All Philosophy Is Bunk

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by RCSaunders »

Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself. —H. L. Mencken
Bad Philosophers

With rare exception, the entire corpus of recorded philosophy is utterly useless. The only exceptions are Aristotle, Peter Abelard (with reservation) and John Locke (with reservation). All the rest are not only wrong but so distort truth that to be influenced by any of them is tantamount to self-induced insanity.

All philosophers are bad, but the worst are Plato, Rene Descartes, Spinoza, George Berkeley, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Edmund Burke, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Hegel, Arthur Schopenhauer. Auguste Comte, Søren Kierkegaard, William James, Friedrich Nietzsche, John Dewey, Bertrand Russell, Martin Heidegger, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Karl Popper, Willard Quine, A.J. Ayer, John Austin, Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, Avram Noam Chomsky, Ronald Myles Dworkin, and Roger Penrose.

These are the worst because they have, historically, most influenced what is called philosophy today and are held as authorities in philosophical matters. The philosophy of today, which they spawned and made possible, is a total disaster.

The worst of all philosophy today is what is being promoted in every academic institution, including every logical positivist: like Moritz Schlick, Rudolf Carnap, Herbert Feigl, and Friedrich Waismann; every cultural Marxist: (critical theory, Frankfurt School), including Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Friedrich Pollock, Erich Fromm, Walter Benjamin. Ernst Bloch, and Jürgen Habermas; and every post modernist: such as: Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Jean-François Lyotard, Richard Rorty, Jean Baudrillard, Fredric Jameson, and Douglas Kellner.

Finally there are the millions of little, "philosopherets"—every professor, psychologist, economist, social/political ideologist, pseudo-scientist, and religious teacher who dabbles in, "philosophy."

Bad Philosophy

Philosophy was originally defined as, "love of wisdom," meaning the kind of knowledge required for living successfully as a human being. It originally included all knowledge, like the physical sciences. As the successful branches of intellectual inquiry (like the sciences) were established, philosophy was refined to mean those aspects of knowledge that were fundamental to all other knowledge. While the sciences were discovering the nature of the physical universe, philosophers were attempting discover the nature of existence itself and what reality is (metaphysics); what the nature of material existence, (the physical, living, conscious, and mental), are (ontology); what the nature of knowledge itself is (epistemology); what principles determined how individuals must guide their lives to live successfully (ethics); how human beings must relate to each other (politics); and what the ultimate meaning of purpose, value, and happiness are (aesthetics).

While the sciences have been phenomenally successful, philosophy is a complete failure. Instead of discovering and explaining the ultimate nature of existence and reality, philosophy denies the existence the sciences successfully study is real and describes reality as some kind of illusion. Instead of discovering and describing the nature of reality that makes it knowable, philosophy denies that reality can ever be truly known. Instead of discovering and describing the nature of knowledge, philosophy denies that any certain knowledge is possible. Instead of discovering and describing the principles by which individuals can guide their lives successfully, philosophy denies there are such principles or reduces them to some kind of mystic mandates or mere custom. Instead of discovering and describing how individual human beings must relate to one another, philosophy denies any significance whatsoever to individual human beings, declaring their only meaning or purpose is as members of collectives—their community, their country, their society, or all mankind. Instead of discovering and describing what a life worth living is and how to achieve it, philosophy denies that true success and happiness are possible and reduces human life to a constant stuggle against evil and defeat.

There is almost no point of philosophical enquiry philosophers have not botched.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Your above views is that of a sicko.

