God and Spinoza
My introduction to Spinoza by reading some of his books has affected me in a very considerable way.
Baruch Spinoza, born Benedito de Espinoza, was a 17th century philosopher of Sephardi/Portugese origin.Because of his highly-controversial ideas regarding the authenticity of the Hebrew Bible and the nature of the Divine, he was cast out by the Jewish religious authorities and later on his books were put on the Catholic Church’s Index of Forbidden Books.
Spinoza lived a very simple life as a lens grinder, turning down rewards and honours throughout his life, including prestigious teaching positions.
Reading Spinoza’s Ethics is a very demanding occupation. Not only does he maintain a very hermetical way of writing, it is also quite necessary to be acquainted with the terminology which was common in medieval Scholastic Philosophy. Furthermore he uses some other fundamental concepts such as 'substance', 'extension', 'modi', 'attributes' etc. in a very personally defined denotation.
But it is in no way my intention to write down an accurate synopsis of Spinoza's philosophy - anyway I would not be capable to do this accurately.
More so, I’d like to share things that were of great value to me personally.
Spinoza rationalizes the world to its ultimate consequences. Therefore he uses in his Ethics a mathematical format of axioms, theses and proofs, even when it comes to describe things as feelings, love, willpower and so on.
At the other hand, or better, complementary, he was a deeply religious person claiming that the one’s highest goal in life is ‘Amor Intellectualis Dei’, the reasonable love to god.
His motto ‘Deus, sive Substancia, sive Natura’ (God, Substance or Nature) has led many people to assume erroneously that Spinoza was the first true materialist, in preparation of true atheism.
On the contrary, Spinoza’s philosophic system was in a way a reaction on Dualism by Descartes who stated that nature can be conceived on itself without being linked to its creator God (in whom he still believed, though).
For Spinoza there is nothing outside the one Substance, God.
Therefore his philosophy is truly monotheistic. Materialists claim that because of his famous motto, Spinoza equalizes God with Nature, tending so towards atheism. Of course this is untrue - as Spinoza himself has stated firmly.
On the contrary, Spinoza makes a distinction between Natura Naturans and Natura Naturata. Natura Naturans (naturing nature) is the one being, the one Substance, God. Through endless partial manifestations of the Divine, e.g. extensions and modifications (modi) the Natura Naturata (natured nature) is realized, including the world as we experience it.
Therefore – in opposition to Catholicism - there is no concept of Good and Evil, as everything originates in God. However, Spinoza’s system is far from indifferent to ethical principles. It is human Reason that is a manifestation of God’s Thinking as far as he is considered to have a conceptual idea of the human state of being - or in other words a mode of his thinking - that conditions us to live in a harmonious way where principles of tolerance, freedom of thought, altruism and many other values are essential.
Then of course, the question will arise: how can things that are terrible and disastrous also origin in a God who loves us infinitely (as Spinoza states)?
Spinoza answers that we are subject to affections which can deceive us and leave us with ‘inadequate thoughts’ and he proves this in his typical mathematical way.
Furthermore he asks us to leave behind our anthropomorphic concept of things; we should not take ourselves, or our species, as the measure for all things. What is good or bad, is measured by our own benefits and is not necessarily true in itself.
For example: for us humans the destruction of our planet would be the purest catastrophe. But from cosmic point of view there is no difference between the fate of Earth in relation to that of any another planet. This being said, we are in no way inhibited to develop true compassion for suffering and to reduce it where it is possible - it is even our duty to do so. But Spinoza mentions that sympathizing with other’s misery can also be a manifestation of hate or envy, because our affections can origin in inadequate thought.
In general, we still think very anthropomorphically in many ways. For example: when we pose the question: ‘Is there life outside the Earth?’, we ask a fully anthropomorphic question. A more adequate question would be: ‘Is there life as we know it outside the Earth?’
That’s why Spinoza states that God does not sympathize with us. If he would be able to experience joy through us, he necessarily would also be able to feel sad for us. This is impossible since the (by Spinoza) proved fact that God does not know dualism. Dualism is inert to human thinking and therefore anthropomorphic as is the conception of time. Because measured time is also a mode of thinking and does not exist absolutely. That is why there is no correlation between defined time and eternity, or between defined distance and infinity. Accepting this leads us to have a different idea of our identity as humans and to accept that reason itself shows us that reason may mislead us if we hang on - even rationalized - erroneous assumptions.
Maybe now it is clear how Spinoza can state that God loves us infinitely but in a totally indifferent manner.
For me it is quite moving that Spinoza relies on a God from whom he doesn’t expect anything 'in return'. For some it may seem quite cold and hard, but for me it is an exemplary manifestation of unconditional love.
Spinoza refuses every dogmatic way of thinking and - very uniquely - he is one of the rare philosophers who atone reason with God and demonstrates this in the most delightful way.
My introduction to Spinoza by reading some of his books has affected me in a very considerable way.
Baruch Spinoza, born Benedito de Espinoza, was a 17th century philosopher of Sephardi/Portugese origin.Because of his highly-controversial ideas regarding the authenticity of the Hebrew Bible and the nature of the Divine, he was cast out by the Jewish religious authorities and later on his books were put on the Catholic Church’s Index of Forbidden Books.
Spinoza lived a very simple life as a lens grinder, turning down rewards and honours throughout his life, including prestigious teaching positions.
Reading Spinoza’s Ethics is a very demanding occupation. Not only does he maintain a very hermetical way of writing, it is also quite necessary to be acquainted with the terminology which was common in medieval Scholastic Philosophy. Furthermore he uses some other fundamental concepts such as 'substance', 'extension', 'modi', 'attributes' etc. in a very personally defined denotation.
But it is in no way my intention to write down an accurate synopsis of Spinoza's philosophy - anyway I would not be capable to do this accurately.
More so, I’d like to share things that were of great value to me personally.
Spinoza rationalizes the world to its ultimate consequences. Therefore he uses in his Ethics a mathematical format of axioms, theses and proofs, even when it comes to describe things as feelings, love, willpower and so on.
At the other hand, or better, complementary, he was a deeply religious person claiming that the one’s highest goal in life is ‘Amor Intellectualis Dei’, the reasonable love to god.
His motto ‘Deus, sive Substancia, sive Natura’ (God, Substance or Nature) has led many people to assume erroneously that Spinoza was the first true materialist, in preparation of true atheism.
On the contrary, Spinoza’s philosophic system was in a way a reaction on Dualism by Descartes who stated that nature can be conceived on itself without being linked to its creator God (in whom he still believed, though).
For Spinoza there is nothing outside the one Substance, God.
Therefore his philosophy is truly monotheistic. Materialists claim that because of his famous motto, Spinoza equalizes God with Nature, tending so towards atheism. Of course this is untrue - as Spinoza himself has stated firmly.
On the contrary, Spinoza makes a distinction between Natura Naturans and Natura Naturata. Natura Naturans (naturing nature) is the one being, the one Substance, God. Through endless partial manifestations of the Divine, e.g. extensions and modifications (modi) the Natura Naturata (natured nature) is realized, including the world as we experience it.
Therefore – in opposition to Catholicism - there is no concept of Good and Evil, as everything originates in God. However, Spinoza’s system is far from indifferent to ethical principles. It is human Reason that is a manifestation of God’s Thinking as far as he is considered to have a conceptual idea of the human state of being - or in other words a mode of his thinking - that conditions us to live in a harmonious way where principles of tolerance, freedom of thought, altruism and many other values are essential.
Then of course, the question will arise: how can things that are terrible and disastrous also origin in a God who loves us infinitely (as Spinoza states)?
Spinoza answers that we are subject to affections which can deceive us and leave us with ‘inadequate thoughts’ and he proves this in his typical mathematical way.
Furthermore he asks us to leave behind our anthropomorphic concept of things; we should not take ourselves, or our species, as the measure for all things. What is good or bad, is measured by our own benefits and is not necessarily true in itself.
For example: for us humans the destruction of our planet would be the purest catastrophe. But from cosmic point of view there is no difference between the fate of Earth in relation to that of any another planet. This being said, we are in no way inhibited to develop true compassion for suffering and to reduce it where it is possible - it is even our duty to do so. But Spinoza mentions that sympathizing with other’s misery can also be a manifestation of hate or envy, because our affections can origin in inadequate thought.
In general, we still think very anthropomorphically in many ways. For example: when we pose the question: ‘Is there life outside the Earth?’, we ask a fully anthropomorphic question. A more adequate question would be: ‘Is there life as we know it outside the Earth?’
That’s why Spinoza states that God does not sympathize with us. If he would be able to experience joy through us, he necessarily would also be able to feel sad for us. This is impossible since the (by Spinoza) proved fact that God does not know dualism. Dualism is inert to human thinking and therefore anthropomorphic as is the conception of time. Because measured time is also a mode of thinking and does not exist absolutely. That is why there is no correlation between defined time and eternity, or between defined distance and infinity. Accepting this leads us to have a different idea of our identity as humans and to accept that reason itself shows us that reason may mislead us if we hang on - even rationalized - erroneous assumptions.
Maybe now it is clear how Spinoza can state that God loves us infinitely but in a totally indifferent manner.
For me it is quite moving that Spinoza relies on a God from whom he doesn’t expect anything 'in return'. For some it may seem quite cold and hard, but for me it is an exemplary manifestation of unconditional love.
Spinoza refuses every dogmatic way of thinking and - very uniquely - he is one of the rare philosophers who atone reason with God and demonstrates this in the most delightful way.