Was he right about everything?

Was he right about everything?

Attached: Spinoza.jpg (1377x1600, 438K)

Yes

no he got btfo by schelling

Hegel, Fichte, Spinoza, Eckhart. What's the order, bros? And the works? And the translations? I'm really getting into Pantheism now, and want to expand farther than just Advaita.

elaborate

Spinoza first. Spinoza second. Spinoza last. Most of The Ethics anticipates/BTFOs hegel/the hegelians as a whole 200 years in advance. As far as translations go, the Penguin Classics edition or the Hackett Classics edition are the best. Shirley's Complete Works is the English gold standard but it's also 2 700 page volumes and pretty expensive. I say go for the Hackett translation that has The Ethics + TiE + Selected Letters, it's the one I own

Fichte and Hegel were pantheists wtf lmao?

Attached: wymtrb6fk0f21.jpg (1440x2560, 327K)

probably

I don't know who that is.

Attached: 4b3bd977-9757-4499-bb2c-247bb1a9fa00.jpg (1024x774, 215K)

>Schelling's own dissatisfaction with his early versions of identity theory derives from his rejection of Spinozism. Spinoza regards the move from God to the world of ‘conditions’ as a logical consequence of the nature of God. Schelling becomes convinced that such a theory gives no reason why the absolute, the ‘unconditioned’, should manifest itself in a world of negative ‘conditions’ at all.

>The point is that God would be just be some kind of inarticulable, static One if there were not that which He transcends: without opposition, Schelling argues, there is no life and no sense of development, which are the highest aspects of reality. The aim of the move away from Spinoza is to avoid the sense of a world complete in itself which would render freedom illusory because freedom's goal would already be determined as the goal of the totality.

>should manifest itself in a world of negative ‘conditions’ at all
How are these conditions negative? These are the only conditions it can exist in.

absolutely in awe of this lads parallelism

Thanks bro.

I thought Hegel was, and someone else told me that Fichte was in that camp too

What? Seems like Schelling doesn't get Spinoza. God/Nature contains infinite attributes, but we can only perceive 2 -- Thought and Extension, our minds and the physical world. History is not moving "towards" anything in particular. There's no reason to force a purpose.

>no life and no sense of development, which are the highest aspects of reality
No, the highest aspect of reality is unity/understanding of God/Nature. Spinoza lays this out in Book 5 of the Ethics.

>freedom is illusory
Yep. Spinoza's a strict determinist.

>Spinoza's ancestors were of Sephardic Jewish descent and were a part of the community of Portuguese Jews that had settled in the city of Amsterdam in the wake of the Portuguese Inquisition (1536), which had resulted in forced conversions and expulsions from the Iberian Peninsula.

unbased and cringepilled

>These are the only conditions it can exist in.

that is precisely why they are negative

>History is not moving "towards" anything in particular. There's no reason to force a purpose.

schelling thinks a god without some kind of teleology is a dead god

>No, the highest aspect of reality is unity/understanding of God/Nature.

not for schelling, besides this can't be properly accomplished without the aforementioned "life and sense of development"

Qt Spinoza was a beautiful boi

he was wrong about everything

doubtful