624: On the Origin and Nature of the Mind

Last Tuesday we saw that in the first part of the Ethica, named De Deo (Concerning god), Spinoza tries to define being in the most abstract way.

  

He concludes that there exists only one substance, of which everything else is just a manifestation,  an attribute, he called it. The only thing he can say about  this substance is, that IT IS….

  

No idea where it came from, nor where it will end. So the substance exists and is infinite. We would say, there is only matter.

  

But Spinoza adds god to his vocabulary, say that substance = god, god = substance. In my opinion, he had to do this only because of political correctness.

  

Spinoza lived in the world of Cartesian metaphysics and thence had to solve a problem. Descartes had given the mind in a separate substance of its own.

   

That was inconsistent with Spinoza’s philosophy, for he assumed that there could exist only ONE substance, from which everything originated.

  

So, our next question is, how does Spinoza explain the existence of the mind, the Cartesian “Cogito…”

  

The Ethica consists of 5 parts with the titles: [-1-] Concerning God, [-2-] Of the Nature and Origin of the Mind,

  

[-3-] On the Origin and Nature of the Emotions, [-4-] Of Human Bondage or the Strength of the Emotions and [-5-] On the Power of the Understanding, or of Human Freedom.

  

The answer to our question has to be found in part two then. The first sentence is: 

  

“I now pass on to explaining the results, which must necessarily follow from the essence of God, or of the eternal and infinite being….”

  

Typically Spinoza, the “God, or……” In Latin he uses the word “sive” for “or” and indeed used in that way it means “or rather…” God is just another word for infinite being or substance.

  

Definition Two in Part Two of Ethica is really interesting. Don’t get confused. Just read it two or three times if necessary. Its meaning is quintessential.

    

“II. I consider as belonging to the essence of a thing that, which being given, the thing is necessarily given also, 

  

and, which being removed, the thing is necessarily removed also; in other words, that without which the thing, and which itself without the thing, can neither be nor be conceived.”

  

What Spinoza says here could be translated into “no (human) body without a mind and no mind without a (human) body”

  

In other words, no cartesian dualism, no separate mind substance and body substance.

  

Spinoza, of course, is not a substance dualist. Not only is the human being not a substance in its own right, but its constituent parts ,  the mind and the body,  are not substances either. 

     

There is only one substance, God or Nature, and thus the human mind and the human body must, like  all bodies, be only modes of the attributes of this substance.

  

Let’s recall two definitions from Part One:” IV. BY ATTRIBUTE, I mean that which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance.”

“V. BY MODE, I mean the modifications of substance, or that which exists in, and is conceived through, something other than itself.”

  

You could interpret this as, that being a human is an attribute of substance (or god or nature) and the mind is a mode of this attribuut, consisting on something other than itself.

  

And here the trouble starts. There are different opinions about what Spinoza means to say about the relation between mind and matter.

  

The most extreme: was Spinoza a kind of animist or panpsychist about nature, believing that all things are living and thinking beings with minds like the human mind?

  

At least  you can say that Spinoza was a materialist and saw the mind as one of the manifestations of matter.

Whether we can or can not have a serious conversation with a tree depends on your interpretation of Spinoza’s ideas. I leave up to you.

   

Thank you…^_^

   

The Discussion

[13:21] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): well we can see the tree and feel part of it and it part of us i guess

[13:21] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:21] CB Axel: That was my question. If everything is made by the same substance, what makes everything different?

[13:22] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): takes thinking

[13:22] CB Axel: What makes the substance that makes me me?

[13:22] CB Axel: As opposed to a tree.

[13:22] herman Bergson: The answer is quite simple CB....

[13:22] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): each blade of grass

[13:22] CB Axel: Although, I'm feeling like a tree trying to understand all this. °͜°

[13:22] Alina Gabilondo: the set of atoms

[13:22] Arianne (ariannejp): I'm a Buddhist, I know we believe everything in the world has their spirit

[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): we are all made of different basic elements

[13:22] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): each atom yes

[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but the concept of elements was unknown at that time

[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): periodic table

[13:22] herman Bergson: in our language...everything consists of molecules...or atoms of you like

[13:23] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): right

[13:23] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): one thing

[13:23] herman Bergson: what makes you and me different?

[13:23] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i disagree that Spinoza did not mean to say the word god

[13:23] Arianne (ariannejp): mind , education

[13:23] herman Bergson: Just the configuration of our molecules :-)

[13:23] CB Axel: OK. I have to go back to thinking of string theory, I guess.

[13:23] Alina Gabilondo: and spirit as mentality

[13:23] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): from his upbringing he can change his mind about the god of his parents and education

[13:24] herman Bergson: Spinoza did want to use the word god, gemma....

[13:24] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): but i think he still meant a god or infinite being

[13:24] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): not sure about that he had to use a term that others would understand somehow

[13:24] herman Bergson: Bu the did not mean a supernatural being...let alone a personal god

[13:24] CB Axel: Yes, Gemma, but that infinite being is the substance that makes everything.

[13:24] CB Axel: Right?

[13:24] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): right

[13:24] CB Axel: In a way?

[13:24] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i think

[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:25] herman Bergson: he was a clear cut materialist....

[13:25] herman Bergson: but saying that out loud would have cost him his life...

[13:25] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yep

[13:25] herman Bergson: his friend Koernbag...if I spell the name correctly was arrested for saying it....

[13:26] herman Bergson: and died in prison...

[13:26] CB Axel: Just implying it almost cost him his life.

