Was it my post? ๐Ÿ˜‚ Summaries and reinterpretations can really only take you so far because at the core of some philosophy is that logic itself is a false presupposition for understanding. So they write in a purposely disorienting way to take you outside of your normal logical structures and into an experiential flow of the work. You still need to have some background with whom they're referencing to understand, but the cadence of prose itself is supposed to put you into some altered state.

Replies (3)

It might have been, I honestly don't remember, maybe it was Jay? Probably you though, if you're connecting it to my comment lol. Resonated with me, and is reason I've always put off reading much philosophy
I'm still not further (like at all) than where I originally was when writing this post ๐Ÿคฃ though the ideas are swimming around, morphing and connecting to different ideas I already have. I do wonder if there will be a point where I suddenly understand and reality shatters, dunno what happens then. Its a procrastionation hobby, cautiously tipptoing into the realm of productive insantity ๐Ÿ’€
liminal ๐Ÿฆ 's avatar liminal ๐Ÿฆ 
I don't know wth i'm doing or why with this stuff. The authors 1) Write intentionally obscure 2) Assume you have read whatever they reference, because they are such sophistimicated philosophers and you should be as well. Bringing new ideas with little to no introduction 3) do (1) with an intent to induce a delerium in the reader 4) Write about ideas that they together may have contradicting opinions about I can't help but laugh, be pissed off at myself and be in awe/fascination. Strikes my attention, there's a gravity to it. Half of me attempts to push through the opacity. The other half pulls away, self talking "this is going to be a massive waste of time" At least there's some enjoying the theater of it all and my own publically yielding to the delerium. View quoted note โ†’ image
View quoted note →
โ†‘