Spinoza - 04 - Causality and Free-Will

[@johnmalcolmnolan1183]

I am just beginning to explore the ideas of Spinoza. I have read a number of articles and introductions to Spinoza as well as watched a few videos. There is such an abundance of material to explore. But today I found this series by Danny ? and I am quite impressed. I watched the first 4 episodes, and have come away with the feeling that I have a much better understanding of Spinoza‘s ideas. It has helped me organize the material I have picked up on my own. Of course, I plan to continue with the remaining lecture, but I wanted to go on record to acknowledge what a great job Danny has done, and thank him for the effort he has put into creating a video of such high quality.

[@theintellectionsurge109]

Thanks John, I'm glad you enjoyed the content I put together a few years ago. It took me a few years to really understand Spinoza's philosophy. It is a complex but rewarding journey. The idea behind this series was to simplify Spinoza's Ethics as much as possible to help beginners. Dany

[@건강꿀팁채널]

Really appreciate the videos, really comprehensive!!! i also love Spinoza's philosophy.

[@HenryCasillas]

✖️2️⃣

[@awakeenlighten2298]

Great stuff!

[@maryloustoddard3368]

Thank you for this video about Freewill and Spinoza and easy to comprehend.

[@alnabigalmahdi5509]

Great work Many thanks❤

[@gatesbisson1746]

Great work, your explanations are clear and concise

[@PlaneCDR]

Awesome series of videos. I can't wait to see the rest of the series.

[@theintellectionsurge109]

+PlaneCDR Just published a new episode!

[@freydisandchris2010]

Fascinating stuff. Thank you.

[@auto_math]

Thank you so much! I've never loved Spinoza so much.

[@lucbringer6543]

les 2 premières vidéos en français sont top! j'attends avec impatience la traduction des suivantes. c'est clair, concis, précis et pédagogique. une trés bonne appeoche qui donne envie de se plonger dans l'éthique. merci encore pour ce travail bluffant. luc

[@XXXXxKomalxXXXX]

Your videos are very clear and easily understandable. I've read books, websites, and even my university lecture, but I was able to only understand Spinoza on free will by watching your videos. Thank you very much!

[@reverendpressure]

Awesome work sir! Very informative.

[@flovv9357]

“The highest activity a human being can attain is learning for understanding, because to understand is to be free.” - Spinoza

[@mikebond6060]

thank you I really appreciate what you did!

[@EvaAhimsa]

this is amazing! i have exam is a couple of days and i was never really able to understand spinoza, but this really helped to clear up this whole god - causality thing, and how it eventually all ties in to reason. thanks!!!! xxx

[@garyricketts700]

Excellent description of something that is presented as mathematical and dry in its original form!

[@bobtarmac1828]

Thank you, thank you, for these four episodes. Much appreciated.

[@xxxdb04]

Thank you so much ! Mil gracias! Merci beaucoup! Grazie mille !

[@martinmichael2535]

Thanks for the videos Dany.

[@TheChalkee]

Thanks so much for these videos. I've gained another way to look at the world and may have begun to question my own beliefs ...again!

[@bahaminabbasi3403]

Thank you, keep up the good work.

[@omaynlovespizza]

Amazing would love to see more content

[@Kritifm1015]

please continue...

[@__krrishYADAV]

It was really helpful... THANKU ❣️

[@vincentparra349]

I know this is like 4 years late but this vid is saving my ass. Thanks so much!

[@Just_Jude100]

Thanks man. You're very good at this! Please keep them coming.

[@tecks2324]

excelente trabajo

[@Yupthatsrose]

You're amazing!

[@lazarosarradell]

Hi! Congrats from Argentina for your video. In my opinion the A or B door example is not considering the B but it is closed considering all the variables involved in making the decision. Am I wrong? Is there a blog where I discuss this? Tks!

[@TheAverageJoe2014]

After listening to this video I kept thinking (because I know Einstein LOVED Spinosa and often quoted he believed in the God of Spinosa) that this is why Einstein HATED quantum mechanics and the probabilistic/random nature to reality.

[@robertcoltrane3985]

Thank you, very helpful.

[@fdcrvibesbyshahnila4527]

thank you so much for making such impressive video about spinoza ..really really grateful to you actually i was in great trouble i am a student of philosophy but no solid material is available on internet.If some are available they are in difficult terms but these lectures are amazing with easy terms and language +examples .its really easy to understand ..thank you again for helping me ....stay blessed and kindly upload other western philosophers...thanks

[@MrDuypianist]

This is great! Free will is the ignorance of cause

[@GizmoMaltese]

What caused the ignorance? Nature? How can we overcome the ignorance? We can't. We only know what nature allows us to know. How do we even differentiate between ignorance and knowledge when the result of any introspection or study is determined by causes which we do not control?

