Dedicated to Spinoza's Insights  


Love and Hate  -  Self-Interest 
Religion  -  One World  -  Conclusion 

 Spinozistic Contributions to Wikipedia 
Home  Page  -  Spinozistic Glossary and Index  -  Mark Twain and Spinoza 
Spinozistic Scriptural Interpretation - Graetz's Censure of Spinoza - Durant's Tribute 
Browser Notes—Use 800 x 600 resolution and medium size text for all pages.


For this URL re-formatted for eBook Reader conversion see here.
For this URL available for various eBook Readers see here


I  stumbled upon  Spinoza  after I studied Calculus in college.  Spinoza's 
definitions  of  sorrow, boredom, joy;  hate, indifference, love, seemed to 
me to lend themselves to Calculus expression. The more I studied these 
equations  the more I realized how important they were in understanding        Dawkins:546
roller-coaster emotions and everyday relationships—you love not out of       Uzgalis - Hobbes
altruism  but  out  of  self-interest.  Now (2006) I have for some sixty-odd       Ridley's Altruism
years  studied  Spinoza  whenever  earning a living, having a family and 
friends permitted.  

As I kept studying Spinoza, I was really hooked when what happened to
me is what Elwes thought happened to Spinoza.

From "Elwes's Introduction to his Translations of Spinoza's Works". 

This "unfolding itself" was to me an infinite "organic interdependence of 
" which led directly to the "Golden Rule";  not out of altruism but of      Uzgalis - Hobbes
enlightened self-interest.  

Now, after some sixty-odd years, I am still studying Spinoza and gaining
ever-new enlightening insights.

For  excellent  introductions  to  Spinoza  see "Elwes's 1883 Introduction to  
his Translations of Spinoza's Works" and Dr. A Wolf's 1910 Introduction to
Translation of Spinoza's "Short Treatise on G-D, Man and his Well-Being".

I show herein a list of Spinozistic Ideas on Love and Hate, Self-Interest, 
Religion, One World, and Conclusions. These ideas have been edited 
from the Glossary and Index, Ethics, TTP, TEI, and other Works, and
in many instances, have hypertext links thereto.

I strongly recommend study of Graetz's 'Censure of Spinoza', Paragraphs
8, 9, and 10, for gaining an understanding of Spinoza's Ideas.
The ideas that I express may not be explicit in Spinoza's Works, but are 
(in my opinion)  implicit  in  his  momentous  teachings.  The  definitions 
offered  are  really working hypotheses and stand in need of correction        Hypothesis
or discarding when a contradiction is found. In any event, partake of the 
ideas and definitions as you would a pomegranate;  relish the flesh and 
spit out the pits. 

Shirley's Bk.VII:2513Idea. 

1. Love and Hate 

1.1.    The  definitions  as  given  in  the  dictionaries  are  the  everyday 
          language usage, and are generally synonyms or properties of the     Working Hypotheses
          word—not the nature thereof. Spinoza attempts to find the cause.            JBY Note 1  

1.2.  E3:Definition of the Emotions XX:Explanation:178—
              "But  my  purpose  is  to  explain,  not  the  meaning  of  words,
               but  the  nature  
{and cause}  of  things."  
1.3.   Definitions  which  define things by  their causes are hypotheses; 
         they all need be suspect, for they are only congealed hypotheses. 
         They  need  to  be  constantly  updated  as  knowledge  evolves.

1.4.    An hypothesis is subject to error.   Care must be taken to follow 
          the scientific method—a method of research in which a problem 
          is  identified,  relevant  data  gathered, a hypothesis formulated, 
          and the hypothesis empirically tested.  

1.5.    An   hypothesis  is  an  unproved,  but  as  yet   uncontradicted 
         opinion.  The  truth  of  an hypothesis (or speculation) is in pro- 
         portion to its usefulness in increasing Perpetuation——Cash Value.      Pragmatism

1.7.    E3:VI:136Perpetuation and Perfection are equivalent terms. 

1.8.   I:1.5a  

        Biology of EmotionsANS,  'Emotion' versus 'Feelings', LeDoux96:34, William JamesDamasio, Being.   
1.9.   °EMOTION is a change in one's probability of Perpetuation         Roller Coaster Ride
          Its intensity is proportional to the change.   5P17, Being.     Robinson3:15        Russell:238     

1.10.  °FAITH  is  belief  that  an  external object will cause a change in         Hampshire:139
          one's  °Perpetuation.  The intensity is proportional to the change.      Calculus Expression 

1.11.  E4:Prf.27:189—Good and Bad. 

1.12.  E3:IX(5):137—What is a Good?  

1.13.  A  man, when  rational  and  judging  correctly,  calls  a thing good 
          if it increases his °P—bad; otherwise.

1.14.   When  a  little  fish  is eaten by a bigger fish, does not the little fish 
          "think"   that's   bad   and   does   not  the  bigger fish  "think"  that's 
          good (because each one seeks to preserve itself)?"  We say that is
          Nature;  if the food cycle stops, all life stops.  However, we are like 
          that little fish—or, like that big fish; abused or abuser.  

  When  Adam  and  Eve  started to think in terms of "good and bad",  
          i.e.  subjectively;  instead  of  "true and false",  i.e. objectively; they 
          self-thrust  themselves  from  the Garden  of  Eden, i.e.  they  were 
          subject to loss of °Peace of Mind.  

