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.

 

[Rupert Bear]

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.

 

[vulgar]

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.