>>25257711
>>25257711
He judaized German idealism

what does he mean by ordering affects? it makes me think of some kind of bro science brain hacking trick. but there certainly are many affects. please let me date the waitress.

>>25257720
Xitter ahh post

>>25257711
I hate Spinoza, can barely understand a thing he says

>>25257711
He's okay. Yeah

I'm a moron who does not understand philosophy but Spinoza is awesome reading his stuff on the emotions is like watching a david lynch movie like I dont get it but emotionally I get it

>>25257953
how the fuck do you not understand spinoza? like genuinely. hegel I get, kant I get, but spinoza is relentlessly clear the entire time. he's difficult, but very clear. book III and book V in particular
>>25257964
if you can keep in mind "increase in capacity to act and be = good for you, decrease in that = bad for you" the entire time, it sorts itself out

>>25257711
because...?

>>25258154
Typically people who worship Spinoza are spiritual but not religious and they like that he has a new conception of God that is perfection yet he isn’t active in human affairs which solves the problem of evil.

>>25257711
I feel like I am being gaslit when I hear people praise Spinoza because he doesn't say anything that hadn't already been said at that point

>>25258285
> 36. Spinoza - Ethics
>Spinoza’s masterwork. Thinking and being are attributes of one substance, ‘God or nature’. The defect is that substance is unspiritual, unfree. Yet the German Idealists are so influenced by Spinoza that their system may be called ‘Spinozism of freedom’.

>>25258285
The fact he was excommunicated from Judaism and he started making Deism mainstream is why people like him.

>>25258285
>he doesn't say anything that hadn't already been said at that point
this applies to every philosopher

>>25258285
Spinoza originated the idea of the categorical imperative, and the idea of conatus as Will which was copied by Schooenhauer and Nietzsche

>>25258396
But especially post structuralists

Indifference is nihilism.
Only in otherness and difference can care, hate, love, disgust, honor, worth, approach, realization, deference, transcendence, descent, loyalty,.. be something.
To that which is all things shit and gold are the same. Bleeding out for a 67 iq archaic hominid you've defended all your life vs thinking "maybe we shouldn't let these animals roam free"—these have the same value for Spinoza's god, equally good, equally beautiful, equally reasonable ends to pursue.
Monism is nihilism.

seriously the entire “pantheism” dispute is a barely-veiled debate over whether xianity is pagan and whether or not to convert to Islam; but since lessing Islam has esoterically referred to Judaism. if you’re not aware of the secret religion of the German philosophers you’ll find they’re hardly even legible

>>25258610
>Monism is nihilism.
This is a strange way to spell "I'm retarded"

>>25258610
Monism is the polar opposite of Nihilist materialism. Nihilism would be all senses as just material creations while monism is thinking as being, ie all there is.

>>25257711
do people actually read the 2nd half of this work?

>>25259523
The whole thing is fantastic. If they don't they're missing the best parts.

>>25257711
Is that the best translation to get? Can any Spinoza anons weigh in here

>>25258610
>Monism is nihilism
Do you retards ever read?

>>25259619
Spinoza isn’t even that great. He’s just propped up for reintroducing Deism to Europe during the age of Scholasticism. There’s no real hidden insight in his text. It’s purely from a historical basis that people love him.

>>25257711
Hamann and Jacobi were right about him

>>25258285
he's the best expression of several interrelated but distinct ideas that floated around before/during his time is how I see him. not the first monist, but gives monism its best and fullest justification. not the first to deny the will, but does so elegantly. not the first mind-body dualist, but articulates a fascinating argument for it. not the first to deny morality, but the first to lay out a joyous, expansive, positive ethics in morality's wake. etc, etc. the geometrical style takes some getting used to. after a bit it clicks into place and the ethics turns from a ladder into a densely interlocking web. book V, "on human freedom," was one of the best reading experiences of my life after spending a month and change fighting with the rest of the ethics. reminds me of a stark moonlit winter valley with frosty stars poking through the dark above the ridgeline, and a fire down in the center, people around with white puffs of talk, hot coffee and something to eat and a circle of warmth and light floating in the austere and beautiful night. recommend

>>25257711
>>25258145
Spinoza was deliberately misleading because he was trying to placate the religious authorities of his time while rationally trying to break away from them. This results in him claiming in Proposition XVII of Ethics that "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." Then, later in the book, comes Proposition XXXVI which says "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." 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 whole hell of a lot of love from a being supposedly incapable of love. (Again, he uses the Latin word "amor" which is every bit as steeped in emotion as the word "love", if not more).

As this shows, he deliberately selected misleading language. "Intellectual love"? Why use the single most emotional word in the whole language if what you really mean has exactly zero emotional content? I can't even begin to express how manifestly retarded this is.