Spinoza’s Metaphysics & Its Relevance For Science Today

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Philosophy Now
Posts: 1204
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

Spinoza’s Metaphysics & Its Relevance For Science Today

Post by Philosophy Now »

Zoran Vukadinovic thinks Spinoza could help us with our enquiries.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/117/Spinozas_Metaphysics_and_Its_Relevance_For_Science_Today
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Spinoza’s Metaphysics & Its Relevance For Science Today

Post by seeds »

Philosophy Now wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:33 pm Zoran Vukadinovic thinks Spinoza could help us with our enquiries.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/117/Sp ... ence_Today
From the article:
Zoran Vukadinovic wrote: "...This leads to Spinoza’s definition of substance as “that which is in itself and is conceived through itself” (Ethics Part 1, Definition 3). Put another way, substance is that part or aspect of nature that is self-creating (Spinoza and Spinozism, Stuart Hampshire, 2005). To use Spinoza’s terminology, substance is active nature, or Natura naturans (‘the nurturing nature’, or perhaps, ‘nature naturing’) – which he thus equates with God..."
Although I agree with Spinoza that all of reality is founded upon a singular substance, he nevertheless makes the same mistake that the materialists make in that he imparts far too much intelligence and self-determination to the mindless (unconscious) "substance" of which he speaks.

In other words, instead of him saying "Natura naturans" (or "nature naturing"), he might as well be saying "Chance chancing."

The point is that to equate the "Chance chancing" processes of a blind and mindless "substance" with the word "God" is a misleading use of a term that not only symbolizes something that is alive and self-aware, but also a something that does not create order via chance.
_______
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Spinoza’s Metaphysics & Its Relevance For Science Today

Post by owl of Minerva »

Spinoza's philosophy is opposite to the view of God as being beyond quality and thought. if God is omnipresent and infinite there cannot be anything that is outside him, in that sense it is accurate. Still spirit and nature could be perceived as two modes of one being. That there are three forces which have different modes and functions does not mean that they are separate things, rather than different manifestations of the one thing from one source. Spinoza's god is as determined as is the mathematical laws of nature and cannot be omnipotent as he is bound to his own creation for infinity. As there was a big bang there could be a big crunch. There are some ideas in his philosophy that are worthwhile that may be helpful to science. Most religions view reality as a fall from abundance to scarcity with a desire to regain the former status. Science started from a place of scarcity and hopes to escape from it to a self-created abundance and freedom from the dualities of nature which can be benevolent or malevolent in equal measure, whether random or mathematically timed according to a pattern. If science sees nature as an extension that is operated by individuality, intelligence, and mind, though unconscious as not self-aware and therefore worthy of respect it would be a good thing. The projection booth from which it is viewed by physics will likely determine whether it is real or a projection on the screen of space time from super space.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Spinoza’s Metaphysics & Its Relevance For Science Today

Post by seeds »

owl of Minerva wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 8:30 pm Spinoza's philosophy is opposite to the view of God as being beyond quality and thought. if God is omnipresent and infinite there cannot be anything that is outside him, in that sense it is accurate.
According to Dictionary.com (and common sense), the generally accepted definition of the word "God" is as follows:
Dictionary.com wrote: God
noun
1. (in monotheistic religions) the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
...which implies that God is a living, self-aware Entity with a "personal" identity.

And the point is that Spinoza's depiction of the unfathomable order of the universe as simply being the results of "nature naturing,"...

(which, again, is just another way of saying "chance chancing")

...is far too impersonal of a process, and is far too close to hardcore materialism (atheism) to be given the title of "God" (as per the provided definition).
owl of Minerva wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 8:30 pm Still spirit and nature could be perceived as two modes of one being. That there are three forces which have different modes and functions does not mean that they are separate things, rather than different manifestations of the one thing from one source.
Agreed.

However, the question is, is this "one being," this "one thing," this "one source" something that is conscious and in possession of a self-aware and personal identity?

...Or...

Is it just some kind of omnipresent and infinite "substance" that somehow manages to get things done through the blind and mindless processes of "chance chancing"?

