Why do so many people who know literally nothing about philosophy act as if they're experts on it?

[Anonymous No.10840842]

Pic related (judging by the RTs and his response, he was definitely being serious when made that tweet)

[Anonymous No.10840847]

The reason is, the more philosophy you read the more you realize you aren't equipped to talk about it. The more you consume the less you feel like you know because you realize just how fucking large the scope of philosophy is.

[Anonymous No.10840853]

>>10840842
>>10840842
because Peterson

[Anonymous No.10840854]

Most of the people are dumb.

[Anonymous No.10840855]

>>10840842
Well? What about continental algebra? Seems pretty silly doesn't it? As silly as continental philosophy. At least continental breakfast has the benefit of being nutritious.

[Anonymous No.10840864]

>>10840842
This can't be real

[Anonymous No.10840871]

>>10840864
https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/334656775196393473

[Anonymous No.10840884]

>>10840871
Why is he even allowed to speak about things he clearly doesn't know anything about?

[Anonymous No.10840888]

No one tell him that analytic philosophy is a subcategory of western philosophy

[Anonymous No.10840892]

>>10840842
Continental philosophy is the dumbest term for it, so he is right.

[Anonymous No.10840894]

maybe the term is used to define a specific school of thought that is seperate from other schools of thought elsewhere on Earth.

Really makes you think.

[Anonymous No.10840896]

Because people (especially ideologues and normies) like short, simple, and easy-to-digest explanations for everything. It's why Steven Pinker is one of the most popular "philosophers" despite being a complete intellectual lightweight, as well as a Fukuyama liberal hack.

[Anonymous No.10840900]

>>10840894
Ok but it's racially motivated to act like europe is THE continent like the only continent that matters. Would u be willing to cede continental to chinese if they wanted to take the great leap to a post-whitewashed era of philosophy? And why shouldn't they be called continental philosophy first? They WERE first. Basically what ur saying when u say "continental philosophy', and the listener immediately imagines all the old dead white men, is just a fancy dog whistle for white supremacy

[Anonymous No.10840904]

I guess he's confused that something like philosophy gets labeled with a region specification, despite philophy being such a non-physical subject, where a continent wouldn't relate to its subject.

[Anonymous No.10840906]

As a term, it is a bit of a dumb generalization, so he's right that it's dumb even if he doesn't understand the reason why.

[Anonymous No.10840908]

>>10840900

i was kinda mad until the end, thats some pretty good satire

[Anonymous No.10840917]

>>10840900
it has held the name of "the continent" for centuries, and carries weight because of this fact. chinese philosophy is known as "eastern" and use of the term "eastern philosophy" indicates that school of thought.
also, white supremacy isn't the driving force behind everything white people do. take a break from the identity side of things and enjoy the pursuit of knowledge! you will enjoy it more

[Anonymous No.10840921]

>>10840888
checked

It's funny because he'd be familiar with nested cladogams

[Anonymous No.10840997]

>>10840884
>what makes you think there is a point to be missed?
Woah...

[Anonymous No.10841038]

Well, he's not completely wrong, in that Analytic philosophy was a silly aberration started from a rejection of Hegel and modern european philosophy, and is largely being negated today due to a re-appropriation of Hegel by smart philosophers no longer inculcated into these anglo prejudices. In some sense this development was necessary I think, since it cleared the table full of terrible dogmatic idealists who didn't follow the spirit of European philosophy. British idealism was pretty shit.

[Anonymous No.10841048]

>>10840842
>Organic Chemistry? Inorganic Chemistry? What non-sense!

[Anonymous No.10841053]

>>10840842
>What kind of a search for Truth is region-specific?
Any that develops within a particular region.

[Anonymous No.10841054]

>>10840847
the more you know the more you realize you don't know. LeGuin was right all along

[Anonymous No.10841056]

>>10840842
>be anglo
>invent a term
>haha that sounds ridiculous, the thing it refers to must be ridiculous as well
So... this is the power of analyticals...

