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

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

I know a lot of people here don't like Kant, but really, let me make my case as to why Kant is a good philosopher.

Human reason has the peculiar fate of one species of its cognitions that it is burdened with questions which it cannot dismiss, since they are given to it as problems by the nature of reason itself, but which it also cannot answer, since they transcend every capacity of human reason, therefore reason feels into this perplexity through no fault of its own it begins from principles whose use is unavoidable in the course of experience and at the same time sufficiently warranted by it.
With these principles in mind, Kant rises ever higher, to more remote conditions like the Him a layin mountains instead of the him a walkin mountains which was so apply Knamed by Knant in his book "Perpetual metaphysics of the human mind and spirit." As explained by Kant, human auto motive mental experiences as constructed by the mind tells of us, in the beginning (under the administration of the dogmatists) the Him a layin mountains should be transcribed to mean, in the Indian language, Himalayan instead of the direct translation "he is lying down." Without Kant we would not have the English modern translation of the Himalayan mountains and I think that on its own is well enough to earn him a spot in the philosopher hall of fame.

 

[Darksy DePhil]

Foucault. I especial hate his Death of the Author theory. While every work is the child of it's time it couldn't exists without it's author and their individual experiences and thoughts. Death of the Author is just a wank-vehicle for pretentious assholes, who want a text to mean what they think it means and force it down others throats.

Agree. But wasn't it originated by Roland Barthes?

 

[Positron]

Foucault. I especial hate his Death of the Author theory.

That's Roland Barthes. I'm not sure if I would count Foucault as a philosopher (he is more of a historian), I will definitely NOT count Barthes as a philosopher.

 

[Rekkington]

I know a lot of people here don't like Kant, but really, let me make my case as to why Kant is a good philosopher.

Human reason has the peculiar fate of one species of its cognitions that it is burdened with questions which it cannot dismiss, since they are given to it as problems by the nature of reason itself, but which it also cannot answer, since they transcend every capacity of human reason, therefore reason feels into this perplexity through no fault of its own it begins from principles whose use is unavoidable in the course of experience and at the same time sufficiently warranted by it.
With these principles in mind, Kant rises ever higher, to more remote conditions like the Him a layin mountains instead of the him a walkin mountains which was so apply Knamed by Knant in his book "Perpetual metaphysics of the human mind and spirit." As explained by Kant, human auto motive mental experiences as constructed by the mind tells of us, in the beginning (under the administration of the dogmatists) the Him a layin mountains should be transcribed to mean, in the Indian language, Himalayan instead of the direct translation "he is lying down." Without Kant we would not have the English modern translation of the Himalayan mountains and I think that on its own is well enough to earn him a spot in the philosopher hall of fame.

I read the first few pages and all I heard about Kant, like most philosophers here, is "I hate his fans" and "he's tough to read."

 

[DoNotReadTheFinePrint]

Agree. But wasn't it originated by Roland Barthes?

That's Roland Barthes. I'm not sure if I would count Foucault as a philosopher (he is more of a historian), I will definitely NOT count Barthes as a philosopher.

Foulcault was a bit of a jack of all traits. In the end, I guess it depends on who you ask.
As for the Death of the Author, I learned about it with Foulcaults name on it. But the school system where I live isn't the best (especially considering some universities), so I might've been taught something wrong.

 

[vulg]

I read the first few pages and all I heard about Kant, like most philosophers here, is "I hate his fans" and "he's tough to read."

I feel like all the hate for Kant is inspired by bad memories of the growing pains students are forced to endure when reading him, like how so many dislike Shakespeare solely because their English teacher was a fat cunt.

Honestly, saying you "dislike" Kant is such a overwhelming broad statement it's on the same tier as saying you "dislike" Aristotle; it's on the same pretentious and unproductive level as Kant. There are parts of Kant which are unlikable, but Critique of Pure Reason is a cornerstone of modern Western philosophy.

 

[RichardMongler]

View attachment 2141468 View attachment 2141470
View attachment 2141471

"Bad faith" is a genuinely good philosophical concept, but holy shit, Sartre ruins it with his absolutely awful politics. He was also a major cunt in real life. His lover Simone de Beauvoir is similarly terrible.

