Perhaps the best way I've heard it put is that the modes have an adverbial nature, rather than a substantival one - they expresses not “what” but “how” being is. — StreetlightX
NB: In this context, the term "illusory" means X is not as it appears to be (i.e. sub specie duriationis) rather than 'X does not exist' (i e. sub specie aeternitatis). — 180 Proof
My affections are not a constitutive part of myself, they are activities, but they are real nonetheless. — Janus
the modes have an adverbial nature, rather than a substantival one - they expresses not “what” but “how” being is. — StreetlightX
So the substance is either "watering" (Janus) or "exists waterly" (StreetlightX). Apart from the blatant inconsistency of the two ways of expression (verbal or adverbial?), I wonder if you could support your interpretation by pointing to textual evidence where Spinoza says such fancy things. — bobobor
Are you claiming that if something is thought to have no parts, that it must therefore be thought to have no activities? — Janus
Maybe you don't think it has, but it does nevertheless.The quantum vacuum is not thought to have "temporal parts" — Janus
My argument is that the concept of activity presupposes an actor (or an undergoer background, if you claim that subatomic events are "activities") that must have temporal parts or temporal slices. This is because all activities start and stop at specific times and therefore they occupy temporal intervals during which a temporal slice of the actor exists.And exactly what is your argument that something that has no parts cannot have activities — Janus
PART 2 DEFINITION I. By body I mean a mode which expresses in a certain determinate manner the essence of God, in so far as he is considered as an extended thing. (See Pt. i., Prop. xxv., Coroll.)
PART 2 PROP. II. Extension is an attribute of God, or God is an extended thing.
PART 1 DEFINITION VI. By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite—that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality.
In this context, the term "illusory" means X is not as it appears to be — 180 Proof
Maya, (Sanskrit: “magic” or “illusion”) a fundamental concept in Hindu philosophy. Maya originally denoted the magic power with which a god can make human beings believe in what turns out to be an illusion. By extension, it later came to mean the powerful force that creates the cosmic illusion that the phenomenal world is real to which beings are bound by ignorance (avidya).
God consists in infinite attributes of which one is extension and extension is expressed determinately in bodies. — fdrake
There is no such thing as "quantum vacuum" because there cannot be states with zero energy. You mistake the subject of a thought-experiment for reality.the quantum vacuum itself is spatio-temporal. — Janus
this fact gives no ground for claiming that the entity from which the manifestations emerge must be spatio-temporal. — Janus
There is no such thing as "quantum vacuum" because there cannot be states with zero energy. You mistake the subject of a thought-experiment for reality. — bobobor
All I've been trying to address is what is logically entailed by the idea. — Janus
I don't agree with you that idea of emergence in this context entails causality as we ordinarily understand it in an empirical context, — Janus
Spinoza's God is not "first person" in the common theological sense. In fact that is precisely what he argues against in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. Spinoza says that God does not, can not, love us, but that we should love God. [ ... ] Nature cannot love us, but we should love nature. Poor us! :cry: — Janus
if it’s only distinguished or defined as being in-itself & independent of any particular attribute’s conception, then no conception of it is ever formed but only as in a negative relation to attributes — aRealidealist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.