Next Philosopher!

The Enlightenment• 1650-1780

• A time when individualism, reason, and analysis were popularly prized.

• Deeply rooted authorities were challenged and secularism was on the rise.

• Tracks with the gradual global fall of authoritarian monarchy and the rise of constitutions, republics, democracies, and vast scientific advancements.

The Ontological Proof of God

Basically, God is a being which nothing greater could be imagined, and it exists as a concept.

Something that we can conceptualize but doesn’t exist in reality is lesser than something with which we can do both.

Therefore if God only exists in the mind we can imagine something greater. This begets a contradiction.

Therefore, God exists in reality and is the greatest thing ever, no backs plus tax period forcefield forever.

Dualism• Made famous by Rene Descartes

• Basically it asserts that the mind and body are separate entities. The mind cannot exist without the body, and the body cannot think.

• Our consciousness is our soul, and it should be innately obvious that this is separate from our physical body.

• Very popular idea at this time.

NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

Yeah, right…

• This idea, while very popular, has some serious problems.

• First of all, it certainly seems to assert the presence of a soul, but it fails to address at all how said soul is able to interact with the physical realm.

• Our next philosopher cemented his name as one of the greats by contesting this idea, and also by almost single-handedly sparking the enlightenment.

“The Philosopher’s Philosopher”

Baruch Spinoza 1632-1677

• Born in Amsterdam to a financially successful Jewish family.

• Was educated and bright.

• Excommunicated very harshly, left penniless (but by choice).

• Briefly became a teacher, fell in love, she married someone else, left teaching, and took up a career in lens-grinding to subsidize his writings. Published multiple works anonymously, one publicly, and his magnum opus posthumously.

• Died of either tuberculosis or silicosis (or both).

First Reading

• Spinoza is considered both one of the greatest Christian apologists as well as one of its greatest heretics (his works were banned, he was excommunicated, etc.).

• Nevertheless, his views on the concept of god are paramount to his entire philosophy.

• (As you read, see if you can’t detect a hint of Zhuangzi and Machiavelli.)

Congrats!

Writing Prompt

Thought experiment. Say that there is an omnipotent celestial being. Could it create a boulder so heavy that it itself could not lift it?

Writing Prompt

•A strange idea was presented yesterday. What do I think of it?

Anthropomorphizing• To give something human characteristics,

or to attribute human form upon.• To put something into a human context

in order to make it easier to understand.

So if Spinoza’s God created everything…

• (Ip29): In nature there is nothing contingent, but all things have been determined from the necessity of the divine nature to exist and produce an effect in a certain way.

• (Ip33): Things could have been produced by God in no other way, and in no other order than they have been produced.

Moar Kwotes

• “That eternal and infinite being we call God, or Nature, acts from the same necessity from which he exists”– (They left out the “or Nature” part in the

Dutch translation).

Spinoza wants us to undergo a dramatic paradigm shift!

• Go from God as an actual entity with human characteristics to…

• God as nature. As substance. As literally everything in the universe.

Human body example

Basically…

• Nature is literally everything. The laws of physics, of logic, of psychology, of mathematics, birds, grass, rocks, PEZ Dispensers, my awesome new shirt, all Nature.

• Nature (God) is also the cause of everything.

• Everything that exists was created by nature out of deterministic necessity. Nothing cannot exist.

Deterministic Necessity?

• Everything follows the patterns of nature.

• There is no plan, no grand design, no endgame, no purpose.

• Everything that exists does so because it is supposed to and does whatever it is meant to. That is the extent of it.

Does that include us?

• Yes.

So we have no free will?

• Yes.

Ummmmmm.

• Are we okay with that?

• http://www.wingclips.com/movie-clips/the-adjustment-bureau/free-will?play=1

Writing Prompt

•Why are people so opposed to the idea of determinism?

Deterministic Necessity?

• Everything follows the patterns of nature.

• There is no plan, no grand design, no endgame, no purpose.

• Everything that exists does so because it is supposed to and does whatever it is meant to. That is the extent of it.

In a nutshell…• Everything that exists is a substance.• A substance cannot be nothing, cannot be

identical to another substance, cannot be divided (or it loses its specific attributes/affections), and cannot create a different substance.

• A substance is more “real” (or important) the more complex its properties and affections.

• Therefore, by the ontological proof, God is the most complex substance. God must have infinite, or all, attributes and affections, and substances being indivisible, God must be everything (Nature/reality/the universe).

• If everything has specific affections, then nothing outside of those affections can happen. Because Nature is everything, nothing unnatural can happen.

Therefore!• If we, as human substance, can do

nothing outside of our prearranged affections, we do not have free will. Everything that we can possibly do is determined by our attributes and affections (what we are able to do, and the conditions around us).

2 Sides to Nature

• “Naturing” Nature= The productive, active side of nature, synonymous with god. (Think of the laws of physics that govern reality).

• “Natured” Nature= That which is produced and sustained by the active aspect. (Think of this as our observable reality).

The Ethical Problems of Determinism

• 1-Doesn’t it mean that our decisions are morally meaningless?• 2-What does it mean with regard to

the afterlife?• 3-Aside from morality, doesn’t it just

make us no better than automatons or machines?