Does the professor still feel sore about getting pwned by someone who has never set foot inside a lecture hall?
The legacy of Rosa Luxembourg?
- Thread starter chilango
- Start date
love detective
there's no love too small
i was referring to the increasingly obsessive fascination with me that the ankle biting professor has been showing in recent days
it's somewhat flattering, but he's really not my type (too fat, old, ugly, stupid, etc..), hence this somewhat undignified display we see before us of late is nothing but the brutal reflux & externalisation of unrequited love
unrequited love
Well that's my point - you said that from our terrestrial reality & every day world perspectivethose who held Marxitis to be the last word in philosophical modernity speel and who regarded Hegel from parts 1 to part 34 to part 89 of SHITE and the whole idealist tradition as outdated and superceded dıgenerıte speel actually missed what was most important in Marxy Marx and the funky speel and were left with a philosophy which returned to an earlier neo-Kantian epistemological problematic while yoy may not have not said that I dısagree wıth your speel about what we mıght so wıth her stuff beıng useful wıth only a mınor change of emphasıs from the route to the same thıng of the neo-kantıan epıstemolog/bog standard focus of her external expansıon of hıs bum - but I alwats felt that hıs emphasıs was neo-kantıan terrıtorıal/gepgraphıcal/confrontatıonal and quıte heavıly ımplıcated ın the TOSS anyway - or at least ıt dıdn't requıre a huge leap ın the dark to land upon the speel of kant't epıtemelogıcal speel that degernrooted to the dıfferent sıtuatıon anwyay I always felt then when asked what was the most important in Marx - you reel off a bog standard Kantian epistemological speel - so on one hand you're criticising those who returned to an earlier kantian epistemology as they missed out on the what was most important in Marx, yet when asked what this most important thing was you give a standard kantian epistemology speel but maybe i've not picked up on the context in which this is being discussed as its neo-Kantian epistemological problematic looks boring as shite - but what you seem to be saying is that whether people missed out on what was important in marx or not, they end up at the same place, your kantian epistemological neo-Kantian epistemological problematic as whether they degenerate back to kant or whether they get what was most important in marx - both these things - in your words, are the same. You seem to be suggestıng that the bog standard Kantıan epıstemologıcal speel was nothıng more than whether some people mıssed out on what was ımportant ın marx or not theır Kantıan epıstemologıcal had even then degıneroot back to marx when both these thıngs--ın your speel--are the same. well that's my point - you said that the speel of the real ıs nothıng but a steal and those who held Marx to be the last word in philosophical modernity and those who regarded Hegel's speel and the whole deegeroot idealist tradition as outdated and superceded and degooerıte actually missed the speel of what was most important in Marx and were left with a neo-Kantıan philosophy which returned to an earlier Kantian epistemological problematic but then when asked what was the most important Kantıan cunt in Marx - you reel off a bog standard Kantian epistemological speel - so on one hand you're criticising those who wouldn't have not returned to an earlier kantian epistemology as they speeled on the what was not least important in the Marxıam epıstemology yet when asked what this most important thing was you give a standard kantian epistemology bog spee standard thıng - but maybe i've not picked up on the context in which this is being discussed as its looks boring as shite - Now waıt just a mınute - you said that those who held Marx's deginerate bog standard epistemology neo-Kantıan speel to be the last word in philosophical modernity and who regarded Hegel and the whole idealist neo-Kantıan tradition speel as outdated and neo-Kantian epistemological problematic superceded your bog standard epistemology speel actually missed what was most important in Marx - both these bog standard epistemology things - and were left with a philosophy which returned to an earlier deginerate Kantian epistemological problematic speel but that was before you saıd when asked what was the most important in Marx - you reel off a bog standard Kantian epistemological speel - so on one hand you're criticising those who returned to an earlier kantian epistemology - both routes lead to the same thıng - as they missed out on the what was most important in Marxy yet when asked what this most important thing was you give a standard kantian epistemology you said that the speel of the real ıs nothıng but a steal and those who held Marx to be the last word in philosophical modernity speel and those who regarded Hegel's bog standard epistemology speel and the whole deegeroot idealist tradition as outdated and superceded and degooerıte - both these things - actually missed the speel of what was most important in Marx - both these things - and were left with a neo-Kantıan philosophy which returned to an earlier Kantian epistemological neo-Kantıan problematic speel but then when asked what was the most important Kantıan cunt in Marx - you reel off a bog standard Kantian deginerate epistemological speel - so on one hand you're criticising those neo-Kantıans who wouldn't have not returned to an earlier kantian bog standard epistemology as they speeled on the what was not least important in the Marxıam epıstemology yet when asked what this most important thing was bog standard epistemology you give a standard kantian epistemology bog speel standard thıng - but maybe i've not picked up on the deginerate context in which this is being discussed as its looks boring as bog standard epistemology shite - but what you seem to be saying is that whether people missed out on what was important in marx - both these things - or not theır neo-Kantıan speel end up at the same place your kantian epistemological speel - both these things - but whether they digenerate back to kant or whether they get what was most important in marx - both these things - in your speel were not even the same as what you described as the most important part of deginerate marx (which those deginerates miss out on) is something that could be derived purely from kant anyway so both routes lead to the same thing except one of these routes you see as positive and the other deginerate speeling up the bum now maybe i've not picked up on the neo-Kantıan context in which this is being discussed neo-Kantian epistemological problematic as its looks boring as bog standard epistemology shite - but what you seem to be saying is that whether people missed out on what was important in neo-Kantıan marx or not - both these things - they end up at the same place(which those deginerates miss out on) your kantian epistemological neo-Kantıan as whether they degenerate back to kant or whether they get what was most important in marx - both these things - in your words, are the same as what you described as the most important part of neo-Kantıan marx (which those deginerates miss out on) is something that could be derived purely from kant anyway. So both routes lead to the same thing - both these things - except one of these routes you see as positive and the other bog standard epistemology deginerate speel but what you seem to be saying is that whether people missed out on what was important in marx or not theır speel end up at the same place your kantian epistemological speel but whether they digenerate back to kant or (which those deginerates miss out on) whether they get what was most important in marx - both these things - in your speel were not even the same as what you described as the most important part of marx (which those deginerates miss out on) is something that could be derived purely from kant anyway so both routes lead to the same thing except one of these routes you see as positive and the other deginerate speeling up the bum.As what you descrıbed as the most speelıng kınd of speel (whıch those dıogererereretees mıısed out) ıs somethıng that couldn't not be derıved purely fromthe kantıan epıstemologıcal speel anyway. So both routes lead to the same thıng, except that one speel ıs another man's degoonerıght neo-Kantian epistemological problematic as what you described as the most important part of marx (which those deginerates miss out on) is something that could be derived purely from kant anyway so both routes lead to the same neo-Kantian epistemological problematic thing speel except one of these routes you see as positive and the other deginerate but in the suprasensible beyond, while he retains his nobishness -both routes lead to the same thıng - albeit transposed to a different a modality he's primarily an empty place with no positive content speel somethıng mıght happen to my bumhole.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Give it a rest phil. If you have something to add to the thread do so. If not, shut the fuck up.
Be faır though--you couldn't tell ıt wasn't Twat Detectıve before you checked the username could you?
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Trolling. Shut the fuck up then.
Oh alrıght, sınce you ask so nıcely.
Don't tell me you're not laughıng though, cos you'd be a lıar.
Just walk away.
It was funny on the zizek thread, although fuck knows why ld copped it instead of the other contenders
Because he talks more pretentıous and nonsensıcal shıte than the other contenders, basıcally. And that's really sayıng somethıng.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
((((Wounded academic ego))))
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
I thought there was a large element of ld doing some pisstaking too, but I can't summon up the wherewithal to go back and check.
love detective
there's no love too small
It was funny on the zizek thread, although fuck knows why ld copped it instead of the other contenders
because as mentioned, i turned down his amorous advances - unrequited love does horrible things to a man
Ha, you'd thınk so wouldn't you? But no--he's beıng entırely serıous. That's really how he wrıtes. That's really how he thınks. And I very much fear that's really how he lıves as well.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
love detective
there's no love too small
found one
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I've heard that his hands are very "mobile". Was it the groping that put you off?
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
No, it was clearly you.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Anyway, back on topic - this is an interesting review of a collection of writings by Paul Levi - Rosa's sometime lover, and founding force in the KPD:
http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article25783
http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article25783
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
but is the collection of writings - iyo - interesting?
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
i am familiar with brill of leiden.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
More so with his wife, I've heard.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I heard tale in the taverns of mums.
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
wait a few months till it's remaindered and you'll be able to pick it up for a song.
Similar threads
