Spinoza

[den_wolf]

How a topic about Philosophy has to be placed into the "Other" forum I am not very pleased with . Talk about the marginalisation of Philosophy!

 

Share your thoughts on Spinoza's philosophy (primarily ethics) here. I'm posting some of his propositions and proofs, so feel free to comment on them.

 

PROP. V. There cannot exist in the universe two or more substances having the same nature or attribute.

 

Proof.−−If several distinct substances be granted, they must be distinguished one from the other, either by the difference of their attributes, or by the difference of their modifications (Prop. iv.)*. If only by the difference of their attributes, it will be granted that there cannot be more than one with an identical attribute. If by the difference of their modifications−−as substance is naturally prior to its modifications (Prop. i.)**,−−it follows that setting the modifications aside, and considering substance in itself, that is truly (Def. iii. and vi.)***, there cannot be conceived one substance different from another,−−that is (by Prop. iv.)*, there cannot be granted several substances, but one substance only.

 

* PROP. IV. Two or more distinct things are distinguished one from the other either by the difference of the attributes of the substances, or by the difference of their modifications.

 

** PROP. I. Substance is by nature prior to its modifications.

 

*** Def. III. BY SUBSTANCE, I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself; in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception.

 

*** Def. VI. BY GOD, I mean a being absolutely infinite−−that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality. Explanation.−−I say absolutely infinite, not infinite after its kind: for, of a thing infinite only after its kind, infinite attributes may be denied; but that which is absolutely infinite, contains in its essence whatever expresses reality, and involves no negation.

 

---

 

Prop. XI. God, or substance, consisting of infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality, necessarily exists.

 

Proof.−−If this be denied, conceive, if possible, that God does not exist: then his essence does not involve existence. But this (by Prop. vii.)* is absurd. Therefore God necessarily exists.

 

* PROP. VII. Existence belongs to the nature of substance.

 

Quoted from: The Ethics Part I: Concerning God, Benedict de Spinoza. Translated from the Latin by R.H.M. Elwes.

 

---

 

What I think about Spinoza:

 

I think some of his "proofs" are flawed because they are based on assumptions. In fact, his entire philosophy seems to be based on the assumption that God exists, and to prove that God exists, he begs the question by saying that God cannot not exist (unable to imagine how things got to exist without God? Perhaps.) But I think his philosophy and the way he goes on to "prove" his prepositions is very interesting and sometimes very complex. Worth the read though.

 

Woflie

[angel4hope]

EEEEEEEEH ME GUSTA PHILOSOPHY...but im runnin outta time...please id love to post...ill get bak 2 this thread soon....im so excited to read more!!!

[Anonymouse]

Even Freud realized that logically one cannot prove a negative , basically one cannot prove that God does not exist. The only real defense is to discredit the alternative.

[den_wolf]

Even Freud realized that logically one cannot prove a negative , basically one cannot prove that God does not exist. The only real defense is to discredit the alternative.

Saying that God exists because there is no proof to the contrary is a fine case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy. And the contrary is also true; which is why using God to make claims in ethics is irrelevant. That is what my thesis is all about, ethics and the philosophy of religion and spirituality.

[Anonymouse]

That's all fine and Dandy, but if you're a believer like me, eventually God is responsible for everything.

[den_wolf]

That's all fine and Dandy, but if you're a believer like me, eventually God is responsible for everything.

Yes, but belief cannot and should not have a place in proving philosophical propositions.

[Anonymouse]

When he who hears doesn't understand him who speaks, and when he who speaks doesn't know what he himself means - that is philosophy.

- Voltaire

[den_wolf]

When he who hears doesn't understand him who speaks, and when he who speaks doesn't know what he himself means - that is philosophy.

- Voltaire

Good quote. But I'm afraid that would only assert that Spinoza was indeed a philosopher, about which I'm not arguing.

[Anonymouse]

Indeed.

