Excellent episode! Spinoza and Nietzsche are among my favorite philosophers. You managed to elucidate their relationship in a clear and informative way. One major misreading of Spinoza is the failure of Nietsche to acknowledge that Spinoza's Will has an active and indeed transformative component. The striving to persevere includes the striving to actively increase one's power. Book 5 of the Ethics can therefore be read as a proto-transhumanist tract that urges people to modify their bodies and minds in order to live better.
"The striving to persevere includes the striving to actively increase one's power". This "striving", as in Spinoza's way, is nothing you have a control on if only by the way you understand (i.e use your intellect in order to comprehend) how it determines everything of your life. Therefor sayin that "Book 5 of the Ethics can therefore be read as a proto-transhumanist tract that urges people to modify their bodies and minds in order to live better." is just baffling. The idea that striving to persevere in your own being would be achieved by extending the duration of your body and soul indefinitely is pure non sens and laughable in regard to Spinoza philosophy. Doing so would be the exact opposite of what's the Ethic is advocating for. Nothing is eternal but God or Nature; there is nothing that could makes you eternal other than destroying everything else (which would be pure sadness and as such actually counterproductive) or by being god yourself (which is impossible, see book I). To live better is absolutely NOT to live longer or stronger or smarter for Spinoza. To persevere in your own being is to make your own being part of everything else. NOT the other way around. Intellectual love of Nature, to comprehend that your individual is but a part of everything for ever and that you're better off embracing this fact. To comprehend this idea might be the only thing that ressemble eternity in this regard, as if your intellect can have a glimpse on what it really implies, well you're on for a ride on beatitude. Power is not to subdue something to your will, even Nature can't do it as it doesn't have any will on its own. Power for human is to see what's going on in this universe and to feel joy for being a part of it. That's it. The only transformative component of Spinoza's philosophy, or Freedom if you will, is for you to understand the world and enjoy it, not to control it by any means. That would be pure stupidity and a road to sadness.
Man, I don't even attempt to watch other channels for interpretations on Nietzche and other philosophers, it's just not needed with how brilliantly you explain things. I am very grateful.
Beautifully written and narrated. I've loved Spinoza since reading him for the first time at 14, (what a struggle). Although I undoubtedly did not understand the full implications of his philosophy until more mature readings, nevertheless, at that time I still found in him a comfort and a guide to my understanding of life and the universe. The comparison with Nietzsche and others helped tremendously in the clarification of certain concepts and painted a satisfying portrait of his relationship to other thinkers of the time. Thank you!
Very nicely summarised and elaborated, especially the later part with Nietzsche's critique of Spinoza. I do have a remark though, in regard to the statement that there aren't really philosophers for whom Spinoza is the primary influence - I think Deleuze qualifies for this category and I cannot come up with a figure who made a stronger impression on him than Spinoza (Nietzsche, Bergson, and Leibniz included).
Nice, thanks! Gonna enjoy this one. I'd appreciate an episode on Georges Bataille's reading of Nietzsche! And Foucault, while we're on it. E: sade would be interesting too
I have been subscribed to your channel for a while now and have derived a great deal of personal motivations and introspection from your channel. I have only read two books from Nietzsche The Geneology of Morals and Beyond Good and Evil. So i wouldn't exactly call myself a Nietzsche buff nor a philosophy buff. But out of all the philosophers i have been exposed to, there is something about Nietsche's ideas that seem awe inspiring in the sea of philosophy which is mostly arguing for one's own perspective or ethics. Not that Nietzsche doesn't do that but there seems like a greater goal beyond our reach in his ideas. So to come to the point. I have recently started using your videos to research Nietzsche a lot for my own content(which isnt philosophy but rather anime haha) but watching an hour long podcast without subsections on the video timeline really takes away from the researching when lets say I'm trying to correlate anime or modern media with philosophy. Where for the most part a brief 10-20 minute video essays on key ideas would provide much more value and i believe many others would share this sentiment. I understand that you want to clear up a lot of misconceptions in people's perceptions from his writings by breaking it down in depth. But to reach a greater audience with this gospel, i do believe content that are more shorter in format would yeild more followers to the religion. Which then would later translate into people who are interested in knowing these ideas in depth. And i would not trust anyone else on this platform to do something like that more so than you. I just had that on my mind and wanted to let you know. Just food for thought you know.
This podcast is awesome, for philosophy channels I always go to Michael Sugrue, Nietzche podcast, Weltgeist and other latino channels since I am Puerto Rican and see a lot of mexican youtubers that love philosophy too.
39:40 I like THAT god, the one that is the SUBSTANCE of reality, depends on nothing and it is everything. It is the most logical description of a god of the Bible. I like that description of a god, even though I am a non believer.
That is not that far off from very traditional Christian thinking. Not protestant but more in line with Catholic and Orthodox thought. God is not a substance or a being but rather is Being itself. God is that which is; the ultimate is, if you will. The thing by which all other things are possible. Even the name Yaweh literally means "I am." The difference though is that we still are not God.
@@nickchavez720 Talk like this is ONE among hundreds of reasons why I stopped believing, I have no idea what all you said here means, and I have a good sense that YOU don't either, it is all feelings from what I can gather a very "meaningful" voodoo word salad. ========== ""God is not a substance or a being but rather is Being itself. God is that which is; the ultimate is, if you will. The thing by which all other things are possible"" What the hell is all that abut if not contradictions in term or oxymorons, and they do elicit FEELINGS for sure, but mean... WHATEVER you want them to mean. There is a reason church leaders ask of their "sheep" that they must suspend reason to be a able to believe, but for me no thank you, I keep my reason. Sorry my man, no sale.
Great quality video, thank you. I am surprised you do not make the connection with Lao Tzeu and the Dao of Taoism … Would be interesting to find out if Spinoza was even aware of Lao Tzeu’s wisdom and teaching. I believe he was not… Which shows that two very different spiritual masters at two very different periods in two very different geographies arrived each using their own way at the same consciousness of what is the divine…
Same views as earlier mystic Sufi from Murcia in Spain. Ibn Arabi wrote about unity of being but I believe he put god outside that but the mystic Ibn Sab’in put god inside the universe… most likely influenced by Murcia school of Sufism.
Im curious if there’s anything Nietzsche said or wrote about taoism, and the ancient eastern philosophies, would you be able to make a video on such a topic, and if you have already may you direct me to such videos? Just stumbled across this channel and fuck with it heavy, greatly appreciated
You might explore the channel “simply always awake” and Jim Newman’s channel. These are the leading teachers of non-duality today. Buddhism, Taoism, Advaita Vedanta are essentially non-dual teachings. Many say that Zen Buddhism is an integration of traditional Indian Buddhism with Taoism.
