>post obscure excerpt from highly regarded 19th century intellectual author>nobody on /lit/ recognizes it>every single person shits on it and calls the ideas retarded Grim
>>24114233Excerpt removed from context don't have the same legitimacy as the same fragment within proper context. Also many highly regarded 19th century intellectual authors were massively overrated, with bad ideas and bad ideals.
>>24114263There was no context missing because it was the first few paragraphs of a book, posted anonymously, with responders under the false impression that it was the beginning of my own book/essay
>>24114233Me on the left
>>24114263>man have bad idea: man have bad ideas.
>>24114330You do understand that idea and ideal are different words with different meanings despite being very similar right?
>>24114233>posting an excerpt to a bunch of aggressive midwit reflexive-contrarians and expecting genuine thoughtful engagement>>24114272anyway, in the absence of seeing it ourselves, we cannot judge and your mere assertion is inadequateI will add that it's a fairly simple matter to find pedestrian or subpar pieces of writing from even great authors, and that it's very easy to sneer at or disdainfully mock almost anything if one doesn't have to provide reasoned critique
>>24114233That's not what happened. The first reply identified it as Karl Popper. The rest of the thread was then spent roasting the "corrections", which means /lit/ agreed with the writer. Nice try. Also 19th century means the years 1800-1899.
>>24114392Maybe that every detail of the story being different from what the thread you're thinking of means that it was a different thread, idiot
>>24114559>OP would never lie to usI pity you.
