Why is Spinoza such an insufferable cunt? His text is giant mess with each line making you zigzag across the page to some previous entry to find out WTF he is saying. It's already the first page and it's turned into a crawl.
>>287578
Haha, he actually did it on purpose.
He thought that if he was to write his thesis like a geometrical theorem it would be easier to understand, and harder to refute.
That's why his book basically called "Ethica more geometrico demunstrata", Ethics demonstrated in a geomatrical fashion.
But it makes it unseferrable. Furthermore, it means that if you accept the premiliminary definitions, then the only logical conclusions you could draw were his owns. Wich is even more infuriating, because it basically means Spinozism is an enclosed system, impervious to all internal or external criticism.
There are still some legit Spinozist out there. And they still go to legit philosophical conferences, just to randomly stand up and say that they disagree with, well, everything that has been said and written since Descartes.
I've seen it, people. Uni teachers in their late 50's acting like a fucking troll on 4chan.
I remember all the others teach in the room shaking their heads and facepalming as one glorious motherfucker vehemently explained to everyone in the room how the mere subject of the conference we were attending was pure nonsense in a Spinozist point of view. Old man was an Absolute Sperglord.
Best part? They don't believe in freedom, so you can't even shame them into shutting their mouth. Hell, Spinoza himself nearly died being such a reckless prick, so I guess those people actually take pride in it.
TL; DR : Spinozism. Best philosophy ever or Severe Autism ?
>>287709
>premiliminary definitions
>premiliminary
Excuse my accidental display of power level.
>>287709
>Haha, he actually did it on purpose
This is not how you become an influential philosopher!
Is there some book that makes this mess something understandable? This is a nightmare! I have no desire to become a Spinozist but I thought I could take some of his ideas and synthesis them with other philosophy. Now you are telling me it's a closed system? So there is no way to encorprate it into other philosophy, the whole thing is one giant package deal? For fuck sakes even Plato with his crazy forms isn't that stubborn.
>>287738
Basically religion is invented myth, created to control impressionable rustics,
God exists only in the laws of nature.
>>287788
Well I understand his statement that religion is just myth, that's not unique to his philosophy, what intrigues me is the second part an the elaborations on it. That's a unique philosophical stance, explanation for it is so hard to follow though.
>>287738
>This is not how you become an influential philosopher!
Well, he didn't. He became famous, but mostly because everyone hated him and most religions wanted him dead. We know Leibniz actually met him, out of curiosity mostly, and never admitted it for fear of reprisal.
>Is there some book that makes this mess something understandable?
Sadly, no, not really. I actually had a class on him when i was a student, and it took a whole year, 4hours a week, to cover that bugger. And I still had to binge on his books.
But since I feel your pain, I'll pull my ass to my bookshelf and try to get my hands on something helpful. Beware tho, it might not be available in english.
>This is a nightmare! I have no desire to become a Spinozist but I thought I could take some of his ideas and synthesis them with other philosophy.
You can't. At least, not substantially.
>Now you are telling me it's a closed system?
Oh no. It is THE most closed modern philosophical system there is.
>So there is no way to encorprate it into other philosophy, the whole thing is one giant package deal?
Nope.
>For fuck sakes even Plato with his crazy forms isn't that stubborn.
Haha. Dem forms mane, dem forms.
And don't even get me started on meso-platonicism.
>>287578
He always seemed straightforward to me, but I practice straightedge and compass geometry for fun so his reasoning layout is intuitive.
>>287788
Wow there friend, this is just a minor thesis in Spinoza's work. It's merely a consequence of his system, and it's far from being an original idea, even by modern standards.
Plus, it's not that simple. God IS the laws of nature, or rather, God is everything that exists.
>>287788
you missed literally the entire point, and you misrepresent his world view in your gaping fedora ignorance.
To put it simply, God is literally everything. Infinite modes of being containing infinite attributes, those two known by humans being thought and extension.
He goes over this shit in the first goddamn 5 pages just read the thing.
>>287824
You know how water flows over rocks and logs and shit in a river?
The water is physical reality and the forms are the rocks and shit that give the water it's shape.
I'm sure that's not what Plato thought exactly but idgaf.
>>287847
Someone on 4chan read Spinoza.
Tears a rolling down my cheeks senpai.
>>287578
Just wait till you get to Heidegger
>>287847
So would Spinoza argue that God is the earthquake,People are in a church, and God killed the people by the earthquake in the church ?
>>287868
substance is a funny kind of thing.
>>287824
>But since I feel your pain, I'll pull my ass to my bookshelf and try to get my hands on something helpful.
Thanks man.
