If you don't accept Spinoza's arguments as sound, why would you defend his method or insist on the consistency of his system and the soundness of his arguments? I often see people saying things like 'Spinoza was the greatest genius of the early modern era, BTFO religion, revealed the true nature of Deus sive Natura...what's that? His definitions are flawed, his method is confusing, and his logic isn't sound by modern standards? Ah, you're right, but all the same, Spinoza's system is correct.'
How do people take this stance? I just do t understand it. It only happens with Spinoza, too. No other philosopher who's popular on 4chan has had so many cases of people defending his system and its logical consistency to the death despite admitting that it's not even valid by the standards of formal logic. If you accept Spinoza's arguments as valid informally, you still have to admit that they're only informal and thus can't be treated the same way a valid formal argument would be treated.
Why do people ride Spinoza's dick so much when they neither agree with him nor think his method is capable of yielding sound arguments? It's literally a case of 'I don't agree with him, but I'm going to endorse him as if I do until you call me out on it, and then, once I've been called out, I'll continue defending a position I admit is wrong just to spite non-Spinozans.' Why does this happen?
>>306353
soundness and consistency are memes that the rationalist has formalized in order to realize his puerile fantasy of a framework wherein he can use soundness and consistency, since he cannot find it in natural language in his desperate attempt to reach some objectivity in order to avoid any choice at all which scares him to death.
read spinoza and stop worrying about consistency and soundness, as if those concepts are found in natural languages. soundness is nothing but ''I like it'' and unsound arguments are nothing but ''I do not like it'' from people who try to objectivate their feelings, in order to persuade other parties that they are right, since precisely they think that it is the fault of the argument if there are not persuaded, or it is the grace of the reason is they are persuaded. all of this leads to nihilism for they create themselves an outside world which is supposed to be rational and that we must abide by this rationality.
>>306415
>dude just turn your brain off lmao
>>306415
>the rationalist
Are you the same idiot who doesn't understand the definitions of rationalism and empiricism in every thread?
>read spinoza and stop worrying about consistency and soundness
It's hard to do that and care what he thinks when he literally this ks his system is logically correct and bases all of his claims off of geometric proofs while claiming his conclusions are co sostwnt with his definitions and axioms.
I don't even disagree with your assessment of the nature of Logic as just a part of natural language that logicians privilege too much, I just don't understand why an ardent antirationalist would defend Spinoza, one of the 2 great rationalists of his century.
People dont accept his system but like what he did. From what i can tell genuine Spinozists actually take his system seriously and argue according to it.
Spinoza was one of the first, if not the first philosophers who argued for immanence philosophy, ie no magical higher plane of existence or "world of the mind"
People love him for that
>>306353
the core of Spinoza thinking is the concept of Conatus: the force that keep human beings and animals and plants alive.
This, in my opinion, is his best concept.
Then, how can you say his system is not logical? it's perfectly logical.
I'm not trying to insult you, your doubts are comprehensible. don't worry about modern standards: they didn't exist when he was alive. just look at the beautiness of his works
>>306439
Then why do they defend his definitions, axioms, and reasoning so fervently?
>>306453
>don't worry about modern standards: they didn't exist when he was alive.
By this standard I should just accept that Earth is the center of the universe and not worry about the problems geocentric worldviews have encountered over the past few centuries, laughing at astronomers everywhere I go. Why should I do this for Spinoza but not for Ptolemy?
>>306520
you should do it also with Ptolemy and with every other past thinker.
Just try to enter his 'code'. he was speaking to 'his' time and places, but there are some things you can truly apply to modern age. it is not a definitive system but, in my opinion, is beautiful. just think about the concept of Conatus, or the world hyperconnected of man-nature-animals. Those, for me, two things are useful to read the present.
and also, philosophical systems should not be embraced in their entirety. it is obvious that, with the apssing of the time, every concept must be continuously re-read. that's how culture works m8
>>306353
>I am utterly amazed, utterly enchanted! I have a precursor, and what a precursor! I hardly knew Spinoza: that I should have turned to him just now, was inspired by “instinct.” Not only is his overtendency like mine—namely to make all knowledge the most powerful affect—but in five main points of his doctrine I recognize myself; this most unusual and loneliest thinker is closest to me precisely in these matters: he denies the freedom of the will, teleology, the moral world-order, the unegoistic, and evil. Even though the divergencies are admittedly tremendous, they are due more to the difference in time, culture, and science.
/thread
>>306558
>you should do it also with Ptolemy and with every other past thinker.
