[ 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: 19 KB, 279x349, spinoza.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1186980 No.1186980 [Reply] [Original]

hey /ph/

Nuture is a product of nature. Therefore they are the samething.
God is the universe. Everything that is, is God.
There is no free will, just the illusion.
We are completely powerless. We can only do what will happen.
The future can not be changed, everything is certain.
If you are smart then you can make yourself happy using only from what is what within. (This is an illusion in free will, started by nature ie: God, so the effect this will have is predetermined, and what you choose to do with this information will be what you do. QED

Time is infinite.
Energy is finite.
Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, just transfered.
Everything is made of energy.
Energy being re-arranged in epic preportions is what is.
Everything will that can happen will happen, given that time is infinte.
We can never die.

Our consciousness will be reformed.
We can not observe time when unconsious or dead.
Our next life will happen immediatly after death to our senses.
The memories of this life will be irrellvent and discarded due to having to adapt to a completely different set of circumstances beyond comprehension.

We cannot change what will happen.
Everything will happen.
It is foolsih to worry about things out of your control.
It is foolish to have unwanted emotions.

pic semi related, the smartest philosopher

>> No.1187000

The Necessity of Atheism
by Percy Bysshe Shelley

There Is No God

>> No.1187009
File: 37 KB, 664x274, 1278461558465.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1187009

>>1186980
WAT

>> No.1187011

>>1187000
read the post again

>> No.1187030

bump for critique

>> No.1187119

>>1186980

This nonsense is making my logic hurt. Read more books then get back to us.

>> No.1187125

Determinism is so, like, last century, man.

>> No.1187188

how bout you fags critique it rather than saying meaningless things like >>1187119 over here

>> No.1187196

http://tinyurl.com/356u6jc

I got a good laugh when you said Spinoza was the smartest philosopher though. I'm not sure how other people will enjoy your philosophical stand up routine though. It seems like the audience for that is pretty limited.

>> No.1187207

>>1187196
seems like that's a matter of opinion to me

perhaps you can shed some light on this topic rather than parrot the "criticisms of Spinoza".

also, i believe my post goes far beyond what he said.

>> No.1187209

>post bullshit for critique
>get mad at people who don't like
>head so far up ass

Fuck you.

>> No.1187212

>>1187209
1. there is no critique. that's where you lovely people come in.

2. i never got mad, although i did post curtly.

3. my head is surely not up my butthole.

>> No.1187229

>>1187207

You asked for criticisms, I gave you plenty. It's not my fault you didn't want to read them.

And I could say "Decartes was the smartest of all philosophers" but that doesn't mean that dualism wasn't a load of crap because Decartes lacked modern knowledge of neuroscience and monism.

Can he be your favorite? Yes. But it doesn't seem like to follow that the "smartest philosopher" would have problems within his philosophy.

Also his writing style is boring, and though the Logical Positivists are dead, at least they had the correct idea on how to write philosophy.

And I question the claim of there being a "smartest" philosopher. It could never be proven, no more than saying the Christian God is the "smartest god". The statement has no value.

>> No.1187240

>>1187229
you did no such thing as to provide me with any criticisms. you merely did a cute "let me google that for you."

and obviously me saying "spinoza is the smartest philosopher" is a matter of opinion. but i thought people may want to see where i'm coming from, so therefore, in this case, it does have value.

>> No.1187264

you cowards, running away after a few posts. where is your honor?

but anyway, back to being serious: seems like my OP is pretty air tight. i'll keep on reading though.

>> No.1187268
File: 281 KB, 451x352, artist__sipping2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1187268

>>1187209
>implying this isn't one gigantic troll intentionally mixing logical fallacy and truth
Derp

>> No.1187274

>>1187268
i was never trolling, and where are these logical fallacies you speak of?

and don't you dare say circular reasoning

>> No.1187289

what do you want OP? you want someone to try and critique your shit, and fail?
you want to share your beliefs with random strangers and have them asserted?
i think you're in the wrong place regardless.

>> No.1187292

Let's see.

>God is the universe. Everything that is, is God.
That's quite a big supposition right there, back this up how? If God was everything, he would be subjected to change, as God would have to be also the material world, which is in constant change. Unless you pull a Parmenides, of course.

>There is no free will, just the illusion.
>We are completely powerless. We can only do what will happen.
Arguable. This is merely opinion, and there are solid arguments both in favour and against it.

