Kabbalah, Sufism and Vedanta seem to be describing the same God ; three metaphorical men grasping a metaphorical elephant (in this case, Elephant ) in a metaphorical dark room and describing the same Reality from different perspectives.

Without having an open mind to understand other people’s comprehension of God, we lose out on important attributes of God we may not have ever otherwise known.

Dude, your channel is criminally under-rated!

Love it! Thank you so much for this collaboration! More Spinoza for the people!

Thank you for your excellent podcast, giving us an overview of the importance of Spinoza's philosophy. As a student of Spinoza's philosophy, I have studied Spinoza's Ethics extensively, and I believe to really understand Spinoza, you must live his ideas. I have more than a theoretical concept. After 40 years of work, I now teach, mentor, and coach those who want to live, understand, and love as Spinoza did.

I’ve been thinking a lot about this for about a decade, and it seems to me that the closest thing to “hope” that Spinoza’s work might not be uncomplicatedly atheistic or incompatible with Abrahamic monotheism is the possibility of panentheism-that there is more to God than the overlap with observable modes. But he really does seem to foreclose personality of any type, including non-anthropomorphic and purely spiritual personality. It would seem to me that some form of personality would have to be included in the possibilities for God beyond the one-to-one parity with the observable universe, but I just don’t see that in Spinoza’s own words anywhere, as much as I have searched for some little hint or wink from him in that direction. It really seems not to be there. I can see a theoretical compatibilism between many of his key insights and a more classical theism or a religious panentheism, but I doubt that Spinoza himself would have agreed with it. I think it’s probably time for believers like us to admit that Spinoza was a great mind worthy of immense respect, but is not really useful in constructing a religious worldview based on love, which requires relationship, which requires personality of some measure.

The way I see it we are in a sort of a simulation, created by God to let us experience free will and materialism briefly. God is the universe but is, like us also outside the universe. I love the universe, I'm no longer frightened. I just discovered I'm a Panentheist, cool:)

I must say, I am grateful for your presentation. For a person like myself, with little formal education, and with only recreational musings in the field of philosophy, a presentations such as this gives me things to contemplate and journeys to embark in; in my quest for adventure and realization.

Thank you! Spinoza has become a real fascination for me and this tied a few things together in my mind.

Came here from Let’s Talk Religion! Didn’t think I’d finish the video but this was pure joy and you make it easy to follow and understand. It’s clear how much effort you put into this. You’ve earned a new sub. Well done and thank you 🙏🏽

Prayer doesn't always change things for you, but it always changes you for things.

💚 From Syria.... we are all One pure Love and One pure Awareness.... " The soul given to each of us is moved by the same living Spirit that moves the Universe. " ~ Albert Einstein

An excellent presentation of Spinoza's thinking. I've been reading Spinoza and about Spinoza for more than 50 years; therefore, I can confidently say that your presentation is well on the mark and should be helpful to all.

we all need to understand God if of course its possible, by getting closer to is attributes, Spinoza is maybe one of the greatest philosopher and understanding philosophy is in God nature.sorry my english is bad i am french.

To those who have had an NDE, or a conversation with the Light, understand that Spinoza filled himself with, and was drunk on God He mirrored the thought of Plato " This world indeed is a living being, endowered with a soul and intelligence. It is a single living entity, containing all other living entities which by their nature are all related. The Cosmos is a single living Creature which contains all living creatures within it."

Bless you for this fabulous work; for what it's worth in my opinion Spinoza was no atheist, but struggled to define a God he could live with.

Whew! Loved that last reflection. Great stuff, as usual!! Food for the soul.

From what I have come to understand within my own experiences of gnosis, the Universe is made God through humans - hence 'made in its image'. The Universe (matter and energy) is only made conscious through conscious beings, therefore we can liken it to a person in deep sleep, whom is only made conscious by the passage of dreams. The dreamer is then only made aware of itself when the subjects of these dreams realise they are just that, dreams, and created by the dreamer (mystcal experience = a lucid dream for the Universe/God). It is when this 'fourth wall' is broken, and the dreams return back to the dreamer, that the dreamer understands a little more of itself. In this regard, if the human race were to disappear, the Universe would fall back into a deep, dreamless sleep until the next species to reach our level of consciousness allowed it to dream of itself as God oncemore.

