Define God

[pood]

I see no connection between Marx and Plato. I see no evidence that Plato’s theory of forms is valid. Plato was an idealist (there are different forms of idealism) and Marx was a materialist and an atheist.

Marx's atheism is an open question. Here is an early writing from him:

Thus the union with Christ imparts an inner exaltation, comfort in suffering, calm trust, and a heart full of love for humankind, open to everything noble, everything great, not out of ambition but for the sake of Christ. Thus the union with Christ imparts a joyousness which the Epicurean in his frivolous philosophy and the deep thinker in his most arcane science have vainly tried to snatch at, but which the soul can attain only through its unrestrained and childlike Union with Christ and God, which alone makes life more beautiful and exalted. "Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged [John 16:11]."

Marx was a prophet. He had no tolerance for religious forms or for material representations of God. His theories were deliberately presented as purely materialist, but he would never reduce the whole of reality to mere matter.

What is YOUR view? In your own words. Do you believe in a literal triune god? Are you a Christian or not?

My view is that the most irrational thing is to believe that humans are rational, or that history or evolution have any purpose.

You cite this as an early writing of Marx. I am not familiar with it. Maybe it is a valid cite. In any case, the emphasis is on the word “early” if indeed he wrote this. I see no evidence that the later Marx was anything but an atheist and a materialist, and had no connection to Plato and his forms.

 

[pood]

Of course, you have claimed that Judaism is destined to somehow conquer the world, so I guess you can’t be a Christian? So what exactly are you arguing for? Please, in your own words, not with links to Waton.

 

[No Robots]

How is it reductive and misleading? How does it differ from monism? Be specific.

Pantheism reduces reality to only two attributes, thought and extension. With Spinoza, reality is comprised of infinite attributes.

And what does the Kabbalah have to do with anything? Be specific. In your own words.

Kabbalah provides a full and complete understanding of the constitution of reality. It provides corrections to lacunae and deficiencies in the work of Spinoza.

What is Marx’s essentialism? Be specific. How does it relate to Plato?

As I have stated, Gattungswesen in German philosophy from Hegel through Feuerbach to Marx is the conceptual equivalent of Plato's forms. It is also equivalent to the Biblical concept of Jahve tsebaot (Being with infinite powers):

In Scripture God is said to have "powers," translated by the Septuagint as dynameis, and these Philo identifies with the Platonic ideai (De spec. leg. 45-48; for the distinction between eidos and idea, see noeton 2). Thus they assume the role of the transcendent noeta in the mind of God and, as the immanent eide, become a creative force in the universe. In Philo it is the latter that give order to the universe while they, in turn, are controlled by the transcendent God (De fuga 101). The same treatment can be seen in Plotinus. The noeta that exist in a unified form in the cosmic nous (see noeton 5) are described as a universal dynamis with boundless capacity (Enn. V, 8, 9). But each of these is potentially ( and in the sequel will be actually) as separate eidos and so an individual dynamis (V, 9, 6) that will later be operative in both the noetic and sensible world ( IV, 4, 36).

The Bible and philosophy are united on the nature of reality.

 

[pood]

How is it reductive and misleading? How does it differ from monism? Be specific.

Pantheism reduces reality to only two attributes, thought and extension. With Spinoza, reality is comprised of infinite attributes.

Pantheism is the claim that God and nature are as one. No division, Monism. Isn’t that what you are claiming?

And what does the Kabbalah have to do with anything? Be specific. In your own words.

Kabbalah provides a full and complete understanding of the constitution of reality. It provides corrections to lacunae and deficiencies in the work of Spinoza.

How? In your own words. Be specific. Why should we believe this?

What is Marx’s essentialism? Be specific. How does it relate to Plato?

As I have stated, Gattungswesen in German philosophy from Hegel through Feuerbach to Marx is the conceptual equivalent of Plato's forms. It is also equivalent to the Biblical concept of Jahve tsebaot (Being with infinite powers):

Please provide a cite that Marx believed in Plato’s forms or anything other than materialism and atheism.

In Scripture God is said to have "powers," translated by the Septuagint as dynameis, and these Philo identifies with the Platonic ideai (De spec. leg. 45-48; for the distinction between eidos and idea, see noeton 2). Thus they assume the role of the transcendent noeta in the mind of God and, as the immanent eide, become a creative force in the universe. In Philo it is the latter that give order to the universe while they, in turn, are controlled by the transcendent God (De fuga 101). The same treatment can be seen in Plotinus. The noeta that exist in a unified form in the cosmic nous (see noeton 5) are described as a universal dynamis with boundless capacity (Enn. V, 8, 9). But each of these is potentially ( and in the sequel will be actually) as separate eidos and so an individual dynamis (V, 9, 6) that will later be operative in both the noetic and sensible world ( IV, 4, 36).

The Bible and philosophy are united on the nature of reality.

The Bible and philosophy (which means a multitude of philosophers) are certainly NOT united on any such thing. And what is this quote you are citing above? Who cares what Plato thought? Can you provide evidence for anything stated in that quote, or does it just sound good to you?

