I don't.

>>7688356
>the philosophers who are hard to understand are all talking shit

ideas and concepts can be extremely complex. it might not be rocket science, but having a multitiered and multifaceted thought process can bring you multiple branches and conclusions that vary from circumstance to circumstance. Philosophy, moral and practical is very very complex. and if something has to be said in a different way to make it work; for example, if something one said has to be reworded or altered to make it more precise and clear to make more sense, then that doesnt make it "hard to understand", you just have to keep up with ever changing variables and circumstances.

>>7688356
>>All of philosophy is baseless crap because the Münchhausen trilemma exists and we cannot know nothing
Knowledge needn't be absolute, only functional in its context
>>Anyone who says that novels are anything more than an entertainment is probably someone in the academia /publishing/ media industry who wants to mysticism / justify his job for personal gain
Mysticism is the core of all understanding, being, and everything in general
>>the philosophers who are hard to understand are all talking shit
They invent obscure ways of talking because they are trying to express something fundamentally obscure and recognize the paucity of natural language, the use of new and complex terms and systems is to step away from common understanding and hint at the unintelligible that they need to express
>>history can be extremely entertaining but any attempt to draw general principles from it is always either pretentious posturing or motivational quote tier banality
Mostly true. History is only analogy, there is a pseudo-science and a mystic interpretation of trends, and they yield varying results.