A huge thank you to Filip from Let's Talk Religion for collabing on this video. Check out his vid here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nc-flKtj0KzFeYE.html

Love Spinoza ❤️ He is one of the greatest atheists of all time 😋 As the famous theist philosopher Richard Swinburne puts it, a theist is one who believes that there is a God who is a ' person/mind without a body (i.e. a spirit) who is eternal, free, able to do anything, knows everything, is perfectly good, is the proper object of human worship and obedience, the creator and sustainer of the universe. This is how theism is understood in academic circles. Under this definition, Spinoza's pantheism/monism and atheism (the denial of theism) are fully compatible.

As Solomon Maimon put it "The atheist system of theology, if one can call it that, entirely dispenses with the concept of a primary cause(since as a necessary idea of reason, its use is, according to the critical system, only of regulative value). All effects are attributed to particular causes known or unknown. This assumes no connetion whatsoever among the different effects, because otherwise the reason for the connection would have to be sought beyond the connection. Spinoza's system, by contrast, proceeds from the idea that one and the same substance is the immediate cause of all effects, which should therefore be viewed as predicates of the same subject. matter and spirit are, for spinoza, one and the same substance, which appears now under this and now under that attribute. This single substance is, he writes, not only the sole possible self-subsisting Being (independent of all external causes), but also the only one that exists solely for itself, whose modi (these attributes limited in a particular way) make up all so-called beings except it. Every particular effect in nature is ascribed not to its proximate cause(which is simply a mode), but to the primary cause or substance, which is common to all beings. In this system unity is real; variety, though, merely ideal. In the atheistic system, precisely the opposite is the case. Variety is real, grounded in the nature of the things themselves, While the unity one sees in the order and laws of nature is merely accidental, according to this system. Thus, we tend to define our arbitrary system for the purpose of knowledge. It is hard to fathom how spinoza's system could have been made out to be atheistic, since the two systems are diametrically opposed. The atheist system denies the existence of G-d; Spinoza's denies the existence of the world. Thus, it should really be called acosmic".

This channel is a blessing. You came on my radar via your conversation with Dr. Vervaeke. Loved your Freud / Mysticism video. Keep it up! You're doing "God's Work."

Interestingly, I watched the entire previous video without understanding attributes and modes, but then after the recap here, it somehow all clicked.

This video was amazing. I am eagerly waiting to learn more about spinoza from you.

Thank you for sharing that poem!!! That was just fascinating. Well done.

I really enjoyed your presentation of the topic!!! 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

great exposition! since we ourselves are modes of two of god's infinite attributes, we are already god being those modes, so it would be illogical to try and deny our own existence by claiming atheism. What distinguishes Spinoza's view from simple materialism/pantheism is indeed the fact that there are also infinite attributes that we, as the modes we are, do not (yet?) express/experience. I also love the Borges poem, since I am always going on about how all religions and philosophies are poems, forms of art and literature, expressing how we understand ourselves at least as much as how we understand "god". And that characterization certainly does not take anything away from them.

This was so cool; exactly what I’ve been looking for for years! I’d love to get some book recommendations from you.

this was excellent! thank you so much for this great series on Spinoza, cant wait for the next one. Subscribed

Thank you a lot for all the knowledge you are sharing with us ! The poem of Jorge Luis Borges deserves to be a psychedelic rock song ! 🔥🔥🔥

I totally agree with all contents, which are excellent as usual. Moreover, the last five minutes are really super: I am delighted. Wonderful.

Delicious food for thought. Ultimately, Borges's poem is the answer to all questions about Spinoza.

