/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17396050]

>*makes tradcath zoomer seethe*

[Anonymous No.17396057]

>>17396050
KEK this heretic unironically triggered a lot of people.

[Anonymous No.17396068]

>>17396050
not really
can't contend with aquinas

[Anonymous No.17396132]

>>17396050
Does this Jew promise me eternal life?

[Anonymous No.17396164]

Don't worry, tradcath zoomers have Thomas Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.17396342]

Are you the guy who seethe posted in the Aquinas thread despite not even being addressed

[Anonymous No.17396358]

>>17396132
Yes, but only as an eternal mode contained within the attributes of substance (see, from memory, 2P8 and book 5).

[Anonymous No.17396360]

>Corollary II.—It is in the nature of reason to perceive things under a certain form of eternity (sub quâdam æternitatis specie).
>Proof.—It is in the nature of reason to regard things, not as contingent, but as necessary (II. xliv.). Reason perceives this necessity of things (II. xli.) truly—that is (I. Ax. vi.), as it is in itself. But (I. xvi.) this necessity of things is the very necessity of the eternal nature of God; therefore, it is in the nature of reason to regard things under this form of eternity. We may add that the bases of reason are the notions (II. xxxviii.), which answer to things common to all, and which (II. xxxvii.) do not answer to the essence of any particular thing: which must therefore be conceived without any relation to time, under a certain form of eternity.

[Anonymous No.17396380]

the essence of being a tradcath zoomer is to seethe

[Anonymous No.17396383]

>>17396050
his arguments only refute catholic "philosophy", they do not apply to Luther's (PBUH) fideism, Pascal's (PBUH) and Kierkegaard's (gigaPBUH) existentialism and Russian Orthodox (PBUT) mysticism

[Anonymous No.17396486]

>>17396383
Kierkegaard's existentialism is essentially "I believe because fuck the reflective overthinking Hegelians amirite??"

[Anonymous No.17396502]

>>17396050
>*gets filtered by Maimonides*

[Anonymous No.17396552]

How do we spread spinozism? This world is fucked if the atheists, christians and muslims get their way.

[Anonymous No.17396591]

>>17396552
Spinozism used to be a proxy phrase for atheism long before atheism became popular

[Anonymous No.17396637]

>>17396552
>How do we spread spinozism? This world is fucked if the atheists, christians and muslims get their way.
The practical consequences of Spinozism: There is no immortality, there is no free will, there is no objective right and wrong, there are no miracles
What do you get from Spinozism that you can't get from atheism?

[Anonymous No.17396650]

>>17396050
lol look at this fucker's raised eyebrows and coy smile, u just kno he thinking "u mad?"

[Anonymous No.17396719]

>>17396637
Many atheists don't live with atheist morality but secular Christian morality or liberalism. They get angry at the actions of others, do things that are harmful to them for the sake of satisfying temporary pleasures, limit the freedom of themselves and others due to a lack of understanding of human nature and so on. In short they are influenced by christianity and liberalism and thus partake in that type of morality which only renders them less powerful.

[Anonymous No.17396755]

>>17396719
Spinozist metaphysics are perfectly compatible with liberalism or any other moral or political system, what are you talking about

[Anonymous No.17396778]

>>17396050
Is it possible to reconcile Spinoza's vision of God with Catholicism? Do most modern Jews embrace Spinoza or do they follow a different theory?

[Anonymous No.17396810]

Shall we settle this once and for all /lit/? Was he a pantheist?

[Anonymous No.17396816]

>>17396755
t. Hasn't read past part 2

[Anonymous No.17396853]

>>17396810
No. Spinoza's God is just indeterminate being or being-as-such. It is neither the sum of all things nor some force inherent in all things. It isn't even really a thing, it's more a potential or a process.

Beth lord in her guide to the ethics says something like "God is the power to actualize its own essence, the activity of making itself actual"

[Anonymous No.17396860]

>>17396816
You don't need to follow Spinozist ethics, if you agree with Spinoza that morality is subjective you can adopt a different framework

[Anonymous No.17396872]

>>17396816
>t. Hasn't read Tractatus Theologico-Politicus

[Anonymous No.17396881]

>>17396810
>>17396853
So, it's atheism.

