|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 20, 2021 17:07:51 GMT
Apparently Einstein was a Spinozist (though his background was physics, not philosophy)
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jul 20, 2021 19:00:18 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised he had a 'philosophy' about many things including the basis for reality and what our minds are(made of). Most people do...have ideas about these things, regardless of their background/education.
I can't see the point in having a particular philosophy called Spinozism ie The monistic philosophy of Baruch Spinoza, in which all reality is held to consist of one substance, usually termed God or Nature, of which minds and bodies are both attributes given it seems one would be arbitrarily defining God as something that the term Nature could just as well mean. I believe nature...lower case... is all there is. I believe there is a lot about the natural world/existence humans don't and perhaps can never understand. I believe nature can be the basis of everything that I'm aware of. I see no reason to posit some 'other' form of existence that would be even more incomprehensible that nature just to solve/explain things we don't think we can explain with nature.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 20, 2021 21:24:03 GMT
It's basically atheism, but with a somewhat spiritual appreciation of nature. I don't really get it to be honest but I don't begrudge those that do.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jul 20, 2021 21:55:22 GMT
It's basically atheism, but with a somewhat spiritual appreciation of nature. I don't really get it to be honest but I don't begrudge those that do. I have come to the conclusion one can be spiritual but not believe in the supernatural. I believe humans...and perhaps other higher animals have 'spirits'...which I define as that special (but totally natural) element of self identity and self worth that gives people, at least, a feeling of value and meaning and makes life worth living.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 20, 2021 22:12:13 GMT
It's basically atheism, but with a somewhat spiritual appreciation of nature. I don't really get it to be honest but I don't begrudge those that do. I have come to the conclusion one can be spiritual but not believe in the supernatural. I believe humans...and perhaps other higher animals have 'spirits'...which I define as that special (but totally natural) element of self identity and self worth that gives people, at least, a feeling of value and meaning and makes life worth living. I can understand that because at least there is a certain intelligence in humans and higher animals. But to look at a pebble, to consider it nothing more than a particular configuration of atoms, and yet see it as somehow divine in some way? Just seems odd to me. |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jul 20, 2021 23:33:25 GMT
I have come to the conclusion one can be spiritual but not believe in the supernatural. I believe humans...and perhaps other higher animals have 'spirits'...which I define as that special (but totally natural) element of self identity and self worth that gives people, at least, a feeling of value and meaning and makes life worth living. I can understand that because at least there is a certain intelligence in humans and higher animals. But to look at a pebble, to consider it nothing more than a particular configuration of atoms, and yet see it as somehow divine in some way? Just seems odd to me. Well...that's the way I see it too. The natural world must be capable of producing entities that can think...because we (I) can think. But all evidence seems to point to the need for some sort of central nervous system...a brain without which no thought happens and which if not functioning properly thought is reduced and may stop. Seems pretty straight forward to me...no need for special forces, gremlins of gods.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 21, 2021 17:55:55 GMT
Well...that's the way I see it too. The natural world must be capable of producing entities that can think...because we (I) can think. But all evidence seems to point to the need for some sort of central nervous system...a brain without which no thought happens and which if not functioning properly thought is reduced and may stop. Seems pretty straight forward to me...no need for special forces, gremlins of gods It's perfectly straightforward. I have no problem with naturalism, I just don't get why Spinozists get a kind of spiritual feeling about unconscious matter. I feel the same way about people who are really into space and are filled with awe and wonder gazing at the stars. Sure, they're pretty but they're just lumps of burning hydrogen. And Spinozists extend that awe to all of nature. And I fully accept the issue may be with me rather than Spinozists. |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jul 21, 2021 21:47:16 GMT
Well...that's the way I see it too. The natural world must be capable of producing entities that can think...because we (I) can think. But all evidence seems to point to the need for some sort of central nervous system...a brain without which no thought happens and which if not functioning properly thought is reduced and may stop. Seems pretty straight forward to me...no need for special forces, gremlins of gods It's perfectly straightforward. I have no problem with naturalism, I just don't get why Spinozists get a kind of spiritual feeling about unconscious matter. I feel the same way about people who are really into space and are filled with awe and wonder gazing at the stars. Sure, they're pretty but they're just lumps of burning hydrogen. And Spinozists extend that awe to all of nature. And I fully accept the issue may be with me rather than Spinozists. I'm guessing that that's the basis for many folks believing in God and/or other supernatural thingamajigs. They 'feel' this special feeling and, like you, cannot see how it can be based on something so mundane as the natural world because, as you say, it's just molecules bouncing about randomly. So they imagine there mmmuuuusssstttt be a god that makes things worth feeling special about. I assume that humans evolved some ability to 'feel' that some things are special.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 21, 2021 22:44:39 GMT
It's perfectly straightforward. I have no problem with naturalism, I just don't get why Spinozists get a kind of spiritual feeling about unconscious matter. I feel the same way about people who are really into space and are filled with awe and wonder gazing at the stars. Sure, they're pretty but they're just lumps of burning hydrogen. And Spinozists extend that awe to all of nature. And I fully accept the issue may be with me rather than Spinozists. Fundamentally, everything is “unconscious matter.” Even the matter that composes us. Even our brains, the machine that produces our intelligence, if broken down beyond repair, renders our intelligence as “unconscious matter.” Now, I don’t get all that spiritual about a pile of rocks either, and yet intelligence can carve a rock into a thing of beauty. The intelligence couldn’t have done it without the rock holding something within that inspired the artist. Michelangelo said as much. Then there are the pile of rocks call the Rocky Mountains. Why do we think they are so beautiful? They are just a pile of “unconscious matter.” Don't really disagree with you there. Just find it hard to get from a beautiful mountain to a divine mountain. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 21, 2021 23:13:06 GMT
Mountains factor into human stories of the divine. So, which came first? The mountain or the divine? Sure, I can imagine an ancient Greek looking at Mt Olympus and finding it so stunning that he believes the gods could live upon it. What I find stranger is a Spinozist saying "No, it's just a mountain with no gods upon it, but it is still divine." And again, I'm not saying Spinozists don't genuinely feel this way, only that I seem to lack that capacity. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 22, 2021 1:01:34 GMT
Sure, I can imagine an ancient Greek looking at Mt Olympus and finding it so stunning that he believes the gods could live upon it. What I find stranger is a Spinozist saying "No, it's just a mountain with no gods upon it, but it is still divine." And again, I'm not saying Spinozists don't genuinely feel this way, only that I seem to lack that capacity. The spirituality comes from the thinking or contemplating on the connection between the animate and inanimate. ... and here with these few words you just summed up the whole human conundrum
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 22, 2021 4:42:41 GMT
The spirituality comes from the thinking or contemplating on the connection between the animate and inanimate. And what is that connection for the Spinozist? |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Jul 22, 2021 8:35:30 GMT
How much Spinoza have you read? Mostly second-hand accounts to be fair so happy to be corrected if I'm misrepresenting him. Don't really follow you here. What is it about the thought processes and metaphysical considerations of Spinoza and Einstein that makes them spiritual, while others who come to the same conclusions about naturalism see it in wholly unspiritual terms? |
|
