Spinoza appreciation thread

[Anonymous No.22712815]

>solves philosophy
>seething hacks like Leibniz, Kant and Hegel claim to have surpassed him when they failed to understand him, or were too afraid to stray out of conventional thought
>still unmatched
>changes anyone's life for the best
How can a single 17th century dutch philosopher be so BASED holy shit

[Anonymous No.22712822]

Do you agree that rocks have souls?

[Anonymous No.22712828]

>>22712822
For spinoza, rocks exist in thought, which is to say they have an informational existence, like anything.
The "soul" of a rock is very primitive as its chemical composition is also very primitive, especially compared to that of a living thing. They exist as data in the mind of god, which is simply the information tied to their existence : their atomic/molecular makeup, their position in space and velocity relative to the rest.
And all of that is exactly the same as their presence in extension.

[Anonymous No.22713165]

>>22712815
Spinoza is just the default philosopher of the modern age, so it's not surprising that mediocrities tend to like him. Necessitarianism can be proved in many ways, most simply, in terms of Spinoza's contradiction-riddled system, by pointing out that if God's thoughts are necessary, they can not be God's affections, since God cannot be conceived without them: from this it also follows that God cannot be the one substance in Spinoza's system even though he claims so, because substance is something that can only be conceived through itself. Spinoza is Parmenides for hacks and responsible for ruining the intellectual life of Europe.

[Anonymous No.22713382]

>>22713165
You misunderstand him.... He's a weak necessitarian. What comes from something necessary is necessary, but only the first cause is necessarily necessary, while that which follows from it is contingently necessary.

[Anonymous No.22713413]

>>22712815
Leibniz literally said embarrassed Spinoza every time they debated each other and Spinoza left seething

[Anonymous No.22713416]

>>22713413
embarrassed Spinoza*

[Anonymous No.22713423]

>>22713413
says who

[Anonymous No.22713439]

>>22712815
Are Spinozists atheists? Also what do you think of Negri?

[Anonymous No.22713449]

>>22713423
Everyone who attended their debates whenever they were invited to the same even every few years

[Anonymous No.22713462]

>>22712815
>"There's no such thing as free-will."
>"Everything is always already pre-determined."
>"Not a single detail of reality could be any other way than how it is."
>"The only freedom we have is the freedom to become conscious of how un-free we are in every other way."
>"Uh don't ask how you can choose to be conscious of your own unfreedom if your consciousness is also unfree and choice is impossible, shut up!"
Have I misunderstood him, anons? Maybe I haven't read enough of his work.

[Anonymous No.22713466]

>>22713439
Pantheists. Everything is God, rocks and ants and oxygen and us in the past and now and the future, that kind of thing.

[Anonymous No.22713470]

>>22713439
Negri is a retard

[Anonymous No.22713634]

>>22712815
Isn't Spinoza's view of freedom and self-consciousness basically Calvinism/Islam, in which there's a totally arbitrarily selected elect who is capable of it?

[Anonymous No.22713663]

Descartes is significant because he moved philosophy away from the church and pushed it towards modern empiricism. Get it right anon.

[Anonymous No.22713672]

>>22712815
I’m very suspicious of him

[Anonymous No.22713676]

>>22713634
I wrote about this

[Anonymous No.22713704]

What if I'm a panpsychist, but think referring to the consciousness common to all matter as "God" is grandiose and unnecessary to properly describing it? How should I feel about Spinoza?

[Anonymous No.22713805]

>>22713704
If you're a panpsychist you should look into the combination problem and become an objective/absolute idealist instead. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.22713918]

>>22712815
what if you think god is in all but also separate but do not make the distinction between pantheism and panentheism, as they both lead to the same conclusion?

[Anonymous No.22713948]

>>22713918
also to mortals, good is unknowable, like in theology of Thomas Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.22714243]

>>22713676
Were you the pro-necessitarian or the anti?

[Anonymous No.22714463]

>>22712828
So, basically you have not read Book 2 of the Ethics? The correct answer was "if by 'soul' you mean 'mind' then yes, rocks have minds", and then you would have cited the relevant propositions to make this claim from Book 2.

[Anonymous No.22714465]

>>22713413
Not true, he said that he was an intelligent man, and only criticized later on his knowledge of maths. Stop lying

[Anonymous No.22714467]

>>22712815
>Redefines "God" to mean "the universe" and nothing more
>solves philosophy
haha, yeah, groundbreaking stuff there

[Anonymous No.22714470]

>>22713466
Wrong, individual things are not God, but only in God, as modifications of His. Spinoza is not a mystic a la Meister Eckhart

[Anonymous No.22714485]

>>22714467
Not OP (who is clearly a pseud who eithef had not read Spinoza's Ethics, or who has very poor reading comprehension), but anyway God is not the Universe according to Spinoza, that's just a popular misunderstanding. In fact according to Spinoza the physical universe is not even an attribute of God (this is another common misunderstanding: mistaking the res extensa for the universe), rather the universe is an infinite mode of the attribute of extension (which means that it is 2 ontological levels lower than God).
I think people who mistake Spinoza for a physicalist forget that he a) he doesn't mistake the universe for either God or an attribute of God, b) he posits the attribute of thoughts at the same level of the attribute of extension, and c) he actually posits infinite other unkowable attributes.
Einstein only solidified this dumb misreading, but you can find it in previous literature too (for example in Schopenhauer, who clearly misread the Ethics).

[Anonymous No.22714548]

>>22714485
Direct quote from Ethics:
>"Strictly speaking, God does not love or hate anyone. For God (by the foregoing Prop.) is not affected by any emotion of pleasure or pain, consequently (Def. of the Emotions, vi. vii.) he does not love or hate anyone."
Also, from Ethics:
>"Proposition XXXVI: The intellectual love of the mind towards God is that very love of God whereby God loves himself, not in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he can be explained through the essence of the human mind regarded under the form of eternity; in other words, the intellectual love of the mind towards God is part of the infinite love wherewith God loves himself"
Imagine being a philosopher and being THIS sloppy with language. Embarrassing. Now, you can choose to try to defend this, but when speaking about philosophical topics where it's incredibly important to state your case CLEARLY, stating a proposition when categorically excludes "love" in God, and then basing a different proposition on the fact that God does love, is insane. It's simply indefensible.

[Anonymous No.22714554]

>>22714485
Direct quote from Ethics:
>"Strictly speaking, God does not love or hate anyone. For God (by the foregoing Prop.) is not affected by any emotion of pleasure or pain, consequently (Def. of the Emotions, vi. vii.) he does not love or hate anyone."
Also, from Ethics:
>"Proposition XXXVI: The intellectual love of the mind towards God is that very love of God whereby God loves himself, not in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he can be explained through the essence of the human mind regarded under the form of eternity; in other words, the intellectual love of the mind towards God is part of the infinite love wherewith God loves himself"
Imagine being a philosopher and being THIS sloppy with language. Embarrassing. Now, you can choose to try to defend this, but when speaking about philosophical topics where it's incredibly important to state your case CLEARLY, stating a proposition which categorically excludes "love" in God, and then basing a different proposition on the fact that God does love, is insane. It's simply indefensible.

[Anonymous No.22714789]

>>22714554
>>22714554
... what does this have to do with anything I've said?
Btw Spinoza makes a distinction between affective love and intellectual/rational love (namy the former entails affections, i.e. pleasure and pain, while the latter is purely active).

[Anonymous No.22714795]

>>22714243
Anti, to a point

[Anonymous No.22714912]

>>22712815
i appreciate his emphasis on love and respect

[Anonymous No.22714951]

>>22714485
What does "extension" mean?

[Anonymous No.22714982]

>>22714951
The universe is a spandrel formed from the existence of god?

[Anonymous No.22714990]

>>22714982
So "from" God, but not "of" it? So "extension" means material stuff that exists here as determined by preceding immaterial factors, that "cause" stuff but again are not "of" the stuff they cause?

