Steve Nadler, 'Whatever is, is in God: substance and things in Spinoza’s metaphysics,' p.68: "Spinoza’s move is a naturalistic and reductive one. God is identical either with all of Nature or with only a part of Nature; for this reason, Spinoza shares something with the reductive pantheist. - ThreadSky

saditious.bsky.social • 9 days ago

Steve Nadler, 'Whatever is, is in God: substance and things in Spinoza’s metaphysics,' p.68:
"Spinoza’s move is a naturalistic and reductive one. God is identical either with all of Nature or with only a part of Nature; for this reason, Spinoza shares something with the reductive pantheist.

Comments

1part-harmony.bsky.social•9 days ago

The pantheist and the atheist ontological censuses are clearly extensionally equivalent, but this seems likely precisely the reason that an atheist would not agree that "God is nothing but nature." The disagreement between the atheist and the pantheist isn't ontological, but it is metaphysical.

saditious.bsky.social•9 days ago

Could you possibly say more? I take Nadler’s point here to be that there is nothing populating Spinoza’s world that an atheist would feel troubled by, apart from the arguably unnecessary use of the word ‘God’

1part-harmony.bsky.social•9 days ago

If Nadler's point is purely ontological, I agree, but then it's trivial, no? The atheist and the coffee-mug-theist agree on ontology. But they surely disagree on whether or not my coffee mug has the metaphysical property of divinity. Is his point rather that divinity is an empty property?

saditious.bsky.social•9 days ago

I think that is his point, ontology also includes what kinds of properties we think are (and can be) instantiated. If we're specifically focussing on divinity, Nadler thinks Spinoza gives a pretty well-articulated naturalistic reduction of that property (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqNz8dDb4kU)

1part-harmony.bsky.social•8 days ago

Ah, excellent. I'm writing loosely when I say "property" -- really I just mean something like "is properly described as." But it sounds like Nadler's point addresses mine. Can't wait to watch this! Thanks for sharing.

saditious.bsky.social•9 days ago

But – and this is the important point – even the atheist can, without too much difficulty, admit that God is nothing but Nature. Reductive pantheism and atheism maintain extensionally equivalent ontologies"

standardtree.bsky.social•9 days ago

It’s better to look at the problem more simply. Imagine a circle halved in two. One is white and the other black.

This represents the number scale. Zero/empty category is infinite domain.
1/2 🧵

standardtree.bsky.social•9 days ago

2/2 🧵

Atheists can represent the dark side and theists represent the “light” side (lol).

Since both sides are held within the domain, *both are represented* by that domain.

Either/or and every way and no way.

Hope this helps. 💋

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply