• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

PREVIEW-Episode 24: Spinoza on God and Metaphysics

August 24, 2010 by Mark Linsenmayer 25 Comments

http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.libsyn.com/partiallyexaminedlife/PREVIEW-PEL_ep_024_8-2-10.mp3

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 31:39 — 29.0MB)

This is a 32-minute preview of a 1 hr, 36-minute episode.

Buy Now Purchase this episode for $2.99. Or become a PEL Citizen for $5 a month, and get access to this and all other paywalled episodes, including 68 back catalogue episodes; exclusive Part 2's for episodes published after September, 2020; and our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally.

Discussing Spinoza's Ethics (1677), books 1 and 2.

We mostly discuss his weird, immanent, non-personal conception of God: God is everything, therefore the world is God as apprehended through some particular attributes, namely insofar as one of his aspects is infinite space (extension, i.e. matter) and insofar as one of his aspects is mind (our minds being chunks or "modes" of the big God mind).

Also, if you're not going to sell out and go for a university position in philosophy, should you instead grind lenses in your attic without adequate ventilation? (Hint: no) Plus, the Amsterdam of yesterday, whose heady aroma drove people to write like Euclid, property dualism rears its ugly head, and Mel Gibson as Rousseau!

Read a free version online or purchase the book.

One place to read the earlier Spinoza book I refer to, A Short Treatise on God, Man, and his Well-Being (1660), is here. The Karen Armstrong book I keep referring to is The Case for God,and at the end Wes recommends Matthew Stewart's The Courtier and the Heretic. Seth also brings up Giles Deluze's Spinoza: Practical Philosophy.
The dumbed down, non-geometric presentation of the Ethics that I talk about is here.

End song: "Spiritual Insect," by Mark Lint and the Fake from the album So Whaddaya Think? (2000).

Looking for the full Citizen version?

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Podcast Episodes Tagged With: Baruch Spinoza, epistemology, free will, metaphysics, pantheism, philosophy of religion, philosophy podcast, rationalism, the problem of evil

Comments

  1. Geoff says

    August 24, 2010 at 11:36 pm

    So, god is an infinitely extended, yet indivisible, hermaphrodite.

    Reply
  2. Geoff says

    September 15, 2010 at 10:52 pm

    So, I am back for listen number two. I am paying attention, I am nodding sagely, yep, yep, got it, yep…and then wham “Well you can’t really say we are ‘in’ god…” yeah, thanks Linsenmayer.

    Damn it. Why can’t the metaphysical simple actually be ‘simple’.

    Reply
  3. Mike S. says

    October 23, 2010 at 2:29 am

    Hey,

    I think that Spinoza is a pretty intelligent fellow.

    I do however, think that Spinoza is un-knowingly parroting Nagarjuna. He’s just using different terms.

    But i do find his arguments equally as persuasive. (i guess i would, since i believe them to be the same)

    As with Nagarjuna, i wonder what someone like Spinoza would do with the knowledge of modern science.

    Modern Neuroscience tells us that the way the brain makes decisions, is much like a symphony. Rather than their being one executive actor, different parts of the brain scream out their various decisions until one screams loud enough for an action to occur.

    Personally,

    I think this helps illuminate the delusion of what human beings really are. If the only reason we chose “this” over “that” is because “this” part of our brain was slightly louder than “that”, what does this say about who we are. If who we are, is based mostly on decisions made not by some “me”….but by a group of neurons that fired a little faster than a different group of neurons. What does it say, that those neurons only differed based on circumstances beyond our control. (genetics, physical trauma, diet, education).

    Realistically, all heroes and villains can be attributed to an organic roll of the dice.

    I wonder how Spinoza would frame the argument.

    Anyways, another good podcast. Though i would have to disagree with Seth in the end. Spinoza isn’t really saying anything new and radical, atleast as far as what is implied by Nagarjuna hundreds and hundreds of years earlier.