Here is one aspect [among many] where Philosophy [as generally defined] has a positive contribution to humanity;
Why study philosophy?
https://www.jmu.edu/philrel/why-study-p ... ophy.shtml
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by promethean75 »

the most recent part of the human brain, the cerebrum/frontal lobe, is the result of a collection of mistakes in coding (mutations) that accidentally worked in favor of the purposes of the more primal limbic system, thereafter working in service of it. think of the cerebrum as 'master', the midget guy that sat on the shoulders of 'blaster', the gladiator in 'beyond thunderdome'. so a human being is a highly evolved lizard, and the cerebrum's usefulness in service to the limbic system is in its ability to manage and process more complex kinds of information... this being the result of more complex environments and social organizations. but the sole function of this new addition to the brain - why it did not become a vestigial organ and remained useful - is to help satisfy the limbic system in its basic functions. thus there is no purpose to the cerebrum but to assist the limbic system, and the human being who possesses it, in its pursuit of pleasure and the acquisition of power (dominance). there is no 'higher self', whatever that means, no 'immaterial soul', whatever that means, and no 'god', whatever that means.

'philosophy', then, as an analytical function of the cerebrum, serves the same ends; the acquisition of pleasure and power. the relevance of philosophy as the process of logical problem solving depends entirely on the kind of problem that is being solved. semantic and symbolic logic is generally irrelevent; it deals only with the rules of a language and does no real physical work. mathematical logic is more relevent because it deals with, and is applicable to, physical features of the environment, serving to enable humans to better control and manipulate it; engineering, techne, medicine, industry, science, etc. these fields would not be possible without the advanced logical problem solving ability of the cerebrum. semantic and symbolic logic has relevence only insofar as it adds veracity to the use of mathematical logic for the above ends.

finally, the most irrelevent of philosophy is the esoteric, or the metaphysical. it is a form of hyper-language-gaming that serves no purpose in any immediate or premeditated effort to attain pleasure or power. it is a kind of extra-vestigial activity of the analytical mind and works vicariously off of material generated by the former three kinds of logic; the semantic, symbolic and mathematical. most usually the first - the semantic- in that is most resembles poetic forms of language and locution. in a crude word, it is the art of tossing 'word salads' for the sake of producing completely useless eloquence and complexity, all of which is motivated by surrogate, psychological ends. the writer/producer of such is either genuinely confused - result of information overload and/or problems at processing - or is producing it with the same intentions as an artist produces a useless piece of art, important only as an object of contemplation. or, the production of it originates out of a combination of the two; confusion and pretentiousness (to draw attention and admiration). now because of the overall uselessness of philosophy, the esoteric form is able to exist without compromising the progress made by the relevent forms of philosophy... scientific problem solving (logical analysis and methodology) being that most relevent form.

so essentially what we have is a species of hedonistic mammal that has accidentally evolved a useful additional part of the brain that either directly serves to assist it in its acquisition of pleasure/power by advanced problem solving techniques, or produces meaningless, vestigial material that, by not immediately endangering the mammal or compromising its chances of survival, continues to exist as a harmless side-effect of the brain's complexity.

some additional points to collaborate here. because pleasure/power is the only motivating force of human activity, AND humans are social animals that compete over resources, property and reproductive rights, conflict between individuals and groups of individuals is an inherent feature of the human's existence and reality. so we have highly evolved lizards that form groups and conspire for pleasure/power at the expense of other highly evolved lizards. philosophy, here, in its least relevent form (the esoteric/metaphysical) is no longer a harmless, vestigial activity as it once was in the mind of the individual philosopher. now it becomes a weaponized intellectual product used for mass producing ideological forms of control, antagonism and intimidation. the worst of these are: religion, morality, freewill, and politics. we shall call these 'spooks', to speak with stirner. each product belonging to one of the four fields serves to subordinate the individual or a group of individuals in the competition to secure resources, property and reproductive rights.

okay, so now we have a hermeneutic model showing the genesis and use of the analytical capacity of the human brain, and a demonstration of what that intellectual product - philosophy - amounts to. we should now create a typology or ranking system of philosopher types, as well as a catalogue defining each major historical, philosophical trend and the purpose it serves in securing pleasure/power for the individual and/or group of individuals.

