>well since I'll be the only one in the thread
Adjusting my POV - the work the writer oftentimes requires of the readership - is rarely made intelligible or clear going through philosophy works. For example, the author states he/she is going to do a complete dissection of such and such - let's say a frog idk. - and about midway, or some other irrelevant moment, starts expounding how great the frog tastes going on and on and making an entirely new chapter blurred into the current one. That's just one example. I can understand 'where' I am supposed to sit reading Ficht's views - it doesn't demand focus and refocus unnecessarily. Same with Socrates (imho when Plato was his best), Aristotle and others that understood the audience (see OP again). I can't into Kant, not going to try Nietzsche, might try Hegel. But why do I need to read a completely different author/philosopher to explain that another one was f'n retarded? Too many out of the few blur the guidelines and just make me want to throw the book at a fucktard.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/lit/

Thread:

Stuck in the Middle