Spinoza thread

[Anonymous No.17665475]

christcuck catechumen here who wants to learn as much as possible about this lad whom everyone and their grandmothers seem to love.

also general spizona and neo-spinozan( Deleuze, Schelling and the like) /lit/ and philosophical discussion thread.

[Anonymous No.17665499]

>>17665475
His philosophy is based on the confusion of reason and cause and a version of the ontological argument. Bleh.

[Anonymous No.17665501]

Homosex

[Anonymous No.17665530]

>>17665475
Not sure about >>17665499's characterization, but I'd like to warn you that Spinoza is extremely reductive and that you can certainly use him to establish some kind of pseudo-materalistic understanding of 'God' as an analytical term, but there's not much more in it than that afaik.

[OP No.17665556]

>>17665499
I'm personally a Thomist( inb4 >thomist), but from what I've heard of Spinoza, that seems quite incorrect, especially given his exceptionally high regard from future and contemporary philosophers. Is he in any way related to Anselm, given that he makes arguments from an ontological view?
>>17665501
Interesting insight.

[Anonymous No.17665627]

>Spinoza was a brainle-
"Spinoza was offered the chair of philosophy at the University of Heidelberg, but he refused it, perhaps because of the possibility that it might in some way curb his freedom of thought."
>Spinoza was a dirty jew-
"On 27 July 1656, the Talmud Torah congregation of Amsterdam issued a writ of cherem (Hebrew: חרם, a kind of ban, shunning, ostracism, expulsion, or excommunication) against the 23-year-old Spinoza."
>Spinoza was an athei-
"After stating his proof for God’s existence, Spinoza addresses who “God” is. Spinoza believed that God is “the sum of the natural and physical laws of the universe". He was frequently called an "atheist" by contemporaries, although nowhere in his work does Spinoza argue against the existence of God"
>He had very little influence on philosoph-
"Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel said, "The fact is that Spinoza is made a testing-point in modern philosophy, so that it may really be said: You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all."

[Anonymous No.17665634]

>>17665627
>Spinoza believed that God is “the sum..."
Which makes him an atheist, because that's not what the term means.

[Anonymous No.17665657]

What's the Spinozist equivalent to the Sage/Ubermensch like?

What distinguishes him from a normie?

[Anonymous No.17665668]

>>17665634
You're such a faggot coward.

[OP No.17665672]

>>17665627
I kinda want to know what as the key points of his philosophy and his conclusions, not just a small hagiography of himself, though he was a philosophy who had immense intelligence and intuition.
>>17665634
Atheism is the denial of all Gods, and I almost certainly believe that Spinoza was a Pantheist.
You might be concerned with Lacan's departure from religion after he had read Spinoza in his youth, but I believe that this was not a necessary result of Spinoza's theology but of Lacan's personal beliefs, which was astray from Abrahamic religions.

[Anonymous No.17665689]

>>17665556
Nooe, its perfectly correct. He is respected by philosophers after him because of him going against the god-universe dualism and the mind-body dualism. As for his relation to anselm, he is related through descartes, who is famous for using an ontological proof to prove god. Spinoza was a cartesian and even wrote a book geometrically demonstrating descartes before he settled into his own philosophy. The pantheist post-kantians love him because they all use variations of the ontological proof, hence hegel saying you arent a philosooher if you arent a spinozist. I have read the ethics inside out, backwards and forwards multiple times, so I am very confident in my characterization.

[Anonymous No.17665699]

>>17665672
>Atheism is the denial of all Gods
So if I tell you that I believe in god, but that by god I mean Roland TB-303 bassline synthesizer module, I'm a theist? I don't think so. Labeling something as 'god' or 'God' doesn't make you a theist. Believing in an actual deity does.
>Lacan
I'm not concerned about that, I'm concerned about the gradual intellectualization of religions which corrupts both the religious institutions and the intellectual institutions.

[Anonymous No.17665707]

>>17665672
Nope, thats not god. God is distinct from the universe by definition. Renaming the world to god doesnt make you a theist.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17665726]

>>17665657
Acquiescentia, basically resting and dwelling within your own self qualities without needing the approval of the other or the group or of philosophy or anything else. Naturally abiding in your own nature basically. This resting isn’t a kind of quietism but more, an unyielding abiding in the interests and inherent laws of ones own soul.

