Spinoza vs Hegel

[Anonymous No.16385232]

>the virgin spinoza
vs.
>the chad hegel
Who wins?

[Anonymous No.16385247]

>>16385232
Didn't Hegel take a lot of inspiration from Spinoza

[Anonymous No.16385254]

>>16385232
Well.. was Hegel circumcised?

[Anonymous No.16385265]

>>16385232
>Hegel was the Protestant Aquinas
Why do people say this?

[Anonymous No.16385272]

>>16385265
Because the Absolute is comparable to the Christian god or some shit, I don't know I read it all off the wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.16385279]

>>16385272
>Because the Absolute is comparable to the Christian god
Only in being Absolute.

[Anonymous No.16385420]

>>16385232
Surely Spinoza, Hegel describes himself as a Spinozist, Spinoza wasn’t a follower of Hegel.

[Anonymous No.16385596]

Spinoza:
>Utter failure will attend any attempt in a commonwealth to force men to speak only as prescribed by the sovereign despite their different and opposing opinions … The most tyrannical government will be one where the individual is denied the freedom to express and to communicate to others what he thinks, and a moderate government is one where this freedom is granted to every man.
Hegel:
>injuries to the honour of individuals as such, slander, abuse, vilification of the government, of its official bodies and civil servants, and in particular of the sovereign in person, contempt for the laws, incitement to rebellion, etc. are crimes and misdemeanours

[Anonymous No.16385609]

>>16385420
Goethe as well described himself as a Spinozist, recollect that Faust was saved when viewed 'under the aspect of eternity,' one of Spinoza's most attractive perspectives doctrines. In fact, Nietzsche's entire program could be viewed as the democratization of this doctrine, which is certainly ironic- would make a good paper.

[Anonymous No.16385621]

>>16385609
*for 'perspectives', perspectivizing

[Anonymous No.16385668]

Hegel's system's structure is just circles nested within circles whereas pic is the Ethics.

[Anonymous No.16386589]

>>16385420
Apparently he said that at the time Spinozist was a synonym for atheism. Kant was by far Hegel's biggest influence as far as other philosophers go.

[Anonymous No.16386746]

>>16386589
>Spinozist
>Atheist
Huh?

[Anonymous No.16386784]

>>16385232
Spinoza more like spit-in-nose-a I have never read him but I heard he was unbased and not redpilled.

[Anonymous No.16386831]

>>16386746
He pretty much was one, his God or Nature is totally immanent, non-interventionist and impersonal.

[Anonymous No.16386850]

>>16386831
>his God or Nature is totally immanent, non-interventionist and impersonal.
A God nonetheless

[Anonymous No.16386900]

>>16386850
No.

[Anonymous No.16387263]

>>16385668
tf is this explain pls

[Anonymous No.16387265]

>>16386850
You can replace the word God with anything, Physics/Atoms/Laws of Nature. You're not wrong per se, it's similar to scientism's worship of Newtonian laws.

[Anonymous No.16387270]

>>16385247
he did

[Anonymous No.16387273]

>>16387263
https://ethics.spinozism.org/graphs.php

[Anonymous No.16387278]

>>16385609
>would make a good paper.

[Anonymous No.16387288]

Test.

[Anonymous No.16387292]

They actually look like the chad and virgin. Look at hegel's chiseled jawline and hunter eyes. In stark contrast, Spinoza's face is soft and resembles a baby in the stage where its sex was impossible to know from the face alone

[Anonymous No.16387414]

>>16386746
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism_controversy

[Anonymous No.16387435]

>>16387265
>t. has not read even an intro to Hegel
Why LARP about his philosophy on an internet forum? The Absolute cannot be reduced to Nature you fucking moron, it necessarily transcends (NOT immanent) both inner and outer sense (subject and object). Fucking dipshit posing faggot fuck off.

[Anonymous No.16387438]

>>16387435
This also goes for how Hegel saw Spinoza's God.

[Anonymous No.16387456]

>>16385668
Nigger wtf. Looks stupid and more like mathematics for a metaphysical model.

[Anonymous No.16387478]

>>16387273
Thanks for nothing.

[Anonymous No.16387563]

>>16387278
Haven't read Deleuze's book on Nietzsche; did he aver something like that? As I was writing it magically seemed obvious; not aware of having heard it before.

[Anonymous No.16387576]

>>16387456
Yeah, just take a quick look at the Ethics. He literally borrowed Euclid's geometrical method and applied it to metaphysics/ethics.

[Anonymous No.16387578]

>>16387563
Not him but I do know that Deleuze was very influenced by Spinoza and some substance or whatnot.

[Anonymous No.16387601]

>>16387435
Faggot I was posting about Spinoza, calm your bussy. Hormonal rage isn't a good look.

[Anonymous No.16387614]

>>16385279
And in being omnipotent, and in being personal, and in being the cause of all things and... do I have to continue?

[Anonymous No.16387622]

>>16385596
How does Hegel reconcile that claim with his support for rebels (in the case they were denied freedom before their rebellion)?

[Anonymous No.16387631]

>>16387576
That is incredibly odd and sounds very stupid, what exactly was he trying to prove with sound mathematics?

[Anonymous No.16387632]

>>16385668
This is what Spinoza's rethorical model looks like, which is certainly different from his actual system. Technically, in many cases you shoud put different propositions in the same box, since they might not be logically prior one to the other.

[Anonymous No.16387636]

>>16387622
It works in history my dude.

[Anonymous No.16387655]

>>16386900
Yes. Spinoza argues that an omnipotent God cannot be personal (and more in general, he argues that the will entails an imperfection in the willing subject). He is sticking to the definition with more rigor than theologians.
>>16387265
Spinoza does not equate God with the physical world. For a starter God, is also the totality of thought, which cannot be reduced to the physical order. Furthermore, Spinoza thinks that God has infinite other attributes, which means that the physical world only constitutes an infinitesimal part of its essence.
>>16387631
It's just a rethorical model to make his thought process clearer, it's not meant to prove anything. Basically, you can read any proposition in the Ethics and immediatly find out all of its implied premises, since he mentions them all in his demonstrations.

[Anonymous No.16387657]

>>16387631
The absolute perfect truth.

[Anonymous No.16387958]

>>16385247
Yeah
He said that if you dont follow Spinoza, youre not a philosopher at all.

[Anonymous No.16388090]

>>16387435
>>16387655
Not >>16387265, but I think his point is not to reduce God to nature, but to note that Spinozian God lacks "godness", so to say. It is a omnipropertous overentity, that is why it might seem particularly convenient to call it God, but this name creates so many misunderstandings (for example, Spinozism is closer to atheism or agnosticism in ethical implications) that even The Universe (not merely physical, but all-encompassing, all-including, the prerequisite of existence) might be a better term.

[Anonymous No.16388093]

>>16385668
Not true

[Anonymous No.16388128]

>>16388093
Is this the IQ of the Hegelian riposte?

[Anonymous No.16388135]

>>16387655
>It's just a rethorical model to make his thought process clearer, it's not meant to prove anything. Basically, you can read any proposition in the Ethics and immediatly find out all of its implied premises, since he mentions them all in his demonstrations.
Niggah what the fuck, how precisely is the Ethics ordered?

[Anonymous No.16388139]

>>16388128
Like all truth, it is a very simple and short thing, but is the hardest to achieve, do or think in its actuality.

[Anonymous No.16389022]

>>16387655
>thought cannot be reduced to the physical order.
Cringe.

[Anonymous No.16390059]

>>16387958
see >>16386589