In lieu of going to university, confined to home by a domineering mother, and in possession of almost zero self-esteem, I was given to raiding the neighborhood library for some kind of windows on life.
Over some 50 years of intense, eclectic, and self-teaching of the arts and humanities, I compiled notebooks filled with anything and everything that I deemed wisdom or worthy of retaining to read many times over. Thus, I was never formally educated or programmed or indoctrinated per se.
My informal education was through my own natural selection of that which I found to be of interest. Now I am 61 years of age. Never touched a computer until my husband bought our first one in October of 2001. Since then, it has not only been an education, crash course, and mind-boggling awakenings, but a long journey to the state of web savvy.
Thus I think to explain my rather unorthodox approach to the subject of philosophy and thinkers. In great contrast to the CF members in their youth and of college classes, I see the roles of philosophers in a somewhat different light.
Kierkegaard, for instance. Anther member posts this about him:
"Søren Kierkegaard for recognising that the human individual transcended reason." ~ TheGMan
That sounds a little off and simplistic about the Kierkegaard I am familiar with.
Hope that Spinoza fares better, since I admire his writings so much.
My readings and studies have led me much more deeply into esthetics, ethics, and an appreciation of the best things I know about life as being expressions of a Creator, aka God.
How intellectuals, collegians, and today's students of science and technology can be so indifferent to ordinary common sense and human values is a mystery. To what do I credit the lack of esthetic appreciation and basic benevolence reflected in so many posts on the CF fora?
Affrontery and insults seem to be the order of today's attitudes. Total disrespect for anything possibly learned from traditions, or years of life experiences, and especially the rightful place of parents and relatives of any kind.
The asthetic contributions to the arts by the Christian faith stands out quite vividly. It is as though the beauty passed down through the centuries was invisible to those who deprecate the Christian faith. Surely, it boggles the intelligent mind that the beauty in sacred paintings, sculpture, architecture and great choral music by the world's greatest composers are all ignored in the rush to eradicate all reason for Chrisitanity to exist at all.
What really happens when the supporting structures of any accomplishment, whether it be a cathedral, a sacred chorale, or holy sacraments of worship and traditions are destroyed? Centuries of human struggle and spiritual striving for a clearer sight and understanding of the Divine are swept aside...but for what?
Replaced by what? Puerile ideas of self-importance and rebellion and slow subsumation by all the "non-s" and "anti-s"? "New" and "modern" and "revolutionary" ideas that are actually none of those things, but erroneous idealogies that have been triumphant, tried, enforced, and found wanting, at each and every stage of history?
Now is the opportunity for those members who still follow the ideas of the asthetics of philosophy, moral value, and strength in the heritage that was meant to be passed down through the ages to those who have the wisdom to perpetuate them.
Post here the personal values and ethics that have been proven sound and gracious and beneficial to all. Post here the best of what your favorite philosophers have written. We shall try to work around the negative and sarcastic comments to which we may be subject.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/
Baruch Spinoza:
God or Nature
"On God" begins with some deceptively simple definitions of terms that would be familiar to any seventeenth century philosopher.
"By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself"; "By attribute I understand what the intellect perceives of a substance, as constituting its essence";
"By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence."
...as of Proposition Sixteen, there is a subtle but important
shift in Spinoza's language. God is now described not so much as the underlying substance of all things, but as the universal, immanent and sustaining cause of all that exists:
"From the necessity of the divine nature there must follow infinitely many things in infinitely many modes, (i.e., everything that can fall under an infinite intellect)".
There are, Spinoza insists, two sides of Nature. First, there is the active,
productive aspect of the universe -- God and his attributes, from which all else follows. This is what Spinoza, employing the same terms he used in the Short Treatise, calls Natura naturans, "naturing Nature". Strictly speaking, this is identical with God.
The other aspect of the universe is that which is produced and sustained by the active aspect, Natura naturata, "natured Nature".
By Natura naturata I understand whatever follows from the necessity of God's nature, or from any of God's attributes, i.e., all the modes of God's
attributes insofar as they are considered as things that are in God, and can
neither be nor be conceived without God. (Ip29s)."
