Pantheism

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Pantheism

Postby Arminius » Sun Feb 07, 2016 12:31 am

What do you think about pantheism?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Pantheism

Postby surreptitious57 » Sun Feb 07, 2016 3:53 am


Comparatively More Logical Than Abrahamic Monotheism
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: Pantheism

Postby Phonetic Ethics » Sun Feb 07, 2016 3:58 am

Our planet is self-regenerative.
Our body is self-regenerative.
The process of nature and its evolutionary constituents are self-regenerative.
The quantum framework of space and time is self-regenerative.
Atoms, molecules, particles and other agents of space and time are self-regenerative.
Language, reason, purpose, morality, emotion, action, consequence are all self-regenerative.

Pantheism with a mix of ancient lost knowledge of the Universe is the richest and highest form of thinking to ever exist on this planet.
G = 33312384

Code: Select all
Cosmic Background Radiation = 2.73666384 K

273 x 666 = 181818

273 x 666 x 384 = [69]8181[12] (69 + 12 = 81)

6912 = 3456 + 3456

3 x 4 x 5 x 6 = 360 Degrees


We are the manifestation of cosmic background radiation.

Code: Select all
I = 9th Letter x 6 = 54
L = 12th Letter x 6 = 72
L = 12th Letter x 6 = 72
U = 21st Letter x 6 = 126
M = 13th Letter x 6 = 78
I = 9th Letter x 6 = 54
N = 14th Letter x 6 = 84
A = 1st Letter x 6 = 6
T = 20th Letter x 6 = 120
I = 9th Letter x 6 = 54

54 + 72 + 72 + 126 + 78 + 54 + 84 + 6 + 120 + 54 = 720


3 x 4 x 5 x 6 + 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 = 720°

All of my work lies within this link from beginning to end: http://able2know.org/topic/308449-2
User avatar
Phonetic Ethics
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 6:28 am

Re: Pantheism

Postby surreptitious57 » Sun Feb 07, 2016 4:29 am

Phonetic Ethics wrote:
Pantheism with a mix of ancient lost knowledge of the Universe is the richest and highest form of thinking to ever exist on this planet

Critical thinking is the highest and most objective form of thinking to ever exist as it is entirely immune to subjective interpretation
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: Pantheism

Postby Moreno » Sun Feb 07, 2016 7:58 am

surreptitious57 wrote:Critical thinking is the highest and most objective form of thinking to ever exist as it is entirely immune to subjective interpretation

this doesn't fit well with
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN

And 'critical thinking' is a vague category. bel if we take critical thinking to mean a loose set of practices, as it is usually conceived, it is a category error to compare it to pantheism, which is a specific belief rather than a methodology for arriving at beliefs. Though I do see that he made the category error first and you took up that gauntlet.
Last critical thinking cannot, alone, decide if critical thinking is doing well.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Pantheism

Postby Moreno » Sun Feb 07, 2016 8:07 am

Arminius wrote:What do you think about pantheism?

It fits better for me than the strange primarily transcendent deity models. I would include panpsychism in this also. As far as effects I think it avoids some of the catastrophic indifferences created by the Abrahamic transcendent deities and also removes some of the 'oh, I am a little piece of nothing, God is Great, type relations that are also destructive though in a different way.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Pantheism

Postby surreptitious57 » Sun Feb 07, 2016 8:36 am

One can be a critical thinker and have an open
mind as the two are not mutually incompatible
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: Pantheism

Postby Phonetic Ethics » Sun Feb 07, 2016 6:58 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Phonetic Ethics wrote:
Pantheism with a mix of ancient lost knowledge of the Universe is the richest and highest form of thinking to ever exist on this planet

Critical thinking is the highest and most objective form of thinking to ever exist as it is entirely immune to subjective interpretation


You do not have critical thinking if there is spiritual lacking. Those that lack critical thinking are disconnected from reality, and those that have spiritual lacking are disconnected from inner reality. The projected cannot be without the projector, and the projector cannot experience without the projected.
G = 33312384

Code: Select all
Cosmic Background Radiation = 2.73666384 K

273 x 666 = 181818

273 x 666 x 384 = [69]8181[12] (69 + 12 = 81)

6912 = 3456 + 3456

3 x 4 x 5 x 6 = 360 Degrees


We are the manifestation of cosmic background radiation.