[13:26] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): was that before he left Amsterdam or after

[13:26] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:26] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:26] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i think i had better read more about him

[13:26] herman Bergson: I see Spinoza as a normal human being with his intellect but also with his fears...

[13:26] Arianne (ariannejp): was he away from religion?

[13:27] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): free speech was unknown at that time

[13:27] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): anywhere

[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes Arianne...

[13:27] CB Axel: Very real fears, I'd say.

[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes indeed CB.....

[13:28] herman Bergson: In Part 2 of the ethica he uses the word god in all places where he could have used Nature or substance...

[13:28] Arianne (ariannejp): Why he used the word "god" ?  it might cause confuseion

[13:28] herman Bergson: I am convinced..it was just to protect himself against the worst

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes

[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): god was just a code word or masking of the word matter or substance

[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): to keep the church calm

[13:29] herman Bergson: Arianne...in 1660 you can NOT be a materialist and thence atheist as a philosopher....impossible

[13:29] Arianne (ariannejp): we know all thingy in nature has spirit even pumpkins

[13:30] herman Bergson: Well...we can disagree on that :-))

[13:30] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i agree some sort of spirit in all things

[13:31] herman Bergson: You could put it in another way, Gemma...

[13:31] herman Bergson: It is a fact that plants respond to their environment....

[13:31] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): true

[13:31] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): back to instinct

[13:31] herman Bergson: even develop features to kill opponents....like insects

[13:32] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): or trees warn each other when there is a disease

[13:32] herman Bergson: but you have to take into account the presence and level of development of a central nervous system....

[13:32] herman Bergson: and there our story about consciousness begins....

[13:33] herman Bergson: and the word MIND becomes applicable

[13:33] herman Bergson: Spinoza wasn't a panpsychist....

[13:34] Arianne (ariannejp): very low level worm can avoid danger without central nervous system

[13:34] herman Bergson: he also refers to the differences in the complexity of organisms in relation to mind

[13:34] herman Bergson: Yes Arianne

[13:34] herman Bergson: an amoebe van

[13:35] herman Bergson: a single cel organisme even....

[13:35] CB Axel: OK, but do rocks have spirit?

[13:35] herman Bergson: that is what made evolution possible

[13:35] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i would say so since they hold together

[13:35] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): does the earth itself have a spirit?

[13:35] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): from the softest to the  hardest

[13:35] herman Bergson: lol...CB....years ago there was a hype....

[13:36] herman Bergson: Take a rock as pet....a big stone...

[13:36] Arianne (ariannejp): Who can say they have not spirit or mind? Just we dn't have measuring scales

[13:36] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes

[13:36] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:36] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:36] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): pet rocks

[13:36] herman Bergson: yes Gemma....

[13:36] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hehehe

[13:36] herman Bergson: there were commercials...

[13:36] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ive heard of those

[13:36] herman Bergson: your rock pet was soooo obedient.....

[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i never had a pet rock but have a rock i picked up in 1987 in my car

[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): moved it to new cars as i bought them

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hehe ok

[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i was taking a class in geology

[13:37] herman Bergson: there...that rock has a mind for you...I assume ^_^

[13:37] CB Axel: Oh, pet rocks are good at sitting and staying, but I never saw one bring slippers or the newspaper. °͜°

[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): it has something

[13:38] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): right now I am distracted watching the hurricane move in on Florida

[13:38] herman Bergson: To get back to Arianne's remark....

[13:38] Alina Gabilondo: ohh i am sorry

[13:38] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): on the tv that is

[13:38] Alina Gabilondo: may i ask??

[13:38] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): i think in 1660 it was even dangerous to have a rock as a pet

[13:38] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): no i am north in ct

[13:38] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i agree beertje

[13:39] herman Bergson: I don't think a single person ever would have thought about that in those dys Beertje

[13:39] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): did people even have real pets?

[13:39] herman Bergson: only commercial Americans do :-)

[13:39] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): cats?

[13:39] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): dogs?

[13:39] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): smiles

[13:39] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): birds?

[13:40] herman Bergson: They certainly had dogs Gemma!

[13:40] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): they had dogs to protect and cats to eat

[13:40] Alina Gabilondo: i would like to ask

[13:40] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i thought so

[13:40] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): cats to eat mice and other vermin

[13:40] Alina Gabilondo: who is considered materialist?

[13:40] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ah

[13:40] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): no..they ate the cat

[13:40] herman Bergson: what do you mean Alina?

[13:40] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): that too

[13:41] herman Bergson: Spinoza is...

[13:41] Arianne (ariannejp): We have amulet in our car , house, wallet , wish no-crash, no fire, enrich lol

[13:41] Alina Gabilondo: i meant to ask

[13:41] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): what i materialism i think she means

[13:41] Alina Gabilondo: you said tha Spinoza was not materialist

[13:41] Alina Gabilondo: but that all around made from atoms was known BC

[13:41] Alina Gabilondo: much more

[13:42] herman Bergson: Guess you misread Alina....Spinoza IS a meterialist in his philosophy

[13:42] Alina Gabilondo: he could know that all built from small ... elements

[13:42] Alina Gabilondo: let me check

[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes he said Spinoza was a materialist in response to my comment about his use of god

[13:43] herman Bergson: Democritus indeed had his atom theory....but it was just a product of his philosophical imagination...

[13:44] herman Bergson: or..like the rationalists do....a deduction from assumptions or axioms, as Spinoza does

[13:44] Alina Gabilondo: herman Bergson: Arianne...in 1660 you can NOT be a materialist and thence atheist as a philosopher....impossible did i misread this??

[13:44] herman Bergson: nevertheless an amazing logic

[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): he said that after 4

[13:44] Arianne (ariannejp): I thouht Spinoza said material has element not only  matters but mind(god)  either ,

[13:45] herman Bergson: I meant to say that it is impossible in those days to be that, Alina....so Spinoza used the word god to cover up his materialism

[13:45] Alina Gabilondo: ohh ok

[13:45] CB Axel: Well, you could be a materialist. You just couldn't say that you were.

[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes

[13:46] herman Bergson: Just imagine...the man was almost stabbed to death by some idiot....

[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): thats how the times wer back then

[13:46] CB Axel: Unless you wanted to be seriously dead.

[13:46] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): 13:25] herman Bergson: he was a clear cut materialist....

[13:46] Alina Gabilondo: yes it was said after

[13:46] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): in some countries today one can't say the same Bejiita

[13:46] herman Bergson: CB..you can be anything as long as you keep your mouth shut ^_^

[13:46] CB Axel: Exactly!

[13:47] Alina Gabilondo: KGB inquisition

[13:47] CB Axel: I would soooo have been arrested or killed back then.

[13:47] herman Bergson: But philosophers can't

[13:47] Alina Gabilondo: :))) same phenomenon

[13:47] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed beertje, in many middleeast countries for ex they kill non muslims without thought

[13:47] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): awful

[13:47] Alina Gabilondo: burn

[13:47] Alina Gabilondo: as witch

[13:48] CB Axel: Fuego

[13:48] CB Axel: Fuego!

[13:48] CB Axel: There I go.

[13:48] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ok calm down its not burning man until next weekend!

[13:48] herman Bergson: Look at it form the positive side

[13:48] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hehe

[13:48] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:48] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:48] Alina Gabilondo: she train

[13:49] CB Axel: No Fuego!

[13:49] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i so look forward to it

[13:49] herman Bergson: When we burn CB, we all might have a nice steak :-)

[13:49] CB Axel: You wouldn't like it. Too fatty.

[13:49] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:49] herman Bergson: Ahh...she cooled down :-)

[13:49] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): (puts away fire extinguisher)

[13:49] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hehe

[13:49] Arianne (ariannejp): Ahhhh , my time is over, I need to go for work, thanks so much intersting discussion

[13:49] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i helped a little

[13:49] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ok

[[13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): another nice lecture it was

[13:50] Arianne (ariannejp): thanks everyone ,

[13:50] herman Bergson: Time for all of us to go to work Arriane :-)

[13:50] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): i'm going to bed:)

[13:50] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): true

[13:50] herman Bergson: So thank you all again for your participation....

[13:50] CB Axel: Bye, Arianne. I enjoyed hearing your ideas.

[13:50] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥

[13:50] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): will try to make it tuesday

[13:50] herman Bergson: Class dismissed...^_^

 [13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): cu next time

[13:50] Arianne (ariannejp): Working is important , we must earn for pay Jar lol

[13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:50] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): bye for now

[13:51] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman and goodnight everyone

[13:51] CB Axel: See you all on Tuesday.

[13:51] CB Axel gives Arianne's doggy a quick pat on the head

[13:51] herman Bergson: Till next Tuesday :-)

[13:51] Arianne (ariannejp): :xD

[13:51] Arianne (ariannejp): bye fo now

[13:52] Alina Gabilondo: byee

[13:53] Alina Gabilondo: thanks!!

[13:53] Alina Gabilondo: good night!!

[13:53] herman Bergson: Take care Alina :-)

623: Spinoza, the atheist

What is the problem with dead philosophers? Just the fact, that they are dead and consequently unable to answer the question: What did you mean by saying…..

  

Especially when they use a high level of abstraction. And believe me, Spinoza did. The result is, 

  

that tons of scholars claim to know the correct interpretation of what Spinoza meant by saying this or that.

  

You know how it is with the Bible or Quran. People are even willing to murder each other to get their interpretation accepted.

  

Fortunately fights aren’t that serious about the interpretation of Spinoza’s ETHICA, but indirectly it comes close,

  

if you say that Spinoza is an atheist and you agree with Spinoza. But you will be spared, because they had found a mitigating solution.

  

Spinoza is not an atheist. They made him in fact the king of pantheism.

  

In Proposition 11 of chapter 1 of the ETHICA Spinoza states:

  

“God, or substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists.”

  

Not God AND substance, but clearly God, OR (in other words) substance…..

  

Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860) already said: “Because Spinoza called his only substance  Deus (god), he created himself a special kind of difficulty. ‘”

According to Schopenhauer, he did so "to make his doctrine less offensive “. And Schopenhauer was right.

  

Words do two things. One, a word refers to an object it stands for and two, it creates all kinds of associations in our brain.

  

Take these two simple statements: “Ann is a girl” and “What a girl she is”. Twice the same four characters: G I R L

   

but you feel immediately that each statement creates its own specific thoughts and ideas in your mind.

   

Now, take the word  GOD.  Whatever it refers to, at least it brings so many connotations to your mind.

  

To make a small list of words that drift by….immaterial, spiritual, all-knowing, benevolent, creator and so on and so on….

   

Put yourself in Spinoza’s place in 1654. You always have been the smart ass and constant annoyance of the rabbis teaching your class.

  

You asked questions like “Why was that god of Israel such a mass murderer?” Then in 1656 you were banned from your community in a way never heard of before.

