Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spinoza’s philosophy of freedom

the-tls.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 60 posts

Re: Spinoza’s philosophy of freedom

#31

Post by whatshisface »

coliveira wrote: post #23
baldfat wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For a Christian, at least, the world is a sinking ship. That isn't universal and as a Theological student it isn't even what is written in the scriptures. In fact you can't read anywhere in the scriptures where people go to heaven, but it talks about people living here on earth. It's hard to make universal statements.

It's hard to make universal statements because the bible is shock full of contradictory statements. Jesus says explicitly that large is the path that leads to damnation and that few will be chosen by him. So, while some will have redemption, the story goes that most of humanity will end up in despair. Of course, other texts can be used to conclude the opposite, which is the normal fashion for bible interpretation.

You're overstating how clear the contradictions really are. There's nothing close to "Ham is green, no hams are green."

Re: Spinoza’s philosophy of freedom

#32

Post by coliveira »

rskar wrote: post #28
coliveira wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is important to be aware that the word love has lost its meaning throughout the ages. Love for the ancient and medievals was akin to the word passion, which means literally suffering. Its meaning was like "suffering for someone or something else", which we would call altruistic. Modern love is more akin to "like", and has a general meaning of "mutual affinity". Like many concepts in the modern world, it acquired a in…

Could you give a citation for that "love for the ancient and medievals was akin to the word passion"? My understanding of that love-to-passion link is by way of Christianity, i.e. love as the motivation for the suffering (of Jesus). Otherwise, etymology doesn't show/suggest that sort of change in the meaning of "love" (e.g. http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/110566 ). If anything, there's been a change in t…

There is a lot of research around this topic, but here is an excerpt of an article from the Univ. of Oxford that touches on this change, that started to happen by the end of the middle ages:

"People in every time and culture have fallen in love, but not every culture has written about love or valued it in the same way.

'In the 12th century, romantic love became something that was worth celebrating and exploring in songs and stories - and you only have to look at modern film and music to see that legacy is still with us.'

Before the Norman conquest of England, Anglo-Saxon literature had a very different focus, said Professor Ashe.

'The world of the Anglo-Saxon warrior, at least in poetry, was based on the bond of loyalty between fighting men. Love in this world means love for your fellow warriors, and the idea of sacrificing yourself for the group."

http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/arts-blog/did-love-begin-middle-age...

Re: Spinoza’s philosophy of freedom

#33

Post by billybatson »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #18
baldfat wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understand the idea that Spinoza was an atheist. Sure his ideas of God were not Judeo-Christian but he did believe in the super-natural that we see in action through nature. Spinoza was 100% a theist and wrote about God and advocated for the evidence of a God. I almost laugh when agnostics try to use him as their champion. They are ramming their own beliefs into this Philosopher that it is not respectful to S…

Digression: I'm suspicious of philosophy because it throws around absolutes with nothing to back them. Like 'The mind is not capable of understanding blah blah'. Really? What is this supposition based upon? Its like saying there's a highest number we can understand - but what if we add 1 to that?

Do you think that there is no limit to human understanding?

Re: Spinoza’s philosophy of freedom

#34

Post by whatshisface »

billybatson wrote: post #33
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Digression: I'm suspicious of philosophy because it throws around absolutes with nothing to back them. Like 'The mind is not capable of understanding blah blah'. Really? What is this supposition based upon? Its like saying there's a highest number we can understand - but what if we add 1 to that?

Do you think that there is no limit to human understanding?

Whatever it is, it's a psychological question. The only hope of answering it would be to go around measuring how much people could understand - and if that wasn't possible (due to understanding not being defined, i.e. not really meaning anything specific, or due to it just being really difficult to measure), then you'd have no chance of ever knowing.

Re: Spinoza’s philosophy of freedom

#35

Post by solipsism »

hutzlibu wrote: post #29

About the enigma of why he was cursed and expelled of the jewish community: "If we think that God is like us, an agent who acts for the sake of ends and who, by issuing commands, makes known his expectations and punishes those who do not obey, we will be dominated by the passions of hope and fear: hope for eternal reward and fear of eternal punishment. This will, in turn, lead us towards submission to ecclesiastic au…

Yes that's what the author said:

And yet, in light of Spinoza’s mature philosophical writings, which he began working on less than a decade after the herem, the mystery of the ban begins to dissipate.

