:up:

I was referring to Descartes' use of the term 'res' in 'res cogitans'. The Latin term 'res' is translated as thing or object. You claimed not to be able to see where the conflation of 'substance' in the sense meant by 'ousia' in Aristotelian philosophy, and 'substance' in the everyday meaning of 'material with uniform properties' originated. I'm saying that it originated with Cartesian dualism. — Wayfarer

I don't recall claiming not to be able to see where the purported conflation originated, since I don't think there is any such conflation. The way I see it, the modern use of "substance" has little in common with Aristotle's notion of substance.

For Aristotle every thing is a substance and this includes animate and inanimate beings. So substance for Aristotle can be equated with being; to be is to be a substance (with attributes or "accidents" as Aristotle's idea is usually translated as far as I know).

Descartes wanted to claim there are two kinds of being: physical being and mental being, so his notion of substance in that sense, is kind of like making the distinction between beings and being.

So the modern usage of substance has more in common with Descartes' usage, except that it is now mostly denied that there is any mental being, and asserted that there is only physical being.



Yes I should have said "not inconsistent with general or philosophical usage".

This distinction between potential and actual should be considered through Spinoza's actual statements:

I also want to say something here about the intellect and the will that we commonly attribute to God. If intellect and will do belong to the eternal essence of God, we must certainly mean something different by both these attributes than is commonly understood. For an intellect and a will that constituted the essence of God ​would have to be totally different from our intellect and will and would not agree with them in anything but name – no more in fact than the heavenly sign of the dog agrees with the barking animal which is a dog. I prove this thus. If intellect does belong to the divine nature, it will not be able, as our intellect is, to be posterior (as most believe) or simultaneous by nature with what is understood, since God is prior in causality to all things (by p16c1). To the contrary truth ​and the formal ​essence of things are ​such precisely because they exist as such objectively in the intellect of God. That is why God’s intellect, insofar as it is conceived as constituting God’s essence, is in truth the cause both of the essence of things and of their existence. ​This seems to have been noticed also by those who have maintained that the intellect, the will and the power of God are one and the same thing. — Spinoza: Ethics, Scholium to proposition 17, translated by M Silverthorne and MJ Kisner

I have a question about Copleston’s descriptions of Spinoza‘s philosophy.
What is the difference between logical order and causal order? (i know causal order but maybe i don't know what is logical order). — Ali Hosein

I'm not an expert on Spinoza. but due to some similarities between his Deus sive Natura god-model and my own information-centric First Cause model, I am somewhat familiar with his ideas. In the quote linked below, Copleston seems to think that Spinoza did use the term "Deus", not in the sense of pantheism, but as a reference to a "First Cause"*1. To equate Nature with Pantheism is, as Shopenhauer noted, redundant. But a First & Final Cause*2 must be, in a philosophical sense, external & preternatural to the chain of causation that we experience in the world. It must be Eternal or Self-Existent. Yet, Spinoza lived long before modern cosmology found evidence that our natural causal sequence had an ex nihilo beginning, not just in time, but of space-time. Nevertheless, he came to the same conclusion : that a Creation Event was logically necessary to explain the Ontology of Reality.

In my own personal thesis, that "causal order" is indeed equivalent to "logical order". That's because modern physics has learned that the causal force we call "Energy" is itself a form of Information. And long before Claude Shannon labeled his digital communication element as "information", that term always referred to the contents of a conscious mind. So, if you follow the logic from modern computer data to the initial Big Bang Singularity, it's all information, all the way down. Moreover, Plato, long before Spinoza, reached a similar conclusion in his eternal principle of Logos. In his theory of Forms, Logos*4 was essentially a timeless causal power enforming all things in the world. So, it's both a universal logical Principle ("order"), and an ongoing causal Force (organizing).

Similarly, I have inferred that Plato's "Logos" is not just the evolutionary principle in Nature, but also the non-anthro-morphic logical/causal Programmer of our organic world. The information-processing computer of the world consists of organized Matter, but its evolved output includes immaterial Life and Mind. So, what's the difference between Causal Order and Logical Order : Causation is physical, while Logic is mental, but both are forms of Generic Information (Logos). Therefore, Spinoza's worldview was not simply a "superfluous synonym" : PanTheism (world is god), but a meaningful addition to the obvious : PanEnDeism*5 (world is within god). :smile:



