• Janus
    15.4k
    So the self sub specie durationis is different from the self sub specie aeternitatis. And indeed, it is this latter self which Spinoza claims is (or can be) eternal. What sort of existence does this latter self have?Agustino

    It would seem that if there is a "self sub specie aeternitatis" then it must be eternal. On thinking more about this, I think I have reverted to a common mistake in speaking about the primacy of mind. This seems to be an easy intellectual trap to fall into since we commonly don't think of matter as being eternal. For example, the Buddhists although they speak of interdependent co-arising or dependent origination (ideas which I think would be better combined as interdependent co-origination) seem to often devolve into the 'mind only' mode of thought. But if God has attributes of both infinite thought and infinite extension, then the eternal existence of his modes would be as both. This would mean that the eternal life of the self would be both material and mental (and perhaps infinitely more besides if God has infinite (in the sense of 'infinitely many') attributes. This may be hinted at in the Christian idea of resurrection of the body.

    This leads me to the conclusion that the ideas we have sub specie durationis cannot be the kind of ideas that exist in the infinite mind of God, but rather only copies of them as it were - and the copies are necessarily parallel to their representations as physically extended natures.Agustino

    This sounds about right. Ideas are real spatio-temporal complexes just as bodies are, although in a different way. So our ideas are the temporal face of our (God's) eternal ideas, just as our minds are the temporal expression of our (God's) eternal minds and our bodies are the temporal counterparts of our (God's) eternal bodies. In eternity ideas must be idea, minds must be mind and bodies must be body.The temporal mind cannot understand this fully. We cannot fathom how there could be any diversity, or the possibility of any diversity 'coming out of', eternity.

    In the end we're dealing with a gradation of existence from the very subtle God, to God's infinite ideas, to temporal existence (the parallelism of thought and extension). So we ascend from matter and extension to thought. But thought remains in the realm of the temporal, it is of the mind.Agustino

    This sounds very much like Kabbalism and also Gurdjieff's teaching about finer and courser 'energies'. The latter is comprehensively set forth in Ouspensky's A New Model of the Universe: Principles of the Psychological Method In Its Application to Problems of Science, Religion, and Art. It must be nearly thirty years since I read that book!
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    This sounds very much like Kabbalism and also Gurdjieff's teaching about finer and courser 'energies'. The latter is comprehensively set forth in Ouspensky's A New Model of the Universe: Principles of the Psychological Method In Its Application to Problems of Science, Religion, and Art. It must be nearly thirty years since I read that book!Janus
    It is also very much found in Eastern Orthodox Christianity, where the distinction is between God's energies and God's essence (refer to energy-essence distinction). As such, at the stage of theosis (or union with God), we achieve union by grace with God's energies, but not with God's essence which necessarily remains incomprehensible & hidden. So in Eastern Orthodox spirituality, spiritual development is also viewed as going from coarser aspects of reality to ever-more subtle ones.

    From the link I gave above:
    In Eastern Orthodox theology God's essence is called ousia, "all that subsists by itself and which has not its being in another"[ my addition: incidentally ousia is the Greek for substance ;) ], and is distinct from his energies (energeia in Greek, actus in Latin) or activities as actualized in the world.

    The ousia of God is God as God is. The essence, being, nature and substance of God as taught in Eastern Christianity is uncreated, and cannot be comprehended in words. According to Lossky, God's ousia is "that which finds no existence or subsistence in another or any other thing".[9] God's ousia has no necessity or subsistence that needs or is dependent on anything other than itself.[9]

    It is the energies of God that enable us to experience something of the Divine, at first through sensory perception and then later intuitively or noetically. As St John Damascene states, "all that we say positively of God manifests not his nature but the things about his nature."[10]

    All this, as you see, does bear on my reading of Spinoza, as I think Spinoza landed very close to this understanding even though it was likely not available to him by direct sources.
  • Wayfarer
    20.6k
    So there is a sense in which this eternal self goes on existing since God goes on existingAgustino

    Surely Spinoza here is referring to the immortality of the soul?