[Anonymous No.17396892]

>>17396860
Spinoza never says morality is subjective. Virtue is power which means morality is very much objective. Subjectivity arises from the fact that finite modes have an incomplete picture of the world. Through reason you can see that there is objectively a way to increase your power of striving and this is virtue or power.

[Anonymous No.17396916]

>>17396892
No he says morality is subjective and generated by social convention, this isn't controversial.

[Anonymous No.17396928]

>>17396916
Yes you're right this is why part 5 of the ethics is just spinoza saying "do what you want lol".

[Anonymous No.17396936]

>>17396637
>The practical consequences of Spinozism: There is no immortality, there is no free will, there is no objective right and wrong, there are no miracles
>What do you get from Spinozism that you can't get from atheism?
That's the opposite of spinozism except for the miracles.

[Anonymous No.17396949]

Can someone explain to me what Spinoza thinks about what happens after death? From what I have heard he thinks ntohing at all happens

[Anonymous No.17396951]

>>17396810
Yes and no. Spinoza was what would be more fittingly called a panentheist because gid exceeds the material world but the term panentheist was only branded as an opposition to spinoza's pantheism since people misunderstood his god or nature quote.

[Anonymous No.17396960]

>>17396928
Morality being subjective doesn't entail lol do what you want yolo

[Anonymous No.17396967]

>>17396936
In this thread that /lit/ Spinozists don't actually understand anything about Spinoza.

[Anonymous No.17396975]

>>17396967
Maybe you're just wrong.

[Anonymous No.17396991]

>>17396975
It takes 15 minutes to read the stanford entry, give it a try

[Anonymous No.17397000]

>>17396991
Thanks will do.

[Anonymous No.17397010]

>>17396991
The SEP and IEP are ok introductions but I reccomend Beth lord, Curley and della rocca if you really want to understand spinoza. Granted the latter two are more academic. Della Rocca's essay on the PSR is a good thing to read before reading the ethics.

[Anonymous No.17397014]

>>17396050
>LOOK GUYS HE MADE THE OTHER TEAM SEETHE THIS IS JUST LIKE HECKIN POKEMON PLEASE EXCEPT ME
I'm not even trad cath and idek know much about Spinoza, reading the thread i may even agree with him.
You people are just so godamn annoying

[Anonymous No.17397034]

>>17396068
he btfo'ed scholasticism on its own turf

[Anonymous No.17397048]

>>17396637
No more gaslighting by priestly authorities trying to spook away your substance is a pretty good deal, and it goes well with based and vajra-pilled Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.17397059]

>>17396486
at least in sickness unto death kierkegaard really pulls a conceptual system of big thinking

[Anonymous No.17397072]

>>17397010
Actually Spinoza would be a pretty good read as a reductio ad absurdum of the PSR.
Spinoza's metaphysics don't work by making everything brute and destroying causality.

[Anonymous No.17397075]

>>17397000
you're welcome

[Anonymous No.17397101]

>>17397010
>>17397072
>SEP, IEP PSR, Beth lord, Curley and della rocca
I would like to know, as a passionate reader of spinoza, to know what you mean by this

[Anonymous No.17397106]

>>17397048
>pic
kek, more like this?

[Anonymous No.17397116]

>>17397101
About Spinoza's metaphysics being crap? Only the second post is mine.

[Anonymous No.17397129]

>>17397116
>PSR
short for?

[Anonymous No.17397150]

>>17397034
Care to explain how?

[Anonymous No.17397158]

>>17397129
Oh he is talking about the principle of sufficient reason

[Anonymous No.17397161]

>>17397101
Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, internet encyclopedia of philosophy and principle of sufficient reason. The last 3 are just philosophers.

[Anonymous No.17397192]

>>17397150
By showing that if we assume their axioms to be true, we must come to completely other conclusions than they did. The basic assumptions of scholasticism is taken for granted but he shows their immanent contradictions and sublates theism

[Anonymous No.17397220]

>>17397161
>>17397158
thanks

[Anonymous No.17397259]

>>17397048
Kalachakra Vayrajana is like Non-Euclidian Spinoza.
Either that or Dark Learning

[Anonymous No.17397308]

>>17397259
I see a link between the dharmakaya/Vairocana interpretation from Shingon as being simpatico with the substance and modes of Spinoza. It's just a matter of carrying it further. A god whose body is the universe is fundamentally empty and beyond discourse, not a god in any meaningfully devotional, paternal, or demiurgic sense.