/lit/ - Literature

I sincerely wonder why would people waste their lives with garbage. Why would one waste days reading someone like Spinoza when his ideas are contradictory and were already refuted by many people? But I guess it will be always out of our control. There people at this moment watching netflix, others browsing 4chan, others reading good books... to each his own.

>>17250943
What alternatives do you propose then?

>>17250920
I'm going through Ethics and its tough. I have some supplementary material helping me out with it. It seems like a good enough way to go through it.
>>17250943
>seething jew

Karl Jaspers

/thread

>>17250943
Coping christcuck.

>>17250943
Yes, why waste your time reading one of the most important philosophers of all time? Newsflash, pal, there are refutations of every significant philosopher.

>>17250920
Based

>Spinoza:God is the infinite, necessarily existing (that is, self-caused)
>Critics:Why?
>Npc frown.jpg
All deists from Aquinas to Spinoza are hacks. Their axioms derive from a God/infinite power/ essence/cosmos that must be, you know? it MUST BE, because fuck you, or eventually lead to a leap of faith of the same shit.

Deleuze book on spinoza is more approachable than reading ethics outright, and introduces you to deleuze a bit

>>17250920
Imagine thick, girth, drunken and haughty Christian Cock fucking and impregnating demure Jewish pussy.

>>17251697
this

>>17251697
tbqh this familia
all other posts are retarded

>>17251795
>>17251827
samefag

>>17250943
>>17251689
Why do people come in threads about philosophers that they have clearly never read?

>>>17251795 (You)
>>>17251827
>samefag

>>17251878
>no counterargument
Go on Anon, tell me about the prime mover so I can ask who made it or where it came from so you can ignore or strawman me.

>>17251888
Spinoza didn’t believe in a prime mover, you fucking moron. Fucking imbecile. He was a pantheist, not a deist.

>>17251689
>Christcuck: God is infinite and beyond our comprehension, but voluntary created the world because it was totally unnecessary because we're miserable worms unworthy of his love creeping on earth
>anyone with a brain: why didn't he outright kill us then?
>because God actually loves us but we're wicked sinful assholes who should learn to fear God
>how can God love or hate us if he's infinite and unintelligible by human intellect?
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEREEEE STOP ASKING QUESTIONS BURN THIS HERETIC ON A PYRE
you fucking christcucks are insufferable brainlet faggots

>>17251697
this. easily Deleuze's most approachable book

>>17250920
>read the ethics
>then read a secondary book that explains the ethics
>then reread the ethics
>then you can do what you want, go deeper on some points, etc.
Done

>>17250943
>le refutation
kys illiterate scum

>>17250975
First, Spinoza is not a philosopher. His Ethics is, as Kant, who was much closer to being a philosopher than the subversive jew, said, dogmatic. Another reason is the inherent nihilism in the jew's system, as Jacobi pointed.
Second, no, there is not a single refutation of actual philosophy: Plato and platonism.
You should start reading philosophy.

>>17250947
I propose actually getting into philosophy. Plato is a good start (and also the endgame of it).

>>17250964
>defending a subversive jew accusing others who are against him of being jews

>>17250972
Cope more, crypto-atheistcuck.

>>17251878
Why do people love to assume that any dissenting commentary against their favorite books/authors means automatically that the person who dissents never read what she dissents against?

>Second, no, there is not a single refutation of actual philosophy: Plato and platonism.
>You should start reading philosophy.

>>17251697
Maybe I'm a brainlet, but I didn't find either of Deleuze's books on Spinoza all that easy and I'm familiar with Deleuze and his sources. There's just too much systematizing, which Deleuze had a hard on for. It's a ton of God, substance, Ideas, affects, attributes, modes and who knows what else and by the end I have no idea how it all connects and why modes are different from attributes and where Ideas fit in and what the relation is between God and substance (aside from the usual pantheism). His books on Spinoza start off easy and interesting, with a few historical curiosities and have some accessible parts such as those about satyrical laughter, but overall it feels like a convoluted mess as most of his books do.

Then again I've also talked to a few students that wrote their theses on Spinoza and even they twisted their tongues trying to explain how it all fits together. They're no experts obviously, but still.

At least they're not as difficult as Deleuze's book on Leibniz, that shit's the final boss of continental philosophy and I don't care if you call me a brainlet for saying it. That one starts off easily and interestingly as well, mentioning the supposed face to face meeting between Leibniz and Spinoza, but quickly becomes unreadable.

>>17252257
Did Plato address the JQ?

>>17252404
I agree that it's very convoluted, but I think that's just Spinoza's system, I can't imagine a way to present it neatly. It took me a long time to get through the Deleuze book, but it was definitely better than reading Ethics straight up.

Still, it's a massive slog and I probably wouldn't really recommend Spinoza to anyone that didn't decide to read him themselves. It sort of feels like it's just a system for the sake of having a system if you know what I mean

>>17252257
>implying that he wasn't despised by other jews

>>17250943
>woah are you reading an influential philosopher? don't you know he was REFUTED????

>>17250943
every phil professor ever wants to object. you need to establish a throughout foundation of knowledge before you can develop your own blahblahblah ... imo most philosophy that is not currently discussed, directly relevant to discussions or new should just be absorbed in summary and maybe MAYBE looked at in seminar for just a moment to say yeah we did that back then and it was kinda shit.
Aristotle tards are by far the worst people in this universe right next to modern Kantians, though the kantians aren't wrong but just cunts about it. In the study edition paragraph seven page twenty five line seven, begins to cite for half an hour.
nuff said. bru never study philosophy

>>17252257
>Spinoza is not a philosopher
Some fine bait there. Almost took it.

>>17252257
>Spinoza is not a philosopher
Correct. He is THE philosopher

>>17254898
If spinoza looked like that, women would read more philosophy. And they would misinterpret it all, like the hoes they are

I read some section on his wikipedia that said he was ugly, swarthy, short and dressed so badly people mistook him for a commoner but afterwards I couldn't find it. Is this true or was it a joke?

>>17256459
he was the 17th century version of guys that wear anime girl shirts and sandals