/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11924362]

Do I need to read Spinoza and Leibniz to understand this guy?
He is continuously mentioning them.

[king stannis baratheon first o(...) !9fB.6ikQAA No.11924365]

avoid Spinoza and spinozans at all costs...leibniz did not stalnd outside of the shadow of Descartes, either. either one can be disregarded. neither should be read.

[Anonymous No.11924368]

>>11924365
fag

[king stannis baratheon first o(...) !9fB.6ikQAA No.11924371]

>>11924368
what the fuck did I ever do to you?

[Anonymous No.11924382]

>>11924371
whether or not a philosopher "stands outside the shadow" of another, a contentious idea in itself, is irrelevant to whether they should be read, especially when their writing has been influential regardless of whether it contains any true revolt against the order they existed within.

[Anonymous No.11924388]

>>11924362
if you force yourself to read everything referenced by everything you read before forming an opinion on the later work, you'll cuck yourself into reading philosophy as history rather than reading it for itself. If you read Deleuze and you can't piece together the ideas without the background, try it out. But here's the trick: philosophers use references in such a way that their own ideas supercede that which they reference. It's a jumping off platform, not just quoting the prior work and writing a peanut gallery on the side.

[king stannis baratheon first o(...) !9fB.6ikQAA No.11924389]

>>11924382
demonic concepts are transmitted through the written word across centuries. some thinkers ought to be avoided for this reason.

[Anonymous No.11924398]

Spinoza and Leibniz are relatively pleasant to read, and have more than a few important ideas (regarding the forms of objects, simplicity vs manifoldness, whether or not the qualities of an object may be separated from its pure essence) which eventually set the path for Kant's Critiques, and thus led to the general mood of contemporary philosophy. I highly suggest you to read them alongside the Empiricists (Locke, Berkeley, Hume). Be sure to take copious notes on the main points in their works.
As a matter of fact, if you haven't read Plato's Parmenides and Aristotle's Metaphysics, go do so now. They're vital precursors for Spinoza and Leibniz.

[Anonymous No.11924408]

>>11924362
I don't know aboit Spinoza but Deleuze has a book on Liebiniz and it's a relatively short one, as well as one on Kant.
Why don't you try reading that.

[Anonymous No.11924418]

>>11924368
Ignore him, he's a known schizoposter. We monitor him through the chip in his skull.

[Anonymous No.11924470]

>>11924408
Deleuze has a book on Spinoza too, but you shouldn't always go only by what Deleuze has to say in regards to other philosophers. It's better to read the originals (Spinoza's Ethics, Leibniz's Monadology, Discourse on Metaphysics, Kant's Critiques) first before you consult any other secondary material on them. Due to the logical organization of Spinoza's Ethics, one may start without knowing anything on Spinoza's philosophy, and end with a clear, almost complete knowledge on it. Deleuze's book on Spinoza is mostly his thoughts on the matter, as well as a few insights he may have generated while/after reading him. Kant defines most of the terms he uses, and generally follows an ascending, upbuilding structure in most of his works. He might sometimes get difficult to follow if you don't keep extensive notes on the different terms he introduces and uses.
Leibniz, although not too difficult to read for the most part, will often make reference to Plato, Aristotle, or the Medieval Scholastics.
Deleuze, being a relatively free-flowing thinker, rejects the use of rigid logic or structure in his expositions, and will freely mix his own thoughts and those of people whom he is writing about in his monographs.