One fool will follow the other. — Banno

I like being the fool! :D

Personally I'm quite pro-Trump tbh (not my ideal President, but preferable over pretty much all the other Democratic candidates that were available - among the Republicans maybe he wasn't my top choice) :-O

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

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.

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

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.

Yes because it's proof TGW is being convincing :P

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'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.

But why should we think they are? You are not at all convincing. — Banno

But... I'm convinced :-O

Because I'm right about everything. — The Great Whatever

*bows* 8-)

We can't make this distinction either, it might be useful for a logical conceptual framework, but is better to consider it neither here nor there — Punshhh

Based on what grounds?

As I have said, in our ignorance we can't assert that it is nowhere. — Punshhh

What ignorance are you talking about? To know the ignorance is already to transcend it.

If something is nowhere, it doesn't exist(perform a function), if everywhere, it can perform its function. — Punshhh

This seems like an empty distinction to me.

Remove this extension and it is still here and now. — Punshhh

In the sense of the way you experience here and now? No.

As I said above it is not a positive position, it is more an awareness of our limits in making certain assertions. — Punshhh

But to know your limits is already to - to a certain degree - be beyond them.

The mysticism I refer to is equally as rational as philosophy — Punshhh

Prove it.

yes, I know, but this might merely be a naive interpretation of its natural state. It stops further exploration, like a barrier. — Punshhh

Propose an alternative definition then which accounts for all that substance accounts for and improves on it.

I am not a scholar, so can't easily quote the bible, but am aware that it is steeped in words specifically referring to transcendent, or eternal realities. Take Jesus for example, apparently he said "I and my father are one", does this not refer to transcendence? Or what about messages conveyed in Ezekiel, or Revelation? — Punshhh

Why would you take those passages as referring to transcendence?

Sometimes I get annoyed enough to make the mistake of honestly revealing what I really think about the philosophical understanding of those who constantly misread and misrepresent me. — John

Revealing it certainly isn't a mistake, it's the thinking it that's the problem, if you still haven't realised yet:

"By doing this you are like a man who wants to hit another and picks up a burning ember or excrement in his hand and so first burns himself or makes himself stink"

What use not throwing the burning coal if you have already picked it up? >:O Despite your claimed spirituality and mysticism you seem to be nothing but a selfish egomaniac John. I haven't told you that you should be ashamed of yourself for nothing. A man who feels the need to think how superior he is to another certainly is as far as he could get from the spiritual. It seems all your vain philosophy has done little to cure you of this.

That said, the distinction probably works better in a political setting — StreetlightX

I think the distinction is meant for a political setting. Regardless,

because there are more obvious criteria by which to judge which is which (which side's policy gets implemented? (adversaries) vs. who get vanquished and loses the right to speak (enemies)). — StreetlightX

In real politics, whether someone loses the right to speak or not depends on how dangerous they are, and how willing they are to disrupt the victor using that right. If they are both dangerous and willing to disrupt the victor (openly), then they will lose the right to speak. Otherwise obviously they won't. This is so regardless of whether we function under the system of democracy, or under the system of monarchy, or any other system. The mechanisms by which one loses this power is different in democracy compared to, say, monarchy. But it still exists.

:s , well good luck with that Wayfarer! (Y)

Because they're not of the world? Well unless, of course, you're materialist, in which case they're simply delusional or psychotic. You tell me. — Wayfarer

It seems that you believe that one either thinks they are not of the world, and hence can be transformative, or they are of the world, and can't be transformative, but are delusions and psychotic episodes. Can I not think that they are of the world and are transformative? What's wrong with that?

If I am a materialist, I don't have to reject what obviously is the case - that they are precious and transformative. Only some dumb materialists make such a rejection, as if such experiences being properties of matter thus makes them anymore less real...

Look at the encyclopedia entries on the 'beatific vision'. Such states are held to be more than simply experiences - they're transformative or even redemptive. — Wayfarer

How can they be anymore transformative than other potential experiences in the world? All experiences, are, to a certain degree, transformative. Falling in love is equally transformative - is that a mystical experience?

If it is a necessary being and is somewhere — Punshhh

It isn't somewhere. Somewhere is a distinction from somewhere else.

You are denying it by stating that it is nowhere. — Punshhh

What's the difference between something being nowhere and something being everywhere?

You need to have reasons to think that it might be somewhere,

No I don't — Punshhh

If you don't need reasons to hold a certain position, then you are irrational, end of story, and therefore there's no use arguing with you.

