Conversation

Just me or is philosophy actually a complete shitshow? When I was younger I really wanted to major in philosophy because I thought it was "learning to think real good about abstract stuff", but eventually found out it was "quoting other famous people's stuff at each other"
104
689
i get this feeling of being like... constipated and angry at the same time when around people who've gone through any formal philosophy, you can't get through a single idea without them dropping eight different philosophers on you, and im just like YES BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK
12
264
but idk how to engage with it because i haven't read those philosophers because reading those philosophers is a kind of masochism i have not yet ascended to, and so I'm in an awkward position of "I have no idea what you're saying but I know I hate it"
2
164
by this point if i'm at a party and i'm like 'yea but what's it like to feel the sense of thinking' and then someone says 'yeah well nietzsche said-' i just am done, immediately, like my next battle plan is to figure out how to erase philosophers from their mind
9
140
i can't tell if they're doing some weird actually original and good mental jujitsu while using other philosopher's ideas as pawns, or if they are actually completely unoriginal and think that good thinking is just knowing what other good thinkers think. I can't tell.
Replying to
As much as I shit on the rationalist community, this is a big part of why I love them - on a whole, they're a level of well-read and nerdy and *don't* pull the philosopher namedropping card. It's glorious.
16
157
Replying to
I think what you’re talking about can happen in many fields - it’s the Zen concept of “beginner’s mind”: "In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few." If we’re overstudied we can become rigid and unoriginal in our thinking.
1
Replying to
Try to get them to elaborate on said person's ideas. If they can't, and they only back quotes up with other quotes, then you have your answer.
Replying to
I think considering most knowledge is built upon previous knowledge, this isn’t surprising nor should it be criticized? I don’t know. Also philosophy is the oldest “science” so it shouldn’t be surprising that someone already said it, and said it better.
1
1
Replying to
The "serious academic (or not) study" of anything lends itself to two archetypes; those content in showing they've read & perhaps ~understand the material & those who strive to create; though most "creators" abide by the 10% rule & the former even more so in accurate recall.
1
Replying to
I think it's rarely jiu-jitsu. Usually some mix of: (a) 'I have positive affect for author X, like if I were really into Batman comics and loved chances to bring it up'; (b) intelligence signaling; (c) academic norms where source-citing rewards the source and eases fact-checking.
Replying to
Person who’s taken some philosophy classes and occasionally mentions other philosophers by name here - to me it serves two purposes. If the other person knows who I’m talking about it’s an easy concept handle to let them know what I think and advance the discussion (1/n)
1
2