/lit/ - Literature

How so?
I tried reading Spinoza but it was so clearly meant to address the problems of philosophy several centuries ago so it felt obscure and hard to grasp, I did get the gist of his thought but his method was pretty hard to wrap my head around.

>>19691770
Always found him boring. His metaphysics make me feel bleak. I am biased since I don't like his version of God(if it can even be called God).

>>19691813
Mostly the ontological and deterministic side of his works foreshadows a lot of the philosophy from modernity, like post structuralism, logic and sociology

Spinoza is the best Western metaphysician, prove me wrong

>>19691854
Similar to how physical reductionism is Spinozian

>>19692005
That would actually be Eirugena

>>19691770
Leuze the Spinoza.

>>19691770
Who tf reads philosophy? I know all I need to know
>Horniness is the ultimate power that powers a man to do shit
>There is something instead of nothing therefore God is real
>Treat people well
>Live inside your head, reality is boring
What else can anyone tell me that would enlighten me? They probably just talk about random bullshit

>>19692478
Youi might have come to those conclusions but philosophy seeks to determine why

>>19692478
Post Structuralism, Lacan and Wittgenstein

You need to understand why language works and it's limitations

>>19692484
What are you even talking about? What why?

>>19692493
I understand language's limitations. Wittenstein solved the problem of evil for me. Problem of evil calls God not omnipotent because is not able to create a square circle kind of world where free will without evil can exist. But wittenstein comes along and proves that a square circle is just a string of words, it doesn't exist metaphysically, so you're basically asking of God to make something be something and nothing at the same time. Something can never be nothing as long as it exists, logic is not something breakable, that again is a square circle logic.

>>19691770
No matter how much money Grant gives me, he always ends up back at Spinoza

>>19692478
>Horniness is the ultimate power that powers a man to do shit
Wrong. Read Schopenhauer.
>Live inside your head, reality is boring
Not philosophy, just an arbitrary opinion.
>There is something instead of nothing therefore God is real
A blatant association fallacy.
>Treat people well
Once again, just an arbitrary opinion.

>>19692493
>You need to understand why language works and it's limitations
No he doesn't.

>>19692497
Half of philosophy is finding out why a conclusion about the world or the nature of the world or something particular, rather, is. Useful tools for existence are only a biproduct of this

>>19692504
>square circle kind of world doesn't exist metaphysically
Why? My biggest gripe with Wittgenstein is that concepts can be detached from language, in the same way as visual art isnt intrinsically instructive and morally didactic.

>>19692523
In that case he needs not know anything about dogmatism, and all the subjection that comes with morals.

>>19692517
Lmao I couldn't act this retarded in a milion years, you did good based retard I had a good laugh

yeah spinoza is incredible. the germans, especially hegel, really perverted his philosophy. spinoza's philosophy is not compatible with aufhebung, enough said.
spinoza is the first philosopher to give me a coherent picture of god. i will always cherish him for that - even if I don't always believe it.

>>19693050
spinoza is a theological reactionary and closer to god than the organizations of which exiled him. The hegelian turn with respect to recursion to me only supplanted abrahamic dogmas with techocathedrals that misses the mark in its roots with the respect to the divine.

Spinoza will continue his stay in exile

Is Spinoza white? Seems like a swarthy shitskin for me.

>>19692538
You draw the line at nonsense because it's just not possible. How can something be blacker than black for example? Once you reach the darkest black you literally can't tone it down anymore after a point. There is always an "-est", to which nonsense begins and logic ends. Blackest, whitest, you get the picture.

>>19693419
deleuze offers an interesting interpretation of spinoza, itself arguably a reactionary interpretation in that it attempts to recover spinoza from hegel.

>>19693721
he was a sephardic jew, that is, very near eastern mediterranean

>>19691770
Are you that fag that was monologuing about Spinoza to a girl and she dumped you?

>>19694900
yep this is what i from it as well, yuk hui is doing great stuff in cybernetics and closer to a non-recursive machine(within incomputabality) than many in the compsci/phil fields

Whats the point of philosophy if it ultimately boils down to choosing whichever philosophical pokemon's word salad appeals to your aesthetic sensibilities, which in turn are nothing more than an unconscious product of your formative experiences in childhood?

