Spinoza denies the idea of personal survival of death except that each individual and in fact each entity or thing could have an existence as an eternal idea of God or nature, or something along those lines, from memory.

:up:

You can’t see the resemblance between what you said, and what was in that quote?

When I responded the passage about Ramana Maharshi was not there. Spinoza never said anything about reincarnation as far as I know, so I'm still not seeing the similarity. The idea that we exist, and everything that has ever been exists, in eternity says nothing about any personal survival, any more than saying the atoms that make up our bodies are eternal.

And Spinoza did not see it as something earned but as being the case, sub specie aetermitatis, for everyone and everything, as I read him. It has been a while since I read the Ethics so it's possible I'm misremembering the details but suffice to say there is nothing at all about rebirth, or concern about anything other than how to live in this world, in Spinoza.

:up:

And Spinoza did not see it as something earned but as being the case, sub specie aetermitatis, for everyone and everything, as I read him — Janus

But then, why bother with philosophy? For what reason was Spinoza exiled from the Jewish community? Why undertake the laborious task of composing such complex and lengthy philosophical works, and why read them? Why is not any man in the street equal to the wisest?

I can't see how the secularist reading of Spinoza, just more or less shrug and get on with life, comprehends his obviously spiritual message, the 'intellectual love of God', self-abnegation, the devotion to wisdom, the abandonment of worldly ambitions, which are central in his corpus. He is concerned with inner freedom, freedom of the soul from fear, is he not? That's why I say his philosophy can be compared with Hindu and Buddhist teachings.

“After experience had taught me the hollowness and futility of everything that is ordinarily encountered in daily life […], I resolved at length to enquire whether there existed a true good […] whose discovery and acquisition would afford me a continuous and supreme joy to all eternity.” (Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect, para.1)

Spinoza sees the problems of life as arising from the desire for “perishable things” which “can be reduced to these three headings: riches, honour, and sensual pleasure” (idem: para.3&9). As these things are “perishable”, they cannot afford lasting happiness; in fact, they worsen our lot, since craving for them often induces compromising behaviour and their consumption creates useless craving. “But love towards a thing eternal and infinite feeds the mind with joy alone, unmixed with any sadness.” (Idem: para.10) In the Ethics, Spinoza finds lasting happiness only in the “intellectual love of God”, which is the mystical, non-dual vision of the single “Substance” (or Being) underlying the phenomenal realm. The resonance with non-dualism becomes apparent when Spinoza says that “the mind’s intellectual love of God is the very love of God by which God loves himself” (Ethics, Part 5, Prop. 36; compare Meister Eckhardt, 'The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me'.) Since God is the Whole that includes everything, it also includes your love for God, and thus God can be said to love Itself through you. Iff you recognise it!

Spinoza pointed out a similar dynamic with the "carrot and stick" of heaven and hell in Christianity, using desire and fear as motivators to believe. — Janus

I would not expect Spinoza to have anything to say about reincarnation as it was not part of his cultural milieu, but I provided the passage from Sri Ramana Maharishi to illustrate his view of the matter. As a Hindu, you would expect that he would presume the reality of reincarnation, but he does not.

Sri Ramana Maharshi (Advaita Vedanta) taught that all such theories are based on the false assumption that the individual self or soul is real; once this illusion is seen through, the whole superstructure of after-life theories collapses...

As a concession to those who were unable to assimilate the implications of this truth, Sri Ramana would sometimes admit that reincarnation existed. In replying to such people he would say that if one imagined that the individual self was real, then that imaginary self would persist after death and that eventually it would identify with a new body and a new life. The whole process, he said, is sustained by the tendency of the mind to identify itself with a body.

So I presume that it is for those who 'identify themselves with a body' - I would include myself in that category - that the idea of re-birth at least communicates something important about the human condition.

But then, why bother with philosophy? For what reason was Spinoza exiled from the Jewish community? Why undertake the laborious task of composing such complex and lengthy philosophical works, and why read them? Why is not any man in the street equal to the wisest? — Wayfarer

It's simple; philosophy is about self-knowledge, about understanding the human condition, so as to be able to live the best possible life. He was exiled from the Jewish community for his immanentistic idea of God, his idea that God is Nature, and his denial that both we and God possess free will (Spinoza saw God as necessarily, deterministically acting according to his nature, just as we do).

