanent demiurge.
>>24953319Axiom III articulates Spinoza's doctrine of absolute causal necessitarianism (you may have heard that spinoza negates free will as necessity). From a determined cause, an effect follows not arbitrarily but ex necessitate—of logical and ontological necessity. It follows that without cause, no effect can be even conceived as possible (imagine a ball falling of a table without anything acting upon it, including things like gravity or a spectral hand). In such this axiom eliminates indeterminacy and dissolves the metaphysical space in which traditional views of freewill act, this includes chance and brute spontaneity. This asserts empirical regularity, but deep structural identity between the order of causes and subsequently the order of effects. In such all events are born from necessity with the ultimate ground lying within the nature of god or nature (deus sive natura) It is important to note god is also bound by necessity! As this axiom does not only apply to finite things, Spinoza denies that God possesses a freedom of indifference, a power of choosing between alternatives, or any form of volitional arbitrariness. In acting otherwise would be to imagine a rupture between God’s essence and God’s action. God is only free if considered that as a substance he is the cause of his own necessity. Epistemologically, this axiom gives rational inquiry its warrant: knowledge of causes yields certainty because the relation between cause and effect is internally determined rather than externally imposed (note I am very underqualified in any kind of epistemology, probably the same as a waterbottle may be). <3
>>24953329And do you think his will is mutable, or immutable?
>>24953333>In such all events are born from necessity with the ultimate ground lying within the nature of god or nature (deus sive natura) It is important to note god is also bound by necessity!Yes, his God is mere mechanism and non-differentiated uniformity. I thought we went over this.>>24953336Immutable. I know exactly what it is you're trying to do here, by the way, but Spinoza's God is really nothing like the Christian God (who is defined by his transcendental nature instead of brute emergence as a result of exhausting all potentialities) at all. If anything, this poster who is far more clever than me >>24951542 made the astute observation that de Sade is closer to a Christ-like figure in Spinoza's framework, and Christ himself the Anti-Christ.
>>24953373But not really. Sade is a social free radical. Anyone with even a cursory examination of the actual ethics in Ethics would see why that is incorrect. But the issue is even though Spinoza wrote a treatise with the utmost rigour to demonstrate his position and its logical conclusions, it is easier for his opponents to ignore his arguments and just posit ridiculousness.
>>24953388>Anyone with even a cursory examination of the actual ethics in Ethics would see why that is incorrect.It doesn't matter because Spinoza does not answer the problem of evil. >But the issue is even though Spinoza wrote a treatise with the utmost rigour to demonstrate his position and its logical conclusions, it is easier for his opponents to ignore his arguments and just posit ridiculousness.This sterile rationalist anti-humanism is exactly why Spinoza is and will remain a relic of the enlightenment.
>>24953398Spinoza addresses the problem of evil at length, and also clarifies it in his letters
>>24953388The universal laws of reason which should rule society and individuals are not separated from the universal laws of nature, you should know that this was the conception of 18th century French Enlightenment.
>>24953593That's not true for Spinoza. The laws of nature for him are things like gravity, the world *must* abide by them. The laws of reason however are normative and peculiar to many because he has the faculty of reason
>>24953633Peculiar to man*
