/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17199794]

>refutes Aquinas and the entire scholastic tradition
thomists still seething to this day

[Anonymous No.17199806]

>>17199794
Is this the thumbnail from Waldun's video on education and academia?

[Anonymous No.17199924]

>>17199794
Meanwhile he was a partial return to scholasticism after Descartes.
Thomists would hardly care since they were extinct at the time, and only got big again in the second half of the 19th century, with Spinoza then and since largely irrelevant (in terms of seething potential) compared to his influential days in the 18th century.
>Spinoza refuting much in the first place

[Anonymous No.17200261]

>>17199794
>besides God no substance can be granted or conceived since, that which God caused cannot be distinguishable from God

But why though? Am I getting this right?

[Anonymous No.17200488]

>>17199794
can you tldr how he refuted the scholastic tradition

[Anonymous No.17200858]

>>17200488
>can you tldr his entire life's work
He refuted the scholastic christian god by positing that a perfect being cannot be limited by motives in his actions, hence god acts not out of reason and intention but from his very nature, resulting the creation and sustenance of everything that exists.

[Anonymous No.17200880]

>>17199794
nice try but he was refuted by the Scholastic tradition in the first place, more precisely by the works of the divine Jean Buridan (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.17200908]

>>17200858
How is God in control or all powerful if everything he does is by necessity? Wouldn't this suppose that the necessity of creation takes primacy over God? I would think this would make Spinoza's God more limited than the scholastic God.

[Anonymous No.17202097]

>>17200908
As I said, it's hard to reproduce his entire philosophy in a /lit/ post. I just gave you the conclusion, if you want to study his arguments, read Ethics, it's not that long, it's a very well written and interesting work and it's a groundmark in western philosophy anyway, considering it's influence that is still felt to this day.

[Anonymous No.17202110]

>>17202097
idk this dude just sounds like a dumb dead hebe

[Anonymous No.17202127]

>>17200858
how are motives limiting?

[Anonymous No.17202151]

>>17200858
>hence god acts not out of reason and intention but from his very nature
How does that god act without that act compromising his immutability?

[Anonymous No.17202206]

>>17202127
A motive implies that God acts in a way as opposing to another way in which he could have acted under a different motive, hence his power is limited.

>>17202151
God has one single action, and that is the creation of the universe. His essence is his infinite knowledge = infinite power, hence whatever he thinks of he springs into existence => the entire, infinite universe

[Anonymous No.17202241]

>>17200908
Exactly, this is one of the main flaws in Spinoza's system. See this thread >>/lit/thread/S16936768
I recommend it to >>17200858 and OP as well.

[Anonymous No.17202270]

>>17202206
>God has one single action
Why? That sounds limiting.

[Anonymous No.17202343]

Spinozism is atheism, just give up

Philosophers don't "refute" shit

[Anonymous No.17202361]

>>17202206
>hence whatever he thinks of he springs into existence
where was it before?

[Anonymous No.17202414]

>>17202270
God has an infinite set of attributes. everything that is, is God unfolding itself. but it is an unfolding purely from itself and for itself, so its without motive: it cannot have an aim outside of itself, because if something is outside God it is not within the being of God and it is limiting the infinite nature of God.

[Anonymous No.17202465]

>>17202414
it sounds like some rando dude trying to justify his own perception of God, no wonder these ideas are dead lmao

[Anonymous No.17202536]

>>17202465
oof bud.

[Anonymous No.17202621]

>>17202465
>no wonder these ideas are dead lmao
if only you knew how wrong you are

[Anonymous No.17202650]

>>17202621
nobody knows who spinoza is kafir

[Anonymous No.17202656]

>>17202097
I've read almost nothing of ethics because I ultimately lost interest after P14 since I find most of Spinozism falls apart if you can refute that.

[Anonymous No.17203042]

>>17202241
But how can God's free will be a contingent action? If it was contingent god would be mutable instead of immutable.
Also, how can Spinoza's God be incomplete? Wouldn't that make him subject to temporal change?
I think there's some flaws on Spinoza's system (mainly on the issue of multiplicity) but that doesn't simply refute his whole position, as there could be explanations that can be incorporated into the system imo.

[Anonymous No.17203060]

>>17200261
nothing comes from nothing :^)

[Anonymous No.17203075]

>GOD IS THIS
>Why?
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Spinozafags are insufferable, this is why they can't get laid.

[Anonymous No.17203450]

How can God be nature in Spinoza's philosophy? Wouldn't that imply that God created himself when he created the universe and directly contradict basic laws of causality? Also, wouldn't that necessarily limit God, especially since God acts out of necessity and not His own reason in Spinoza's view?

[Anonymous No.17203724]

>>17203450
>>17200908
I think God and the universe essentially meant the same thing for Spinoza.

>>17202465
>>17202656
Don’t dismiss him too quickly. I also don’t find his metaphysics convincing, but I agree with Bertrand Russell that what’s most compelling and insightful in the Ethics comes after that when he begins discussing human nature. Pic is an example.

