Presentations:
17 Spinoza or Locke & Reid -
*_Locke - #1 Rylie #3 Natalie M
Sartre - #2 Ava Oops: that should have been MARCH 17
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
Section #2
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called _______. What do you think of that view?
--Pantheism. I guess that makes sense. We talk about "the universe" in a sense that is has control over our lives and shapes our path. I personally don't believe this, but I can see how others could.
3. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that _____ is an illusion. Do you think it is possible (and consistent) to choose to be a determinist?
Free will. No, I don't believe so. To say that you have no free choice in anything and that all choices are results from former choices is crazy. You make micro choices everyday, like what to eat for breakfast or what to wear. Spinoza, you're saying that if I decided to get up and do the chicken dance in the middle of a Walmart, me doing that is the result of a former choice? I don't buy that. I just now came up with that and made that choice.
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?
Recall continuity and overlapping memories. Well, I'm the same physical being and since consciousnesses don't change, I am the same 'being.' Personality wise? I think I am a different 'person' as in my personality has changed. You're not going to act the same way you did when you were 12, you've matured, grown out of things, got new habits, hopefully not as cringe, etc. If you were presented with a situation would your 12 year old self and yourself now react the same? Do you middle school friends and college/adult friends know you the same? We also know the phrase "people change" or "people can change" I think this is the same thing. But you are still the same physical being, with the same name, same features, same eyes.
Section #1
ReplyDelete1) What point about individuality did Monty Python make?
To a crowd: "You don't need to follow me! You don't need to follow anybody! You're all individuals!" "Don't let anyone tell you what to do."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHbzSif78qQ
(True individuality is rare and mirage-like)
2) "If god is everything, there cannot be anything that is not god; if everything, god is indifferent to human beings."
3) I really enjoyed this section from The Dream of Enlightenment: The Rise of Modern Philosophy (Sorry, couldn't italicize): "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."
This belief holds humans liable for their actions, rather than a supernatural being who might have never had anything to do with anything. I like that. I also appreciate how it assumes a naturally positive perspective towards humankind rather than claiming we're miserable and driven towards sin
#1
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called _______. What do you think of that view?
The view that god and nature are the same, are one, that the universe is a whole and it is god, is called pantheism. I think it makes much more sense than “we are made in his image and are his favorite.” that the bible would have us believe. The bible feels naive in comparison, and entirely human centric (which is stupid when trying to do anything other than control a population and establish a culture) If a god must be all powerful, then what is to stop it from being All? Why should god have to choose a favorite if it is everything?
I would present the conundrum then, that since we are a part of the world, of nature, of the universe and of All, then we are also parts of god. What would this mean? Well, free will, if one is a part of a being that knows and sees everything, has ultimate power, either exists in a radically different way than we think it did (we shape god and god has no free will besides the chaos and order of our actions) or cannot exist at all. (god controls us and our surroundings and literally everything in existence but gifts us the dubious pleasure of not knowing about it).
Personally, though, I’m still of the opinion that it's best to not waste time trying to identify something that, if it exists, probably goes by a different moniker in its own mind than “god”. Best to focus on being a good person and being nice to the nature around you. Try complimenting a tree. It teaches being grateful, paying attention to what’s around you, it makes you feel better and I’m decently certain it doesn’t offend the trees. Plus, being out in nature has good effects psychologically and physically.
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?
DeleteFor Locke it was Memory, and Reid based it on Overlapping Memories. I completely tossed the concept of ‘being the same person’ out the window a long time ago. I cannot immerse myself in my memories like other people can. Even events from mere seconds ago, when I recall them, (in the few cases where I can) I don’t remember what it was like to be me in the moment. I cannot recall being that person. The emotions and feel of myself and indeed all but the barest facts of the memory simply do not exist. According to Locke, then, either I’d never end up in hell, or any afterlife judge would have a wait list a mile long of all the prior me’s from every second, every millisecond of my existence.