Treat me like a total retard.

[Anonymous No.22714992]

>>22714470
only person in this thread who actually read Spinoza lmao

[Anonymous No.22715042]

>>22712815
>solves philosophy
>His axioms are true. They just are Okay??!!

[Anonymous No.22715072]

>>22714554
The former quote could be understood as discussing God as substance, whereas the latter describes the extent of the personal aspect of God insofar as we, as modes of God, are personal; unlike traditional forms of theism, in which God is basically a person like us, the love that we express is the exact same love expressed by God given the absence of a distinction between us and God, so insofar as we love God, God loves us.

[Anonymous No.22715095]

check the official /lit/ server at:


https://discord.gg/K24eqW7z

[Anonymous No.22715150]

>>22714951
Im the guy you were responding to, ignore that other pseud.
Extension is an attribute ("By attribute I understand what the intellect perceives of substance as constituting its essence” (1D4)), the only one we know of alongside the attribute of Thought.
>So "extension" means material stuff that exists here as determined by preceding immaterial factors, that "cause" stuff but again are not "of" the stuff they cause?
Absolutely ignore that other guy. Anyway no, extension is not material stuff, rather matter (and also movement) are modifications of extension. In fact the universe at large (which he calles "facies totius universi") is according to Spinoza just an infinite modification of extension, which means that extension is the presupposition of all that is physical, and as such it comes before physicality.

[Anonymous No.22715155]

>>22715095
hentai is literature...?

[Anonymous No.22715160]

It's sad to care about Spinoza whereas he was destroyed by the Buddha concerning consciousness

[Anonymous No.22715173]

>>22715150
So extension is like luminiferous ether?

[Anonymous No.22715222]

>>22715150
Extension reads as a progenitor to strings in string theory from this explanation.

[Anonymous No.22715292]

>muh god this and that
Sorry anons but god doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.22715308]

>>22715173
Luminiferous ether is already a physical entity.
>>22715222
Strings are already a physical entity.

I'll repeat it once again: extension is not the universe, nor is its elements (like ether, particles, strings and so on).

[Anonymous No.22715313]

>>22715308
Well instead of repeating, maybe try explaining. >Extension is just a "not matter" "essence"
Oh, ok.

[Anonymous No.22715403]

>>22715313
You're basically asking me to summarize the first book of Ethics, since you seem to be completely unaware of the meaning of basic terms, such as attribute, mode, essence and so on. if you had just a passing familiarity with these concepts I could help you, but as it stands I would basically have to give you a 1 hour lecture to get you started. As such, I'd rather just limit myself to point out wether answers given by other anons are wrong, as I've done so far in this thread

[Anonymous No.22715412]

>>22714789
Spinoza lays out a very muted God (equivalent to just the material universe) when he is actually defining God, but then he acts as though he's established a personal God at other times. If he meant "God is not capable of affective love" he should not have said "God does not love or hate anyone" and then reiterate the general form "he does not love or hate anyone". Again, you are attempting to clean up his wording, which just goes to show the original wording is sloppy, which is my central point.
>>22715072
If you include ourselves as part of God, it sounds a lot more like God is the universe of which we are a part, rather than a being who has some degree of separation from us. Also, can you point to a proposition by Spinoza which directly establishes the "personal aspect of God"?

[Anonymous No.22715422]

>>22715403
Fair enough. Thanks for your time.

[Anonymous No.22715431]

>>22715412
The personal aspect of God was laid out in the second quote you provided. God is personal insofar as we are personal since no distinction between us and God exists.

[Anonymous No.22715454]

>>22715431
What on earth could you possibly mean by "no distinction between us and God exists."? Each individual person is not God in his entirety, therefore at bare minimum the distinction would be that we are a part of God, not the whole God. Again, this sounds like "we are personal and we exist as part of the universe, therefore the universe is personal". It's illogical to assign attributes that are localized to individuals to the entire universe as if it has a personality of its own that isn't just whatever personality exists in individual persons. It would be like saying "the ocean has fish in it, therefore the ocean is a fish". It's difficult to describe just how insane that statement is.

