/lit/ - Literature

>>14314061
he's an autist who should've kept to polishing lenses

why does she trigger incels so much?

>>14314334
Simply answer the question please instead of derailing the thread for the next 100 replies.

Read Durant's intro to Spinoza. It's a complex geometric style which makes axioms and then 100 pages later relies on it for proof of some further claim. Quite difficult to follow. I've read it once and all I got was that Spinoza had a very beautiful, wise and highly intelligent mind.. insofar as it is possible.

>>14314061
None, it's clear and easy to follow, with the exception of some propositions of the fifth part.

>>14314061
Perhaps you ought to include a brief rundown of just what that is. He’s more known for his cosmological theism that resembles the For e of George Lucas. At least to me anyway.

>>14314334
Because they’re hot for her. But what’s she to do with Spinoza?

>>14314394
>>14314608
Thank you for the responses

>>14314784
>the force
So a neoplatonist idea of the one?

>>14314784
show tits

>>14314061
The largest problem for Spinoza's ethics as far as I can tell from having studied it this semester is that he commits an is-ought fallacy

>>14315329
>from having studied it this semester

Huge cringe.

>>14314061
Try Deleuze's Spinoza a practical philosophy, it is a good introduction and pretty easy to follow

>>14314784
r e t a r d

>>14315329
>he commits an is-ought fallacy
how so

>>14315434
He constructs an ethics that's primarily descriptive (X interaction with external objects/beings leads to Y passions). From this he concludes that, so long as we are not deceived or confused, we should ascribe significant (perhaps overwhelming) love to God, as God is represented in all things under Spinoza's definition. None of this gets you to something like "you *should* act in Z manner," instead you just get statements about what people currently do. This was pretty typical of ethical philosophy for the time up until Hume btfo everyone

>>14315726
To clarify, I mean to say "we *will* ascribe love to God" rather than "we should." Sorry for any confusion.

Spinoza was actually a Gnostic.

I have a translation of ethics (I've got wheelock's Latin but haven't sat through it I'm sorry forgive me)

The type of proof he's constructing is hard to follow for a person who's not used to such (idealistically) rigorous connections between ideas. There are a number of definitions, propositions and axioms that are intertwined and make callbacks. Now you'd think this could help clarify and in a way it does but considering that some of the foundational fundamental concepts like substance, extension, essence have been muddled over time if you're not used to classical philosophy, so people who are assigned are barreling forward maybe on shaky ground, it become a slog

I still love him tho, but not as much as my Hume