Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:36:01 — 88.0MB)
Discussing Spinoza’s Ethics (1677), books 1 and 2.
We mostly discuss his weird, immanent, non-personal conception of God: God is everything, therefore the world is God as apprehended through some particular attributes, namely insofar as one of his aspects is infinite space (extension, i.e. matter) and insofar as one of his aspects is mind (our minds being chunks or “modes” of the big God mind).
Also, if you’re not going to sell out and go for a university position in philosophy, should you instead grind lenses in your attic without adequate ventilation? (Hint: no) Plus, the Amsterdam of yesterday, whose heady aroma drove people to write like Euclid, property dualism rears its ugly head, and Mel Gibson as Rousseau!
Read a free version online or purchase the book.
One place to read the earlier Spinoza book I refer to, A Short Treatise on God, Man, and his Well-Being (1660), is here. The Karen Armstrong book I keep referring to is The Case for God,
The dumbed down, non-geometric presentation of the Ethics that I talk about is here.
End song: “Spiritual Insect,” by Mark Lint and the Fake from the album So Whaddaya Think? (2000).
Five Stars after 100+ iTunes Ratings.
#1 by Geoff on August 24, 2010 - 11:36 pm
So, god is an infinitely extended, yet indivisible, hermaphrodite.
#2 by Geoff on September 15, 2010 - 10:52 pm
So, I am back for listen number two. I am paying attention, I am nodding sagely, yep, yep, got it, yep…and then wham “Well you can’t really say we are ‘in’ god…” yeah, thanks Linsenmayer.
Damn it. Why can’t the metaphysical simple actually be ‘simple’.
#3 by Mike S. on October 23, 2010 - 2:29 am
Hey,
I think that Spinoza is a pretty intelligent fellow.
I do however, think that Spinoza is un-knowingly parroting Nagarjuna. He’s just using different terms.
But i do find his arguments equally as persuasive. (i guess i would, since i believe them to be the same)
As with Nagarjuna, i wonder what someone like Spinoza would do with the knowledge of modern science.
Modern Neuroscience tells us that the way the brain makes decisions, is much like a symphony. Rather than their being one executive actor, different parts of the brain scream out their various decisions until one screams loud enough for an action to occur.
Personally,
I think this helps illuminate the delusion of what human beings really are. If the only reason we chose “this” over “that” is because “this” part of our brain was slightly louder than “that”, what does this say about who we are. If who we are, is based mostly on decisions made not by some “me”….but by a group of neurons that fired a little faster than a different group of neurons. What does it say, that those neurons only differed based on circumstances beyond our control. (genetics, physical trauma, diet, education).
Realistically, all heroes and villains can be attributed to an organic roll of the dice.
I wonder how Spinoza would frame the argument.
Anyways, another good podcast. Though i would have to disagree with Seth in the end. Spinoza isn’t really saying anything new and radical, atleast as far as what is implied by Nagarjuna hundreds and hundreds of years earlier.
#4 by Seth Paskin on October 23, 2010 - 10:43 am
I can’t agree that Spinoza is just expressing something implied by Nagarjuna. Spinoza is using an established Western concept of ‘substance’ (that which ‘is’, ‘has properties, attributes, etc.’) His radical and innovative move is to say that there is one substance rather many.
On my reading of Nagarjuna, ‘emptiness’ voids the concept of ‘substance’ as there can be no ‘thing’ or ‘not thing’. I can see how you make a connection between everything being subsumed in God and an idea of Oneness, but I think metaphysically, the two are much further apart than you suggest.
–seth
#5 by Mark Linsenmayer on October 23, 2010 - 2:17 pm
Also, even if you want to interpret Buddhism as saying there’s an underlying oneness to everything, i.e. we’re all part of God, still, the Buddhist is going to say that all the surface stuff of our experience is illusion, while Spinoza does not say that; in fact, for Spinoza, investigating the ordinary objects of the world, i.e. doing science, is investigating God, and so is holy, whereas for the Buddhist it seems like science might be useful for dealing with the conventional world but has no religious significance.
#6 by Mike S. on October 23, 2010 - 9:59 pm
To me, Seth, you’re making a distinction without a difference.
Saying everything is an extentsion of, or saying everything is an illusion because it isn’t of……is really saying the same thing.
Saying that there is one substance rather than many, is not really all the different than saying that there is no substance, as any substance would merely be the residue of another substance.
I feel you’re getting hung up on the idea of “substance” being different than “no substance” or “not substance”.
As for Mark, i feel you’re a little too invested in Nagarjuna as a religious figure. Buddhism is a very broad term and i’m not trying to argue what Buddhism might see science as useful for.
When i say Spinoza is parroting what is implied by Nagarjuna, i’ll grant that i’m speaking quite hyperbolically.
I’m referring to the main essence or conclusion of his philosophy.
Anywho, looking forward to part 2.