Search Results
7/17/2025, 8:00:17 PM
>>510645377
>>Deus sive natura. Spinoza
That is exactly correct.
>Schopenhauer's take
I disagree to the assertion that Pantheism says nothing. It implies a great deal. To recognize the Cosmos as God is to recognize God (Divinity) in Everything (hence "Pantheism") as opposed to Nothing (Atheism, the polar opposite); to recognize existence and life as sacred, to recognize nature as a lord that we are rightfully subordinate to, to experience the universe as a harmonious sequence in which we have a place, etc. The implications of Pantheism lead to a sort of Daoistic worldview as opposed to the nihilistic one that Atheism leads to, and in opening my eyes to God (Divinity) it's enabled me to understand the experiences and values of other (perhaps more misguided) theists that make zero sense to Atheists who, in their failure to recognize God, just write them off as schizophrenic nonsense.
>>Deus sive natura. Spinoza
That is exactly correct.
>Schopenhauer's take
I disagree to the assertion that Pantheism says nothing. It implies a great deal. To recognize the Cosmos as God is to recognize God (Divinity) in Everything (hence "Pantheism") as opposed to Nothing (Atheism, the polar opposite); to recognize existence and life as sacred, to recognize nature as a lord that we are rightfully subordinate to, to experience the universe as a harmonious sequence in which we have a place, etc. The implications of Pantheism lead to a sort of Daoistic worldview as opposed to the nihilistic one that Atheism leads to, and in opening my eyes to God (Divinity) it's enabled me to understand the experiences and values of other (perhaps more misguided) theists that make zero sense to Atheists who, in their failure to recognize God, just write them off as schizophrenic nonsense.
Page 1