  

You are permanently surrounded by threats. Someone even tried to kill you with a knife. You sign your letters with the word CAUTE (Beware!)

So, it is surprising, that he tried to protect himself and at the same time not betray his deepest philosophical convictions?

  

Take the following propositions from ETHICA, chapter one:

14. There can be, or be conceived, no other substance but God.

   

 15.Whatever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived. 

  

17. God acts solely from the laws of his own nature, constrained by none.

You might conclude here that Spinoza was a deeply religious man, but he was far from that. And to get the proof……

   

Just replace the word GOD by the word MATTER and all makes immediately perfect sense and is 100% consistent with what Spinoza really meant to say.

    

Thence Spinoza was a declared materialist and atheist. However, there was and still is an almost insane fear for the factual observation, that there do not exist gods, not even one.

  

Why that is, we might discuss some other time, but that such a great and influential thinker like Spinoza would be an atheist….RED ALERT!

  

That can’t be! To save god from Spinoza’s atheism they promoted him to the founder of pantheism 

  

by emphasizing  all connotations of the word GOD in his work, which made it almost sound like theology.

  

Fortunately this abuse of his philosophy only happened after his death, but we still have to read this nonsense in Wikipedia:

  

“Although the term pantheism was not coined until after his death, Spinoza is regarded as its most celebrated advocate. His work, Ethics was the major source from which Western pantheism spread.”

   

What Wiki forgets to tell you, I’ll tell you. Schopenhauer was right. Pantheism is still some kind of theism and Spinoza was definitely not a theist.

   

Thank you….

Main Sources:

MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://www.iep.utm.edu/

http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html
Spinoza: Tractatus de emendatione intellectus (1660)
Spinoza: Ethica (1677)
Dan Garrett, (ed.), “Cambridge Companion to Spinoza” (2001)

The Discussion

[13:26] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): So the definition of pantheism is to mask your real thoughts with another word for ex god really means matter, like a secret code to avoid being murdered

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess thats what Spinoza did in his writings

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): he masked the word matter as god

[13:27] herman Bergson: At this moment pantheism is just some deit kind of relion...just check google for that

[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes Like Toland did Bejiita....

[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): not so sure

[13:28] K.T. Burnett (kayt): In other words, a closet atheist

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes

[13:28] CB Axel: But how do you know that when Spinoza wrote God in Ethica that he really meant matter?

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): thats how i define it

[13:28] herman Bergson: If you replace the word God with the word matter you just get a clear materialist metaphysics

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): at least from this

[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): that is the question i was thinking cb

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): have to check it up a bit more

[13:28] CB Axel: Like you said, he's dead. and we can't ask him.

[13:28] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): Thank you, Herman.  I agree that he and his followers had to be careful and couch his views in a politically correct way.  However, to call him an atheist, and not a pantheist, you will have to juggle words beyond their normal extension.  Spinoza proved the existence of one substance, infinite, self-created, no limits, and with self consciousness.  Seems reasonable to call that 'God,' and to see everything as an aspect of God.  And you can't substitute 'matter' for it.  Matter is limited, passive, its definition is outside of itself, and he'd view it as confusing a part with the whole.

[13:29] herman Bergson: Sorry Rhiannon....don't drop long texts in the discussion plz...thank you

[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): it could be some sort of hybrid too, like ok its no magic being but something else i can not explain for now making up all existing

[13:29] herman Bergson: He actually said so himself CB

[13:30] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): OK, i'll break it down.  Spinoza proved the existence of a substance that is non material and conscious.  Not matter.  God.

[13:30] CB Axel: Where?

[13:30] herman Bergson: At the moment God or substance....two words for the same thing....

[13:31] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): Agree with that, herman.  And it wasn't the Judeo-Christian God, why he was considered a heretic.

[13:31] herman Bergson: To spinoza substance was material.....that is what he brought in against Descartes immaterial substance of the mind

[13:32] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): substance material

[13:32] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): Substance was neither material nor immaterial.  It was the owner of the mental and the material--which were aspects of the infinite substance.

[13:32] herman Bergson: I'll get back to your question in the next lecture CB

[13:32] herman Bergson: Sorry  Rhiannon...that is just bogus metaphysics...

[13:33] CB Axel: I'm beginning to think that Spinoza was the first string theorist. °͜°

[13:33] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): And matter in Spinoza's time was extension, passive, its definition outside of itself.  Not substance, which is infinite and its definition is inside itself.

[13:33] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ha

[13:33] herman Bergson: Spinoza was a materialist and his substance was matter

[13:33] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): cb

[13:33] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): The bogus metaphysics of Spinoza.

[13:33] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): it started somewhere

[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:33] herman Bergson: In Spinoza's time extension meant matter...

[13:34] K.T. Burnett (kayt): Damn people, gotta run to a meeting

[13:34] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): bye kt

[13:34] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): herman, show how, given Spinoza's definition, and his idea of infinite substance, and his idea that even negation was a relation, that the infinite substance is matter?

[13:34] K.T. Burnett (kayt): thank you for the lecture, Herman :)

[13:34] herman Bergson: something taking space....and only matter can take space

[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ok KT

[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): bye then

[13:34] Ciska Riverstone: CB for me Spinoza just looks like a meta thinker ;)

[13:34] CB Axel: Meta thinker?

[13:34] Anktii: He would have been operating with the understandings of world that were current to him. We understand so much more about physics, chemistry and the like now. I think yu have to view his writings through that lens but I wonder what he would have thought if he were alive today...

