/lit/ - Literature

yeah we know you're CIA, spinoza was a satanist. fuck immanence, fuck substance, and most importantly, fuck the demiurge

>>17636624
t. Larper

Based Spinozian, dubs confirm.

>>17636646
Um, try again sweaty

>b-but Spinoza didn't have a fighting Spider!!

>>17636660
Descartes larpers in shambles

>>17636646
t. undergrad who just read Ethics and will move on to Hegel in a year
sad

>>17636697
Oof, Hegel. Been there done that. Spinoza (pbuh) reins supreme.

>>17636705
>reins
so how does hegel fall short of spinoza?

>>17636624
Meds. Now.

>>17636612
>"According to Colerus, an early biographer, Spinoza liked to amuse himself by transferring a spider he had caught into a rival spider's web, pitting them against each other in mortal combat. Another variation was throwing a fly or two into the mix. These insect battles reportedly made Spinoza roar with laughter."

>>17636726
>talmudic slave of the archons entertained himself by torturing life
yeah wow really pokes those pistachios

>>17636738
You are naught but a gnat caught in the infinite web of Spinoza, a lesser affect passing to inferior glory. You will never know the joy of becoming the ultimate spiderman.

>>17636710
The better question is how doesn't he

>>17636755
cringe, try this one again after you get some pussy in college

>>17636762
no I'm asking the expert. how does hegel btfo spinoza?

>>17636738
>torturing

How is tranferring spiders into other webs torture? He's just putting their animalistic instincts to the test

Is Spinoza's philosophy relevant today? I'm thinking about reading Ethics.

>>17636772
He doesn't btfo Spinoza lmao

>>17636776
>I'M JUST HAVING A GOOD TIME WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME STOP HAVING A GOOD TIME EVIL IS SUBJECTIVE
shut up you fucking wanker

>>17636772
Hegels ontological theory is incomplete and logically fallible, whereas Spinozas panentheist Ethics is a fully rounded and polished masterpiece.

>>17636801
Wow, you really need to go back.

>>17636801
>implying evil isn't subject
O i am laffin

>>17636807
how is hegel's concept of negativity different from spinoza's? tick tock motherfucker

>>17636814
>>17636827
1984 just came in the mail today, boys? yeah I remember those days. wait until you read lolita.

>>17636854
When Hegel declares "The true is the whole. However, the whole is only the essence completing itself through its own development.", it is fallible in nature, this should be self evident if you have a strong grasp upon Hegels writing. Spinoza, on the other hand, finds that the true exists not in a corporeal entity, nor a structure of logic, but in Substance itself.

>>17636895
But this Substance is itself a corporeal entity

>>17636895
And Hegel would say Substance is Subject. So? Are you sure you're not a memer?

>>17636612
>>Spinoza was an athei-
>"After stating his proof for God’s existence, Spinoza addresses who “God” is. Spinoza believed that God is “the sum of the natural and physical laws of the universe".
Which is an atheistic position using theistic jargon. Sorry, there is no 'god' that is defined as a sum of laws.

>>17636914
It isn't, attributes to the substance can be perceived as corporeal and be rationalised by our own emotive effects, but since this part of the substance is just an essence, that negates the corporeal nature of The Substance in itself. Remember, Spinozas substance isn't Pantheistic, it is more of a Panentheist concept.

>>17636935
You've misinterpreted the entire premise of The Substance, see >>17636953

>>17636945
Read Spinozas Ethics.

>>17636945
>"atheistic position using theistic jargon"
>atheistic

Please tell me you see the logical fallacy in what you just typed

>>17636968
I don't think I will. The theology is unironically garbage.

>>17636976
Calling out misuse of a word is a fallacy now? Is that the cope we're going to play? lol

>>17636987
You claim Panentheism is atheism and won't educate yourself as to the differences, yet claim it is unironically garbage. Are you this much of a retard or are you just trolling?

>>17636987
>NOOO ITS NOT MUH CHRISTKEK CONCEPTION OF GOD THAT MEANS ITS GARBAGE

>>17637013
>Sum of natural laws
>Panentheism
Name me one religion, any at all, really, that defines their god as a 'sum'. Your argument couldn't be just "Spinoza says that's theism so obviously it has to be."... could it? lol

>>17636987
>-Theism -theism -theism
>Uh oh, looks like a-theism is the only one that counts!! This certainly isn't a fallacy!

Reddit tier shit

>>17637020
See >>17637026
Oh right, so many religions outside Christianity define 'god' as a 'sum' lol. Judaism... wait no, they explicitly denied that. Maybe Islam... okay let's not dwell on Abrahamism. Maybe Thor was just a sum...

>>17637032
No way, there was "-theism" mentioned multiple times? Well that proves that a 'sum' can be a deity.

>>17637026
You don't actually think
>"it isn't a conventional belief system, so it is inherently unjustified"
do you? That's your rebuttal?

However I do not find Spinoza comfy. Leibniz I think is comfy.

>>17637053
It doesn't have to be conventional. It has to use the word appropriately. My rebuttal is "Spinoza claiming sums can be deities doesn't make him right" lol words actually have meaning.
If you disagree, I'd very much love to hear at least a single religion that recognizes 'sums' to be deities. I will also accept 'subtractions' and 'multiplications' as gods. Just name a religion.

>>17637033
Every fucking god ever penned is just a sum, you spooked twigman. Ineffable concepts are still sums of existence.