Maybe the best critique of Spinoza is to doubt the ontological completeness of reality. To call into question whether the word "everything" has a referent
Have you ever considered doing a video about Max Stirner? A lot of his work the ego and it’s own shares some interesting similarities to Nietzsche despite Stirner very much being a product of the young hegelians
It's autism. Spinoza remained unindividuated from his mother (and unconflicted by it) because of her early death, IMO. This is why his perspective was so meticulously objective and essentially absent of ego. Both of their declines would probably be called autistic catatonia today if they weren't misdiagnosed as early-onset dementia (which doesn't exist unless referring to schizophrenia) and misprescribed antipsychotics (which usually hasten mortality and confirm the misdiagnosis). Parkinson's is end-stage autism in full lifespan individuals - - usually the married ones, incidentally. A more familiar example of autistic catatonia might be Howard Hughes'' mental breakdown. Lots of neurological gastrointestinal and autoimmune comorbidities typically, which both these guys seem to have had. I think there's some possibility Nietzsche's perspective when claiming to have a precursor may not have been intended for publication,. Regardless, peerless genius does tend to eventually recognize itself because of the inevitable uniqueness of its circumstance (isolation). So in that regard I think it is self-awareness and not arrogance. If anything he's probably overestimating most readers' intellectual capacities to share perspective. I did nearly choke when he called Spinoza sickly, though and frankly it is Spinoza who had the potential to think circles around Nietzsche IMO primarily because his self-esteem seems to have been entirely internally generated, which makes a person more rational less emotional and given to even self-defeating objectivity. It is unfortunate that self-defeating selflessness is a frequently-groomed autistic trait (notice he felt better about prevailing over his sister legally by still giving her his inheritance, which is not an accident and an early thinking error he may have outgrown later but he kept his world very small so IDK). Wanting what one wants for oneself for everyone else is the result of one's needs being called greedy or selfish to coerce the child to put the abuser's ahead of their own. Betcha his excommunication prevented never hearing from his halfsister again from teaching him that forgiveness is only ever to the benefit of perpetrators and easily squandered on the unworthy. The autistic incapacity for envy and disavowal of shame are products of environment in which ignored achievement and undeserved blame really do teach you that mammalian emotions are the handicap to rational intelligence that keeps us eating fucking and shitting without realizing evolution follows behavior, not the other way around. Herbivorous species inevitably go extinct because of predation, not famine (which would eradicate omnivores and carnivores with them of course). We don't seem to disappear when they do but are too stupid to figure out that we omnivores and carnivores are why. Spinoza is like an emotional herbivore--no capacity for predation makes him truly democratic but completely unaware psychopathy is baseline in carnivores and regulated against ideological outgroups (mostly by fixed political and religious delusion) and scapegoat offspring in omnivores (like Spinoza was and who are inevitably induced to schizophrenia or autism). See the abrahamic filicidal impulse on Sinai to verify child sacrifice transformed into an ego function during the era of animal sacrifice when Abraham overcorrected damage to his reputation for which he blamed Ishmael (the child he ACTUALLY wanted to kill) after Schwarzeneggering his maid. (pretty popular way to abuse one's spouse apparently) .. This is why psychopathy isn't a diagnosis but a description of the most severely irrational degree of functioning in all diagnoses. Most of those diagnoses are never made (because they regulate with socially approved irrational barbarism) until the end-stage regressions we call geriatric dementias. Serious about abusing the spouse by fucking someone close, too because it's pretty clear any woman concealing her infidelity with a story about getting knocked up by an angel could have induced a messianic delusion. But not clear which of Joseph's friends was the angel, only that people have been mistaking grave robberies for resurrections a mighty long time. Really enjoyed your exploration of him.
I should mention the reason nobody diagnosed with autism is this mora or rationall is because diagnosis advances the child into the position of being a viable proxy when the mother experiences the assertion of some need she won't be able to avoid as an insulting stressor to her untreated postpartum (wish for the child to become "unborn"). Savior complex activated,, she stops rejecting attachment as long as he's sick or actively destroying himself in some way. Maternal attachment stops the IQ climb. Which is why nobody noticing until later if at all prompts hyperlexia and is the etiology of neurotic level 1 high-functioning whatever you want to call it Asperger's autism The overlap between autism and trait homosexuality is that first trimester androstenedione is an adrenal response to the anxiety of keeping an unwanted pregnancy which pairs individuals to partners of the same gender as a way of not imposing the alternative inefficiency of hypothetical sterility upon heterosexual partner fertility. So being unwanted and being murderously despised are highly correlated for obvious reasons and that's why the overlap. Transgender delusion is an attachment strategy in kids rejected for their physical sex (sea Chaz Bono, born CHASTITY🙄 when there was quite obviously only room for one vajayjay at Sonny and Cher's) and in kids rejected for their sexual orientation. As one may or may not be able to figure out lots of unwanted but unterminated pregnancies are babytrappers and pro-life zealots (who claim sanctity of life but never seem to oppose capital punishment as vigorously if at all (because what they're usually doing is externalizing regret about an abortion they have had in the way people too intellectually and morally enfeebled to integrate their own experience and allow other people room to make their own mistakes if that's what it will be for them). So not hard to imagine these moral giants who prove their virtue by blowing up clinics deciding it's fine to mutilate kids it would've been wrong to abort if they tell midean abusers such as these they're gay. Autistic females internalize displace rage toward their mother's as self-hatred, so tranny delusion is a natural fit for the exemplar self-harm population and is why they're so desperate for puberty blockers before 18 because duh they're still living under that parent's roof. And everybody's down with it because it will socially homogenize the visual appearance of heterosexuality. Is what it is. Y'all need to wake the fuck up wokeism is based on psychopathic pseudomorality that that distorts empathy as treating others as THEY wish to be treated. Psychopathic egosyntonia is predicated upon getting one over on others. See why gaslighting you about what empathy is and coercively dictating pronouns is like psychotic catnip? Does nobody think an "informant" named Deepthroat might've been Nixon punking us? Or that LBJ was responsible for JFK? Or GHWB was responsible for the attempt on Reagan? Or that the hit on Lennon was the dry run a month before he took office? Catcher in the rye? Holden caulfield? Maybe not currently on the Andover summer reading list but it's an East Coast prep School staple. Oswald Hinckley Lennon and Chapman all autistic. And Yoko Ono either not terribly bright or stuck in prolonged grief. Wonder if Jodie Foster (who Hinckley was stalking at GHWB's other alma mater) realizes the "I'll get you Foster" outburst at his trial was because he thought she'd called him and asked him to do it. Spinoza's god is pretty brilliant though almost schizotypal, but the so-called chosen people of their own made up god had been showing him his whole life that the only people who need imaginary guaranteed third-party forgiveness in an imaginary next life are the ones who are remorselessly unforgivable and refused to grow up in this real one. Had Nietzsche and Freud (also autistic, molested by his father) lived a little later I think between them they'd have figured out Hitler's master race obsession was a result of having been cruelly excluded in childhood as a quarterbreed by the original master race. The autistics who just kicked asperger out of the club because he euthanized autistic kids predictably were too busy claiming neurodiversity while tearing down other autistics over our asperger label to figure out Hitler euthanizing autistics was no different than externalizing the annihilation of his Jewishness. One could argue the ashkeNAZIc and sephardic tradition of agnostic entitlement to exploit the goyim that gave Western culture autism (by way of giving it to themselves) and christianity basically owning psychiatry and psychoanalysis is a type of homo Holocaust. Not an MD here and I can figure out tranny delusion is a chromosomal impossibility (which but for little more than a cointoss could've been my gay autistic junk being filleted and incinerated as surgical biohazard waste), and I'm quite certain their average 125 IQs can too. Child sacrifice is as endemic to humanity as regulation of masks of sanity at the expense of outgroups. I haven't given it any thought but certainly the only alternative would require the extinction of all carnivorous predators and sicking the pro-life bitches on anyone who eats a hamburger lmfao. Then first famine we really would go extinct. So this depraved world in which it is stupidity's (starring) role to ENDLESSLY misperceive the inevitability of its own dominance is exactly as it should be. It is objectively obvious that (im)moral absolutism is a non sequitur and that morality is de facto relative. Watch out for Symantec tricks like moral absolutism, faith as defined by religion, and democracy in artificially constrained (fully lobbied) two-party systems. The door has been wide open for the false implication that dissent within an informed populous never rises to a majority and so now everybody can vote their ideologies rather than their pocketbooks to distract them from increasing inequality and social welfare being an instrument of diplomatic clout against producer nations (which don't discourage production with welfare and tax the demand/consumption side instead). All governments regard their subjects as another resource to be managed so the best government is objectively the least necessary to protect you from your likeliest more oppressive conqueror. Naive or just not rational to there will be any government anywhere that does not always seek to increase its authority and expand its influence MAXIMIZING THE ADVANCEMENT OF ITS OWN INTERESTS AT THE EXPENSE OF YOURS. Politicians win their jobs by popularity pageant BECAUSE why just steal your wallet if you'll let them get a kick out of helping you look for it too. There is no free will and there is no god but there is certainly freedom of volition within each individual's sphere. In fact our motivated intention is the only universal domain of absolute personal discretion. If you want autonomy you have to forfeit discretion and waste your life looking in omnipotent magic.