[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed

[13:35] herman Bergson: Very true Anktii...

[13:35] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): very true

[13:35] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): herman, that would be like saying, Herman is color, as he has color as an attribute.

[13:35] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): matter, or extension was an attribute of the One Substance.

[13:36] herman Bergson: In those days as Anktii correctly states people describes the physical world in the terms and concepts they were used to....

[13:36] herman Bergson: Substance , attributes, modes....

[13:36] herman Bergson: We don't do that anymore....

[13:37] herman Bergson: another problem is the concept of infinity and eternity they used....

[13:37] herman Bergson: I haven't the slightest idea what infinity really means....

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): never ending

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but its hard to grasp

[13:37] herman Bergson: ok..I know I have a finite lifespan.....it will end one day

[13:38] herman Bergson: but understand it would go on for ever is beyond my understanding....

[13:38] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): Hi Stranger

[13:38] herman Bergson: or you just treat it as some technical term

[13:38] Ciska Riverstone: why' is that herman? especially from a standpoint of matter it does ?

[13:38] Stranger Nightfire: hello Rhi

[13:39] herman Bergson: so...infinity just means not finite....

[13:39] Ciska Riverstone: u become dust and water and other kind of substances

[13:39] herman Bergson: Like they critisized Sartre about L’Etre et le Neant....

[13:39] herman Bergson: the not being....

[13:40] herman Bergson: just a negation of the verb to be

[13:40] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): this is the never ending question and discussion

[13:40] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): Sartre had a denotationalist view of language--'not' referred to 'nothingness.'

[13:40] herman Bergson: It is indeed Rhiannon :-)

[13:41] herman Bergson: The main problem is that we only have our brain as the tool to work with...

[13:41] herman Bergson: and it is a limited tool though a lot of philosophers think it is the ultimate tool

[13:42] herman Bergson: The main problem in philosophy is that we constantly run into our own limitations...

[13:42] herman Bergson: Like Clint Eastwood said...A man has to know his limitations,,,,,punk :-)

[13:42] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): That is a problem for understanding Spinoza.  He uses concepts that we don't use in ordinary life, or, if we do, in a different meaning.  Doesn't mean he's meaningless, but one suspects one is learning a technical language, rather than something about the world.

[13:43] herman Bergson: You could say that, yes...

[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): its different for sure

[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): and that is what we are working on

[13:43] herman Bergson: But I think, a main reason for  his abstract level and language is that he tried to hide his plan materialism

[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: its a language try to make relations like math does  - hence I see him as a meta thinker

[13:44] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): Ciska, he certainly tried to imitate math.  His whole 'geometric' approach to things.

[13:44] herman Bergson: what is a meta thinker for you Ciska?

[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: he wasn't interessted in explaining the world but the concept of the world

[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: and on that basis for me (and for einstein ;) ) he  is a pantheist

[13:46] herman Bergson: I guess we disagree here Ciska ^_^

[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: yes we do

[13:46] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): He isn't a pantheist the way a Hindu might be, who sees human consciousness as an expression of God consciousness.

[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: heheh

[13:46] herman Bergson: as may be on your interpretation of Einstein’s words on several occasions :-)

[13:46] herman Bergson: The Hindu is a theist

[13:47] Ciska Riverstone: quote einstein: "Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. "

[13:47] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): Right, herman.  I'm conceding that maybe 'God' is used in a special sense in Spinoza, but it still remains that the One Substance is infinite and thinking, and we are aspects of it.  So 'pantheism' isn't just a phonied up euphemism.

[13:48] Second Life: Ciska Riverstone gave you Einstein on spinoza.

[13:48] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): perhaps we will understand his terms better as we move along

[13:49] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed there are much to find out about this guy I thnk

[13:49] herman Bergson: My point is that Spinoza never is talking about a god with all the historical and cultural connotations that come with that word....and inconsistent with his philosophy.where he uses the word god he could have used the word matter...and all discussion would be over

[13:50] Ciska Riverstone: no - because matter does not take decisions.

[13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): he used the word god simply to protect himself from the church and an educated reader would find out he really meant matted

[13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): matter

[13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): god was just a secret code word

[13:50] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): Not really, as given what he says, we'd end up with a hylozoistic view of matter.

[13:50] CB Axel: But he did use the word god. Sure, he could have used that to cover up his atheism, but I don't see any proof that that's what he was doing.

[13:50] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): Matte that thinks, that is every where, that is timeless.

[13:51] herman Bergson: I guess there never will be any proof Ciska...

[13:51] Ciska Riverstone: he used it as a concept cb - thats how I understand it

[13:51] herman Bergson: and the essence of matter is that it takes dimensions....it has extension

[13:51] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:52] herman Bergson: Sorry...was your remark CB :-)

[13:52] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): But that's not how Spinoza would expression it.  He would say, the One Substance has extension, is material.  It would always be a predication of it, not a substance.

[13:52] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): *express it, even

[13:53] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): Ditto.  The Mind.

[13:53] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): The One Subtance has a mind, is mental.

[13:53] herman Bergson: Teh proof that he was covering up his materialism an atheism can be deduced from his very own statements tho

[13:53] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ah

[13:54] herman Bergson: extension and substance are almost synonymous

[13:54] herman Bergson: there is no substance without extension and no extension without substance

[13:55] herman Bergson: they didnt know how to express them otherwise in those days

[13:55] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): But it is still a category mistake to equate the two.

