Steven Nadler talk on Spinoza - Part 2 of 2

[keesvangulik127]

I think, people who are afraid need a god, and the courageous don't. If there's a god or not is a totally unimportant question.

[MacksPower75]

I think Nadler misinterprets Spinoza here and uses his philosophy to disprove an anthropomorphic God instead of focusing on the God Spinoza speaks of. Spinoza is an atheist as far as a personal God goes but he is not an atheist as far as God goes, if anything Spinoza is a gnostic who believes the totality of everything existent is one substance.That this substance has a character of being self created and that all things self created are closest to the essence of or at least alignment with God.

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

humans dont have free will

[philonous09]

of the infinite attributes. Another reason why I'm reluctant to agree with Nadler's case that Spinoza is an Atheist is because Spinoza clearly believed that the Substance was not only an Eternal Substance with infinite attributes but also a Thinking Substance that contemplates on it's own perfection (some-what similar to Aristotelian God except such a God is transcendent, not immanent). Nonetheless I enjoyed Nadler's lecture, and I might consider his arguments.

[philonous09]

I would agree with Nadler that Spinoza is an atheist in the sense that Spinoza rejects the supernatural (which includes divine revelation and miracles), however I don't agree that Spinoza equates God with nature in the ordinary sense. If nature means what we ordinarily understand nature to be then I would have to reject this because Spinoza was not a naturalist; Spinoza clearly believed that there were infinite attributes of the Substance, and materiality and Ideas (or mentality) were two

[YourIQispaltry]

These are brilliantly clear lectures on Spinoza. Thank you Prof. Nadler. The Ethics is as arcane as philosophy gets and its difficulty is obvious. This understanding of Spinoza's conception of God is spot-on (although the label panentheist has almost been created for Spinoza-- he is more an Atheist than anything that is the least bit spiritual or contains an iota of the supernatural). And a simple question for someone other than me to answer: Why didn't Spinoza use "Nature" in place of "God"?

[Ravengaurd6]

nice work folks! I hope you all feel better about what you believe in! Now, let's go do some actual physical work with physical results because reason and faith are both dead elements without work and actions.

[untropezon]

Thank you for this video!

I believe a healthy dose of awe and admiration for nature benefits the understanding of nature (science).

I think passions are intrinsic to human nature. Attempts to act dispassionately, therefore, only lead to human actions that obscure and repress their intrinsic passional motivations (and an ethics of denial -or the denial of ethics). Reason and passion never cease to coexist. (And that's the truth, Ruth)

(I am an atheist BTW)

[DrMontague]

I would have liked to have heard all of the questions and answers that follow the lecture. Nonetheless thanks for the upload.

[CoIorfulPoop]

beside, I don't think Spinoza is an atheist. Spinoza's God is "perfect" and "infinite" (Spinoza, Ethics, pt. I, Proposition xi.) while atheists only believe in nature laws.

There is a difference between pantheism and atheism. Spinoza believes God is more than just nature (God is also a concept of perfection and God is infinite), unlike Richard Dawkins.

[Letranger]

@CoIorfulPoop You haven't understood Spinoza. "Deus sive Natura" is all I need to say to demonstrate the falsity of your claims about Spinoza's God.

[CoIorfulPoop]

Steven Nadler has too many "um" "uh" in his speech. He is a very poor speaker.

[Letranger]

@CoIorfulPoop Obviously you haven't listened to very many academics. Nadler is far better than most.

[esharpie420]

what i dont understand though, is if there are laws in nature, why?

why does nature create laws?

[untropezon]

@esharpie420 A truly philosophical question. A key start for a broader discussion of how we view, and deal with, nature.

I won't attempt an answer, just a grateful note. :-)

[Ravengaurd6]

@esharpie420 there are no laws in nature but the specific "nature" of things in nature that do not allow or always cause certain results until the right causes come into effect and cause those specific effects.

there are no laws in nature, only limits.

[jmatrim]

I'm not sure why Nader uses 'morals' as if they are a self-explanatory good to be defended. language games? 00.40

[pr0gm3r]

Spinoza discredit an "Awe" because it is derived from the passions (emotions). And Spinoza do not believed that passions should not dominate reason. According to Him reason is the only place to understand nature.

It seem that Spinoza has been studying with Buddha.

[psilotum10000]

I think this is a bit of a shallow reading of Spinoza. I've read portions of the Ethics and there is a clear sense of religious devotion and awe. To take a spiritual attitude or having awe does not contradict seeking understanding. Spinoza's 'God or nature' is greater than both, infinite and ever present (as well as creative/generative).

For Spinoza, the ultimate good is understanding the universe and what is "in ones best interest", ie. what one should do.

[philonous09]

@psilotum10000 I would have to agree with you, I felt a bit skeptical when I was listening to this lecture and I think that Spinoza saw God more than just nature but a Substance with infinite attributes in which Nature happens to be subsumed under. For Spinoza there is no "Right" or "Wrong" but only good means to control you're emotions in order to experience union with reality or being stuck in you're self-centered emotional state. 

[eatme2421]

Great talk! I have been a fan of Spinoza from the first time I read his work over a decade ago. In my opinion, The concept proposed by Mr. Nadler of Panthestic Atheism is lost as applied to Spinoza. Spinoza proposes Nature and God being equal and inseperable. To call him an Atheist would, by definition imply Spinoza did not "believe" in Nature - which is clearly not the case.

[pjioayncoe]

It all depends on how you define God. If you equate God with the Supernatural, then Spinoza is an atheist. If you equate God with Nature, then Spinoza is not. However, most of us consider God to be outside of Nature, so Spinoza can be called an atheist.

[eatme2421]

I agree with what you are saying as applied to MY opinion. Still, We are not talking about how I define God, but how Spinoza defines God. In Ethics - It is clear that Spinoza proposes a being :

God is infinite substance, consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses Gods eternal and infinite essence (I, Prop. XI). From the beginning of the subject, he is clearly not defining something that does not exist and therefore an atheist argument.

[pjioayncoe]

Spinoza's God is Nature, and atheists do believe in laws of Nature.

[eatme2421]

Now you agree with me. See, it is not so hard. The first step is to shed the idea that judeo-christ-muslim are the only valid definitions of "God". Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no God. To Spinoza, God and Nature are inseperable. There is no way one can claim Spinoza was Atheist. To your statement, Atheists may believe in Nature but, - they necessarily do not believe Nature is God.(as Spinoza proposes) If they did, they could not be truely Atheist.

[stav2009]

Good to see that Nadler is as good a lecturer as he is a writer. His introduction to the Ethics is one of the best there is.

However, I do wonder whether Spinoza is an Atheist -- he is clearly informed by the Judeo-Christian conception of God. And when, he talks about the "Intellectual *Love* of God", I don't think that the use of the term, "Love" is accidental -- maybe not as as strong as worship but stronger than merely scientific curiosity.

[riversonthemoon]

While I don't think he's an atheist in the sense that we usually use it he was certainly a monist but believed in the perfection of the world, seeing God and nature as identical and mathematically precise, rejecting divine intent and purpose. He considered spirituality a part of human life, as a way to maintain equanimity in a hostile environment. He didn't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater as far as religion was concerned. I've heard him referred to as a 'proto-hippy'. LOL

[ComradeAgopian]

@riversonthemoon , Spinoza as a proto hippy.......I like it .

[snufkin789]

@stav2009

As any knowledge is derived through contemplation about the impressions gained by your conscience, i.e. your senses, I would be d'accord with your idea: intellectual capacity and love evolves of sensual impressions, so it cannot necessarily be cut off from every emotional power, on the contrary, the reflection over your contemplative insights rathers amplifies your sensitivity and thus your ability to love pure.

[snufkin789]

Spinoza describes three ways of acknowledgement, the first is the sensual (empirical), the second is contemplating (rational), and the third and highest / deepest is the intuitive. His mechanistic world-view is not by any means a reason for us to see the world less fascinating, it is rather a fascinating simplification that he managed to create, it gives us freedom to explore the ways of this 'machine of existence' to grow higher in our capabilities and thus to discover our own freedom.

[snufkin789]

Everyone who can identify with Spinoza or who is interested in his thoughts I am recommending you all to read Meister Eckhart, an outstanding German mystic and scholastic preacher that had captured the essence of monism centuries before Spinoza. It is strange that Eckhart wasn't recognized by Spinoza at all, but nevertheless Eckharts conception of god show many similarities to Spinozas ideas. Eckhart's conception of God, as Spinoza's, was deep and thoroughly moving, however both got ostracized.

[PoKemonIstGOT]

spinoza is good stuff. i also strongly recommend the early works of Slayer.

[GranolaLola1]

i agree that good does not simply mean 'short-term good' for oneself but long-term good done for the benefits of society.. there are a number of long term benefits one can reap in return for an enlightened well-functioning society

whether we want to except it or not, we are part of a larger society, who's actions affect us

for ex. if there was a war, it is ignorant to think everyones actions or thoughts would not be in some way affected by it.n other ppl's actions affect us

i love Socrates!

[riversonthemoon]

I think the problem here, though, lies in the intractability and varying opinion of what exactly constitutes 'long-term good' for society. It basically leads us to politics and economics.

[GranolaLola1]

the people who actually control the politics and/or economics and have the power to make real change for the benefits of society are typically concerned only for the short-term benefits of themselves...its simple to see that public services

[GranolaLola1]

i accidentally clicked 'post comment' prematurely

i was going to use the example of long benefits of investing in public services such as shelters..but this raises taxes which short-term, many people do not want to do..especially those who control the gov't as they usually have a lot of money, dont use many public services, n use their power to benefit themselves (short-term benefit)

i think most of it comes down to economics (as you pointed out), more then varying opinion

[riversonthemoon]

'are typically concerned only for the short-term benefits'

This actually echoes Plato's criticism of democracy - that we would be concerned with short term gain at the expense of long term, shallow political discourse and worship of images, prone to fashions. Very astute guy, Plato was.

I think economics, as it is applied, becomes inextricable from politics. Ideally the analysis should be dependent on the data, but how we should proceed in spending public money becomes about value judgments.

[colourmegone]

@riversonthemoon It was Socrates who despised democracy. Socrates liked to hang around with the sons of the aristoi ('best men', i.e. propertied) and engage them in sophistic dialogues. Plato, who was one of these, was echoing his teacher's words. It is interesting to note that when Plato actually set up his 'Republic' at the invitation of philosopher king it was such a miserable failure that the king sold him into slavery. He was freed by funds raised by the Peripitetic School in Athens.

[tom1600x1050]

About Nadler's question about morality, I think it's logical to build from "good = what's good for the person" to "good = what's good for others". I think that's what Nadler says. So, over time, it makes sense to treat other people well, be fair, help them, because they can help you in turn later on. I think this is what Spinoza says.

[riversonthemoon]

There are modern versions of this idea, too. I've heard that being fair, helping others etc., are good memes to propagate. More people accepting these memes means a more livable society for everyone. Personally, I think this idea comes with some problems, as a society that is 'too' nice leaves itself open to exploitation by 'nasty' strategies. That's not to say that I think ethics are about game theory, but I think game theory does shed light on the 'best' way for people to coexist.

[tom1600x1050]

Excellent video. I'd like to see longer explanations of Spinoza's thought. Morality, I think, is a difficult subject, and I see religion as a quickie book like "Morality for Dummies" which is mostly correct. We're so time-pressed; we rarely have time to think through the difficult shoals of what's good and true and moral. So religion gives us a guidepost which is, surprisingly, mostly good advice (don't kill, don't commit adultery, etc). Still, I think Spinoza is right.

[riversonthemoon]

Too true. Religion, despite its shortcomings, does have some interesting and useful things to say on morality. The seven mortal sins could be part of a treatise on self-destructive behavior. I think if we ignored the wisdom present in some of our superstitions, we would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[tom1600x1050]

Interesting idea. When Nadler talks about "good" being our self-interest, I wonder if Nadler should have elaborated. I interpret Spinoza's sense of "good" as things which help us affect others (people, things) as well as be affected by others in ways that help us become more powerful, more enlightened, stronger. So, moving to a bigger city is usually good because there are more opportunities for us, as well as more opportunities for others to interact with us, for our betterment.

[riversonthemoon]

I loved it how that woman who was saying she doubts that a secular theory/scheme of ethics was possible was shown that she implicitly believed that one WAS possible. She thought the bible reflected good moral principles, but reflected from what exactly?

I think our moral intuition is partly an evolved thing and partly a thing learned through our experiences in childhood, which give us a psychology that reacts emotionally to certain events. Our rational justification of those feelings are ethics.

[riversonthemoon]

Though I am open to other ideas! :)

[tom1600x1050]

I didn't understand the woman's question. But I agree with Nadler's response to her. I agree with your sentiment that moral intuition is an evolved thing as well as partly learned through childhood experiences. I've read through Spinoza many times but I always struggled with the "proofs". Overall, after all the philosophy I've read, Spinoza seems to me to have the best guess about what is true, although I'll never be sure.

[ooglebydoogleby]

ive just read that very dialogue about two weeks ago. plato portrays socratese as a theist. a simple argument about morality and religeon is that seing as no god exists any moral literature is the work of man so as an atheist you are free to be guided by any scriptural ethics indeed any ethical sources. you can follow theistic moral interpretations so the question how do you have morality without god is answered from the same sources as you because yours are man made in reality.