Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.
|
Loading... A Theologico-Political Treatise (original 1670; edition 2016)by Benedict de Spinoza (Author), R. H. M. Elwes (Translator) iSatyajeet | Nov 21, 2018 |    ) audient_void | Jan 6, 2024 | ) lschiff | Sep 24, 2023 | An excerpt from the book: "The affirmations and the negations of 'God' always involve necessity or truth; so that, for example, if God said to Adam that He did not wish him to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it would have involved a contradiction that Adam should have been able to eat of it, and would, therefore, have been impossible that he should have so eaten, for the Divine command would have involved an eternal necessity and truth. But since Scripture nevertheless narrates that God did give this command to Adam, and yet that none the less Adam ate of the tree, we must perforce say that God revealed to Adam the evil which would surely follow if he should eat of the tree, but did not disclose that such evil would of necessity come to pass. Thus it was that Adam took the revelation to be not an eternal and necessary truth, but a law - that is, an ordinance followed by gain or loss, not depending necessarily on the nature of the act performed, but solely on the will and absolute power of some potentate, so that the revelation in question was solely in relation to Adam, and solely through his lack of knowledge a law, and God was, as it were, a lawgiver and potentate. From the same cause, namely, from lack of knowledge, the Decalogue in relation to the Hebrews was a law. We conclude, therefore, that God is described as a lawgiver or prince, and styled just, merciful, etc., merely in concession to popular understanding, and the imperfection of popular knowledge; that in reality God acts and directs all things simply by the necessity of His nature and perfection, and that His decrees and volitions are eternal truths, and always involve necessity." The key words in the excerpt are: "solely through the lack of knowledge" - the whole anthropomorphic domain of law, ínjunction, moral command, et cetera, is based on our ignorance; and the proposed ontological ethics are deprived of the deontological dimension. _______________________________ Also, "Cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your health." But that is not prohibited obviously — (Nothing is, nothing can be) — you're just informed of a cáusal link. (  ) iSatyajeet | Nov 21, 2018 | An excerpt from the book: "The affirmations and the negations of 'God' always involve necessity or truth; so that, for example, if God said to Adam that He did not wish him to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it would have involved a contradiction that Adam should have been able to eat of it, and would, therefore, have been impossible that he should have so eaten, for the Divine command would have involved an eternal necessity and truth. But since Scripture nevertheless narrates that God did give this command to Adam, and yet that none the less Adam ate of the tree, we must perforce say that God revealed to Adam the evil which would surely follow if he should eat of the tree, but did not disclose that such evil would of necessity come to pass. Thus it was that Adam took the revelation to be not an eternal and necessary truth, but a law - that is, an ordinance followed by gain or loss, not depending necessarily on the nature of the act performed, but solely on the will and absolute power of some potentate, so that the revelation in question was solely in relation to Adam, and solely through his lack of knowledge a law, and God was, as it were, a lawgiver and potentate. From the same cause, namely, from lack of knowledge, the Decalogue in relation to the Hebrews was a law. We conclude, therefore, that God is described as a lawgiver or prince, and styled just, merciful, etc., merely in concession to popular understanding, and the imperfection of popular knowledge; that in reality God acts and directs all things simply by the necessity of His nature and perfection, and that His decrees and volitions are eternal truths, and always involve necessity." The key words in the excerpt are: "solely through the lack of knowledge" - the whole anthropomorphic domain of law, ínjunction, moral command, et cetera, is based on our ignorance; and the proposed ontological ethics are deprived of the deontological dimension. _______________________________ Also, "Cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your health." But that is not prohibited obviously — (Nothing is, nothing can be) — you're just informed of a cáusal link. ( ) iSatyajeet | Nov 21, 2018 |  TheoSmit | Jun 21, 2010 | |
Current DiscussionsNonePopular covers
 Google Books — Loading...GenresMelvil Decimal System (DDC)199.492Philosophy and Psychology Modern western philosophy Other geographical areas Europe Other European Countries NetherlandsLC ClassificationRatingAverage: (3.88)
Is this you?Become a LibraryThing Author. |
3
An excerpt from the book:
"The affirmations and the negations of 'God' always involve necessity or truth; so that, for example, if God said to Adam that He did not wish him to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it would have involved a contradiction that Adam should have been able to eat of it, and would, therefore, have been impossible that he should have so eaten, for the Divine command would have involved an eternal necessity and truth. But since Scripture nevertheless narrates that God did give this command to Adam, and yet that none the less Adam ate of the tree, we must perforce say that God revealed to Adam the evil which would surely follow if he should eat of the tree, but did not disclose that such evil would of necessity come to pass. Thus it was that Adam took the revelation to be not an eternal and necessary truth, but a law - that is, an ordinance followed by gain or loss, not depending necessarily on the nature of the act performed, but solely on the will and absolute power of some potentate, so that the revelation in question was solely in relation to Adam, and solely through his lack of knowledge a law, and God was, as it were, a lawgiver and potentate. From the same cause, namely, from lack of knowledge, the Decalogue in relation to the Hebrews was a law. We conclude, therefore, that God is described as a lawgiver or prince, and styled just, merciful, etc., merely in concession to popular understanding, and the imperfection of popular knowledge; that in reality God acts and directs all things simply by the necessity of His nature and perfection, and that His decrees and volitions are eternal truths, and always involve necessity."
The key words in the excerpt are: "solely through the lack of knowledge" - the whole anthropomorphic domain of law, ínjunction, moral command, et cetera, is based on our ignorance; and the proposed ontological ethics are deprived of the deontological dimension.
_______________________________
Also, "Cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your health."
But that is not prohibited obviously — (Nothing is, nothing can be) — you're just informed of a cáusal link.
(