Which philosopher do you dislike the most and why? - Massive ego, autistic levels of verbosity, shallowness, degenerateness or just plain boring.

  • Thread starter Thread starter FA 855
  • Start date Start date
Vecr said:
It's literally not possible. If you're still on here, have a go, and see how far you get.
Click to expand...
Of course I’m still on Kiwi Farms.

I like Rawls idea, but to be useful it needs adaptations. He assumes people have infinite risk aversion which is straight up retarded. He assumes people strike a unanimous bargain, which is literally impossible unless there’s some kind of restriction in the bargaining method. But I think that his idea could be given a better theoretical framework and used seriously. At its core it’s just “if you had to roll the dice, do you really believe this society (we live in a society) is a worthwhile gamble?”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mexican_Wizard_711 and shameful existence
Ughubughughughughughghlug said:
Of course I’m still on Kiwi Farms.

I like Rawls idea, but to be useful it needs adaptations. He assumes people have infinite risk aversion which is straight up retarded. He assumes people strike a unanimous bargain, which is literally impossible unless there’s some kind of restriction in the bargaining method. But I think that his idea could be given a better theoretical framework and used seriously. At its core it’s just “if you had to roll the dice, do you really believe this society (we live in a society) is a worthwhile gamble?”
Click to expand...
Yeah, the decision theory is hilariously bad. There's a bunch of papers from the late '70s on it. That's not the main problem though, you can approximate it with a standard Expected Utility Maximizer (EUM) utility function, so it's not a total lost cause. The main issues are:

1) As the theory is supposed to be "rational", that's just not how utility functions work. You can't say a utility function is irrational.
2) How do you define the various classes in society in an objective manner? As far as I can tell it was originally supposed to be something like "the worst off reference class", not literally the worst off actual or possible person.
3) What even is a reference class? Is it supposed to deal with actual or "counterfactually possible" people?
4) Even if you say "it's just ethics, the physics/logic don't have to fully be there", it's obviously exploitable in practice. Just define yourself into a reference class that's "the worst off" and hog all the resources that society provides you, and and refuse to get better by any non-marginal degree. Jackpot, more or less unlimited resources for very little work.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Nigger Cobson, shameful existence and Markass the Worst
Most all of them. That meme of the excerpt of the letter Schopenhauer's mom wrote to him could aptly be addressed to most philosophers anyway.
 
i like shelly kagan but i think it's for his presentation and performance with the occasional nuggets of wisdom rather than because he's that great. i realized very recently that he's a very "reddity" philosopher: physicalism good, suicide good, living forever bad, humans better than animals, miracles false. but a lot of the time his arguments even when i agree with them rely on strawmanning people he doesnt agree with and making assumptions that dont make sense. like he says at one point that what makes humans superior to animals is that we have capacity to create art and language and music and love, but a lot of humans dont. we also dont know if an animal could create art if it could speak english or have apposable thumbs. so it's a case of judging based off of biology rather than ethics but dressing it up as the latter. he also says "well if you were immortal you'd get bored unless we erased your memory" but that's a ridiculous assertion given people forget movies they watched six months ago. it also is at least a better alternative than the physicalist pov of lights out dinner's cold. i also find his pro-suicide arguments a little weird because it's essentially coercing people into suicide even tho he's trying to make a case for it being rational, but if he manages to convince anyone then by definition they didnt come to it rationally because you had to create a culture akin to a death cult to coax that out of people
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: Cnidarian and Vecr
BetterFuckChuck said:
i also find his pro-suicide arguments a little weird because it's essentially coercing people into suicide even tho he's trying to make a case for it being rational, but if he manages to convince anyone then by definition they didnt come to it rationally because you had to create a culture akin to a death cult to coax that out of people
Click to expand...
Rational in pursuit of what goals? If someone's going to torture you to get the secret to destroying the world, then sure, but otherwise I don't think it's generally rational. In most cases it's rational to keep your options open, and they aren't open if you're dead.
 
