/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21933793]

How do we feel about him?

[Anonymous No.21933812]

How do we feel about him?

[Anonymous No.21933826]

>>21933793
Early life

[Anonymous No.21933913]

>>21933812
Early life

[Anonymous No.21933914]

Antisemites who like Nietzsche die when they see his greatest influence.

[sage No.21933915]

>>21933793
>feels
Spinoza would be ashamed.

[Anonymous No.21933924]

>>21933793
Too good for /lit/. Stick to Evola and the other monkey guy.

[Anonymous No.21933926]

>>21933793
Richard Feynman was pretty harsh on him:
>My son is taking a course in philosophy, and last night we were looking at something by Spinoza – and there was the most childish reasoning! There were all these Attributes, and Substances, all this meaningless chewing around, and we started to laugh. Now, how could we do that? Here’s this great Dutch philosopher, and we’re laughing at him. It’s because there was no excuse for it! In that same period there was Newton, there was Harvey studying the circulation of blood, there were people with methods of analysis by which progress was being made! You can take every one of Spinoza’s propositions, and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world – and you can’t tell which is right.
I have to agree with Feynman here, and that applies to most philosophy

[Anonymous No.21933934]

>>21933926
>metaphysics is not le empirical science, I'm pretty smart btw
Many such cases.

[OP !WYTbmLewsw No.21933941]

>>21933926
This is like a pesticide manufacturer passing judgement on a chef. Feynman, you sad old Jew, show some respect for the humanities like your friend Einstein.

[Anonymous No.21933956]

>>21933934
>metaphysics
>Uouwoah! It has a name! My bullshit is not meaningless!

>>21933941
Maybe it should earn his respect. He didn't respect psychology either for its lack of rigor https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

[OP !WYTbmLewsw No.21933965]

>>21933956
If it wasn't for metaphysics, academics would never progress to such a pint that they pay old Dick to look at particles and atoms all day. Physics evolves out of the enlightenment and philosophy. Epicurus and Leibniz is who he has to thank for that.

[Anonymous No.21933976]

>>21933926
>le heckin science !!

[Anonymous No.21933994]

>>21933956
>science can ground itself because, be-because it can, okay? (idk what empirical means btw)
Fuck off bugman, you don't know shit about philosophy, nor science. Go back to your hole, illiterate american.

[Anonymous No.21934013]

>>21933926
so true sister, preach!

[Anonymous No.21934015]

>>21933994
Allow me to quote Feynman once again:
>You can take every one of Spinoza’s propositions, and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world – and you can’t tell which is right.
Think deeply about that. Since—obscurantist that you are—you insist on applying names to things, that is what empiricism is. It does not need "grounding". Those who do science can demonstrate its usefulness by doing what others who don't do science can't. Feynman does say "which is right", which is actually somewhat obscure. He is not, I don't believe, referring to any metaphysical truth. He has explained in numerous places that no scientific theory can ever be shown to be *true*. It merely fits the observations.

[Anonymous No.21934024]

>>21934013
The only one of those that's actually contrary to what Feynman said is Einstein's. I'd be interested to see what their debate on that would be.

[OP !WYTbmLewsw No.21934030]

>>21934013
How would they feel if a continental philosopher such as Hegel, began lecturing them about how physics does not mean anything, and that science is irrelevant because death is inevitable. Also, Hegel would definitely feel philosophy has progressed.
Stick to your field Calculator, and do some more long division before a shove you in my locker.

[OP !WYTbmLewsw No.21934032]

>>21934024
He also happened to be the most kind-hearted and friendliest out of all these Bug-Men. Strange coincidence.

[Anonymous No.21934040]

>>21934030
>Stick to your field Calculator, and do some more long division before a shove you in my locker.
Was this just a lazy insult, or do you really think science is just calculating things?

[Anonymous No.21934049]

>>21934015
>>You can take every one of Spinoza’s propositions, and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world – and you can’t tell which is right.
Post an example on Spinoza's virtual contradiction vis Spinoza's proposition.

[Anonymous No.21934052]

>>21934032
This is a good point. I do value those qualities greatly. Me, personally, I don't hate spinoza or metaphysics. I am interested in how other's feel about that quote, but should consider that it's rather inflammatory and perhaps out of place. Sorry to you and this thread.

[OP !WYTbmLewsw No.21934054]

>>21934040
Just a droll insult, poking fun of stereotypical insults in Americain highschool media.

[Anonymous No.21934059]

>>21934040
Science isn't even calculating things, since true calculus isn't occupied with cardinal magnitudes, but morphogenetic functions. Science is grounded in metaphysics and normative metaphysical rules ---which, btw, are the begining and the outcome of any (empirical) scientific action.

[Anonymous No.21934064]

>>21934054
I like it.

>>21934059
If one examines precapitalist cultural theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject precapitalist theory or conclude that discourse comes from communication. But the subject is interpolated into a precapitalist cultural theory that includes culture as a reality. Lacan uses the term ‘Lyotardist narrative’ to denote the role of the poet as writer.

[Anonymous No.21934198]

>>21933926
Based. Philosophy is fucking useless and stupid. Only debt-ridden humanities students ever defend this shit.

[Anonymous No.21934651]

>>21933793
Spinozachads, how exactly is Spinoza "anti-teleology", especially in comparison to Aristotle? I know that there tends to be two usages of the "final cause" concept:
>the intrinsic tendency of an entity to become something and thus become its "best" self
>the overarching unity of the cosmos heading towards some goal
Can't conatus fulfill the telos of an entity in the first sense? And if everything is determined by a chain of cause-and-effect, then couldn't a cosmological telos be ascertained by contemplating the final outcome of causality?

On that note, I'm a little bit confused where Spinoza is perceived as "anti-Aristotelian." While the Scholastics may have vehemently disagreed with him, it seems like Spinoza and Aristotle have a ton of common ground. Maybe that's where I'm getting confused about Spinoza's rejection of "teleology"—maybe what's really meant is that he rejected organized religion.

[Anonymous No.21934696]

>>21933926
feynman is a generic atheist coomer addicted to vaginas

[Anonymous No.21935558]

>>21934696
His ex-wife said he would lay in bed doing calculus in his head instead of fucking her though.

[Anonymous No.21935842]

>>21933926
Post an example on Spinoza's virtual contradiction vis Spinoza's proposition.