Where is it, it is here and now. Touch the end of your nose, it is there, deny its presence and it is itself asserting that denial, because it is you, your body, your thoughts, your being. You are it, if you are somewhere, so then is this substance. — Punshhh

:-} "here and now" is a temporal distinction and is no different than the previous spatial distinctions you were making. Indeed, it is only from your ignorance and limited perspective that you think the present is any more real (and therefore anymore substance) than the past or future.

I am pointing out that the assertion, there is only one substance cannot be supported in our ignorance — Punshhh

So this isn't "holding" something?

No that is incorrect, I have a large and extensive "mystical" philosophy which dispels this view and considers the transcendent in detail in many circumstances and from many perspectives. — Punshhh

:s I suppose "mystical" is codename for irrational. You and John both retreat in mysticism (irrationalism) as you have no other means of supporting your views.

the so called "substance" of a certain kind is brought forth — Punshhh

By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself — Agustino

So let us see... what is in itself and is conceived through itself is brought forth - that surely makes a lot of sense (N)

Surely you have read this in the bible, it is there for those that can perceive it. — Punshhh

No I haven't read about transcendence in the Bible - I've read about a God who interacts with mankind, and therefore acts in the world.

In the minds of the people in question, it does. It's so difficult because people expect (and sometimes demand) it's empirical. Just as John has done, they will demand to know what the infinite is, in the world, as if it depended on being some observed states of the world. People find it difficult to be aware of the infinite because they are already using metaphysic that holds the finite is all there is to know. If it's not empirical, they claim it is unintelligible. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well this is why I'm not a mystic - I cannot fathom nor comprehend why people search for "the beatific vision" or any such experience - it's still an experience, what more can it be? And like all other experiences, it too will end. So what's the point of searching for it? Why are they even searching so desperately for it? Just focusing on "regular life" seems much better to me.

As an infinite, it's is intelligible, rather than being some mystery we can never access because we don't have observation of it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It's not that we don't have observation for it that makes it difficult to become aware of it. It's precisely that the infinite inheres within the finite at all points that makes it difficult to become aware of - the fish isn't aware of the water in which he moves and has his being. So it's difficult to become aware of it, and make it intelligible (for many people), precisely because it is everywhere and nowhere.

The problem the atomists set out to solve was that posed by Parmenides - how 'that which is', which was never changing, could account for the realm of multiplicity and change.

"Ancient sources describe atomism as one of a number of attempts by early Greek natural philosophers to respond to the challenge offered by Parmenides. Despite occasional challenges (Osborne 2004), this is how its motivation is generally interpreted by scholars today. Parmenides had argued that it is impossible for there to be change without something coming from nothing. Since the idea that something could come from nothing was generally agreed to be impossible, Parmenides argued that change is merely illusory. In response, Leucippus and Democritus, along with other Presocratic pluralists such as Empedocles and Anaxagoras, developed systems that made change possible by showing that it does not require that something should come to be from nothing. These responses to Parmenides suppose that there are multiple unchanging material principles, which persist and merely rearrange themselves to form the changing world of appearances"
— SEP

The atomist doctrine was, of course, set in prose-poem by Lucretius, which is the form that had considerable impact on the French philosophers of the Enlightenment - 'I see nothing but bodies in motion'. — Wayfarer

No doubt that historically this was the case - they were back in those days still confusing physics and metaphysics and the boundary wasn't very clear, hence their notions became confused, having both a physical sense, and a metaphysical one.

So I think in any form of atomism, 'the void' is precisely not substance, but absence - the void. Whereas 'the atom' is the fundamental unit of everything; as I said, it's a simple binary, where atom = 1, void = 0. (Notice how materialism has now generally been re-branded as 'physicalism' because physics itself has undermined atomism. But physicalism or materialism are monistic doctrines, everything comes from matter and returns to it.) — Wayfarer

The reason why I think this is the wrong understanding is because you're not attending the definition of substance given by Spinoza which I was using:

By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself — Agustino

So the void is also in itself and conceived through itself. The notion of atom for example does not entail the notion of void. So clearly substance in Epicureanism is "atoms and void" - and necessarily so. The conceptual division in substance between atoms and void becomes helpful to explain how movement (change) is possible - how the modes of substance are possible. This does indeed form a coherent metaphysics, precisely because it fulfils the same function that substance does in Spinoza. So my quarrel isn't with your binary interpretation of the metaphysics (with which I agree, but that happens at a lower level than what I'm trying to tell you). My point is that there is something more important than that - namely this logical function that "atoms and void" performs.

It's not only logical. Materialism is a metaphysical stance, which has many practical consequences, not least what is considered a valid idea. Modern science will go to amazing lengths to avoid certain kinds of ideas; I often quote a speech by Hawkings, where he resists the theory that the Universe might have had a beginning, simply because it seems to invoke a 'first cause' or 'hand of God'. Much of the speculative metaphysics about 'multiverses' is due to avoiding the naturaleness or fine-tuning problem. — Wayfarer

But certainly you realise that people like Hawkings are not philosophers, and their understanding of philosophy isn't very good. There is a first cause in materialism - it's the substance "atoms and void". So he can protest all he likes, Hawkings still has an eternal first cause, indeed - a first cause is inescapable - even if you call it the multiverse ;)

most Western Buddhists who have grown up since the sixties tend to assume a pretty liberalistic attitude — Wayfarer

Yes exactly my observation. I did however know a non-Western Buddhist (she happened to be my girlfriend) who wasn't liberalistic in attitude (neither she nor her family were for that matter).

That absence of discussion is interpreted as liberalism in my view, but it's a hot-button topic and one that I avoid. — Wayfarer

Why do you think it's useful to avoid hot-button topics? They are often the elephants in the room, precisely because they are hot buttons it becomes important to address them, at least in my view.

I think 'annoyed' is more like it. I often feel like I'm arguing at cross-purposes. (My wife also gets annoyed with me because she thinks forums are basically a waste of time). But also I wonder if own motivation is sounding off and simply telling others what I think. I hope not, but I need to be mindful of that. — Wayfarer

Okay, I see, I understand! I don't think you're just sounding off, I think you're trying to help others, but as I said I feel many times you're holding back from it for some reason - like you're not doing it with your whole being if you get what I mean - your engagement isn't total when you're doing it, as if you were somehow conflicted about it.

Kind of you to say so. I started that blog to express my thoughts on these subjects, a couple of years before discovering forums. If I was trying to get an audience, I would take a different tack now. I might to that. — Wayfarer

Yeah I mean you've built so much content there over the years, I've looked through awhile ago. It's a pity not to do anything with it...

Every time someone brings this up, you know they have zero interest in understanding a complex phenomenon such a wealth creation. — Emptyheady

Wealth creation (and I'm talking about real wealth creation, not peanuts), just like empire building takes the right circumstances, the right positioning and a bit of luck. If you have all that, it's actually not that hard assuming that you also have sufficient intelligence to approach the situation in the right way.

I think an important thing to consider that sacrificing your habitat for the sake of a higher GDP is practically unavoidable in a consumerist and competitive economy.

It's really a sort of miracle that countries actually can look past GDP growth for the sake of preserving the environment for higher GDP growth (e.g Paris climate agreement).


However, I believe that we are past the point of no return in terms of climate change. I guess we'll just to adapt and learn how to live in a new environment. — Question

Personally I don't think matters are that settled. It may very well be possible that the planet has a self-regulating mechanism which is capable to dispose of the warming effect and we just haven't thought of it yet. Us humans are terrible terrible at predicting anything. We can't even predict economic crises - much less how the planet will react to warming.

Mass destruction is accomplished by war and natural disaster, that's the 'how'. — unenlightened

The world is born, grows, dies and then is re-born. We're at the end of civilisation - this has happened many times in history and will go on happening. There is no stopping this historical cycle. No technology and no society will ever escape this. It seems undeniable that man has a propensity for sin - and sin has a propensity for destruction. Thus ultimately even the best of societies will decay and die. A propensity is just a statistic though - there is nothing actually preventing a perfect society for existing for millenia - it's just not likely. As it happened with our own society, moral decay, the rise of hedonism, the fall of discipline, - these have brought all societies to their knees and will continue to do so. The masses of people are too stupid. Have you ever read this paper?

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

Discipline exists when things are hard - people understand why it's needed. When things aren't hard, people forget why discipline is needed. When they forget why discipline is needed, they abandon it. When they abandon it, they stop doing what they did to make things easy. Thus things become hard again. And the cycles repeats.

I'm sorry Agustino but your inability to read anything most people say charitably means I'm going to put you on ignore. Enjoy the forums without interacting with me. — Benkei

>:O You interacted with me out of your own free will, nobody forced you to, and then you're the one protesting? That is a bit strange. And putting me on ignore will just mean you're too scared of reading my posts - maybe it makes you question your own worldview too much. Anyway, I haven't and I will never put anyone on ignore. I may refuse to engage with some people - that's reasonable. But to avoid seeing what someone says? That's kinda stupid, sorry to say, not to mention that it is an example of intellectual cowardice.

