/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15416581]

>Spinoza (1634–77) is the noblest and most lovable of the great philosophers
how is it not hume? just from his prose alone you can tell hume was a delightful person. spinza tortured insects.

[Anonymous No.15416596]

>>15416581

Spiders are not insects.

[Anonymous No.15416606]

>>15416581
Everyone famously hated Hume irl

[Anonymous No.15416633]

>>15416581
idk, I guess even Russell couldn't resist the Spinoza cult.

(I think Spinoza's great btw, but just not the all knowing prophetic sage everyone makes him out to be.)

[Anonymous No.15416647]

>>15416581
>spinza tortured insects.
Ah, a fellow bug man.

[Anonymous No.15416654]

>>15416606
why would you lie about such a random thing

[Anonymous No.15416667]

>>15416633
>just not the all knowing prophetic sage everyone makes him out to be
It's mostly Jews who think of him that way.

[Anonymous No.15416669]

>>15416581
Hume is just right, that's enough.

[Anonymous No.15416682]

>>15416667
No, Jews hate him more than anyone.

[Anonymous No.15416709]

>>15416682
At least in his time I know that, since he didnt like their cultyness. Not sure if they appropriated him after the fact when he became big. wouldnt surprise me.

[Anonymous No.15416764]

>>15416682
Check his wiki page. Modern secular Jews claim he "brought us modernity" or singlehandedly started the enlightenment. There's also some occidental observer article detailing how modern Jews in academia have tried to over inflate his status within the philosophical canon.

[Anonymous No.15416799]

>>15416581
Hume is absolutely ridiculous. His works are like: blah-blah, blah-blah, blah-blah. Suddenly, he adds a little footnote to his gibberish et voilà: we've got the is-ought problem. Afterwards, he goes on with "blah-blah, blah-blah, blah-blah"... and on a sidenote he just brings up the problem of induction. It's fucking crazy...

[Anonymous No.15416819]

>>15416654
a few choice quotes from the wikipedia page on what a dislikeable person he was
>He had little respect for the professors of his time, telling a friend in 1735 that "there is nothing to be learnt from a Professor, which is not to be met with in Books."[17] As such, Hume did not graduate.
>Aged 18 or so, Hume made a philosophical discovery that opened him up to "a new Scene of Thought," inspiring him "to throw up every other Pleasure or Business to apply entirely to it."[...] he did not recount what this scene exactly was
>Hume set out to spend a minimum of 10 years reading and writing. He soon came to the verge of a mental breakdown, first starting with a coldness—which he attributed to a "Laziness of Temper"—that lasted about 9 months.
>Hume was derailed in his attempts to start a university career by protests over his alleged "atheism,"[27][28] also lamenting that his literary debut, A Treatise of Human Nature, "fell dead-born from the press."
>After the publication of Essays Moral and Political in 1741—included in the later edition as Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary—Hume applied for the Chair of Pneumatics and Moral Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh. However, the position was given to William Cleghorn[36] after Edinburgh ministers petitioned the town council not to appoint Hume because he was seen as an atheist.
>In 1745, during the Jacobite risings, Hume tutored the Marquess of Annandale (1720–92), an engagement that ended in disarray after about a year.
>Hume failed to gain the chair of philosophy at the University of Glasgow due to his religious views. By this time, he had published the Philosophical Essays, which were decidedly anti-religious. Even Adam Smith, his personal friend who had vacated the Glasgow philosophy chair, was against his appointment out of concern public opinion would be against it.
>Hume returned to Edinburgh in 1751. In the following year, the Faculty of Advocates hired him to be their Librarian, a job in which he would receive little to no pay
>Hume left Paris to accompany Jean-Jacques Rousseau to England. Once there, he and Rousseau fell out[...] So much so that Hume would author an account of the dispute, titling it, appropriately enough "A concise and genuine account of the dispute between Mr. Hume and Mr. Rousseau."
>The fact that contemporaries thought that he may have been an atheist is exemplified by a story Hume liked to tell: The best theologian he ever met, he used to say, was the old Edinburgh fishwife who, having recognized him as Hume the atheist, refused to pull him out of the bog into which he had fallen until he declared he was a Christian and repeated the Lord's prayer.
I could keep going but I think you get the point. Hume would be at home on 4chan. he was a neet shitposter who constantly sabotaged his personal and professional relationships over he le enlightened fedora tipping attitude. that being said I love the fat fuck

[Anonymous No.15416822]

>>15416682
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/05/05/pariah-to-messiah-the-engineered-apotheosis-of-baruch-spinoza-part-1-of-3/

[Anonymous No.15416826]

Holy.... Based pbuh

[Anonymous No.15416935]

>>15416799
you would only think this if you suck at reading english.