Re: Spinoza’s philosophy of freedom

#36

Post by benjohnson »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #18
baldfat wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understand the idea that Spinoza was an atheist. Sure his ideas of God were not Judeo-Christian but he did believe in the super-natural that we see in action through nature. Spinoza was 100% a theist and wrote about God and advocated for the evidence of a God. I almost laugh when agnostics try to use him as their champion. They are ramming their own beliefs into this Philosopher that it is not respectful to S…

Digression: I'm suspicious of philosophy because it throws around absolutes with nothing to back them. Like 'The mind is not capable of understanding blah blah'. Really? What is this supposition based upon? Its like saying there's a highest number we can understand - but what if we add 1 to that?

>>I'm suspicious of philosophy because it throws around absolutes with nothing to back

Bertrand Russel had a definition of Philosophy that fits your suspicion - in that he said that Philosophy is the contested no-mans land between Theology and Science.

Hence - you're probably not going to find absolutes.

Re: Spinoza’s philosophy of freedom

#37

Post by cicero »

rskar wrote: post #28
coliveira wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is important to be aware that the word love has lost its meaning throughout the ages. Love for the ancient and medievals was akin to the word passion, which means literally suffering. Its meaning was like "suffering for someone or something else", which we would call altruistic. Modern love is more akin to "like", and has a general meaning of "mutual affinity". Like many concepts in the modern world, it acquired a in…

Could you give a citation for that "love for the ancient and medievals was akin to the word passion"? My understanding of that love-to-passion link is by way of Christianity, i.e. love as the motivation for the suffering (of Jesus). Otherwise, etymology doesn't show/suggest that sort of change in the meaning of "love" (e.g. http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/110566 ). If anything, there's been a change in t…

The Four Loves by C.S. Lewis [1] is about four different Greek words that are usually translated as "love" in English: storge, philia, eros, and agape. The self-sacrificing love, agape, is what the GP is talking about.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Loves

Re: Spinoza’s philosophy of freedom

#38

Post by rhizome »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #18
baldfat wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understand the idea that Spinoza was an atheist. Sure his ideas of God were not Judeo-Christian but he did believe in the super-natural that we see in action through nature. Spinoza was 100% a theist and wrote about God and advocated for the evidence of a God. I almost laugh when agnostics try to use him as their champion. They are ramming their own beliefs into this Philosopher that it is not respectful to S…

Digression: I'm suspicious of philosophy because it throws around absolutes with nothing to back them. Like 'The mind is not capable of understanding blah blah'. Really? What is this supposition based upon? Its like saying there's a highest number we can understand - but what if we add 1 to that?

but what if we add 1 to that?

He's talking about the name of that number.

Re: Spinoza’s philosophy of freedom

#39

Post by krylon »

NoB4Mouth wrote: post #7

Spinoza was to the medieval Europe what Socrates had been to the Ancient Greece. Their ideas came to free human mindset from the enslavement the religious. Those ideas were a threat to the establishment of their days that were using gods to prey on the masses. No wonder Socrates has to be sentenced to death. Spinoza found refuge in the then tolerant Netherlands. Coincidence or not? Spinoza middle name is Benedictus =…

> medieval Europe

He lived in the 1600s, that is not medieval, it's Renaissance. (Sorry for nitpicking.)

Re: Spinoza’s philosophy of freedom

#40

Post by mseebach »

coliveira wrote: post #23
baldfat wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For a Christian, at least, the world is a sinking ship. That isn't universal and as a Theological student it isn't even what is written in the scriptures. In fact you can't read anywhere in the scriptures where people go to heaven, but it talks about people living here on earth. It's hard to make universal statements.

It's hard to make universal statements because the bible is shock full of contradictory statements. Jesus says explicitly that large is the path that leads to damnation and that few will be chosen by him. So, while some will have redemption, the story goes that most of humanity will end up in despair. Of course, other texts can be used to conclude the opposite, which is the normal fashion for bible interpretation.

It means "nobody gets it for free". Nobody gets to say "oh, but I'm the king, I'm pre-redeemed, I can do whatever". Everyone has to work hard every day for redemption, and nobody is ever done.
Post reply on HN