  One  of  the  main purposes of Spinoza's Ethics" is to teach        Dawkins2:Genes
          that  you  do not  LOVE  altruistically, but out of self-interest.          Love-Need
          If the LOVE be  rational it leads to an increase in °P for both            I-thee
          the lover and that loved; if not rational, a decrease.  

1.17.  A  sex  act  is sexually moral if the parties are able to provide for 
          the  possible  issue;  able,  both  financially and psychologically    Dawkins2:Genes
          within the standards of their society. The motive for the society's 
          standard  is  what  best  provides  for  the  issue,  thus  best 
          perpetuating  that  society—virtue.  

1.18.  Games  are  atavistic  play-acting  at  an  activity which in real life is 
          necessary for PERPETUATION. Examples—sports, boxing, gambling, 
          war-games,  fishing,  hunting, (some gunlovers  are sublimating their 
          aggressiveness).  Sexual  intercourse  without the desire for issue is 
          also a game.  

          Proof.– The more actual the NEED; the more pleasurable, the success;
          the more sorrowful,
the failure—food when you are starving, sex when
          you want a child.

1.19.  From 5P10n:252Right Conduct.  

1.20.  In E2:Prop 48,  Spinoza  returns to his main problem, to show 
          that the will is not free, and with this also to deny the freedom          Mark Twain
          of the other faculties, such as understanding, desiring, loving, 
          etc., all of which, like will, are only modes of thought.   

Man is a Computerized Machinea robot caused by G-D.        Data Base

 End: Love and Hate.

2. Self-Interest           Stewart:178 

2.1.   Jungle  self-interest— Survival   is   proportional   to   your  power. 
         A strong tribe in a jungle is more likely to survive than a weak tribe.       E4:Damasio:170-1
         Survival  of  the  fittest;  there  are  no  laws—power  makes  right.          

2.2.   Societal  (enlightened)  self-interest—Survival  is  proportional  to             Durant2:647 
         playing  by  the  rules  (reason,
 keeping the beat in an orchestra).        
         Not  true  when living in a part-jungle society.  When a man steals  
         bread  and  milk  to  feed  his  children,  we  do  not condemn  him.
When a man is starving, it is as if he were living in a jungle; where
         there are no rules
but one—survival, perpetuation. 

2.3.   To get and not give is selfishness  (extinction—in a body, the body       'I-thee' and 'I-It'
         soon  dies);  to  get  and  to  give  is  enlightenment (perpetuation);         Mark Twain
         to give and not get is altruism (extinction). Healthy self-interest is        Uzgalis - Hobbes
         perpetuation and virtue—you can't have one without the other.         Damasio—biological 

2.4.   Rabbi Hillel (1st Century BCEtaught  "If I am not for myself,  who will be; 
         if I am only for myself, what am I? {Nothing, like the lung without the heart.}        Analogy 

2.5.   Analogy:  Unless  it  is  ill,  will  the  heart  do  anything to harm the
         lungs?  On  the  contrary,  it  will  do  what  it  can  to enhance their

         performance.   Witness what harm whites have done to blacks—to
         the inevitable harm of whites when the slums riot against them.

2.6.   From Uzgalis—Leviathan 

2.7.  Altruism never exists, except it be an act of illness. When you say        WikipediA
         "I love you",  it is a euphemism for  "I need you, and the more or       An unfaced glaring truth. 
         less I need you the
 more or less will love you."   When you say
I hate you"  you are saying  "I do not need you, you are not fulfill-
         ing my needs.
" That is why there are marriages; that is why there 
         are  divorces.   If  the  love  be  healthy,  both  fulfill  each  others 
         legitimate  needs. 

2.8.   Self-interest—"you  have  to give  to get;  you  have  to get to give" 
         is  the  nature  of  organic  interdependence.  Altruism implies  that 
         a person is not always part of G-D and has, at that time, no duties 
         or obligations.   

2.9.   The  Hebrew  word  which  is  often  mis-translated  as  charity, 
         mercy,   pity,   etc.,   is   tsed-aw-kaw',  Strong:6666—rightness, 
         justice,   virtue,   piety.   The  root  of tsed-aw-kaw' is tsaw-dak', 
         Strong:6663—upright, just, straight, innocent, true, sincere; (the 
         same  root  as  for  righteousness).   Based  on  this  etymology, 
         it  is  what  one  lung  does  when  the  other  collapses;  it does  
        double-duty,  not  out  of  altruism,  but  for its very own survival. 
        In so doing,  it is,  if possible, leading the collapsed lung back to 
        health  and  thereby  increasing  the  lung-capacity  of the body. 
        It is the Golden Rule in working clothes; enlightened self-interest. 

 2.10.  The  Hebrew  word  which is often  mis-translated as pity (com- 
           passion,  love,  is  better)  is rakh'-am,  Strong:7355—to  fondle, 
           love, cherish, affection.  A related word is rekh'em, Strong:7358 
           —the womb (cherishing the fetus).  Based  on  this  etymology, 
           the  compassion,  forgiveness,  and  °LOVE  we  should feel for 
           each other  is  like  that  of  a  mother for the issue of her womb,     
           perhaps  varying  in  degree  but  not  in  kind;  it  is  in  no way 
           altruistic; but on the contrary, enlightened self-interest.  

