[ 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: 443 KB, 1791x2560, spinozaethics.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15180405 No.15180405 [Reply] [Original]

Posted this on /his/ but it got no attention so I guess they're a bunch of pseuds.

I'm a brainlet attempting pic related, I'm not even going to pretend I'm understanding it completely, but I'm getting some of the main ideas.

Getting through Part IV now though and am having trouble wrapping my head around the concept of active joy.

>God is the infinite substance, we are all modes of God
>our essence is to preserve our being, so we strive to increase our "activity"
>being the active cause of our actions brings us true pleasure, vs passive pleasure which comes from the affects

This is how I'm understanding it, and it makes sense, but if we need to pursue wisdom, reason, and rationality in order to be active, we need adequate ideas. And it was already established in Part II that our knowledge is inherently inadequate, because we understand the world through images/ideas. On top of that he even admits himself that the only way to dislodge a powerful affect is for it to be met with an equal or opposite affect.

So isn't all pain, pleasure, and desire that we feel passive by nature?

>> No.15180413

>>15180405
OP I just started studying this book. Literally on page 2 and feel like a complete brainlet. I got a guide to help me understand it better, but want to attempt it myself first. Cant really help you. I just want to monitor this thread because Spinoza and pantheism are based and I want to learn more.

>> No.15180425

/his/ are a bunch of pseuds. I don't know much about his philosophy, all I do know is he's effectively one of the first well known cases of a man living without religion.

t. history major

>> No.15180464

>>15180413
Secondary sources are definitely necessary, it's more like a legal document than a book and needs to be translated. I've been reading Beth Lord's "Spinoza's Ethics" alongside it and watching these youtube lectures after each section:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRZ2roMQajw

Once you wrap your head around the concepts in parts I and II though, part III was really compelling. I was a psych major in undergrad and I felt like he had a better understanding of what emotions are than most of my professors.

>> No.15181999

BUMP

>> No.15182005

>My son is taking a course in philosophy, and last night we were looking at something by Spinoza – and there was the most childish reasoning! There were all these Attributes, and Substances, all this meaningless chewing around, and we started to laugh. Now, how could we do that? Here’s this great Dutch philosopher, and we’re laughing at him. It’s because there was no excuse for it! In that same period there was Newton, there was Harvey studying the circulation of blood, there were people with methods of analysis by which progress was being made! You can take every one of Spinoza’s propositions, and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world – and you can’t tell which is right.
Richard Feynman

>> No.15182017

You'd have a huge advantage if you delved into neoplatonism or started with the greeks. That being said I was puzzled myself at some Spinoza's propositions, but by using a couple of secondary sources and videos i cleared up my mind. When you'll get the gist of part 1 and 2 you won't have any issues with the rest of his treatise.

>> No.15182043

>>15180405
Use Nadler - Ethic’s An Introduction

t. following a course on spinoza

>> No.15182558

>>15180405
Basically you achieve peace of mind by being able to think all affects back to God.
>So isn't all pain, pleasure, and desire that we feel passive by nature?
Yes.

>> No.15183298

>>15180425
>/his/ are a bunch of pseuds.
It is the worst board on 4chan to discuss history and the humanities. I think that even /asp/ would give a better help on this.

>> No.15183856

>>15182005
Jews hate Spinoza

>> No.15184927

>>15180425
>>15183298
>/his/ is the worst, they suck!
>b-but I can't answer your question

>> No.15185107

>>15183856
spinoza was a jew

>> No.15185711

>>15185107
Yea and the jews kicked him out of their community because they hated him so much. Imagine getting expelled by the Jews who were expelled from Spain

>> No.15185846

>>15185711
>jews believe in a material god
>spinoza sets out to prove the existence of one
>jews issued a herem and expel him from his hometown
???

>> No.15185871

>>15185846
>Spinoza set out to prove the anthropomorphic God of Abraham

>> No.15185894

>>15180405
/his/ is /pol/ minus the funny part

>> No.15185895

>>15185846
Espinosa BTFO the Jew's God (YHWH) and the Hebrew Bible. He was seen as a heretic.

>> No.15185988

>>15185846
their material god is money and power, any superstition they dress it with is just another way to fool themselves

>> No.15186011

>>15185846
>jews believe they are the chosen people
>Spinoza says everyone is made of the same substance
oy vey antisemite

>> No.15187518 [DELETED] 

bump

>> No.15187559

>>15180405
OP, I am sorry to bring this info to you, but no one ITT read this book, myself included. 14 people talking pure rubbish

>> No.15187645

>>15180405
I'm rusty on my Spinoza so thank you for getting me to crack open my copy of Ethics!

