Well, that’s $100 bucks right there and I’m supposed to get the Collected Works of Spinoza, Vol II (Edwin Curley).
The second and final volume of the most authoritative English-language edition of Spinoza’s writings
The Collected Works of Spinoza provides, for the first time in English, a truly satisfactory edition of all of Spinoza’s writings, with accurate and readable translations, based on the best critical editions of the original-language texts, done by a scholar who has published extensively on the philosopher’s work.
The centerpiece of this second volume is Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise, a landmark work in the history of biblical scholarship, the first argument for democracy by a major philosopher, and a forceful defense of freedom of thought and expression. This work is accompanied by Spinoza’s later correspondence, much of which responds to criticism of the Theological-Political Treatise. The volume also includes his last work, the unfinished Political Treatise, which builds on the foundations of the Theological-Political Treatise to offer plans for the organization of nontyrannical monarchies and aristocracies.
The elaborate editorial apparatus―including prefaces, notes, glossary, and indexes―assists the reader in understanding one of the world’s most fascinating, but also most difficult, philosophers. Of particular interest is the glossary-index, which provides extensive commentary on Spinoza’s technical vocabulary.
A milestone of scholarship more than forty-five years in the making, The Collected Works of Spinoza is an essential edition for anyone with a serious interest in Spinoza or the history of philosophy.
dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.gi4LaaU1ZX2RTlP0pbRlyNZ3QW62yRaY6ID2Yof8jk8ClvlE67VsaX1sFibi3hvGUeV307OnI2WBFF4WRPqy155zhucu_xxfZEFCMrNdT69cWMZONCxtQXuve8iRmfgU1QYABQK1Eq41ODBHgmZJH5FwTwOYHB-P5pwKdzChcUN-TFDMxA-KpJ7E4QteSw2UYaDbk_yA0HuBcyoJySYUt6HscAOqVvZFkIdRh4S4_ZI.KHfONxiLS72Ksf4cgCFUN_lU0XlRiTJMFB5ev5iDcb4&dib_tag=se&keywords=The+Collected+Works+of+Spinoza%2C+Vol+II%2C+Edwin+Curley&nsdOptOutParam=true&qid=1792796432&sprefix=the+collected+works+of+spinoza%2C+vol+ii%2C+edwin+curley%2Caps%2C212&sr=8-1
Robert said
DavidFord said
“I can simply skip over those who continuouly provide what seems to me ‘gobblegook'”
Some appear to be incapable of doing that, and instead regularly ask Robert to remove posts they don’t want to see.They regularly ask Robert to remove posts that contribute nothing of value and only serve to disrupt genuine discussions. Learn the difference.
I’ve got to admit that both DavidFord and Steefen have a ton of information, and at least some of it is quite good. I haven’t had time to read all of it, so I can’t speak for it all.
I’m thinking maybe we could give them each their own topic page, and they could both start their own little library for us. Then, when any of us has the time, we could go and look at it and ask them questions.
It would make their information available to us, and at the same time it wouldn’t be interrupting the flow of conversation and idea exchange on the forum.
Just a thought. hope that’s okay.
If your immediate objective is to investigate whether Sukkot incorporates elements of older Greek religious practices, you can postpone buying the Celsus book. Celsus is valuable for studying ancient criticism of Judaism and Christianity, but Plutarch is the more direct source for this particular question.
“They regularly ask Robert to remove posts that contribute nothing of value and only serve to disrupt genuine discussions”
Do any of the posts below:
“contribute nothing of value”?
“only serve to disrupt genuine discussions”?
9
** you do not have permission to see this link **
A cousin with ASD is desperately lonely but incapable of relationships. A broker’s son is a good accountant but too autistic for relationships. That is just one situation (autism) that might provide an explanation. I’m thinking Professor Ehrman would not be opposed to allowing those who cause such issues here to be allowed onto The Forum but not contribute posts. I would be happy to write him and ask if that could be done.
========
67
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“just one situation (autism) that might provide an explanation”
“Explanation” of what?
“I’m thinking Professor Ehrman would not be opposed to allowing those who cause such issues”
“Issues” such as what, exactly? (autism?)
========
68
** you do not have permission to see this link **
DavidFord: “just one situation (autism) that might provide an explanation”. “Explanation” of what?
I said that because a family member came to mind. Autistic, he is incapable of following rules, conforming or making whatever adjustments to fit in anywhere. Relationships are impossible. There is no conception of the “give and take required with others.
“Issues” such as disregarding the rules of the forum, continually adding what has little value or interest to the thread, pasting videos that lack credibility, flooding the thread with long AI excerpts, quote mining, inane questioning and just adding nonsense.
