User talk:A Friendly Spinozist

Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to say hello!

Interpreting Spinoza

Spinoza's "pantheism" means that we can substitute the word "nature" for the word "God" in his book entitled Ethics. Doing so results in greater comprehension.Lestrade (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

I understand that substituting nature for God is an implication of pantheism. However, respected commentators on Spinoza's work (Edwin Curley is an example) have denied that Spinoza is a pantheist.

Now, I think that Spinoza clearly is a pantheist, but, since well-respect commentators disagree, I don't think Wikipedia should take a stance on this issue. Spinoza never calls himself a pantheist.

I assume your comment relates to my changing of the Ethics section titles. I changed it because "On God" is a literal translation of the heading of part 1 of Ethics whereas "On God or Nature" is adding something which Spinoza did not. I think that if we do address pantheism in the article we should do so in a way that makes it clear that Spinoza does not emphasize this feature of his own work (probably because it was controversial) and it is a point of controversy among experts.

That was my reasoning for the changes I made, but I am happy to hear your view on the matter. I agree that it might aid comprehension to make the substitution, but I worry that it emphasizes a particular way of reading Ethics in a way it shouldn't. A Friendly Spinozist (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spinoza was a part of the movement of Western human thought away from the old concept of "God." His philosophy helped to wean humans from the comforting but irrational thought that there is a big man in the sky who made and controls this entire world. Of course, this will be fiercely resisted by those whose sanity depends on a belief in a humanoid God. They will say that Spinoza wasn't a pantheist, or, if he was, he meant that the anthropomorphic God pervades all of nature. Quite a bold statement! They will never agree that Spinoza was merely talking about nature when he used the word "God." Take Spinoza's sixth definition, for example. If we implement the substitution, he will say: "By nature, I understand Being absolutely infinite, that is to say, substance consisting of infinite attributes, each one of which expresses eternal and infinite essence." That is almost comprehensible and intelligible. Nature can also be somewhat understood as being the cause of itself. When Einstein, the natural scientist, said that he believed in "Spinoza's God," he simply meant that he studied nature, as is fitting for a physicist. To a pantheist, God is all of nature. That means, to a pantheist, the word "God" can be replaced by the word "nature." When this is done, something unknown (God) is explained by something known (nature), as is the proper order.Lestrade (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Look, I don't necessarily disagree with these views, but they are far from uncontroversial. I just don't think wikipedia is the right venue for them. A Friendly Spinozist (talk)`

Idle speculations

Hello,

In 1617 Robert Fludd published a book whose title Tractatus Theologo-Philosophicus looks much like the one adopted by Spinoza; so now it appears to stand symmetrically as Wittgenstein's later title. No connection, of course, but what?91.92.179.172 (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I hadn't heard about that, but it sounds interesting. Do you have a link with more information? A Friendly Spinozist (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiknic 2012

	Great American Wiknic - Pittsburgh
	You are invited to the second Great American Wiknic taking place in Schenley Plaza, in Pittsburgh, on Saturday, June 23, 2012 starting at noon! This is a chance for all of the wikipedians in the Greater Pittsburgh area to meet for an afternoon of fun and fellowship. This is a bring your own lunch event, if you have special treats you would like to share feel free to bring them. We would love to have you there!

Message delivered by Guerillero | My Talk at 22:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naturalistic Pantheism

Hi, I have nominated a page, Naturalistic pantheism, for deletion. I would be interested in your thoughts since you identify with pantheism. thanks (Allisgod (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Glancing at the page, I have no problem with deleting it. It doesn't seem to have a lot of content to make it needs its own page separate from pantheism. Nor, as far as I am aware, is naturalistic pantheism a thing in any sense beyond the fact that it is possible to string those two words together, and then use their definitions to get a sense of what that word would mean. I don't know of anyone who identifies as that. Spinoza is a naturalistic pantheist in the sense that he both endorses naturalism and pantheism I suppose, but he would argue that that term is redundant since Pantheism (really, substance monism) and Naturalism imply each other within the set of assumptions he works in. A Friendly Spinozist (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh meetup

Pittsburgh Wikipedian's are invited to a meet up on April 3, 2015. Meetup Pittsburgh

Bfpage |leave a message 01:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]