But the philosopher I dislike most is Jacques Lacan. Fuck, fuck, FUCK that Freudian pseudointellectual hack that even Noam Chomsky famously called a "perfectly self-conscious charlatan." Sure, some of his ideas are kinda neat, but others don't remotely stand up to scrutiny. He famously got dressed down by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont in their book Fashionable Nonsense.

Re: Foucault. His ideas get a bad rap because lots of people don't truly understand them. Yes, he was a degenerate who ultimately reaped what he had sown, but the panopticon is a wonderful exposition on crime and punishment.

It's a shame Foucault will never earn an audience who truly understood him. Instead, we are treated to gross misinterpretations from people like Judith Butler who exploited his ideas out of context to fuel their own mediocre work. You have morons who unironically think Foucault was a Marxist when, in fact, he was critical of Marxism towards the end of his career. He thought Marxism was an outdated teleological 19th century philosophy and consequently rejected the concept of class. He later advocated for economic liberalism in the seminary The Birth of Biopolitics. Every Marxist today classifies Foucault as a dangerous relativist, especially Chomsky who condemned him as amoral.

Foucault was a Nietzschean author that rejected humanism and denied western rationalism as a bringer of progress. He further argued most things could only be understood with the optic of the agents of their time which therefore denied that men deliberately constructed ideologies to fool people or that those people were susceptible to being fooled at all. He posited that the people simply acted as the conditions of their time allowed them, and ultimately, there were only actions of groups who can't act differently than that time and space they are lived.

Really, Foucault could find a good fandom among right libertarians given the proper presentation. There have been many people who also understood Foucault properly, mainly his friend Paul Veyne who set the record straight in a text called Foucault Revolutionizes History, and a book called Foucault, His Thought, His Character. Veyne argues that Foucaultian thought and approach is similar to other empiricists like Norbert Elias and Ludwig von Mises. He won't be liked by conservatives and more authoritarian right-wingers, but I think liberals and right libertarians could embrace Foucaultian thought for rebuttal of grand narratives that vulgar Marxists make about past events, by empirical analysis and contesting their conclusions.

 

[Positron]

It's a shame Foucault will never earn an audience who truly understood him. Instead, we are treated to gross misinterpretations from people like Judith Butler who exploited his ideas out of context to fuel their own mediocre work. You have morons who unironically think Foucault was a Marxist when, in fact, he was critical of Marxism towards the end of his career.

A lot of undeserved veneration and hatred of Foucault stem from people confusing his notion of Power with Marx's, or thinking either one can be reduced to the other. Here we see how language confuses us: just because the two sociological (metaphysical?) phenomena are described by the same word doesn't necessarily mean they are one and the same! Foucault's Power is interactive, permeates all human interactions (although concentrates in those with knowledge), and is equal part destructive and generative. On the contrary, Marx's Power is all-or-none; the capitalists have all while the proletariats have none. And because Power causes alienation and exploitation, it needs to be torn down.

The result of this confusion gives rise to some strains of neo-Marxism. These people, following Foucault, suggest we keep track of Power in our daily lives and especially in academic institutions. Yet after they figured out (or think they have figured out) the working of Power, they switch to Marx mode and wield their hammers! Their brain-dead attack on Power (Foucaldian sense), the matrix that generates knowledge, has turned academia into a field of weeds.

"Bad faith" is a genuinely good philosophical concept.

May be, but Sartre uses "bad faith" as a retarded ass-pull to "explain" away anything bad that can ever happen to a person. His deliberate disregard of a person's situation smacks of victim blaming; even de Beauvoir shakes her head.

 

[Smolrolls]

I feel like all the hate for Kant is inspired by bad memories of the growing pains students are forced to endure when reading him, like how so many dislike Shakespeare solely because their English teacher was a fat cunt.

Honestly, saying you "dislike" Kant is such a overwhelming broad statement it's on the same tier as saying you "dislike" Aristotle; it's on the same pretentious and unproductive level as Kant. There are parts of Kant which are unlikable, but Critique of Pure Reason is a cornerstone of modern Western philosophy.

