/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19020748]

Read ethics.

[Anonymous No.19020986]

Ok, in what language?
I have an English copy

[Anonymous No.19020988]

>reading a disgusting kike

[Anonymous No.19020993]

>>19020988
Spinoza was exiled by other Jews

[Anonymous No.19021006]

>>19020988
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.19021077]

>>19020988
It's okay to admit you're jealous of Jews for having a tightly knit ethno-spiritual community and tradition, as well as higher IQ resulting in greater academic and business success.

[Anonymous No.19021100]

Read Pensees

[Anonymous No.19021116]

>>19020748
Best use of the imperative on this board right now; the use of the period as opposed to the exclamation point brings the great man himself to mind.

[Anonymous No.19021286]

>>19020748
I tried. I couldn't get past the 4th definition

[Anonymous No.19021665]

>>19020988
Jews are bad because their religion is a cope for christianity and for their ridiculous xenophobia and isolationism, not because of the fact that they are levantines.

[Anonymous No.19021742]

>>19020748
Will do chief, thanks for the reminder.

[Anonymous No.19021750]

>their ridiculous xenophobia

[Anonymous No.19021759]

It's on the list, but I'm finishing some other stuff first >.>

[Anonymous No.19021811]

>>19020748
no i will not

[Anonymous No.19021827]

>>19020988
based

[Anonymous No.19021854]

>>19021665
>xenophobia and isolationism
Anon, they're everywhere and mix with everyone.

[Anonymous No.19021927]

>>19021854
Ask them what they think about gentilic converts or if goys should be allowed to live in Israel. Jews are the most racist people on the planet. They also move to countries, form isolationist enclaves and then demand special treatment. Spinoza is based for making them seethe.

[Anonymous No.19022395]

>>19021927
First off, Spinoza's my philosopher, so no problems here
Second,
It's never been Jews that have kept Jews together, anon, but the tools that have incessantly pressured them to keep together. Is this not obvious? It isn't wise to envy either their antiquity or their social cohesiveness because it will be used more effectively against you. Hatred when it lacks form is bestial, and ultimately silly when doesn't: it always loses.

[Anonymous No.19022466]

I love the Ethics, is it worth peeping more of Spinoza’s shit? Ethics is obviously self-contained so it’s not necessary. His old shit seems more Cartesian. His unfinished work, the Theo-something, seems pretty cool. His interpretations of scripture seem but it doesn’t seem quite as thrilling as the ethics

[Anonymous No.19022504]

>>19020748
I don’t mean to alarm you, but Spinoza’s ethics has no academic value in modern philosophy. No rationally derived metaphysics bro. Not to mention rationally derived knowledge in general doesn’t exist lmao

[Anonymous No.19022537]

>>19022466
His Theo-something's complete; it's the Political Treatise that isn't. Totally worth your time (and less demanding than Ethics)

[Anonymous No.19022540]

>>19022504
>no academic value in modern philosophy
That's just not true

[Anonymous No.19022557]

>>19022466
>peeping
Begone

[Anonymous No.19022568]

>>19022504
>writes (irrationally) as if all accredited philosophy departments in the universe comprise some formidable, anti-Spinozic bloc
ngmi

[Anonymous No.19022649]

>>19022504
>muh academic value
nietzsche is laughing at you from the grave

[Anonymous No.19022677]

>>19020748
>Read skeptical metaethics
FTFY

Reminder that statements of morality such as "murder is evil" cannot be logically proven without relying on axioms that themselves cannot be proven, thus eventually falling into a circular reasoning. Any moral belief is held only by blind faith, thus the idea of "secular morality" is retarded, you may not believe that a bearded magic man told you that murder is evil, but your belief that murder is evil is no less mystical in nature.

[Anonymous No.19022707]

>>19022677
For the record, Stirner, Nietzsche and Rand are the only three philosophers worth reading when it comes to ethics (other philosophers may work in other fields ofc).

[Anonymous No.19023248]

>>19022568
The arguments against a rational metaphysic goes all the way back to Kant and the analytics and skeptics made rational axioms / knowledge an untenable position, it’s not anti Spinoza it’s anti rationalist lol

[Anonymous No.19023266]

Is it true Spinoza and HEGEL have a lot in common?

Asking for my friend ok so don't call me stupid.

[Anonymous No.19023719]

>>19023266
Hegel thought of himself as a sort of Spinozist. In his work Practical Philosophy, Deleuze says Hegel and Goethe are pseudo-Spinozists whereas Nietzsche, Kleist, and Holderlin are real Spinozists.

[Anonymous No.19023767]

I am halfway through Leviathan, then I must read Descartes meditations.
THEN I will read Thpinoza

[Anonymous No.19023857]

>>19023719
Very interesting thanks

[Anonymous No.19024397]

>>19023248
Both Kant and in a very different way Hegel v Spinoza are inadequate; and so far as the rationalist v empiricist 'debate' is concerned who dominates through time shifts back and forth. Chomsky's rationalist linguistics dominated 'academic fields' beyond his own up until not all that long ago, though I do admit an empiric bias takes precedence now in Anglosphere philosophy depts. And what does one find here? Incessant quibbling about minutiae. Also, don't forget that this is a literature board, and that literary uses of history, psychology, philosophy, science, etc., need not reflect what the prevailing academic interests are within those fields at the current time

[Anonymous No.19024600]

>>19020748
I did and it was rubbish. Jews are really talentless hacks.

