Spare me your supercilious projections and faux-wisdom, Agustino. You know nothing of my actual feelings, motivations and thoughts, and only succeed in making yourself look more stupid by projecting what would seem to be merely your own pettiness onto others. — John

I'm not the only one who saw this John - but alas - you keep to your own wisdom then, I see it's doing you good. :) I don't know what religion or mystical tradition advises you to harbour thoughts which shouldn't be said to others - must be something like Satanism.

When are you going to realize you actually know nothing at all about my life other than that I spend some time posting on philosophy forums? If I was wiser than I am I would ignore those who don't warrant any attention and would waste far less time and energy.
:s

When are you going to realize you actually know nothing at all about my life other than that I spend some time posting on philosophy forums? — John

I never claimed to know something of your life. I only know something about your character which results from reading your writings - just as I would know something about your character by having a conversation with you. It's not that hard to see and understand if you stop being so defensive.

It's rather naive to judge someone based solely on what they say on an internet forum. I've been a troll on other forums, even been banned for it, but does that really say anything about my character? Nearly everyone that I've met, physically, in my life haven't even been able to judge me after years of knowing me, so the idea that you can write people on and off some imaginary list of who's good and who's bad is straight stupid.

It's rather naive to judge someone based solely on what they say on an internet forum. I've been a troll on other forums, even been banned for it, but does that really say anything about my character? Nearly everyone that I've met, physically, in my life haven't even been able to judge me after years of knowing me, so the idea that you can write people on and off some imaginary list of who's good and who's bad is straight stupid. — Heister Eggcart

Yes but don't misinterpret - I'm not claiming to be able to judge all of John's character. I just said that that's what his attitude as it emerges from those posts makes me think. I wouldn't imagine, say, a saint or a mystic saying things like he's saying, that's all. Would you? I mean Jesus would certainly not be responding in that manner, and pretty much anyone knows this. His last passive aggressive comments aren't much different either.

LOL, I have never claimed to be a saint or a mystic. The only qualities I judge people on, based on what they write here, are the kind and degree of philosophical understanding they are showing, and the quality of the way they address others. And I fully acknowledge that such judgements are merely mine; they obviously reflect my own particular kind and degree of philosophical understanding, such as it is.

I don't remember making any imputations about anyone's character on here. On the other hand if I see someone constantly behaving badly, such as by imputing about the characters of others then I might form a certain opinion about that person's character. If I see someone constantly making unsubstantiated claims, lecturing and talking down to others, and then being apparently unable to adequately answer critical questions, then I might conclude that they have an exaggerated opinion about their own philosophical understanding, but that's about as far as it goes.

Thanks for your kind words. I think we share a lot of common philosophical ground. There is little doubt I will keep posting. I just have to be careful not to waste time and energy by being drawn into egregious exchanges and allowing my annoyance to cause me to say things that would be better remaining unsaid.

apparently unable to adequately answer critical questions — John

Which critical questions have been left unanswered? It is you who hasn't answered my questions, and who have made unsubstantiated allegations with regards to Spinoza's philosophy... :-} Every time when I ask you to answer me questions or I ask you for evidence you refuse to provide it. What the hell is that supposed to be now, if not making unsubstantiated claims, lecturing and talking down to others, and being unable to answer critical questions? (N)

The point is that "self" is "determinative" or defined. Empirical states don't have a monopoly on the definite and understandable. Rather than elusive or potetic, the self is definite. I am saying something about it : it is a logical distinction of selfhood, definite and perfectly understandable.

Self is the account in question and you are ignoring it, saying that the definite I am pointing out is only vauge beacause I haven't pointed to an experience of a state of the world.

I wouldn't imagine, say, a saint or a mystic saying things like he's saying, that's all. Would you? — Agustino

There's nothing saintly or mystical about anything you've written either, so I don't see why you've elevated yourself to sit atop a high horse.

Hello. Please go work hard and stop believing you are special. The earth is an ant colony and you all are spoilt little wannabe wordsmiths.