[Anonymous No.10841062]

>>10841038
Hahahaha continentalfags never fail to show how delusional they are

[Anonymous No.10841076]

>>10840842
because the term philosophy is misused as much as the term platonic

[Anonymous No.10841112]

>>10841056
I try to cope by remembering Nick Land and other Anglo continental philosophers exist; and are some of the most original.

[Anonymous No.10841116]

>>10841056
>haha that sounds ridiculous, the thing it refers to must be ridiculous as well
I guess it's just a coincidence im this case.

[Anonymous No.10841119]

>>10841112
You're probably going to have trouble coping in the near future, continental philosophy is losing ground in continental Europe theses days as well.

[Anonymous No.10841152]

He is right. The term is stupid and deserves mockery but pseuds can't deal with that.

[Anonymous No.10841157]

>>10841152
You think they would be supportive of deconstructing the analytic -continental dichotomy.

[Anonymous No.10841158]

>>10841152
>not knowing the difference between mocking the term and the thing it it refers to

[Anonymous No.10841166]

>>10841158
He mocks the term which is made clear by comparing it to other fields not the field itself.

[Anonymous No.10841177]

>>10840855
>continental breakfast
Is this meant to suggest that people elsewhere don't eat breakfast? How can eating food be region-specific? What a preposterous term!

[Anonymous No.10841187]

>>10840855
Continental, did you say?

[Anonymous No.10841192]

Why do you presume that studying philosophy gives you insight?

5000 years of recorded philosophy and not a single definite conclusion produced.

Seems like studying philosophy is studying failures.

[Anonymous No.10841200]

>>10841177
>food
>important

What are you, a fruit boy?

t. neetch

[Anonymous No.10841238]

>>10841192
Why do you presume that studying Rome gives you insight?

2000 years of recorded history and not a single Roman province remaining.

Seems like studying Rome is studying failures.

[Anonymous No.10841243]

>>10841238
I agree.

If you want insight into modern society, study modern society.

The only insight you gain from studying Rome is insight into Rome.

[Anonymous No.10841248]

>>10841243
You are a pathetic child, and should go back to plebbit.
Seriously, leave. There is nothing for you here.

[Anonymous No.10841250]

>>10841248
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.10841253]

>>10841248
This attitude annoys me.

You can't just pretend your opinions are self-evidently correct and then expect anyone to take you seriously.

The fact that people who already agree with you will give you asspats for making reassuring noises in their direction is irrelevant. You should ignore these people.

[Anonymous No.10841258]

>>10841248
Name a single directly applicable lesson we can draw solely from studying Rome. Describe the Roman context, the lesson, the modern problem, the modern policy solution, and how the lesson informs the solution.

Protip: you can't.

[Anonymous No.10841279]

>>10841250
>announcing that all of western philosophy is bullshit is an argument

Okay, let's spell it out for the children.
Philosophy may very well be dead. However, in order to find out if this is the case, we must study the history of philosophy, an immense subject which one could easily spend decades on.
Furthermore, by studying the history of philosophy we are necessarily involved in philosophical speculation. Philosophy addresses perennial arguments about nature, human conduct, political organization and grounds of Being, so its history cannot be neatly separated from its present subject-matter - indeed, many would argue these are identical.
Therefore, by studying the history of human thought we are by necessity studying philosophy itself.
In addition, the death of philosophy and its transformation into other subjects is not something proposed outside of philosophy, it is a subject with a long history by philosophers. Marx proposed that philosophical speculation gets exhausted in practical activity, for example. Various empiricists proposed that a sufficiently worked out scientific enterprise could entirely replace at least some fields of philosophy.
If philosophy is dead, this death was brought about by the development of philosophy itself, as it produced the seeds and the nourishment for its children, the modern scientific fields.

[Anonymous No.10841287]

>>10841279
>However, in order to find out if this is the case, we must study the history of philosophy, an immense subject which one could easily spend decades on.
Not true.

Philosophy has never been alive.

Philosophy has never produced a conclusion which justifies the time spent on it, so why would I bother attempting to refute that which is formless and substanceless? Anything I say will be rebutted with "well that's just, like, your opinion."