[Anonymous No.22715474]

>>22715454
While the priority monist reading of Spinoza is popular, I recommend looking into Michael Della Rocca's work on him (in which he applies an existence monist reading with a fair amount of textual support). Under this view, distinctions are only apparent and God is undifferentiated.

[Anonymous No.22716003]

>>22715412
>Spinoza lays out a very muted God (equivalent to just the material universe)
If you mean it literally, no, God is not the material universe, the universe is an infinite modification of one of the infinite attributes of God (Extension, in this case). Notice for example that the infinite modification of Thought is Intellect, which means that by your logic you would have to say that God is equally an infinite mind.
>If he meant "God is not capable of affective love" he should not have said "God does not love or hate anyone" and then reiterate the general form "he does not love or hate anyone".
He doesn't go from one to the other willy-nilly, he explicitly explains what amor dei intellectualis is. If you missed it that's not his fault. He already makes it easier for the reader by dividing everything in neat propositions, if we end up reading them shoddily that's on us.
>Again, you are attempting to clean up his wording, which just goes to show the original wording is sloppy, which is my central point.
Nah he actually goes in painstaking detail over the difference between affections and reason, it's literally one of the most important parts of the book. I won't be harsh on you, and I'll limit myself to saying that either you haven't read Ethics, or you have read it very carelessly (to the point of missing entire fundament sections of the book). If you're really interested in this stuff my only advice is to reread Book 3, 4 and 5, and this take care of the explicit distinction he makes between affection and reason.

I'll also add that wrt the "God is muted" comment, that Spinoza here is not trying to naturalize God. In fact in the Appendix to Book 1 he basically quotes Averroes (who he knew through Jewish averroists of the time), to which he is clearly referring to (I'm talking about the comment which goes something along the lines of "if we still want to say that God has an Intellect and a Will, then we must point out that it is not like ours"). >>22715422
Np buddy

[Anonymous No.22716238]

>>22716003
To reiterate, I've used actual quotations from Ethics to support my point of view, you choose to vaguely indicate 3 separate books within the work because you claim I somehow didn't get it. If you wish to take exception to my point of view, perhaps actual quotations would help your case rather than a somewhat backhanded comment about how I must have not read it or "read it very carelessly", despite the fact that you have not addressed my point at all. For what reason does Spinoza choose to attribute love to God after having clearly established God is incapable of love under a more "naturalized" definition? Clearly, it is to address the fact that the common conception of God is a loving God, and to flatly state he cannot love would be incompatible with the wide definition of God, so Spinoza chooses to contradict himself with the weakest possible rationale to artificially insert the word "love" or "amor" when it is absolutely and without exception incompatible with the foundations for God that he has been building. You can't hand wave this away, it's a fundamental flaw to the entire platform he is trying to build. Now, I will refrain from being harsh and accusing you of an undeserved and decidedly smug overtone to your post and instead humbly request that if you wish to further this discussion, you will actually reference the text rather than what amounts to an attack on me for supposed "carelessness".

[Anonymous No.22716246]

>>22713462
you can do what you will but you cannot will what you will

[Anonymous No.22716257]

>>22716238
>For what reason does Spinoza choose to attribute love to God after having clearly established God is incapable of love under a more "naturalized" definition?
I’m not even the guy you’re responding to but I’m wondering how you glossed over the “strictly speaking” in the first passage you cited. It’s obvious from the passages you provide that Spinoza isn’t contradicting himself without knowing it, but drawing a distinction that you’re pretending doesn’t exist.
>reference the text reeeeeee
we can provide you with an armada of citations, but we can’t make you think, and you’re refusing to think

[Anonymous No.22716278]

>>22716257
The "strictly speaking", as you point out, is essentially an admission that he is being sloppy and inaccurate in other places. He is literally admitting that to use the word "love" is inappropriate when referencing God, yet he continues to do it anyway.

