B THE BOOKS OF THE FOOOD

Brian,
I don't know how to address you with a more developed quality than that. Because two people meet at the depth of the concepts they create or communicate rather than in emptying them out of matter. I must admit that you have devoted time to an answer that bears my name as long as I have it in common with all Elvis in this world. But I believe you're addressing me. As far as the rest is concerned, I don't know myself. I'm briefly handling some definitions that come to me from your text:

“Being the philosopher of the masses it (so I) cannot be entirely immune to their” language. I really don't understand you here, because if you're talking about measures, if there's one, stop listening to Wessel.

“Filoactivist” You have as the target of my participation in theoretical life (filozofic) in practical life, or do you mean I'm an activist based on a philosophy, feeling? Of course I'm not like the activists you know, clients.

You must come to Prekaz, dear Elvis, to feel the weight of freedom” Here's a terribly thoughtless example. There is no reflection that can attain to dignity.
In this regard, you would do well to discuss the problem with Baton Hagi because he had a problem with me being there. For me, Precazi is not the burden of freedom, but of shame and shame. You could have written a little longer about this burden of freedom, but freedom is an empty concept, just where freedom was protected from the brotherhood. And as you say, not by the work of concepts, but by the real policy of Wessel, “raport between freedom, equality and brotherhood is not a report of harmony and coherence”.

Well. Precasit graves basically mean the opposite: freedom brotherhood. And for you and you, the conclusion that freedom and brotherhood are not harmony is so profound that it deserves to open your text. So it is imperative that the work of concepts not fall into all possible contradictions. You betrayed Precazi severely.

That's why that place is still the burden of shame and burial for anyone who dares to visit. There freedom was protected from brotherhood. So I didn't call it a symbol, but a sign. Forgive my only quote. It comes from Zourabichvili, but it is a direct treatment of Deleuze: “One thing has no meaning in itself, but only in the function of a force that involves... Her status is to be a sign, leading to something else from herself to the force she proclaims or expresses... The meaning is only in the relationship of matter with force, for which it is phenomenon”. Where you equate the weight of sacrifice with the weight of freedom I see only graves and shame. Of the brave ones laid down there, under the ground, by the women and children who gave them body and blood for materials of freedom, we know only legend. Nothing more than the force of troops lying under that lawn. We're late in front of them.

Yes! For me, Precazi is the sign of a brotherhood relationship with freedom, which subsequent state forms corrupted. So the suggestion: don't empty your words out of meaning, because you'll use them yourself a little bit later and betray your opinion, yourself. Prescazi graves are signs that there were people who didn't betray themselves until the last few moments. A language we claim as a consensus, just because we have emptied the words out of sense, is no longer language, but corruption of the promise of understanding.
Brian, the problem of the philosopher is to find room for thought in order of habitality, to be affected by habitality, not opinion. I understand your position. You are a professor of philosophy for young people in thought and counsel for older ones who have no hope in thought. I don't think you've ever dared to say a quote of philosophy, or to recommend the website of the philosopher's titles to Vessel, because you know the banality in this case can answer you briefly and clearly: “That's why I'm who I am, not because I followed your certified advice at a degree<1> And you know very well that you can't be an adviser to the Veselles, because philosophy has never explained how shopping is done, it has only told you how politics in business and power in exchange for existence. Philosophy is not history of diplomacy or partners. And when you found out that you were a consultant by the name philosopher, you began to empty the name of the philosopher from the ethical weight of the promise of thought. After this discharge, what hope could you go before young people and tell them that the thought is lucky on the ground and that Wessel, Thaci, Grabovci, and so on is coincidence?

Students have already realized that banality is the fate of these lands, since and philosophy cautions those who can't stand thought and send Ramiz Ladrovci to the university.

The main directory in your reaction is to protect the people”. Here's another conclusion that you complete with a very kind observation: “you'd have to pause for a little bit in the complexity of the population”. And once I feel bad because I haven't reflected much in political science readings on the ontological or functional definitions of popular notion, in civil and administrative reflections of this notion, just as soon as I have the hope that you will tell me, from the position of your colleague, the autonomy of philosophy beyond realism, you abandon yourself for a completely out of context of Ernesto Laclau. People like “an empty discresive marker”. So, according to you, the complexity of popular concept, which I don't know, lies in being an empty discrostive target. I'm telling you, you forgot what 10 lines above, I don't think it's fair. I would therefore avoid the complexity of your forces in reflection. I'd say it's more of a response to the charges of the same kind of communication you accuse “of the digital vertebrate”. I'm telling you that for you, there's only about trying to accuse someone, there are subjects only when we want to swear at someone as a proletarian, but if we want to talk about the concept of the proletar, that would certainly be an empty term. Because the masses, the people, and the proletarians are human fashions that are so subjects that, from the positions of your cynicism, they don't need a name.

We even use the people if we want to accuse someone of populist, but not because the people exist. And here, except for your will, you're right. The concepts exist just because we want to create the obvious in the order of things that hide them. If the VV and I are populist because we want to revive a people's virtual and virtuous skills, then we honor the charge of being populist. It's not important that you equate the virtual with the fig, it's of little importance that the nature of the banality is for you to be concrete. Just because it is concrete, however banal, must be served. It needs to be given a life of concrete, human mortality, despite the virtuality of thought that requires eternal actualization. Remember the tomb of Precazi, where you feel freedom and I feel shame.
You, Blerim, don't win the philosophy professor, but Wessel's advisor. The most empty name for you is actually the concept of philosophy. I had listed at least 32 mistakes and confusions in your text. And when I sat down and wrote, I intended to take them all in analysis. But I'm doing this to you I take the time to translate that I'm currently doing. It's not a secret. I'm translating the version of the Republic of Plato written by Alain Badiou Maoist, as you know him. Being a maoist you save yourself the time of reading, as you can say about Heidegger that he's a Nazi, that Marx is the founder of the dictatorships of the proletariat, that actually put people to life who emptied concepts of freedom- thinking. Nietzschen is not read that he liked Hitler. But in fact, all of these people don't read them because in the strong division between the loneliness in the concept workshop and the banality in Wessel's offices, you've seen that it won second. So the one who makes corruption possible is the one who opens his word that he has given any philosophical counsel to Wessel. Corruption in action takes over Wessel. He only needs the corruption of the name philosopher. But since you've already emptied that name, Wessel can mock you every day of his life by anti-conception power.

Your corruption first turns Precazi into weight of white graves, not a taste of freedom. There is corruption in this entity; neither language nor opinion nor subject anymore.

I promise you that I will answer you whenever you take it upon yourself to address me, even though I will have to take some more time to translate a very valuable work for students like me, not for counselors like you.