While I don't disagree, I don't see why I should revere Spinoza or Ptolemy just because they had interesting concepts. It's important to remember that modern methods of determining whether or not the sun revolves around the earth have told us that the contrary is true. Ptolemy was empirically wrong, and this is important, since many people (including Ptolemy) thought that geocenteism was empirically correct for a long time.
>just think about the concept of Conatus, or the world hyperconnected of man-nature-animals.
Neither of which are unique or even vaguely original in Spinoza. What *is* unique is his claim to have dethroned anthropomorphic theism and replaced it with a veiled and rationalized form of nature-worship.
>it is obvious that, with the apssing of the time, every concept must be continuously re-read. that's how culture works m8
>culture
I see the problem here. I'm looking at Spinoza as a philosopher and scientific thinker trying to understand and write truth. You're looking at him as a cultural figure trying to contribute to a cultural movement. We both see him as a product of his time, but you seem not to care about the nature of his project.
>>306578
Why does no one ever post Franz Overbeck's replies to these letters? Do they not survive? He was GOAT too.
>>306596
Hume vehemently opposes the view, held by philosophers before him (and after him), that to act morally is have a rational grasp of moral truths. He defends an instrumental conception of practical reason, according to which the role of reason is only to find out which means helps achieve a given goal. Reason (or the intellect) plays no part in determining the goals. Our goals are set exclusively by what Hume calls the passions and what today is most often called desires. Desires cannot be evaluated as true or false or as reasonable or unreasonable - they are "original existences" in our mind and arise from unknown natural causes. We cannot be criticized rationally for our desires (As Hume remarks, it is "not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger" (p 416)).
Reason is the slave of the passions in the sense that practical reason alone cannot give rise to moral motivation; it is altogether dependent on pre-existing desires that furnish motivational force. For Hume, this is not a fact we should lament (as moralists do) but a basic fact about our psychology.
>>306629
Are you seriously suggesting that Hume was in favor of accepting any truths we feel like without weighing out whether or not they're true? If not, I'm really unsure why you brought up Hume in this thread. The passage you've linked has nothing to do with Spinoza or heliocentrism.
>>306596
I care, but maybe my readings on him are not as deep as yours. time for me to read his books once again. there were a lot of Marxist lectures of Spinoza in the last decades (see Antonio Negri's Spinoza, written while in jail)
Now, Rosi Braidotti's Posthuman is heavily influenced by what you call nature-worship. And I come back to what I was trying to say. as Derrida said, the work of an author lose their significance once they rach a vast public. In that moment, those ideas begin to be owned and reassembled by the readers. The original thought is no more fundamental but the re-readings are what influence latter period thought. in fact, you were right when you said:'m looking at Spinoza as a philosopher and scientific thinker trying to understand and write truth. You're looking at him as a cultural figure trying to contribute to a cultural movement.
(when did not discuss the possibility of a 'hidden meaning' of his work. while being in tolerant Netherlands, he was an outcast both for Jews and Christians. Maybe we have to strive more to get into his real thoughts)
however, nice exchange m8
>>306790
Can you defend Spinoza's ideas instead of talking about Derrida in order to explicitly distance yourself from Spinoza's actual project? Can you explain how exactly a Marxist reading of Spinoza is useful for understanding Spinoza or making his system more acceptable? I repeat: Spinoza himself claims that it is a consistent system with good axioms building sound conclusions. This does not appear to be the case, and developments in logic and empirical science have made almost all of his explanatory concepts obsolete or unnecessary--yes, including conatus.
>in fact, you were right when you said:'m looking at Spinoza as a philosopher and scientific thinker trying to understand and write truth. You're looking at him as a cultural figure trying to contribute to a cultural movement.
It does make more sense to read him that way, but I don't think that speaks very well of his philosophy. Derrida's claim is interesting and has good applications, but I cannot affirm the idea that a philosopher is correct not in virtue of his own claims and a relationship to a state of affairs but rather in virtue of the claims of those who wrote in response to him. Ptolemy was objectively wrong, despite the many geocentrists who kept his ideas alive by agreeing with him.
>Maybe we have to strive more to get into his real thoughts
I think this is true, and I think Derrida's approach is unhelpful for doing so.
>>306871
I'm not a Defender of the Spinozian Faith, I just like some of his concepts and I enjoy some later author influenced by him.
Looks like you had a dispute with an idiot le ebin spinoza who couldn't defend his stance, and I'm sure you were right. Just don't be too rigid when examining philosophies.
Sorry OP but I don't have his books with me right now, to better express myself I should have them under my eyes. I'll try later
>>306947
We seem to basically be on the same page, even if we're moderately divided by the distance between the continent and the Anglosphere. Have a good day, friend.
