/lit/ - Literature

The renegade Jew who gave us Modernity

>>11827283
This. The fucker gave birth to liberalism. He literally ruined everything.

>>11827271
Yeah, he's certainly up there. Only Nietzsche compares.

No. Next question.

>>11827271
How do I get into Spinoza?

>>11827430
his mouth pussy or his butt

here's an interesting group of top-tier guys, you could make a claim for many of them being the GOAT

>tfw no heidegger
>also no marx, hm
>john dewey? i guess they didn't want the US to get completely blanked
>the true endboss is ofc charlton heston but we knew this already

>>11827271
Spinoza read Euclid and got a little too excited. He is the prime autist.

> The nature of substance can only be conceived as infinite, and by a part of substance, nothing else can be understood than finite substance, which involves a manifest contradiction.

20 pages and 10 definitions just to tell us that "substances" are "infinite".

It's no coincidence his argument for god has been pretty much ignored for 200+ years. If it wasn't for his friend Leibniz we would never have even heard of him.

>>11827298
Yea I certainly can't agree with his feeling that all men are capable of reasoning. IT just doesn't seem true.

>>11827844
all men are capable of reasoning, it just goes wrong when being most reasonable stops being beneficial to them. people don't sacrifice themselves for greater good.

>>11827967
Are you using Spinozian metaphysics to understand reason? Cause he says all men can come to adequate ideas, but I'm not sure man, I'm actually really not sure.

>>11827271
Almost, but Leibniz was even more based.

>>11827967
And technically they would see from reason that they wouldn't be sacrificing themselves, but doing exactly as they should be.

>>11827967
>all men are capable of reasoning
doubt.png

>>11827996
All men are capable of reasoning, to an extent.

>>11828002
I don't think that is good enough if we are to take liberalism seriously. If we are to take Spinoza seriously.

>>11827283
based
>>11827298
redpilled
>>11827308
cringe

>>11827994
>>>11827967
>And technically they would see from reason that they wouldn't be sacrificing themselves, but doing exactly as they should be.

there would still be a material price to be paid; if putting material profit or comfort above "reason" is irrational then so be it, as reason doesn't incinerate sinners with lightning bolts

>>11827283
>>11827298
>>11828016

Retards.

>>11827271

As his philosophy is ultimately garbage, no. Spinoza is a recent meme among the /lit/ zeitgeist who are working their way through the canon, by way of Deleuze as a prerequisite, but Spinoza uses natural language with usually invalid, ad-hoc inferences to build his Euclidian project. The occasional quasi-modern and sensible turns of phrase are of historical interest, but do not rescue the overall philosophical invalidity and inapplicability of the project. Oh god is such-and-such, whoop-dee-doo. And yes, I did accurately perceive and capture the character of Spinoza's central work, so don't even bother trying about that.

>>11828014
I don't think that was his point though.

>>11827271
>based
yeah
the question is though: was he REDPILLED?

>>11827430

Dive right into Ethics, but have Deleuze's book about Spinoza on hand and don't be afraid to just plow through the thing, even if parts of it don't make sense at the time. It all ties together by the end.

>>11828103
Who's point?

>>11827271
No, he's behind Nietzsche and Heraclitus. But his concept of nature is quite admirable and it paved the way for Nietzsche.

Wasn't he a Jew? Jews are incapable of having genuinely philosophical thoughts, as intuition is something of which only Aryans are capable and no Jew is an Aryan.

>>11829606
I find out extremely ironic that you praise the role of intuition while posting a pic of Hegel. Not defending the Jews though

>>11829624
Find it*

>>11829624
t. Jew

>>11829606
Secular Jews are more valuable people than Aryan Christians.

>>11829698
Jews are incapable of spiritual or philosophical insights, all that they are able to do is to contribute to the modern production-line style scientific "method" which is rapidly causing the annihilation of our White and Christic culture-society.

>>11829722
>Jews are incapable of spiritual or philosophical insights
Define "Jew." Is it an ethnicity, or a religious attitude that you are talking about? Secular Jews are people who were once Jewish but aren't anymore. Also, explain Spinoza's nature then.

>>11829722
Then go back to your cabin, white nigger.

>>11827716
>"substances" are "infinite".
what does this even mean

>>11829606
>Using Aryan to mean Germanic
Nazis are the biggest we-wuzzers in history. Pic related: actual Aryan philosophy. I have nothing against Hegel though.

He's very useful as an entry point to the Pajeets, who are the only real philosophers

>>11827271
LITERATURE

>>11829745
He means that a property of a substance is that it is infinite. God, the one substance, that we arae all partaking in, is infinite.

>>11829733
It's a religion and an ethnicity. I am not a Jew so all Jews are equally Jewish in my eyes as I do not view their own distinctions between different kinds of Jews as being valid. Jews cannot have insights.
>>11829736
White's cannot be niggardly.
>>11829750
Indians are not Aryan now, they have had their genes diluted by millennia of interbreeding since they had their continent invaded by true Ancient Aryans. Nowadays Cambodians and Germans are the only (non-honorary) Aryans.