[13:55] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): true

[13:55] herman Bergson: now we have our nuclear physics.....tell everyone that Democritus was right :-))

[13:55] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): herman, would you consider Swedenborg an atheist?  He thought all minds have to have bodies, and God's body was the universe.

[13:56] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): atoms, leptons, hadrons, gravity, eectromagnetic radiation

[13:56] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): they did not have any of that at that time

[13:56] Anktii: Interesting discussion but I need to be elsewhere. Take care all

[13:56] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): any knowledge of such things

[13:56] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): it is time

[13:56] herman Bergson: That is poetry rhiannon

[13:56] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): bye, Anktii

[13:56] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): see you soon

[13:56] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): bye ANktii

[13:56] herman Bergson: Quite some discussion today,,....

[13:57] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed nice

[13:57] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): bye Anktii

[13:57] herman Bergson: Don'tthink it is wise to go on for ever....

[13:57] ϻг. Γλπdσϻ (jamar.elton): have a good rest of the day everyone.

[13:57] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:57] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:57] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): Perhaps, herman,  Perhaps.  But some philosophers (like Nietzsche and the later Carnap,) thought all theology and metaphysics, all philosophy is poetry.

[13:57] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥

[13:57] herman Bergson: Let's take it to the next class :-)

[13:57] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa cu then

[13:57] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): Good discussion, herman.

[13:57] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ok

[13:57] Alina Gabilondo: thanks and good night for all!!

[13:57] CB Axel: OK. See you on Thursday. °͜°

[13:57] Rhiannon Oset (rhiannon.dragoone): Take care, everyone.

[13:57] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:57] herman Bergson: Thank you all !

[13:57] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): hope to make it tuesday

[13:57] Alina Gabilondo: :))

[13:57] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): will see

[13:57] herman Bergson: Class dismissed....^_^

[13:58] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): bye all

[13:58] Alina Gabilondo: byee all

[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: take care everyone

[13:58] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): I have to go, thank you Herman, have a goodnight all

[13:58] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): bye all

[13:58] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): you too beertje

622: Is Spinoza a pantheist....?

While wading through all kinds of texts and information in preparation for this lecture, I eventually ran into a Mister John Toland, born November 1670. He died in 1722. He was an Irish rationalist and freethinker.
  
In 1690, at age 19, the University of Edinburgh conferred a master's degree on him. He then got a scholarship to spend two years studying at University of Leiden in Holland, ….
  
What is so special about him in relation to Spinoza? 
   
The chain of events was like this. I simply assumed, that Spinoza is a materialist and consequently someone who did not assume the existence of more than matter.
   
An other way to say it is, that Spinoza was an atheist, although I dislike this word very much, because it is a misleading term, but about that maybe later.
   
Thus Spinoza materialist and atheist. To my astonishment, however, I ran into texts, which called Spinoza a pantheist. What in the world is  a pantheist and where did that qualification came from?
   
WIKIPEDIA : Pantheism is the belief that all of reality is identical with divinity,  or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. 
     
Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god. 
     
In the West, pantheism was formalized as a separate theology and philosophy based on the work of the 17th-century philosopher Baruch Spinoza  
    
whose book Ethics was an answer to Descartes' famous dualist theory that the body and spirit are separate. 
     
Although the term pantheism was not coined until after his death, Spinoza is regarded as its most celebrated advocate. His work, “Ethics” was the major source from which Western pantheism spread. -END W-
     
I’ll ignore this almost deist description of pantheism and comment only on what is said about Spinoza.
   
To begin with. Spinoza wasn’t the most celebrated advocate of pantheism in his days at all. 
     
It is because of a complete misinterpretation by others, that they later have begun to use him for their pantheist theology.
         
Furthermore,  the term pantheism did not exist in Spinoza’s time. And here appears John Toland  on stage. He was 7 when Spinoza died.
     
He was a remarkable man. In his early 20s he spent two years in Leiden, where he definitely has studied the works of Spinoza.
     
In his first book “Christianity not Mysterious” (1696), he argued that the divine revelation of the Bible contains no true mysteries; 
     
rather, all the dogmas of the faith can be understood and demonstrated by properly trained reason from natural principles.
     
Had he then been in Dublin he definitely would have been executed because of this book. Instead three copies of his book were publicly “executed”, that is, burned.
      
After Christianity Not Mysterious, Toland's views became gradually more radical. His opposition to hierarchy in the church also led to opposition to hierarchy in the state; 
     
bishops and kings, in other words, were as bad as each other, and monarchy had no God-given sanction as a form of government. 
      
Poland used the term pantheism for the first time in a publication in 1704 and it is said, that he used the term to describe the philosophy of Spinoza.
       
Let’s have a closer look at the historical situation. In the period 1650 -1750 people discovered that describing and explaining  physical phenomena 
      
using mathematics, were more effective and enlightening than using biblical and theological explanations.
      
Toland was exemplary as a representative of this new insights. Like Spinoza he wrote political treatises in which he argued against the theological justification of the power of the state.
      
What was impossible in those days and even life threatening, was to openly state atheist ideas  and philosophy .
      
I think that David Berman in his article”Disclaimers in Blount and Toland", in “Atheism from the Reformation to the Enlightenment”, (Oxford, 1992) is right,
      
in claiming that Toland deliberately obscured his real atheism so as to avoid prosecution whilst attempting to subliminally influence unknowing readers.
        
Except a commentary on Descartes’ philosophy, Spinoza thereafter never dared to publish a book under his own name
      
and he had the same reasons for doing so as John Toland.
      
