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

[JambledUpWords]

I know a lot of philosophers are products of the context they found themselves in so it's not restricted to any one particular group of people, but how often do you think American philosophers are amerocentric like that?

At least when it comes to philosophies that focus on identity politics, I think quite a bit of it is Americancentric due to the need for identity politics to rely on concepts such as majority versus minority. Nobody is complaining about lack of Mexican representation in Mexico, but if Mexicans are still a minority in the US, there are opportunities to use that fact to imply that everyone not of the majority is automatically disadvantaged. There’s a reason Afrocentrism is a thing in the US, but the Africans in Africa don’t care for it.

 

[Gigantic Faggot]

There’s a reason Afrocentrism is a thing in the US

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melville_J._Herskovits

 

[Übertroon]

At least when it comes to philosophies that focus on identity politics, I think quite a bit of it is Americancentric due to the need for identity politics to rely on concepts such as majority versus minority. Nobody is complaining about lack of Mexican representation in Mexico, but if Mexicans are still a minority in the US, there are opportunities to use that fact to imply that everyone not of the majority is automatically disadvantaged. There’s a reason Afrocentrism is a thing in the US, but the Africans in Africa don’t care for it.

That has a lot to do with Mexico being a shithole who lost their Empire.

Too many people view the world in the context of oppressor vs oppressed. And in the world no oppressor is bigger than the white man. So it doesn't matter that the Chinese are more numerous, or that Mexico mistreat their southern neighbors, because the ultimate evil in the end is the white man, in which all other evil pales.

Nietzsche correctly saw the error in christian theology turning weakness into a virtue, and now we live in a world where academia refuses to accept that some people are weak because they are losers, and that some are being justly oppressed

 

[ARAVIS]

Gary l francione, vegan abolitionist rutgers law professor who calls terfs science deniers hahaha

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

Most philosophers are shit. The few who were good were ones who didn't consider themselves philosophers and had actual professions like Polybius, Livy, Cicero, and Confucius. Hell, there are some people who aren't widely considered philosophers today but really should be due to the quality of their written works such as Sun Tzu, and Musashi Miyamoto.

I'd put Yagyu Munenori as a better philosopher than Miyamoto, though the only real way to understand what they wrote is to punch it out in either case. If you don't exercise, you don't understand what they're talking about.

For me, it's a tie between Sam Harris and Nietzsche. Both of them inspired edgy-boi atheists to be edgy-boi atheists. Academia is heavily invested in absolving Nietzsche from the consequences of his philosophy, but between Nazis and Antifa, one has to question whether his sister did distort his writings at all. He just comes across as a failed Buddhist who fell into despair as his mental state was collapsing. The lack of inner peace radiates out to his adherents, which is how modern philosophy manages to attract the worst sophomores and turns them into Antifa twats. The latest one being William X Nietzsche, the reason why the Kinneys put a mortgage on their house and caused another CHAZ for refusing to pay the bank.

On the other end of style is Harris, who I blame for the rise of Da Science thinking. As I complained about in this other thread, he's the one that elevated Science to define our ethics and did it badly. The Moral Landscape failed at its goal at becoming the Atheist bible. What the New Atheists really did was hollow out our society for COVID to become our new god.

 

[Meat Target]

No mention of Peter Singer, the father of animal rights? You guys should read some Peter Singer, he's the worst.

IIRC, he's so hateable that he's been banned from Germany and once got the shit kicked out of him when trying to give a keynote.

 

[ClownBrew]

Derrida

That fucker is the main reason why woke and CRT are things.

 

[CreamyHerman’s]

Mussolini was pretty dumb, had to get help from the krauts

 

[The Great Chandler]

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.

Even prior to knowing his blatant Marxism, it still annoyed me on how his fanboys laud him as a science god that you shouldn't ever question.

 

[ditto]

The true purpose of philosophy is to get the philosopher laid.

 

[HumanHive]

On the other end of style is Harris, who I blame for the rise of Da Science thinking. As I complained about in this other thread, he's the one that elevated Science to define our ethics and did it badly. The Moral Landscape failed at its goal at becoming the Atheist bible. What the New Atheists really did was hollow out our society for COVID to become our new god.

I was just about to put Sam Harris up. His whole “attempt” to resolve the is-ought problem by simply denying ought statements is fucking infuriating.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

I was just about to put Sam Harris up. His whole “attempt” to resolve the is-ought problem by simply denying ought statements is fucking infuriating.

Failing to disprove Hume's Guilotine was the beginning of his problems. One that's really observable just by the practical application of natural selection. Then his application of his own philosophy falls apart from there.