Code: Select all
I = 9th Letter x 6 = 54
L = 12th Letter x 6 = 72
L = 12th Letter x 6 = 72
U = 21st Letter x 6 = 126
M = 13th Letter x 6 = 78
I = 9th Letter x 6 = 54
N = 14th Letter x 6 = 84
A = 1st Letter x 6 = 6
T = 20th Letter x 6 = 120
I = 9th Letter x 6 = 54

54 + 72 + 72 + 126 + 78 + 54 + 84 + 6 + 120 + 54 = 720


3 x 4 x 5 x 6 + 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 = 720°

All of my work lies within this link from beginning to end: http://able2know.org/topic/308449-2
User avatar
Phonetic Ethics
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 6:28 am

Re: Pantheism

Postby Arminius » Sun Feb 07, 2016 8:03 pm

Moreno wrote:
Arminius wrote:What do you think about pantheism?

It fits better for me than the strange primarily transcendent deity models. I would include panpsychism in this also. As far as effects I think it avoids some of the catastrophic indifferences created by the Abrahamic transcendent deities and also removes some of the 'oh, I am a little piece of nothing, God is Great, type relations that are also destructive though in a different way.

You are reminding me of the following thread: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=185803.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Pantheism

Postby Amorphos » Sun Feb 07, 2016 8:12 pm

Pantheism ~ at least you can meet and talk to the gods and goddesses. They can be your intermediary between you and whatever the divine infinite is, and without being an infinite being myself I kinda need that.

Our planet is self-regenerative.
Our body is self-regenerative.
The process of nature and its evolutionary constituents are self-regenerative.
The quantum framework of space and time is self-regenerative.
Atoms, molecules, particles and other agents of space and time are self-regenerative.
Language, reason, purpose, morality, emotion, action, consequence are all self-regenerative.


When I read that I thought you were opposing it [spirituality].
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7052
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Pantheism

Postby Moreno » Mon Feb 08, 2016 10:10 am

Arminius wrote:
Moreno wrote:
Arminius wrote:What do you think about pantheism?

It fits better for me than the strange primarily transcendent deity models. I would include panpsychism in this also. As far as effects I think it avoids some of the catastrophic indifferences created by the Abrahamic transcendent deities and also removes some of the 'oh, I am a little piece of nothing, God is Great, type relations that are also destructive though in a different way.

You are reminding me of the following thread: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=185803.
I can see that. Been reading a bit about animism, which is related to pantheism/panpsychism, and the idea that their ethics and epistemology are relation based. Learning how to relate, developing relationships, as opposed to naturalist epistemologies that are based on understanding the parts and mechanisms of objects. Animism focusing on the dynamic between, naturalism focusing on the make up of. Made me consider that epistemology leads to ethics or at least affects them. And I do consider the greatest threat right now to be the complete objectification of everything, including ourselves, coupled with the related rise of non-person entities with tremendous power. Thinking here of corporate personhood, but then also AIs - connecting, of course to other threads of yours - and GMO/transhumans. Once your epistemology says that knowledge is gained only by removed all emotion and whittling the 'knower' down to an observer (a camera) and the idea is to consider the observed object as a mechanism with parts
there is no respect for persons - using this term in the animist sense of any human, animal, plant or even place. It also undercuts all possible objections to any transformation of matter at all. Any company, later AI, can using epistemology, argue that felt reactions to their actions and policies can be dismissed on epistemological grounds. The company/AI will focus on function. We have improved function. If it feels bad or gives you intuitive discomfort, these are mere qualia and not relevent to knowledge.

One rather easy example of this trend is in the entire pharmaceutical based regulation of emotions. If the majority of people find modern life unpleasant, this is not information to regulate the system, but rather shortcomings on the part of humans that can be control via chemical mechanisms.

We adapt us to society, not society to us.