[Anonymous No.15416941]

>>15416596
big if true

[Anonymous No.15416958]

>>15416819
>atheism =/= being a bad person
there is nothing there that indicates he was a bad person. the noble and rousseau were both crazy. seethe more christcuck.

[Anonymous No.15416967]

>>15416819
I've frequently seen Hume referred to as being jolly and affable, I know he annoyed some people with his agnosticism.

[Anonymous No.15416994]

Thomas Reid>Hume

[Anonymous No.15417057]

>>15416958
no, it was clearly as the other poster described
>he was a neet shitposter who constantly sabotaged his personal and professional relationships over he le enlightened fedora tipping attitude.
which if you're on 4chan you should be able to appreciate. literally just giving the impression that he wasn't a virulent, untrustworthy atheist would've done wonders for his career but he didn't care to or simply couldn't. also, he wasn't even an atheist. he could easily be a theist of some sort by today's standards and agnostic by his own word.

[Anonymous No.15417059]

>>15416633
Prophetic sage? He didn't prophetize anything

[Anonymous No.15417067]

>>15416958
I said people didn't like him, I never said he was a bad person

[Anonymous No.15417069]

>>15416994
>ideas bad!
>common sense!

gtfo

[Anonymous No.15417082]

>>15417059
Spinoza prophesied that the city of Thule will rise from the sea

[Anonymous No.15417104]

>>15417057
he was both a good person and widely liked. being true to his principles in favour of personal gain and being rejected by the academic authorities of the time, does nothing to change this. seethe more christcuck.

[Anonymous No.15417106]

>>15417069
Yes.

[Anonymous No.15417126]

>>15416764
Stop generalizing what secular Jews believe you goddamn antisemitic retard most of them probably don't even know who Spinoza is

[Anonymous No.15417127]

>>15417104
>he was both a good person
yes
>and widely liked.
no, there are so many stories to the contrary. why do you assume people liked him anon? I'm the anon that posted the wiki quotes and I'm not Christian, I doubt the other anon is either

[Anonymous No.15417258]

>>15417126
>>15416822

[Anonymous No.15417274]

>>15417127
>Hume was well received in Paris
>Hume’s philosophy might seem the creation of that stock comic character, ‘the dour Scot’. In fact, in personality Hume was closer to another cliché, ‘the jolly fat man’. Gregarious, open and generous, an engaging correspondent and conversationalist, he had a wide circle of friends in Scotland. However, his ungainly bulk, thick Scottish brogue, and heterodox views left him undervalued in London.

the street he lived in for a period in edinburgh is even called st david street. Again rousseau and the noble were both literally crazy so how can you take their falling out to count against hume? in edinburgh he dined and socialized with people from all walks of life. everything points to him being a great person and widely liked.

[Anonymous No.15417334]

>>15417274
>everything points to him being a great person
yes
>and widely liked
even you can't point to any support he had outside of his hometown. just because he was happy doesn't mean people liked him. he was famously mistreated and didn't get nearly the amount of recognition in his life that even he himself felt he deserved. he famously joked about how many people disliked him and had anecdotes to prove it. why are you coping so hard?
>they named a street after him
they have statues to Genghis Khan in Mongolia lmao

[Anonymous No.15417421]

>>15417334
>even you can't point to any support he had outside of his hometown
he was well received in paris when he went there. you require proof of him being well liked among the citizens of baghdad?
>he was famously mistreated and didn't get nearly the amount of recognition in his life that even he himself felt he deserved. he famously joked about how many people disliked him and had anecdotes to prove it
fierce philosophical and political disagreement =/= being disliked personally. stop lying.

[Anonymous No.15417466]

Hume was a jerk

[Anonymous No.15417489]

>>15417258
It is a shitty antisemitic post dumping on Spinoza because he is Jewish. He is one of the three major rationalist philosophers together with Descartes and Leibniz, whom alongside with the Empiricist Locke, Hume, Berkeley form the central figures of early modern philosophy. He fame is certainly not the result of fucking Zionists shilling for him, he was always well respected by philosophers. Neonazis as always prove themselves to be petty little shits who cannot even recognize merit when it belongs to a member of their disliked group, sad

[Anonymous No.15417504]

>>15416581
>people who dislike Spinoza are often bugmen
>spinoza tortures bugs
Pottery
>>15416826
>tfw you realise that integrating this passage with evolutionary biology and the transitory nature of species can justify ethnonationalism

[Anonymous No.15417555]

>>15417421
>everyone loved my atheist dad
he was ignored and lived in poverty for much of his life, going to Paris was a huge thing for him because it was one of the ONLY times in his life that he felt accepted.

[Anonymous No.15417571]

>>15416819
I mean rousseau was universally disliked

[Anonymous No.15417577]

>>15417571
Rousseau would have been diagnosed and medicated if lived today

[Anonymous No.15417687]

>>15417555
>he was ignored and lived in poverty for much of his life
and then he became rich because he wrote the definite history of britain of the late 1700s.
>it was one of the ONLY times in his life that he felt accepted
or when he was in edinburgh.
confirmed christcuck seethe. keep coping fucking faggot.

[Anonymous No.15417746]

>>15417687
>christcuck cope fag confirmed seethe epic memed on my faggot
read a book

[Anonymous No.15417766]

>>15416581
Spinoza has become fashionable in recent years:

>The fate of the Ethics in the Anglo-American world is another story. In the 1970s and 80s most analytic philosophers regarded Spinoza as an uncritical and extravagant metaphysician, whose strange ideas might – at best – be allowed into serious discourse only once domesticated. This often meant abstracting his arguments from his complex engagement, constructive as well as critical, with Jewish and Christian scriptural and philosophical traditions.

>This uneasy reception of the Ethics into contemporary anglophone philosophy changed dramatically with the re-emergence of analytic metaphysics in the 1990s. A new generation of rigorously trained philosophers and historians of philosophy – all of them indebted to Edwin Curley’s astute, scholarly translation of the Ethics – found Spinoza’s strict naturalism, uncompromising systematicity and deep aversion towards anthropocentric illusions immensely attractive. Don Garrett and Michael Della Rocca did groundbreaking work that repositioned Spinoza as a meticulous rationalist. In 2017 Della Rocca assembled twenty-five scholars to produce The Oxford Handbook of Spinoza, much of it devoted to metaphysical issues arising from the Ethics, and since then OUP has published significant books on Spinoza’s metaphysics by the North American philosophers Sam Newlands and Martin Lin, as well as an outstanding new collection of papers by Garrett. The recent explosion of Spinoza studies – and of contemporary metaphysics and epistemology inspired by Spinoza – has resulted in a deep reorientation in analytic as well as continental philosophy. In many ways, Spinoza is now replacing Kant and Descartes as both the compass and the watershed of modern thought.

https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/god-intoxicated-man-spinoza-philosophy-essay/

[Anonymous No.15417777]

>>15417489
Spinoza was already a well known and respected philosopher before the 20th century obviously but saying shit like he "gave us modernity" or singlehandedly started the enlightenment is pure bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15417797]

>>15417489
oy vey anuddah shoa

[Anonymous No.15417830]

>>15417489
>It is a shitty antisemitic post dumping on Spinoza because he is Jewish
conspiracy theories like this belong on /pol/, either engage with the literature or go back

[Anonymous No.15417834]

>how is a fat fucking jock not the noblest and most lovable

why is this even a thread

[Anonymous No.15419439]

>>15417777
>Spinoza was already a well known and respected philosopher before the 20th century obviously but saying shit like he "gave us modernity" or singlehandedly started the enlightenment is pure bullshit.
Indeed. As is pretending that this a mainstream position. But if you have evidence of a push for it you can post it. And in any case the article is not about criticizing some alleged overstimation of spinozean thought, it refers to him as "pariah" and the whole thing is just tasteless slander that isn't worth anyone's time.