[den_wolf]

Everyone must surely admit, that nothing can be or be conceived without God. All men agree that God is the one and only cause of all things, both of their essence and of their existence; that is, God is not only− the cause of things in respect to their being made (secundum fieri), but also in respect to their being (secundum esse). At the same time many assert, that that, without which a thing cannot be nor be conceived, belongs to the essence of that thing; wherefore they believe that either the nature of God appertains to the essence of created things, or else that created things can be or be conceived without God; or else, as is more probably the case, they hold inconsistent doctrines. I think the cause for such confusion is mainly, that they do not keep to the proper order of philosophic thinking. The nature of God, which should be reflected on first, inasmuch as it is prior both in the order of knowledge and the order of nature, they have taken to be last in the order of knowledge, and have put into the first place what they call the objects of sensation; hence, while they are considering natural phenomena, they give no attention at all to the divine nature, and, when afterwards they apply their mind to the study of the divine nature, they are quite unable to bear in mind the first hypotheses, with which they have overlaid the knowledge of natural phenomena, inasmuch as such hypotheses are no help towards understanding the Divine nature. So that it is hardly to be wondered at, that these persons contradict themselves freely. However, I pass over this point. My intention here was only to give a reason for not saying, that that, without which a thing cannot be or be conceived, belongs to the essence of that thing: individual things cannot be or be conceived without God, yet God does not appertain to their essence.

 

Quoted from: The Ethics Part II: Of the Nature and Origin of the Mind, Benedict de Spinoza. Translated from the Latin by R.H.M. Elwes.

Edited February 9, 2004 by den_wolf

[den_wolf]

I should add that the book title is Ethics not The Ethics, or at least my version of the book says so.. Edited February 9, 2004 by den_wolf

[Sasun]

Yes, but belief cannot and should not have a place in proving philosophical propositions.

Are you saying that in philosophy there are no assumptions (essentially, beliefs)?

[den_wolf]

Are you saying that in philosophy there are no assumptions (essentially, beliefs)?

There is a difference between beliefs that are proven and beliefs that are nothing more than personal observations that have not been proven to be correct by the processes of logic and epistemology. One cannot base one's philosophical proofs (not talking about beliefs here) on beliefs of the latter sort. That is called Simple Subjectivism. James Rachels' book puts it very eloquently:

 

X is morally acceptable

X is right

X is good

X ought to be done

all mean "I (the speaker) approve of X"

 

The above is not about philosophical and epistemological proof. It is about individual philosophical beliefs. Those are two separate and distinct things. In order to prove that we are God's creations, one must first prove that God exists, rather than relying on Simple Subjectivism.

[Sasun]

I think in philosophy (and in all other disciplines) there are certain assuptions that we usually take as truths and never try to prove. For instance, why should we prove things? Has it ever been proven that proofs must be made in order to take something as truthful? Is truth really provable? Is logical thinking really truthful?

There are many assumptions without which all science would fall apart for lack of proof yet they have been accepted for whatever reason. Take math - the king of all science: why are there axioms? All proofs in mathematics are based on axioms. Beyond axioms there is no proof, those are simply accepted because they seem so truthful and they are indeed beliebed to be truthful.

 

I can come up with other examples.

[den_wolf]

One can only assume one's existence as a premise, because if that is not done, everything falls apart. Existence can be an assumption simply because without existing, one cannot make these arguments. Proving that we exist is begging the question, because if you can attempt to prove that you exist, that means you already exist. Proving that God exists, however, is something totally different, because it is something outside of ourselves, and it is possible for us to live without it, hence why atheism CAN exist. If we disbelieve in our existence, all we would do is stop doing anything, which would, at any rate, prove that we exist, because we are reacting to the change in outlook. A = A is a truth. And it can be proven. Hence, truth can be proven.

