/lit/ - Literature

>>11709992
Literally this
The way Heideggar writes about formatting the question of Being is literally incomprehensible to the point where I need internet autists to help me out.

>>11710064
Consider that he might not know what he is talking about.

>>11709992
ITT: Grug attempts reading

>>11710079
Go on cunt, read Foucault and tell us all about it.

>>11710139
Focault is readable as fuck, what are you talking about?

>>11710139
foucalt is a pretty bad example bud, but I know what you mean

Is Camus not respected as a philosopher here because it’s acrually possible to understand what the fuck he’s saying?

To answer this briefly as possible, first we must enduce the "Why of" framestyles from producting interstellated l[u/i]minal constellations of -ismatic decomponents.

>>11709992
A couple reasons

1. Most philosophers are writing for an academic audience, not spergs online
2. The concepts they're discussing are extremely complex and abstract
3. Philosophers aren't writers, some are good at articulating their beliefs in ways that are easily comprehensible and some are Hegel.

Don't feel bad. It's not easy stuff, there's no shame in having to read a section or article multiple times to understand the argument.

>>11710139
>thinks Foucault is hard

Haha OK grug.

Here's a gimme for you: Deleuze is difficult, Hegel can be difficult, Rogozinski can be difficult at times.

Zizek, Foucault, and so on are easy reading.

You're just lazy and stupid. Do the work.

>>11710156
He's not a philosopher to begin with and never claimed to be. He's like Dosto, a novelist who had philosophical themes in their work.

>>11710168
>Hegel can be difficult
Hegel is literally unreadable

>>11710168
Isn't Zizek's non-pop stuff hard? I haven't read any of it.

>>11710064
Check out his Heidiggar videos

https://www.youtube.com/user/johndavidebert

>>11710168
>>11710206
this isn't easy

>>11710919
Oh, Grug

>>11710064
>>11710069
listen -- philosophy is difficult because (esp. heidegger) they have to invent terminology because they are inventing new concepts. sein und zeit is sort of "the language of philosophy" since then.

it's like complaining that you can't understand swahilli, or (better example maybe) you can't read a niche maths paper

>>11710183
remember, everything is unreadable to an illiterate. if you can understand 80% of books then well done, you're doing better than almost everyone who's ever lived. but don't act like the 20% you aren't able to read is meaningless. hegel is pretty difficult, don't be so hard on yourself

>>11709992
Whenever any of the Krautlogicmeisters are mentioned, I always think of an insult aimed at Eliot: "His top is a German theologian's bottom." Likewise, I'm unable to think of any philosopher in terms of what he knows, as opposed to what knowledge gaps he's working around--most particularly what they ought to know better than they do given the time they lived in, and, what takes very little research at any time, yielding easily to experience. Dennett's programme of melding some science back into philosophy is of course underrated in this age of relapse into theocracy, so he looks good as a poet compared to the mountebank swarm that surrounds us now. Provided, that is, if you're already sufficiently literate in science to have more than passing acquaintance with the terms of discourse used.

>>11709992
Read some Schopenhauer, his writing is extremely clear and this is coming from someone who quite possibly has actual brain damage from DXM and alcohol abuse

Reading Stirner at the moment. He has a really peculiar way of writing.

>>11709992
Because philosophy too is a field of study, you wouldn't go read an advanced algebra or physics textbook without being familiar with the terminology used on the field, why expect less entry standards from philosophy?

>>11710168
>Hegel can be difficult
There's nothing difficult about bappadi pa-pa.

>>11711126
>Dennett
nice b8

>hear that this one philosopher really was interested in how we communicate
>they wanted to explain why we have miscommunication
>this was literally me, I have nightmares about this
>open up to the first page
>You won't be able to understand this unless you've already had these exact same thoughts