After coming to actually read some philosophy, alongside lectures, and some essays/light reading of books of philosopher on philosophers. I've realized a problem I've run into that I can't shake off like like a bad head itch.

There's this feeling when reading philosophy, that it is impossible to criticize. What do I mean? I sit in Deleuze threads. Hegel threads, and despite my respect for both, even Kant and Nietzsche threads. And get this feeling that theyre texts are so "deep", so layered (in the sense that theyre responses to responses of multiple philosophers) That if I am ever finding a problem with them, its because im simply not intelligent enough to understand why thats a problem.

This is bolstered by the unfortunate fact that all the people who DO SEEM to have read lengthily and even the prerequisite material, all almost unquestionably understand and support them as great insighters.

It's overwhelming. I could never hope to catch up to all of them, let alone guarantee that even if I tried, I would ever understand the texts as almost magically as they seem to understand it.

That is why, everytime I read some book from a philosopher, I always come here to ask for indepth books from other philosophers critiquing them. I did this for both Wittgenstein and Nietzsche, but got nothing.

I ask, because I recently got into this problem of seeing people define socialism in a way that felt absurd, and every time. I tried to appeal to some inherent or historical meaning of the term, I kept thinking to myself "None of that matters because how people use it in any particular language game dictates its meaning" and I DO agree with this. But now it paralyzes me to literally any thought. How do I even begin to think when smarter people than me have. I ran into this problem again in another sense, seeing somebody I KNOW has read infinitely more on Nietzsche and even more on other philosophers on Nietzsche, saying that the right wing ideology is ressentement. I didn't disagree, but I disliked the implication, which I saw as "The left wing ideology is not ressentiment". I picked up my book of genealogy of morals and went to read a line earlier in the book I remember about ressentement (I won't lie and say Im far into the book, I've only completely read BG&E and some of Zarathustra)

Ill post the quote I found in my book of Genealogy of Morals below since I won't have any space left if I post it here. But basically. I felt ressentiment could just as easily apply to feminist ideology and critical theory generally, maybe even marxist theory.

But I dismissed the thought ultimately because there has to be something they understand more about the philosopher, philosophy, and even just marxism and feminism than me, because I know for a fact theyve read more about the latter especially.

This puts me in a comfortable spot where I never really feel like I'm engaging with the philosophy I'm reading. Just reading and nothing else.

>go into thread about a game you've played and think you know it reasonably well
>realize you completely misunderstood/forgot about a key gameplay mechanic that would have made your playthrough much easier
Has this happened to (You)?