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

[Safir]

I don't have anything against Kant the person, but it's a rare argument that's dumber than the categorical imperative.

 

[Polystyrene Glioblastoma]

Nietzsche. Nothing more I dislike than giving nihilism ass-pats as a legitimate way of thinking. It's a philosophy for angsty teens and crust punk anarchists.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Nietzsche. Nothing more I dislike than giving nihilism ass-pats as a legitimate way of thinking. It's a philosophy for angsty teens and crust punk anarchists.

Confirmed for having never read Nietzsche: he thought nihilists were weak pussies. His weakness in writing was mostly the fact that he didn't propose a solution to Gott ist Tod because he believed people had to reach the answer by themselves.

 

[dopy]

the more philosophy i read, the more it annoys me tbh

 

[Positron]

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. When he threw a woman down a flight of stairs, his only defense before the court was "Fucking roasties, her breathing was annoying me, you wouldn't understand because you're all just sheeple". If he was alive today, he'd probably be a mod on incel.is.

Schopenhauer is not pro-suicide. His reasoning is obscure: he claims that suicide is an affirmation of the Will; by killing yourself you simply lose your life to feed the Will. Perhaps Bryan Magee's explanation on this point is more comprehensible: suicide means hurting the Will, and by hurting the Will, you hurt everybody that ever lived and ever will live, and the misery of the world increases.

He is a misogynists with a mommy issue though.

 

[Grotesque Bushes]

Kant. Fucking Kant. I despise him not for a single thought of his, but for the fact that he can torture a single sentence over 3 pages until it reads like a transcript of a dude on coke trying to live commentate on cooking spaghetti. I swear to God, this motherfucker either was illiterate, or the rest of the world simply hasn't caught up to his space brain.

Confirmed for having never read Nietzsche: he thought nihilists were weak pussies. His weakness in writing was mostly the fact that he didn't propose a solution to Gott ist Tod because he believed people had to reach the answer by themselves.

I think the biggest problem with Nietzsche is that, in contrast to other philosophers, he actually knew how to write. Any single given human can take up any Nietzsche book and he'll actually be able to read it. The underlying meaning can be just as convoluted as the word salad vomit usually served by philosophers, but it's easier on your eyes overall. That leads to cunts reading bits and pieces here and there and taking highly allegoric writing at face value.

 

[GS 281]

It seems like at least half the people responding to this thread are choosing the philosophers they dislike most because of reasons outside of their philosophy. Good ideas don't become bad ideas because we dislike the people who thought them out.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

It seems like at least half the people responding to this thread are choosing the philosophers they dislike most because of reasons outside of their philosophy. Good ideas don't become bad ideas because we dislike the people who thought them out.

Good thing this thread isn't "What philosophy do you dislike the most", yeah?

 

[MW 002]

Mike Godwin for enabling the Orange Hitler hysteria

 

[PL 001]

Nietzsche because although he has some interesting ideas, it's become almost impossible to discuss them because nihilism has all but completely been taken over by "woe is me! life is pain!" emos, "humans are the REAL parasites and a disease on the planet!" faggots and "I'm totes a nihilist and I don't give a fuck about anyone or anything!" edgelord teens.

 

[nagant 1895]

Jacques Derrida and every obscuranttist philosopher that led up to him. @GrotesqueBushes brings up how long it takes Kant to get to a point well there is serious academic debate about whether or not Derrida EVER gets to a point. Hundreds of extremely smart people have read his works and a great many of the believe he took 400 pages to say nothing. Others, perhaps in an attempt to justify the sunk time and to appear intellectual, claim that he Derrida and his works did have a point... just that it was trivial or false.
Some of the profound and meaningful conclusions he arrived at in the two books I was forced to read include: If you use a word to mean something other that what it used to mean then its meaning will change. Or If you examine a text without additional context from or about the author you might come up with different interpretations.

 

[The Pink Panther]

Does Noam Chomsky count?

All of his books that could be about potentially interesting topics (education system, government) devolve into defenses of Marxism, "libertarian socialism" (an oxymoron), and justifying the Democratic party. His linguistical books aren't interesting either as all they do is expand on a normal concept with little detail beyond a surface idea and don't do anything to enlighten.

 

[Scotsman]

 

[Dizzydent]

Rhys McKinnon.

 

[Toucan]

Socrates. There is being a contrarian and speaking truth to power and then there is being a tiresome asshole. Its no wonder everyone in Platos Republic gets pissed off with him. He was an annoying pseud on par with any of the youtube skeptic intelligentsia today and his opinions on democracy were dogshit even for the time. I honestly think less of Plato because of his love for Socrates.

