Is this guy's proof for the one'ness of the universe legit or is it just cleverly disguised language games?
>>316150
All philosophy is just cleverly disguised language games desu
>>316209
Kind of this really
>>316150
It's legit actually, what Spinoza is doing is actually deconstructing Descartes and all the rest of those fucks in a way even Wittgenstein would've approved of.
Really it all comes down to the definition and application of the concept of "substance". And Spinoza is the only philosopher of his time to have a coherent one that is still relevant today.
>>316307
So does Spinoza's idea actually fit with science? Did he legitimately create a theory of everything that actually works?
If so than he's a bad-ass.
>>316150
is abstraction in any connected to empirical life ?
>>316338
Well yeah, but really his main achievement was using the terminology of his time and forging anything intelligible out of it. Mainstream philosophy would take centuries to unravel itself from the shitty mess it was in, and in many ways still hasn't, but Spinoza did it clearly and succinctly all in his own time. Pity philosophy took a different turn. In terms of the philosophy of mind, there isn't a historical philosopher before the 20th century who got it closer than Spinoza.
To say he had a modern physics-style theory of everything is a huge stretch however. His physics was kind of wack, but his metaphysics is completely compatible with modern science, in a way that you can't say of any of his contemporaries.
>>316345
Yes.
This is legitimately the only place that Ive actually seen Spinoza get any recognition for his work.
Thank you guys for restoring my hope. Based Pantheism
>>316348
So was philosophy fucked up by the metaphysics and terminology of the scholastic? The understanding was so wrapped up in theological philosophy that they just end up talking them-self in circles with nonsense about essence, energy, perfection, free will, unfree will, etc. It honestly seems like the state of these things was better off during the Hellenistic period.
Spinoza seems like he was the guy that rescued philosophy from theology, going back to the path that Heraclitus was on.
>>316443
Kind of, yeah, except Spinoza didn't really rescue philosophy; it marched onwards with Descartes, Locke and co, keeping the dualistic baggage even to this day with poor old Ben's monism left by the wayside.
Descartes was the main thinker Spinoza was reacting to. What Descartes did was evolve the (scholastic) notion of substance to make it the defining feature of splitting the universe into two: mind and body (though arguably Descartes had God has another substance as well).
That otherworldliness, treating the soul as its own substance that, by definition is governed by different rules to the physical world, but is still a substance, pretty much led to many of the things you mentioned that would be the main stumbling blocks right up into the 20th century.
The best way to see Spinoza is as someone who tried to use logic to cut away at large ontologies (metaphysics) to something more elegant and simple, the result of which is that his theories are actually far more powerful and versatile.
What Spinoza called God can also be called the Universe, and looking at the Universe in terms of one substance that can be described in terms of different attributes, is pretty much the modern way the search for a super theory of everything is conducted.
>>316443
What path do you think was Heraclitus on? We should get back onto Empedocles path tobehonest
>>316373
https://4ch.be/his/thread/306353/#306353
>>316535
>What path do you think was Heraclitus on
He basically tried to describe everything, and I do mean everything both abstract concepts and physical concepts, with one grand theory. Most philosophers if they are good can do one the two things but almost never both. His theory was the flux which says that everything is in a constant state of change, force against force. Thus strife or war is the father of everything because everything is an outcome between conflict. And you can't step into the same river twice because the river is in flux and it's different than it was before.
He's physical understanding of flux is what we know call quantum physics. The universe really is pure force in a state of constant flux at the subatomic level. His abstract understanding formed Nietzsche's will to power.
Spinoza is the same thing, he found a way to explain all physical things in one grand way. Everything is connected, there is one whole thing called the universe, and sub-items within the universe only exist as human-defined differences, from a physics perspective it's true since we are all just one giant mesh of atoms. Spinoza's idea also opened the door for Schouepnhaur's Will and Hegel's Spirit which also attempt to explain everything with one grand theory.
watch me prove that the universe is one
>Premise 1: everything is made of the same stuff
I rest my case
>>316150
neither
>>316701
>implying based Ben's proofs aren't legit
>>316690
This is what happens when chucklefucks just pick up a philosophy book and read it without bothering to learn any of its context or background.
>>316706
this is what happens when people take the worlds most obvious bait and reply to it in order to feel superior to anonymous people on the internet
>>316705
Can you give the proofs to show us ?