2.11.  The   Hebrew   word   for  righteousness,  justice  is  tseh'-dek, 
          Strong:6664—righteous,  integrity,  equity, justice, straightness.
          The  root  of tseh'-dek  is tsaw-dak', Strong:6663—upright, just,
          straight,  innocent,  true,  sincere; (the same root as for charity).
          Based  on  this  etymology, righteousness is the Golden Rule in
          working clothes—enlightened self-interest.  It  is  what one lung 
          does  when  the other collapses; it takes over, for its very OWN 

2.12.  I believe society evolves as technological advancement and        Dawkins:192:Genes[4]
          trade tips the scale toward enlightened self-interest and away       
          from jungle self-interest. 

2.13. From Will Durant's "Story of Philosophy"; Washington Square Press; 18th Printing,     1965; Page 191.

End: Self-Interest.

3. Religion  

            Salvation                                                                                              posited
3.1.   Religion  is  a  self-serving,  ever-evolving hypothesis designed         Spinoza's Religion  
         to  find  °PEACE-OF-MIND,  i.e. by  faith,  and  when  fleetingly          Popkin:71
         found  it  is called  Bliss,  Blessedness,  Grace,  Salvation, etc.          Mark Twain
This  definition  is  in  no  way  pejorative  of  religion.   On the          Dawkins:192:Genes[5]
         contrary,  it  is  the  highest  attainment  of  the  human  mind—          Psychology

        By  not acknowledging the religious hypotheses of the countries in which they live, 
        Jews undermine those hypotheses and hence, the peace-of-mind of those holding
Mark Twain's 'Little Story', Anti-Semitism.
          Spinoza's hypothesis evolves the Judaeo-Christain-Islamic God into G-D/Nature 
          The evolving concept of God results in the re-interpretation of Holidays,  
        The secret to understanding Spinoza is to accept
        (as a working hypothesis) "POSIT
 1D6 = ONE" Important.                         Speculation  
                                                     The Foundation Rock.                            Importance of 1D6 = ONE 

        First Posit ONE1D6 and then test for cash values.                                   Simply Posit 
        Poor, desperate people are, on the whole, more religious than                Galbraith  
        rich, complacent people—no atheists in foxholes.                                           Russell:13 

3.2.  Spinoza's Doctrine: The mind makes no free-will, arbitrary judgments;      Determinism
        but makes free choices (decisions) based on random causes.        Why this doctrine is good.

3.3.  A dogma is a useful or non-useful hypothesis assumed true in the face of contradictions or         unsubstantiated proof of inferences made. It is true if useful; false and idolatrous if

3.4.  Abstraction: G-D, Deus, Being, ONE, J---vah, Allah, Buddha, Krishna, Jesus, Mary,                              Hampshire202, Language, Fences, Foundation Rock, Russell:13, 

3.4.  Idolatry is taking the infinite as finite.
      Taking the finite as infinite is pantheism.

Idolatry is taking an inseparable part of an infinite organism (G-D) as       Interdependent
        finite—and having it (the part, a mode) stand alone finite and supreme       Calculus:3.1c
        without interaction with the other parts. 

                    Idolatry is not an 'I-thee' relation with a thing, but an 'I-It' relation.      PantheismG-d 
                Idolatry  and  superstition  are  faulty  hypotheses  designed  to           Religion 
                find peace of mind. The fault is in taking the infinite as finite.             Schechinah  

3.5.  The misuse (false productivity) of any part to the detriment
        of the whole is idolatry and leads to chaos.

        3.5a.  The misuse of the automobile, causing gridlock and 
                  smog, is idolatry.  

        3.5b.  The misuse of fertilizers, causing pollution of rivers
                 and  groundwater,  is idolatry,  which  then causes
ecological disasters.  

        3.5c.  The misuse of wealth, causing slums, prejudice, and
                 uneducated  masses, is idolatry, which then causes
crime, substance-abuse, disease, and terrorism.  

3.6.   The  Hebrew  word for Holy is ko'desh,  Strong:6944—a sacred 
         place  or  thing,  hallowed,  holiness.   The  root   of  ko'desh  is 
         kaw-dash' ,  Strong: 6942—to be pure, clean, i.e. right, straight, 
         true, just.  Based on  this etymology,  what  is pure, clean, right, 
         straight,   true,   just,   etc.,   is   Holy;   the  test  is—that  which 
         PERPETUATES   is  Holy.   If  it  does  not PERPETUATE, it is 

3.7.  1:Def. VI:45Durant:636

3.8.  From G:Shirley:235G-D (Deus)

3.9.  Spinoza goes to great lengths to posit G–D—the quintessential 
        pragmatic truth (an all inclusive organic interdependenceso as                Analogy
        to establish the foundation for all his thought.  Establishing the 
        hypothesis of G-D is the entire burden of TEI and Ethics-Part 1.  

3.10.  Spinoza  and  Scripture  declare  that  G-D  is  ONE  to establish that 
          EVERYTHING  is  bound into one grand ORGANIC interdependence: 
          from  this  intuition,  by deduction, "in working clothes", logically flows  
          the  Golden  Rule  "love your neighbor..." and enlightened self-interest.

