The following is an e-mail correspondence between myself and a

student (from the current batch – Ph 101, SY 2014-15) on Spinoza.

Please read the two letters well as they will provide additional material
on Spinoza as well as a response to a problem that Spinoza did not
cover, at least not in the sections of his work that we read for class.

Thanks, everyone.

Mr. Temporal

ϕϕϕ

September 19, 2014

Hi, sir!

I'd just like to say that I was very much amazed by the insights drawn
from your Spinoza lecture. I think it's among the best lectures I've ever
sat in, and I thoroughly enjoyed it, although we weren't able to spend
as much time on it as I wanted.

I do have some questions, though: given that Spinoza posited 'God' as

containing everything, and our reality as just extensions or modes of
Him, and that He isn't just an entity as modern Christian dogma would
like to believe, what is the point in believing in such a God? What more
is there to it than just acknowledging that, okay, all of reality is in God,
and we are parts of Him and He is in us? How does understanding
Spinoza's God qualitatively affect the way we live our lives, compared
to the way the Christian God does, by being able to be called upon in
times of need or trouble, and thanked and glorified in times of
success? What do we do with our belief in God as the one true
substance in the universe?

I'd like to know the answers because my rational side very much
agrees with what Spinoza said. I feel much more comfortable with that
notion of God than the notion of an Almighty Creator who
micromanages humanity. But I'd just like to know if there's something
more I can get out of believing in that understanding of God.
Thank you in advance, sir!

ϕϕϕ

September 25, 2014

Hello, _______.

Thanks for the letter. I'm really glad Spinoza made a lot of sense to
you.

The only gap that I see in Spinoza is this: If it's correct that the mind is
an extension or mode of God, then he must provide for an explanation
as to why the human mind is the way it is.

Considering the characteristics of the human mind, we must

acknowledge that it has several faculties: it does not only think, but
thinks in particular ways. Namely, the mind can perceive, reflect, judge,
know, remember, imagine, synthesize knowledge, infer, feel,
derive...etc.

If this kind of a mind is an effect, then the cause of it ought to be

greater than itself.

Reasoning backwards from effect to cause, should it not be that God's

mind, which is the cause of man's mind, be far greater than its effect?
God's mind, then, ought to be far greater in its way of perceiving,
reflecting, judging, knowing, imagining, feeling...etc.

This is not the same as anthropomorphizing God (i.e., thinking of God

in human terms), but an application of causality: No effect can be
greater than its cause.

In recognizing that the human mind is a mode of God, then it exists

mainly as an extension or attribute of God's mind. God's mind, then,
must have all the characteristics of the human mind, but in superior
levels.

The God of Spinoza, then, ought to be one that is "conscious" of all

things.
Does this allow for prayer (especially understood as a way of
communicating with God)? Can one still have faith in God, understood
in these terms? Can we still say that God is present in the world and in
our lives, even if it's not in the way that traditional religion explains it?

Do tell me your thoughts on these questions.

Most importantly, I hope that your dialogue with Spinoza somehow

elevates your faith in God. God may not be a bearded old man in some
heaven -- but God ought to be something...a something none of us, not
even Spinoza, can reason out enough nor understand as clearly as we
would want to.

Cheers, ______!