 

[God of Nothing]

To be perfectly honest, almost all of them. It takes a special kind of ego and overinflated sense of self-worth to think the way you live your life and view life should be the way everyone does. Of course, not all philosophers think that but a lot of philosophy is just a heap of bullshit with a tone that deeply implies that. Some ideas are reasonable and understandable but they're usually hidden gems of varying quality in a shit pile. Have the same thoughts towards ethics, which are honestly kind of more bullshit. It's all mostly stuff that sounds applicable on paper but is absolutely ruined by the endless complexity of real life.

I like Nietzsche for more or less saying go your own way, you fucking loser.

 

[Ryker]

Jacques Derrida and every obscuranttist philosopher that led up to him. @GrotesqueBushes brings up how long it takes Kant to get to a point well there is serious academic debate about whether or not Derrida EVER gets to a point. Hundreds of extremely smart people have read his works and a great many of the believe he took 400 pages to say nothing. Others, perhaps in an attempt to justify the sunk time and to appear intellectual, claim that he Derrida and his works did have a point... just that it was trivial or false.
Some of the profound and meaningful conclusions he arrived at in the two books I was forced to read include: If you use a word to mean something other that what it used to mean then its meaning will change. Or If you examine a text without additional context from or about the author you might come up with different interpretations.

As an "edgy" undergrad many years ago I came across Derrida (and others of similar ilk) and was swept up in the sheer joy of the word-play and gamesmanship of it all. I also felt quite interested in some of the tenets espoused by the deconstructionists of the day. After a couple of years I came across his introduction to Husserl's Geometry. I realized then that he should/could have stopped after that one work. It said all he needed to say about his own thinking just as much as it had anything to do with Edmund Husserl and the phenomenological school. Derrida, to me, spent an entire career repeating the same sleight of hand card tricks, already detailed in what was quite an interesting first book. Just my own opinion, mind; but I know where you are coming from.

 

[Sm0kINHaZefEEliNBlaZEd]

Does Noam Chomsky count?

All of his books that could be about potentially interesting topics (education system, government) devolve into defenses of Marxism, "libertarian socialism" (an oxymoron), and justifying the Democratic party. His linguistical books aren't interesting either as all they do is expand on a normal concept with little detail beyond a surface idea and don't do anything to enlighten.

Fuck yes he does. Chomsky is boring to the point where it hurts to read him. His theory of universal grammar is the embodiment of banality, and furthermore has been demonstrated to be wrong.

Other's whom are worthwhile for being worthless would be Kant (the garruloness of his work), Popper (falsifiability is Pierce's idea and the paradox of tolerance is reddit-teir), Deiderra (Eternally BTFO'd by science), Foucault (has an undeserved cult like persona in the humanities), Lecan... in fact fuck every frog not named Baudrillard.

 

[Grotesque Bushes]

Jacques Derrida and every obscuranttist philosopher that led up to him. @GrotesqueBushes brings up how long it takes Kant to get to a point well there is serious academic debate about whether or not Derrida EVER gets to a point. Hundreds of extremely smart people have read his works and a great many of the believe he took 400 pages to say nothing. Others, perhaps in an attempt to justify the sunk time and to appear intellectual, claim that he Derrida and his works did have a point... just that it was trivial or false.
Some of the profound and meaningful conclusions he arrived at in the two books I was forced to read include: If you use a word to mean something other that what it used to mean then its meaning will change. Or If you examine a text without additional context from or about the author you might come up with different interpretations.

My problem with Kant isn't that he takes 5 pages to convey a simple message. Philosophy has its rights, and I understand that conveying complex ideas [or ideas that seem complex to a given deluded fool] requires killing a shitload of trees. The issue with Kant is that the fucker can't write for shit. This is a random sentence taken from a critique of pure reason:


It is quite possible that someone may propose a species of
preformation-system of pure reason—a middle way between the two—to wit,
that the categories are neither innate and first a priori principles of
cognition, nor derived from experience, but are merely subjective
aptitudes for thought implanted in us contemporaneously with our
existence, which were so ordered and disposed by our Creator, that
their exercise perfectly harmonizes with the laws of nature which
regulate experience.

Every single sentence is roughly cobbled together like this, it's rare for any paragraph to last more than 5 sentences, despite it taking an entire page.

 

[An Account]

Let's be real here, most of these philosophers would be lolcows if they were around today, with the majority fitting quite nicely in the skeptic community. Stirner even has a cartoon avatar ready to go. Socrates would be a smellier, more neckbearded version of Sargon who, along with Cleon, issues false DMCAs at Astriophanes' political parody channel.