--- Gilbert Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My understanding of religion and theological / > philosophical concepts is limited. So, I like to > read writings on "Religion made simple". >
Since Gilbert is not a philosopher, and because his understanding of philosophical concepts is limited, by his own admission, he is most likely wrong about his highly uninformed opinions about Spinoza and his philosophy. The situation here is worse than radiation oncologists not being able to understand mathematical models, and recognize their significance. For accurate information on Spinoza, and on the relevance of his naturalistic philosophy and ethics to today's world, including today's Goans, please read the following in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/ Selma would also be able to recommend you the book she was reading. The following excerpt is how the Stanford Encyclopedia introduces Spinoza's significance to human philosophical thought: "Baruch (or Benedictus) Spinoza is one of the most important philosophers -- and certainly the most radical -- of the early modern period. His thought combines a commitment to Cartesian metaphysical and epistemological principles with elements from ancient Stoicism and medieval Jewish rationalism into a nonetheless highly original system. His extremely naturalistic views on God, the world, the human being and knowledge serve to ground a moral philosophy centered on the control of the passions leading to virtue and happiness. They also lay the foundations for a strongly democratic political thought and a deep critique of the pretensions of Scripture and sectarian religion. Of all the philosophers of the seventeenth-century, perhaps none have more relevance today than Spinoza." Cheers, Santosh Gilbert wrote: > > So now I (GL) am trying to figure out what Selma > (SC) says in her post below. Here are some > questions ... por favor > .......................... > GL: She got further than me and needs to be > applauded. She did not read it completely and may > be ... perhaps ... likely did not understand > Spinoza's book? Is Spinoza a final authority on God? > or just another 17th century European philosopher? > > .............................................. > > Are we getting the same "churchy reasoning" from > SC?:=)) Selma, and others like her are very > practical do-gooders. Hence, can any one of them, > please give me three good PRACTICAL reasons, why on > earth would one want to be animated and excited in > some 17th - 19th century thought-process? Are there > no modern problems - practical or theoretical to > address? >
