/lit/ - Literature

>>15305252
>Capricorn have a feud with Cancer
>both of them want to steal a kiss from Aries
>that morning, Capricorn got a chance when she was walking with Taurus
>Aries was sitting in a bench watching the birds
>then she says to her: take my fucking shit and put them in my desk
>Taurus took that shit with a fucking face of "WTF???"
>then, Capricorn says to Aries: you have moment, sir?
>Aries: yeah... Then both of them was sitting in the bench warching the birds
>Capricorn: hey look at that
>Aries, watching in the other way: what??
>he hears a cellphone click
>Aries: what was that???
>Capricorn:nothing, good bye!
>that night, in the girls room...
>Cancer: NO NO NOOO! I don't accept that
>Capricorn: But I steal a kiss for him, I won!!
>Cancer: you always think you're superior to others for being the first, but is not, and when someone is telling you what's wrong, you always make a scene.
>Capricorn looking at Cancer with a tiresome face:...
>Cancer: I was clear when I say, "steal a kiss, form his lips" You aren't kissing his lips, just his cheek.
>Capricorn: well then, smart-ass, let's bet something more important
>Cancer: well then I I won, I want your red dress
>Capricorn: ok, then I want that bear
>Cancer: NOOOO that bear not!!
>Capricorn: then claim I won
>Cancer thinking:... deal
>that night Cancer call Aries and got rejected
>Capricorn got her kiss and the proofs next morning and a new stuffed bear form a slutty Cancer
>Taurus gets beaten by a train after tow years of depression and not telling Capricorn her feelings.
FIN

>>14550442
isn't that the entire idea of so called 'bourgeois' economics?
that the people making the exchange both receive more value from the exchange? e.g I value having a phone or whatever more than I value having however much money it cost me.
I mean, I get where you're going with that, and would generally agree that love can't really be quantified in the same way as things traded in markets, but It could probably be phrased a bit differently
>>14550517
both are destructive in exactly the same way
I don't mean that as a moral claim though, whether that destruction is a good thing or a bad thing is up to your discretion

>>14348442
based
>>14348639
dilate

>>14307509
If you don't agree with this quote then you're not who he's talking about

I'm assuming you're referring to the first sentence in paragraph 17, which in my translation is:
>"In my view, which can be justified only by the exposition of the system itself, everything turns on grasping and expressing the True, not only as substance, but equally as subject."
I'm no Hegel scholar, but I'll give it a go.

>"In my view, which can be justified only by the exposition of the system itself"
Here I think he's referring to his philosophy of the dialectic in general, and the "unfolding" of knowledge to spirit, and he's saying that the next statement is only justifiable by looking at knowledge of the True through that specific lens.
>"everything turns on grasping and expressing the True"
To Hegel, the truth is 'grasped at' as spirit progresses through the dialectic. That is to say the continuous back and forth motion towards grasping, expressing and negating the True is the fundamental thing that goes toward the True.
Again he's talking about the dialectic.
>"not only as substance, but equally as subject."
Since we're talking about spirit in its dialectical motion, then the true is equally contingent on its "substance" as it is to the "subject"(spirit)

I could be way off, but I tried.

>>14260530
>23
>Anti-Oedipus
>EE
>Like: Pretty much everything about engineering
>Dislike: Have to work with engineers