11 Replies to “Spinoza”

  1. Guy in sweater vest at 24:26 : for spinoza “nature is not the object of worshipful awe, or any kind of religious attitude; the proper attitude to take towards nature is that of scientific inquiry”. an interesting claim about spinoza’s ethical posture towards the world, which he has determined to be of one substance. but i think it is a hasty one. In my understanding he does not want to seize upon nature and render it knowable, as this would suggest.There seems to be room for ontological awe

  2. Why Spinoza came to write what he did was not discussed. His grandparents fell victum to inquisition and fled Portugal to France. His family confronted with the same problems in France and the whole family fled and found refuge in Holland. Spinoza, born in Amsterdam, now educated and sophisticated recognises the horrors of the past and delivers democracy instead. That is Spinoza, telling the world about the deception of organised religion making miracles believable. Thomas Jefferson, way to go!

  3. Where Dr. Joel Whitebook says: “even clinically the problem is to find the most valid… fit, or the most valid… form of communication between the drives of the emotions, the ego, and the conscienceness” Won’t that be a startpoint where Carl G. Jung’s works come in handy? Once again you are all a great example of patience and mutual respect. 

  4. Ever since i started to read Spinoza’s work, very soon i felt his words placed me in warm Sunlight. Amazing how Spinoza shows through his work the patience he allows/chooses to explain his idea’s. Ofcourse, i ain’t very surprised that youngsters recognise what they miss in our current day “Coffee to Go” society.

  5. At first i was very angry & sad ofcourse.. that Spinoza was never mentioned at school. “We could have done so much good with his works!” Great to watch this debate! High Five to you all! (and one extra to Steve since my bookshelf hold more of his books : ) To be continued because one view will not promise total saturation.

  6. in response to Dr. Nadler: Spinoza is not a dualist. your reference to a dualism of thought and extension is misconstrued I suspect. He says that thought and extension are one and the same thing but are expressed in two different ways. Which would be explainable by his argument for Modes of the one substance being the source of all existing variety and apparent differences we can perceive. We could say he appears to be, on the surface, a dualist.. but only if we do no further reduction

Leave a Reply