I think I'm ready to take a run at this. As I mentioned about two weeks ago, I've discovered that Spinoza's writing style is not one of my favorites. In fact, I dare say it gives me a headache! That said, I'm determined to wade through it slowly, probably in fits and starts. I've found through other people's analyses of his work that many of his overall conceptualizations are in line with many of my own formulations. So, come hell or high water, I'm going to wend my way through The Ethics.
I'm going to change the way I discuss his seminal work. Originally, I had planned to go chapter by chapter or section by section utilizing large quoted tracts -- sort of follow the trajectory of the book itself. Now, however, I've decided that I'm going to employ a more avant-garde style. Basically, I will use some of his key concepts as springboards into the thoughts and questions swirling around in my own pea-sized brain.
The first of these is cause-and-effect or, stated another way, causality.
Most people accept the notion that the movement of life is the result of a myriad of causes and effects. If I spit in your face and you respond by punching me in the nose, then we can say the cause of my injury was my initial action toward you and my bloodied nose is the effect!
Science is all about studying causality and explaining it so that people can make more informed choices. Religion too follows this same tact in relation to what pleases or displeases the deity. And most of us try to understand the concept in our everyday lives.
It doesn't seem to matter from what philosophical, religious or spiritual framework a person comes from. Almost everyone I know accepts the idea of causality. In fact, I dare say it's universal...except in one case.
Folks of a religious ilk -- and I will focus on Christianity simply because it's the religious system I understand the best -- will say that cause-and-effect reigns supreme in every aspect of life, except for God. The almighty is above and beyond causality. He created it, but it is no factor in his existence.
I have a problem with this formulation. If God imbues everything and he supposedly created the framework of cause and effect, it should cause effects on him too! How can any entity stand above the laws of nature itself and be part of that nature? Further, how can it be said that we humans were formed as an image of God, if God is not part of the nature of all we know?
Taoists don't encounter this problem because we don't view God as an entity at all. For us, Tao is the process itself. Put in other ways, Tao IS cause and effect or Tao is the nature of causality.
I'm going to change the way I discuss his seminal work. Originally, I had planned to go chapter by chapter or section by section utilizing large quoted tracts -- sort of follow the trajectory of the book itself. Now, however, I've decided that I'm going to employ a more avant-garde style. Basically, I will use some of his key concepts as springboards into the thoughts and questions swirling around in my own pea-sized brain.
The first of these is cause-and-effect or, stated another way, causality.
Most people accept the notion that the movement of life is the result of a myriad of causes and effects. If I spit in your face and you respond by punching me in the nose, then we can say the cause of my injury was my initial action toward you and my bloodied nose is the effect!
Science is all about studying causality and explaining it so that people can make more informed choices. Religion too follows this same tact in relation to what pleases or displeases the deity. And most of us try to understand the concept in our everyday lives.
It doesn't seem to matter from what philosophical, religious or spiritual framework a person comes from. Almost everyone I know accepts the idea of causality. In fact, I dare say it's universal...except in one case.
Folks of a religious ilk -- and I will focus on Christianity simply because it's the religious system I understand the best -- will say that cause-and-effect reigns supreme in every aspect of life, except for God. The almighty is above and beyond causality. He created it, but it is no factor in his existence.
I have a problem with this formulation. If God imbues everything and he supposedly created the framework of cause and effect, it should cause effects on him too! How can any entity stand above the laws of nature itself and be part of that nature? Further, how can it be said that we humans were formed as an image of God, if God is not part of the nature of all we know?
Taoists don't encounter this problem because we don't view God as an entity at all. For us, Tao is the process itself. Put in other ways, Tao IS cause and effect or Tao is the nature of causality.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want.