If you have some profound idea.. present and embrace.

I bet most of you hate Trump but watched so much CNN that you didn't think you had to vote.

Wake up.

Bye!

Based on what grounds?

For logical conceptual frameworks, arriving at a logically precise statement of the status of said substance is appropriate and enables one to build a coherent framework. This is fine and is what philosophy does (although apophatic philosophy might point out that we can't determine this about the actual substance of which we are constituted). However the mystic is more concerned with this actual substance and so develops a rationale based on a study of the self and the world, rather than logic. This being the case, what a person can or cannot say about the substance under discussion is important.

What ignorance are you talking about? To know the ignorance is already to transcend it.

An example is our ignorance of the lottery numbers which will be drawn tonight. We know almost everything else about the lottery, what numbers are in the draw, how it works, and that we don't know what numbers will be drawn tonight. There is nothing we can do to dispel this ignorance, other than to whatch the draw and observe the result.

There are many things like this about our state of existence, logical frameworks can help us to develop conceptual tools, but it can't dispel our ignorance on many of the issues of our existence. To go further other approaches are required.

This seems like an empty distinction to me.

If it is necessary for our being, and it is nowhere and can't perform its function we don't exist. If it is everywhere, then it naturally performs its function and we do exist. For example some philosophers say god doesn't exist, they often have elaborate logical reasons for saying it and these might be logically consistent. But it might actually be incorrect in reality, God being somewhere might be necessary for our existence, even if it appears to be illogical.

In the sense of the way you experience here and now? No.

In terms of the substance of which we are constituted. Yes I know that it is not in the way that we as people experience here and now, because that is a fabrication of the extended physical structures of which our bodies or constituted.

But to know your limits is already to - to a certain degree - be beyond them.

Only in the knowledge of that ignorance, which is itself useful, but it doesn't dispel the ignorance due to those limits.

Prove it.

Following a rational, reasoned process is the only way in which the mystic can develop an intellectual understanding of their mystical journey. Without it, the mystic might progress, but is lacking this kind of understanding.

Propose an alternative definition then which accounts for all that substance accounts for and improves on it.

Substance is in itself and conceived of itself in an eternal realm in which there is a multitude of substances.

Why would you take those passages as referring to transcendence?

Well with the first example, Jesus is stating that he is, or has equivalence in terms of being, as god has. If God is in eternity, then Jesus is in eternity. There is a transcendence of being in him, in which God is in him and he is in God.

There's nothing saintly or mystical about anything you've written either, so I don't see why you've elevated yourself to sit atop a high horse. — Heister Eggcart

And have I said anything about myself for that matter? (N)

I bet most of you hate Trump but watched so much CNN that you didn't think you had to vote. — Sup3rfly

Actually I am a Trump supporter :P

although apophatic philosophy might point out that we can't determine this about the actual substance of which we are constituted — Punshhh

How will it point out and prove this?

However the mystic is more concerned with this actual substance and so develops a rationale based on a study of the self and the world, rather than logic. — Punshhh

The mystic, in my view, is concerned about his relationship with the ground of being instead of with mere understanding.

An example is our ignorance of the lottery numbers which will be drawn tonight. — Punshhh

That's an empirical matter.

There is nothing we can do to dispel this ignorance, other than to whatch the draw and observe the result. — Punshhh

Sure - but this has nothing to do with metaphysics. Metaphysics is not empirical, so the source of this ignorance doesn't exist.

it can't dispel our ignorance on many of the issues of our existence — Punshhh

It can't dispel our ignorance with regards to empirical matters. No metaphysical insight will tell someone what to do to obtain what he wants in the world for example - and no metaphysical insight could do this, even in principle.

Following a rational, reasoned process is the only way in which the mystic can develop an intellectual understanding of their mystical journey. Without it, the mystic might progress, but is lacking this kind of understanding. — Punshhh

Okay, so then it seems that the mystic renounces this rationality before his journey even begins

Substance is in itself and conceived of itself in an eternal realm in which there is a multitude of substances. — Punshhh

What is the eternal realm then? Is it not conceived of itself and in itself? If it is, then that eternal realm is substance - and the so called "multitude of substances" cannot be conceived through themselves, they must be conceived through reference to the one substance - the eternal realm.

