Disputatio:Ethica, ordine geometrico demonstrata

Could someone check the grammar of this article? I am quite sure that I made some mistakes, but cannot solve them myself right away. Thanks in advance, --Maurits 00:30, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections

Salve Rafaelgarcia, thank you for your corrections. Some explications:

By "Cunti rei singularis sunt modi Naturae (sive Dei)" I meant: "All singular things are modes of Nature (or, what is the same, of God)."

To express what you want you have to have agreement in case and gender in all three words. So Cunctae res singulares sunt modi Naturae (sive Dei).--Rafaelgarcia 04:37, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "Modi attributis cogitaris" I meant: "Modes of the attribute thought."

Cogitaris is present passive indicative of cogitare, a verb, not a substantive. And attributum is a neuter second declension. So: Modi attributi quod dicitur cogitatio = modes of the attribute which is said thought. You can get rid of quod dicitur if you want.--Rafaelgarcia 04:37, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I chose "perfectissimum" to express the absolute perfection (that's what Spinoza uses to prove the existence of only one substance, he has a peculiar definition of "perfection")

OK. I wasn't aware of the special terminology. The article should explain any special terminology.--Rafaelgarcia 04:37, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spinoza used some very specific technical language. E.g. substance (God or Nature) has infinite many "attributes" (among which thought and extension), which express the essence of that substance. Everything else is a mode of God, either as an idea (being expressed/perceived in the attribute thought) or as a physical thing (being expressed/perceived in the attribute extension). The general idea in contemporary language is, that God is both a thinking and an extended thing and that all "things" and ideas which we perceive are modes of his thought (his ideas) or modes of his extension (his body, so to say).

I hope that this clarifies my intentions. Kind regards, --Maurits 02:19, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above. I only worked through point 2.The other parts have serious errors too.--Rafaelgarcia 04:37, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]