I think this has been said already, maybe one reason why we've seen a lot of history being revised, statues being torn down, Shakespeare being rascist, whatever, is because its revenge by students who didn't like Kant and Shakespeare because their teachers pile drive their stories down their throats. This made the materials mind-numbing to the students, materials that can be enlightening to the interested, and to make the students revenge justified, just put the veil of "racisms" on top of their "social-movement".

Also seeing how fat and female the teachers are, hearing how say bus drivers hate the kids they drive, and said fat and female teachers don't like boys and are the white liberals who say they aren't racist while being surprise say one of their co-workers *insert race* kid manage to get into college...yea. And hearing nigger-kids literally laugh at the concept "use your words, not your fists" really gets your noggin jogging at the state of the next generation that we're going have to face. At least in blue cities.

 

[Mukhrani]

I've disliked Wittgenstein since reading this story about how he almost drove himself mad trying to figure out how a turbine works. The old Thucydides quote about how any society with separate castes for scholars and soldiers will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools springs to mind, but I think that the development of 'philosophy' as something separate from even natural sciences has yielded an especially ripe crop of nutcases throughout 20th century Europe. If you put people who can't even figure out and articulate the most basic shit in charge of determining how your society thinks, your entire society is going to go insane. I think there's a healthy impulse behind monasticism that follows this vein of thought: if you want to be a scholar, you've got to figure out how to support yourself and a basic community first. You spend some time every day doing basic shit like keeping plants alive, making wine, or repairing the grounds.

Hate Popper too. Dude was just retarded.

 

[♦️ King of Diamonds ♦️]

It's a toss-up between Max Stirner or John Dewey for me due to my Reactionary and Spiritualist (even Esoteric) worldview

 

[Mukhrani]

John K. Rosemond.

I learnt that this man was an absolute fraud after listening to his bullshit podcast about how "homosexuality is a choice" without really proving why. He just uses world salads and rhetoric without evidence in his arguments.

I see too many uninformed parents praising this arrogant, backwards old fart left and right for wanting to return to the "good old days" of parenting without really reading in what tripe he's actually spewing. Rosemond is a very narrow minded individual and treats children as if they're a burden. In his mind, only his beliefs and rose tinted view of the 50s are correct. Everyone else who disagrees with him is wrong and are spoiling their children. He also bas an incredibly condescending and patronising tone in his writing. Even his own children disagree with his use of corporate punishment and derailing of their child's self-esteem.

This is a man who has compared two consensual adults of the same sex loving each other to paedophiles and changes his beliefs at the drop of the hat. (i.e. He says children need unconditional love and then the next column he writes tells us that practical parenting does not involve unconditional).

Speaking about his inconsistency, his hypocrisy shows often. He tells us that men and women need to fit their gender roles as God told them to but claims that he's not very masculine, doesn't like sports, and prefers to go shopping with his wife. Hmm, that's not very "practical", is it Rosemond?

He is nothing more than an American Christian fundamentalist right winger quack with false, unsupported advice claiming to be a psychologist.

If you're really this assmad about some shrink it just makes me think that he had some good points that are making you seethe.

 

[Windows XP Home Edition]

If you're really this assmad about some shrink it just makes me think that he had some good points that are making you seethe.

I do think some of the points he makes are quite good like not spoilingand indulging your kids, and I like that he sides with the teachers when kids are badly behaved. However, he's too backwards for his won good and Rosemond really needs to work on empathy. The way how he words them and his attitude makes him come across as being really insufferable and unlikeable.

 

[Darksy DePhil]

I don't know if you can pin this to a single philosopher nor what philosopher started this, but i hate the whole "human nature is socially constructed" shit, as well as social constructivism as a whole. Mainly because it's super-universalist and it's "blank slate" approach assumes that people have no intrinsic desires or inclinations and that everyone is inevitably going to let themselves be a product of their environment, and therefore also ignores the fact that people even in the most uniform environments such as schools behave and learn things differently.

