What's the point of philosophers?

[Anonymous No.13422491]

Their writings are boring, their conclusions most unnecessary to living and their pretentious unmatched. I do not need to read a 500 page study on what's right from wrong when I know. Give me good reasons as to why philosophical thought is even important?

[Anonymous No.13422500]

>>13422491
>philosophy is ethics

Yallready fucked up

[Anonymous No.13422506]

>>13422491
Good then don't, go watch a Hollywood movie or listen to your radio, or YouTube is pretty good too

[Anonymous No.13422512]

>>13422491
Go look up materialism on wikipedia and explain to us what Marx was actually arguing for

[Anonymous No.13422514]

>>13422491
Kys

[Anonymous No.13422537]

>>13422514
>No U

[Anonymous No.13422542]

>>13422491
>Give me good reasons as to why philosophical thought is even important?
An unexamined life is not worth living.

[Anonymous No.13422551]

>>13422491
>I do not need to read a 500 page study on what's right and wrong to know
That's like saying that you don't need to read a 500 page study on economics to know about it. It's just kind of silly.

[Anonymous No.13422746]

>>13422491
This book tackles and refutes this mentality

[Anonymous No.13422875]

>>13422491
I can understand that you find specific writers boring, but the fact you generalize all philosophers as boring, because you read couple of pages on whoever, says a lot about you. A boring illiterate faggot.

[Anonymous No.13424265]

>>13422875
I've read more books then you faggot and it's a logical conclusion

[Anonymous No.13424294]

>>13422491
Can you articulate your conceptualisation of right and wrong as eloquently as a philosopher all while defending it at every turn by detractors who literally believe the opposite of you? I doubt it.

You literally just did some philosophy by articulating an argument in support of your thesis that philosophy is pointless. Congratulations, you just critiqued yourself. Yes, metaphilosophy is a subject and philosophers discuss the issue you just raised. But this discussion is pointless by your definition so I suppose we should stop immediately.

[Anonymous No.13424310]

>>13424294
*from detractors

[Anonymous No.13424311]

>>13424294
>Being anti-philosophy is a philosophy! Checkmate
Fuck off you unbearable retard

[Anonymous No.13424316]

>>13424311
It is though you absolute brainlet

[Anonymous No.13424319]

>>13422491
>philosophers
You made a typo. You meant to write scientists.

[Anonymous No.13424326]

Being philosophically minded can add at least some depth and personality to an otherwise shell of a man.

[Anonymous No.13424333]

>>13424316
Let's believe for a second that your argument is sound, How would that challenge my assertion? What makes my "philosophy" of anti-philosophy less worthwhile than something like Objectivity?

[Anonymous No.13424341]

>>13424326
>Believing in ideas makes you a more interesting person

[Anonymous No.13424346]

>>13424341
Ugh

>not believing in ideas results in death

[Anonymous No.13424363]

>>13424341
Ideas and progression is literally all we can amount to. Being alone isn't enough for man, there has to be some sort of progression. Otherwise you are a taoist/buddhist. Either way, philosophy is the prime engine of man.

[Anonymous No.13424369]

>>13424333
Because assuming what you have to say on the subject is of any interest whatsoever, which, despite your bad attitude, I believe it is, you have to concede that philosophy has value.

Philosophers unambiguously discuss these topics. We are doing philosophy right now whether you like it or not, just some of us less well than others.

[Anonymous No.13424376]

>>13424333
If you demonstrate that philosophy is pointless by doing philosophy then you haven't demonstrated that philosophy is pointless. Your thesis is paradoxical.

[Anonymous No.13424393]

>>13424376
This is why I hate philosophers. Even when trying to distance myself from this pseudo-intellectual shit I have to be told that "It's paradoxical" to believe something has no worth. Because the assertion that I give something a value is in it self a philosophical act is both annoying and completely unnecessary

[Anonymous No.13424405]

>>13424393
>Because the assertion that I give something a value is in it self a philosophical act is both annoying and completely unnecessary
But true. No one cares about you not liking facts.

[Anonymous No.13424434]

>>13424393
It's not paradoxical to believe something is of no worth, I never made that assertion at all.

If you think you can go your entire life without arguing your point or using reasons to support an argument or inquiring into the nature of things then feel free to reject philosophy outright.

But you need philosophy, everyone does. You dislike it because you're bad at it.

[Anonymous No.13424435]

>>13422491
>their conclusions most unnecessary to living
wut

[Anonymous No.13424467]

>>13424435
Yes, and no one in this thread has proven otherwise

[Anonymous No.13424479]

>>13424393
So you hate being told you're wrong when you're wrong. It's ok, philosophers definitely hate you back.

