Review
This second film by Sharron Rose has been long awaited after the sensation her first film, 2012 the Odyssey Armageddon Is Not What It Used To Be caused among New Age and metaphysical circles when released in 2006. This is definitely an adventure into the nature of time itself, with some of the world s foremost metaphysicians, sages and experts lending their wisdom. Buckle yourself in for a breathtaking ride! The experts in this film reinforce the notion of continual change, inner change and the amazing opportunities presented by the advent of the galactic alignment in December 2012. It is not the end of all time; it is the end of the Mayan calendar and the end of this age. There will be another. The message to me was prepare yourself and embrace it with love. I recommend this film as an antidote to the rather panicky offerings in the mainstream media. It s a far more common sense approach. --Jennifer Hoskins, New Dawn Magazine

Modern day philosophers don't really enjoy much more prestige than your various Miss Cleos.

itt: lets be philosophers.


So man, i was thinking, suppose, like, the entire universe was one big animal. That would be pretty far out.

Prop. I.
E1:Bk.XIV:1:158 Substance {G-D} is by Nature prior to its modifications.
{EL:Bk.XIII:626, Deus sive Natura, Bk.XX:228.}

Premise 1. Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything
else for its existence.
Prop. II.
II - VI
Bk.XIV:1:79, 81 Two substances, whose attributes are different, have
nothing in common.

Premise 2. No two substances can share an attribute.

Proof: If they share an attribute, they would be identical. Therefore
they can only be individuated by their modes. But then they would
depend on their modes for their identity. This would have the sub-
stance being dependent on its mode, in violation of premise 1.
Therefore, two substances cannot share the same attribute.
Prop. III. Things which have nothing in common cannot be one
the cause of the other.

Premise 3. A substance can only be caused by something similar
to itself (something that shares its attribute).
Prop. IV. Two or more distinct things are distinguished one from
the other, either by the difference of the attributes of
the substances, or by the difference of their modifica-
tions.

Implied is Premise 4. Substance cannot be caused.

Proof: Something can only be caused by something which
is similar to itself, in other words something that shares its
attribute. But according to premise 2, no two substances can
share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be caused.
Prop. V. There cannot exist in the universe two or more
substances having the same nature or attribute.

Implied is Premise 5. Substance is infinite.

Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and
limited by something. But to be limited by something is to be
dependent on it. However, substance cannot be dependent
on anything else (premise 1), therefore substance is infinite.
Prop. VI. One substance cannot be produced by another
substance.

IImplied is the Conclusion: There can only be one substance.

Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit
each other. But this would act as a restraint, and they would
be dependent on each other. But they cannot be dependent
on each other (premise 1), therefore there cannot be two
substances.
Prop. VII.
VII - X
Bk.XIV:1:113
E1:Bk.XIV:1:158 Existence belongs to the Nature of substance.

Prop. VIII
VIII - XI
Bk.XIV:1:139. Every substance is necessarily infinite.
Prop. IX. The more reality or being a thing has the greater the
number of its attributes.
Prop. X. Each particular attribute of the one substance must
be conceived through itself.
Prop. XI. G-D, or substance, consisting of infinite attributes, of
which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality,
necessarily exists.
Prop. XII.
XII - XIII
Bk.XIV:1:113. No attribute of substance can be conceived from which
it would follow that substance can be divided.
Prop. XIII. Substance absolutely infinite is indivisible.
Prop. XIV.
Bk.XIV:1:214. Besides G-D no substance can be granted or
conceived.
Prop. XV.
XV - XVIII
Bk.XIV:1:296. Whatsoever is, is in G-D, and without G-D nothing can
be, or be conceived.
Prop. XVI. From the necessity of the divine nature must follow an
infinite number of things in infinite ways—that is, all
things which can fall within the sphere of infinite
intellect.
Prop. XVII. G-D acts solely by the laws of his own Nature, and is
not constrained by any one.
Prop. XVIII. G-D is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all
things.
Prop. XIX.
XIX - XXIX
Bk.XIV:1:370. G-D, and all the attributes of G-D, are eternal.
Prop. XX. The existence of G-D and his essence are one and
the same.
Prop. XXI. All things which follow from the absolute Nature of any
attribute of G-D must always exist and be infinite, or,
in other words, are eternal and infinite through the
said attribute.
Prop. XXII. Whatsoever follows from any attribute of G-D, in so far
as it is modified by a modification, which exists
necessarily and as infinite, through the said attribute,
must also exist necessarily, and as infinite.
Prop. XXIII. Every mode, which exists both necessarily and as infi-
nite, must necessarily follow either from the absolute
Nature of some attribute of G-D, or from an attribute
modified by a modification which exists necessarily,
and as infinite.
Prop. XXIV. The essence of things produced by G-D does not
involve existence.
Prop. XXV. G-D is the efficient cause not only of the existence of
things, but also of their essence.
Prop. XXVI. A thing which is conditioned to act in a particular
manner, has necessarily been thus conditioned by
G-D; and that which has not been conditioned by
G-D cannot condition itself to act.
Prop. XXVII. A thing, which has been conditioned by G-D to act in
a particular way, cannot render itself unconditioned.
Prop. XXVIII. Every individual thing, or everything which is finite and
has a conditioned existence, cannot exist or be condi-
tioned to act, unless it be conditioned for existence
and action by a cause other than itself, which also is
finite, and has a conditioned existence; and likewise
this cause cannot in its turn exist, or be conditioned to
act, unless it be conditioned for existence and action
by another cause, which also is finite, and has a con-
ditioned existence, and so on to infinity.

Baruch Spinoza

If they share an attribute, they would be identical.

so hey dude, i was thinking, like, what if the world, like, is just a dream? And like, our dreams are the real things. That would be pretty groovy.

If that's so, it's a shame. Anyways, to some extent, I disagree. Every philosophical movement today has some heavy philosophy behind it somewhere, even neo-conservatism.

Having a philosophy degree doesn't give a person any added credibility in their arguments. It is not comperable to other degrees, where their expertise actually gives their opinions added weight.

Having a philosophy degree doesn't give a person any added credibility in their arguments. It is not comperable to other degrees, where their expertise actually gives their opinions added weight.

Having a philosophy degree doesn't give a person any added credibility in their arguments. It is not comperable to other degrees, where their expertise actually gives their opinions added weight.

and typically, the majority of "philosophers" ...[prefer] to drop in the names they learnt from their textual history courses that compromised their degrees

the same thing could be said for anyone with a bachelor degree in social sciences or liberal arts.

I'd really have to call it on a case by case basis. The categories of liberal arts and social sciences here probably aren't the same as in america, and how you obtain degrees and what they include are different too...

A philosophy degree makes you a valid philosopher like an english/literature degree makes you a good writer. It doesn't. Typically, it turns you into a historian that specialises in particular texts or individuals.

acow-no, an undergraduate degree doesn't make you a philosopher, any more than an undergraduate bio degree makes you a biologist. But if you get a PhD, you've done research and have an understanding not only of philosophers but the issues they discuss and how they do it well beyond everyone else.

Im getting an undergraduate chemistry degree, and Im doing chemistry research. Am I not a chemist?

Im getting an undergraduate chemistry degree, and Im doing chemistry research. Am I not a chemist?

If you're doing research, that's something else. I don't know what kind of research you're doing though. But I'm not sure if I'd call everyone who gets a BA in Chemistry a "Chemist".

Im getting an undergraduate chemistry degree, and Im doing chemistry research. Am I not a chemist?