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

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?!

You need to have reasons to think that it might be somewhere, just as you need reasons to think that the sun "might" not rise tomorrow. You can't doubt in the absence of reasons to ground your doubt in. What reasons do you have for thinking this? Where could it be? You don't know. And the fact that it "might" be different is not a reason. You need positive reasons. To think that the sun will not rise tomorrow you need reasons for this. You have some reasons, however weak, for thinking that the sun will rise tomorrow (it has always been the case, you understand the laws of physics, etc) but you have utterly no reason at all to think or even conceive that the sun will not rise tomorrow. Thus you cannot suspend judgement - if you are to be rational you MUST believe it will rise tomorrow.

I've provided you with reasons why it can't be anywhere - in fact you're saying it is "out there" - where the fuck is out there? If substance is all there is, where the hell is "out there"? As if substance was "out there" and not also "in here".... as if you could look at it from outside of it...

The possibility of more than one substance is denied, I see no justification for this. — 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 that God is transcendent of this substance is denied, I see no justification of 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.

what Spinoza denies about reality. — 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.

You dismiss ideas that don't confirm your world view rather quickly. — Benkei

It's not a matter of confirming or not confirming my worldview. This simply has no bearing on it. I don't dispute that animals have feelings of empathy and fairness. But that's not morality.

Business is morality when you trust the other will perform their obligation (fairness and reciprocity). Especially absent an effective system of enforcement (judges and police) this is governed by a shared system of morality. — Benkei

I trust that they will perform their obligation only because I know that if they don't they'll suffer for it (so assuming they are rational I have no reason to think they will not follow it) - in addition I know that if they want to earn future favors from me, they better perform it. I don't need an effective system of enforcement (judges and police) to ensure that this is the case. Man ultimately takes justice in his own hands. Who knows, if they spite me, maybe in 10-20 years they'll need a favor or mercy from me - and I will return their spite. If they are going to be irrational, they will pay for it. But this isn't morality. This is business.

I repeat what I've said. Human beings are the only creature we know of who can engage in an action because it is good, regardless of the effects this has on oneself. Other animals engage in cooperative actions and practices because it's mutually advantageous, even if not at present, but in the long run it certainly is.

Okay I've watched it. Exactly as I've expected - a case of animals being capable of being good businessmen. That's why human beings are also so immoral - because they function like these animals, they think they are just like the animals. For example your wife doesn't cheat on you not because this is good - but because she's afraid you'll leave her. This is nothing but immorality masquerading itself as morality.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Now time to focus on work...

I will watch it but are you sure that it's not a case engaging in actions because they are good for me kind of "morality"? The monkey reconciles with the other monkey because it is advantageous to both of them to reconcile. This is a business deal, not morality :-}

Because it can be part of sex and often is and you've stated that sex as part of a lasting relationship was the way to go. Just wanted to get that straight. — Benkei

Mutual masturbation is, not self-masturbation. I haven't claimed mutual masturbation in the context of a committed relationship is wrong.

It smells of a capricious distinction to me. Monkeys can reason and do have a set of moral rules. You could look into some of the work done by Frans de Waal to get an idea. Thelatest research in animal intelligence (and morality) suggests a far greater - but specialised - intelligence exists within them than that we've been led to believe. For clarity's sake, I'm not saying that because it naturally occurs it's therefore acceptable, just pointing out that reason and moral rules are concepts other animals have and apply. — Benkei

Only via outside pressure. For a monkey it's not good to abstain from beating the other monkey because it is moral, rather it's good to abstain from it because otherwise they'll be kicked out of the monkey community and die. I don't call that morality. Maybe dogs actually show a sense of morality that is closer to humans (some dogs) but even there it is questionable.

Man is the only being we know of who can engage in actions because they are good - for goodness sake, and for no other reason.

How about teenagers who don't have the capacity to reason sufficiently to make these sort of ethical trade offs? If the capacity to reason is a reason why ethics applies to us then certainly stupid or underdeveloped people are excused and not acting immorally when they masturbate. — Benkei

No they aren't excused. Their actions are still immoral, their culpability however may be lessened by their ignorance.

What if your wife enjoys watching? — Benkei

Why do you think that would make a difference? She can enjoy watching, but that doesn't mean it's any less harmful for me. (Now it's different when it comes to mutual masturbation if you're asking about that...)