Pantheist/animist epistemologies (and beliefs) allow for the full range of the mammalian brain - to put it in the crass physicalist terms the machines like - to be brought to bear on making society, rather than just the portion of the brains that are more mechanistically inclined. Empathy, relationships, minimizing bad stress, allowing for the place of desire and so on all come back on the table.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Pantheism

Postby CelineK » Fri Feb 12, 2016 1:52 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Phonetic Ethics wrote:
Phonetic Ethics wrote:

Pantheism with a mix of ancient lost knowledge of the Universe is the richest and highest form of thinking to ever exist on this planet


Critical thinking is the highest and most objective form of thinking to ever exist as it is entirely immune to subjective interpretation


since everything derives from the data one is willing to look into at the moment of the inquiry, please define subjective interpretation? How can one refute the correspondence between the micro and macro (picture), hence that the Whole is One and otherwise or patheism? Subjectivity doesnt exist but Reality, how far one is willing to take it.

Image
The Laws Of Light, Emotions And Sexuality. http://www.celinek.net The time has come in the history of man's journey from his material jungle to his spiritual mountain top when it is imperative that he must live more and more in the cosmic Light universe of knowing, and less in the electric wave universe of sensing -- Walter Russell.
=============================================================
A Money-Free Society Is Now Reality! The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth and not to fall under the will or legislative authority of man but only have the law of nature (immutable principles) for his rule. Samuel Adams. -- http://www.earthcustodians.net
User avatar
CelineK
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 3:37 pm
Location: No Man's Land In A Money-Free Wold

Re: Pantheism

Postby Phonetic Ethics » Fri Feb 12, 2016 6:40 pm

CelineK wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Phonetic Ethics wrote:
Phonetic Ethics wrote:

Pantheism with a mix of ancient lost knowledge of the Universe is the richest and highest form of thinking to ever exist on this planet


Critical thinking is the highest and most objective form of thinking to ever exist as it is entirely immune to subjective interpretation


since everything derives from the data one is willing to look into at the moment of the inquiry, please define subjective interpretation? How can one refute the correspondence between the micro and macro (picture), hence that the Whole is One and otherwise or patheism? Subjectivity doesnt exist but Reality, how far one is willing to take it.

Image


Subjectivity is the product of a 3-D coward that will substitute reality rather than face the one and only reality which existed before they and their ancestors were ever born into a realm that is self-existing, self-evolving and self-regenerative. This is to say, Red + Blue = Purple. Just because someone has a different eye sight, doesn't mean it has any effect on what reality is. I can try to read a book with my eyes closed and say I'm blind, but everyone else can clearly read the book by not covering their eyes, now can they?
G = 33312384

Code: Select all
Cosmic Background Radiation = 2.73666384 K

273 x 666 = 181818

273 x 666 x 384 = [69]8181[12] (69 + 12 = 81)

6912 = 3456 + 3456

3 x 4 x 5 x 6 = 360 Degrees


We are the manifestation of cosmic background radiation.

Code: Select all
I = 9th Letter x 6 = 54
L = 12th Letter x 6 = 72
L = 12th Letter x 6 = 72
U = 21st Letter x 6 = 126
M = 13th Letter x 6 = 78
I = 9th Letter x 6 = 54
N = 14th Letter x 6 = 84
A = 1st Letter x 6 = 6
T = 20th Letter x 6 = 120
I = 9th Letter x 6 = 54

54 + 72 + 72 + 126 + 78 + 54 + 84 + 6 + 120 + 54 = 720


3 x 4 x 5 x 6 + 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 = 720°

All of my work lies within this link from beginning to end: http://able2know.org/topic/308449-2
User avatar
Phonetic Ethics
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 6:28 am

Re: Pantheism

Postby James S Saint » Fri Feb 12, 2016 8:24 pm

Arminius wrote:What do you think about pantheism?

