Spinoza, Locke, & Reid-LHP 13-14. Rec: FL 15-16. HWT 16-17....
SEP 24
- Spinoza - #H1 Christian; #H2 Aidan Taylor; #H3 Evan B.
- Something in FL 15-16 or HWT 16-17 - #H2 Maria Lassiter
- Something in QE Part II - Is Democracy Possible - #H3 Floris O.
LHP
1. Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called _______. What do you think of that view?
2. If god is _____, there cannot be anything that is not god; if _____, god is indifferent to human beings. Is that how you think about god?
3. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that _____ is an illusion. Do you think it is possible (and consistent) to choose to be a determinist?
4. According to John Locke, all our knowledge comes from _____; hence, the mind of a newborn is a ______. If Locke's right, what do you think accounts for our ability to learn from our experiences?
5. Locke said _____ continuity establishes personal identity (bodily, psychological); Thomas Reid said identity relies on ______ memories, not total recall. How do you think you know that you're the same person now that you were at age 3 (for example)? If you forget much of your earlier life in old age, what reassures you that you'll still be you?
2. If god is _____, there cannot be anything that is not god; if _____, god is indifferent to human beings. Is that how you think about god?
3. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that _____ is an illusion. Do you think it is possible (and consistent) to choose to be a determinist?
4. According to John Locke, all our knowledge comes from _____; hence, the mind of a newborn is a ______. If Locke's right, what do you think accounts for our ability to learn from our experiences?
5. Locke said _____ continuity establishes personal identity (bodily, psychological); Thomas Reid said identity relies on ______ memories, not total recall. How do you think you know that you're the same person now that you were at age 3 (for example)? If you forget much of your earlier life in old age, what reassures you that you'll still be you?
6. Locke's articulation of what natural rights influenced the U.S. Constitution? Do you think it matters if we say such rights are discovered rather than invented?
HWT
1. What are atman and anatta, and what classical western idea do they both contradict?
2. What was John Locke's concept of self or soul? What makes you you?
3. Shunning rigid essentialized identities, younger people increasingly believe what?
4. What cultural stereotype did Baggini find inaccurate when he went to Japan?
5. What important distinction did Nishida Kitaro draw?
6. What point about individuality did Monty Python make?
7. What is ubuntu?
1. Who wrote a memoir of life on the Kentucky frontier that turned him into a "real-life superhero"? (He's in my family tree, btw.)
2. Who built a cabin by a lake, moved in on the 4th of July, and epitomized a perennial American pastoral fantasy? What do you think he'd say about modern suburbia?
3. What did The New York Sun announce in a week-long "news" story in 1835? Who believed it?
4. Who was P.T. Barnum, and what was his fundamental Fantasyland mindset?
5. Whose touring play marked what key milestone in America's national evolution?
6. Who was Aunt Jemima?
Irvin Yalom's novel The Spinoza Problem suggests that Epicurus's view of the gods as real but distant was "bold, but not foolhardy"... and that it presaged Spinoza's pantheism.
"I believe in Spinoza's God..." --Albert Einstein, as reported in the New York Times April 1929...
Spinoza the pantheist: "he believed that he believed"...
"Perhaps the most famous self-proclaimed disciple of Spinoza in the twentieth century was Einstein, who, when asked by a rabbi whether or not he believed in God, replied, "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all being, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of men." Einstein was probably just being diplomatic when he answered the rabbi. Spinoza's God is, after all, a convenient deity for those who might more accurately be described as non-religious. The "religion" of Spinozism is in fact rather close to modern secularism. It insists that morality has nothing to do with the commands of a supremely powerful being, and that it does not require a priesthood or the threat of an unpleasant afterlife to sustain it. It rejects the idea of a personal God who created, cares about and occasionally even tinkers with the world. It dismisses the notion of the supernatural, and regards religious ceremonies as merely comforting or inspiring, if you like that sort of thing. It advocates freedom of thought in religious matters... And it places its faith in knowledge and understanding—rather than in faith itself—both to improve the circumstances of human life and to make that life more satisfying. The poet Heine, writing in the 1830s, seems to have glimpsed how far ahead of his times Spinoza was in this respect: "There is in Spinoza's writings a certain inexplicable atmosphere, as though one could feel a breeze of the future. Perhaps the spirit of the Hebrew prophets still rested on their late descendant." What would this "God-intoxicated" man have made of his own intellectual descendants? They include many people who openly profess atheism, and even though atheism now carries no stigma in economically developed countries except the United States, it is hard to imagine Spinoza being altogether happy to embrace it. What were for him the most important qualities among those traditionally attributed to God are, in his philosophy, qualities of the universe itself. God is not fictitious; He is all around us. Spinoza's God is admittedly so different from anyone else's that a case can be made for saying that he was an atheist without realising it; but it does appear that he believed that he believed in God. It is sometimes said that the birth of Judaism constituted an intellectual advance over most earlier religions because it reduced a panoply of gods to the one God of monotheism. On this way of thinking, Spinoza may be considered to have continued the work of his distant Hebrew ancestors by performing a further subtraction of the same sort, and reducing the duo of God and world to one."
— The Dream of Enlightenment: The Rise of Modern Philosophy by Anthony Gottlieb
— The Dream of Enlightenment: The Rise of Modern Philosophy by Anthony Gottlieb
ReplyDeleteRoman Phillips H03
LHP
1. Spinoza's view that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called pantheism. Spinoza believed in the radical idea of pantheism meaning everything in nature is God. I do not agree with Spinoza's view because I view things in nature such as trees, ducks, butterflies, as God's creation and not as God himself.
2. If God is infinite, there cannot be anything that is not God; if God is impersonal, God is indifferent to human beings. I do not view God as being impersonal either. I grew up attending church regularly and I do believe in praying. Miracles happen that I believe are a result of direct prayers being answered. I am also guilty of projecting human qualities on God - such as compassion. However, I do agree with Spinoza's thought about loving God, but not expecting anything in return. I have been taught that sometimes the answer to prayers is in the form of NO. About nine years ago, my puppy had a choking incident and had to spend the night at the emergency vet. We said a prayer for him at church. While I know very well, emergency veterinary services helped save my puppy, I believe some Divine Intervention helped too.
3. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that free will is an illusion. If Spinoza believed free will was an illusion, then would that make his views on God and nature be true? He was not forced into following his Jewish upbringing. Spinoza freely chose to believe his views? Each choice he made - choosing to live simply, turning down the teaching job, working in the glass industry - those all appear to be choices he freely made. While he may believe these choices were not in his control, that the choices were inevitable, I believe he made lots of choices.
6. Locke's ideas on God given rights of life, freedom, happiness and property influenced the founding fathers of the United States who wrote the Constitution. I feel like if we say these rights are invented then, it loses the meaning of God given. If these rights are discovered, these ideas seem to have more value and meaning.
HWT
7. Ubuntu is a southern African concept. While there is no true translation for the word, it means something closely related to "humanity towards others." The word implies movement and action, it is not a static -ism. It is a humanistic concept which sees society, not God, as the transcendent source of value with political and ethical consequences.
FL
1. Daniel Boone wrote a memoir of life on the Kentucky frontier that turned him into a "real-life superhero."
2. On a wooded lot owned by Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau built a one-room cabin by a lake. Thoreau moved in on the Fourth of July, and epitomized a perennial American pastoral fantasy. I think he would be deeply disturbed about modern suburbia. The suburbs of today do not support his ideals of self-sufficiency and solitude. Most suburbs are overcrowded and continue to sprawl. As for the love of nature, one only has to drive past all those new housing developments where the trees have been mowed down to make room for more housing to become tremendously bothered.
6. Aunt Jemima was the character for the Pearl Milling company founded by a Missouri newspaper editor. They marketed a new branded pancake mix called Aunt Jemima. At the Chicago World's Fair, they hired a previously enslaved woman to play the character for the fair and the rest of her life. Current owner of the company, Pepsico, rebranded the Aunt Jemima name after being accused of racial stereotyping in 2021.
Response to LHP 6
DeleteWhy does the notion that the discovery of natural rights indicate that they have more value than if we were to invent the right? Could we not give something we invent a higher value than something we discover?
You're the first comment I have read so far that agrees with my belief that God is the Creator of all but is not all. Very interesting!
Delete#H02
ReplyDeleteHWT
Qn.2-
The concepts of atman and anatta are explored as part of the philosophical traditions of India and Buddhism. Atman is a Hindu philosophy. Atman refers to the eternal self or soul that is the true essence of an individual. It is considered to be unchanging and permanent. Anatta is a Buddhist philosophy. Anatta (or anatman) means “non-self” or the absence of a permanent, unchanging self. This concept is fundamental to Buddhist teachings, which emphasize the impermanence and interdependence of all things.
Both atman and anatta contradict the classical Western idea of the individual self as a distinct, enduring entity. In Western philosophy, particularly in the tradition of thinkers like Descartes, the self is often seen as a stable, autonomous identity that persists over time.
HWT
Qn.5-
Nishida Kitaro, a prominent Japanese philosopher and the founder of the Kyoto School, made a significant distinction through his concept of the “logic of place” (basho). This idea challenges traditional Western dichotomies by proposing a more integrated and holistic approach to understanding reality. Nishida’s “logic of place” emphasizes the interconnectedness and interdependence of all things, suggesting that individual entities do not exist in isolation but are defined by their relationships within a larger context. This distinction is crucial as it bridges Eastern and Western philosophical traditions, offering a unique perspective that transcends the limitations of both. Nishida’s work has had a profound impact on modern philosophy, particularly in how we understand the nature of self, reality, and the dynamic interplay between the two.
HWT
Qn.6-
In Monty Python’s “Life of Brian,” the point about individuality is humorously and is illustrated in the famous scene where Brian, mistaken for a messiah, addresses a crowd of followers. He tells them, “You are all individuals,” to which they all chant back in unison, “Yes, we are all individuals!” This scene satirizes the human tendency to conform even when proclaiming individuality. The irony is real as the crowd, in their eagerness to follow Brian, fails to recognize the very essence of his message, the importance of thinking for oneself and embracing true individuality. This comedic yet profound moment underscores the absurdity of blindly following leaders or ideologies without critical thought. It challenges the audience to reflect on their own beliefs and the extent to which they genuinely exercise independent thinking. By stressing the crowd’s collective response with Brian’s call for individuality, Monty Python cleverly critiques societal norms and the paradox of seeking individuality within the confines of conformity.
Maheswari Ramesh (Maahi)
LHP #1: Spinoza's belief that God and nature are interchangeable terms and have the same meaning is labeled as pantheism. He acknowledged that God is everything, and because of this, there is nothing that is not God. God is the grass, the ants, and the wind; every component of our world makes up the infinite God being referred to. Logically, this line of reasoning follows through. If you are to believe in a boundless and unrestricted God, then He must be in everything and simply be everything.
ReplyDeleteLHP #3: As a determinist, Spinoza believed that free will is an illusion. His reasoning is that even when humans think they are making their own choices, the choices result from earlier influences and are the result of factors we don't even realize. This is a controversial mindset because 1) yes, we do make decisions often without recognizing the lurking influences, and 2) we are the ones making the decisions regardless. So, believing that all our choices are inevitable is an extreme view of human life. I would argue that both sides hold weight and are accurate throughout one's life. However, being a determinist is another example of an extreme form of philosophical view similar to that of epicurism.
LHP #4: According to John Locke, all of our knowledge comes from life experiences, and therefore, as a newborn baby, the mind is like a blank slate. I agree with this concept, as an individual is continuously exposed to a range of ideas throughout life, creating a unique knowledge set. As a newborn, there has been no exposure; thus, no knowledge has been developed. Abiding by this principle, our ability to learn from our experiences comes from how we build on this blank slate throughout life and how well our brains can recall previous events. I am an overall fan of Locke's thoughts.
H02
DeleteH01
DeleteMaybe the notion of an unrestricted God implies that such a god may choose to NOT be things as well. In other words, such a god would not be restricted to an infinite or boundless nature.
H1
DeleteI like what you say in response to John Locke's theory. I believe outside of very basic human functioning we have zero knowledge outside the womb. The ability to recognize the mother, in my opinion, is because it was learnt during development. So other than those two things, the latter of which was learnt while developing, our minds are born clean.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP 1. Spinoza’s belief that God and nature are the same, and everything is therefore God, is called pantheism. He thought that everything exists because of God, so everything then must be God itself. As someone that believes that everything in nature is connected (which is basically ecology), I completely understand this belief, but I would not say that I am a pantheist myself.
LHP 4. Locke stated that all our knowledge comes from life experience, so we are a “blank slate” when we are babies. I am a fan of this thought because I, too, think that it is so amazing that all humans are different because none of us experience life in the exact same way. Of course, humans go through many of the same events, but none of us have the same exact thoughts, feelings, and reactions. We truly are a blank slate. We develop knowledge and maturity through life events, education, people, media, and the relationship we have with ourselves.
HWT-1: Atman (in Hinduism) represents the eternal self or soul, while Anatta (in Buddhism) refers to the concept of "no-self." Both contradict the classical Western idea of an enduring, permanent soul or self.
ReplyDeleteHWT-2: Locke believed the self is defined by memory and continuity of consciousness, not by the substance of the soul.
HWT-3: Younger people increasingly reject rigid identities instead they prefer fluid and flexible self-conceptions.
HWT-4: Baggini found that the stereotype of Japanese collectivism was inaccurate, as individuality is also valued.
HWT-5: He distinguished between the logic of the individual and the logic of the whole, proposing that individuals exist within a greater whole.
HWT-6: Monty Python satirized the notion of individualism by humorously emphasizing how people follow crowds while claiming to be unique.
HWT-7: Ubuntu, which is a South African philosophy that emphasizes communal interdependence, meaning "I am because we are." It stresses the importance of relationships in defining individual identity.
H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Pantheism, I do agree with this view more than the traditional view of how god is portrayed and I definitely see where Spinoza's idea of this is coming from. But I would say that I don't wholly agree with it.
3. Freewill is an illusion according to Spinoza. I do think that it is possible to choose to be a determinist, therefore making their argument less reliable and less valid.
4. Memory, therefore babies are blank slates. if he is right then I do think that the ability to learn from our experiences are the greatest learning tool and help us become who we are and who we want to be in life.
I am not a determinist, however I do find it interesting that a determinist would say that it is impossible to choose to be one. Your previous actions in life would be what determines whether you believe in determinism or free will.
DeleteBobby Goodroe H03
ReplyDeleteLHP Q1: Spinoza's view that God and nature were the same thing is called pantheism. I like his interpretation of God a lot because it is a very flexible belief that advocates for all things being connected, and therefore, valuable.
LHP Q3: Spinoza thought that free will was an illusion. I think the question is misrepresenting the issue: if you are a determinist, you would not think that you had a choice in being one, but to someone who was not a determinist, they would think there was a choice. So no, I don't think it is necessarily inconsistent to "choose" to be a determinist.
LHP Q5: Locke said that psychological continuity is what established personal identity. Reid said identity relies on overlapping memories. Honestly, I don't know how I would know I am the same person today as I was when I was a baby. I personally have a hard time identifying with myself even from five years ago as I have changed so much, and I am inclined to say that this makes me a different person than I was.
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
1 - Spinoza's belief that God is everything is a form of pantheism. I personally do not believe in this, however I do understand how Spinoza came to this conclusion through "proofs" in rationalism. After all, if God is infinite, the conclusion that everything in the world is encapsulated in this indefiniteness does seem quite logical.
2 - If God is infinite,then there cannot be anything that is not God. If impersonal, God is indifferent to humans. I do not necessarily agree with this because unlike Spinoza, I believe that humans do have free will. While Spinoza was a determinist, believing that humans have a very limited will (usually only related to emotions), I believe that humans have free will and can choose their actions. In the case of God, free will has been given to humans by God and he is not indifferent to the actions of human beings.
5 - Locke says psychological continuity determines personal identity. Reid believes that identity is based upon overlapping memories. This question made me think for some time and to be completely honest, I do not know if I was the same person when I was a toddler since I do not remember much from that time. As I grow old, if I forget much of my earlier life it is hard to say whether I would see myself as the same person or not.
H1
DeleteI agree that humans have free will. I believe our choices are a product of one or the other (or multiple options) and are influenced by our environment, but I still think at the end of the day we have the power to choose one thing over another. Even when we make bad decision in favor of another bad decision (implying there is no better choice), it is still our choice which way we swing.
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
1: Spinoza's belief that God was everything is referred to as Pantheism. I personally disagree with this theory, as in order for God to exist he must transcend the concept of time. For God to transcend the concept of time, he would likely exist beyond the 3rd dimension which is limited by concepts such as space/time/matter. These limitations prevent Pantheism from being completely true, as God can not simply be limited to the 3rd dimension in order for him to exist prior to the creation of it.
3: Spinoza believed the free will is an illusion, which I strongly disagree with. I believe every single person's experience of life should logically lead to the conclusion that in some form, free will exists. Right now I have the free will to type whatever I desire, I have the free will to do anything "good" or "bad" I want, there is no limit to the things I can choose to do in this very moment. Whether my future has been written out or not is irrelevant to my free will, as regardless of destiny, I am the one still making choices which lead to outcomes. To choose to be a determinist is to make a choice with ones free will, which causes me to believe that determinism is a logical fallacy.
4. According to Locke, all our knowledge comes from experience, and the mind of a newborn is a blank slate. I partially agree with this world view as I believe a large part of a personality is based on experience, but I also believe genetics and the structure of the soul also make up a person as much as experience does. If Locke is right however, then people should hypothetically always learn from experience, as it would be the best way of gaining true understanding.
I agree with your belief about free will. I think it's crazy to think of determinism as logical.
Delete#H01
ReplyDeleteLHP
1 The belief that God is nature and nature is God is a form of pantheism meaning that God is everything. As a Christian, I believe that God is over all things and that He created all things. We also believe that He is The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. I do not believe that God is nature, but I do believe he created it.
2. Spinoza believed that if God is infinite, that there cannot be anything that is not God. In return, if something is not God then God can't be infinite because God could have in principle been that thing as well as everything else. I also disagree with this belief. I believe as a Christian that God is eternal, never having been created and never to perish, but I believe He has always been God. He came down to Earth as Man, but He was not ever the stones or ants or blades of grass or windows.
3. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that free will is an illusion. I think it is definitely possible to be a determinist, but I do not find it logical at all. I don't understand how someone could think that our choices are not our own.
H01
ReplyDeleteI would disagree that an infinite God implies pantheism. It is easy to imagine something infinite that is not everything and not everywhere. For example, the equation "Y = 2x + 1" has an infinite number of solutions, and yet we can conceive of an answer [such as (3, 4)] that does not satisfy it. Thus, something can be infinite and still not be defined as everything that exists.
LHP #3:
Free will. Whether or not it is possible to choose to be a determinist depends on whether or not determinism itself is true. If determinism is true, then no. No one chooses to be a determinist, as no one chooses anything. If determinism is false and free will is real, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that one can choose to be a determinist. However, it must be noted that, assuming free will is real, one can choose to believe in determinism, but cannot believe that they chose to believe in determinism.
HWT #4:
He found the stereotype that Japanese people tend to be conformists to be untrue. Based on his description, it seems that his experience indicated that the Japanese tend to be genuinely considerate about others' time and comfort, not simply that they pretend to be for the sake of conformity.
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP 1- Spinoza's view that God and nature are the same thing is called pantheism, which honestly makes the most sense to me. I was not raised religious and therefore the concept of an anthropomorphized deity that watches over everything seems quite outlandish to me. But the belief in nature, that the complex ecosystems and environments of the world are just what "God" is, is so much more understandable to me. There is magic and meaning in the mundane, you can find happiness in the simple things (very Epicurean), and nothing important is outside of this biosphere we find ourselves in.
3- Spinoza was a determinist, meaning that he thought free will was an illusion. He believed that every human action was caused by previous actions, and nothing you do is spontaneous and free. The fact that he "chooses" to be a determinist is inconsistent with his belief in determinism, however. By his line of thinking, his belief is not a free choice, but caused by something else, so is it really his belief? It's conflicting and confusing, and the jump between all things are caused by other things (which is pretty much true) to free will is an illusion (I don't believe this) is wild to me. Yes, things butterfly effect constantly, but also we choose what we do based on our feelings and the situations at hand.
6- John Locke wrote about the "God-given right to life, freedom, happiness, and property" which influenced the line of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in the US constitution. I think it is extremely important that he described them as "God-given" despite me not being religious. It means that those rights exist for a person simply because they are a living person, not as a condition for them being or acting in a certain way. Those rights are not invented by society, they apply to any and all people, in all situations, because they are alive. That distinction is so fundamental to a free society.
H02
ReplyDeleteLHP 1- Spinoza believed in Pantheism which states that nature and God are one in the same. I think that he is mostly correct about this notion except that he doesn't believe God to be a personal being that cares about his creation at all. I don't agree with this because humans are part of God and can care for things so it becomes a paradox of God in everything non-living not caring, but at the same time all living things which have shown the ability to care are also God.
LHP 2- An infinite God must be everything because if anything wasn't God he wouldn't be infinite. Spinoza believed God was uncaring because he was impersonal as nature. I don't see God in this way because we who are made in the image of God and are part of God do have the capacity to care.
LHP 3- Spinoza was a determinist which stated that free will is an illusion that we create because we don't understand what drives us to do things always. I don't agree with this because as Augustine said a fully good God would only allow bad things to happen because he allows for people to have free will. Because I see God as a fully powerful, fully good God we must have free will.
H02 Erick Martinez
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called pantheism. To be honest this idea is hard to wrap my head around. Growing up in a religious household, God was known for creating the world, nature, everything that resides in the universe. It is also believed that when we die, we go with God to heaven. So, to think of God and nature as the same thing doesn't make sense to me because I envision him as a person residing in heaven watching over his creation, not being part of what he created.
3. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that free will is an illusion. I think that being a determinist is a very broken way of thinking. This means that all that all of his ideas, his theories weren't truly his. This also makes life seem somewhat pointless. If the choices we make aren't ours and are just what has already been, then what is the point of life? Why do we exist?
4. According to John Locke, all our knowledge comes from experience; hence, the mind of a newborn is a blank slate. While I do not agree with Locke's conclusion, if he were right, our ability to reflect on our experiences in life would account for our ability to learn from our experiences. Also, our decision making and problem-solving skills.
H03
ReplyDeleteLHP
1: Spinoza's view is called pantheism. Personally it is not a view I subscribe to because I personally subscribed more to deism and thus believe that God created the world and left it to its own set of rules, meaning that God is not nature.
4: Locke believed that all our knowledge comes from experience. Thus, he thought that the mind of a baby would be a blank state. To an extent this can be explained by the fact that humans are easily moldable (particularly when young) which is why knowledge can be acquired from our experiences, although I would say that to an extent nativism is also correct because we must have some innate knowledge in order to acquire even more.
6: Locke believed that we are entitled to the rights of life, liberty, and property. I don't believe it matters whether these rights are invented or discovered so long as we protect our rights to those things. Yet, I would still find myself cautious about saying we "invented" those rights, because I feel that it has a negative connotation attached to it which would make it more difficult to defend. The only reason to care if rights are discovered or invented is merely just the result of our own perception.
H03
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Pantheism is the idea that God is everything. I have a friend who has this belief, and to an extent, I can see his way of thinking. If God created everything, what is to say that everything it created is actually just an extension of its form?
2. If God is infinite, then nothing cannot be God, and if fact, then God is indifferent to human beings. I personally believe that God is a loving one, one that will grant me a home in heaven when I pass from this mortal coil. Why would I place love in a relationship where it is not reciprocated?
3. Spinoza believed that free will was an illusion, since so many are ruled by their emotions. I believe that it is nearly impossible for someone to choose to be a determinist, as they would already be enacting principles of determinism. Following Spinoza's ideas, people are naturally ruled by their emotions, and so would be unable to choose. Furthermore, Spinoza does not believe in free will, so the idea of choosing something is off the table. While I may not agree with Spinoza's beliefs, it is quite easy to answer his hypotheticals, since he believes we cannot choose.
