/lit/ - Literature

>>21773759
>>21773766
Problem is that for Spinoza God isn't a genus. God, or the one and only substance, is that which is unconditioned. Since limits are restricted to conditioned beings, it follows that substance is beyond limits i.e. infinite. But determination is negation, and what has no limits has no negation, thus substance is undetermined. Considered as natura naturans (god in itself), it isn't yet in the moment of determinacy, determinacy only comes through natura naturata (god for itself). Then we can say that considering a genus is a determinate idea, genuses are from natura naturata, and not natura naturans. This is exactly why Spinoza defines God as 'absolutely infinite' and not just infinite. A genus is infinite in the sense that it encapsulates an infinity of possible beings, but finite in the sense that there are other possible genuses.
The obvious question then would be how is determinacy instantiated if not by an external entity. While substance in itself is universal, it is not universal in a determined way, then how does indeterminacy gives rise to determined universals and particulars? Spinoza's gonna say that through modes and attributes. Natura naturans must follow an infinite number of things in different ways, (under my own interpretation) it would follow that since determinacy is contained within those infinite ways (attributes) and things (modes), attributes and modes necessarily exist.
Absolute idealists retook him and tried to explain how it could be possible the jump between indeterminacy and determinacy. To simplify it, the answer is that the Absolute is not only a substance, but a subject. Indeterminacy constantly posits itself in determinate ways that reveal themselves in the form of spirit. Another one is that Pure Being, since it lacks any determination, it's identical to Nothing. Both are both absolutely the same and the opposite. The movement between sameness and opposition is becoming, which in turn necessarily appears in determinate forms.

>>18727315
yes, he was also pretty based indeed, video related btw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV66VQgirvA

>>18358988
From the appendix on part 4
> XVII. Men are also gained over by liberality, especially such as have not the means to buy what is necessary to sustain life. However, to give aid to every poor man is far beyond the power and the advantage of any private person. For the riches of any private person are wholly inadequate to meet such a call. Again, an individual man's resources of character are too limited for him to be able to make all men his friends. Hence providing for the poor is a duty, which falls on the State as a whole, and has regard only to the general advantage.
>>18359911
this

People here claim that conflating atheism with pantheism is a midwit undergrad trait but they never elaborate why. Give me one (1) feature that distinguishes pantheism from atheism.

>>17956164

I'm afraid I'm going to have to turn you in

>>17944743
>I don't know if I deserve it
If you think you deserve or not deserve something you're already presupposing retributive justice i.e. the cheapest form of moralism. The only reason it exists is because governments and religions have to be sure people will follow their rules, and thus a higher being is born (God or the State) that will reward them for behaving well.

read Spinoza (pbuh)

>>17429039
>According to Colerus, an early biographer, Spinoza liked to amuse himself by transferring a spider he had caught into a rival spider’s web, pitting them against each other in mortal combat. Another variation was throwing a fly or two into the mix. These insect battles reportedly made Spinoza roar with laughter. He also enjoyed examining his insect finds under a microscope.
Based! (PBUH)

>>17205870
Not that anon, but my guess is that he means a return in methodology, since he was doing metaphysics in a more ''traditional'' way. While Hume and Kant attacked scholasticism in an indirect way by rejecting their basic notions such as substance, Spinoza used their own axioms and definitions, thus attacking them in a direct way. Probably the reason why scholasticfags seethe harder with based Baruch than with the other modern philosophers.

>>17124843
boredom is an affect (affectus) of the mind, and vanquished by a correct understanding of cause and effect (adequatio) as the mind moves from a lower to a higher perfection and so enjoys the enjoys ever more the intellectual love of god (amor intellectualis dei) QED

>>17073124
yes and no
>Whence it appears, how potent is the wise man, and how much he surpasses the ignorant man, who is driven only by his lusts. For the ignorant man is not only distracted in various ways by external causes without ever gaining, the true acquiescence of his spirit, but moreover lives, as it were unwitting of himself, and of God, and of things, and as soon as he ceases to suffer, ceases also to be. Whereas the wise man, in so far as he is regarded as such, is scarcely at all disturbed in spirit, but, being conscious of himself, and of God, and of things, by a certain eternal necessity, never ceases to be, but always possesses true acquiescence of his spirit. If the way which I have pointed out as leading to this result seems exceedingly hard, it may nevertheless be discovered. Needs must it be hard, since it is so seldom found. How would it be possible, if salvation were ready to our hand, and could without great labour be found, that it should be by almost all men neglected? But all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare.

>>16895336
omnia praeclara tam difficilia quam rara sunt

>>16694407
Why would you bother with an idealist reading of Spinoza?

Fucker thought free-will was not real but how come i do feel free?