[ 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: 9 KB, 220x256, Spinoza.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11972973 No.11972973 [Reply] [Original]

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.

>> No.11973065

If you like him check out the Indian philosophy like Bhagavad-Gita and Upanishads which cover very similar ground. It's funny, he was writing Ethics around the same time the Dutch were all over South Asia, but he seems to have come up with his ideas completely independently.

>> No.11973112

>>11973065
Fuck off

>> No.11973122

>>11973112
Why being mean, he gave you a good advice.

>> No.11973123

>>11973112
Fuck off

>> No.11973126

>>11973122
Wasn't me

>> No.11973522

>>11973122
It’s bad advice because no ancient Indian sages were ever influenced by Spinoza, studying Vedanta to better understand Spinoza is fucking stupid

>> No.11973935

>>11972973
Goethe was an unapologetic Spinozist fwiw. ..Read the Ethics a long time ago and the little unfinished 40pp or so essay on human understanding but other than the 'under the aspect of eternity' idea I remember very little, unfortunately. Also have his two tracts on government but have never read them. Wish I had two cents, but I'm broke.

>> No.11973960

>>11973522
>studying Vedanta to better understand Spinoza is fucking stupid
but they didn't say that?

>> No.11974134

>>11972973
>existence is immanent

>> No.11974145

>>11973960
It has nothing to do with the OP and is vedantist shilling.

>> No.11974146

Do you understand part 1 and 2? I found these the hardest and i needed some guidance to gain some understanding.

>> No.11974150

>>11974146
As for my opinion on him: His metaphysics in regards to existence makes a lot of sense to me.

>> No.11974195

>I read Spinoza every day
I was thinking about this thread yesterday

>> No.11974642

>>11973065
Vedanta Hinduism shares very little in common with Rationalism, since Spinoza's pantheism is far from the only important part of his works. His writing is very much grounded in earthly desires and affections. He's got much more in common with Empedocles regarding his view of emotions as sprung from two sources: love and sadness.
Whereas the Upanishads point towards Enlightenment as not tied to this world, for Spinoza, knowledge can be sought only in this world.
Contrast
"Without intelligence there is not rational life: and things are only good, in so far as they aid man in his enjoyment of the intellectual life, which is defined by intelligence. Contrariwise, whatsoever things hinder man's perfecting of his reason, and capability to enjoy the rational life, are alone called evil." - Spinoza, B. Ethics, part IV, appendix V
against
"Then he becomes one with that prâna alone. Then speech goes to him with all names, the eye with all forms, the car with all sounds, the mind with all thoughts. And when he awakes, then, as from a burning fire, sparks proceed in all directions, thus from that self the prânas (speech, &c.) proceed, each towards its place, from the prânas the gods, from the gods the worlds. And as a razor might be fitted in a razor-case, or as fire in the fire-place (the arani on the altar), even thus this conscious self enters the self of the body (considers the body as himself) to the very hairs and nails. And the other selfs (such as speech, &c.) follow that self, as his people follow the master of the house. And as the master feeds with his people, nay, as his people feed on the master, thus does this conscious self feed with the other selfs, as a master with his people, and the other selfs follow him, as his people follow the master. So long as Indra did not understand that self, the Asuras conquered him. When he understood it, he conquered the Asuras and obtained the pre-eminence among all gods, sovereignty, supremacy. And thus also he who knows this obtains pre-eminence among all beings, sovereignty, supremacy,--yea, he who knows this." - Kaushitaki Upanishad, Fourth Adhyaya

This Upanishad's writer or composer had an idea in mind of Man imposing his domain upon the world and thereby setting himself above it, as a being superior to it, whereas Spinoza does not believe that there is anything beyond what we know of by the means of senses and reason. His acknowledgement of Man's uncertain knowledge of the universe is a sign of humility and might have probably not presented itself as such if he'd lived prior to Descartes and the Scientific Revolution.
Doubt is what separates a dogmatic believer from a sceptic enquirer like Spinoza.

>> No.11975181

one thing i like about spizona is he doesnt write like a retard

>> No.11975199

As you work your way through contemporary philosophers get ready for Deleuze and Guattari, who basically thought that western philosophy erred by trying to follow Kant more closely than Spinoza, and then they try to correct that in their own work.

>> No.11975526

>>11974642
Your quote says the opposite of what you say it say

>> No.11975571

>>11972973
>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

congrats on the autism brah

>> No.11975786

>>11972973
>By reality and perfection I understand the same thing

>> No.11976120

Can someone explain me the problem of the indivisibility of the substance and the substance as an extended substance (thus prone to divisibility)?

>> No.11976248

>>11976120
I could be wrong, but as I read it, by extended substance he essentially means the physical world. By indivisibility, for example, he means that it is absurd to have two substances which share all attributes yet are considered to be different substances. The example I remember him giving is if you have a large glass of water, and divide its contents into two glasses, the extended substance (being that first glass of water) is now divided into two glasses, although you have not divided the substance water, as in both glasses still contain the substance water.