We’ll elaborate some more on this issue in the next lecture…Thank you ^_^
      



The Discussion


[13:30] CB Axel: Do you think these men helped to bring about modern democracy?
[13:31] herman Bergson: I think so, yes....
[13:31] herman Bergson: One important step was the separation of the State and the Church
[13:31] Alina Gabilondo: no doubts
[13:31] CB Axel nods
[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:32] herman Bergson: And in those days the belief in the god-given power and authority to king by god was fading
[13:32] CB Axel: So it wasn't just Spinoza and Toland who thought that. Interesting.
[13:33] herman Bergson: This Toland wrote dozens of pamphlets and books against this politics dominated by religion
[13:33] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): could he do that here in the Netherlands ?
[13:33] herman Bergson: No it was what you could call the "Zeitgeist" :-)
[13:34] herman Bergson: The standard tactics in those days was threatening the author and on the other hand completely ignore him
[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): religion and politics is no good combination for sure
[13:35] Roger Amdahl: religion dictating politics is even worse I think
[13:35] CB Axel: Yes. They need to be completely separate.
[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed
[13:35] Alina Gabilondo: heee
[13:35] Alina Gabilondo: :)))
[13:35] herman Bergson: Well  you see it happen in Western Europe....
[13:36] herman Bergson: Since the church lost its grip on politics its power is rapidly declining
[13:36] herman Bergson: While in Islamic countries they don't even understand such a separation of powers...
[13:37] herman Bergson: With all consequences we see today
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): very true and look how this plays out, not good at all
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): they still live like on mid ages
[13:37] Joseph Bard (science24): they don't represent the true Islam
[13:37] Ciska Riverstone: well don't forget to mention the substitute religion which is neoliberalism
[13:37] herman Bergson: That statement is another motivation to start a war Joseph...
[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed i don’t think the true islam is bad but misinterpretation after misinterpretation have had devastating effects
[13:38] herman Bergson: for WHO knows the true Islam....
[13:38] Joseph Bard (science24): I am not into that Herman :)
[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but I’m not a religions expert of any kind
[13:38] Roger Amdahl: The USA has a separation between Religion and politics in the Grondwet ( eng ??)  ,  but it is still a very religious part of the world
[13:38] herman Bergson: Well the cahtolics have atleast ONE person who tells waht the true religion is...the pope...:-)
[13:38] herman Bergson: Constitution, Roger
[13:39] CB Axel: I believe that people should vote their according to their beliefs. But at what point do their beliefs start to intrude on the lives of those who believe differently?
[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:39] Roger Amdahl: pfff  that same pope also states that AIDS is a very bad disease,  but using condoms is more bad,  can't take that man serious
[13:40] herman Bergson: Well CB, when you read Dawkins "The god Delusion" you get your answer
[13:40] Roger Amdahl: Oww,  Dawkins, Christopher Hitchinson are my favorites
[13:40] herman Bergson: Taking religious leaders serious is something else  Roger ^_^
[13:41] herman Bergson: But getting back to Spinoza......claiming that he is the godfather of pantheism......what a misconception
[13:41] CB Axel: Roger, there is another way to prevent AIDS than using condoms that the Catholic church would be ok with. Abstinence.
[13:42] herman Bergson: Especially at the end of the 19th century they made him the man of pantheism....
[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): sex for pleasure is for some reason a terrible thing in most religions
[13:42] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): did no one argue against that?
[13:42] Roger Amdahl: Yes CB  .. just ignore natural needs,  the origin off most life (sex) .. is that smart to propagate ?
[13:43] Alina Gabilondo: did Spinoza personally claimed what is his confession??
[13:43] Alina Gabilondo: claim*
[13:43] herman Bergson: He had no confession Alina....
[13:44] CB Axel: Didn't Spinoza say something about God being in everything?
[13:44] Alina Gabilondo: he was later interpret as pantheist
[13:44] herman Bergson: He used the word 'god', yes...
[13:44] Alina Gabilondo: cannot be
[13:44] CB Axel: I seem to remember that he said god is the natural world.
[13:44] Alina Gabilondo: if he reflected about God
[13:44] herman Bergson: He shouldn’t have done that but in his days he AHD to if he wanted to stay alive
[13:44] Alina Gabilondo: what ever he meant
[13:46] herman Bergson: But pantheism isn't welcomed by the Catholic church....for them it still is a kind of atheism
[13:46] Alina Gabilondo: then may be nothing wrong if he was considered pantheist
[13:46] Alina Gabilondo: logically
[13:46] herman Bergson: that depends.....
[13:46] Alina Gabilondo: later
[13:46] Alina Gabilondo: who studied his works with attention
[13:46] herman Bergson: the word THEISM is culturally too loaded with all kinds of religious connotations
[13:47] CB Axel: In America at that time, Spinoza may have been burned as a witch.
[13:47] herman Bergson: and panTHEISM drags that load with  it...
[13:47] Alina Gabilondo: like there is a God but we do not name him??
[13:47] herman Bergson: Something like that.....
[13:47] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:48] herman Bergson: just read what wikipedia writes under Pantheism....a horrible text....
[13:48] Alina Gabilondo: but this is the best way to manipulate
[13:48] Alina Gabilondo: with meanings
[13:48] Alina Gabilondo: i read today too
[13:48] herman Bergson: indeed Alina.....that is why I dislike the word atheist so much...
[13:49] Alina Gabilondo: when i saw your subject about class
[13:49] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): did every one agree in those days, to call Spinoza a pantheist?
[13:49] Alina Gabilondo: atheist deny god
[13:49] herman Bergson: None did, Beertje....
[13:49] Alina Gabilondo: but deny something u agree with its existence??
[13:49] herman Bergson: only after his death he was labeled with that word