Vecr said:
Rational in pursuit of what goals? If someone's going to torture you to get the secret to destroying the world, then sure, but otherwise I don't think it's generally rational. In most cases it's rational to keep your options open, and they aren't open if you're dead.
Click to expand...
he tries to bring up the terminal illness meme to say that americans are "hysterical" when it comes to condemning suicide. even tho let's be honest that barely counts as suicide, that's the hospital killing you because ull die anyway.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Gaius Cumulus and Vecr
Bertrand Russel: A cuck. Literally.

George Carlin: One of the most overrated comedians and since he's held up by hipsters as a philosopher one of the most overrated philosophers. Says obvious things people have said for ages and is applauded for it like some sort of visionary. Acts like a groundbreaking iconclast maverick but mostly just took easy potshots at fuddy duddy conservatives who haven't been in control of the culture since the 50s. With libtards yes he criticized them occassionally but he seemed to pull his punches back considerably. Underneath it all its just a mixture of completely conventional libtard thinking mixed with some pullback dsp style fence sitting.

I really dislike conventional thinkers who dress up in maverick clothing.

Theres tons of armchair philosophers who are even worse but these are the more notable ones.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Mexican_Wizard_711, Gaius Cumulus, Kulee Baba and 3 others
Friedrich Nietzsche. His miserable-bastardness seemed to be virtually on par with Edgar Allan Poe's, and H.P. Lovecraft's. Does (Professor) Brian Cox count as a philosopher? 'Cos I can't stand him. I also can't stand people's sycophantic corpse-buggering of Carl Sagan, either.

@grump I came to a conclusion awhile ago, and it was this: If Mitch Hedberg didn't die so young, he would've been as popular, if not more popular, than George Carlin. And I say this as someone who's a fan of his. Carlin was at his funniest when he was a miserable old bastard, but then, unfortunately croaked, so he couldn't come up with fresher miserable old bastard gripes.
 
Last edited:
Null, he has some ok takes on things in general, but when he tries to wax too philosophical it's clear he's a fat retard with a background flipping burgers and taking out trash to the dumpster and too much internet. He's a cute cherub chungus, but he is fat and I would not have sex or a serious philosophical discussion with him.

But seriously, Hegel's absolute spirit and Marx's historical materialism is Gnosticism, not philosophy. Fuck Plato, Kant and Rousseau for essentially the same shit and all the French post-modernist/structuralists who were only into thinking about the age of consent. They all deserved Foucalt level aids.

Peter Singer, Australian furfag retard.

Nietzsche is generally misunderstood by plebs and has been ruined by autists of both side of political spectrum and retards who misconstrue his writings as 'nihilistic' or some edgy atheist shit. When their philosophical reading level is basically at nigger ordering tendies off a popeyes menu level. Schoppy was indeed a miserable and cantankerous bastard. I would have been too if I Hegel was one of my peers, that was shilling for the state, surprised he didn't shoot up Gottingen.

Diogenes was clearly batshit insane but also a badass thinker if you are familiar with him more than reddit tier philosophy meme lore. He would have been banned on youtube for calling Keffals, Contra, PhilosophyTube "male malakas".

Lucky from the few pages I read I didn't see anyone mention Aurelius or Kierkegaard and didn't have to tag you as autistic or dumb.
 
  • Feels
  • Winner
  • Agree
Reactions: Gaius Cumulus, xoodyak, Kulee Baba and 1 other person
KimCoppolaAficionado said:
Schopenhauer was basically a proto-blackpill dimwit who thought that he was the only real person in a sea of sheep and everyone should just kill themselves
Click to expand...
Schopenhauer would definitely be mod on incels.is or possibly on a tranny subreddit.

We can add Schopenhauer and Ayn Rand to the long list of faggots that couldn't live their philosophy. . . Not even a little.

