I don't want to come off as a troll but all of philosophy apart from Hume and Stirner and Socrates seems like unremitting bullshit or just opinions repackaged as authoritative because they come from the academic classes.
Whenever i look at Reddit Philosophy (I'm sorry), I see nothing but a stream of spooks. e.g. "What is the good life? Well I have figured it out, assuming you instantly believe all my axioms!" I don't mean a reddit user claimed it, it's usually a link to an Ivy League / oxford professor who talks this shit!
And this Rawls / Nozick debate (which I skimmed over on wikipedia and heard second hand): Rawls makes up some axioms, says it leads to the perfect society, and then Nozick picks a hole in it and we all pretend he's smart? Are you fucking kidding me? Why is ethics even a thing? It all fucking depends on the axioms ffs, that's it!
Also I hate to say it but the Greeks and Romans get their balls licked so hard it's not even funny. It's laughable but I'm going to say it: People who do "American Studies" (if universities even offer it, which they don't, which says a lot) should get as much respect as people who do Classics. But no, the middle / upper classes need greek / latin to be fashionable. When Aristoculus says "Being good is good but being good is not good, it is bad" then that's supposedly a sign of insane wisdom that you'd have to be a barbarian not to love above everything else. Give me a break. Appeal to authority up the wazoo. Though I do appreciate that plato etc were obviously very smart, and so on.
Also history (the academic profession) is just (and I'm not an SJW so this pains me to say) Old Big Authoritative White Men Praising And Hyping Old Big Authoritative Dead White Men With Grand And Barely Falsifiable Statements And A Boatload Of Stamp Collecting. Yeah there's the SJW variant as well, but that's what history departments are as a whole. Stop this bullshit pls.
Also the standard answer from lit: "Unfalsifiablity as a criterion for worth is an unfalsifiable conjecture!!!!" Ok then, but why does Ayn Rand get so much crap thrown at her while X philosopher gets their balls licked while being twice as outlandish? Nothing to do with political fashions... (I've read nothing of Rand, substitute anyone else if you want).
good post, but I have nothing to add
bump
>>314245
>Also history (the academic profession) is just (and I'm not an SJW so this pains me to say) Old Big Authoritative White Men Praising And Hyping Old Big Authoritative Dead White Men With Grand And Barely Falsifiable Statements And A Boatload Of Stamp Collecting. Yeah there's the SJW variant as well, but that's what history departments are as a whole. Stop this bullshit pls.
If you aren't an SJW you definitely don't have any understanding of history as an academic study.
>>314245
>muh falsifiability
Well it's all fine and dandy for experimental sciences, but how do you propose historians proceed then? The whole falsification thing doesn't really translate into an operating methodology for observational sciences. And it's not restricted to history. Astronomers, for example, don't have control over their objects of study so mostly they use the same methods as the ancients (observation -> deductions) rather than the post-enlightenment observation -> theories -> falsification thing. You just do as best as you can with what you have famalam.
>>314245
>Old Big Authoritative White Men Praising And Hyping Old Big Authoritative Dead White Men With Grand And Barely Falsifiable Statements And A Boatload Of Stamp Collecting.
So much wrong with this statement I don't even know where to begin, so I'll just go word by word
>Old
obviously people who devote a large period of their life to studying history will, as a result, have lived a large period of time making them old. I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean beyond pointing out the obvious
>Big
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean
>Authoritative
I don't know about you but every historical professor I've heard from goes through great lengths to make sure people understand to take history with a grain of salt due to new discoveries constantly being made
>white
oh boy here we go with the epic "white people" meme, try to use your brain for a minute, most universities are in majority white countries so naturally there's a higher chance of white people in history because there's just more white people in areas that require historians
>Men
okay that settles that you have no idea what you're talking about
https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/may-2010/what-the-data-reveals-about-women-
>>317035
>Old
What? Are you trying to tell me that young people aren't historically recognized by comparison to old people?
>Big
so I'm pretty sure you mean to say important here, are you suggesting historians should spend less time on important people? That's pretty counter intuitive.
>Authoritative
As most states in history were rather authoritative thus most people in history would also be authoritative. Also if a person is in a position of authority wouldn't it stand to reason that this person is also important somehow and therefore worthy of study as to what he did with that authority?
>Dead
Sorry that most historical figures are dead but unfortunately in our reality people tend to die at some point in their life. And as an interesting side note, most people who have lived are dead.
>With Grand And Barely Falsifiable Statements
Holy shit, do you even know what falsifiable means? Just about every important event in history has at least two sides arguing vigorously against each other over the most tiny (antonym of grand) details
>And A Boatload Of Stamp Collecting.
this must be a joke, you can't honestly believe that archival work can be compared to stamp collecting.
>>314243
>Stirner
Opinion disregarded.
Back on your books son.
>>314243
How is Stirner bullshit?
Spook is essentially his word for social construct / culturally imposed idea.
>falsifiable
Do you actually know what this word means and the proper context to use it or are you just spouting it as a buzzword to criticize things you don't like.
How the fuck would falsifiability even work in History? And you realize that historians disagree on motives, causes, and what exactly happened all the time, right?
>>314243
>Why is ethics even a thing?
Fair question, my autistic friend. It would be for the best if you just turned off your computer and thought about that for a while. I'm also pretty confident that Hume, Stirner and Socrates have their own distinct answers to this question.
>>317068
>How is Stirner bullshit?
Stirner has become a relevant influence on a middle sized board, meaning he's not obscure anymore, meaning you can't be contrarian by suppporting his worldview, meaning 4chan is ready to reject him.
>>316020
As someone who expects falsifiability as much as possible, I have to agree with you.
Go back
>>317068
>How is Stirner bullshit?
Can you read? OP wrote
>all of philosophy apart from Hume and Stirner
>APART FROM
>>321772
spooks plz go
>>317996
Dog bless this site :')
