Kaballah makes the attributes be described in 10 ways, and although Spinoza doesn't say that, we still have to understand him with the Jewish culture he was raised in. Speaking of God's attributes in these ways was very Jewish (and foreign to the Catholicism of the time) — Gregory

I don't think so. In the prologue to his Summa Theologia, Thomas Aquinas wrote:

Question 3
De Dei simplicitate
... Potest autem ostendi de Deo quomodo non sit, removendo ab eo ea quae ei non conveniunt, utpote compositionem, motum, et alia huiusmodi. Primo ergo inquiratur de simplicitate ipsius, per quam removetur ab eo compositio. Et quia simplicia in rebus corporalibus sunt imperfecta et partes, secundo inquiretur de perfectione ipsius; tertio, de infinitate eius; quarto, de immutabilitate; quinto, de unitate.

Of the Simplicity of God
Now it can be shown how God is not, by denying Him whatever is opposed to the idea of Him, viz. composition, motion, and the like. Therefore (1) we must discuss His simplicity, whereby we deny composition in Him; and because whatever is simple in material things is imperfect and a part of something else, we shall discuss (2) His perfection; (3) His infinity; (4) His immutability; (5) His unity.


And then he goes on to explore each of these numbered attributes. This is 13th century, and inspired a whole catholic literature about God's attributes.

The Kabbalah revival was barely a century old at the time of Spinoza. Even if Spinoza could have possibly heard of this movement, the Zohar was a secret book, not be to shared around and its sefirot tree was not "in the culture" yet.

Spinoza was also a rationalist who considered the Torah obsolete. He was excommunicated for it. It's a bit rich to see him appropriated by kabbalists.

]I agree with you that "every atom would somehow be alive" would generate no ends of problems for Spinoza's account, but I don't think he's committed to the background of concepts you've used to pin the claim on him. — fdrake

It's not a problem at all. Indeed, it is a possible set of events. We don't know what a body can do-- if we had atoms which produced states of conciousness, we would have atoms which were "alive" in this sense.

What trips people up is misunderstanding the attribute of mind. It is NOT mind in the sense of an entity having thoughts or experiences. Those are modes of existence, of extension/body. In this sense, they aren't of the attribute of mind at all. If I'm speaking about how I have a present thought or feeling, I'm only speaking about modes of body.

The attribute of mind is a different distinction, dealing with relations of logic and meaning, not whether thinking beings exist or not.

How do feelings arise?

:up:

:scream: :sweat:

[deleted]

How do feelings arise? — Eugen

You'd do well to read SEP's article on Spinoza. There's also a whole second article on his theory of emotion!

SEP has an article on Spninozian modes and one on Spinoza attributes. God for Spinoza was a phenomenal Intellect that can't see it own back. Aquuinas's God is the antithesis of the Kaballahs and I still maintain that Spinoza is closer to the later in more than terminology

The two biwords that define post modern thought are "consciousness" and " informstion". They actually lead to read ends and prevent us from reading philosophy of the past. "Emergence", in the other hand", is a concept modern philosophy understood. Spinoza says we have would united to an Intellect,: so two intellects thinking together when you do philosophy

They are modes of extension.

States which have been caused to exist. At some point, specific modes extension generate another mode of extension, a feeling.

There is no hard problem. Some modes of extension (e.g. brains, environment, etc.) result in others (e.g. a feeling) occurring. At least, that is the general point in the terms you are concerned with.

We could always get more specific, as Spinoza does sometimes, about more specific relations of the various causality we encounter about our feelings. But such empirical questions aren't in the concerns (indeed, they are thought outright impossible!) by the cult of the hard problem.

States which have been caused to exist — TheWillowOfDarkness

For me, that sounds like the hard prpblem. Caused by something unconscious?

You're basically saying consciousness is a property of a body. How come? Is that a given? I don't really understand how this property appears. Any body has consciousness? Can the universe be considered a body? If not, on what basis a body is conscious and another isn't?

and I still maintain that — Gregory

And I still maintain that you don't know what you're talking about.

You're the one asking about the "hard" problem in relationship to Spinoza. Gee good luck k with that

I've read Spinoza a long time ago. It's not for me.