3.11.  If  declaring  "G-D is ONE",  does  not  trigger  the  concept  of  the 
          "Organic Interdependence of  all  Parts"  then "G-D is ONE" is just      Spinoza's Religion  
          words without meaning.  

3.12.  G:James's ONE:63Pragmatism                                           William JamesRobinson4:172

3.13.  D:Endnote 1.27dGolden Rule

3.14.  Following the Golden Rule is in your own self-interest; it is not Altruism. 
         The rule becomes more and more complied with as a society becomes 
         more and more affluent and integrated (wired).

3.15.  TTP3:XII(61):172—Corner-stone of Religion  

3.16.  The  Sacred  parts  of Scripture are the ethical and moral parts 
          which   demand  obedience  to  commandments—laws.   Other 
          parts  may be rejected or interpreted allegorically. This demand 
          of  obedience  is  the  same  as  required  by any governmental        Constitution
          or military law. No explanation of  the  law or command is given; 
         nor any philosophy expounded; just do it—or else.

3.17.  1P18:62Cause 

3.18.  G:Shirley:2512 - Cause (causa).

3.19.  Letter 21(73):298PantheismG-dSchechinah.

3.20.  4Ap.4:237— Blessedness. 

3.21.  The Hebrew word for commandment is mits-vaw', Strong:4687 
          —a command,  an ordinance,  a precept, good deed.  The  root 
          of mits-vaw'  is tsaw-vaw', Strong:6680—to enjoin,  bid,  send a 
          messenger,  put  in  order,  to  charge  with.  A  related  word  is 
          tsaw-vaw',  Strong:6633—to  mass  an  army,  fight,  war;  army, 
          host.  Based  on  this  etymology, a  commandment  is  an order 
          to  a  part  of  an  organism  to  do  its  duty  for  the  sake of the      Law of Organisms
          organism's  perpetuation.   Enlightened  self-interest  is the better 
          reason  for  obeying  the  command,  not  fear  of  punishment.  

3.22.  Letter 25(78):306 

But," you urge, "if men sin from the necessity of their nature,           human action
                  they are therefore excusable.

3.23.  TTP3:XIV(17):183 

3.24.  A  part  of  an  organism, an orchestra, a country, all have their
          duties to perform for
their very own good—it is not altruism.  

3.25.  The word "religion" as we use it does not exist in Biblical Hebrew. 
          They  looked  upon  the  Bible  as  we  do  our  Constitution,  and        Spinozistic Idea
          took  it  as  a  given—a way of life.   The Old Testament was their 
          Constitution   and   Legislative   enactments;   Post-biblically,  the 
          Talmud  was, and  is,  the  equivalent  of  a  modern  Law Library.      
{Din Medinah Din
          When   modern   Hebrew  had  to  coin  a  word for "religion" they     The law of a righteous
          chose  the  word  (daht) whose root is "knowledge",  Strong:1847    government is the Law.}
          from 3045.   

3.26.  From "Jews, God and History", ISBN 0451628667, Page 368. 

3.27.  The  Hebrew  word  for  worship  is av-o-daw 'Strong:5656                  Prof. Hall:79 
          work of any kind, ministry, labor, service. The root of av-o-daw ' 
          is aw-vad ' ,  Strong: 5647—to work,  labor,  serve.    Based  on 
          this  etymology,  everyone  doing  their  duty, practicing enlight- 
          ened self-interest is worshipping G-D.  Ritual also has its place 
          in  adding  pomp,  poetry,  song,  sociability,  and  pep-talks —
          school auditoriums.

3.28.  The  Pantheon  of  deified  figures  of  modern  world religions is an 
          evolution  of  the  Pantheon  of  Pagan gods. This is not derogatory    Dawkins129:Genes[4]
          of  either  Pantheon. It is the evolution of the hypothesis of Religion     Evolving Holidays
          to  purer  and  purer  Monotheism—from  the fetish of a caveman to 
          an  unadulterated  Monotheism to  One  World.
   Dawkins129:Culture          Durant:367

3.29.  Religion is an hypothesis that constantly evolves to purer and purer forms 
          of monotheism. As an example, study how Holiday themes  were  re-inter-     Synthesis
          preted as Paganism evolved into Judaism, Christianity,  and, I conjecture,  
          will in turn (with other Religions of the world) evolve into G-D
"The Universal 
          Religion and the United States of the World. 
                       PAGAN                                       JUDAISM                     CHRISTIANITY               UNIVERSAL RELIGION
               CELEBRATION OF LIGHT.                                 LIGHTING THE MENORAH             CHRISTMAS LIGHTS                              LIGHTS
         NOT LOSING THE SUN FOREVER.                                      & GIFTS                                      & GIFTS                                         &  GIFTS      
Pagan Winter Solstice Festival -----> Hanukkah --------> Christmas------> Nature Renewal Day

       RENEWAL AND PLANTING                                                   FREEDOM                          RESURRECTION                           FREEDOM FROM TYRANNY
Pagan Spring Festival ----------------> Passover ----------> Easter----------->  Man Renewal Day

                   TIME FOR                                                        DESCENT OF THE LAW                 DESCENT OF THE                 UNITED STATES OF THE WORLD
    PHILOSOPHICAL REFLECTION                                            ON MT. SINAI                              HOLY SPIRIT                                CONSTITUTION DAY
Pagan Free Time? Festival --------------> Shavuoth----------> Pentecost------->  United Nations Day
    Between Planting and Harvesting
                                          HARVESTING BOOTHS                            FEASTING                          FEASTING and FORGIVING  
Pagan Harvest Festival --------------> Sukkoth-----------> Thanksgiving------->  Thanksgiving

3.30.  Psalm 92:13, 14, & 15:

3.31.  I conjecture that the Judaic-Christian God will, in millennium, be overcome by
          the United States of the World and
Universal Religion (G-D).

