Being is taken to be static, whereas substance is active. The ocean is active - it generates waves. Anyway, I've had enough of you and your refusal to engage. You can play by yourself from now on. Your lack of tact has already been called out by others as well and you take no notice. Good luck at that.Can you explain to me what the difference between substance and being is?
For example, is being not "what is in itself" and "conceived through itself" ? — John
You haven't understood what I've said all this time.
My point is equally valid using Spinoza's definition as you have provided it, ""By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself" (E1d3) Spinoza".Yes and using substence in a way that doesn't follow the use of it that has been philosophically established. You're just redefining words.
I'm sorry but I can't see a logical justification in what you wrote. It only contained some ideas about substances and their attributes. Just because you can define a substance as Spinoza does, or that it is in some way necessary, doesn't establish that it is the only substance. This cannot be established because we are woefully ignorant of the means of our existence, so have no grounds from which to work.How are they unfounded? Can you explain this when I just provided you the reasons for why there is only one substance, and the reasons for why this substance must be God? :s
So there is a proof in there, is there?Yes unfortunately Spinoza's ontological argument works - unlike that of Descartes or St. Anselm. Your only option is to retreat into irrationalism if you want to deny Spinoza's point.
Nonsense, just by accepting the degree of our ignorance does not mean that what we are ignorant of is unintelligible, merely that we are not in possession of the knowledge of it, for whatever reason.Reason itself demands that we adopt such a conception if reality is to be intelligible at all.
This "reality isn't intelligible" has not been said, I don't know where you pulled it from.Of course you can say "fuck it, reality isn't intelligible", but that's your only option. And if you choose that, you're not really doing philosophy anymore. So if that's what you want to do, be my guest.
Right I see how good your understanding is :-dI understood that you said there can only be one substance and that God must be that substance. This is all I have commented on, it's not difficult to understand, it amounts to Pantheism as John has pointed out. — Punshhh
That too is evident.Now I don't know if Spinoza has proved this using his logic, as I have not studied his work. — Punshhh
Good if you attacked logical intellection itself, then you have resorted to unintelligibility, so there's no point of arguing with you.This is however irrelevant, because I have attacked logical intellection itself, which Spinoza relies on. — Punshhh
Have you read why there cannot be more than one substance? The reasons are because a substance can be conceived through any of its attributes, there cannot be substances sharing attributes, neither can there be independent substances with different attributes - thus there must be one substance. All these reasons were provided and detailed in my reply to you. I suggest you go back and read it.I can see of no reason why a substance that is in itself and is conceived through itself, is necessarily a universal, or absolute, unity. I.e, there can/must only be one such substance. — Punshhh
This is not an empirical matter - it's a strictly logical matter.This cannot be established,d there either are more than one, or only one such substance and there is no way to determine it in the absence of a thorough understanding of the basis of our existence. Which sadly we do not have at this time. — Punshhh
:-} read it again...I'm sorry but I can't see a logical justification in what you wrote. It only contained some ideas about substances and their attributes. — Punshhh
An argument IS a proof - if it's sound and valid. It remains for you to show how it is not sound or invalid.So there is a proof in there, is there? — Punshhh
Confusion of logical and empirical matters.Nonsense, just by accepting the degree of our ignorance does not mean that what we are ignorant of is unintelligible, merely that we are not in possession of the knowledge of it, for whatever reason. — Punshhh
If you reject Spinoza's system, without finding fault in his arguments, that is equivalent to affirming that reality isn't intelligible. Spinoza is just drawing out the logical conclusions that ensue from the attempt to make reality intelligible.This "reality isn't intelligible" has not been said, I don't know where you pulled it from. — Punshhh
Anyway, I've had enough of you and your refusal to engage. — Agustino
Why was physics ever necessary? If what I'm saying is right, then no physics was necessary to make the metaphysics of atoms and void possible (and indeed the metaphysics was there before the physics, already worked out). Metaphysics is a matter strictly of logic. That's why all metaphysics end up with an uncaused cause, etc. the name they give to this uncaused cause is less interesting as the fact that they end up with one.Right! Which is why I am of the view that physics has torpedoed materialism. — Wayfarer
That's all good, indeed I have no problem with that :)As for Buddhism - what it means to me is a practical philosophy and way, grounded in meditative insight into the nature of the self. It is at its best a meta-cognitive discipline, it is all about 'knowing how you know'. — Wayfarer
Okay I see. Why do you have no interest in them? Don't you think it is important to guard truth and prevent it from being corrupted? Or how do you approach this matter?There are indeed many forms of Buddhism and Buddhist organisations that I have no interest in, there are Buddhist cults and Buddhist dogmatists and fundamentalists. There are even Buddhist atheists. Zero interest. — Wayfarer
The reasons are because a substance can be conceived through any of its attributes, there cannot be substances sharing attributes, neither can there be independent substances with different attributes - thus there must be one substance. — Agustino
Nonsense, I have said that logic can't conjecture what we are considering, that's all.Good if you attacked logical intellection itself, then you have resorted to unintelligibility, so there's no point of arguing with you.