Spinoza's God without question can be clearly viewed as a supreme diety that exists solely by itself yet has split it's essence into innumerable versions in order to create and or manifest innumerable experiences. All for the purpose and objective of coming to know it's own nature and being in a more indepth means. This Eternal Presence seeks to know every single part of itself and seems to do so living out the experiences created and manifested by again , the different versions of this divine force. Nathan Barnes : Intellectual Physics Inc.

A brilliantly clear and succinct exposition. Well done.

Thank you for this presentation. It was well done. However, I don’t think we should say “this is not the God of the Abrahamic religions or the Bible and Quran,” as if these religious traditions had only one conception of God. I don’t see a major difference between Spinoza’s God and the God of the Islamic Philosophers or Sufi conceptions, for instance. But I benefited from your video. Thank you.

Great video. If you ever sell merch (as humourous a notion for a comparative mysticism channel as that is) you should include a shirt and/or button with a picture of Spinoza with the legend "With Atheists like these, who needs Theists?".

Great content I need to go clean the garage but I have to watch this it's so informative.

New subscriber here, and I wanted to say that, in addition to your obvious scholarly and rhetorical gifts, I'm also becoming quite fond of your subtle, wry wit. Thank you so much for sharing your wonderful thoughts and words here.

God cannot help Himself: he must be God. Many rabbinic thinkers have expressed themselves similarly.

Excellent channel. Thanks! (btw in some aspects his philosophy reminds me of certain Sufi teachings, ie Ibn Arabi.)

absolutely beautiful! Thank you so much。

For me, the ultimate unity between the transcendent, infinite creator God, and the contingent particulars of nature is itself also an aspect of the sublime mystery of God. Because of this paradoxical divine truth, perfect union with God can be indistinguishable from atheism, when viewed from a certain perspective. I've long viewed the crucifixion of Christ as a powerful symbol of this impossible, but necessary unity between the sacred and the profane (God and nature).

Absolutely amazing

If there's a purpose for life. It is so that God may know itself. Stars cannot see, planets cannot hear, stones cannot think or feel. Life can. Life is little bits of God, experiencing its own existence.

How great to be taught to well understand Spinoza in 3 sessions while other books and teachers mostly fall short wasting time and leaving confusion. TY

Just discovered your channel, excellent work:) Any interest in doing an analysis on Martin Buber's I and thou?

Amazing work! :)

Excellent thank you.

This is extraordinarily good. Thank you.

This is the type of content and discussion mainstream and pop science seem to be greatly lacking. I mean I get it....... science is about what we can know and for the general public, this is outside of their level of comprehension or what they are interested in. However, I think we need this all the more this day an age as well as nihilism akin to Emil Cioran's mindset.

I appreciate the acceptance of my sneakiness :) (or at least an aspect of my sneakiness, i hate to attempt to take a mile when an inch is offered in good faith)

Wonderful!

All is excellent.

Many thanks for this sublieme summary

I wish this infinite thread had a beginning. Either way, what Spinoza lacked was a personal relationship with God giving new meaning to ‘In God We Trust’.

For me, at least,, your point about attitude is everything when assessing Spinosa’s God. Is there reverence a state of wonder and gratitude? This changes everything so in the end again it becomes a choice.

Great video

Yooooooo new fave channel

Jorge Luis Borges BARUCH SPINOZA A golden mist in the west illuminates the window. The unremitting manuscript awaits, already laden with infinity. Someone construes God in the shadows. A man gives birth to God, a Jew with sad eyes and sallow skin; time carries him like a leaf borne on a flowing river. No matter. A stubborn wizard fashions God with delicate geometry; from his infirmity, from his nothingness, he proceeds to define God with words. He was endowed with prodigal love, the love that doesn’t expect to be loved. ( Translated by James Burnham)

I understand about half of what you're saying, but, I like listening to your voice.

Thank you very much. It was and is wonderful.

I wish it was possible to give more than one like to this video.

