I'm not the only one who saw this John - but alas - you keep to your own wisdom then, I see it's doing you good. :) I don't know what religion or mystical tradition advises you to harbour thoughts which shouldn't be said to others - must be something like Satanism.Spare me your supercilious projections and faux-wisdom, Agustino. You know nothing of my actual feelings, motivations and thoughts, and only succeed in making yourself look more stupid by projecting what would seem to be merely your own pettiness onto others. — John
I never claimed to know something of your life. I only know something about your character which results from reading your writings - just as I would know something about your character by having a conversation with you. It's not that hard to see and understand if you stop being so defensive.When are you going to realize you actually know nothing at all about my life other than that I spend some time posting on philosophy forums? — John
Yes but don't misinterpret - I'm not claiming to be able to judge all of John's character. I just said that that's what his attitude as it emerges from those posts makes me think. I wouldn't imagine, say, a saint or a mystic saying things like he's saying, that's all. Would you? I mean Jesus would certainly not be responding in that manner, and pretty much anyone knows this. His last passive aggressive comments aren't much different either.It's rather naive to judge someone based solely on what they say on an internet forum. I've been a troll on other forums, even been banned for it, but does that really say anything about my character? Nearly everyone that I've met, physically, in my life haven't even been able to judge me after years of knowing me, so the idea that you can write people on and off some imaginary list of who's good and who's bad is straight stupid. — Heister Eggcart
Which critical questions have been left unanswered? It is you who hasn't answered my questions, and who have made unsubstantiated allegations with regards to Spinoza's philosophy... :-} Every time when I ask you to answer me questions or I ask you for evidence you refuse to provide it. What the hell is that supposed to be now, if not making unsubstantiated claims, lecturing and talking down to others, and being unable to answer critical questions? (N)apparently unable to adequately answer critical questions — John
I wouldn't imagine, say, a saint or a mystic saying things like he's saying, that's all. Would you? — Agustino
Based on what grounds?
An example is our ignorance of the lottery numbers which will be drawn tonight. We know almost everything else about the lottery, what numbers are in the draw, how it works, and that we don't know what numbers will be drawn tonight. There is nothing we can do to dispel this ignorance, other than to whatch the draw and observe the result.What ignorance are you talking about? To know the ignorance is already to transcend it.
If it is necessary for our being, and it is nowhere and can't perform its function we don't exist. If it is everywhere, then it naturally performs its function and we do exist. For example some philosophers say god doesn't exist, they often have elaborate logical reasons for saying it and these might be logically consistent. But it might actually be incorrect in reality, God being somewhere might be necessary for our existence, even if it appears to be illogical.This seems like an empty distinction to me.
In terms of the substance of which we are constituted. Yes I know that it is not in the way that we as people experience here and now, because that is a fabrication of the extended physical structures of which our bodies or constituted.In the sense of the way you experience here and now? No.
Only in the knowledge of that ignorance, which is itself useful, but it doesn't dispel the ignorance due to those limits.But to know your limits is already to - to a certain degree - be beyond them.
Following a rational, reasoned process is the only way in which the mystic can develop an intellectual understanding of their mystical journey. Without it, the mystic might progress, but is lacking this kind of understanding.Prove it.
Substance is in itself and conceived of itself in an eternal realm in which there is a multitude of substances.Propose an alternative definition then which accounts for all that substance accounts for and improves on it.
Well with the first example, Jesus is stating that he is, or has equivalence in terms of being, as god has. If God is in eternity, then Jesus is in eternity. There is a transcendence of being in him, in which God is in him and he is in God.Why would you take those passages as referring to transcendence?
