I enjoy thinking about all these abstract ideas about our minds, free will, and the limits of what we can know. I think about these things when I write in the evening and sometimes during the day, but I also have a normal job and have to interact with people who have no interest and probably have no clue about these thoughts I have. It is like having some obscure hobby; people like you to tell about it but not too much, and you probably have to use a lot of words to explain a detail while discussing with someone with the same hobby, a name and a nod will often be enough.

I can only write in the evenings, and often, a long day of work has taken most of my energy. I have tried to organize my work, and I have many lists with ideas and attempts. One philosopher I like is Benedict de Spinoza. I bought his book Ethics many years ago, not to read it but just to have it and maybe look up some quotes. He probably had the same problem that I have with organizing his thoughts. The difference is that he started systematically and didn’t quit. You can read on Wikipedia in more detail about his process, but, in short, he writes down propositions comes up with proofs, and connects all of these with each other. I wish I had the time to study it; maybe one day, I will.

The way I study philosophy, the way I got into it, was by reading general books about philosophy and, over time, books about philosophers. I later mixed this with books written by philosophers, but the main thing I learned from this approach is who is who and who is read by whom. Spinoza is one of those philosophers who is read by most philosophers after him, maybe not as much as the three famous Greek philosophers, but his thoughts were, and still are, important. Together with his contemporary philosophers like Rene Descartes and Gottfried Leibniz, he paved the way from ancient Greek thought to our modern, more rationalistic society. I cannot tell you in detail why he is important, but because he is highly regarded by his peers, I will also regard him highly. It is like admiring Einstein while only understanding 5% of why he should be admired. 

Another challenge with studying philosophy this way is that I might have strong disagreements with, for example, Spinoza, but if many accomplished philosophers agree with him then I have to figure out why my criticism seems to be wrong. For me, this is a good lesson in humility but it is important to get a good overview of who is who in philosophy or whatever new field of knowledge you enter. That’s why I never recommend reading books written by philosophers at the beginning of your journey; you might not know that the first book you read is from a charlatan, or you might disagree with an expert in its field because you don’t recognize them as such.  

You can read part of Spinoza’s book underneath and the rest at Gutenberg.org. I highlighted one part that I quoted in an earlier post. This is why I bought his book years ago: so I can place quotes I read in their contexts. These days, you can do all of this on the internet.

---

From Ethics (1677)

PROP. XXXV. Falsity consists in the privation of knowledge, which inadequate, fragmentary, or confused ideas involve.

Proof. — There is nothing positive in ideas, which causes them to be called false (II. xxxiii.); but falsity cannot consist in simple privation (for minds, not bodies, are said to err and to be mistaken), neither can it consist in absolute ignorance, for ignorance and error are not identical; wherefore it consists in the privation of knowledge, which inadequate, fragmentary, or confused ideas involve. Q.E.D.

Note. — In the note to II. xvii. I explained how error consists in the privation of knowledge, but in order to throw more light on the subject I will give an example. For instance, men are mistaken in thinking themselves free; their opinion is made up of consciousness of their own actions, and ignorance of the causes by which they are conditioned. Their idea of freedom, therefore, is simply their ignorance of any cause for their actions. As for their saying that human actions depend on the will, this is a mere phrase without any idea to correspond thereto. What the will is, and how it moves the body, they none of them know; those who boast of such knowledge, and feign dwellings and habitations for the soul, are wont to provoke either laughter or disgust. So, again, when we look at the sun, we imagine that it is distant from us about two hundred feet; this error does not lie solely in this fancy, but in the fact that, while we thus imagine, we do not know the sun’s true distance or the cause of the fancy. For although we afterwards learn, that the sun is distant from us more than six hundred of the earth’s diameters, we none the less shall fancy it to be near; for we do not imagine the sun as near us, because we are ignorant of its true distance, but because the modification of our body involves the essence of the sun, in so far as our said body is affected thereby.