627: The Determinism of Spinoza

In the previous lecture we paid attention to the problem of Modality, that is, the question whether something necessarily exists or only possibly exists.

  

When you look at physics, matter seems to exist necessarily. Spinoza used the word Substance. It can take many shapes, but eventually it necessarily exist.

   

Thinking as a mode of existing of the substance must be necessary too. You can not deny the fact without facing a contradiction. “I do not think” is a thought too.

  

In my view all these views are the product of our brain. It is a tool and in such considerations  you also experience its limitations.

   

But all this leads to the next confrontation with our limitations. We all may have asked ourselves once the questions “Where do I come from, Where does the universe come from?”

  

And we are inclined to say….there has to be some explanation. And science puts indeed a lot of effort in finding the answers.

   

Thus is born the Principle of Sufficient Reason. It is the expression of our attitude to assume that eventually for everything there has to be a reason or explanation.

  

A simple formulation of the principle is as follows: For every fact F, there must be a sufficient reason why F is the case.

  

This looks like a rather intuitive rule. You are easily inclined to accept it. We will not start a debate on the question what is or is not a fact,

  

but yet we have to answer the question what kind of things require a reason? Do we give a reason for the existence of things only or also for the non-existence of things?

  

Another question is, of course, what may count as a explanation? A logical deduction? Empirical evidence  or a belief in something?

  

We run into a big problem: if we accept that everything has an explanation, we end up in an infinite regress…

   

We have an explanation for A, which explanation is explained by an explanation which is itself explained by ad infinitum….

  

This would mean, that there are no brute facts, facts that have no explanation. But then at least explain why they do not have an explanation !

   

Spinoza’s earliest statement of the Principle of Sufficient Reason appears in his first published work, 

  

the 1663 geometrical exposition of Descartes’ Principles of Philosophy. The eleventh axiom of Part I of the book states:

    

Nothing exists of which it cannot be asked, what is the cause or reason, why it exists.

  

Each link in a causal chain is preceded by infinitely many causes and is followed by infinitely many effects. Each link also provides at least part of the explanation for the existence of the following link.

  

This problem of the infinite regress and the question of a possible first uncaused cause is deeply rooted in the way our brain operates.

   

The Ancient Greek’s brain operated already like that. Anaximander, one of the earliest of the pre-Socratics, born 610 bce, is usually credited  with being the first to make use of it. 

  

Due to our necessary condition to understand our reality in terms of causality, our wish to have an explanation for everything, we also invent  an explanation of  all causes, the uncaused cause.

   

That is where religious thinking comes  from and Spinoza put an end to that by assuming Substance as the uncaused cause.

Spinoza had to accept another serious consequence of his point of view. When EVERYTHING has a cause, can be explained,

  

then everything is determined by its preceding cause, in other words, whole reality is one determined chain of causes and effects. No room for free will, for instance, then.

    

Just think it over…..Thank you ^_^

The Discussion

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

[13:25] herman Bergson: Don't keep your thoughts under your hat, Gemma ^_^

[13:25] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): Spinoza accepts uncaused cause

[13:25] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): hard one to swallow

[13:25] herman Bergson: HE had to yes

[13:25] CB Axel: That's what I had been saying weeks ago. We have no free will because the interactions in our brains were started long ago. °͜°

[13:26] CB Axel: Back when we were all stardust.

[13:26] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hmm tricky idea indeed

[13:26] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i can see why most of his writings were kept private

[13:26] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): for a long time

[13:26] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but maybe not everything have a root cause and is determined from long back

[13:26] herman Bergson: yes we have a serious problem  here

[13:26] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): it might be just partial

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): some things I do might be based on things happening around me. For ex a friend comes to visit saturday since he have some time over

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and thus that determines my cations a bit for that day

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

[13:28] herman Bergson: What strikes me in matters like this is that we have no means to solve this problem

[13:28] CB Axel: Yes, Bejiita, but your friend's actions were also set in motions eons ago. Nothing is random.

[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): right

[13:28] herman Bergson: I mean...on the one hand we think in terms of causality....

[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): might be but indeed it is impossible to think in a such way

[13:29] herman Bergson: on the other hand we think in terms of begin and end

[13:29] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): and time

[13:30] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): time is an invention of mankind

[13:30] herman Bergson: I see philosophers struggle with is....and then?

[13:30] herman Bergson: Spinoza got into a lot of problems with his views of absolute determinism

[13:31] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i guess he did

[13:31] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): did he solve these problems?

[13:31] herman Bergson: You can spend the rest of your life on studying what is all written about this subject regarding Spinoza....

[13:32] herman Bergson: But also that makes me wonder....

[13:32] herman Bergson: Typically philosopher's thing...

[13:32] herman Bergson: Nobody understands Spinoza (and other philosophers too).....

[13:33] herman Bergson: You get tons of interpretations....

[13:33] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

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

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

[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): some things are more complex then we can grasp

[13:33] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): well then we are in good company

[13:33] herman Bergson: I try to see Spinoza as a normal human being.....

[13:34] herman Bergson: living his own life....not as this huge MIND primarily

[13:34] herman Bergson: So I think he was a jewish boy completely done with this Jahweh.....this personal god

[13:35] herman Bergson: and influenced by Descartes he creatded his own materialist philosophy.....

[13:35] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i think so too

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

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

[13:35] herman Bergson: bending in all directions to prevent being accused of blasphemy and atheism

[13:36] herman Bergson: and yet wishing to propagate his ideas...

[13:36] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): seems so for sure

[13:36] herman Bergson: That is my impression of Spinoza

[13:36] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): he had a lot of time to think while he was making lenses, he was working al alone

[13:36] CB Axel: He was born at the wrong time.

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

[13:36] herman Bergson: In what sense, CB?

[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): that could be said of many philosophers who developed new ideas

[13:37] CB Axel: If he had been born now, his ideas wouldn't be considered so dangerous.

[13:37] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): i'm not sure about that

[13:37] herman Bergson: But you also could put it this way....

[13:37] CB Axel: He would be more free to express his ideas and get feedback.

[13:38] herman Bergson: due to the fact that HE had such ideas they are nowadays no longer a danger

[13:38] CB Axel: Yes. As I was saying what I said, that thought did come to me. °͜°

[13:38] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): that is what happens

[13:38] CB Axel: Thank you, Spinoza!

[13:38] herman Bergson: :-)

[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah ㋡

[13:39] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): new thought appears and all the philosophers think

[13:39] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:39] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:39] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): about it

[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hehe yes

[13:39] herman Bergson: In his way Spinoza was rather unique in his time....

[13:40] CB Axel: Some get assassinated. But at least their sacrifice gets us thinking.

[13:40] herman Bergson: tho atheism is of all ages and times of course

[13:40] herman Bergson: And for many the uncaused cause was god of course....in christianity a personal god

[13:41] CB Axel: Ya know, I don't mind if people want to call the uncaused cause god as long as that god doesn't start telling me how to live my life.

[13:42] herman Bergson: I guess we all still have to ponder about necessity of existence and the principle of sufficient reason and causality :-)

[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): YES

[13:42] CB Axel: As far as I'm concerned, god can have started the universe, but then he needed to butt out.

[13:42] CB Axel: He caused enough trouble just putting us here. °͜°

[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hmm

[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hehehe

[13:43] herman Bergson: What puzzles me most is the question...Why on earth starts a homo sapiens thinking about some personal creative force?

[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): me too a bit

[13:44] herman Bergson: If you take the principle of sufficient reason.....what REASON is there to think along that lines?

[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: me not at all ,)

[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): at that time we needed an explanation

[13:44] herman Bergson: Explain Ciska ....:-)

[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: simple psychology

[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): the problem today is people refuse to give up on religion even there is science and instead use the religion to oppress others to gain power and start wars

[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: when you have no idea u take what you see

[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: what you see is people and relationships

[13:45] CB Axel: I think we all want to know why something has happened so that maybe we can cause or prevent that something from happening again.

[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: then you put the unexplainable in the same pattern

[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: and make it bigger

[13:45] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): bet many scientists are very religious

[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: hirarchy thinking

[13:45] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): and very scientific

[13:45] herman Bergson: Ahhh yes sure, that is what I assume too....but many take their ideas for real....how can THAT be?

[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: that works form caveman on

[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): might be but hopefully they dont think about religion as a means of power and to control others

[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): cause thats where things get nasty

[13:46] bergfrau Apfelbaum: i am happy to be here! thanks stork *blond grins*

[13:46] herman Bergson: No Bejiita....let's stick to psychology of the individual

[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): politics and religion for ex dont mix

[13:46] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): very true

[13:46] herman Bergson: Bergie :-)

[13:47] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): altho many try to make that be

[13:47] bergfrau Apfelbaum: lol

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

[13:48] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): as an aside this sim looks terrible!!!!!!!!

[13:48] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): gets worse very year!!!

[13:48] herman Bergson: The point is.....and other have tried  that already often.....if you explain this behavior which evolves into religious behavior  from psychology....you still do not convince the religious person, that he lives in phatasies

[13:49] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): no you never can

[13:49] CB Axel: So, Ciska, you feel that people look at their relationships with one another and use that as a basis for looking at everything in the world?

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: thats how it started cb

[13:49] CB Axel: And so they create a personal god.

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: thats how religion started

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

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: and then it was taken over

[13:50] Ciska Riverstone: to control and organize

[13:50] Ciska Riverstone: bigger units of people

[13:50] Ciska Riverstone: from tribe

[13:50] Ciska Riverstone: to bigger tribe

[13:50] Ciska Riverstone: to landcapes

[13:50] Ciska Riverstone: and such

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

[13:50] Ciska Riverstone: it made it possible to suppress people

[13:51] Ciska Riverstone: and to gain power for individuals

[13:51] herman Bergson: But even when we assume this is true Ciska....why don't get religious people convinced of it too :-)

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

[13:51] Ciska Riverstone: because of its hierarchy

[13:51] Ciska Riverstone: well because peoples ideas of what "God" is change

[13:51] herman Bergson: you mean..when the leaders of the tribe believe, all members of the tribe believe?

[13:51] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): most of them

[13:52] Ciska Riverstone: u can look at it from psychological point of view

[13:52] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): and those that don’t try to leave

[13:52] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): and find another tribe

[13:52] Ciska Riverstone: when u are a kid of 5 you do not grasp the concept of quantumphysics

[13:52] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:52] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:52] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): or they were not allowed to meave

[13:52] Ciska Riverstone: and you need to learn social rules of your surrounding

[13:52] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i stil dont!!!!!!

[13:52] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): leave

[13:52] herman Bergson: I did :-)))

[13:52] Ciska Riverstone: how do you do that?

[13:52] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): forget 5

[13:52] CB Axel: Me, too, Gemma!

[13:52] Ciska Riverstone: hehehe

[13:52] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): or string theory

[13:53] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): which is more the going thing

[13:53] herman Bergson: I played guitar as a kid :-)

[13:53] herman Bergson: Well...I guess we aren't going to solve the issue today :-)))

[13:53] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): nope as usual 

[13:53] Ciska Riverstone: of course we can use fairy tales instead

[13:53] Ciska Riverstone: and we do

[13:53] herman Bergson: So I guess we need another lecture :-)

[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: or we use coca cola advertising and we do

[13:54] CB Axel: I consider religion to be a fairy tale.

[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: ;)

[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: see?

[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: yes u can see it like that

[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: so the interessting point is

[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: what happens to humanity

[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: if you stop telling fairy tales

[13:54] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): btw i am dressed this way because i am working on halloween stories

[13:54] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): agree CB

[13:54] herman Bergson: Maybe extinct like the dinosaurs one day...

[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: is it psychologically possible to live without?

[13:55] Ciska Riverstone: and organize us in bigger unites like states?

[13:55] Ciska Riverstone: or not

[13:55] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): actually we stil have some dinos around...... in teh sky

[13:55] CB Axel: Ciska, that's like saying that without god we'll all become murderers, because we need god to give us morals.

[13:55] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): the birds yes

[13:55] Ciska Riverstone: no it is not

[13:55] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes

[13:55] Ciska Riverstone: i'm really curious about this world

[13:55] Ciska Riverstone: if we do not replace belief

[13:56] Ciska Riverstone: and extinct it completely

[13:56] herman Bergson: I agree Ciska...

[13:56] Ciska Riverstone: what will happen?

[13:56] Ciska Riverstone: for example

[13:56] CB Axel: I'd sure like to try it.

[13:56] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): in some cases religion make us to murderers, look at IS

[13:56] herman Bergson: That fascinates me too

[13:56] Ciska Riverstone: the belief in our  economic system is a fairy tale too

[13:56] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): bej they are not religious

[13:56] Ciska Riverstone: there is no reality to it

[13:56] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): they are just using that as a cover

[13:56] Ciska Riverstone: just the one we give it

[13:56] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): or a reason to be

[13:56] Ciska Riverstone: so that one can be the next to be extincted

[13:57] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): maybe i will make it home in time tuesday

[13:57] herman Bergson: You have to keep in mind that we are still limitied creatures...

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

[13:58] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hmm might be indeed.

[13:58] herman Bergson: close to the other primates

[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: we need to see that we use beliefs to organize our every day lives

[13:58] CB Axel: The economic system is a bit of a fairy tale, but people are experimenting with new models all the time: bitcoin, air b&b, Uber...

[13:58] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): its so complex everything

[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: all of us- atheists as well

[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: which are fairy tales again

[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: because its about relational stuff

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

[13:58] CB Axel: Ciska, we have laws to organize our lives. And we don't need a god to agree to what laws get enacted.

[13:59] Ciska Riverstone: I spent yet another 2 hours of discussing economics with an American friend

[13:59] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:59] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:59] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): time to move on

[13:59] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:59] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥

[13:59] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): herman

[13:59] Ciska Riverstone: who does not seem to grasp the concept that we put worth to stuff

[13:59] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): and all

[13:59] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ***** APPPPPPPLLLLAAAUUUSSSSEEEEEEE***********

[13:59] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hugs Gemma

[13:59] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty herman & Class

[13:59] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma....:-)

[13:59] Ciska Riverstone: take care

[13:59] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and everyone else

[13:59] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): cu next time

[13:59] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:59] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ok

[13:59] herman Bergson: Thank you all again.....^_^

626 The Necessary lecture.... on necessity

There is something special in Spinoza’s philosophy and that is the way he looks at modality in relation to what exists.

  

What does that mean. Modality refers to the way things are. Things exist by necessity or by contingency.

  

In other words, something could not NOT exists or something exists just coincidently. It can exist and equally it could not.

    

So we may say that there are two sorts of existent entities: those that exist but could have failed to exist,   

  

and those that could not have failed to exist. Entities of the first sort are contingent beings; entities of the second sort are necessary beings. 

  

Philosophers ponder about such things and in Spinoza’s philosophy it is an issue of great importance.

  

Try to think about it yourself. What could necessity mean…..a necessary being? It can be anything that exists. Can you think of one. This is heavy philosophical stuff.

   

What makes it the case that they exist necessarily? Is there a grounding for their necessary existence? Do some of them depend on others? 

    

Believe me, I have quite some trouble to understand the concept of necessity, if you think, that our existence is a continent fact in the universe.

   

It might help, when you imagine that a necessary being has the quality of following inevitably from logical, physical, or moral laws.

   

This may be helpful. Now we can say, that for instance follows from the laws of nature, is necessary. I could NOT have been otherwise.

   

Yes, that’s it. Now you can see that a lot of things in the world around us is based on the fact that some things that are, have to be necessary.

   

We can not deny these things. If we did, physical science would be impossible. About every process we had to say…..well, it can happen yes, but maybe not, I am not sure.

   

Now I understand how philosophers can question the necessity of some things to be. It is not about necessary in the sense that we need something, like it is necessary, that we have food,

   

but necessary in the sense that you can not deny the existence. That is jus impossible, like you can not deny the processes in a nuclear reaction, when you put A and B together in a jar.

   

Here we learn something new: A + B causes C. Necessity is closely related with causation, another toy of philosophers.

   

This brings immediately David Hume (1711 - 1776) to mind.Hume shows that experience does not tell us much. 

    

Of two events, A and B, we say that A causes B when the two always occur together, that is, are constantly conjoined. 

  

Whenever we find A, we also find B, and we have a certainty that this conjunction will continue to happen.  

  

Once we realize that “A must bring about B” is tantamount merely to “Due to their constant conjunction, 

  

we are psychologically certain that B will follow A”, then we are left with a very weak notion of necessity. 

  

In what way relates this Spinoza?

  

Just read the first sentence of the article “Spinoza’s Modal Metaphysics” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“Spinoza's views on necessity and possibility, which he claimed were the “principal basis” of his Ethics , have been less than well received by his readers, to put it mildly. 

  

From Spinoza's contemporaries to our own, readers of the Ethics have denounced Spinoza's views on modality as metaphysically confused at best, ethically nihilistic at worst.”

   

Let’s look into that next time…. Thank you ^_^

The discussion

[13:26] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): interesting view for sure of things

[13:26] herman Bergson: necessity is a weird concept...difficult too

[13:27] herman Bergson: it has nothing to do with 'needed'

[13:27] CB Axel: I'm not sure anything is necessary.

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): in his sense indeed

[13:27] herman Bergson: it is about the fact that soem things can not be denied

[13:27] ɑsɦℓєɨɢɦ (ashleigh.alderbury): necessary for whom? is that a human centric viewpoint?

[13:27] herman Bergson: that would lead to a contradiction

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but as i get it for ex without elementary particles and the forces of nature nothing could exixt so they are a necessity

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): for anything else to be

[13:28] herman Bergson: Not for a person Ashleigh....for logic or laws of nature...

[13:28] CB Axel: One small change in the evolution of the universe could have changed everything that exists.

[13:28] herman Bergson: For instance when a proposition is true you cannot say it is false too...

[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): unless you move into quantum physics

[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): lol

[13:29] ɑsɦℓєɨɢɦ (ashleigh.alderbury): the thinking sounds somewhat backwards though.

[13:29] CB Axel: So nothing that exists now is necessary. It's entirely contingent on what happened as the universe came into existance.

[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes CB..the big question is...to WHAT applies this kind of necessity

[13:29] CB Axel: Physics

[13:30] herman Bergson: Bu there you have Spinoza CB....

[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): as I get it Spinoza’s view is somewhat different

[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): of what necessity is

[13:30] herman Bergson: you can say that the universe and we are contingent....but matter isnt...

[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): for s to be there must be matter

[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): us

[13:30] herman Bergson: you logically need the existence of matter to be able to say that all its forms are contingent

[13:31] herman Bergson: Thence...substance is necessary for Spinoza

[13:31] CB Axel: I guess, then, that the hydrogen atom is the only necessity. °͜°

[13:31] CB Axel: Not that Spinoza would have known about that.

[13:31] herman Bergson: I would say no CB....

[13:32] herman Bergson: the hydrogin atom is just one manifestation of matter...

[13:32] ɑsɦℓєɨɢɦ (ashleigh.alderbury): you could say that everything that comes after is contingent on everything else that came before. or its a series of events that leads to everything going forward.  there is no chance that creatures that are allergic to oxygen are suddenly going to manifest themselves here.

[13:32] herman Bergson: the concept of substance for Spinoza is one level of abstraction higher

[13:32] CB Axel: So quarks?

[13:33] herman Bergson: you still have to think more abstract CB :-)

[13:33] CB Axel: Maybe energy alone is necessary.

[13:33] herman Bergson: just existence is enough....

[13:34] herman Bergson: As soon as you gonna give this being names like  quark or atom or wood you are talking about modes of being

[13:34] herman Bergson: That is how Spinoza reasons

[13:35] herman Bergson: Thence he can say that there only is ONE substance....

[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): Spinoza thinks basically of string theory way before its time

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

[13:35] CB Axel: But what is that substance?

[13:35] herman Bergson: He uses the word god for it...or Nature

[13:35] CB Axel: Yes, Bejiita. I think that's it.

[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): the mode of the string determines if it is a quark, electron or whatever

[13:36] herman Bergson: What is that substance...?

[13:36] herman Bergson: Everything CB

[13:36] ɑsɦℓєɨɢɦ (ashleigh.alderbury): the moment you give something a name, it implies some understanding of it

[13:37] herman Bergson: What Spinoza sees as substance is just an abstract BEING THERE

[13:37] ɑsɦℓєɨɢɦ (ashleigh.alderbury): if you just call it god or nature, it implies something magical or unquantifiable

[13:37] herman Bergson: that is the problem with language.....

[13:38] herman Bergson: God as well as Nature have semantic connotations....

[13:38] herman Bergson: Which are more than just abstract being

[13:39] herman Bergson: You could say...nobody cares about such problems :-)

[13:39] herman Bergson: except philosophers

[13:39] ɑsɦℓєɨɢɦ (ashleigh.alderbury): but calling something god or nature doesn’t really give you any idea wha tit is, what its purpose or necessity. it only points to a point of origin

[13:39] herman Bergson: But that is not really true

[13:40] herman Bergson: I think that would be in line with Spinoza's idea Ashleigh

[13:40] herman Bergson: But also all scientists   assume kinds of necessity...

[13:41] herman Bergson: If we didn’t we only would see a chaos around us

[13:41] herman Bergson: A world that could be and could be not at any time

[13:42] CB Axel: Very Schroedinger

[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed

[[13:43] herman Bergson: Well I think that is a nice conclusion CB :-)

[13:43] herman Bergson: So it may be necessary now to conclude this discussion and dismiss class ^_^

[13:44] CB Axel: lol

[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): before we venture into chaos theory!

[13:44] herman Bergson: Thak you for your participation again....

[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): nice

[13:44] CB Axel: Interesting. Thank you, Herman.

[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): cu next time then

[13:44] CB Axel: See you all on Thursday. °͜°

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

[13:45] herman Bergson: I'll be there :-)

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

625: Is god substance and is substance matter?

In my previous lecture I quoted some statements, taken from the “Ethica” (1677) of Spinoza and said: 

  

replace the word “god” by the word “matter” 

and the text makes perfect sense as a materialist philosophy.

Let me quote CB Axel now: But how do you know that when Spinoza wrote God in Ethica that he really meant matter?

  

A justified question. Is it just one of the possible interpretations or did Spinoza literally mean that “god” and “substance” refer to the same thing: matter?

  

Spinoza most certainly is a philosophical rationalist: that is, he does operate on the basis of indubitable, 

    

because logically necessary, propositions from which further knowledge, equally certain, can be deduced by the proper exercise of reason.

  

We must keep in mind that Spinoza wrote at a time when the distinction between philosophy and science was not yet clear, 

  

when science was still known as "natural philosophy," and when the struggle between science and religion was still political and violent.

  

The “Ethica” consists of five parts, of which part one has the title “Concerning God” (De Deo). For his reasoning he uses the rational method of mathematics.

  

Thus Spinoza structures his text as a kind of mathematical reasoning by going from definitions to axioms

  

to get to propositions which can be logically deduced from the definitions, axioms and other propositions

   

Spinoza’s world does not consist of matter. His world is actually much more abstract. It consists of SUBSTANCE, ATTRIBUTES   and MODES…

  

To show you how abstract that is…when you think of matter you have at least the connotation of being tangible, or visible in some way.

  

The question is, whether you can say, that matter is a substance? Here you immediately feel the implied question: do there exist other substances than matter?

  

Descartes would have answered YES. And he left us with the dualism of body and mind.  

   

What does Spinoza say about this issue. When you read the “Ethica”, you find an awesome example of abstract thinking.

  

First the definition:”III. BY SUBSTANCE, I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself; in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception.”

  

What Spinoza says here, is simply something like: when you try to “visualise” substance, you only can say…. IT IS….

  

As a true rationalist, who believes that the ratio can produce clear and distinct ideas, which are truths, Spinoza formulates his axioms.

  

“Axiom I. Everything which exists, exists either in itself or in something else.”

  

Then follow proposition 7 and 8…

   

PROPOSITION VII. Existence belongs to the nature of substance.

  

PROOF−−Substance cannot be produced by anything external, it must, therefore, be its own cause−−that is, its essence necessarily involves existence, or existence belongs to its nature.

  

PROPOSITION VIII. Every substance is necessarily infinite.”

  

What Spinoza says about substance, in fact a word for a completely abstract way of BEING, he also says about his god.

“PROPOPSITION XV. Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived.”, for instance. This looks closely like Axiom One.  

In fact you are inclined to conclude that the concept of god in Spinoza’s philosophy only is there for the public to keep the opponents quiet.

  

As I said before, science and philosophy were not so clearly separated in Spinoza’s time as they are now. That is why Spinoza still thinks in terms of substances, while we now talk about matter.

   

And like Spinoza we can say, that matter just IS. That is all we know, it just is. We do not know where it came from and we do not know where it will end……

   

Thank you….^_^

The Discussion

[13:20] CB Axel: Whew

[13:20] herman Bergson: This was an attempt to let you feel how abstract Spinoza in fact is

[13:20] Ciska Riverstone: love just is too. so love is matter?

[13:21] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): we just know today everything is made of atoms in turn comprised of even smaller subatomic particles but we still dont know why they are or where they came from,

[13:21] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): they just is

[13:21] CB Axel: Right, Bejiita.

[13:21] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): just like in Spinoza’s ideas

[13:21] Ciska Riverstone: I bet he reas a buddhist book ;)

[13:21] herman Bergson: No Ciska....love is an attribute of matter, would Spinoza answer

[13:22] Ciska Riverstone: how does he going to prove that?

[13:22] herman Bergson: oops...one man down :-(

[13:22] herman Bergson: Only by logical reasoning, Ciska

[13:22] Ciska Riverstone: cannot see anything logical about not knowing

[13:23] herman Bergson: What are you referring at, Ciska?

[13:23] Ciska Riverstone: well he can of course for his argument make the assumption that love is an attribute of matter

[13:24] Ciska Riverstone: but thats just an assumption

[13:24] Ciska Riverstone: it helps with the theory

[13:24] Ciska Riverstone: I get that

[13:24] herman Bergson: In Spinoza's philosophy there is just ONE substance....

[13:24] herman Bergson: there can not be two substances....

[13:24] Ciska Riverstone: yes - so for the theoretical built of his - It helps

[13:24] Ciska Riverstone: so its a close system

[13:25] Ciska Riverstone: but thats about it

[13:25] Ciska Riverstone: (love was just an example of course)

[13:25] herman Bergson: Everything we perceive is a manifestation of this substance with different attributes and modes

[13:26] CB Axel: Including a god, if there is one.

[13:26] herman Bergson: It is really such an abstract way of thinking

[13:27] herman Bergson: God and substance are identical, CB....

[13:27] herman Bergson: proposition 11

[13:27] CB Axel: OK

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): its a bit like string theory where all atoms and particles are made of one and same string which just twists differently to make up all other things

[13:27] Ciska Riverstone: then love is substance too ;)

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): his "only one substance"

[13:27] herman Bergson: God, or substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists.

[13:28] CB Axel: I was thinking string theory, too, Bejiita.

[13:28] herman Bergson: I am sorry Ciska...for Spinoza there only can exist ONE substance :-))

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed, that sound just like an early version of string theory, one string millions of different attributes4

[13:28] Ciska Riverstone: yes  I understand ;)

[13:29] CB Axel: Aren't the strings supposed to be energy? Maybe the one substance is energy.

[13:29] herman Bergson: you just must try to imagine the idea of THERE IS......only that

[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): might be cb

[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): we already know that particle accelerators can convert energy to matter by the theory of relativity

[13:29] herman Bergson: I think Spinoza realized that there is a real world...just that....not any transcendental or supernatural one....

[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): so indeed matter and energy go into each other

[13:30] herman Bergson: so the only thing he could assume was, that THERE IS...

[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: well no - for him the supernatural and transcendental are included in the one

[13:31] herman Bergson: and his next step is to define how this IS gets shape by attributes.....like red or being an apple

[13:31] herman Bergson: YEs Ciska, but that was due to his time....Somewhere he had to find a place for the god idea...

[13:32] herman Bergson: so he identified it with the substance idea

[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:32] herman Bergson: which just IS......

[13:32] Ciska Riverstone: for me it sounds like he took buddhism and  put it into mathematic reasoning

[13:32] CB Axel: There is substance, so if you need a god then that substance is god and god is the substance.

[13:32] herman Bergson: exit personal god idea

[13:32] Ciska Riverstone: yes cb thats how I perceive Spinoza too

[13:33] herman Bergson: It is quite well possible that two persons "invent" the same thoughts independently of eachother

[13:33] Ciska Riverstone: well of course  - the paralells are just bestowing

[13:33] herman Bergson: Yes CB and in that sense this god idea with all its cultural connotations is completely superfluous

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

[13:34] Ciska Riverstone: just for the theory - not for everyday life

[13:34] herman Bergson: I'd say so too Ciska ^_^

[13:35] herman Bergson: But that is partly what philosophy is about....

[13:35] herman Bergson: trying to understand reality

[13:35] CB Axel: Right. And by saying that the substance and god are one, he can keep the church happy. God is everywhere and in everything because everything is made of the same substance as god.

[13:35] herman Bergson: that is not what we do in ordinary life..there we just go shopping and check our bank account ^_^

[13:36] herman Bergson: True CB...

[13:36] Ciska Riverstone: for that no one needs god either ;)

[13:36] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes thats exactly mi thoughts too

[13:36] herman Bergson: Spinoza lived in constand danger and threats...

[13:36] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): god is just a code word to not upset the church

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): in reality he means substance

[13:37] herman Bergson: yes...but dont forget.....

[13:37] herman Bergson: religion was so deeply embedded in the culture of those days...

[13:38] herman Bergson: We cant feel how those people felt

[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hmm thats true

[13:38] herman Bergson: Well....maybe when you live in the US and say you are an atheist, you get the same experiences and feelings as people in 1700 :-)))

[13:39] CB Axel: It's not quite *that* bad. lol

[13:39] herman Bergson: Just a sidetrack....

[13:39] CB Axel: I don't think I'll be burned at the stake any time soon,

[13:39] herman Bergson: I am reading The God Delusion of Richard Dawkins again.....:-)

[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: The question is still a practical one - what happens if people start "believing" in substance

[13:40] herman Bergson: Soooo irritating....:-))

[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: on form of that is neoliberalism

[13:40] herman Bergson: He only writes against American religiosity

[13:40] herman Bergson: Makes it look over there like 1500 :-)

[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hehe

[13:41] herman Bergson: You can not BELIEVE in substance Ciska....:-)

[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: well not me ;)

[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: but people do

[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: hahah

[13:42] Ciska Riverstone: because they do not get the idea about what the attributes of the substance really do

[13:42] herman Bergson: From a rationalist point of view the KNOWLEDGE of the existence of substance is a clear and distinct idea.....

[13:42] herman Bergson: On the other hand....

[13:43] herman Bergson: the word substance has lost its glory in our everyday speech.....

[13:43] herman Bergson: it has disappeared from philosophical debates

[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): substance is rather vague

[13:44] herman Bergson: It even is  almost a pejorative word..a negative word...

[13:44] CB Axel: It has been replaced by matter?

[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but basically it is same as what i would call matter

[13:44] herman Bergson: what kind of substance is that.....?

[13:44] CB Axel: Molecules and atoms?

[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): something you can see feel and measure

[13:44] herman Bergson: you ask and shiver :-)

[13:44] CB Axel: And subatomic particles?

[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): then we have the dark mater issue of course

[13:44] herman Bergson: Yes CB...

[13:44] herman Bergson: now it is matter, molecules, atoms, protons.....

[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: yes - so how do you measure the attribute love of an athom?

[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: ato?

[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: atom?

[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: ,)

[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): you smash it!

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

[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): then u can measure

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

[13:45] herman Bergson: By checking out your atoms, Ciska ^_^

[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: well I really would like to see that one measured

[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: really

[13:45] herman Bergson smiles

[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: as it seems to be so "easy" for so many

[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): in reality its not so easy

[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: there is no way yet bejiita

[13:46] herman Bergson: so how do you measure the attribute love of an athom?

[13:46] herman Bergson: that is a category mistake....

[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i think its just because we take matter for granted but when we look at its inned´r workings it gets REALLY complicated!

[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: well love just is - isn't it? ;)

[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes ㋡

[13:46] herman Bergson: using a word from psychology inn a context of physics

[13:47] CB Axel: Love is an attribute of the atoms that make up your brain.

[13:47] Ciska Riverstone: the problem is the belief that matter can be measured and there for is the only thing that matters ;) is already guiding our politics

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

[13:47] herman Bergson: no...love is a kind of behavior of homo sapiens induced by hormons and the like  :-)

[13:47] Ciska Riverstone: yes cb - but how to measure it?

[13:47] CB Axel: The neurons and the neurotransmitters between them

[13:47] Ciska Riverstone: I can do that with my brain cells

[13:47] Ciska Riverstone: ;)

[13:47] CB Axel: It can't be measured, and why would you want to?

[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: why do you want to measure all other stuff in physics

[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: ?

[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: to know how it works

[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: to see the relations

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

[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: to understand how it comes to existence

[13:48] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): to know why and how it works

[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: in which mix

[13:48] CB Axel: Maybe you could measure all the seratonin or whatever is flowing around in your brain.

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: yes - then I know the seratonin

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: substance

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: ;)

[13:49] herman Bergson: make fMRI scans of the brain that is in love :-)

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: and that people have different much of that and still say they feel good

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: or in love

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: or whatever

[13:49] CB Axel: That's all that love is is chemicals.

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: of course its based in matter

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: but I still cannot measure it

[13:50] herman Bergson: Ahhh Ciska....I think we'll get to your point when I'll discuss Damasio in relation to Spinoza...

[13:50] herman Bergson: Damasio

[13:50] herman Bergson: The relation between emotions and feelings.....

[13:51] herman Bergson: We'll get to that

[13:52] herman Bergson: SO before we all become to abstract....

[13:52] herman Bergson: May I thank you again for your participation...:-)

[13:52] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:52] CB Axel: Thank you, Herman.

[13:52] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman  - thanx all

[13:52] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ...^_^

[