true, but also for some math isnt a model but a discoverable part of nature. depends on who is doing the philosophical arguing there. we dont know for sure, ironically because of godel? therefore its a true part of…
Godel is important, but his argument's extension to natural laws is a bit of a stretch, also that set of laws isnt really a logical axiomatic set. its more of a hodgepodge, an ever shifting discursive formation by which…
this is NOT simply a gotg. in fact, simplification of such a brilliant work as the ETHICS is really detrimental to your simple assesment. go read a book, and try thinking. there are limits to knowledge, because its…
here is a quote: "from the necessity of the divine nature must follow an infinite number of things in infinite ways-that is, all things which can fall within the sphere of infinite intellect"
so even this decent article is just a surface overview of a brilliant thinker and this reply chain continues such lack of attention towards careful reading and discussion of his text. instead we have everyone sounding…
Ya, wtf. clearly this is a reply chain of intelligent people (?) but not a single post about the actual text. like tldr for spinoza, his writing is far beyond these grasping confusions which could be avoided if anyone…
true, but also for some math isnt a model but a discoverable part of nature. depends on who is doing the philosophical arguing there. we dont know for sure, ironically because of godel? therefore its a true part of…
Godel is important, but his argument's extension to natural laws is a bit of a stretch, also that set of laws isnt really a logical axiomatic set. its more of a hodgepodge, an ever shifting discursive formation by which…
this is NOT simply a gotg. in fact, simplification of such a brilliant work as the ETHICS is really detrimental to your simple assesment. go read a book, and try thinking. there are limits to knowledge, because its…
here is a quote: "from the necessity of the divine nature must follow an infinite number of things in infinite ways-that is, all things which can fall within the sphere of infinite intellect"
here is a quote: "from the necessity of the divine nature must follow an infinite number of things in infinite ways-that is, all things which can fall within the sphere of infinite intellect"
so even this decent article is just a surface overview of a brilliant thinker and this reply chain continues such lack of attention towards careful reading and discussion of his text. instead we have everyone sounding…
Ya, wtf. clearly this is a reply chain of intelligent people (?) but not a single post about the actual text. like tldr for spinoza, his writing is far beyond these grasping confusions which could be avoided if anyone…