@@davidtrindle6473 thank you for saying so because I have been sorta considering it. Thing about unsupported is I wouldn't say it or even be able to formulate it if there were not compelling evidence. That it's not sufficiently convincing or even noticeable to others is a function of being more heavily-invested in their own subjectivity than they realize. And since that's clearly the way it's supposed to work I'm trying to figure out how to assert truths regarded as counterintuitive to those most-invested in refuting them without prompting specificity of refutation by which I'd only invite the endeavor to backfire. There's actually a vast gulf between genius and insanity (irrationality is the common link between ignorance and insanity) such that the negative correlation between IQ and psychosis is observed to be so linearly inverted that IQ is even the second most frequently-cited resiliency buffer against it. So it is the endlessly frustrating position of the exceptionally sane and smart to have their sanity and intelligence mischaracterized by a dominant majority unaware their consensus about sanity and intelligence is substantially misinformed by their own relative limitations in both domains. Smart people see connections others don't. Crazy people imagine connections that don't exist. So for instance despite there being relatively little inclination to recognize abundant evidence as such it's super obvious to me that allergies are often if not always (compulsive) somatoform expressions of unidentified trauma in much the same way as phobias are the psychoform expressions of unresolved trauma. Pretty clear fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue are also somatic symptom expressions of psychogenic etiology. Asthma too. Absolutely radonkalonk we imagine there's any other way something that seems to be triggered by the environment presents as an exception among a family's kids. Nope, it's triggered by stress in children who can't afford to risk the favoritism of the wackjob parent by asking them to chill out. To that kid it's histamine shellfish and peanuts driving them bananas because following the lead of whatever adult introduces that speculative possibility grooms them to insist on fabricating habituated causation from imagined correlation as an infinitely preferable strategy (that even serves the additional function of being a bid for the fucked up parent's care). And they'll get it too....in the form of grids of needles exposing them to all sorts of potential allergens. LMFAO, I mean from an adult perspective of course I understand that approach but from the perspective of a kid who's already a nervous fucking wreck only the clueless parent projecting an idealized self onto them could possibly think that's what their favorite hostagekid needs. See how it's almost hypochondriasis by proxy? That's why it's a golden child thing.
I am glad I found this channel I wanted to go to school for philosophy before I realised how bias SDSU just go look at the philosophy page it tells you they stand with so and so
Thank you for this remarkable video! I think I’m really starting to see clearly that most of German idealism seems to be directly inspired by Spinoza’s concept of pantheism in some way. However, as someone less familiar with Spinoza, is his philosophy of nature more closely related to Hegel’s idea of the progressive unfolding of spirit or Nietzsche’s idea of the eternal reoccurrence? (I.e. although he doesn’t believe in a teleology of nature, does he hold onto an idea of providence?)
One of your best posts i feel, fascinating. Potentially N & S could join in spirit if the ubermensch was said to be one who transcends human limitations and becomes fully aware of the infinite totality of God / Nature. This would then repersonalize Spinoza's natura natura in the sense that the ubermensch would fully express the Ground and provide others with a doorway to knowing it... No doubt Nietzsche himself would have found that rather grandiose however...
The pantheistic aspect of Spinoza seems intriguing and productive. But his denial of freedom of will seems like a dead end. In general i think the positions of strongly affirming freedom of Will or strongly denying it , are both dead ends that lead to endless debate and speculation. The important point is that pragmatically experientially we do have a degree of freedom of ethical choice. It's not surprising The romantics especially Schelling, although they deeply admired Spinoza tried to build this back in. I'm not sure how successful they were...
I always find it ironic that so many people still have this misunderstanding of Spinoza as "irreligious" or "atheist." He is the exact opposite. His entire philosophy is about proving the existence of God.
You are mistaken. His pantheism differs dramatically from the insistence on the part of the religions of his time and place on the indisputable existence of a personal god - like a sort of tribal patriarch writ large - endowed with a will and intentions. His magnum opus, The Ethics, is a bit forbidding. Try the TTP (Tractatus Theologico-Politicus - if you can find a translation.
@Brooder85: I think that's true, having been a Spinoza fan for a long while. Though I do wonder if he would have been a "spiritual atheist" in our own time. Perhaps the concept of God had to be so radically redefined in his system because he felt attached to it (as a 17th century person), but in the 21st century there would be other options for him.
I think Spinoza is best understood as a non- dualist. There is no separation from the Indivisible Absolute and the sum of things except one of degree and kind. Spinoza was perhaps closer to Advaita than modern Western thought, from the Stoics and until the Quantum physicists.
Hey, maybe im a little late, but i wonder if you intent on doing some video on Heinrich Heine, wich i think is very infuential on Nietzsche, especially his work " on the history of philosophy and religion on germany"
Third comment on this, so I’ll respond. Nietzsche actually said Spinoza was his precursor, the title is a direct quote. He said no such thing about Stirner. And, to be honest, the similarities between the two I find to be exaggerated. That said, I may yet do an episode about Stirner.
In an edition of "The ego and its own" by Adelphi at the end there's a paragraph about Stirner and Nietzsche, in which there's a testimony of Ida Overback saying that she remembers two conversations where Nietzsche cited Stirner, telling her that he shouldn't have, because one day he would have been accused of plagiarism of Stirner's works
No one ever talks about the lack of justice and Spinoza's reflections that his philosophy is great for calming one when watching a man get tortured as one will understand "it was determined".
I would argue that Spinozas version of god is not Panthiestic, in the sense that nature and god is the same because in the second chapter of the ethics, he says that the singular things (nature) is not the substence (god). The modes are cristalizations of the infinite atributes of God, but they cannot be equated to the substance, therefore they existed in god but god is both eminant and trascendent from nature. I believe he is more of a Panenthiest, like other jewish people of his time.
After the first 20 minutes, I immediately like Spinoza, I had only superficially read about him, and when other mentioned him, but the way he stood firm against his excommunication is admirable... When one stands firm again all else, or consequences, one is either a fanatic or he is right. And I think only history can tell with the best of them, with the majority it is evident soon after their declarations. Try as I may and reading all I have on it, which admittedly isn't much, but I include in it Thomas Sowel on this subject, I still cannot figure out why the jews are so historically despised, and mistrusted, in almost all places they go... always the outsiders somehow. I don't get it. I know specially now it is a politically dangerous thing or issue to discuss publicly, but can anyone post me to GOOD sources of learning on this issue??
The main reason historically in Europe was primarily religion. Specific Islamic leaders within North Africa and The Middle East were more fanatically opposed to Jewish people but in general they were much less hostile than today (Bayezid II even offered the Jewish people refuge after the Alhambra Decree). Due to strict laws enforced by the Catholic Church, Jewish people often were only able to become financially successful as bankers and money lenders which contributed to their negative reputation.
@@thenablade858 Yes.. but why specifically the Jews?? I mean the churches are normally against all other groups or sectors that challenge or their authority... but I don't se why specifically the jews?? Were the jews at some point in history in the position of control or power of Islam or Catholic church?? and if so, did they also treat other religions as they are treated now?? I never knew from experience that jews were discriminated, and even when I lived in the USA I never personally saw it, but of course I dis read how the State of Israel was CREATED by British decree, Prof. Chomsky and all that... I also read some writers who seem to focus on this issue in their novels... I just have never seen it personally. But taking all I read or listen to on it, I can see how it would crate a sense of paranoia for them as a group even in places where there is no obvios discrimination against them... I met a few jewish people and to me they SEEM like anyone else, specially if you talk to them as anyone else, but that is with all people in general. Even The Sex divide is eliminated if you talk to women 90% like you talk to guys... and they seem to appreciate it. But is this so that they could ONLY be bakers or money lenders?? I see in different countries that the immigrant population can ONLY be merchants since they have no legal documentation and so... but I don't see any immigrant populations NOW that can ONLY become bankers... I wish this subject weren't so politically charged so we all could discuss it openly. Can it be that this is perpetuated bc it is the people in the bible, with all their stories etc... can it be that simple??
