Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on July 01, 2016, 10:09:30 AM
-
Interesting article on Spinoza
https://aeon.co/essays/at-a-time-of-zealotry-spinoza-matters-more-than-ever
-
Good article, enjoyed reading that, thanks for posting Sane
-
Dear Torridon,
Makes two of us, I like this Spinoza guy, although the idea of not worshiping nature, standing in awe of the Universe for me is very close to worship.
Gonnagle.
-
Spinoza’s philosophy is founded upon a rejection of the God that informs the Abrahamic religions. His God lacks all the psychological and moral characteristics of a transcendent, providential deity. The Deus of Spinoza’s philosophical masterpiece, the Ethics (1677), is not a kind of person. It has no beliefs, hopes, desires or emotions. Nor is Spinoza’s God a good, wise and just lawgiver who will reward those who obey its commands and punish those who go astray.
Is the God who informs the Abrahamic religions a God "who will reward those who obey its commands and punish those who go astray"? I would ahve tosay that I don't know enough about Islam to be able to answer that question; the God of the Jews seems to be far too merciful and gracious to fit that description easily, and the God of Christianity would seem to be vary different to that.
I accept that over the centuries some humans who have claimed to speak on God's behalf, regardless of which 'God' that might be, have been pretty dogmatic and judgemental, but does that mean that the God they claim to speak for is actually like that?
-
Interesting article on Spinoza
https://aeon.co/essays/at-a-time-of-zealotry-spinoza-matters-more-than-ever
I can't see what Spinoza's view of God has to do with intellectual freedom.
-
I can't see what Spinoza's view of God has to do with intellectual freedom.
Or what excommunication has to do eith it either.
-
Is the God who informs the Abrahamic religions a God "who will reward those who obey its commands and punish those who go astray"? I would ahve tosay that I don't know enough about Islam to be able to answer that question; the God of the Jews seems to be far too merciful and gracious to fit that description easily, and the God of Christianity would seem to be vary different to that.
I accept that over the centuries some humans who have claimed to speak on God's behalf, regardless of which 'God' that might be, have been pretty dogmatic and judgemental, but does that mean that the God they claim to speak for is actually like that?
You seem to have missed the point. The God of Spinoza is a non theistic one
, and not even really a deist one. It's not about the individual attributes being adjusted, there are no attributes.
-
I can't see what Spinoza's view of God has to do with intellectual freedom.
I'll combine this with my reply to Ad_o as well.. It seems to me that the very idea of excommunication for beliefs is tied up with a God who does not allow for intellectual freedom. If thought on one that ng is proscribed in that way, then it is related to a view of a god that sanctions excommunication for being challenged. Spinoza's god, if indeed it makes any sense to use the term, not only is opinion less but isn't anything that the concept of opinion makes sense with.
This position also extends beyond the religious to any form of base of philosophical belief in which morality is seen as external.
-
Excommunication doesn't mean not believing as you wish. All it means is that one must do so apart from a particular community. If you have a gangrenous limb you cut it off before it infects the rest of the body. If you don't then the whole body is at risk of death.
-
I'll combine this with my reply to Ad_o as well.. It seems to me that the very idea of excommunication for beliefs is tied up with a God who does not allow for intellectual freedom.
I still don't see how this is relevant? How does Spinoza's God guarantee intellectual freedom different in quantity and quality from the Abrahamic God.
-
I still don't see how this is relevant? How does Spinoza's God guarantee intellectual freedom different in quantity and quality from the Abrahamic God.
it doesn't. It doesn't 'do' anything. As coveted in the article Spinoza in that sense is essentially an atheist. There's a reason why the thread that Shaker put up that you effectively sabotaged places covered the idea that some views of pantheism are atheist at base.
Appeals to externals are attempts to jump from subjectivity to objectivity but with no intellectual method to do so. That the reaction to Spinoza was excommunication is indicative of the problems of the approach.
-
Excommunication doesn't mean not believing as you wish. All it means is that one must do so apart from a particular community. If you have a gangrenous limb you cut it off before it infects the rest of the body. If you don't then the whole body is at risk of death.
and in doing that is an attack on intellectual freedom since it seeks to censor access of others to those thoughts. Intellectual freedom is about expression of the thought not the ability to think it internally.
-
They are free, just longer as a member of that community.
-
They are free, just longer as a member of that community.
The members of the community aren't free to hear the belief. Being able to express the thought to people is restricted so that affects the freedom of Spinoza in this case.
-
How? He still believed what he wanted to believe. Same as every heretic, unless they repent.
-
How? He still believed what he wanted to believe. Same as every heretic, unless they repent.
As already covered intellectual freedom is not about being allowed to believe things but to express them and in addition the ability to hear those beliefs so again, as already pointed out, the members of the community are having their intellectual freedom restricted too.
-
Did not Spinoza write his books? Luther wrote his heretical shite too and all the other heretics.
-
Did not Spinoza write his books? Luther wrote his heretical shite too and all the other heretics.
and many of those books were placed on lists that were meant to restrict the intellectual freedom of others to read them.
-
Appeals to externals are attempts to jump from subjectivity to objectivity but with no intellectual method to do so. That the reaction to Spinoza was excommunication is indicative of the problems of the approach.
Whlst some whose ideas were believed to be heretical by the Church hierarchy were excommunicated and outlawed, not all were. Were all the Jewish heretics? I also wonder whether the fact that most Jewish communities around Europe were massively under pressure from many of the Europeans amongst whom they lived had something to do with this attitude?
