/lit/ - Literature

>>22225204
Based Spinoza refuted the silly apple etiology 350 years ago

>Nor do theologians remove this difficulty by maintaining that the cause of this weakness in human nature is the vice or sin whose origin was the fall of our first parent. For if the first man, too, had as much power to stand as to fall, and if he was in his right mind and with his nature unimpaired, how could it have come about that knowingly and deliberately he fell? Their answer is that he was deceived by the Devil. But who was it who deceived the Devil? Who, I ask, caused the one who was the most outstanding of all intelligent creatures to become so insane that he willed to be greater than God? Did not he, who had a sound mind, endeavour to preserve himself and his own being, as far as in him lay? Again, how could it have come about that the first man himself, being of sound mind and master of his own will, allowed himself to be led astray and beguiled? If he had the power to use reason aright, he could not have been deceived, for, as far as in him lay he must have endeavoured to preserve his own being and his sound mind. But, by hypothesis, this was in fact within his power; therefore he must have preserved his sound mind and could not have been deceived. His history, however, shows this to be false; and so it must be admitted that it was not in the power of the first man to use reason aright, and that, like us, he was subject to passions.

Spinoza proved how nonsensical the Garden of Eden story was 300 years ago

>Again, since each thing, as far as in it lies, endeavours to preserve its own being, we cannot have the slightest doubt that, if it were equally in our power to live at reason's behest as to be led by blind desire, all would be led by reason and would order their lives wisely, which is by no means the case. For everyone is drawn by his own pleasure. Nor do theologians remove this difficulty by maintaining that the cause of this weakness in human nature is the vice or sin whose origin was the fall of our first parent. For if the first man, too, had as much power to stand as to fall, and if he was in his right mind and with his nature unimpaired, how could it have come about that knowingly and deliberately he fell? Their answer is that he was deceived by the Devil. But who was it who deceived the Devil? Who, I ask, caused the one who was the most outstanding of all intelligent creatures to become so insane that he willed to be greater than God? Did not he, who had a sound mind, endeavour to preserve himself and his own being, as far as in him lay? Again, how could it have come about that the first man himself, being of sound mind and master of his own will, allowed himself to be led astray and beguiled? If he had the power to use reason aright, he could not have been deceived, for, as far as in him lay he must have endeavoured to preserve his own being and his sound mind. But, by hypothesis, this was in fact within his power; therefore he must have preserved his sound mind and could not have been deceived. His history, however, shows this to be false; and so it must be admitted that it was not in the power of the first man to use reason aright, and that, like us, he was subject to passions.

Man logically must have had a fallen nature before he ate the apple, otherwise he would never have done the fallen act in the first place.

>irreparably BTFO the bible
how did he do it?

"The Bible does not teach philosophy but merely obedience, and all it contains has been adapted to the understanding and established opinions of the multitude"

>>19885885
she looks like spinoza

If we're going to go with reductionist psychology to udnerstand the human mind, then I'd much rather follow this nigga than modern day psychology schools

I started to tear up uncontrollably, I coldn't stop thinkin about my dad.
> Awwww! You're too sweet, kid. It's okay my little baby boy, you're a strong man. You can deal with it.
> I'm s-s-sorry.
> Nothing to be sorry about, you're a good man. You have a heart! So what's wrong with that? Come on baby, cheer up. He's still here with us.
I don't know why but that idea did make me feel better. I hugged her and cheered up.
I felt good around them but I didn't want to know these people, her son was lame I didn't want to associate with him anymore, much less be his fucking guardian or bodyguard.
Skip forward some days until this fag gets bullied again. Now some bullies are surrounding him calling him names and shoving him around laughing.
They aren't really doing anything but I walk over to them and tell them to quite it anyway
> quite it this isn-uh what are you doing?
THIS FUCKING FAGGOT KIKE RAN OVER TO ME AND HUGGED ONTO ME TIGHTLY LIKE THE SCARED WHIMPERING LITTLE PUSSY THAT HE IS
FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING FAG, DON'T DO THAT SHIT.
> Save me!! Deiw dwying doo huwd me
I was almost so over come by rage that I was about to strike him myself but then I thought: what would his mother think?
WHO GIVES A SHIT WHAT HIS MOTHER WOULD THINK???? FUCK THIS FAGGOT.
No, I didn't think that. I protected him, for his mothers sake.
> l-Leave Johnny alone.
They backed off but things changed after that.
People must have thought we were fags for each other or something. No one ever said it explicitly to my face but I knew what they were thinking. They gave me that queer look you only ever give to queer looking people and their gay jokes always seemed directed towards me. Maybe I was just becoming self-conscious...
Whenever the topic came up
> Oh, there's your friend
I'd have to explain the real situation to the guys and sometimes the fucking chicks at my school.
> No, you don't understand, it's like a little bro, big bro relationship and besides, we aren't actually friends anyway.
I can't tell if that made me look like more of a dickhead or not

End of Chapter I. 2BCont'd.

I started to tear up uncontrollably, I coldn't stop thinkin about my dad.
> Awwww! You're too sweet, kid. It's okay my little baby boy, you're a strong man. You can deal with it.
> I'm s-s-sorry.
> Nothing to be sorry about, you're a good man. You have a heart! So what's wrong with that? Come on baby, cheer up. He's still here with us.
I don't know why but that idea did make me feel better. I hugged her and cheered up.
I felt good around them but I didn't want to know these people, her son was lame I didn't want to associate with him anymore, much less be his fucking guardian or bodyguard.
Skip forward some days until this fag gets bullied again. Now some bullies are surrounding him calling him names and shoving him around laughing.
They aren't really doing anything but I walk over to them and tell them to quite it anyway
> quite it this isn-uh what are you doing?
THIS FUCKING FAGGOT KIKE RAN OVER TO ME AND HUGGED ONTO ME TIGHTLY LIKE THE SCARED WHIMPERING LITTLE PUSSY THAT HE IS
FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING FAG, DON'T DO THAT SHIT.
> Save me!! Deiw dwying doo huwd me
I was almost so over come by rage that I was about to strike him myself but then I thought: what would his mother think?
WHO GIVES A SHIT WHAT HIS MOTHER WOULD THINK???? FUCK THIS FAGGOT.
No, I didn't think that. I protected him, for his mothers sake.
> l-Leave Johnny alone.
They backed off but things changed after that.
People must have thought we were fags for each other or something. No one ever said it explicitly to my face but I knew what they were thinking. They gave me that queer look you only ever give to queer looking people and their gay jokes always seemed directed towards me. Maybe I was just becoming self-conscious...
Whenever the topic came up
> Oh, there's your friend
I'd have to explain the real situation to the guys and sometimes the fucking chicks at my school.
> No, you don't understand, it's like a little bro, big bro relationship and besides, we aren't actually friends anyway.
I can't tell if that made me look like more of a dickhead or not

End of Chapter I. 2BCont'd.

theistbros... i just got BTFO by the appendix of the first part of Spinoza's ethics.... WTF how do I cope?

Spinoza is incapable of being BTFO

>>19408442
Because they're multiple different books. Nowhere do they even claim to have been written by a single author. Mosaic authorship was invented in the Hellenistic period when the Jews started copying Greek practices of attributing texts to individual authors (like Homer as the author of the Iliad and Odyssey, who was also not the case).

>>19370444
>Have I just deboonked christianity?
Yes. Spinoza pointed out the same thing in his BTFOing of Abrahamic religion.

>Again, since each thing, as far as in it lies, endeavours to preserve its own being, we cannot have the slightest doubt that, if it were equally in our power to live at reason's behest as to be led by blind desire, all would be led by reason and would order their lives wisely, which is by no means the case. For everyone is drawn by his own pleasure. Nor do theologians remove this difficulty by maintaining that the cause of this weakness in human nature is the vice or sin whose origin was the fall of our first parent. For if the first man, too, had as much power to stand as to fall, and if he was in his right mind and with his nature unimpaired, how could it have come about that knowingly and deliberately he fell? Their answer is that he was deceived by the Devil. But who was it who deceived the Devil? Who, I ask, caused the one who was the most outstanding of all intelligent creatures to become so insane that he willed to be greater than God? Did not he, who had a sound mind, endeavour to preserve himself and his own being, as far as in him lay? Again, how could it have come about that the first man himself, being of sound mind and master of his own will, allowed himself to be led astray and beguiled? If he had the power to use reason aright, he could not have been deceived, for, as far as in him lay he must have endeavoured to preserve his own being and his sound mind. But, by hypothesis, this was in fact within his power; therefore he must have preserved his sound mind and could not have been deceived. His history, however, shows this to be false; and so it must be admitted that it was not in the power of the first man to use reason aright, and that, like us, he was subject to passions.

The more you struggle to live, the less you live. Give up the notion that you must be sure of what you are doing. Instead, surrender to what is real within you, for that alone is sure....you are above everything distressing.

-Spinoza

What exactly is the Substance besides being self-caused and infinite? Does he actually give a definition of the Substance's nature or is "it's God bro" all he says?

Nope, try again.

Is this guy the biggest coper since Pascal?

Where does he stand in compared to Locke and Kant on the question on transcendental prescriptivism?

Can someone give me the Spinoza pic with the chad face?

Can someone please post some Spinoza meme pics? I see them flying around here once in a while but forgot to save it. I unironically need it for a project

"My son is taking a course in philosophy, and last night we were looking at something by Spinoza and there was the most childish reasoning! There were all these attributes, and Substances, and all this meaningless chewing around, and we started to laugh. Now how could we do that? Here's this great Dutch philosopher, and we're laughing at him. It's because there's no excuse for it! In the same period there was Newton, there was Harvey studying the circulation of the blood, there were people with methods of analysis by which progress was being made! You can take every one of Spinoza's propositions, and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world and you can't tell which is right."
Richard P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out

>You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all
Was Hegel right to say this? He was.

>jew that’s basically an atheist but slaps a Christian brand over his philosophy
Why do you guys like him?

>libertarian free will is refuted by the law of excluded middle.
Is he right? I think Spinoza is because if the law of excluded middle is true then the proposition that my great-great-great grandson will eat an apple 3 days before his birthday has to be true or false, with us epistemologically not knowing whether that’s the case.

I dont understand this autists argument in regards to God.

So basically he says that God is both of mind and body. And God is infinite. Ergo both mind and matter is infinite=universe is infinite. Since I don´t believe the universe is infinite (nothing material can be) I dont get this argument. Why cant God be infinite but not the material aspects of God?

Can someone please clarify this for me? Its from the first part of the ethics.

Proposition: This dude is the most boring philosopher I have read.

Proof: The Ethics reads like a greentext story written by an autist.

Corollary: He's so boring he's somehow even worse than Kant.

Scholium: You shouldn't write your philosophy like you're trying to prove mathematical axioms.