who is the big brain wojak of literature? i can read marx, heidegger, etc with facility, and I'm wondering who might actually be able to challenge me.
Kant? Hegel? I've touched on their works; none of it seems particularly difficult with respect to ideas, it's only that their prose can be an impediment to comprehension.
...
Experience is greater than mere theorems.
>hegel and kant are harder prose to read than marx or heidegger
time to google a quote from each of the people you haven't read OP to see how obvious your bait has got. i don't trust you've read all the harry potters yet, but i trust you have a scarf and typewriter you don't know how to unlock the carriage on.
Nagarjuna
>"give me the HARDEST writer, the rest are to easy"
>understanding what smart people talk about makes you as smart as them
What have you accomplished OP? Can you elegantly express your own original ideas and expand upon existing subjects like Marx, Heidegger, and Hegel?
Move to the east.
老子 might be a little too high-brow for you.
Marx isn't that bad in terms of prose, just very autistic sometimes. He's just really dense. Same with Heidegger, once you get a hang of his terminology. And they were both much better writers than Kant or Hegel who are both really dense and love endless page long word salad sentences. This is my experience from the original german, not much experience reading them in translation.
To OP, if you aren't trolling and honestly don't find Marx and Heidegger challening you aren't reading deep enough. It's not the texts faults, there's plenty of challenge in there, it's your fault for not mining it out of the text.
>Marx isn't that bad in terms of prose, just very autistic sometimes.
hahahahahahahahahahahaha, did you mistake something written by engels for marx? literally go google how dumb you are.
hegel is far more comfy than heidegger, and less obscure german. heidegger mixes languages more often than any of them. kant specifies why his writing style is precise and boring but not lengthy or designed to emotion like hegel because he seeks to have people understand it plainly. honestly if you have a hard time with kant then you're dumber than the indian who couldn't work out how they got all the foam in the beer bottle in the first place in the section he explains humour's relation to surprise.
btw, surprise motherfucker, i've read all of them, that's how i know you haven't read a sentence of any, and why you're worse than a HP reader. go suck some more cocks, maybe you'll be as tolerable as a JK Rowling fan then.
my fucking diarryhea
But theorems van help my mind process and connect relations to entities which allow me to think deeper/more abstract
>To OP, if you aren't trolling and honestly don't find Marx and Heidegger challening you aren't reading deep enough. It's not the texts faults, there's plenty of challenge in there, it's your fault for not mining it out of the text.
Obviously I can spend a lot of time thinking about the topics they address, but that doesn't mean I'm challenged by their ideas, especially when they're manifestly reasonable and have been more-or-less internalized by the culture at large. I've had my views refined by all of the great authors I've read, but very few have demonstrated any capacity to rattle me. Perhaps I've ascended.
I'm not that interested in theorems, but what's challenging about 'experience' other than the attendant physical exertion?
This honestly might be the answer, coming into contact with an entirely foreign mode of thinking, but I'm not sure that it's even possible. I'm worried that the East will be mediated by my Western soul.
You're replying to two different people, but for the record I (OP) don't know German (though I plan to learn it). In translation, Marx is a breeze.
>i can read marx, heidegger, etc with facility
>it's only that their prose can be an impediment to comprehension
poorly written
if you actually understood all that these authors had to offer you would not find yourself wojakposting on a uruguayan omophogous forum, virtue signalling your own intelligence, which you feel is lacking, as evidenced by your prose which wouldn't have impressed your special needs teacher in primary school and still doesn't today
im not trying to impress anyone with my prose, nor did i ever claim to be a talented writer. i can tell youre upset over your intellectual inferiority though. btw you can't 'virtue signal' intelligence.
cc first sentence above
Experience allows you to develop your own truths, rather than simply parroting the ideas and experiences of others.
>your own truths
im too intelligent to fall for that meme
You're obviously not intelligent, or you would have punctuated your post properly, faggot.
>t. 73 iq
>In translation, Marx is a breeze.
also false.
post a single confusing paragraph of marx in english
hard mode: it cant be hard simply because it omits the definition of technical terms
i even ran something which is just material history through a readability app for you. marx is notorious for changing topic mid paragraph, and unifying near opposites. what the hell else do you think he was going to do when he was planning to turn hegel on his head and do it by mainly using fichte?
btw, that isn't a section chosen for its difficulty but for its renown. that's the bits of marx even arts students learn.
Try Derrida, Deleuze and Finnegans Wake
you're so dumb you don't even have an I.Q.
this is straightforward. admittedly, i've read it multiple times, but if you find this difficult you can't be particularly clever. The idea is eminently accessible; the alt-right is confronting the exact 'dilemma' in the present moment Re: what decrepit flag should we wave at our rallies?
*drools* Huh?
buhh
Pretty much all of western philosophy is small-brain wojack compared to eastern philosophy desu
>if i say there's no such thing as grade levels in reading maybe they'll disappear
all you've told me is that you have no clue at what points it's acceptable to use semi-colons or begin a sentence with a preposition, and that when you criticized the others about sentence length you never bothered to check marx's greater sentence length.
no wonder things you find interesting are using Re: in the middle of a sentence. champagne socialists go longer talking about marx without being discovered as never reading him.
dude, i dont care about the literary quality of my scribblings on a chilean soap-whittling bulletin board. You honestly seem a bit daft, seeing as your own post is so poorly constructed despite the importance you place on grammar and that I never said anything about sentence length. On what grounds do you claim that I've never read Marx? Is it because you personally find him challenging? Not everyone is as dumb as rocks.
you seem to be annoyed that anyone can find those works and compare their sentence length to find you wrong. it's pretty easy to see you didn't even bother to do that, let alone read an entire work by any of those authors.
if you don't want to be annoyed by being too dumb to google first, maybe google first. then people who want to fact check me won't find out how wrong you are. :3
...
Why did you use "facility" when you could have used "ease"? Signalling your oh-so-special usage of terms not commonly heard during everyday oral communication?
Neck yourself.
It was the first word that came to mind. Why are you so bitter?
>reading Marx without reading Hegel and Kant before, and probably none of the rest of the philosophical tradition
What's wrong with you? You propably didn't get the 50% of what you've read.
Anyway, rading some 20 pages work by Marx is not reading Marx.
>rading some 20 pages work by Marx
the intellectuals of Veeky Forums, everybody
If your post is honest (not very likely), try to truly understand Heraclitus, Parmenides and Plato. It's a bitch to catch and (((feel))) all of the implications of any of their works. Even Hegel said Plato's Parmenides was the most difficult work in the history of philosophy.
And if you're not looking for difficulty of "content" but of form I guess Derrida and/or Lacan would be by far the most difficult
I'm a big fan of Plato, Timaeus fundamentally altered my view of the world (with help from other dialogues, Hesiod, Homer, Sophocles, early Christian writers, etc.) in a way that nothing since has. No lie, I feel like it gave me philosophical superpowers. That + a decent grounding in neoclassical economics has left the vast majority of texts I encounter quite scrutable. I haven't bothered with Derrida or Lacan but I did read a bit of D&G which was amusing and useful but not Earth-shattering.
Can't wait to get roasted by some dicklet.
A) Read in the original.
B) Late Deleuze, some Derrida, some Lacan (though I generally think he's rubbish), and all of Stiegler. Add in some Sloterdjik for taste. In general, there are a lot of really valuable philosophers working in fields pertaining to digitality.
Read Zhuangzi. He'll give you the answers.