[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 10 KB, 200x248, spinoza 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13654416 No.13654416 [Reply] [Original]

Was he right about God?

>> No.13654419

>>13654416
might help if you posted what he said

>> No.13654435

>>13654419
I would hope everyone here already knows

>> No.13654470

>>13654435
Cool. But hope is for shitheads and pseuds. So post the quote or kill your thread.

>> No.13654469

>>13654435
Not everyone is here for the same purpose or has the same background in reading.

I particularly don't care much for philosophy.

>> No.13654477

>>13654469
>>13654470
No pseuds

>> No.13654481

>>13654470
I'm not OP

>> No.13654484

>>13654477
Well, you and your chosen author are pseuds. So you broke your own rule.

>> No.13654485

>>13654477
Whatever, it's your thread.

>> No.13654488

>>13654484
Quiet brainlet, adults are talking

>> No.13654492

Spinoza believed that God is “the sum of the natural and physical laws of the universe and certainly not an individual entity or creator”
Sounds like ASS. Guess you're a fag OP and these people are right for not reading him.

>> No.13654501

>>13654481
But you are since you are one and the same samefag.

>> No.13654508

>>13654488
>is data correct
>you pseud
>no you pseud
Impressive adultery you got there, faggot.

>> No.13654512

>>13654492
>Spinoza believed that God is “the sum of the natural and physical laws of the universe and certainly not an individual entity or creator”
There we go. See OP, was that so hard?

Instead of acting like a pseud, OP, and engaging people in your thread, you chose to act like a faggot.

>> No.13654513

>>13654469
then don't reply to the thead, asshole.

>> No.13654522

>>13654513
How not to make a thread and keep it alive: 101
You're a faggot, retard, pseud, and worse than the Christcucks, accelerationists, and MODS!posters.

>> No.13654533

>>13654416
No, the universe itself is not God, but is only an appearance witnessed by God and this appearance itself has God as its underlying substrate, in reality God is immutable and unchanging, He does not transform into objects and the like

>> No.13654539

>>13654513
Now you're just being rude

>> No.13654541

>>13654512
>the pseud is the one who hasn't read spinoza
Why are you still responding, brainlet? Did I really embarrass you this much?

>> No.13654547

>>13654522
>>13654539
cringe. go back to whatever meme general you crawled out from. this thread is for discussion.

>> No.13654554

>>13654435

As would I.

>>13654416

No, OP, of course he wasn't. The god stuff was the unnecessary and inadvisable substructure which he felt obliged to build in order to get at his true and interesting observations concerning human nature.

In another context, Marx made a similar error, by stressing the wrongheaded doctrine of historical materialism as a peculiar justification for the practical elements of his philosophy, which he could and should have simply rephrased in normative terms. This, because it would have been much more honest (in Marx's case however, the remaining philosophy, although intellectually strengthened, would still have been false).

>> No.13654556

>>13654492
>God is an anthropomorphic being

>> No.13654557

>>13654469
>I don't care much for philosophy
>so explain the most complicated theological theory ever created to me real quick so I can tell you what my meaningless opinion is
every time

>> No.13654559

good thread

>> No.13654575

>All these pseudo-intellectuals in this thread

>> No.13654598

>>13654533
That doesn't follow, I'm afraid. if God is "immutable and unchanging" (which incidentally is just saying the same thing twice) how can he witness things that, while existing outside of himself, are nevertheless emergent properties of a strata that is also himself?

>> No.13654620

>>13654556
>God is an abstract anthropomorphic being
Yikes, and wrong to start with, jump-to-conclusions-fag.

>> No.13654623

>>13654416
Yes, in a way. The phrase "God, or substance" precipitates a judgement, but Spinoza effectively withholds his own. the radically agnostic indeterminacy of his project was almost unheard of at the time.

>> No.13654629

>>13654557
>doesn't follow the thread chain
>reddit post
every time

>> No.13654651
File: 37 KB, 740x724, 1566063699950.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13654651

>That doesn't follow, I'm afraid. if God is "immutable and unchanging" (which incidentally is just saying the same thing twice) how can he witness things that, while existing outside of himself, are nevertheless emergent properties of a strata that is also himself?

>> No.13654678

>>13654416
>deism
Not even once. It’s basically atheism.

>> No.13654690

>>13654416
No. But he was right about the basis for government.

>> No.13654739
File: 187 KB, 1597x459, soifallacyfallacy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13654739

>>13654651

>> No.13654741

>>13654598
>how can he witness things that, while existing outside of himself, are nevertheless emergent properties of a strata that is also himself?
Because God is pure consiousness, the things witnessed are not outside of God but are beheld within His consciousness; hence even though they have no fundamental/absolute reality in and of themselves they are still witnessed, similar to how one witnesses dreams which appear as real despite the dreams content not being real

>> No.13654800
File: 125 KB, 1000x500, gottfried leibniz4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13654800

>>13654416
Leibniz was better but he's fine too I guess.

>> No.13654824

>>13654800
Nice wig, faggot.

>> No.13654899

>>13654824
Reminds me of your mom, Sissy.

>> No.13654979

>>13654678
Actually, it was panentheism

>> No.13654980

>>13654469
If God is infinite, he cannot have boundaries; everything is part of God, all is one.

>>13654557
BTFO.

>> No.13655024

>>13654980
cringe
why so many samefags now?

>> No.13655030

>>13654741
>the things witnessed are not outside of God but are beheld within His consciousness
But if that's the case then he cannot also be creator, no? to "witness something" is to passively accept what is presented to you, to imagine or to dream is something quite different.

>> No.13655768

>>13655030
>But if that's the case then he cannot also be creator, no?
Correct, nothing is actually ever created, there is in reality only God