/lit/ - Literature

>>13522509
nah, that's schopenhauer

>>13522509
>determinist
yes

>>13522509
The renegade Jew who gave us the Enlightenment.

>>13522509
no

>>13522509
what's he known for ?

>>13523373
Leaning towards religious skepticism and republican government, leads on to the modern liberal-democratic state.

>>13523379
sounds cringe and bluepilled, no wonder you plebbitors praise him.

>>13522509
>everything is God duh
brainlet tier

>>13523398
Prove him wrong, brainlet.

>>13523379
sounds cringe,
thanks for explaining though

>>13523403
prove me we don't live in the asshole of God

>>13522509
Roger Scruton gave me a much deeper appreciation for Spinoza and Kant.

https://pixeldrain.com/u/4HHyTjCy

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/64072492
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2803422152

>>13523373
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVEeXjPiw54

I think an easy way to understand what Spinoza is up to is the following:

1) If one thinks that there are two or more kinds of substance (mind, body; body, soul; God Nature) the question arises about how they are causally connected. This is the problem that Descartes faces about the articulation between the mind and body, and between God and Nature.

2) If, on the contrary, one claims that there is only one kind of substance, the route is nevertheless open to say that this substance expresses itself in different ways, and has specific attributes. For example, I can express myself in different ways: I can laugh or cry, and yet am the same person independent of these modes. Similarly, I am at once a thing that thinks and a living body; these are not different things, but different attributes that determine me, without for that reason splitting me into two distinct beings.

3) Spinoza's claim is that there is one substance, which is the totality of what there is. This totality has two attributes: thought and extension. Correspondingly, qua rational being which gives rise to ideas it expresses the subjective side of God, while qua extended being it may be called objective Nature. Nature and God are however one and the same thing, with two attributes or determinations, or ways of expressing itself. Substance can accordingly express itself through these two attributes, however, in infinitely many ways. These are the (infinite) modes in which substance expresses itself, which accounts for the multiplicity perceptible and cognizable in reality. This multiplicity, however, are mere modifications of substance, which is the One qua Nature-God. There is thus no causal breach between the modes or attributes since, they are all accounted by the same explanatory account.

4) So, the dynamics that individuate Nature and the dynamics that individuates thought are one and the same. For Spinoza, this means that understand God is the same enterprise as understanding the Natural world. Put differently, God is not some irrational transcendence from the rationally cognizable dynamics of material nature, but simply is this material nature in its manifold modalities and transformations.

5) For Spinoza, reconciling the theological impetus with the nascent paradigm of a thoroughly rational, mathematized modern science, this means essentially that the axiomatic method used as the paradigm of scientific understanding just was the understanding of God. Essentially, this means that the new algebraic geometrical paradigm opened by Descartes to understand the dynamics of space in thoroughly rigorous form was the method to enquire into the way in which Nature-God expresses itself as material form.

>>13523392
>anything i don't like is cringe and bluepilled
you're plebbit.

>>13524269
Just wanted to mention that Descartes actually believed himself to have solved the problem of articulation between mind and body. The dominant model of physics was corpuscularianism, roughly the world consists of billiard balls. He knew about conservation of energy so he couldn't posit that the mind influences the relative velocities of the particles in collisions. So he came up with an ingenious idea: mind influences matter in changing the angles between trajectories of the particles during collisions. If only he had known about conservation of momentum as well...

Will Durant---The Philosophy of Spinoza
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzY0HEUcKCM

muh substance

>>13524269
>manifold modalities and transformations.
just because u like guenon doesnt mean you gotta write like him

in all seriousness thanks for the effort post, i wanna read spinoza now even though i think he will make me feel scared.

Spinoza's 'Ethics' - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F617UbSAaU4

>>13524269
IT has infinite attributes my bro

>>13524313
Durant is for Dan Carlin fans. He's about as historically well-grounded as Russell.

>>13524431
what is a good writer of universal history then? toynbee?

>>13522509
Nah, just a deist cuck.

>>13524582
Imagine still believing some sky daddy existed. Big yikes

>>13524593
Imagine not having any transcendental basis for morality, goodness, dignity, any values, nor any revelation of human personhood. Living as a nihilist is like living as a treestump.

https://youtu.be/4WFyPStWFnI 0:58

>>13524616
Imagine believing any of this requires the belief in revelationism

>>13524269
I can see why he was popular during the scientific revolution, particularly to the nascent would-be materialist that were budding at the time.

>>13524616
Though he does say that something like notions of good and evil created by affects and are likewise determined by the person's constitution. I think he wouldn't say they are actually relative but that reason might be able to get there? I think he just knows that most people are calling things bad and good based on their emotional imprints. Certainly evil might be able to be called lack of reason about the godhead etc.,

IDK maybe

>>13522517
more like copenhauer

>>13524251
These videos are almost never useful and always give a misunderstanding of the philosopher. You are better off just reading a wikipedia summary or better yet plato.stanford.edu

>>13524748
and yet our epistemology still thrived prior to the scientific revolution.
But hey, at least we can exploit material to produce more material. That's meaningful, r-right?

>>13523392
>sounds

haven't read the ethics? got off my fucking board brainlet

>>13524269
You honestly think I have the patience to read this?

>>13526786
how did you even read Ethica then?
how did you even read any of spinoza, and secondary literature then?
Why you even here?

>>13524269
so basically a high-brow pantheist

>>13522509
I don't know any other philosopher whom I disagree with more often and so strongly

>>13527305
no

>>13522525
According to other Jews.

>>13522509
NO

>>13522509
Only if you don't consider Robert Nozick a philosopher

>>13523373
Pantheistic cringe

>>13527305
>>13528026
>>13528630
Hmm ...

>>13522509
Yes.

>>13522509
That would be Zhuangzi:

"The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you've gotten the fish you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?”

"Once upon a time, I dreamt I was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, to all intents and purposes a butterfly. I was conscious only of my happiness as a butterfly, unaware that I was myself. Soon I awaked, and there I was, veritably myself again. Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man.”

>>13528820
evil bugman religion

The Jewish philosopher Spinoza said: “What we [the Jews] require is simple: that we control everything necessary for our own good.”

>>13522509
Yes, probably.