meatspinoza

[Anonymous No.23172650]

a friend suggested that to read him, i should start chronologically, so im going to do that, but i just wanted to hear what you guys had to say about him.
also ive never read Descartes but Principles of Cartesian Philosopy should help with that because it's literally just Spinoza's own description of how he interpreted Descartes, thereby totally removing the need for reading Descartes to understand his influence on Spin.

[Anonymous No.23172703]

>>23172650
Probably my favorite rationalist philosopher, but some of his writing bored me at times

[Anonymous No.23174531]

>>23172650
Bump

[Anonymous No.23174554]

>>23172650
Not a bad idea. Give special weight to what Spinoza says about how to philosophize, philosophy's relation to natural history, and the differences between analytic and synthetic presentations and modes of inquiry. Doing so sheds different light on the Ethics.

[Anonymous No.23175748]

I cannot believe I've never seen him referred to as meatspinoza before now. It seems so obvious yet I never even thought of it.

[Anonymous No.23175762]

>>23175748
I don't get it

[Anonymous No.23175780]

>>23172650
After you read him you can see what Deleuze wrote about his philosophy its pretty interesting

[Anonymous No.23175901]

>>23172650
Jesus don't read Spinoza chronologically. This board's obsession with chronology is already generally retarded and disencouraging but especially here because why would anyone tell you to leave Ethics (the undisputed Masterwork which contains his most complete system of philosophy, his most influential ideas, including all the ideas that people actually recognise him for) till LAST. You'll be wasting your time reading obscure treatises that you won't be able to discuss with anyone other than diehard Spinozans while being left out of what literally constitutes 99% of Spinozan scholarship.

Descartes is optional in my view. Spinoza does this thing where in negating other people's ideas he just takes the word they use for a concept and redefines it entirely, leaving indirect and vague criticisms to un-named people in Scholia ("some people think this but they are truly mistaken..." pretty funny - with secondary literature you can figure out who he's talking about but its not the most important). If you want to go through primary the book is Descartes' Principles of Philosophy, if you want secondary (recommend desu since its not really champagne philosophy from Descartes here) I'd go real quick through the Descartes chapter in a Spinoza (Routeledge Philosophers) by Michael Della Rocca. Entirely optional,

If there wasn't the new captcha would have sent this like 8 hours ago.

[Anonymous No.23176050]

>>23172650
does he even spin

[Anonymous No.23176067]

>>23175901
>This board's obsession with chronology is already generally retarded and disencouraging but especially here because why would anyone tell you to leave Ethics (the undisputed Masterwork which contains his most complete system of philosophy, his most influential ideas, including all the ideas that people actually recognise him for) till LAST
Because literally all of his prior works would otherwise prepare you to not fall for the presentation of the Ethics and mistake it for what Spinoza was certain about, when he elsewhere talks in the TTP about how philosophy starts with a natural history of motion and rest, and in his work on Descartes indicates that analysis is the way of truth and synthesis (the way of the Ethics) the way of deception.