/lit/ - Literature

Why is Hegel the greatest philosopher?

>>13483819
1) critique my post directly >>13483538

2) >The gamer feels as though they are learning strategy, but in fact only learn the particular tactics of the machine complex they are interacting with. This again returns to the pinball comparison. The longer you play, the better you will know that particular table; if you play a lot you will improve your baseline of flipper skills, but will still be affected by each individual table; beyond pinball, however, you have not improved any skill or understanding.
This could be applied to any line of activities outside video games. Chess, for example, becomes, at a certain point, just reading theory and practicing pre-determined moves. The strategy is gone and the player relies on a compendium of moves which he has memorized, making him no better at strategy in the real world. Everything in the world can be said to become this way at a certain point where strategy for strategy’s sake becomes memorizing for strategy’s sake. Similarly, Risk, or any other strategic board game for that matter, eventually becomes a science after enough games and no longer has any strategy involved. Essentially, your point is moot because any game becomes derived of its strategy after enough time. And before you argue that at least regular games have strategy in themselves whereas video games never had them, I would like to ask you to extrapolate on what strategy even is, and how that the nature of a video game, involving virtual inputs, is so inapplicable to its practice.

I also do not agree with your point that screened data is explicitly bad. If the screened data is essential to the game then why does that make it any less valuable than the queen in chess?

>looking for a religion
Why?

How should a person start reading Spinoza? Are there external books that could help to understand his philosophy?

Can we talk about Spinoza?When you look at his thought in the light of the neoplatonist conception of God as pure unity, as expounded by meister eckhart and other, more orthodox theologians, he really doesn't seem all that heretical.

So whats the verdict on Spinoza? Did he just misunderstand Descartes and in trying to make things clearer just made them more complicated? It seems like everyone further up the canon just btfos him, not saying he dident contribute anything because his Ethics book is fucking amazing but his understanding of Reason and Cause is just wrong

*unblocks your path*

EXPLAIN SPINOZA TO ME OR I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU! DON'T DUMB IT DOWN INTO SOME VAGUE SHIT! EXPLAIN SPINOZA TO ME RIGHT NOW OR I'LL LITERALLY FUCKING KILL YOU! WHAT THE FUCK IS SUBSTANCE? WHAT THE FUCK IS AN ATTRIBUTE? DON'T DUMB IT DOWN OR I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU

I rarely see Spinoza discussed here, but I'm about halfway through his Ethics right now and I'm finding myself very drawn to it. I've been reading chronologically through the western canon for about a year now and nobody has yet resonated with me as strongly as Spinoza. I'm now curious what /lit/'s opinion is on him.