And you think you have this problem solved?
Well he might have said that. But for a man who did not beleive in a personal God I think he might have been speaking metaphorically
Indeed, thatâs the only way God can be spoken of⌠or I should say properly understood.
Like Gandalf?
Except the way you phrase it more than implies that you think god is real. Which is the difference I was pointing to.
Not necessarily. In a telegram to Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in 1929, Einstein stated, âI believe in Spinozaâs God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankindâ. So, the difference may be one of conception rather than belief.
1 Like
Can I give spirit to a rock? No.
âŚbut thanks for asking.
Yes, necessarily. I do not give a rats what the Rabbi, said. Einsten made his view quite clear in his own words.
And any one who has studied Spinoza ,as I have knows full well that the pronoun is meaningless.
So you dispute that those are Einsteinâs words? Incidentally, Iâve read Spinoza too. He speaks at length about God as for example, in âThe Ethicsâ on page 264, PropXXXV âGod loves himself with an infinite intellectual love. Proofâ God is absolutely infinite, that is the nature of God rejoices in infinite perfection; and such rejoicing is accompanied by the idea of himself, that is, the idea of his own cause: now this is what we have described as intellectual love.â
They are words reported by another.
AE was quite clear that he had no belief in a âpersonalâ god, so the notion of using âHimâ, or was it âHimselfâ ia anathema to that POV.
Religious folk are in the habit of claiming converts, often postumously.
Several religious folk have falsely claimed that Christopher Hitchens made a death bed conversion.
I cannot say that happened in this case - it was probably just careless use of words.
Spinoza had already been excomunicated by his own community and was working sub rosa., in fear of his life.
Atheism was a burning issue at the time (and I mean literally), so such statements need to be understood in terms of he whole of his work.
Spinozaâs âgodâ was no male, neither was she female.God is not a âHIMâ, in any meaningful sense. God is an infinite, necessary, and self-sustaining substance that encompasses all of reality. Deus sive Natura is the universe and everything in it is simply an expression of its nature.
IT does not care who you sleep with, what you eat, what and who you kill,. IT has no desires, needs or wants. IT is not a person.
LOL
Nope.
So God isnât a person, but expresses its nature through persons.
Hmmmmmyeah no.
Try again.
You are not saying anything.
All you are saying is that everything, including humans are natural.
Hate, love, fucking rabbits, jumping out of aeroplanes and eating your own toenails is all âGODâ.
LOL
Try again
So âeverything in itâ that isnât God (according to you)⌠is not ânature expressing itselfâ.
You (or the person youâre representing) either contradict yourself here^ or you changed your mind.
But why do you align personhood with âHate, love, fucking rabbits, jumping out of aeroplanes and eating your own toenailsâ?
Who says aeroplanes??
Suddenly God/Nature has an ego & thinks part of it is better/worse than other parts? Or is that an uberego?
The quote was from 1929 many years before Einstein died. It was widely reported. Iâm unaware that Einstein ever denied it.. It was hardly a death bed conversion posthumously reported. He never explained what he meant by it either so, of course, it was variously interpreted by people.
Those are Spinozaâs words. (or at least the translation from Latin by RHM Elwes. ) Youâve studied Spinoza so you know he uses such anthropomorphic language and personal pronouns for God on virtually every page of his âEthicsâ. I quoted it in support of my statement above about the use of metaphoric language when speaking of God. But having looked into the book for the first time in years, Iâm happy to discuss the contents.