The "man in the street" may or may not live life thoughtfully. As the saying goes "the unexamined life is not worth living". I don't Spinoza would agree wholly with that, but I think he would certainly say the examined life is better than the unexamined.

I can't see how the secularist reading of Spinoza, just more or less shrug and get on with life, comprehends his obviously spiritual message, the 'intellectual love of God', self-abnegation, the devotion to wisdom, the abandonment of worldly ambitions, which are central in his corpus. — Wayfarer

Spinoza denied that God can love us. The importance of loving God is the importance of loving Nature and loving Life, of accepting it wholeheartedly as it is. " Amor fati". That's why Nietzsche saw Spinoza as a kindred spirit. That's why he says, "the free mean never thinks of death" because the philosopher's concern should only be with this life, not some superstitiously imagined afterlife.

Spinoza advocates complete acceptance, because he was a determinist through and through, from which it follows that all things will be as they will be, necessarily. From this it follows that there is nothing beyond this life to strive for, and within this life only complete understanding and acceptance is worth pursuing. This can be compared to the non-attachment advocated by Buddhism, but none of the otherworldly stuff of the Eastern religions will be found in Spinoza.

Spinoza sees the problems of life as arising from the desire for “perishable things” which “can be reduced to these three headings: riches, honour, and sensual pleasure” (idem: para.3&9). As these things are “perishable”, they cannot afford lasting happiness; in fact, they worsen our lot, since craving for them often induces compromising behaviour and their consumption creates useless craving. “But love towards a thing eternal and infinite feeds the mind with joy alone, unmixed with any sadness.” (Idem: para.10) In the Ethics, Spinoza finds lasting happiness only in the “intellectual love of God”, which is the mystical, non-dual vision of the single “Substance” (or Being) underlying the phenomenal realm. The resonance with non-dualism becomes apparent when Spinoza says that “the mind’s intellectual love of God is the very love of God by which God loves himself” (Ethics, Part 5, Prop. 36; compare Meister Eckhardt, 'The eye through which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me'.) Since God is the Whole that includes everything, it also includes your love for God, and thus God can be said to love Itself through you. Iff you recognise it! — Wayfarer

I don't know where you got the above passage, but it seems to be full of inapt implication and association. Spinoza. like the "this-worldly" Epicureans, saw desire for things "perishable" as being corrosive of equanimity, personal peace of mind, and this is simply a practical realization.

Spinoza understands God or Nature (deus siva natura) as being eternal, and advocates contemplation and love of that nature, and this amounts to loving this life, yet being free of attachment to the temporal things of this life. This is really just commonsense. Spinoza is certainly not a mystic at all; there is nothing otherworldly in him. If we love this life, that amounts to God loving himself ("himself" is misleading here and should really be "itself") or Nature loving itself, but as I said earlier Spinoza stresses that God cannot love us, because God is not a personal conscious being, God is simply Nature being what it is, doing what it by necessity must.

If you want to understand Spinoza you need to actually read him.

[W]hy bother with philosophy? — Wayfarer

Spinoza says philosophy seeks understanding and that our freedom expands as our understanding deepens.

For what reason was Spinoza exiled from the Jewish community?

Probably because the very young Spinoza wouldn't keep to himself his critical view that the Torah fundamentally consists of 'superstitious myths' (which years later he expounds on in the masterful Tractatus Theologico-Politicus).

Why undertake the laborious task of composing such complex and lengthy philosophical works, and why read them?

Those who wish to share their understandings – wrestle with nontrivial conceptual & existential aporia – with other reflective thinkers read and write philosophical texts.

Why is not any man in the street equal to the wisest?

Unlike many philosophers, the "man in the street" simply isn't explicitly aware that he, like "the wisest", often doesn't know that he doesn't know or what he/we cannot know.

If you [Wayfarer] want to understand Spinoza you need to actually read him. — Janus

:up: :up:

If you want to understand Spinoza you need to actually read him. — Janus

To set the record straight, I did a semester on Spinoza's Ethics, and wrote a term paper on it, which was passed. I have forgotten a lot of it, but I don't agree with the secularist reading of it. Spinoza was a mystic. I disagree with both of you on that, and I'll leave it there.

I consider Spinoza an ecstatic rationalist. :fire:

Spinoza was a mystic. — Wayfarer

And this means what? Not 'seeking union with a transcendent being/reality' (because Spinoza, in effect, argues that 'transcendence' is incoherent, illusory or superstitious).