>>316718
>implying anyone would want to give up based monism for any of that crap
Your shit is so weak it is self refuting.
>>316719
Well he is repeating what most faggots say when they read The Ethics, so even if that anon was b8ing, there are probably people on /his/ who actually think that way.
>>316942
The "Well yeah" was directed towards his first question. I go on in that fucking post to say that he didn't have a grand unified theory.
His logic is fine.
>>316942
I now realize you said that Spinoza's system contained metaphysical propositions that are compatible with modern physics. That's an odd idea, especially if you're trying to aignle out why Spinoza is special; modern physics literally doesn't refer to metaphysics at any point, so any metaphysical system can work with it if you just admit compatibility between the two. Aristotelian metaphysics can be explained in the framework of modern science. Spinoza is not special in this regard at all, and as beautiful as monism is, it doesn't mean anything to modern science.
>>316948
His logic isn't fine, though. You'll have to explain to me why you think it is. And don't just post that graph of how the arguments in the Ethics play out, it isn't convincing. His logic is not up to modern standards and there is literally no reason to pretend otherwise. Leibniz, his contemporary, took apart and discarded many parts of his system using a superior form of logical notation. If you really think the geometric method is completely unobjectionable and flawless, you'll have to justify that opinion.
>>316952
Well that's where you're wrong, because every other philosophy of his time is incompatible with modern science.
Science really does deal with metaphysics, the two are constantly interacting. You can't make a single statement in modern physics without metaphysical underpinning in there, that is just the fucking way metaphysics works.
Obviously Spinoza's monism isn't that unique, what makes him so novel is where his monism fitted in the history of western philosophy and how he reached that position. It's really in the philosophy of mind/psychology/neuroscience that I think his ideas are most relevant today.
>>316956
Give an actual criticism and I can respond to it. "This isn't up to modern standards" is not an argument.
I'm not going to defend the geometric method itself, because it was a pretty fucking obtuse way to go about things. It accomplished what he wanted it to though, and that is what matters.
>>316957
>because every other philosophy of his time is incompatible with modern science.
That's a big statement that isn't true. See Leibniz, Bacon, Hobbes. He lived during the early modern era, the big project in philosophy was constructing a system that could help science move forward. His is one of many systems that tries to do so. And as for whether or not Spinoza's system is compatible with modern physics: I'm talking about metaphysics, not the entire system. Metaphysics is literally outside the realm of modern science and can't be incompatible with it.
>You can't make a single statement in modern physics without metaphysical underpinning in there,
Could you unpack this for me a little bit? I don't disagree with you but I think it's unhelpful to just throw out a metaphysical proposition every time you want to support a physical claim just on the basis of 'muh traditional understanding of the relationship between discourses.' Science doesn't deal with metaphysics. Philosophy does. There are places where the two don't overlap.
>what makes him so novel is where his monism fitted in the history of western philosophy and how he reached that position
I find his monism to be one of the most boring forms of it in the history of philosophy, actually
>>316961
>"This isn't up to modern standards" is not an argument.
I'm glad you can tell the difference. My criticism is that his definitions and axioms are vague, and there's no way to see whether or not his demonstrations actually demonstrate what they set out to.
>It accomplished what he wanted it to though,
No it didn't. He wanted it to prove all major world religions wrong, and he failed to do that.
>>316973
Sorry I used a poor choice of words, by modern I mean literally contemporary.
The metaphysics of Bacon and Hobbes both get you into huge problems the moment they reach the mental, at that point they become incoherent. Leibniz' is just incoherent to begin with and requires the single most heavy handed and busy deity ever proposed to establish.
>Science doesn't deal with metaphysics. Philosophy does. There are places where the two don't overlap.
Is a pretty mystifying statement. Why have you come to this conclusion? Metaphysical questions are of direct importance in science. Philosophy doesn't have any "hard limits", it merges completely with different disciplines on every side. Theoretical physics necessarily contains metaphysics, the two fields constantly interact.
>>316977
No offence but did you learn about Spinoza from an atheist pamphlet, or wikipedia? What you are saying absolutely wasn't his intention, you can tell that by the lack of arguments to that effect, for fucks sake.
He wanted to establish an elegant, asture metaphysics that could marry modern philosophy, religion and ethics with a mathematical method. The method was pretty fucking wack, but if you can see through that, his arguments accomplish what they set out to do for the most part.
>>316989
>>316989
>literally contemporary
Yeah, Leibniz and Spinoza literally met and debated each other. Hobbes was also a contemporary.
>The metaphysics of Bacon and Hobbes both get you into huge problems the moment they reach the mental, at that point they become incoherent. Leibniz' is just incoherent to begin with and requires the single most heavy handed and busy deity ever proposed to establish.
I'm not going to defend Hobbes or Bacon, but Leibniz's active God makes as much sense Apinozas Spinoza's, which is pretty much the most passive deity ever conceived. This objection doesn't make sense; an omnipotent being can be as busy as it wants to be.
>Theoretical physics necessarily contains metaphysics
Theoretical physics deals with statements that are in principle verifiable in some way. Experiments are supposed to be conducted to see if they're true or not. The same is not the case with metaphysics. Do you think every metaphysician is also a theoretical physicist?
>>316998
Half the Spinozans I debate on 4chan try to mix his Tractatus arguments with his Ethics.
>>317001
>Yeah, Leibniz and Spinoza literally met and debated each other. Hobbes was also a contemporary.
Aaaah are you doing this on purpose now. Contemporary as in RIGHT NOW.
>This objection doesn't make sense; an omnipotent being can be as busy as it wants to be.
Are you familiar with Leibniz at all? He himself makes the argument that an omnipotent god would obviously have the single most elegant system that accomplishes the most with the least set up: the fact that almost no-one would ever agree that Leibniz' metaphysics passes his own test is a major flaw in it.
Meanwhile, Spinoza's God has the single smallest ontological commitment of any ever posited. That's pretty obviously preferable, particularly if you are on board with Spinoza's love of thrift.
>The same is not the case with metaphysics.
Yes it literally is.
Some metaphysicians are theoretical physicists, many are not. It's a very wide subject.
>>317013
>Contemporary as in RIGHT NOW.
Wait--now I'm confused. You think modern philosophy is incapable of explaining modern science?
>He himself makes the argument that an omnipotent god would obviously have the single most elegant system that accomplishes the most with the least set up: the fact that almost no-one would ever agree that Leibniz' metaphysics passes his own test is a major flaw in it.
But this is the best of all possible worlds. And I'm not even defending his overall framework, I just think it makes sense to see this universe as having a good 'set up':quality ratio. It is perfectly possible that God has to do a lot of work, even in this 'least set up' of all great possible worlds.
>Spinoza's God has the single smallest ontological commitment of any ever posited. That's pretty obviously preferable,
Both highly contestable points. The Dao requires zero ontological commitments. The Buddha requires zero ontological commitments. Parmenidean Being has only one.
>Yes it literally is.
That flies in the face of the metaphysical tradition, though. Metaphysics is an attempt to gain knowledge without reference to the senses. It literally doesn't involve the same kinds of hypotheses theoretical physics does.
>>317036
Why he is so smug?
>>316150
Liebniz BTFO Spinoza family
>>317048
Because he is enlightened by his own intelligence
>>316338
>If so than he's a bad-ass.
You dont have to throw this reddit shit in
Whether true or not Spinoza's system is one of the best to follow through life without being a religion
Nigga was chill
>>318118
Can you explain why you think that's true? Posts like this detract from the quality of the board.
>>317034
Not the guy you're responding to, but I can say in regards to the relationship between physics and metaphysics that while physics (whether it be theoretical or otherwise) doesn't deal with metaphysical questions per say, there is some significant overlap. Interpretations of quantum mechanics and the instrumentalist/realist debate are some of the big metaphysical questions that any philosopher of physics has to deal with. The fact that most physicists don't see these questions as particularly important is more of an indictment of their practice than that of metaphysics.
>>317995
Leibniz was a two-faced cunt.
>>318896
I don't think it makes sense to view quantum physics as a metaphysical issue. You'll have to explain to me how quantum indeterminacy has any meaning outside of physical systems.
>The fact that most physicists don't see these questions as particularly important is more of an indictment of their practice than that of metaphysics.
But they do see them as important. Metaphysics just isn't a good framework within which to try to answer questions about physical reality. That's literally what physics is, and quantum phenomena are part of physical reality.
>>318947
He did more than you've done.
