Do you have a dislike of philosophers?

[Rio]

Often times they seem to be grifters, speaking pseudo science. While people praise them for being so deep and wise.

They may pull up personal stories as reason why they are right. Or say common sense or matter of fact is right. They may preach of nature, and the benefits of willful ignorance. The inherent good or godness of people, despite all that humanity has done.

Some will tell you feel good stories, so that you'll want to hear more, as the audiences of their day paid them money. Some to us, seem to be Royal Jesters that know poetry, and story telling.

They can paint you a picture of the world you'd want to be in, or how you are already perfect the way you are.

I would call some philosophers, Pop music, lacking substance, but it sure sound good, until you stop and think for a moment about the non-sense of the lyrics.

What your opinion on philosophers, specially more modern ones?

[ℭycaleo]

Philosophy is a carousel ride and always leads back to the beginning. But I still kinda like it.

[Rio]

Someone told us once, that if you want to work you become a scientist. If you don't want to work you become a philosopher.

[ℭycaleo]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Sashie:

Someone told us once, that if you want to work you become a scientist. If you don't want to work you become a philosopher.

I think that's why I like them.

[livinggg]

no.

[Candyy]

Filosofía nowadays is just useless subject

[⍚MagusFromHeaven⍚]

Why would you dislike philosophers?
Why would you dislike?
Why would?
Why why?

[Shepherd]

People today are far dumber than they ever have been in the past. All modern philosophy is trash.

[Professor]

Thank you for sharing your philosophy

[sleeps]

i don't specifically but i just don't like the superiority feeling just by understanding it.

trust me when i say that i feel oddly superior when i found out that nietzsche was not nihilistic, in fact, very anti nihilistic, and also arguably and politically anti democratic which i would say very ironic because those who are into him who think they are very smart and very free are pretty much democratic. which is an even bigger ironic because nietzsche was more of a guy that is willing to say "individuality for everyone" and not "everyone's individuality" because the latter sounds like a work of a slave morality while the former is not. but then i ask to myself maybe it's not worth it because that is kinda missing the very point he was trying to bring out.

[Rio]

There is Nietzshe, those who copied Nietzshe, those who inspired Nietzshe, and all others who belong in a circus.

But no author is more unpalatable as Emerson, his work as dry as a piece of firewood.

[El Mythical 23 k.s.c.]

Most people are just debate bro partisan hacks to whatever they believe in today. The only people that actual love wisdom are those that understand that most of the truth in the world is subjective. The more you can learn to understand other peoples perspective the better off you will be. You can still know they are wrong and have your truths. Just don't forget that everyone including yourself is biased to information that agrees with them. Ex. you don't ask for sources when you already agree, but do when you don't.

On that, I do in fact hate most modern philosophers. The ones most in the public/media are all focused on gender studies and based in political partisanship.

My personal thoughts for anyone looking to debate others is that the two worse argument types in debates are exposing your opposition for hypocrisy and using an analogy to try and find a common ground.

Hypocrisy would be saying "you agree on X here but not here." No one is or should be expected to hold an idea that works on all levels and situations. There are always exceptions. So also in same vain don't disregard your position due to an edge case that it doesn't work for. When an idea works for vast majority of situations you can feel confident it has some merit.

Analogy is just to easy for your opposition to claim the analogy is wrong due to some factor like "sure but X isn't a valid comparison to Y because X has/is a,b,c differences" Basically being pedantic is easy against analogies. Stay on the subject at hand. Comparing it to baseball isn't going to help and opens you up to someone explaining the problems with baseball then reverse applying baseballs problems onto your original idea.

[The Processor]

Do I like philosophers? Yes. Philosophy is thinking out loud and exercising freedom of speech. Thinking and being able to speak are both important.

[Rio]

Sometimes with modern philosophers, you know everything they are going to say, before they say it based on if they sound like they would fail a drug test.

The voice to the man, like the bee to the hive.

[sleeps]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Gamer:

Do I like philosophers? Yes. Philosophy is thinking out loud and exercising freedom of speech. Thinking and being able to speak are both important.

at least they use it to actually thinking, instead of using it to ramble useless things

[👾]

"pseudo science"? Wtf are you talking about? You sound like a "scientist" who simply doesn't like philosophy because he has settled on the idea of "science". Which depends completely on a single philosophy: Materialism / empiricism. Actually philosophizing would require you to call your "science" into question, which you do not like.

That being said, I have no idea which philosophers you are talking about, you did not give any concrete examples.