/lit/ - Literature

>>14377128
his Ethics is sort of self-contained but it's a fucking slog

>>14377128

Just power through it and help yourself to some secondary literature like the Beth Lord's book.

>>14377128
Descartes and a basic history of 17th century Amsterdam.

>>14377138
This. Just read the Ethics and suffer through it.

>treatise on the emendation of the intellect > theological-political treatise > ethics

>>14377185
Is that the one on the geometrical view in Spinozist thought?

You can start with The Bible (optional), his Theological book (this is what got him expelled from Judaism), or Deleuze's book on Spinoza (recommended).

>>14377128
Deleuze's book on Spinoza is surprisingly readable and provides a useful interpretation of him.

>>14378026

This one.

>>14377128
Just read the Ethics.

>>14379233
>>14377219
>>14377138
>dude just read this difficult 17th century philosophical treatise lmao
>criticism? supplementary literature? what is that lmao

>>14379289
Just do it bro. Come on

>>14379298
This is how pseuds are created.

>>14379289

It isn't difficult, or long.

>>14379334
I'd rather talk to a pseud that tried to understand a text on his own than the 1000th guy repeating what some secondary source told him about it

>>14379289
Just because it's difficult to you doesn't mean it's not the way to go. You're welcome to read secondary literature but OP asked for what order to read Spinoza's books in. The Ethics is where to start.

>>14379289
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU CAN'T JUST READ ORIGINAL TEXTS AND DEVELOP YOUR OWN INTERPRETATIONS OF THEM WITHOUT RELYING ON THE OPINIONS OF OTHERS NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! ONLY BY READING SECONDARY LITERATURE CAN YOU REALLY UNDERSTAND THE TEXT BECAUSE YOU NEEEEEEEEEEED THE HELP OF ACADEMICS!!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>14379359
>>14379399
>>14379420
>>14380247
>

>>14377128
>How do I start with Spinoza?
By reading Roger Scruton

>>14381448
this entire series is pretty good.

>>14380247
>original
>texts

Why was Goethe a Spinozist bros? It seems so unlike him.

either dive straight into ethics or read deleuze's "spinoza: practical philosophy" and then read ethics. if you like ethics then read spinoza's other works, he doesn't have a lot

I think Spinoza is a great place to start with philosophy! One of the smartest people I've ever read.
Maybe read the Theological Political Treatise first? It's not necessary but that's what I did.
Don't listen to everyone saying the Ethics is a slog. It's a pure joy, especially the scholia

>>14381648
this too

>>14377128
Just read it. I mean it doesn't hurt to be familiar with rationalism, but if you're getting into Spinoza, then chances are this isn't your first rodeo
Be ready to jump back and forth to review Spinoza's definitions (found in the book itself), plus most propositions refer to previous ones.
It's a great read, it simply requires considerable time and dedication .

>>14379289
Read Nadler or something then along with the ethics and quit whining

>>14380576
kys

>>14381660
based
>>14381448
good introductory texts are a blessing

I would strongly advise avoiding Deleuze's book on Spinoza, at least at first. It has very little to do with the historical Spinoza.

>>14381892
there's nothing in deleuze's little book on spinoza that isn't in spinoza itself, only worded in deleuze's own terminology at times

>>14381448
Halfway through and feeling like this book is a godsend.

>>14381648
>deleuze's "spinoza: practical philosophy"
This was pretty easy to understand

>>14378862

that is a terrible secondary text to Spinoza

>>14381448

Scruton is also terrible

>>14383227

sort of, but Deleuze further complicates Spinoza in this by introducing a hermenutical account of Spinoza.

>>14377128

You are best starting with Spinoza by figuring out what it is you want to learn.

If you want to understand Ethics, it is best to start with Descartes account of substance in his Principles of Philosophy. Find out what Descartes means by substance, attributes and modes (substance dualism).

then look at what Spinoza says about substance and immanence in Ethics, and how he takes Descartes model and troubleshoots it.

I would try avoid Deleuze for a while as he makes Spinoza a Nietzschean anti-philosopher, which is interesting but can mislead you with the post-modern language (BwO = substance immanence/plane of immanence > transcendence) etc.,

>>14377138
what kind of tasteless pseud thinks the Ethics is a "slog"? It is a fascinating piece of work, truly innovative in its structure, and very engaging to read. Although I suppose most of nu-/lit/ is more used to watching the school of life than reading philosophy, so maybe that's it.

>>14379399
Based, dubs confirm.

>>14383292

>that is a terrible secondary text to Spinoza

Why?

Reading secondary sources before the original works is the most brainlet thing I ever heard

>>14377138
How is it a slog it's literally like reading geometry.
Also, read Descartes Meditations or Principles if you want a lot of context, but otherwise the Ethics is fine.

>>14383938
Maybe not everyone likes reading geometry you spastic fuck

>>14384223
It's clear, though. Like, he literally numbers every argument he makes basically. It's not Hegel.