Well with the first example, Jesus is stating that he is, or has equivalence in terms of being, as god has. If God is in eternity, then Jesus is in eternity. There is a transcendence of being in him, in which God is in him and he is in God. — Punshhh

Well Spinoza addresses this very point actually in Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. "I and the Father are One" = One substance (no transcendence)

And have I said anything about myself for that matter? — Agustino

Then why are you critiquing John who also hasn't thought of himself in such a way? Come on, Agu.

Then why are you critiquing John who also hasn't thought of himself in such a way? Come on, Agu. — Heister Eggcart

Because his philosophy, as he has expressed it at different junctures, would entail that someone shouldn't behave this way (and I would hope that he at least wants to follow his own philosophy). I'm just noting something that emerges out of his own thinking.

Articulate clearly what "way" he has behaved in.

Articulate clearly what "way" he has behaved in. — Heister Eggcart

I refer you to this post for starters:

http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/48349#Post_48349

As I understand it, John rues being an asshat even though he's just being honest about his perspective. If this is what he means, I can't fault him much. Maybe he realizes that he can be a prick, so he tries not to be a prick at all, even if he ought to be at times.

But I'm not really afraid of being a dicklip to someone if I have no doubts about my being right. If I think that something needs to be said, I will probably say it. There's no sense being obtuse if one is bothered for good reason. And if someone takes offense without giving equally sound reasons for why they've reacted that way, then tough!

As I understand it, John rues being an asshat even though he's just being honest about his perspective. If this is what he means, I can't fault him much. Maybe he realizes that he can be a prick, so he tries not to be a prick at all, even if he ought to be at times.

But I'm not really afraid of being a dicklip to someone if I have no doubts about my being right. If I think that something needs to be said, I will probably say it. There's no sense being obtuse if one is bothered for good reason. And if someone takes offense without giving equally sound reasons for why they've reacted that way, then tough! — Heister Eggcart

Right. And doesn't it seem to you like his insults are a red herring based on the fact that he doesn't want to address the Spinoza points I have been pressing him on, and instead prefers to take advantage of the fact that 180 isn't active here and insult him? Then when I point it out he starts insulting me. Look at all these:

This idea that God is being (wholly immanent) is really, without the accompanying idea that God is also transcendent of being, nothing more than pantheism. This is the salient point of my disagreement with Spinoza's philosophy. — John

*facepalm* - The waves of the ocean are illusory - only the ocean is real (and divine) vs the waves of the ocean are real (and divine). The former is acosmism; the latter is pantheism. Now how the fuck is Spinoza a pantheist if God is wholly immanent? — Agustino

In addition to this I've asked you to provide evidence for what exactly you're referencing here: — Agustino

Spinoza's own arguments concerning the difference between necessary and contingent beings — John

Is this how Spinoza has defined Substance? Yes or no? If yes, then please cite adequate evidence. If no, then your point is a red herring or at best a strawman. — Agustino

Spinoza believed the self to be utterly subject to the determinism he believed to be inherent in nature. He believed that the freedom we experience ourselves as being is an illusion due to the fact that we cannot be aware of all the causal factors determining our actions. — John

Yeah maybe if you stop after reading the fourth book "On Man's Bondage", and never move to the fifth ("On Man's FREEDOM") :-d — Agustino

^This last one is actually entirely false as any well-educated Spinoza scholar can tell you.

