/lit/ - Literature

>be 17th century kikes and christcucks seething
>be 18th century still coping
>be 19th century have whole academic associations dedicated to disproving my writings all across Europe.

Damn it feels good to be autistic.

Was he based?

>>15135999
Read Spinoza (pbuh)'s ethics and you will realize how wrong you are

>>15135976
Christkikes are jews by perverting the word of God and using superstions to corrupt further the message and preach its corrupt meaning to the common people.

>>15135757
>Quackquinas
Absolutely refuted by Spinoza.
>Aquinas had assumed the two were not “univocally substantial” meaning that finite beings and God are not substantially the same. Spinoza reasoned that, if finite beings are not substantially the same as God, why, then, are they called substances?
>He saw this as absurd. A substance, as previously mentioned, is that which has its existence in itself. Spinoza believed that Aquinas put forth this assumption in order to satisfy Christian dogma, for Christianity taught that everything must be dependent on God for its existence, and that certain of these “finite substances” required individuality, viz. humans.
>This was done to avoid a monistic absorption into an all-encompassing One, such as is found in Hinduism
You will never refute Spinoza (pbuh), you low iq christcuck.

>It often happens that in different books we read histories in themselves similar, but which we judge very differently, according to the opinions we have formed of the authors.
>I remember once to have read in some book that a man named Orlando Furioso used to drive a kind of winged monster through the air, fly over any countries he liked, kill unaided vast numbers of men and giants, and such like fancies, which from the point of view of reason are obviously absurd.
>A very similar story I read in Ovid of Perseus, and also in the books of Judges and Kings of Samson, who alone and unarmed killed thousands of men, and of Elijah, who flew through the air, said at last went up to heaven in a chariot of fire, with horses of fire.
>All these stories are obviously alike, but we judge them very differently.
>The first only sought to amuse, the second had a political object, the third a religious object.
>We gather this simply from the opinions we had previously formed of the authors.
What did he mean by this?

Why does he make judeo-christians seethe?