The Fair Oaks study group in California met tonight to discuss Chapter 1, Human Conscious Action. We moved through the first several views coming to Spinoza's "free" necessity that he attributed to God. The first views of freedom had to do with free decision while Spinoza found freedom within "necessity". We examined what free necessity is. It is free because it originates within out of our own nature without any outside influences.
Chapter 1 presents a description of common views of what freedom is such as free choice and pursuing clear goals but then presents a convincing argument to show that the freedoms we assume we have may actually be illusions. Later in the book Steiner shows how each of the chapter 1 freedoms can be realized within his philosophy of freedom.
With each description of freedom in chapter 1 we can examine ourselves to see if we are under an illusion of freedom. This self examination is preparation to continue. If we assume we have already achieved freedom why go on?
Question about how Steiner recapitulates Spinoza's position
Do you think Steiner states Spinoza's view correctly after he quotes Spinoza, or does he interpret what Spinoza said?
Puzzled about distinctions
This is a witty question. Is Anonymous being rhetorical here? What is the distinction between a correct interpretation and stating an author's view correctly?
Yes, I know that an interpretation might prove incorrect, but how are we to know that unless we can interpret or intuit the author's intention and meaning correctly?
Maybe I can still ask - what is the distinction between interpretative thinking and intuition (intuitive thinking) as an experience? I ought to know the answer to this question, but I seek social clarification...
I experience that interpretive thinking is partial and intuitive thinking is holistic. That means that if I have intuited and chosen an action, my choice has an answer ready for those who may oppose my action. Sorry, no real-life example springs to mind this morning. This confusion sprang out of - what appeared to me - a strange question in another thread about whether an intuitive thinker makes compromises. My experience tells me that a compromise is not possible if I have a real intuition informing my action. Is this merely intellectual spin on my part?
Pseudoreplier to questioner as Steiner to Spinoza?
Since John Ralph doesn't take the content of the question posed seriously, but instrumentalizes the question and reply frame for his own monologue, it is easy to understand why he (John Ralph) is unable to comprehend the question, which deals with the relationship of what Spinoza argues to what Steiner claims to present as Spinoza's argument to asks if it is accurate?
John Ralf ignores question - Steiner misstates Spinoza?
Since John Ralph doesn't take the content of the question posed seriously at all, but only instrumentalizes the question about Steiner and Spinoza and reply frame for a monologue disconnected from the question, it is easy to understand why he (John Ralph) is unable to comprehend the question, which deals with the relationship of what Spinoza argues to what Steiner claims to present/reproduce as what Spinoza's argues to ask if this reproduction is indeed accurate?