4 Answers

  1. If you don't go into the subtleties that will require me to read a couple of thick books:

    Spinoza denies libertarian free will – that is, the idea that a person can act spontaneously, without any external reasons for doing so. In this case, free will is defined as “the ability to make a free choice between several possibilities.”�

    For Spinoza, this is an illusion, “several possibilities” do not exist, everything happens out of necessity – and freedom consists in realizing this necessity, A person is free because he consciously acts in accordance with his own nature – but he cannot act otherwise.

    The difference here, if completely on the fingers, is this: if a libertarian says “maybe I will come”, then he says “I may or may not come.” If a Spinozist says “maybe I will come”, then he is really saying “I don't know yet whether I will come or not.”

    Metaphysical libertarianism is a marginal position (Robert Kane, Roderick Chisolm) and has no relation to social norms.

  2. This is just a form of chatter and demagoguery. Juggling the meanings of the word “freedom”. And what – let's define freedom: – this is eating g … on! And let's make a wise conclusion :” only g … food is truly free!

    From the most banal – that freedom of actions and decision-making without knowledge and understanding of their consequences is a shitty thing, a sophistical conclusion is made that they say freedom is an understanding of the laws of nature and society.

    And then demagogues and charlatans of all stripes begin to juggle this to justify and justify unfreedom, dictatorship and oppression. After all, you realized the need to lick the dictator's ass (otherwise they will kill you) – then you are free!!!

  3. The question of free will is difficult, because a person lives regardless of whether he was born or not. The Ecumene was created by humans, not by Yahweh. They created the world FREELY, and freedom implies freedom to MAKE MISTAKES.

  4. Spinoza has some kind of freedom of his own, separate from other people, Spinoza's definition of which, memorized by millions of schoolchildren, does not really define anything, the poet will not say “freedom comes naked” about it, and they will not go to the barricades for it, this is another freedom. A gas molecule is not aware of the conditionality of its supposedly free Brownian motion, just as a molecule in a crystal lattice is not aware of the conditionality of its constrained position, are they not free in the same way? People need a universal definition. “Freedom is a degree of chaos,” for example. For a human , “desired / sufficient degree of chaos”. The desire to create a new order that violates the existing order. And it becomes clear that the desire for freedom and the presence of freedom may not correlate at all, it is from different areas, reality and dreams. One is a slave and inwardly free, the other is free and feels like a slave. About the lack of freedom of suffering from desires-this is already to the Buddha. A Buddha would define freedom as the absence of necessity, Samsara, at all. What is the antonym to Spinoza's freedom? An unconscious necessity? And does Samsara awareness give Spinoza liberation? Or the illusion of liberation? Summing up my free thoughts, I come to the conclusion. Spinoza's definition is valid for a very small sample of cases where people, having understood the conditionality of their existence, instantly achieve multiple enlightenment with screams and groans and happily self-transglucate. I think so. (c) V. Pooh.

Leave a Reply