maandag 9 september 2019
1 oktober 2019 komt de Italiaanse 'popsofie' van Rick DuFer, #Spinoza e popcorn.
zondag 8 september 2019
Kenan Malik vergeleek in The Observer de tolerantie van Locke en #Spinoza.
 |
| Kenan Malik |
De titel van het stuk is enigszins merkwaardig: die past niet bij het betoog. Er was onlangs een onbekend manuscript van John Locke opgedoken, "Reasons for tolerating Papist equally with others," maar in zijn later gepubliceerde werk volgde Locke zijn eigen eerdere argumentatie niet. Locke was dus al nooit als helemaal echt tolerant gezien.
Kenan Malik besluit zijn stuk aldus [vet van mij]:
“if we want to address questions of tolerance we would do far better to look to Spinoza than to Locke.”
zaterdag 7 september 2019
International Symposium #Spinoza & the Arts - Passionate Reason
op vrijdag 4 en zaterdag 5 oktober 2019 in West Den Haag (onafhankelijk kunstcentrum in de voormalige Amerikaanse ambassade), Lange Voorhout 102, Den Haag.
Met Moira Gatens (University of Sydney), Beth Lord (University of Aberdeen), Katja Diefenbach (Merz Akademie, Stuttgart ), Mogens Laerke (École Normale Supérieure de Lyon), Andrea Sangiacomo (Univ. Groningen), Torkild Thanem (Stockholm University), onder voorzitterschap van Baruch Gottlieb (In Canada geboren, verbonden aan Studium Generale of the University of Arts, Berlin).
Klik voor alle informatie, programma en abstracts van de sprekers op afbeelding
 |
| voormalige Amerikaanse ambassade, ontworpen door Marcel Breuer |
Klik voor alle informatie, programma en abstracts van de sprekers op afbeelding
#Spinoza vaak vergeleken met het Boeddhisme en Hindoeïsme
Al
vaker heb ik hierover blogs gehad [zie onder de links erheen]. Onlangs kwam ik enige
recente teksten tegen die ik hieraan graag toevoeg.
Abstract: Philosophers
from traditions that are not only entirely different but apparently
uninfluenced by each other sometimes show remarkable similarities. In the case
of Spinoza and Shankara such similarities include the dual-aspect model
according to which the apparent pluralism of the world rests on an inadequate
perception of its one-ness, and the way the overcoming of that inadequacy is
conceived as a liberation from the passions and an achievement of immortali-ty.
A significant difference between the two, however, is that Spino-za's
explanations are epistemologically conceived while Shankara's are conceived
ontologically. Not that Spinoza lacked an ontology or Shankara an epistemology,
but rather their explanatory approach-es emphasize the differences of the
worlds within which they wrote.
vrijdag 6 september 2019
Jasper Geurink’s Master-bijdrage over #Spinoza’s parallelisme en de Idea Dei
Graag wijs
ik op het uitdagende stuk – dat sommige bezoekers van dit blog zal interesseren
- van
Jasper
Geurink, Spinoza's parallelism and the idea of God. Discussion on the Idea Dei
(Idea of God) and different kinds of parallelism in Part II of the Ethics.
Master Course, Martin Lenz (RUG). Geplaatst op academia.edu.
Om hier
duidelijk te maken waar het over gaat, citeer ik zijn
Conclusion: “In this essay we first encountered
the hypothesis of Yitzhak Melamed that EIIP7 and the scholium develop two different kinds of parallelism; first
the Inter-Attribute Parallelism (IAP) and second the Ideas-Things Parallelism
(ITP). The first seems to be both an isomor- phic form of parallelism and one
where there is an identity of the different modes of the at-tributes. In
contrast with the IAP, which is a ‘blind’ parallelism, the ITP is
representational; ideas are about
their objects. The ITP is also isomorphic. But in contrast with the IAP, the
ITP does not support an identity reading of the relation between an idea and
its object, since the idea of God is a mode and therefore cannot be identical
with Substance (its object). Alex Silverman agrees with Melamed here and
mentions some quite convincing passages -for in-stance EIIP5Dem – that
seem to indicate that an idea is always a mode. Nevertheless, by some textual
exegesis of EIIP3S and EIIP1S I uncovered some promising passages that seem to
suggest that the idea of God is identical with its object; God is both subject
and object of his thinking. Or, as Spinoza put it in EIIP7S God, his intellect
and what he understands are one and the same. And although this identification
of the idea of God with its object supports the identity reading of the ITP, I
am not entirely convinced it is the right one, since the evi-dence of Melamed
and especially Silverman seems quite solid.”
Geurink
behandelt twee artikelen:
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)