How would you distinguish Pantheism, e.g. Spinoza or Hegel, from Panpsychism?

Less sure about Spinoza, but I believe for Hegel (or Schelling) it depends on what the panpsychism entails. If it entails that anything has consciousness, then we'd missing the point of Schelling and Hegel when they say there just are certain things that are inorganic and mechanical, and have no consciousness. If we mean the Absolute has consciousness (which we all participate in), as a irreducible and organic whole, then sure, it can be a form of panpsychism. However, the world of Hegel and Schelling is notably a type of organicism more than panpsychism. Generally consciousness is viewed for them as the highest potency of matter.

It presupposes, in short, the ancient Platonic theme that all knowledge participates in divine self-knowledge, or that when I know something God knows it through me. Schelling did not shirk from putting forward just this doctrine: “Not I know, but the all knows in me, if the knowledge that I call mine is an actual and true knowledge” (§1; VI, 140). The ‘I am’ and the ‘I think’ have been the basic mistake of all philosophy, he wrote, because thought is not my thought and being is not my being but they are the thought and being of the absolute or the universe itself. — Frederick Beiser

The allegorical form of this explanation is that “God creates the world in order to portray himself” (39). This means that the infinite is a kind of divine artist, creating the entire world for its self-knowledge. The infinite is therefore to be conceived as a kind of intelligence, what Schlegel, anticipating Hegel, calls “spirit” (Geist) (39). — Frederick Beiser

Beiser is good.

I don’t know if it must be ‘opinion, feeling or metaphor’. Actually I think one factor that needs to be made explicit is the possibility of higher knowledge - gnosis, Jñāna, or Prajñāpāramitā are terms for these. But they belong to alternative domains of discourse, outside of, or alternative to, the secular-scientific domain, within which all such understanding must necessarily be depicted as ‘subjective’ or ‘private’. This is because in the secular-scientific view, only the kind of knowledge which can be validated by science is regarded as objective - which is in a sense true. But it’s true because at the foundation of modern secular-scientific culture, certain tacit decisions were made in respect of what could be regarded as ‘valid knowledge’, namely, that which could be validated by empirico-mathematical measurement. In a liberal democracy you can of course believe whatever you like (within certain bounds) but those beliefs, whilst protected, as also relegated to the subjective domain. Which is, I’m sure, the majority understanding here on this forum.

So, whether you believe in a deity or don't, share your reasoning. — JustSomeGuy

Antigonish sums up theology better than I ever could.

But I don't want to labour the metaphor, so I will just keep silent.

It's the only rational thing to do.

If someone experiences God and you say that could be an instance of "higher knowledge" which proves that God is real, that begs the question as to how you could distinguish a genuine instance of such knowledge from a bogus one. this would seem to apply even to one's own experiences. So it would seem that there is no possibulty that faith could ever be superseded in any instance.

I can't see how there could be any criterion to judge the veracity of any purported knowledge other than intersubjective corroboration which would seem to be impossible when it comes to so-called "higher knowledge". On the other hand I might be utterly convinced by my own experience, but I could never expect others to be convinced on that account. And even my own conviction on account of my own experience would really still come down to faith.

↪Mitchell
How would you distinguish Pantheism, e.g. Spinoza or Hegel, from Panpsychism?

Less sure about Spinoza — Marty

Calling Spinoza a Pantheist in the first place isn't really accurate. Not only is his concept of "God" far more intricate and complex than simple Pantheism, but it isn't even really comparable. "God" for Spinoza was synonymous with Nature--which today we would likely call The Universe--but either way he was referring to all that exists. And his argument wasn't even really that Nature is a deity. It's impossible to summarize in just a few sentences so I won't even try, but I figured I'd give my two cents about it. I recommend Spinoza's Ethics to people every chance I get. It's difficult for many to get through, but I personally found it to be a fascinating read.

"God" for Spinoza was synonymous with Nature — JustSomeGuy

So how is his philosophy not just natural philosophy, or science, for that matter?

If someone experiences God and you say that could be an instance of "higher knowledge" which proves that God is real, that begs the question as to how you could distinguish a genuine instance of such knowledge from a bogus one. this would seem to apply even to one's own experiences. So it would seem that there is no possibility that faith could ever be superseded in any instance. — Janus

Valid observation. But this is where the role of the spiritual preceptor or advisor comes into play. In actual fact that is the historical origin of peer-reviewed science, however nowadays of course, that assumes the very attitude that I wish to distinguish in this case. For example in Zen Buddhism, the student is trained in such a way as to realise satori, or insight, but this realisation is then subject to a pretty rigorous degree of assessment by the superiors, who in turn have been trained in just the same manner.

I’m sure there are analogous methods in other traditions, and also as pointed out by Pierre Hadot, in traditional training in philosophy itself up until it's near-total 'secularisation' in modernity.