    The ideas of particular things, or of modes, that do not exist... — Part II

    Hence, so long as particular things do not exist, except in so far as they are comprehended in the attributes of God... — Part II

    I think this is the distinction between appearance and reality, common to many a metaphysic, whereby 'individual particulars' are not real in their own right - that is the meaning of saying 'they do not exist'. If that was translated from Latin, it would be interesting to see what Latin phrase was translated as 'do not exist'. Because here I think the meaning is that they don't truly exist, but are only real by virtue of them being 'comprehended in the attributes of God'.

    if God has attributes of both infinite thought and infinite extension, then the eternal existence of his modes would be as both.Janus

    God cannot be 'extended' because anything 'extended' is 'divisible'.
  • Janus
    15.4k
    God cannot be 'extended' because anything 'extended' is 'divisible'.Wayfarer

    This is not correct. Bodies, as finite modes of infinite extension, have boundaries, and are hence divisible. You are conflating the idea of infinite extension with the idea of a body.
  • Janus
    15.4k


    Interesting; I must do more reading into Eastern Orthodoxy. :)
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    You are conflating the idea of infinite extension with the idea of a body.Janus
    Yes, infinite extension is by default unbounded.

    I think this is the distinction between appearance and reality, common to many a metaphysic, whereby 'individual particulars' are not real in their own right - that is the meaning of saying 'they do not exist'. If that was translated from Latin, it would be interesting to see what Latin phrase was translated as 'do not exist'. Because here I think the meaning is that they don't truly exist, but are only real by virtue of them being 'comprehended in the attributes of God'.Wayfarer
    With regards to the quoted bits from Part II of the Ethics, I doubt Spinoza was referring to the distinction between appearance and reality. Rather he was just referring to particular modes which don't empirically exist right now. For example, your ancestors from 5 generations ago, they don't exist right now, they are inexistent finite modes. And yet, since God exists, and their existence is a mode of God (the one Substance) it follows that in a sense they exist - in the same sense that the infinitude of possible intersecting straight lines exist given a circle:

    The nature of a circle is such that if any number of straight lines intersect within it, the rectangles formed by their segments will be equal to one another; thus, infinite equal rectangles are contained in a circle. — Part II
    So even if a particular set of lines are not actually drawn right now, they still exist given the nature of the circle from which they emerge in the first place.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    Interesting; I must do more reading into Eastern Orthodoxy. :)Janus
    This is a good book (as an introduction) if you haven't already read it.
  • Janus
    15.4k
    Thanks Agustino, I'll look into it.
  • Wayfarer
    20.6k


    The “oneness of existence” is neither monism nor dualism. — Toshihiko Izutsu

    Right! Very important point and thank you for it. I had a thread on the old Forum, about 'a unity which is not an entity', which explored a similar idea. I think this is an aspect of non-dualism, which is a very elusive concept.

    This is a good book (as an introduction) if you haven't already read it.Agustino

    It's a powerful work, that. I also have a book called A Different Christianity by Martin Amis, who was resident at Mt Athos whilst researching it. I do read some of those Eastern Orthodox theologians but I have to be careful as I could easily be pulled into their orbit ;-)

    The ousia of God is God as God is.

    Reading those quotes from Spinoza, it is worth recalling that the term 'substance' in philosophy, was translated from 'ousia' in Aristotle. I think it is nearer in meaning to 'being' or 'subject' than what we understand as 'substance'. So, in the case of Spinoza's 'one substance', if it is read as 'one Being', though perhaps not strictly accurate, it does convey something of importance, I think.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    I also have a book called A Different Christianity by Martin AmisWayfarer
    Thanks, I haven't come across that one yet.

    I do read some of those Eastern Orthodox theologians but I have to be careful as I could easily be pulled into their orbit ;-)Wayfarer
    >:O

    I think it is nearer in meaning to 'being' or 'subject' than what we understand as 'substance'.Wayfarer
    Yeah, it does cash out in terms of the interrelationship of all (one) existence. Spinoza was using the term in Aristotelian fashion anyway with slight Cartesian tints. Basically, substance was the bearer of modes and predicates (as per Aristotle's definition) and also that which had an independent existence - ie it existed in-itself and did not depend for its existence on another.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    Gurdjieff's teaching about finer and courser 'energies'. The latter is comprehensively set forth in Ouspensky's A New Model of the Universe: Principles of the Psychological Method In Its Application to Problems of Science, Religion, and Art. It must be nearly thirty years since I read that book!Janus
    I've never read Gurdjieff through Ouspensky, I've read him through Osho who commented at length on him - I must have been 13 or so back then, so it's quite a long time ago.
  • bahman
    526
    Physical is the stuff we experience and it ontologically exists. Experience is physical state and it ontologically doesn't exist.
  • Janus
    15.4k


    Gurdjieff at 13? That is an early start!
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    Gurdjieff at 13? That is an early start!Janus
    Yes, that's what happens when your atheist father has Osho books lying around >:O .
  • Starthrower
    34
    Correction: defined in terms of OUR physics.
156789Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.