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

51–60 of 60 posts

Re: Spinoza’s philosophy of freedom

#51

Post by simonh »

CoolAndComposed wrote: post #48

I take issue with this is a rather rigid classification of things, that isn't useful, and I hear a lot out of various modern scientist/philosophers. > There is nothing supernatural; there is nothing outside of or distinct from Nature and independent of its laws and operations. It's pretty common to associate supernatural with magical because super-natural sounds like beyond the rules of nature, when it can just as ea…

That definition of supernatural, as just the as-yet unknown natural, is a bit contentious and I've not seen it commonly (ever) espoused by anyone else. Most people who use the term really do seem to mean, on questioning, something beyond and different from the knowable natural world and it's forces. Sometimes they will even classify it as things by definition unknowable to science.

I do agree that many if not most 'supernatural' phenomena have been explained by science. However I don't think that it's all that useful to classify them as supernatural at a previous time and natural now. They haven't changed.

Re: Spinoza’s philosophy of freedom

#52

Post by coliveira »

rskar wrote: post #43
cicero wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>The self-sacrificing love, agape, is what the GP is talking about. Perhaps, but the GP began with "the word love has lost its meaning throughout the ages". I don't think it has. Perhaps "love" can be parsed into several "flavors" (storge, philia, eros, agape, romantic, loyalty, etc.), but at the core it means still about the same (the "flavors" give hint or detail to motivations/context/obligations for the caring/co…

> Only by way of religious context would a word that meant "suffering"

Not true. The original meaning of the word passion was suffering, derived from Latin pati, the same root of patience. A passion in the emotional sense was suffering caused by love. This exactly shows that what was considered love in the old times was closely connected with suffering, a selfless feeling. Of course, religion had a lot to do with that. The happy feelings that we now assign to love are a conception of more modern times.

Re: Spinoza’s philosophy of freedom

#53

Post by samirillian »

baldfat wrote: post #14
samirillian wrote: post #12

Interesting how the judeo- Christian concept of immortality is so clearly harmful, while the Greek/ eastern concept of the transmigration of souls is so socially useful. For a Christian, at least, the world is a sinking ship. But for a Hindu, you will inherit the good and bad you do in this life in the next. Though, of course, that can lead to a different kind of fatalism in terms of treatment of the poor.

> 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

I feel like I've been motte and bailey'd a bit here [1].

OK, let's remain agnostic about the hermeneutics. Can we agree that the doctrine of heaven and hell is less conducive to good stewardship of the earth than the doctrine of reincarnation?

Or are you, a theology student, solely commenting on a philosophy thread to police generalities?

[1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey

Re: Spinoza’s philosophy of freedom

#54

Post by Retra »

chrisvalleybay wrote: post #42
Retra wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the claim is that there is such a number, not that it can be defined.

A number is simply a state; a concept held by a state machine, such as a human. Numbers do not exist, but to the enumerator.

Then it will be especially hard to argue that an inconceivable number exists.

Re: Spinoza’s philosophy of freedom

#55

Post by baldfat »

samirillian wrote: post #53
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 I feel like I've been motte and bailey'd a bit here [1]. OK, let's remain agnostic about the hermeneutics. Can we agree that the doctrine of heaven and hell is less conducive to good stewardship of the earth than the doctrine of reincarnation? Or are you, a theology student, solely commenting on a philosophy thread to police generalities? [1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mott…

I wasn't baiting and switching I was just stating your statement wasn't factually correct though your empirical evidence might state differently. Sorry if I came across with any attitude it wasn't directed at you or anyone on HN.

> Or are you, a theology student, solely commenting on a philosophy thread to police generalities?

No, I just was trying to be diplomatic. I also wasn't really reacting to your statement as much as I hate when Christians throw on the doom and gloom when it is based on emotions and lazy Theology. It drives me crazy how people put so much energy into their beliefs when they don't put any energy into learning about their own beliefs. That is why so many people become so

> Can we agree that the doctrine of heaven and hell is less conducive to good stewardship of the earth

I have also read hundreds of Hindu books and I can say that Christian Scriptures also has clear statements about stewardship of the Earth. People also love ignorance and are lazy. They just believe what a person says and don't investigate it themselves. BUT I still don't see where Heaven and Hell as anything to do with stewardship. The Christian Scriptures don't have a Good / Evil balance scale for who goes to heaven and hell.

Re: Spinoza’s philosophy of freedom

#56

Post by baldfat »

rskar wrote: post #49
coliveira wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 so…

Maybe this is my limitation, but it still looks like "love" means about the same at its core, thru the times - I don't see a "lost meaning" to it. But I do see "flavors" for love, if you will - motivations or contexts for the love. And I accept the point that "not every culture has written about love or valued it in the same way." Yet the cited article does not indicate "love" as meaning "suffering for someone or som…

Spinoza clearly makes definition statements of love. The love for neighbor was different than an emotionally based love.

I have studied Ancient Hebrew, classical Greek, Aramaic, German, and Danish (WOWZ) and there isn't a time when the word love couldn't be translated. Sometimes with more then one word but love has always been a varied meaning word.

Just as fear, sad and angry are translated love also is pretty clearly different categories within that emotion.

