1. Why do the passions make us slaves, according to Spinoza, and how can human beings achieve freedom?
The heart of Spinoza’s case for understanding ethics lies within our pursuit of our passions. The extract first begins with Spinoza saying that slavery is when we do not have power over our moderation of passions, and that passions are controlled by some external cause. He goes on to say that what we do have control over is our virtue and reason, which can only be acted upon from the laws of our own nature. In other words, the whole point of virtue is for self-preservation, because that is what is most beneficial to us. Reason is our ability to strive for understanding. Spinoza says, “human beings are most in harmony in nature when they …show more content…
He argues that the whole point behind our morality is that we want to be secure by avoiding any dangers presented in the world. He brings up one moral value presented in Christianity to love one’s neighbor, “…self-sacrifice for one’s neighbor, the whole morality of self-denial must be questioned mercilessly and taken to court,” he goes on to say, “There is too much charm and sugar in these feelings of ‘for others’ for us not to need to become doubly suspicious at this point…” Nietzsche would oppose such a stance, because he believed it was created by the weaker masses to protect themselves against the stronger, higher people. His ideas behind morality were with a strong emphasis on individual will and power, which is a drastic contrast to what morals people hold …show more content…
What is Pascal 's Wager? Do you agree that betting on the existence of God is most prudent option? Why?
Pascal’s Wager can be briefly summed up as that there is no reason not to believe in God, because you stand to lose nothing by believing in Him. This rational way of thinking about the existence of God is quite interesting. It almost seems to suggest that there can be a half-belief in God. This wager suggests that you’re only interested in the benefits that come along with believing in God, and are just merely saying you believe in God. If there was a God I don’t believe he would be all right with this logic.
However, I do believe this is a good start for those who are still undecided and cannot judiciously validate God’s existence or non-existence. Those who I am referring to are called agnostics. The book refers to Pascal’s thinking as, “it would be irrational to pass up the chance of an infinite gain to avoid a finite loss.” When putting the wager in those terms, it would seem to make sense to follow Pascal’s wager. To answer the question, I do believe it is the most prudent option when beginning your faith in God. I think this is the best way to open up the door to faith for those who are uncertain
The heart of Spinoza’s case for understanding ethics lies within our pursuit of our passions. The extract first begins with Spinoza saying that slavery is when we do not have power over our moderation of passions, and that passions are controlled by some external cause. He goes on to say that what we do have control over is our virtue and reason, which can only be acted upon from the laws of our own nature. In other words, the whole point of virtue is for self-preservation, because that is what is most beneficial to us. Reason is our ability to strive for understanding. Spinoza says, “human beings are most in harmony in nature when they …show more content…
He argues that the whole point behind our morality is that we want to be secure by avoiding any dangers presented in the world. He brings up one moral value presented in Christianity to love one’s neighbor, “…self-sacrifice for one’s neighbor, the whole morality of self-denial must be questioned mercilessly and taken to court,” he goes on to say, “There is too much charm and sugar in these feelings of ‘for others’ for us not to need to become doubly suspicious at this point…” Nietzsche would oppose such a stance, because he believed it was created by the weaker masses to protect themselves against the stronger, higher people. His ideas behind morality were with a strong emphasis on individual will and power, which is a drastic contrast to what morals people hold …show more content…
What is Pascal 's Wager? Do you agree that betting on the existence of God is most prudent option? Why?
Pascal’s Wager can be briefly summed up as that there is no reason not to believe in God, because you stand to lose nothing by believing in Him. This rational way of thinking about the existence of God is quite interesting. It almost seems to suggest that there can be a half-belief in God. This wager suggests that you’re only interested in the benefits that come along with believing in God, and are just merely saying you believe in God. If there was a God I don’t believe he would be all right with this logic.
However, I do believe this is a good start for those who are still undecided and cannot judiciously validate God’s existence or non-existence. Those who I am referring to are called agnostics. The book refers to Pascal’s thinking as, “it would be irrational to pass up the chance of an infinite gain to avoid a finite loss.” When putting the wager in those terms, it would seem to make sense to follow Pascal’s wager. To answer the question, I do believe it is the most prudent option when beginning your faith in God. I think this is the best way to open up the door to faith for those who are uncertain