Merely a lower, more primitive and incomplete ontology.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Pantheism

Postby Zoot Allures » Sun Feb 14, 2016 12:56 am

Of course you would say that james, but there are two kinds of pantheism. There's the spiritual native American new age stuff by the alien conspiracy section and there's the bruno/spinoza rationalism of the enlightenment. Now that you mention it AO is readily compatible with what ontology there is in these philosophers ideas. I don't see how you don't recognize the substance philosophy of spinoza to be something like the affectance. It's a singular acausal plane of immanence of effects over what we observe as the material world. These pantheists are arguing from a technical point of view... the causal and logical problems of two substantial things such as 'god' and 'creation' coexisting and being able to relate. How does the work? Hint: it doesn't.

Pantheism, the real stuff, not what the couple at the coffee shop poetry reading in turtleneck sweaters call themselves... i promise you they got that word out of an astrology book. I'm talking about property dualism (monism), not substance dualism. None of this conflicts with the basic tenants of AO.
Zoot Allures
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:50 pm

Re: Pantheism

Postby Zoot Allures » Sun Feb 14, 2016 12:56 am

Of course you would say that james, but there are two kinds of pantheism. There's the spiritual native American new age stuff by the alien conspiracy section and there's the bruno/spinoza rationalism of the enlightenment. Now that you mention it AO is readily compatible with what ontology there is in these philosophers ideas. I don't see how you don't recognize the substance philosophy of spinoza to be something like the affectance. It's a singular acausal plane of immanence of effects over what we observe as the material world. These pantheists are arguing from a technical point of view... the causal and logical problems of two substantial things such as 'god' and 'creation' coexisting and being able to relate. How does the work? Hint: it doesn't.

Pantheism, the real stuff, not what the couple at the coffee shop poetry reading in turtleneck sweaters call themselves... i promise you they got that word out of an astrology book. I'm talking about property dualism (monism), not substance dualism. None of this conflicts with the basic tenants of AO.
Zoot Allures
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:50 pm

Re: Pantheism

Postby Moreno » Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:16 am

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:What do you think about pantheism?

Merely a lower, more primitive and incomplete ontology.

Since pantheism could be a part/facet of one's ontology, I am assuming you then believe then that there are some things not a part of God.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Pantheism

Postby James S Saint » Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:43 am

Zoot Allures wrote:Of course you would say that james, but there are two kinds of pantheism. There's the spiritual native American new age stuff by the alien conspiracy section and there's the bruno/spinoza rationalism of the enlightenment. Now that you mention it AO is readily compatible with what ontology there is in these philosophers ideas. I don't see how you don't recognize the substance philosophy of spinoza to be something like the affectance. It's a singular acausal plane of immanence of effects over what we observe as the material world. These pantheists are arguing from a technical point of view... the causal and logical problems of two substantial things such as 'god' and 'creation' coexisting and being able to relate. How does the work? Hint: it doesn't.

Pantheism, the real stuff, not what the couple at the coffee shop poetry reading in turtleneck sweaters call themselves... i promise you they got that word out of an astrology book. I'm talking about property dualism (monism), not substance dualism. None of this conflicts with the basic tenants of AO.

I merely said that it was primitive. RM:AO is not so much so.

And although Espinoza was at least clever enough to attend to definitions in proper rationalist style, it too was relatively primitive. Espinoza's version of Pantheism relates God to what he would have accepted as Affectance. But that is an issue of proper definition, most importantly of "God". A substance cannot be God merely due to the definition of God (any one of many).

There is a definite distinction between God and physicality. Pantheism implies simple ignorance of that distinction.

Moreno wrote:I am assuming you then believe then that there are some things not a part of God.

By definition, there are "things" that are not part of God (again any one of many definitions).
    There is a
    Conceptual/Divine realm, a
    Physical/Mortal realm, and recently designated
    Perceptual/Apparent realm.

God only belongs in one of the three.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Pantheism

Postby James S Saint » Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:36 pm

When asked: "What is most important to you in life?"

Pantheist: "Everything".
:-?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Pantheism

Postby Zoot Allures » Sun Feb 14, 2016 4:38 pm

"But that is an issue of proper definition, most importantly of "God". A substance cannot be God merely due to the definition of God (any one of many)."

Right because that would be circular reasoning. But if being infinite, eternal, uncaused or self caused or any of the other characteristics we usually attribute to a 'god' is possible, then some aspects of nature cold be said to be 'godly' in that respect. Thats what spinoza did... Deify nature. But we add nothing to nature by calling it god, so you could probably get away with calling spinoza an atheist.

