Can an authour be ruined? So many people have given opinions on pic related that no one reads him, or if they do...

Can an authour be ruined? So many people have given opinions on pic related that no one reads him, or if they do, they only read in their preconceived notions. Is this the real death of the authour; the replacement of honest engagement with the text with colloquial meme arguments?
>Plato and muh forms
>Hegel and muh thesis, synthesis, antithesis
>Marx and literally his entire oeuvre

Attached: 1518216846824.png (1200x1721, 1.62M)

Kant is indestructible

Attached: kant.png (934x786, 418K)

Well his ideas only resulted in ruin
At least Plato shaped the west

>muh categorical imperative means I have to kill Anne Frank!
nice try

fpbp

The question is really about the powers of language to negate, erase, overrule, or redefine other language. Every criticism of any author bounces off if no one believes it. And so long as someone believes opposite kinds of statements, the doctrine still has life.

Even then everything that has been written layers like a sediment, like geological strata, fossilized in its time and place, and standing it its own frozen and undisturbed stillness. Until it "opens" to a given mind, it is in a suspended, inanimate state, merely a potential.

>Can an authour be ruined?
Yeah nowadays all they have to say is that they don't believe that gender is a social construct but rather a sociobiological construct and they will be lynched by the Tranny Agenda.

I don't feel I answered OP's question. No, an author cannot be fully ruined, although you can burn and annihilate his reputation. An "author" cannot be ruined because the written word exists in its own plane of multivalent state of potentiation. It is in a state of suspended animation where any given mind or perspective can interpret it in a new way or derive new meaning, based on everything else that is in their head at that unique point in time. I a sense it embodies all and none of these interpretations at the same since each can be "extracted from" or "attributed to" (which comes to the same thing) from its source.

It is a mistake to view the meaning as integral to the text, as a one to one correspondence. If that were the case authors could be seized by the neck and dispatched easily. Instead they inhabit a liquid realm that is constantly reshaping and mutating with new meanings as time yields new experiences and new people.

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis is Fichte not Hegel.
Also you outed yourself as a retard by getting the order wrong as well.

user, the greentext represented opinions based on ignorance, why would you expect it to be right?

you haven't read Fichte

>thesis synthesis antithesis
dude

Attached: disgust.jpg (674x672, 120K)

Been wanting to get around to read Capital but at the same time I don't really give a fuck

Funny how the USSR was objectively a world super power until it became capitalist and then it's GDP collapsed, took two decades to go back to pre-capitalists levels and majority of Russian citizens now want the USSR back. Weird...

Also crime rates and prostitution skyrocketed, and now the USSR is getting infected by globohomo values. As marxist as it was, it was also traditional compared to the west, ironically enough for the conservacucks.

>Devote 50% of gdp to and gear entire economy towards military expendure.
>Have strong military

Real fucking mystery my dude, now you're going to tell me that there are no figures on soviet military spending which there isn't, fact is not even the Soviets themselves knew how much they were spending due to the extremely paranoid nature of their bureaucracy.

>Funny how the USSR was objectively a world super power until it became capitalist
It was a world super power until 1922?

It's pretty easy to become a super power when you have free access to forced labor and the capability to pillage neighboring countries while at the same time curbing dissent on said countries by implementing corrupt governments and using an oppressive military apparatus.

Can't work out if you are describing the USSR or the USA or the British or the French

>Funny how the USSR was objectively a world super power
Oh yes. Please let me slave away for 1$ a day and stand in queues for fucking bread because the Party decided its slaves need no meat this month, so that a caste of not-aristocrats could enjoy maybe Upper Middle class standards while threatening to nuke the world before falling apart into a dozen Hondurases with WMD enough to scour the world over three times but unable to feed itself without Worst America's food aid. But that's OK. Let's machine guns hunger riots in Novocherkassk in 1961 because The Superpower has just shot a Dog into Space. Progress!

If there is one thing that enrages me into the steel-melting radiance of purest hatred, it's the Westerners who praise the slavering shithole built on dozen million dead slaves and two hundred million dead souls so that some Jews could have a vanity fit with a nuke. The actual perpetrator come second - at least they actually know what and why they were doing.

>and then it's GDP collapsed
You believe literal proganda from an international terrorists' organization that invented propaganda? Maybe you think that ISIS was paradize on Earth?
There was no possible way to actually calculate USSR's GDP due to the calculation problem. For all its history they had no clue how much shit they got and spent, they didn't even have money - the inner Soviet ruble was unconvertable and thus plain paper, and wanting to acquire foreign currency was a crime with 3 to 15 years of prison.

If anything, the "collapsed GDP" of 1992 was THE REAL DEAL ALL ALONG. Everything above that was unpaid slave labor with common Russians dying in their early 60's of chronic malnourishment, stress and overworking or make-believe bullshit that didn't exist outside false agitpror.

lol burger

Try vodka slav.

Attached: 15671616058970.jpg (891x891, 267K)

If too many normies read and refer to an author then yes he can be ruined.
See: George Orwell

karl marx was easy to comprehend back in the 19th century.
Back then people who worked in textile factories required one worker and one machine for example.
Which is why I assume that marx talked so much about yarn.
But nowadays textiles are done exclusively by machines.
Where do the workers fit in that picture?
In that case it could be said that capital is more akin to capital=means of production than means of production+labor
Yet karl marx did not measure the productive capacity of the machines because he assumed that all machines required a worker.
The economy is also more service oriented in which case capital=labor
If I hire a lawyer i'm not worried about his means of production (his computer?) but solely on his labor
Where do the means of production fit in that picture?

What about the moral law

>Yet karl marx did not measure the productive capacity of the machines because he assumed that all machines required a worker.

I dont think he even assumed that in his fragments on machines.
>Rather, it is the machine which posseses skill and strength in place of the worker, is itself the virtuoso, with a soul of its own in its mechanical laws acting through it;

Karl was right about the mechanistic nature of history leading almost inevitably to communism but by spelling it out he broke the system by making people aware of the fact that they were part of it
the man played himself and we're now all stuck in hell forever as he looks down in horror from atheist heaven

Attached: 1568104158202.jpg (646x640, 98K)

Attached: D_kGH76UEAAkttD.jpg (2048x701, 269K)

You haven't read Capital.

This is what I was going for yes

>So many people have given opinions on pic related that no one reads him, or if they do, they only read in their preconceived notions.
It seems only a minority of people read Marx, and don't agree with his thought. Mostly because they don't agree with the concept of surplus labor. For them, labor is labor. There isn't surplus labor or necessary labor.

There isn't a single industry which doesn't require human labor yet.
Also, who built the machines, numb-nuts, other machines? We aren't in The Matrix yet.
About your lawyer example, the lawyer isn't a wage worker, but a licensed professional. So you really choose a bad exemple to criticize Karl Marx work, because Das Kapital is mostly about wage labor into factories.

Why not? Are you stupid?

can there be any easier bait?

Attached: retard smug.png (1000x432, 129K)

I think this happens to most political philosophers. I doubt anyone reads Hobbes, and most people only know about the "nasty brutish and short" thing. This is all despite the fact that he's pretty foundational to the Western tradition.

this kills Anne Frank

>ussr rant
>muh jews
lmao every time

There is something to this, though I must add that aside from production figures for commodities (basically anything without trademark, patent, copyright) measuring GDP is fraught with subjectivity. Any visit to the cosmetics department of a Macy's store, or articles about the monopolist machinations of Luxottica, will reveal how arbitrary, casual, and frivolous values are for much of what's made and bought.

Ah i forgot,western powers did the same thing on a bigger scale on brown and black people a bit earlier so it doesn't count

bump