Speaking about the oneness of God, I suppose that the One is only the ultimate emanation (primo manifest) of Him as He (Ahad) stands beyond singularity... Considering He, the Unmanifested Holy, the undivided All (Samad) ( so subdivided by nothingness) we express Him by “1/0” (1 subdivided by 0) which is the philosophical concept of the continuum infinite... Like infinity ♾in maths, He is the unlimited absolute, unbounded “even by reality itself”, so He can’t be contain by existence (therefore He is Uncreated like the unquantified ♾) and yet the creator (source) from which all creations are extracted into existence in the same way as all numbers (even the irrational and the imaginary ones) that emerge from the womb of ♾ ....i would point that God is not a being (creation ) contained in the domain of existence but the omnipresence of the eccentric truth that holds reality from falling apart ...... As a believer i assume the God don’t existe (if existence is finite) but He is the Omni-truth . The contrast between God and substance can be understood by “the image ” of the contrast between a soul and the expressed speech that eminent from or a neurological circuit and the thought that generates it ... in those 2 exemples the holiness of the source remains perfectly complete separated , independent from its creation, yet as being separated from its source The expressed creation (speech, though ) starts to fad in the finite dimension of it existence(ABRACADABRA= God creates as He speaks and not by giving birth through dissociation or extraction of parts from Himself )...through this reasoning I consider that the macrocosme is not by definition God but His creative spirit , a network of divine tendencies that connects different levels of reality to Him.....as you said “as below so above” the below image of the macrocosme (divine spirit) is projected as a human body that connects the soul (the creative source) to each cell (projection of the microcosm below) ......

Wonderful, dude. Sorry to say, but your edition (obvious visible cuts) distracted me throughout the piece. But more than enjoyable, your presentation was soothing and useful to me. Thanks.

There are many comments about unifying the various manifest religious paths via Spinoza's ideas. But doesn't it go further? From a physics perspective we also have the underlying nature of all reality whichgives rise to what we actually perceive. At present our best model is that of Quantum Field Theory, which posits a field of potential exisiting throughout all of spacetime. The vibrational modes of this field ultimately giving rise to what we perceive as matter. There may yet be a deeper level, eg String Theory but it wouldn't matter (no pun intended) it would still contain the same principles as those put forward by Spinoza. As a Buddhist I would go even further. The basic non-dual state mentioned in Buddhism, sunyata, and the two forms of reality, 'absolute' and 'conventional', also fit. As a footnote, and from my perspective, arguments about patheism vs panenthism are merely those of perspective and not anywhere nearly as significant as many make out - but what do I know? (Nothing is the answer!)

Why philosopher's stopped talking about god after the birth of Charles Darwin?

Sir, as per the Vedas 3 entities namely God, Mul Prakriti (the primordial substance) and the souls are separate and exists eternally. These 3 entities are the three reasons for which the Universe to be created and dissolved again and again. God is infinite and constant, he doesn't changes himself into matters as per pantheism but create matters from Mul Prakriti (the primordial substance) by putting a distortion into the Mul Prakriti (primordial substance) and the force at which God Almighty apply to the primordial substance is known as the Kal (time force). In western world the time is only defined as an interval between two events but here in Vedic scriptures 'Kal element' (time element) is also a force and a matter. We used to read in science books that there are four fundamental forces but the time force is the most primal one and the smallest possible. After creating a distortion in primordial substance by God almighty consecutively 5 elements forms and then the Parmanu (sub atomic particles in Sanskrit) came into existence and this takes millions of years as God Almighty apply the smallest force possible which is the Time force. The five elements which forms one after another are Mahatva tatva, Manas tatva, Pran and Marut strings, Chhand strings and then the quarks.

I think that the interpretations of Spinoza as atheist do not take into the due consideration Spinoza's meditations on the eternal part of our intellect, for instance, and on the whole concept of Amor Dei Intellectualis. Generally speaking, I find - I can of course be mistaken - that the second half of Book V of the Ethica is often left out of consideration or not considered in its value. I tend to the opinion that the whole Ethica could and should be so to speak re-read from the beginning, when one is arrived at the end of it with one eye fixed on the very end of the Ethica on the other eye reading again the whole contents: the whole definitions of Part I and so on through the whole Ethica does assume a new sense through the perspective which the reader acquires at the end of the Ethica.

