i might have to revise a former weakness -
in the genre of philosophy
  (that ever most pompous word in
the english langugae that upon use
i dread another use of [it])
   i found myself unable to read this genre
of books in english...
         don't ask me why -
    i tried nietzsche, failed (to some degree),
but at the same time managed it...
  still, i find philosophy being written in
english as bland, mistaken,
         zealous and obviously:
pompous -
            in all honesty, listening to court
members at Versailles,
or the moral stiffness of the Victorians
more bearable than a word of philosophy being
recited in english...
      i know that i have a limit of
knowing two languages -
but philosophy doesn't really belong in or
with, the english language...
          it's all to: iffy, sickly sweet.
how can a nation breed philosophers,
  when its concerns are for productivity?
the genre makes perfect sense in my
nativspreschen - but to digest some of
the books i read, in english? undeniably:
unbearable.
                      the english language is a poetic
language...
   which is why shakespeare and milton
are championed, but to even imagine
an english thinker?
                       the english are too practical
to deal with nonsense -
                    i wouldn't say practical
in a germanic sense of efficient -
but practical in the sense that they are probably
the least concerned with finding
boredom: mildly entertaining.
           if i've ever seen the epitome of
procrastination and hot hair buffoonery -
it would be an englishman -
   notably in his articulation of said language -
but the american is even more amusing
in attempting his british roots -
                 notably american women who
somehow cling to a jane austen syndrome
of the: most splendid spring affair of a wedding,
my dear: trill the R and let's
start making bravado airs and fancies!
titillating my darling... simply ravishing!
some might also say: the scots are the smartest
people on these isles...
now a scottish philosopher i can cite...
david hume...
                         which brings me to:
philosophy is a bit like smoking ****...
            the later your start, the better...
a tiny sparrow sang in my ear the knowledge
that american high schools teach
philosophy classes...
                   bad i idea, as bad as a teenager smoking
***...
                     minimum entry age?
21...
                   you can't exactly read (reed)
philosophy, if you haven't read (red) -
  no open wide, and say AH....
                                      what? teeth inspection!
- if you haven't read at least one major work
of fiction, take me for example,
   dante's divine comedy, stendhals the scarlet
& black, dostoevsky's crime & punishment,
        dumas' the three musketeers,
                mickiewicz's pan tadeusz...
           point being, i've finally found someone
who actually works perfectly in english...
spinoza...
                   **** reads like spreading butter
onto a toast... smooth silky...
      and there's not even a debate of proof:
     regarding the existence of god -
i like that...
                     i can't prove or disprove -
as i can't approve or disavow -
as i also can't know for certain,  
   or uncertainly "know"
                      - not know for certain
or known for its uncertainty;
i know that i'm uncertain of the certainty
that it is so:
           i know, that i don't know,
which is a step up from knowing, nothing:
- i know, that i don't know,
- wiem, że nie wiem,
- scio, ideo scio non
- ich kennen, jener ich nicht kennen
   (and that's three S's missing,
notably the east german orthographic
aesthetic).
       nonetheless spinoza has become
the first, and probably last philosopher i will
be able to read with the ease of the english language...
i have no qualms with atheistic writing,
as long as it's sensible and takes pride in
a certain modesty that does not hinder itself
upon theological sophistry of preachers...
   or some sort of unfathomable corruption
of the mind with the argument for:
          what i can only deem as an object
that is the source of every single impromptu
imaginable -
                      not on any ethical reality of
candy for the good children,
            wicker men for the bad children...
                             beat thinking about nothing,
and is always relatable to the mere use of language...
  it's not me ascribing a personal deity,
but an impersonal one...
   it doesn't invoke a need for the lunacy
of gesticulation and prayer...
             just a sense of a lost memory,
an amnesia - a thought that glimpses something
that is almost: shy...
                                 nothing aspiring
to pomp & circumstance,
   and all to culminate upon self-flagellation;
at least spinoza's language is fluid,
                  and whenever that word is used:
it's used in a way that doesn't allow to start
imagining the offshoot of that word -
       and turn the whole affair into being blinded
by iconoclasm of a deserving narrative.
- spinoza will be the only philosopher that
i will actually read in english...
        the english were never a people of
philosophers, engineers? yes. poets? yes.
       scientists? yes.
                         they're too practical in that
they don't want to deal with
                                                   "nonsense",
they feed on real problems in the real world,
nothing is ever abstract for them,
  and never will be...
                             they feed on knowing,
and shun the opinions of their elders -
              they need to know, for themselves -
philosophy is nonsense to them -
especially since they seek a concrete god
with a scientific proof,
                     which is what obstructs them
from seeking the lesser, and therefore much more
simpler abstract chandeliers, clocks, etc.,
  basically
                   items of refined entertainment.