What is the best way to approach Spinoza's ethics?

Do philosophers and other popular thinkers now mistake automaticity for the unconscious? Do we now say that water upon a river flowing down the path of least resistance is behaving unconsciously? So, too, is it now correct to describe neural pathways of least resistance as exhibiting an “unconscious”?

Why do most philosophers tend to answer complicated questions with complicated answers? Why can't there be something simple? Is it that we can't accept simple answers to difficult questions?

How do you teach somebody how to learn something?

Does the square root of 2 exist?

Do any of the panelists think that there are any moral constants over time? That is to say, anything that all societies have rejected as immoral? It seems to me that just about everything that we regard as right or wrong is based on the society that we happen to be in. For example - slavery. We think it's wrong now, but other societies in different times have had little problem with it. So is it really a case of 'There is no good or bad, but thinking makes it so?' as Hamlet put it.

In math class at my school they drill into our heads that a real line goes on forever, while a line segment is a line with two ends. So my question is: if a line can go on forever wouldn't it take up every possible space? Can such a line even exist in the universe? If it can't then why do mathematicians use that term?

If I'm not mistaken, Kant claims that our experiences are ordered by "forms"--like space, time, and cause and effect--that foreclose the possibility of our knowing the pure Reality behind these forms. But how does he (attempt to) prove that these mental features are necessary aspects of our experience, and not contingent and thus changeable? I'm especially interested in how he shows that the law of cause and effect exists and must continue to exist forever.

I started reading the first paragraph of Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason , and I fear I will die of mind strain pretty soon. But to my question. Why does he say in the first line that all knowledge come from experience, and just a little later say that a type of knowledge doesn't?

How legitimate can history be if every document that has ever been written has some bias behind its writing? To what extent can we trust historical books written in a time we otherwise would have no knowledge of? How certain can we be that the "history" we're taught actually happened? And finally how do historians classify something as historical, what qualifications does a document require to become historical? Thanks for the help, Alex.