i set the parameters, which shall be the limits or circumference in which these trends develop, as the thesis/antithesis of the general philosopies of stirner and marx. you can think of these like this: stirner is pure individual nihilism, marx is pure collective optimism. every possible esoteric/metaphysical philosophy produced - which concerns itself with the production of the four ideological weapons; religion, freewill, morality and politics - fits somewhere within the limits set by these diametrically opposed world-views. a philosophy either trends toward one or the other, without exception. the natural sciences are not counted here, as they are not philosophical fields, and are indifferent to the purposes for which they are used.

the resolution becomes when absolute nihilism is realized as the only real legitimate philosophy, and marxism is realized as the only solution. that is to say, all philosophy pursues only individual pleasure/power or collective pleasure/power. currently we are at the late developmental stage of a world ideology that is centered on the acquisition of individual pleasure/power (capitalism). its success is owed to a very accomplished, systematic distortion of truth and propogation of lies. these are; that there is a god, freewill, objective morality, and the necessity of a free-market.

discuss, but don't bother tryna bring arguments to me because i'm not gonna waste my time with ya.

i am trying to separate the diamonds from the dirt, here. how you respond determines your ranking. good luck, gentlemen, and may the schwartz be with you.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Is there any evidence that 'philosophy' makes any difference to anything? Humans seem to be just as stupid as they always were. You find the greatest thinkers in the scientific world, not the philosophical world. Philosophy has given us a bunch of wankers in academia who don't have two brain cells to rub together. And yes, filling your head with whatever cock-eyed ideas others have come up with does, indeed, invite insanity.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by promethean75 »

The real problem there is that we can't draw a definite line between ordinary language and philosophical language, like we'd like to. This is what makes indicting philosophy so difficult. Be that as it may, we can still note that philosophy - the subjects called 'philosophical' that we have been dealing with - has not solved a single problem in 2,400 years. This must be because a) these subjects are not real problems, but conceptual and/or linguistic confusions, or b) pure nonsense; not even confused... so they can't even be true or false.

Here's your homegirl Rosa again droppin' mad bombs: https://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why_a ... nsical.htm

If you find any of this disconcerting, you need to remember that every Rosa has its thorn.
Last edited by promethean75 on Wed Jan 05, 2022 12:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

promethean75 wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 11:39 pm The real problem there is that we can't draw a definite line between ordinary language and philosophical language, like we'd like to. This is what makes indicting philosophy so difficult. Be that as it may, we can still note that philosophy - the subjects called 'philosophical' that we have been dealing with - has not solved a single problem in 2,400 years. This must be because a) these subjects are not real problems, but conceptual and/or linguistic confusions, or b) pure nonsense; not even confused... so they can't even be true or false.

Here's your homegirl Rosa again droppin' mad bombs: https://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/Why_a ... nsical.htm

I'd you find any of this disconcerting, you need to remember that every Rosa has its thorn.
'indicting'? Did you mean 'defining'?
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by promethean75 »

No I meant 'indicting' as in 'charging philosophy with being guilty of not making any difference', in response to that first question you axed.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

promethean75 wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 12:29 am No I meant 'indicting' as in 'charging philosophy with being guilty of not making any difference', in response to that first question you axed.
Yeah right :lol:
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by promethean75 »

Here's uhnuther really bad problem to take note of concerning philosophy. Kay you know how children learn much of their behavior by observing other people in isolated or social contexts. The same thing can be said about some of the development of the intellect - intellectual behavior, call it. Both are forms of memesis. Now what happens with a certain kind of philosopher is, after long periods of exposure to philosophical literature, despite the cogency (or lack of) of the material, the philosopher adopts the manner of its form and style without conscious consideration of its content... and then his/her philosophical activity consists only of matching and reproducing that form. This is especially prevalent if the philosopher emulates and is fascinated by the person they are mimicking in style, because now there is not only the unconscious habit of writing this way, but also the motivation to be like the perceived great writer they are copying.

And this is really, really bad with esoteric philosophers. The combined obscurity (the inability to be critical of it on account of how ambiguous it is) and the personal drive to garner attention and admiration as an intellectual, make the obsession almost irresistible.