Re: Spinoza’s philosophy of freedom

#57

Post by baldfat »

cicero wrote: post #37
rskar wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I love C.S. Lewis he is a good philosopher but a horrible Theologian or Biblical Scholar.

There are only two words for love in the new Testament: Agape and Philia and they are used interchangably. Anyone that tries to say they mean different things are trying to sell you something.

Exercise: Just look up the verses with the two words and read them (One difference (Many professors disagree that there is any difference)is that when Jesus and Peter had the conversation of "Do you love me." BUT I couldn't really tell you for certain why there were two words). Also same thing with rhema and logos they are used interchangeably.

People that try to split words into "atoms" into definitions just haven't studied a language for academic purposes. The more I learn the more I know that the people who did the translations are at a different league and much better then I am. I cringe when people talk Greek or Hebrew in church because 75% of the times they are just wrong. Like dunamis (power from the inside) is "dynamite power" makes me want to scream there is no way Paul knew what dynamite was or was thinking about an explosive.

Re: Spinoza’s philosophy of freedom

#58

Post by krylon »

NoB4Mouth wrote: post #45
krylon wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

:) i'm fine with your nitpicking! I read Spinoza in high school - a decade+ back- the accuracy of timing is so porous. @ University i opted for Social Anthropology instead of Philosophy. I still have some remorse about that choice today...

FWIW, I did study Philosophy, but dropped out after just one semester. However I have not read anything written by Spinoza.

He must have been an interesting person, though. In his day job, he created lenses that powered the first microscopes and the telescope(s) that Christiaan Huygens used to observe Saturn's rings. A true Renaissance man, indeed!

Re: Spinoza’s philosophy of freedom

#59

Post by samirillian »

baldfat wrote: post #55
samirillian wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's hard to make universal statements I feel like I've been motte and bailey'd a bit here [1]. OK, let's remain agnostic about the hermeneutics. Can we agree that the doctrine of heaven and hell is less conducive to good stewardship of the earth than the doctrine of reincarnation? Or are you, a theology student, solely commenting on a philosophy thread to police generalities? [1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mott…

I wasn't baiting and switching I was just stating your statement wasn't factually correct though your empirical evidence might state differently. Sorry if I came across with any attitude it wasn't directed at you or anyone on HN. > Or are you, a theology student, solely commenting on a philosophy thread to police generalities? No, I just was trying to be diplomatic. I also wasn't really reacting to your statement as…

> BUT I still don't see where Heaven and Hell as anything to do with stewardship

Huh, seems self-evident to me. If you have to keep a thing, you're gonna be motivated to treat it nice. If you're gonna throw that thing away after you're done with it, you're less motivated to treat it nice.

Since you are a Theological student, I'm sure you're familiar with 2 Corinthians, where Paul goes on at length about the evanescence of our terrestrial "tents": "For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. 18So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands."

Now this certainly sounds like it would be quite conducive to a "sinking ship" mentality. At the very least on the face of it! You might disagree for more _Theological_ reasons, but if you can't recognize the most obvious, exoteric implications of the text, then I can't help but feel that you're not considering what I said in good faith.

In another sense, it's a question of enforcement. All religions explicitly name the consequences for sin, so if abusing the environment is a sin in Christianity, what is the consequence? I mean, I assume even Christians have some vague sense that you shouldn't torture animals, but where exactly in the Scriptures is even that prohibited?

This is all rooted in Christianity's anthropocentric "ranking of souls." Since only humans are made in the image of God, we have a special status, which is why it's fine to eat the flesh of animals, which God specifically exhorts Peter to do, no?

Re: Spinoza’s philosophy of freedom

#60

Post by cicero »

baldfat wrote: post #57
cicero wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I love C.S. Lewis he is a good philosopher but a horrible Theologian or Biblical Scholar. There are only two words for love in the new Testament: Agape and Philia and they are used interchangably. Anyone that tries to say they mean different things are trying to sell you something. Exercise: Just look up the verses with the two words and read them (One difference (Many professors disagree that there is any difference…

I agree that some preachers misuse their little bit of Greek knowledge, but Lewis was a professor of literature and knew Greek well. Storge and eros are not Biblical words, but they are still Greek words that are often translated "love" and have very different meanings. My point of bringing this up Lewis was to show that there is support for different meanings for our English word "love".

Pope Benedict XVI, whom I believe is one of the greatest theological minds of our day, wrote about 3 kinds of love in his encyclical Deus Caritas Est (God is Love) [1]. He shows how these different words for love are distinct but related. (Storge is not included; some people translate it as "affection" rather than love.) Here is a quote:

3. That love between man and woman which is neither planned nor willed, but somehow imposes itself upon human beings, was called eros by the ancient Greeks. Let us note straight away that the Greek Old Testament uses the word eros only twice, while the New Testament does not use it at all: of the three Greek words for love, eros, philia (the love of friendship) and agape, New Testament writers prefer the last, which occurs rather infrequently in Greek usage. As for the term philia, the love of friendship, it is used with added depth of meaning in Saint John's Gospel in order to express the relationship between Jesus and his disciples. The tendency to avoid the word eros, together with the new vision of love expressed through the word agape, clearly point to something new and distinct about the Christian understanding of love.

1: https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/do...

Post reply on HN