Pseuds and academia

[Anonymous No.15827245]

>ngmi philosophoids filtered by academia
>it's not me, it's them!
This is the definition of being a pseud. Don't deceive yourself. Even the craziest philosophers in the 20th and 21st centuries got PhDs or taught professionally. You think academia is conformist but then you fuckers go and make the same fucking threads every day. All you anti-academic pseuds think the same. DO NOT FALL FOR MEMES!

[Anonymous No.15827279]

huh?

[Anonymous No.15827292]

low bait

[Anonymous No.15827373]

>>15827245
It's a good place to be in that you teach and research as ll day but in practice it's a circle jerk. I hate almost every intro ph class because it's definitionally one of the most engaging subjects but it's instead watered down to trolly problems or is made to be dry. There doesn't seem to be a middle. If they were seeking to sit in their own ivory tower they've managed it. I can only thank that philosophy has a lot of primary sources in which we can self engage whenever academia reaches these points.

[Anonymous No.15827400]

>>15827373
Don't take just intro classes to learn philosophy. That's the problem. You could be taking intermediate and advanced courses that focus on individual philosophers in the history of philosophy (and their works), or on individual topics interesting to you. This is what I mean that people are filtered by academia. It's not about disagreeing but people just don't go deeper. There's a lot of people who disagree with academic conformist who still got their PhD or get to teach professionally in universities, because they knew how to come out of that stronger. Nobody who gives up comes out of it stronger, they stay mediocre for the rest of their lives. Even if you drop out before getting a PhD you'll be better off and be better fit to do philosophy, than if you get filtered by a mere intro class.

[Anonymous No.15827426]

>>15827400
the only people who will read your phd thesis in philosophy are your supervisors.

[Anonymous No.15827430]

>>15827245

Plenty of based philosophers were primary scholars in a different field, or otherwise lacked higher education or certification. Most of them were well rounded renaissance men with aristocratic upbringings. But in the 20th and 21st centuries, Nietzsche and Spengler were outsiders to philosophy to have good work published. Although ofc Nietzsche is a giant and Spengler is midwit, but just 2 examples off the top of my head. I usually do not care about bio stuff on the writers I read

[Anonymous No.15827485]

>>15827426
So many works of philosophy spun off from dissertations, and those works are definitely read. Other works of philosophy at least are made by people who wrote dissertations.

[Anonymous No.15827499]

>>15827485
not of the ones that are currently being written now
not even Phd's of similar fields get them and it's getting worse

[Anonymous No.15827511]

>>15827430
Nietzsche died in 1900 so he wouldn't count as a 20th century philosopher. Spengler had a PhD and did his dissertation on Heraclitus.

[Anonymous No.15827523]

>>15827499
You're not reading them, because you're not a philosopher actually willing to see what's contemporary or interested in contributing new systematic work yourself. People do read them though.

[Anonymous No.15827545]

>>15827523
i'm not reading them because they are a stretch of what philosophical research should be. Not a single phd in philosophy is interested in making a contribution to their field, they now they are irrelevant. If people read them, they don't but if they did, they would not be able to understand it.
Learn to chose the hill in which you want to die.

[Anonymous No.15827617]

>>15827545
Yeah okay. Generalize an entire group of people rather than at least check to see if there might be people who do what you think is worth doing. Unless you are already too anti-philosophical to find value in historical philosophy, in which case you're just not worth talking to. I'm not talking about grey literature dissertations but when philosophers in academia publish books in university presses, whether spun off from their dissertations or not, that stuff does get read, and some of it is quite good and changes the way other people think in philosophy at large. This is also true of other fields in academia. It's also the way philosophy and those other fields always were. People outside those fields weren't reading Plato and Aristotle in the middle ages, they were out farming. The people reading Descartes or Hume were educated well-off people, often being tutored by professionals or attending university themselves. By the time you read Kant and Hegel, you already find philosophy and other fields professionalized, Kant and Hegel were university professors. The people reading philosophy back then were always part of an intellectually-trained culture. Even Nietzsche who was mentioned earlier was at least trained in and studying philosophy because of his academic studies in theology and philology, he wasn't some random nobody disconnected from academia. Nothing has changed between the past and the present. You just lack hindsight on 20th and 21st century works. Pseuds know Plato and Aristotle and so forth because there's been two thousand years for them to hear the good news that those guys are interesting. Even Kant or Hume are not exactly popular knowledge, but they enter the pseud radar again because a few centuries have passed. No pseud close to them in time would have read them, much as you people don't read what's contemporary.

