ページ

▼

月曜日, 3月 25, 2019

spinoza the way of love


　　　　　　　　　　　　　　（ スピノザ、リンク:::::::::）
spinoza the way of love








06. Spinoza

Spinoza






This graph represents the levels at play
within this study. The definitions are
rely the nominalist renderings of the activities from 'Aspect" into "Order".These
pragmatic maxims are the flatus vocis tuned by how various
movement from one order into another, or one individual into another. Ten
me
acity is
individual (E3P595), and contributes to Nobility (EAP73S); the formation of community
by being faced with an individuality beyond itself as perfected individuations, or Virtue
(cf., E4P37). This is the 'surface' made of points', which allows the line' to be traced
"equal to the angle which the line of the incident motion makes with the same surface
(cf, E2A2"). This g ', by showing the tangential
operative forces at work in aspectivalist logic. This is an active figuring of
beyond guaranteed ends, by being open to refiguring
upon the 'surface' that is the essence of their (point' and line') nat
oes bevond simple 'identification'
the impact of individual bodies
e 'surface' that is the essence of their (point' and line) nature (cf, E2P17S)
Nobility
Communitv
DEFINITION Tenacity
Virtue
Unity of Nature
Anxiety as halting of fluctuatio
animi (cf., E2P44S). to
allow self-preservation
Moderating ambitions by
understanding and helping, (E3Preface). To
others realize time's illusion
(cf., E3P55S, E4P10, E4P32)
enact eternity by
suspending passions
ORDER
imaginatio
ratio
scientia intuitiva
AGENCY 1st Individual
2ed Individual
3rd Individual
ASPECT
Point


Line
Surface



4付録11項
しかし人間の心は武器によってでなく愛と寛仁とによって征服される。

1:25c

　備考　この定理は定理一六からいっそう明瞭に帰結される。というのは、神の本性が与えられると、それから物の本質ならびに存在が必然的に結論されなければならぬということが定理一六から帰結されるからである。一言で言えば、神が自己原因と言われるその意味において、神はまたすべてのものの原因であると言われなければならぬ。このことはなお次の系からいっそう明白になるであろう。
　系　個物は神の属性の変状(アフエクテイオ)、あるいは神の属性を一定の仕方で表現する様態(モードス)、にほかならぬ。この証明は定理一五および定義五から明らかである。
With what has been wonderfully discussed in our posts, I thought that there was no need to go-on and on about some of the details of the Spinoza text here, so I thought that my two graphs (one less ‘mad’ than the other) would do, unless something comes up that I can help with and add some commentary in this spot. Dr. LAP (5/28/13).

23 THOUGHTS ON “06. SPINOZA”

  1. Dr. LAP,
    For Spinoza, obviously it’s all about working one’s self toward the intellectual love of God. Seeing God as nature, and necessary, means that ultimately my ideal love is an intellectual appreciation for that. I was just wondering, and this is more musing than real textual breakdown, but would it be possible in that system to attain this intellectual love if one had not yet experienced a more emotional, passionate love? Does the intellectual love of God require previous experience with love?
    • Brian, (seeing that you addressed me), I think the question is valid, and also illuminating, because without having gone-through the emotions (or affects) – very psycho-analytically in fact – and Part III of the Ethics demonstrates this, I do not think one would be prepared for the Third Order of Knowledge, viz., “intuitive science”. So, to know, and then to moderate and restrain the “affects” (emotional love) is a step, and one that must be under our control if we wish to not be playthings of mere fortune (which we mistakenly think there is) but, surprise, there is only necessity, but that understanding, and living-by-that-understanding, is difficult, as it is rare, and rarer even is the thought that :love can be conceived without any one particular desire”. As Spinoza says in Ethics 2 Proposition 48, “In the Mind there is no absolute, or free will …” and god-forbid you speak of ‘it as ‘oh well, it is the will of God, and I take refuge there’, for that would be to be to enter and take refuge in “the sanctuary of ignorance” (See Spinoza, Appendix to Ethics, Part 1). So, to respond to your question directly: yes, but, transformed.
      • I appreciate the way that Spinoza says that to use “God’s will” as a type of ignorant excuse. While it may be God’s will for us to do something, it was also God who gave us free will (if you’re a believer of such).
        • Try to read Spinoza’s Appendix to Ethics Part 1 (find it on-line) … it is only five pages or so. Once you read that through, then you will see how even to say “god gave us …” is saying something that resounds from the sanctuary of ignorance. Plus God has no “will” … if god did, god would be lacking, so no will, no freedom of will (because there is no will all-around) and thus what is left? The joyful appreciation of necessity … so, know your necessities … and causes, and effects. Spinoza is clear on all this, but, it is difficult to see this from our excerpt, (and I did not ask for that either), but here I will add what I can, without adding too many pages. Ciao.
        • Jennifer, from how I understood it, Spinoza was a believer in determinism: “everything happens for a reason”. His idea of free will was granted to us to realize that the world is determined, but also to figure out what those determinations are. It is a way of accepting everything that occurs in one’s life: the good, the bad, and the ugly. It drives us to question “why” without doubting its purpose.

時刻:

0 件のコメント:

コメントを投稿