[@mikebasketball11]

Although we differentiate between truth and falsity via determinism, we differentiate nonetheless; truth (and moral truth) is not vulnerable to causality in this way. In my eye, I suppose :)

[@alekhs718]

good stuff. gave me a lot of insight. thank you man

[@tranz3nd236]

The way you explain Spinoza is very clear. Why don't you do more vids?

[@paulinanajera9772]

👏👏👏👏👏 Excellent content and design!!

[@nirmalajenifer1422]

good stuff... keep it up dude..💐

[@Sid0419]

I disagree with Spinoza on free will. The fire in the room experiment - you choose door B cause you were under the impression both Door A and Door B were equally viable options. If you knew Door A was locked there would be no choice to make cause you would go with Door B. But Door A being locked is new information that you weren't aware of at that time of choosing the doors. The probability of either doors being locked was the same at that point in time. So you exerted free will in your decision. Knowledge obviously helps you in making better decisions.

[@Jarell1661]

Wrong. Randomness/chance/ignorance are the reason you chose door B. The thought of choosing door B didn't pop out of nowhere. It was influenced by another thought.

[@jeandonis4282]

great videos...

[@brunoborma]

Thanks for the series man. I only want to add that I think the doors' example doesn't show that choices are an illusion. It just shows that some choices are wrong or inacessible in reality. I too think choices are illusions in a broad sense, but this example fails to demonstrate that to a choice believer.

[@edwardmccrea3745]

thanks, very helpful

[@rockonmadonna]

Est-ce que cette vidéo est disponible en français svp ?

[@irrelevant2235]

The sense of free will seems to be a very specific programming by evolution. As such, the purpose of free will must relate to nature's two mandates of survival and reproduction. Since it seems to be a very specific programming, how specifically is it useful as it relates to survival and reproduction?

[@CMVMic]

on spinoza, what does he mean by something created/caused itself? also, wouldnt that mean that the will can be caused by itself as well and therefore, indeterministic?

[@KhoiNguyen-lc1vi]

I read about Spinoza at the age of 16 or 17. I was fascinated about it but can never articulate is clearly so y friends can understand me without labeling me as an atheist. Or maybe, to put it differently, I became atheist thanks to Spinoza

[@JS-ln4ns]

Spinoza wasn’t an atheist.

[@guelahpapyrus9900]

I have a question: Your example of the absence of ‘free will’, based upon ‘causality’.. does not address the ‘initial action’ that led to the cause.. If you are in a room, which is on fire, leaving you with only the choice to live, or die.. is indeed a bases for ‘determinism’.. except, what if the fire was started by an arsonist, for no apparent reason, other than the person’s choice, without any life, or death deterministic cause? (This person could have chose to not start the fire, and not face time in prison.. or the person could start the fire, and end up in prison.. to which the person chose to start the fire, and go to prison.) This person certainly possessed ‘freedom of choice’.. in this moment, and chose to start the fire regardless of it being the determining factor that would cause the person suffering, in going to prison..?

[@Br3w_tv]

These concepts coincide with Parmenides philosophy of monism, which essentially means everything is the same thing. For there to be something now there had to be something which had the power of being within itself. Ex nihilo nihil fit

[@jakemiller7682]

understanding causality is very important to become self determined but free will does exist. Some people are more apt to become self determined than others. You can see this when you watch people being hypnotized or observe how some react to different scenes in a move or a photograph. Strong willed people are more aware of causes than the gullible ones. Strong willed people create causes to influence the gullible.

[@jontyroy1723]

Thank you. :)

[@wuup1278]

love you my hero

[@danbreeden8738]

The first true naturalist after Aristotle without being a materialist

[@Skatersfanclub]

its hard for me to understand causality, but a great video as far i understood....

[@jeandonis4282]

you simplify the video,for everyone to understand

[@RekzaFS]

What is he saying from 4:30 to 4:34 ?

[@terryyakamoto3488]

Good video, easy to understand for the less intelligent viewer like myself

[@joestar6194]

We do not have free will because we did not choose to be born. Every thought or action is a result being born which i said in the aforementioned sentence that we did not choose to do. The fact that you exist forces circumstances upon which can never control. If there's a person that made a conscious choice to be born, and with first human being. That person would have free will.

[@8xnnr]

No they wouldn't because something would've had to cause them to want to be born

[@joestar6194]

@@8xnnr Something? Could you be more vauge?

[@Dionysiandreams]

But also the ability to use our knowledge in order to understand and make use of causality is determined so that isnt either an act of free will?

[@voice-less]

well it's difficult,this is all based on assumptions and theories so u can take the answer the u want,for me i believe that free will exists,because what gives us free will is something beyond our 3 spacial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension,and it's something that we can never know,think of this way,image u see one of the old tv sets (that's a human),if u have enough knowledge u can go and take a screwdriver and mess with it to change the screen color,size,even the channels (just how we humans can meddle with the brain to change certains feelings with medicine ...) but that's not everything that controls the tv,there are invisible radio waves being sent form a far away radio stations and that you can see and will probably never know of,the same is with humans,u may analyze him in every way possible,but there may be some force out there that exists beyond our dimensions,and can just move an electron or two in the brain or collapse a wave function to create consciousness,and that's basically it so in the end these are unanswerable questions,believe what you may think is logical or what you want in general

[@pranoyde2028]

Thank you friend. I hope you realize reality you believe in and realize God.

[@cosmosojoto8242]

nice thanks

[@garyvaughan7748]

I think that nothing is really random ,(too many observable and unknown as of yet ,...laws of physics and mental actions ,which we obey intuitively,covertly and overtly ),...I think all of this was set into motion at some far distant ancient point,(evolution of environment ,DIFFERENT creatures in our world), ...The question then is ,...what caused this really not random motion? .......What was/is the first cause???

[@voice-less]

yea..no,in quantum physics there are a lot of random events that happen,read about the wave particle duality or wave function,anyway in the quantum scale most events are random,or that's how they seem to us,maybe there is some ''god'' or being out there that choses how those events happen and so they look random to us

[@ferdinandthebull1322]

The philosophical idea that natural determinism supercedes free will is compelling. However, in daily life, when we want to realize a project, quality of life, or moral value, it definitely helps to have a sense of free will to sort out what things are important to us, or to what lengths we will go to achieve them. How can we get the Powder Milk Biscuits thing - "the courage for shy people to get up and do what needs to be done" - without at least a commonplace sense of free will?

[@JonervaK]

Person, who is free from will, has a free will. He/She can accept things as they are without strong impulsive reaction, what is caused by hormonal function mixed with personal perspective (ego, self-image), what is learned from persons living environment. Will is just a tiny part of our ego. And persons ego is just one of 7,6 billion egos. Self-image depends on sensed information. There are many ways to react to environment because of natural progressing, evolution. And this text is just mimicing the information what i have trusted. Information what produces more dopamine than cortisole. Edit: This is just one perspective, point of view, so it is not 100% right or wrong.

[@PADARM]

Now I understand why Einstein believed in Spinoza's God. In Relativity there is not Free-will too

[@FRUXT]

I don't know who made up this exemple with the doors to explain the determinism, because it is exactly what determinism is not. The illusion of free will is due to the ignorance of the causes leading to the consequence. Not knowing that door B is closed is not a cause producing the effect (taking the door A). If you take door B, you waste time, and might be burnt before reaching the door A, so it implies contingency. So this example is shit. And I have a question. If everything is determined, even the thoughts, how can we change ? How can we improve by understanding the law of Nature ? I mean, I understand the understanding can help, but that also was determined, no ? The power to change as Spinoza speaks is also determined ?

[@GizmoMaltese]

That's the problem with determinism. People claim free will is an illusion. I say, OK, then I'm sorry but I am not free to agree with you. I have no free will so I can't change my mind and believe that free will is an illusion.

[@virno69420]

Youhou The example is only shit through your reasoning since you make the assumption that nature cares if you burn to death and that they assume the fact that door A was locked forced a decision towards B, which they don't claim at all, it has nothing to do with a deterministic cause for a decision, rather it's displaying how a post facto analysis shows your ability to choose isn't relevant since it's constrained by one of the doors being locked. The example is not great to represent the soft determinism within Spinoza's philosophy. A better one I believe is with 3 doors, A, B, and C. But C is a door on the roof of the room and no way to get to it. Realizing that the natural law of gravitation restricts you from floating up and using the door C thus frees you from the ignorance that you could do so, or the illusion of initial choice. That's determinism in Spinoza.

[@lewisalmeida3495]

Yes, Free-will is misunderstood. We are aware of our immediate reactions to things and we reach for what we desire; however, we are unaware or unconscious of what is the original cause of our desires. We don't really see the forces that move us. In other words we are led by our emotions. For more go to.. wayofspinoza.com

[@rileyvincent2337]

Only the Skull Knight exists outside causality

[@mahmoudmawla229]

Natura naturans !

