I've been reading some of his work and he seems to fit the category of 'genius' as a wise person.
For example: He rejects the idea of free-will
He has nothing but scorn for this belief and treats it as a delusion that arises from the fact that the ideas we have of our actions are inadequate. "Men believe themselves to be free," he writes, “because they are conscious of their own actions and are ignorant of the causes by which they are determined"
His idea of God :
God is an infinite substance. Spinoza means both that the number of God's attributes is unlimited and that there is no attribute that God does not possess.
"Except God, no substance can be or be conceived."
Since God possesses every attribute, if any substance other than God were to exist, it would possess an attribute in common with God. But, since there cannot be two or more substances with a common attribute, there can be no substance other than God. God is the one and only substance.
He equates nature or the universe with god...Nature is no longer a power that is seperate from and subordinate to God, but as a power that is one and the same with divine.
"Life as bondage. Spinoza tells us that the model human life - the life lived by the 'free-man' – is one that is lived by the guidance of reason rather than under the sway of the passions."
I'm still figuring him out. What do you guys think of him?
Was Spinoza a "genius"
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
He was on the right track, but didn't go far enough or deep enough with his thinking. His writing lacked the simplicity and clarity of enlightenment. He was still swayed by the desire to impress the academic world, and hence his writing was unnecessarily convoluted and often trivial. When a person tries to describe the nature of God with geometry and the like, it is a sure sign that he has lost the plot.
In short, I consider Spinoza to be greater than Kant, Descartes, Locke, Hume, and all those other overrated celebrities in Western academia. But at the same time, he is a vastly inferior to people like Lao Tzu, Buddha, Hakuin, Kierkegaard, etc, who actually succeeded in plumbing the depths of Reality.
-
In short, I consider Spinoza to be greater than Kant, Descartes, Locke, Hume, and all those other overrated celebrities in Western academia. But at the same time, he is a vastly inferior to people like Lao Tzu, Buddha, Hakuin, Kierkegaard, etc, who actually succeeded in plumbing the depths of Reality.
-
-
MKFaizi
In short, philosophy -- pure thought -- does not have to be complicated. Why say it with geometry when you can say it in plain words? More people can read or listen than can understand geometry. What's the purpose of a secret language? To keep secrets?
Jesus was pretty good at plain language until he got into the miracle thing. And the purity thing. The Christian thing. The disciple thing. Too much like geometry.
I think Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were better. Neither performed miracles nor geometry. No religion or math. No disciples. Both were excellent writers. Nietzsche is sometimes overly emotional and theatrical. But I think he can be a good beginning -- just as Spinoza can be a good beginning to a degree. I read Spinoza before I read Nietzsche in middle age. I read Nietzsche when I was a kid.
I plain don't do Buddhism. Shit gets on my nerves --no offense, Shardrol. Too religious -- too much geometry for my taste. The one thing that I may have gleaned from Buddhism that is also a tenet of Christianity is the necessity of working through attachment.
If I was religious, I would be Muslim. I think that man is submissive to God/nature whether he likes it or not. To a degree -- not to the religious degree -- I would be Sufi. Except that there is too much geometry in Sufism. Sucks.
I think wherever or with whomever you start thinking is a good place -- within reason. Spinoza is reasonable. I do not think there is a set way or path. The way is the path of the individual.
Plenty of pratfalls along the way. Lots of holes.
Thinking Man's Minefield.
Faizi
Jesus was pretty good at plain language until he got into the miracle thing. And the purity thing. The Christian thing. The disciple thing. Too much like geometry.
I think Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were better. Neither performed miracles nor geometry. No religion or math. No disciples. Both were excellent writers. Nietzsche is sometimes overly emotional and theatrical. But I think he can be a good beginning -- just as Spinoza can be a good beginning to a degree. I read Spinoza before I read Nietzsche in middle age. I read Nietzsche when I was a kid.
I plain don't do Buddhism. Shit gets on my nerves --no offense, Shardrol. Too religious -- too much geometry for my taste. The one thing that I may have gleaned from Buddhism that is also a tenet of Christianity is the necessity of working through attachment.
If I was religious, I would be Muslim. I think that man is submissive to God/nature whether he likes it or not. To a degree -- not to the religious degree -- I would be Sufi. Except that there is too much geometry in Sufism. Sucks.
I think wherever or with whomever you start thinking is a good place -- within reason. Spinoza is reasonable. I do not think there is a set way or path. The way is the path of the individual.
Plenty of pratfalls along the way. Lots of holes.
Thinking Man's Minefield.
Faizi
I didn't get much out of Thus Spoke Zathustra. Unless the wording and context is easy to understand, I dislike anything that attempts to induce a kind of a desire for mystical godliness in ourselves. I'm a skeptic.
Apart from that I've only read most of Human, All-Too-Human and a book called Writings From the Late Notebooks, found them a lot better. I skip a lot of specific stuff, bits about Music, Wagner and so on - but still I do intend to read most of the major works over time. I would class him as my favourite philosopher, not that I have read much of the works of others - usually a scan of their texts turns me off, they just don't seem anywhere as imaginative across such a wide range of issues.
Apart from that I've only read most of Human, All-Too-Human and a book called Writings From the Late Notebooks, found them a lot better. I skip a lot of specific stuff, bits about Music, Wagner and so on - but still I do intend to read most of the major works over time. I would class him as my favourite philosopher, not that I have read much of the works of others - usually a scan of their texts turns me off, they just don't seem anywhere as imaginative across such a wide range of issues.
Spinoza was a good philosopher who had a lot to offer. While I would agree that he was too concerned with speaking the academics' language, his logical precision and commitment to rigorously establishing his premises was admirable. My own philosophical approach is somewhat similar in this regard, although I tend to be slightly less rigorous in an academic sense and more concerned with communicating ideas in accessible terms. Critics would likely say that I take this approach because I don't understand academic philosophy - and they would have some basis for that objection, as I never found it worth bothering with beyond a cursory examination. Academics (and particularly analytics) have no time for me, as I am interested in very little other than the deepest problems of existence - issues which they tend to ignore or pronounce "meaningless."
I live in a tub.