/lit/ - Literature

>I know not why any one should waste his time, and beat his head about the Latin grammar, who does not intend to be a critick, or make speeches and write dispatches in it. When any one finds in himself a necessity or disposition to study any foreign language to the bottom, and to be nicely exact in the knowledge of it, it will be time enough to take a grammatical survey of it. If his use of it be only to understand some books writ in it, without a critical knowledge of the tongue itself, reading alone, as I have said, will attain this end, without charging the mind with the multiplied rules and intricacies of grammar.

>>17601650
His.

>>17554987
You meant the English revolution whom French revolution is a mere consequence.

How was he taken seriously, and how did his thought come to be influential? His "philosophy" is just making groundless claims and when he talks about God he sounds like an absolute retard. Maybe it's just hindsight, but reading his second treatise is making me cringe so hard. Wishful thinking with no rigorous reasoning to back it up, no satisfying line of reasoning up to his batshit conclusions. Seriously, how was he ever given any influence?

Who gives the best critique of Liberalism?

>>13725152
*blocks your path*