[@LuisAlbertoRodriguezGoff]

I don't think that the substance created itself, I believe that it simply is.

[@theintellectionsurge109]

+Luis Alberto Rodriguez Goff Spinoza does states in the first page of the Ethics that the substance is what exist and was created by itself... Basically making it the original cause of everything

[@LuisAlbertoRodriguezGoff]

If that is so, then I must disagree. In my opinion, it is illogical for something to cause its own existence, since it implies that X, while not being or existing, it caused itself to exist. I believe that there is something which simply is, some sort of indivisible thing, or particle, of which everything is, necessarily, an aspect or mode of,

[@theintellectionsurge109]

Maybe the word "create" isn't the best one as it often implies a creator. Let's use Spinoza's terminology. The substance is caused by itself. Remember we are in the first pages of the Ethics. At this stage, Spinoza lays the fundamental hypothesis that will trigger the rest of his philosophy. It's more about getting rid of a complex question (original cause of everything) rather than trying to figure it out.

[@davidzubiria3783]

What you say about free will contradict itself. If there´s an absolute determinism your interest in knowing the causes and use that knowledge to make, let´s say an airplane, has no merit on its own. It´s just the result of causes that you don´t know like everything else.

[@davidzubiria3783]

@@vids595 do you have a brain? Well, use it to think in the context of absolute determinism...

[@digitalnomad2196]

Causality in itself can also be an illusion. Events that are so called "causes" of other events are seen as so because we arbitrarily separate what is actually the flow of 1 single event into pieces for our convenience. In nature, there are no separable events hence causality in itself, in my opinion, is a fallacy.

[@oliviaoff3516]

One Hundred

[@pascalmassie4706]

Quite good, indeed; but you need to drop the language of "creation" that is completely irrelevant when it comes to Spinoza's Ethics. The distinction between natura naturans/natura naturata is meant to bypass the creator/creature dichotomy.

[@jackwilson4324]

3:21

[@caricue]

I am beginning to see that the real illusion is causality and determinism. You take an event or choice and then look backwards from cause to cause until whatever beginning you believe in and think that it was inevitable because of this convenient little chain you've constructed, but you are fooling yourself. You already know the outcome, so of course you can make your imaginary chain of causality going backwards, but there's no reason to believe that it works the other way. If you had made a different choice, you would have just created a different causality chain to explain it, and called it determined and inevitable. There's a great quote from the movie HeMan, Master's of the Universe that goes something like this, "Ambitious men look back on their lives, add up all the mistakes, and call it destiny". I think that concept is the same way people construct determinism.

[@Jarell1661]

Creating a different causality chain doesn't change the fact that we still end up with something called causality.

[@caricue]

@@Jarell1661 Hey, I had forgotten all about this comment, but it is still relevant. The issue I was arguing against was determinism which weaponizes causality to say that you cannot make choices in a clockwork universe since every action is just a result of previous actions. Billiard balls are usually mentioned at some point. I believe that this illusion of inevitability is caused by the position of the observer looking backwards in time while already knowing the outcome. It's the same illusion that has evolutionists weaving just so stories about the past that result in whatever exists today because it seems right to a human mind to concoct chains of causality to explain the present. Living creatures are not playing by the same rules as inanimate objects is my point of view, so they can make choices based on local conditions utilizing the very laws of physics and nature that the determinists cling to so stubbornly.

[@Jarell1661]

@@caricue The problem is that no living creature can make a choice out of the blue. Even that choice is influenced by at least one factor.

[@caricue]

@@Jarell1661 Every choice you make is influenced by uncountable factors, it still remains your choice. It's probably not ontologically free if that's what you mean, but I find that a little too high of a bar to set for choice.

[@Jarell1661]

@@caricue Alright. One last question though. Are you free not to make any choice at all while being conscious, knowing that choosing not to choose actually is a choice too ?

[@tsapisethongru7569]

How can we humans with a limited intelligence know anything about supernatural if it really exists? We cannot come to a conclusion about higher powers only with our limited methods/process of mathematics, science or philosophy. We can only know about God/supernatural only through divine revelation if at all God exists.

[@victoriak1219]

Summed up: garbage. The knowledge of the law brings about the knowledge of sin.

[@americanbully9583]

Great info

[@jeandonis4282]

great videos...

[@jeandonis4282]

you simplify the video,for everyone to understand