    Reply
  4. Seth Paskin says

    October 23, 2010 at 10:43 am

    I can’t agree that Spinoza is just expressing something implied by Nagarjuna. Spinoza is using an established Western concept of ‘substance’ (that which ‘is’, ‘has properties, attributes, etc.’) His radical and innovative move is to say that there is one substance rather many.
    On my reading of Nagarjuna, ’emptiness’ voids the concept of ‘substance’ as there can be no ‘thing’ or ‘not thing’. I can see how you make a connection between everything being subsumed in God and an idea of Oneness, but I think metaphysically, the two are much further apart than you suggest.
    –seth

    Reply
    • Mark Linsenmayer says

      October 23, 2010 at 2:17 pm

      Also, even if you want to interpret Buddhism as saying there’s an underlying oneness to everything, i.e. we’re all part of God, still, the Buddhist is going to say that all the surface stuff of our experience is illusion, while Spinoza does not say that; in fact, for Spinoza, investigating the ordinary objects of the world, i.e. doing science, is investigating God, and so is holy, whereas for the Buddhist it seems like science might be useful for dealing with the conventional world but has no religious significance.

      Reply
      • Craig says

        August 10, 2012 at 9:10 am

        Bingo! The last line kind of wraps up the primary distinction between Monism and Non-Dualism.

        Spinoza reduces things down to a single substance. Buddhism is non-reductionist. It says that if you insist on going through the mental exercise of reducing things down, there is no substance there at all.

        Reply
  5. Mike S. says

    October 23, 2010 at 9:59 pm

    To me, Seth, you’re making a distinction without a difference.

    Saying everything is an extentsion of, or saying everything is an illusion because it isn’t of……is really saying the same thing.

    Saying that there is one substance rather than many, is not really all the different than saying that there is no substance, as any substance would merely be the residue of another substance.

    I feel you’re getting hung up on the idea of “substance” being different than “no substance” or “not substance”.

    As for Mark, i feel you’re a little too invested in Nagarjuna as a religious figure. Buddhism is a very broad term and i’m not trying to argue what Buddhism might see science as useful for.

    When i say Spinoza is parroting what is implied by Nagarjuna, i’ll grant that i’m speaking quite hyperbolically.

    I’m referring to the main essence or conclusion of his philosophy.

    Anywho, looking forward to part 2.

    Reply
  6. Frank Callo says

    January 4, 2013 at 9:36 am

    I can’t help but think that what got the Church Fathers’s panties in a bunch is that if God needs to be a person with an agenda to rationalize the political agenda of political leaders.

    Reply
  7. Frank Callo says

    January 4, 2013 at 9:49 am

    @ 46:47 we come to Spinoza’s prescient refutation of the physicalist model of mind.

    Reply
  8. Kevin says

    June 28, 2013 at 10:09 am

    First of all, how can anything be “self-created”? For something to be created implies it didn’t exist before its creation, so how could it create itself if it didn’t exist. The idea is a paradox. Also, how can we conceptualize God as infinite? Any concept has properties which separates it from other concepts, like “finite”. An infinite God cannot be separated from anything. The existence of infinity cannot even exist because it’s existence implies the existence of non-existence, which would again mean separation. We have to accept God is not infinite, it is paradox. Sorry Spinoza…

    Reply
    • Ryan says

      June 28, 2013 at 11:46 am

      A chair’s own existence implies the non-existence of itself as anything other than the chair. Your implication is that a ‘thing’ can only be created within the context of some dichotomy between the thing and its environment? Then take the situation of the created thing and its environment as being one thing in unison, and you can turn any matter of external forces in to one of internal drive. If you take every such situation in existence as a form of total unison then you have Spinoza’s conception of God. Spinoza would agree that God can not be separated from anything in that it is only precisely everything taken as one and nothing else beyond that idea.

      Again, that existence “implies” non-existence is not only logical but simply mundane. Every thing’s existence is implicated with its own non-existence as everything else (except God, whose existence is implicated with the existence of non-existence, or the actual existence of nothing – nothing which stands outside of God). Creation does in a sense seem paradoxical, but you deceptively derive from this proposition that self-creation is some how any more paradoxical than external creation governed from outside. For something to be created at all as you originally point out is not a problem of self-creation but of creation in general.

      Reply
  9. Siouxsie says

    January 23, 2019 at 9:16 pm

    I like the song at the end a lot

    Working my way through the episodes as a new Citizen…thought Spinoza would help relate to the new Lucretious physics episode. Awesome.