Unlike Spinoza, who seeks God in the external world, Leibniz sees inner evidence for God. He points to the compelling connection between 'eternal truths' (such as dealt with in mathematics, e.g.) and 'something' in which these are necessarily rooted and which he identifies as the 'understanding' of God. His starting point is not some concept of 'God', but the immaterial infrastructure of rational thought in which everyone tacitely trusts who argues reasonably: logic - and in particular mathematics. For example - as Leibniz wrote in a note of 1677 [1]: "It is true, and even necessary, that the circle is the largest isoperimetric figure, even if no circle ever existed in reality. Likewise, even if neither I nor you nor any other human being ever existed." Since there are necessary truths about mathematical objects independently of matter and even if no human mind had ever thought them, we must conclude with Leibniz that there is something that constitutes their being. According to Leibniz, this 'something' is the Logos God [Jn 1-1]. Leibniz in his "Monadology": "If there were no eternal substance, there would be no eternal truths ... In God is the source not only of existences but also of essences, insofar as they are real or potentially real. This is because the understanding of God is the realm of eternal truths and of the ideas on which they depend, since without Him there would be nothing real in the possibilities - not only nothing existent, but also nothing possible ... God's infinite mind embraces the ideas of all potential beings, that is, of all real beings and of all those that can be thought, because they imply no contradiction." Obviously, this is not a worldly object named "God" that some new atheists caricature (and rightly reject), but a God compatible with the "Logos" who, according to the Evangelist John, "was in the beginning" - Eν αρχη ην o λoγoς [John 1-1]. In this context, it is noteworthy that some theoretical physicists believe that even matter ultimately arises from (quantum) logic [ e.g. John A. Wheeler: “It from bit”]. The late Martin I. Kober, who further developed Carl F. von Weizsäcker's quantum theory of primordial alternatives before he sadly passed away in 2021 at the young age of 38, left us this message in his last published article: "The crucial thing about these considerations is that... [in Weizsäcker's theory] no spacetime, no background structure at all and therefore no field theoretical concepts whatsoever are assumed. As with Hegel, the entire world is spanned over pure logic, more precisely, over pure quantum logic. Apart from time, there really only exists logic, which floats in the void. This corresponds exactly to the claim of Christian theology that God created the world from the Logos.” [ arxiv.org/pdf/1809.02469.pdf , pp. 101 f. ; in German ] "Mathematics and the mathematicians - steps to the throne of God ?" Walter Heitler, the father of quantum electrodynamics, titles a chapter of his book "The Nature and the Divine" [2]. Leibniz would agree. [1] Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe. Ed. Academy of Sciences of Berlin. Series VI, philosophische Schriften, 4,18. Darmstadt, Leipzig, and Berlin, 1923 ff. [2] Walter Heitler, Die Natur und das Göttliche, 3rd edition, Klett & Balmer, Zug 1976, ISBN 3-264-90010-6 [ Translated from German ]

Very good.

Thank you 🙏

Great presentation of Spinoza and his works!! Spinoza is not a pure pantheist, nor a pure deist and cannot be classified as an atheis. Is he a philosopher or a theologist ? You pin-pointed this complexity about his thoughts and subjects.

Ok, i don't know if kadish was around in the 1600s, but, if i remember right, kadish is the prayer, used at funerals, praising that thing as beyond our comprehension, which, would make sense to me as the foundation for a blasphemy charge. Given that his philosophy seems to present a comprehensible thing.

Beautiful treatise. Yet one worry, all this Spinoza, or any reality (of God) is either this or that. The what is, isn't what can be spoken about. It isn't this, nor that, nor both, nor neither. It is all of those and in between. :) But it isn't man's words. They can never be more than fingers pointing to the moon, never the moon. Though some people might have been moons, not their words, but their 'knowing'. Spinoza was probably one of them, seeking to help see people through the clutter. Who knows.