I don't know where you got the above passage, — Janus

The Project Gutenberg edition of On the Improvement of the Understanding starts with this paragraph

(1) After experience had taught me that all the usual surroundings of social life are vain and futile; seeing that none of the objects of my fears contained in themselves anything either good or bad, except in so far as the mind is affected by them, I finally resolved to inquire whether there might be some real good having power to communicate itself, which would affect the mind singly, to the exclusion of all else: whether, in fact, there might be anything of which the discovery and attainment would enable me to enjoy continuous, supreme, and unending happiness. ....

...
[10] (1) But love towards a thing eternal and infinite feeds the mind wholly with joy, and is itself unmingled with any sadness, wherefore it is greatly to be desired and sought for with all our strength. .

So how that translates to 'accepting things as they are' escapes me. What is 'a thing eternal an infinite' that 'feeds the mind wholly with joy'? There is a definite sense of turning away from, renouncing, the transitory, and contemplating the eternal.

Spinoza was a mystic.
— Wayfarer
And this means what? — 180 Proof

It means abandonment of the transitory and awakening to what is always so, the eternal, beyond the vicissitudes. What is 'ecstatic'? It means 'ex' (outside of) 'stasis' (the normal state). There is the theme of ecstatic union - the fact that he designates it as 'God or nature' does not, in my view, entail that Spinoza was a naturalist in the sense of modern empiricism, restricting knowledge to what can be validated by sensory data. There are books which explore the links between Spinoza, Kabbalistic mysticism and other like sources.

And this means what? Not 'seeking union with a transcendent being/reality' (because Spinoza, in effect, argues that 'transcendence' is incoherent, illusory or superstitious). — 180 Proof

:up:

Spinoza was a mystic. I disagree with both of you on that, and I'll leave it there. — Wayfarer

What do you mean by mystic, Wayfarer?

So how that translates to 'accepting things as they are' escapes me. What is 'a thing eternal an infinite' that 'feeds the mind wholly with joy'? There is a definite sense of turning away from, renouncing, the transitory, and contemplating the eternal. — Wayfarer

Is nature not eternal? Spinoza, as I read him, advocates loving and contemplating the eternal aspects of nature. For example, we don't understand a tree to be eternal, but transitory, but it is not as transitory as a passing breeze, and yet both are eternal aspects or possibilities of nature. What do we love about the tree? We love it's beauty, its livingness, no? Beauty and livingness are eternal, and we find them everywhere..

the fact that he designates it as 'God or nature' does not, in my view, entail that Spinoza was a naturalist in the sense of modern empiricism, restricting knowledge to what can be validated by sensory data. — Wayfarer

Spinoza is usually classed as a rationalist, and he did believe in the power of intellectual intuition. On the other hand, he saw all otherworldliness as superstition, as an illusion to be seen through, and this is simply undeniable.

Is nature not eternal? — Janus

Definitely not. Everything in nature, every natural phenomenon, is transitory and subject to decay. Nowadays nature as worshipped as a stand-in for 'the unconditioned' but that is because our culture has systematically destroyed any real metaphysic of the unconditioned.

I provided my definition of the mystical above.

Every progress in evolution is dearly paid for; miscarried attempts, merciless struggle everywhere. The more detailed our knowledge of nature becomes, the more we see, together with the element of generosity and progression which radiates from being, the law of degradation, the powers of destruction and death, the implacable voracity which are also inherent in the world of matter. And when it comes to man, surrounded and invaded as he is by a host of warping forces, psychology and anthropology are but an account of the fact that, while being essentially superior to them, he is at the same time the most unfortunate of animals. So it is that when its vision of the world is enlightened by science, the intellect which religious faith perfects realises still better that nature, however good in its own order, does not suffice, and that if the deepest hopes of mankind are not destined to turn to mockery, it is because a God-given energy better than nature is at work in us. — Jacques Maritain

Is nature not eternal?
— Janus

Definitely not. — Wayfarer

Things, beings, entities are not eternal, but nature itself is. Spinoza drew a distinction between natura naturata and natura naturans. The former is created nature, transient nature and the latter is the eternal active creative power which brings about created nature.

I provided my definition of the mystical above. — Wayfarer

I guess you might call Spinoza a "natural mystic', but there is nothing transcendent of supernatural in his philosophy; if you think there is then you simply don't understand his philosophy, and if you want to remedy that I would suggest reading his actual works.