And have I said anything about myself for that matter? (N)There's nothing saintly or mystical about anything you've written either, so I don't see why you've elevated yourself to sit atop a high horse. — Heister Eggcart
How will it point out and prove this?although apophatic philosophy might point out that we can't determine this about the actual substance of which we are constituted — Punshhh
The mystic, in my view, is concerned about his relationship with the ground of being instead of with mere understanding.However the mystic is more concerned with this actual substance and so develops a rationale based on a study of the self and the world, rather than logic. — Punshhh
That's an empirical matter.An example is our ignorance of the lottery numbers which will be drawn tonight. — Punshhh
Sure - but this has nothing to do with metaphysics. Metaphysics is not empirical, so the source of this ignorance doesn't exist.There is nothing we can do to dispel this ignorance, other than to whatch the draw and observe the result. — Punshhh
It can't dispel our ignorance with regards to empirical matters. No metaphysical insight will tell someone what to do to obtain what he wants in the world for example - and no metaphysical insight could do this, even in principle.it can't dispel our ignorance on many of the issues of our existence — Punshhh
Okay, so then it seems that the mystic renounces this rationality before his journey even beginsFollowing a rational, reasoned process is the only way in which the mystic can develop an intellectual understanding of their mystical journey. Without it, the mystic might progress, but is lacking this kind of understanding. — Punshhh
What is the eternal realm then? Is it not conceived of itself and in itself? If it is, then that eternal realm is substance - and the so called "multitude of substances" cannot be conceived through themselves, they must be conceived through reference to the one substance - the eternal realm.Substance is in itself and conceived of itself in an eternal realm in which there is a multitude of substances. — Punshhh
Well Spinoza addresses this very point actually in Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. "I and the Father are One" = One substance (no transcendence)Well with the first example, Jesus is stating that he is, or has equivalence in terms of being, as god has. If God is in eternity, then Jesus is in eternity. There is a transcendence of being in him, in which God is in him and he is in God. — Punshhh
And have I said anything about myself for that matter? — Agustino
Because his philosophy, as he has expressed it at different junctures, would entail that someone shouldn't behave this way (and I would hope that he at least wants to follow his own philosophy). I'm just noting something that emerges out of his own thinking.Then why are you critiquing John who also hasn't thought of himself in such a way? Come on, Agu. — Heister Eggcart
I refer you to this post for starters:Articulate clearly what "way" he has behaved in. — Heister Eggcart
Right. And doesn't it seem to you like his insults are a red herring based on the fact that he doesn't want to address the Spinoza points I have been pressing him on, and instead prefers to take advantage of the fact that 180 isn't active here and insult him? Then when I point it out he starts insulting me. Look at all these:As I understand it, John rues being an asshat even though he's just being honest about his perspective. If this is what he means, I can't fault him much. Maybe he realizes that he can be a prick, so he tries not to be a prick at all, even if he ought to be at times.
But I'm not really afraid of being a dicklip to someone if I have no doubts about my being right. If I think that something needs to be said, I will probably say it. There's no sense being obtuse if one is bothered for good reason. And if someone takes offense without giving equally sound reasons for why they've reacted that way, then tough! — Heister Eggcart
This idea that God is being (wholly immanent) is really, without the accompanying idea that God is also transcendent of being, nothing more than pantheism. This is the salient point of my disagreement with Spinoza's philosophy. — John
*facepalm* - The waves of the ocean are illusory - only the ocean is real (and divine) vs the waves of the ocean are real (and divine). The former is acosmism; the latter is pantheism. Now how the fuck is Spinoza a pantheist if God is wholly immanent? — Agustino
In addition to this I've asked you to provide evidence for what exactly you're referencing here: — Agustino
Spinoza's own arguments concerning the difference between necessary and contingent beings — John
Is this how Spinoza has defined Substance? Yes or no? If yes, then please cite adequate evidence. If no, then your point is a red herring or at best a strawman. — Agustino
Spinoza believed the self to be utterly subject to the determinism he believed to be inherent in nature. He believed that the freedom we experience ourselves as being is an illusion due to the fact that we cannot be aware of all the causal factors determining our actions. — John
^This last one is actually entirely false as any well-educated Spinoza scholar can tell you.Yeah maybe if you stop after reading the fourth book "On Man's Bondage", and never move to the fifth ("On Man's FREEDOM") :-d — Agustino
You say a substance can be conceived through any of its attributes, and yet earlier you said a substance can only be "conceived through itself". Seems contradictory. — John
You are right, I'll go play my flute :DLet him be, then. No sense getting so worked up. — Heister Eggcart
I am not an apophatic philosopher, so can only reply in the way it makes sense to me. Also I presume you are asking for a logical proof. Well logically we can't be expected to be able to conceive of this substance in the absence of sufficient knowledge of the conditions of its existence. As the only conditions of its existence we are aware of are those with which we are equipped to detect, or discern due to our evolutionary capacities. We can't expect to discern those circumstances outside this remit, resulting in a partial, or blinkered, limited interpretation. This partial knowledge of our predicament and substance is an impenetrable barrier to the intellect.How will it point out and prove this?
