I've come to the conclusion that philosophy and so-called enlightened philosophers are mostly BS.

I used to be under the illusion that if philosophers were people who liked to question things and were trying to understand how the world works. It now seems to me after reading their works that they would much rather spread propaganda and they act as if their opinions are 100% correct. They claim that whatever they do is a universal law and that it must be treated as truth. Philosophers act as if logic should be taught in schools yet it seems that when someone examines their logic... one can see many contradictions within their works, and obvious inherent bias though they claim to be as objective as possible

I used to be under the impression that these philosophers had some mystical truths that no one else could access. But it just seems to be as if these people are nothing more than me nor you-- making things more intimidating than they really need to be. They are just prehistoric novelists, or, prehistoric idealists, just putting down what has been said before, on paper. There's nothing really revolutionary about them.

Does anyone else feel the same way? Maybe it's not necessarily BS, maybe they are reminding us of things that we should be thinking about... but I just feel as if all they're doing is just thinking about things and writing it down. So why shouldn't we be able to do the same? And we wouldn't need to make it seem as complicated as they make it out to be.

Okay, let me create a syllogism, and prove it with my own circular logic! See? I'm so smart! It's like that. I look at works of philosophers, and, I just think... they went through all this time to create 400 page book, just so academics and people after them could study it.

Ideas do change the world... but I hardly believe that philosophers created them. I think they just merely codified down what has been known and believed for centuries.

Care to grace us with your Magnum Opus so we can compare?

You're probably right but these guys do their imaginings based on Physics yeah and we commoners don't have the bits of paper that say we can imagine too!!!

Good Points! S&F

reply to post by TheodoreBundy


I've written my own essays for myself and on notes for facebook but I never will care to get them published. Are you really serious about wanting to see one?

reply to post by quedup


Thanks to the internet all that is changing. I think they were just the ones with the printing press. Karl Marx becam so popular because he championed the cause of communism. If communist activists were living in today's world they'd probably be yelling at Karl Marx and telling him that he can't just take over the cause of communism for himself and that it would be too authoritarian. The internet would probably have stopped Lenin and the Soviet Union from ever assembling, come to think of it.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


When I discovered that sloth and debauchery was actually a philosophy called Hedonism; I knew I had found my calling; I became a devotee and practiced to the best of my ability until my liver gave out.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
Does anyone else feel the same way? Maybe it's not necessarily BS, maybe they are reminding us of things that we should be thinking about... but I just feel as if all they're doing is just thinking about things and writing it down. So why shouldn't we be able to do the same? And we wouldn't need to make it seem as complicated as they make it out to be.

I'm disappointed you didn't have stronger opinions on this, kind of misleading title :/
Is there any specific philosopher that you care disclose is bothering you? Philosophy has many categories, its hard to relate to what you are saying if you don't elaborate more.

reply to post by juveous


Okay. I apologize for not being very specific in my original OP. I just didn't know how people here would respond. Very well then. I do have a problem with what I call the "freedom advocates" for philosophy. These people are the people that claim to be fighting for freedom-- Immanual Kant, John Stewart Mill, Ayn Rand, yet they take a very intolerant position towards anything else.

Immanual Kant believes in the principle of univeralism, that, everyone is rational, and that people act as rational beings would act. He uses this as his argument to prove that "reason" exists in its purest sense, and, he goes on and on for it. John Stewart Mill advocates for freedom on one hand and then he advocates for obedience to society on the other. He claims to be a fighter of freedom, yet, in the end, he wants for us to follow its every whims, he believes in freedom only insofar as much as we must be obedient to other people. Ayn Rand believes in an ultimate freedom, but, only for the elitist of them all, and she fails to see the enrons and worldcoms that exist elsewhere in the world.

Then, there are the founding fathers who at one hand wanted to free the US government yet at the other hand they were perfectly fine with British law. They just wanted to transfer the rule from a monarchy to a Republic. But, not with how the government was ruled. The slave-owning FFs like James Madison acted like they were all great, and, they may have wanted the slaves to be freed originally, but in practice, they were just about as oppressive as most people when they were in power.

In sum, I'm upset at a lot of philosophers for destroying my naivity.

reply to post by quedup


Physics is universal, however it is pointless without math, and proper proof. Philosophers sometimes tend to lean towards the useage of physics to compel people to believe that what they say is truth. I am not a huge fan of this and would much rather see the cooperation of everyone to set aside emotion and *constant* "what ifs" (at least occasionally), because then I feel it would be much easier to find truths everyone else is looking for.

However, is doesn't mean that philosphy isn't good, even in a slightly more "logical" thought invoking subject such as Physics, some of the best ideas are dreamt up and developed as mere whims and "what ifs"

Basically, there needs to be balance.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


Sounds like it is less the philosophy itself that bugs you, and more the poor execution/ contradictions that often come from it that is bugging you. Fair point, and yes other people most certainly find that to be distressing. Including myself, who loves philosophical talk.