[Anonymous No.15419461]

>>15417797
Your brain cannot even comprehend that it is possible for a Jew to make important contributions to philosophy. If you ever wonder why your side has no important intellectuals, this kind of plebeianism is one of the major factors.

[Anonymous No.15419485]

>>15417830
It's pretty obvious from the opening talking about the Jewish influence in media what its goal is. The terrible argumentation consisting mainly of a series of unrelating quotes criticizing him in random unconnected points combined with ad hominem attacks indicate exactly the level of quality this article has. Even an antisemite should feel a bad taste in his mouth after reading such rubbish.

[Anonymous No.15419510]

>>15419485
>nooooooo you can’t just mention the empirical fact that Jews have an outsized influence on media relative to their population you’re doin a heckin antisemitism noooooooo

[Anonymous No.15419571]

>>15419485
I have to agree with this, Im sure you can find some Jews overstating Spinoza's influence but so what. He has been a central figure of philosophy for centuries.

[Anonymous No.15419696]

>>15416819
he was exceedingly based indeed

[Anonymous No.15419704]

>>15416819
>Once there, he and Rousseau fell out[...] So much so that Hume would author an account of the dispute, titling it, appropriately enough "A concise and genuine account of the dispute between Mr. Hume and Mr. Rousseau."
was it autism?

[Anonymous No.15419743]

>>15419704
>was it autism?
ahem

>So little master of my understanding when alone, let any one judge what I must be in conversation, where to speak with any degree of ease you must think of a thousand things at the same time: the bare idea that I should forget something material would be sufficient to intimidate me. Nor can I comprehend how people can have the confidence to converse in large companies, where each word must pass in review before so many, and where it would be requisite to know their several characters and histories to avoid saying what might give offence. In this particular, those who frequent the world would have a great advantage, as they know better where to be silent, and can speak with greater confidence; yet even they sometimes let fall absurdities; in what predicament then must he be who drops as it were from the clouds? it is almost impossible he should speak ten minutes with impunity.

>In a tete-a-tete there is a still worse inconvenience; that is; the necessity of talking perpetually, at least, the necessity of answering when spoken to, and keeping up the conversation when the other is silent. This insupportable constraint is alone sufficient to disgust me with variety, for I cannot form an idea of a greater torment than being obliged to speak continually without time for recollection. I know not whether it proceeds from my mortal hatred of all constraint; but if I am obliged to speak, I infallibly talk nonsense. What is still worse, instead of learning how to be silent when I have absolutely nothing to say, it is generally at such times that I have a violent inclination: and endeavoring to pay my debt of conversation as speedily as possible, I hastily gabble a number of words without ideas, happy when they only chance to mean nothing; thus endeavoring to conquer or hide my incapacity, I rarely fail to show it.
>Nothing more contracts the mind, or engenders more tales, mischief, gossiping, and lies, than for people to be eternally shut up in the same apartment together, and reduced, from the want of employment, to the necessity of an incessant chat. When every one is busy (unless you have really something to say), you may continue silent; but if you have nothing to do, you must absolutely speak continually, and this, in my mind, is the most burdensome and the most dangerous constraint. I will go further, and maintain, that to render company harmless, as well as agreeable, it is necessary, not only that they should have something to do, but something that requires a degree of attention.

[Anonymous No.15419750]

>>15419743
>Knitting, for instance, is absolutely as bad as doing nothing; you must take as much pains to amuse a woman whose fingers are thus employed, as if she sat with her arms crossed; but let her embroider, and it is a different matter; she is then so far busied, that a few intervals of silence may be borne with. What is most disgusting and ridiculous, during these intermissions of conversation, is to see, perhaps, a dozen over-grown fellows, get up, sit down again, walk backwards and forwards, turn on their heels, play with the chimney ornaments, and rack their brains to maintain an inexhaustible chain of words: what a charming occupation!
>When alone, I have never felt weariness of mind, not even in complete inaction; my imagination filling up every void, was sufficient to keep up my attention. The inactive babbling of a private circle, where, seated opposite to each other, they who speak move nothing but the tongue, is the only thing I have ever been unable to support. When walking and rambling about there is some satisfaction in conversation; the feet and eyes do something; but to hear people with their arms across speak of the weather, of the biting of flies, or what is still worse, compliment each other, is to me an insupportable torment.