Where does John address any of this? Nowhere. Instead he again resorts to saying Spinoza's philosophy is "naive" :-! , after claiming that it's a contradiction that substance is conceived through its attributes and through itself >:O

You say a substance can be conceived through any of its attributes, and yet earlier you said a substance can only be "conceived through itself". Seems contradictory. — John

Like I'm sure if he had some good faith he could figure that for himself. As an attribute is the essence of a substance (an intellectual, not an ontological distinction), in-so-far as it is, say, an extended substance, then it must be conceived through that attribute. Really if you're dealing with such an arrogant prick who is purposefully being mischievous, how can you not get angry and point out the obvious to him? :s

In fact even if you look at the fucking definition that Spinoza himself gives of attribute you'll get the point:
"By attribute I understand what the intellect perceives of a substance, as constituting its essence" And this guy apparently studied Spinoza "for years"... and he doesn't even know that basic point of his system. I don't know how he "studied" Spinoza - perhaps by reading Wikipedia.

Let him be, then. No sense getting so worked up.

Let him be, then. No sense getting so worked up. — Heister Eggcart

You are right, I'll go play my flute :D

How will it point out and prove this?

I am not an apophatic philosopher, so can only reply in the way it makes sense to me. Also I presume you are asking for a logical proof. Well logically we can't be expected to be able to conceive of this substance in the absence of sufficient knowledge of the conditions of its existence. As the only conditions of its existence we are aware of are those with which we are equipped to detect, or discern due to our evolutionary capacities. We can't expect to discern those circumstances outside this remit, resulting in a partial, or blinkered, limited interpretation. This partial knowledge of our predicament and substance is an impenetrable barrier to the intellect.

The mystic, in my view, is concerned about his relationship with the ground of being instead of with mere understanding.

Yes with the ground of being, however there are those who seek to stimulate and develop the intellect, along with perhaps the creative faculty.

That's an empirical matter.

I used the example of the lottery to illustrate that we may be ignorant of aspects of our world/existence due to circumstance, as I describe above. Ignorance, that were we to know that which we were ignorant of, we would not believe that we could not have known it, figured it out, or realised the nature of our ignorance.

Sure - but this has nothing to do with metaphysics. Metaphysics is not empirical, so the source of this ignorance doesn't exist.

Metaphysics might go around in ignorance like a person in a room of profound truths written on paper, while wearing a blindfold. As soon as metaphysics is applied in some way to nature the precise impediment of the metaphorical blindfold will need to be determined to screen it out of the intellectual data considered.

It can't dispel our ignorance with regards to empirical matters. No metaphysical insight will tell someone what to do to obtain what he wants in the world for example - and no metaphysical insight could do this, even in principle.

Yes, but do metaphysicians consider the nature of their inherent ignorance?

Okay, so then it seems that the mystic renounces this rationality before his journey even begins

I have not seen evidence of Mystics renouncing rationality. A mystic might conduct an internal enquiry within their own mind and self, in which the ego and/or personality is confronted, or challenged, the entire process being entirely rational, albeit with a psychological dynamic.

What is the eternal realm then?

A divine realm?

it not conceived of itself and in itself?

I don't know, I consider that in that realm there are as many things in themselves and conceived in themselves as there are atoms in our world.

If it is, then that eternal realm is substance - and the so called "multitude of substances" cannot be conceived through themselves, they must be conceived through reference to the one substance - the eternal realm.

As I have already pointed out, this one substance which you refer to (and I do understand the rationale), need not be one substance in eternity, it is only in our degree of limited knowledge and understanding, or circumstance in which it appears a reasonable conclusion.

For example we might, in ignorance, be actors acting out a play, and mistake the plot (which was composed by a being in eternity for their amusement) for the true circumstances of our existence. There might by myriad systems of extension manifesting different realms of different conbinations of divine circumstances or purposes, each a differing substance. there might be other more real forms of dimensionally transcendent, synthetic systems of extension, while by comparison, our known world might be an artificial construct in a dim backwater.

Well Spinoza addresses this very point actually in Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. "I and the Father are One" = One substance (no transcendence)

Yes in the sense rather like my example were I described here and now absent extension, just the same, minus any extension. But there is a critical difference between the experience of an ordinary person, who may be one with God in this sense and a person fully cognisant of God as god is of himself. The sphere of God being immeasurably larger, or simpler than that of the physical Jesus, requiring, for such a synthesis of being as eluded to in the words of Jesus in this phrase, a immanent transcendent relation between the sphere of God and that of Jesus.