“But Sarah,” you might say. “Surely remembering the barest facts must be enough, yes? Remembering that ‘Sarah did this thing?’ that ‘This event happened to Sarah’ should be enough to prove you were you then, right?” If that’s the case, I should expect to be praised and punished the same as all the protagonists in all the books I’ve read. I can recall their stories, their personalities at different times better than my own. Their personas as I read them are more real than my memories after all. My immersion in a story in the present is more real to me than my lived past experience. If it’s a good story, I’ll remember them far longer than a single iteration of Sarah. I grow from them just the same as I have from past selves. I learn by watching their reactions. I create characters that are so true to life because I understand their personalities and see these people as real as my own past.
If I am continuous, then I must be not just myself, but all the characters I’ve ever read and thought of, ever come up with. Perhaps if my memories were just a little worse, I could be one with every person I’ve ever met, and then one with everyone including those I have not met. Is that the way to achieve oneness with the universe? Just keep diluting your sense of self till you expand it to include the All?
Anyway, due to all this (gestures vaguely upwards) I don’t have the same issues Reid did with Locke.
Delete6. 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?
Ye olde ‘life, liberty, and estate/property/pursuit of /happiness‘ clause. Jefferson was the one who changed it to happiness by the way. With Locke it was just estate, although if owning the results of our work guaranteed happiness, I suppose he would count happiness in there too. I wonder what he’d think of LLMs and their regulations or lack thereof.
–The consumption of stolen goods to train a program and then the sale of use of the program (not sale of the program, you don’t own the AI) which takes away the jobs of those whose goods it stole, was trained on, and can spit back out on a whim. The trainers could have used the licensed training material, they had the money and that service did and still does exist, but they decided to steal instead. –
Back to the original question though, yes it does matter how you say the phrase. Diction is important, and especially important here! ‘Invented’ means it isn’t natural. Some human came up with it at some point. If it is a human concept, we can reason that that human was wrong and we shouldn’t listen to them. It is violable. Violations are excusable. It is no longer inalienable. Robbing someone of the results of their labor is natural, humans are an exception– but only if they feel like adhering to human law.
If it was ‘discovered’ though, that suggests it is older than humanity. That it is a law of nature. To deny it is to deny nature, to go against not the laws of humans, but the laws of the world- of the universe even! It is inviolable and inexcusable and to deny it will eventually be punished by karma or god or whatever you believe in. It belongs to something older and more powerful than humanity that cannot be argued with.
Your train of thought here (question 5) is interesting. I find any attempts to strictly define 'personhood' lacking, and you verbalized most of my issues with both Locke and Reid's theories. They are trying to limit what experiences, ideas, thoughts, etc can be 'identity' forming. I don't think the human experience, what makes us individuals, can be defined or labeled. We 'contain multitudes', as Whitman put it. I contain every version of me that has ever been, whether I remember it or not (because sometimes repressed memories can have a very large, tangible impact on our behavior and fears); I contain pieces of every person I've interacted with; I contain every book, movie, song, drama I've consumed; I contain the mountains of Papua New Guinea, the cliffs of Northern Iraq, the coasts of Italy, the lakes of East Tennessee. There is no ideology that can limit the extent of my human experience, and I find any that attempt to do so disappointing.
DeleteSection #1
ReplyDelete1. John Locke believed that as babies our minds are blank slates and we gain knowledge from our experiences. I’m sure there are some exceptions, maybe with natural instincts, but for the most part I do think that our knowledge comes as we go. Knowing how to live and be a person doesn’t just happen, we don’t wake up one day knowing how to do those things, but we learn a lot of it from our families and other people around us as we grow up, so it feels like that information just came to us naturally. Even something as simple as loading the dishwasher can vary from household to household. I guess our ability to learn new things from our experiences would come from our reason; we can look at different ways of doing things and decide which is better, easier, more efficient, etc.
