/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17640733]

I am... Complete

[Anonymous No.17640737]

>>17640733
Nevermind the shitty crop, I'm never using online tools again

[Anonymous No.17640739]

>>17640733
ENTER

[Anonymous No.17640740]

>>17640733
You have schizophrenia.

[Anonymous No.17640744]

>>17640739
>Lacan

You ruined it

[Anonymous No.17640757]

>>17640744
Lacan is absolutely correct on the topic of the subject, his is the model for the only non-neurotic way of living

[Anonymous No.17640885]

>>17640733
Tbh do you really need more than these 3

[Anonymous No.17640933]

>>17640885
>Aristotle to understand Logic
>Nietzsche to understand Ethics
>Spinoza to understand how they reconcile

Yep, these 3 are all you need

[Anonymous No.17641194]

>>17640757
no

[Anonymous No.17641202]

>>17640733
What an illogical sequence lol

[Anonymous No.17641215]

>>17641194
Fuck I hadn't considered that

[Anonymous No.17641219]

>>17641215
kek

[Anonymous No.17642463]

>>17640733
Based

[Anonymous No.17642538]

>>17640733
Doesn't this all lead to Deleuze?

[Anonymous No.17642660]

>>17642538
Deleuze ruins Nietzsche and Spinoza

[Anonymous No.17643346]

>>17641194
you're lazy and a nuisance

[Anonymous No.17643356]

>>17640739
Holy guacamole! Basado!

[Anonymous No.17643446]

>>17643346
No

[Anonymous No.17643840]

>>17643446
no

[Anonymous No.17643850]

>>17640933
Nietzsche denied the existence of logic. Spinoza's reconcilliation is based off the ontological argument and the continuous confusion of reason/consequence and cause/effect.

[Anonymous No.17643854]

>>17642660
Nietzsche and Spinoza ruin themselves. Deleuze only confuses them even more.

[Anonymous No.17643858]

>>17643850
Spinoza also denied the existence of Logic

[Anonymous No.17643863]

>>17641194
We have a Nietzschean arguing, I see.

[Anonymous No.17643870]

>>17643858
This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read on this website, congratulations.

[Anonymous No.17643871]

>>17643863
no

[Anonymous No.17643880]

>>17643858
You better not be OP and at the same time claim to understand Spinoza.

[Anonymous No.17643882]

>>17643870
>Prop. I. No positive quality possessed by a false idea is removed by the presence of what is true, in virtue of its being true.
Proof.—Falsity consists solely in the privation of knowledge which inadequate ideas involve (II. xxxv.), nor have they any positive quality on account of which they are called false (II. xxxiii.) ; contrariwise, in so far as they are referred to God, they are true (II. xxxii.). Wherefore, if the positive quality possessed by a false idea were removed by the presence of what is true, in virtue of its being true, a true idea would then be removed by itself, which (IV. iii.) is absurd. Therefore, no positive quality possessed by a false idea, &c. Q.E.D.

Note.—This proposition is more clearly understood from II. xvi. Coroll. ii. For imagination is an idea, which indicates rather the present disposition of the human body than the nature of the external body; not indeed distinctly, but confusedly; whence it comes to pass, that the mind is said to err. For instance, when we look at the sun, we conceive that it is distant from us about two hundred feet; in this judgment we err, so long as we are in ignorance of its true distance; when its true distance is known, the error is removed, but not the imagination ; or, in other words, the idea of the sun, which only explains tho nature of that luminary, in so far as the body is affected thereby : wherefore, though we know the real distance, we shall still nevertheless imagine the sun to be near us. For, as we said in II. xxxv. note, we do not imagine the sun to be so near us, because we are ignorant of its true distance, but because the mind conceives the magnitude of the sun to the extent that the body is affected thereby. Thus, when the rays of the sun falling on the surface of water are reflected into our eyes, we imagine the sun as if it were in the water, though we are aware of its real position; and similarly other imaginations, wherein the mind is deceived, whether they indicate the natural disposition of the body, or that its power of activity is increased or diminished, are not contrary to the truth, and do not vanish at its presence. It happens indeed that, when we mistakenly fear an evil, the fear vanishes when we hear the true tidings ; but the contrary also happens, namely, that we fear an evil which will certainly come, and our fear vanishes when we hear false tidings ; thus imaginations do not vanish at the presence of the truth, in virtue of its being true, but because other imaginations, stronger than the first, supervene and exclude the present existence of that which we imagined, as I have shown in II. xvii.

Literally the first fucking proposition of part 4. You're a retard

[Anonymous No.17643889]

>>17643880
see >>17643880 retard

and I'm not OP

[Anonymous No.17644107]

>>17643882
This has absolutely nothing to do with a denial of logic you complete and utter mouthbreather retard. How does this deny the law of identity or noncontradiction? That you have misunderstood this so bad means to me that you have absolutely no idea what this proposition means. A false idea to spiboza is one which lacks the truth. It is purely negative and never positive. Therefore, the presence of the truth, or the inclusion of an idea in you, does not negative the past idea, but the past idea is still incorporated therein because it is still true insofar of what it is positively i.e. what it includes. Spinoza uses the example of the sun in the water and the distance between you and the sun. This doesn't refute the law of noncontradiction, though. That would destroy Spinoza's whole ethics! The false idea is still false when apart from the true idea, but when both exist in you, that doesn't mean it has been assigned two different truth values, but that you are no longer deprived of a truth.

[Anonymous No.17644145]

>>17644107
Does not negate*
To further clarify, to Spinoza an idea is an experience which represents another attribute in substance. This is why he says they are parallel in 2P7. When an idea, or experience, is in the subject, he says, insofar as what it is, it includes truth insofar as it properly represents another attribute, and is false insofar as it doesnt represent. From the experience of the sun in the lake there is a represented part of another attribute, and this is distinct from the experience of the true distance, but each experience lacks what is represented through another. That is what he means by truth being positive and falsity being negative. I hope that helps.

[Anonymous No.17644156]

>>17643889
Amazing. You call me a retard and yet deny that a rationalist whose main work is the development of a logical argument from axioms doesnt believe in logic. You are clearly mistaken so I wont rag on you too hard, everybody makes mistakes.

[Anonymous No.17644162]

>>17644107
>>17644145
Yeah I understand where I missed the point, I need to go back an reread the ethics because the first time I was still philosophically inexperienced, it was one of the first philsophy books I read

[Anonymous No.17644210]

So... this is true power