Why Is Philosophy Hated So Much?

[Insanctuary]

Is it because it makes your life so meaningless?

[MrPercie]

If a shit thread was made and not a single fuck was given

was there ever a thread at all?

[Jester]

I personally find self proclaimed philosophers to be pretentious and annoying, but I don't hate philosophy itself.

[Mumbo]

Because some philosophers are insane douches.

[Insanctuary]

At 5/14/12 05:48 PM, DirtyMeatball wrote: I personally find self proclaimed philosophers to be pretentious and annoying, but I don't hate philosophy itself.

Self proclaimed philosopher. Alright, that is a good start. It isn't philosophy. It is me. Can you stop with the accusations and tell me exactly why you think of me as a self proclaimed philosopher? Would it help if I said I'm a free thinker?

[RWT]

Philosophy's great... I live to go out and get trashed with my boy Socrates, then listen to him use the fact that he's taller than Simmias to prove that the soul is immortal, while some flute-chick blows me and we all drink wine and eat olives.

[TheLukeinator]

I love philosophy.

[Insanctuary]

At 5/14/12 05:50 PM, RWT wrote: Philosophy's great... I live to go out and get trashed with my boy Socrates, then listen to him use the fact that he's taller than Simmias to prove that the soul is immortal, while some flute-chick blows me and we all drink wine and eat olives.

Philosophy /=/ Satire

[Insanctuary]

At 5/14/12 05:48 PM, SolidToad wrote: Because some philosophers are insane douches.

I'm an insane douche?

I apologize for being an insane douche in your eyes. I'd much rather be myself in my own eyes, than worry about being a disgrace in God's eyes, or an insane douche in your eyes.

[Jester]

At 5/14/12 05:50 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 5/14/12 05:48 PM, DirtyMeatball wrote: I personally find self proclaimed philosophers to be pretentious and annoying, but I don't hate philosophy itself.

Self proclaimed philosopher. Alright, that is a good start. It isn't philosophy. It is me. Can you stop with the accusations and tell me exactly why you think of me as a self proclaimed philosopher? Would it help if I said I'm a free thinker?

Did I say I was talking about you? I just mean people who sit around in philosophy classes at college, then go home and try to tell people what life is or whatever. I don't know if that's what you do, but i'm not singling you out.

Though at times you do have a pretentious attitude, but you apparently have random mood swings because every time you rage you apologize and promise to better yourself, which you've said at least twice since you first showed up awhile back.

[Entice]

I like reading it though I'll admit that I prefer technical/scientific material. It's easier for me to understand measurable, concrete stuff.

I don't like your philosophy because it's stupid, almost to the point where I won't call it a philosophy.

[Mumbo]

I'm an insane douche?

I apologize for being an insane douche in your eyes. I'd much rather be myself in my own eyes, than worry about being a disgrace in God's eyes, or an insane douche in your eyes.

Socrates bro. Socrates.

[GodlessDeity]

At 5/14/12 05:55 PM, DirtyMeatball wrote:

At 5/14/12 05:50 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 5/14/12 05:48 PM, DirtyMeatball wrote: I personally find self proclaimed philosophers to be pretentious and annoying, but I don't hate philosophy itself.

Self proclaimed philosopher. Alright, that is a good start. It isn't philosophy. It is me. Can you stop with the accusations and tell me exactly why you think of me as a self proclaimed philosopher? Would it help if I said I'm a free thinker?

Did I say I was talking about you? I just mean people who sit around in philosophy classes at college, then go home and try to tell people what life is or whatever. I don't know if that's what you do, but i'm not singling you out.

That answers my question.

Though at times you do have a pretentious attitude, but you apparently have random mood swings because every time you rage you apologize and promise to better yourself, which you've said at least twice since you first showed up awhile back.

Ahh, I'm not bipolar. I'm actually intentionally trying different approaches to speculate the different directional influences I have and how to achieve specific reactions. : )

[GodlessDeity]

At 5/14/12 05:56 PM, SolidToad wrote:

I'm an insane douche?

I apologize for being an insane douche in your eyes. I'd much rather be myself in my own eyes, than worry about being a disgrace in God's eyes, or an insane douche in your eyes.

Socrates bro. Socrates.

Is it wrong for me to ask why people expect me to be more specific with my philosophy when they make vague responses that I misinterpret?

[GodlessDeity]

At 5/14/12 05:56 PM, bgraybr wrote: I like reading it though I'll admit that I prefer technical/scientific material. It's easier for me to understand measurable, concrete stuff.

I don't like your philosophy because it's stupid, almost to the point where I won't call it a philosophy.