>>19694981
Rhetoric is a powerful tool for manipulating others or asserting yourself. Philosophy is just a tool you can use for these goals. This is why the Sophists were so successful - they understood persuasion was more important being sound.

>>19694981
>anti anti-oedipus
it's time to deLeuze yourself

>>19691852
yes fuck truth my feefees are more important we should go back reading poetry

>>19691770
you will always end up back at the immutability of gender too

Melville called Spinoza "Pan's Atheist", is that accurate? Was Spinoza's philosophy really "dude god is everywhere bro you can feel him in the water and air and shit lmao"?

>>19695528
>Pan's Atheist
Is this a pun? I remember reading somewhere that Melville had a big problem with Spinoza making the world a "mood" of an impersonal substance, which actually means we can't ever feel God, hence the charge of atheism.

It's because that black water monkey is a sagittarius. He's irresistible.

>>19695752
eclectic set of epistemologies, fren

>>19695528
Everyone always focuses on Spinoza's metaphysics too much while forgetting the book is called the Ethics. Spinoza's actual philosophy is about how the point of existence for every individual thing is that it strives to fulfill the potential of its own being. Emotions that are based on things exterior to ourselves like pride or jealousy or even love should be avoided because you will became a slave to them. Life should be lived actively and rationally and not passively and emotionally. Though I've always found Spinoza's ethics somewhat at odds with his metaphysics. If he wasn't bound by his metaphysics to be a determinist he would've been a huge advocate of free will.

>>19692517
>Wrong. Read Schopenhauer.
how about you read a biology book, pseud?

>>19695769
his advocation of free will in the TTP is a realistic formulation of how to have actual freedom when life is in imprisonment for resource

>>19695947
Sex drive isn't what motivates existence, midwit

>>19694258
Your example is still steeped in language and semiotics. I still believe there is concepts outside language that can be explored, and the fact that our own internalised logic is fallible, to me, proves that it wouldn't be "nonsense" to use another way of thinking without traditional language to guide the thought process. Reason is beyond language.

>>19695477
>philosophers and metaphysicists
>seeking truth
Good joke.

>>19695769
Sounds like every enlightenment midwit. Hard pass.

>>19696197
See >>19691854, >>19692157

>>19693050
>>19693419
>Spinoza
>understanding God
Jacobi already btfo this subversive jew over this issue.

>>19694972
had never heard of him. just looked him up, will definitely be reading at least the question concerning technology in china. really cool stuff, thanks for the rec

>>19696197
fuck the enlightenment. spinozist ideas got used and abused by rationalists and it does not have to be this way. there's more to 'god or nature' in ethics and one can even compose parallels within substance/mode with concepts of power such as machiavellianism. Spinoza may have ushered the enlightenment but he is not OF the enlightenment

>>19696244
no prob

>>19696211
>understanding God
>closer to god

>>19696248
It wouldn't matter anyway. His ontology alone encompasses further and wider concepts than most from the enlightenment even considered relevant.

>>19696265
>His ontology alone encompasses further and wider concepts than most from the enlightenment even considered relevant
this is why i think spinoza will unfortunately stay excommunicated for a very long time unless a 'butlerian jihad' happens.

Recommend me a good guide to the Ethics, senpaitachi.

>>19697929
the one anons discuss that deleuze wrote about spinoza is a good one but not the best in understanding ethnics.

"Michael Della Rocca's Spinoza" does the job but you should read the deleuze book too

>>19697986
Thanks, pal.

>>19692517
Do tou know your mother is arbitary too in atomic scale

>>19691770
anyone read this?

>>19696092
>m-midwit!
keep coping, pseud

>>19695769
That just sounds like Spinoza is an ethical egoist.

>>19700309
He pretty much is. He even says that notions of good and evil are false because people will always say things they like are good and things they don't like are evil.

>>19691770
I'm alredy done with the greeks. What should I read before Spinoza?

>>19692517
Bait

>>19703657
Like 2,000 years of stuff

>>19703657

Re-read Euclid. Then familiarize yourself with the nonsense of the last big Lateran council before 1300. Then read Erasmus and Wycliffe, and then if you've already grazed over Descartes read his letters to his Scandinavian benefactors and to England, and then Spinoza.