Let's make fun of philosophers

Ren

Seeker at heart
MBTI
INFJ
Enneagram
146
Please share your own unfair fun-poking at the towering intellects of our history.

----------------

Socrates: first of all, he was pretty ugly. But there's worse. He also uses sophistry quite a lot in his dialogues. Dialogues which, by a benevolent stroke of luck, happened to be written by his pupil.

Plato: seriously, Plato? The philosopher king? Don't you realise you just single-handedly created enlightened despotism in 360 BC?

Aristotle: pretty deep, pretty systematic, but god, he could have done with a writing course. The dude has as much stylistic elegance as a lorry crushing a field of beautiful tulips.

Plotinus: basically Plato, except he took LSD.

Aquinas: wow, such 5 ways to prove the existence of God (not 4), much brilliant, very Catholic super intellect.

Kant: even in heaven he keeps philosophising about the rational grounds for the colour of his pee. He wants to stop, but he Kant.

Hegel: was clever enough to turn a middle school fallacy into a whole philosophical system.

Kierkegaard: he thinks Abraham was awesome for being willing to murder his son, all in the name of 'faith in the voice of God'. Basically an early, foppish-Dane version of Bin Laden.

Schopenhauer: believes in Nirvana but also that women were animals "with long hair and short ideas". Apparently Nirvana is only for men.

Nietzsche: "If you go to meet woman, forget not thy whip". Being a virgin, he didn't know sex was possible without whips.

Foucault: I'm sorry, but name a single under-age boy who would feel safe in a room with this guy.
 
We don't need to poke fun at Foucault.

The first chapter of The Order of Things does that all by itself.

I think I'm still reading that fucking interminable analogy.
 
We don't need to poke fun at Foucault.

The first chapter of The Order of Things does that all by itself.

I think I'm still reading that fucking interminable analogy.

Lmao. For some reason I can't remember that chapter at all, though I read the Order of Things in its entirety. Maybe it didn't impress me very much, or maybe I felt I was of too sound a mind and skipped it.

I'll check your screenshot.
 
"Do not care for this obnoxious analogy". :laughing::laughing::laughing:

Clearly you were feeling strongly about it!
It was such a slog for no payoff. What a pain.

Now, the core of the book is another matter, and the whole thrust behind the concept of the episteme I thought was fantastic.

Still, it was a relief to go back to one of Searle's slim little volumes after that, lol.
 
Back
Top