>>11829763
how can a substance be infinite? idgi

>>11829772
>It's a religion and an ethnicity.
>Jews cannot have insights.
Okay, so explain Spinoza's nature then.

>>11829777
He was wrong
To be an insight it has to not be false
Spinoza's concept of nature excludes a loving transcendent God from the purview of existence. Therefore Spinoza is wrong. Thus proof of his Jewishness.

>>11829782
>Spinoza's concept of nature excludes a loving transcendent God
How? And define "transcendent".

>>11829789
If substance is God and substance is infinite then God is immanent in substance, and if God is immanent in substance then God cannot be transcendent. But God is transcendent. Therefore Spinoza is wrong.
Transcendent df= has no connection to anything of a lesser ontological status
Immanent df= has some connection to things of a lesser ontological status

>>11829782
>a loving transcendent God
lmao that's a highly jewish idea

>>11829806
It's actually THE CHRISTIAN IDEA

>>11829774
It follow from its definition. If you read book 1 of his ethics I think he proves it by postulate 16 or maybe 25.

>>11829808
aka a bargain bin jewish idea

>>11829808
It predates Christianity. Jews already believed this. Christians added the idea of an incarnation and a trinity.

>>11829804
>God is transcendent.
Transcendence is a universal impossibility, like your idea of God. There is nothing transcendent; transcendence is a primitive interpretation of reality. Spinoza technically means that everything is transcendent all at once, and he is as wrong on that as you are on saying that God is transcendent, because nothing is transcendent

>>11829818
>>11829822
Jews worship a desert-fire pseudogod and their book.
>>11829828
God is transcendent.

>>11827283
>>11827298
shout out my dogs

>>11829832
There is no God. There's only the universe and quantums of power within it. Both you and Spinoza are wrong.

>>11829839
If God didn't exist then you wouldn't exist. God is the concept of existence itself. He is transcendent.

>>11829606
why aren't you speaking hindi?

go back to the caste system you dirty untouchable

>>11829845
If God existed, I could not exist, because the end conclusion of a philosophy which seeks to include a God in it is yours and Spinoza's, aka God is ultimate and all that there is. But I do exist, therefore there can't be a God relevant to my existence.

>>11829832
Christians worship the same God as the Jews.

>>11829856
I don't think you understand the concept of existence very well. Read Parmenides.
>>11829857
Jews don't worship IESUS KRISTOS

>>11829860
>I don't think you understand the concept of existence very well.
Explain how I don't. If we replace "God" with "Oneness," then if "Oneness" is a possibility, and the ultimate possibility of the universe's nature, then there can't be an "I" or a "You". You can't have your cake and eat it too — do you want your individuality, or do you want Oneness? Therefore, if God exists, we cannot exist. But we can exist, which means God doesn't.

>>11829860
Putting Christ's name in Greek and in all capital letters doesn't make your argument any less retarded. Are you saying Moses did not worship God? And Abraham? Are you a gnostic? Because that would make you a non-Christian, and even further from Christianity than the Jews.

>>11829867
Why would we replace "God" with "Oneness" when there is literally no reason to think that those concepts are even close to equivalent/ There is only one God but God and "one" aren't the same thing. God is Infinite.
>>11829881
Moses and Abraham did not worship the TRINITAS.

>>11829887
>There is only one God but God and "one" aren't the same thing. God is Infinite.
There can't exist other things when there's a thing that's infinite. It's an impossibility.

>>11829899
An infinite number of infinities can exist within any given infinity, and each of these infinities is distinct from every other. Have you never heard of Cantor? How about you fuck off with the other Jews?

>>11829887
>le TRINITAS!!!11
Lmaoing at ur autism bro. Just say "Trinity" like a normal person. Christianity claims to have revealed thing about God that were not known before to mankind, it does not mean that those who did not know these things were worshipping a different God. See Paul's speech on the "Unknown God".

>>11829907
If there are other things, then there's nothing that's infinite, by definition. You don't understand the concepts you talk about.

>>11829908
>Paul
You mean Saul of Tarsus who pretended to have a change of heart? Read the Gospel of Peter.
>>11829916
You don't understand the concept of infinity at all-READ A BOOK!

>>11829918
Ah, I see. You aren't actualy a Christian. Ok, then.

>>11829918
A thing is a limitation to another thing; one thing occupies a space in time that another thing doesn't, and is therefore a limitation to another thing. For any thing to be infinite, there can't be any limitation, i.e. there can't be any other things. Again, you don't understand the concepts you talk about.

>>11829925
This. Cantor uses the term "infinity" only conventionally, using the term was a poor choice on his part and leads to a lot of confusion. A better term would be "indefinite". The Scholastics also, for example, carefully distinguished between "infinitum absolutum" and "infinitum secundum quid". Only the former can truly be called infinite, the latter is only called infinite by a sort of analogy.

>>11829925
God is infinite but something things are not infinite and take up space within that infinity, as a predicate occupies the same sentence as the subject.
>>11829937
I think Cantor knew what he was talking about, trying to analyze his concepts with Scholastic logic is a sign of mental incapacity.

