Can someone give me a qrd on the subjectivist versus objectivist interpretations Spinoza's impersonal God?
>>25250850>subjectivist versus objectivistthat's not really a think for Spinoza so it could mean many things, would you like me to list all of your available options?
>>25250856I mean I'm assessing here that Hegel’s version was that God is merely something thats grasped mentally as the mind can express multiple attributes but objectivist interpretations assert that the mind is finite and "God" exists beyond human perception, similar to the doctrine of apophatic theology.
https://youtu.be/UBlOABhRgloI've done 5 minutes of training and am here to tell you that it's not that deep. Substance as subject or object basically means whether god IS thought and extension, or whether thought and extension are merely an outcropping of god, the only substance. it's basically dualism vs neutral monism. Also, if you want 2 boobless hours, you get picked last.
>>25250874I figured as much. Thanks.
>>25250879fwiw, Spinoza also thinks that humans have immortality as an idea in god's mind, so I don't think saying he is entirely outside of our perception is a possibility that would be equivalent to neutral 'anonymous' monism. if you want to say that a self-causing substance cannot be conceived of by the human mind, you should at least compare it to that little bit Bergson has about the image of the universe being part of our brains... or something like that, I haven't really read that section in a long time.
the reason it doesn't matter which is which is basically because either way they can fail you and you never really know what will happen. a self-causing thing can just as easily not be caused. if you take the view that god is the substance, you run the risk of saying a substance may not exist essentially. if you take the view that god is the attributes, you run the risk of saying that essential existence is not only conceivably understood as one thing but rather anything and everything can exist essentially because modes are conceived of through attributes. more fundamentally it may be that increasing perfection (well, power) ends up being the same thing as something which is conceived of through essential existence, but essential existence is not an infinite power because it need be conceived of as something that exists essentially
>>25251164no retard, your piece of the pie is drowning in vanilla ice cream
>>25251164Sounds like you defeated Spinoza with facts and logic there, chap!
>>25250850If you want it in a nutshell: the objectivist reads Spinoza's God as nature wearing the mask of divinity, while the subjectivist reads Spinoza's nature as genuinely divine in a stripped-down but non-trivial sense
>>25250850There’s a mode of approach for approaching this topic which claims that spinoza is making the claim for an objected oriented ontology with god then as a hyper object within the context to that object oriented ontology
