/lit/ - Literature

Are some of you who actually read Spinoza convinced of his conception of God? And if so/not, why?

What does /lit/ think of Baruch Spinoza?

All this moral realism is bullshit: All moral statements are simply statements about the preferences of the speaker. "Killing is wrong" becomes "I don't like killing" etc.

I think Spinoza put it best when he said:
> It is thus plain from what has been said, that in no case do we strive for, wish for, long for, or desire anything, because we deem it to be good, but on the other hand we deem a thing to be good, because we strive for it, wish for it, long for it,or desire it.

The knowledge of good and evil is nothing else but the emotions of pleasure or pain, in so far as we are conscious thereof.

>>4723739
to prove Derrida isn't someone who eats potato chips in fabulous mansions

urban sombrero
"I never thought a hat would destroy my life"

>>4692710
Ding ding

fucker really was euphoric look at him

Did Spinoza write a viable proof for God? In this case, let's just accept Spinoza's Deus Sive Natura as the closest we will ever get to "a God". Is Spinoza justified in his argument? Does it break down due to problems with his physical theory, or can his metaphysical claims, physical claims, and psychological claims be taken separate from each other and considered individually?

Is Spinoza's philosophy relevant today? He supposedly influenced numerous philosophers, but his name is largely unknown today (mention him to somebody and they most likely won't have heard of him, but they might have heard of Descartes, Locke, etc.)

His Ethics is so monumental; He is one of the few philosophers whose work consisted of one coherent view of the universe, but I wonder if his work is obsolete, if it's superseded by his successors?

>muh substance

>>4312082
>Spinoza
mah nigga.

>>4311754
Yeah, OP, I would definitely say read Plato, maybe Aristotle, possibly Stoics, and some other 'foundational' philosophical works. Once you get a good grounding in philosophy, tackle Spinoza's Ethics, and then strive for Blessedness.

I was likened to this guy while describing my thoughts about the nature of awareness on /x/.

But my ideas were derived from occult insight and physics.

For me, Baruch Spinoza was the end of philosophy. he figured it out and everything after him is pointless.

Also, Friedman > Marx
Marx was an idiot. Friedman was a genius.

Spinoza. And I'm not even joking.

Are you a Spinozist?

So I'm reading Russell' History of Western Philosophy and I was really diggin the idea of Spinoza's everything being of one substance he calls God. And at the end of the paragraph Russell comes to say that this is bullshit. (Nor science or philosophy can accept this view).

What the f? Since when is philosophy science and since when it's expected to be based on empirical data? Aren't all philosophers just guessing how the world seems to work in their opinion? And why can't "philosophy" accept this opinon? What?