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

[vulcanlogician]

Later in his life, he moved away from anything much resembling monotheism of any type. In modern terms we'd perhaps call him a pantheist.

Fun fact: The first recorded use of the word "pantheism" was used to describe "Spinozism." The word didn't exist until some guy made it up as a word to describe Spinoza's philosophy.

Funny when you think about it, since, to this day, there is debate about whether Spinoza was really a pantheist... or just an atheist. Lol.

 

[YoursTrue]

Fun fact: The first recorded use of the word "pantheism" was used to describe "Spinozism." The word didn't exist until some guy made it up as a word to describe Spinoza's philosophy.

Funny when you think about it, since, to this day, there is debate about whether Spinoza was really a pantheist... or just an atheist. Lol.

That is funny and interesting. No wonder I couldn't figure out what he was talking about. Essence. Sure...lol...Poor thing, that's what I think.

 

[vulcanlogician]

No wonder I couldn't figure out what he was talking about. Essence. Sure...lol...Poor thing, that's what I think.

Excellent point.

If only Spinoza had someone wise like you around to set him straight!

 

[YoursTrue]

Excellent point.

If only Spinoza had someone wise like you around to set him straight

lol, I don't think so. Going back some years, I can only say some of my close associates were "way out." And there was no trying to understand them. But some actually believed them. That was before I understood more about the Bible anyway, but they were more strung out than I was, I think. Ah well.

 

[vulcanlogician]

lol, I don't think so. Going back some years, I can only say some of my close associates were "way out." And there was no trying to understand them. But some actually believed them. That was before I understood more about the Bible anyway, but they were more strung out than I was, I think. Ah well.

Could you elaborate? What do you mean by "way out"? Leaving aside the Bible for a moment (we can certainly get into the Bible later if you'd like), but (imo) something either IS true or it ISN'T true.

If a misguided person thinks something is true, and then he may convince others that it's true... I'd call that inaccuracy or mistakenness on his part. But I wouldn't call it dishonesty.

If I wake up super late, and it's dark out. And I look at my (analog) clock and assume it's 5:30 AM (instead of 5:30 PM --which it actually is-- that doesn't make me a liar if I tell my roommate that it is 5:30 AM. I genuinely think that's what time it is, so far as I can tell. I genuinely think that it's 5:30 AM. Am I lying?

Based on the evidence, it was a reasonable, honest (although incorrect) conclusion. That fact abot human nature makes me much softer concerning religious folk.

Did you ever end up reading Spinoza's preamble in his theological-political tract. It takes little more than five minutes, my guy. And, subject of the thread in mind, I wish you would. Because I'd much rather hear (specifically) why you disagree with Spinoza. Your disagreement with me and others on the forum would be a more meaty conversation if you took 5 minutes out of your life and read them.

 

[YoursTrue]

Could you elaborate? What do you mean by "way out"? Leaving aside the Bible for a moment (we can certainly get into the Bible later if you'd like), but (imo) something either IS true or it ISN'T true.

If a misguided person thinks something is true, and then he may convince others that it's true... I'd call that inaccuracy or mistakenness on his part. But I wouldn't call it dishonesty.

If I wake up super late, and it's dark out. And I look at my (analog) clock and assume it's 5:30 AM (instead of 5:30 PM --which it actually is-- that doesn't make me a liar if I tell my roommate that it is 5:30 AM. I genuinely think that's what time it is, so far as I can tell. I genuinely think that it's 5:30 AM.

Based on the evidence, it was a reasonable, honest (although incorrect) conclusion. That fact abot human nature makes me much softer concerning religious folk.

Did you ever end up reading Spinoza's preamble in his theological-political tract. It takes little more than five minutes, my guy. And, subject of the thread in mind, I wish you would. Because I'd much rather hear (specifically) why you disagree with Spinoza. Your disagreement with me and others on the forum would be a more meaty conversation if you took 5 minutes out of your life and read them.

It's hard for me to describe on the internet about my friend. He apparently died of a drug overdose.
But suffice it to say that my friend began a new religion which was rooted in fantastical imaginings, beyond my ken. Even though I was sympathetic with him (did not really know his teachings, but knew he was in another realm of thinking), and at the time I did not know the Bible or God. I'll get back to some of the writings I read of Spinoza. I returned one of the books to the library, but will look at the preamble ASAP.

 

[YoursTrue]

Could you elaborate? What do you mean by "way out"? Leaving aside the Bible for a moment (we can certainly get into the Bible later if you'd like), but (imo) something either IS true or it ISN'T true.

If a misguided person thinks something is true, and then he may convince others that it's true... I'd call that inaccuracy or mistakenness on his part. But I wouldn't call it dishonesty.

If I wake up super late, and it's dark out. And I look at my (analog) clock and assume it's 5:30 AM (instead of 5:30 PM --which it actually is-- that doesn't make me a liar if I tell my roommate that it is 5:30 AM. I genuinely think that's what time it is, so far as I can tell. I genuinely think that it's 5:30 AM. Am I lying?

