It comes down to usefulness to society in the States. We don't like people hanging around their whole life. If they can't work that's one thing, but if they just don't want to be productive in some when then ye we hate them

Considering the questions of this thread as a whole, I was wondering about how here is the USA we medicate people forcibly if they are acting outside social norms and say that they hear voices. Perhaps the sole criteria of whether they are normal or not is whether they contribute to society. What do you think?

Ok. It's a free forum. I just don't usually see someone asking the same question so many times on this forum. Anyway I'll go do something else, good luck

I mean admit that you will never understand Spinoza. I mean, all the relevant quotes are given above. Why not switch to Aristotle? Do you have an obsession?

Why can't you just admit you can't understand this stuff?

We have bodies (attribute of extension) and thoughts (attribute of thought). All come from God, who may or may not be consciousness (we can't know because it's beyond us). That's the end of that story

t I will keep asking until I get what I want. — Eugen

Really? Wow

Why do you care if the hard problem would have bothered Spinoza, one philosopher at of thousands? Why not read Aristotle or something? Spinoza wrote, as you've been told a million times, that every comes from God. He thinks God has thoughts but he is ambiguous on this because we can't know God. That's it right there! Your concern answered. I don't think anyone on this thread knows what's really bothering you

No

Addition:

Hen To On (Greek for "being is one")

Hen To Pan (" universe is one")

I seems to me belief in these ideas started for Einstein with reading Spinoza and that these ideas are how he justified motion in General Relativity. It was a very modern theory but has roots in ancient Greek thought. Even Plato thought objects lacked substance and many modern physicists accept a kind of Pythagorean Platonism wherein the truth of reality is not in matter but in mathematics

Spinoza said that we know more of how our bodies are affected by the world than the world in itself. Kant's philosophy elaborates this point to great lengths and even says we know consciousness more than our own bodies. In our present time people argue that we experience the software of the world but not the hardware. These ideas are all very Eleatic and Einstein, in rejecting the objectivity of weight and Newtonian magnetism, presented a physics (GR) in accord with these ideas. General Relativity had everyone talking about time after World War II, and Heidegger got on board. If I understand him correctly, knowing phenomenon only is knowing only in the ontic sense, and the goal of philosophy is to know ontologically. That is, to know noumena. So for him reality was not permanently veiled, but we can know and see and experience reality in the fullness of what it is. This is a philosophical position that should be taken in and considered in its own right

I'm sorry my commentary on the verse confused you. I talk a lot about ethics and religion because I am forever questioning my relationship to the world and looking to understand it. We have so many levels. I think I have made a good case though that Christianity does not provide a good answer to the nature of To Eon ( "what is")

That's me, not the bible

(NIV) Revelations 1:8 “I am the Alpha and Omega”. God in ancient Judaism was behind everything, at the beginning of Kant's "series" and at the end, encompassing everything. To say of this system that it comes from and reflects God's nature is to say that the very reflection of God is man accepting the merits of a sacrificed man's in order to, unworthily on their own, go to heaven. How is this perfect? How is this righteous

https://www.google.com/search?q=romans+3.23+tanlsations&rlz=1C1OKWM_enUS867US867&ei=5WRqYM-IHMartQainqTYBw&oq=romans+3.23+tanlsations&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBQgAEM0CMgUIABDNAjoHCAAQRxCwA1DwGFi6G2DzJWgBcAF4AIAByQGIAdwDkgEFMC4yLjGYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6yAEIwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwiPj7mQ9-XvAhXGVc0KHSIPCXsQ4dUDCA0&uact=5

It's all saying the same thing here

Don't try to figure out free will. There too many monsters of the conscience that interfere with objectivity. Daoists say to live spontaneity, as I read in Huston Smith's book on religions and the newer book God is not One (which is an ironic title)

NIV, Job 5:18 "he wounds.. he injures" . So God is behind the destruction and the recreation. If nature reflects God, then how can anyone go to hell and how can people only get to heaven by the merits of a torture sacrifice?

NIV. You might be looking at the wrong verse

Romans 3:23 " all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". If God can help them redeem themselves, that is merciful and righteous. If God dies to give his merits in atonement for sin, that is unrighteous

If that is what sin is. Or is it malicious?

Let me reestablish the argument:

1) God could have immaculately conceived everyone and had them all enter heaven based on their merits and God's favor

Or

2) God could not have created this way

So either 1 is true and God doesn't do what's right, or 2 is true.

If 2 is true we have God allowing people to sin and then getting them to heaven in spite of their total worthlessness, we have a God who is forced to set up an absurd and unrighteous system in order to create in the first place

Thanks for the criticism. Its hard to quote when I'm not on the desktop but can do better I think.