 

[No Robots]

What is YOUR view? In your own words. Do you believe in a literal triune god? Are you a Christian or not?

I am quite satisfied with living in the thought-realm of masters like Spinoza, Hegel, Marx, and Waton. Just as I don't feel the need to build my own car, I don't feel the need to build my own philosophy.

My view is that the most irrational thing is to believe that humans are rational, or that history or evolution have any purpose.

I am aware of your irrationalism. Why do think I started this whole rant against it?

You cite this as an early writing of Marx. I am not familiar with it. Maybe it is a valid cite. In any case, the emphasis is on the word “early” if indeed he wrote this. I see no evidence that the later Marx was anything but an atheist and a materialist, and had no connection to Plato and his forms.

Here is the citation for Marx: "The Union of the Faithful with Christ."

 

[pood]

What is YOUR view? In your own words. Do you believe in a literal triune god? Are you a Christian or not?

I am quite satisfied with living in the thought-realm of masters like Spinoza, Hegel, Marx, and Waton. Just as I don't feel the need to build my own car, I don't feel the need to build my own philosophy.

Yet you have not shown the actual intellectual connection between these people. And if you are “quite satisfied with living in the thought-realm” of so-called masters, good for you. I prefer to think for myself.

My view is that the most irrational thing is to believe that humans are rational, or that history or evolution have any purpose.

I am aware of your irrationalism. Why do think I started this whole rant against it?

I am aware of your irrationalism, to think that humans are mainly rational and that evolution and history have a discoverable purpose. So far you have provided zero evidence for this claim. All the actual evidence is on my side of the discussion.

You cite this as an early writing of Marx. I am not familiar with it. Maybe it is a valid cite. In any case, the emphasis is on the word “early” if indeed he wrote this. I see no evidence that the later Marx was anything but an atheist and a materialist, and had no connection to Plato and his forms.

Here is the citation for Marx: "The Union of the Faithful with Christ."

Great, thanks for the cite. I’ll read it as I find time.

 

[pood]

Note that Marx wrote the above when he was 17.

 

[No Robots]

Pantheism is the claim that God and nature are as one. No division, Monism. Isn’t that what you are claiming?

Pantheism does not recognize that each material form is in essence an infinite and eternal idea.

How? In your own words. Be specific. Why should we believe this?

I can't do your reading for you.

Please provide a cite that Marx believed in Plato’s forms or anything other than materialism and atheism.

As philosophy finds in the proletariat its material weapon, so the proletariat finds in philosophy its spiritual weapon

In Scripture God is said to have "powers," translated by the Septuagint as dynameis, and these Philo identifies with the Platonic ideai (De spec. leg. 45-48; for the distinction between eidos and idea, see noeton 2). Thus they assume the role of the transcendent noeta in the mind of God and, as the immanent eide, become a creative force in the universe. In Philo it is the latter that give order to the universe while they, in turn, are controlled by the transcendent God (De fuga 101). The same treatment can be seen in Plotinus. The noeta that exist in a unified form in the cosmic nous (see noeton 5) are described as a universal dynamis with boundless capacity (Enn. V, 8, 9). But each of these is potentially ( and in the sequel will be actually) as separate eidos and so an individual dynamis (V, 9, 6) that will later be operative in both the noetic and sensible world ( IV, 4, 36).

The Bible and philosophy are united on the nature of reality.

The Bible and philosophy (which means a multitude of philosophers) are certainly NOT united on any such thing. And what is this quote you are citing above? Who cares what Plato thought? Can you provide evidence for anything stated in that quote, or does it just sound good to you?

The quotation is from here: "Dynamis," Greek Philosophical Terms by Francis E. Peters, 43-44

 

[No Robots]

Note that Marx wrote the above when he was 17.

He also wrote it as a compulsory part of his schooling. Nevertheless, he did write it and it demonstrates a profound spiritual insight.

 

[pood]

Pantheism is the claim that God and nature are as one. No division, Monism. Isn’t that what you are claiming?

Pantheism does not recognize that each material form is in essence an infinite and eternal idea.

Evidence that “each material form is in essence an infinite and eternal idea.”?

How? In your own words. Be specific. Why should we believe this?

I can't do your reading for you.

And I can’t do your writing for you. Apparently you are unable to express ideas in your own words, but maybe that is understandable because you don’t have ideas of your own, but are content to live uncritically in the “thought-realm” of others, by your own admission,

Please provide a cite that Marx believed in Plato’s forms or anything other than materialism and atheism.

As philosophy finds in the proletariat its material weapon, so the proletariat finds in philosophy its spiritual weapon

In Scripture God is said to have "powers," translated by the Septuagint as dynameis, and these Philo identifies with the Platonic ideai (De spec. leg. 45-48; for the distinction between eidos and idea, see noeton 2). Thus they assume the role of the transcendent noeta in the mind of God and, as the immanent eide, become a creative force in the universe. In Philo it is the latter that give order to the universe while they, in turn, are controlled by the transcendent God (De fuga 101). The same treatment can be seen in Plotinus. The noeta that exist in a unified form in the cosmic nous (see noeton 5) are described as a universal dynamis with boundless capacity (Enn. V, 8, 9). But each of these is potentially ( and in the sequel will be actually) as separate eidos and so an individual dynamis (V, 9, 6) that will later be operative in both the noetic and sensible world ( IV, 4, 36).