[Anonymous No.19024731]

>>19023719
Deleuze hated Hegel. I dont see how hegel is a Spinozist at all lmao, this feels like a meme parroted by people who havent actually read Hegel. In what way is he a Spinozist or pseudo Spinozist beyond the banality of connecting their Absolutes as constitutive of Reality.

[Anonymous No.19025531]

>>19024731
Hegel's criticism of Spinoza basically assumes Spinoza posited a thinking negative relative to a mute indifferent, extension, thereby ignoring the 'positive' world of 'Spirit', which Hegel then interpolates into his understanding of Spinoza: thereby building up his own philosophical perspective blah blah blah. Anyone who's studied Spinoza however knows instinctively that Spinoza's attribute of Thinking necessarily absorbs this 'processing' and moves on..
I don't think Hegel worthless, however. His lectures are excellent and he has many keen insights (about art, life, science, whatever) especially in the Zusätze of his Encyclopedia. The wonderful thing about a literary perspective (as opposed to a philosophical one) is that one can mine the clever insights of philosophers latterday philosophers themselves by and large reject, like Bergson et al.
If the dialectic is a thinking process then Spinoza's attribute of Thinking completely absorbs it (as just one other mode of an infinite 'number' of possible modes of thinking), if it isn't, if it is maybe something other (perhaps a revelation?) then Hegel is somehow right, which, of course, he isn't. Kant's misreading is even weaker.

[Anonymous No.19025673]

>>19022677
>>19022707
>stirnerite's opinions

[Anonymous No.19025767]

>>19025531
The thing is that Spinoza's metaphysics is compeltely botched. There is an insurmountable gap between direct and indirect infinite and finite modes.

[Anonymous No.19025776]

>>19020748
>>19021100
which one first?

[Anonymous No.19027125]

>>19020748
i did, it was a fucking slog and worthless considering kant

[Anonymous No.19027274]

>>19025767
You mean immediate and mediate infinite modes and no there's not. Read Don Garrett's comments on them in Necessity and Nature in Spinoza's Philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19028108]

>>19020748
I read the first part because i was interested in pantheism at the time, but after that i stopped reading because i didn't had interest in the rest. Should i pick it up again? it is worth to read the rest?

[Anonymous No.19028139]

>>19027274
Spinoza himself wrote on Ethics that the finite modes are enclosed to themselves (infinite chain of finite modes, that is).

[Anonymous No.19028284]

>>19028139
Provide a cento to discuss, or cite a portion of text

[Anonymous No.19028323]

>>19027125
>slog...considering Kant
kek. 'considering' maybe, but not reading

[Anonymous No.19028333]

>>19028284
>prop. 28 ''Every individual thing, or everything which is finite and has a conditioned existence, cannot exist or be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned for existence and action by a cause other than itself, which also is finite, and has a conditioned existence; and likewise this cause cannot in its turn exist, or be conditioned to act, unless it be conditioned for existence and action by another cause, which also is finite, and has a conditioned existence, and so on to infinity.''

[Anonymous No.19028396]

>>19025531
>Hegel's criticism of Spinoza basically assumes Spinoza posited a thinking negative relative to a mute indifferent, extension, thereby ignoring the 'positive' world of 'Spirit'
Hegel's criticism was that Spinoza mistakenly thought one could move from the Absolute to the subjective. Spirit has to become conscious of itself before it can describe the Absolute. Whatever Spinoza's Thinking does is besides the point: what matters is that Thinking cannot begin with the objective because of the Kantian critique of traditional metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.19028448]

>>19024731
>I dont see how hegel is a Spinozist at all lmao
They're both monist pantheists, which might not sound that noteworthy now but was absolutely critical esp. in the contemporary controversies of Enlightenment philosophy.

>When one begins to philosophize one must be first a Spinozist. The soul must bathe itself in the aether of this single substance, in which everything one has held dear is submerged

[Anonymous No.19028494]

>>19028448
Doesn't Hegel make an explicit difference between transcendental Spirit and immanent Spirit? Please explain me how this is pantheistic.

[Anonymous No.19028565]

>>19028494
I don't think he does. Where did you read that?

[Anonymous No.19028588]

>>19020748
Does anyone know any online lectures on the Ethics? I want to follow an expert while I read

[Anonymous No.19028654]

>>19028139
I know he did but read the book I recommended and it's clear. And I'll add that the distinction between infinite and finite modes functions as a realisation of God within the text itself; by grappling with the distinction and how they can relate to one another, and realising that the thread of NECESSITY (which is power and understanding and existence) runs throughout Spinoza's metaphysics, you realise how it is that you are in God and are God.

