Attention: Starting December 14, 2019 Yahoo Groups will no longer host user created content on its sites. New content can no longer be uploaded after October 28, 2019. Learn More
- Oct 15 7:27 PMDear Luis,Thank you for your kind remarks. It has been a long time since I read anything about Spinoza (although I probably have the largest Spinoza library in the U.S.). I taught a six week course on Spinoza's Ethics a number of years ago. After that, being unsatisfied with the available literature, I started writing my own book "Spinoza's Ethics Explained". One of my goals in life is to finish it.I did write a paper on the attributes, and one on determinism. I can share those with you if you like. Perhaps I will just put those up on one of my web sites.I have to admit that much of my understanding of the less understood pieces did not come from any book other than The Ethics. I read and read the Ethics. I kept morphing my interpretation of his propositions to minimize contradictions with other propositions. Then, about 15 years ago, it all made sense. It all fits. The Ethics appears as a logical whole to me. (This is one of the few testaments to the beauty of the geometrical method...)I've met and heard Steven Nadler. He strikes me as one of the few who understand Spinoza. I read his historical book but not all of his book on The Ethics. I'd probably recommend that one.I remember enjoying Jon Wetlesen's The Sage And The Way.A lot of the other books cover the basics well but utterly fall apart in the more controversial parts. They don't see what is going on. You can tell they don't get it or they'd see that those parts are just as straight forward - once you get past your prejudices.A few of the other books that get recommended (like Hallett), are so complex that very, very few can get through them. IMO, The Ethics is not that complicated. Books like Hallett make what appears difficult (The Ethics) a lot more difficult unnecessarily. Rather than simplify it into something a person can understand, they make it more complex.Sorry I can't be of more help.Blake McBrideOn Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Luis Gutierrez luiguti_88@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Very helpful insight. Thank you Blake. Would you suggest author/authors that would help me expand on your ideas?LuisOn Wednesday, October 15, 2014 9:01 PM, "Blake McBride blake@... [spinoza]" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Be careful with the mode of thought. It's not what most people think. The attribute of thought is not thought like people thinking. At is more like our word "pattern".As I learn things, my brain alters its "patterns" to reflect the things I've learned. Obviously, there is a one-to-one relationship (or one thing seen from two perspectives) between the "patterns" in my brain that represent things I've learned, and the physical interconnectedness within my brain.Likewise, "patterns" exist among all physical things. These "patterns" are the attribute of thought. It is not human thought.< /div>Blake McBrideOn Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Luis Gutierrez luiguti_88@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Hi Blake,I like very much the example of the ocean and the waves, great visual. I can hold to that for the infinite, eternal modes of rest and motion from the attribute of extension, but I take it that you think that the metaphor extends to finite things as well. . . The intricacy necessary to conform to ever increasing patterns of complexity to explain the different things in the universe, from quantum particles to atoms to humans, to planets, galaxies, etc., is daunting. Yet your metaphor is very attractive.Do you think that the same image, of the ocean and waves, also applies when looked at from the attribute of thought?LuisOn Wednesday, October 15, 2014 6:15 PM, "Blake McBride blake@... [spinoza]" <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Think of infinite substance as the universe - infinite space. Think of infinite modes as infinite number of things in the universe.Of course, more precisely, modes are not actually things in anything. A better example is as follows: Imagine the ocean as the substance, and the waves as the modes. Tho waves are constantly changing and never a separate thing - just a thing we think of separately. The waves are not "in" the ocean, they are an expression of it. Substance and modes work like that.Blake McBrideOn Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Luis Gutierrez luiguti_88@... [spinoza] <spinoza@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Any help in understanding the ambiguity of the transition from the infinite substance to finite modes? I am not sure that I understand it clearly.Anyone?Luis - << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>