    : what is the Damasio book Wes mentions in passing at the end??

    Reply
    • Wes Alwan says

      January 24, 2019 at 9:43 am

      Thanks for your support Siouxsie. It’s https://www.amazon.com/Looking-Spinoza-Sorrow-Feeling-Brain/dp/0156028719

      Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Spinoza and Leibniz: Anthony Quinton and Bryan Magee | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    August 26, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    […] talked a bit on Ep 24 about Spinoza’s relationship to Leibniz, and here’s the first of a series of videos […]

    Reply
  2. The Partially Examined Life: A Philosophy Podcast | Open Culture says:
    September 8, 2010 at 4:10 pm

    […] covered topics ranging from Plato’s conception of the examined life to Nietzsche’s immoralism, God and faith to the philosophy of mind. Frankly I’m always amazed that there are people who want to […]

    Reply
  3. B.S. about Jesus and Buddhism | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    October 28, 2010 at 10:45 am

    […] is a no-no, though you can through mystical experience witness the omnipresence of God, from which, as pointed out in our Spinoza episode, should imply that you are some part of God at the very […]

    Reply
  4. Clare Carlisle's Spinoza Walk-Through | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    March 29, 2011 at 10:41 am

    […] just stumbled across an 8 part series on Spinoza (discussed by us here), completed today and begun here on 2/7/11, written by U. of Liverpool lecturer Clare Carlisle, who […]

    Reply
  5. Lawrence Cahoone on Hegel's Phenomenology | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    April 5, 2011 at 9:05 am

    […] “pantheistic” or “panentheistic,” both of which have been used to describe Spinoza; the former means everything is God, while the latter means everything is within God, but God can […]

    Reply
  6. Episode 25: Spinoza on Human Nature | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    May 23, 2011 at 11:48 am

    […] Discussing Books II through V of the Ethics. Continues the discussion from Ep. 24. […]

    Reply
  7. Spinoza Stock on the Rise! | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    June 14, 2011 at 9:36 am

    […] for Michael Benedikt for informing me of this article, which says a few words about how Spinoza (a favorite of Schleiermacher, don’t you know) fits into today’s landscape of […]

    Reply
  8. Timothy Brennan On Baruch Spinoza and Giambattista Vico | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    April 25, 2012 at 9:24 pm

    […] embraced” Vico as a “counter to the philosophical strands found in Descates and Spinoza that were then asserting themselves in literary and cultural theory, then being the […]

    Reply
  9. David Burrell on Nietzsche and “Trust” | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    August 31, 2012 at 11:26 am

    […] infectious. I’m no longer convinced that there’s no legitimate conceptual space between Spinoza’s rejection of a personal God and Swinburne’s conception of a logically simple yet personal […]

    Reply
  10. Kenan Malik (via The Browser) on Morality without God (and the Euthyphro) | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    September 20, 2012 at 8:07 pm

    […] to say God has attitudes at all (which is inherent in having a personal conception of God and not Spinoza’s), then you have to say that his attitudes (part of God) are caused by his nature (another part of […]

    Reply
  11. Topic for #76: Deleuze/Guattari on What Philosophy Is | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    April 26, 2013 at 9:15 am

    […] representation and the world; they’re just different aspects of the world (he highly praises Spinoza’s idea of mental and physical aspects of all of creation). So the plane is a plane of immanence precisely because, from the point of view of that plane, […]

    Reply
  12. Episode 133: Erich Fromm on Love as an Art (Part Two) | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog says:
    February 15, 2016 at 7:00 am

    […] so. He also talks about different degrees of maturity in one's belief in God, the best being like Spinoza's, where God is not an entity, but is the equivalent to the world and love of God is love of […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PEL Live Show 2023

Brothers K Live Show

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 302: Erasmus Praises Foolishness (Part Two)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 308: Moore’s Proof of Mind-Independent Reality (Part Two for Supporters)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 201: Marcus Aurelius’s Stoicism with Ryan Holiday (Citizen Edition)
  • MartinK on Ep. 201: Marcus Aurelius’s Stoicism with Ryan Holiday (Citizen Edition)
  • Wayne Barr on Ep. 308: Moore’s Proof of Mind-Independent Reality (Part Two for Supporters)

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in