/lit/ - Literature

>>11979447
yeah objectivism and libertarianism are Jewish attempts to curb the power of the machine
it's something they're historically bound to do as a race because of the nature of their Word, יהוה

you remember Marx talking about historical inevitability? You notice how communists always have a good historical inevitability with one really bad step and capitalists a bad one with one really good ending?

The ascendant Marx is the counterpoint to the noble Rand, and the depressive-about-how-things-are-going-so-far commie has a counterpoint in the capitalist who waxes poetic about the wonders of the market (hint: market -> machine, they're actually shitting on it from the Jewish perspective, the only one they know)


The thing is they cannot understand the machine from the outside as a composite of many machines they think of it as one monolithic terror in the Malthusian sense but specifically for Jewish power.

I read someone else's version of Kant and I loved it and then I read a little of Fear and Trembling and I loved it and then I read Philosophy of Language and I loved it and then I didn't read books for a long time.

I don't think I could handle something as dense as Critique of Pure Reason even if I did read the Tractatus on the plane a couple of months ago because the Tractatus was more of a skim read because I don't understand logic or maths and I want to understand the Critique on a kind of, I suppose, 'pure', 'reasonable', thorough level where I go from word to word and get where he's going the whole time.

How do I feel Kantian without doing the legwork?