>>11829964
A finite thing can't "take up space within an infinity" without depriving said infinity of its infinity, or depriving said finite thing of its individuality. If the latter is the case, then said finite thing is simply shorthand for an illusive momentary transfiguration of the infinite thing, and what really exists is merely the infinite thing. Which just goes back to what I said about not being able to have your cake and eat it too.

>>11829987
You're just making up rules as you go along...Nobody has endorsed your definitions or conceptions. There is literally no reason for me to take you seriously. How about you just fuck off to >>>/b/?

>>11829990
>Nobody has endorsed your definitions or conceptions.
Wrong. Nietzsche did. You can't follow basic logic at all if you think I've just been "making up rules as I go along."

>>11829996
>Nietzsche
Literally fraudulent and literally insane. Keep appealing to (illegitimate) authority if it makes you feel better.

>>11829999
I'm sorry you can't follow philosophy past the 18th century. So much for championing who is capable of insight and who isn't, huh?

>>11830011
Just because all Jews are incapable of thought doesn't make all Gentiles capable of it...Nietzsche died in an asylum and based all of his work on an appeal to the euqally illegitimate work of SCHOPENHAUER. No reason to take him seriously. I'm sorry you think that one madman's idea of infinity is valid and somehow will winyou this argument. We ALL see that you are a FOOl.

>>11830019
I hope you're a troll and not actually this much of a brainlet.

>>11829996
>You can't follow basic logic
God doesn't need to follow logic. That's his whole bag baby, he exists outside these categories of being/not being etc. It's the only way to explain the existence of the universe

>>11830186
>God doesn't need to follow logic.
Only because you can't, and you'd like to remain "in God's image."

>>11829987
>>11829990
>>11829964
>>11829937
New anon here.
According to Spinoza's infinite God everything that is, is merely a by-product of some of his infinite attributes. Denying infinity is stupid.
There's infinity in 1 to 2.
Even the concept of Oneness can't be denied by this negation of infinite.
''2. A thing is said to be finite in its own kind [in suo genere finita] when it can
be limited by another thing of the same nature. For example, a body is said to be
finite because we can always conceive of another body greater than it. So, too, a
thought is limited by another thought. But body is not limited by thought, nor
thought by body.''

>>11830183
Are you an unironic supporter of Schopenhauer, literally the sloppiest philosopher of the 19th century? Fucking fool
Keep appealing to ILLEGITIMATE AUTHORITY if it makes you feel better about your incapacity to know God

>>11830220
>Denying infinity is stupid.
Yes, but embracing it is also death for you, except if you consider yourself God. Which is why Nietzsche regarded Spinoza as a prelude to his own philosophy.

Reminder you're an absolute brainlet if you haven't already memorized this
https://ethics.spinozism.org/graphs.php

>>11827463
any list that has Sartre over Heidegger in terms of relevance and significance is retarded and flatout wrong, especially because Sartre only offered a Cartesian regression within the scope of Heidegger's project

>>11830250
>embracing it is also death for you, except if you consider yourself God.
>implying love is not all and love is not everyone

>>11830279
If love is all, then only love exists, and not you.

>>11829722
Christianity is a semitic construct.

>>11830284
By that logic then love wouldn't exist either, there would only be existence
I don't think you understand the concept of infinity half as well as you think you
do
I think you're that Nieztschean FOOL from earlier
>>11830286
Christianity is a DIVINE construct

>>11830284
I plan to read Nietzsche in the future. But is this the power of his philosophy? My eagerness to read his works shrank.

>>11830299
>But is this the power of his philosophy?
The conception of the post-God, post-nihilism meaning of the earth, aka the Overman? Yes. Nietzsche is, to paraphrase him, poison to the weak and the botched.

>>11830284
>If love is all, then only love exists, and not you.
Why would I have a problem with that? I think I've worked out why you don't understand Spinoza
>2075
>not surrendering to the void

>>11830307
So he is a less sincere Stirner.

>>11830315
I understand him, I just don't agree with him. With Spinoza, everything is transcendental, which means nothing is—the latter being true, but not because of the former, since the former is not the case.

>>11830322
He isn't less sincere. He's Stirner with passion.

>>11829907
>Have you never heard of Cantor?

>>11830349
You think you're a very intelligent person, but you actually haven't articulated any of your thoughts in the form of a valid logical argument, nor have you adequately explained why you understand any of your definitions to be adequate to the concepts to which you want us all to apply them. You're a charlatan and a fraud.

>>11830349
>I understand him, I just don't agree with him
>understanding Spinoza
>disagreeing with Spinoza
Pick one. Reality won't go away because you stop believing in it. Spinoza is the closest western thought ever got to understanding the nature of the universe. Hegel knew this

>>11828055
>t. dogmatically closed-minded pantheist
Thanks for your contribution to the thread

>>11830375
>Sometimes your worst "I am I" is your best "I am I"

>>11830315
I'm curious as to how did you come to the conclusion that for Spinoza everything is transcendental and that nothing is.
I think it is quite the opposite, since his God is immanent and every thing is part of his infinite attributes.

''PROPOSITION 9
The more reality or being a thing has, the more attributes it has.''

