>>6177505A lot of reasons.
First off, he wrote it in Latin.
"If you babble in English, you're a moron. If you babble in Latin, you're an intellectual"
Babbling is babbling. Conclusion #1, Spinoza was a dickhead.
Substance, Attributes, things which have nothing in common
I'm not really sure what he's getting at here. Is he saying that nothing can understand anything except itself? I'll try to put this together.
Essence in philosophy is defined as "a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is."
So attriutes are things the intellect perceieves as constituting a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is of that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself.
It's worth noting here that "intellect" is also a rather useless word to use. He could just say "we", or "people", or maybe even "the mind". But I guess that doesn't sound very smart. Pretentious fucking faggot, man.
And that's my problem with these philosophy books. They're so fucking stuck up using language to sound special that they don't spend any time trying to communicate their ideas in an efficable manner. The purpose of language is communication. I really, really have trouble wrapping my head around the idea that the insights of anyone too god damn stupid to figure out something that simple actually has anything worthwhile or useful to say. But then, I doubt the usefulness of what he had to say ever entered his mind though, I imagine he was too full of himself and how smart everyone who knew how to speak Latin was going to think he was.
Anyway, I'll pretend that Spinoza wasn't an epistemological stoner retard and assume that he said as pretentiously as conceivably possible "attributes are things we perceieve to make up the properties of substances, and substances are that which are conceived independently, made up of their own attributes, without the need for the attributes of other substances.