What is the point of quoting Maritain in a discussion about Spinoza? The two could not be further apart, Maritain being the apologist for Catholicism that he was.

The former is created nature, transient nature and the latter is the eternal active creative power which brings about created nature. — Janus

‘Natura naturans ‘ - the divine, infinite ‘substance’ that continuously brings about and sustains the existence of natura naturata. It is the underlying, unchanging source of everything in the world.

In Spinoza's philosophy, these concepts are essential components of his monism, where everything is ultimately one substance (God or Nature) with two different aspects. Natura naturata represents the changing, finite world of effects, while natura naturans represents the unchanging, infinite cause or source of those effects. Although here I have difficulty with the use of the word 'substance', as it's too easy to interpret as being a kind of material substrate. In Spinoza's philosophy, "substantia" refers to a singular, infinite, and self-sustaining reality that encompasses all of existence. It is more akin to what we might call "reality" or "the ground of being" rather than the everyday sense of "substance" as a physical or material thing. (I can’t see how it is, for instance, compatible with contemporary scientific naturalism.)

I learned about a current title on Spinoza, 'Spinoza's Religion', by Claire Carlisle, which I've started on. From one of the Amazon reviews of that book:

Carlisle tries to work between the secularist, naturalistic interpretation on one hand in the romantic picture of the "God intoxicated man" on the other. Her chief insight is that readers tend to rely too heavily and uncritically on Spinoza's phrase "God or Nature" in understanding his thought. Relying solely on this phrase "God or Nature" encourages interpretations of Spinoza as a naturalist or as a pantheist. But that phrase needs to be read in light of a more fundamental, developed teaching of Spinoza which Carlisle finds in "Being-in-God" which she describes as "the fundamental tenet of Spinoza's thought". It is found at first in Part One, proposition 15 of the "Ethics", "Whatever is, is in God" and is referred to and expounded upon by Spinoza repeatedly throughout the work. Much of Carlisle's reading of Spinoza is based upon her understanding this proposition and following it through the various parts of the "Ethics".

Expanding upon "Being-in-God, Carlisle argues that Spinoza's thought is more akin to panentheism than to either naturalism or pantheism. Reality, for Spinoza. consists of the single substance and of modes, which are dependent upon substance. The dependent, partial modes, including human beings, do not exhaust substance but are "in" it or "participate in" it. ...

The focus is on an ultimately non-dualistic understanding of the relationship between persons and God. And she rejects what she understands as modernity's and secularism's attempts to objectify religion by defining it in terms of creeds. She argues that Spinoza held to instead a concept of religion more akin to the ancient and medieval concepts of virtue; it is internalized and individual and shows in one's acceptance of oneself and lovingkindness towards others. Carlisle sees religion and philosophy as practiced by Spinoza not as a doctrine but as a way of life. Spinoza devoted his life and his gifts to his search for wisdom and understanding. It is this focus and commitment in living a human life that constitutes the religious search.

I've read the intro and just now shelled for the remainder.

What is the point of quoting Maritain? — Janus

The point is, not who Jacques Maritain is, or the fact that he's Catholic, but what it says about nature and naturalism.

There are also "books which explore the links between" [name a philosopher] and [any flavor of woo that strikes your fancy]. Take Janus's recommendation, Wayf, and actually (re)read Spinoza on his own anti-transcendent terms (re: for Spinoza, natura naturans corresponds to what Einstein recognized as physical laws).

Take Janus's recommendation, Wayf, and actually (re)read Spinoza on his own anti-transcendent terms. — 180 Proof

I told you, I have studied Ethics, at university level, a long time ago, but I know full well how easy it is to transgress the anti-religious taboo that exists on this forum, so I guess I'll just have to live with that, somehow.

I'm afraid, sir, nothing you've said here demonstrates you've read anything more than an online high schooler's notes lifted from Spinoza for Dummies. :smirk:

Everything in nature, every natural phenomenon, is transitory and subject to decay. — Wayfarer

Proof you've not read (or understood) Spinoza's Ethics, esp. section I "Of God". qed.

Things, beings, entities are not eternal, but nature itself is. Spinoza drew a distinction between natura naturata and natura naturans. The former is created nature, transient nature and the latter is the eternal active creative power which brings about created nature. — Janus

:100: :fire:

Remember where discussion of Spinoza started in this thread to which I responded, 'As I understand it, Spinoza said that the liberated soul had no reason to fear death and no fear of the afterlife, and I'm sure in that, he was in perfect accord with both the Hindu and Buddhist understanding of the matter.' I'll return to that, as it was the point at issue in respect of this OP.

I responded, 'As I understand it, Spinoza ... — Wayfarer

As @Janus was first to point out, sir, you clearly do not understand what Spinoza says quite clearly in his Ethics. :kiss:

It is common knowledge that there are contested readings of Spinoza. There are secularist, naturalistic interpretations on one side and mystical interpretations of the "God intoxicated man" on the other. You hold to the former intepretation, but it is contested. And all of which is beside the point of the OP in the first place, and the last I'll say about it.

Your learned incorrigibility embarrasses you again, Wayfarer. Carry on ...

It's the fact that I'm not persuaded by your pathological aversion to the extraordinarily wide range of things you tar with the brush of woo. But, do carry on.

How is it that old you is the same as young you - directly contradicting Leibniz’ Law
Chrysippus’ Paradox
101 Dalmatians
The ball of clay
Theseus' ship
London and Londres — Banno

The idea you both are suggesting is that it's not what one commonly calls one's self that is reincarnated, but a something else, a sort of essence...

But what that is remains undefined, or defined only by hand-waving. — Banno

This just illustrates what happens when one takes a concept out of its native context and tries to understand it and work with it regardless of said context. It's nonsense, and a waste of time.

To be clear, I'm not "advocating for reincarnation". In a broad sense, I'm advocating for semantic holism.

Not from scratch, though. A person born and raised into a religion that teaches reincarnation will have internalized it even before their critical cognitive faculties have developed. So such a person doesn't actually "make stuff up".
— baker

So, instead of making their own stuff up, they accept and introject the stuff that others have made up; stuff that has been canonized in their culture? — Janus

It cannot be said that what children do when they internalize the religious teachings of their parents and their community is an act of "choice" or conscious acceptance. Given that for children born and raised into a religion the exposure to religious teachings begins to take place even before the child's critical cognitive abilities have formed to the point of consciously being able to a make choices, to consciously accept or reject things, it's remiss to say that this is what is happening.

It's like with one's native language: it's not subject to one's choice, it "just happens".

"Reincarnation" simply does not make sense, except as an article of faith (i.e. figment of imagination), without publicly specifying what exactly is allegedly "reincarnated". — 180 Proof

Religious doctrines, in order to "make sense" to a person, need to be internalized early on in life, or perhaps can be assimilated later only if the person is undergoing a psychologically intense period in their life.

It's not clear that it is possible to accept and internalize any doctrine/teaching/philosophy/ideology simply by reading a syllogism.

I was raised Catholic and educated for twelve years by Franciscans & Jesuits; most, if not all, of the "doctrines" I had "internalized" stopped making sense to me by age of fifteen (and still don't forty-five years later). Nonsense, baker, is nonsense whether "religious doctrine" or not – whether "internalized in childhood" or not. For instance (a famous historical example), Spinoza was excommunicated for not keeping to himself that the "doctrines" of Torah, which no doubt he had "internalized", did not make sense to him.

All that by way of saying, folk can make stuff up? — Banno

You know it's more complex than that.

I was raised Catholic and educated for twelve years by Franciscans & Jesuits; most, if not all, of the "doctrines" I had "internalized" stopped making sense to me by age of fifteen (and still don't forty-five years later). — 180 Proof

What is the case for you isn't necessarily the case for everyone else. Your case doesn't prove anything much about the general pattern (which is what I'm talking about).

Nonsense, baker, is nonsense

I suppose externalizing like that can be really helpful.

But there are more ways to gain distance from something religious/spiritual other than declaring it nonsense.
I maintain that my way of distancing is less confrontational; certainly not as egoically aggressive and satisfying as declaring something religious/spiritual to be "nonsense". I like my way, it makes the religious/spiritual problem into a non-issue. It makes it into an "other people's problem".

whether "religious doctrine" or not – whether "internalized in childhood" or not. For instance (a famous historical example), Spinoza was excommunicated for not keeping to himself that the "doctrines" of Torah, which no doubt he had "internalized", did not make sense to him.

Lack of diplomacy and lack of pragmatical insight on his part.

So the topic becomes that of individuation — Banno

Autonomy.