Dear Self: When you have to choose an article to summarize and present to your seminar class, don’t choose the one with “ontology” in the title just because it’s “weird” and “academic” and reinforces the vague image you have of yourself as intellectual and radical in some undefined but oh-so-slightly kinky way. You do not understand what ontology is. No matter how many times you google “ontology definition” and repeat to yourself “ah yes, being in the world, yes, being, of course” you cannot speak intelligently about ontology as it relates to conceptions of property. You have not read any of the philosophers the article references. In fact you can’t even read the article without becoming infuriated by its stylistic vagaries and imprecisions; perhaps you thought you were reading literary theory? You’re not. That’s how philosophers write. I hope you remember this next time you have to summarize an article, or you’ll end up at 2:00 in the morning cobbling together mangled bits of syntax oversaturated with abstract nouns that you don’t even understand, squinting through your tears and headache and wondering how the fuck you’re going to pull this presentation off… and it would be kind of pathetic to do that twice.