Formal essay: Following dualism, a new enterprise to reconcile God with Science emerged starting with a Jewish philosopher named Baruch Spinoza (1631-1677). Spinoza proposed a radical approach by introducing a unified substance called deus sive nature (God or nature/ GoN) that constitutes all of reality. He collapsed the tangible (matter) and intangible (mind) into a homogeneous form, that is distinct from both matter and mind. This GoN has several attributes, also called traits. Each trait in turn can represent either a physical representation (visual of a chair) or an abstract sensation (touch of a chair) but not both. Spinoza theorised that every conceivable form including humans, animals, non-living things, feelings, emotions, sensations and even God are built of this one abiding substance. Spinoza discarded the thorny dualism in favour of this all-encompassing substance. His teachings were condemned as heretic for fusing the sublimity of God with the corporeality of lowly beings, us humans. Spinoza was falsely accused of insinuating atheism within the deeply religious polity of the time. His teachings reduced God as Pantheism (God is everything and everywhere). But later day philosophers identified his teachings with Panentheism (everything is made of God yet God is above everything). How did Spinoza's unitary model fix the gaps in the dualism of Descartes and Locke? Spinoza said, mind and matter are separate attributes of the same GoN that do not communicate but are commanded by the God. He further expounded that God has the best interest of man and he is compelled to design only the efficient version of everything. Spinoza argues that God has no free-will, thus, his creations are pre-determined to be efficient and by virtue of this, humans have no free-will because our fate is predestined by the creator. Spinoza had no real interest in solving any of the metaphysical angst of the day as he was only interested in human condition but for him to synthesize the futility in aspiring for free-will, he had to demonstrate how humans are controlled, how God himself is hamstrung by his ideals and why fate cannot be altered. Spinoza believed that humans should lead a life of acceptance rather than discontent over the suffering and pain in life.
Informal essay: Our story of metaphysics continues, that big, all weighty and slippery questions of reality and life, wait, you believed it? Originally Metaphysics is a nameless edition hastily glued by an oaf after Aristotle's Physics book. Today, you can sweep every type of existential crisis not cured by anxiolytic drugs under metaphysical affliction. Back to the story. The arms race to crack the metaphysical enigmas of nature and reality like life and its purpose, leather and porpoise, what we are doing on this tiny planet, why am I typing on this ning nang, such anxiety-ridden inquiry was neck and neck with philosophers from the camps of Descartes' Rationalism and Locke's Empiricism, who were conjoined twins in dualism but estranged bed fellows in techniques adopted to poke at this dualistic nature of reality. Locke's cronies said, what we know is limited by what we experience. Descartes' cohorts said, fool! your brain has 100 billion neurons, use them to reason the nature of existence. In this bickering milieu was born our Spinoza, who would one day mediate between these camps. He raised a pertinent query: why such conceptual complexity with dualism — mind and matter. Spinoza set up a third camp by unifying both mind and matter into a singular God-like substance. Did I say God-like? I meant God and all his likes. But Spinoza meant a singular substance from which living matter and non-living matter including our thoughts, feelings, emotions and other missed out philosophy trademark words emanate from. There's only God and God like things which God created out of his God-like substance. Such varying accounts of God might have confused everyone that he was branded a heretic peddling atheism to the impressionable hobbledehoys. Does it make sense? Not to the Empiricists and Rationalists. Spinoza further added, look it's simple. There is no matter and mind conspiring with each other. There is only one mind-ish matter-ish styled mixed metaphor which is a stand-in for every expression and representation of reality. Mind is not talking to Matter. Mind and Matter both talk independently to God. How? Because Mind and Matter and God are all made of that God-like substance. Go back and read that “God-like” term multiple times till you grasp it. For such a mind-matter-boggling theory, Spinoza was excommunicated by the Jewry. But Spinoza gave two hoots to such herem (Jewish fatwa) and went on with his business of championing God-like substance. Why did Spinoza take so much pain to interfere in this metaphysical dispute? Spinoza was sly. His goal was not to understand life and porpoises, or, to prove the existence of God for he wanted to cut across with the spiel to establish a new school of Ethics. Ethics? You may inquire, you've bored us to bones with Metaphysics and now you are swapping with Ethics. Is Ethics any interesting than Metaphysics? Spinoza was a smart alec. He knew that he would be kneecapped if he had leapfrogged God to establish Ethics, so, he created God-like and God-sounding things to lead us to the garden path of Ethics. Even before Sydney Sheldon and John Steinbeck claimed the phrase, God has called eternal dibs on “best laid plans”. Spinoza said, God has only the best plans for man. You may ask, who directs God's plans. Jeez! I won't repeat again. This is the sixth time. God and we are made of God-like substance so God is required to only have “best” plans. If you are thinking of watching that film on Netflix, forget it, unless God sanctions you cannot even lift a finger to press that remote. Thus Spinoza was the Salman Rushdie of his day with shoot at sight orders over such blasphemous discourse. All in all, Spinoza and his God-like theories inspired other radicals to come up with more bizarre creeds which we will visit next in Kant.
There are books I wish I had read in my younger days. This week, these books were my companion guides in my attempt to brush up my grammar. May I Quote You on That?: A Guide to Grammar and Usage Book by Stephen Spector Woe Is I Book by Patricia T. O'Conner Both are impressive! But Woe is I is outstanding! I like Woe is I better not only for the simplification of the grammar rules but also for the striking and funny layout with which the rules are presented. That’s how grammar books are supposed to be written. Must read if you are confused like me on grammar. Style matters! As Patricia puts it, get rid of your grammar boo-boos, once and for all.
