From: Immanuel Smits <ismits-AT-ardron.com> Subject: PLC: Spinoza's Ethics Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 02:01:48 -0500 Hello, Some late-nite thoughts: "If intellect and will do indeed pertain to the eternal essence of God, one must understand in the case of both these attributes something very different from the meaning widely entertained. For the intellect and will that would constitute the essence of God would have to be vastly different from the human intellect and will, and could have no point of agreement except the name. They could be no more alike than the celestial constellation of the Dog and the dog that barks." Here Spinoza's anti-anthropomorphism comes out very clearly: No term when applied to God can possibly bear the same meanings it has when applied to humans. To understand the nature of God, it is absolutely crucial to distinguish between the modifications (or modes) of substance and substance itself, and to avoid using the former as a model or scale for the latter. However, if Spinoza's Dog-dog analogy holds, then wouldn't it follow that we (including Spinoza) cannot say anything meaningful about the nature of God beyond the assertion that God is infinite? How can anything more than this be said, without falling prey to anthropomorphic projection and imaginative distortion? --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005