Talk:Natura naturans

Philosophy: Religion / Modern Low‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of religion
	Modern philosophy

This redirect has been marked as needing immediate attention.

This article really needs some work. My understanding of the topic is limited. Are there any philosophy experts among us? Adambiswanger1 07:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of this entry is confusing, in that it implies that Spinoza (1632-1677) was a philosopher of the middle ages, which he obviously wasn't. I also do not have the philosophical background to effectively edit this page, but some work distinguishing Spinoza's usage from that of the scholastics would be a good start for fixing this page.

Eriugena

In this case, Spinoza continued and extended the notion itroduced by John Scotus Eriugena and by Boethius.

So it can stay in the article without being an unesuk conplication of it. It is sourced by two scientific texst and by a 18th-century textbook of philosophy that illustrates the way the schema of Eriugena had remained popular even after the end of the Middle Age.

There is no reliable source quoted here that does make the connection between Eriugena and Spinoza, or that alleges an influence or relationship between the two at all. To my eyes they also don't look similar at all. As it stands this all looks like original research, and as such it will have to go soon. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]