========
69
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Exactly.
But I’m quite sure you’ll be just met with more questions or an “I see.”
========
70
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And why is that? I’m thinking maybe he does understand but he lacks the ability to express what he wants to add in the way you, Stephen and Robert (and others here) do so effortlessly.
========
71
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I do think that the fact that neither seems particularly bothered speaks volumes.
Empires associated with Ugarit
1. Hittite Empire — Anatolia
c. 1650–1200 BCE; imperial expansion especially from the 14th century BCE
The Hittites expanded into northern Syria and brought Ugarit into their sphere of influence. They competed with Egypt for control of Syria and the Levant.
2. Mitanni — northern Mesopotamia and Syria
c. 1500–1300 BCE
A powerful Hurrian-led kingdom that dominated northern Mesopotamia and exercised influence across Syria before Hittite expansion weakened it.
= = =
Hittite gods associated with Canaan
Tarḫunna (Tarhunt) — the Storm God
Associated with storms, rain, and royal authority. His role is comparable to that of the West Semitic storm god Baal/Hadad. That similarity reflects a shared regional religious environment, but does not by itself prove that Tarhunt was the source of Baal worship.
Sun Goddess of Arinna
One of the principal deities of the Hittite state, paired with the Storm God. Her cult illustrates the importance of divine kingship and the integration of local Anatolian traditions into the imperial religion.
Especially important during the Hittite Empire period. Hurrian religion connected northern Syria and Anatolia, and Teššub’s cult had links with Syrian religious centers. His traditions are relevant to the broader environment in which Canaanite religion developed.
Thank you Helen Young.
= = = =
Everyone who has said disparaging things about the value of my posts, I have spent much money and much time to get my intelligence where it is today and I do not think of your disrespectful put-downs when I spend $100 plus on my religious intelligence because I will have an impressive bibliography BACKING UP my rationale and I can hold an argument and a discussion to edify people who come in contact with me; AND, I can actively listen, participate, and go further when I do not know something.
Robert said:
I have moved these posts for the time-being to Bruce’s thread on curtailing nonsense. If he objects, I will move them elsewhere. With Steefen’s and Bruce’s permission I would like to move all posts pertaining to criticism of Steefen’s posting behavior to that thread and let this thread be devoted to the origin of Yahweh.
That’s fine with me on both counts.
> I have spent much money and much time to get my intelligence where it is today and I do not think of your disrespectful put-downs when I spend $100 plus on my religious intelligence
I’m not sure whether I ought to congratulate you for getting what you paid ($100!) or advise you that you ought to seek a refund.
> I can hold an argument and a discussion to edify people who come in contact with me;
Might it be presumptuous to think you are edifying those who come into contact with you? Especially given how many people who have spent a lot more than $100 on their education have found it impossible to have a constructive conversation with you?
I am also surprised to learn you think you can have an argument or discussion with anyone. I suppose, to be fair, you have shown you can dismiss anyone. But that is hardly having a constructive conversation with anyone.
>AND, I can actively listen, participate, and go further when I do not know something.
Steefen, you have a habit of responding with dismissive condescension to anyone who offers any challenge to your theories. After all, you wrote a self-published book; we should all (you seem to think) be lucky to learn at your knee.
Indeed, most of your posts aren’t even addressed to anyone; you post your notes to yourself and seem to be under the impression that we are all lucky to observe such a grand intellect at work, as though your using the forum as personal note-taking software has been a gift to us mere mortals. If any of us with actual academic qualifications dares question your theories, we have been treated as ungrateful pupils.
> I’ve got to admit that both DavidFord and Steefen have a ton of information, and at least some of it is quite good. I haven’t had time to read all of it, so I can’t speak for it all.
That is quite the admission.
I’m not certain you understand what it is to admit something, but the admission speaks a good deal.
“Can you imagine anything I may have meant?”
I could certainly have speculated about what you “may have meant,” but instead of speculating, I asked.
If you don’t want to supply details, that’s fine by me.
“recall any time that I (or others) have openly criticized your posting patterns? If so, do you recall the substance of our complaints?”
Yes:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Among the issues that other members were complaining about were these:
1) David and others intruding into others’ discussions with irrelevant and distracting posts. For David it was usually obsessive attempts to make every thread about his rants against Darwinian evolution or Peshitta-primacy.
> If you don’t want to supply details, that’s fine by me.
Do you think I have not previous, very explicitly and publicly and sharply, supplied specific details of my complaints about your posting habits? Do you, for example, not remember a recent post wherein I contrasted you and Socrates?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)