[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 19 KB, 264x277, Baruch_de_Spinoza2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12714180 No.12714180 [Reply] [Original]

are there any refutations for his proof of god?

>> No.12714185

>>12714180
>was a Jewish-Dutch philosopher of Portuguese Sephardi origin.

>> No.12714194

>>12714185
Many academics these days are. Doesn’t make what they are saying fundamentally incorrect

>> No.12714204

>>12714185
Keep up the good work, letting everyone know how essential our Jewish brothers are to the western tradition by always pointing them out.

>> No.12714226

>>12714180
A cause is not a reason, a reason is not a cause. Where's my doctorate?

>> No.12714232

>>12714194
it literally does though

>> No.12714275

Spinoza's God isn't really a God.

(Spinoza is the faggiest looking philosopher ever, change my mind)

>> No.12714329

Kant quite literally BTFO'd all arguments for God.

existence is not a predicate

>> No.12714340

>>12714329
you're just spoiling for a fight, aren't you?

>> No.12714436

>>12714340
EXISTENCE IS NOT A PREDICATE

>> No.12714451

>>12714232
Nice argument

>> No.12714464

>>12714329
>blown-the-fuck-outed

Stop it.

>> No.12714468

>>12714180
His 'proof' is a cosmological tautology, albeit an impressive one. I think the only way you could argue the other way is to suggest that if Being was a god then the beautiful modality of his thought is effectively redundant. Replace Being as God with Being that turns around the modes and you lose the need to make a being of reality, providing us with the model for a mechanistic universe that only appears to be divinely engineered.

>> No.12714476

>>12714436
If you'd actually read (and paid attention to) the refutation of the ontological argument you would know that Kant never denies the predication of existence. He splits categories into two types, real and logical, and shows that the copula is the former kind because it does not alter the concept itself, but only how it is situated in the context of our personal under standing. This means, when people posit God "exists" in the ontological proof, they employ a vague double meaning in "exists": firstly, "pure existence" as a name, secondly, actual existence as a discrete object. I take it you have "studied" Kant rather than read him.

>> No.12714490

>>12714476
>He splits categories
sorry, predicates

>> No.12714516
File: 29 KB, 200x342, 200px-Religion_within_the_bounds_of_bare_reason_(German_edition).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12714516

>>12714329
Ha ha
Dumbass

>> No.12714536

>>12714476
>He splits categories into two types, real and logical,
I did read the refutation, but this part kind of puzzled me.

>> No.12714566

>>12714180
No but Leibniz's monads improve upon the idea of God

>> No.12714601

>>12714451
thanks

>> No.12715496

>>12714601
underage detected, fuck off to /pol/ or off yourself

>> No.12715565
File: 13 KB, 244x300, Alexandre-Kojeve-244x300.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12715565

>>12714180
btfo:

>the difference between Spinoza and Hegel can be formulated in the following way: Hegel becomes God by thinking or writing the Logik; or, if you like, it is by becoming God that he writes or thinks it. Spinoza, on the other hand, must be God from all eternity in order to be able to write or think his Ethics. Now, if a being that becomes God in time can be called "God" only provided that it uses this term as a metaphor (a correct meta- phor, by the way), the being that has always been God is God in the proper and strict sense of the word. Therefore, to be a Spinozist is actually to replace God the Father (who has no Son, incidentally) by Spinoza, while maintaining the notion of divine transcendence in all its rigor; it is to say that Spinoza is the transcendent God who speaks, to be sure, to human beings, but who speaks to them as eternal God. And this, obviously, is the height of absurdity: to take Spinoza seriously is actually to be—or to become—mad.

>> No.12715632

>>12714185
Jews are God's chosen people...

>> No.12715653

>>12714476
but the "proof" is refuted anyway. When I deny the existence of God I'm denying the concept itself, not only the exemplification of the concept in the real world. Both logical and empirical existence of God are denied

>> No.12715714

>>12714180
I literally don't understand how you guys understand any of this philosopher-speak at all, I listen to it and it's unintelligible to me. Existence, predicates, modes, substance, ontology...I can't grasp any of it...I seem to only be able to understand my own person and the structure of myself, i.e consciousness, mind, emotions, etc, and all these abstractions on God and reality and whatever else I just cannot grasp even somewhat...