3.32.  Scarcity (oil, for example) causes most dysfunctional practices (war); it cannot
          be avoided
until there will be sufficient technological advancement and an
          effective United States of the World.
In the meantime however, G-D as a Religion
          is more efficacious (has more cash value) than God,
in that G-D stresses the           organic interdependence of all parts of the Universe.

3.33. From Will Durant's "Story of Philosophy"; Washington Square Press;
                  18th Printing;
1965; Page 513—William James on Religious Paradigm Shifts. 

3.34. MoralitySpinoza's Religion, 

3.35. Prof. Hall's Philosophy of Religion Lecture 34 - TB3:123—{Organic Interdependence} 

3.36. Prof. Oden's The Teaching Company's "God and Mankind: Comparative Religions"          Lecture One:1A1-CG1:3—What is Religion? 

End: Religion

4. One WorldDurant:367—Evolution to One World. Robinson3:60. 

4.1.  I  conjecture  that  the  holidays  of the coming Universal Religion will be 
        purged of literal miracles, imagery, and deified figures; all of which make 
        fences   (a  different  language  for  expressing  the "Oneness"  of  G-D) 
        between  neighbors  and  peoples  of  the  world.  These  fences  are  a 
        violation of the Second Commandment, Deu. 5:8—"
You  shall  not make 
        for yourself a carved image...

 It is the increasingly electronic-age-caused unification that will make 
        these  fences  (incompatible protocols)  more  and  more  onerous. 
Fences destroy "I-thee" relationships.  

4.3.  The United Nations  is today  in  the  analogous  position  of The United    Durant:367
        States of America at the time of its founding and the Civil War. The USA     Daniel Webster
        had to overcome the power of the individual states to achieve the power 
        it  has  today.  The  United  Nations  will  likewise  overcome  the  power 
        of  the  sovereign  states  in time,  because  of  the inescapable trend of          Oil
        of history; opposers become irrelevant.  

  I believe socialism evolves as technological advancement and trade            Millennia
        tips the scale  toward enlightened self-interest and away from jungle 

4.5.  Technological advancement—fire, wheel, writing, electricity, steam 
        engine,  combustion engine,  radio,  television,  computer,  internet,
        nuclear power,  space travel, .......... —all have tended (or will tend) 
        to  lead  people  to be more cooperative; enlightened, one-worldish.

4.6.  The  misuse  of  wealth,  causing  slums,  prejudice, and  uneducated 
        masses, is idolatry. When affluence reaches a critical mass, a decent 
        minimum income will be guaranteed to all; eradicating slums, prejudice 
        and uneducated masses. It is not altruism, it is evolution due to evolv-
        ing  technological  advancement  making  products cheaper and main-
    Marginal Value
        taining aggregate demand. 

4.7.  I  conjecture that with advancing technology and affluence, there will 
        be   a   synthesis   between   Capitalism   and  Socialism.    As  major 
        corporations mature,  they become more and more controlled by their      Read and reread 
        management  and  not by their stock owners.  The self-interest of the   "The  Affluent Society 
        management  will  begin  to  coincide  more and more with the unions
        and  the  public interest—Enlightened self-interest.

4.8.  Spinoza is a harbinger of the coming, however long it may take, 
        of  a   One-World  Universal Religion—the  One-World  that  is 
        evolving    as    it   is   being   organically   bound   together   by 
        electronic  mutations.   It is for this reason that I think Spinoza is 
        the  quintessential  Monotheist  as is Einstein—they  constantly 
        sought unification; simplicity, efficiency. 

But Spinoza does more than prepare the reader for the overcoming of Judaism by Christianity. As I suggested earlier, he prepares the reader for the overcoming {synthesizing} of both Judaism and Christianity by the secular democratic state. After depicting Christ as the teacher of a universal rational morality (a kind of Spinoza avant la lettre) {Bk.XIA:110147}, he shows how Christianity did not possess the true moral teaching. In particular, he shows that Christianity, not Judaism, became the cause of the persecution and intolerance to which the Treatise takes itself to be the answer. In Spinoza's recasting of sacred history, if Christ takes the place that Maimonides had accorded to Moses, Spinoza now assumes the place that had previously been accorded to Christ. He {Spinoza} is the bringer of
a new theologico-political dispensation every bit as far-reaching as the
historical religions that he claims to overcome

4.9.  From Will Durant's "Story of Philosophy"; Washington Square Press; 18th Printing,         1965;  Page 190.

4.10. From Lederman and Hills "Symmety and the beautiful universe", 1591022428; 2004:          Page 54—Oil 

End: One World

5. Conclusion 

5.2.  Micah 6:8.   It hath been told thee,  O man, what is good, and what
rule of law}
                           the LORD doth require of thee, only to do justly, and to
equity}      {progress, strive, grow.}
                           love  mercy,  and  to  walk  modestly  with  thy  G-D.
           Walk Humbly
                                     { ^ equity--the application of the dictates of conscience or
                                         the principles of natural justice to the settlement of controversies.

5.3.  From Will Durant's "Story of Philosophy"; Washington Square Press;
                 18th Printing; 1965; Page 524—John Dewey's Conclusion.

5.4. Professor James Hall's Philosophy of Religion Lecture 36 - CG3:37—{Millennia} 

End: Conclusion

JBY Endnotes: 

 Endnote 1.9—From The Teaching Company's Tapes; The Great Ideas of Philosophy, 2nd Edition; 2004; Professor Daniel N. Robinson's Lecture 28; Part 3 Transcript, p. 59; Thomas Hobbes and the Social Machine—Perpetuation & Survival.  

 Endnote 1.9—From The Teaching Company's Tapes; The Great Ideas of Philosophy, 2nd Edition; 2004; Professor Daniel N. Robinson's Lecture 25; Part 3 Course Guidebook, pp. 15 & 16 - Francis Bacon and the Authority of Experience—Perpetuation & Emotion.  

Endnote 1.9—From  Bertrand Russell and F. C. Copleston, "The Existence of God," reprinted in Hick, Reader; ISBN: 0131369040, pp. 226ff.—Good and Bad, Emotions. 

Endnote 3.28a - From James Hall's "Knowledge, Belief, and Transcendence";
        0395195020; p. 51—Two World Views: God and G-D, Synthesized, Duck or Rabbit.

From William Craig; reprinted in Robinson, God; ISBN: 0872202224; p. 59: 
        Consider the Universe by means of a series of logical alternatives—Two World Views:
 God and G-D, Evolved & Synthesized,                  Paradigm Shifts
                                             Duck                          Rabbit.

Endnote 3.28c - From Jay F. Rosenberg's "Practice of Philosophy"; ISBN: 013687178X;
        Pages 26, 27—Theistic and Non-theistic World views Synthesized, Hall:TB3:20, TB3:38,
                       Duck or RabbitParadigm Shift,

[1] Now the word 'dialectical' has had many uses in philosophy, from Plato to Marx. What I mean by it is not unrelated to these historical roots. A pair of world views stand in what I call dialectical opposition just in case they are incompatible but nevertheless are both tempting—there's an initial pull toward each of them; both pivotal—they serve as centers for ordering and regrouping families of beliefs; and both reformulable—they are expressible by a variety of different specific claims or theses.   
[2] Consider, for example, what we might call the theistic and the non-theistic world views. Some people look at the world and see it as the perfect handiwork of a Divine creator {God}, infused with a benevolent personal presence. Others greet this picture with incomprehension or hostility, seeing in the world only complex flows and interactions of mass and energy, the workings of blind and wholly impersonal forces
or Spinozistic Theism and a chain of natural events}. Perhaps most people have moments of both sorts from time to time, sometimes confronting the world as a deep mystery, with awe and reverence, and sometimes confronting it as a mere object, imperfectly understood, to be sure, but perfectly understandable and able some day to be grasped and mastered.   

[3] Both pulls are undeniably there. Both pictures have an undeniable attraction for us. But it is clear that, even with the most prodigious efforts at self-deception, one cannot retain both pictures indefinitely at the same time. They are ultimately incompatible with each other {different paradigms}.   

[4] Now how is this incompatibility to be expressed? One traditional way, of course, is as a disagreement over the statement "God exists". One philosopher offers an argument for or against the statement; another replies with criticisms of that argument; the first responds to the criticism of the second with a critique of his own; still other voices enter the chorus; and so it goes. But to see this ongoing dialogue as a dispute concerning, only the truth or falsehood of a single statement is to overlook the greater hidden mass of the icebergs. {I highly recommend Prof. Hall's Lectures for a study of these dialogues.} 

[5] For, in a sense, everything is touched by the issue. One of these disputants, for example, lives in a universe permeated with meaning. It, and we within it, have a purpose, exist for a reason. For the other, in contrast, if there are to be meanings and purpose at page 27 all, they will need to be {subjective} human meanings and purposes, for we are here not by design but as the result of the {seemingly} random coming together {chain of natural events} of appropriate raw materials and the systematic evolutionary working out of this original fortuitous chance concurrence.   

[6] Again, one philosopher sees people as "a little lower than the angels"—as creatures who are imbued with souls and with a Divine spark of life, who are granted the freedom to choose between good and evil, in accordance with or in opposition to God's will. For the other, however, we are perhaps only "a little higher than the apes"— sophisticated deterministic organic data-processors which create whatever values there are in the process of our mutual interactions and our continuing adaptation to a universe of value-free, uncaring stuff. For one, our death is our transition to a higher life; for the other, it is only the ultimate malfunction.   

[7] Any of these differences, and many others, may emerge as a focal point from which the dialectical process of meeting argument with argument develops. People have souls—or they do not. There is life after death—or there is not. We have free will—or we are determined. There are ultimate values—or all values are conventional. Sensory perception is our only knowledge-yielding faculty—or mystical experience gives us access to a higher reality. Whatever the specific thesis, the ultimate aim of the enterprise remains the same {to achieve Peace of Mind}—to assemble from pieces rooted in the preferred picture a consistent, coherent, articulate, and systematic whole which can withstand the test of critical challenge, to build a synthesis which hangs together under analysis.