>>287857
Forms are the ideal and original state of matter like rocks. A rock's goodness can be measured by how much it mimics the form version of a rock. Platonism is basically the grand-father of all idealism. Idealism is becomes a massive metaphysics that creeps into everything, and gives all matter and abstract concepts it's own form of idealism.
>>287875
It's all the same.
Only the names will change.
>>287857
Yes, this Is more or mess this. Ideas infused into matter are "shaped" into actual physical objects as they are brought into existence. But as such, they lose the original purity of the idea, much like a clay figure will never be exactly what its maker had in mind.
>>287875
God would be the natural laws that made the earthquake possible. The Spinoza God is not a moralizing God. Spinoza's God has no churches or worshippers.
>>287578
>Having definitions very succinctly put forward at the start of your philosophical tract makes you an insufferable cunt
Heideggerian detected.
>>287875
Hahaha, people would actually ask Spinoza that kind of shit.
Ever heard of Lisboa's earthquake?
>>287899
Spinoza's God is the church and the worshipers and the God they're worshiping and all the ones they're not and the worship itself.
please correct me if I'm mistaken.
>>287899
Well when you say "God is not moral" you're explicitly delimiting one of God's infinite attributes.
So that's wrong.
>>287889
>>287824
So, I'm back.
Unfortunately I could only find books in french, and I don't know if they have been translated so it's not likely to help you.
>Spinoza, by Pierre Francois Moreau (Seuil)
The other is just about theological details.
BUT I can recommand you Spinoza's Theologico-Political Treaty and Political Treaty. They don't expose his main theories more clearly, but at leat their content is not as exclusive and metaphysical as his Ethics. So you might find something usable in it.
Also, Descartes Principles (Explained, you guess it, in a Geometrical Fashion. Yay!) is interesting but it's just criticism and understanding of his contemporary authors and/or inspiration (such as Descartes).
>>288070
Found more stuff for you. In english this time.
http://www.spinozaeopera.net/2015/05/spinoza-s-ethics-a-collective-commentary.html
http://www.spinozaeopera.net/article-the-cambridge-companion-to-spinoza-s-ethics-116934263.html
Good luck finding these, tho. Philosophy is expensive.
>>287578
>waaaah why don't philosophers cater to stuoid people
get gud, faget
>>287922
So he can't be infinitely evil? I thought he could do and be everything
>>288233
If he could be anything, he could be not god. Omnipotence cannot be his only attribute.
>Be a Cartesian Jew
>Get excommunicated
>Mock literally everybody who ever believed in God while putting forward a conception of the deity that absolutely falls short of what theists want from God
>>287709
That sounds amazing. But
>if you accept the premiliminary definitions
that's asking a lot imo. I'm starting an undegrad interdisciplinary course soon but everything I see makes me want to switch down to the philosophy route whenever I can. It seems the deepest but most general field of knowledge.
Who are the best radical philosophers? top 5: Spinoza, Nietzsche, Derrida, Diogenes, ...?
>>287709
10/10
>>287578
It isn't really that hard to understand if you've studied Scholastic philosophy/other rigorous forms of syllogistic logic.
Take D1, as an example, this is a common way of defining things which have necessary existence or a priori existence. If there is such a thing which necessarily exists, one must define what such a property would be; so his "cause of itself", would be the first cause in classical theology, and "essence involves existence", is kinda like Anselm's idea of how "the greatest being" entails existence, since existing is great (very badly put). D1 is simply an explication of what he means by "cause of itself", that which in its essence must exist.
>>287709
No, what he states isn't "what follows" necessarily, there are many ways to object, he doesn't give us methods of making logical deductions etc., and often his argumentative rigour is implicit rather than explicit.
But yea, it is basically autism, I don't blame him though, most ways of writing will run into these problems.
http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.de/2011/11/spinoza-graphs.html
>>288356
>That sounds amazing. But
>if you accept the premiliminary definitions
that's asking a lot imo.
Well, most philosophers will ask the same of their readers, wether they admit or not. Without acceptance of some theorical common ground, there is no dialog, no exchange, nor discourse.
You'd be basically struggling to force your principles over those of the recipient, as if you were speaking a foreign language. You might think you agree on some points, but that would merely be by accident because concepts and definitions tend to change over time and/or space.
> I'm starting an undegrad interdisciplinary course soon but everything I see makes me want to switch down to the philosophy route whenever I can. It seems the deepest but most general field of knowledge.
Don't do it man.
Sure it's the deepest, largest field of knowledge. But do you know who need such vast knowledge in our world? Noone.
I spent five years studying philosophy, graduated and then realized (for various reasons) that I couldn't be a teacher.
I thus became the most educated meth dealer in my hood. Best work I ever found was in a factory, and now even they won't have me back.
>Who are the best radical philosophers? top 5: Spinoza, Nietzsche, Derrida, Diogenes, ...?