>> No.12716058

>>12715714
That is because you do not read, and if you do, you do not pay attention. If you wish to enrich yourself intellectually, then (as all things in life) you must make an effort to it.
Study the meaning of these words, see their context in the texts.

>> No.12716078

>>12716058
Is it conducive to self-realization? Isn't all knowledge, being within myself, myself by nature? Anything that I study can only be a study of myself, isn't it? That's my position, and I'm curious what you think about that. If I read into Spinoza and Kant and the rest of these guys, am I truly learning about anything which isn't me? Is it even possible to learn of anything that isn't me? And if not, would it be better for me to just focus on me, directly?

Brainlet questions, but please answer it. I'm just not sure all these ruminations on God in terms of modes and predicates or so on will actually amount to any increased knowledge of myself, compared to studying Sufiism for example. And so I'm scared to, feeling it might be a waste of time, an intellectual exercise that doesn't give me greater wisdom. Help prove me wrong, please.

>> No.12716095
File: 334 KB, 1260x1600, 176962-050-4BC9F588.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12716095

>>12716078
>self-realization
>myself
>myself
>myself
>me
>me
>me
>myself
>me
>me

>> No.12716634

>>12714185
> Constantly reminding everyone that the vast majority of history's greatest thinkers and artists were Jewish
Your /pol/ propaganda seems to be backfiring

>> No.12716715

>>12716078
i think im kind of like you in that im sort of in over my head with this kind of stuff but honestly I think it's valuable to challenge yourself with difficult concepts even if they don't immediately help you self-realize or whatever.
like for me reading ethics was tough and took a long time but it opened up new ways of thinking for me and i think thats valuable :-)

>> No.12716894
File: 966 KB, 2580x3152, H5iToxx.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12716894

>>12714185
Thank you for your service

>> No.12716914

>>12716715
awww <3 okay anon, i like that explanation. i want to expand my capacities of thought, and will follow your footsteps like you've said here <3 u have a nice night my fren :-)

>> No.12716926

>>12716634
>vast majority
no one's buying it chaim

>> No.12716930

>>12716634
Bit of a stretch, but yes there is a decent amount

>> No.12716933
File: 237 KB, 422x279, galaxy brain.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12716933

>>12714185
>you may think jews are good but have you considered that they're bad

>> No.12716939

>>12716933
>you may think jews are good
things no one has ever said

>> No.12716940

>all the assblasted jews getting upset
keep doing what you're doing

>> No.12716945

>>12716933
This but unironically

>> No.12717180

>>12714204
I have a theory that the greentext jew identifying poster is actually a jew himself, and his plan is to make anti-Semitism so annoying that he'll turn everyone anti-anti-Semitic

>> No.12717195

>>12716894
10 saints
a pope
and prof. literally who

>> No.12717259

>>12715565
what the flying fuck

>> No.12717555

>>12714185
Spinoza was such a stereotypically subversive jew that he subverted the stereotype and outjewed the Jews. The lad got excommunicated by a bunch of psychopaths. Spinoza is based and fundamental to the best understandings of the modern world.

>> No.12717563

>>12717180
it's not working

>> No.12717590

>>12716078
I think you're asking a lot of good questions. There are many useful answers to it. A start would be to meditate on "man was made in God's image". Even if you are an evil athetist heretic, you can see how the discourses on the nature of existence can be expanded to the existence of you and the ontology of your environment. To answer your question about knowledge of not-self, I'd personally say that the notion of self is constructed and emergent, not eternal and unbreakable.

>> No.12717622

>>12717555
>fundamental to the best understandings of the modern world.
true in the sense that modernity is founded on jewish supremacism

>> No.12717648

>>12717622
You do realize that the most anti-Jewish thing I can think of, ecofascism, has its roots in deep ecology which in itself has its roots in Spinoza's work.

>> No.12717672

>>12717648
>the most anti-Jewish thing i can possibly conceive of is a meme ideology that no one outside of 4chinz has ever heard of
i rest my case

>> No.12717695

>>12714180

I would simply say that he makes quite arbitrary, regular, and convenient use of natural language, none of which is treated in his various definitions. The irony that mathematics itself does exactly the same thing while also valuing a certain rigor, is not lost on me. Let us say that I am simply unconvinced by Spinoza, just as I am unconvinced by Descartes or by Leibniz, with respect to their religious philosophical views. However, I am quite convinced by their mathematical ones. (so, what's the difference?) That said, I do respect Spinoza's "system". I would like to be clear that I've only read the Ethics, once, and not the other one, or any other minor works.

For Spinoza, his own G-d, it seems to me, is merely a culturally useful starting point for his ex post facto explanations of human nature, many of which are true (human nature is real, and consequently a useful category for understanding reality, but not for the reasons that he thinks) in spite of, and not because of, the G-d foundation purported to have been laid before. A little birdy tells me that Spinoza's G-d is supposed to be "nature itself" or similar, but I didn't really get this flavor while reading, esp. in the first 2 parts. I had much more a modern notion of G-d as a /machine/, esp. about the stuff about how G-d moves necessarily and inevitably in certain ways, and has no free will (my paraphrase, I see how this can be taken as nature-itself but: 2 flavors of the concept).

I mentioned to Dad that I'd "read Spinoza". He's not interested in philosophy, but he immediately lit up and got a little old cartoon "weird facts of history" book from his shelf. The very first item: "Spinoza used to enjoy watching spiders fight.", accompanied by a simple 60s' drawing of the curly-haired man watching two spiders in a miniature boxing ring.

>> No.12717706

>>12716078
So you’re a solipsist? But anon, the search for truth just is the search for what-is independent of you.

>> No.12717708

>>12717672
There's discussion and awareness of deep ecology where I live, there's even a damn biosemiotics department. With that said, there are other clusters of thought that aren't Fourchan or the academy. You ought to broaden your intellectual horizons

>> No.12717735

>>12717648
>deep ecology has its roots in Spinoza's work.
I assume you either haven't read Spinoza or didn't understand him.
Spinoza makes clear that there is no imperium in imperio.

>> No.12717745

>>12715565
please explain

>> No.12717750

>>12717735
Deep ecology is explicit in not being just a political movement, but a radical shift in ontology. I have read Spinoza only in secondary capacity (Deleuze, a lecture series) but I think you're mischaracterizing what deep ecology is.

>> No.12717792

>>12717750
>Deep ecology promotes the inherent worth of living beings regardless of their instrumental utility to human needs.
Ethics, IV, Proposition 37, Scholia 1: ''...From this it is clear that the requirement to refrain from slaughtering beasts is founded on groundless superstition and womanish compassion rather than on sound reason. The principle of seeking our own advantage teaches us to be in close relationship with men, not with beasts or things whose nature is different from human nature, and that we have the same right over them as they over us.''
If men are ''destroying'' nature, it is not men who destroy it, but natura naturans, nature naturing.

>> No.12717835

>>12715565
Based

>> No.12717837

>>12715565
>the difference between Spinoza and Hegel can be formulated in the following way: Spinoza becomes God by thinking or writing the Ethics; or, if you like, it is by becoming God that he writes or thinks it. Hegel, on the other hand, must be God from all eternity in order to be able to write or think his Logik. Now, if a being that becomes God in time can be called "God" only provided that it uses this term as a metaphor (a correct metaphor, by the way), the being that has always been God is God in the proper and strict sense of the word. Therefore, to be a Hegelian is actually to replace God the Father (who has no Son, incidentally) by Hegel, while maintaining the notion of divine transcendence in all its rigor; it is to say that Hegel is the transcendent God who speaks, to be sure, to human beings, but who speaks to them as eternal God. And this, obviously, is the height of absurdity: to take Hegel seriously is actually to be—or to become—mad.

this seems like something more accurate w/r/t Kojeve

>> No.12717849

>>12714194
Yes it does. They present as something they're not therefore what they say is fraudulent.

>> No.12717990
File: 1.68 MB, 2592x1944, 20190307_095413.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12717990

>>12717792
The view you pointed out is the other Spinozist ideology of n/ACC. Naess obviously isn't just Spinoza, it is a borrowing from or stealing, if you prefer that. I personally don't subscribe to deep ecology or fascism, but I am deeply sympathetic to what they're trying to do and I think that they get a good deal of things right.

>> No.12718584

>>12714180
>I define God as the chair I'm sitting on
>the chair I'm sitting on exists
>therefore, God exists