/lit/ - Literature

>>11129868
1. I mean shit, with enough mental gymnastics, sure. If I remember right the Ethics doesn't make any grand pronouncements that would clash w conservatism. Except the whole god thing.
2. No. Spinoza couldn't be clearer here.

he can be a deleuzian mathematician and kabbalist

>>11129868
Why the fuck would you be an spinozist if you have Leibnitz that synthesizes scholastic thought and rationalism and was magnitudes smarter than Spinoza?

>>11130160
Leibniz was an antisemitic scum.

>>11130814
>Leibniz was an antisemitic scum.
>Muh feelz

>>11130814
So it shows that anti-Semites are intellectually superior

>>11129868
lmao literally what about Spinoza would make you think that you couldn't be a conservative. his political philosophy is basically hobbes 2.0 and that, depending on what you mean by conservative, fits the bill pretty closely for much of what can be considered mainstream conservatism.

you can be a christian who is influenced by spinoza, for sure, but spinoza's theological ideas are pretty different from most contemporary christian faiths. that being said, there are so many varieties of christianity out there that I don't think you should avoid trying to synthesize the two

>>11130814
>>11130937
obnoxious baiting, both of you

>>11130814
another plus

>>11130814
Calm down, Rabbi

>>11129868
Does Hegel count as a christian?

>>11130814
Probably Spinoza was too, after they excommunicated him for being correct about the nature of reality.

>>11129868
Questioning the nature of the divine and metaphysics using spinoza and accepting Mark's kingdom and the sermon on the mount are not mutually exclusive. At some point though you have to dispute the Johannine and Paulline perception of Jesus' substance, and thats where most christians will write you off.

>>11129868
>>11130160
seems a relevant book

>>11131075
He's a phoney christian like most of the philosophers

What do I need to read before I start Ethics? Presumably his response to Descartes as well as Descartes himself, but who else? Euclid?

>Can you be a spinozist and a conservative?
I fail to see how these are incongruent. The pragmatic aspect of the Ethics is simply to live as is best to each man's (real) advantage, which is by a collective effort to help each other out. The only position that wouldn't work with it is AnCap

>Can you be a spinozist and a christian?
This is trickier, but I say yes, since I'm both a Spinozist and very heavily leaning toward Christianity. The common interpretation of Spinoza's cosmology as one of pure pantheism is not compatible with Christianity at all. However, that's really a misreading. Spinoza is more of a panentheist than a pantheist, which can be seen clearly in how much emphasis he puts on God being the eternal first substance upon which all else is predicated. If Substance were equivalent with Attribute as is implied in pantheism, his entire argument would fall apart. They're distinct and hierarchical for a reason.

>>11132586
As a philosophy-let I'd say you don't necessarily need to read much if anything before Ethics. You'll gain a general idea of the concepts. Spinoza is famous for engaging philosophers and non-philosophers alike. If you want a good introduction, Deleuze's Practical Philosophy is a good but complicated intro

>>11132643

That's more or less the feedback I've been getting. I bought a copy of his collected works from Hackett but wasn't sure if reading in chronological order was going to help much, especially since even the editor and translator said he reversed a lot of his earlier positions when writing Ethics. I'll poke around for that Deleuze book, though.

>>11131035
>both of you
that was one person though

>>11131416
Descartes, Rousseau and Hobbes were legit christians desu. Specially Hobbes.

>>11132866
Those are some very strange examples to give considering Rousseau was a deist and Hobbes' Christian faith is very up for debate:
>In this extended early modern sense of atheism, Hobbes did take positions that strongly disagreed with church teachings of his time. For example, he argued repeatedly that there are no incorporeal substances, and that all things, including human thoughts, and even God, heaven, and hell are corporeal, matter in motion.