>>11830385
Oh, replied to the wrong anon.
It was meant to >>11830349

>>11830385
>how did you come to the conclusion that for Spinoza everything is transcendental and that nothing is.
When did I say that?

>>11830364
If you're the same guy as before, you shouldn't be talking, since you don't understand the concept of infinity at all.

>>11830375
>Spinoza is the closest western thought ever got to understanding the nature of the universe.
Except that he failed to remove the non-natural concept of God from it, which is why his thought leads to the contradictory premise that all of nature is transcendental, i.e. all of nature is supernatural. Nietzsche did what Spinoza couldn't here and gave us an interpretation of nature without that contradiction.

>>11830375
>iF oNlY yOu AcTuAlLy UnDeRsToOd HiM, YoU'd SeE tHaT hE iS uNdEnIaBlY rIgHt, HeGel AgReEs WhIcH mAkEs ThIs MoRe TrUe

>>11830397
>non-natural concept of God
Ho boy

>>11830397
>he failed to remove the non-natural concept of God from it
Why would he remove God? And why would not doing so be a failure? Surely removing God would be the failure

>>11830397
Pray tell, what is a natural concept?

>>11830401
>deism is plausible
you're blind in your bias.

>>11830385
>I'm curious as to how did you come to the conclusion that for Spinoza everything is transcendental and that nothing is.
He continues to employ use of the concept of God to describe nature. God, or the infinite, presupposes a supernatural, or non-natural state; nature is relative, i.e. not infinite. He gets very close, but still stops at a certain point due to this. If he abandoned the concept of God he would have given us a more accurate description. Also, if EVERYTHING is transcendental, nothing can be, otherwise there are no two states upon which you can interpret the process of transcendence between.

>>11830419
>Deism and theism are interchangeable terms
You betray your own ignorance more with each post
Theism is entirely plausible, billions of people have religious beliefs

>>11830422
>God, or the infinite, presupposes a supernatural, or non-natural state; nature is relative, i.e. not infinite
[citation needed]

>>11830422
>Also, if EVERYTHING is transcendental, nothing can be, otherwise there are no two states upon which you can interpret the process of transcendence between.
>God has to play by rules I invent

>>11830430
What are you even arguing?
>Theism is entirely plausible, billions of people have religious beliefs
appeal to majority =/= probable. holy fuck dude.
>Deism and theism are interchangeable terms
Not at all. Are you saying I implied that? Better read my post again.

>>11830453
If theism weren't plausible then people couldn't have religious beliefs. Idiot.
>probable means plausible
Idiot.
I was talking about theism, then you changed the subject to theism
I think you're just a troll
Nobody is this stupid in real life

>>11830439
>[citation needed]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_of_general_relativity

>>11830460
>I was talking about theism, then you changed the subject to theism
Should be
>I was talking about theism, then you changed the subject to deism
>>11830462
>11830462
Care to explain that in your own terms in a way that makes it obvious how your understanding of these concepts is pertinent to this discussion?

>>11830460
First day on 4chan a little rough on you bud?
Plausible and probable are interchangeable. Jesus Christ anon. Consider reading.

>>11827716
Not quite, re: his excitement over Euclid. In his other works, he talks about how philosophizing must star by giving a natural history of things, and that the synthetic-deductive method (the Euclidean appearance of the Ethics) isn't philosophical. Put those together, and you get a work of non-philosophy tricking tolerant rationalist Christians into letting him sneak his physics laden atheism into the discourse dressed up as rational pantheism.

>>11830480
I'm trying to understand what you mean, though--those words aren't synonyms. Please be more precise here, we're talking about philosophical concepts. Please be specific. Go back to R*ddit.

>>11830468
Infinity is a necessary attribute for the existence of a thing-in-itself. As I've said in previous posts, another thing cannot exist if there is a thing that is infinite. Therefore, nature is either infinite, or it is relative; it can't be both. But we know that space and time are a continuum now, the shorthand for it being spacetime, which presupposes nature as being relative—i.e., nature cannot contain a thing-in-itself, or any infinite, i.e. God. This makes God a non-natural concept.

>>11830501
Again, assuming God is bound by human constructs.

>>11830501
>As I've said in previous posts, another thing cannot exist if there is a thing that is infinite.
But this is exactly what I'm talking about, there's no reason for anyone to take seriously the idea that infinity has this property.
>But we know
Oh boo fucking hoo, stop crying about Einstein. We're talking about Spinoza.

>>11830519
Only nothingness is outside that boundary, which is indeed infinite, but an infinite nothingness is the same as a finite nothingness and it is all irrelevant and only irrelevant to existence.

>>11830532
This is pure sophistry
Stop replying to him
He's either b8ing or a first-year philosophy student

>>11830501
Reiterating:
2. A thing is said to be finite in its own kind [in suo genere finita] when it can
be limited by another thing of the same nature. For example, a body is said to be
finite because we can always conceive of another body greater than it. So, too, a
thought is limited by another thought. But body is not limited by thought, nor
thought by body.

>>11830492
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/thesaurus/plausible
I don't usually spoonfeed children but you've said the same lie thrice now. Try again sweety. "Go back to R*ddit"? Go back to school, summerfriend.