>>319004
Also, I'm not sure why you think you're qualified to say that scientists should be criticized for not looking for metaphysical hypotheses about quantum phenomena. Your claim seems hyperbolic.
>>319004
Not quantum mechanics, but interpretations of quantum mechanics. Questions such as the nature of nonlocality, the ontological status of the wave function, the role of the observer and even what "observer" means in the context of quantum physics. These are questions that physicists post-WW2 have been notoriously reluctant to touch, considering them to be of a metaphysical character removed from the formal rigor of science. The formalism is great for achieving and reproducing experimental results. But the meaning beyond the signs has never been clear and are philosophical in nature
>>319029
The attitude towards foubdational questions in the sciences borders on the anti-intellectual. The "shut up and calculate" mentality stifles and has stifled inquiries into the nature of the phenomena physics proclaims to have dealt with. John Bell couldn't publish his seminal paper on hidden variables in QM because no physics journals would take papers on interpretive problems. He first had to get it published in the underground Epistemological Letters for it to even see the light of day. Frankly, the anti metaphysical attitude is damaging not only to philosophy, but to science as well
>>319063
Those are questions for philosophers. There's enough overlap at high levels that I'm sure smarter people than you or I have come up with experiments relating to those things. From what I understand about the nature of the observer (I've asked STEMfags about this), that's just a name, and it doesn't actually have much to do with the effect of observation of a phenomenon. It actually refers to the effect light has on particles and the impossibility of observing particles that haven't been affected by light, not to human observers as the cause of these phenomena. Again, do you think you're really in a position to be judging these people like this? I don't you've done research into quantum mechanics, that is, the thing you think scientists aren't interpreting. Metaphysical interpretation is literally the opposite of a scientist's job. What do you expect to discover through these metaphysical interpretations, anyway? Quantum truths?
>>319081
>no physics journals would take papers on interpretive problems
Because it isn't the place of science to interpet, only to observe and explain. You demand too much from science without even realizing what you're doing. This is borderline scientism.
>>319104
That's right, it is a question for philosophers. The problem arises when physicists declare them a non issue and proclaim science as the sole bearer of truth in the world, something they can not reasonably claim when there are serious philosophical deficiencies in their theory. An investigation into these matters would end up revealing some of what metaphysics aims to achieve, an understanding of the nature of reality at the fundamental level, an actual ontology. As far as the observer goes, it's true that "observer" tends to refer to any interaction between the quantum state and the environment, but that does not reconcile quantum and classical observations and the possibility of macro superpositions.
>>319107
But when actual research into interpretive matters HAS been undertaken, significant and profound results have been acquied. The physics community is still grappling with the implications of Bell's Theorem. That was an example of foundational probing done right, metaphysical ramifications and all
>>319149
>The problem arises when physicists declare them a non issue and proclaim science as the sole bearer of truth in the world
Why do you care what strawman scientists like these say. I'm sure some exist, but science is inherently open to questioning. It just demands more rigor and more evidence than metaphysics does.
You'll have to explain to me the significance of Bell's theorem, I admit I've never heard of it. It sounds, though, lime you've admitted that there isn't actually a problem, since the work did get published and the scientific community is dealing with its consequences.
>>316150
baka senpai desu kek
>>319177
It's not just a few strawmen scientists. All I'm saying is that there's significant overlap between physics and metaphysics. An entire generation of physicists were brought up to believe that quantum mechanics was complete and any intimation of interpretive issues was metaphysical nonsense, which, as history shows, is clearly not the case. Obviously they deal with different problems, but there's always going to be a grey area where the two meet.
Bell's Theorem was designed to demonstrate the existence or nonexistence of hidden variables in quantum theory. They were first postulated to exist by Einstein who couldn't accept irreducible indeterminacy and the apparent nonlocal correlations between entangled quantum systems as predicted to occur in the EPR paradox. Bell set up a system of inequalities which, if violated by experiment, would eliminate hidden variables as a potential unobserved factor in quantum theory. Experiments showed the expected violations, meaning that the intuitive local realistic view we have of the world is incorrect at the fundamental level. We either accept nature as nonlocal, or concede that the formalism of QM refers to nothing true about the world. Most physicists (Bell included) see it as the end of locality, meaning we are forced to accept the explicitly metaphysical conclusion that nature is nonlocal.