Derrida and Diogenes ? Dude, those are pretty chill. Try Schoppenhauer, Hegel and Rousseau.
One hated mankind and the very fabric of reality, the other was a maniac who thought massacres and wars to be a sign of progress, the third basically invented State Terror.
>>288724
YOU
YOU FUCKER
Aren't you the anon that made a troll thread on /b/ a few years ago, quoting St Anselm?
Is this you ? I've heard these fallacies before...
If not sorry. But I stand my point; reasoning "more geometrico" just cannot be implicit argumentative rigor. It's meant to forcefully lead the reader from premisses to conclusion, without escape of any kind. That's Baruch "Iron Hand" Spinoza for you.
>>289214
>Well, most philosophers will ask the same of their readers
Spinoza uses really poorly explained definitions.The only reason he gives you to accept them is "Well, only an idiot wouldn't accept this definition."
>>289245
I don't think so. He either draws them from classical theology or clarifies what he meant, just as with the "Causa Sui".
>>289214
I am actually not that anon quoting St. Anselm, and what fallacies have I made? And claiming that Anselm is making fallacies is absurd to me, refuting him needs a wholly different approach (a metaphysical one) instead of "Lol, you logic bad."
I just made a statement from having read Spinoza's work, it doesn't seem to be all that rigorous. It is rigorous in the "normal" sense, but not in this hyper formalised sense.
What I mean is that it isn't always clear what steps he makes, example:
Axiom 1 "To nothing there belong no properties"; this needs to be proven rather than axiomatised; nothing may still have potency or the likes. There are objections to be made of all axioms; even though I wouldn't do it due to pedantry.
There is neither no true way of combining axioms in any rigorous manner of proof, he doesn't explicate what system he use, such as what "absurd" actually means (could be: self-refuting, not common sense, against experience, against previously proven statement etc.).
It isn't simply this kind of
Premises:
A, B
Therefore: A&B because A and B are true.
So, I wouldn't say it is ridiculously formalised; if you want that, look up logicians discussions, or recent metaphysical formalisations of mereology.
I don't necessarily disagree with Spinoza, I just say that he isn't that formal, he is just attempting to show it in a formal manner.
Compare it with Euclid's geometry, the axioms introduced are either truisms or very very common sense, and some axioms are methods of conduct, like "How we prove things", Spinoza doesn't really discuss the very logic of what he is doing, which is my main point.
>>288233
Both.
>>290938
>nothing may still have
>nothing has something
That seems false on the face of it. Seems that all he's saying is that for everything that exists there is the property of existence, or else it wouldn't be.
>>290938
>I am actually not that anon quoting St. Anselm,
No, you're definitely not, sorry again. But you seem quite the scholar, so I'm actually glad I made that mistake.
>what fallacies have I made? And claiming that Anselm is making fallacies is absurd to me,
But none, my dear friend, and neither did Ole Anselm, God Bless Him, who still rests on my bookshelf.
I actually agree about most of what you said.
But, claiming that Spinoza is merely trying to look formal is a rather bold claim.
So he can't compete with formal logicians? Why yes, because he precedes them by a few hundreds years, unless you're counting Pascal (insert pun here).
So he isn't making syllogisms either, nor is he questionning his principles, because he is adressing a public that's familiar with theology and/or cartesianism... in a Soteriological essay, disguised as a Moral treatise on top of that! By these standards, admittedly pretty low, he is quite formal and thorough in is discourse.
The brutality of his assertions is only partly provocation; he legitimately attempted to write in such a manner that his most polemical thesis (about God, Free Will, and basically everything else in between) could not be refuted.
That's quite more difficult than Euclid's geometry. And we all know damn well where to stand with his cursed parallels.
>>291878
I don't get it. You think polemics + informal reasoning presented in 'geometric' proofs = truth?
>>291493
>hat seems false on the face of it
Says you.
>>291896
>implying i'm trying to prove Spinoza is the truth
Wait... you're actually that anon I was talking about, are you?
The one that quoted from the proslogion and monologion to bait atheists back in /b/ ?
Goddamn I should have known.
>Axiom 1 "To nothing there belong no properties"; this needs to be proven rather than axiomatised; nothing may still have potency or the likes. There are objections to be made of all axioms; even though I wouldn't do it due to pedantry.
Show me your moves, sempai.
I won't mind your pedantry if you don't mind my sarcasm.
>>291946
>you're actually that anon I was talking about, are you?
Not at all.
>>293967
Y tho
Y u try to b8 me
>>291896
Explain to me how, given the historical and philosophical context, Spinoza's work is "informal thinking".
>Axiom 1 "To nothing there belong no properties"; this needs to be proven rather than axiomatised
You know the very definition of "axiom" implies it cannot be proved. My reference to Euclid's Parallels was not just a joke.