The double bind of Gregory Bateson gets a new venue.

But does spinozism encounter any problem in regards to consciousness, or it's a perfect metaphysics in this sense?

For Spinoza the soul creates consciousness in us. We are parallel to matter on one side and the Intellect (i.e.God). Matter is only conscious in that God thinks in it. A plant doesn't think. But God thinks in it

So God thinks and will after all?

Spinoza said neither God nor humans have free will. But they both have will, which is the desires of the thinking subject.

The difference between God and man is that we can't know anything positively about the interior life of God. What intellect and will are, in God's inner life, is not something we know of.

Conscious states are modes of body. To be conscious is to have existing states of conciousness which are caused by other things. It's just a causality, like rain making paper soggy.

In this case, we have some states which are not concious experience interacting to create a new existing state, a conscious state. No hard problem. The causality is question is some things which are not consciousness getting together to cause it.

There was a great thread here a couple weeks ago. Lots of great links cited in the question of "emergence" . It's a fascinating subject

To be conscious is to have existing states of conciousness which are caused by other things. It's just a causality, like rain making paper soggy.

In this case, we have some states which are not concious experience interacting to create a new existing state, a conscious state. No hard problem. — TheWillowOfDarkness

A. If by ''conscious'' you mean meta-consciousness (the ability to self-reflect; abstract), and if by ''not conscious experience'' you mean qualia - you end up with the panpsychist so-called combination problem - how come small blocks of consciousness come together and form a higher consciousness.

B. If by ''not conscious experience'' you mean 0% consciousness (no qualia, no thought, no nothing you could associate with consciousness), then why did you use the word ''experience"? In this case, you've got the hard problem: how do you end-up with consciousness from combining things with 0% consciousness?

It seems to me from what you're saying that it's impossible to avoid either the hard problem or the combination problem.

So a rock hitting you doesn't cause you to think ''Damn rock! I'm hurt...", but a previous thought does. — Eugen

I don't get this. Can you explain? What's "a previous thougth"? Any previous thought, or only select a few kinds of previous thoughts? What kind of thoughts? A certain kind or ... what you wrote I can't mind-mine.

Me neighter. But from what I understand, in Spinozism, attributes don't interact with each other. So a thought is caused only by another thought.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXn6Q9cz548&t=223s

Watch from min.4:00.

Spinoza said neither God nor humans have free will. But they both have will, which is the desires of the thinking subject. — Gregory

It seems to me like a ''personal God'', with will and desires. It is exactly the opposite I've heard many saying.

Thanks. Attributes (or forms of movement) do not derive from each other, but they do influence each other. What Spinoza says about this, is archaic, to me it is out-of-date, I don't bother memorizing stuff that I don't find is true.

In his view, God is nature, it possesses infinite consciousness (plus other infinite attributes), but it is not conscious and it has no will. Isn't this self-contradictory? — Eugen

Spinoza said neither God nor humans have free will. But they both have will, which is the desires of the thinking subject. — Gregory

What does Spinoza ACTUALLY say? You claim he contradicts himself, which can be claimed even without any extra thinking:

"God .. has no will"
"They [god and humans] both have will"

So which is it? I can't argue with somebody (Spinoza in this case) if he speaks in terms of self-contradiction.

So, in your opinion, why bother with Spinoza, right? It's because:
1. Long time ago, I had a pretty similar idea about reality;
2. Some smart people seem to embrace his idea;
3. There are some things about his view that I simply don't understand;
4. I was curious if he actually invented something that couldn't be touched by any of the problems of today's metaphysical ideas: the hard problem of materialism; the combination problem of panpsychism; the interaction problem of dualism; etc.

I don't bother memorizing stuff that I don't find is true. — god must be atheist

What exactly do you find wrong in Spinozism?

What exactly do you find wrong in Spinozism? — Eugen

For starters, Spinoza said, or claimed, as you said, "God has will" and "God has no will". If someone (Spinoza in this case, as per your recall) so blatantly claims something and its exclusive opposite both to be true, then I am sorry, I can't take him seriously.

I quoted you, in my previous post to this, so please check the claim I make -- it is totally factual.