Let us discuss this genuinly exquisite and sui generis astute description of our cosmos, which, I believe, also to be the one work that once and for all proved rationalist philosophy to be philosophy proper.
"My son once brought home a book of Spinoza's Ethics; I looked through -- this jerkass doesn't know a thing about physics! I then was sure never to let my boy read a single page of that mumbo-jumbo" - Feynman, Lectures on Physics, P. 243
"My son once brought home a book of Feynman's Lectures on Physics; I looked through -- this jerkass doesn't know a thing about philosophy! I then was sure never to let my boy read a single page of that mumbo-jumbo" - Anonymous, 4chan /lit/ board, thread 7623700
"My son once brought home a book of Anonymous's posts; I looked through -- this jerkass doesn't know a thing about anything! I then was sure never to let my boy read a single page of that mumbo-jumbo" - God, The Bible, Introduction
Feynman - Philosophy is bullshit
"My son is taking a course in philosophy, and last night we were looking at something by Spinoza and there was the most childish reasoning! There were all these attributes, and Substances, and all this meaningless chewing around, and we started to laugh. Now how could we do that? Here's this great Dutch philosopher, and we're laughing at him. It's because there's no excuse for it! In the same period there was Newton, there was Harvey studying the circulation of the blood, there were people with methods of analysis by which progress was being made! You can take every one of Spinoza's propositions, and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world and you can't tell which is right."
Spinoza's Ethics is a product of its time, babe. It's time to crawl out of the cave and see the world of philosophy for what it really is: analytic.
Spinoza surely must be regarded as a proper 'best of both worlds' philosopher. This is why all pre- and post-Spinozean philosophy seems either awfully clumsy or shallow in comparison.
Now surely you do not want to claim that the proper way towards a true description of our cosmos is by way of natural science? For the latter has, despite it's youthfulness, already proven to be altogether futile (yet its methods only being the least worst of it).