As a pedantic HN commentator, although I'm willing to believe the author of the review has taught Spinoza, they seem to be guilty as well of their own charges: in particular, "In Spinoza, God is all things, as opposed to God being a higher order of being from which all things emanate" is what secondary sources would have one believe about Spinoza.
(There is a formalisation of Spinoza in there somewhere; being an HN commentator, I believe I may have a better one, but as I've been faffing about* too much on HN instead of trying it it has yet to be written down. To this particular point: in Spinoza, some things are dependent upon other things, and all things are dependent upon God, but God only depends upon God, so we can clearly say (a) God is not all things [having a difference which witnesses the inequality] and (b) God is a universal [for any metaphysical x, x transitively depends upon God], and can arguably say (c) "[whether] God or all things" is metonymy, for there is a 1:1 relationship [in Spinoza but not in Aquinas] between creator and creation. Can we draw any connections to buddhist philosophy?)
* my current nerd-snipe is a decrypt; anyone have hints as to the steganography in:
BEARER IS A FRIEND. I CANNOT WRITE MUCH. WILL YOU BE READY TO MEET A TRUSTED INTERMEDIARY SO YOU CAN GIVE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO HIM NEXT WEEK? I HAVE NOTHING MORE TO SAY.
If there is no God, some are depend on other things, and all things are in the collection of all things. Therefore the transitivity is that if God is all things, all things are all things and God does depend on God. One is also a set of many into one, just as the word all represents things through time and beyond.
See thread at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39885475
(There is a formalisation of Spinoza in there somewhere; being an HN commentator, I believe I may have a better one, but as I've been faffing about* too much on HN instead of trying it it has yet to be written down. To this particular point: in Spinoza, some things are dependent upon other things, and all things are dependent upon God, but God only depends upon God, so we can clearly say (a) God is not all things [having a difference which witnesses the inequality] and (b) God is a universal [for any metaphysical x, x transitively depends upon God], and can arguably say (c) "[whether] God or all things" is metonymy, for there is a 1:1 relationship [in Spinoza but not in Aquinas] between creator and creation. Can we draw any connections to buddhist philosophy?)
Lagniappe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWGrcz4sOiw
* my current nerd-snipe is a decrypt; anyone have hints as to the steganography in:
BEARER IS A FRIEND. I CANNOT WRITE MUCH. WILL YOU BE READY TO MEET A TRUSTED INTERMEDIARY SO YOU CAN GIVE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO HIM NEXT WEEK? I HAVE NOTHING MORE TO SAY.