Sam Harris wrote:

Sandra Harding, a feminist philosopher of science, is probably the most famous proponent of [biased science]. [...] First, let's be careful not to confuse this quite crazy claim for its sane cousin: There is no question that scientists have occasionally demonstrated sexist and racist biases. The composition of some branches of science are still white and male (though some are disproportionately female), and one can reasonably wonder if bias is the cause. There is also legitimate questions to be asked about the direction and application of science: in medicine, for instance, it seems clear that women’s health issues have been sometimes neglected because the prototypical human being has been considered male. One can also argue that the contributions of women and minority groups to science have occasionally been ignored or undervalued: the case of Rosalind Franklin standing in the shadows of Crick and Watson might be an example of this. But none of these facts, alone or in combination, or however multiplied, remotely suggests that our notions of scientific objectivity are vitiated by racism or sexism (47).

Yes, he is technically against SJWs, but what he actually wrote was the SJW-lite position, which set the stage for his followers to use Da Science to completely bulldoze his objection. Which happened in a Steven Universe PSA.

By the time he talks about determinism, the entire project breaks since determinism has the underlying assumption that people can't improve themselves or as he put it, "bad genes, bad parents, bad ideas, and bad luck [...] No human being stands as author to his own genes or his upbringing. [...] In fact, it seems immoral not recognize just how much luck is involved in morality itself" (109). If bad parents beget bad children, it creates an infinite regress of genetic immorality, which we can absolutely apply to the Black community. They definitely have bad parents and bad ideas, and to the Leftists, bad luck too. Can we then try to administer a cure to their genetic immorality as he suggests a paragraph later? Is Sam Harris a racist now? He certainly applies this standard to Islam since they also have bad ideas, bad parents (in his opinion anyways), and the bad luck to be living in the Middle East. Free will is a key component of all ethics because it makes the assumption people can do better than before. Really, what kind of message is it to tell your child that they can't be a better person than they already are? We see the results of that thinking with SJWs.

Combined with laying the groundwork for destroying constitutional rights, I've come to the conclusion that Sam Harris wasn't just a pretentious Atheist, but one of the people who laid the groundwork for the Moderate Left to slip into Identity politics. Sure, Derrida, Foucault, and Post-modernists introduced a bunch of obscurant nonsense into the Humanities, but he and the other Atheists contributed to the rot by accepting their premises at the speed limit.

 

[Harlay de Champvallon]

Jacques Derrida, someone who managed to oversell himself through obscure prose, maybe.

 

[The Great Chandler]

Free will is a key component of all ethics because it makes the assumption people can do better than before. Really, what kind of message is it to tell your child that they can't be a better person than they already are? We see the results of that thinking with SJWs.

Spoiler: Why does this sound so familiar?

 

[Bloitzhole]

Immanuel Kant - less for his actual views and more for how he conveyed them. If anyone has attempted to read his "Kritik der reinen Vernunft" (Critique of pure reason), it is the polar opposite of old school greeks and romans like Seneca (who wrote his shite in easily digestible letter form). It is the most convoluted sentence structure imaginable. It is written in a manner that ensures that it will take the longest time possible to decode every single statement. I appreciate the man's contribution to the philosophy of law especially, but good god, I wouldn't want to talk to him at a party.

Edit: Turns out my sentiment has already been well expressed on page 2

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.

 

[GrotesqueBushes]

Edit: Turns out my sentiment has already been well expressed on page 2

Truth be told you've managed to write "Kant no write good" in a much more sophisticated manner. Which I guess only further proves that ideas can be successfully conveyed in many different, often diametrically opposed ways, without torturing a thesaurus in a run-on sentence pileup.

 

[Odnovo]

I used to read philosophy as a hobby, and one philosopher that I never really quite liked was Sartre. It just seemed as if he plagiarized the works of others, all the while belittling those who were more talented than him (such as Camus), and seemed to be obsessed with taking advantage of teenage girls (that is just a rumor, though). His wife seemed to be a better philosopher than him, as well, which is something that you don't usually see.

 

[IAmNotAlpharius]

I dislike a lot of philosophy majors and especially TAs. Almost all the ones I dealt with were smug self righteous cunts, even moreso if they were also a TA.

Consequently, I don’t have a high opinion of a lot of philosophers because the field of philosophy reminds me of some really annoying roommates I had and a very annoying TA that couldn’t shut up for 30 seconds.

 

[Midge Shelby1919]

He’s been mentioned several times, but Kant. Admittedly, I don’t have too much knowledge on the man apart from helping a friend on an essay, but from what I did look up in the process I was not a fan. His strict morality on lying was really frustrating.

 

[The Great Chandler]

I dislike a lot of philosophy majors and especially TAs. Almost all the ones I dealt with were smug self righteous cunts, even moreso if they were also a TA.

Consequently, I don’t have a high opinion of a lot of philosophers because the field of philosophy reminds me of some really annoying roommates I had and a very annoying TA that couldn’t shut up for 30 seconds.

One can be keenly interested in philosophy without acting holier-than-thou about it. Inevitably, that field as others pointed out, attract the most insufferable human beings around.

Must be like hell living with mosquitoes