@@ggrthemostgodless8713 Regardless of their other problematic tendencies, the initial one of residing in a country not your own, starts them on the wrong foot.
@@mathewgurney2033 Ok, that MIGHT BE a good starting fact or point... so if not where they now live, where is THEIR country?? I know from open sources of info on this that Israel was DECLARED a nation in 1949 or so, claiming this or that... but you say that is not their nation, so WHERE is their nation??
@@ggrthemostgodless8713 They never built one, they have lived in everyone else's for centuries. They are wanderers who rely on everyone else to host them. They don't need many other negative characteristics to be hated, when they start from that point of being a burden.
Spinoza pretty much circled in on Mahayana and early Zen (as well as early Yoga) buddhism with an exact precision both in his ideas of the world (including form and God) and of the mind. The fact that he most likely had little knowledge of Buddhism due to the lack of translated works at the time is really interesting. EDIT: I'll add that both forms of Buddhism are rather different (and much more complicated) than the Western view discussed an hour into this video. For example Karma simply means something akin to "doing" or "action without thought" rather than the cosmic fairness Westeners tend to view it as.
How is Yoga related? Which schools of Yoga? And how can an Abrahamic Thinker simply "circle in" on the more esoteric and vedantic doctrines of Astika and Nastika [and even mahayana] schools? I think you are making haphazard parallelisms based on semblance connections, which are vacuous, considering no historical or textual connection exists between. I think Spinoza would have had absolutely no knowledge of Buddhism, nor would the majority of Europe at this time. There is simply no empirical connection. Only imaginary.
@@Isotope_911 Calm down there, no need to respond so histrionically. Spinoza came to Buddhist conclusions through a western lens without any prior knowledge of the philosophy. One can not be blind to the similarities of his doctrine and the Mahayana Vijñānavāda, the view of Guatama as Tathāgatagarbha or the vijñapti-mātra. There are, as of course as well documented, lots of parallells between late Nietzchian philosophy and early Buddhism, but The parallels to Spinoza appear more obvious. It's not the least far-fetched nor uncommon for practicing philosophers to come to similar conclusions despite the lack of awareness of each other.
@@IlIlIlIlIlIlIllIlIII I'm just critiquing haphazard thinking. Parallelomania is real, and it endangers the particulars and foregoes the specific parts of thinkers, unappreciative of their background context. If you reduce a two separate thinkers to semblances, then you do a disservice to both thinkers. Let alone comparing Spinoza's conclusions to entire schools or periods of Indian and Buddhist thought - thereby you reduce Spinoza and entire swathes of Eastern thinkers and mystics to the mere appearances of their respective doctrines.
@@Isotope_911 I disagree with the notion that comparison through drawn parallels equals disservice - I would argue for the contrary; that it's a compliment to them both, in this case specifically to Spinoza due to the immense history and development of Buddhism. It doesn't have to mean anything, and there are no inherent conclusions to be drawn from their undeniable similarities, other than the notion that it (in my opinion) is an interesting observation. I hadn't heard of the comparison before since I'm not well versed in Spinoza, but a quick search reveals the fact that I'm far from alone in this observation.
I believe Spinoza was secretly just an atheist. If I'm being generous I'll call him a pan-atheist By taking away personality from God you've basically created de facto atheism
Very nice video, however I wonder if you realize that a whole psychology cones out of the "conatus" concept and the whole move by humans to understand nature is the manifestation of the conatus. Another way to describe this is to look at reason as an attempt to become the whole or become what one is. All understanding is an incorporation of what appears to be outside us, but reason is our means to show that this is not the case. It is a kind of growth by appropriation and the ultimate goal is to become the whole ONE which, of course, is not possible. This is all a manifestation of the conatus.
Before i listen to this i want to see if i misunderstand that Spinoza, a Spanish/Sephardic Jew? Was excommunicated from his community for implying that G-d is literally and figuratively infused in everything from people, to words, to objects, nature etc. And nietzsche was clinically depressed and had a migraine disorder which mayve been triggered by realizing that once society completely abandons "religious values", they'll be devoid of a purpose and who tf knows what kind of purpose they'll replace it with and all the existential dread that comes with it. He was also kind of a dick to people. As in "holier than thou", anyway i should just listen tyvm
@@elypearl826I agree. The Jewish fanatics, blinded by religious and ethnic dogmas, were very envious of Spinoza, which probably factored into why they expelled him.
Mr. essentialsalts, have you come across the work of bronze age pervert? He is probably the most influential Nietzschean of our time. I know he's a little bit radioactive, but his work would be very difficult to ignore if you want to talk about Nietzsche in our times.
I would say he was more of a precursor to modern determinism than buying in to a theological predestination. The difference is one is the result of a metaphysical will while the other is the result of physical fate where it could not be any other way.
How would a listener know that you're not just reading other people's work? Not just quotes, but every word of your presentation. Is any of this original to the host?
@1:28:00, again, if there is no free-will what basis does Spinoza have for prescribing behaviour? 😂 He is basically saying, there is no free will, and once you accept this, you will act better...🤔...🤣🤣
Excellent episode! Spinoza and Nietzsche are among my favorite philosophers. You managed to elucidate their relationship in a clear and informative way. One major misreading of Spinoza is the failure of Nietsche to acknowledge that Spinoza's Will has an active and indeed transformative component. The striving to persevere includes the striving to actively increase one's power. Book 5 of the Ethics can therefore be read as a proto-transhumanist tract that urges people to modify their bodies and minds in order to live better.
"The striving to persevere includes the striving to actively increase one's power". This "striving", as in Spinoza's way, is nothing you have a control on if only by the way you understand (i.e use your intellect in order to comprehend) how it determines everything of your life. Therefor sayin that "Book 5 of the Ethics can therefore be read as a proto-transhumanist tract that urges people to modify their bodies and minds in order to live better." is just baffling.
The idea that striving to persevere in your own being would be achieved by extending the duration of your body and soul indefinitely is pure non sens and laughable in regard to Spinoza philosophy. Doing so would be the exact opposite of what's the Ethic is advocating for. Nothing is eternal but God or Nature; there is nothing that could makes you eternal other than destroying everything else (which would be pure sadness and as such actually counterproductive) or by being god yourself (which is impossible, see book I). To live better is absolutely NOT to live longer or stronger or smarter for Spinoza. To persevere in your own being is to make your own being part of everything else. NOT the other way around. Intellectual love of Nature, to comprehend that your individual is but a part of everything for ever and that you're better off embracing this fact. To comprehend this idea might be the only thing that ressemble eternity in this regard, as if your intellect can have a glimpse on what it really implies, well you're on for a ride on beatitude.
Power is not to subdue something to your will, even Nature can't do it as it doesn't have any will on its own. Power for human is to see what's going on in this universe and to feel joy for being a part of it. That's it. The only transformative component of Spinoza's philosophy, or Freedom if you will, is for you to understand the world and enjoy it, not to control it by any means. That would be pure stupidity and a road to sadness.
Paul Tillich has a section on Nietzsche and Spinoza in Courage to Be where he talks about this.
Man, I don't even attempt to watch other channels for interpretations on Nietzche and other philosophers, it's just not needed with how brilliantly you explain things. I am very grateful.
Thank you 🙏
I must thank you for these episodes. I hadn't read these texts in 40 years and you bring them to life. Grateful for your work & insight.
Beautifully written and narrated. I've loved Spinoza since reading him for the first time at 14, (what a struggle). Although I undoubtedly did not understand the full implications of his philosophy until more mature readings, nevertheless, at that time I still found in him a comfort and a guide to my understanding of life and the universe. The comparison with Nietzsche and others helped tremendously in the clarification of certain concepts and painted a satisfying portrait of his relationship to other thinkers of the time. Thank you!
This is a great lecture. Thank you for your insights on, Spinoza.
Fantastic episode!! Your knowledge of Spinoza has helped me better understand his philosophy, I still have work to do.
Very nicely summarised and elaborated, especially the later part with Nietzsche's critique of Spinoza. I do have a remark though, in regard to the statement that there aren't really philosophers for whom Spinoza is the primary influence - I think Deleuze qualifies for this category and I cannot come up with a figure who made a stronger impression on him than Spinoza (Nietzsche, Bergson, and Leibniz included).
Nice, thanks! Gonna enjoy this one.
I'd appreciate an episode on Georges Bataille's reading of Nietzsche! And Foucault, while we're on it.
E: sade would be interesting too
Yesss... me too.
He already did Deleuze
Enjoyed this one.
More talk about Nietzsche's influence on literary modernism and art would be welcome.
Any plans on making an episode on Dostoevsky?
I think Dostoevsky is a big part of his upcoming book?
He isn’t, Tolstoy is a big part of the upcoming book.
@@untimelyreflections Ah! Mixed up my 19th-century Russian writers!
@@untimelyreflections ah, what a shame, I adore dostoyevsky but can't stand tolstoy.
I have been subscribed to your channel for a while now and have derived a great deal of personal motivations and introspection from your channel. I have only read two books from Nietzsche The Geneology of Morals and Beyond Good and Evil. So i wouldn't exactly call myself a Nietzsche buff nor a philosophy buff. But out of all the philosophers i have been exposed to, there is something about Nietsche's ideas that seem awe inspiring in the sea of philosophy which is mostly arguing for one's own perspective or ethics. Not that Nietzsche doesn't do that but there seems like a greater goal beyond our reach in his ideas.
So to come to the point. I have recently started using your videos to research Nietzsche a lot for my own content(which isnt philosophy but rather anime haha) but watching an hour long podcast without subsections on the video timeline really takes away from the researching when lets say I'm trying to correlate anime or modern media with philosophy. Where for the most part a brief 10-20 minute video essays on key ideas would provide much more value and i believe many others would share this sentiment. I understand that you want to clear up a lot of misconceptions in people's perceptions from his writings by breaking it down in depth. But to reach a greater audience with this gospel, i do believe content that are more shorter in format would yeild more followers to the religion. Which then would later translate into people who are interested in knowing these ideas in depth. And i would not trust anyone else on this platform to do something like that more so than you. I just had that on my mind and wanted to let you know. Just food for thought you know.
These biographical episodes from essentialsalts pack a punch! A great storyteller...
This podcast is awesome, for philosophy channels I always go to Michael Sugrue, Nietzche podcast, Weltgeist and other latino channels since I am Puerto Rican and see a lot of mexican youtubers that love philosophy too.
Thank you! Have you checked out the conversation I had with Weltgeist? It was pretty good I think.
@@untimelyreflections Yes sir, I saw it, super interesting and enlightening.
39:40
I like THAT god, the one that is the SUBSTANCE of reality, depends on nothing and it is everything. It is the most logical description of a god of the Bible.
I like that description of a god, even though I am a non believer.
That is not that far off from very traditional Christian thinking. Not protestant but more in line with Catholic and Orthodox thought. God is not a substance or a being but rather is Being itself. God is that which is; the ultimate is, if you will. The thing by which all other things are possible. Even the name Yaweh literally means "I am." The difference though is that we still are not God.
@@nickchavez720
Talk like this is ONE among hundreds of reasons why I stopped believing, I have no idea what all you said here means, and I have a good sense that YOU don't either, it is all feelings from what I can gather a very "meaningful" voodoo word salad.
==========
""God is not a substance or a being but rather is Being itself. God is that which is; the ultimate is, if you will. The thing by which all other things are possible""
What the hell is all that abut if not contradictions in term or oxymorons, and they do elicit FEELINGS for sure, but mean... WHATEVER you want them to mean.
There is a reason church leaders ask of their "sheep" that they must suspend reason to be a able to believe, but for me no thank you, I keep my reason.
Sorry my man, no sale.
6:00 I would like to see you discuss the possible influences of Stirner on Nietzsche
Everything is necessary => no praise, no blame
Great quality video, thank you. I am surprised you do not make the connection with Lao Tzeu and the Dao of Taoism … Would be interesting to find out if Spinoza was even aware of Lao Tzeu’s wisdom and teaching. I believe he was not… Which shows that two very different spiritual masters at two very different periods in two very different geographies arrived each using their own way at the same consciousness of what is the divine…
Same views as earlier mystic Sufi from Murcia in Spain. Ibn Arabi wrote about unity of being but I believe he put god outside that but the mystic Ibn Sab’in put god inside the universe… most likely influenced by Murcia school of Sufism.
Im curious if there’s anything Nietzsche said or wrote about taoism, and the ancient eastern philosophies, would you be able to make a video on such a topic, and if you have already may you direct me to such videos? Just stumbled across this channel and fuck with it heavy, greatly appreciated
You might explore the channel “simply always awake” and Jim Newman’s channel. These are the leading teachers of non-duality today. Buddhism, Taoism, Advaita Vedanta are essentially non-dual teachings. Many say that Zen Buddhism is an integration of traditional Indian Buddhism with Taoism.
I recommend Rebecca Goldstein's "Betraying Spinoza" for anyone looking for a good gentle introduction to his life and thought.
Great work, brother.
17:09 oh, Now I understand horizon zero dawn outcast law.
A profoundly humble soul!
Maybe the best critique of Spinoza is to doubt the ontological completeness of reality. To call into question whether the word "everything" has a referent
A most excellent episode!
Hegel also saw Spinoza as his predecessor: ‘You are either a Spinozist, or not a philosopher at all’
Have you ever considered doing a video about Max Stirner? A lot of his work the ego and it’s own shares some interesting similarities to Nietzsche despite Stirner very much being a product of the young hegelians
Amazing idea
This is excellent thank you!
Was this all your arguments ? Or were there another source ???
Great explanation
It's autism. Spinoza remained unindividuated from his mother (and unconflicted by it) because of her early death, IMO. This is why his perspective was so meticulously objective and essentially absent of ego. Both of their declines would probably be called autistic catatonia today if they weren't misdiagnosed as early-onset dementia (which doesn't exist unless referring to schizophrenia) and misprescribed antipsychotics (which usually hasten mortality and confirm the misdiagnosis). Parkinson's is end-stage autism in full lifespan individuals - - usually the married ones, incidentally. A more familiar example of autistic catatonia might be Howard Hughes'' mental breakdown. Lots of neurological gastrointestinal and autoimmune comorbidities typically, which both these guys seem to have had.
I think there's some possibility Nietzsche's perspective when claiming to have a precursor may not have been intended for publication,. Regardless, peerless genius does tend to eventually recognize itself because of the inevitable uniqueness of its circumstance (isolation). So in that regard I think it is self-awareness and not arrogance. If anything he's probably overestimating most readers' intellectual capacities to share perspective. I did nearly choke when he called Spinoza sickly, though and frankly it is Spinoza who had the potential to think circles around Nietzsche IMO primarily because his self-esteem seems to have been entirely internally generated, which makes a person more rational less emotional and given to even self-defeating objectivity.
