>I guess his stuff is used quite >a bit by Einstein, Hawking, and >other modern scientists. > einstein ... and many other reasonable people since, not just scientists ... pretty much people who are not dogmatic nutjobs ... are "sympathetic" to Spinoza, but i wouldnt really say they "use" Spinoza in their scientific work.
of the "natural philosophers" newton of course revolutionized everything. descartes has some value as does liebtiz,but i dont think you can say much for the scientific significance of spinoza.
so when you use a word like "use spinoza" i think it implies you mean the scientists qua scientists, while his influence is really on them as scientists qua reflective people.
this has been discussed a lot lately because of the wave of aethism books. lots of people talking about "did einstein believe in god" refering to his comment about believing in spinoza's god". [which i agree with the people who think that's just a clever and literate dodge to avoid saying "no"].
banane
· 2 years ago
To anybody who is reading this- the anonymous post above is Partha. I don't allow anonymous posts, but I know it's him so I'll let this slide.
banane
· 2 years ago
You think Spinoza didn't believe in God? I think he did- in the sense that Nature is God- which he states quite clearly in Ethics.
Spinoza's Blog
· 2 years ago
i dont know if Spinoza believed in God. I agree with the view that Einstein either didnt or didnt in any meaningful way. If you believe nature runs according to sime rules, and these rules have a certain aesthetic, but that is an aesthetic that appeals to humans, but you decide to label that "god", that's ok, but you dont have anything in common with the people who believe in god in the theistic sense.
i think you have to consider god something outside of science. if you make it part of science or equal to science, i think you've stretched the category past its breaking point.
TMWTGF(steven weinberg, einstein, spinoza, god) for a better statement of this.
All Comments
>a bit by Einstein, Hawking, and
>other modern scientists.
>
einstein ... and many other reasonable
people since, not just scientists ...
pretty much people who are not dogmatic
nutjobs ... are "sympathetic" to
Spinoza, but i wouldnt really say they
"use" Spinoza in their scientific work.
of the "natural philosophers" newton
of course revolutionized everything.
descartes has some value as does liebtiz,but i dont think you can say
much for the scientific significance
of spinoza.
so when you use a word like "use spinoza" i think it implies you mean
the scientists qua scientists, while
his influence is really on them
as scientists qua reflective people.
this has been discussed a lot lately
because of the wave of aethism books.
lots of people talking about "did
einstein believe in god" refering to
his comment about believing in spinoza's
god". [which i agree with the people
who think that's just a clever and
literate dodge to avoid saying "no"].
I agree with the view that Einstein either
didnt or didnt in any meaningful way.
If you believe nature runs according to
sime rules, and these rules have a
certain aesthetic, but that is an
aesthetic that appeals to humans, but
you decide to label that "god", that's
ok, but you dont have anything in
common with the people who believe
in god in the theistic sense.
i think you have to consider god
something outside of science. if
you make it part of science or equal
to science, i think you've stretched
the category past its breaking point.
TMWTGF(steven weinberg, einstein,
spinoza, god) for a better statement
of this.