Let's make fun of philosophers

Deleted member 16771 said:
Lol.

I see some parallels between Foucault and Yukio Mishima when it comes to their behind-the-scenes lifestyles. They were contemporaries.
Click to expand...

Wasn't Mishima fundamentally an idealist though?

Whereas Foucault...

e6EydohFap7jQJH_o5-vKrrfGlsvF8SBkxWjK2CyT3MHHhodjNn-3Jjm3YBeWs5EqjT_qI_72xzm0275gDaQ5Wi4g1aPv9tj5fK2BHfhcoFvB_PEcUH0emONhTD51Msf4DabISae7INO4WVlK2cBsGtzTnJPonqcP7Y
 
Ren said:
Ooooh. Not fair as far as I can tell. Expand on your point!
Click to expand...

From his wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume

Hume argued that inductive reasoning and belief in causality cannot be justified rationally; instead, they result from custom and mental habit. We never actually perceive that one event causes another but only experience the "constant conjunction" of events. This problem of induction means that to draw any causal inferences from past experience, it is necessary to presuppose that the future will resemble the past, a presupposition which cannot itself be grounded in prior experience.[13]

An opponent of philosophical rationalists, Hume held that passions rather than reason govern human behaviour, famously proclaiming that "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions."[12][14] Hume was also a sentimentalist who held that ethics are based on emotion or sentiment rather than abstract moral principle. He maintained an early commitment to naturalistic explanations of moral phenomena and is usually taken to have first clearly expounded the is–ought problem, or the idea that a statement of fact alone can never give rise to a normative conclusion of what ought to be done.[15]

Hume also denied that humans have an actual conception of the self, positing that we experience only a bundle of sensations, and that the self is nothing more than this bundle of causally-connected perceptions. Hume's compatibilist theory of free will takes causal determinism as fully compatible with human freedom.[16] His views on philosophy of religion, including his rejection of miracles and the argument from design for God's existence, were especially controversial for their time.
Click to expand...

He didn't believe in inductive reasoning, but also opposed rationalism, and didn't believe ethics were anything more than sentiment, and (though this is coming more from my reading of him than the wiki) didn't think there was any philosophical proof of God and that this was kind of the point of the bible passage saying that belief in God requires faith. This basically invalidates a lot of the things philosophers were looking into at the time.

I actually really like him. :) But it was fun to poke fun at him.
 
Krypton said:
This just sounds like frat bro shit, which might be worse for his image.


David Hume wrote tons of philosophy just to say philosophy is garbage. Couldn't he have just done STEM?
Click to expand...

But if he just studied STEM, how would he philosophically explain why philosophy is garbage? Stemmers are too boring for this world.
 
Krypton said:
He didn't believe in inductive reasoning, but also opposed rationalism, and didn't believe ethics were anything more than sentiment, and (though this is coming more from my reading of him than the wiki) didn't think there was any philosophical proof of God and that this was kind of the point of the bible passage saying that belief in God requires faith. This basically invalidates a lot of the things philosophers were looking into at the time.
Click to expand...

I think he's right that there is no philosophical proof of the existence God that actually works. This was already Kant's position, so Hume is not really saying anything new here.

Rather than discrediting philosophy, I think he tried to lead philosophy away from the rationalism of Descartes and towards empiricism. All the positions you describe are consistent with empiricism, and are actually pretty well defended in his works. I think one of the weakest parts of his philosophy is his conception of the self as a "bundle of sensations", because it begs the question about what it is that unifies the sensations.

Anyway, I really like Hume too :)
 
Pin said:
Noam Chomsky is the opposite of Foucault, can you imagine him volunteering to be spanked? He's the opposite of sex.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine Chomsky volunteering to be spanked with paddles, but now he does have a partner 34 years his junior. Naughty naughty boy.
 
Interestingly Chomsky is probably closer to rationalism than to empiricism, as he has an internalist conception of language as an intrinsic faculty which grows over time.

He's basically more Kant than Hume.
 
Sidis Coruscatis said:
I don't know why Camus comprises like half of philosopher memes. I guess he's just too absurd to be interpreted seriously.
56a.png
Click to expand...

It could also be that he's just so well-known. His novels are like consistently number 1 in the Amazon list for French literature. So by philosophers' standards he's like a superstar.
 
Ren said:
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.
Click to expand...

Aristotle was supposedly a very good writer; however, none of his writings (that he wrote for others to actually read) survived the burning of the library of Alexandria. Today, all we have are his lecture notes, which is why he is so awful to read.
 
Sidis Coruscatis said:
That depends on how the community shapes and participates in the rules of the meaning of being a virgin.
Click to expand...

Pin said:
Lmao, and don't get me started on Wittgenstein. I'm pretty sure he died a virgin too.
Click to expand...

He was quite innocent but I’m not sure he was a virgin. There are indications that he might have been with at least one woman. He also had relationships with men but I’m not sure they were sexual.
 
Faye said:
Aristotle was supposedly a very good writer; however, none of his writings (that he wrote for others to actually read) survived the burning of the library of Alexandria. Today, all we have are his lecture notes, which is why he is so awful to read.
Click to expand...

It's interesting to think about what was destroyed in its entirety - what if there was some ancient Wittgenstein progenitor who solved philosophy? What if Caesar burned it all to make him shut up?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ren
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top