Oh so it's a thought experiment, that's ok. But what does it tell us about reality then? ( or substances, or God)This is not an empirical matter - it's a strictly logical matter.
Oh, so it is a question of whether a thought experiment is logically consistent. If it is then, what can this tell us about God, for example?An argument IS a proof - if it's sound and valid. It remains for you to show how it is not sound or invalid.
There's that "isn't intelligible" again, where did you pluck that straw man from? I am rejecting the the use of logic in addressing such questions about reality. Spinoza might have come up with an amazing complex all encompassing logical theory, but what does it tell us about reality? diddly squat.If you reject Spinoza's system, without finding fault in his arguments, that is equivalent to affirming that reality isn't intelligible. Spinoza is just drawing out the logical conclusions that ensue from the attempt to make reality intelligible.
Why was physics ever necessary? If what I'm saying is right, then no physics was necessary to make the metaphysics of atoms and void possible (and indeed the metaphysics was there before the physics, already worked out). Metaphysics is a matter strictly of logic. That's why all metaphysics end up with an uncaused cause, etc. the name they give to this uncaused cause is less interesting as the fact that they end up with one. — Agustino
There are indeed many forms of Buddhism and Buddhist organisations that I have no interest in, there are Buddhist cults and Buddhist dogmatists and fundamentalists. There are even Buddhist atheists. Zero interest.
— Wayfarer
Okay I see. Why do you have no interest in them? Don't you think it is important to guard truth and prevent it from being corrupted? Or how do you approach this matter? — Agustino
Actually in Greek meta is better translated as "above" or "beyond" (in the sense of presupposed) than either after or about.As you're no doubt aware, the term 'metaphysica' was coined by an editor of Aristotle's works, who gave that name to the volume 'after Physics' in the sequence of texts. However, as you're also aware, 'meta' is not a term for 'after' as much as 'about'. — Wayfarer
>:OIf you and I arrived at really different answers to that question, then we would have something resembling what most people mean when they get into a debate about 'metaphysics'. X-) — Wayfarer
However this is to misunderstand the logical role played by "atoms and void". Atoms and void are not fundamentally two different things - they are one substance. One substance formed of "atoms and void". This is the most significant point of the metaphysics, and in this sense it is the same as Schopenhauer's, and the same as Spinoza's, and the same as Heidegger's, etc. You're busy quarrelling with the content of metaphysics (but guess what, there is no content, because it's strictly logical) - the content is the illusion. That's why Spinoza kept it as abstract, because he understood this point. Metaphysics is required to make sense of reality - for reality to be intelligible - regardless of what that reality actually is empirically. The Atomists were doing both metaphysics and physics at the same time, which is why some of the notions are intertwined and confused even to this day.IN ANY CASE, the striking feature about 'atoms and the void, is that it is binary. Something either is, or it is not; every point in space is either occupied (=is) or not occupied (=is not). — Wayfarer
Even Nirvana? X-)But, notice that the whole basis of the Buddhist 'madhyamika' (middle-path) analysis, is that nothing either 'truly is' or 'truly is not'. — Wayfarer
How did the visit to Sri Lanka draw you to Buddhism?My interest in Buddhism came from spiritual books I read in my youth, and also (in hindsight) a visit to Sri Lanka in late childhood. — Wayfarer
Do you think that dogma isn't important to guide the hoi polloi towards truth? Do you think that dogma plays no important political role in society's cohesiveness?Of course, often times the record of 'those who have gone before' will either ossify into dogma — Wayfarer
You also have a blog, which has quite a lot of content and you could probably use it as a means to spread your thoughts more easily and widely if you organised it, improved graphics, and added information to it, say, weekly. You have been a member of the community here for a long time - you are well known - some of the new people here are quite possibly looking for guidance from you, you could be actively helping them in certain issues such as overcoming nihilism and so forth. And I'm not saying this as criticism for you, but in some threads of people struggling with nihilism and nihilism produced depression you sent them to get professional help (which they probably were already getting), instead of trying to offer them a new perspective which you could have done. Personally I think you're selling yourself far too short, but that may just be me. It's one thing being prudent and humble, and being afraid to make a mistake, and it's a different thing not helping for fear that you'll do more harm than good.I have no public platform, what I write here or say to the people I know is the only platform I have. — Wayfarer