Can you express your practice of understanding 'measurable' and 'concrete' material by giving us all a 'concrete' reason why you think my philosophy and/or 'free thinking' is stupid

[Entice]

At 5/14/12 06:03 PM, GodlessDeity wrote: Can you express your practice of understanding 'measurable' and 'concrete' material by giving us all a 'concrete' reason why you think my philosophy and/or 'free thinking' is stupid

It's just this intuition I get.

I wish I could explain it to you, but you'll have to understand on your own at this point.

[GodlessDeity]

At 5/14/12 05:58 PM, Ilssm wrote:

than worry about being a disgrace in God's eyes,

What does that have to do with anything?

What does anything have to do with anything? Did it ever? And that is while disregarding Newgrounds' famous trait for making meaningless posts.

[ILoveToGrok]

At 5/14/12 06:05 PM, bgraybr wrote:

At 5/14/12 06:03 PM, GodlessDeity wrote: Can you express your practice of understanding 'measurable' and 'concrete' material by giving us all a 'concrete' reason why you think my philosophy and/or 'free thinking' is stupid

It's just this intuition I get.

I wish I could explain it to you, but you'll have to understand on your own at this point.

Bgraybr, I understand. You are using my 'obstructivism' concept to back up your sexual orientation. I will never agree with your ludicrous idea - that I only call ludicrous because of my own POV - and I will always contest that ideology of yours til the ends of time. That does not mean that I see you under a lesser light. You are still a human being no more or less than I am.

[ILoveToGrok]

At 5/14/12 06:10 PM, Ilssm wrote: we get it.

No, you do not get it - thus you would not be making me post this response - so I will elaborate.

I brought it up because I was expressing how I do not care whether someone - or even a God - may see me. I was emphasising the sheer amount of insincerity that lies in the folds of another's subjective perception of me. Regardless if it in a mere human's eyes or an otherwordly being's eyes.

[PIED3]

I like philosophy because it normally steps away from personal issues. I think it was Bertrand Russel who said it helped you become "a citizen of the universe" rather than being stuck in the rut of the society/culture you live in.
That said it's far too easily used as a tool for making yourself look clever and as a weapon for putting other people down.
I really don't you think you (insanctuary) should call yourself a philosopher when you reject so much of what the philosophical community stands for. I don't think you read much philosophy and i don't think you have much interested in other philosophers. So yeah, call yourself a "freethinker" to avoid confusion.

[Entice]

At 5/14/12 06:09 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote: That does not mean that I see you under a lesser light. You are still a human being no more or less than I am.

Fair enough.

[ILoveToGrok]

At 5/14/12 06:19 PM, PIED3 wrote: I like philosophy because it normally steps away from personal issues. I think it was Bertrand Russel who said it helped you become "a citizen of the universe" rather than being stuck in the rut of the society/culture you live in.
That said it's far too easily used as a tool for making yourself look clever and as a weapon for putting other people down.

The way I see it - you are more than a citizen - you are one with the universe when you speak the language of the universe.

I really don't you think you (insanctuary) should call yourself a philosopher when you reject so much of what the philosophical community stands for. I don't think you read much philosophy and i don't think you have much interested in other philosophers. So yeah, call yourself a "freethinker" to avoid confusion.

I'm sorry for making philosophers look bad. I really do personally believe I see things that Bhudda did not see; or Plato missed a seriously important step. I will always have their ideologies in consideration, Pie. I simply can not see them as some kind of teacher - when they were their own teachers - just as much as I am.

[ILoveToGrok]

At 5/14/12 06:22 PM, Ilssm wrote:

No, you do not get it - thus you would not be making me post this response - so I will elaborate.

I brought it up because I was expressing how I do not care whether someone - or even a God - may see me. I was emphasising the sheer amount of insincerity that lies in the folds of another's subjective perception of me. Regardless if it in a mere human's eyes or an otherwordly being's eyes.

Yes, but no one mentioned a God at all, you replied to someone who called you an insane douche-bag with it.

Are you really arguing relativity on Newgrounds?

Even if what you said is true and it makes sense, it's irrelevant because it had nothing to do with what he was saying. It still isn't relevant to the conversation because it had nothing to do with the conversation at hand in the first place.

It is very much relevant when you finally acknowledge that I misinterpreted Solidtoad's response. I interpreted his post as calling me an insane douche bag. When he was only implying Socrates.

[PIED3]

At 5/14/12 06:25 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote: I'm sorry for making philosophers look bad. I really do personally believe I see things that Bhudda did not see; or Plato missed a seriously important step. I will always have their ideologies in consideration, Pie. I simply can not see them as some kind of teacher - when they were their own teachers - just as much as I am.

