View Full Version : I hate Philosophy.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
06-13-2011, 15:31
I hate Philosophy. So boring and so useless.
Rhyfelwyr
06-13-2011, 15:41
You doing it at University or something?
I think its interesting... until it gets confusing and then I just get tired and go take a nap.
Wrong.
Philosophy is awesome.
But, the question is, do you really hate philosophy? What if you are actually a philosopher dreaming he is a boy doing philosophy and pretending to hate it?
Veho Nex
06-13-2011, 16:35
Guess you're not one for metacognition.
My highschool gave out awards based on the students and thats what I received. The metacognition award, for my continual promises to do my homework and never actually turning it in. I used to be pretty good at it too, like, DON'T WORRY I got this legit idea Mr.Teach, its going to include pigeons and gas prices and how they all mold around this one central thesis and how it all ties into interstellar travel.
true story bros. true story
Peasant Phill
06-13-2011, 17:17
Philosophy boring? How preposterous.
Where else can you argue that democracy as practically the same as slavery and win the argument or utter the words "Sir, it's turtles all the way down".
It's mostly useless, I give you that.
The Stranger
06-13-2011, 17:20
bring it to the Backroom brother, i will eat you for breakfast!
The Stranger
06-13-2011, 17:23
I hate Philosophy. So boring and so useless.
you are most likely talking about history of philosophy.
philosophy cant really be boring, its not what you think or think about its how you think, the structures and layers of your thought.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
06-13-2011, 17:39
It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. :goofy:
Veho Nex
06-13-2011, 17:40
... its how you think, the structures and layers of your thought.
When you put it that way...
It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. :goofy:
Well, that depends. What are you studying? If it's Hegel, I'm so sorry, but I can't help you.
a completely inoffensive name
06-14-2011, 11:50
It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. :goofy:
Philosophy are other people's ideas. Talk to as many people as you can in your city. Do you understand them and who they are? Not really. So why would you think that understanding the thoughts of someone who lived 50-4,000 years before you would be any easier?
Yeah philosophy is boring and useless, boring and useless people will tell other boring and useless people it isn't but it is. I get especially annoyed when someone backs up an argument with quoting one of these armchair-knowololigists
BUT KANT SAID
oh did he #cares
a completely inoffensive name
06-14-2011, 12:03
I am about to take an intro to philosophy course at my local community college to get some general requirements done with.
I am about to take an intro to philosophy course at my local community college to get some general requirements done with.
Banging vegetarian chicks with hairy armpits? At least you will understand more of the world than Hegel Kant and Descartes combined, but you already do if you go out to buy an icecream
The Stranger
06-14-2011, 13:40
Yeah philosophy is boring and useless, boring and useless people will tell other boring and useless people it isn't but it is. I get especially annoyed when someone backs up an argument with quoting one of these armchair-knowololigists
BUT KANT SAID
oh did he #cares
you are just hating cuz u dont get it XD
you are just hating cuz u dont get it XD
It's rather easy, a page, you read it, what's on the page?, you write it down, points
Hooahguy
06-14-2011, 22:44
I find that philosophy can be interesting if its a discussion. But writing a paper on Kant's views is very tedious and borderline boring, IMO.
The Stranger
06-15-2011, 00:04
It's rather easy, a page, you read it, what's on the page?, you write it down, points
more the fool, you!
The Stranger
06-15-2011, 00:07
I find that philosophy can be interesting if its a discussion. But writing a paper on Kant's views is very tedious and borderline boring, IMO.
writing a paper on kants views is not philosophy. it is history of philosophy... you do not do anything yourself that can be remotely considered philosphy, all you do then is learn and recite the words of others.
use the words of kant to forge your own views or dont use them, whatever you like, but as long as you dont create but only recite you are not a philosopher but a historian.
and i dont think history is boring, mind you, the ideas of other people can be very interesting and also useful to make your own.
I find that philosophy can be interesting if its a discussion. But writing a paper on Kant's views is very tedious and borderline boring, IMO.
Stuff like that really depends on the philosopher. Nietzsche and Marx, to pick two completely unrelated examples, are both much more interesting to read. E.g.:
O my brothers! With whom lies the greatest danger to the whole human future? Is it not with the good and just?-
-As those who say and feel in their hearts: "We already know what is good and just, we possess it also; woe to those who still seek thereafter!
And whatever harm the wicked may do, the harm of the good is the harmfulest harm!
And whatever harm the world-maligners may do, the harm of the good is the harmfulest harm!
O my brothers, into the hearts of the good and just looked some one once on a time, who said: "They are the Pharisees." But people did not understand him.
The good and just themselves were not free to understand him; their spirit was imprisoned in their good conscience. The stupidity of the good is unfathomably wise.
It is the truth, however, that the good must be Pharisees- they have no choice!
The good must crucify him who creates his own virtue! That is the truth!
The second one, however, who discovered their country- the country, heart and soil of the good and just,- it was he who asked: "Whom do they hate most?"
The creator, hate they most, him who breaks the law-tablets and old values, the breaker,- him they call the law-breaker.
For the good- they cannot create; they are always the beginning of the end:-
-They crucify him who writes new values on new law-tablets, they sacrifice to themselves the future- they crucify the whole human future!
The good- they have always been the beginning of the end.-
And
The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch.
HNNNNNNNNGGG
phonicsmonkey
06-15-2011, 00:38
It is true that some people do not value abstract thought for its own sake and consequently find the exercise boring because they cannot see a practical application in it.
As a philosophy graduate myself I would argue that the very practice of philosophy trains the brain to think in a critical and sceptical manner which is extremely valuable in life including the modern workplace.
What is also very valuable is developing the skill of argument.
Not just ranting on about your point of view but taking other points of view into consideration, synthesising them with your own and being able to communicate persuasively to win people over to your side. Influence, to put it another way. Something that, again, is extremely valuable in the modern corporate environment.
But to those who would reject these benefits I would put the case that philosophy spawns other disciplines.
For example what started as philosophy became physics once more is known. In fact all of the sciences were once part of philosophy.
So it can hardly be dismissed as useless.
The Stranger
06-15-2011, 01:05
synthesising them with your own and being able to communicate persuasively to win people over to your side.
plato would slap you flat in the face and call you a sophist.
plato would slap you flat in the face and call you a sophist.
Sophists are also philosophers; best argument always wins not the most moral one. See there we have it PLATO SAYS but he is an authority in wut for wut
Thunder Mist
06-15-2011, 05:08
Philosophy are other people's ideas. Talk to as many people as you can in your city. Do you understand them and who they are? Not really. So why would you think that understanding the thoughts of someone who lived 50-4,000 years before you would be any easier?
Haha, I like this. Gave me a good laugh.
I find that philosophy can be interesting if its a discussion. But writing a paper on Kant's views is very tedious and borderline boring, IMO.
I won't pretend to be an expert on the broad subject of philosophy, but I also won't deny that I know how to thoroughly write a good paper. However, give me a topic that utterly refuses to fascinate me, and I will go jump off a building.
I think we have some common ground, Hooah.
Wrong.
Philosophy is awesome.
It is.
This is philosophy, though more informal, a nice start to the subject anyways.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8V8rtdXnLA
Yes, Believe it or not, He actually is a professional philosopher.
It's great to know you are so wrong about everything.
~Jirisys ()
The Stranger
06-15-2011, 12:06
Sophists are also philosophers; best argument always wins not the most moral one. See there we have it PLATO SAYS but he is an authority in wut for wut
and again you prove you dont understand it and are here only to mock and drive home your point. i guess you wouldnt know a joke if it was dancing infront of you with a fool's hat on his head!
every philosopher knows plato was the biggest sophist of all and i think you do too.
btw philosophy isnt about winning arguments its about understanding. ofcourse you can use that understanding to win arguments... but you can also use a pen to kill a man...
The Stranger
06-15-2011, 12:19
It is.