>>11830532
But God can be both infinite nothingness and also infinite existence. You're assuming that because you haven't managed to get your head round this concept, that it's impossible. The universe is not bound by the limitations of your ontology

>>11830527
>there's no reason for anyone to take seriously the idea that infinity has this property.
It's what infinite means, anon. Infinite, as in endless—if there are two things, one thing is an end to the other thing. If there is an infinite thing, for it to be infinite, it can't have an end; but a thing is ALWAYS an end to another thing. Which means if there is an infinite thing, that's ALL there is, for all time. But if space is connected to time, time being change, then all space must change, i.e. what is cannot ever be "for all time," i.e. cannot ever be infinite.

>>11830460
>reddit spacing
>idiot x2
>"surely you troll, else what a fool you are!"
You have to be 18 years old to be on 4chan.

>>11830549
Then why didn't you just use the same word you did in the first post? You must understand the nature of the technical terms involved in this conversation. If you're not going to be sincere and put some effort into this then I'm going to call you a NIGGER
>>11830561
Again, you're just asserting these things as if they actually do follow one from the other. How about you construct a logical argument?
>>11830568
Idiot!

>>11830572
cute...

>>11830572
>You must understand the nature of the technical terms involved in this conversation. If you're not going to be sincere and put some effort into this then I'm going to call you a NIGGER

>>11830559
>But God can be both infinite nothingness and also infinite existence.
But then what is God? We're just back to >>11830284 now. Is there is a God, I could not stand to live that I am not Him, i.e. I could not live if I am not God, because God is infinite, which means only God exists. Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If the infinite thing (God) exists, that exists alone, and I do not exist, except by way of >>11830544 i.e. as merely an illusive configuration of the infinite thing. But an illusive configuration of the infinite thing IS NOT the same as truly existing as a thing.

>>11830608
You're completely ignoring the Spinozan conception of the relationship between mind and body, which he arrived at by way of the Cartesian notion of mind as a spatially unextended object which does not interact with spatially extended objects, that is, bodies. In Spinoza's definition 2, it is stated that the presence of body does not prevent mind from occupying that same space, because they are fundamentally different aspects of substance/God.

>>11830608
PROPOSITION 9
The more reality or being a thing has, the more attributes it has.

>>11830460
>it has to be plausible because people believe in it
I believe you’re a dumb faggot so let’s see you get out of that one

>>11830661
Why isn’t it plausible?

>>11830636
I was somewhat ignoring it, yes, but I'll address it now. It's false, and here's why.

>the Cartesian notion of mind as a spatially unextended object which does not interact with spatially extended objects, that is, bodies.
This continues to be part of Spinoza's ultimate fear of change, which is why he attempts to bless all of the universe "as God," i.e. as a thing that does not change. Everything is transcendental to him, everything is God, everything is infinite. He does this because he fears change at bottom. Body does not prevent mind from occupying that same space, but body changes, and mind with it; neither mind nor body can be a thing-in-itself in a world where space and time are a continuum, things-in-themselves can't be perceived here. The thing-in-itself, i.e. the infinite thing, can't exist in such a world where all things are subject to change (time). This conception of the mind, and Spinoza's definition, are simply the result of fear of change; it is an attempt to maintain the infinite and unchanging (God) in the picture of nature, which is subject to change.

>>11829772
>Nowadays Cambodians and Germans are the only (non-honorary) Aryans.

>>11830704
I don’t see anything resembling an argument here. Just more of your baseless assertions about concepts that you can’t accept other people treating differently from you. Spinoza was afraid of change? What the fuck does that have to do with the argument at hand?

It depends on which base your "based" is based.

>>11830714
What baseless assertions?

>Spinoza was afraid of change? What the fuck does that have to do with the argument at hand?
It's why he formulated nature as he did. It's what makes his definition of nature still incomplete, and besmirched by his forced inclusion of God in it. The infinite thing has no place in nature, it does not necessitate such idealism.

>>11829772
>Nowadays Cambodians and Germans are the only (non-honorary) Aryans.
completely insane and stupid, not even funny from an esoteric post-ironic perspective. fuck you for thinking this much less speaking it out loud or writing it where it will be seen many times

>>11830749
>his definition of nature still incomplete, and besmirched by his forced inclusion of God
It would be besmirched if he didn't include God. You argue like an edgy teenager who's just discovered Nietzsche and Rand

>>11830844
>It would be besmirched if he didn't include God.
Why is that? If there are any baseless assertions in this thread, it's God's inclusion in the definition of nature. The only respectable inclusion of God in such a definition is one in which I am God, aka Nietzsche's philosophy for the Overman.

Also, funny that you'd post a picture of Tony. Those scenes only made him look like a hypocrite. Criminals only talk of kissing God's ass to appease or persuade others into kissing their's.

>>11830704
Spinoza doesn't fear change. He was a physical and metaphysical deterministic. The reason there's no "dynamic" in his conception of nature is because his conception of nature is similar to that of Descartes before him, nature is mechanical and runs by regular laws that don't change.

>>11830872
>>11830891
>when he is an edgy teenager who's just discovered Nietszche and Rand

>>11830922
If he didn't fear change, then he was naive to it.