True - however - is there not a tension between being honest with someone and being malicious? Certainly being honest with someone could be interpreted as malicious but it isn't necessarily so. For example, when you say that you'll leave the forums and you are reminded not to talk with strangers, etc. you're obviously angry. Now you don't express that anger except in this subtle way, probably to uphold the precept of proper speech. Fair enough, but that doesn't change the fact that you were angry, and I think it would be much better if you communicated that in a non-conflictual way like "what you're saying makes me feel very angry because I feel that you're misrepresenting me" or whatever you think. That's certainly a way of being honest without improper speech - indeed when I went to mindfulness training/therapy like 3-4 years ago that was one of the things the guy taught me. You should express your emotions and let others know how you feel - without obviously creating conflict. If you just talk about the feelings that you find inside yourself and why you think they're there (focusing on anger as a whole), that's obviously a lot more useful than focusing on the content of your anger.I try not to be malicious or to gossip, as those are both wrong speech. — Wayfarer
So you are expecting to find such a thing empirically? Don't you see that this is precisely what Substance is NOT?Its quite simple, given Spinoza's definition not only can we not conclude that there is only one substance. I don't see how we have any knowledge of a substance in itself and self sustaining. There is no such thing in our world to observe and test, so it can only be conjecture. — Punshhh
Substance is a logical category. It doesn't correspond with anything in empirical reality. Its truth isn't granted by correspondence. So in vain you're looking for it and claiming we don't know if there is such a thing and so on so forth. Rather it is a logical category that is necessary in order to be able to conceptualise reality and make it intelligible - it's truth is granted by its function in thinking and for thought about reality. In other words, substance is the only way to think about reality coherently. You cannot think about reality coherently unless you use the concept of substance - and if you don't use the concept of substance then you'll use a concept which is almost identical to it by virtue of having the same function in your thought (indeed it is this function which makes it true). That's why you see Schopenhauer's metaphysics having an uncaused cause - the Will, and Plato's metaphysics having an uncaused cause The Agathon, and Aristotle's metaphysics having an uncaused cause - the Prime Mover, and so forth. If you're going to be pedantic and start saying "Huurr hurrr where is the prime mover?" and other such nonsense, you don't understand anything of what I'm saying. The prime mover isn't anywhere - it's a logical category of thought. If you want to explain how any kind of empirical world works, it is presupposed. There is no experiment that you can do that will reveal substance - indeed your very ability to do an experiment presupposes substance.This is merely conjecture, we don't know if there is such a substance, or a multitude of substances. — Punshhh
No it's not a fucking thought experiment at all.Oh so it's a thought experiment, that's ok. But what does it tell us about reality then? ( or substances, or God) — Punshhh
If you expect it to tell you something about empirical reality you're deluded. It can't do that precisely because it can say everything about empirical reality (no empirical reality conceivable could fail to be outside of it - or could fail to be accounted by it) and thus it has no means of distinguishing how the world actually is empirically. If you want to do that, go do physics. Simple. Now this is the last time I go over this, if you can't understand it and we can't progress, then I'm just wasting my time repeating the same things that you refuse to engage with time and time again.There's that "isn't intelligible" again, where did you pluck that straw man from? I am rejecting the the use of logic in addressing such questions about reality. Spinoza might have come up with an amazing complex all encompassing logical theory, but what does it tell us about reality? diddly squat. — Punshhh
Well there's nothing much to talk about. John doesn't understand Spinoza, he's not interested to understand Spinoza, and on top of that he's also an arrogant prick. So there's not much point discussing anything with such a person, especially under his terms. So he's free to beg for an answer as much as he wants, he won't get it. Indeed that's the thing about him - he's used to people biting his bait. So I will educate him to behave and cooperate if he wants a proper answer.I didn't mean that in some monkish sabbatical sense, but more that ignoring someone isn't more productive than to talk it out, :D — Heister Eggcart
Its quite simple, given Spinoza's definition not only can we not conclude that there is only one substance. I don't see how we have any knowledge of a substance in itself and self sustaining. There is no such thing in our world to observe and test, so it can only be conjecture. — Punshhh
The absence of anything to observe and test is exactly how we can conclude there is one substance. Since it is not an empirical state, the question of showing it's presence through observation and measurement is incoherent. Substance is purely logical, an aspect of reality "beyond" the empirical, which cannot be identified or measured by observing the empirical world.
