Which rationalist holds up best?

How do you manage to speak a Romance language and still pronounce it as disgustingly as all the Slavshit languages around you? Same question goes for Portuguese.

Leibniz was the biggest hack of the three.

What's the Romanian word for 'checked'?
>the slavshit languages around portugal

Asta voia să fie o insultă? Dacă am ieşit dintr-un hău de proporții cosmice înseamnă că sunt un fel de zeu, nu?

Also, mişto cvaduri.

Our language is the most patrician for literature. It combines the poetic powers of French and Italian and the dramatic sincerity of Russian.

>doesn't know about island slavs

Thanks for the in-depth analysis, genius.

Except Spinoza's idea of parallelism is retarded. Why the fuck would you posit the existence of a physical world when you are saying at the same time that 1) the mental world is the only world we are able to perceive, and 2) the mental world does not causally interact with the physical world whatsoever.

This sort of thinking leads to Berkeley's immaterialism. Which I'm fine with, but damn.

Spinoza gets props from me for galvanizing panentheism though. That shit is cool. Can't be an infinite God and not contain everything at the same tine, yo.

>muh reason
>muh rationality
>muh logic

Oh just shut the fuck up.

theres a third thing

wut

It's actually this guy

Wrong

>muh
Kill yourself, retard.

Singurul raspuns viabil este Nae Ionescu.

"You're either a Spinozan or not a philosopher at all" - Hegel

Leibnitz is the greatest philosopher ever.
t. Bolzano
t. Husserl
t. Frege
t. Gödel
Descartes is great too. Spinoza has little of value to say (just try reading anything outside the Ethics).

From SEP:
For Descartes, then, there is the epistemological claim that perceiving Thought does not involve perceiving Extension and vice versa. Each is explanatorily independent from the other, (although not from God). Spinoza adopts this aspect of Cartesian philosophy and holds, as well, that there is what Della Rocca calls, “a conceptual barrier” between Thought and Extension as Spinoza states in the scholium “i.e., one may be conceived without the aid of the other” (Della Rocca, 1996, 9–17). Spinoza holds Thought and Extension to be explanatorily self-contained. Physical changes are to be understood in terms of other physical items, and ideas are to be understood in terms of other ideas. What is ruled out is what can be called “cross attribute explanations.” For example, explaining the movement of my hand by my desire to move my hand. According to Spinoza, the movement of my hand is to be explained purely physically by alluding to other bodies and their motions, while my desire is to be explained by other desires and ideas. Spinoza makes this very clear in 3P2, its demonstration and scholium:

3P2: The body cannot determine the mind to thinking, and the mind cannot determine the body to motion, to rest, or to anything else (if there is anything else).

None.
Spinoza is also wrong.

>Descartes is great too. Spinoza has little of value to say (just try reading anything outside the Ethics).
Descartes restated the same thing in all of his philosophical works. Granted, he did great work in mathematics, but philosophically he was as one-dimensional as Spinoza

>Leibnitz is the greatest philosopher ever

Sincerely curious, could you tell me why is that? I have a very limited knowledge of philosophy and I have never studied Leibnitz's thought.

dude

monads

This, really. Also, the Dualism is essentially Plato and the proof of God's Anselm's. Why Descartes was so popular will never be known.

The best thing he did was preemptively BTFOing Kant by proving synthetic knowledge is a dumb concept.

I can't think of another philosopher who accounts for substances with as much clarity and rigor

He combined it in a easily read paper I guess.
I mean Meditations is pretty cozy read with Mediator and its structure of days?

>clarity
>rigor
How the fuck are these good things?
Fucking anal autistics.

Remainder Anselm is an idiot, BTFO'd by his own contemporaries.

Why do we study this stupid hack in schools, when we skip better thinkers?

>>clarity
>>rigor
>How the fuck are these good things?

what

Spinoza says that a sufficient proof of god is that a perfect being in its perfection would necessarily have to exist

the Ethics are incredible but dude, you cant seriously use the term 100% right to describe a text which considers itself to be self evidential truths

>ust try reading anything outside the Ethics
Spinoza's scriptural analysis tho?

>Spinoza's Ethics is still 100% right to this day.
The first few axioms are already completely retarded and throw all the project into the garbage bin kek

>Dacă am ieşit dintr-un hău de proporții cosmice înseamnă că sunt un fel de zeu, nu?
Sau mama ta e o curvă incomensurabilă?

>Our language is the most patrician for literature. It combines the poetic powers of French and Italian and the dramatic sincerity of Russian.

I don't necessary agree that it is the most patrician. However I agree with you on the second part, mostly because our linguistic font is about 60% of Latin/French origin and 25% slavic words. But I feel that it is somewhat poor on the number of words having around, what, 60k words?

>>clarity
>>rigor
>How the fuck are these good things?
Retarded anglos think they validate thoughts for some reason

>Statement backed by absolutely no arguments.

What is that phrase Molyneux says again?

it's basically a step by step guide that everyone can easily follow

*checks wallet*

articles.latimes.com/1991-05-13/news/mn-1168_1_queen-elizabeth

We can't help it, stealing in broad daylight is a tradition. Even our dictators did it.

funnily enough I tend to check to see if I have my wallet when citizens of a certain ethnicity pass by.

lmao @ ur life

>what is an axiom

>axioms are 'backed up' becuz i sed so
>self-evident!!!!!
Eat shit you realist.

well if the concept of imperfection exists, doesn't there have to be a state of "perfection"?

Hi, Isaac.

if the concept of being exists, doesn't there have to be a state of nothing?

No, because nothing is just a conceptual extension of being, a concept whose function is to take up everything. In fact, it is completely impossible and nonsensical for nothing to exist on its own, without some sort of conceptual encapsulation. When applied to a real world situation, I can see a full glass of water as a whole, but the absence of water constitutes an opposite state. Nothing is simply an extension of an abstract concept whose functionality is derived from its use in the concrete.

Perfection and imperfection work similarly. Perfection is something that is as it is supposed to be relative to concrete standards, imperfection is its opposite. The concepts are functions of logical relations, not extensions of an actually existing referent.

Yeah it's retarded. I also don't see how he putatively overcame or circumvented cartesian dualism, because his attribute dualism is effectively the same damn thing.

uh oh looks like we cant do math anymore!

this

We never have been able.

I think Spinoza is more popular (at least here in my country), but I like Leibniz more desu