how could one man get Hegel so wrong? his ignorance is almost impressive in its expanse. never before have i beheld a man so blind as to the unfolding subjectivity of the absolute Spirit in its self determination, and the freedom which necessarily constitutes it as an essence, through history
That's a blurb of one of his books you got from Wikipedia.
Plopper is a tardt. scientist
>>23370833he understood nobody he mentioned in the book i like the style tho and use it to make marxoids seethe
>>23371681For me, it's The Poverty of Historicism. Guaranteed seethe from Hegelians and Marxists alike, and you can usually rope a Spenglerian too
>>23371681He understood everyone he wrote about perfectly.
> Popper is philosophically so uncultured, so fully a primitive ideological brawler, that he is not able to even approximately to reproduce correctly the contents of one page of Plato. Reading is of no use to him; he is too lacking in knowledge to understand what the author says.
>>23370833
>>23371874>>23371877thank you.
>>23371877>>23371874>>23371861The only time this dude is ever brought up on this board is when someone is seething about Popper.>yeah...but this dude...who I've never read...and you've never read...and none of us care about...he didn't like Popper...so historicism is heckin' real and valid...
>>23372127funniest self-own i've seen in a while
>>23372127>>23355902Ctrl-F "Voegelin", you dumbass
Popper had a real life, he could work on quantum physics because he knew math to that level, was a carpenter, he wrote as a man who dealed with the world. He wrote politics because he lived in the shithole that was nazism, not like some evola faggot who only dreamed about it, wrote philosophy of science because he was habilitated to teach physics and math. He wasn't a pseudointellectual like voguelin
>>23371874Envious became he wasn't has smart and well read. Popper knew and read more in the subjects he wrote and even on many more. Its like people who hate Bloom because he could read so damn fast.
>t. Popper
>>23370833You should almost always discredit retards that get quoted out of context by reddit intellectuals to feign and play pretend smart. You should only read it to have a better understanding of the thing they babble about than they do. In the case of Popper you can just ignore his work entirely considering the only thing retards have heard of him is “the paradox of tolerance.” Which they firstly get incorrect but more importantly is only mentioned briefly in a footnote for less than a paragraph.
>>23373965>if he's so smart how could retards incorrectly interpret a footnote?
>>23370833>communism and fascism? historicism!>my version of whig history? not historicism!
>>23370833>>23371861>>23371874>>23371877>>23373715>>23373965>>23374019The sheer cope. How do you troons manage it?
>>23374027>guys it's not historicism when I make predictions about how societies should be
>>23374033Holy shit, you don't even understand what you're reacting to. If you don't know what Popper's stance on teleology is, maybe read a bit.