[Anonymous No.13424485]

>>13424479
>Missing the point
Reading Aristotle won't fix your low IQ

[Anonymous No.13424498]

>>13424485
>Learning won't do you any good
Nice low IQ take.

[Anonymous No.13424504]

>>13424498
>I'm smart because I read meaningless fluff
Still haven't disproved my OP

[Anonymous No.13424509]

>>13424504
>OP
>Burden of proof
The Eternal Conflict

[Anonymous No.13424516]

>>13424509
It's only a conflict to mongoloids

[Anonymous No.13424518]

>>13424504
>You haven't proved me wrong
>Also I hate philosophy but you need to prove me wrong using arguments which is the essence of philosophy

[Anonymous No.13424522]

>>13424393
Allow me to enrage you further by engaging in the activity you despise and being as charitable to you as possible.

>Their writings are boring
This is often true. Philosophy is an incredibly complex discipline and it isn't always fun. Understanding a lot of philosophy takes time and effort. It has an incredibly long and storied history and its complicated vocabulary reflects this fact. This vocabulary is necessary however given the multiplicity of views that philosophers don't want to have to rearticulate every time they discuss a subject.
>their conclusions most unnecessary to living
This is true in many instances also. Some philosophical issues are so abstract as to have little bearing on how one lives one's life. This isn't always the case however, in the unlikely event that I can convince you philosophy has value you might actually start reading some. Philosophy is also intimately linked with every day life in this way.
>their pretention unmatched
Again, the pretentious sounding vocabulary serves a very definitive purpose.
>I do not need to read a 500 page study on what's right from wrong when I know.
Please articulate your flawless conception of morality so that philosophers everywhere may put down their pens and finally be free of their burden.
>Give me good reasons as to why philosophical thought is even important
You want me to argue against you? You mean, like Socrates? But you've convinced me. That would be pointless.

[Anonymous No.13424535]

It isn't. The only use of learning philosophy is so you can win debates about philosophy. Nobody in the world consults the categorical imperative before they perform an action; nobody in the world cares about noumena vs phenomena. These are all just mental exercises with no practical applications in the real world. The only philosopher who has contributed anything practical was Marx and even then you can make an argument that leftwing revolutions would have occurred whether or not Marx put pen to paper.

[Anonymous No.13424540]

>>13424518
>philosophy has a monopoly on argumentation
Hahaa hahahah check this nigger out

[Anonymous No.13424561]

>>13424518
>Arguments = Philosophy
Look at this retarded philosopher and laugh

[Anonymous No.13424584]

>>13424535
>>13424535
Have you heard of applied ethics? How about applied philosophy? What about bioethics boards consisting entirely of philosophers? Public policy analysts?

[Anonymous No.13424618]

>>13422491
>and their pretentious unmatched.

[Anonymous No.13424622]

>>13424540
it does moron it's literally within the definition of philosophy
>>13424561
they're right. every other field is a subset of philosophy as a result (which is historivally supported)

[Anonymous No.13424647]

The English alone don’t read philosophy.

[Anonymous No.13424662]

>>13424535
So the entire field of political philosophy outside of Marx has never influenced a politician or policy maker?

[Anonymous No.13424679]

>>13424647
I always knew Russell was just bluffing.
https://youtu.be/ihaB8AFOhZo

[Anonymous No.13424681]

>>13424622
>it's literally within the definition of philosophy
>within the definition of philosophy
>definition of philosophy
>DEFINITION OF PHILOSOPHY
I don't know any geniune philosopher who even want to do that shit, but who said this.
I can safely assume you are a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.13424702]

>>13424535
>The only use of learning philosophy is so you can win debates about anything
Ftfy

[Anonymous No.13424704]

>>13424681
The closest that you can get to for a simple definition of philosophy is "inquiry through rational argumentation". Most philosophers will give you something like this if you ask them.

[Anonymous No.13424799]

>>13424704
Different Anon.
You can also take the dubitative approach and say that philosophy is about creating values through rational inquiry. The point I'm making here is that you can, for example, make "feminist theory" seem like a rational kind of inquiry, but in the end you have to disqualify it as a mere ideology, therefore not worthy of any inquiry whatsoever. This ultimate makes the value creation more important. So, I usually put philosophy in direct opposition to ideology.

[Anonymous No.13425941]

>>13424265
Yeah? What do you read?