>>11830933
If the world stayed on your conception of nature, relativity wouldn't have been arrived at in philosophy or the sciences and technology would have stagnated. Which makes your conception of nature still useful for some things in the world, but ultimately primitive now.

>>11830951
You're trying to understand transcendental reality when you haven't managed to get past your own ego yet. You'll get there kid

>>11830971
I was into Osho briefly like a decade ago. The Eastern notion of enlightenment is boring and useless.

>>11830951
how does relativity fit in with Spinoza's determined motion of the attribute of extension?

>>11830993
His conception is not necessarily incompatible, but relativistic nature does not necessitate his conception. It's extra baggage that has no reason to be kept.

>>11831044
I mean to say that id like to go into it. Does relativity involve that time and space are relative to the observer?

>>11829856
You are a nigger. Please read Proclus. The dictum of transcendental metaphysics is "all in all ACCORDING TO ITS MODE."

>>11829867
See:
>>11831205

>>11831061
>Does relativity involve that time and space are relative to the observer?
Yes. That's what quantum theorists are currently focused on formulating in the sciences.

To understand further, Nietzsche went from Point A (Spinoza's nature; nature is God, God is infinite) to Point B (Darwin's nature; nature is change, change is infinite) to Point C (Nietzsche's nature; nature is change, nature is I, nature changes with me, nature is infinite, nature is me, I am infinite, I am God). Quantum theorists more or less hold Nietzsche's nature to be the case and are still in the process of formulating it scientifically, see eternal inflation theory and the Hartle-Hawking state for examples of this ongoing process.

>>11831205
>all in all ACCORDING TO ITS MODE.
So pointless. Why even bother with this? It's just unnecessary baggage that screws with your ability to analyze further.

>Proclus
Why stop there? You might as well go all the back to when we didn't have an established written language at all, when discussion wasn't possible at all. It would probably suit your desires better.

>>11830935
Naive how? What sort of phenomenon should he have played better attention to during the era he lived in to take nature as something that changes? Like, are you holding it against him that he didn't beat Darwin to evolution, or discover modern physical phenomena of the past century and a half?

>>11831475
>Like, are you holding it against him that he didn't beat Darwin to evolution, or discover modern physical phenomena of the past century and a half?
Of course not. He was a philosopher of his time, a cutting edge thinker. But because thinkers did realize things about nature that he hadn't realized, we can say that he was naive to them. He didn't take them into account, not that he could have with what was available at the time. I'm also pointing out that there is something that he didn't take into account when I wrote that.

>>11827463
Dewey is knockoff James

>>11827716
>>11828099
While his initial metaphysics are tenuous, Spinozist parallelism is an important and useful idea, and his later point in regards to living well and attaining joy are also of interest. Sperging about the fact that his centuries old systematic approach wasn't up to snuff in comparison to systematic approaches that were literally built off of his back (Kant and Hegel for example) is kind of absurd.

>>11831297
Yea but from spinoza's view point I am a modification of nature. Thus how relativity works from that standpoint and I become God isnt so clear. Id rather you spell it out for me? Does my soul create the universe?

>>11831707
What? You aren't a modification of nature, you are a specific organization of it, a pattern determined by previous patterns and which will determine future patterns. You are never outside nature, you are nature; the way he uses the term more or less means All. Because you are always member to All, you are always in community with All, including the modal Mind of God, but you are also yourself, a specific point inside of All.

>>11831759
What? I dont mena to offend but you think being a body in the attribute of extension makes you all that to Spinoza? Please Id like to look at where he conveyed this. Citations? Does this have to do with love?

Of course your never outside nature, you are a part of it.

>>11831901
Extension and mind are separate modes running parallel, the fact that you have mind at all puts you in community with God's mind. Spinoza speculates that there may be countless other modes in addition to these but does not to my memory speculate what they might be. If I recall correctly, the manner in which he frames mind after bodily death at the end of Ethics is in line with what I am suggesting. I read Ethics a few months ago and I don't remember the specific passages involved, but the man has an entire section titled Of Mind, so if you're unaware that by extension (bodies) he means matter as distinct from but parallel to mind then I can't help but think that you're operating off of wikipedia.

>>11832033
Youre mixing up his terms and not assigning them correctly. But I understand what you are saying. Do not treat me like I dont understand Spinoza. I understand him quite well. It is you who is not explaining his points well in order to support your claims.

Just because thought and extension are manifesting at the same time yet still may have a part of you live on does not support what you are saying. In fact im not sure what you are saying.

This would almost be a good thread if it weren't for the moron who has no understanding of Spinoza but won't shut up about special relativity and the "Cambodian Aryans" guy

>>11831297
>Quantum theorists more or less hold Nietzsche's nature
really wish u pseuds would stop doing this

>>11830284
Little did he know, but he was all along!

>>11830971
>Doesn't realize that Osho is hopelessly comprised and a huge fraud, that his entire shtick was to appeal to new-age retards and that you'll get nowhere reading him instead of primary texts

>see a philosophy thread with a lot of replies
>maybe /lit/ is actually having a discussion about spinoza
>just a bunch of aryan larp

>>11832190
>ctrl-F 'Aryan', 12 results out of 172 posts
>being triggered by a few posts mentioning Aryans in a forest of other posts in year 5120 of the Kali Yuga

>>11832145
So Nietzsche didn't understand Spinoza then?