[Anonymous No.17204114]

>>17203450
>Wouldn't that imply that God created himself when he created the universe and directly contradict basic laws of causality?
There's no before or after the universe, for Spinoza everything has an eternal existence, therefore time is experiencing the universe in a particular way.
>God acts out of necessity and not His own reason in Spinoza's view?
For Spinoza, ratio essendi and ratio cognossendi are one and the same i.e. reason and essence are only different ways of perceiving one being, so we shouldn't say there's one before the other. Regarding necessity, we should think of it of as a principle that is universal to a substance e.g. 5x=y: y will necessarily be a multiple of 5 with no exceptions, but it is only a possibility for it to be 30 (as that would require x, a contingent term, being a 6). Whereas for Leibniz contingency had an ontological category in the form of accidents, for Spinoza they only existed in epistemological incompleteness, since there's only one substance and everything that predicates from it is already contained within the substance. So in a way, we could think of Spinoza's conception of the universe as an analytic proposition derived from the notion of God. To answer your question, when Spinoza says that God follows his own necessity, he's saying that he has no accidents, that it's impossible for something to predicate itself without the notion of God and there isn't anything ''outside'' of God, concluding in the tautology: God's essence (which is the same as his reason) is God's essence (since everything can only be conceived through God).
Sorry for the long post.

[Anonymous No.17204187]

>>17200261
All things are God. God is a substance. You know how Aristotle makes an argument for an eternal uncreated universe ruled by 47-55 Gods, and then Aquinas tips his fedora and says that no ackshyuyually the God of the Jews is the SECRET GOD who created the uncreated universe because the Torah said so, and this is just axiomatic and we have to take it as such?

It's sort of like that.

[Anonymous No.17204860]

>>17204187
Yes.

[Anonymous No.17205822]

Hello, I heard you guys talking about me?

[Anonymous No.17205832]

>>17205822
ew get away from me incel

[Anonymous No.17205842]

>>17205822
Hi Spinoza. Nice dubs.

[Anonymous No.17205859]

>>17199924
No, the rationalist philosophers were considered amateurs, greek thought still dominated the universities.

[Anonymous No.17205869]

>>17204187
>then Aquinas tips his fedora and says that no ackshyuyually the God of the Jews is the SECRET GOD who created the uncreated universe because the Torah said so
Why are christcucks this way? Is it brain parasites, like toxoplasmosis but the parasite generate excess positivity to Jews instead of cats?

[Anonymous No.17205870]

>>17199924
>Embraces mechanism, denies the existence of final causes
>Rejects free will
>Rejects the immortality of the soul
How is that a partial return to scholasticism

[Anonymous No.17205875]

>>17205822
Such a handsome boy.

[Anonymous No.17205880]

>>17205842
thanks :)

[Anonymous No.17205895]

>>17205822
>you couldn’t save him from the glass dust

[Anonymous No.17205988]

>>17200858
Is not having a motive limitation

[Anonymous No.17206023]

>>17205870
Not that anon, but my guess is that he means a return in methodology, since he was doing metaphysics in a more ''traditional'' way. While Hume and Kant attacked scholasticism in an indirect way by rejecting their basic notions such as substance, Spinoza used their own axioms and definitions, thus attacking them in a direct way. Probably the reason why scholasticfags seethe harder with based Baruch than with the other modern philosophers.

[Anonymous No.17206242]

>>17206023
>While Hume and Kant attacked scholasticism in an indirect way by rejecting their basic notions such as substance, Spinoza used their own axioms and definitions, thus attacking them in a direct way.
But his metaphysics has almost zero connection to Scholasticism. Sure he accepts substances, like Descartes did. But he rejects final causes, hylomorphism, universals, and almost everything Aristotelian.
>Probably the reason why scholasticfags seethe harder with based Baruch than with the other modern philosophers.
I don't remember ever seeing Thomists talking about him. I think they hate Hume and Kant way more.

[Anonymous No.17207049]

>>17199794
He really doesn't. He makes very little sense in tbe grand scheme of things. God/The Universe acts out of necessity but is all powerful and unlimited for some reason, gets rid of final causation even though it can be observed in nature and not posited with any supernatural intent, further putting into question the idea of God being the universe and other idiosyncrasies in his philosophy that don't make sense. Ultimately, unlike even Kant and like Hume ( both of whom I also disagree with), I feel like Spinoza was just being a contrarian more than making a consistent philosophy worth taking into consideration. It's why he's more ignored than the other two, even by his critics.

[Anonymous No.17207960]

>>17200858
That's such an insipid point. You know how many Christian mystics posited similar things with no incongruity being detected during the era of scholasticism? Meister Eckhart was always saying this, as was St Catherine of Siena. Of course the context of that was that people should have confidence in God, because God cannot do otherwise than love them.

Spinoza was a fool anyway; who can take seriously a man who didn't know the difference between ethics and geometry?