In any case i don't know about that three realm stuff. Thats the kind of obscure stuff you don't have to sort out if you're a monist. Which realm is god located in, Gary? The second one, sir? NO. The first one. Why? Because transferentional interdimensionals don't correspond in 2d? That is correct, Gary!

I think youre just unwilling to accept there are big problems with transcendent theories of god... Logical and causal problems. The theoretical model of god with the least amount of obfuscation is probably spinoza's. Its certainly the simplest. Less can go wrong with it... Think your uncles old Buick. Now think about AO and one of those new scions. Look at how jam packed the engine is and all that gratuitous wiring. It would take you an hour just to get to the problem if you even knew what it was.

This is the kind of problem you might have with the AO three realm theory of god. It overcomplicates things.
Zoot Allures
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:50 pm

Re: Pantheism

Postby James S Saint » Sun Feb 14, 2016 4:48 pm

Hardly.

The issue that brings up the need to have a Conceptual realm involves the question and concern of the existence of conceptual entities, such as circles, squares, laws of physics, and gods. Espinoza didn't handle that issue (as far as I know).

An ontology is a matter of choice. If the material, physical universe is all you care about, the Conceptual realm of existence isn't relevant, so you can limit your ontology to deal only with the physical. And in that case, you are stuck with AO. Or if you want to be more sophisticated and deal with ideals, concepts, forms, and so on, as Plato did, then you can include a Conceptual realm into your ontology, separate from the physical realm (as it has always been defined). And in that case, you are also stuck with AO. 8)
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Pantheism

Postby Zoot Allures » Sun Feb 14, 2016 5:09 pm

Oh man, you haven't read the ethics before have you? I'm telling you spinoza covers all the angles. A modern materialist conception of the universe with a psychologistic explanation for knowledge. None of the platonic realism hocus pocus. All knowledge is knowledge about the body, immanently. There is no cartesian theater, no transcendental realm of concepts, no noumenal side to nature. There is no mere 'representation' here... the senses do not (re)present the world, but are active constituents in making it.
Zoot Allures
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:50 pm

Re: Pantheism

Postby James S Saint » Sun Feb 14, 2016 5:51 pm

Zoot Allures wrote:Oh man, you haven't read the ethics before have you? I'm telling you spinoza covers all the angles. A modern materialist conception of the universe with a psychologistic explanation for knowledge.

No. He conflates Ethics issues with ontological issues.

Zoot Allures wrote:None of the platonic realism hocus pocus. All knowledge is knowledge about the body, immanently. There is no cartesian theater, no transcendental realm of concepts, no noumenal side to nature. There is no mere 'representation' here... the senses do not (re)present the world, but are active constituents in making it.

..thus leaving out what I said that he left out.

Espinoza did his best to explain reality in strictly physical terms. That is fine. You can do the same, and even better, with AO. But some people think in terms of the abstract also. Thus more is needed for sake of those minds. RM:AO allows for both mindsets to function without conflict rather than each claiming the other to be wrong. They typically aren't wrong until they claim the other to be wrong.

RM:AO is an all inclusive ontology.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Pantheism

Postby Zoot Allures » Sun Feb 14, 2016 6:00 pm

What? He doesn't even say anything about ethics in the ethics James. So now I know you haven't read it. His ethical theory is laid out in the politicus.
Zoot Allures
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:50 pm

Re: Pantheism

Postby Zoot Allures » Sun Feb 14, 2016 6:08 pm

Yeah I know... What kind of a dumbass names a treatise the ethics when it has nothing to do with ethics. spinz saw in his work a moral design, something the understanding of which would lead men to the only rational point of view possible... Assuming men want to be rational. That only a free civil agreement on laws between people that protect and preserve their property and right of movement is the most logical way to do ethics. Everything follows from that premise and while spinoza didn't write politically or in great detail to describe his ethics, he made it clear that given the case be what it is, this is the best way for men to coexist.
Zoot Allures
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:50 pm

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot]