२० फेब्रुवारी, २०२४
"A quiet, introspective bachelor, who wore a signet ring with the Latin word for 'caution,' he hated conflict..."
"... and had the courtly manners of his Iberian ancestry. But his virtuous life only made religious believers even more furious: How could a Godless man be morally irreproachable? Here, then, was a clash which we can still recognize today, between those who believe that moral behavior can only come from religious belief, and those who think it can emanate from reason...."Writes Ian Buruma, in "The 17th-Century Heretic We Could Really Use Now" (NYT)."Spinoza’s insistence on the primacy of our capacity to reason would not sit well with the notion that our thoughts are driven by collective identities and historical traumas. He was against tribalism of any kind. And he would not have considered offended communal feelings as a rational argument.... One of his greatest fears, no less germane today than in his time, was that mobs, whipped up by malevolent leaders, would squash free thinking with violence.... Once again there is a conflict between the scientific and the ideological approaches to truth...."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५२ टिप्पण्या:
NYT let me rad this one so I soldier on, waiting for the inevitable crack against conservatives. Ya ya, pragmatic, practical…Times readers reading about themselves, they think…But it is true also of evangelical Christians in the United States, who insist on the removal of books in public libraries and schools that supposedly offend their moral beliefs grounded in religion.
…aaaaand there it is. Could you BE any more transparent, Times?
The left is always on about free thinkers. Evangelical Christians get called out, as usual for book banning, but I suspect that the left would be just fine with a set of books for kids with titles like “Whales are Tasty”, “Grandpa’s Hot Young Girlfriend”, “Rachel Works at an Oil Refinery”. And Spinoza himself would probably be woke, of course. Let’s be clear, all groups have norms. People who challenge those norms by thinking or articulating thoughts that go against the norms will never be welcome.
It isn’t unreasonable to prohibit certain books from the grammar school library, like the ones with graphic images of what some of your political allies would like to do sexually to kids. The seems appropriate but that’s just me..
"Spinoza’s insistence on the primacy of our capacity to reason would not sit well with the notion that our thoughts are driven by collective identities and historical traumas.”
So, he would be firmly against the modern left.
“He was against tribalism of any kind.
Modern political discourse sucks.
“And he would not have considered offended communal feelings as a rational argument.... “
So the Lincoln statue stays.
“One of his greatest fears, no less germane today than in his time, was that mobs, whipped up by malevolent leaders, would squash free thinking with violence.”
A concise definition of cancel culture.
“Once again there is a conflict between the scientific and the ideological approaches to truth.”
Or the rational and the political.
Does anyone here believe that we would exist if God did not?
The conflict is simply over the nature of God. Spinoza held that God WAS nature, which was seen as an insufficient base for the health of the church. You could be killed in a gruesome manner in Spinoza's time for any independent thinking on the matter. His own Sephardic tribe cast him out early for the sheer audacity of his blasphemy.
Mister, we could use a man like Baruch Spinoza again.
This is an interesting quote, although the author appears to miss the salient point: "But his virtuous life only made religious believers even more furious: How could a Godless man be morally irreproachable? Here, then, was a clash which we can still recognize today, between those who believe that moral behavior can only come from religious belief, and those who think it can emanate from reason...."
If indeed it is true that "believers" were furious that he seemed irreproachable, then that shows the persistence of human nature, religious or not. There is no mainstream Christian tenet that a "Godless man" cannot act in a morally upright manner, or that scrupulously applied "logic" can result in a moral framework we recognize as "good."
But history and the wisdom of crowds show us how things generally work out, and typically a society or organization that rejects God's laws for their own moral framework devolves into a Darwinian brutality. You can see it happening to our beloved United States over our lifetimes. The further we get away from adhering to the Bill of Rights, which were very deliberately derived from the tradition of Mosaic Law and informed by the rejection of direct democracy as "mob rule" the more we become like the "Godless Soviets" we feared as children.
Does it mean we will endure the heathen bloody purges of Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot? Or will the creation of American Gulags to hold J6 protesters be enough to shock us back to our senses? I'm still rather surprised at how easily the entire Democrat Party has acquiesced to the "let's jail Joe's opponent" mindset, with GOPe aiding and abetting the effort as well. Is it only the lust for power and money at work, or is the fact we as a whole are unaware or unable to adhere to First Principles on which the Republic was founded?
I don't know, but there is a long
first-person report in Legal Insurrection today that describes another giant step in the wrong direction, and would seem to be a powerful counterpoint to the breezy opinion of the author quoted in this post. One can't help but see the similarities to the stasi in what the article describes.
I read the article, and I may even read Ian Buruma's book. Spinoza and his philosophy are certainly worth knowing more about. Buruma is of the opinion that were Spinoza alive today he would share Buruma's opinions about most things. Maybe, maybe not. My guess is that Spinoza might not be 100% on board with Drag Queen story hour, but I'm sure Buruma is better informed on this subject than I am....The idea that reason can guide your emotions rather than the other way around is suspect. Robespierre and Lenin both felt that their keen intellect saw through the madness and prejudices of their time and place and that their true understanding would guide humanity to lasting happiness. They felt themselves free of any religious prejudice, but they were just as murderous as any religious bigot.....Here's a quote I looked up from Spinoza: "He who seeks equality between unequals seeks an absurdity."
The Left is always awarding themselves trophies for intelligence and rationality. "We are wonderful", they say, "look on our trophies and despair". Me, I'm busy counting the spoons.
"The 17th-Century Heretic We Could Really Use Now"
. . . in any Muslim country. Good luck, Benedict! Good luck, Ian!
@mezzrow 2/20/24, 7:29 AM - Does anyone here believe that we would exist if God did not? ... The conflict is simply over the nature of God. Spinoza held that God WAS nature"
By that definition, God has to exist. But most people would find that a strange, empty concept of God. "Hey, I'm going to worship plague bacteria. They're part of nature."
When I read this blog article's headline, I thought it was about The Bachelor on the ABC television network.
Some of the best followers of Jesus don't proclaim his name or preach his Way, they simply follow Him.
Once again there is a conflict between the scientific and the ideological approaches to truth...."
There is conflict between ideological approaches masquerading as scientific.
An individual can take a scientific approach, but can a group? I'm not so sure.
mezzrow:
Does anyone here believe that we would exist if God did not?
Yep, doesn't require the supernatural.
Annoying Internet trope #23,194:
Any headline taking the general form of "The ______________ That We Need Right Now", e.g. "The 17th-Century Heretic We Could Really Use Now".
Spinoza was a product of his culture. A culture which was universally Catholic-in both meanings of the word.So while you can question the morality you're born into. No matter where you go and what you do that morality sticks to you in one way or another. If only in the negative.
"The conflict is simply over the nature of God."
Reasoning creation is always good for some interesting conversations.
Spinoza’s morality wasn’t licked off the walls, nor did it come from pure reason. He’d been marinated in Jewish law and ethics all his life, willingly or not. They took hold.
Humanists tend to forget they were hatched in Judeo-Christian culture. It’s like electric car drivers who congratulate themselves on their environmental excellence by ignoring that their cars were built and mostly charged with fossil fuels.
Imaginary third party for our times - The Spinoza Study Club. Our slogan: Free minds, Free speech, Free elections. Our parti-line: Derivatives
It’s easy to say that morality can exist outside of religion, but impossible to set up an experiment that proves it.
Because everyone who says it must as a certainty have abandoned religion in order to have reached that belief.
"... those who believe that moral behavior can only come from religious belief ...."
It isn't that it can only come from religious belief. It can only be rationalized by religious belief in the word of God. Without the moral compass of the Bible, behavior, moral or immoral, is just a matter of preference. Spinoza or Stalin? Choose.
Somehow, this sounds like a reprise of the Socratic dialogue "Euthyphro" in which Socrates posed a similar dilemma to his victim. Is it
strange that protean value systems morph through time but still pose
the same inquiries over time?
"Spinoza’s insistence on the primacy of our capacity to reason would not sit well with the notion that our thoughts are driven by collective identities and historical traumas. He was against tribalism of any kind. And he would not have considered offended communal feelings as a rational argument“
Either this person has gone off the DNC reservation or the NYT is slowly coming out against DEI and race grievance.
He wouldn't have been an Antifa or BLM fan if he was worried about mobs.
Some of the nicest people I know are not religious at all.
That's an argument that only mattered during a time of church supremacy...
"How could a Godless man be morally irreproachable? Here, then, was a clash which we can still recognize today, between those who believe that moral behavior can only come from religious belief, and those who think it can emanate from reason...."
That is a misunderstanding of the clash. The clash isn't over whether or not godless men can be moral; of course they can. The clash is over whether or not such a thing as morality exists without God, over whether or not reason alone can provide a basis for morality.
Humanists tend to forget they were hatched in Judeo-Christian culture. It’s like electric car drivers who congratulate themselves on their environmental excellence by ignoring that their cars were built and mostly charged with fossil fuels.
Nicely said, Cass Lite.
If God IS nature, God is not supernatural. That's what got everyone so exercised. Still does.
Got stuck on the signet ring with the Latin word for caution. Was that wariness, precaution, care, circumspection? Wikipedia says it was "caute" = cautiously. I'm okay with that to a point, but then faith has to kick in, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen".
"Spinoza’s insistence on the primacy of our capacity to reason …”
Game Theory appears to favour reason & cooperation
The religion vs reason approach is simplistic. Even old David Hume, no friend of religion, taught that moral behavior arises from feeling and sentiment, not from reason. Which if true makes sense of the emotional politics of our time.
Godless men behave morally until they see they a benefit to being immoral. Its not a matter of belief, simply of opportunity.
I had hopes in reading the opening paragragh that we would be talking about one of the massive numbers of 17th century Christian theologians or Philosphers or maybe some unknown Islamist or Buddhist. But no, its just Spinonza - again.
Does anyone here believe that we would exist if God did not?
Does anyone here believe that God would exist if we did not?
Spinoza wasn’t Godless.
His concept of God was just different.
Interesting guy. Like David Hume.
Freeman Hunt:
The clash isn't over whether or not godless men can be moral; of course they can. The clash is over whether or not such a thing as morality exists without God, over whether or not reason alone can provide a basis for morality.
Reason alone will suffice. No need for edicts handed down through interpreters.
The Left is always awarding themselves trophies for intelligence and rationality. "We are wonderful", they say, "look on our trophies and despair". Me, I'm busy counting the spoons.
I have always wondered how long it would be for Chuck to post something with which I could completely agree. Even Cook has a better track record than Chuck.
But here it is.
- Krumhorn
mezzrow said...
"If God IS nature, God is not supernatural."
Since God created the universe. As the ancient Hebrews would have us believe. God also created time. God ,if it exists, is infinite and exists outside of time.
Does anyone here believe that we would exist if God did not?
Does anyone here believe that God would exist if we did not?
How many lives have been sacrificed to the difference between these questions? It is a more subtle distinction than can be recognized without a great deal of study and thought. Man is more prone to violence than study and thought, especially in groups. Spinoza knew this.
Name the great atheist moral leaders over the past 5000 years
how long it would be for Chuck
That's a different Chuck, I'm lower case chuck. The confusion was fun, but even good times come to an end.
"I have always wondered how long it would be for Chuck to post something with which I could completely agree. "
You're still waiting. chuck is not Chuck.
Do Buddhists, Taoists, and Confucians believe in a God that's anything like the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam?
I don't think so.
But do they not offer ethical and moral systems, and stress living in harmony with Nature?
rcocean:
Godless men behave morally until they see they a benefit to being immoral.
Projection on your part.
Its not a matter of belief, simply of opportunity.
Correct. Both sides. In numbers. But not all. You seem to always forget that last.
And so answer Mountain Maven, Buddha and Confucius come to mind.
Blogger Rusty said...
"If God IS nature, God is not supernatural."
Since God created the universe. As the ancient Hebrews would have us believe. God also created time. God ,if it exists, is infinite and exists outside of time.
So all that slumming around in Bible time was just to break the boredom of eternity?
To try and clear up a philosophical point in Spinoza, let me point out that Spinoza is NOT a pantheist. Spinoza is a panentheist.
Pantheists think that the existence of God is co-extensive with the physical universe. Panentheists believe that the physical universe is contained in the existence of God, but that God's existence is more than the physical universe. What the Divine "overflow" consists in is a matter of debate.
Spinoza had the dubious distinction of being thought an atheist by most and by others who looked more sympathetically, such as Novalis, to be a "God-drunk man". But, his influence on 18th and especially 19th C philosophy is everywhere, often used but rarely attributed because of the fear of being called atheistic.
A Spinoza joke from my late Jewish father-in-law:
What do the Jews call Spinoza? "Benedict."
What do the Christians call Spinoza? "Baruch."
In other words, each side seeks to dump the irritant Spinoza on the other.
Morality seems to be created to me. But then I am convinced that spirits exist, be they human, evil, demonic, or Holy. And they don’t get along well.
That atheistic systems of morality exist still does not answer the issue. There is no question that people, both theist and atheist, generally believe that right and wrong exist. The issue is whether or not right and wrong can exist without God.
It appears the Reason people and the Natural Law people like me are somewhat talking past each other, and this is my (inspired by Freeman Hunt and Oligonicella) attempt to clarify. Yes Reason could suffice for A Man to act within a moral framework that outwardly, in action, may be indistinguishable from A Man acting within Natural Law or the Mosaic Law traditions. Where the premises diverge is in a Society or political system in which the individual actors must in general agree to certain ground rules. Only within a Society that has some generally accepted principles that stand apart from and complement the Government structure do the Ground Rules endure.
We’ve lived through the mid-phase of one of the largest Societal upheavals in history driven by the two approaches advocated here. This resulted in many perhaps irreversible changes but I’ll highlight two that are a recurring theme in this comment section no matter what the topic. One is the rejection of idea of objective Truth for the subjective My Truth. Another is the rejection of Natural Law that has inevitably led to an erosion of the Rule of Law resulting in a current state of outright lawlessness all around us. The very people charged with enforcing the Law have instead become subjective about how and when and on whom to enforce laws in what appears to be an arbitrary way but can be traced right back to the point where the Enforcers reasoned their way collectively out of following the Shared Rules that we all relied on.
Astrophysics has a word for this, entropy. The Bible calls it chaos and turmoil. Reason would suggest they are the same thing. Faith confirms it.
"So all that slumming around in Bible time was just to break the boredom of eternity?" Eternity doesn't exist for god.
But no. How is god going to let you know your his unless he tells you. man in his state of nature is niether good or evil. He is indifferent until he is complelled to be either good or evil. God is not indifferent. His word compells us toward good.
" Here, then, was a clash which we can still recognize today, between those who believe that moral behavior can only come from religious belief, and those who think it can emanate from reason...."
Except nobody believes "moral behavior can only come from religious belief," least of all religious believers.
Buruma says that Spinoza was a product of his "Iberian ancestry." Uh... No. Jewish ancestry. Next thing you know, people will be saying that "Jews never lived in Jerusalem" or that "Jesus was a Palestinian." Oh, wait...
" Here, then, was a clash which we can still recognize today, between those who believe that moral behavior can only come from religious belief, and those who think it can emanate from reason...."
Communism and socialism emanated from reason. They freed man from god. Look what happened.
John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Morality and virtue are the foundation of our republic and necessary for a society to be free.”
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा