/lit/ - Literature

From 'On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life,'
"The masses seem to me worthy of notice in only three respects: first as blurred copies of great men, produced on bad paper with worn plates, further as resistance to the great, and finally as the tools of the great; beyond that, may the devil and statistics take them! What, statistics prove that there are laws of history? Laws? Yes, it proves how mean and disgustingly uniform the masses are: is one to call laws of inertia. stupidity, aping, love and hunger?"

Damn bros, what made him such a dweeb?

>>18801448
Who is this "us,". Let's get one thing straight, I am not "one of you,". There is no community here, at least not one of which I am a member. No fucking way. I come to this imageboard, I mess around, sometimes I have engaging and educational chats, either way, there is no "us,".

>>18799246
>You
presupposing a subject
>guys
Yikes, gender slanted language much?
>realize
foisting an epistemological frame without prior argument
>that
Concise indication, no issue here
>all
category mistake
>these
category mistake 2: redundancy
>terms
presupposing ontological significance of aforementioned, unconfirmed, therefor invalid
>mean/nothing
assuming conclusion of etiological significance in the premise
>in
Cosmological claim sans proof
>the
nigger-semen
>real
implicit claim of existential-import
>world
Presupposing object's existence
>right?
biting rhetorical flair, redundant
>It
What is? Grammatical error
>is
Possibility of an excellent claim failed by the prior mistake
>the
Concise indication, no issue here
>philosopher
Undefined term
>equivalent
secondary conclusion despite non-existence of primary, which thereby renders the former logically unsound
>of
Only the effeminized use a word like this before a verb
>having
Verb which necessitates a subject which you've failed to establish at the outset
>20
Utilization of a number without consideration/establishment of and for the Critical Idealist Kantian Epistemological Proof of Pure Mathematics
>"oppressed"
Politicized rhetoric has no place in philosophical discussions
>flags
Necessarily requires nominalism, which you've rejected in your premise, rendering this claim self-defeating
>in
Cosmological claim sans proof, again....
>your
presupposing a subject, again....
>twitter
Presupposing a component of a simulacra of the cosmologically untenable, a true low iq play.
>bio
Niggers shan't show so that innestmost niggeradly nigging hast not but a moment's reprive from the niggatry of the niggers aboust the niggspher of a nigger's niggnest.

>>18794298
thank you for the advice anon, really. I want to make more videos because the process was quite fun, but as you certainly noticed, I havn't figured out what niche/style clicks with me. If you could, what sort of video do you think my voice works with? This is something I've tried and failed to really pinpoint. The issue is I think I sound too serious, no matter what, but I don't want to make something very serious. I've made four videos total (2 deleted because I thought they were too edgy and would rather not have that public) each with a different sort of principle but none feel like they flow, if you know what I mean.

I don't mean to blogpost, but I wantgenuine criticism; my irl friends just say "haha, good and funny," and offer nothing beyond that, and I'd like to improve since I enjoy both this subject and the process of making a video.

I just finished this, and would love to discuss it with someone. First impression, that weird section in the appendix where Kant spends a couple pages seething about critics, is that typical for him? I've also heard about him sperging out over someone writing a criticism of the categorical imperative. I took a few pages of written notes on the text, what has struck me most is the point he made about Math being, essentially, axiomatic in being based on space and time. Since math is my worst area, I can't help but feel that I am doing myself a disservice by simply accepting what Kant said about Math necessarily existing in the pure concepts of space and time. Other reflections, I was quite lucky to be vaguely familiar with the ideas of Hume, Berkeley and Descartes which he tackled, as I probably would have been lost without that foreknowledge. I had read online that you don't really need anything to read the Prolegomena, since it is basically an intro to the Critique. However I think saying that is a bit misleading. No you don't HAVE to know Hume, Berkeley or Descartes, but a good chunk of the text deals with their ideas. It isn't like you need to have read 100000 pages of either of them to get those ideas either, a post on here could summarize the salient parts. Anyway, Kant is definitely a smart nigga. I would like to go onto the Critique, however it would take forever if I took notes on it at the same time (a forever I do not have to spare) and I can't kick the nagging sense that I won't learn much of anything if I don't take notes.

Other than my immediate thoughts, if anyone wants to discuss any of the central ideas, it would make my night. They're still fresh in my head, and if I say anything tangentially related to "a priori reasoning," one more time to my girlfriend she'll probably leave me, as this book is all I've been jabbering about to her since I started it.

>>18784858
one of you please correct me if I have this wrong, but I don't think either of them were right in what they said about Hegel or Marx's (what I am assuming) view of human history. Hegel's historicism can't be reduced to just "conflict," he thought that history is an unfolding dialectic driven by exceptional men that is teologically oriented towards freedom. Whereas Marx and conflict theorists see history not as this vague idea of antagonism, but rather of that very conflict being between classes and further driven (very specifically) by the material circumstances of whatever given society you're focusing on. Obviously it was a short clip, and they may well both know this.