2. Locke thought psychological continuity determined personal identity, not bodily continuity. If you switched memories with someone, you would then be that person. If as you got older, you could not remember your childhood, then the elderly you and the childhood you would no longer be the same person. Thomas Reid believed personal identity relies on overlapping memories–your elderly self can still remember your young adult self, which could remember your childhood self. I haven’t thought much about this topic before; I guess that even when I can’t remember who I am anymore, other people like my younger family members still could and in a way, I would live on in their memory. I like Reid’s explanation more than Locke’s, and since I believe in a soul, I think the soul is still the same.
3. Locke believed we have God-given rights to life, freedom, happiness, and property, which influenced the U.S. founding fathers. I think saying these rights were discovered rather than invented implies that they have always existed and they’re something intrinsic to us as humans, we just forgot them.
1. Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called _______. What do you think of that view?
ReplyDeleteThis view is called pantheism. I think that this view is “intuitive” while being untrue. Aside from my religious beliefs, I believe this mainly because some things in the world are inherently ungodly. I would not say that things like terminal diseases or destructive natural disasters are “Godly” just because they are part of the natural order of things.
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?
“If God is infinite, there cannot be anything that is not God; if God is everything, God is indifferent to human beings.” I do not think about God this way. I believe that God is holy in the sense that He is separated from His creation, which includes the universe and nature. He is not inherently “the universe” or part of it. In addition to this, He is not indifferent to His creation. He made humans for a reason (to glorify Him) and he cares about us. However, if I did think that God was everything, I think “God does not care about humans or the universe” would be a correct logical progression, as He would not have any reason to do so.
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?
According to Locke, all our knowledge comes from our life experiences. The mind of a newborn is basically empty, or like a “blank slate.” If he is right, this means that humans do not inherently know how to do things. We must be taught the correct patterns of thinking in order to understand the world around us. This is one of the most important things that school teaches: How to learn. If we are taught how to learn, we are able to understand how to do things and figure them out by ourselves without being explicitly taught how to do them. This is an extremely important skill to have as an adult.
"I would not say that things like terminal diseases or destructive natural disasters are “Godly” just because they are part of the natural order of things."
DeleteI agree, but I do think this view is heavily influenced by your religious beliefs about God (which I share, almost certainly). I don't think that train of thought applies to Locke's definition of god though: an amoral, apathetic being who is made up of all the matter in the world and nothing else. This being has no sense of 'right and wrong,' it just is. So if something physical in this world is 'wrong' or 'bad', that doesn't make it ungodly. Because using this definition, godly just means...it exists. And disease and natural disasters exist.
Tangentially, this illustrates a problem I have with this ideology. If all something has to do is exist for it to be God, God becomes redundant. All that is, is, and all that is, is God. An interesting theory but utterly meaningless. We can be pretty damn sure things exist, and so what is the point of god? What information does the word 'God' add? This definition removes all meaning from the term/idea, and so...why even use the term? Calling something 'of god' or 'godly' is only stating that it exists, which is a rather unhelpful statement to make.
1. Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called _______. What do you think of that view? Spinoza’s view that God and nature are the same thing is called ‘pantheism’. Honestly, I like this view of God. I like how they don’t have a personified view of God, instead finding God in everything natural around them. I really enjoy how much they appreciate nature and unity.
ReplyDelete4. 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? According to John Locke, all of our knowledge comes from our experiences in life; hence, the mind of a newborn is a blank slate. I think the natural desire to see, observe, and analyze everything around us when we are born 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? Locke said psychological continuity established person identity while Thomas Reid said identity relies on personal memories, not total recall. I know I am the same person now that I was at age three because I have been in the same body since birth, even though it looks different now because of growth over time. If I forget much of my earlier life in old age, I will know that I am still me because I'm in the same body I have always been in, but also because I'll have similar habits and reactions to things that I have now.
3. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that _____ is an illusion. Do you think it is possible (and consistent) to choose to be a determinist?
