|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 2:22 pm
Baruch Spinoza was a philosopher I recently studied in my class and I found his view of god to be fascinating and I was curious as to what other's would think of his view.
Spinoza created a way of thought in which he believed one could live a virtuous, religious life free from the church. To do so, one must first forget everything they had ever been taught by their family, church, friends, peers, everyone and take a position of complete openness to learn the real truths int he world and to be free from suffering due to ignorance.
His view of god was one of "Deus sive Natura", ("God or Nature") or God as nature. In this view, he saw the universe as infinant and everything in it as a part of god. We are all extensions of god he calls a mode. Everything from grass to stars to interstellar gas is part of God. Therefor it can be said we are all god. His god also has no personality. His god possesses all traits meaning god is not inherently good nor evil. This would make one wonder, well why would god create the world in the first place? His answer is that God has to necessarily do anything possible. It was possible to create us, therefor he did.
In his view, only God has free will. Humans do not. The only way humans can be necessarily free is to accept the truth for what it truly is. In Spinoza's view, there is no good or evil, right or wrong, and that everything that happens does so because it necessarily has to. It is our duty as humans to understand that freedom is not being able to say yes or no to something, but to understand fully why this something happens. Only then can we truly understand god and be free.
Pretty crazy huh? So share what you think about this, do you think we have free will or no? Do you feel God can be without personality? Have fun with it!
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:44 am
To answer your questions, I feel it is utter non-sense that we lack free will. In a sense, there is destiny, and if all mitigating factors and all personalities could be put into a computer powerful enough to store the information, it could predict everything up the the end of humanity, as it could determine the only actions each human being would be led to take and the effects of those actions on every other individual. Of course events such as the weather (which is a factor in limiting where people will be and sometimes how they will behave, to a degree) can never be calculated with perfect accuracy and no such computer (or predictive program) could ever exist, nor could all the data collection be possible, but the point I'm making is that the only way it can be said that we lack free will is in that we are slaves to our personalities, which sounds a bit absurd, though it is true, from a certain point of view.
That said, in answer to another question, I will have to refer you to the most fascinating theory that I have ever heard on God, called "God's Debris." As I understand it, this debate posited that a being of omnipotence would have no motivation to do anything. Want to feel loved, accomplished or euphoric? With the very desire the feeling is there. There would be no need to strive, to achieve, to create. You know all, you see all and you all are. It was reasoned that the only challenge and only goal such a being could have is the destruction of that which is supposedly indestructable; itself. Unless I have this wrong, the theory concludes that all matter is part of the shattered corpse of this entity, when he somehow succeeded.
I hope that this doesn't derail your topic entirely, but I felt it worth the risk of a temporary deviation. Afterall, its the only way that I felt I could properly and fully answer your question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:59 pm
I haven't heard that theory actually, so it was nice to read about it. I'll get some more written up about Spinoza here once I'm home from break.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:39 am
I look forward to hearing it. After you take him entirely out of context, this God fellow that everyone's talking about becomes a little more interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:42 pm
To suggest that humans can be gods is an interesting concept, possibly because our general idea of what makes a "god" is so... expansive.
When we think of "gods," we typically think of a thing that is omnipotent and ubiquitous---anywhere and everywhere, and all-knowing. Being as humans cannot exist in more than one place at a single instance immediately strikes that part of our "godliness" out. Mortality and a finite lifespan also strikes that out, but this is only our collective, traditional viewpoint of what a "god" is.
So, according to Spinoza, the only way through free will is total resignation? What if I understand why something happens already (I put water into a pot, put the pot over fire, and steam comes from the evaporating water; I no longer wonder why it happens)? Is my "duty" as a human already fulfilled because I now understand why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:16 pm
Its odd that spinoza would say his theory was a way to be free from ignorance. Since it appears to be in the line of thinking of accepting everything blindly. I guess I am not seeing the complete openness in A. no free will. Which doesnt make sense since people would have to make a choice to accept such a viewpoint. If there was no free will, wouldnt we have accepted the concept already? Without question? B. If everything is a part of this god that includes us. Therefore its a contridiction to say we have no free will if the god does and everything is it.
Its seems rather machincal stamping out random things because it has the ability to. It seems that this god wouldnt really have a point of doing anything other than existing.
It is rather bizarre. People sure come up with strange ideas.
Im also not familiar with spinoza's work other than whats on this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:24 pm
Matasoga To answer your questions, I feel it is utter non-sense that we lack free will. In a sense, there is destiny, and if all mitigating factors and all personalities could be put into a computer powerful enough to store the information, it could predict everything up the the end of humanity, as it could determine the only actions each human being would be led to take and the effects of those actions on every other individual. Of course events such as the weather (which is a factor in limiting where people will be and sometimes how they will behave, to a degree) can never be calculated with perfect accuracy and no such computer (or predictive program) could ever exist, nor could all the data collection be possible, but the point I'm making is that the only way it can be said that we lack free will is in that we are slaves to our personalities, which sounds a bit absurd, though it is true, from a certain point of view. That said, in answer to another question, I will have to refer you to the most fascinating theory that I have ever heard on God, called "God's Debris." As I understand it, this debate posited that a being of omnipotence would have no motivation to do anything. Want to feel loved, accomplished or euphoric? With the very desire the feeling is there. There would be no need to strive, to achieve, to create. You know all, you see all and you all are. It was reasoned that the only challenge and only goal such a being could have is the destruction of that which is supposedly indestructable; itself. Unless I have this wrong, the theory concludes that all matter is part of the shattered corpse of this entity, when he somehow succeeded. I hope that this doesn't derail your topic entirely, but I felt it worth the risk of a temporary deviation. Afterall, its the only way that I felt I could properly and fully answer your question. Thats a fascinating theory also. Well I suppose the only thing that could destroy such a being would be itself. Kind of poetic how you put it, all matter is the shattered corpse of this entity. I agree that such a being would have no desire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
