Talk:Spinozism

Updates to address comments up to this point
I have review and revised this page. An expert has been requested to give further modifications. Section structure and references have been added. The issues due to the difficulty of classification are now in a separate section.

-admin2565 (January 2011)

Major concerns with this text
There are very serious problems with this entry. From a philosophical point of view, Spinozism would refer to the ways in which Spinoza's doctrines have been interpreted and appropriated by thinkers throughout history. That is a VERY complicated history. I think it would be good to close down this page until a much more adequate account of the history of Spinozism--or at least some contributions to it--could be developed. One inclusion might be the section from the page on Spinoza on the Pantheismusstreit. Properly, that has to do with Spinozism, not Spinoza.

For example, one of the problems with this page, taken from the Nutall Encyclopedia, is that it attributes Spinozism as being a form of pantheism. It is true that this is the way historically Spinozism has been interpreted. But the term had not even been coined until after Spinoza's life and would not be something Spinoza would self-apply. Therefore, the entry should mention this.

Frankly, I just think it's not a good idea to include entries from old, errant encyclopedias.

--ashleyuv

Agreed with ashleyuv that this has serious problems. Whoever wrote that "Thus Spinozism teaches a form of karma and ecology and supports this as a basis for morality.[citation needed]" clearly has a rather idiosyncratic reading of Spinoza's philosophy. Similarly, the comparison to Hinduism strikes me as superficial and essentially meaningless.

Spinozism is Evolved Judaism


The secret to understanding Spinoza is to synthesize 1D6 and ONE. This is the Foundation Rock of both Judaism and Spinozism.


 * Spinoza's MOTIVE for everything he says, is to lay the groundwork for teaching the "Organic interdependence of Parts." Remember this and all his puzzling sayings, for example G-D, become more, if not completely, understood.

Yesselman 15:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Spinoza's Religion
<Comment on the following phrase in Relgion—Religion is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine; and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions and rituals associated with such belief.

From G. H. R. Parkinson's Introduction to Ethics - Spinoza 1959; ISBN: 0460873474; pp. xx-xxii.


 * Religion, as he {Spinoza} understands it, is "Whatever we desire and do of which we are the cause, in so far as we ... know G-D" (4P37n1). To grasp the full meaning of this, one must take account of the fact that there is for Spinoza a link between one's knowledge of G-D and one's activity as a moral agent. This link involves what is perhaps the key concept of Spinoza's moral philosophy, namely, the concept of freedom.

{There is a more direct link between religion and morals. If religion is an hypothesis designed to find peace-of-mind, as I think it is, whose life is more peaceful and tranquil, an honest man or a thief—certainly the honest man. If a thief is a pious person, his religion is not religion but idolatry; he is asking his idol {thievery} to bring him good fortune in his thievery.}

Yesselman 16:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Einstein and Religion
From Max Jammer's Einstein and Religion 1999; ISBN: 0691006997; p. 43.


 * Rejecting the traditional theistic concept of God, Spinoza denied the existence of a cosmic purpose on the grounds that all events in nature occur according to immutable laws of cause and effect. The universe is governed by a mechanical or mathematical order and not according to purposeful or moral intentions. Though he employed the notion of "G-D," Spinoza applied it only to the structure of the order and declared that "neither intellect nor will appertain to G-D's nature." He therefore denied the Judeo-Christian conception of a personal God. What the Bible refers to as divine activities are identified {metaphors} by Spinoza course of nature. G-D is the "infinite substance" having and thought. G-D is devoid of ethical properties, for good and evil human desires. What is commonly called "G-D's will" is identical with the laws of nature. People do not act freely in the sense of having alternatives to their actions; their belief in freedom arises only from their ignorance of the causes of the desires that motivate their actions. The ultimate object of religious devotion can only be the perfect harmony of the universe, and human aspirations must accept the inexorable dictates of the deterministic laws that govern life.

Yesselman 23:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Style concern
I can't think of any other articles where we "dash-ify" the word "[God]". I am changing all instances of the word to "God" in the interest of consistency. It's not quite a POV issue, but it's close. Rob 19:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Kindly see my response in Rob's Talk Page. Yesselman 23:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Christian opposition to spinozism
It would be interesting if the article could mention the occasional philosophical and religious criticisms of spinozism, notably those coming from institutional Christianity. There is a 1907 encyclical entitled Pascendi Dominici Gregis which goes to great lenghts in exposing what it perceives as the philosophical errors of Spinoza, errors that are viewed as the root source of the overall phenomenon of modernism. ADM (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)