 

We could go on and on in circles asking questions such as "do we really exist?", but the very fact that we can do that proves that we do exist. Otherwise you and I would not be here. This is not an assumption. It is an observation of the truth and reality. Things that cannot be testified to by human beings cannot be used as the premises of an argument, because the entire thought process would crumble under its weight.

[Sasun]

A = A is a truth. And it can be proven. Hence, truth can be proven.

Please prove it

[den_wolf]

Well, sure, if you want me to, although it might not suit your expectations of what a valid "proof" is, but here you go:

 

If "=" is defined by human beings to mean that two things are/mean the same exact thing, placing A and A beside each other, we can prove, by the shape, that they are equal. An apple is an apple is an apple. It is not an assumption. It is a premise. There is a difference between the two.

[Sasun]

Well, sure, if you want me to, although it might not suit your expectations of what a valid "proof" is, but here you go:

 

If "=" is defined by human beings to mean that two things are/mean the same exact thing, placing A and A beside each other, we can prove, by the shape, that they are equal. An apple is an apple is an apple. It is not an assumption. It is a premise. There is a difference between the two.

Yeah, you are right, that was not really a proof ( I think by "proof" you understand someting else than I do). I mean, it wouldn't do good in mathetmatics I am not sure about philosophy. It's a definition, one of the fundaments in math, we assume that A=A and that's it. Call it a premise if you wish, the word doesn't really matter, but there is no proof. However, nearly every theorem im math is proven using this truth. Yet, the truth itself was never proven.

 

For the same reason there are no proofs for axioms. Axioms are truths that have been observed without fail. But they were never proven.

 

What I want to say, one should not always ask for proofs because it is impossible to prove everything. There are things that we take granted. The same goes for the idea of God. It means different things to different people. One aspect of God is omnipresence. All existence has to do with the existence of God. So if we exist then God undoubtedly exists - by definition, since the part cannot existe without the existence of the whole.

[den_wolf]

Yeah, you are right, that was not really a proof  ( I think by "proof" you understand someting else than I do). I mean, it wouldn't do good in mathetmatics I am not sure about philosophy.

I know about the axioms in discrete math (symmetry, etc.), but my proof is not mathematically or scientifically oriented, but rather philosophically. Moreover, if, let's say, A on the left side of the "equation" symbolises something, why would you use the same symbol for something that is on the other side of the equation?

 

What I want to say, one should not always ask for proofs because it is impossible to prove everything.

there is no proof to that, is there?

 

One aspect of God is omnipresence. All existence has to do with the existence of God. So if we exist then God undoubtedly exists - by definition, since the part cannot existe without the existence of the whole.

First of all, not all cultures believe in the presence of God. Some cultures are based on atheism, some on monotheism, some on polytheism. So summarising it to make things simpler, there are two categories, one that believes in (a) God(s), and one that does not. So who is right and who is wrong? Certainly, being the majority does not make it right philosophically speaking, does it? So if we are to use the Cultural Differences Argument, the entire proof system collapses, because the premise concerns what people believe. In some societies, people believe in reincarnation (in the form of animals, etc.), in some others, they don't. So if you are a philosopher in culture A and are arguing for the validity of your proofs based on your beliefs, how valid would those proofs be in culture B? This is where Cultural Relativism comes into play to show that the assumption that God exists cannot be taken into account in ethical proofs. Cultural relativism is self-destructive, not to mention hypocritical. And to use the God argument in one's formal proof is the equivalent of arguing, in a Muslim society, that the Bible condems polygamy (or some such. I'm no authority on the Bible).

 

What I was trying to demonstrate, in fact, is that the conclusion does not follow from the premise. And the term "premise" is not the same as "assumption"; there are inherent differences between the two.

 

So using the argument that God is believed to exist by the vast majority of people, therefore it's a safe/good assumption is an "argumentum ad populum" fallacy (appeal to popularity).

 

So if we exist then God undoubtedly exists - by definition, since the part cannot existe without the existence of the whole.

