Steven Nadler talk on Spinoza - Part 1 of 2

[bucles2000]

God is not nature, not even infinity and eternal, the essence of God is God. God existence is infinity and eternal which shows in the universe which is also infinity and eternal.

[MacksPower75]

I think he misinterprets Spinoza. Spinoza's views appear to be that everything is intrinsic to itself and its greater realty.He doesn't appear to believe God is nothing but in essence it's the opposite,it's everything. It can be argued everything has nothing to relate to so it's the same as nothing but existence refutes that.Spinoza's morality appears to be intrinsic, in that it is embedded within action and the results indicate morality. The ultimate morality then, in his view, is knowing God.

[diggydirtEO]

anyone else catch Neil Degrasse Tyson in the audience?

[jlke45]

1:32 "The real Plato, not the quantum, cosmic Plato embedded in the fabric of the universe."

Wha... what? What did I miss here?

[cfortnerXYZ]

Whoa! this is mind candy! and most a most welcome treat it is! I wonder if Spinoza addressed the experience of delight.

[NewtonsStudent]

9:23

[uschi17]

is that Neil Degrasse Tyson in the audience @9:31 ?

[joaquinbrotons]

read also "Looking for Spinoza" by Damasio, neurologist. GOD: Generator Of Diversity.

[joaquinbrotons]

"God does exist" is not a problem for Spinoza. God doesn´t "exist". God is causa sui, is the pure essence of all, not the existence. God is in thought and extension. in thought through the men sui generis, the only way we know, the only thing we know, and in extension in all nature, including sui generis human nature. when you say "God exists" you are betraying God. maybe the only thing we can discuss about Spinoza is the doctrine of modes and attributes. i think there is no finite mode at all.

[joaquinbrotons]

one of the best books about spinoza i´ve ever read is maybe a simple book of a french teacher, Alain, called "Spinoza". that´s Spinoza as a doctrine, spinozism, not pantheism.

[slippolives]

Limitless Oceans! See?  There is a 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.

[andersv20]

"in fact I think the euthyphro should be required reading of every student in the first semester"

Every Norwegian university student must do this during their first semesters' Ex. Phil.-cource, comprising both basic classic and modern philosophy as well as ethics

[SweetFire96]

Religion never seems fundamental to me...cuz they (so called fundamentalists) tend only know their own. And walking in "teamcolours of God" while all people still are equall in knowledge and/or wisdom., is never walking in line with the All of creation.

[Mr007jessejames]

Claiming to be wise, they have become fools!

On the contrary, they become futile in their thinking; and their undiscerning hearts[minds, brains] have become darkened. Romans 1

[SassyKittyClaws]

I am a pantheist but I do believe in a personal or creator god and I refer to Nature or the Universe as God. Like Spinoza I only believe in what facts I have personally encountered with witnesses. Atheism is the rejection of God/Gods. Spinoza rejected the bible. But did he really reject god or is that just your speculation? I believe he was open minded in his writings but I'm going to have to read the whole book.

[CoIorfulPoop]

1. You CAN'T believe in a PERSONAL god and be a pantheist at the same time. The whole point of pantheism is to reject any possibility of a personal god. "God is nature, God is all, and God is not personal" = pantheism.

2. Spinoza does not believe in a personal God.

3. Spinoza rejects the Bible but he is not an atheist because he believe his god (pantheism god) is perfect and infinite. (unlike Richard Dawkins)

[beeveee]

@SassyKittyClaws We all like nature when it is favorable and although we may dislike nature when it is unfavorable, we still know that there is not a whole lot we can do to the contrary. So, nature is all powerful in one sense. But, this is all just sensory experience. God, by definition is transcendent. He is beyond the power of the material senses to see and know. He can only be revealed as He so chooses and when He so chooses. No amount of material knowledge can reveal the Absolute Autocrat.

[pigpenplusone]

What does the Marquis de Sade have to say?

[jmatrim]

Responding to Nader's last question- Morals, Deleuze and Guatarri argue, insinuate a transcendent force that we are to strive for, and pointing to a notion of an originary lack. Thus morals, and god, both require a transcendent field of values- and are not immanent like ethics can be. Anyone?

[beeveee]

@jmatrim Yes. That Person who constitutes God must be transcendent. He thus can only be approached on His terms and is thus revealed. Through the telescope, microscope what will we see but matter. Using a mind with mundane experience and mundane logic what will we know? One has to become godly to know God or as they say in Sanskrit, one must like Brahman to know Brahman. Material ethics and morals are perhaps a good sign of elevating the consciousness, but we must go higher to pure Transcendence

[coolandcalculated]

"I am not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist." -AE

*prepares to be accused of quote-mining*

[American2100]

God does exist. Science is only beginning to discover facts which prophets of other religions believed hundreds of years ago: Such as infinite universes, planets, moons---we only know of one universe, a few planets, a few dozen moons. Further more limitless oceans throughout the universe: we only know of one. Life and endless numbers of religions throughout the universe: we only know whats on this earth.

[riversonthemoon]

"Science is only beginning to discover facts which prophets...believed hundreds of years ago"

Those prophets also believed a lot of things that aren't true. What use do their lucky guesses have if they lacked the means to demonstrate any of it?

"infinite universes, planets, moons---we only know of one universe, a few planets, a few dozen moons"

How does the existence of any of these things show there is a God?

"limitless oceans throughout the universe..."

What are you talking about?

[spinooza1]

Bravo Bro.

I agree with you

[lymon]

@American2100 "prophets" though for thousands of years that the entire universe revolved around the Earth and the stars all had fixed positions and that the world was flat. We know about literally trillions of Star Systems, thousands of planets, including planets in our own solar system that until recently we had no idea existed. And literally there are probably millions of moons. You obviously have no clue what the word FACT means.

[philonous09]

Yet you haven't shown why God exists

[American2100]

The problem with westerners is they only know a few religions and mainly christianity.

[beeveee]

@American2100 Yes. The only know one sadhu called Jesus or one prophet called Mohammed, while in India there are thousands of such rishis and munis who have more profound this to say and more incredible deeds in the pages of history. It is just a matter of getting the bigger picture or brighter perspective.

[metsrus]

Gods commands are considered the source of morality because God is considered the source of ultimate truth and good.

[riversonthemoon]

Very good. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Now all you have to do is establish that God is the source of ultimate truth and good. What you 'consider' him is irrelevant to his existence or his supposed necessity in morality, truth or good.

[blupny]

@riversonthemoon circular logic is the weapon of religion, because religious people believe that a god exists. We will use Mr. Nadler's Q.E.D.

God = P

If P exists, Then God exists

God exists, Therefore P exists,

Thus, God exists.

Religious people are not capable of imagining a world where information isn't freely handed to them in a way they don't have to think about it. They were told it was so and refuse to question possibility. Small minds think alike, Great minds think for themselves.

[BobTheViking24]

Hmm. Not quite how I read the Ethics.

God and Nature may indeed be numerically identical for Spinoza. That does not mean that there is nothing transcendent about God. Matter and mind--the nature that appears to us--are only two modes out of a potentially infinite number of modes of the one existing substance God.

This understanding is what grounds Spinoza's treatment of ethical behavior. Greater knowledge of nature--that is, God--liberates us in a non-trivial sense from contingencies of life.

[inkonwater]

Thanks for uploading!

[riversonthemoon]

You're welcome!

[Freaknfrogger]

Although, unlike Spinoza, I think that we do have a small amount of almost subconscious free will. Indeterminacy only seems to be apparent on the quantum level from what I have experienced.

[Freaknfrogger]

Spinoza may want to understand nature rather than stare at it with "worshipful awe." However, he possesses great reverence for Nature. I agree that Spinoza does not believe in the traditional theological definition for God. Although, he does revere nature as one would love God. Therefore, nature was "God" for him. It follows that he should be identified as something other than an atheist.

[riversonthemoon]

I think the general view is that he fits into the category of 'pantheist'. I don't think his views are 'hygienic' enough to use the term atheist, though in substance, pantheism is probably a lot closer to atheism than it is to theism. It doesn't see intention or a personal God, and it equates this very attenuated view of God with nature. There is no supernatural in Spinoza's view, which is something with which atheists agree strongly.

[Freaknfrogger]

I agree, Spinoza is closer to being an atheist. I am a little biased because I have basically the same metaphysical beliefs as Spinoza and I do not consider myself an atheist. I agree with Spinoza that the bible was written by humans However, I think that all of Nature is holy and one can learn from everything. I have learned things that have enriched my life from reading the holy scriptures of various religions. I guess I am stricken with an endless love and respect for Nature.

[HumanStrategy]

"Nature is holy"

Would you mind qualifying your terms? You really lost me there.

[Freaknfrogger]

Holy: "exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness"

I see Nature as perfect and worthy of complete devotion.

[HumanStrategy]

"I see Nature as perfect and worthy of complete devotion."

You actually use the term 'perfect' when explaining why nature is worthy of devotion? I suppose such labels are personal and aren't really mean to be taken seriously by others; this is a bald assertion on your part.

The persuasive term you use (namely 'complete') is a red flag. I am grateful for my livelihood but why deem it necessary to have devotion for something? It sounds like your personifying nature as a being.

[Freaknfrogger]

Nature: "the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing"

Nature is the constitution of reality and I view it as perfect. I see Nature as perfectly good because it is perfectly balanced. The way we each view our reality is obviously personal. I believe in the ability for one to community one's personal conception of reality. I intend for you to take what I say as seriously as you feel inclined.

[HumanStrategy]

"Nature: "the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing"

"Nature is the constitution of reality and I view it as perfect."

These two definitions are obviously different and you didn't care to mention it. One is referring to characteristics/essence while the other is talking about it a "nature in my backyard and the jungles" kind of way.

You simply fail to address your doubling of the applied meaning.

[Freaknfrogger]

Hello,

Nature: "the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing"

Nature: constitution (from definition above) of reality (thing)

The fact that I see it as "perfect" is my own opinion and I believe it is fact based on my personal experience and study (I think Spinoza would agree).

It is not that I did not care to be more specific in my use of the word Nature, it is simply that our conversation is developing and the deeper meaning of our words are becoming more clear.

[mankato86]

just read spinoza's book of ethics, because your way oof. relax it will come to you but you must read slowly, drink tea, and hold a thesaurus in one hand. when ever you get to a word you dont understand, pause and study it.

[Freaknfrogger]

Why am I way oof?

[esharpie420]

i agree, i just started reading spinoza's ethics and all that about three days ago, and i have to say, i am taken back by it.

It makes alot of sense, and it is definetly not something you can just breeze through and understand it. ive been reading the same paragraphs over and over and understanding it more and more. it is very interesting.

[Freaknfrogger]

I find it interesting that you label my assertion bald :) Why must you have devotion for a being? I view complete as a goal that one my strive to achieve. One may have complete devotion for some moments in one's life, however, it would be extremely difficult to maintain a state of complete devotion (complete is only a word after all). I have no intention of personifying nature as a being.

[HumanStrategy]

"complete is only a word after all"

Yes, so is every word you and I have ever typed here. Should we scrap all of it because they are 'only words'?

You use words to attribute meaning and description. How are we to judge your ideas and positions if we aren't to take every word you type seriously? It's absurd.

[Freaknfrogger]

I take my perspective seriously, however, I know that our understanding of individual words will never be the same. Therefore, you can decide if you want to take what I write seriously. It is up to you to judge whether my words strike accord with your perception of reality and if they mean something to you. They certainly mean something to me and that is why I am using them.

[HumanStrategy]

Am I to understand that you think of the world 'complete' as inconsequential to the meaning of your statement?

If it is, then I can only assume that you you care very little to have a meaningful expression of your ideas that is easily understood by those who read your comments.

[Freaknfrogger]

No, it is not inconsequential, I expect people to adopt some shade of meaning from things within various sign systems. However, I will never have a perfect grasp on the shade of meaning they choose.

You are correct that I could better express myself using words. I probably should have said what I had intended.