And what about a masturbating monkey? Is the monkey sinning as well? — Benkei

Are human beings monkeys? You should be aware that morality only applies to other human beings - or rather to beings capable of reason (and hence of ordering their passions). A monkey may not be able to do this unless compelled from the outside.

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

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.

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

So you are expecting to find such a thing empirically? Don't you see that this is precisely what Substance is NOT?

This is merely conjecture, we don't know if there is such a substance, or a multitude of substances. — 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.

Oh so it's a thought experiment, that's ok. But what does it tell us about reality then? ( or substances, or God) — Punshhh

No it's not a fucking thought experiment at all.

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

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.

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

Actually in Greek meta is better translated as "above" or "beyond" (in the sense of presupposed) than either after or about.

If 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

>:O

The idea is that any physics (empirical) necessarily necessitates and presupposes metaphysics (logical). The further idea is that you don't need to know the contents of physics (which are empirical) to generate metaphysics (which is logical and has to apply to whatever the contents of physics happen to be).

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

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.

But, notice that the whole basis of the Buddhist 'madhyamika' (middle-path) analysis, is that nothing either 'truly is' or 'truly is not'. — Wayfarer

Even Nirvana? X-)

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

How did the visit to Sri Lanka draw you to Buddhism?

Of course, often times the record of 'those who have gone before' will either ossify into dogma — 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?

Let me give you an example that I've used before. If I am a liberal, and I read "The Meet the Real Dragon", the chapter "Not to do Wrong", and I read all the precepts I will go on thinking that according to Buddhism there's nothing wrong with casual sex or sex between two men, and so forth. Now do you agree with that statement or not? If not, can you explain why you don't think the statement is true? Moving on, in case you agree with it - doesn't this mean then that I will be deceived in my error and will therefore proceed in it by, for example, having sex with other men with a clean conscience? If you don't agree why not? If you do agree, then does that mean that the study of Buddhism via that book has deceived me because it has failed to alert me of my own presuppositions and unquestioned assumptions?

I have no public platform, what I write here or say to the people I know is the only platform I have. — 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 try not to be malicious or to gossip, as those are both wrong speech. — 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'm not going to address John, I'm done with him in-so-far as this thread is concerned (he is free to remain stuck in his pseudo-philosophy, thinking he understands when he does not). If anyone else has questions regarding Spinozism please feel free to ask, and I will respond to you (even if you happen to be stuck with the same misunderstandings and facile misreadings as John).

Right! Which is why I am of the view that physics has torpedoed materialism. — Wayfarer

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.

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

That's all good, indeed I have no problem with that :)

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?

By the way, this conversation is much better than before because you're attempting to answer questions directly, and so it's more enjoyable and productive. You can see I hope how avoiding questions or not answering them would anger and annoy the person you're conversing with right? That's not productive because a conversation presupposes that we're honest with each other and we'll answer each other's questions.

I 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

Right I see how good your understanding is :-d

Now I don't know if Spinoza has proved this using his logic, as I have not studied his work. — Punshhh

That too is evident.

This is however irrelevant, because I have attacked logical intellection itself, which Spinoza relies on. — Punshhh

Good if you attacked logical intellection itself, then you have resorted to unintelligibility, so there's no point of arguing with you.

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

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.

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

This is not an empirical matter - it's a strictly logical matter.

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

:-} read it again...

So there is a proof in there, is there? — 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.

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

Confusion of logical and empirical matters.

This "reality isn't intelligible" has not been said, I don't know where you pulled it from. — 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.

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

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.

You referred to God as being constituted as we are, as "being of the same substance" — John

Number 1: This means that God isn't (or rather CAN'T be) transcendent. I meant to say that the notion of transcendence is incoherent - ie there is only one substance, there can't be many.
Number 2: I never used the word constituted. (for something to be constituted requires that there is something to constitute it)
Number 3: This is what I was referring to in a post to you, where I wasn't even using Spinoza's system. Now your reply with the stupid question (and everyone knows the stupid question by now) occurred in a post replying to Punshhh who was quibbling with me over Spinoza's system. So can I know what the fuck what I said earlier in a post to you had to do with your reply to Punshhh talking to me about Spinoza's system?

But if God is the substance that constitutes, then it makes no sense to speak of God as being constituted as we are or as "being of the same substance" — John

Yeah - thanks to your lack of subtlety as you like to say, you interpret it that way. All that the statement meant is that God being transcendent is incoherent - ie there are no two substances.