[Anonymous No.19028722]

>>19028654
read >>19028333

[Anonymous No.19028766]

>>19028654
>>19028722
What I mean is that you said there was no gap, I showed you how there is. I am open to understanding your point but could you not just tell me? How can I stop what I'm doing now to read a whole chapter in order to reply to you after your telling me there was no gap when in fact there is?

[Anonymous No.19028784]

>>19028722
Yes, anon, I have read Ethics. Let me explain. Finite modes follow from the attributes but not from their *absolute nature*. Spinoza does not deny that the whole series of finite modes follows from the absolute nature of the attributes, only that particular finite modes cannot follow in this manner. Therefore, the series as a whole can be considered as an infinite mode.This needs to be considered in tandem with the nature of particular finite modes. Imo Bennett is right about them; briefly, he argues that finite modes are predicates of substance, because Spinoza makes a distinction between distinguishing things "really" (which, in the Latin, relates to "things") and "modally" (qualitywise). Substance has no parts; finite modes are not concrete things but qualities of substance spatially located. Thus, the role of the infinite
and finite modes *in the text* serve to overcome conceptions of reality as things and to support conceptions of reality as a realm of shifting qualities (which function under regular laws; on this, see Spinoza's comments on physics in the lemmas, although he does slightly confusingly talk about corpora simplicissima there, but let's not get into that).

[Anonymous No.19028797]

>>19028784
This is stuff taken from my uni work which I haven't looked at in months so I hope it makes sense.

[Anonymous No.19028829]

>>19028766
So, just to clarify what I was getting at in >>19028784: Spinoza does outline a gap, but if you follow what he says, the gap is only apparent and the reasoning away of it functions as an example of how one should conceive of reality in his system and links in to the wider point of Ethics beyond metaphysics as a realising of man's eternity and God's immanence.

[Anonymous No.19028865]

What was Spinoza's basic argument?

[Anonymous No.19028872]

>>19028865
Spinoza scholars have not reached a consensus on that question.

[Anonymous No.19028935]

>>19028784
Aren't infinite modes that follow from the attributes since the attributes are infinite and express infinitely the substance's essence?
>the whole series can be considered as an infinite mode
Whole means and implies definition, that is, something complete. The series of finite modes is ''infinite'' (indefinite, actually, Spinoza doesn't even make a distinction between infinite and indefinite). In order for it to follow from another, it must be definite, it must have a link, but the series is forever incomplete insofar as the series is the series of finite modes. The series is what it is because of its compounds, not the compounds are what they are because of the series.

[Anonymous No.19029116]

What is the difference between ethics and morality?

[Anonymous No.19029139]

>>19029116
ethics parasitizes morality and so misses the fundamental premiss of any axiological judgement (basically morality is tied with epistemology which is in turn tied with ontology, ethics is secularized corruption losing the bonds with ontology).

[Anonymous No.19029143]

>>19029116
Ethics is both an anatomy of, and program for, human behavior; in despite of the way it's generally used morality merely references human behavior in general, no schedule, no program

[Anonymous No.19029179]

>>19029139
>>19029143
Kek. Antipodes

[Anonymous No.19029214]

>>19028865
Do well honestly

[Anonymous No.19029231]

>>19029116
Ethics have to do with praxis. A prisoner in a cell can be moral but not ethical.

[Anonymous No.19029881]

>>19020748

Have, it's silly and doesn't establish the things it purports to establish. No, I didn't misread it.

[Anonymous No.19029930]

>>19029881
It purports to be philosophy, and it's far more enlightening than most. Do you realize that your claim can only be made by one in full possession of the truth? In order to misread, one must know how to read, anon

[Anonymous No.19029943]

>>19022707
This is how your brain turns out when you don't start with the Greeks. Nicomachean Ethics largely surpass any of these 3 autists' screeching.

[Anonymous No.19029978]

>>19028865
The only way to live is learn schizophrenia and write a book

[Anonymous No.19030047]

Ethics is probably the area of philosophy that has made the least progress so far and it is the least naturalistic.
A sound account of ethics will have to present morals as a social phenomenon. We can interpret statements like "x is wrong" as pointing to a relation without revealing one of its terms. So eg. murder is wrong would mean that murder is disapproved by such and such social group. It is perfectly possible to have an objective science of ethics, you just need to get rid of all reference to notions such as the good in itself and approach morality as a natural phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.19030066]

>>19030047
whose nature?

[Anonymous No.19030091]

>>19030047
natural? lmao

[Anonymous No.19030104]

>>19029930

>dude god is a machine because artibrary un-rigorous word salad lmao
>dude the emotions are RGB admixtures of three base states lmao

[Anonymous No.19030109]

>>19030047
>It is perfectly possible to have an objective science of ethics, you just need to get rid of all reference to notions such as the good in itself and approach morality as a natural phenomenon.
So literally what Spinoza did then?

[Anonymous No.19030170]

>>19030109
Yes but Spinoza still doesn't give the correct account. Ethical statements have nothing to do with a supposed ideal model of the perfect human, they rather indicate what activities a set community approves or disapproves