It is unfortunate that self-defeating selflessness is a frequently-groomed autistic trait (notice he felt better about prevailing over his sister legally by still giving her his inheritance, which is not an accident and an early thinking error he may have outgrown later but he kept his world very small so IDK). Wanting what one wants for oneself for everyone else is the result of one's needs being called greedy or selfish to coerce the child to put the abuser's ahead of their own. Betcha his excommunication prevented never hearing from his halfsister again from teaching him that forgiveness is only ever to the benefit of perpetrators and easily squandered on the unworthy. The autistic incapacity for envy and disavowal of shame are products of environment in which ignored achievement and undeserved blame really do teach you that mammalian emotions are the handicap to rational intelligence that keeps us eating fucking and shitting without realizing evolution follows behavior, not the other way around.
Herbivorous species inevitably go extinct because of predation, not famine (which would eradicate omnivores and carnivores with them of course). We don't seem to disappear when they do but are too stupid to figure out that we omnivores and carnivores are why. Spinoza is like an emotional herbivore--no capacity for predation makes him truly democratic but completely unaware psychopathy is baseline in carnivores and regulated against ideological outgroups (mostly by fixed political and religious delusion) and scapegoat offspring in omnivores (like Spinoza was and who are inevitably induced to schizophrenia or autism).
See the abrahamic filicidal impulse on Sinai to verify child sacrifice transformed into an ego function during the era of animal sacrifice when Abraham overcorrected damage to his reputation for which he blamed Ishmael (the child he ACTUALLY wanted to kill) after Schwarzeneggering his maid. (pretty popular way to abuse one's spouse apparently) .. This is why psychopathy isn't a diagnosis but a description of the most severely irrational degree of functioning in all diagnoses.
Most of those diagnoses are never made (because they regulate with socially approved irrational barbarism) until the end-stage regressions we call geriatric dementias. Serious about abusing the spouse by fucking someone close, too because it's pretty clear any woman concealing her infidelity with a story about getting knocked up by an angel could have induced a messianic delusion. But not clear which of Joseph's friends was the angel, only that people have been mistaking grave robberies for resurrections a mighty long time. Really enjoyed your exploration of him.
I should mention the reason nobody diagnosed with autism is this mora or rationall is because diagnosis advances the child into the position of being a viable proxy when the mother experiences the assertion of some need she won't be able to avoid as an insulting stressor to her untreated postpartum (wish for the child to become "unborn"). Savior complex activated,, she stops rejecting attachment as long as he's sick or actively destroying himself in some way. Maternal attachment stops the IQ climb. Which is why nobody noticing until later if at all prompts hyperlexia and is the etiology of neurotic level 1 high-functioning whatever you want to call it Asperger's autism
The overlap between autism and trait homosexuality is that first trimester androstenedione is an adrenal response to the anxiety of keeping an unwanted pregnancy which pairs individuals to partners of the same gender as a way of not imposing the alternative inefficiency of hypothetical sterility upon heterosexual partner fertility. So being unwanted and being murderously despised are highly correlated for obvious reasons and that's why the overlap. Transgender delusion is an attachment strategy in kids rejected for their physical sex (sea Chaz Bono, born CHASTITY🙄 when there was quite obviously only room for one vajayjay at Sonny and Cher's) and in kids rejected for their sexual orientation. As one may or may not be able to figure out lots of unwanted but unterminated pregnancies are babytrappers and pro-life zealots (who claim sanctity of life but never seem to oppose capital punishment as vigorously if at all (because what they're usually doing is externalizing regret about an abortion they have had in the way people too intellectually and morally enfeebled to integrate their own experience and allow other people room to make their own mistakes if that's what it will be for them). So not hard to imagine these moral giants who prove their virtue by blowing up clinics deciding it's fine to mutilate kids it would've been wrong to abort if they tell midean abusers such as these they're gay. Autistic females internalize displace rage toward their mother's as self-hatred, so tranny delusion is a natural fit for the exemplar self-harm population and is why they're so desperate for puberty blockers before 18 because duh they're still living under that parent's roof. And everybody's down with it because it will socially homogenize the visual appearance of heterosexuality. Is what it is.
Y'all need to wake the fuck up wokeism is based on psychopathic pseudomorality that that distorts empathy as treating others as THEY wish to be treated. Psychopathic egosyntonia is predicated upon getting one over on others. See why gaslighting you about what empathy is and coercively dictating pronouns is like psychotic catnip? Does nobody think an "informant" named Deepthroat might've been Nixon punking us? Or that LBJ was responsible for JFK? Or GHWB was responsible for the attempt on Reagan? Or that the hit on Lennon was the dry run a month before he took office? Catcher in the rye? Holden caulfield? Maybe not currently on the Andover summer reading list but it's an East Coast prep School staple. Oswald Hinckley Lennon and Chapman all autistic. And Yoko Ono either not terribly bright or stuck in prolonged grief. Wonder if Jodie Foster (who Hinckley was stalking at GHWB's other alma mater) realizes the "I'll get you Foster" outburst at his trial was because he thought she'd called him and asked him to do it.
Spinoza's god is pretty brilliant though almost schizotypal, but the so-called chosen people of their own made up god had been showing him his whole life that the only people who need imaginary guaranteed third-party forgiveness in an imaginary next life are the ones who are remorselessly unforgivable and refused to grow up in this real one. Had Nietzsche and Freud (also autistic, molested by his father) lived a little later I think between them they'd have figured out Hitler's master race obsession was a result of having been cruelly excluded in childhood as a quarterbreed by the original master race.
The autistics who just kicked asperger out of the club because he euthanized autistic kids predictably were too busy claiming neurodiversity while tearing down other autistics over our asperger label to figure out Hitler euthanizing autistics was no different than externalizing the annihilation of his Jewishness. One could argue the ashkeNAZIc and sephardic tradition of agnostic entitlement to exploit the goyim that gave Western culture autism (by way of giving it to themselves) and christianity basically owning psychiatry and psychoanalysis is a type of homo Holocaust. Not an MD here and I can figure out tranny delusion is a chromosomal impossibility (which but for little more than a cointoss could've been my gay autistic junk being filleted and incinerated as surgical biohazard waste), and I'm quite certain their average 125 IQs can too. Child sacrifice is as endemic to humanity as regulation of masks of sanity at the expense of outgroups. I haven't given it any thought but certainly the only alternative would require the extinction of all carnivorous predators and sicking the pro-life bitches on anyone who eats a hamburger lmfao. Then first famine we really would go extinct.
So this depraved world in which it is stupidity's (starring) role to ENDLESSLY misperceive the inevitability of its own dominance is exactly as it should be. It is objectively obvious that (im)moral absolutism is a non sequitur and that morality is de facto relative. Watch out for Symantec tricks like moral absolutism, faith as defined by religion, and democracy in artificially constrained (fully lobbied) two-party systems. The door has been wide open for the false implication that dissent within an informed populous never rises to a majority and so now everybody can vote their ideologies rather than their pocketbooks to distract them from increasing inequality and social welfare being an instrument of diplomatic clout against producer nations (which don't discourage production with welfare and tax the demand/consumption side instead). All governments regard their subjects as another resource to be managed so the best government is objectively the least necessary to protect you from your likeliest more oppressive conqueror. Naive or just not rational to there will be any government anywhere that does not always seek to increase its authority and expand its influence MAXIMIZING THE ADVANCEMENT OF ITS OWN INTERESTS AT THE EXPENSE OF YOURS. Politicians win their jobs by popularity pageant BECAUSE why just steal your wallet if you'll let them get a kick out of helping you look for it too.
There is no free will and there is no god but there is certainly freedom of volition within each individual's sphere. In fact our motivated intention is the only universal domain of absolute personal discretion. If you want autonomy you have to forfeit discretion and waste your life looking in omnipotent magic.
WOW! There are so many densely packed assertions here,unsupported, but interesting. You could expand this into a book.
@@davidtrindle6473 thank you for saying so because I have been sorta considering it. Thing about unsupported is I wouldn't say it or even be able to formulate it if there were not compelling evidence. That it's not sufficiently convincing or even noticeable to others is a function of being more heavily-invested in their own subjectivity than they realize. And since that's clearly the way it's supposed to work I'm trying to figure out how to assert truths regarded as counterintuitive to those most-invested in refuting them without prompting specificity of refutation by which I'd only invite the endeavor to backfire.