I don't follow. How do you know we are the "part", and not the "whole"? To add to that, you are using the fallacy of Composition by saying that since we (the part) have the attribute of existence, God (the whole) must necessarily have the attribute of existence.

 

Moreover, if we cannot prove that God exists, it doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. And if we cannot prove that God doesn't exist, it doesn't mean that God exists. But in case of being unable to prove that God exists, you cannot assume that God exists. Why? Because you're at point 0 until you claim that you're at point 1 (believing that God exists). Without the idea that God might exist, one cannot try to prove that God exists.

 

But to get back to the question of the existence of God, here is a very interesting attempt at proof, albeit guilty of the fallacy of Hasty Generalisation:

1. If God exists then he is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent.

2. If God were omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent then the world would not contain evil.

3. The world contains evil.

Therefore:

4. It is not the case that God exists.

 

Note that (1) is fallacious, since the existence of God would not mean that he is benevolent (again, cultural relativism). So the first premise is a Hasty Generalisation. So if not all ideas of God include benevolence, it would not follow that all Gods would eradicate evil or to even disallow its existence to begin with.

Edited February 9, 2004 by den_wolf

[THOTH]

But to get back to the question of the existence of God, here is a very interesting attempt at proof, albeit guilty of the fallacy of Hasty Generalisation:

1. If God exists then he is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent.

2. If God were omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent then the world would not contain evil.

3. The world contains evil.

Therefore:

4. It is not the case that God exists.

 

Note that (1) is fallacious, since the existence of God would not mean that he is benevolent (again, cultural relativism). So the first premise is a Hasty Generalisation. So if not all ideas of God include benevolence, it would not follow that all Gods would eradicate evil or to even disallow its existence to begin with.

yes perhaps - but that is the claim....thus the paradox - no.

 

And yes the whole argument is very silly (not yours - actually very well done) - but this trying to convince folks that God is this or that etc...it seems to me to be such an utter waste of time..and ussually only ends up being very negative (in so many ways)..we - as human beings - would be much better off learning how to treat each other better - getting along - helping one another out - that sort of thing...then being concened with the supposed desires of some contradictory being - that in no way can be known by any of us - even if such a thing exsists - which seems to me - in any event - to be bloody unlikely. Now if there are lessons that one can take from the belief package that cause one to treat others better and behave nicely - etc - well i have no problem with tat...nor in anyone praying for me - as they are always won't to do...can't hurt no? (or could it? hmmm...)

[Sasun]

there is no proof to that, is there?

You just confirmed my point

p.s. I will address your other questions later on.

[den_wolf]

You just confirmed my point

No indeed I did not. I was being sarcastic. There are some things one can use as premises, and some things one cannot. Your analogy of the use of A = A as a premise to the existence of God as a premise is a fallacy of Faulty Analogy.

[Sasun]

Your analogy of the use of A = A as a premise to the existence of God as a premise is a fallacy of Faulty Analogy.

Well, this is something you are assuming I did. I didn't try to prove that God exists, and I didn't try to use A=A as analogy - that's something you brought into debate.

[den_wolf]

Well, this is something you are assuming I did. I didn't try to prove that God exists, and I didn't try to use A=A as analogy - that's something you brought into debate.

I did not assume anything. I brought up the A = A to prove that truth/facts can be proven or observed, and hence used in proofs, contrary to beliefs such as the existence of God. You stated that A = A was an assumption, and that philosophy has to be based on such assumptions. I was arguing for the opposite. I'm not arguing with you, I'm arguing around you, so no need to get defensive.

[Sasun]

There are some things one can use as premises, and some things one cannot.

Is there a universal law or some kind of a mathematical rule to guide us what can be taken as premise and what cannot? I don't think there is, so premises are somewhat arbitrary and subjective.

Likewise, God's existence can be taken as premise and a solid philosophy can be made based on that. I don't see it less valid as other philosophies since they are all based on certain premises without proof. That's my point.