[Anonymous No.22716295]

>>22716257
>>reference the text reeeeeee
>"Don't ask me to ground my take in the actual book, I just want to make shit up"
You undermine your own credibility with this nonsense. If you wanted to just say "haha, you're too dumb to get it", why even bother posting anything at all? You only succeed in lowering the level of discourse, which I can only assume is because you are more comfortable at those low levels.

[Anonymous No.22716358]

>>22714463
The correct answer is that rocks don't have souls/minds because they are not ideas having ideas, unlike man.

[Anonymous No.22716372]

Do people still infer absence of will from absence of intellect? Of course the rock wants to hit your face, why wouldn't it?

[Anonymous No.22716598]

>>22716278
>>22716295
god you’re retarded. nobody here can make you understand, you yourself have to think. it is abundantly clear that Spinoza is not confused on this point - you are

[Anonymous No.22717064]

>>22716358
Wrong, all individuals are minds, and according to the Little Physics in Book 2 everything that can maintain for a duration lf time (no matter how short) a proportion of quantity of movement and rest is an individual. This criterion is extremely broad, almost all aggregates of bodies (if not all of them – I say must just because maybe I'm missing on some obscure exceptions) are minds (under the attribute of Thought).

[Anonymous No.22717103]

>>22716238
>To reiterate, I've used actual quotations from Ethics to support my point of view, you choose to vaguely indicate 3 separate books within the work because you claim I somehow didn't get it
I didn't just claim that, I specifically directed you to the concepts you've chosen to ignore (namely, the ones of affection, reason, and intellectual/rational love), and I have specifically told you what the distinction you're glossing over consists of (namely that intellectual love entails no passivity, and is therefore purely active, while affective love entails a passivity, therefore being incompatible with God).
>If you wish to take exception to my point of view, perhaps actual quotations would help your case rather than a somewhat backhanded comment about how I must have not read it or "read it very carelessly", despite the fact that you have not addressed my point at all.
Can't be bothered to do it rn, nor I think it is necessary, since anyone who is intellectually honest and who has actually read the text will know that you're pretending Spinoza didn't go into painstaking detail in order to make a distinction between reason and affection. So, either you have not read it, or you have, meaning that you know that you're in the wrong, which would make this a blatant and ineffective attempt to get an upper hand by capitalizing on my laziness. Either way I don't care: I have directed you the relevant sections, and everyone here who has a clue can see your evident mistake. No more work is required at this point from my part.
>For what reason does Spinoza choose to attribute love to God after having clearly established God is incapable of love under a more "naturalized" definition?
Because in the second quote is talking about intellectual love, while in the first he is talking about affective love. Between the two propositions there's a wealth of relevant propositions you're willingly choose to ignore (either because you haven't read them, or because you're in bad faith).
>You can't hand wave this away, it's a fundamental flaw to the entire platform he is trying to build.
Don't talk about the platform if you're choosing to gloss over large parts of it.
>Now, I will refrain from being harsh and accusing you of an undeserved and decidedly smug overtone to your post and instead humbly request that if you wish to further this discussion, you will actually reference the text rather than what amounts to an attack on me for supposed "carelessness".
Maybe tomorrow, if I will decide to bother over looking for propositions over such a meaningless misunderstanding. But I must admit it, I most likely won't, for I frankly don't think it is worth it (since youve either not read the text, or you have, and are just trying to get the upper hand while knowing for a fact that you're in the wrong: either way I don't see what's the point in putting effort into a discussion with a person who displays such a character).

[Anonymous No.22717255]

>>22716598
I see you have proved me right, the level you are most comfortable at is "I'm right, you're retarded". Typical /lit/ poster, can't engage on the substance, has to attack the person. Embarrassing anon, you can do better, but I'm pretty sure you won't.

