Is Philosophy just used for Elitism?

[Anonymous No.14913140]

I feel as if many of the people who actually read philosophy don't care much about the ideas, but rather moreso about the ability to say they "read philosophy" and be better than the common person as a result. This means then that the average philosophy reader has to read even more verbose works so as to individualize himself from the typical philosophy reader. The cycle continues.

I feel as if much of philosophy is simply just about maintaing these sort of esoteric social dynamics whereby a portion of the elite differentiate themselves from those beneath them. I don't even think it has much to do with the thoughts themselves. At their very core, even Deleuze and Heidegger aren't that difficult in terms of their core ideas, it is moreso how the ideas are phrased and interpreted that make them truly a challenge.

There's a reason why Nietzsche is probably the most popular philosopher, which is a rather absurd thing to even say, since he was against this sort of democratization.
He expresses the essence of modern philosophy: simply as a way to individualize the reader and separate himself from others. Everyone wants to do this.

[Anonymous No.14913185]

>>14913140
illiterate cope, "boohoo complicated writing", you seem like a waste of braincells mon cheri ::^)

[Anonymous No.14913205]

>>14913185
I didn't say it is complicated. I said the exact opposite. You didn't read my post.

[Anonymous No.14914348]

>>14913140
retard. regular people don't give a fuck about philosophy and, in fact, actively dislike it because they don't understand it (just like you). i majored in philosophy in college and if anything people just make fun of you for it
>lol nice bro have fun working at starbucks
there are certainly much easier ways of accruing social capital.
>At their very core, even Deleuze and Heidegger aren't that difficult
lol. prove it

[Anonymous No.14914483]

>>14914348
> i majored in philosophy in college

What did you gain from it?

t. not OP

[Anonymous No.14914547]

>>14913140
Going to philosophy classes you find those type of people, seeking philosophy just to feel smarter. They like raising questions about very small details that don't matter and the more autistic sound like Descartes.
I really hate them, they derail the class and some of their questions are downright retarded.

Also, moving in educated circles you get the "I read so and so therefore I am better" or gatekeeping people. "You have to read x to understand y" etc.
But it's just the bad parts of the culture. Just like uneducated people like to be proud of being uneducated and gatekeep "Smarties"

[Anonymous No.14914632]

>>14913140
>NOOOOO
>YOU CANT E/LIT/E
>YOU HAVE TO BE NORMAL
>STOP

[Anonymous No.14914936]

>>14913140
I think you're mostly right. For example, earlier today I was reading Being and Nothingness, and the core ideas are relatively simple, but the prose is so verbose and poorly composed and runs on for about 650 pages. Apparently this was required to be taken seriously in mid-century Paris, but also I think it's because intellectuals don't always understand the subject very deeply: 'If you can't explain it simply enough, you don't understand it well enough' - Einstein

However, there are some cases in which the core ideas are genuinely difficult to understand, especially when they go against our basic assumptions. For example, Wittgenstein's concept of logical space and the limits of meaning was pretty impressive to me for being so unsurpassably abstract. Similarly, the IDEAS of someone like Foucault or Baudrillard might be hard for someone who had never thought about their own ideology.

So, like any social structure, there's a lot of posturing and nonsense in academia. But there's also some things worth paying attention to.

[Anonymous No.14914953]

>>14913140
This is a Hermetic principle, and yes I think that is part of reading philosophy.

Philosophers over-complicate their ideas to make them closed off to midwits and laymen. I don't know what to think about this.

[Anonymous No.14915021]

>>14914483
He's a continental, so absolutely nothing. Had he been a mathematically inclined analytic chad it would be much different.

[Anonymous No.14915070]

>>14913140
>many of the people
You mean the pseuds on /lit/?

>Deleuze and Heidegger
These are obscurantist charlatans, not philosophers. Learn what philosophy is before posting about it.

[~[[[-_-]]]~ Urantia Thought Ad(...) No.14915178]

>>14913140
I think the distinction between actual philosophers and pseudo-philosophers is sincerity; whole-heartedly seeking the essence of philosophy, wisdom or truth, rather than just the superficial pretence of being a philosopher.

There are misguided or corrupted expressions of philosophy (such as the 'posturing and nonsense in academia', or that famous Guenon quote), but that cannot negate the truthful, honest, sincere expressions of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14915503]

>>14913140
Why is it elitism if its not complicated and therefore accessible?

[Anonymous No.14916683]

>>14913140
You are just insecure. Most people that read it want to understand things. That's it.

[Anonymous No.14916699]

>>14913140
>I feel as if many of the people who actually read philosophy don't care much about the ideas, but rather moreso about the ability to say they "read philosophy" and be better than the common person as a result. This means then that the average philosophy reader has to read even more verbose works so as to individualize himself from the typical philosophy reader. The cycle continues.
I can use a handful of broken glass as lube. What the average person does or does not has no relevance on the use of philosophy. Everything you said had no bearing on your premise, consider reading more and better.

[Anonymous No.14916773]

>>14913140
>I feel as if much of philosophy is simply just about maintaing these sort of esoteric social dynamics
Then isn't that more for the world of sociology then for philosophy? You miss the point in not seeing the target, philosophy hits. I am not saying it is perfect- but the traditional separation of mans actions and thoughts into differing schools or definitions is good enough for now. And only once we get past the now, as a people or whatever as, can we change it. And it is not bad, and in many ways good, so do not rush to change it as a priority.

[Anonymous No.14916867]

>>14913140
>>14913140
If you are talking about what most posters here do your criticism applies completely, but if you dismiss all philosophy altogether because of what some retards do with it, you arent much better than them

[Anonymous No.14917030]

yes
socrates invented philosophy
and it's only for the old or young genius born to lead

[Anonymous No.14917311]

>>14917030
>yes
>socrates invented philosophy
Evidently wrong.

>and it's only for the old or young genius born to lead
And let me guess, you're young?

[Anonymous No.14917366]

>>14913140
>I feel as if many of the people who actually read philosophy don't care much about the ideas
Why would you ever think this

>but rather moreso about the ability to say they "read philosophy" and be better than the common person as a result
I think you really overestimate how much the average person cares about philosophy or even knows what it is. If you go out and try to flex on some random person by reading philosophy its going to be a strange and disappointing encounter.

>This means then that the average philosophy reader has to read even more verbose works...
Except this isn't the case at all. In academic philosophy, you find your specialty and your area of interest, and work from there. People who specialize in Ancient Philosophy don't read things that are half as wordy as analytic metaphysicians or Phenomenology specialists, but because its not a pissing contest, nobody feels like they aren't doing "real" philosophy or second-rate philosophy.

>At their very core, even Deleuze and Heidegger aren't that difficult in terms of their core ideas, it is moreso how the ideas are phrased and interpreted that make them truly a challenge.
Please explain Heidegger or Deleuze to me in less than a paragraph. Keep in mind, you have to do so in such a way so as to avoid ambiguity and actually say something meaningful. You'll quickly realize that technical language exists for a reason, and this normie youtube science "if you can't say it simply you don't really understand it" hackjob is exactly that.

All I see in this post is someone who cracked The Critique of Pure Reason based on the recommendation of the internet, found it incomprehensible because he has no background in philosophy, and decided that if he can't understand it nobody can.