No I am not arguing reductionism, what I will argue, if we get that far is that we know this real substance, we are it.What you are attempting to argue here is reductionism. You take substance and insist that it is a state of the world we observe and measure-- much like the reductionist who claims the meaning of experiences are "just brains"-- as if knowledge and understanding were only about giving empirical measurements.
We only know that it is not subject to change in our experience, our world. We can't necessarily say it is not in some way in this world, as I point out, we do know it, so it has some presence in this world. I agree we can't conjecture.We can be sure about substance because we know it is not subject to change. Since we know it's not an empirical state, not even one we don't know about, we know it is beyond the question of being an actualised possibility in the contingent world. For substance, there is no "might be" or "might not be," based upon what states of the world do. One cannot coherently "conjecture" about substance.
Agreed. Although, as I say, I don't see a justification that "the transcendent" cannot have some presence in the world, albeit via an unknown process.
By breaking with this tradition, Spinoza takes out the transcendent because it is, more or less, the position that metaphysics describe or account for the world. The transcendent God is the metaphysical (outside the world) which nevertheless defines the world. Spinoza is pointing out this is a contradiction. Since metaphysics are never the world, they cannot give the world.
How "might" it be somewhere? The same way the sun "might" not rise tomorrow? :-} Don't you see that you can't even conceive how it "might" be somewhere? If you can't even conceive it, what grounds do you have for claiming it "might" be that way?!However I don't think we can say, it isn't anywhere(it might be somewhere in a way we can't understand), also yes we can deal with it as a logical category, but this does not mean that an actual substance isn't out there, as you say, it is "presupposed" to be out there. — Punshhh
There is no possibility of more than one substance. There have been reasons provided for why this isn't the case. Positive reasons. You have no reason to justify why you think this isn't the case. As you yourself have admitted you can't find fault with the argument. You say "Oh it might be otherwise"? So? That's not a reason. Until you come up with a reason - you can't protest against it. And if you can't come up with a reason, then you have to accept it, because I've provided you with positive reasons for accepting it, so you can't just suspend judgement and still be rational. If in the presence of reasons for holding a certain belief you still refuse to hold it, without having any reason for holding the opposite (and "it might be otherwise" isn't such a reason), then you're irrational.The possibility of more than one substance is denied, I see no justification for this. — Punshhh
There is no possibility that this is the case. If God is "transcendent", then automatically you have imagined another "bigger" substance which includes the transcendent God and this world in it. (I'm sorry that I have to so brutalise Spinoza's system but it seems you don't want to understand it otherwise, and these metaphors are useful). So you're only under the illusion that God is transcendent, even in that scenario. You're not actually conceiving a situation in which God is transcendent, because to conceive it, then you need to conceive this world, and an outside of this world. But what is that which contains both this world and the outside if not substance (the whole of reality)? And if it is so, then with reference to substance there is still no transcendence, but only immanence.The possibility that God is transcendent of this substance is denied, I see no justification of this. — Punshhh
Spinoza doesn't deny anything about reality. Transcendence, etc. aren't denied. They're simply inconceivable. Nobody has ever conceived of transcendence, and no one ever will. You can't even imagine them, much less experience them. That's why I said the only retreat is irrationalism. Sure, the world may be such that you can't even imagine it, nor experience it, even in principle. But you have no reason, and in fact no POSSIBLE reason, for ever believing this possibility.what Spinoza denies about reality. — Punshhh
The acomist's point is the ontological/ontic (finite) is illusionary. Only the infinite is Real, so any existing state is outside the Real. I'm not equating the ontic or ontological with the Real. I'm saying the opposite: existing states are never Real. The enquiry excludes ontic and emprical entities (and their realness under ontology)-- hence that which is not finite and existing (substance) is Real. — TheWillowOfDarkness
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.