Spinoza’s infinite attributes

reminds me of

felix dakat wrote:

“According to Spinoza, the God/universe has an infinite number of attributes, but we are capable of perceiving only two: extension and thought. These two make up our world. Our finite minds are incapable of perceiving the remaining attributes.”

The phenomenal features of the universe (i.e., its multifarious “attributes”) are not “infinite” in the purest sense of that word.

It may indeed be created from an infinitely malleable substance that is capable of becoming absolutely anything imaginable,…

(just like the substance from which our own thoughts and dreams are created)

…but it is simply wrong to assume that the universe (or even God, for that matter) is made up of a literal infinity of “attributes” (what does that even mean?).

I’m guessing that Spinoza applied the term “infinite attributes” to God and the universe for the same reason that others have applied the terms “omnipotent” or “omniscient” to God.

In other words, it’s all just us clueless humans using the most grandiose terms we can think of to express our sense of awe at how big we think God and the universe must be when, in truth, neither are as big as those terms suggest.

I think it’s quite simple, really. According to Spinoza, we know of two attributes, which are basically the two “substances” of (Descartes’s) substance dualism. So why is there not just one? If we knew only one, there would be no reason to posit more. But we seem to already know more than one, and if there can be two, why not three? Etc. etc. etc. If it was a finite number, God would be finite in that respect. However, the subtlety is that there is only one… And just like there’s no good reason to posit more than one God, there’s no good reason to posit more than one attribute. This attribute, however, is characterized by the law of (non-)contradiction. It’s a two-in-one: both A and not-A. God is infinite because he (it—Nature) is all. In a simile: he can create a stone he cannot lift, and he can lift it, too. He is not limited by one-sided human logic.

S-L A wrote:

“God is infinite because he (it—Nature) is all”.

Well, I suggest that neither God (nor it—Nature) are infinite.

Considering the plausible possibility that our universe is, in truth, contained within the finite mind of a higher (singular) consciousness (as per Berkeleyanism) , then, no, the only thing that is truly infinite is the infinite nothingness that is forever “making room,” so to speak, for the limited, yet ever-expanding somethingness of new minds (new living universes) that are constantly being added to the mix of reality.

And in regard to this,…

“In a simile: he can create a stone he cannot lift, and he can lift it, too. He is not limited by one-sided human logic.”

…it is silly old adages such as that “unliftable / liftable” stone nonsense that make it near impossible to formulate any reasonable vision of what God may actually be.

It is not illogical for us humans to assume that God is indeed limited to logic, and that not even God can create a square circle or a circular triangle.

That silly stone creating nonsense is nothing more than a play on words that creates a paradox that some humans mistakenly believe is relevant to the discussion of God’s abilities.

I just really like where Spinoza sort of rejects moral responsibility unlike Kant. Together they make a good team.

… if not an incompatible one?

“infinite” has two meanings.

  1. Is limitless.
  2. Of indeterminite or unknown size.

I think the problem of this thread is to recognise that Spinoza was using the second meaning of the word.
He was smart enough to understand that he could not know that the universe was limitless, since such a claim lay beyond any possible verification.
Spinoza simply meant that the attributes of the god/universe were unknown to human perception.

It’s arguable wether limitless, as understood during the age of discovery, that belief in falling down past the limit of the horizon coalesced with the fear of falling into an immeasurable depth , where what was discovered in new worlds fed the same fear of the unknown?

But for sure such coalition, still hoped for, offers some comfort to those, to whom the ‘brave new world’ installs forms which have little value in the formal sense, for indeed such perception IS fractured, maybe even beyond repair.

But not for a virtually installed remedy, as a method of constant reminder of the hopes and desires that have been obfuscated for ever so long.?.

Should have just said “at least mind and extension”