[HumanStrategy]

Yeah, I read through the messages again.

You went from

Holy to Complete Devotion to perfectly good and then to appreciable :)

I thought that was pretty funny.

[Freaknfrogger]

I think that our discussion was a bit more complicated than that and it is unfortunate that you are not grasping/attempting to grasp the bigger picture. I explained my usage of the words that you requested.

[Freaknfrogger]

My intention was to communicate that a great deal of devotion and appreciation is a positive thing because one learns to love Nature, Reality, Yourself (all the same). If one's mentality is saturated with devotion and appreciation one will be more likely to experience pleasure.

[HumanStrategy]

"If one's mentality is saturated with devotion and appreciation one will be more likely to experience pleasure."

Yes, but at the cost of create many illusions before yourself and making idols as is the case with most humans on the planet.

[Freaknfrogger]

So, your argument is that having devotion and appreciation for Nature, Reality, and Yourself is delusional? Please explain.

[talicohen]

would you say that sam harris and r. dawkins had a "positive" impact on those debates at all?

[riversonthemoon]

The 2006 Beyond Belief conference was pretty much taken over by the atheist speakers. The 2007 conference saw atheism implicit in most of what the speakers were saying but they moved on from attacks on religious thinking to subjects like rationality, sociology, ethics etc.

There was one interesting scene in 2006, where Neil DeGrasse Tyson criticized Dawkins for his 'barbed' criticism of religion.

I guess it would depend on your POV as to whether their input was 'positive' or not.

[talicohen]

after reading the books by dawkins ,hitchens and harris ,it seems they are on the fringes of the atheism/religion question.

but i see why the issue is so pressing.and the approach of the 3 expresses the necessity to deal with it.i've lived in the middle east for a decade.

and seeing this up close is very different

[talicohen]

what was the ladies name who gave the talk on animal Behavior and "morals" .observing some rodents i think ?

[riversonthemoon]

Patricia Churchland, wife of Paul Churchland.

[tom1600x1050]

Look at the guy with gray hair at 9:33 into this video nodding off.

[riversonthemoon]

Lol. Yeah, lots of them are. His lecture was on the second day of a 3-day seminar, and the audience don't get to stretch their legs a lot.

[tom1600x1050]

Did you attend this lecture?

[riversonthemoon]

Funny. You're the second person to ask me that. No. But I wish I had. Dawkins, Harris, Weinberg, the Churchlands, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Anne Druyan, Paul Davies were all there. And many other scientists all with fantastically interesting things to say. They had another one in 2007, equally good. I have a few videos on my channel from this seminar. Check them out.

[talicohen]

i've read the latest books by hitchens,dawkins and harris they seem to be on the fringe compared to the other talkers here.

but i see why they feel so passionately about the atheism/religion question .its now longer just a subject to write a book on, it needs to be tackled

[tom1600x1050]

Excellent video. I've read deeply into philosophy, history, law, politics. I've asked all kinds of questions. I wanted to know: what is real? what is good? is there a God? And after all my searching, I still don't know for sure, but my best guess about who is right is the thinker Spinoza. I highly recommend reading The Ethics (but I agree it's difficult!) But it's worth it!

[seamr05]

?? too high for me...

[riversonthemoon]

Which part?

[seamr05]

all of it I guess...( I am not a student of philosophy) I looked at it because I wanted a few facts about Spinoza, I didn't expect a lecture at this hight at all.

I can't get under the skin of what he is saying, and can therefore not really have any real understanding of it. I'll might get back to it in a few years, in the hope that I'll be a little wiser than I am now. LOL

[riversonthemoon]

Well, if you're looking for a good place to start learning about basic philosophy, then check out this site.

philosophyclass . com

[seamr05]

thank you:)

Take care

[zbambam5]

Im gonna check this site out. Thanks man.

[riversonthemoon]

It's pretty basic. And I mean really basic. But enough to whet the appetite of a novice.

[urbanelf]

Interesting video... I had only come across an argument like this recently(refering to near the end), that you still can't squeeze an 'ought' out of "there is a God" or "there is a Hell" or "there is a command from God."