>>17665627
>>17665634
>>17665672

This is over simplifying Spinoza’s belief. Spinoza didn’t believe simply that God=Nature, rather he believed God was absolutely and utterly infinite and partaking of infinite attributes and what we call nature partakes of two of these natures, the intellectual and extension(mathematical differentiation in material)

Thus god pervades and is the substance/power which generates and is Nondual to the universe but he is also infinitely beyond and above and extending along the universe and nature with an infinity of other attributes which share no relation to the Two. Thus God is not just the raw matter of nature as this implies, but also all intellect and all-intelligent due to the attribute of intelligence. This is kinda similar to Averroes's theory of the unity of the intellect, except that the unity pervading the intellect is God and all expressions of intellect are God in the same way that all manifestations of material/matter are a multiplicity of forms of matter.

However God to Spinoza is not just these two attributes but again, an infinite amount of unknowable other attributes which share no relation to these two and are all harmonized with the nature of God through God’s inherent unity.

[OP No.17665748]

>>17665672
philosopher* who had immense intelligence.
>>17665657
I mostly do not believe in terms of normie because it implies that the people who I don't associate with have an unimpressive and uninsightful mental dialogue, akin to a hivemind. Ultimately, to presume the intelligence or insight ability of anyone is rather telling, given that a large portion of a person's intellect is receded from physical displays and impressions.
>>17665668
What do you think of Spinoza? Anything in particular that you want to say, concerning his theology, political philosophy or about his, very interesting and often humourous, character?

[Anonymous No.17665753]

Philosophy based on false premises like
Definition 6 and
E1: PROP. 14

[Anonymous No.17665756]

>>17665748
>What do you think of Spinoza?
I only read Deleuze' book on him. Very based though. I plan to get more sometime.

[Anonymous No.17665763]

>>17665726
>Thus God is not just the raw matter of nature as this implies, but also all intellect and all-intelligent due to the attribute of intelligence.
Everything you say spells out 'monotheist God' fine, except this part, which seems to imply that God is intelligent by virtue of intelligence existing, whereas monotheist God is pretty much always narrated as intelligence as such. As in an idealistic philosophy, where mind is primary and matter secondary.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17665791]

>>17665763
Oh let me clarify. This isn’t occurring because of some kind of temporal unfolding but rather all of this occurs within eternity/at once/instantly. Spinoza isn’t saying that intellect was formed thus God became intelligent, no rather, God has always had infinite attributes and we just happen to only know of two because we also partake of these two by the fact of us having material bodies and also capacity for thought. Neither mind nor extension is primary to the nature of God not do they come before one another. God as a true infinity with infinite attributes is to spinoza completely un-dividable and all of these attributes exist as a singular nature of Godhead within reality but still have distinctions. They aren’t formed because of time or the like though. If no intelligence ever occurred within the universe, God would still have absolute intelligence and intellect to Spinoza.

[Anonymous No.17665803]

>>17665791
Based and amen.

[Anonymous No.17665808]

>>17665753
Just look at the first definition:
>I. By that which is self—caused, I mean that of which the essence involves existence
This is a blatant set-up for an ontological proof, where the essence involves existence and therefore draws sophistically that the essence exists.
Here is him confusing cause and reason:
>IV. The knowledge of an effect depends on and involves the knowledge of a cause
The knowledge of a consequence depends on and involves the knowledge of a reason, but it is the highest sophistry to say that the same holds for cause and effect, which is completely different!

[OP No.17665842]

>>17665726
>>17665791
Never have seen a bad post from you mate, and this is certainly not an exception. Thanks for taking the time to type this out and for using your talents to actually improve the quality of the posts on this rubbish board.
>>17665756
I just bought Anti-Oedipus and The Merchant of Prato from Amazon, I had to get The Peregrine as well( Mother's Day book) so I can receive the parcel without any questions from Dad, who doesn't like me spending money on books. Enjoy your book, mate. o/

[Anonymous No.17665886]

>>17665808
And if axiom 4 doesn't hold, prop 3 doesn't hold, which means substances can cause substances.
Prop 5 is sophistical, as pointed out by leibniz.
Prop 6 follows from prop 3 and so is sophistical. Prop 7 follows from prop 6.
The proof for prop 11 is the ontological proof set up by the opening definition.
Everything is destroyed from there.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17665913]

>>17665842
Not a problem anon, thanks for the kind words. While I personally really like deleuze it’s a flip of the coin whether you’ll find value in him or not. I would have shilled reading difference and repetition + some secondary lit on his model instead of anti-oedipus personally. Also just download the books online, if you want I’ll dig up some PDFs for ya.

