[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 61 KB, 976x850, 0645EA18-1577-48F6-9816-26564F2C7738.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22141076 No.22141076 [Reply] [Original]

Is it worth reading Spinoza and Aquinas if I’m not Christian, nor do I have an desire to be? Can you take anything practical or applicable away from either of them?

>> No.22141095

There's hardly anything practical to be found in the study of philosophy.

>> No.22141101

>Spinoza
made irrelevant by Berkeley the Unrefuted
>>22141095
blow it out your utility hole.

>> No.22141115

>>22141101
Not really interested in who refuted who. I don’t view life as on long line of refutations where you suddenly arrive at the unrefutable
>>22141095
I’ve taken practical advice away from philosophers like Nietzsche and Emerson, the kind that are almost self help but deeper. What I’m wondering is if Spinoza and Aquinas are like that or are they just masturbatory autists?

>> No.22141116

I don't see why you would be asking about Spinoza, since he was obviously not a Christian. It's not clear what you're trying to get out of philosophy, so I can't say for sure if you should read them. In general, I would say yes if you can, since they are both good philosophers. From a philosophical perspective, the idea that it is a waste of time to read someone just because you don't agree with them is utterly absurd. That's all the more reason why you should read them.

>> No.22141121

>>22141116
See my post above to get an idea of what I’m looking for. Whether I agree or disagree with them is of little importance to me. The Christian thing was aimed at Tommy A. I should have specified better

>> No.22141128

>>22141121
Well, if you are looking for self-help advice, then you should read self-help books, not philosophy.

>> No.22141135

>>22141101
>blow it out your utility hole.
I'm not trying to criticize the study of philosophy. I'm just saying there's largely no practical use for it.
>>22141115
Spinoza and Aquinas are not what you're looking for.

>> No.22141143

Whats the practical use for posting on 4chan?

>> No.22141162

>>22141128
No need to be a smartass. If you can’t see the difference between someone like Nietzsche and someone like Wittgenstein, then you are probably pretty dense

>> No.22141190

>>22141162
There is a difference between those two. You just clearly haven't understood it if you think the one is self-help and the other is intellectual masturbation.

>> No.22141206

>>22141190
I see. You’re an autist. I knew throwing out the phrase “almost self help” would be zeroed in on by anons like you. Kindly leave the thread

>> No.22141219

>>22141206
How about no.

>> No.22141227

>>22141076

Spinoza('s Ethics) crafts an amusing and unsatisfying model of the world. The first half, ultimately baseless in its arbitrary and convenient definitions, gives way to a second, more practical part which is better, for the simple reason that it better approaches truth. The god stuff in the first half was erected as an edifice to conveniently arrive at the uncontroversial remarks on human nature and human emotion in the second half. I like to say of the "pain/pleasure/desire" trichotomy that it is also an arbitrary framework, conveniently arrived at, akin to the "RGB" paradigm with which colors are rendered on computers, using hexadecimal values. Any "good/bad/choice" triple will do for some seeming explanatory power to the human mind, whence psychology, whence etc.

It is useful as fiction is useful, to provide meat for the imagination, and as a highly creative effort in the history of ideas. At least he attempts to go about it in the right sort of way. Spinoza had certain right instincts; the will to systematize being one. Feynman was right to smile, and he cannot legitimately be faulted for doing so.

>> No.22141229

>>22141219
Then answer the question. Are they pointless to read and if no then why aren’t they?

>> No.22141244

>>22141229
If what you really want is practical advice, then yes, it probably is a waste of time to read Spinoza and Aquinas.

>> No.22141249

>>22141227
>>22141244
Thank you

>> No.22141258

Spinoza is underrated as the most subversive philosopher that ever lived. He really fucked up everything.

>> No.22142612

>>22141076
you should have that desire or I'll kill you

>> No.22142797

>>22141076
Firstly I would simply say you’re approaching it wrong if you are automatically not open to the authors views wherever it leads.

Aquinas is excellent due to the expansion and mastery of Aristotle’s system and it offers a nearly complete world view.

Spinoza as well builds a view that is interesting but I don’t particularly see it’s value desu. Historically relevant but I’d recommend Descartes to Leibniz instead.

Frankly I think if Spinoza wasn’t Jewish and anti-clerical he’d be forgotten. His system is just a stepping stone from Descartes and short of Leibniz