>>11832248
Where in my post did I say that? And why does it matter?

>>11832268
In saying that I don't understand Spinoza. Everything I am saying can be found in Nietzsche, in Will to Power to be exact.

>>11832370
I said you had no understanding of Spinoza. I don't know how well you understand Nietzsche, nor do I know how it's relevant to this discussion. I think you're an idiot, tbqh.

>>11832376
>I said you had no understanding of Spinoza.
Right, which means you're saying Nietzsche didn't either, because I'm almost verbatim taking things from Nietzsche... here's a passage:

>If the universe had a goal, that goal would have been reached by now. If any sort of unforeseen final state existed, that state also would have! been reached. If it were capable of any halting or stability of any being, it would only have possessed this capability of becoming stable for one instant in its development; and again becoming would have been at an end for ages, and with it all thinking and all "spirit." The fact of "intellects" being in a state of development proves that the universe can have no goal, no final state, and is incapable of being. But the old habit of thinking of some purpose in regard to all phenomena, and of thinking of a directing and creating deity in regard to the universe, is so powerful, that the thinker has to go to great pains in order to avoid thinking of the very aimlessness of the world as intended. The idea that the universe intentionally evades a goal, and even knows artificial means wherewith it prevents itself from falling into a circular movement, must occur to all those who would fain attribute to the universe the capacity of eternally regenerating itself—that is to say, they would fain impose upon a finite, definite force which is invariable in quantity, like the universe, the miraculous gift of renewing its forms and its conditions for all eternity. Although the universe is no longer a God, it must still be capable of the divine power of creating and transforming; it must forbid itself to relapse into any one of its previous forms; it must not only have the intention, but also the means, of avoiding any sort of repetition, every second of its existence, even, it must control every single one of its movements, with the view of avoiding goals, final states, and repetitions and all the other results of such an unpardonable and insane method of thought and desire. All this is nothing more than the old religious mode of thought and desire, which, in spite of all, longs to believe that in some way or other the universe resembles the old, beloved, infinite, and infinitely-creative God—that in some way or other "the old God still lives"—that longing of Spinoza's which is expressed in the words "deus sive natura" (what he really felt was "natura sive deus"). Which, then, is the proposition and belief in which the decisive change, the present preponderance of the scientific spirit over the religious and god-fancying spirit, is best formulated? Ought it not to be: the universe, as force, must not be thought of as unlimited, because it cannot be thought of in this way,—we forbid ourselves the concept infinite force, because it is incompatible with the idea of force? Whence it follows that the universe lacks the power of eternal renewal.

>>11832398
>appeal to authority

>>11832415
There's no appeal to authority here.

>>11832425
>denying the antecedent

>>11832435
>fallacy fallacy

>>11832474
>phallus fallacy

>>11832376
>>11832491
But really though, how don't I understand Spinoza? What have I misunderstood?

>>11832591
I don't know because you keep saying that your understanding is Nietzsche's understanding, but not clarifying what that's supposed to mean for those of us who don't live inside your tiny little brain

>>11832657
>I don't know
Despite all my posts you don't know what I understand of Spinoza at all to comment besides saying I don't understand him?

>>11832669
No, because it's unclear that you even care about discussing Spinoza--you seem committed to forcefeeding us your own personal brand of pseudological word salad and appealing to the ideas of smarter men than you while pretending that this makes your position unassailable.
I think you're a retarded faggot and I don't care what you think anyway, but this could have been a good thread until you ruined it

>>11832682
>this could have been a good thread until you
introduced post-Spinozan philosophy to it, as an answer to OP's question? Not my fault it was conversation-halting. Nietzsche's just more based than him I guess :)

>>11830761
t. seething shlomo

>>11832697
not based and incredibly bluepilled

>>11832748
>bluepilled
heh

>>11830299
Yeah just one sentence out of context is all you need to know about him. No reason to investigate further.

>>11833172
awww did i hurt your feelings showing contempt towards your favorite philosopher??
;(

>>11829772
>niggardly
that word doesn't mean what you think it does.

>>11829772
>niggardly
>on a lit board and not even literate
go away you white nigger

>>11830501
>Infinity is a necessary attribute for the existence of a thing-in-itself.
So to argue that infinite does not exist is to argue that the existence of a thing-in-itself is negated. Interesting.

>>11831489
You have a very simplistic understanding of the history of philosophy

>yes, goyim, emancipate yourself from your traditions and culture, liberate yourself from your society, so that you can be the perfect slave for us, the supreme race, the Jews

He is the most "based" philosopher in the sense that he is the philosopher of Jewish supremacism, the dominating praxis of the modern world.

>>11833263
I've never read Nietzsche. Just pointing out how ridiculous it is to discount an author because of a single sentence.

>>11829987
Yeah dude pi doesn't exist you can't have infinite digits comprised of finite values it just dun make sense. Good luck arguing against a millennia old mathematical concept.

