What should I read before this guy? The whole scholastic machinery

>>9666214
Not much really. Ethica is a monster but don't read it like a normal book. Spinoza is complex, it's all about absolute determinism and what can we do/know in such an absolute context. Don't give up on him yet, he's underrated as fuck and will open up all the philosophical keys.

Few words of advice, try to google "spinoza and [your favourite philosopher]", this ought to clear things up a bit. Don't worry much about the ontology at first but once you kinda get his "point", get back to it.

File: HomerLaugh.gif (168KB, 375x375px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 375x375px

>>9666214
>Wanting to read anything by a jew

>>9666222
Yeah, I'm most of the way through the Ethics and I'm sure I get the gist, but I'm also sure I will need to return to it with a much better grasp of the scholastics in order to follow the deductions in detail eventually.
I'm just wondering, what's the best path to take from Aristotle to Spinoza?

>>9666253
Descartes is really the one one I would interpose between the two. I'm assuming you've read Plato if you've read Aristotle.

>>9666261
Yeah. But just Descartes? I've read the Meditations but didn't feel that was close to preparing me for the conceptual apparatus in Spinoza.

>>9666286
Which of Aristotle's works did you read? I feel like he is a pretty good preparation.

make sure you read The Organon, Physics, De Anima, Nicomachean Ethics, and Metaphysics. If you still don't feel prepared you could read Aquinas.

>>9666286
Descartes and Spinoza were almost contemporary. Both read ancient Greek and Roman thinkers. IMO aristotle isn't the way to go. Read up on Democrites, Epicurus and Lucretius.

>>9666302
I feel Aristotle's view of substance and Nature prepare you pretty well for Spinoza. and his style prepares you for the autism of postulate-proof that Spinoza uses.

>>9666308
>his style prepares you for the autism of postulate-proof that Spinoza uses.
That's called "math".

>>9666328
Yes, the autistic kind of math.

>>9666214
read Descartes' Principles, and maybe some Averroes if you really want to see the historical influence.

>>9666337
Arabic thinkers are seldom discussed on /lit/. I read a piece about Ibn-Khaldûn and it looked intriguing.

>>9666299
>>9666302
>>9666308
Cool, thanks.
>>9666337
Which parts of Averroes?

You should probably also read the Theological-Political Treatise by Spinoza himself. Also familiarize yourself with the historical context of Holland at the time period. Both things working in conjuction qill be an immense help toward reading and unserstanding the Ethics

*will

>>9666299
Spiniza is completely oblivious to Aquinas and doesn't engage with him on any level, outside of having a different philosophy and using the same terms for different concepts.

>>9666214
>The whole scholastic machinery the Ethics presupposes causes me a lot of trouble.

All that really entails is knowing what the terms and phrases he uses mean. The Hackett version has a handy glossary. But yes, you absolutely have to know the terms or you will lost.

Read some scholastics, then. No, you don't have to read the Summa Theologica, but definitely read De ente et essentia by Aquinas.