*1. First Cause :
In an essay on pantheism Schopenhauer observes that his chief objection against it is that it says nothing, that it simply enriches language with a superfluous synonym of the word “world.” It can hardly be denied that by this remark the great pessimist, who was himself an atheist, scored a real point. For if a philosopher starts off with the physical world and proceeds to call it God, he has not added anything to the world except a label, a label which, if we take into account the ordinary significance of the word “God,” might well appear unnecessary and superfluous: one might just as pertinently say that the world is the world as that the world is God. Neither the Jew nor the Christian nor the Moslem understand by “God” the physical world, so that, if someone calls the physical world God, he cannot be taken to mean that the world is God according to the Jewish or Christian or Moslem understanding of God. Does he mean any more than that the physical world is ultimately self-explanatory, that no Cause external to the world, no transcendent Being is requisite or admissible, i.e. that there is no God? If that were all there is in pantheism, the latter would indeed be indistinguishable from atheism, and those who called Spinoza an atheist would be fully justified. ___F. C. Copleston
https://philpapers.org/rec/FCCPIS

*2. Universal Cause :
Spinoza first treats God as a universal or general cause.
https://monadshavenowindows.wordpress.com/2012/12/22/spinoza-on-the-causality-of-god/

*3. The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
Landauer’s principle formulated in 1961 states that logical irreversibility implies physical irreversibility and demonstrated that information is physical. Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

*4. Plato's Logos :
Plato's Theory of Forms was located within the logos, but the logos also acted on behalf of God in the physical world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

*5. PanEnDeism :
Panendeism is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between God (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of God that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

.
Thank you for your detailed and helpful answer.
Copleston actually believes that Spinoza assumed the relation of logical implication to be the same as the relation of causality, because in my opinion, in implication, the relationship between two or more propositions is two-way, that is, it is not possible for one to exist and not the other, or the violation of one is exactly equivalent to the violation of the other. Is. Just like the example that @180 Proof gave:

God/substance (independent idea) is like the ocean and the universe/infinite mode (dependent idea) is like an ocean wave...

-@180 Proof

Perhaps Copleston believes that Spinoza did not have a non-causal conception of God and the universe, but assumed causation as an implication. Do you think you have the same idea?

That's the most charitable surmise I can make of Copelston's interpretation of Spinoza. I think one has to study Spinoza directly in order to better comprehend the nuances and depths of his conceptions which are not nearly as Anselmian (i.e. of Catholic scholasticism) as Copelston's mention of "the ontological argument" might suggest. — 180 Proof

What little I know of Spinoza's worldview is second-hand, not directly from the source. Nevertheless, I often note the similarity of his Deus Sive Natura god-model to my own PanEnDeistic model ; which, in my Enformationism thesis, I label with various made-up, un-official, non-committal, non-creedal names : G*D ; Enformer ; First Cause ; etc. Like him, I didn't set out to alienate Atheists or Theists, who hold antithetical views. Instead, my information-based god-model is not beholden to doctrinal "Catholic Scholasticism" or to dogmatic Logical Positivism. So, in view of our uncertain knowledge of Ontology, it is viewed as a sort of BothAnd bridge between those opposite shores. Sadly -- just as Spinoza was condemned by true-believers among both Atheists & Theists -- any moderate view can be taken as an affront by those who have extreme (absolutely certain) beliefs on the topic.

These amateur remarks are based on the Spinoza article in the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/) as quoted below :

"His extremely naturalistic views on God, the world, the human being and knowledge serve to ground a moral philosophy centered on the control of the passions leading to virtue and happiness. They also lay the foundations for a strongly democratic political thought and a deep critique of the pretensions of Scripture and sectarian religion. " ___SEP

My own secular worldview can be construed as a "critique of the pretensions of scripture", and of traditional religions. But it was also intended to provide a cosmic understanding of the Ontological question (whence Being?) as inferred from 21st century Science. I was not trying to justify any prior religious or philosophical arguments. Yet, my novel postulations are typically critiqued, not on their own merits, but as-if they were merely a recycling of tried & failed solutions to the big-why questions. However, my proposed worldview is also "naturalistic", in that it does not require or allow any miraculous interventions into the heuristic (trial & error) program of Evolution. Yet, it does mandate a hypothetical Programmer to write the algorithmic rules of natural laws.

Spinoza's 17th century science assumed that Nature itself had existed eternally. So equating the creation with the Creator was a no-brainer. However, in view of the 21st century Cosmology of an ex nihilo beginning, I began to refer to the metaphorical fuse-lighter of the Big Bang (a hypothetical First Cause of Nature), as "Transcendent", in order to provide an Information-based explanation for the implicit eternal void (gap) before the "Bang". This is the same "god-gap" that various cosmologists have tried to fill with non-empirical infinite Multiverses (matter), and hyper-mathematical Inflation of a tidal-wave in space-time (energy). My real-world model is not portrayed as eternal though, but limited by the boundaries of space-time (between Big Bang and Long Sigh). Only an unbounded pre-space-time abyss can be logically described as Timeless & Spaceless, yet with infinite statistical Potential.