ReplyDeleteSpinoza was a determinist, holding that free will is an illusion. I think what Spinoza may argue is that he may think he is choosing to be a determinist, but he’s only a determinist because of a series of prior events. I can see both sides here—the idea that all our future actions are determined by prior events kind of makes sense, but on the other hand, it seems like someone would have to choose something at some point to set off this chain of events. So, I think Spinoza might argue that he’s not really choosing to be a determinist, but to me, it seems like even if he doesn’t think he chose, it was probably a result of someone’s choices.
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?
Locke said psychological continuity establishes personal identity. Thomas Reid said identity relies on overlapping memories, not total recall. I think even if I forgot all my memories, I would still have my personality. Also, I think our memory subconsciously affects our behavior, even if we can’t “remember” why, so memories that we don’t "remember" still influence who we are. I think I might still be drawn towards the same things and have the same personality even if my memory were wiped; I just might feel like I were discovering them all over again.
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?
Locke articulated the natural rights to life, freedom, happiness, and property. I do think it matters if we say these rights are discovered rather than invented; discovery of those rights helps instill them as guaranteed for each person and makes it difficult for someone to argue that they should be taken away. If someone claimed to have “invented” those rights, someone could disagree and argue that they be taken away. In order to protect these rights for people, it does seem to matter that we say these rights are discovered.
Spinoza's view that god and nature are the same thing is called pantheism. When I think of nature I think of the earth and the beauty that comes from that, which to me is otherworldly. I don't think I believe it to the extent that Spinoza did, because I'm not really religious. However, I think of nature as something other or more than me but not in a hippie way or a pantheism way.
ReplyDeleteIf god is infinite, there cannot be anything that is not god; if infinite, god is indifferent to human beings.
I don't really know if I agree or disagree. I think that when thinking about religion as someone who may not be the most faithful person in the world, it's easy to fall into the question of what is god's extent? and what does that entail? If god is everything, then everything is god, if everything, god is indifferent to humans. It's not entirely wrong.
According to Locke knowledge comes from experience. Knowledge does come from experience, but unlike Locke I still believe that who you were as a kid is still who you are now. His logic point makes sense, it's not the most confusing thing in the world, but I don't really adhere to his beliefs. If experience is knowledge, it makes sense that you're not educated when you forget a chapter of your life. However, in my eyes even if you forget you remember the life lessons it taught you. I think that experience exceeds memory.
section #1
DeleteIt's very interesting to me that you used the phrase 'otherworldly' to describe 'earth and the beauty that comes from that'. Otherwordly? Is our world so much of itself that it appears to be something else? I'm not critiquing your word choice here, it just made me think. I want to better understand the mindsets of those that aren't religious, but believe there is something unnatural or 'spiritual' embedded in everything. If nature is something 'other or more than me', what is that other? Is it something scientific that we just haven't discovered yet? Is it spiritual? And what parts of nature would you describe as 'other'?
DeleteIn my definition of "spirit," the term is naturalistic. It's derived from the root that means breath. To breath is to be literally inspired. What could be more natural?
DeleteAlso NOTE: for a pantheist there's but one world (universe, nature)... "otherworldly" does not signify.
DeleteCORRECTION: Ava is mistakenly listed as presenting on Sartre today in #2. That was a transcription error. She'll be doing Sartre on MARCH 17. So if anyone wants to switch and talk about Spinoza, there's now an opening
ReplyDeleteLHP
ReplyDelete1. Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called _______. What do you think of that view?
Spinoza's view that God and nature are the same thing is called pantheism.
I think quite a few philosophical conundrums, such as the question of suffering, are solved by the idea that "God" is not a sentient creator, but an impartial universe. However, I do think it does make the idea of a god a bit redundant in the first place. If god as Spinoza imagines him to be is an uninvolved, uncaring universe of matter with no sentience, how is that any different from no god at all? I like that Spinoza seems to appreciate nature and/or the universe as something miraculous to behold, but I don't feel the need to ascribe that to any sort of divine power. To me, the nature and the universe are made even more incredible by the fact that they are not the product of an omnipotent force, but just plain old atoms and what have you (I'm not a physicist, idk).
3. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that _____ is an illusion. Do you think it is possible (and consistent) to choose to be a determinist?
Spinoza was a determinist, which meant he believed that free will was an illusion. Ironically, I don't think a person could voluntarily choose to be a determinist. We are hardwired to believe that we always have a choice, even if our options might all be crummy. A person could claim to be a determinist, but their actions probably wouldn't reflect that. If you truly, genuinely believed that your actions were predetermined no matter what you did, what reason would you have to get out of bed in the morning? You would have no motivation to do anything. It would depress the hell out of me.
I don't doubt that there are people who do hold the belief that their destiny is predetermined in some more abstract way, but even they probably feel like they have agency over small decisions. Multiple paths that all lead to the same destination or something like that. I can't even imagine believing that every little decision, down to what you choose for breakfast in the morning, is already decided for you.
LHP
ReplyDelete1. Spinoza’s view that God and nature are the same thing is called pantheism. This means that God is not a separate being outside the universe, but instead is identical with the universe itself. I think this is an interesting view because it removes the idea of God as a personal being who intervenes in human affairs, and instead presents God as the fundamental reality behind everything. It makes sense in explaining the order and unity of nature, but it also makes God feel more distant and less personal than traditional religious beliefs.
2. If God is infinite, there cannot be anything that is not God; if impersonal, God is indifferent to human beings. Spinoza believed that God does not have human emotions or intentions, but simply exists as the structure of reality itself. Personally, I think of God as more personal than Spinoza described, because growing up in christian tradition emphasizes a relationship between God and humans, not just existence as a force or system.
4. According to John Locke, all knowledge comes from experience, and the mind of a newborn is a tabula rasa (blank slate). This means we are not born with knowledge, but gain it through interacting with the world. Our ability to learn from experience likely comes from the brain’s ability to recognize patterns, store information, and adapt over time. Experience provides the content, while the mind provides the capacity to understand and organize it.
1. Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called _______. What do you think of that view? Spinoza believed that God and nature are the same thing, which is called pantheism. I think it's an interesting concept to think that God is essentially everything, but that must assume that each person is also God in some degree. I struggle to understand how pantheism explains the manifestation of evil, if God and evildoers are the same entity. This reminds me of the Boethius paradox explained in the Consolation of Philosophy. If God knows everything, is all powerful, and all good, how can evil exist at all? But now it’s amplified, because pantheists believe God is everything, and everything is God. Does this perspective reject the existence of good and evil entirely? Are all pantheists also determinists?
ReplyDelete2. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that ____ is an illusion. Do you think it is possible (and consistent) to choose to be a determinist? Freewill. I immediately thought about William Jame’s first act of freewill being the choice to believe in a choice at all. Likewise, a person that chooses not to believe in freewill is essentially excerpting freewill.
3. One of my questions about Locke’s “blank slate” concept is the degree of biological importance. Is it more metaphorical than that? Did he consider the impact of mental disorders, mental capacity, or any inherited mental traits at all?
1. Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called _______. What do you think of that view?
ReplyDeleteI just learned that Spinoza had a name for my beliefs long before I existed: pantheism. This is the idea that God and nature are the same thing. When people ask about my beliefs, I’ve always said “nature.” To me, everything in nature is God. It's fun to have discovered a philosopher who explored these same ideas long before I did and wrote a whole book about them: Ethics (I will have to read this now). I have often been mistaken for a nihilist or an atheist. The problem with that is I do believe in a higher energy and feel deeply connected to it. This view of life has given me hope, support, comfort, and a divine sense of awe when I experience the world. God as an impersonal, non-human entity makes much more sense to me. I don’t spend my time thinking about an afterlife or Judgment Day; instead, I try to focus on the present moment and on being a productive member of the collective organism. I came to appreciate nature as a God-like phenomenon through observing mathematics, biology, space, and quantum theory. All of these subjects have infinite complexity, and that fascinates me. I could even say pantheism is part of what inspired me to go back to school to pursue more knowledge about nature and the world.
3. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that _____ is an illusion. Do you think it is possible (and consistent) to choose to be a determinist?
He believed free will was an illusion. I think you can choose to be a determinist without it being a contradiction. If someone says they're a determinist, that can still be true, because every atom, every transfer of energy, every idea they've been exposed to, every belief passed down from their ancestors, all of it resulted in them thinking this way. It's completely beyond what humans can actually wrap their heads around, but I suspect there's an infinite laundry list of events behind every single decision I've ever made. I lean towards determinism myself, but I'll probably never outright say "I am a determinist" simply because there's no way to prove it.
5. Locke said psychological continuity establishes personal identity (bodily, psychological); Thomas Reid said identity relies on overlapping 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?
I believe that I am the same person I was at age 3 because of the continuity shown through photos, stories, memories, and recurring patterns in my life that connect me to my past. If I forget much of my life in old age and there is nobody there to reinforce who I am, then I believe it would be possible for me to lose my identity. Conceptually, I would still be the same vessel that once carried Shane’s identity, but the memories and feelings that made up my identity would be disorganized. I do not think you need to remember everything that happened to be the same person as your past self, but you need to remember enough to look in the mirror and recognize that person as yourself. So much of what makes up our identity is how we feel about ourselves. Since we change how we feel throughout life, maybe our identity changes too. In general, I feel like the idea of a self is a hard thing to define, and starts to enter contradiction territory. I do not feel like the same person as my 3 year old self, but I still feel like he is a part of me. So maybe the only thing that reassures me is a feeling.
Section #1
ReplyDeleteLittle History of Philosophy
1.) I disagree with Spinoza’s view in pantheism. I do not believe God and nature are one thing. God did create everything, including nature and man, but they do not meld together.
3.) Spinoza believed that free will was is an illusion. I disagree with this. I believe we do have free will to do absolutely anything, but that doesn’t mean that karma won’t come back to us if we use our free will negatively. Some may argue that this deflects the purpose of free will because how could we still act freely if we still reap what we sow? Well, even though something does come back to us, we have a conscience, and we still make everyday choices.
4.) I partially disagree with John Locke. Newborns may be new to some things, but newborns also know their mother when they come out of the womb. It has also been proven that twins tend to know their other half when they are newborn, and they get upset when separated. Now, some things are learned through experiences—such as walking or crawling—but other things are already with the baby when they come out.
Section #2
DeleteI do share a similar opinion that free will itself is not an illusion, and I believe everyone has an opinion and a voice, even if there might be places it does not seem to be recognized, but that does not defeat or say it is non-existent. Freewill is every human's right.
Section #3
ReplyDeleteSpinoza was known as a pantheist. I think its a beautiful idea and I think its very true. Greater design shows up all the time in nature and links everything together; lines of diffusion, the golden ratio, geometry in general.
If god is everything there cannot be anything that is not god, if everything is god then god is indifferent to human beings. I do think about God this way; I think there is a beautiful holiness about everything in the world I dont think people can see it all the time though. God is indifferent to human beings but god is indifferent about everything because everything is god. as human beings our egos get hurt if we are treated with indifference- we want to be loved by god and there is a love, it just manifests itself in a way that transcends human ideas of love.
Spinoza was a determinst holding that free will was an illusion. If you are a determinist then you dont believe you chose to be one you believe you were always going to be a determinist, and that eventually you would realize it.
Section #1
ReplyDelete1.) Spinoza’s view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called pantheism. This idea sees God not as a separate being but as the world itself. I think it’s an interesting perspective because it makes everything around us feel connected and meaningful. It changes the way you see life, making the natural world and our actions feel sacred in a way that traditional ideas of God might not.