-
and many of those books were placed on lists that were meant to restrict the intellectual freedom of others to read them.
And how many of the community were even in a position to read them anyway?
-
And how many of the community were even in a position to read them anyway?
Why does that matter?
Surely that they were prohibited at all, so that any potential readers were being censored, is the core issue here.
-
And how many of the community were even in a position to read them anyway?
relevance?
-
Whlst some whose ideas were believed to be heretical by the Church hierarchy were excommunicated and outlawed, not all were. Were all the Jewish heretics? I also wonder whether the fact that most Jewish communities around Europe were massively under pressure from many of the Europeans amongst whom they lived had something to do with this attitude?
Is this relevant to the overall point on intellectual freedom.?
-
Gordon and NS, the relevance is that, back then, more of this kind of thing spread through word of mouth, than through the written word. Even today, word of mouth is vital.
-
Gordon and NS, the relevance is that, back then, more of this kind of thing spread through word of mouth, than through the written word. Even today, word of mouth is vital.
and? It's the attempt to stop people hearing or reading that is the point. That's why I used the word listening earlier. It was ad_o who started talking about books.so again I ask, relevance?
-
it doesn't. It doesn't 'do' anything. As coveted in the article Spinoza in that sense is essentially an atheist. There's a reason why the thread that Shaker put up that you effectively sabotaged places covered the idea that some views of pantheism are atheist at base.
Appeals to externals are attempts to jump from subjectivity to objectivity but with no intellectual method to do so. That the reaction to Spinoza was excommunication is indicative of the problems of the approach.
Sabotage? I merely commented on his linguistic piracy and his wanting, linguistically speaking, his cake and eat it.......and then I did it all over again.
-
Gordon and NS, the relevance is that, back then, more of this kind of thing spread through word of mouth, than through the written word. Even today, word of mouth is vital.
So what?
Even if it was the case that by the mid 17th century literacy rates were minimal: I don't know if they were, but since you've suggested it I assume you know and can tell us, then it is still censorship.
If it were the case that few were literate, which you've yet to confirm, it must surely have been the case that enough were literate so as to read it to others - else why bother suppressing it in the first place.
-
and? It's the attempt to stop people hearing or reading that is the point. That's why I used the word listening earlier. It was ad_o who started talking about books.so again I ask, relevance?
If you look at the history of ideas, the very attempts to stop them have generally led to their greater dissemination. If Spinoza hadn't been 'silenced', would his ideas have gained the credibility and underground spread that they did?
I'm not condoning the repression that included him; just pointing out that history often proves that repression backfires on itself.
Let me give you a modern example. In the 1960s, there were probably no more than 100 or 200 Nepalese Christians living in Nepal and pretty well all lived in Kathmandu, Tansen and Pokhara. By the end of the 70s, following a period of 12-15 years of imprisonment of Christians in those places, often followed by internal exile into the far reaches of the country, the number of places that 'hosted' Christian communities had grown exponentially and the number of believers had grown to a couple of hundred thousand. They are now between 1.4% (Government figures) and 3% (church figures) of the population - which is about about 26.5 million (2011 census) - or up to half a million people.
-
If you look at the history of ideas, the very attempts to stop them have generally led to their greater dissemination.
That would be almost impossible to show since any successfully suppressed ideas wouldn't be known. That aside that an attempt to surpress things might not work us irrelevant to the idea that intellectual freedom is good.
-
That would be almost impossible to show since any successfully suppressed ideas wouldn't be known. That aside that an attempt to surpress things might not work us irrelevant to the idea that intellectual freedom is good.
Well, the Jewish leadership and the Roman Empire tried to kill off Christianity - did it work? Protestantism survived huge atrtempts to destroy it. The ideas that underpinned the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, as well as hundreds of other philosophies have survived intense persecution.
-
Well, the Jewish leadership and the Roman Empire tried to kill off Christianity - did it work? Protestantism survived huge atrtempts to destroy it. The ideas that underpinned the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, as well as hundreds of other philosophies have survived intense persecution.
And again relevant in what way to intellectual freedom being a good?
-
Well, the Jewish leadership and the Roman Empire tried to kill off Christianity - did it work? Protestantism survived huge atrtempts to destroy it. The ideas that underpinned the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, as well as hundreds of other philosophies have survived intense persecution.
Again, so what?
In what way does any of this justify the suppression of intellectual freedom? That some movements survived censorship doesn't excuse it.
-
If you look at the history of ideas, the very attempts to stop them have generally led to their greater dissemination. If Spinoza hadn't been 'silenced', would his ideas have gained the credibility and underground spread that they did?
I'm not condoning the repression that included him; just pointing out that history often proves that repression backfires on itself.
Let me give you a modern example. In the 1960s, there were probably no more than 100 or 200 Nepalese Christians living in Nepal and pretty well all lived in Kathmandu, Tansen and Pokhara. By the end of the 70s, following a period of 12-15 years of imprisonment of Christians in those places, often followed by internal exile into the far reaches of the country, the number of places that 'hosted' Christian communities had grown exponentially and the number of believers had grown to a couple of hundred thousand. They are now between 1.4% (Government figures) and 3% (church figures) of the population - which is about about 26.5 million (2011 census) - or up to half a million people.
You seem to be practising apologetics on behalf of oppression here. You might as well try to argue that it is right for a man to beat his wife with the justification that 'whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger'