Buy, you poor Sancho of Wessel

It says: Elvis Hoxha

I apologize, Blerim, but I saw it too late for you to get your pen back. So and the answer you might have expected earlier came only today. I expected that if you followed with the replicas, they would become more consistent, more demanding, of any accuracy as to the bark of philosophy. But you say the same things as in your first text. I begged you not to confuse the concepts, but you've begun to destroy the figures.
Of course your ignorance in philosophy and your slaughter replicas doesn't stop me philosophically thinking. Your disease, opinion, doxa, which is due to Plato's defect in dialectics, abuses Aristotle as well as leaving him alone. You sabotaged all philosophers. I read it twice because I didn't know how to understand it: “As a philosopher, you would have to consider Aristotle's logic, which says a wrong promise leads to the wrong conclusion.” Why, in order to understand something so common, did you read Aristotle? Aristotle never says that, because that's the condition of the sense of the community. I mean, it's a condition not to be stupid.
Aristotle actually speaks of all the types of seismology that can be built, about what the ontological, essential, accidental possibility is built up. What type of leadership should be the premieres so that there can be potential seismisms? So, it's about sylogisms that enter the field of truth, and sylogisms that enter the field of inadequacy of thought. Is there a metaphysics after that? Yes: it's the fact that excise can't get into entity accounts. If Aristotle were to read your scripture, all your statements would come to the conclusion that your subject preaches claims in the field of inhospicy. Sit down and read the fads, as well as the categories of quantity and quality, to understand how universals meet with the partisans, how they are coupled with the category of quality in denial and confirmation, how they are built up by their degrees of beauty and truthfulness of syology. I guess after a quick reading, you'll apologize to people for the degradation you've made up your mind to the highest intellect history may have known, Aristotle. I'm not telling you any more because I'm Sisif, and as such I know that the top of philosophy is not as quickly as the Olympia of Wessel.
I'd rather read something more serious. Because after all, it's Badiu philosopher or not, it's not very up to you. But it's up to you not to corrupt Aristotle.
With people like you, it's not time to protect philosophers, it's readers. Because when readers like the opinion, they can read you and take Plato for granted. You tell me: “as a worshiper of Plato, as you think you are, you should know that the entire Republic of Plato has been written in protest against the power of the rumor, which in the street trial sentenced Socrates to death, just because he wanted the city's people to be released from the state affairs statement.” No, Plato was not against the rumor, but the lack of dialectic speech against the rhetorical effects of communication and poetic departure from the truth. Plato has never been against participating in the state. On the contrary, he was a fierce partisan. So I told you to read valuable divisions for high school. The term “separated” is the most important. It's not the “the most important concept, but the turnout. Being a shadow, it's not bad. Being shadows, or phenomena, is in the nature of having souls, because the soul is not part of the world of ideas. But if you look at the shadows with persistence, like a student sees you and takes you to a philosopher, you see Wessel and take him as philosopher, that's devastating. So you might have noticed that science, especially when moving from Plato to Aristotle, is prohibited from being in excises, but not in similarities. Science is the essence in which man will find the truth through the field of visibleness, like, reminiscing, etc. This is where it actually starts and the division between teachers and students Plato and Aristotle. This is also the fundamental meaning that Heidegger will choose when he goes to a deeper world of ancient thought, the Parascratics, to show us that the Greeks had no love for the truth, but the discovery of it, alibi.
Now that you say, I'm obliged to explain some things to you in order for you, in your next scripture, to write a decent phrase rather than yet say Badiu-type ass, Milosevic's defender, or other kind of warm water. I don't make you write otherwise, that's up to you, but you're going to show everyone that you're a mob, and because you insist like a mule in that fact, even those who have any hope in you, Wessel, for example, will know you're a mob. In this case, the danger is too great because it can get you fired. After all, Wessel will no longer need counsel or even need it.
So the test continues with the trial of Socrates and thinks he was killed by the Sophists. If you read the most advanced scholars of Greek philosophy, it would mean that Plato and Aristotle won the battle because they were more sophists than the sophists. The trial against Socrates was made by experts who knew, according to Plato, very little for the crowd-backed state experts wanted to turn the people into a crowd: and to make a people a crowd, enough to kill guys like Socrates and add guys like you.