I have been reading independently. It's really long and complicated stories... I see, that you haven't figured out everything yet in doing more in-depth research. Things get even more interesting to learn more many things. Please do so, because it's really worth reading.

Alright! This gonna be a good one!!!

I too think that the double value, so to speak, of natura as natura naturans and natura naturata is the key point of the interpretation. In my opinion, the interpretations of Spinoza as either a materialist or as an atheist, or as both of the above have insisted only on Spinoza's concept of natura naturata, thus forgetting or at least not taking in the due consideration the concept of natura naturans. Deus sive natura does hot hold only for the manifestations we see of G-o-d, but also for the G-o-d as factor of His manifestations. Moeover, G-o-d as having infinite attributes cannot be identified with the material natura in which human beings live; in other words, natura is not simply and not only the material natura. G-o-d is, as factor, something else and something more than His manifestations; likewise, natura is something else and something more than the material nature.

7:14 Nothing exists outside of God. That is the Sufi perspective.

His view on God is like ibn arabi

What does that actually mean?

is that a cabin? sweet...

If I am self-causing, ie the origin of my own necessity, would that make me Godlike? JHW as is well known means "I am". Seems like Spinoza was on a path to Godhood to me.

In the Ancient Kemetic, Egyptian Astronomical Theology, there was only a Primeval Ocean and that Atum slept within it Atum awoke and became all the Neteru, gods and goddesses of the Ancient Kemetic pantheon, when in truth is the Universe and everything in it In truth, from an Ancient Egyptian point of view, what human beings calls G-d, in the Kemetic system and spirituality G-d is an infinite ocean in which innumerous bubbles are formed and within these bubbles you have creations taking place Atum, Aleph Tau Mem, is the synthesis of all the forces and laws of Nature from a mathematical point of view Atum is the original substance having infinite potential, possibilities, attributes and modes of existence and possibilities that becomes everything Ancient Kemetic Creation narratives are purely mathematical and spiritual

I love spinoza

Spinoza fan checking in. I call it the God-thing. I can still talk to it and worship it. the God-thing still loves us, else why would it create us? Ponder that.

Could you do Deleuze

Hmm? Do you think it was, or was not a devious attempt to undermine Spinoza’s, ‘God is all, all is God’ in the Declaration of Independence when Jefferson first uses the term ‘natures god’ before changing it to the ‘Creator’?

I believe in Einstein's God, i.e., Spinoza's God!

He, Spinoza, seems to have been of a belief that God and the universe are one.Kabbalh is a form of Panentheism rather than Pantheism on the surface or I'm now thinking that the difference twixt the two may be moot since Pantheism means the universe is God and Panentheism the universe in God but if it's in God then surely it is made of God material as what else is there?

I think Spinoza was affected by Aristotels philosophy. I know Spinoza spread secularism

Spinoza's God/Nature/Substance has no qualia, will, etc. , but somehow this nature is the source of consciousness. Does Spinoza offer a logical coherent explanation for how is this possible? Also, I understand that some modes are not conscious (stones), but others are (humans). Does he offer any logical explanations for how come the so-called complexity of the idea of the body translates into consciousness? Or is it fair to say that Spinoza only assumes all of that?

COLERIDGE! Holla!!!!

does he try to account for creation at all?

But how can God not be conscious if he is consciousness itself? Consciousness must be conscious, right ?

Shame on me, old subbie of Filip and Dr Sledeg, and not subscribed here, misshap corrected!!!

That´s so advaita!

TIME TIMING SPINOZA'S THOUGHTS OF GOD.

Pantheism: Nature is God. We know that Nature exists. Therefore, God exists. But why call it 'God'? Just call it 'Nature'. But that's what atheists believe: Only Nature exists. So, Pantheism=Atheism. "I believe in God, only I spell it Nature"- attributed to Frank Lloyd Wright

Looks like spinoza translated The great Aviccena in dutch language

"Simply put, if Jesus is "God", there is no God, and the person who declares there is no God is an atheist. Thus, if taken this way, Christianity's Jesus is an atheistic system."