Historically the most important philosopher after Rene Descartes is Baruch Spinoza. He laid down the foundations of the age of Enlightenment and rationalism. He was the first to critique the notion of God and some said he was an atheist while others called him pantheist.
He was born in a Jewish family in Amsterdam , Netherlands. He had a traditional Jewish education. He studied Latin and was exposed to Rene Descartes.
We will take a good look at his most important work 'The Ethics'.
Subject matter below pertains only to this work.
Spinoza attempts an axiomatic approach in all the five parts of the work. Any axiomatic system while being rigorous also has to be interpreted or applied to the particular case. If the possible worlds is just one why bother with axiomatic system? Take the first one concerning GOD. You can do all your inferences from any propositions you need with just the subject matter. There is no need to rope in ontology. We can draw a parallel with Gödel's incompleteness theorem and say that there will always be true propositions that cannot be proved within the system and by a little perversion that there will be false propositions provable within the system.
In any case as far as the Truth of God's existence is concerned all believers take refuge in blind belief ( God is beyond reason). The nature of 'Nature' is irrational not rational. How is anyone to derive the irrational from the rational?
Be that as it may let us see what Spinoza says
Part 1 is CONCERNING GOD.
I reproduce below a PROP. XI and it's purported proof
PROP. XI. God, or substance, consisting of infinite attributes,
of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality,
necessarily exists.
Proof.-If this be denied, conceive, if possible, that God does not exist : then his essence does not involve existence.
But this (Prop. vii.) is absurd. Therefore God necessarily
exists.
Prop. vii-Existence belongs to the nature of substances.
God by definition consists of infinite attributes. If a substance has infinite attributes then it is all the substances because it has the attributes of each and every substance--a contradiction this substance is the same as air, water... Alternately It is no substance at all because it has infinite attributes each of which is not applicable to any substance or is a strange combination of attributes of different substances. Just because 'Existence belongs to the nature of substances.' does not guarantee the existence of a contradictory bunch of attributes
Here is another gem "If, then, no cause or reason can be given, which prevents the existence of God, or which destroys his existence, we must certainly conclude that he necessarily does exist"--too full of contradictions to warrant comment.
Looks like people set up axioms (self evident truths - no questions asked) to suit their disposition and interests and use deduction (some times faulty) to arrive at eternal truths. Obviously different premises different conclusions!
PROP. XXIX. Nothing in the universe is contingent, but all
things are conditioned to exist and operate in a particular
manner by the necessity of the divine nature.
Nothing in the universe is contingent? what about the micro-world and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? May be Einstein had the soul of Spinoza when he said "God does not play dice."
I will wind up with some interpretation in EDINBURGH PHILOSOPHICAL GUIDE to Spinoza's Ethics by Beth Lord
"God is defined as a substance consisting of infinite attributes,
each of which expresses infi nite essence (D6). That means God is
pure being, perceived as every attribute there is."
words are finite.(there are only so many) How can a substance have infinite attributes?
"A substance is not a ‘thing’, but the power of actualising its own existence. A substance of one attribute actualises itself infinitely (P8),but only as one type of being:"
'power of actualising its own existence'? implies no dependency fully autonomous. In the present day there are no autonomous substances or beings.
The only plus point of Spinoza seems to be the power of Euclid in an era where no one thought about it.
He was born in a Jewish family in Amsterdam , Netherlands. He had a traditional Jewish education. He studied Latin and was exposed to Rene Descartes.
We will take a good look at his most important work 'The Ethics'.
Subject matter below pertains only to this work.
Spinoza attempts an axiomatic approach in all the five parts of the work. Any axiomatic system while being rigorous also has to be interpreted or applied to the particular case. If the possible worlds is just one why bother with axiomatic system? Take the first one concerning GOD. You can do all your inferences from any propositions you need with just the subject matter. There is no need to rope in ontology. We can draw a parallel with Gödel's incompleteness theorem and say that there will always be true propositions that cannot be proved within the system and by a little perversion that there will be false propositions provable within the system.
In any case as far as the Truth of God's existence is concerned all believers take refuge in blind belief ( God is beyond reason). The nature of 'Nature' is irrational not rational. How is anyone to derive the irrational from the rational?
Be that as it may let us see what Spinoza says
Part 1 is CONCERNING GOD.
I reproduce below a PROP. XI and it's purported proof
PROP. XI. God, or substance, consisting of infinite attributes,
of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality,
necessarily exists.
Proof.-If this be denied, conceive, if possible, that God does not exist : then his essence does not involve existence.
But this (Prop. vii.) is absurd. Therefore God necessarily
exists.
Prop. vii-Existence belongs to the nature of substances.
God by definition consists of infinite attributes. If a substance has infinite attributes then it is all the substances because it has the attributes of each and every substance--a contradiction this substance is the same as air, water... Alternately It is no substance at all because it has infinite attributes each of which is not applicable to any substance or is a strange combination of attributes of different substances. Just because 'Existence belongs to the nature of substances.' does not guarantee the existence of a contradictory bunch of attributes
Here is another gem "If, then, no cause or reason can be given, which prevents the existence of God, or which destroys his existence, we must certainly conclude that he necessarily does exist"--too full of contradictions to warrant comment.
Looks like people set up axioms (self evident truths - no questions asked) to suit their disposition and interests and use deduction (some times faulty) to arrive at eternal truths. Obviously different premises different conclusions!
PROP. XXIX. Nothing in the universe is contingent, but all
things are conditioned to exist and operate in a particular
manner by the necessity of the divine nature.
Nothing in the universe is contingent? what about the micro-world and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? May be Einstein had the soul of Spinoza when he said "God does not play dice."
I will wind up with some interpretation in EDINBURGH PHILOSOPHICAL GUIDE to Spinoza's Ethics by Beth Lord
"God is defined as a substance consisting of infinite attributes,
each of which expresses infi nite essence (D6). That means God is
pure being, perceived as every attribute there is."
words are finite.(there are only so many) How can a substance have infinite attributes?
"A substance is not a ‘thing’, but the power of actualising its own existence. A substance of one attribute actualises itself infinitely (P8),but only as one type of being:"
'power of actualising its own existence'? implies no dependency fully autonomous. In the present day there are no autonomous substances or beings.
The only plus point of Spinoza seems to be the power of Euclid in an era where no one thought about it.