And that's the point.

Philosophy cannot even tell me that I'm wrong when I say that the entire field has been a waste of time. It's a field that hasn't even justified its own existence.

>"but science can't tell you you're wrong if you say science is a waste of time"
But science isn't concerned with answering that question, so the question is inherently unanswerable by science - like asking a blind man to describe a colour.

Science can, however, tell you that you're wrong (within the constraints of scientific knowledge) when you make assertions about things that science is concerned with.

[Anonymous No.10841319]

>>10841192
Considering that every conclusion produced by science is by extension a result of philosopy, science being the application of philosophical principles, l'd say it's been doing pretty well.

[Anonymous No.10841326]

>>10841287
Your existence is without tradition and foundation. You are incapable of drawing from the immense well of human experience, and are stuck in an eternal present, utterly convinced that there is nothing beyond it.
This argument is clearly pointless so I won't continue. If your sick utilitarian worldview cannot justify even the richness of history, then there is no hope.

"He who cannot draw on three thousand years is living from hand to mouth."
- Goethe

[Anonymous No.10841343]

>>10841319
How pathetic do you have to be to ride the coattails of others?

It's like claiming that the British Empire still rules the waves because America used to be a British colony. Nobody except deluded zealots is convinced by this dumb argument.

Science and philosophy have diverged.

>>10841326
>Your existence is without tradition and foundation.
Because /lit/ is well-known as a bastion of right-wing conservatives who value tradition and foundation for its own sake, right?

Your argument is contradictory self-serving bullshit, just like all philosophy. You want to value philosophy and history so despite being utterly fucking unable to actually provide a concrete practical use case for your knowledge you point blank refuse to admit that this is a problem.

If you want to study philosophy as a hobby or matter of interest whatever, I don't give a shit. But don't stand there and tell me the fucking janitor's life is going to be improved by reading Kant. And don't even fucking dare then stick out your hand for the universities and reach into HIS paycheck to fund YOUR vanity projects.

If philosophy has value then surely it should be able to convince the market of that and stand on its own legs as a private enterprise.

No?

Oh, well, then I guess it's a fucking parasite leeching off the productive endeavours of others.

Doctors save lives. Mechanics fix machines. Pilots move people and goods to where they need to be. Janitors clean filth and keep society healthy. Philosophers.......... write down their opinions about other people's opinions.

>"muh utilitarianism"
I'm not a utilitarian. I'm not saying that things are good because they are useful.

I'm saying that these things are useful, and you are not.

[Anonymous No.10841344]

>>10841054
Reccs for this le guy???

[Anonymous No.10841398]

>>10840842
Philosophy can best be described as a failed project. The more you read of it, the clearer it becomes.

[Anonymous No.10841419]

>>10841166
If you know anything about Fedora Man you'll know he is most certainly proclaiming the uselessness of Continental Philsophy itself and not just the term

[Anonymous No.10841434]

"Arabic numerals"? What kind of numbers are region-specific? What nonsense!

[Anonymous No.10841448]

"Greek sex"? What kind of fucking is region-specific? What nonsense!

[Anonymous No.10841498]

>>10840842
In all fairness, "continental" and "analytic" philosophy are fucking stupid designations that mean nothing.

[Anonymous No.10841522]

>>10840842
he's rightfully mocking the american term. because americans are retards. in europe, it's not called "continental" philosophy. just philosophy. fucking anusburger eaters.

[Anonymous No.10841568]

"I've forgotten the details, but I once piqued a gathering of theologians and philosophers by adapting the ontological argument to prove that pigs can fly. They felt the need to resort to Modal Logic to prove that I was wrong" (God Delusion, p. 84).

[Anonymous No.10841570]

>the Italian school of algebraic geometry

[Anonymous No.10841606]

>>10840842
His intended point, and the main source of his failure, stems from him being a boomer and boomers being brainwashed by liberal universalist idealism. He thinks all people should and do pursue the same goal, this in philosophy being truth, without understanding that it's only his own group who cares about this, and that there is considerable variation within his own group.