2.) If God is immanent, there cannot be anything that is not God; if God is transcendent, God is indifferent to human beings. I think of God more like immanent. It makes life feel connected and purposeful, as if there’s something divine in the world and in the choices we make, instead of a distant figure who doesn’t care.
3.) Spinoza was a determinist, holding that free will is an illusion. I think it is possible to choose to be a determinist, and it can feel consistent if you accept that everything happens for a reason and that your choices are shaped by prior causes. It doesn’t feel limiting if you see it as understanding life clearly rather than trying to control everything.
Section #1
ReplyDelete1. Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called _______. What do you think of that view?
A: Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called pantheism. This was, at the time, a radical view to possess. Spinoza was excommunicated from his Synagogue in 1656 and ended up relocating to the Hague. As for me, I've never been a terribly religious individual. But, it's certainly a unique interpretation of God. From the scraps of information I received about God growing up, I was always led to believe that God was an interpersonal, anthropomorphic being. I've never synthesized God's role as synonymous with that of nature or the universe, so it's certainly a different perspective.
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?
A: If God is infinite, there cannot be anything that is not God; if God is as impersonal as Spinoza suggests, then God is totally indifferent to human beings. Again, in my life, I've been relying on the premise that God is an interpersonal being who loves. To many Christians that I have befriended, this is a large factor in their belief. So, it's strange to hear that Spinoza espoused and pervaded this interpretation of God. For me, it's difficult to worship a being who has no apparent impact on my life, and it would feel inherently wrong to be judged by this 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?
A: Spinoza was a determinist, holding that free will is an illusion. To him, spontaneous free will didn't exist. I am a staunch critic of determinism. I don't believe in a set series of destinies or outcomes. While the consequences of our actions can certainly slip through our control, our decisions/circumstances are ultimately what shape our lives.
LHP 1 - Spinoza's idea that God exists as the natural world around us is a form of pantheism. This philosophy is also referred to by some as "substance monism," the idea that everything that exists is made of one common substance, and that this substance is God (or an abstract substance called "nature"). I think if I was religious, this is the idea I'd eventually embrace. God existing as the world around us makes him feel more present and active than just some metaphysical dude or whatever. It's very Vince Staples-ian.
ReplyDeleteLHP 3 - Spinoza believed free will was an illusion. But he also believed that humans did have some degree of free will, so he was like, only kinda determinist? His belief was that humans live passively if they are purely reactive and emotional instead of proactive and logical. Free will must come from your own choices instead of external sources. It's a bit like how the stoics believed good decision-making was rooted in logic and reasoning instead of emotion and impulse. I think determinism is something you can choose to be (or something you can feel like you're surrendering yourself to) but you could also be religiously indoctrinated into it. Spinoza's determinism is kind of a half measure to me. If free will exists to any extent, wouldn't that mean a human's life isn't entirely determined?
LHP 4 - John Locke believed all knowledge comes from life experience and that babies are blank slates. I interpret it this way: "knowledge," as Locke would define it, would mean facts, information, biases, worldviews, things that would have to be developed over the course of one's life, but the ability to do the most basic cognitive tasks like learn, recognize patterns, process information, etc. are baked into the brain on some basic level (and these things go on to be trained in school and in life). A newborn brain is a blank slate, but this slate is still a surface that is meant to have something imprinted onto it; the brain is built to learn things.
1. Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called _______. What do you think of that view?
ReplyDeleteSpinoza belief was an unusual type of pantheism. Quite frankly, I understand where he is coming from. Honestly, I personally do not believe in a specific God, but I am sure there is some type of higher being out there. I also believe that nature is the primary thing that points to a higher power, along with the human body, so Nature itself being a god makes sense to me. Many of my views of God are conflicting due to my upbringing, and I am still trying to figure out the difference between what I personally believe, and what I was raised to believe.
