spinoza and determinism

bump. dont be anti semetic guys

There were a lot less options in Spinozas time

>>8890445
Spinoza is a rationalist. Through his geometric method we use the first ten proofs to prove that everything participates in a singular substance (not many like Descartes postulated) that Spinoza calls God or Nature. Because everything is a mode that is expressed by this substance, it has no power outside of the substance. Therefore, all of our actions are determined by the rational laws of the Universe. The rational laws of the Universe have embedded effects in each of their causes. Things happen to modes by other modes, there is an embedded effect depending on the status of that mode. Therefore, the mode feels an affect, an emotional and sensational response, to the cause and its power changes in some way. If it feels joy, then the other thing increases its power, and it loves the thing, sadness affects and the disposition of hate decrease power. By understanding this series of predetermined causes and effects we can come to love all things, because they are as they are and will act as they act. If we believe we cannot change how things are, then we will love all that takes place because it will always add to our power. If we believe we can change and manipulate things, we will come to hate them when we find that we are not in control over Substance. There is no other Universe to go to where things go differently. Because we participate in Substance, our power is limited by the power of other things. Thus, for Spinoza, our love of God is an acceptance of what substance is, and because we are in substance, a love of ourselves and the world. No, there is no free will. We are in some ways, just taking part in the infinite expression of Substance. Now, Spinoza is conceived of as a "hard determinist" and analytics have done good work to strip the poetic beauty of the last parts of the Ethics and their understanding of the practicality of pure joy in substance.
I have limits to my understanding of Spinoza, but I would like to discuss him further if I am unclear. Further, the book "Practical Philosophy" by Gilles Deleuze is my preferred accessible companion to Spinoza.

>>8890445
Yes, you are determined to be influenced by his ideas of making conscious the subconscious, should you be "written" to be receptive to the idea (just like he was determined to formulate it).
No paradox there AFAIK

>>8890445
> spinoza doesnt believe in straight up free will
>i'm just having trouble understanding where in his system spinoza has room for anything resembling choice of action,
Maybe it would help to narrow down a bit your definition of what you call straight up free will. People often make the assumption that free will in the colloquial sense carries over into philosophy when the author has no use for the colloquial meaning, free choice of action etc,

Why Spinoza thinks any particular sort of action is important? You answered your own question, the active is more in line with the unfolding of God. It's more permanent and makes us happy and shit. One must imagine Sisyphus belauded.

>>8891786
well he must be using a definition of free will where some sort of choice - to be more in line with the unfolding of god instead of just letting outside forces act on us - is possible. right? why else would he give advice on how to so it? does this not imply spontaneous self-determination happening on some level? how does it fit with his determinism?

also, you seem to be knowledgeable re: the spin doctor. are his and leibniz's theories about - parallel and in-sync, but not causal mind/body relationship as similar as they seem? not how they argue what gives rise to them, or the implications, just how the relationship functions. i havent read the book about the two of them, is that something one of them borrowed from the other, or was this an older idea? never seen it anywhere else.

>>8892304
Choices exist, but that doesn't mean they're not just predetermined as anything else?

>>8892322
hmm. can you give an example of what a pre-determined choice would look like?

>>8892329
Every choice you've ever made or seen anyone else make.

>>8892339
that would be using a pretty non-standard definition of 'choice', no? and if that's the case - how does the pursuit of knowledge about what is forcing/causing those choices help us?

>>8892344
How? I would be using the same definition of choice we use every day. Not a non-standard one at all.
Knowledge of causes will cause us to understand what will happen, and what is under our control and what will not, which will cause us to be more knowledgable and eudæmonic.

>>8892399
in a standard definition you get to choose between two or more options - the result is not pre-determined. is that what you mean?

>what is under our control

how is anything under our control in his system? wouldnt even the decision to become more knowledgeable of causes have a cause and be determined itself?

>>8892422
>in a standard definition you get to choose between two or more options - the result is not pre-determined. is that what you mean?
In making the choice we do choose between two or more options. Since that's what happens, and we've chosen to give the name 'choice' to such an event. If you want to redefine 'choice' so it refers to something non-predetermined, rather than to the event everyone uses to word to refer to... well, good luck~
>how is anything under our control in his system?
Our actions are.
>wouldnt even the decision to become more knowledgeable of causes have a cause and be determined itself?
Of course.

r>>8890445
We possess free will and are capable of making our decisions, but Spinoza saw us as possessing a kind of understanding our the universe and our existence that is derived from our relationship with the Substance. We're better off following intuition as we know what is best suited to nature, convention or the unfolding of god.

>>8892548
This is incorrect. For Spinoza, everything is determined by the cause that is previous to it. That is why we are able to attain joy in our lives. We utilize rationalism to trace causes and explain why the world is as it is, and thus accept and affirm that life. Whether we do this is also determined. It is not predetermined, because substance is constantly thinking and expressing through the attributes as us. I.E, there is no universal god plan like for the Calvinists and the Jews because we are the manifestations and expressions of God. However, God is determined to be as it is and thus its expressions are determined by those natural laws that regulate Gods behavior.