Based on the evidence, it was a reasonable, honest (although incorrect) conclusion. That fact abot human nature makes me much softer concerning religious folk.

Did you ever end up reading Spinoza's preamble in his theological-political tract. It takes little more than five minutes, my guy. And, subject of the thread in mind, I wish you would. Because I'd much rather hear (specifically) why you disagree with Spinoza. Your disagreement with me and others on the forum would be a more meaty conversation if you took 5 minutes out of your life and read them.

P.S. Just to let you know, I'm a gal.

 

[YoursTrue]

Excellent point.
If only Spinoza had someone wise like you around to set him straight!

I changed my mind. But then at the time the community he was born into was not an easy one to buck against if you were part of that community.

 

[vulcanlogician]

P.S. Just to let you know, I'm a gal.

Oops.

I made assumptions calling you "my guy." Sorry.

But I will (from time to time, even now knowing you're a woman) call you "man." That's just part of my hippie nature.

I say "Hey man [this or that]," even to my personal friends who are obviously women. I do that face-to-face.

"My guy" is a weird thing to hear from me in the first place. Dunno why I said it. It probably had more to do with my flow of prose than me trying to gender you.

***

If we talk long enough though, I will (eventually) say "man" though... as in "Hey man, I think you got x right/wrong." I hope you can handle that. I promise you I'll never intentionally do it to irritate you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Fun fact: The first recorded use of the word "pantheism" was used to describe "Spinozism." The word didn't exist until some guy made it up as a word to describe Spinoza's philosophy.

Funny when you think about it, since, to this day, there is debate about whether Spinoza was really a pantheist... or just an atheist. Lol.

That is funny and interesting. No w

Oops.

I made assumptions calling you "my guy." Sorry.

But I will (from time to time, even now knowing you're a woman) call you "man." That's just part of my hippie nature.

I say "Hey man [this or that]," even to my personal friends who are obviously women. I do that face-to-face.

"My guy" is a weird thing to hear from me in the first place. Dunno why I said it. It probably had more to do with my flow of prose than me trying to gender you.

***

If we talk long enough though, I will (eventually) say "man" though... as in "Hey man, I think you got x right/wrong." I hope you can handle that. I promise you I'll never intentionally do it to irritate you.

I used to say that (man, that was something) but stopped in general. Now that I know it's ok but a bit offsetting insofar as I am concerned. Otoh, I'm sure I say things that can be jarring to others...

 

[vulcanlogician]

That is funny and interesting. No w

Unfinished thought? What was your complete thought?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Fun fact: The first recorded use of the word "pantheism" was used to describe "Spinozism." The word didn't exist until some guy made it up as a word to describe Spinoza's philosophy.

Funny when you think about it, since, to this day, there is debate about whether Spinoza was really a pantheist... or just an atheist. Lol.

Reminds me of some of the debates around whether Bakunin was an anarchist...lol

 

[vulcanlogician]

I love me some Bakunin.

I'm not familiar with the arguments that he is somehow not an anarchist. And, if these arguments hold water... what is he then?

 

[YoursTrue]

Fun fact: The first recorded use of the word "pantheism" was used to describe "Spinozism." The word didn't exist until some guy made it up as a word to describe Spinoza's philosophy.

Funny when you think about it, since, to this day, there is debate about whether Spinoza was really a pantheist... or just an atheist. Lol.

That is funny and interesting. No w

Oops.

I made assumptions calling you "my guy." Sorry.

But I will (from time to time, even now knowing you're a woman) call you "man." That's just part of my hippie nature.

I say "Hey man [this or that]," even to my personal friends who are obviously women. I do that face-to-face.

"My guy" is a weird thing to hear from me in the first place. Dunno why I said it. It probably had more to do with my flow of prose than me trying to gender you.

***

If we talk long enough though, I will (eventually) say "man" though... as in "Hey man, I think you got x right/wrong." I hope you can handle that. I promise you I'll never intentionally do it to irritate you.

I used to say that (man, that was something) but stopped in general. Now that I know it's ok but a bit offsetting insofar as I am concerned. Otoh, I'm sure I say things that can be jarring to others

Unfinished thought? What was your complete thought?

Uh oh... can't remember.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I used to say that (man, that was something) but stopped in general. Now that I know it's ok but a bit offsetting insofar as I am concerned.

I'll make an effort to not call you "man" then. I don't wanna offset you. I would ask for your forgiveness if I say it in the heat of the moment. But I''ll try my best not to do it intentionally.

 

[metis]

Fun fact: The first recorded use of the word "pantheism" was used to describe "Spinozism." The word didn't exist until some guy made it up as a word to describe Spinoza's philosophy.

Funny when you think about it, since, to this day, there is debate about whether Spinoza was really a pantheist... or just an atheist. Lol.

Based on what I've read plus Einstein's frequent statement of his believing in "Spinoza's God", I'm going with the greater likelihood, imo, with the former.