( Especially Ayn Rand. She carried on affairs with married men, then became extremely jealous when she was cheated on. So much for "Objectivism" )

Honk Hill said:
But seriously, Hegel's absolute spirit and Marx's historical materialism is Gnosticism, not philosophy.
Click to expand...
Not to mention Marx was wrong about everything, but refused to adjust his theory.

Also Marx was total neckbeard slob that lived in squalor in a hoarded London apartment, and never worked a day in his life (I suppose he thought he was to good to work for his money.)

Marx criticized the industrialization of cotton production, but then let wealthy Engels support Marx his entire life, with income derived from... Cotton.

Marx would be an insufferable breadtuber if he were alive today.

Honk Hill said:
Fuck Plato, Kant and Rousseau for essentially the same shit and all the French post-modernist/structuralists who were only into thinking about the age of consent. They all deserved Foucalt level aids.
Click to expand...
I dislike Plato generally, but he was probably right that democracy is the second-worst form of government. Two wolves and a sheep, and all that.

Honk Hill said:
Lucky from the few pages I read I didn't see anyone mention Aurelius or Kierkegaard and didn't have to tag you as autistic or dumb.
Click to expand...
I hope you don't mean to say you dislike Aurelius and Kierkegaard. If we add in Seneca and Ralph Waldo Emerson that would be all of my favorites.

If so, you can go ahead and prepare the tags now. I'm ready.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Gaius Cumulus, xoodyak and Honk Hill
trash cat said:
I hope you don't mean to say you dislike Aurelius and Kierkegaard. If we add in Seneca and Ralph Waldo Emerson that would be all of my favorites.

If so, you can go ahead and prepare the tags now. I'm ready.
Click to expand...

No fren, my cat is called Soren. I meant I am glad nobody had mentioned Aurelius or Kierkegaard as philosophers they don't like, they are the ones who deserve the tags.
 
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: Nigger Cobson, Peepeepoopoo Witch, Mexican_Wizard_711 and 3 others
I don't really dislike many philosophers because if I don't find the book interesting I just won't finish it. Even people I firmly disagree with have written really good shit, it's a battle of ideas so lets duke it out my nigga.

Anyways, while I do enjoy Ayn Rand's writing DAMN are her devotees fucking weird.
Like, there's parts of Objectivism I can vibe with and even some stuff I agree with, but bro it's like a cult. These dudes treat Rand as the final authority, a mind so large and powerful mere mortals must embark on a holy spirit quest (i.e reading Atlas Shrugged) to even begin to understand how she sung magic into existence like the fucking Ainur.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Vecr
VeteranOfTheRetardWars said:
I don't really dislike many philosophers because if I don't find the book interesting I just won't finish it. Even people I firmly disagree with have written really good shit, it's a battle of ideas so lets duke it out my nigga.

Anyways, while I do enjoy Ayn Rand's writing DAMN are her devotees fucking weird.
Like, there's parts of Objectivism I can vibe with and even some stuff I agree with, but bro it's like a cult. These dudes treat Rand as the final authority, a mind so large and powerful mere mortals must embark on a holy spirit quest (i.e reading Atlas Shrugged) to even begin to understand how she sung magic into existence like the fucking Ainur.
Click to expand...

Try reading her other less famous work The Fountainhead. It's a lot more in tune with her original ideas then the mess that Atlas Shrugged became and it's less then 300 pages and moves along quite quickly. It's a bit...rapey...near the middle but thats just Rand's personal habits leaking thru but other then that it's quite digestible.

Roark is her perfect man and in many ways he is. Too perfect of course but all of Rand's heroes are meant to be archetypes rather then actual people. Both Dominic and Dagny are just motivation for her heroes but again Rand was a writer in the 50's so that's to be expected.

The speech Ellesworth gives at the end is a great summation of the sickness infecting modern day society and Rand called it back in the 60'ties. I think in the future, once we've passed thru the hell that is modern day philosophy, her books will be viewed in a more favourable light.
 
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: Gaius Cumulus, Kulee Baba, Seventh Star and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back