Are you telling me that in your experience and knowledge you have not come across, religious teaching, or experience of such transcendence?

But there is a critical difference between the experience of an ordinary person, who may be one with god in this sense and a person fully cognisant of God as god is of himself.

Are you telling me that in your experience and knowledge you have not come across, religious teaching, or experience of such transcendence? — Punshhh

It's pointing that difference is incoherent. No doubt there is a difference between the experiences in question, but that difference is worldly. It's the experience of those world people that's different, not a difference in God. And that's what makes it relevant-- it means one person knows God deeper than another, a worldly significance which makes all the difference here.

The self is not determinable, as, for example, an apple is. You say:

it is a logical distinction of selfhood, definite and perfectly understandable. — TheWillowOfDarkness

. Exactly the same can be said for the apple, the apple is itself in this sense too, but that is only a logical definition; the definition of identity or substance, a mere generality. The relevantly determinative things that can be said about the apple are that it is, for example roughly spherical, of an average diameter of 100 mm, of a certain shape that can be fairly precisely mapped or modeled, of a certain weight that can be measured, that it shows certain colours, that it tastes sweet, that its skin is smooth, that it has a crisp texture, that it contains a certain number of seeds in the core, that it still has its stem, that it was harvested at a certain time, from a certain tree, in a certain region and so on.

That's why you are equivocating logic with empiricism. Instead of acknowledging that logic is, itself, amounts to knowing something significant, you try and say we can't ascertain knowledge unless we refer to some experience of the empirical world.

The whole point here is this view of knowledge (the correllationist one) is mistaken. Logic is determinable. In understanding logic itself, we grasp meaning and truth. Knowledge extends beyond the empirical. We know the "thing-in-itself" and it is NOT merely a pragmatic fiction.

I am not " equivocating logic with empiricism"; that's a vacuous claim, since I have just outlined the difference between the two. If you think my analysis is faulty then criticize and correct the parts of it you think are incorrect and say why you think they are incorrect. What's the point of making such vacuous accusations? Such accusations just amount to saying "No, you are wrong!". This is schoolyard philosophy

I never denied that logics are implicit in the ways we understand things, it's obvious that they are; but explicitation of those implicit logics only tells us about the general forms of our experience and understanding, it does not tell us anything about the world. It has no particular content, so to speak. I'm not criticising logic for failing to have any content; as though I think it should have content, and treating it as a kind of 'failed empiricism' or something like that.

I never denied that logics are implicit in the ways we understand things, it's obvious that they are; but explicitation of those implicit logics only tells us about the general forms of our experience and understanding, it does not tell us anything about the world. — John

That's the correllationist error I've pointing out form the start. Logic doesn't tell us about general forms of experience and understanding. It's the definition of the specific (the self).

Rather than being expressed in only general terms which doesn't reflect the world, logic is expressed by every single state of the world and defines its meaning. Logic, indeed, doesn't tell us about the world (e.g. which states exist). It is, however, constitutes the meaning of every single state. Without the logic of the specific apple, its self, that which distinguishes this red apple for another, one cannot not identify it in the world or in the imagination.

In a sense logic tells us everything about the world because if we didn't possess it, we wouldn't be able to distinguish individual states. We wouldn't know the meaning of anything at all.

Yes, if we did not understand the general logical concept of apple we could not know that this is an apple before us. By allowing us to understand general forms it gives us access to the specific; but it tells us nothing specific about the specific things it gives access to. It is not controversial that logic is purely formal. Look at the study of predicate logic. It shows us the what the form of a valid argument must be, but it does not tells us whether any argument is sound.

Or if, for example, because we understand the general logical concept and form of an apple and we see a very convincing plastic fake apple in front of us, we will erroneously think it is an apple until we investigate further. No amount of logic can tell us whether the object in front of us is really an apple.