Braden, in response to your second reply I could not agree more with your rhetorical question. It would truly be quite sad to place love inside of a relationship with no means of it being reciprocated. Faith in Jesus provides hope, love, joy, and sense of purpose which is exactly what philosophy continues to try to answer to this very day despite the criticism.
Delete#H01
ReplyDeleteLHP-1
This view is called pantheism which insists that either the universe is god itself or a manifestation of god. I would say that on initial understanding it could make some sense, however, I believe there are many logical reasons to believe that this is not possible. Given the fact that the universe is expanding, has characteristics that are not eternal and possibly ethics that could be involved with such a view.
LHP-3
Spinoza believed free will to be an illusion. Believing in determinist is very possible and perhaps reasonable yet living it out is possible the hardest part. Thinking that we have absolute no free will to choose anything at all could create some interesting judicial cases. For example if anyone murders or steals for fun we judge people based on the idea they chose that action. It would be foolish for any lawyer to say they were reacting to millions of priors events that coincided for them to partake in evil. Living it out is much much harder even though determinism is not a bad theory at all. Still so, people should indefinitely be held accountable for all good and bad
H01
ReplyDeleteLHP 1. To Spinoza, there was not a divide between the divine world of heaven and earth so god was one with nature and the universe, he called this pantheism. Since God created the universe, it was living through him and therefore a part of him. I find this view quite beautiful it feels the most grounding and it makes God more accessible.
LHP 2. If God is infinite there cannot be anything that is not god; if impersonable, god is indifferent to human beings. I was raised on part of this idea, the half that says there cannot be anything that is not god. It was always taught that god created everything and was in everything. However god was represented as a caring, and loving God not an indifferent one. To me God isn’t indifferent, instead a very thoughtful entity.
LHP 3. Spinoza was a determinist, he thought free will was an illusion. I find determinism fascinating, because you really can run wild with the idea. I personally don’t think determinism is a great way to live, although I understand some people take comfort in it. There can be a tendency to fall back on active decisions when you think you’re not in control, the point in religious contexts is to let god take the reins and steer but sometimes people end up forgoing their independency or using determinism to justify immoral actions.
H1
DeleteI agree with what you said about the idea of pantheism. I don't believe in God, but if I did, I would want him to exist in every aspect of the world around me. I agree that it is beautiful to focus on everything he has touched and how he is one with our natural world.
I agree with your perspective I think that it is a beautiful concept regardless if you believe in god or not
DeleteH01
ReplyDeleteLHP
1) The view that God and nature/the universe are the same thing is called Pantheism. As a Christian, I do not agree with the view that God is the world, but I do believe that God is the creator, as supported by the Bible. By believing in pantheism, it contrasts the idea of God’s personhood, which Christians believe that God is a person. In the Bible, Jesus is God’s Son and God Himself- God in human flesh. He was fully man but also fully God.
5) John Locke said psychological continuity establishes personal identity; Thomas Reid said identity relies on overlapping memories, not total recall. We change in many ways as we grow older, but genetically we are still the same person we were compared to our three-year-old self. While some components of our “self,” including appearance, attitude, beliefs, and physiological processes change, we are considered the same person throughout our lifetime. I personally do not remember much from my younger days, but I am reminded by family that I still have similar traits from when I was young, such as my personality. I believe a vast majority of your childhood influences and remains with your personal “self” as you grow older, acting as a reminder that you are still uniquely you, even when you might look the same.
6) John Locke’s statement of our natural rights or so called “God given rights” such as life, freedom, happiness, and property, influenced the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution. There is a significant difference between implying such rights are “discovered” rather than “invented.” Discovered rights emphasize the idea that these rights are intrinsic to human nature, found through reason and reflection, and exist separately from any government or legal system. Invented rights imply they are man-made and can be altered based on societal norms or political will. Discovered and invented are not interchangeable words in terms of our natural or “God-given” rights.
H#2
ReplyDeleteLHP#1 - The belief that God and nature are one is called pantheism. I think this is a very unique way of thinking. I haven't heard of this form of religion before but I quite like it. I was raised catholic, but stopped going to church at age 7 so I grew up forming my own beliefs. I've just recently started reconnecting with religion and I think I do agree with some points he makes but am not 100% convinced. Maybe if I read his book I would see more from where he's coming from.
LHP#2 - If god is infinite, there cannot be anything that that is not god; if impersonal god is indifferent to human beings. This is the main part that I disagreed with. I just didn't really understand this concept and both arguments seem to be on two very different extremes.
LHP#3 - A determinist would say free will is an illusion. I guess it's possible to be a determinist since so many people claim to be but I dislike this belief. Why would anyone like to feel like a puppet and that their choices aren't their own? Is it so that they can create excuses for decisions? If you are a determinist then the answer is NO, you can't choose to be a determinist because it was already going to happen, but I would say yes you can choose to be a determinist. Who knows maybe I was predestined to not be a determinist.
#H1 - Zoe Kuhn
ReplyDeleteLHP - #1
Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called pantheism, meaning that God was made up of everything around him. Personally, I think that Spinoza’s view is different from everyone else’s and it shows a point of view that is typically not talked about. I think his view allowed for the belief in God to be interpreted in many ways that we see today.
LHP - #2
If god is infinite, there cannot be anything that is not god; if god is not infinite, god is indifferent to human beings.
LHP - #3
Spinoza was a determinist, holding that free will is an illusion. I think it is possible to become a determinist like Spinoza but even then choosing to become a determinist is not free will either and choosing this path is because of previous things in our life that led us to this moment. Meaning, determinism shows us why we are the way we are and why we act this way.
H03 John Owens
ReplyDeleteLHP
Q1: Spinoza’s belief that God and nature are the same thing is called Pantheism. I think that his philosophy makes sense from a religious perspective, if God created everything, is greater than everything, acts through any/everything, the I think it makes plenty of sense to say the God is all and all is God.
Q2: I If God is _all good_, there cannot be anything that is not God; if _not_, God is indifferent to human beings. This is not how I personally think I about God, I think that God and his reasons exist beyond humanities understanding, and as much as we can try to rationalize what happens and place blame or doubt on God, what happens to us is many ways our own fault and also not. Its simply the fact that life is hard, there’s good and there’s bad, God has some part to play in that, but we don’t, and won't ever fully know what that point is.