[13:49] Alina Gabilondo: u cannot deny nothing
[13:50] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): but there must be a man or woman, who said, hey wait a minute?
[13:50] CB Axel: So I cannot deny unicorns?
[13:50] herman Bergson: That is an old debate Alina
[13:50] herman Bergson: But it is based on a fallacy....
[13:50] Alina Gabilondo: heheeh humanity always talk the same
[13:51] herman Bergson: Such statements use the word "exist" like a property word similar to calling something e.g. "red"
[13:51] herman Bergson: But to say that something exists is not equivalent to saying something is red
[13:52] Alina Gabilondo: i did not get your point, sorry
[13:52] herman Bergson: for to be red a thing first has to exist.... which makes existence quite something different from any ordinary property
[13:52] Alina Gabilondo: right
[13:53] herman Bergson: We'll discuss it later sometime Alina :((
[13:53] Roger Amdahl: There is no prove in favour or against any God,  hence it's called 'believing'
[13:53] Alina Gabilondo: ok i will say
[13:53] herman Bergson: First of all we have to ask the question where does the word 'god' ever come from....
[13:54] herman Bergson: Who invented it and for what reason and to what purpose?
[13:54] Alina Gabilondo: in different languages
[13:54] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): thats a go(o)d question indeed
[13:54] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:55] herman Bergson: But that is quite another discussion too, Bejiita ^_^
[13:55] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): true
[13:55] herman Bergson: I'll save that for some other time :-)
[13:55] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:55] Roger Amdahl: Ancient fear and not knowing why things occured  made people think there was a higher power
[13:55] Roger Amdahl: and the word God ??  does it matter ??
[13:55] herman Bergson: I'd say it in a different way Roger....
[13:56] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): God is only the english word for it
[13:56] herman Bergson: What people seems to be unable to stand is the simple observation I DO NOT KNOW
[13:56] Ciska Riverstone: god is a placeholder - just like ufo is
[13:56] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:56] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): dutch too
[13:56] herman Bergson: we have some weird drive to believe that there is an answer to every question....
[13:56] Alina Gabilondo: ohhh no :))))
[13:56] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but Swedish is almist same
[13:57] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): we say gud
[13:57] Alina Gabilondo: the more i know the less i can answer
[13:57] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): almost
[13:57] Alina Gabilondo: :)))
[13:57] Alina Gabilondo: paradox
[13:57] herman Bergson: and that drive causes man to jump to conclusions based on I DO NOT KNOW
[13:57] Roger Amdahl: Looking for those answers brought us science
[13:57] Ciska Riverstone: well even when we do not know we must take decisions
[13:57] herman Bergson: Sokrates said as his final conclusion : I KNOW THAT I DO NOT KNOW
[13:57] Ciska Riverstone: thats a fact
[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: because life throws something on us
[13:58] herman Bergson: indeed Ciska
[13:58] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: like for example weather
[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: so we use a blackbox
[13:58] Alina Gabilondo: i do not know too
[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: called god for example
[13:58] CB Axel: How did we get from using a god or gods to explain natural phenomena to using science instead?
[13:58] Alina Gabilondo: all life study and die like fool
[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: to explain why it rains until we know better
[13:58] CB Axel: Why was God not able to answer those questions any more?
[13:59] Alina Gabilondo: i think it is too simple about rain
[13:59] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): because god never have given anyone answers except from someone dreaming something about it
[13:59] Ciska Riverstone: and the church used the blackbox god to organize society structures in the past which made industrialization possible
[13:59] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): something which don’t exist cant answer simple
[13:59] Ciska Riverstone: just as an example
[14:00] herman Bergson: Well...I guess we'd better come to a conclusion of this discussion :-)
[14:00] Ciska Riverstone: ;)
[14:00] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and some people might realize that and start lookig for other ways to find answers and voila science was created
[14:00] herman Bergson: For this debate is already going on for centuries and we might continue likewise :-)
[14:00] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): eheheh
[14:00] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): as it should be
[14:00] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): :)
[14:00] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[14:01] herman Bergson: So let's focus on the so called pantheism of Spinoza next time and come to some conclusion there :-)
[14:01] herman Bergson: May I thank you all for your participation again :-)
[14:01] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): good idea
[14:01] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[14:01] CB Axel: Thank you, Herman.
[14:01] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): cu thursday then
[14:01] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[14:02] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): I have to go, have a goodnight:)
[14:02] Alina Gabilondo: thanks u so much!!!
[1[14:02] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): bye all
[14:02] Roger Amdahl: Thanks Herman,  see you next time
[14:02] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[14:02] Ciska Riverstone: bye everyone
[14:02] Alina Gabilondo whispers: byee good night!!! :)
[14:02] herman Bergson: leaves us with one question.....:-)
[14:02] herman Bergson: Who created Ciska today ? :-))
[14:03] bergfrau Apfelbaum: Thank you herman & class!!
[14:03] bergfrau Apfelbaum: and amen! spinoza
[14:03] bergfrau Apfelbaum: lol
[14:03] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ***** APPPPPPPLLLLAAAUUUSSSSEEEEEEE***********
[14:03] herman Bergson: My pleasure, bergie ^_^