this statement makes it rather apparent that the problem is with the identification and the expectations you are bringing to the material, and not with the text itself.

that's all well and good, but doesn't really get me anywhere. at least with other influences i can say "sure, i'm not a Radical Realist (what would that mean?), i just like the things raymond geuss wrote", but i can't even muster that for anarchists basically ever at this point.

"i agree with some implicit propositions of a yet-to-be-written rational reconstruction of a historical tradition and have benefited from my engagement with its literature" doesn't hit the same.

the whole joke of arriving at correct conclusions with horrible reasoning is genuinely torturous, especially when my primary concern is theoretical (i know its impolite to admit it, but i have no aspirations to activism or organization*).

*which i'm more than aware is not negligible, not just as a moral imperative but as something with theoretical import, but the state of available actionism is blatantly insufficient, misguided, and theoretically confused

this also fails to capture the nature of my rejection and the complicated aesthetic and affective relation i have to historical figures, methodological principles, personal motivations/dispositions, even argumentative rejoinders