Q3: Spinoza belevied that total free will and that all actions are the consequence of previous actions building up to determine the next. I think to some extent being a determinist makes sense and can be a consistently held beleif, but I also think that it can have failings when it comes to absolutely random events that have untraceable sources. I also wonder if Spinoza linked his determinism to ideas about how if God knows all, and in in Spinoza’s case all, then humanity can never truly be independent and have free will because all our actions are already pre-determined.
#HO1
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Spinoza believed that God and nature were the same thing, which is called pantheism. I think is a realistic view to have. If you are religious than you know that God created everything and so it is safe to assume that he created nature therefore him and nature are the same.
2. If God is infinite, If God is not, then God is not infinite. I do not agree if the last part, I think God is caring and thoughtful. I think God is infinite.
LHP 3- Spinoza believed that free will is a complete illusion, because of his religious beliefs. He believed God had a plan for everything, so nobody could make choices outside of his plan. I think to an extent being a determinist is a choice, but I think any belief system is based on how a person feels, which is typically out of their control. Meaning although you choose to believe in something, it doesn't mean its something you can really change.
ReplyDeleteFaith Carbonari^
DeleteH1
ReplyDeleteLHP 1. Spinoza's view that 'god' is synonymous with nature is called pantheism. I don't agree with this. I think it's a nice idea that there's some form of cosmic force, god or universe, it doesn't matter. I'm an atheist and I believe that we're all just here by random.
LHP 3. As a determinist Spinoza believed free will is an illusion. I don't follow this belief as I try to stay away from ideas that are too existential, but I will say that yes, you can 'choose' to follow this idea, but it would have been predetermined for you to choose so. So technically you can't choose anything.
Quinny VanDerSlik H03
ReplyDeleteLHP 1-
Spinoza’s view was that God and Nature were the same things; the view itself is a part of one called pantheism, he wrote about it as ‘God or nature.’ The view that anything and everything is God and vice-versa is not the most uncommon thought in modern times. I do not have the best grasp on religion, as I am not religious; however, the idea that God is everything makes little true sense to me. If God is everything, then are we not God as well? This idea makes me think of an ethical discussion, should we play God? When we think about playing God, people usually will go to the concept of deciding if someone lives or dies, like the death penalty; however, if they think of that, they must also think of it in a medical sense as well, as they do connect. So, if we take this view then we must have a clear answer to the ethical dilemma of whether or not we should play God; the answer would be yes, as we technically are God then.
LHP 3-
To be a determinist, one must believe that free will is an illusion; all human actions are due to a preconceived event that is appended beforehand. If we follow the actual line of a determinist belief, then it would not logically be possible to choose to become a determinist. All of their past and current actions are not of their choosing; they were all done and led to that moment of becoming one no matter what, as there is no valid free will. So, if someone said that they had chosen to become a determinist, you could point out the fact that to be a determinist, they need to believe that free will is an illusion, and therefore they could not have chosen to become a determinist as it would contradict their belief system.
LHP 4-
According to John Locke, all of our knowledge comes from our life experiences; hence, a newborn's mind is a blank slate. His line of thought followed that of empiricism, where instead of knowledge being innate, it was gained throughout life through our experiences as a human and the actions we take to learn. If Locke is correct, then what accounts for our ability to learn from our experiences also had to learn, its trial and error; if one notion happens and you repeat it a few more times, then you can learn from those experiences to see what caused and what happens. One example can be pushing a glass cup off a table and breaking; if one repeats this a few times, the conclusion can be that by doing the action, making, and with a particular object (glass), it will fall and shatter. While knowing why it breaks might take longer to learn if learned as a child, there is still the knowledge of a specific action that draws a particular result. It's like an equation being made in real-life examples without any math or numbers, only variables.
LHP:1 Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called Pantheism. I think it's a very clever approach on the idea of God. Nature is a strong and unpredictable force that has no bias. It can create and destroy. Which is very similar to different depictions of God.
ReplyDeleteLHP2:" If god is infinite there cannot be anything that is not god; if not, god is indifferent to human beings. If God exists, I would rather believe that he is a kind and loving God. I grew up Christain and the idea of a loving being over us all is comforting.
LHP 3: Spinoza believed that free will is an illusion. All actions are done because of past actions and events. It's a domino effect of everything you've ever done. I feel like it's a reasonable take, but I would disagree. I think free will does require forethought and isn't completely because of past events.
Gavin Cooley H2
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. The belief that God and nature are the same thing is called pantheism. I don't necessarily believe this idea. I was always taught to think God as The Creator and The King. God made the world and rules over it, but that does not mean that God is part of the world. The same logic is that of a baker. They put all the ingredients in and bake the cake, then proceed to sell it. That does not mean that the baker IS the cake, or that the cake IS the baker. It is simply their creation.
2. Spinoza believes god is infinite and that there cannot be anything that is not part of god. This god is indifferent to human beings and does not care. I do not agree with this idea either. In the Bible, and in many other religious text, God is always described as being active in the world. It is obvious by his actions that he does care about the world and his children, the humans, inhabiting it. The best examples are the Exodus, where God hears his people's cries and frees them from slavery, and the story of Noah's arc, where God realized the evils of man had corrupted his creation and sought to cleanse it. Both of these stories illustrate that God is most certainly not indifferent and uncaring.
4. All our knowledge comes from experience; hence, the mind of a newborn is a blank slate. Our ability to learn comes from our biological encoded sense of pain vs pleasure. As children, things that hurt us are bad and things that don't are good. As we get older this develops and even institutes a cost vs reward system. Something may hurt in the moment, but the reward will be worth it.
1. Who wrote a memoir of life on the Kentucky frontier that turned him into a "real-life superhero"? (He's in my family tree, btw.)
ReplyDelete2.
3. Daniel boon
4.