[Anonymous No.17665995]

>>17665475
>Everyone and their grandmothers...Motherfucker my grandma has been telling me to read Spinoza for a while now

That is just how spicy the memes get!

[Anonymous No.17666024]

>>17665726
based frater

[Anonymous No.17666208]

did you guys know that spinoza was a bishonen?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism#/media/File:Dacosta_und_Spinoza.jpg

[Anonymous No.17666508]

>>17665475
shut up, tr*nny

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17666555]

>>17666208
Uriel d'Acosta Is such a fascinating person.

[Anonymous No.17666721]

>>17665726
A GOD THAT DOES NOT CREATE OUT OF HIS OWN WILL IS NOT OMNIPOTENT, NOR GOOD AND THEREFORE IMPERFECT, LOWER.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17666797]

>>17666721
>A GOD THAT DOES NOT CREATE OUT OF HIS OWN WILL IS NOT OMNIPOTENT,

In spinoza’s Model Will and ones own inherent nature are identical, creation as a result of his Own nature would be to Spinoza identical to creation in accordance with his own Will.

>NOR GOOD

Depends on the definition of good and who’s definition, there’s no objective law which exists beyond all thought systems which says God mustn’t be beyond good and evil or must be good or evil or the like.

>AND THEREFORE IMPERFECT, LOWER.

Imperfect according to who? You? According to what system? Certainly not according to the axioms and definitions of Spinoza. If you mean by your own definitions or societies or my own, that’s all well and good but it doesn’t really work on a structural level against his system internally. Only externally as a third person value judgment.

[Anonymous No.17666945]

>>17666797
Yes, and the nature of Spinoza's god is bound to the necessity of each finite mode.
>That eternal and infinite being we call God, or Nature, acts from the same necessity from which he exists (Part IV, Preface)
Its action, production, is necessary in the same way its essence/existence is. That is, the necessity of its essence/existence and its action are the same relational occasion of necessity, it is relative to what is out of it, its productions, attributes, modes, etc. it is not complete, it is not perfect, it will be always imperfect, incomplete because it will always produce, cause, it will always be a relative existence/essence and action/creation to finite modes.

>Depends on the definition of good... Imperfect according to who? You? According to what system? Certainly not according to the axioms and definitions of Spinoza.
I think what I will say will just be another point of view of the essential problem with Spinoza's ''theology'' as said above, to confuse the nature with will is to just affirm the necessity out of its own nature, the nature of a lion can be linked with his will to prey and feed himself, a god that creates out of necessity does not create out of freedom, if god does not create out of freedom he is not free and not omnipotent and if not omnipotent not omniscient/intelligent.

But this is just one of the main problems with Spinoza's system, there is also the gap between infinite modes and finite modes, since he says the latter can only be produced/caused by other finite modes, and so ad infinitum (utter nonsense).

[Anonymous No.17666963]

>>17666555
why do you think he is fascinating

[Anonymous No.17666966]

>>17665475
What is the required background to read Ethics?

[Anonymous No.17667005]

>>17666966
no background at all, if you had you wouldnt want nor need to read him

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17667033]

>>17666945
While I do not agree fully with Spinoza, I’ll argue for him. I personally prefer hegel, boehme and my own modifications through the use of Meinong but that’s neither here nor there.


>Yes, and the nature of Spinoza's god is bound to the necessity of each finite mode

If we agree that God is necessarily Infinite, if we agree God is necessarily perfect and if we agree about divine simplicity, that all of these natures are melded in the one nature of Godhead, there is no force propelling him to Will these things as his Will is his nature, his nature is his will. Further as he is all-time and pervades all time and meanwhile also dwells in eternity outside of time, all finite aspects of creation are already complete and have occurred and are occurring and shall occur to Spinoza’s God.

