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

Mnutu

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 27, 2020
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.
 

Seventh Star

hungry burger fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Nov 17, 2020
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.
What philosopher has ever lived uncomfortably? They were always some fags with too much time in their hands who didn't work for some reason or another (ie: Aristotle being Alexander the Great's advisor). To me it's just some other shitty platitude that hides a really terrible message of having to feel like shit to do work well. All the people who say that shit have never struggled in their lives. The people who indeed have made sacrifices like that don't actually advise it or wish it on anyone else.

There's also some of his statements about quantum physics being counterintuitive. It's really not that bad, in fact, its concepts so far, for me, have been easier to grasp than literally anything about organic chemistry. I always roll my eyes when I see him quoted, so I guess he is my most disliked "philosopher" right now.

Sleep it off dude you're drunk as hell lmao. The Tsunetomo thing makes no sense, I dont see where he is hypocritical.
 

Mukhrani

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 24, 2021
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've read Feynman's autobiography and seen some of his interviews, but I'm not sure what you're talking about as far as being uncomfortable being necessary for learning. I know that Feynman's wife died in her 20's very slowly due to tuberculosis, and that may have prompted some sort of reflection on suffering teaching you something as it fucked with him for a long while.
 

Seventh Star

hungry burger fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Nov 17, 2020
I've read Feynman's autobiography and seen some of his interviews, but I'm not sure what you're talking about as far as being uncomfortable being necessary for learning. I know that Feynman's wife died in her 20's very slowly due to tuberculosis, and that may have prompted some sort of reflection on suffering teaching you something as it fucked with him for a long while.
It's on Youtube actually. I probably confused it with one of the comments below and inmediately assigned fault to Feynmann. I'm just kind of generally sick of seeing him, I guess.


So I guess it's not much about me hating Feynmann, but I do think that line of thought is inmensely autistic and only used by people who are already at the top.
 

LastTrainHome

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Oct 2, 2021
deconstructionism and intersectionality. although intersectionality isn't really a philosophy, it's relative to deconstructionism, and they're both why the phenomenon of cancel culture exists.

post-modernism is the claim that there's no such thing as objective reality - the way you perceive things is reality, thus all opinions have equal validity.

the development of post-modernism led to post-structuralism. post-structuralism is the claim that neither experience nor structure can lead to knowledge. experience and structure are impacted by biases and misinterpretation.

the above two philosophies, which say there is no such thing as truth or objective reality, have led to deconstructionism, which was created by the french philosopher Jacques Derrida. deconstructionists say that language is incapable of having meaning, because our personal interpretations create infinite complexity and instability. in other terms, words have no meaning, only the appearance of meaning. western journalists adopted all of these concepts a long time ago and have operated under the umbrella of 'accountability journalism' since. accountability, in the sense that someone must be held accountable for something. it also allows them to tell their own truth of the matter, and report what they see - they report their "personal narratives". it is additionally a way to justify retaliation against speech.

"You can't help but being biased no matter how hard you try, so you may as well be as biased as possible. After all, there's no such thing as objective truth."

following deconstructionism, there is intersectionality, which has technically merged with the former. intersectionality is the theory that all ideas are different for every gender, caste, sex, race, class, sexuality, religion, disability, and physical appearance. it makes it impossible for anybody to know what is going on.

you will note that these philosophies are wholly negative and lead to collapse, not improvement.

also, jacques derrida wanted to abolish the age of consent, so that tells us all we need to know about him.
 

kinuee

:)
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Schopenhauer was a retard who was pretty much nothing than a prototype-incel. He's basically that one kid who thinks he's so smart and consantly has to remind himself how much of a "big brain" he is by spewing out bunch of shit no one cares about. And everyone in the class hates him.

I'm pretty sure his mother would've agreed with me.
images (63).jpeg
 

Rupert Bear

Bri'ish """"person"""" DETECTED
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
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.
And the counter-arguments are hilarious too.
"B-but these hunter-gatherer nomad african tribes from thousands of years ago lived just fine without laws, police, sharing everything communally, and with no power hierarchies! See? That means these things aren't natural and thus our modern evolved western societies can work just fine without these things!"
Maybe anarcho-communism is the real way to go back to monke.
 

Lodoss Warrior

Samhain has come to Lodoss!
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
Peter Singer. What an odious, hypocritical utilitarianist.

Notice how he charges in the grands to polemicize about us over-consumers and parasites of suffering? Why, of course immoral hedonists like us should reduce our intake and expenditures to the bare minimum for charity... while he, naturally, is exempt from all that nonsense.

Please, reveal to me why I'm terrible for eating meat.

Fuck, at least Bentham was honest about his utilitarianism: as long as your pleasure outweighs your suffering, anything is fair-game in his book. A brutal, but innately appealing ethical code that is.

The only group Singer appeals to are recovering Puritans.
 

CisnaHet Scumale

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Fredric Jameson can choke.

All these faggy references to centuries dead philosophers in An American Utopia and not one to a United States Militaryman who is still alive to discuss how his Universal Army can be feasible? Fuck off loser.
 

SITHRAK!

ESL teenager spouting gibberish and angry words.
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 19, 2021
Jacques Derrida.
Deconstructionism is a fundamentally futile tool in the pursuit of truth, as it cannot help but give vent to the practitioner's biases.
More than any other human being alive, his influence has been corrosive to objective thought and the Western polity.
His work is the driving force behind the moral equivocation and 'blame whitey for everything' we see today.
Rot in hell, you fucking faggot.
 

Equivocal_Iki

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 15, 2019
I forget his name, but there was some faggot who believed that there was no such thing as a non-renewable resource, because the free market will always find new ways to meet demands. There was nothing deeper to it, literally just "muh free market will fix it hurr durr". I hated that faggot.
Reminds me of the story where Julian Simon made a bet with Paul Ehrlich where he let Ehrlich choose any 5 commodity metals, and if their prices rose (inflation adjusted) in the next 10 years Simon would pay up. Ehrlich ended up paying because the prices of the metals he chose all fell.
 

Hongourable Madisha

You see, some of us don't know English properly.
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Either Foucault or Butler. One for being a paedo, the other for being a simp for paedos. Also because postmodernism has wrecked the Left and turned it into a neoliberal virtue signalling mess rather than having any power of organising the working class. Ivory tower CIA niggers, the lot of them. There's no other way such complete bullshit artists could've got so rich and famous.