[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 438 KB, 1377x1600, Spinoza.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17310730 No.17310730 [Reply] [Original]

1. God is non-contingent.
2. The world is contingent.
3. If God = the world, God is contingent.
4. Therefore, 3 contradicts 1 so God is not God.

>> No.17310738

Wtf does "contingent" even mean in this context?

>> No.17310751

>>17310738
that can either be or not be.

>> No.17310756
File: 168 KB, 1044x864, 35yodeboonker.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17310756

>>17310730

>> No.17310762

>>17310730
That's why there's a distinction between natura naturans and natura naturata...

>> No.17310764

>If God = the world
Filtered by pantheism

>> No.17310766

>>17310730
>If God = the world

This premise comes out of nowhere.

>>17310751
Still doesn't make sense.

>> No.17310787

>>17310730
That's not how you structure an argument weirdChamp.
This is how you would do it:

1. If the world is god, then the world is necessary.
2. The world isn't necessary.
3. (1&2, modus ponens): The world isn't god.

A pantheist could argue either that god is contingent or that the world is necessary. Both are possible.

>> No.17310821

>>17310730
Spinoza was a necessitarian. He was also a panentheist and not a pantheist.

>> No.17310836

>debunking something
>by just claiming that A is not B, and someone claims it is, but it isn’t, pinky promise
Allowing Abrahamists anywhere near philosophy was a mistake. We should’ve just let them work the field and not allow them to think about stuff they don’t understand, that would’ve been better for everyone

>> No.17310848
File: 148 KB, 1280x768, Richard-Feynman-800x535-1-1280x768.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17310848

>>17310730
bow down to Big STEM Cock, you pathetic Jewish sissy
>My son is taking a course in philosophy, and last night we were looking at something by Spinoza and there was the most childish reasoning! There were all these attributes, and Substances, and all this meaningless chewing around, and we started to laugh. Now how could we do that? Here's this great Dutch philosopher, and we're laughing at him. It's because there's no excuse for it! In the same period there was Newton, there was Harvey studying the circulation of the blood, there were people with methods of analysis by which progress was being made! You can take every one of Spinoza's propositions, and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world and you can't tell which is right.

>> No.17310857

>>17310730
the substratum of world is non-contingent but it's modes are.
did you even read Spinoza?

>> No.17310883
File: 462 KB, 1377x1600, 319f3f92-b254-4323-b51a-b823516a155e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17310883

>>17310857
aren't*

>> No.17310981

>>17310730
I thought spinoza said that nothing is contingent.

>> No.17310989
File: 57 KB, 850x400, 61b889b54704587abfb7163a4269c70f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17310989

>>17310848
Cope.

>> No.17311216

>>17310766
The world is the cosmos, the whole, obviously not the earth

>> No.17311234

>>17310787
>god is contingent
Impossible
>world is necessary
Impossible. The world is an agregate of contingent things, and an agregate cannot be more than the sum of its parts. Therefore it's contingent.

>> No.17311251

>>17310821
>>17310857
>>17310981
I chose an Spinoza image so mods don't delete the thread, I'm refuting pantheism since this thread is about pantheism, I don't care about the specific form of Spinozian pantheism since I haven't read him.

>> No.17311252

>>17311234
>The world is an agregate of contingent things
Wrong

>> No.17311271

>>17311251
So you are just building a strawman?
Which pantheism are we supposed to defend?

>> No.17311277

>>17311252
Affirming such thing is denying contingency itself, which is nonsense and madness. Sorry but the premises aren't negotiable.

>> No.17311291

>>17311271
>Pantheism, the doctrine that the universe conceived of as a whole is God
This one.

>> No.17311301

>>17311277
Everything is merely parts of a non-contingent universal whole.

>> No.17311332
File: 1.38 MB, 1242x1633, 35D35232-2F7C-4E7D-8D40-2E3002E99B05.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17311332

>>17311291
That’s not even what pantheists believe. Pantheism is the belief in an all-inclusive divine Unity, not just “hurr the world is God”

>> No.17311333

>>17310989
>it's true because einstein said it bro

>> No.17311346

>>17311291
but what do you mean by God?
fuck it, i continue to hear Spinozism from your pantheism.

>> No.17311350

>>17311301
Chapeau, so your conclusion is that the world or the whole isn't contingent, which is what I was saying at the beginning, thanks for my lost time.

>> No.17311359

>>17311333
>I, a 4chan pseud, know better than a 160+ IQ genius and one of the most important scientists in history

>> No.17311367

>>17311350
>thanks for my lost time.
You’re welcome

>> No.17311640

>>17311359
He literally has no argument for Spinozism he just says he likes it more because it's different from all those "weird religions". Spinoza's God is a powerless God.

>> No.17311673

>>17311640
>Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.

>> No.17312088

>>17311251
>I'm refuting pantheism since this thread is about pantheism
buddy i don't know how to tell you this but no one is a serious pantheist anymore

>> No.17312356

>>17311359
>>I, a 4chan pseud, know better than a 160+ IQ genius
not him but kill yourself retard.

>> No.17312378

>>17312356
>t. IQlet

>> No.17312411

>>17310787
>A pantheist could argue that the world is necessary
This; i believe, is what the Hindoos do.

>> No.17313110

>>17311332
Nice poetical way of saying that everything is God and God is everything.

>> No.17313153

>>17310730
>The world is contingent.
Not in the pantheist view. To see the world as contingent is an error.

>> No.17313206

>>17313153
If the world is composed of contingent things, it's also contingent, since it cannot be greater than the sum of it's parts.

>> No.17313253

>>17313206
>If the world is composed of contingent things,
It's not.

>> No.17313290

>>17311673
>I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism.
Wow great argument

>> No.17313307

>>17313253
Yes it is, stars die, planets disappear, ice melts, infants grow and everything is constantly changing from a state to another, thus stopping being. A non-contingent being CANNOT STOP being.

>> No.17313333

>>17313307
All of these "things" are really a non-contingent whole. It's the flaw of consciousness that distinguishes the whole as many, though consciousness is also this non-contingent whole. You're trying to argue that pantheism is false because it's trying to apply non-contingency to contingent things, but it doesn't see "things" to begin with.

>> No.17313536

>>17313333
even when those changes might be illusory (not in accordance with reality) they still are contingent, so the result is a whole contingent illusion which is based on the experience of a non-contingent reality, but you cannot equate the illusion to the reality and pretending it's the same which is what Pantheism does, because they are in different levels of being, one contingent and the other non-contingent.

>> No.17313551
File: 3 KB, 92x125, 1609870921892s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17313551

kish in god
thats u dumi

>> No.17313603

>>17313536
>they still are contingent
But how can they be anything when they don't exist? Only the non-contingent whole exists.

>> No.17313621

>>17313603
>But how can they be anything when they don't exist?
Contingency means that they either can or not exist. They exist because the non-contingent God created them.

>> No.17313652

>>17313621
>They exist because the non-contingent God created them.
You would have to argue for their existence, then. From the pantheist standpoint, there is no "they" to refer to. The non-contingency of God demands that God be all of existence, existence itself, without anything contingent existing separately.

>> No.17313828

>>17310730
Read Schelling's Freiheitschrift and Weltalter