Spinoza/ Wittgenstein/ Popper

[cosmocreator]

Baruch Spinoza was born a Sepharic Jew. Because of his writings he was kicked out of the Jewish community and an attempt was made on his life. I'm not certain whether the Christian churches cared for him either.

In spite of him being a Jew, I think he was a good philosopher. I particularly like his idea that thoughts and things are one and the same and his ethics, that the greatest good is to know God. Spinoza's God, however, was not some spook in the sky but was here on earth to be found in nature.

Links to Spinoza's work etc.,

http://frank.mtsu.edu/~rbombard/RB/S...ica-front.html

http://authorsdirectory.com/biograph...ne_books.shtml

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/aut/spinoza.html

[Stríbog]

Yes, from what I have read, Spinoza turned against his Jewish heritage at an early age. He apparently led an interesting life; he was a lensgrinder for much of it. He died of inhalation of glass dust at a relatively early age. I confess I am not terribly familiar with his philosophy or politics. I do know that Nature played a very large role in his thought. I'd appreciate more on Spinoza...

[cosmocreator]

I have his book entitled Ethics. It is a difficult read because of his use of words. I found myself reading and rereading it to understand. Maybe it's the translation that isn't very good.

[Ederico]

The only thing I read on Spinoza was a part from the book by Will Durant, from what I have read his ideas were not much in conflict with mine, although I don't remember them exactly because I need to refresh my memory.

Just because the man was a Jew does not mean that he is evil or his ideas totally anti-European, he was just not of our Race. To clear out any misconceptions since he was not White, I would not have supported his permanent residence in Europe out of a matter of principle.

[cosmocreator]

Originally posted by Nazzjonalist
To clear out any misconceptions since he was not White,

White is an ambiguous term.

I would not have supported his permanent residence in Europe out of a matter of principle.

Nor would I of.

[symmakhos]

Recommended read: David J. Edmons and John A. Eidinow, Wie Ludwig Wittgenstein Karl Popper mit dem Feuerhaken drohte ("Wittgenstein's Poker"). More biographical-historical than hardcore-philosophical, it presents a compelling portrait of two Jewish geniuses, in my opinion probably the two most important philosophers of the 20th century (although they had diametrically opposed viewpoints).

[Moody]

Some links on those two.
I'm interested in Wittgenstein's 'private language' argument; however this is in his later works.

http://www.kfs.org/~jonathan/witt/tlph.html



With Popper, his 'Open Societies and Its Enemies' is relevant - however, I place myself on the side of the enemies!

http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/books...n_society.html

[symmakhos]

With Popper, his 'Open Societies and Its Enemies' is relevant - however, I place myself on the side of the enemies!

So do I, to an extent. Popper's politics are silly and limited, but his work on the philosophy of science are IMO irrefutable and very useful to throw in the face of Protagorean "Post-modern" retards. :retard

Thanks for the links!