Therefore, some kind of ultra-mundane cause (Spinoza's Deus ; my Enformer) seems to be necessary to initiate the logical causal chain of evolution (en-formation ; transformation). Darwinian Evolution is obviously not Deterministic, but seems to be exploring many possible forms (mutations) that are "selected" based on some logical criteria. Hence, whence the statistical potential and whither the goal-directed logic? Likewise, Quantum Physics is inherently uncertain & indeterminate (not physical & actual, but merely Potential : probability distribution of possibilities) .

So, to deny the reality of a philosophical Absolute (Deus) is consistent with the dubious nature of Nature. Yet, philosophical god-denials are typically presented as-if based on Scientific Certainty, as-if quoted from some imaginary bible of scientific revelation. One example of such philosophical negation is The Grand Design, by Steven Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow. It proposes to offer scientific answers to several non-empirical philosophical enigmas :
1. Why is there something rather than nothing?
2. Why do we exist?
3. Why this particular set of laws and not some other?

After famously claiming that “Philosophy is Dead”, the authors ironically use non-empirical philosophical arguments to prove their own Model-Dependent Realism. Yet, one book review labels the authors' worldview as metaphysical “anti-realism”*1. That's because their argument denies the existence of an independent source of verification. Hence, like most philosophical reasoning, the truth of their belief is dependent upon the structure of its own internal Logic, not on empirical facts. Therefore, despite their satirical title, the argument denies the possibility of a Designer to produce the “Grand Design”*2 of Nature. Yet, if no Designer, whence the "design" ; no Organizer, whence the "order" ; no Enformer, whence the Information? :smile:

TO BE CONTINUED . . . . . .


*1. Anti-Realism :
“In anti-realism, the truth of a statement rests on its demonstrability through internal logic mechanisms, such as the context principle or intuitionistic logic, in direct opposition to the realist notion that the truth of a statement rests on its correspondence to an external, independent reality.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realism

*2. Einstein's Grand Design :

What little I know of Spinozas worldview is second-hand, not directly from the source. Nevertheless, I often note the similarity of his Deus Sive Natura god-model to my own PanEnDeistic model — Gnomon

As someone who has studied Spinoza for decades and has also read hundreds of your posts (as well as snippets of your verbose blog), I assure you, sir, Spinozism (re: acosmism) and your "PanEnDeistic god-model" (i.e. "Enformer"-of-the-gaps) are not "similar" in any non-trivial way.. :sweat:

TO BE CONTINUED . . . . . .

:roll:

'Your answers' to the wrong (uninformed) questions, Gnomon, don't matter and never will, mostly because, as you confess

What little I know ... is second-hand, not directly from the source ...

which applies not only to Spinoza but also, as discussions with you by myself and others incorrigibly make clear, to both modern philosophies and contemporary formal & physical sciences.

Of course, you can disabuse me / us of this "bias", Gnomon, by raising your game (which, apparently, you can't :smirk:) and answering these old questions ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/709894

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/718369

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/742056 — 180 Proof

@universeness @Janus

Thanks again for the uncharitable ad hominem critique. But based on our fraught history, I wasn't expecting your expert opinion or your support. Just using your post as a springboard for expressing some ideas that were on my mind, as a means to develop my personal philosophy. As usual, the bounceback is polemical instead of philosophical. I apologize for rousing you from your "dogmatic slumber". :smile:

I wasn't responding to a post with any philosophical content, so I gave back what I got, sir. And no surprise, again you decline the opportunity to engage in philosophical dialectic by addressing the questions put you about your speculations. It's not an ad hominem when an argument wasn't made and the subject actually confirms the criticisms. Nice job. :clap: :lol:

I wasn't responding to a post with any philosophical content, so I gave what I got, sir. — 180 Proof

I apologize for tripping your Anti-Theism Firewall*1 -- AGAIN! -- with trigger-words such as "Deus". But I was just curiously exploring ideas related to the Spinoza Philosophy topic. Apparently you don't consider comparisons to Spinoza's "Deus", or responses to Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy, as philosophical content. Do you deny that postulations-following-"therefore" qualify as legitimate philosophical reasoning : "Therefore, some kind of ultra-mundane cause (Spinoza's Deus ; my Enformer) seems to be necessary to initiate the logical causal chain of evolution (en-formation ; transformation)". Did you find any personal attacks in my post to provoke your ad hominem response? It's very difficult to avoid giving offense, when the trip-wire is so exquisitely sensitive to unstated-but-presumed viruses of mind. :joke:


*1. Informational Skepticism :
"If anything goes, if there are no firewalls against idiocy and irrationality, If we create an information vacuum, then any bogus belief has an equal right to be sold in the market of ideas."
___Oxford philosopher Luciano Floridi, The Logic of Information
Ironically, the author's own speculations & open questions, would be rejected under the purview of Logical Positivism. So, he provides a whole chapter on that road-block to philosophical explorations --- which he defines as "the study of open questions".
Do you think Spinoza's "Deus" is a closed question, settled by physical evidence? Or does it remain an open question, centuries later? According to Discover magazine (M/A 23) modern cosmologists vigorously debate a variety of unverifiable alternative pre-bang god-substitutes, such as Marvel Comics Multiverses, Big Balloon Inflation, and Too Many invisible Worlds. So, on a philosophy forum, why not allow open discussion of philosophical alternatives to ultimate Ontological questions? :nerd:


HAVA NAGILA!