This is philosophy, though more informal, a nice start to the subject anyways.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8V8rtdXnLA
Yes, Believe it or not, He actually is a professional philosopher.
It's great to know you are so wrong about everything.
~Jirisys ()
us lesser subgeniusses...
boy he's got it wrong...
lmao, the part about paralysis vs money cracked me up... that was really bad XD i truly hate statistics.
and again you prove you dont understand it and are here only to mock and drive home your point. i guess you wouldnt know a joke if it was dancing infront of you with a fool's hat on his head!
every philosopher knows plato was the biggest sophist of all and i think you do too.
btw philosophy isnt about winning arguments its about understanding. ofcourse you can use that understanding to win arguments... but you can also use a pen to kill a man...
ehm k, so sophism isn't about the best argument despite morality, plato would slap you in the face, sophism is what he protested
You should take philosophy more seriously. I travel the world learning all forms of philosophical teachings and conundrums (except for Jedi Mind Tricks, I am not yet powerful enough to master those), all the while lifting heavy and taking my multi. It has led me to many great places and more tang than any Earthly man could ever possibly need. For example, when I was in Turkmenistan I was taught a very deep lesson by a humble shepherd: "A man who spends too long in the shadows gets mugged." I carry this motto with me to this very day. If you lift heavy, take your multi, and learn the ways of philosophy, maybe, Warman, you too can become an alpha dog able to psychoanalyse a person by a sentence, seduce a woman with a stare and predict an approaching menstrual cycle from the slightest whiff.
Drunk Clown
06-15-2011, 15:05
Philosophy make my brain hurt.
The Stranger
06-15-2011, 15:30
ehm k, so sophism isn't about the best argument despite morality, plato would slap you in the face, sophism is what he protested
yes yes you get it!!!
yes yes you get it!!!
Yeah I do, but do you
I'll make it easy for you I hope it helps, what is the ship that is rocked by the waves
yes yes you get it!!!
Sophism is actually about turning a weak argument into a strong argument that people will believe; using rhetoric and fallacies indiscriminally.
Kinda what people do today.
~Jirisys ()
The Stranger
06-15-2011, 16:20
Yeah I do, but do you
I'll make it easy for you I hope it helps, what is the ship that is rocked by the waves
the ship of the gods.
Wrong, Stranger, Socrates was the greatest sophist of them all. Been reading Robert Pirsig lately?
The Stranger
06-16-2011, 02:05
if i say its plato its plato already.
and no. i dont like anglosaxon philosphy. and i dont like his book at all... i got quarterway before i threw it down, it was my fathers book or id gotten rid of it.
the ship of the gods.
No, the lack of morality in society, Plato was an anti-sophist if anything as sophists disregard morality in favour of the solid argument.
The Stranger
06-16-2011, 12:32
no no no... it was the wing of the dragon. man cant you see?
no no no... it was the wing of the dragon. man cant you see?
Hey my fault no need for that, maybe it isn't as easy as I thought it was after all
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
06-16-2011, 14:26
Philosophy are other people's ideas. Talk to as many people as you can in your city. Do you understand them and who they are? Not really. So why would you think that understanding the thoughts of someone who lived 50-4,000 years before you would be any easier?
Yes I can understand who they are and such. I just don't care about "A penny you looking at isn't really a penny if..." BS.
Yes I can understand who they are and such. I just don't care about "A penny you looking at isn't really a penny if..." BS.
So this thread's title should actually be called "I hate some topics covered by epistemology"?
Thunder Mist
06-16-2011, 17:20
So this thread's title should actually be called "I hate some topics covered by epistemology"?
That may be satisfactory.
Skullheadhq
06-16-2011, 20:54
Wrong, Stranger, Socrates was the greatest sophist of them all. Been reading Robert Pirsig lately?
Huh, what?
He who fart in church, sit in his own pew.
He who go to bed with problem, wake up with solution in hand.
