[Morality Games]

I think that all substance relies on the makeup of the substance around it to keep it as it is. If there was no water around a fish, both having substance, the fish would lose it's shape. Not saying that a fish cannot come out of water, but then it has air around it, also having substance, substance pushing against the outside of the fish keeping it in place. So if there was only one substance it would not have anything to surround it, and there would be no life. So one substance needs another to give it form, and that means that there need be at least to substances to have the one. If there was not two substances, then there would be a full explosion of the one that is, leaving the substance to go everywhere without it controling where it went, so substance is dependant on other substances to have form, and without form there is no substance - there is nothing but one thing without substance of another kind to fight for it's place in the universe. Life therefore depends on there being many substances.

You must just want to disagree here. Do honestly think that is what any thinking being intends by the term 'one substance'?

The only existing substance is the physical substance (forms of matter and energy -- both are derivatives of the physical substance -- particular elements are additional deriatives of the physical substance.

"Spinoza's mathematical and logical approach to metaphysics, and therefore ethics, concluded that emotion is formed from inadequate understanding."

Spinoza is not a Plato.

Emotion is formed from our survival instinct, not from not understanding, yet not understanding is a way to trigger some emotions. Emotion is there to keep us all motivated, and is not a mistake. WIthout emotion we would not have anything driving us on to live, as living is made up of emotions and pandering to them, so without emotion we would just lie around, motionless.

What Spinoza means is, 'inadequete understanding' is part of being human. In contrast, a being who understands everything perfectly and completely would likely not develop the kinds of bias necessary to feel emotions.

Spinoza by no means feels emotions are a mistake, and is the only thinker among rationalist philosophers who thinks no amount of on the spot reasoning can overcome an emotion -- only other emotions can replace emotions, and these depend on longterm ways of thinking about life and the world in general.

Spinoza thinks humans and emotions are as 'perfect' as everything else in nature -- to him, objects are perfect by their own power, their mere existence being an expression of their intrinsic excellence. Emotions are an intrinsic part of being human, and Spinoza thinks a joyful, emotionally positive life is the most suitable activity for the species.

"According to Spinoza, the highest virtue is the intellectual love or knowledge of God/Nature/Universe."

Yes, but because of what it does, which is help a being understand their position within a completely deterministic system. This awareness allows them to affirm their life positively with no self-deception lurking around the corner waiting to sabotage them. Humans are part of God's existence too, and it is expected a thinker will consider the position of humankind in general in relation to the rest of the essence of God (aka, the world, nature, the universe).

I both agree with them on religion: I'm somewhat stuck between atheism and pantheism. Why not debate about this?

During the winter, typing away at this computer, taking notes on philosophical texts, I am definitely an agnostic-atheist. When the weather gets nice and I begin taking walks in the countryside surrounding my house (especially by the lake near sunset, with a gentle breeze at hand) I feel like a pantheist.

MG, we must have a long long talk about philosophy.

We should.

Here is a good depiction of Spinoza's view of the will.

In working out this new perspective, the first thing on Spinoza's agenda is to clear away what he sees as the most pervasive confusion that we as humans have about ourselves. This is the belief in free-will. Spinoza has nothing but scorn for this belief and treats it as a delusion that arises from the fact that the ideas we have of our actions are inadequate. "[M]en believe themselves to be free," he writes, “because they are conscious of their own actions and are ignorant of the causes by which they are determined" (IIIP2S). If we were to acquire adequate ideas of our actions, since these would carry with them knowledge of their causes, we would immediately see this belief as the delusion that it is. Spinoza's position on this matter is quite obviously dictated by the determinism of his metaphysics. The mind, as a finite mode, is fully determined to be and to act by other finite modes. To posit a faculty of will by which it is made autonomous and independent of external causal determinants is to remove it from nature. Spinoza will have none of this. As it is fully part of nature, the mind must be understood according to the same principles that govern all modes.