[Anonymous No.22717296]

>>22717103
>You haven't read the text, or if you have, you're wrong and I'm right.
So many words typed out and so little substance. You seem incapable of considering the fact that you may be incorrect, for instance, even if you think the distinctions Spinoza made are valid and allow for him to use "intellectual love" as distinct from "affective love", my point would STILL STAND, since he continues to refer to God's "love" in the general, not specifying "intellectual love". In the actual text (which you seem oddly interested in avoiding while claiming you are more acquainted with it than I) he is sloppy. If you have two sub-categories of a thing which are radically different (and incompatible in some cases), and you are referencing an entity which is incompatible with one subset but compatible with the other, you must refer to the specific subset that you mean, not the general which encompasses both subsets. What I am asserting is that either Spinoza does this INTENTIONALLY because he wants to attribute the general "love" after only establishing an "intellectual love" (which, by the way, most would hardly say qualifies as "love" at all, only in the tortured way Spinoza chooses to redefine it), or he is unforgivably sloppy for this mixing up of the general with one (AND ONLY ONE) subset of the general. Again, though, you seem to have demonstrated a rigid and closed mind, interested only in asserting your own one-dimensional view of the work and are too lazy to even think about it, much less read the actual text. Although your unearned arrogance and overinflated ego fit right in here on /lit/ as posters such as yourself continue to outdo yourselves in dragging the level of discourse down with your admitted laziness, both to actually read and to actually think.

[Anonymous No.22717323]

>>22717296
lmao

[Anonymous No.22717333]

>>22717296

[Anonymous No.22717348]

>>22717296
that other anon was right, you're actually retarded. like seriously, you're the most autistic person I've seen on /lit/ so far

[Anonymous No.22717356]

>>22717296
you're a fucking spaz. shame we're both of the same substance.....

[Anonymous No.22717391]

>>22717323
>>22717333
>>22717348
>>22717356
I see the error of my ways, anon(s), with this onslaught of intellectual giant(s) replying to me, I see the light, if only there had been someone of such majestic cognitive abilities to be able to reply "retard" sooner, I may have corrected my thinking sooner! All this time, I've labored away under such a false impression, waiting until the day an anon would just come out and say "you're retarded" so that the light may fall upon my unscaled eyes! Lo! Mark this day forevermore, a glorious day, anons joined together with such unrelenting force of truth and reason to overpower my meager babblings! Etch into stone such a fine reply as "lmao", for it unquestionably is the height of all possible replies, the perfect reply among perfect replies! Ah, but wait, this anon came close with "you're a fucking spaz", another gem! Truly, I am in the company of elite thinkers in this thread, how little I comprehended it before! Anons, forgive me, I aspire, I strive to reach such levels as giving up on the argument to simply call the other person "retarded" and "autistic". I have been cowed, I must lurk, humbly and meekly, and learn the true ways of the /lit/ masterminds!

[Anonymous No.22717402]

>>22717391
Did someone just say.... gem

[Anonymous No.22717410]

>>22717348
I haven't been following this thread, but when discussing Spinoza, isn't it basically the most autistic one wins?

[Anonymous No.22717716]

>>22717103
>Either way I don't care: I have directed you the relevant sections, and everyone here who has a clue can see your evident mistake. No more work is required at this point from my part.
this, oddly, is a very spinozan remark. based

[Anonymous No.22717738]

>>22717296
>which, by the way, most would hardly say qualifies as "love" at all, only in the tortured way Spinoza chooses to redefine it
...
>REEEEE SPINOZA'S SLOPPY CAUSE SAYS LOVE TWICE IN DIFFERENT WAYS
no, he's separating two related yet distinct ideas (with his characteristic rigor, subtlety, and clarity) and stressing that the ideas he's talking about aren't the same as we normally use them
>REEEEE THAT'S JUST HIM TORTUOUSLY REDEFINING HIS TERMS
make up your mind, anon. is it that spinoza is a sloppy thinker who can't be fucked to define his terms, or is it that spinoza defines his terms too much? can't have it both ways

[Anonymous No.22717745]

>>22717410
I love Spinoza dearly but he is the philosopher-prince of autism.