In fact, you can almost make as a rule of thumb, the smaller the person is, the more extravagant their writing will be. Such obscurantism is analogous to people dressing in expensive fashions to disguise their actual ordinariness. I mean it's not just an incapacity to properly and rigorously judge philosophical writing. It's also the belief that the person will appear as an exceptional thinker if they reproduce said style, in the company of others.

This is how, and why, there is both a commercial market for such kinds of post-structural esoteric styles of writing, and a prevalence of it in public philosophy venues (forums).

Another factor that plays a definite role in this is the luxury the writer has which provides for him the opportunity to be an obscurantist without that fact really jeopardizing his welfare and well being. In other words, he/she has no real problems to contend with, so their mental activity is not engaged with practical problem solving. It's this idleness that gives rise to the production of such nonsense. One lives in a purely theoretical world where being wrong about something would make no difference, have no impact or consequence. Therefore it can be afforded. Such people are engaged only in that fantasy of being that great writer they are so fond of, and the hopes that their readers recognize that likeness when they write. One lives vicariously through, and in the shadow of, their favorite idols.

You can tally all this up as one of the most worser things to come from the free market; the mass publication of all manner of meaningless literature.

And what allows this to thrive is the fact that writing can be devoid of any meaningful substance while at the same time, formally, technically and structurally legal; its grammar and syntax is recognizable and it may even present arguments that are logically valid (though not sound).

Anyway the moral of the story here is, philosophy can sometimes be nothing but a facade of pretentious vanity often practiced by people who least deserve such recognition by virtue of their mediocrity.

Many an emperor have no clothes... and forums and library shelves are crawling with them. So beware!
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by promethean75 »

What I should have said is there is a colassal disconnect and disproportion between/of the opulence, gravity and depth of the feigned substance of the writing and the actual, lived ordinariness of the writer.

For instance, I cannot count on both hands how many times I've met an anti-marxist on some message board who, if plopped right down in the middle of a textbook Marxist society, would look, have, be, think and do no differently than they would had you not put them there.

This type is engaged only with a theoretical fantasy war in their head because they have no real war to fight. One of those surrogate activities to expunge frustrated energy... usually caused by anything but the thing they are fighting in their heads (Marxism). But oh how passionately they fight against it. It's some of the funniest shit I ever seen.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by promethean75 »

No you.

https://youtu.be/m3dicKNdKa8

(This is the school of Robert Fripp, founder and guitarist of King Crimson)
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

promethean75 wrote: Wed Jan 05, 2022 2:26 am No you.

https://youtu.be/m3dicKNdKa8

(This is the school of Robert Fripp, founder and guitarist of King Crimson)
Fuck off.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: All Philosophy Is Bunk

Post by promethean75 »

"Philosophy has given us a bunch of wankers in academia who don't have two brain cells to rub together"

Yes, but they're not stupid by any stretch. Many of them have strong linguistic-verbal intelligence but are lacking in logical-mathematical intelligence. The continental philosophy vein is stronger at the former while the analytical vein is stronger at the latter.

For example, take Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. Both were master writers, but you'd never find them writing something like Russell and Whitehead's principia mathematica. Likewise, neither of these guys would ever pull something off like N's beyond good and evil or K's either/or.

Also consider that analytical philosophy purty much ended philosophy as an academic subject matter. Most of what exists today are extensions of some prior trend or some variation of post-modern obscurantism. But all the major systems and schools of thought have already been established. Today all you'll see in the way of novelty is a few new designer trends that are either insignificant and with little real substance, or recapitulations and reproductions of something already done.

If new progress is to be made, there must again be some new circumstance in the natural sciences... or some major change in the physiology of human beings. Unless this happens, we've 'maxed out' our possibilities for philosophy.

This is why I insist that philosophy is dead, and why politics, sociology and economics are now more important than ever... 'specially at this epic moment in history; the full maturity of capitalism and the dangers it presents.

Really stand back and look at this for a moment. The most advanced first-world country in the world could actually have someone like Trump as a president.
Post Reply