Thoughts on betraying spinoza
First, some notes on the book and author. . . After reading several books of Goldstein's (Plato at the Googleplex and Incompleteness), I appreciate her philosophy discussions but find it difficult to week through the personal anecdotes and the history to get to them. The nuggets when discovered are thought provoking and so far have made the digging worth it. But I do wonder if there were some way to get at the nuggets without all the other stuff that I just don't find engaging.
Spinoza believed that behind every fact is a reason. Existential phenomenology would disagree or would disagree to the extent that the reason could be discovered. EP argues that there are many events, for lack of a better word, for which we cannot know why. Spinoza, I guess agrees (as further reading of Goldstein's book makes clear). To achieve complete knowledge is to be God, something man cannot attain but can reach towards.
Spinoza believed that it is through deduction that we know. There is a theory of everything and from that big theory we figure out the little stuff. Whereas,
most scientists are empiricist and believe in induction. From the evidence we figure out the theories.
Did Spinoza believe that how things are is the way they ought to be? Not laws but nature?
"Where we are endlessly captivated by the drama of the self in all it's distinctive singularity, Spinoza sought only to escape it". (P. 69). Does literature help us to escape the drama of the self or focus on it? Or remind of us of our shared humanity.
Treasure: 159-163; chapter 5
Spinoza describes what is being:
Conatus: the commitment to the self simply because the self is I with the intent to do what it takes to further its self interest (p. 160). Contaus is what makes us essential ourself.
If we step outside ourself, however, and attempt to look at this Conatus we lose sight of it. This is our "objective" position and this saves us from our self, so to speak. We can view our death with philosophical detachment from this outside position. Our irrationality comes from viewing from inside. Rationality comes from viewing from outside. The Ethics attempts to show how this is so
Spinoza argues that we are "incurably finite" (p. 179). We don't chose to be born nor can we prevent ourselves from dying. Events either contribute to our flourishing (our conatus) and we experience that as pleasure or inhibit our flourishing and we experience that as pain. We desire what furthers our pursuit of flourishing
The basic situation from which emotions evolve is "I am committed to my life's going well since that commitment in all the myriad ways in which it manifests itself is irrepressibly me; that my life's going well or not is subject to things beyond my control. . . that I make judgments about how various things affect my life for better or for worse, and those very judgments . . . themselves affect me as experiences of pleasure and pain." (p. 181). Our judgement can and often are wrong (what we tell ourselves is flourishing is actually not). Because judgment is tied to emotion, we can "control" how we experience an emotion through our judgement of it. To move outside of the emotion and evaluate the judgement requires an expansion beyond being in the Conatus to being outside which we can experience as pleasure as we view clearheadedly and make a judgement as opposed to just react and be tossed around at will by emotional turmoil. This moving outside our self is also being part of the logic of which the world is made. Ecstatic rationalism: to stand outside of the self
It is difficult to move outside oneself because we are so pulled into our conatus making us view the world from our own distorted worldview intsead of from the expansive outside view, the view from nowhere. When we attain the view from nowhere though we can lose our tight sense of ourself that creates our fear and anxiety and it frees us. The more we are free and expand our vision beyond that of just our self the less self-important we feel. Virtue follows naturally as we recognize our own insignificance in the world. Spinoza states that we will behave in high mindedness, "whereby every man endeavors, solely under the dictates of reason, to aid other men and to unite them to himself in friendship" (p. 184)
Spinoza asks, Does God have a reason for his mandates? A simple logical question, he either does or does not. If he does, then we need only apply to the reason; we do not need to apply to God. If he does not, then his mandates are simply random and could just as easily be the opposite, just his own personal fancies (p. 203).
"Despite our human limitations, we can know that reality is intelligible through and through. How could it be otherwise? It is an affront to reason to imagine that at the bottom of explanation lie truths that can't be explained at all. One might as well admit at the beginning then, than nothing at all is explained" (p. 218).
Spinoza believed that behind every fact is a reason. Existential phenomenology would disagree or would disagree to the extent that the reason could be discovered. EP argues that there are many events, for lack of a better word, for which we cannot know why. Spinoza, I guess agrees (as further reading of Goldstein's book makes clear). To achieve complete knowledge is to be God, something man cannot attain but can reach towards.
Spinoza believed that it is through deduction that we know. There is a theory of everything and from that big theory we figure out the little stuff. Whereas,
most scientists are empiricist and believe in induction. From the evidence we figure out the theories.
Did Spinoza believe that how things are is the way they ought to be? Not laws but nature?
"Where we are endlessly captivated by the drama of the self in all it's distinctive singularity, Spinoza sought only to escape it". (P. 69). Does literature help us to escape the drama of the self or focus on it? Or remind of us of our shared humanity.
Treasure: 159-163; chapter 5
Spinoza describes what is being:
Conatus: the commitment to the self simply because the self is I with the intent to do what it takes to further its self interest (p. 160). Contaus is what makes us essential ourself.
If we step outside ourself, however, and attempt to look at this Conatus we lose sight of it. This is our "objective" position and this saves us from our self, so to speak. We can view our death with philosophical detachment from this outside position. Our irrationality comes from viewing from inside. Rationality comes from viewing from outside. The Ethics attempts to show how this is so
Spinoza argues that we are "incurably finite" (p. 179). We don't chose to be born nor can we prevent ourselves from dying. Events either contribute to our flourishing (our conatus) and we experience that as pleasure or inhibit our flourishing and we experience that as pain. We desire what furthers our pursuit of flourishing
The basic situation from which emotions evolve is "I am committed to my life's going well since that commitment in all the myriad ways in which it manifests itself is irrepressibly me; that my life's going well or not is subject to things beyond my control. . . that I make judgments about how various things affect my life for better or for worse, and those very judgments . . . themselves affect me as experiences of pleasure and pain." (p. 181). Our judgement can and often are wrong (what we tell ourselves is flourishing is actually not). Because judgment is tied to emotion, we can "control" how we experience an emotion through our judgement of it. To move outside of the emotion and evaluate the judgement requires an expansion beyond being in the Conatus to being outside which we can experience as pleasure as we view clearheadedly and make a judgement as opposed to just react and be tossed around at will by emotional turmoil. This moving outside our self is also being part of the logic of which the world is made. Ecstatic rationalism: to stand outside of the self
It is difficult to move outside oneself because we are so pulled into our conatus making us view the world from our own distorted worldview intsead of from the expansive outside view, the view from nowhere. When we attain the view from nowhere though we can lose our tight sense of ourself that creates our fear and anxiety and it frees us. The more we are free and expand our vision beyond that of just our self the less self-important we feel. Virtue follows naturally as we recognize our own insignificance in the world. Spinoza states that we will behave in high mindedness, "whereby every man endeavors, solely under the dictates of reason, to aid other men and to unite them to himself in friendship" (p. 184)
Spinoza asks, Does God have a reason for his mandates? A simple logical question, he either does or does not. If he does, then we need only apply to the reason; we do not need to apply to God. If he does not, then his mandates are simply random and could just as easily be the opposite, just his own personal fancies (p. 203).
"Despite our human limitations, we can know that reality is intelligible through and through. How could it be otherwise? It is an affront to reason to imagine that at the bottom of explanation lie truths that can't be explained at all. One might as well admit at the beginning then, than nothing at all is explained" (p. 218).
Comments
Post a Comment