I think sin is a possibility and so must hell be as well. Heaven and virtue are a "not giving in to sin" but I don't know if anyone knows for sure if they are virtuous. The Christian system though has a God who couldn't make a world where people were good and went to heaven based on merit and grace, otherwise he would have done so. Indeed, by predestination, he has actualized the damnation of people who could have acted virtuously is he allowed, and the salvation of the guilty who don't deserve heaven. By a self-sacrifice Jesus took on torture to let the guilty into heaven but also allowed everyone to sin when they could have gone to heaven by being virtuous. No corruptor system of theology has ever been devised by man and Nietzsche is right in saying Paul played a large role in its acceptance (as did Augustine). A little latter today I will provide verses from the Bible so those who are unfamiliar with Christian theology can see these arguments for themselves

I try VERY hard to find the truth on issues and I have no interest in maintaining any bias

What makes things move in general relativity. Easy question

Then why. You seldom engage others and instead write wordy sophistries. Einstein showed that matter has no objective size but it has objective substance whether you or he like it or not

Maybe we can't detect a difference between acceleration by force and free fall. But in Einstein system there is absolutely no way things can truly move, which is why he said he "proved" B time

Einstein said the universe wasn't matter connected by magnet-like forces nor matter moving because its naturally heavy and falls when space is empty. So he threw out the Newtonian and Aristotelean ideas. Its not entirety clear how the universe even can be said to exist in his system. Heisenberg and Bohr thought (in the 20's) that the world was probability waves (potential) that was actualized by consciousness (Copenhagen interpretation). Einstein rejected the randomness in his system but with the "equivalence principle" the reality of the universe falls out of view just as people's thoughts fall to oblivion when they mentally accept that principle

Spinoza speaks of the Jewish idea that God's essence and what he thinks about are identical (someone refreshed my memory by quoting him on another thread a few minutes ago). This is Kaballah and has much to do with Hegel's system. Hegel defended free will however while Spinoza said it was an illusion. In the 1920's Einstein was defending a deterministic version of quasi-idealism and maybe it was this that lead Heidegger to defend the "being" of objects and try to figure how to explain it in philosophical terms

After being a Roman Catholic for many years I've searched to replace the faith with something else. The rationality of that religion, which is simply unreal to me, is that God could have gotten everyone to heaven through them doing good and receiving grace, but instead had his Son die so that some would be damned and others gotten to heaven from the merits of someone who was tortured for them. It's a sinners' joy first, man-centered belief that masquerades as "giving glory to God". I recently read Jung's work on Job and have been listening to "3000 year melody" series on Youtube would helps me to see divinity within my psyche. It's a great experience and allows me to find more joy in life

That's cool, a lot of writers on this forum don't like Hegel. I read the Phenomenology 3 times, the Philosophy of Mind 3 times as well, and on my second reading of the Nature book. I have a good background in his thought you could say

I'm reading his German Philosophy book, Hegel's philosophy of Nature, and the lesser Logic. I'm almost done with all of those but I still need to read the greater Logic, which might be a chore like washing those dishes

,

Were you referring to Hegel's philosophy of right (1821)?

I've seen evidence of a collective subconscious that stretches across the globe in human minds. The fact that we understand ancient text is evidence for me for the reason that language changes every generation and there would be no way to connect to the past through pages of history were we not united to our ancestors via the images and archetypes that we inherited from them

Everyone philosophises at the ontic level. Its implicit because as Heidegger says Dasein is metaphysics. I think that is where you are directing your post in a way, in the stuff about sociality of reason?

Matter floating in outerspace has lost an element of its substance (heaviness)

As explained by Einstein, motion and even objects are metrical and not true substances

The difference between the East and West on these issues is that the East desires for contradictions never to be resolved (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da#:~:text=Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da%20(Sanskrit%3B%20Pali%3A%20pa%E1%B9%ADiccasamupp%C4%81da,to%20exist%2C%20that%20also%20ceases) in order to separate the person from the world as if from something illogical. The West (through Hegel for example) embraces contradictions as a challenge to be overcome so that a final place of rest is eventually found for the mind at the end of its journey

Here is the story of the Japanese philosopher of "nothing" during the world war eras:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeOTbyy7uYE

We don't need to reject these lines of thought merely because Japan joined Hitler in declaring war on the world, right? His thinking is much like Heidegger on this subject. Hegel said that in self-consciousness being and nothing stand to each other as completely empty, and find a synthesis in the synergy of living, which tries to discover the divine through the concepts of universals

Herbert Marcuse took Heidegger's philosophy into Marxism as Gramsci had done with the growing Italian school of thought. Ideas, and in fact whole books, can be taken out their political contexts and seen on their own terms within philosophical thought. This is especially true when studying phenomenology

Nothingness's existence (Heidegger's claim) leads back to Eckhart's statement that "man in God is God". Heidegger failed to see this and retreated to the materialism of the pre-Socratics with a little does of Pythagorean mysticism. Nobody believes he was a great man, but Heidegger did have an impressive range of thought. In the end, nothing must be filled by Dasein