I don't think the Ethics will help, so how can I understand

>>9464803
Why the fuck would his Ethics not help, you fucking idiot?

>>9464812
I heard it's very dry and needlessly confusing, is this not true? Maybe I'll just take a look at it

>>9464803
First you read Descartes's Metaphysical Meditations.

>>9464870
Did you read Plato/Aristotle? Do you have any background in philosophy prior to Spinoza? If you don't then you probably shouldn't bother with anything beyond a wiki-level explanation. If you do, just read Spinoza.

>>9464803
Are you writing a paper on Spinoza?

>>9464870
It's certainly dry, but it's not confusing. Very logical and straightforward.

>>9464803
deleuze's spinoza: a practical philosophy was greatly helpful

Do I need to read any of Spinoza's other work before diving into the Ethics? Is he one of those philosophers I should be reading chronologically or can I just go for it?

>>9467285
His chronology does not really matter unless you want to dive deep into his way of thinking, but you can get back to that later if you feel like you dig him. His ethics is quite difficult at first, especially if you have not studied mathematics because of his logical reasoning. If you want something easier you can read his political treaty. He uses concepts from his ethics but the language and the demonstration are much clearer and when you'll read the ethics it will probably be easier

>>9464870
Ethics is a short, enjoyable, and thoroughlly logical read. You owe it to yourself to read it instead of posting shit threads like this

>>9464803
I was getting into philosophy when I read it. It's not that hard to understand if you read carefully, flip back to the parts he references, and understand the terms being used.

Maybe you'd find it dry, but I didn't. It's been one of my most enjoyable philosophical reads so far.

Are there any pre-Spinozan philosophers or concepts to be familiar with before approaching the Ethics? I'm decently well read in philosophy from the existentialists onward and have a basic understand of the Pre-Socratics through Aristotle, but I really struggled with a pdf version of the Ethics and ordered a hard copy that should be coming today since it seems his writing lends itself better to a physical copy. Should I familiarize myself with anything in particular before I try again?

>>9468746
In terms of his metaphysics, I'd say Descartes and Aristotle.

The original language is Latin, and the terms he uses are Scholastic, but it's not hard to pick up on his vocab if you have the terms defined like in the Hackett version.

>>9464803

Read his correspondence with other authors. In fact, do this for every other philosopher you're trying to get into.

>>9468778
Are there any concepts in Cartesian and Aristotelean metaphysics you think are poignant for the Ethics in particular? I did get the Hackett version with The Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect and Selected Letters, so that's reassuring.

>>9468836
Aristotle's four causes and Descartes's mind-body dualism

File: IMG_3615.jpg (30KB, 319x499px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 319x499px

Read 'Spinoza' by Michael Della Rocca of 'Spinoza and the Ethics' by G. Lloyd, both are straight forward, and not too long.

Ethics is a fairly difficult book, but not an impossible one if you are willing to put the effort in.


I've heard Deleuze's book on Spinoza is quite good, but that it gives an unconventional reading, so maybe isn't the best introduction, but I haven't personally read it.

Also listen to this two hour audiobook overview as a start;
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0U2sYviVjYg

>>9467579

Thanks, Anon. You're good people.