> Its action, production, is necessary in the same way its essence/existence is. That is, the necessity of its essence/existence and its action are the same relational occasion of necessity, it is relative to what is out of it, its productions, attributes, modes, etc. it is not complete,

Once more, This is a question of God-in-temporality, of which the Spinozist god is infinite and dwells in all arrangements of time, matter and so forth. His production is already done but also the prime causation is unending. Again, if we agree to a divine oneness, the un-dividable nature of Godhead, then the aspect of God called Will is no different from his nature as creator which is no different from his goodness and is no different from his mental being or his extension as extension. God’s nature being identical to Will means all That compels his Will is simply his own Will. He is forced by his own nature to have his own nature, his Own Will forces him to have his own Will. Thus his Will is absolutely Free in the sense that nothing outside of his Will’s ontological nature is influencing his Will, and in this same regard, God necessarily by his attribute as creator and being unchanging must also be creator and mustn’t be subject to temporal change in his aspect as in eternity. Thus the problem you cite would be reconciled.

Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17667041]

>>17667033
> to confuse the nature with will is to just affirm the necessity out of its own nature, the nature of a lion can be linked with his will to prey and feed himself,

If the lion was divine and perfect there would be no difference between the nature which says feed and his own Lion-ness as the various attributes of his Being are unified within his own Lion-ness, thus to rest in acquiescentia, the Lion to rest in its own nature must enact its Will and Vice versa.

>god that creates out of necessity does not create out of freedom,

A will that wills itself to Will is not bound, but rather the only possible freedom and true Will is a rationalized and actualized Will. Such a Will moves and compels itself necessarily for its own manifest being. The movement from universality and abstraction, from potentiality to actuality is the moment the Will enacts freedom, in this same regard, God being perfect has no potentiality that is not actual, thus he is always enacting the full extent of his Divine Will in accordance with his perfection.

>if god does not create out of freedom he is not free

Not free according to your systems definition of freedom but certainly free according to his.


>and not omnipotent and if not omnipotent not omniscient/intelligent.


See the above.

>it is not perfect, it will be always imperfect, incomplete because it will always produce, cause, it will always be a relative existence/essence and action/creation to finite modes.

See the above concerning time.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17667051]

>>17666945
But to reiterate, oh no the dudes model certainly isn’t perfect, no ones is. And I’m sure we could both sit here and poke at his model until we found a thousand flaws if we sat here long enough Friend. But there is quite a bit of internal consistency within his model and I do think it’s worth the study to those interested in continental philosophy, German idealism and so forth. Much Gold to mine from him you know?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17667067]

>>17666963
His personality, religions conversions during the time and his influence. Ive yet to study him deeply and I’d probably disagree a ton but I still think he would be a fascinating read eventually based just on the biographical details ive read.

[Anonymous No.17667357]

>>17667033
This is another thing I wonder: Spinoza puts both infinity and finity as comparable, as if the latter were not completely nullified by the former. An infinite substance would have to make room for something out of itself, it makes no sense for infinity to seek finity by itself (by its own infinite necessity - and again here we have the rupture between the substance naturally willing itself and externally willing what is finite, and what would cause even more problem would be the necessity of the latter case indeterminately, and hence infinity being constrained by finity, a totality - in the sense of the platonic idea of One - being constrained by indefinition), within itself (for how can there be finite things in infinity, all comprehensive?).

Thus I have a resolute conviction that no other ontology of creation is reasonable but a voluntaristic one (like Jewish, Christian and some interpretations of the Platonic one- specially in Plato himself).

>>17667067
I have an interest for people who suffer ubiquitous opposition and suffer oppression for their beliefs, but I can't be permissive to his beliefs, and in the case of Spinoza, his beliefs can be harmful.

[Anonymous No.17667380]

>>17667357
Just to make clearer that Spinoza's case is graver for his impact and the extension of his thought in history.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17667472]

>>17667357
>This is another thing I wonder: Spinoza puts both infinity and finity as comparable, as if the latter were not completely nullified by the former. An infinite substance would have to make room for something out of itself, it makes no sense for infinity to seek finity by itself (by its own infinite necessity - and again here we have the rupture between the substance naturally willing itself and externally willing what is finite, and what would cause even more problem would be the necessity of the latter case indeterminately, and hence infinity being constrained by finity, a totality - in the sense of the platonic idea of One - being constrained by indefinition), within itself (for how can there be finite things in infinity, all comprehensive?).

The easy answer would be the Hegelian one, that the finite by its nature exists within the infinite and from this side of the absolute is in a process of unfolding but from the view of the ultimate such is already complete and the infinite has only revealed itself to itself.