From Wikipedia: Is it a duck? Is it a rabbit? {G-D? or God?} 

Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd edn., p. 114)—
                                   The famous duck-rabbit optical illusion:


"The subject of a gestalt demonstration knows that his perception has shifted because he can make it shift back and forth repeatedly while he holds the same book or piece of paper in his hands. Aware that nothing in his environment has changed, he directs his attention increasingly not to the figure (duck or rabbit) {G-D or God} but to the lines of the paper he is looking at. Ultimatey he may even learn to see those lines without seeing either of the figures {world view}, and he may then say (what he could not legitimately have said earlier) that it is these lines that he really sees but that he sees them alternately as a duck and as a rabbit. ...As in all similar psychological experiments, the effectiveness of the demonstration depends upon its being analyzable in this way. Unless there were an external standard {with respect to G-D or God, the standard is the Peace-of-Mind it brings} with respect to which a switch of vision could be demonstrated, no conclusion about alternate perceptual possibilities could be drawn."  

{The ideal is to understand the G-D view and the God view. The view a person will have is the one that brings him more Peace-of-Mind. The G-D view is appropiate for a person able to abstract Spinoza's G-D; the God view is appropiate for a person who believes in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic God.} 

Duck or Rabbit - From Matthew Stewart's The Courier and the Heretic 2006;                                     0393058980; p. 280—World View: 

Imagine a pair of friends returning separately from travels abroad, each describing a favorite city whose unpronounceable name they have forgotten.Your friends are wildly different in character, background, and aesthetic sensibilities; not surprisingly, they seem to have taken an interest in wildly different cities. As your friends are quite competitive, furthermore, they soon take to criticizing each other's choices. Each celebrates the virtues of his city by contrasting them with the alleged failings of the other's. As the discussion progresses, however, you begin to suspect that they are talking about the same city In fact, you hear nothing in what they say that could confirm that they are not talking about the same city.Yet there is still no doubt that the city in question means something very different to each of your friends; that the two saw very different things in their travels. Now imagine that your friends are named Leibniz and Spinoza, and that instead of a particular city they are discussing the nature of the universe. The question then is: Do they share the same philosophy? Or, in other words, is philosophy about what you see {objective}, or the way you see it {subjective; what brings you Peace-of-Mind}? 

Endnote 1.11- From Professor James Hall's Tape 1: L19:TB2:79—God's Worship and
                                                                                the Problem of Evil
 {See [3], [4], & 'evil'}:  

[1] What I want to start in on today is an argument to the effect that {due to evils} we can know that {ethical monotheistic, anthropomorphic, transcendent} Divine {God} existence does not occur. We can know that there is nothing in, of, behind, about, over the world reality that is deserving of {God} worship {of the obsequious, pleading type; G-D's worship entails: Avodaw, Meditation,}. That argument begins essentially with the observation of what, following convention, I will call the "occurrence of evil" or "the occurrence of evils" in the world—as it is called, the "problem of evil." We're going to see that any number of negative religious thinkers, atheists, if you please, have argued that from the occurrence of evil in the world we can infer inexorably {that it cannot be persuaded, moved, or affected by prayers or entreaties} to the non-existence of the Divine. We're going to trace that out very, very carefully during this lecture and the next lecture. Then, we're going to look at, as I said a moment ago, rebuttals to that—rebuttals, which are called "theodicies {a vindication of God's justice in tolerating the existence of evil}."  

[2] A "theodicy" is a counterargument that says essentially that, for one reason or another, the occurrence of evil in the world is compatible with Divine existence, or possibly Divine existence is okay because the apparent occurrence of evil in the world isn't genuine; there really isn't any evil at all. We'll get to the rebuttals, but we can't really make much sense of them until we have seen the texture of the argument from evil itself, the texture of the problem of evil. 

[3] Let me begin by observing, and this is an important point, that not everyone has a problem of evil. This is crucially important because it is the fact (I'm alleging it to be a fact; you're going to have to make up your own mind) that there is a problem of evil indigenous to the {transcendent} theist's way of taking the world. It is the way the theist looks at the world that creates the problem of evil for the theist. Let me see if I can make that make a little bit better sense. 

[4] Suppose you took an absolutely naturalistic {imminent G-D} view of reality, and by an absolutely naturalistic view of reality I mean to say that you look at the world as simply a natural arena of cause and effect, things happening and things working along, but with{out} there being any intention behind it at all. They are absolutely neutral events—some of them we like {and therefore call them 'good'}; some of them we don't like {and therefore call them 'evil/bad'}. Some of them are conducive to our happiness and well-being; some of them are very, very difficult—when the volcano blows up or when the tidal wave blows in or whatever the particular disaster of the day may be. 
page 80
[5] Unless you look at the events that are occurring in the world as the working out of intentions, then it would never occur to you, I suggest, to talk about these things being someone's or something's fault or someone's or something's wrong-doing or someone's or something's malevolence or anything of the sort—they are just things that happen. When a naturalist looks at what a theist might call a "natural evil," like some dread disease or scourge that is loose in the world, the naturalist simply says, "Well, that's the way the world is {, Being}." It's not the exercise or the fruit or the intention of any sort of designer; it just happens to be working out that way and it is grist of the mill. We have tried to find a solution to it. If we don't find a solution to it, well, we'll hang it up and the world will be left to some other species that is better able to cope. 