Yes with the ground of being, however there are those who seek to stimulate and develop the intellect, along with perhaps the creative faculty.The mystic, in my view, is concerned about his relationship with the ground of being instead of with mere understanding.
I used the example of the lottery to illustrate that we may be ignorant of aspects of our world/existence due to circumstance, as I describe above. Ignorance, that were we to know that which we were ignorant of, we would not believe that we could not have known it, figured it out, or realised the nature of our ignorance.That's an empirical matter.
Metaphysics might go around in ignorance like a person in a room of profound truths written on paper, while wearing a blindfold. As soon as metaphysics is applied in some way to nature the precise impediment of the metaphorical blindfold will need to be determined to screen it out of the intellectual data considered.Sure - but this has nothing to do with metaphysics. Metaphysics is not empirical, so the source of this ignorance doesn't exist.
Yes, but do metaphysicians consider the nature of their inherent ignorance?It can't dispel our ignorance with regards to empirical matters. No metaphysical insight will tell someone what to do to obtain what he wants in the world for example - and no metaphysical insight could do this, even in principle.
I have not seen evidence of Mystics renouncing rationality. A mystic might conduct an internal enquiry within their own mind and self, in which the ego and/or personality is confronted, or challenged, the entire process being entirely rational, albeit with a psychological dynamic.Okay, so then it seems that the mystic renounces this rationality before his journey even begins
A divine realm?What is the eternal realm then?
I don't know, I consider that in that realm there are as many things in themselves and conceived in themselves as there are atoms in our world.it not conceived of itself and in itself?
As I have already pointed out, this one substance which you refer to (and I do understand the rationale), need not be one substance in eternity, it is only in our degree of limited knowledge and understanding, or circumstance in which it appears a reasonable conclusion.If it is, then that eternal realm is substance - and the so called "multitude of substances" cannot be conceived through themselves, they must be conceived through reference to the one substance - the eternal realm.
Yes in the sense rather like my example were I described here and now absent extension, just the same, minus any extension. But there is a critical difference between the experience of an ordinary person, who may be one with God in this sense and a person fully cognisant of God as god is of himself. The sphere of God being immeasurably larger, or simpler than that of the physical Jesus, requiring, for such a synthesis of being as eluded to in the words of Jesus in this phrase, a immanent transcendent relation between the sphere of God and that of Jesus.Well Spinoza addresses this very point actually in Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. "I and the Father are One" = One substance (no transcendence)
But there is a critical difference between the experience of an ordinary person, who may be one with god in this sense and a person fully cognisant of God as god is of himself.
Are you telling me that in your experience and knowledge you have not come across, religious teaching, or experience of such transcendence? — Punshhh
. Exactly the same can be said for the apple, the apple is itself in this sense too, but that is only a logical definition; the definition of identity or substance, a mere generality. The relevantly determinative things that can be said about the apple are that it is, for example roughly spherical, of an average diameter of 100 mm, of a certain shape that can be fairly precisely mapped or modeled, of a certain weight that can be measured, that it shows certain colours, that it tastes sweet, that its skin is smooth, that it has a crisp texture, that it contains a certain number of seeds in the core, that it still has its stem, that it was harvested at a certain time, from a certain tree, in a certain region and so on.it is a logical distinction of selfhood, definite and perfectly understandable. — TheWillowOfDarkness
I never denied that logics are implicit in the ways we understand things, it's obvious that they are; but explicitation of those implicit logics only tells us about the general forms of our experience and understanding, it does not tell us anything about the world. — John
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.