>>17637085
>Every fucking god ever penned is just a sum
>>> And Moses heard a 'sum' talk to him from a burning bush
>>> Christ was 'sum' incarnated
>>> Muhammad received revelations from the 'sum'
>>> Buddha faced a thousand 'sums' under an oak tree in a spiritual battle
The absolute mental gymnastics people will go through to validate an autistic Jew's take on a word.

>>17637079
>Spinozas God is not free?!
"Spinozas Substance is inherently infinite, and contains every possibility and impossibility."
Also see >>17636895
It's really not that hard to conceptualise

>>17636945
>>17636987
>>17637026
>>17637033
Thomist tranny

>>17637085
they really aren't, spend a few more years reading philosophy before shilling your jew of the week

>>17637079
See >>17636953

>>17637102
Never brought up the greentexted point. I'm arguing about the meaning of the word, not attributes you're trying to pin to the meaning.
>>17637104
Not sure what about "God isn't a sum" is necessarily Thomist.
>>17637113
See >>17637026

>>17637105
>they just aren't ok!!
Nice rebuttal

>>17637128
You literally have no idea what Panentheism is, do you? What a fucking larper lmao

>>17636612
Based. But he was an atheist. Read Vidal Peña and Gustavo Bueno (pbuh)

>>17637143
Curious cope. What exactly am I larping as when I call out your completely invalid usage of the term 'god'?

I'm not sure if I get Spinoza too well but I believe he claimed
>God exists necessarily
>God inevitably creates everything in his power
>God does not act from a will, rather things follow from his existence
>everything is God
Forgive me if I make a mistake. But to me it seems that this God is not an agent or an animate being. But Spinoza calls it God because that was the usual word for the thing that created the universe. It reminds me of Max Tegmark's mathematical universe where all mathematical structures necessarily exist, and math is the only thing that exists. But in that case I wouldn't call math God.

>>17637170
>Spinoza calls it God because that was the usual word for the thing that created the universe
Pretty much. It's just a materialist take on monotheist God. Consequently, not any God or god whatsoever.

>>17637155
Why is it invalid? And spare me the "it doesn't match other definitions of god" bullshit, it's a moot point.

>>17637181
>spare me the "it doesn't match other definitions of god"
>other definitions of god
>other definitions
The 'current' definition being ... a ... 'sum'? A 'set'? Just so we're clear on what you're actually proposing. Because let's be very clear on this, it's actually you proposing (Spinoza's) usage of the term that's completely unrelated to any previous usage. What's the 'current definition'?

>>17637155
>there are valid ways to refer to some non-evident object

>>17637193
I never proposed Substance being a "sum" at all.
Once again, see >>17636953

>>17637207
>I never proposed Substance being a "sum" at all.
Then you don't, at all, relate to the objection I'm making to the OP. You can redirect me to the same summary 20 times, it won't make the line in the OP valid.

>>17637128
>Not sure what about "God isn't a sum" is necessarily Thomist.
Tranny ex nihilo theology. Your version of god makes things out of thin air. Only the Spinozist god is possible, for all things are modes of it.

>>17637215
>Only the Spinozist god is possible, for all things are modes of it.
This is entry level Christian theology. Spinoza in no way owns this idea lol the only thing that he has branded with his name is the idea that God can be framed borderline materialistically, or as OP decided to put it 'sum'.

>>17637097
>Imagine not being able to perceive the word "sum" to describe the concept of infinity, and instead using the dogmatic idea that a sum of things isn't comparible to an ineffable being.
Embarrassing from the midwit

>>17636612
>He is objectively the best philosopher and will remain so until the end of time.
That's not Wittgenstein

>>17637233
>Lmao god isn't just a sum, that would be stupid
>He's a sum that's infinite
Great.

>>17637220
Christer god is a contradictory transcendent interventionist who strikes bargains with some mortals and punishes others. He was also killed by Italian immigrants.

>>17637241
Do you know what "sum" actually connotes? Because it is far more than your limited understanding can perceive. Substance is the accumulation of each branch of its essence, and the reason for reality itself. Now, describe your god without using contradictory statements, I'll wait.

Spinoza is better than Hegel because Spinoza's philosophy is practical ontology. Hegel's philosophy is a good argument as to why philosophy needs to be abolished.

>>17636945
>Sorry, there is no 'god' that is defined as a sum of laws.
Aten's Akhenaten, Plato's, Pythagora's and Gnostics Monad

>>17637180
Materialism is false, God is creator of the universe, deism is all is needed.

>>17637170
Math is not God, God is that which made math exists. Math is a train, possibly a infinite one, a train needs an Engine to Be, God is not math, God is the source of math.

>>17636612
He was a brainlet compared to Leibniz

Based post but you forgot that Spinoza was Bismark's favorite philosopher.

I never read that guy not do I care but human reason is inherently limited. The best you can pull off with human reason is what the Greeks did, and that's still a lower level of Truth than theology.

What I see with Western Modern Philosophy is a retreat from the pursuit of wisdom into the defense of human reason at all costs, postmodernists are smarter than that but still miss the point, philosophy is not reason, philosophy is not about showing how intelligent you are or proving God's existence through reason, philosophy is not an appreciation if reason and logic, philosophy is a pursuit of wisdom through reason and logic. Philosophers are people who through reason aspire to be sages. This is why modern philosophy is hard to take seriously, it uses a lot of arguments and logic to say things that people in the past could say with fewer words. Of course God exists you can't have a Creation without a Creator.

I like Spinoza. He is a good pseud and midwitted person filter