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?
If god is infinite, there cannot be anything that is not god; if loved, god is indifferent to human beings. I personally agree with this view. I feel like if God loved his creation, he would do more to save it from destruction.
3. Spinoza was a determinist, holding that _____ is an illusion. Do you think it is possible (and consistent) to choose to be a determinist?
Spinoza believed that free will is just an illusion, and believed that every single choice that has been made is a culmination as to how you are currently living.
Presley Baker, #3
Delete#2
ReplyDeleteLHP
1. I think that’s one of the most interesting takes on a deity I have read. It twists the narrative by concluding that God doesn’t really have anything to do with humans. He does not resemble us, nor does he meddle with our affairs. Thinking of this ideology, especially during a time when Christianity and Islam were at a rapid rise, must have gotten Spinoza so much backlash towards his concept. What I do not understand is how he thought the universe came about. If he claims that God was the creator, then how could he also be the creation? How do you create nature, but you are nature? Seems a little backward
3. The concept of being a determinant does not make much sense to me. A determinist is someone who thinks that free will is an illusion. That becomes very hypocritical, considering that someone can CHOOSE to be a determinist. How can you claim that free will is an illusion when you were able to sit down and philosophize with your own free thoughts over a concept? You used your own free will to hypothesize that free will does not exist. It is extremely hypocritical.
6. I think it is extremely important that we say that natural rights were rediscovered, not invented. I think all people were made equally from the start. The idea of slavery and the degradation of other humans is a selfish human concept that was inspired by personal gain. Locke did not “invent” human rights. He simply shared it. Saying that he invented it implies that humans were not equal until he deemed it so.
1. Spinoza's view, that God and nature (or the universe) are the same thing, is called _______. What do you think of that view? It is called pantheism, It's an interesting veiw but I don't think anyone should claim to fully understand God.
ReplyDelete2. 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? I think the rights are good things to give to all people, but are something that can be taken away, so I think it's fair to say they were invented.
3.Spinoza was a determinist, holding that _____ is an illusion. Do you think it is possible (and consistent) to choose to be a determinist? I would say it depends on how you think we don't have free will. If you think someone else is making all the choices for you, then you could believe someone else made you believe in determinism.
Section #2
ReplyDeleteI really admire the version of a god as being nature and the world instead of an all-knowing conscious being. I think that when we as humans try to personify and assign traits and thoughts to the concept of god, we lose a lot of what this god is supposed to represent in the first place.
The way that the concept of god is often twisted into a human form and a human-like reflects the philosophy that the only "perfect" version of anything is the idea of it, and so when we create these versions of what we think god "should" be, it is automatically forfeited as a description of a true god all together.
I agree with Locke that there is a distinct difference between being the same physical human animal and being the same person throughout our lives. Being alive encapsulates more than just the physical being, our cells will regenerate and our hair will fall out and regrows; but our thoughts our memories and our "soul" as it were succeeds all that of a physical vessel and continues to grow while still remaining. Almost like how erosion can take a stream to a river, but it is still the same rock and water there just happens to be more now.
Section #2
ReplyDeleteWhat is Ubuntu?
Ubuntu is a popular philosophy with roots in South Africa that states, "I am because we are". This statement highlighted and emphasized the interconnectivity of every man. How we are not necessarily mutually exclusive of each other, as we need each other to really live that fulfilling life. Most times, when we do otherwise, we begin to see issues of war, infringement of human rights, and even certain mental issues.
Section #2
ReplyDeleteWhat was John Locke's concept of self or soul? What makes you you?
John Locke asserted that the self is defined exclusively and uniquely by consciousness and memory, not by the body or material substance. What makes you "you" is your ability to think and ruminate on past thoughts and actions as your own, creating a mental and psychological continuity that stretches back in time.
I think the theory that material things don't exist unless they are perceived is a very fragile argument, who's to say that the majority of people don't exist since we haven't met them?
ReplyDelete