Coming up in May — I have subscribed to Nautilus magazine and reading up the archived issues. Beautiful, beautiful, absolutely stunning articles! 31 days, 46 issues. Will I finish or not? Only time will tell. Link: Nautilus | Science Connected
I haven't gotten too far into the material, but did you get the feeling that most early modern philosophers were hamstrung by their religious beliefs? Almost as if they were bending over backwards to accommodate Catholicism. These otherwise brilliant, accomplished men were making apologies for beliefs they were too afraid to reject outright. Don't you think there is lot of circular reasoning going on? Descartes, Locke, Berkeley. They worked really hard to logically deduce something they had already concluded was the answer. Not to take away from their contributions to epistemology but it seemed like a centuries long exercise in begging the question. I guess I need more educating.
What do you mean by ‘get the feeling’? I was perplexed why they were all blighted with contagious fervour to insinuate God in all their theories. Initially, I thought it was literal deus ex machina to repair, rather than reconcile, gaps in their theories. What is inside a black hole. God’s soul. How to connect the dualism in mind and body? God does it. They were using “God” as an abrupt rational device to cleave the gaps in their theories. If your theory has hit a snag, bring in God to fix it. But then I thought again …is that the only reason why God played such an vital role in embryonic scientific pursuits. Until Laplace, no one dared to outright defy God. A frequently cited but apocryphal interaction between Laplace and Napoleon purportedly concerns the existence of God. Laplace went in state to Napoleon to present a copy of his work, and the following account of the interview is well authenticated, and so characteristic of all the parties concerned that I quote it in full. Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, 'M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.' Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. ("I had no need of that hypothesis.") Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, Ah! c'est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses. ("Ah, it is a fine hypothesis; it explains many things.") These thinkers probed natural sciences in the times when to question such “naturalness” was a sacrilege. What can a man do when he is threatened to be bastinadoed or burnt? He will acquiesce to the clerical discourses on machinations of God wherein Saturn’s rings and Titan’s icicles were all part of God’s galactic project. How is a man to defy such a tyrannical force wielding power by intimidating people with punitive charges? I had a conversation with my nephew (ahem!) few years ago. “Do you believe in God?” “I don’t know.” “Ok, let me rephrase. Do you believe there are men in clouds waging wars and dictating the fate of humans. And then you also believe that there is no atmosphere in Jupiter” “They are two different things. Actually I am confused. I watch these programmes on space and universe and then mom asks me to pray to God. For mom, I will pray to God and then for myself I will read up about space. But I don’t think God exists like the way mom tells me; someone overseeing us, protecting us. By the way, I started reading about Aliens and Area 51.” He is a kid and that very moment I knew ten years on he will exactly be like whom (smiles). If a eight year old can make it out don’t you think these brilliant men figured it all out but were oppressed in the times they were living in. First comes ignorance, next irreligion, then ignominy. All thinkers have tread that path just that few halted at ignorance frightened of the consequences to stand defiant at societal norms. In such contrived ignorance they obliged to God or bent backwards to accommodate him in their postulates. KV at times inquires, “What are you and Gauri upto these days?” I tell him, “We intend to clone ourselves, spread, and pollute IL with our radical views. You have any better ideas. Let me know.” To which he laughs and says that both of us will be kicked out of IL someday.
Done six Nautilus issues so far. I am enamored of this magazine. How beautifully and expressively scientific and sociological concepts are explained! In “Uncertainty” themed issue (total 17 articles), the first article deals with DNA methylation, histone methylation, gene expression, epigenetics, spines of Daphnia, gender bender of clownfish, evolutionary history, drugs like Zolinza, and Vidaza “Hongerwinter”, Biafra famine, Chinese famine, how epigenetics mediated during these famines, epigenetic traces in sperm and egg cells, Hippocrates’ book on Macrocephali, Darwin and Lamarck, is that gene or epi-gene? In “What makes you so special” (total 16 articles), article in-between talks of Neil Harbisson, cyborg, eyeborg, osteointegration, transhumanism, posthumanism, practical posthumanism (oh-gee!), Michel Foucault’s The Order of Things (1966), Stelarc, Ray Kurzwell, Tim Cannon, Moon Ribas, cybernetics and what future holds for humans. Every article in each issue is outstanding. I've no clue why I have subscribed so late to this magazine.
Ah! Rather than the stuffy philosophers, and to tickle you, here's the Elvis of Philosophy. I came across Zizek last night. Welcome our hippest philosopher. Re: avatar pic, has our philosophy study reduced you to seven strands of hair like the seven pillars of wisdom?
If you are bored of Aristotle's Metaphysics, you might like to peer into 'Pataphysics (mind the apostrophe as Alfred Jarry reminds the clumsy). Check out also Dr. Faustroll All part of the Nautilus learning. The articles have amusing references like this What is reality? Even time and space cannot tell any more.
Finally, The Great Gamble of Parenthood—Can You Be Held Responsible for the Actions of Your Children? is worth a read. I like that terminology. Are you responsible for the "moral inclination" or "moral risk" for the "moral outcome" in a "moral quandary" in parenthood. Footnoted by 'I Am Adam Lanza's Mother': A Mom's Perspective On The Mental Illness Conversation In America | HuffPost And then follow up video here or summary here. I never knew that Sandy Hook shooting had such a disturbing, or alarming, spin on another family.