43. Who built a cabin by a lake, moved in on the 4th of July, and epitomized a perennial American pastoral fantasy? *What do you think he'd say about modern suburbia?*
Henry David Thorough He would likely disapprove seeing it as a overly manicured and manufactured existing as a beacon of consumerism and over reliance of technology all things he strongly disagreed with
44. What did *The New York Sun* announce in a week-long "news" story in 1835? Who believed it?
They announced that South African scientists had discovered
44. Who was P.T. Barnum, and what was his fundamental Fantasyland mindset?
He was a circus and freak-show owner and eauntraprenuur his mindset was the belief that if something is exciting and there is no proof to actively discredit it it was his right to exploit it and spread it everywhere as a fact showing the fantasy land tenant of Citing the lack of disproval as evidence of a claim rather than proof of the positive assertion that it is what it says it is
46. Whose touring play marked what key milestone in America's national evolution?
The Kickapoo Traveling medicine show and it marked the relative or soon end of the demonization of Native Americans instead presenting them as an uncivilized yet useful Population.
H02
ReplyDeleteLHP 1. Spinoza believed that God and Nature were the same thing, thus investing his belief into the idea of pantheism. Many people believe that God is the kingdom of the world or kingdom of nature, but Spinoza believed that God and Nature were combined. I mean I think when we are younger we tend to think that God is what we see, example nature. However, I do believe, that they are separate. Nature has been made from God's beauty, and we have to accept that.
LHP 3. Spinoza believed that freewill was an illusion. There is no spontaneous human will actions at all. He believed human action and will was limited not free. I mean I think that it's strange to state that because what is limiting us from turning our limited amount of will to free will. What is stopping us?
LHP 4. Locke believed that all our knowledge comes from our experiences, so when you are a newborn you have no knowledge essentially. I think our morality (what we are taught and what we see) is what makes us learn from our experiences. How we feel towards something and in a moment allows us to learn from the mistakes we have made in the past.
H2
ReplyDeleteLHP 1: Spinoza’s view that God is the world is a type of pantheism. I don’t agree with this, although I do understand where it is coming from. In the pantheistic view, it would explain why natural disasters and nature overcoming humanity happens, but that would also contradict the view that God loves humans, leading one to question why God would directly cause those events instead of questioning why those events weren’t stopped.
LHP 3: Spinoza believed that free will is an illusion, going along with his determinist ideals. I don’t think you can choose to suddenly be a determinist unless some extreme event happens that makes you stick to those ideals, and those beliefs may be linked to religious views (etc. the view that everything is meant to happen exactly when it does for a reason.)
LHP 4: Locke states that the mind of a baby is a blank slate, and all of our knowledge comes from our life experiences. I think the ability to learn from our experiences is a learned trait over time, because some people have depth in how much they can learn from something while others refuse to establish new views or ideas. Some people refuse to exercise that ability, while others continue to learn as long as they live.
1. Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called pantheism. Personally, I find it strange to see the universe as God. The idea of an omnipotent/present/scient God carries an inherently different weight than the indifferent and chaotic universe. I could see it being a possibility, but I feel that a different name is called for. The associations made with the word “God” make it complicated to fully understand pantheism.
ReplyDelete2. According to Spinoza: If God is infinite, there cannot be anything that is not God; If infinite, God is also impersonal - or indifferent - to human beings. While I personally don’t believe in God, the idea of God has always been a strong and yet benevolent one. I think, with Spinoza’s line of reasoning, that there is either a God or a universe, not both.
3. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that free will is an illusion. Every action is determined by unknown, earlier causes. If this is true, then the act of forming this belief has questionable reasoning as well. I believe that this way of thinking is unnecessarily pessimistic. Without any coherent proof of a lack of free will, it’s much more ideal to interpret your actions as your own.
H02, Alan Hernandez
ReplyDeleteLHP
#1 - Spinoza's view that God and nature are the same thing is called pantheism. I do not really agree with this view, mostly because I am used to seeing God depicted as an all-knowing force of nature, not really nature itself.
#2 - If God is infinite, there cannot be anything that is not God; if infinite, god is indifferent to human beings. I live in a very catholic household, and what I have always been told is that God's knowledge and presence is infinite, so he can look over what he has created. This includes humans, so I don't necessarily agree with the belief.
#3 - Spinoza was a determinist, holding that free will is an illusion. It is definitely possible to choose to be a determinist. Many believe in the idea of destiny, meaning all the choices you make will lead to one outcome that has already been omnipotently decided.
H03
ReplyDeleteLHP#1: Spinoza's conviction that God and nature are synonymous and have the same meaning is known as pantheism. He acknowledged that God is everything, and therefore, nothing is not God. God is the grass, the ants, and the wind; every aspect of our universe contributes to the limitless God being referred to. This line of reasoning is logically consistent. If you believe in an endless and unconstrained God, He must exist and be everything.
LHP#3: Spinoza believed that free will was an illusion. If you are a determinist, you would not think you had a choice in becoming one, whereas someone who is not a determinist would believe there was a choice. So, I don't think it is inherently inconsistent to "choose" to be a determinist.
LHP#4. According to Locke, everything we learn comes from life experience; hence, we are a "blank slate" as newborns. This idea appeals to me since I, too, believe that all humans are unique in that we all experience life differently. Of course, humans experience many of the same events, but we all have unique thoughts, feelings, and reactions. We are indeed a blank slate. We gain knowledge and maturity through life experiences, education, people, media, and our relationship with ourselves.
H03
ReplyDelete(LHP, Question 5)
1. Locke said that psychological continuity establishes personal identity (i.e. your memories), Reid instead thought that personal identity is reliant on overlapping memories as opposed to absolute recollection. I'm more inclined to agree with Reid's rebuttal. I think something that Locke's argument fails to take into account that identity is not always consciously shaped. Of course, many decisions that I make daily are based on rationale. I consider past results and evidence from my life and conclude that I think one particular way forward is best. However, there are many other decisions that I make unconsciously and automatically. That doesn't mean that there isn't any thought behind it, those choices are still made based on prior experience, but it's distilled into invisible instinct rather than intentional logic. Based on this, I can say with reasonable confidence that I am the same person that I was when I was 3. I've changed a lot, both physically and mentally, but modern me is influenced by the memories and habits -- conscious and unconscious -- that were formed by past me. If, when I'm older, I forget about events that happened when I was a child, teen, or young adult, I will still remain the person that I was since those behaviors will have built who I am now.