Spinoza seems to assume the latter, and thus has no business naming it something that implies sentience and personhood.
_______
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Spinoza’s Metaphysics & Its Relevance For Science Today

Post by owl of Minerva »

Seeds wrote:

"However, the question is, is this "one being," this "one thing," this "one source" something that is conscious and in possession of a self-aware and personal identity?
...Or...
Is it just some kind of omnipresent and infinite "substance" that somehow manages to get things done through the blind and mindless processes of "chance chancing"?
Spinoza seems to assume the latter, and thus has no business naming it something that implies sentience and personhood. "
_______

If what Spinoza meant by substance was omnipresent consciousness extended into the material and physical world, he was not being reductive. He was being reductive if he saw it otherwise. He could not have assumed that the material or physical substance caused god and not vice versa; as materialists believe matter caused intelligence. If he saw god as spirit and law in nature, it is superior to the deist view that the deity set the world in motion, assigned it mathematical laws and then was done with it. Although theologians believe god is omnipresent and infinite they do not see him as directly present but remotely related to his creation; pantheism is not in their lexicon. If what is extended, not just in man but also in nature is perceived to have individuality, intelligence, and mind it is the opposite of reductive; eternity in a grain of sand. Spinoza was writing at a time when religion was being cynically co-opted by dubious rulers to gain power over the masses. As may happen today as well. His views dovetails to some extent with physics as mentioned in the article. Unfortunately science is likely to jettison the god part of it and co-opt the rest to support their, for the most part, reductive view of reality. When it comes to either/or, whether in relation to god or anything else, it is best to sum the whole equation and think both: god as transcendent and immanent.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Spinoza’s Metaphysics & Its Relevance For Science Today

Post by seeds »

owl of Minerva wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:35 pm If what Spinoza meant by substance was omnipresent consciousness extended into the material and physical world, he was not being reductive. He was being reductive if he saw it otherwise.
Please explain what the term "omnipresent consciousness" means?
owl of Minerva wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:35 pm If he saw god as spirit and law in nature, it is superior to the deist view that the deity set the world in motion, assigned it mathematical laws and then was done with it.
The fact that Spinoza referred to the "spirit and law in nature" as being "god" was probably just him giving his own unique form of chance-based materialism a spiritual sounding air (or cover) in order to avoid coming-off as an atheist to his contemporaries (or to those "dubious rulers" you mentioned).

Furthermore, I say no, Spinoza's take on reality would not be superior to deism, for deism at least implies the existence of something living and intelligent being responsible for the order of the universe.  And that would be in stark contrast to the absurd notion that the complex structures of the universe are simply the result of the blind and mindless processes of chance (as is implied in Spinoza's theory).
owl of Minerva wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:35 pm Although theologians believe god is omnipresent and infinite they do not see him as directly present but remotely related to his creation; pantheism is not in their lexicon.
Right. And that's because pantheism implies a lack of something living and intelligent (something with a "personal" identity) being in control of creation. So no surprise there.
owl of Minerva wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:35 pm Spinoza was writing at a time when religion was being cynically co-opted by dubious rulers to gain power over the masses. As may happen today as well. His views dovetails to some extent with physics as mentioned in the article. Unfortunately science is likely to jettison the god part of it and co-opt the rest to support their, for the most part, reductive view of reality.
I think that Spinoza's assumption that the unthinkable order of the universe is simply the result of "nature naturing," fits quite well with the modern scientific view of things.

Furthermore, you cannot "jettison" something that isn't actually there in the first place (at least not in any real and existent form).  In other words, the "god part" of Spinoza's theory is nothing more than smoke and mirrors in order to obscure the fact that he is promoting a view that (at its core) is atheistic.
owl of Minerva wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:35 pm When it comes to either/or, whether in relation to god or anything else, it is best to sum the whole equation and think both: god as transcendent and immanent.
Describe for me the ontological features of the "transcendent god" in Spinoza's theory and show me in what way it is any different from the materialist's god called "Chance."
_______
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Spinoza’s Metaphysics & Its Relevance For Science Today

Post by owl of Minerva »

Response to Seeds:

I do not have a dogmatic view in relation to Spinoza's philosophy, either pro or con, I just try to understand it.

By "omnipresent consciousness" was meant Spinoza's view that an infinite thinking substance was both thought and extension united in one substance called God, given that definition it would be omnipresent (everywhere present).

