Yea Forums's opinion on Baruch de Spinoza and his works?

t. autistic tranny

Oh my god it's not even copypasta

(((Spinoza)))

i like Fichte’s take on Spinoza

I have the same last name.

His metaphysics are very "neat and tidy" but like contemporary theories doesn't have any real predictive power and doesn't have any traditional power structures behind it to be functionally useful. His work is beautiful but it's only value is aesthetic

warosu.org/lit/thread/S13522509#p13524269

>I think an easy way to understand what Spinoza is up to is the following:

>1) If one thinks that there are two or more kinds of substance (mind, body; body, soul; God Nature) the question arises about how they are causally connected. This is the problem that Descartes faces about the articulation between the mind and body, and between God and Nature.

>2) If, on the contrary, one claims that there is only one kind of substance, the route is nevertheless open to say that this substance expresses itself in different ways, and has specific attributes. For example, I can express myself in different ways: I can laugh or cry, and yet am the same person independent of these modes. Similarly, I am at once a thing that thinks and a living body; these are not different things, but different attributes that determine me, without for that reason splitting me into two distinct beings.

>3) Spinoza's claim is that there is one substance, which is the totality of what there is. This totality has two attributes: thought and extension. Correspondingly, qua rational being which gives rise to ideas it expresses the subjective side of God, while qua extended being it may be called objective Nature. Nature and God are however one and the same thing, with two attributes or determinations, or ways of expressing itself. Substance can accordingly express itself through these two attributes, however, in infinitely many ways. These are the (infinite) modes in which substance expresses itself, which accounts for the multiplicity perceptible and cognizable in reality. This multiplicity, however, are mere modifications of substance, which is the One qua Nature-God. There is thus no causal breach between the modes or attributes since, they are all accounted by the same explanatory account.

>4) So, the dynamics that individuate Nature and the dynamics that individuates thought are one and the same. For Spinoza, this means that understand God is the same enterprise as understanding the Natural world. Put differently, God is not some irrational transcendence from the rationally cognizable dynamics of material nature, but simply is this material nature in its manifold modalities and transformations.

>5) For Spinoza, reconciling the theological impetus with the nascent paradigm of a thoroughly rational, mathematized modern science, this means essentially that the axiomatic method used as the paradigm of scientific understanding just was the understanding of God. Essentially, this means that the new algebraic geometrical paradigm opened by Descartes to understand the dynamics of space in thoroughly rigorous form was the method to enquire into the way in which Nature-God expresses itself as material form.

Well, they exiled him so )))Spinoza((( might be more appropriate.

That user need to write more on human, like happiness, and conatus.

The same as yours desu. By the way, why didn'y you state them in the OP?

you know what they say about the (((blood)))

Deleuze is better

>asking for Yea Forums's opinion about anything
just how retarded are you?