Over some 50 years of intense, eclectic, and self-teaching of the arts and humanities, I compiled notebooks filled with anything and everything that I deemed wisdom or worthy of retaining to read many times over. Thus, I was never formally educated or programmed or indoctrinated per se.
My informal education was through my own natural selection of that which I found to be of interest. Now I am 61 years of age. Never touched a computer until my husband bought our first one in October of 2001. Since then, it has not only been an education, crash course, and mind-boggling awakenings, but a long journey to the state of web savvy.
Thus I think to explain my rather unorthodox approach to the subject of philosophy and thinkers. In great contrast to the CF members in their youth and of college classes, I see the roles of philosophers in a somewhat different light.
Kierkegaard, for instance. Anther member posts this about him:
"Søren Kierkegaard for recognising that the human individual transcended reason." ~ TheGMan
That sounds a little off and simplistic about the Kierkegaard I am familiar with.
Hope that Spinoza fares better, since I admire his writings so much.
My readings and studies have led me much more deeply into esthetics, ethics, and an appreciation of the best things I know about life as being expressions of a Creator, aka God.
How intellectuals, collegians, and today's students of science and technology can be so indifferent to ordinary common sense and human values is a mystery. To what do I credit the lack of esthetic appreciation and basic benevolence reflected in so many posts on the CF fora?
Affrontery and insults seem to be the order of today's attitudes. Total disrespect for anything possibly learned from traditions, or years of life experiences, and especially the rightful place of parents and relatives of any kind.
The asthetic contributions to the arts by the Christian faith stands out quite vividly. It is as though the beauty passed down through the centuries was invisible to those who deprecate the Christian faith. Surely, it boggles the intelligent mind that the beauty in sacred paintings, sculpture, architecture and great choral music by the world's greatest composers are all ignored in the rush to eradicate all reason for Chrisitanity to exist at all.
What really happens when the supporting structures of any accomplishment, whether it be a cathedral, a sacred chorale, or holy sacraments of worship and traditions are destroyed? Centuries of human struggle and spiritual striving for a clearer sight and understanding of the Divine are swept aside...but for what?
Replaced by what? Puerile ideas of self-importance and rebellion and slow subsumation by all the "non-s" and "anti-s"? "New" and "modern" and "revolutionary" ideas that are actually none of those things, but erroneous idealogies that have been triumphant, tried, enforced, and found wanting, at each and every stage of history?
Now is the opportunity for those members who still follow the ideas of the asthetics of philosophy, moral value, and strength in the heritage that was meant to be passed down through the ages to those who have the wisdom to perpetuate them.
Post here the personal values and ethics that have been proven sound and gracious and beneficial to all. Post here the best of what your favorite philosophers have written. We shall try to work around the negative and sarcastic comments to which we may be subject.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/
Baruch Spinoza:
God or Nature
"On God" begins with some deceptively simple definitions of terms that would be familiar to any seventeenth century philosopher.
"By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself"; "By attribute I understand what the intellect perceives of a substance, as constituting its essence";
"By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence."
...as of Proposition Sixteen, there is a subtle but important
shift in Spinoza's language. God is now described not so much as the underlying substance of all things, but as the universal, immanent and sustaining cause of all that exists:
"From the necessity of the divine nature there must follow infinitely many things in infinitely many modes, (i.e., everything that can fall under an infinite intellect)".
There are, Spinoza insists, two sides of Nature. First, there is the active,
productive aspect of the universe -- God and his attributes, from which all else follows. This is what Spinoza, employing the same terms he used in the Short Treatise, calls Natura naturans, "naturing Nature". Strictly speaking, this is identical with God.
The other aspect of the universe is that which is produced and sustained by the active aspect, Natura naturata, "natured Nature".
By Natura naturata I understand whatever follows from the necessity of God's nature, or from any of God's attributes, i.e., all the modes of God's
attributes insofar as they are considered as things that are in God, and can
neither be nor be conceived without God. (Ip29s)."