"Does anyone else feel the same way?" Yup, philosophy is mostly borrowed, "copyright infringement" of other thoughts, if you will. Is philosophy and pals mostly BS? Sometimes, ego gets in the way of truths but most are reminders to "get real", as in everything points back at you, a kind of circular logic, in a way.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


ok that clears things up a bit more. Im guessing its the impact of their views that the people took up as wise that you don't agree with? I would have to read into specific arguments that have been put forth by some other people so I can get a good idea on what contradicts. I just know they put a great deal of thought into making man think about themselves on a larger scale and how the individual needed to pay attention on how to keep the next generation on track with the current ideals.

There will always be contradictions - surely that is Philosophy - that is why we need balance in all thoughts and imagination.

reply to post by juveous


I actually agree with them a lot. I end up agreeing with them on at least 70% of the issues. It's not so much that I agree with them that's the problem but that they treat their works as their disprovable, and, that they're 100% fact. I put a lot of stock in my opinions well because I believe in them, and, I would go as far to put my reputation on the line for them in public if I had to.

But, I wouldn't take a my-way or the highway attitude. It's that I don't like. It's the opposite of what philosophy should be. Philosophy should be about questioning things and keeping an open mind. These people question the order around them yet substitute their own logic and reason for the reality they wish to create.

Philosophers are not scientists. If they were, they would begin by assuming their hypotheses are not true. The modern "scientist" does the exact opposite--assume the hypothesis is true and try to find supporting facts.

Hey, scientists--you're supposed to disprove the theory. That's what the scientific method is about.

Philosophy is in the realm of speculation. Science is not. You're not supposed to prove anything. Your job is to disprove everything until one conclusion remains.

Or have you forgotten that since 4th grade?

Kant may still be around in 500 years, but Rand and Mills probably won't. Take a look at the origins of philosophy...thinkers like Plato, Socrates and Aristotle are still being discussed thousands of years after they have died. Why? They presented timeless ideas that changed how people thought forever VS capitalising on trends or getting a soundbyte because of shock value.

Many of the things that are passed off as philosophy today are the poorly written ramblings of people who want everyone to see the world thier way. Philosophy is not a manifesto, it does not dictate or make demands: It's goals are simply to expand a person's concept and perspective of the world and ones place in it.

Want modern-age philosophy? Look up What it is like to be a Bat (author unknown) and Thee and Thou (Martin Bruber...I think). The first is an essay from the 70's discussing how we have no common ground for communication with aliens given that we have no common ground with a fellow mammal from our own planet. The second is, in the true nature of philosophy, hard to follow. It deals with the idea that I am you and you are me...basically do unto others but with more explanation.

Mostly however, modern philosophy is preaching the author's POV in the expectation that the reader will either agree and learn more about that perspective or disagree and base thier own ideas on "not being like that". Like everything else...raising general awareness through debate has fallen to the side in favor of polarized arguement on specific points.

On a side note, The sex life of cannibals is not meant to be philosophy and yet does a far better job. The author spent four years doing without on a third-world island in the middle-of-nowhere S.Pacific wishing he was home in D.C.. When he got back to D.C., he realised he no longer belonged in that fake world after having seen what REAL life was like.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by juveous

 

I actually agree with them a lot. I end up agreeing with them on at least 70% of the issues. It's not so much that I agree with them that's the problem but that they treat their works as their disprovable, and, that they're 100% fact. I put a lot of stock in my opinions well because I believe in them, and, I would go as far to put my reputation on the line for them in public if I had to.

But, I wouldn't take a my-way or the highway attitude. It's that I don't like. It's the opposite of what philosophy should be. Philosophy should be about questioning things and keeping an open mind. These people question the order around them yet substitute their own logic and reason for the reality they wish to create.

edit on 19-7-2011 by Frankidealist35 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-7-2011 by Frankidealist35 because: (no reason given)

It's because they didn't have epistemic humility. They were not epestimocrats, (hence my undertitle) as Nassim Nicholas Taleb talks about in his book The Black Swan, "one who holds his own knowledge in greatest suspicion".

When we are humble in our understanding we can judge the limits to which cannot be estimated to achieve a more accurate representation of the problems that can be solved. Uncertainty's courtesy is randomness.

I pretty much agree. They are percieved as open-minded thinkers but almost all philosophy is about having an opinion and trying to pass it onto others. They've already made up their minds and they want to propagate those ideas to others. Marketers appeal to emotion, and philosophers appeal to argumentation--main difference between the two.

i use to listen to wayne dyer abraham hicks and others until the truth of these people were uncoverd
wayne dyer not only did his wife leave him for another guy but he is also battling cancer. I geuss all those positive intentions did not serve him so well. and abraham hicks was one of my personal favorites until I found out about thier past in amway sales and recruiting they are using what they learned in mlm to push the abraham tapes thank god for torrents now when I want my daily dose of spirituality or philosophy I look to the teachings of buddha or jesus or ancient sanskrit texts these johnny come lately door to door sales men and women are all hypocrites and serve the allmighty dollar not god or man. the message they teach is actually ancient truth the problem I have is the price tag that goes with it. the message is the key not the messenger........................

There are truths that are self-evident. The instance of initial discovery of such a truth is an emotional event that clouds your judgement away from the fact that many others already are aware of the metrics of your discovery many years before. Your not the first one in all space-time to witness that truth although it feels like it may be.