[Anonymous No.15827633]

>>15827245
>Even the craziest philosophers in the 20th and 21st centuries got PhDs
All they do is add footnotes to Platon.

[Anonymous No.15827639]

>>15827245
it seems to me that modern academia is different than traditional academia. I could be wrong, maybe there were plenty of garbage phd's back then too

[Anonymous No.15827642]

>>15827633
Your entire life isn't even a footnote to Plato and you're worse off for it.

[Anonymous No.15827657]

>>15827639
Whenever it comes to proliferation, there will always be more and more bad content made. True of literature, true of any medium. That doesn't mean nothing good is made. Again, people lack hindsight when the stuff is contemporary. Pseuds get to hear of work being good when the trickling down process is over a hundred years old, sometimes thousands of years old. It's incredibly presumptuous of them to think nothing good exists just because it hasn't trickled down to them or to popular consciousness. If they applied that judgment to everything they now know, nothing would pass the test in its own day.

[Anonymous No.15827679]

>>15827642
Keep making these threads on an anime imageboard to stroke your fragile ego.

[Anonymous No.15827680]

>>15827657
there are probably groundbreaking works being written now that nobody will bother to read for decades or centuries. still, i'm not sure I would want to go into academia now. it seems absolutely miserable and everyone i've known who went into it has confirmed this. perhaps it's always been this way

[Anonymous No.15827726]

>>15827617
You are generalizing an even bigger group of people calling them pseuds for not being in academia. Don't be an hypocrite.
Academia is fairly criticized for what has become and by large part for the people inside of it.
Publish or perish makes a large amount of research irrelevant even by the interests of their own authors.
You are not defending a field you belong to, you are more likely upset that people have opinions.
Therefore your childish misuse of the term pseud.
Repeating my point. Why do you think there aren't actual debates in philosophy departments? Because specialization in themes and authors gave as results an abundance of information and no way of putting up together in a cohesive manner. Now there are just niche sub-subfields and incompatible perspectives that make any discussion unfruitful.

[Anonymous No.15827729]

>>15827430
Yes, Oswald Spengler was a “midwit,” while you, some faggot zoomer nobody, are not.

[Anonymous No.15827795]

>>15827430
Philosophy has markedly gone down hill in the last century as it devolves further into accepting liberal humanism as given truth so if anything your example emphasises the failure of academia. Additionally, Nietzsche was a 19th century philosophy, not twentieth century

[Anonymous No.15827841]

academia is mostly mentally ill trannies and women learning to complain for a living at this point

[Anonymous No.15827881]

>>15827680
Don't go into academia if you're worried about these things, for your own mental health, academia is best left to people who are really devoted to philosophy and thus ready to take on the difficult process head on. But then you're more or less just going to remain a pseud. The best you can do with your free time as an autodidact is to improve your erudition as best you can. It's feasible, but not easy. I definitely wish anyone in that situation the best, but it's better to be humble about one's limits than rail against academia.
>>15827726
>Why do you think there aren't actual debates in philosophy departments?
There ARE debates. I don't know what more you want than people existing in academia who are on completely opposite sides and anywhere in the middle on just about every topic in philosophy possible.
>no way of putting up together in a cohesive manner.
That's both your fault and the fault of any academic who doesn't want to do that. People try sometimes though, and they're always the people who get remembered. Not the hyper-abundance of micro-commentators working on mere minutia all their lives. But the people remembered are academics either way. Likewise, it's true that people can have unpopular, 'out-there' views challenging academic mainstream and offering solid critiques of it. But guess what, they're also academics, either having PhD's or teaching in universities or both. My point is: You think academics aren't being systematic? Then be systematic, but as an academic. You think academics are worth critiquing? Then critique them, but as an academic. Nobody who tries to be systematic or a critic but lacks engagement with academic accomplishes anything of much worth. They are pseuds and end up producing work with minimal rigor, saying things already said, or (when they're original) saying a few good things mixed with a lot of bad things and worse presentation and reasoning process behind them. That's just the truth, whether you like it or not. I'm not defending academia's vices so don't project them on to me. The problem with pseuds is that their vice is even worse.

[Anonymous No.15827944]

>>15827881
Completely out of touch