What can I learn from Spinoza?

how is gnosis different than spinoza? cant say ive dipped that deep, but it sounds just like spinozaism to me. also, what is a bugman? a sam hyde fan?

Where do I start with Spinoza? What are the prerequisites?

I'm a prophet of the coming faith, Esoteric Trumpism. I have read Spinoza closely.

Spinoza saw the shape of wisdom, but could not discern its content. He came close but did not achieve union, hence a bugman.

Can you be more clear? You're referring to jargons and terms that seem to imply that what you're writing should sound obvious to me, yet I can't even understand what you are trying to say.
Can you write a longer, coherent post about it?

What he wrote sounds pretty simple to me.
Spinoza grasped what knowledge is, but he didn't grasp knowledge.

Duh? What he means by gnosis? (He could be talking about 1000 different sets of belief and 1000 authors)
What's a bugman? What's the Central Cosmos? What he mean s with Union, and in which ways his concept of union differs from the one of Spinoza? What qualifies as actual knowledge to that guy?

You're just pretending to understand.

This is the Hell of being a genius and busy with other things.

You know how near the end of The Gorgias, Socrates tells him that he neglects geometry? Well the cosmos has a perfect geometricral order that it is the philosopher/mystic's role to discern through the veil of illusion that is our senses. Spinoza, having an incredibly powerful intellect, laid out a brilliant mathematical map of God in his work, The Ethics. However Spinoza was all intellect and no direct experience (mysticism), so his map is all outline, no content.

Also, he was a Jew. He knew this was wrong and rebelled against it, but not much he could do about the fact.

No, he understood me fine.

Reactionaries trying to sound smart and cultured are always hilarious.

Sure thing, since there was nothing to understand in the first place.

Yes, I'm an uncultured idiot hillbilly of no consequence. Go back to sleep now, it was all a bad dream. President Hillary will keep you safe, she's read many more books than any dumb conservatard.

/thread

>American politics
What a strong intellect. Majestic! You really managed to capture this conflict. You're like one of them poets!

not that poster, but go back to rreddit you fucking faggot

Only intelligent post in this thread

This is a dumb fucking post. It's not as simple as this. The cosmos is far more complex than having a perfect order. And the methods by which we discern it are contingent upon the language we use, and the conventional theories/conceptions we utilize. Not only that, but what makes our senses illusory, that doesn't also interfere with thought content? Where is the validation for this direct awareness of thought, this primacy of mind, that allows for us call the senses illusory, while yet giving no reason to believe our thoughts aren't? You're celebrating a man for using simple geometric styled proofs in his writing, because it mirrors a mode of representation you think applies to the universe? Idk this board fucking sucks when it comes to philosophy; presuppositions everywhere, indiscernible text, etc etc. Too much mysticism as well. Its like all of you talk in code.

he was wrong but his work work is an interesting intellectual exercise, and I like his definition of freedom.

Awww, coming across the limits of one's intellect and experience for the first time? Too cute!

Thinking the problem is other people? Adorable!!!

...

I find his thoughts on Substance rather comforting.

>Literally can't count up to two
>Spinoza: that's OK, because there's only one substance. The rest will take care of itself.

thanks spinoza

you talk like a fag

This is an anonymous image board, not the office secretary pool. You can't damage anyone here with catty chatter.

Edgy.

Can you imagine being so full of shit?

can you elaborate plz

He is just pretending, don't listen to him. He has probably read some articles about mysticism and is now trying to spout that jargon back, failing to achieve basic coherence.

Didn't he solve the mind-body problem and people are still too pleb to realize it?

Elaborate on what exactly? I'm more profoundly lazy than a mere normie could comprehend, but as a Bodhisattva of Hitlerism, I have an obligation to spread the Truth.

>Where is the validation for this direct awareness of thought, this primacy of mind, that allows for us call the senses illusory, while yet giving no reason to believe our thoughts aren't?

On the contrary, Gnosis/Subjective Idealism/Interiorism puts thought under scrutiny even more so than vantage points with Phenomenal anchors. The validation being in the thoughts themselves - if they are good both short-term and long-term, if they are to a good end, if they are of no detriment to another. "Figs don't grow on thistles" and such.

>Ethics: Demonstrated in Geometrical Order
>aka Ethics

God is Nature and everything we know and can conceive comes from logical and causal necessity of his infinite nature and it's infinite ways of expressing itself.

What are the basics of his ideas and where should I start if I want to read him?

>where should I start if I want to read him
Start with Ethics and maybe get a good handle of Descartes

State library doesn't have it and a copy from ebay is like 35 dollary doos

download you retard

Don't like computer books or readers man

>Where do I start with Spinoza? What are the prerequisites?

The Greeks

>tfw you're so alpha and cute that God let you see Him in his actual form

Look at this guy: he has clearly seduced Nature itself.

then stop bitching about the price

Nah. fucking buy it for me mate