>>11830608
Here's a thought experiment for you. How many numbers are between 1 and 2? I'll make it easy for you and say we're only allowing rational numbers. Go ahead. Clearly since there are numbers outside of 1 and 2 there must be a finite answer, otherwise all numbers would be between 1 and 2. It'll really blow your mind when you find out how many numbers are between 2 and 3.

Your argument isn't even philosophically confounding, it's mathematically, verifiable false. You're either baiting or retarded.

>>11830608
>If the infinite thing (God) exists, that exists alone, and I do not exist
I think he almost got it here

>>11835746
Almost, yes, but the crux of his argument seems to be that, since Spinoza is a theist, Spinoza is a priori wrong about everything, regardless of what he has to say for himself, and also Nietzsche

>>11835733
Math is abstraction. It's not a perfect representation of the world.

>>11835939
All language and symbols are abstraction. It's meaningless to ponder the infinite if we're not even allowed to use math.

>>11835939
What is abstraction?

>>11835964
>All language and symbols are abstraction.
While that is true, I am not basing my viewpoint of the world based on an abstraction like you are doing. I am basing it off of my direct experiences with the world and then employing abstractions (words) to attempt to communicate it. That is why you are coming to the conclusion that a thing-in-itself that is not infinite can be conceived of, and I am coming to the conclusion that not only can such a thing not be conceived of, but that neither the thing-in-itself nor the infinite are real, and if the thing-in-itself WAS real, it would be all there is, and then no communication would even be possible, since there would not be two things left in the world. In summa, if the world is one thing, what that thing is is simply a matter of your personal feeling.

>>11836012
Abstraction is simplification for the purpose of convenience. It is a shorthand for something.

>>11836120
Wrong

>>11836120
>and if the thing-in-itself WAS real, it would be all there is
I love how you keep pointing this out like it's some killer flaw Spinoza didn't see

>>11836213
>Wrong
?

>>11836229
You sound as if my goal here is to denigrate Spinoza. It's really just to point out that his deification of nature was a starting point for both the deification of the individual and the nihilism of modernity.

>>11836120
>my direct experiences with the world
nice abstraction retard

Is Kierkegaard no longer fotm around here? Shifting towards Spinoza, or maybe a different philosopher y'all never read beyond sparknotes.

>>11836381
What arrived to you is an abstraction.

>>11836363
Uninteresting and meaningless

>>11836895
What's meaningless is the forced inclusion of God in a post-God world.

>>11836903
You must be b8ing

>>11836945
Baiting for what, discussion? Yeah, I guess so. That point was made earlier and was never addressed (shit-flinging and calling names isn't addressing something).

>>11836964
It was never addressed because it’s not a substantial point for discussion. It isn’t forced at all. Lots of philosophers have discussed he idea of God and affirmed God’s existence. You might be an atheist but that doesn’t mean that you have the privilege of ignoring all theists on the grounds that they’re theists, not if you want to have a serious and honest discussion about philosophy. At this point nothing you say will convince that you’re arguing in good faith anyway so you may as well stop replying to me, you fucking moron

>>11834036
Sure.

Infinites do exist, but only in models, i.e. under incomplete conditions. The thing-in-itself no longer makes sense, because we now understand time and space to be connected, a function of the other, rather than separated and isolated. Each one emerges from the other. The thing-in-itself, for it to be a thing-in-itself, must be space times infinite time; but infinite time is the equivalent of no time to us, which means it does not exist in our world, where space and time emerge from one another and not separately. Does that mean it exists in "other worlds?" By definition, that is impossible to know and not know; it's beyond comprehension.

>>11836990
The word God carries with it the idea of the thing-in-itself and the infinite. If after reading the above paragraph you still think it is necessary to include God in the description of our world, or even possible, you're not getting it. It's not even desirable to do so; God, whenever mentioned, stops our ability to change, due to the necessity of His infinite nature — change always happens in places where God is missing.

>>11837072
This is a fucking Spinoza thread, we're talking about Spinoza's philosophy--nobody gives a fuck about these properties of infinity that you're making up on the fly.

>>11837105
>tl;dr: stfu and gtfo
My posts don't stop you and other anons from discussing Spinoza. No one else is contributing to the thread because no one has any contributions, evidently. And I did discuss Spinoza, and I may have took that and moved into a part of his legacy (Nietzsche), but you know, philosophy is an ongoing discussion, and it changes over time, so there is really nothing wrong with me doing that. What else do you want? An endless circlejerk about him? Memes? How am I getting in the way of what you want out of the thread by adding criticism of him and ideas that were built off of his?

>>11837154
>My posts don't stop you and other anons from discussing Spinoza
They do when you try to dominate the discussion like this and refuse to listen to other people when they tell you that you don't know what you're talking about and should fuck off
Here we are 221 posts into this and you still don't get it
Eat shit and do a dance in traffic, faggot

>>11829606
This is almost right, but replace "Aryan" with "White"

>>11836363
>Pre-socratic Indians were paving the way for modern nihilism.

>>11829722
>the people who God chose out of all the nations of the Earth are incapable of spiritual insights
What was He thinking?

>>11836699
wrong, dummy