User talk:Senusert3

natura naturans
This article gives incorrect information. It clams that the terms "natura naturans" and "natura naturata" are naturally formed participles of a supposed verb "naturo." There is no such verb and the classical Latin verb "to be born,"nascor,"is a deponent verb, passive in form but active in meaning. Thus there is only one form of the participle, nascens. The forms natura naturans and natura naturata were made up in the middle ages as if there were a regular verb "naturo." This was done to provide a contrast between "nature" as a system of created beings and God's act whereby creation was sustained. This "natura naturans" is not so much "nature naturing," as if a process were unfolding, as "nature as a whole sustained by the act of God." Likewise "natura naturata" is "nature as dependent upon the prior reality of God, not as "the effect of a cause" in some linear sequence. This usage is found in Thomas Aquinas. Spinoza appropriates the terminology but changes the meaning because he gets rid of the ontological bifurcation between God and nature. On this approach, natura naturans is the one infinite substance ("God or nature," taken as an actualized whole, something "conceived through itself" and so "cause of itself."Natura naturata is the system of modes (which we are inclined to treat as independent "things" but which are modifications of the one substance). It is incorrect, as this article says, to think of natura naturans along the lines of a process of "doing something"; it is the universal act that infinite substance is. Likewise natura naturata is not something "created"--the universe is timeless--but something that is what it is by virture of (a) substance and (b) the way it is limited by the other modes.

This article is wrong in two ways.It is (a)ignorant of the Latin it talks about and (b) it misunderstands Spinoza.

Senusert3 (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Senusert3Senusert3 (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)