And it's even worse in identity politics. Social constructivism allows anyone to de-individualize their problems and project them into some sort of conspiratorial bullshit about society as a whole. The neurodiversity autism crowd blames evil society built only for neurotypical non-autistic people as the scapegoat for all of their problems and social failures rather than the fact that their mental illness literally hinders their ability to socialize with others. Same goes for "deaf culture", "fat acceptance" and any other shitty leftist "minority acceptance" collective. Hell, even Incels come up with all these bullshit conspiracy theories about how the reason they can't get laid is muh chads muh degenerate society and polygamy rather than the fact that they are simply massive fucking autistic losers.

 

[Toolbox]

I don't know if you can pin this to a single philosopher nor what philosopher started this, but i hate the whole "human nature is socially constructed" shit, as well as social constructivism as a whole.

And another point of the left entirely ignoring biological realities when it suits some sort of revisionism. You don't even have to look at just mammals to see family structures, several species of birds very obviously form a very similar parental structure to the nuclear family. And it's not like it's something that just makes sense to a people that are barely nomadic anymore.

 

[Mnutu]

I don't know if you can pin this to a single philosopher nor what philosopher started this, but i hate the whole "human nature is socially constructed" shit, as well as social constructivism as a whole. Mainly because it's super-universalist and it's "blank slate" approach assumes that people have no intrinsic desires or inclinations and that everyone is inevitably going to let themselves be a product of their environment, and therefore also ignores the fact that people even in the most uniform environments such as schools behave and learn things differently.

And it's even worse in identity politics. Social constructivism allows anyone to de-individualize their problems and project them into some sort of conspiratorial bullshit about society as a whole. The neurodiversity autism crowd blames evil society built only for neurotypical non-autistic people as the scapegoat for all of their problems and social failures rather than the fact that their mental illness literally hinders their ability to socialize with others. Same goes for "deaf culture", "fat acceptance" and any other shitty leftist "minority acceptance" collective. Hell, even Incels come up with all these bullshit conspiracy theories about how the reason they can't get laid is muh chads muh degenerate society and polygamy rather than the fact that they are simply massive fucking autistic losers.

I don’t know about the second paragraph, but it bugs the fuck out of me when people bring up social construct. It’s really a question of nature vs nurture, which is inherently retarded because it is in mans nature to be nurtured, ergo to be raised absent of any nurture is to be unnatural. Seriously, take a fucking beaver and have him raised by hedgehogs and whatever the guck he does is inherently unnatural. In absence of social construct your ass is dead or raped, an unnatural conclusion full fucking stop.

 

[Mukhrani]

I do think some of the points he makes are quite good like not spoilingand indulging your kids, and I like that he sides with the teachers when kids are badly behaved. However, he's too backwards for his won good and Rosemond really needs to work on empathy. The way how he words them and his attitude makes him come across as being really insufferable and unlikeable.

The way that I see it he basically believes what most of the humans on earth have believed since the birth of mankind, still believe today, and will probably still be believing 100 years from now. I don't buy the whole idea of 'progress' vs. 'backwards'. Technology evolves and moves forward, but human nature doesn't really change. What's interesting is to look at what sort of works were published and widely circulated during twilight of the Roman empire. They were called panegyrics, and were basically giant reams of effusive praise for the people in charge and Roman culture. You see this literary form reemerge at similar points throughout history, like in 15th century Florence or in England during the Restoration. You also see an efflorescence of the same libertine 'progressive' culture that we have today. Gender bending, homosexuality, or general promiscuity, all the things we see as 'progress' that our civilization has achieved. Then what typically follows is either a complete failure of the society, or a huge backlash in the other, more puritanical direction (In England, staid Protestant rule, and in Florence, Savonarola).

The point I guess is that nobody sees societal failure coming. People in failing societies think that they're still progressing, still on top of the world and pushing the boundaries of human nature, until something gives and it all collapses. I get that the guy might be personally annoying. But if its the message that's annoying you, and that message is just basic common sense, consider the possibility that maybe you're one of those people in the heyday of the Medici, Charles II, or Elagabalus who drastically overestimated the trajectory of their respective societies.

 

[Seventh Star]

Although I'm not sure of much of Confucius's teachings played a part of fostering the toxic work environments in East Asian countries, I do have some dislike for him if indeed his teachings lead to it. Those things include working very long, and not necessarily efficient hours, and always needing to agree with your superiors. And yes, the East Asian work environments have lead to good things, i.e. Japanese cars being rock-solid reliable (although that reliability has fallen off in recent years), and great video games that came out of Japan, and it goes to show how lackluster US work ethics can be at times. However, the drawbacks those punishing environments have, i.e. Japan and South Korea having some of the highest suicide rates in the world, people literally overworking to the point of death, and numerous preventable tragedies, i.e. the Sewol Ferry Sinking, the Korean Air Flight 801 crash, and the Sampoong Department Store collapse, are just sad to see.

Pretty much all of it, actually. Apologies for the short response since I haven't read about it in a few years, but basically his teachings and the whole community aspect of it got injected into Japanese economic theory. Toyotism comes directly from the process.

Re: Foucault. His ideas get a bad rap because lots of people don't truly understand them. Yes, he was a degenerate who ultimately reaped what he had sown, but the panopticon is a wonderful exposition on crime and punishment.

That's not even his. That's Jeremy Bentham's idea.

The point I guess is that nobody sees societal failure coming. People in failing societies think that they're still progressing, still on top of the world and pushing the boundaries of human nature, until something gives and it all collapses.

Looking from outside in. I give the US about two years before everything falls apart. Things are falling apart already in my country, and conservatism/libertarianism seems to be taking relevance again.

I'm glad to not have to listen to philosophers ever again if I dont want to. Too bad most hard science subjects love Richard Feynmann. He is generally decent when he talks about physics, but he parrots one of the worst concepts I have ever heard; having to be uncomfortable to progress or to learn more. That single line of shitty advice has caused a lot of misery for people I know, just self-sacrifice and discomfort for no real reason. You can hand wave it away as saying "oh he just tells you that you have to learn more and expand your boundaries and not rest on your laurels", but that's not how it's used, and most likely not his intention at all. The guy didn't spend his days having his balls whacked with a hammer when he was studying. In fact, to my recalling he faced no issues in his entire life.

As a matter of fact, nearly any "hard" scientist having opinions about anything. They know about their field but little else.

 

[Fentanyl Floyd]

The (((Frankfurt School))) and Sartre.

 

[Mnutu]

Pretty much all of it, actually. Apologies for the short response since I haven't read about it in a few years, but basically his teachings and the whole community aspect of it got injected into Japanese economic theory. Toyotism comes directly from the process.

That's not even his. That's Jeremy Bentham's idea.

Looking from outside in. I give the US about two years before everything falls apart. Things are falling apart already in my country, and conservatism/libertarianism seems to be taking relevance again.

I'm glad to not have to listen to philosophers ever again if I dont want to. Too bad most hard science subjects love Richard Feynmann. He is generally decent when he talks about physics, but he parrots one of the worst concepts I have ever heard; having to be uncomfortable to progress or to learn more. That single line of shitty advice has caused a lot of misery for people I know, just self-sacrifice and discomfort for no real reason. You can hand wave it away as saying "oh he just tells you that you have to learn more and expand your boundaries and not rest on your laurels", but that's not how it's used, and most likely not his intention at all. The guy didn't spend his days having his balls whacked with a hammer when he was studying. In fact, to my recalling he faced no issues in his entire life.

As a matter of fact, nearly any "hard" scientist having opinions about anything. They know about their field but little else.

I know exactly zero about Feynman in-depth, or even shallowly (at least in my inebriated state), but I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss his assertions on the grounds of primary experience. Yamamoto Tsunetomo has a lot of genuinely insightful aphorisms, yet he lived to a ripe old age of 68 (iirc) as a monk. The perfect hypocrite.

Emphasis on knowing Jack-shit about Feynman. There’s likely a totally valid ground to object to his philosophical assertions, but dismissing him purely based on his hypocrisy is shaky at best. Broken clocks and all that.