David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy 21 (78):42 - 56 (1946)
In an essay on pantheism Schopenhauer observes that his chief objection against it is that it says nothing, that it simply enriches language with a superfluous synonym of the word “world.” It can hardly be denied that by this remark the great pessimist, who was himself an atheist, scored a real point. For if a philosopher starts off with the physical world and proceeds to call it God, he has not added anything to the world except a label, a label which, if we take into account the ordinary significance of the word “God,” might well appear unnecessary and superfluous: one might just as pertinently say that the world is the world as that the world is God. Neither the Jew nor the Christian nor the Moslem understand by “God” the physical world, so that, if someone calls the physical world God, he cannot be taken to mean that the world is God according to the Jewish or Christian or Moslem understanding of God. Does he mean any more than that the physical world is ultimately self-explanatory, that no Cause external to the world, no transcendent Being is requisite or admissible, i.e. that there is no God? If that were all there is in pantheism, the latter would indeed be indistinguishable from atheism, and those who called Spinoza an atheist would be fully justified
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
A. Guilherme (2010). Fichte: Kantian or Spinozian? Three Interpretations of the Absolute I. South African Journal of Philosophy 29 (1):1-16.
Jennifer Mensch (2011). Intuition and Nature in Kant and Goethe. European Journal of Philosophy 19 (3):431-453.
Similar books and articles
Douglas Hedley (1996). Pantheism, Trinitarian Theism and the Idea of Unity: Reflections on the Christian Concept of God. Religious Studies 32 (1):61 - 77.
Philip Clayton (1997). Philosophy of Science and the German Idealists. History of Philosophy Quarterly 14 (3):287 - 304.
Yitzhak Y. Melamed (2012). “Omnis Determinatio Est Negatio” – Determination, Negation and Self-Negation in Spinoza, Kant, and Hegel. In Eckart Forster & Yitzhak Y. Melamed (eds.), Spinoza and German Idealism. Cambridge University Press
Jonathan Israel (2010). The Early Dutch and German Reaction to the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus: Foreshadowing the Enlightenment's More General Spinoza Reception? In Yitzhak Y. Melamed & Michael A. Rosenthal (eds.), Spinoza's 'Theological-Political Treatise': A Critical Guide. Cambridge University Press
P. -F. Moreau (1988). Les Enjeux de la Publication En France des Papiers de Leibniz Sur Spinoza. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 93 (2):215 - 222.
Moses Mendelssohn, Daniel Dahlstrom & Corey W. Dyck (2011). Morning Hours, or Lectures on God's Existence. Springer.
Leo Rauch (1982). Introducing the German Idealists. Teaching Philosophy 5 (4):328-329.
John Dewey (1882). The Pantheism of Spinoza. Journal of Speculative Philosophy 16 (3):249 - 257.
Yitzhak Y. Melamed (2004). Salomon Maimon and the Rise of Spinozism in German Idealism. Journal of the History of Philosophy 42 (1):67-96.
Added to index2010-08-10
Total downloads38 ( #115,476 of 1,938,542 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #98,699 of 1,938,542 )
How can I increase my downloads?