There's actually a vast gulf between genius and insanity (irrationality is the common link between ignorance and insanity) such that the negative correlation between IQ and psychosis is observed to be so linearly inverted that IQ is even the second most frequently-cited resiliency buffer against it. So it is the endlessly frustrating position of the exceptionally sane and smart to have their sanity and intelligence mischaracterized by a dominant majority unaware their consensus about sanity and intelligence is substantially misinformed by their own relative limitations in both domains. Smart people see connections others don't. Crazy people imagine connections that don't exist.
So for instance despite there being relatively little inclination to recognize abundant evidence as such it's super obvious to me that allergies are often if not always (compulsive) somatoform expressions of unidentified trauma in much the same way as phobias are the psychoform expressions of unresolved trauma. Pretty clear fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue are also somatic symptom expressions of psychogenic etiology. Asthma too.
Absolutely radonkalonk we imagine there's any other way something that seems to be triggered by the environment presents as an exception among a family's kids. Nope, it's triggered by stress in children who can't afford to risk the favoritism of the wackjob parent by asking them to chill out. To that kid it's histamine shellfish and peanuts driving them bananas because following the lead of whatever adult introduces that speculative possibility grooms them to insist on fabricating habituated causation from imagined correlation as an infinitely preferable strategy (that even serves the additional function of being a bid for the fucked up parent's care). And they'll get it too....in the form of grids of needles exposing them to all sorts of potential allergens. LMFAO, I mean from an adult perspective of course I understand that approach but from the perspective of a kid who's already a nervous fucking wreck only the clueless parent projecting an idealized self onto them could possibly think that's what their favorite hostagekid needs. See how it's almost hypochondriasis by proxy? That's why it's a golden child thing.
@@ZarathustranBoy you is well smart!
Thank you so much for your vids
I am glad I found this channel I wanted to go to school for philosophy before I realised how bias SDSU just go look at the philosophy page it tells you they stand with so and so
Nature goes on forever for everyone and everything to return as everyone and everything an infinite number of times through evolutionary processes. 🌌
Thank you for this remarkable video! I think I’m really starting to see clearly that most of German idealism seems to be directly inspired by Spinoza’s concept of pantheism in some way. However, as someone less familiar with Spinoza, is his philosophy of nature more closely related to Hegel’s idea of the progressive unfolding of spirit or Nietzsche’s idea of the eternal reoccurrence? (I.e. although he doesn’t believe in a teleology of nature, does he hold onto an idea of providence?)
thank you 4 breaking down these complex questions 4 me it sounds like the guvnor was spinoza thanks again
fantastic lecture, thank you
A particularly excellent video. T’anx.
Great video thank you! Opening the comments BIG mistake lol
Funny!
Tysm
Thank you so much? 👍
Well, Noone expected the Spanish inquisition.
portugese
great job!
I think Max Stirner is the precursor to mature Nietzsche.
No evidence he ever read him though I don't think? Not mentioned in his notes and didnt appear to own a copy of his book.
One of your best posts i feel, fascinating. Potentially N & S could join in spirit if the ubermensch was said to be one who transcends human limitations and becomes fully aware of the infinite totality of God / Nature. This would then repersonalize Spinoza's natura natura in the sense that the ubermensch would fully express the Ground and provide others with a doorway to knowing it... No doubt Nietzsche himself would have found that rather grandiose however...
The pantheistic aspect of Spinoza seems intriguing and productive. But his denial of freedom of will seems like a dead end. In general i think the positions of strongly affirming freedom of Will or strongly denying it , are both dead ends that lead to endless debate and speculation. The important point is that pragmatically experientially we do have a degree of freedom of ethical choice. It's not surprising The romantics especially Schelling, although they deeply admired Spinoza tried to build this back in. I'm not sure how successful they were...
Huh??? You babble on and on and make no sense ..pit down the thesaurus
I always find it ironic that so many people still have this misunderstanding of Spinoza as "irreligious" or "atheist." He is the exact opposite. His entire philosophy is about proving the existence of God.
You are mistaken. His pantheism differs dramatically from the insistence on the part of the religions of his time and place on the indisputable existence of a personal god - like a sort of tribal patriarch writ large - endowed with a will and intentions.
His magnum opus, The Ethics, is a bit forbidding. Try the TTP (Tractatus Theologico-Politicus - if you can find a translation.
@Brooder85: I think that's true, having been a Spinoza fan for a long while. Though I do wonder if he would have been a "spiritual atheist" in our own time. Perhaps the concept of God had to be so radically redefined in his system because he felt attached to it (as a 17th century person), but in the 21st century there would be other options for him.
I always find it ironic who atheists try to paint as religious thinkers. Knowing nothing about religion or its doctrines.
I think Spinoza is best understood as a non- dualist. There is no separation from the Indivisible Absolute and the sum of things except one of degree and kind. Spinoza was perhaps closer to Advaita than modern Western thought, from the Stoics and until the Quantum physicists.
@michaelkingsbury4305 those are a lot of words for "atheist"
Adequate, in Spinoza's sense, discourse fo sho!
Maybe they arriving independently to the same conclusions is an example of thought being deterministic, logic for sure is.
Hey, maybe im a little late, but i wonder if you intent on doing some video on Heinrich Heine, wich i think is very infuential on Nietzsche, especially his work " on the history of philosophy and religion on germany"
Isn't Max Stirner Nietzsche's precursor?
Third comment on this, so I’ll respond. Nietzsche actually said Spinoza was his precursor, the title is a direct quote. He said no such thing about Stirner. And, to be honest, the similarities between the two I find to be exaggerated. That said, I may yet do an episode about Stirner.
In an edition of "The ego and its own" by Adelphi at the end there's a paragraph about Stirner and Nietzsche, in which there's a testimony of Ida Overback saying that she remembers two conversations where Nietzsche cited Stirner, telling her that he shouldn't have, because one day he would have been accused of plagiarism of Stirner's works
@@untimelyreflections I mean thats a cool idea for an episode. Stirner and how the similarities with N. are exaggerated.
f that ship, he's all our precursers
No one ever talks about the lack of justice and Spinoza's reflections that his philosophy is great for calming one when watching a man get tortured as one will understand "it was determined".
Just in time.
Ryan Gosling would be perfect for a Spinoza biopic.
The nose, the long face, the eyes. Add a little facial hair and bam!
I agree! And then Christian Bale in the nietzsche biopic directed by Christopher Nolan. In my dreams.
Would Nietzsche's concept of the Will to Power be classified under the modern conception of Panpsychism?
Irony of ironies, Spinoza unites The Jewish God with Vedanta:
Schma yisroel
Adoni elehenu
Adoni echad
Tat twam asi
Before Abraham was I Am...
I would argue that Spinozas version of god is not Panthiestic, in the sense that nature and god is the same because in the second chapter of the ethics, he says that the singular things (nature) is not the substence (god). The modes are cristalizations of the infinite atributes of God, but they cannot be equated to the substance, therefore they existed in god but god is both eminant and trascendent from nature. I believe he is more of a Panenthiest, like other jewish people of his time.
I wonder what do you think was Nietzsche's relation to Aristotle?
After the first 20 minutes, I immediately like Spinoza, I had only superficially read about him, and when other mentioned him, but the way he stood firm against his excommunication is admirable... When one stands firm again all else, or consequences, one is either a fanatic or he is right. And I think only history can tell with the best of them, with the majority it is evident soon after their declarations.
Try as I may and reading all I have on it, which admittedly isn't much, but I include in it Thomas Sowel on this subject, I still cannot figure out why the jews are so historically despised, and mistrusted, in almost all places they go... always the outsiders somehow. I don't get it.
I know specially now it is a politically dangerous thing or issue to discuss publicly, but can anyone post me to GOOD sources of learning on this issue??