None of that is to say that it’s an easy thing to adjudicate or that there can’t be instances of counterfeit or bogus claims. But the point I’m trying to make is that there are, or were, domains of discourse within which there is an understanding of such forms of knowledge, but which don’t regard such knowledge as simply ineffable, private or subjective. And I think that view is very much in line with the way religious or spiritual knowledge was understood in late European Protestantism, which was very much grounded on the individual's relationship with God and also very much predicated on salvation by faith alone.

So how is his philosophy not just natural philosophy, or science, for that matter? — Wayfarer

He really covers a lot, from theology to metaphysics to ontology. And it's all connected. The only real way to learn about it is to read it yourself. Like I said, trying to summarize is very difficult and wouldn't do it justice.

I did study Spinoza as an undergraduate, but that is many years ago now. I found the Ethics very hard to assimilate due to its rigourous style. But I have been rather put off by the way he has been invoked as a kind of harbinger of naturalism in the philosophical pantheon, whereas I tend to think he has much in common with Jewish mysticism. I guess I have decided that he just not part of my core curriculum, as not everything can be.

But this is where the role of the spiritual preceptor or advisor comes into play. — Wayfarer

But you have to have faith in their spiritual wisdom, and they have to have faith in their own wisdom, in order for them to hold such a role. Also, presumably they are not telling you to believe specific things about God or any higher reality. but are just teaching methods to achieve heightened or altered states of consciousness, and even if you achieve those the problem of what they actually indicate, if anything, about the true or ultimate nature of reality still remains a matter of faith.

Think of the Gnostics; some sects believed that the creator of this world was not the Supreme Unknowable God, but Yaldabaoth, a fallen,deluded and jealous demigurge who they also believed is the very God of the old testament. They claimed that their visions revealed this truth to them. This is a very definite claim about what is objectively the case.

Or take Gautama; either he or his followers claimed he could remember his past five thousand lives. How do he or his followers know he was not deluding himself about that? The answer is that neither he nor they could know that; so they, even Gautama himself is still, inevitably, operating on faith.

All that is known directly are appearances, feelings, events, people, places things. Anything we call knowledge beyond the appearances of the everyday is based on faith of one kind or another; and that includes science. Science is a special case, though, because of its tremendous predictive power and the enormous body of consistent, coherent and testable knowledge about the world that has been accumulated. Ultimately, though, it's still a matter of faith as to whether science tells us anything about a mind independent reality. Only mathematics and geometry achieve the kind of certainty that our everyday experiences have.

I tend to think he has much in common with Jewish mysticism — Wayfarer

I don't know much about Jewish mysticism but I do know Spinoza was raised Jewish (until he was excommunicated for his extremely controversial ideas), so that would make sense. I personally think the praise he receives is warranted, but I also admit that I'm sure a big part of his popularity was due to how controversial he was and his works being banned by the Church for over a century after his death. No doubt that did (and still does) alter people's perception of him at least a bit.

I guess I have decided that he just not part of my core curriculum, as not everything can be. — Wayfarer

I definitely understand that, we're all different and have different things that interest us and call to us. Back in college I tried to read more Wittgenstein because one of my professors I looked up to was very passionate about him, but I just couldn't get into it.

I find the debate whether Spinoza was a panentheist or a pantheist to be difficult. Mostly because I'm not sure if the whole substance had intentionality, or any proper attributes of God. There is a sense of where God was an infinite set of attributes -- ie: more than just the mental and physical, for sure. But in what sense the mental attribute functions in God is perplexing. That's why I think its debated. Same goes for Hegel and Schelling: hard to prove whether their naturalistic God was not just intelligible and telic nature.

I'd put the first appearnce of an eternal realm separate from the physical world in Plato. Although he called the Forms "divine", they weren't in any sense "gods".

The appearance of (a) God separate from the world seems to me to be, in the West, to occur in Genesis 1. God existed separate from the world and created the world. To say that God is separate from the world does not rule out his interacting with the world. What it does rule out is both Pantheism and totally immanent deities. — Mitchell

Oops, I forgot about Plato.

Anyway, I think we are so used to the idea of a separate supernatural realm, that we impose it on religious texts. I'm not convinced that it is necessary to take that view in reading Genesis.

When moses asked God his name, he replied "I shall be whom I shall be". Those seem to me to be the words of someone who is in physical reality rather than separate from it.

that quote is given incorrectly. It is ‘I am that I am’ Ex 3:14

Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am

Elohim in Genesis 1 seems very different, less anthropomorphic, than the YHWH of Genesis 2 and Exodus 3

Hey McD - did you notice the writings of Karen Armstrong on these issues, about 6-7 years ago now? A couple of short reviews that go to the point you're making:

Metaphysical Mistake

Review of her A Case for God, Alain du Botton.

(Both from The Guardian.) — Wayfarer

Thanks Wayf, I hadn't made the connection with Karen Armstrong's thinking, no.