Spinoza is not skipping steps, he's making points. His system proves itself valid by being sound and consistent, if not complete. That's the highest standard science had back then...
So basically, yeah, "polemics + mathematical proof =formal 17th century thinking"
Idgaf about the "truth" of his assertions.
>>291878
I don't claim that Spinoza is a demagogue or a sophist, I claim that the way in which he is writing isn't formal enough to be irrefutable, and following Hegel, I'd say that having super formalised systems only lead to some abstract nominal syntax manipulation.
My brother usually use this"system" to prove this point:
Ax 1. Introduce 'a' after a string of text.
Ax 2. Change 'aa' into 'b', within a string of text.
Ax 3. Change 'ba' into 'n'.
With this you can prove 'banana'!
But the metaphysics, and all attachment to reality is gone, it is simply "If this is true, this follows." Great? So what?
The great metaphysical insights, if it would be true that "it follows logically", would mostly be bound within the actual axioms or definitions Spinoza would use. Of course, a proof of God, or that God is everything, is a radical thing; but the battleground isn't within the arguments but rather the very definitions/axioms used.
Therefore, if we assume that "Spinoza genius" lies within the argumentative rigour he uses, we have simply reduced his genius to some kind of formalism, this is just as dangerous.
Therefore, instead of spending a page on axioms/definitions, Spinoza should, in my view, defend these axioms/definitions, and claim why he can introduce them.
This is a problem with rationalists overall, I think. Within their framework they have kinda abstracted it away so far that it doesn't really say anything about the actualised metaphysics, since they almost never argue from this kind of Cartesian "I think therefore I am" kind of manner (which introduces identity as an ontological entity, and now we're actually doing metaphysics).
Again, I am stressing this as much as I can:
He does say something radical, he does do metaphysics, but this implies that he cannot be reduced to his formalism, and that his formalism shouldn't be an essential property to which we describe Spinozian thinking. Rather, focus on the definitions/axioms/conclusions.
>>294629
>I don't claim that Spinoza is a demagogue or a sophist, I claim that the way in which he is writing isn't formal enough to be irrefutable, and following Hegel, I'd say that having super formalised systems only lead to some abstract nominal syntax manipulation.
Suits well an idealist such as Hegel to say that...
Anyway I agree with you, but yet again you're relying on contemporary methods to criticize a 17th century system.
And you still, -foolishly enough, if you ask my opinion- assume metaphysical principles can be grounded on material reality. Wich is the absolute opposite of cartesian thinking, wich actually foreshadows the beginnings of phenomenology.
The so-called Descartes "I think therefore I am", is actually a gross approximation . The original formula, "ego sum, ego existo", is devoid of all logical implication. The only thing it establishes intuitively is the existence of the Ego, and certainly not identity as an ontological entity. That would require deduction, wich the cartesian doubt forbids as "unclear" at this point.
But I disgress.
>Therefore, if we assume that "Spinoza genius" lies within the argumentative rigour he uses
That's not my point. I never said anything of the like.
My point was, Spinoza's genius lies within his ability to build a sound and consistent metaphysical system AND exposing in a scientifical (-by THEN standards-) manner, wich is a way to appeal to both cartesian thinkers and scholars, who would have otherwise made short work of any metaphysical grounding with blaring cries of "MUH INTUITIVE THINKING" and "MUH DEDUCTIONS"
I'm neither of these kind of people, and I live in the 21th century. Don't drag me into this.
Spinoza is a genius and you are an idiot. That is about all that can be said in this thread
>>287922
"moral" is a description of a judgment, this is mental phenomena, moral thoughts are a mode of thought, and one of the attributes of God is thought, but moral is not thought as substance but tjought as mode, and god trascends particular modalities since he is substance. Just because God has infinite attributes that doesnt mean every single adjective in the english language is ascribed to its nature
So no, God is not moral, neither is he amoral, he is beyond modalities, to say he is moral or amoral is like saying he id green or blue, nonsense
>>294404
>>Axiom 1 "To nothing there belong no properties"; this needs to be proven rather than axiomatised
I'm not that anon. You can't keep track of who's who, friend.
>>295122
>sound
So you do believe that all his premises are true and that his conclusions logically follow from them? Didn't you just deny this?
>>295196
>You can't keep track of who's who, friend.
Yup, looks like I can't.
>So you do believe that all his premises are true and that his conclusions logically follow from them? Didn't you just deny this?
Soundness =/= truth of the premises my friend.
>"In mathematical logic, a logical system has the soundness property if and only if its inference rules prove only formulas that are valid with respect to its semantics. In most cases, this comes down to its rules having the property of preserving truth, but this is not the case in general."