"Don't Have a Cow, Man" is a parody of Israeli folk Jewish song "Hava Nagila".
often used when someone is becoming enraged, as an admonishment that their anger is out of proportion to the inciting incident.
https://grammarist.com/idiom/have-a-cow-and-have-kittens/

That's you: Bart Simpson, The Great Enformer. :rofl:

I interpret this phrase to mean that, as God is the sole real substance (or subject), then causal relations are subordinate to logical dependence. What we see as contingent is in reality strictly determined by God's omnipotence of which logical necessity is a manifestation. — Wayfarer

The notion of "Logical Necessity", as a manifestation of God's omnipotence, reminded me of another aspect of Spinoza's "Deus sive Natura" that is similar to my own unorthodox god-concept --- First & Final Cause of the creative process (causal chain) that is constructing our unfinished world. Godless worldviews must assume that the Energy & Laws for evolution are inherent in Nature. And Spinoza might agree, yet he labelled that causal & directional force : "Omnipotence". Besides, we now know that Nature is not Eternal, but bounded in Space-Time. So, the only preternatural miracle to explain is the ex nihilo (step one) beginning of natural Causation.

Since I'm not a Spinoza scholar like , I have to rely on secondhand interpretations of his god-model & worldview. The Wiki quote below*1, although expressed in different words, sounds amenable to my own non-miraculous PanEnDeistic worldview, in which the Creator is depicted as the Programmer of the Evolutionary process of ongoing Creation*2. However, I disagree with Spinoza's view that human behavior is also fully determined by the Omnipotence of the Natural program. I won't go into that now, except to note that emergent self-awareness might provide more options for human autonomy to exploit, resulting in the offshoot of Nature we call "Culture".

Obviously. this postulated Programmer is not a conventional religious god-model. But it could serve as the basis of a world-model, in which natural laws are simply programmatic declarations or definitions that limit the options for selecting the next generation of in-program states, but also allow some flexibility for adaptation to changing conditions. Obviously, Spinoza did not imagine his Deus as a Programmer, but his "Logical Necessity" could be construed today in terms of computer logic. "Causal Relations" are essentially Logical Relations tied together by Natural Necessity. I'm guessing that the link between Logical & Causal Necessity is divine intention, as postulated by Spinoza. :smile: pace 180 :cool:



*1. Epistemic theory of miracles :
In Chapter Six of Spinoza's Theologico-Political Treatise ("Of Miracles"), Spinoza claims that the universal laws of nature are decrees of God. Hence, any event happening in nature which contravened nature's universal laws, would necessarily also contravene the Divine decree, nature, and understanding; or if anyone asserted that God acted in contravention to the laws of nature, he, ipso facto, would be compelled to assert that God acted against His own nature—an evident absurdity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_theory_of_miracles

*2. Deism ; no miracles :
Olson makes a surprising admission that I agree with, "There is no evidence from nature and reason alone that God is good. Nor is there any evidence from nature or reason alone that the good life includes care for others unless it benefits oneself " . Indeed, his Old Testament god intervened frequently and directly in the affairs of his chosen people. But elsewhere in the world other cultures blamed miracles & calamities on their local gods. And in all times & places, bad things happened to good people, and vice-versa — as-if the gods were randomly pushing buttons on the control panel of their little domains. So I have concluded, not that the G*D of Nature is erratic or impotent, but that the old pre-scientific notion of gods as specific material causes of natural events, was off the mark. Instead, I think the creation was intended to be autonomous, with no divine interventions necessary to correct either natural or cultural mistakes.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page69.html

*3. Evolutionary programming is one of the four major evolutionary algorithm paradigms. It is similar to genetic programming, but the structure of the program to be optimized is fixed, while its numerical parameters are allowed to evolve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming
Note -- In order to evolve viable forms, it is necessary for program elements (including people) to adapt to their dynamic environment.

↪Gnomon
That's you: Bart Simpson, The Great Enformer. :rofl: — 180 Proof

I feel your pain. Having a cow can stretch your cant. :joke:

"Clowns to the left of me ; Jokers to the right
Stuck in the middle with you"
Stealer's Wheel, 1972

"Clowns to the left of me ;
Jokers to the right
[Here I am]
Stuck in the middle with you"
Stealer's Wheel, 1972 — Gnomon

:cool:

Interview with Rebecca Goldstein, philosopher & Antonio Damasio, neuroscientist (2014)



Betraying Spinoza, Rebecca Goldstein

Looking for Spinoza, Antonio Damasio