1 reply ›

1. Spinoza’s religion as described in Wikipedia: To me it sounds like Deism!
   It is a widespread belief that Spinoza equated God with the material universe. He has therefore been called the “prophet”[89] and “prince”[90] of pantheism. However, in a letter to Henry Oldenburg he states that: “as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken”.[91] For Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world. According to German philosopher Karl Jaspers, when Spinoza wrote “Deus sive Natura” (God or Nature) Spinoza meant God was Natura naturans not Natura naturata, and Jaspers believed that Spinoza, in his philosophical system, did not mean to say that God and Nature are interchangeable terms, but rather that God’s transcendence was attested by his infinitely many attributes, and that two attributes known by humans, namely Thought and Extension, signified God’s immanence.[92] Even God under the attributes of thought and extension cannot be identified strictly with our world. That world is of course “divisible”; it has parts. But Spinoza insists that “no attribute of a substance can be truly conceived from which it follows that the substance can be divided” (Which means that one cannot conceive an attribute in a way that leads to division of substance), and that “a substance which is absolutely infinite is indivisible” (Ethics, Part I, Propositions 12 and 13).[93] Following this logic, our world should be considered as a mode under two attributes of thought and extension. Therefore the pantheist formula “One and All” would apply to Spinoza only if the “One” preserves its transcendence and the “All” were not interpreted as the totality of finite things.[92]

   Martial Guéroult suggested the term “Panentheism”, rather than “Pantheism” to describe Spinoza’s view of the relation between God and the world. The world is not God, but it is, in a strong sense, “in” God. Not only do finite things have God as their cause; they cannot be conceived without God.[93] In other words, the world is a subset of God. However, American panentheist philosopher Charles Hartshorne insisted on the term Classical Pantheism to describe Spinoza’s view.[94]

   In 1785, Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi published a condemnation of Spinoza’s pantheism, after Lessing was thought to have confessed on his deathbed to being a “Spinozist”, which was the equivalent in his time of being called an atheist. Jacobi claimed that Spinoza’s doctrine was pure materialism, because all Nature and God are said to be nothing but extended substance. This, for Jacobi, was the result of Enlightenment rationalism and it would finally end in absolute atheism. Moses Mendelssohn disagreed with Jacobi, saying that there is no actual difference between theism and pantheism. The issue became a major intellectual and religious concern for European civilization at the time.

   The attraction of Spinoza’s philosophy to late 18th-century Europeans was that it provided an alternative to materialism, atheism, and deism. Three of Spinoza’s ideas strongly appealed to them:

   the unity of all that exists;
   the regularity of all that happens;
   the identity of spirit and nature.
   Spinoza’s “God or Nature” (Deus sive Natura) provided a living, natural God, in contrast to the Newtonian mechanical “First Cause” or the dead mechanism of the French “Man Machine”. Coleridge and Shelley saw in Spinoza’s philosophy a religion of nature.[1] Novalis called him the “God-intoxicated man”.[77][95] Spinoza inspired the poet Shelley to write his essay “The Necessity of Atheism”.[77]

   Spinoza was considered to be an atheist because he used the word “God” (Deus) to signify a concept that was different from that of traditional Judeo–Christian monotheism. “Spinoza expressly denies personality and consciousness to God; he has neither intelligence, feeling, nor will; he does not act according to purpose, but everything follows necessarily from his nature, according to law….”[96] Thus, Spinoza’s cool, indifferent God[97] is the antithesis to the concept of an anthropomorphic, fatherly God who cares about humanity.

   According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Spinoza’s God is an “infinite intellect”, (Ethics 2p11c) all knowing, (2p3) and capable of loving both himself—and us, insofar as we are part of his perfection. (5p35c) And if the mark of a personal being is that it is one towards which we can entertain personal attitudes, then we should note too that Spinoza recommends amor intellectualist dei (the intellectual love of God) as the supreme good for man. (5p33) However, the matter is complex. Spinoza’s God does not have free will (1p32c1), he does not have purposes or intentions (1apendix), and Spinoza insists that “neither intellect nor will pertain to the nature of God” (1p17s1). Moreover, while we may love God, we need to remember that God is really not the kind of being who could ever love us back. “He who loves God cannot strive that God should love him in return,” says Spinoza (5p19).[98]

   Steven Nadler suggests that settling the question of Spinoza’s atheism or pantheism depends on an analysis of attitudes. If pantheism is associated with religiosity, then Spinoza is not a pantheist, since Spinoza believes that the proper stance to take towards God is not one of reverence or religious awe, but instead one of objective study and reason, since taking the religious stance would leave one open to the possibility of error and superstition.[99]

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

   Loading...

   Reply