All reports of Spinoza are of him being sincere, believing in and living his philosophy. It may be a misjudgement to think he faked his view of God to give a false impression or to curry favor. The reports on his life do not bear that out

Rather than chance he believed in determinism; what happens to us happens necessarily and given that the universe is God, we can therefore be confident that whatever happens to us happens for a reason.

In the nineteenth century Christian philosophers would try to overcome what they called "alienation" between people and the alienating conception of a transcendent God. Mystics have also claimed such a vision. The transcendent God was not always viewed as "personal" and that was perceived as a problem.

Spinoza's philosophy is a good fit for physics anyway. The physicist looking back to a point of origin in space may be surprised that his observation affecting the wave function makes him feel as if he, himself, was the point of origin. A Janus that could see both ways might see the outwards three dimensions as half of a circle. That would leave both Spinoza and the physicist with a limited view of reality.

It is strange to consider someone an atheist who had such a strong belief in a God, perceived as both thought and extension encompassing the whole universe; a cosmic God. Spinoza may not have seen the whole, but who does?

That it is best to think both rather than either/or in relation to transcendent and immanent is my opinion. I did not attribute a belief in transcendence to Spinoza.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Spinoza’s Metaphysics & Its Relevance For Science Today

Post by seeds »

owl of Minerva wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:35 am I do not have a dogmatic view in relation to Spinoza's philosophy, either pro or con, I just try to understand it.
Fair enough. But let's both try to understand it for what it really is. And what it really is (at its core) is an atheistic/nihilistic vision of reality that implies that we humans have no ultimate and eternal purpose as individuals (which may indeed be true).
owl of Minerva wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:35 am By "omnipresent consciousness" was meant Spinoza's view that an infinite thinking substance was both thought and extension united in one substance called God, given that definition it would be omnipresent (everywhere present).
You can take the term "omnipresent consciousness" and rename it an "infinite thinking substance," however, it still does not solve the mystery of what aspect of this so-called "infinite thinking substance" took hold of the fabric of reality...

(i.e., took hold of its very own essence, or that "extension" you mentioned)

...and shaped it into the fantastic order of the universe?

I shall not beat this poor horse much longer, but the point I am trying to make is further highlighted in the following quote from Wiki (bolding mine):
Wiki wrote: Spinoza was considered to be an atheist because he used the word "God" [Deus] to signify a concept that was different from that of traditional Judeo–Christian monotheism. "Spinoza expressly denies personality and consciousness to God; he has neither intelligence, feeling, nor will; he does not act according to purpose, but everything follows necessarily from his nature, according to law...."
And my point is that it is no more logical or appropriate for Spinoza to call his oneness substance "God," than it is for him to be using the pronouns "he" or "his" when referring to something that he believes has no personality, or consciousness, or intelligence, or feeling, or will.
_______
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Spinoza’s Metaphysics & Its Relevance For Science Today

Post by owl of Minerva »

Response to Seeds:

It is true that Spinoza's philosophy, in addition to what it was for Spinoza, is open to interpretation, based on how it perceived; by a person's worldview, and by semantic interpretations.

For Spinoza the infinite thinking substance did not take hold of the fabric of reality. In its two modes of thought and extension it was the fabric of reality.

What Wiki wrote in his interpretation overlooks the fact that an infinite thinking substance that does not have intelligence, feeling, will, or purpose is not easy to imagine. In Spinoza's view It all follows from God's nature according to law, with the extension being part of the beneficence.

However, a triad God is how Hindus and Christians interpret the Godhead with the Father God being transcendent and absolute, beyond time, space, and motion. The other two modes of the triad play a role in the creation. As a Chinese philosopher said: "nothing happens without three" and maybe he was right.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Spinoza’s Metaphysics & Its Relevance For Science Today

Post by seeds »

owl of Minerva wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 12:24 am For Spinoza the infinite thinking substance did not take hold of the fabric of reality. In its two modes of thought and extension it was the fabric of reality.
Yes, and that is precisely what I was referencing in the parenthetical clarification I included in the comment you are responding to:
seeds wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:45 pm You can take the term "omnipresent consciousness" and rename it an "infinite thinking substance," however, it still does not solve the mystery of what aspect of this so-called "infinite thinking substance" took hold of the fabric of reality...