God is the only adequate idea. By elucidating all these logical chains, one proceeds from the adequate idea of God into a correct understanding of essence under the species of eternity which allows for intuitive knowledge, see Part II Prop XL Note II. There's more on this at the end of Part V from Proposition XXII so keep on reading. Consequently, everything that doesn't arise from intuitive knowledge is passive. Be careful that you don't confuse "passive" in the way he uses it for something like "being a beta cuck" or some gay 4chan shit like that.

>> No.15187646

>>15182005
He was the Neil deGrasse Tyson of his time, with the difference of he (Feynmann) being an actual scientist .

>> No.15188687

>>15187645
Thank you for the most adequate answer itt

>> No.15188740

>>15182005
>You can take every one of Spinoza’s propositions, and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world – and you can’t tell which is right.
Fitting for a scientist, who believes the whole universe is "expanding", and that the big bang came from nothing, to say this. You can't tell which is right because your a shallow-minded idiot, like all scientists. The only scientists to ever demonstate they had a firm grasp over thought were polymaths, like Goethe (evolution, humans as molecules), Leonardo (student of Heraclitus), Leibniz (monadology).

>> No.15189196

>>15186011
Based Spinoza. Judaism BTFO

>> No.15189236

>>15187645
Wait, why isn't reason action? Im pretty sure he says reason brings us to adequate ideas......

>> No.15190768

>>15180405
The humanities died a natural death; they were not murdered. The reason they died is because we no longer need to rely on uncertain speculation to inform us about anything of importance. Philosophy's rigorous skepticism is uninteresting to most practical men. What is it to me if reality is mind-dependent or not? Why do I need to know which ethical theory is most probably correct? I act in the world as if it existed; and my moral decisions are a matter of conscience.
Instead of the philosopher, playwright, or novelist, we now have the statistician/social scientist. He does studies and experiments and tells us with certainty what the truth is. Why do I need Tolstoy's rigmarole to tell me rich people can be miserable too when I have the studies proving no correlation between wealth and mental wellbeing?
Moreover, a lot of the humanities rely on a self-aggrandisement that, when you look deeper into it, seems to be totally fabricated. For example, we consistently have our ears filled with North Korea level propaganda by indoctrinated humanities students who speak of 'the Great Canon', 'The Great Philosophers', etc., spouting vague assertions like "that this or that writer 'captures the essence of humanity'" and any assertion to the contrary is treated as an instance of blasphemy. "Oh, oh, oh!' the humanities student cries out. "You don't like The Illiad? Well, you must have no soul!" In reality when you look at 'The Great Works' and 'The Great Philosophers' you rarely find anything of value. The Ancient Greek poets were really no more interesting than the Marvel filmmakers of today. Philosophers like Socrates would have been laughed out of the halls of academia were they around today. Of course, this is sacrilege for you.

>> No.15190846

>>15180405
Through adequate ideas (i think) and understanding you gain power (pleasure). This includes understanding thoroughly why you feel bad or are in pain. The power gained from understanding counteracts the dis-empowerment of suffering.

>> No.15191044

@15190768
0/10

>> No.15192504

bu
mp

>> No.15194374

>>15186011
lul

>> No.15194636

>>15187645
>>15190846
These are the only two insightful comments in this thread. Has anyone else actually read Spinoza?

>> No.15194942

>>15194636
Yea, and because you think they are insightful, I doubt you have.

>> No.15194972

>>15187645
>God is the only adequate idea.
You sure????????????? Take a look at what adequate ideas are.... you may find that there are as many of them as there are bodies... IN God

>> No.15194991

>>15194636
/lit/ hasn't even read most of the fiction books they pretend to discuss, much less something as challenging as Spinoza. Notice how the posters who shit on /his/ didn't offer anything of value (make no mistake they're shit too but this place isn't any better).

Once in a thread about sex in literature someone posted the "scepter of my passion" passage from Lolita, and everyone responded to it talking about how it represents Humbert's obsession with Dolores. If they even read the first fucking twenty pages of that book they'd recognize that passage is in reference to his childhood lover, NOT Dolores. No one knew. No one corrected anyone. They just pretended to have an intelligent conversation based on what they read in the Wikipedia summary.

Honestly even r/books might be more well-read. They read shit books sure but its probably better to read Harry Potters Guide to the Memealaxy several hundred times than talk about Infinite Cringe without having read it.