The Bible and philosophy are united on the nature of reality.

The Bible and philosophy (which means a multitude of philosophers) are certainly NOT united on any such thing. And what is this quote you are citing above? Who cares what Plato thought? Can you provide evidence for anything stated in that quote, or does it just sound good to you?

The quotation is from here: "Dynamis," Greek Philosophical Terms by Francis E. Peters, 43-44

Who cares where the quote comes from? What support do you adduce for it? In your own words, please.

 

[pood]

“Each material form is in essence an infinite and eternal idea.”

That sounds so high-falutin’.

But what does it mean?

Whose idea? How is it infinite and eternal?

 

[pood]

Note that Marx wrote the above when he was 17.

He also wrote it as a compulsory part of his schooling. Nevertheless, he did write it and it demonstrates a profound spiritual insight.

So he wrote it under compulsion when he was 17 and had little experience of the world. It is quite clear that later he was a materialist and atheist, so why in the world would you cite a juvenile compulsory essay as evidence that Marx’s atheism was “an open question?”

 

[steve_bank]

I grew up Catholic and went to Catholic schools. I took relgion classes.

I had no idea what I was doing at 17 on religion.

I dropped religion as soon as I got off on my own. I am atheist.

Marx and communism were anti religious by doctrine. Why? Because in Europe it was part of the social political control system.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Note that Marx wrote the above when he was 17.

FYI this person loves quote mining people and deliberately mischaracterizing them without doing further reading.

 

[NoHolyCows]

Serious study of philosophy and history leads to the inevitable conclusion that communism and Judaism are the destiny of mankind. The reactionary response is to deny the validity of philosophy and history.

Serious study of philosophy and history doesn’t give “inevitable conclusions” about the destiny of mankind; it gives arguments, probabilities, and competing narratives. If you think communism and Judaism are humanity’s destiny, that’s a thesis you have to actually argue for, not just declare as the endpoint of “serious study.”

Plenty of serious philosophers and historians, across very different traditions, reject both historical inevitabilism and your specific pair of “destinies,” and they do it without “denying the validity of philosophy and history.” They’re using philosophy and historical method just as much as you are, they simply don’t share your premises or your interpretations.

So your claim boils down to “everyone who studies this seriously will agree with me, and if they don’t, they’re reactionary.” That’s not philosophy or history; that’s a self-sealing belief.

NHC

 

[pood]

While I will not state this as an inevitable conclusion, I will say with great confidence that communism and Judaism are NOT “the destiny of mankind.”

Mankind’s ultimate destiny of course is extinction. Tough luck.

 

[pood]

In this and other threads we have seen a bunch of vague and utterly unsubstantiated claims by @No Robots

That the Bible and philosophy are united on the nature of reality. They are not.

That history and evolution have some telos. All the evidence goes the other way.

That Marx and Plato have something in common. They don’t.

That Plato’s forms have something to do with anything. No evidence,

That there is something about man that is infinite and eternal. No evidence. All the evidence goes the other way.

That Marx may have been a Christian because of a coerced essay at age 17. Laughable.

Then about God and monism, something something. Yawn.

Got anything else?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

In this and other threads we have seen a bunch of vague and utterly unsubstantiated claims by @No Robots

That the Bible and philosophy are united on the nature of reality. They are not.

That history and evolution have some telos. All the evidence goes the other way.

That Marx and Plato have something in common. They don’t.

That Plato’s forms have something to do with anything. No evidence,

That there is something about man that is infinite and eternal. No evidence. All the evidence goes the other way.

That Marx may have been a Christian because of a coerced essay at age 17. Laughable.

Then about God and monism, something something. Yawn.

Got anything else?

Another wild claim he's made before is the Tao and the Christian god are the same. I'm not kidding.

 

[No Robots]

I'm grateful for all the feedback and engagement. It has cemented me in my approach. I stand with Spinoza and those who follow in his wake. Here is a summary the outlook that I expect to become general:

The nineteenth-century Jewish Enlightenment was like a beam of light refracted through a prism into a spectral band of brilliant intellectual colors spread across Western Europe. The prism through which Jewish thought was refracted was a Jew born in Amsterdam in 1632, a Jew so modern in his thinking that the second half of the twentieth century has not yet caught up with him. Excommunicated by the Jews in the seventeenth century, abhorred by the Christians in the eighteenth century, acknowledged great in the nineteenth century, Baruch Spinoza will perhaps not be fully understood even in the twenty-first century. But perhaps by then Spinoza's philosophy will have become the basis of a world religion for neomodern man.--Max I. Dimont / Jews, God and History, p. 343

Once Marx is understood as a son of Spinoza, the project of mapping humanity's generic essence is complete.

 

[DBT]

The Universe is composed of 'mere' matter/energy.