Example the infinite substance would be annihilating itself by penetrating itself, the lack of infinity would be nothing but the potential of the infinite which is instantly actualized by each and every moment within time, thus the infinite expresses as infinite Particular finites which constitute nothing but the interior of infinity and not an actual division. The external Will being finite in result is again reconciled by this because the infinite particulars of every moment throughout infinite time would constitute the totality of the infinite. Moving out of itself to externalize itself within a singular movement of the absolute, however this movement does not actually influence God, it is simply a matter of perception for those who dwell in-time and not a matter for God in his Omni-temporality.

To reiterate, the infinite sequence still contains 1, it is the unity of these over the boundless sequence in one being which constitutes infinity, thus God is no less finite by willing a finite because he Wills infinite amount of finites all at once always perpetually as he dwells in eternity and not in time.

>Thus I have a resolute conviction that no other ontology of creation is reasonable but a voluntaristic one (like Jewish, Christian and some interpretations of the Platonic one- specially in Plato himself).


Fair enough, I myself am a Christian.

Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17667480]

>>17667472
> I have an interest for people who suffer ubiquitous opposition and suffer oppression for their beliefs, but I can't be permissive to his beliefs, and in the case of Spinoza, his beliefs can be harmful.

In my eyes there’s no question of permission, no moral question. All knowledge is knowledge. All models and systems of reality are a part of history and if I could know them all even though I disagree with them all extremely I would wish to know them all. And in this same regard I am interested precisely because of the influence and not so much because he was persecuted but because of a mind who would choose such a life is a fascinating thing to study.

I’m reading a book as we speak so if you reply and I don’t automatically reply, dont be offended I’ll try to reply eventually.

[Anonymous No.17667496]

>>17665475
Just bought ethics and I’m not that smart , how should I approach it

[Anonymous No.17667528]

>>17667496
Beth lord has a great book that explains it

[Anonymous No.17667707]

>>17667472
Yeah, I think what you are saying here can be expressed in an expression of divine kenosis, no? And this I can only see happening with the ''necessity'', so to speak, of Divine Will and Divine Love (each referring to the other), God creating out of Love and because of it, freely, and this process is recognized by us, by the finite (and here I think it would be the very Divine Geist, of Hegel?). Sort of a replication of the Trinity, God empties Himself to His Son, His Son empties Himself to us and we empty ourselves to God, the providential Spirit in history/finity would be the very perichoretic movement, that is, physical movement itself being propelled by Love.

>>17667480
Yes, I agree and this is what I kind of wanted to say, that a person like Uriel da Costa, and Spinoza likewise, lived and died for his own knowledge, despite limitations.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17667768]

>>17667707
>Yeah, I think what you are saying here can be expressed in an expression of divine kenosis, no? And this I can only see happening with the ''necessity'', so to speak, of Divine Will and Divine Love (each referring to the other), God creating out of Love and because of it, freely, and this process is recognized by us, by the finite (and here I think it would be the very Divine Geist, of Hegel?). Sort of a replication of the Trinity, God empties Himself to His Son, His Son empties Himself to us and we empty ourselves to God, the providential Spirit in history/finity would be the very perichoretic movement, that is, physical movement itself being propelled by Love.

Pretty much and all of this is 100% covered by Dionysius. But again this is why I say I agree more with Hegel. God is love and I mean that in an incredibly technical sense, a poet-mystic who elaborates on this same point because of his deep study of jacob boehme would be Angelus Silesius who’s short poems summarize such concepts as we just discussed. I’ll post a couple.

229 (V. 242)
THE HIGHEST GOOD

What is the highest Good? Much talk hath been hereof
And high debate: I swear the highest Good is Love.


230 (V. 241)
EVERYTHING IS SUBJECT TO LOVE

Love is the Lord of All. Even the Trinity
Hath been in thrall to Love from all eternity.


231 (V. 243)
THE NATURE OF GOD

Love is God's nature. He can do naught else. Wouldst thou
Be God, then likewise love in every instant's Now.

But yeah, even as we find disagreements I still find knowledge is there and if the Will arises we ought study and receive the gold if possible. I’m glad we’ve more or less come to an agreement concerning these things.

[Anonymous No.17667866]

>>17667768
I have Silesius's collection of poems by the paulist press, but was intending to read it after reading Boehme. This is really good and express exactly what I think deeply.

As for Spinoza, he was prey of rationalism, not reason itself, and because of that it does not complete itself, having, by no coincidence, many holes in his system.

There is a passage in the Greater Hekhalot that says:
''Raise your eyes to heaven corresponding to your house of prayer in the hour when you say before me: 'Holy'. I have no joy in all my world that I created but when your eyes are raised to My eyes and My eyes look into your eyes in the hour that you say befoer Me, 'Holy'.''

God's Nature is Love and He cannot do anything that is not purely out of Love.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17668001]

>>17667866
I agree completely and if you are to begin boehme begin with his “clavis” as this is the work he intents for the beginner, and remember boehme also is naught but a man. Do post about Angelus around if you get the chance, I try to shill him whenever I can.

[Anonymous No.17668024]

>>17668001
>remember boehme also is naught but a man
Why do you say that?

Since you commented, I will surely begin with his Clavis, but I was thinking about moving to The Way to Christ right after it, have you read it? What do you think?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17668054]

>>17668024
>Why do you say that?

I’m adamant on the scripture alone being the highest source of authority and anything else is subject to imperfection in comparison, example his ideas concerning the divine name are surely not the end all and be all of it. And yeah it’s a good book, but here’s the way you get into boehme.

Clavis, Threefold Life, The Aurora, Questions Concerning the Soul, Theosophical Theses, Mysterium Magnum.

He says that reading order in the threefold life and then says in Clavis that the Clavis is an even more basic introduction.

[Anonymous No.17668075]

>>17668001
Where does your name come from? Just now realized it says "Asemlem" and not "Anselm", like I thought it had.

[Anonymous No.17668099]

>>17665753
>>17665808
>>17665886
Retarded brainlet

[Anonymous No.17668101]

>>17668054
Oh I see and agree with you about the scripture. By the way, if it is not importunity, do you know where I can find his Questions Concerning the Soul and Theosophical Theses?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17668112]

>>17668075
Notarikon/acronym I made many years ago from a (bad) Latin motto.

Ain Soph Est Mea LVX Et NOX (A.S.E.M.L.E.N) which would translate roughly to, Ain soph, or the Infinite Godhead is my light and my night. I took the motto as a name which is a common esotericist practice based on levels of initiation, to represent how I will see God as both the light of life and as the horrid darkness in life, how I will with effort strive to appreciate and see the divine hand and love within all of creation, all suffering or bliss in my life and others. Etc. there’s more gematria aspects to it but I’m sure you’re not interested.

[Anonymous No.17668133]

>>17668112
>how I will see God as both the light of life and as the horrid darkness in life, how I will with effort strive to appreciate and see the divine hand and love within all of creation, all suffering or bliss in my life and others.
books about this?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17668134]

>>17668101
http://jacobboehmeonline.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/The-Forty-Questions-of-the-Soul.25492204.pdf

http://jacobboehmeonline.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Six_Theosophic_Points_and_Other_Writings.358105406.pdf

The boehme library has a ton of stuff for ya Anon.

[Anonymous No.17668173]

>>17668112
Oh alright, thank you for enlightening me. I would've never guessed. On closer inspection, I thought it might have been Hebrew, as Maimonides is often fondly referred to as "Rambam" among Jewish scholars.

[Anonymous No.17668194]

>>17668134
thank you very much!

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17668223]

>>17668173
Well, partially Hebrew! Ain soph is! And The LVX and nox formulae aren’t just the names for light and night but are also complex formulae that require stuff from Hebrew but that’s really too much to get into, apologies for being off topic lads.

>>17668194
Not a problem.

[Anonymous No.17668528]

>>17667528
Thanks dawg I’ll be reading that side by side with Ethics

[Anonymous No.17668869]

>>17665627
how was spinoza not an atheist? lmao just cause someone says that the sun is God and therefore that person cannot be an atheist does not invalidate that he didn't believe in a creator which he knew what other people meant when they said God
he's a cool lad though, i wish all atheists were spinozists

[Anonymous No.17669040]

>>17668869
not believing in a God with human attributes doesn't make you atheist. you haven't read Spinoza

[Anonymous No.17670527]

>>17665475

>No femboy Spinoza gf

Why live