/lit/ - Literature

>>11233906
>>11233502
>>11233396

how fucking convenient.

>>11170542
All things excellent are as difficult as they are rare desu

What did you take from his works?

what went right?

>>10948276
>Laid groundwork for 18th century enlightenment.
>Greatest rationalist of 17th century.
>Hegel said of him, "...You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all."
>Wasn't even a philosopher, but a lens-grinder and instrument maker.

How was this possible?

Spinoza or Leibniz?

umm, what if i prove to you that vacuums do indeed exist?

>>10282064
Your mind is the idea of your body

Why are human specific capabilities and connection to nature seen as binary opposites and mutually exclusive?

Why are you asking a weeb image posting site?

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3800/3800-h/3800-h.htm

Is this sound under modern logic?

Daily reminder that all modern philosophy has been corrupted by Dutch Jew Baruch (((Spinoza))) with his Talmudic supposed magnum opus ethics which attacked the church and Christianity by disguising itself as a criticism of all religions (if it was really why didn't he publish it in the arab world) like how modern atheists such as Sam (((Harris))) and Christopher (((Hitchens))) do now. If you don't believe me then why did Hegel who influenced (((Marx))) say "you are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all" and 20th century french communist Gilles Deleuze call him the prince of philosophers?

>>9016617
Correct.

>atheist jew gets into western philosophy
>its ruined forever
Why do jews ruin everything?

How can one man be so right about everything?

Nietzsche basically copy and pasted his work, replaced "God" with "Will To Power" and gave it a macho tone.

*tips fedora

help out here. alright so spinoza doesnt believe in straight up free will, but says if we better understood causes we could sort choose to act upon either those that come from inside us (active) or outside us (passive), and that the active is more in line with the unfolding of god? but isn't that choice, or the acquisition of knowledge of causes, determined in the same way everything else is? aren't the active and passive causes both part of god and the substance?

if some of the above assumptions are wrong, i'm just having trouble understanding where in his system spinoza has room for anything resembling choice of action, and if he doesn't, why he thinks any particular sort of action is important.

Who are some good commentators on spinozas work?

redpill me on spinoza /lit/

>>8646345
Hmm, well I guess you can view it that way.

I just view God as any being or entity, immortal or not, that can manipulate reality and causality in a way that shows that they are above causality itself and are not bound by this reality's causality.
If some alien were able to perform magic and do whatever it wants, would it not be considered a God? The answer is no, as it is simply manipulating causality with the tools available within causality, like science, but to the point where it's indistinguishable from magic. Only something that is truly above causality and manipulates all events at a whim is considered a God. There are two aspects of proving that such an entity exist, the unmoved mover and miracles.

The unmoved mover is basically the prime mover of all of causality and some entity, real or not, that started the chain of causality. This is what people ask ''well who created God? He always existed'' etc. And if you deny such an entity, you endlessly go backwards without a visible point of origin or prime mover. So the only conclusion is to just accept the axiom that existence exist, reality is real, and leave it as that. Cut the prime mover and only focus on causality within this reality.

Miracles are events within causality which seemingly do not follow an a prior understanding of causality. The parting of the red sea for example. Water cannot do that. An entity that can manipulate causality sure could. But if you try to explain that even in more ''realistic'' terms, theologian would say that maybe it was just a hot day, and the water dried up. But that's boring, since it removes the entity that manipulates causality. If a little boy is dying and doctors have no way to save him, yet somehow survive, it's a miracle. Something outside of causality likely saved him! A God or entity surely manipulated causality to protect that boy's life! This is also what >>8646313 means when he asks how come X happens and not Y if a being could manipulate causality.

Polytheism is essentially just many entity that manipulate only certain aspects of causality, while a monotheistic god, like the christian God, which we call God, is in control of everything that relates to causality. Hence, when people pray for a good action to go their way, they are wishing causality to somehow endow them in the way they desire. But it cannot be shown that causality was manipulated in a way that was different than causality operating within its own rules. If you win the lottery, did God make the balls with your numbers fall a certain way, or was it just luck?

Spinoza argues that God is nature, but I would go a step higher and just argue that God is causality itself.

>>8600018
You're better off buying single works/books for each school of philosophy.

how is pantheism not just atheism. i am not talking about religions that have pantheistic elements like taoism, buddhism and hinduism. because i get how they are religions it is cause there is a super natural element. where as the pantheism of spinoza, how is that not just atheism

Who here /jewandatheist/?

How do I into Spinoza?

Is it necessary that I read Descartes works first? I've just read opinions of him from other philosophers