Spinoza is Sort of the Steve Martin of Philosophy

I don't know if he intended to be as funny as he is, but he is.

He has his own version of bending balloon animals.

Only he calls them philosophical arguments.

And I think he he has the arrow through his head deely-boppers too.

But apart from the proofs of God's existence and the sounding of God's every thought, he's very witty on mores and morals.

Here are a few I liked...from his Ethic...

     XXII.


There is a false appearance of piety and religion in dejection; and although dejection is the opposite of pride, the humble dejected man is very near akin to the proud (Schol. Prop 57, pt. 4).


and the following makes it clear he was not a pet lover...The Englightenment drift was so the opposite of Greenpeace...the Industrial revelation was given its imprimatur by thinkers like this...and why not...surely they weren't possessed of the imagination or foresight (as the Native Americans were) to plan ahead, to imagine that resources might not be inexhaustible or renewable....




     XXVI.

Excepting man, we know no individual thing in nature in whose mind we can take pleasure, nor anything which we can unite with ourselves by friendship or any kind of intercourse, and therefore regard to our own profit does not demand that we should preserve anything which exists in nature excepting men, but teaches us to preserve it or destroy it in accordance with its varied uses, or to adapt it to our own service in any way whatsoever.


Here's an example of where he's so funny...I love sophistry of this order...here is a passage where Spinoza reveals he has clearly never been in love...or in luuurve...

     PROP. III--An affect which is a passion ceases to be a passion as soon as we form a clear and distinct idea of it.

Demonst.--An affect which is a passion is a confused idea (by the general definition of the Affects). If, therefore, we form a clear and distict idea of this affect, the idea will not be distinguished--except by reason--from this affect, in so far as the affect is related to the mind alone (Prop. 21, pt. 2, with its Schol.), and therfore (Prop. 3, pt 3) the affect will cease to be a passion.--Q.E.D.

Corol.--In proportion, then, as we know an affect better is it more within our control, and the less does the mind suffer from it.

Spinoza, you must never have gotten on the hamster wheel of mind.

Most people have.

In response to that last proposition, I would say draw two grids (Cartesian, of course) and you will find yourself plotting curves; one will end up a logical asymptote and the other will end up the Cartesian equivalent of a skipping stone thrown across the surface of a lake.

I love the ancient copy of this book I have.

It just makes the ancient form of thinking funnier.

He was a happy positive thinker mostly, though.

He wanted everyone to "get there."

He thought he was the bus driver.

Most philosophers of that age thought that, of course.

Today's philosophers are more likely to kick your ass off the bus.

Which is often good.

Because they can't drive either.

That bus is going into the ocean.