[Anonymous No.22718329]

>>22717738
kek, you still don't get it, IT'S BOTH! He tortuously defines, then redefines, THEN MISUSES HIS OWN DEFINITION! He ties himself into so many knots he loses track of himself. If you "rigorously, subtly, and clearly" define things, and then casually use the general form when it DOES NOT APPLY, you are being both overly fastidious in your definitions and then sloppy in your usage. It's not that hard to understand. It is you, anon(s) who must contend with his statement "Strictly speaking, God does not love or hate anyone" and also that "the intellectual love of the mind towards God is part of the infinite love wherewith God loves himself. Corollary being: "Hence it follows that God, in so far as he loves himself, loves man, and, consequently, that the love of God towards men, and the intellectual love of the mind towards God are identical." That's a lot of love from a God who is incapable (in the strict sense) of loving anyone! I guess when Spinoza chooses not to be strict, then God can love? Again, the opposite of strict is sloppy, thus, Spinoza is being sloppy.

[Anonymous No.22718520]

>>22718329
Just woke up. Damn you're still going at it? I know you're trolling but I'll just take the bait.
Let's assume that youre right. I've already showed you what Spinoza meant exactly in both istances, so PHILOSOPHICALLY speaking what's the issue? Even if Spinoza here was sloppy – (and I don't think he was, since before the part about amor dei intellectualis he talks for like dozens of pages about the distinction between affection and reason, so by the time we get to the other proposition you're citing it will be evident for any reader with one neuron working that Spinoza here is not talking about affective love anymore) – even if he was sloppy, now that you understand the actual concepts he is using (namely that here he is talking about intellectual love) do you still find any contradiction in his actual thought? Or is your whole critique of it merely terminological?

Again, I must stress that I am conceding you this just to play devil's advocate (you're the devil in this case). As I said earlier any reader with the slightest amount of intelligence on his own part understood exactly what Spinoza meant in the second proposition you've cited.

[Anonymous No.22719306]

>>22718329
lmao

[Anonymous No.22719378]

>>22714470
>things are not God, but only in God
1000 years later and philosophy didn't realize the contradiction of Proclus ET Propositions 30-35
If something is in something essentially then that part is essentially a part of that something therefore itself being that something in identity.
>damascius filtering philosophers for 1500 years

[Anonymous No.22719837]

>>22718520
>"Strictly speaking, God does not love or hate anyone"
I don't need you to concede anything. This one sentence by Spinoza cannot be true if he continues on to say that God loves in some capacity. It's not a question of interpretation, Spinoza flat out states "DOES NOT LOVE", no qualifier, no "in the affective way", just a straight general "DOES NOT LOVE". If he meant to say "does not love in the affective way" he should have said that, and, as you have said, the whole book centers on being exact and careful with definitions, but this is a black and white instance of sloppiness. There are no grounds for denying this, it is a direct contradiction. Either God loves in some capacity (intellectual) or he "Strictly speaking, God does not love or hate anyone". But it's nice to know that, hypothetically, playing devils advocate, kinda sorta, you concede the point. Very big of you.

[Anonymous No.22719882]

>>22712815
He didn't go far enough.

[Anonymous No.22720425]

>>22719837
Considering that you have responded to none of my questions it is fair to assume that you're not really reading the posts you're responding to.
As such I recommend everyone else in this thread to ignote this guy's posts, since he is clearly trolling.

[Anonymous No.22720544]

>>22713462
Free will is an invention of Christianity (Abrahamist garbage). Spinoza is a garbage nihilistic jew otherwise though.

[Anonymous No.22720566]

>>22712815
>dutch
He was a Portuguese Jew who went to a Portuguese Synagogue and spoke Portuguese. He could not even speak good Dutch. He is as Dutch as a Somalian in Stockholm is Swedish.

[Anonymous No.22721122]

>>22720425
It's not trolling to point out a black and white contradiction. Spinoza states two things which cannot both be true. The only option for defense is to massage the text and pretend it means something different from what is written.

[Anonymous No.22721474]

>>22713918
>as they both lead to the same conclusion?
what conclusion?
I mean, what conclusion makes us ignore the difference between pantheism and panentheism?

[Anonymous No.22721660]

>>22713918
i think that is kind of reasonable