The Stranger
06-17-2011, 10:56
Hey my fault no need for that, maybe it isn't as easy as I thought it was after all
yes sorry maybe i was harsh, not every man has the eyes of the green. but i thought you so wise...
yes sorry maybe i was harsh, not every man has the eyes of the green. but i thought you so wise...
I'm not that wise I just understand what Plato says, unlike some as it seems. Bugger, actually apreciating philosophy must be difficult when it's so hard for you to understand
The Stranger
06-17-2011, 21:34
you are on the wrong page my friend.
also philosophy is bigger than plato. much more interesting too
a completely inoffensive name
06-18-2011, 11:18
Haha, I like this. Gave me a good laugh.
Whatever. Philosophy isn't truth. For the most part it isn't anything practical. All they are, are ideas and thoughts conceived by other people, shaped by their own personality. It can help you expand your mental capacity because you are just essentially placing yourself in the mind of someone else. All it is at it's heart it putting yourself in someone elses shoes. Trying to hype up philosophy as something super duper important or incredibly meaningful in anyway is opinion, not fact. I love chemistry and I think a lot of basic chemistry is stuff that the average public should know, but am I going to say it is important in any way? No, because that isn't true.
a completely inoffensive name
06-18-2011, 11:21
Yes I can understand who they are and such. I just don't care about "A penny you looking at isn't really a penny if..." BS.
Then just do the work (if this is for a clas you are taking) and find some other philosopher who talks about something you do care about. There is a lot more than simply questioning how far our senses go in perceiving the world.
What are some questions you do find interesting, or find yourself wondering from time to time? If you don't have any, maybe the philosophy isn't the boring one in this scenario...
The Stranger
06-18-2011, 11:23
and who are you to decide what is true or not? stick true to what you said previous, in terms of consistency, and say that it is your mere opinion that chemistry is nothing important.
besides the importancy of philosophy is not equal to its value. unimportant things can have great value, money/gold, people, pretty much everything we hold of value has no importance in the great scheme of things.
a completely inoffensive name
06-18-2011, 11:40
and who are you to decide what is true or not?
I am ACIN, and have the same standing as anybody else to comment on what is true or not. I'm not holding a gun to your head telling you to listen to what I have to say.
stick true to what you said previous, in terms of consistency, and say that it is your mere opinion that chemistry is nothing important.
It isn't inconsistent. I don't think anything or any subject is something that is important to know for everyone. Hence I don't think that chemistry is important and hence someone saying that philosophy is important is not a fact but an opinion that I think is wrong.
besides the importancy of philosophy is not equal to its value. unimportant things can have great value, money/gold, people, pretty much everything we hold of value has no importance in the great scheme of things.
I don't recall saying that philosophy has no value. I pretty much agree with the end of your statement there.
Then again, if we were to look at philosophy degrees from an economical standpoint...
phonicsmonkey
06-18-2011, 13:33
plato would slap you flat in the face and call you a sophist.
:laugh4:
phonicsmonkey
06-18-2011, 13:37
Then again, if we were to look at philosophy degrees from an economical standpoint...
Like any degree it matters more where you study it and how well you do at it. I did philosophy and ended up an investment banker. Now I'm in funds management.
Many people at my university who studied economics hoping to get into investment banking did not suceed.
Having said that I think it's easier in some countries than others - that was in England whereas here in Australia people seem much more closed-minded about what you have studied.
Then again, if we were to look at philosophy degrees from an economical standpoint...
ALL HAIL THE GLOBAL MARKET.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
06-20-2011, 13:34
Whatever. Philosophy isn't truth. For the most part it isn't anything practical. All they are, are ideas and thoughts conceived by other people, shaped by their own personality. It can help you expand your mental capacity because you are just essentially placing yourself in the mind of someone else. All it is at it's heart it putting yourself in someone elses shoes. Trying to hype up philosophy as something super duper important or incredibly meaningful in anyway is opinion, not fact. I love chemistry and I think a lot of basic chemistry is stuff that the average public should know, but am I going to say it is important in any way? No, because that isn't true.