[6] You get a problem of evil precisely when you look at the world and say that the world is solely the product of a creator that is limitless in power and wisdom, such that anything that happens in the world has to at least be permitted by, if not actively initiated by, because anything that the world maker and sustainer did not initiate and did not want to permit wouldn't happen. When you pack that intentionality (that's the word I'll be using rather frequently for the next several days) into your way of looking at the world, then things that are adverse and difficult and troublesome and annoying are going to begin to take on the dimensions of meanness and of cruelty—and here's the model,—it's anthropomorphic, one more time—all of the things that we would attribute to things being done by some other individual who we assume has intentions.  


From J. K. Galbraith "Economics, Peace, & Laughter, Page 15—Economics and Religion 

Economic circumstance has a dominant influence on social attitudes in the poor society because for those who are poor, nothing is so important as their poverty and nothing is so necessary as its mitigation. In consequence, among the poor, only religion, with its promise of a later munificence for those who endure privation with patience, had been competitive with economic circumstance in shaping social attitudes. And since for nearly all time nearly all people have lived under the threat of economic privation, men of a temperaments and views have  stressed the controlling and permanent  influence of economic need. "The mode of production in material life determines the general character of the social political and spiritual process of life. "Here and there the ardour of the military or the artistic spirit has been for a while predominant; but religious and economic influences ... have nearly always been more important than all others put together.

E4:Endnote 18:17 - From Wolfson's Bk.XIV:2:231-2Dictates of Reason.     Fire of Our Reason  

Man, however, is not left unprotected against his own emotions any more than he is left unprotected against the physical forces of nature. Reason, and the knowledge which springs from reason, is a means whereby man can not only master the adverse forces of nature but can also overcome {Durant:647} the assaults {waves} of his own emotions. In its capacity as an instrument for self-preservation, reason overcomes the page 232 adverse forces of nature by setting up against them favorable forces which are stronger {4P7}. Similarly, in its capacity as an instrument for self-mastery, it overcomes the emotions which are passive by producing against them stronger emotions which are active. In either case reason is the blind tool of nature, and not an instrument wielded by man as a free agent. Reason (ratio) is that which Spinoza calls the second kind of knowledge. It is a knowledge of the rules of the game of Nature. It is not confused or false knowledge, nor is it even true knowledge of an isolated single fact. It is the knowledge of the common notions and the adequate ideas of the properties of things and of the true deductions from these common notions (Bk. XIV:2:138-140, 149). To act according to reason, however, does not imply freedom of the will. Reason itself is a part of nature, and it follows from the necessity of the attribute of thought. When Spinoza urges man to act according to reason, then, unlike all his predecessors who had similarly used this phraseology in prescribing human conduct, he does not mean thereby an exhortation to man to exercise his free will; with him it is only an exhortation to man to acquire the proper kind of knowledge upon which reason is nurtured, so that it may grow in strength and assert itself in its full power when called into action. At the challenge of the emotions reason springs into action in the same manner as our eyelids close at the sudden approach of danger to our eyes. In this sense indeed knowledge is virtue, and a life according to virtue will be a life according to reason - a kind of reason which follows by necessity from one's true knowledge. How reason works for the well-being of man against the assaults of his own emotions is explained by Spinoza in what he calls the "Dictates of Reason" (4P18n, ff.).

From Susanne K. Langer's "Philosophy in a New Key", Page 227-8Aesthetics, Artistic Import

More naturalistically inclined critics often mediate the comparison between the forms of music and those of feeling, by assuming that music exhibits patterns of excitation occurring in the nervous tissues, which are the physical sources of emotion; but it really all comes to the same thing. The page 228 upshot of all these speculations and researches is, that there are certain aspects of the so-called "inner life"physical or mentalwhich have formal properties similar to those of musicpatterns of motion and rest, of tension and release, of agreement and disagreement, preparation, fulfillment, excitation, sudden change, etc.

From Susanne K. Langer's "Philosophy in a New Key", Page 258Aesthetic Emotion, Artistic Import

From Susanne K. Langer's "Philosophy in a New Key", Page 273-4Hypothesis.

From Will Durant's "Story of Philosophy"; Washington Square Press; 18th Printing, 1965;
        Page 367—Herbert Spencer's Opinion on the Evolution to One World:

                                                                                      {Daniel Webster}
From Robert A. Caro's "Lyndon Johnson: Master of the Senate", Pgs. 4-6; 
Vintage ISBN: 0394720954; 2002; Vintage Books; A Division of Random 
House, Inc; New York—One World, One State, Spinoza's Religion

From Matt Ridley's "The Origins of Virtue", Pgs. 132 & 133; 
Penguin Books; ISBN: 0140264450; 1996 — Altruism  

From Will and Ariel Durant's "The Story of Civilization: Part II", Chapter XXIX; Pages 647-648 Happiness:

Bertrand Russell, "Why I Am Not a Christian," Library of Congress: 57-10982, p.13. 

Ernest Nagel, "The Case for Atheism," reprinted in Klemke "Philosophy"; ISBN: 0312084781;
                             pp. 274ff.—Religion.


     Since June 5, 2000    Spinozistic Ideas hits.

Revised: September 14, 2006 
"A Dedication to Spinoza's Insights"