(LHP, Question 1)
2. The general term for the belief that God and everything are the same is pantheism. Despite not necessarily believing in it, I quite like this idea. I think there's a comforting tactility to it, since God is perceived as material and therefore definitely real, even if we may not understand its will or purpose. I like entertaining the thought too that, if God is everything and vice versa, and we accept the modern cosmological theory of a constantly expanding universe, than maybe its possible that God is continually creating, and has been for trillions of years (perhaps a universal heat death could be construed as a pantheistic God tiring of constant creation, although that's still applying a layer of anthropomorphism to a probably very inhuman force).
(LHP, Question 3)
3. Spinoza believed that free will or agency was an illusion, and that all choices were determined by previous influences. Because whether or not we have choice or whether it is an illusion is a debated philosophic topic, I think it's fine (if slightly ironic) to choose to be a determinist. The determinist would just say that it wasn't really their choice, they were -- at least somewhat -- destined to become one. I think what makes this topic difficult for me personally to wrap my head around is that I would agree that, given precise knowledge about all the chemical interactions that occur in my brain, it would certainly be possible to accurately predict every choice I will ever make. However, because neither I nor anybody else can know that with such precision, it appears to me that I have free choice, even though that choice was influenced by millions of overlapping genetic and learned patterns that I have developed through my time alive. I find the agency question is hard to tackle, because I don't quite understand what is being asked.
H03
ReplyDeleteLHP
Spinoza's view of God could be classified as pantheism. I, personally, don't align with Spinoza's view of God because I actually don't believe in God at all. What I appreciate about Spinoza's view however, is how it aligns with certain spiritualist or animist views. It's somewhat Shinto. If I were to be religious or spiritual, I would likely agree that everything has some form of spirit that comes from a higher power and that God is not a person, but a force of nature or an objective catalyst for the existence of things.
3. Holding that "free will" is an illusion, choosing to be a determinist is consistent with determinism, if phraseologically confusing. Sure, determinism asserts that people cannot make choice of their own volition. It states that everything is a result of something, and therefore, nothing is done, said, decided, et cetera at total free will. However, this doesn't eliminate the concept of a "choice." One can still make a choice if it's been directed by other forces. Something does drive everything, in my opinion, but to say that there is no free will because of that is somewhat unrealistic. My life experience have shaped me into who I am today, and what I consume (in both senses of the word) influences how I think, yet I am still capable of choice. It's always an influenced decision, but nonetheless my decision. So, no, even though one chooses to accept determinism, the concept of determinism is not self-defeating, as one's informed and influenced perspectives often molded by things out of one's control lead to the choice to be determinist.
5. Locke said "psychological" continuity establishes personal identity; Thomas Reid said identity relies on "overlapping" memories, not total recall. I know I'm the same human being now than when I was three because, obviously, that was my body. You can see the physical similarities between myself and the baby in the pictures, and I have credible accounts that claim that's who I was. However, I was clearly not the same "person." I don't share the same perspective in most ways. My entire outlook on life has shifted as I have mature. Of course, I still maintain many qualities ingrained in me from my upbringing (and that is how I know I was once that age, and I will still be me when I get older; it's the same brain in this body). But I have made significant enough change to call myself a new person.
Ho3
ReplyDeleteLHP 1-
Spinoza believed that God and Nature are one, a concept known as pantheism. The idea that everything is divine doesn’t resonate with me. If everything is God, does that include us? This raises the ethical question of whether we should "play God," often linked to life-and-death decisions and medical ethics. If we accept this view, the answer might be yes, since we would be part of that divine essence.
LHP 3-
A determinist thinks that free will is an illusion and that all actions come from earlier events. So, it’s contradictory for someone to say they chose to be a determinist, since their past actions led them there without real choice. If someone claims they decided to adopt determinism, it goes against the idea that free will doesn’t exist.
LHP 4-
Locke claims that a baby’s mind is a blank slate, and knowledge comes from experiences. I think learning from these experiences is a skill that develops over time. Some people learn deeply, while others resist new ideas. While some don’t use this ability, others continue to learn throughout their lives.
H03
ReplyDelete1. Pantheism. I do not agree with this for one particular reason. If God was nature, why would things happen the way they are? Climate change is destroying the Earth, which disproves this in my mind. You can't be a god if you can be ruled by laws of natural order.
2. infinite, nature is God. No, I think of God as a being above our understanding. He bends things to His will and is caring, compassionate, and kind.
3. Free will. I think it is possible to be a determinist, but I also think that it could become consuming in that all of your time is spent worrying about if you decide something or not. It is an interesting idea though.
Section H03:
ReplyDeleteLHP Q1: Spinoza claims nature is God, and God is nature. This is called pantheism. I believe nature is a part of God creation therefore God being in all things. However, I don't believe nature is God just the artwork of a creator.
LHP Q3: Spinoza was a determinist. He believed there was a limited human freedom possible and desirable. He thought having a quick reaction was a sign of not having a handle on your emotions. I agree with Spinoza theory I believe you need to control your emotions to then give yourself more freedom than you were born with.
LHP Q4: Locke stating humanity is only what it can remember. Claiming people are not responsible for what they don't remember is a bit of a stretch. If they are not responsible we have to ask wo is?
#H02
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Spinoza’s take on religion is that when people refer to God and nature, they are actually just referring to the same thing. This is called pantheism. Pantheism is the idea that God is actually within everything in the universe, or rather, he is the universe. Growing up non-religious, I have seen many different perspectives on this aspect of religion, and I think there’s a really beautiful sentiment in the idea of God being in everything. I like how it de-personifies God being a “magical” being and in a way, is saying that nature in and of itself is “magical.”
2. “If God is infinite, there cannot be anything that is not God. If you discover something in the universe that is not God, then God can’t be infinite.” This reasoning was established by Spinoza to explain that “God” is actually completely impersonal to humans. I personally don’t have a set view of who or what God actually is.
3. Spinoza being a determinist meant that he didn’t believe free will actually exists (free will being an illusion). He believed that no matter what, somehow every single action you ever take was somewhat premeditated, even if you didn’t realize it. I don’t think you can really choose to be a determinist. I think you can start to overthink every action you ever take and it becomes too much, and then you just start to take on the ideas of a determinist.