Dunno why Plato is getting so much hate.
https://www.ancient.eu/article/174/marcus-aurelius-platos-philosopher-king/
He lived in an age where democracy meant either illiterate populist mobs are conniving selfish landed elites. Hell, you could argue that democracy is still like that in most of the world. He envisioned a paternal autocrat and his ideas have had some merit in practice.
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.
A Philosopher is supposed to be autistic about seeking the truth. Chomsky actively silencing Khmer Rouge victims and writing propaganda for their regime (literally unsolicited btw, they hated foreigners) should preclude him from the title.
the more philosophy i read, the more it annoys me tbh
Its literally just some rich autist trying to solve all their worlds problems. You should look at Philosophy with an eye at better understanding the world they lived in.
Plato lived in a chaotic age of war and populists.
Chomsky lived in an age of conspiracy and elite faux communism
Nietzsche lived when science was getting taken serious.
Ranke lived in an age where professionalization and the scientific method were fetishized
Plato was a massive self absorbed cunt that lied about everything Socrates said and poisoned western thought for millennia.
A philosopher thinks society should be ruled by philosopher kings? Oh gee whiz you don't fucking say.
I don't think meant this with the intent of becoming a king himself. In fact, I'm fairly certain he or Socrates didn't even consider it.
The whole point of Philosophers having the power is based on the idea that they don't even want it. They don't want the power but must be forced to have it or must overcome their desire not to have it. Thats a pretty central idea for the allegory of the cave.
I'd say this is a fundamentally good concept in some regards. Capable people who don't want power tend to be people who won't abuse it or will try to use it wisely - people less likely to become tyrants. The American state was originally founded on this idea, kinda why you have cities like Cincinnati, named after a man who became "dictator" but gave it up as soon as the crisis was over to till his land.
Karl Marx, Alfred Rosenberg, and especially Noam Chomsky.
Marx had legitimate criticisms of capitalism. His prescriptions were idealistic and I'd say it'd be incorrect to blame him for Lenin, Stalin or Mao. The basic criticisms he made went through alot to end up as what we see as communism. Lenin invented the whole idea of transitioning to communism via brutal slave labor and Stalin simply acted upon those ideas. Mao and Pol Pot had some weird fetish for a romanticized Asian peasant society.
