[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 406 KB, 1377x1600, 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10922041 No.10922041 [Reply] [Original]

Spinoza or Leibniz?

>> No.10922046

>>10922041
Spinoza is for brainlets.

>> No.10922049
File: 13 KB, 200x304, deleuze1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10922049

Both

>> No.10922061

>>10922049
This

>> No.10922066

>>10922041
Spinoza obviously

>> No.10922069
File: 43 KB, 500x281, Karl_Marx.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10922069

>>10922049
Neither

>> No.10922095

I need REASONS people

>> No.10922126

>>10922095
They both opened new vistas of philosophical thought, giving way to beautiful exegeses of the raw matter of their thoughts. You can't ask more of either of them, and it'd limiting to recommend one over the other

>> No.10922140

>>10922126
Where to start with Leibniz, because his writings are so scattered? Good bilingual editions?

>> No.10922181

Isaac Newton

>> No.10922413
File: 61 KB, 470x580, _low001200501ill171.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10922413

>>10922046
>t. couldn't understand the Ethics

>> No.10922417
File: 32 KB, 480x481, 1520438267923.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10922417

>>10922069
Spinoza>Hegel>Marx
It's a direct line, anon.

>> No.10922974

>>10922417
cancer

>> No.10923015

>>10922140
Discourse on metaphysics and Monadology

>> No.10923314
File: 15 KB, 300x282, leibshit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10923314

Spinoza
>kicked out of his community for being such a badass radical
>loved God
>rebelled against the Jews
>toiled in obscurity and under appreciation out of his sheer respect and love for truth
>REALLY loved God
>legacy is a complex and completely logically coherent metaphysics and existential methodology based off of rational maxims

Leibniz
>giant fucking nerd
>cared about reputation
>gay name
>gay hair, looks like someone spreading their asscheeks on top of his head
>didn't love God
>legacy is some shitty calculus notation

>> No.10923589

Leibniz was incoherent bullshit. Spinoza was wicked smart.

>> No.10924055

Leibniz is better

>> No.10924079

>>10922041
Kant

>> No.10924095
File: 61 KB, 286x336, Johann_Gottlieb_Fichte.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10924095

>>10922417
more like
Spinoza>Descartes>Leibniz>Kant>Fichte>Hegel>Schelling>Marx>Nietzsche
for real though, reading Fichte makes Hegel easier to comprehend, although he's just as abstruse, and that's why you should start with Kant to understand the German Idealism.

>> No.10924891

>>10922041
Noza for sure, then Begel.

>> No.10924996

>>10924095
(Spinoza was Nietzsche's precursor)

>> No.10925020

>>10922041
Read Schopenhauer and leave their shallow optimism behind.

>> No.10925071

OK so bascially none of you know what you are talking about, cool

>> No.10925110

>>10925071
Just do a little research. Leibniz admired Spinoza greatly--receiving a copy of the Ethics illegally since printing of it was banned in the Netherlands. It wasn't until after Leibniz was a fan boy for a while that he eventually departed from the Nozer. Spinoza had a huge impact on Leibniz. No one in academia seriously studies Leibniz because monads just don't make sense in our modern scientific context. Spinoza endures because his monism functions if you read it in a deflationary way as "nature" rather than God, or essentially an Atheist's way, or if you read it actually as God. Not to mention that his system of philosophy is highly esteemed because of the geometric order--something incredibly hard to pull off. Read Spinoza. He has better ideas, endures because he was a genius, etc.

>> No.10925163

>>10925110
Why don't you think monads make sense? The outer frings of physics are the most metaphysically plastic, seems to me.

>> No.10925184

>>10925163
The correlation to physics makes sense in terms of form, but not in terms of perception. Leibknees thought that monads had perception, yet they don't have spatio-temporal location. It boils down to the same objection of the relation between immaterial and material objects. Can't happen without immaterial becoming material. Also, our actual world, errors included, just being the best of all possible worlds, is a little hokey.

>> No.10925187
File: 10 KB, 220x312, Bergson.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10925187

btfo

>> No.10925201

>>10925184
Any good reading on the specific immaterial>material problem?
Best of all possible worlds is just a positive spin on strict determinism. Doesn't seem that serious a commitment.

>> No.10925238

>>10925201
Spinoza brings this up in response to Descartes I think, but I may be wrongly remembering.

Yeah, it was just something I wasn't too fond of after taking a metaphysics class. Read David Lewis for possible worlds stuff.