So experts were the ones who disfigured each system, restricting the systems to one of their worst sermons. For example, develop in a person only the feeling of a servant when a person has other advantages. So, once again: Experts, killing the people's faces, Socrates (Sylogism Barbara), turned people into a crowd. Experts and the crowd killed dialectics. What was the accusation: you are corrupting us young men with education, when, according to experts, young people, simply and without any ambition in thought, were to inherit the truth without the camel “Njih yourself!” The charge is the same as the one you raise against VV and me: we of Vetvendosje are corrupting the state with the idea that the people exist.
As I said earlier, it's not you. You're in the neighborhood. From your neighborhood you know I'm a Marxist, because in the neighborhood all bearded men say they're like Marx. From your neighborhood you know that me and others are losing “time in the genetic reflections of past century ideological nonsense”, as if we should waste our time on next century's ungenerous reflections. So far, we talked about Plato, Aristotle, not the last century. Maybe you mean, from your neighborhood, only the last century has expired. But that's the century of young philosophers you talk about, as well as the resistance and blood of Albanians. From your neighborhood, Orwell reads upside down: I who read in my field am a pig, and you who say things of a proverbial hammer are a horse.
A statement of this type can be built from your may be: “As Hegel's reader, you should know that the state and justice do not do so and that as Hegel's reader, you would have to learn that philosophical judgment is not initiated by the rumor, at least if you read the last part of “Filosofa of law” where Hegel analyzes the core of public opinions, where all prejudices and rumors of the street<3x> Poor Hegel, what a common language you use. That's what my neighbor says all day in the neighborhood coffee. We didn't know from your quote what Hegel's choice is not to let your rumor cover the pages of the Express newspaper.
I repeat that I'm willing to come up with Replica, even with a television debate like you say, but first read some Andre. Glucman before you use his name. Because you don't even get on your line. You read it, you'll be disappointed. Be assured that he would never give advice to your boss' type. It is the greatest accusation that he makes to nihilism because it is based on a limited threshold.
Sorry, but if you start mixing everything, I can't follow you. You can confuse revolutions with each other, the warm water of Albin with the gun in Wessel's hand, but not me. Because shades and differences are the goal of thought. This makes a man separate from the crowd in his body and soul. That makes him a philosopher and citizen. You're a crowd of thought. You hope that by designing it above others you can clean up. The transfer doesn't work like that. You're gonna be a crowd counselor and teacher.
I'm going to repeat a philosophical review I have. The people are a commander, nation a historical transentental, and the state is a political feasibility - ever more temporary than the people and the nation. And here lies an essential point of Albanian history. Because most have thought without philosophy, the State has seen it as urgent realization and the people as not necessary. So we've absorbed with the greatest ease the entire forms of state that have been offered to us. And the offered state takes the form of the empire whatever its nature and size. And the people that try not to be a people, when they receive a country without a people, return to be colonised. And it is learned from Plato, Hegel, in the great war that makes last century's greatest philosophers [repression] vision. Because the state without a people becomes an image, an ideology where the nation's saint is forgotten. Like I tell you on February: the people on the yellow and blue flag of Kosovo are colonised in the idea of a Europe that experts and the nation are making it up forget with all its markers, with Skenderbe, with Abdil Frasher, with Hasan Pristina, with Adem Jasharin, Ukshiin Hoti. Any ordinary man of Kosovo could simply accept the flag from fatigue, while someone with philosophical formation could not do so. He had to tell the internationals, although powerless to convince them, that we as a people do not need to give us the usage, ideology [repression] because we need existence according to our markers, presentation, world appearance, according to our historical name [fundation]. Albanian is one of our historical names, as it is. But the more names you invent in history, the smaller in scope and the less historical you will be. How can I tell you better? What can I do is that you don't intend to feed it, but to sell it. Poor day's over with the thought. A man returns to Sancho and remains such and lost Don Kisot.