I need a bit of help. How the hell do I read this guy? He starts off not too bad, but then he just keeps going deeper and deeper into uninutitive and unrelatable propositions and reuses these already super abstract ideas to work out even more higher level shit. Then he goes back into scholiums and I'm thinking "is that what the hell he was saying back then?"
If a writer can't express himself clearly then it's evident that he himself doesn't understand what he is trying to say and is useless read.
>>9794131
>implying the sole purpose of literature is to be comprehensible
pleb alert
>>9794131
>useless read.
bruh please. I feel like i'm the only guy who doesn't get this person and if I play sour grapes, then i'm gonna be pleb4lyfe
>>9794143
i'm the other guy, if you're having trouble, read an analysis of his work by a leading scholar. do you want to understand him because of others, or just for yourself? the core of your will might be holding you back from accomplishing this diversion, as it may be an unfocused angle which dissipates your energies.
>>9794154
>>i'm the other guy, if you're having trouble, read an analysis of his work by a leading scholar. do you want to understand him because of others, or just for yourself? the core of your will might be holding you back from accomplishing this diversion, as it may be an unfocused angle which dissipates your energies.
do you suggest reading commentator's works first to get a sense of where the story might go, or should someone struggle first with the text, then seek clarification with commentary later?