You read between the lines far too much. I never said or implied or thought you made philosophy look bad. I just said you don't represent what most people (including other philosophers) take the term "philosopher" to mean. It's just confusing to call yourself a philosopher when you are so distinct from almost all other philosophers. Plato wasn't "his own teacher", he was a pupil of Socrates. But like i said, i don't think you care about other philosophers.
Which of Plato's works have you read? What do you know about Buddha?

[explodingbunnies]

There's a huge difference between a philosophy and a philosopher. The way someone lives their daily life is a philosophy, people don't hate that. It's the pretentious scumbags who try to analyze everything they see to seem as if they're all-knowing, also known as modern philosophers, that everyone hates.

[Gobblemeister]

At 5/14/12 05:50 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 5/14/12 05:48 PM, DirtyMeatball wrote: I personally find self proclaimed philosophers to be pretentious and annoying, but I don't hate philosophy itself.

Self proclaimed philosopher. Alright, that is a good start. It isn't philosophy. It is me. Can you stop with the accusations and tell me exactly why you think of me as a self proclaimed philosopher? Would it help if I said I'm a free thinker?

I'm a free thinker, I read a wikipedia article that told me how to do it, I am a free thinker.

[Insanctuary]

At 5/14/12 06:29 PM, PIED3 wrote:

At 5/14/12 06:25 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote: I'm sorry for making philosophers look bad. I really do personally believe I see things that Bhudda did not see; or Plato missed a seriously important step. I will always have their ideologies in consideration, Pie. I simply can not see them as some kind of teacher - when they were their own teachers - just as much as I am.

You read between the lines far too much. I never said or implied or thought you made philosophy look bad. I just said you don't represent what most people (including other philosophers) take the term "philosopher" to mean. It's just confusing to call yourself a philosopher when you are so distinct from almost all other philosophers. Plato wasn't "his own teacher", he was a pupil of Socrates. But like i said, i don't think you care about other philosophers.

You may not, but others do disregard me as a philosopher.

Which of Plato's works have you read? What do you know about Buddha?

Plato - the 'allegory of a cave' theory of his. Plato was under the impression that people only applied shape to the shadows casted by the fireplace. These people were chained to the wall and were unable to see the fireplace and the illusion they applied to these shadows they only saw as pseudo-figures. My free thinking allowed me to expand on this very theory. Instead of leaving it as blunt as 'only applying form to these shadows' I broadened the theory by simply saying 'it is not that they were applying shape to that of what they think they saw. These shadows they saw were abstract mirrors that reflected off what was within them. They weren't applying form to these shadows, the shadows were reflecting off of the abstract form inside the chained person's inner manifestation fo being.

Bhudda - to be frank, I think Bhudda was very wise, but was also very dodgy. Bhudda was a wise turtle, but nothing more. He hid inside his wise shell, and taught those through his shell. Bhudda was afraid of conflict and tried to break one of the natural antithesises of life - chaos. Bhudda hid in artifical light and never stepped in true darkness. This is why I disagree with many of his beliefs that only focused on peace and prosperity - while every day clearly contradicts that principle of Bhudda. Yes, I already do understand that there is a difference between chaos constrcuted by nature itself and chaos constructed by mankind. Nature's chaos is inevitable. Mankind's chaos is avoidable. The simple fact of the matter is, Bhudda can not truly speak of life as a whole if he did not attempt to face the ugly part of reality. His ideologies only rest on one aspect of life while the other aspect was poorly heeded. For an example of Bhudda's dodgy analysis for the chaotic side. Bhudda once said that life is of suffering. Life is not of suffering, because suffering is a subjective experience that is only based off your own inability to fight off of the negative aspects that infiltrate your inner psyche. We can choose to battle our inner conflicts. Bhudda only wanted the light and peace. Bhudda did not see that we are both the monster and the master. There will always be inner conflict within ourselves, but we will also always have the cognitive will to face and capitalise on these flaws of our waking lives the best that we can.

[Knights]

This is how every philosopher has sounded ever:

"Hey guys, let me tell you how to live your life by being pretentious and snotty."

[yurgenburgen]

Philosophy isn't hated. Delusional, self-proclaimed philosophers are hated. For obvious reasons.

[Insanctuary]

At 5/14/12 06:50 PM, knightsofthecircle wrote: This is how every philosopher has sounded ever:

"Hey guys, let me tell you how to live your life by being pretentious and snotty."

Trying to live life while your actions only speak for your lack of experience is being pretentious and snotty and also very irresponsible. You can not expect to know you have control over your life and make the right choices in a reality that is a pandemonium in and of itself.

Why not let others tell you how to live your life if you don't even know how to live life yourself? If they have more experience - and speak the language of life - you should be able to guide others.