(i.e., took hold of its very own essence, or that "extension" you mentioned)

...and shaped it into the fantastic order of the universe?
It may be subtle, but I am indeed pointing out that the "two modes" you are speaking of are indeed two aspects of the same fundamental (oneness) substance.
owl of Minerva wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 12:24 am What Wiki wrote in his interpretation overlooks the fact that an infinite thinking substance that does not have intelligence, feeling, will, or purpose is not easy to imagine.
I disagree with your assertion of Spinoza's oneness substance not being easy to imagine.

All you have to do is picture it as being a sort of infinitely malleable "cosmic clay," so to speak, that is capable of becoming anything "real" imaginable.

However, the problem is that clay requires an intention oriented agent to give it form. And that's what's missing from Spinoza's philosophy.
owl of Minerva wrote: Sat May 01, 2021 12:24 am However, a triad God is how Hindus and Christians interpret the Godhead with the Father God being transcendent and absolute, beyond time, space, and motion. The other two modes of the triad play a role in the creation. As a Chinese philosopher said: "nothing happens without three" and maybe he was right.
Look, it is difficult enough to reconcile the idea of Spinoza's "oneness substance" as being comprised of the two features (or two "modes") that you call "thought" and "extension."

So the fact that you are now tossing in a "triad" into the mix is not helping your argument.
_______
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Spinoza’s Metaphysics & Its Relevance For Science Today

Post by owl of Minerva »

Response to Seeds:

You miss the point that for Spinoza the organizing principle was God,

I was not in agreement with Wiki's comment on the grounds that a thinking substance cannot be devoid of the qualities we associate with a thinking substance.

Your difficulty in reconciling a oneness substance with the two modes of thought and extension, which is commonly agreed have been reconciled by Spinoza, is because you do not acknowledge what he saw as the organizing principle which reconciled them into one substance.

I introduced the Godhead as triad in other religions to indicate that the modes they see in creation are reconciled in their one God.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Spinoza’s Metaphysics & Its Relevance For Science Today

Post by seeds »

owl of Minerva wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 12:57 am You miss the point that for Spinoza the organizing principle was God,
I'm not missing any such point. I am merely pointing out that for Spinoza to call his oneness substance "God" is the usurping of a word that to many (if not most) humans denotes something with sentience, intelligence, and a "personal" identity.

Furthermore, do you actually think that by using such a vague and ambiguous term as "organizing principle," that you (or Spinoza) are not obliged to explain how such a "principle" came into existence?
owl of Minerva wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 12:57 am I was not in agreement with Wiki's comment on the grounds that a thinking substance cannot be devoid of the qualities we associate with a thinking substance.
Well, I don't know about you, but one of the most essential qualities that I personally associate with a so-called "thinking substance" is, first and foremost, the existence of a "THINKER."

With that in mind, please describe for me exactly how a thinkerless thinking substance thinks?

And don't you dare allude to some sort of "organizing principle" whose origin has not been logically accounted for.
_______
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Spinoza’s Metaphysics & Its Relevance For Science Today

Post by owl of Minerva »

Response to Seeds:

We are at cross purposes here and could go on forever so I will give you a symbolic picture and leave it at that.

Think of a reservoir of water without motion that Exists, from it flows a waterfall; think subtle energies and forces (metaphysics/ mind). This flows further on (or out) and becomes a heavier waterfall of denser and grosses energies (physical/matter). Descartes saw these two waterfalls (or modes) as dual; as separate entities or things; as different substances. Spinoza saw them as one substance (elements, energy, forces) manifesting in two different modes.

As Hindus and Christians see two modes in the manifested; Intelligence: (mind,intellect) and physical: (sub-aromatic; atomic; etc.) moved by Cosmic motion (Om, or Holy Spirit) so Spinoza saw these two modes as essentially one substance,infinite and self-sufficient in its essence and he called it God. This is what he saw and understood. He did not see the reservoir or consider what was the source of these subtle and gross forces. He wrote about what he understood and did not explore further.

What would be necessary to him, as a philosopher and mathematician, to experience a transcendent God, how could he accomplish that? He did not write about what he did not know, understand or experience which was honest.

Go back to the Ethics and read it again or read it twice. I am moving on to other matters of interest. Hope to see you there.
Post Reply