/lit/ - Literature

>>17740763
Do you really think you're making people laugh right now?

>>17740777
I laughed at the bit with the spider

>>17740763
>"According to Colerus, an early biographer, Spinoza liked to amuse himself by transferring a spider he had caught into a rival spider's web, pitting them against each other in mortal combat. Another variation was throwing a fly or two into the mix. These insect battles reportedly made Spinoza roar with laughter."
serious actual unironic question: is this what people did before television?

>>17740763
>the sum of the natural and physical laws of the universe"
Sure, my only problem with Spinoza is the fact that he existed. What was the purpose? He adds nothing to conceptions of God that have been around for millennia. The stoics already had a more developed system.

Of course the real philosophical geniuses of that period were: Descartes, Bruno, Leibniz.

Spinozabros.... my copy of the Ethics just arrived. What am I in for?

>>17740813
I think for many lonely people they did all sorts of weird shit to entertain themself. Also why so many had diaries back in the day, it was something to do and to keep you busy.

>>17740777
spider and bear posting is proven.

>>17740813
I unironically do that from time to time, but throwing limbless bugs into an ant colony is even funnier

>bro god is just the meaningless whirling gyre of regeneration and destruction lmao
leave it to a westoid to deify samsara

>>17740839
Take it steady, grasp the general concepts first, such as Panentheism and Monism, and make sure to refer backwards whilst reading through in chronological order. He is a thoroughly analytical philosopher, so most, if not all, of his aphorisms refer to previous claims. It's an eye opening book, pespective shifting book. Enjoy, anon.

>>17740825
the main problem with spinoza is that he kept god around at all.

>>17740763
Fact: 100% of Spinoza shills are homosexual.
>>17740890
Spinoza is not a "westoid" at all, whatever you think that means.
>>17741000
He did not, Spinoza's "God" is a subversive usurpation of the term. The only reason he posited the idea of god at all was either in order to deliver a more caustic blow to sane philosophy or in order to prevent Dutch normies for lynching him for being a vile atheistic immoralist.

>>17741115

>>17741205
Fact: even fags know that fags are fucking disgusting, which is why they constantly accuse "homophobes" of being closeted homos etc.
In other words, cope.

>>17741222
t. Schizo

>>17741228
t. copelord

>>17740763
is pbuh a word filter? I see people use it all the time here, do they actually mean peace be upon him?

>>17741222
you're just upset that no one in their right mind would want to tickle the back of your throat with their dick hole

>>17741115
>theology
>sane philosophy

>>17740923
Thank you based spinozabro. I'll return when I finish the book.

>>17741286
Yes.
>>17741299
Case in point.
>>17741335
Theology and every form of non-retarded philosophy. Funny pic btw. "Bug catcher Spinoza". It's even funnier in my language since Spinoza actually means aids.

>>17741417
t. cringe theology fag

Just as op predicted

>>17741417
what's it filtered from? afaik rip desu tbqh something like that?

>>17741205
wasn't that the student that talked to Lacan?

>>17741541
Cope.
>>17741559
No it's not a word filter, pbuh posters mean it for real. I was answering your second question.

>>17741594
Cope with what?
lol

>>17740763
One of the few to transcend his genetic taint. You have to respect that.

>>17741594
oh damn. They actually typed those letters.

>>17740885
A praying mantis in an ant colony is the absolute top. Mantis eats ants while ants start cutting open mantis abdomen. Before mantis dies ants eat half digested ant puree from the open belly of agonising yet still feeding mantis.

>>17740813
Philosophy is what people did before television

>>17740839
Mathematical equations made from words instead of numbers

>>17740763
>Spinoza believed that God is “the sum of the natural and physical laws of the universe".
This is not Spinoza's God. Dunno why so many people try to whitewash it so much, y hiding the fact that for Spinoza God has infinite attributes, and one of them is the attribute of thought. There literally is a God's mind

>>17743216
Why does everyone argue about what spinoza actually believed? Is the ethics that hard to understand?

>>17740763
>Spinoza was a brainle-
t

>>17740839
Unironically one of the most challenging books you'll ever read. It is honestly insane how dense this book is. I'm on Part III at the moment and I've taken over 20 pages of notes.

>>17740763
>Spinoza was a brainle-

I don't think I've ever seen anyone earnestly try to argue that Spinoza was a brainlet.

>>17743355
>Why does everyone argue about what spinoza actually believed?
They never read the Ethics, just skim the wikipedia page.

>>17743355
The Ethics really is that difficult to understand. Also almost all discussion of Spinoza's God comes from the first part alone, which is 1/5th of the book.

The reason why the debate over Spinoza's God exists is because there's a lot of confusion over what Spinoza means by "Deus Sive Natura" (which while Latin for "God or Nature" this type of "or" is correlative in this case so it would be like saying "either/or" as in "Whenever I speak of God and/or Nature, I'm speaking of the other one as well).

This sounds like Spinoza simply equates God with Nature, but Spinoza has two different natures mentioned in Part I of the Ethics: Natura Naturans and Natura Naturata. Naturata is what we think of when we think of nature (animals, plants, the ecosystem, space, time, matter, thoughts, bodies, humans, "modes" to use Spinozian language). Naturans is the metaphysics, that is, God and his infinite attributes. Spinoza absolutely equates God with Naturans, so at the very least, Spinoza is a panentheist. But the debate is whether or not Spinoza also equates God with Naturata, making him a pantheist rather.

>>17740763
>>"After stating his proof for God’s existence, Spinoza addresses who “God” is. Spinoza believed that God is “the sum of the natural and physical laws of the universe". He was frequently called an "atheist" by contemporaries, although nowhere in his work does Spinoza argue against the existence of God". If anything, Spinoza was the first real Panentheist/Pantheist.
>>Spinozas God is not free?!
>Spinozas Substance is inherently infinite, and contains every possibility and impossibility.
this is so fucking dumb. Only an atheist can like this. And by the way the meme about potentiality is an atheist fantasy in order to make the intellectual unattackable by the criticism of atheists towards the chrisitans who are said to provide unverifiable claims. So according to atheists, there is the truth, there is all the ''potential'' and there is false (like christians). They created this new category so that the people in academia can pass as wise gurus without having the label of being obscurantist christians.

>>17741115
imagine being filtered by Spinoza of all philosophers

>>17740763
>"According to Colerus, an early biographer, Spinoza liked to amuse himself by transferring a spider he had caught into a rival spider's web, pitting them against each other in mortal combat. Another variation was throwing a fly or two into the mix. These insect battles reportedly made Spinoza roar with laughter."
You had me and then you lost me. What a cruel kike.

>>17744016
You win the award for dumbest post itt. Congratulations!

>>17740763
>b-but Spinoza didn't have a fighting Spider!!
lmao

>>17740763
based...

>>17740763
based and sub specie aeternitatis pilled

Leibniz was smarter

>Spinoza was the first real Panentheist/Pantheist
No.

>>17743722
Thanks

Spinoza was wrong about everything but was still absolutely based