The main reason historically in Europe was primarily religion. Specific Islamic leaders within North Africa and The Middle East were more fanatically opposed to Jewish people but in general they were much less hostile than today (Bayezid II even offered the Jewish people refuge after the Alhambra Decree). Due to strict laws enforced by the Catholic Church, Jewish people often were only able to become financially successful as bankers and money lenders which contributed to their negative reputation.
@@thenablade858
Yes.. but why specifically the Jews?? I mean the churches are normally against all other groups or sectors that challenge or their authority... but I don't se why specifically the jews?? Were the jews at some point in history in the position of control or power of Islam or Catholic church?? and if so, did they also treat other religions as they are treated now??
I never knew from experience that jews were discriminated, and even when I lived in the USA I never personally saw it, but of course I dis read how the State of Israel was CREATED by British decree, Prof. Chomsky and all that... I also read some writers who seem to focus on this issue in their novels... I just have never seen it personally. But taking all I read or listen to on it, I can see how it would crate a sense of paranoia for them as a group even in places where there is no obvios discrimination against them... I met a few jewish people and to me they SEEM like anyone else, specially if you talk to them as anyone else, but that is with all people in general. Even The Sex divide is eliminated if you talk to women 90% like you talk to guys... and they seem to appreciate it.
But is this so that they could ONLY be bakers or money lenders?? I see in different countries that the immigrant population can ONLY be merchants since they have no legal documentation and so... but I don't see any immigrant populations NOW that can ONLY become bankers... I wish this subject weren't so politically charged so we all could discuss it openly.
Can it be that this is perpetuated bc it is the people in the bible, with all their stories etc... can it be that simple??
@@ggrthemostgodless8713 Regardless of their other problematic tendencies, the initial one of residing in a country not your own, starts them on the wrong foot.
@@mathewgurney2033
Ok, that MIGHT BE a good starting fact or point... so if not where they now live, where is THEIR country??
I know from open sources of info on this that Israel was DECLARED a nation in 1949 or so, claiming this or that... but you say that is not their nation, so WHERE is their nation??
@@ggrthemostgodless8713 They never built one, they have lived in everyone else's for centuries. They are wanderers who rely on everyone else to host them. They don't need many other negative characteristics to be hated, when they start from that point of being a burden.
Nietzsche famously described Spinoza as a sickly recluse.
I think you mean PREDECESSOR in the title, not precursor.
No, if you watched the video, you’d know the director quote from Nietzsche is “precursor”.
Spinoza pretty much circled in on Mahayana and early Zen (as well as early Yoga) buddhism with an exact precision both in his ideas of the world (including form and God) and of the mind. The fact that he most likely had little knowledge of Buddhism due to the lack of translated works at the time is really interesting.
EDIT: I'll add that both forms of Buddhism are rather different (and much more complicated) than the Western view discussed an hour into this video. For example Karma simply means something akin to "doing" or "action without thought" rather than the cosmic fairness Westeners tend to view it as.
How is Yoga related? Which schools of Yoga? And how can an Abrahamic Thinker simply "circle in" on the more esoteric and vedantic doctrines of Astika and Nastika [and even mahayana] schools?
I think you are making haphazard parallelisms based on semblance connections, which are vacuous, considering no historical or textual connection exists between.
I think Spinoza would have had absolutely no knowledge of Buddhism, nor would the majority of Europe at this time. There is simply no empirical connection. Only imaginary.
@@Isotope_911 Calm down there, no need to respond so histrionically. Spinoza came to Buddhist conclusions through a western lens without any prior knowledge of the philosophy. One can not be blind to the similarities of his doctrine and the Mahayana Vijñānavāda, the view of Guatama as Tathāgatagarbha or the vijñapti-mātra.
There are, as of course as well documented, lots of parallells between late Nietzchian philosophy and early Buddhism, but The parallels to Spinoza appear more obvious.
It's not the least far-fetched nor uncommon for practicing philosophers to come to similar conclusions despite the lack of awareness of each other.
@@IlIlIlIlIlIlIllIlIII I'm just critiquing haphazard thinking. Parallelomania is real, and it endangers the particulars and foregoes the specific parts of thinkers, unappreciative of their background context. If you reduce a two separate thinkers to semblances, then you do a disservice to both thinkers. Let alone comparing Spinoza's conclusions to entire schools or periods of Indian and Buddhist thought - thereby you reduce Spinoza and entire swathes of Eastern thinkers and mystics to the mere appearances of their respective doctrines.
@@Isotope_911 I disagree with the notion that comparison through drawn parallels equals disservice - I would argue for the contrary; that it's a compliment to them both, in this case specifically to Spinoza due to the immense history and development of Buddhism.
It doesn't have to mean anything, and there are no inherent conclusions to be drawn from their undeniable similarities, other than the notion that it (in my opinion) is an interesting observation. I hadn't heard of the comparison before since I'm not well versed in Spinoza, but a quick search reveals the fact that I'm far from alone in this observation.
@@IlIlIlIlIlIlIllIlIIIhes far from zen
I believe Spinoza was secretly just an atheist. If I'm being generous I'll call him a pan-atheist
By taking away personality from God you've basically created de facto atheism
Meanwhile his Real Precursor: The Spooky Max Stirner.
Stirner’s philosophy, rather than a clear precursor, bears only a cursory resemblance to Nietzsche.
@@untimelyreflectionsCan you say a little bit more about how it's only a cursory resemblance?
@46:44: what bout judaism, from whence he was excommunicated?
Very nice video, however I wonder if you realize that a whole psychology cones out of the "conatus" concept and the whole move by humans to understand nature is the manifestation of the conatus. Another way to describe this is to look at reason as an attempt to become the whole or become what one is. All understanding is an incorporation of what appears to be outside us, but reason is our means to show that this is not the case. It is a kind of growth by appropriation and the ultimate goal is to become the whole ONE which, of course, is not possible. This is all a manifestation of the conatus.
Before i listen to this i want to see if i misunderstand that Spinoza, a Spanish/Sephardic Jew? Was excommunicated from his community for implying that G-d is literally and figuratively infused in everything from people, to words, to objects, nature etc.
And nietzsche was clinically depressed and had a migraine disorder which mayve been triggered by realizing that once society completely abandons "religious values", they'll be devoid of a purpose and who tf knows what kind of purpose they'll replace it with and all the existential dread that comes with it. He was also kind of a dick to people. As in "holier than thou", anyway i should just listen tyvm
Some people find it alarming that Nietzsche hated Judaism and I think anyone would hate it if they knew what he knew what "it" did to Spinosa.
Envy is powerful
@@elypearl826I agree. The Jewish fanatics, blinded by religious and ethnic dogmas, were very envious of Spinoza, which probably factored into why they expelled him.
I want God Intoxication ❤
Are you sure you're ready for it?
Jesus the Stirnerheads and others are IN this comment section taking issue with the title
Deus sive Natura!
Mr. essentialsalts, have you come across the work of bronze age pervert? He is probably the most influential Nietzschean of our time. I know he's a little bit radioactive, but his work would be very difficult to ignore if you want to talk about Nietzsche in our times.
Hmm
lmao no
why tho?
@@socialswine3656
It’s isn’t such a big deal to call someone your pre cursor
It sounds like Spinoza had bought into the Lutheran-Calvinist predestination bug. This is also an Islamic thing. I am not impressed.
I would say he was more of a precursor to modern determinism than buying in to a theological predestination. The difference is one is the result of a metaphysical will while the other is the result of physical fate where it could not be any other way.
How would a listener know that you're not just reading other people's work? Not just quotes, but every word of your presentation. Is any of this original to the host?
@1:28:00, again, if there is no free-will what basis does Spinoza have for prescribing behaviour? 😂 He is basically saying, there is no free will, and once you accept this, you will act better...🤔...🤣🤣