And it's still a useless subject. :yes:
And it's still a useless subject. :yes:
That sentiment is only ever held by people who lack the mental ability to actually do it.
For example, would you say that Rousseau's contributions to political theory were "useless"?
Let us draw up the whole account in terms easily commensurable. What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses. If we are to avoid mistake in weighing one against the other, we must clearly distinguish natural liberty, which is bounded only by the strength of the individual, from civil liberty, which is limited by the general will; and possession, which is merely the effect of force or the right of the first occupier, from property, which can be founded only on a positive title.
We might, over and above all this, add, to what man acquires in the civil state, moral liberty, which alone makes him truly master of himself; for the mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescribe to ourselves is liberty.
Kralizec
06-20-2011, 15:12
For example, would you say that Rousseau's contributions to political theory were "useless"?
Not useless, but arguably damaging to the world as a whole. Volonté générale is, for all intents and purposes, a pretext for dictatorship.
Drunk Clown
06-20-2011, 16:21
That sentiment is only ever held by people who lack the mental ability to actually do it.
Nobody likes it when someone calls your subject, in which you have put effort, useless. But don't act like you have to be super smart to do philosophy and say that someone who doesn't like it hasn't got the capacity, cos to be honest, it makes you look like a :daisy: who thinks he's better than others.
Not useless, but arguably damaging to the world as a whole. Volonté générale is, for all intents and purposes, a pretext for dictatorship.
That depends on how you interpret "Forced to be Free" - either at face value, or the actual meaning of ensuring that the minority don't try to screw up the democratic system solely on the sole grounds that they lost, and that participation in the system entails legitimation of it.
Nobody likes it when someone calls your subject, in which you have put effort, useless. But don't act like you have to be super smart to do philosophy and say that someone who doesn't like it hasn't got the capacity, cos to be honest, it makes you look like a :daisy: who thinks he's better than others.
There's a difference between calling a subject, say, "boring" and "useless". The former is a normative statement that others don't have the right to challenge you on and declare that you're wrong (Even if they disagree), whilst the latter is a declaration of objective fact which has the potential to be wrong. If we take, say, homoeopathy, I can point to numerous examples of how it is no better than a placebo - it is a useless subject. In contrast, if I said chemistry is useless, then that shows that either I don't know chemistry is, or that I'm not smart enough to be able to understand how important chemistry actually is. Philosophy is in the same category as chemistry here, as there are directly observable benefits from philosophy such as Democracy, Logic [Which in turn led to the creation of computing], ethics etc. Now, it is entirely possible that Warman doesn't know what philosophy is, as he seems to think that philosophy is epistemology, which isn't true (thank god), but...
Drunk Clown
06-20-2011, 22:12
Is epistemology useless then?
PHILOSOPHY!!1!!1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnTC_JAIiSQ
Kralizec
06-20-2011, 22:21
That depends on how you interpret "Forced to be Free" - either at face value, or the actual meaning of ensuring that the minority don't try to screw up the democratic system solely on the sole grounds that they lost, and that participation in the system entails legitimation of it.
It's been a while since I've read Rousseau (or any real philosophical work, for that matter), but I'll try:
- Unlike philospophers like Montesquieu, Rousseau was never interested in curtailing government power. He merely wanted to wrest it from absolutist monarchs and invest it in the "general will of the people"
- Rousseau was opposed to any sort of elected assembly, saying that such a representative body could never express the General Will of the people and thus could never be sovereign. Part of the reason is because the general will is supposedly indivisible.
- He says that the will of the majority is not (necessarily) the same as the General Will, because individuals can have petty desires that influence their personal will, wich is distinct from their will as citizens (wtf?)
- Which brings up the question who gets to determine what the general will is, anyway.
I'm not saying that Rousseau is personally responsible for any dictatorships that came after him, but several of them (including the regimes that followed the French revolution) show us that it's a pretty bad idea to have a government or leader that claims absolute power under the guise of acting in the interest, or will of all.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.