Skipping over Spinozaâs definitions and axioms and picking up the the context of the quotation I cited at random above, Spinoza says,
â Prop. XXX.IV. The mind is, only while the body endures, subject to those emotions which are attributable to passions. Proof. Imagination is the idea wherewith the mind contemplates a thing as present (II:xvii.Note); yet this idea indicates rather the present disposition of the human body than the nature of the external thing (II:xvi.Coroll.ii.). Therefore emotion (see general Def. of Emotions) is imagination, in so far as it indicates the present disposition of the body; therefore (V:xxi.) the mind is, only while the body endures, subject to emotions which are attributable to passions. Q.E.D. Corollary.-Hence it follows that no love save intellectual love is eternal. Note.-If we look to menâs general opinion, we shall see that they are indeed conscious of the eternity of their mind, but that they confuse eternity with duration, and ascribe it to the imagination or the memory which they believe to remain after death. Prop. XXXV. God loves himself with an infinite intellectual love. Proof.-God is absolutely infinite (I:Def.vi.), that is (II:Def.vi.), the nature of God rejoices in infinite perfection; and such rejoicing is (II:iii.) accompanied by the idea of himself, that is (I:xi. and I:Def.i.), the idea of his own cause: now this is what we have (in V:xxxii.Coroll.) described as intellectual love. Prop. XXXVI. The intellectual love of the mind towards God is that very love of God whereby God loves himself, not in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he can be explained through the essence of the human mind regarded under the form of eternity; in other words, the intellectual love of the mind towards God is part of the infinite love wherewith God loves himself.â
Proof.-(1) This love of the mind must be referred to the activities of the mind (V:xxxii.Coroll. and III:iii.); it is itself, indeed, an activity whereby the mind regards itself accompanied by the idea of God as cause (V:xxxii.&Coroll.); that is (I:xxv.Coroll. and II:xi.Coroll.), an activity whereby God, in so far as he can be explained through the human mind, regards himself accompanied by the idea of himself; therefore (by the last Prop.), this love of the mind is part of the infinite love wherewith God loves himself. Q.E.D. Corollary.-Hence it follows that God, in so far as he loves himself, loves man, and, consequently, that the love of God towards men, and the intellectual love of the mind towards God are identical. Note.-From what has been said we clearly understand, wherein our salvation, or blessedness, or freedom, consists: namely, in the constant and eternal love towards God, or in Godâs love towards men. This love or blessedness is, in the Bible, called Glory and not undeservedly. For whether this love be referred to God or to the mind, it may rightly be called acquiescence of spirit, which (Def. of the Emotions:xxv., and xxx.) is not really distinguished from glory. In so far as it is referred to God, it is (V:xxxv.) pleasure, if we may still use that term, accompanied by the idea of itself, and, in so far as it is referred to the mind, it is the same (V:xxvii.).
Again, since the essence of our mind consists solely in knowledge, whereof the beginning and the foundation is God (I:xv., &II:xlvii.Note), it becomes clear to us, in what manner and way our mind, as to its essence and existence, follows from the divine nature and constantly depends on God. I have thought it worth while here to call attention to this, in order to show by this example how the knowledge of particular things, which I have called intuitive or of the third kind (II:xl.Note.ii.), is potent, and more powerful than the universal knowledge, which I have styled knowledge of the second kind. For, although in Part I showed in general terms, that all things (and consequently, also, the human mind) depend as to their essence and existence on God, yet that demonstration, though legitimate and placed beyond the chances of doubt, does not affect our mind so much, as when the same conclusion is derived from the actual essence of some particular thing, which we say depends on God.â
Iâm immediately struck by the apparent compatibility of Spinozaâs philosophy with the Indian âUpanishadsâ which is remarkable since it had not been translated to Latin from the Sanskrit during Spinozaâs time so he could not have read it and yet seems to have independently arrived at a similar if not identical monistic conception of reality.
âSo God isnât a person, but expresses its nature through persons. Hmmmmmyeah no.â
Hmmmmyeah yeah. Most of our ideas about anything are terribly muddled and confused and arise from the affections or emotions. Morality is one such idea. Monotheistic religion is another. Aesthetic value judgments, another. These ideas are contingent to particular causal distubances in the body; cold beer is good when Iâm hot, killing Barry was uncool, god is a benevolent creator who rules by providence, this pizza is delicious, that barista is sexy af, Putin is an asshole, etc. None of this is true sub specie aeternitatis, and only things that are eternally true can pertain to godâs actual essence rather than one of âhisâ many attributes (toenails, axe murderers, restaurant grand openings, mentholated alkaloids, the list goes on). So, only ideas which are a priori true pertain to god. The conatus⌠or the striving for power in all things. The absolute certainty of causality. The relative nature of good and bad⌠dependent on whether the conatus is increased or diminished by the effects of the thing in question. These are absolutely true at all times and in any possible universe.
By contrast, the monotheistic religions are like foolish childrens stories that demonstrate nothing but the fact of how deranged, muddled, and confused most people are.
No, I said exactly what I wanted to say
I think the problem is that you have jumped into the middle of a conversation without understanding what is going on.
Itâs meaningless saying god has an ego.
Not relevant.
Its just a figure of speech.
Itâs a common enough device. Prof Ben Bikman talks about insulin wanting to push fat into cells, but he knows full well that insilin does not think, desire and have wants. Insulin just acts to the necessity of its existence.
If there are pronouns and intentionality in nature these are no basic, nor primaey qualities. They are emergent qualities.
God is the underlying necessity of cause and effect. SPinoza would have loved Darwin.
Indeed, weâve gone full circle.
Our dialogue started when you said
And I replied
A metaphor is, after all, a âfigure of speech.â
Given your apparent aversion to theology, I imagine reading Spinozaâs Ethics with God talk on every page you would break out in hives or something.