>The future can not be changed, everything is certain.
Sadly, our friend Spinoza was not around to see quantum theory and the principle of uncertainty develop.

>Time is infinite.
Not sure about this.

>Energy is finite.
>Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, just transfered.
>Everything is made of energy.
>Energy being re-arranged in epic preportions is what is.
True enough.

>> No.1187294

>>1187289
well i was hoping to start a discussion or at least some specific books or something that go against this, but i can see that was rather foolish of me.

sorry for shitting up your board

>> No.1187304

>>1187292
>Our consciousness will be reformed.
>We can not observe time when unconsious or dead.
>Our next life will happen immediatly after death to our senses.
>The memories of this life will be irrellvent and discarded due to having to adapt to a completely different set of circumstances beyond comprehension.
Assumptions and theories. And he didn't even come up with this, it's been going around since before Pythagoras.

>It is foolish to worry about things out of your control.
True, but then again, who defines what is out of my control? Also, he's clearly not following his own stuff, since he is actually worrying about it.


All in all, I like Spinoza, but I think the stoics had it better. Read some Marcus Aurelius OP.

>> No.1187311

>>1187292
ah excellent! you made my evening!

>God would have to be also the material world, which is in constant change
that is exactly what i am saying. i'm god, you're god, my sock is god. well, part of god anyway

>Arguable. This is merely opinion, and there are solid arguments both in favour and against it.
well i'm thinking that in order for the universe to have any order, there must be absolute order. also our perceived free will is just made up of energy which i do not think can be random as we'll discuss in the next point.

>Sadly, our friend Spinoza was not around to see quantum theory and the principle of uncertainty develop.
i've read about this quantum theory mumbo jumbo and frankly it just doesn't seem to prove randomness like it's supposed to. we know pi is a number but what number? like that

and as for time, i'm not sure either. it's just a human construct so it seems to me that it can never end. it's like asking the highest number

>> No.1187316

>>1187304
i have read Marcus Aurelius and my OP was greatly influenced by him

my OP is not strictly spinozian

>> No.1187326

>>1187304
whoops, i didnt answer your question

>who defines what is out of my control?
and my answer for that would be nature, or god. aka yourself, mind and body.

>> No.1187329

>>1186980
>Time is infinite

Enjoy your non-infinite time.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/stories/time-will-end-within-a-few-billion-years-say-physicis
ts

>> No.1187341

>>1187311
>that is exactly what i am saying. i'm god, you're god, my sock is god. well, part of god anyway
Yup, that's what I meant by "pulling a Parmenides". So for Spinoza, is God, who is everything, in constant change, or is the change we perceive merely an illusion?

>>1187311
>i've read about this quantum theory mumbo jumbo and frankly it just doesn't seem to prove randomness like it's supposed to
Trust me, it makes more sense that it seems. Right now the smallest particle is the quark, which hasn't been seen yet, and can only be perceived by measuring its effects. They're not matter as it is, and they only exist in a cloud of probability, not a certain existance per se. Randomness at a subatomic level is pretty much the norm.
All mecanicist models of reality have come crushing down after that discovery, and Spinoza's is not an exception. It doesn't mean, of course, that the rest of what he says is untrue.

>> No.1187351

>>1187329
Do you enjoy taking all scientists say as an irrefutable truth?
That's not very scientific of you. That is just a theory and there are several others that contradict it.

>> No.1187355

>>1187341

To answer your first question:

The change you are referring to I believe in the Spinozan theory is something similar to the "thoughts of God".

>> No.1187361

>>1187351

So would you then agree that we can't say for certain if time is or is not infinite?

I mean everything we know now is destined to change at some point, and we all know what happened to the Phlogiston Theory. You'd be hard pressed to prove it one way or another.

>> No.1187368

>>1187361
>So would you then agree that we can't say for certain if time is or is not infinite?
Yeah, I do agree, though I do think there has to have been a beggining. Sort of like Aristotle/Aquinas argument, "that which moves has to have been moved" and as a regression to infinity is not logically comprehensible, I side with them on that.
I don't see an ending to time as a necessity, though.

>I mean everything we know now is destined to change at some point, and we all know what happened to the Phlogiston Theory. You'd be hard pressed to prove it one way or another.
True, as things are in change and in motion, I see no reason why they should stop at some moment and not move indefinitely.