Now you still haven't answered my question that I've asked you two times to answer already. If you don't answer this question this time again, and deliberately ignore it, I will ignore your post.

:-} 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

In addition to this I've asked you to provide evidence for what exactly you're referencing here:

Spinoza's own arguments concerning the difference between necessary and contingent beings — John

But the question as to what is being is no easier to answer than 'What is substance'? — John

Are you lacking in reading comprehension skills by any chance?
"By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself"

In any case, it seems to me that to think of God as substance or being is to objectify God. This is not to say that God is thus thought as an object or a being, but that He is thought as nothing more than the being of objects or beings. — John

No - you totally misunderstood Spinoza. No wonder 180 didn't want to have anything to do with you. He would usually not bother with those of low intellectual capacity and would easily break conversation with them when they couldn't keep up. "The being of objects" - get off your Heidegger and other obscurantists. The modes of substance are the waves of the ocean, and the substance is the ocean itself. Is the ocean the "being" (understood in an ACTIVE sense) of the waves? Yes, but this is an incredibly obscurantist way of putting it, because being is usually understood as a noun, and in this case it's also an activity. So the fact that "God is thought as nothing more than the being of objects or beings" is dead wrong.

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. — 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? You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Now you'll run out of here claiming victory over both myself and 180 - shamelessly like you've already done before. It's not our fault that you don't even understand Spinoza, even after "years of reading him" >:O .

You obviously fail to understand that I was presenting it as a stupid question, not posing it as a sensible question to which we should seek an answer. It shows that thinking of God as being constituted as we are, or in your terms as "being of a substance" is flawed. Typical lack of subtlety. — John

In what way is it flawed? Stop being pedantic and back-peddling. This is what you do every single time to run away. You gave your question - and the inability to answer it - as proof for the notion of substance being flawed. I've explained that given the notion of substance, your question makes no sense at all. If it makes no sense at all, that means that it's not substance that is at fault, but your question, and it can't be used as a criticism of substance. Therefore you have presented no case for how substance is flawed.

Of course, that is the point; it is stupid to think of God as "being of a substance", which was what I was trying to point out to you earlier. — John

I asked you a question. Please answer it.

:-} 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

Of course, that is the point; it is stupid to think of God as "being of a substance", which was what I was trying to point out to you earlier. — John

:s No it isn't stupid. Your question is stupid. If the Prime Mover does the moving then nothing moves it, so asking how could the Prime Mover itself be moved is nonsense. That's why in Aristotelian science it is known as the Unmoved Mover.

Anyway, the point of the post is not about Buddhism in particular, it's a cross-cultural comparison between Spinoza's and Descartes' idea of the 'uncaused' and a similar idea in Buddhist philosophy. — Wayfarer

Pretty much all metaphysics must have an idea of the uncaused, because otherwise you're stuck with an infinite regress no? So even materialism must have an uncaused cause - for Epicurus "atoms and void" are eternal. So the very attempt to make an intelligible whole out of reality leads to the idea.

Have you considered that it's possible you don't understand it very well? Those sources are plainly polemical. — Wayfarer

Whether I understand it or not is besides the point I'm trying to make to you. I may very well think highly of Buddhism, and in fact I do. However - this doesn't change the fact that many of the people who claim to be Buddhists, who go to practice Buddhism, and so forth have misinterpreted the teaching. My point is political - Buddhism has been so misinterpreted by so many people that it is beyond saving - at least in the West. It becomes a host for liberalism/progressivism, and it merely becomes another way to spread them. It has no mechanism - as far as I'm aware, to stop these misinterpretations and correct them - practically speaking, it doesn't even seem to be doing so, instead it is happy that it is gaining converts.

Those links I have given you may be polemical, but it is people of different persuasions, liberals and conservatives, noting the same trend with regards to Buddhism. These people may very well be misunderstanding Buddhism. So it is. But so what? The facts are still the facts - they are a large share of those who call themselves Buddhists, and use Buddhism to spread their beliefs. How do you, as not this kind of Buddhist, deal with this for example? Are you happy your religion is used for these purposes? If no, then what are you doing about it and how do you propose it can be corrected?

If substance is what constitutes — 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.

And I'm not even mentioning that even if things were as you frame them - your question, "if substance is what constitutes, how could substance itself be constituted?" is just as stupid as the question "if the Prime Mover is what moves, how could the Prime Mover itself be moved?" :s