why do fricking idiots seem to think about schools of thought

File: 1446113671158.jpg (78KB, 764x599px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 764x599px

cool

>>8598796
>why do fricking idiots seem to think about schools of thought within philosophy like they are competing football teams?
i don't know

>>8598796
Because people think they are right and think anyone proposing any other philosophy is screwing up the world.

>>8598808
Instead of defining everyone of your beliefs and ideas, you can simply say, "I'm a nihilist". I can respond, "I'm a christian" we then can discuss a whole arrange of subjects with relative ease.

On the one hand, identifying with a belief system is, uh... "pure ideology" as it were.

On the other hand, >>8598845 is correct. These terms can be used to shorten introductions with others.

I would generally say that anyone who claims to adhere strictly to their party line on intellectual matters has probably not thought about their position enough.

>>8598796
>why are people talking about reading books on a literature board?!?!?!
I don't know, OP. It's one of life's great mysteries, like "How do they get the figs in the fig rolls?"

>>8598845
>we then can discuss a whole arrange of subjects with relative ease.
This is not my experience.

>>8598796
>why do fricking idiots seem to think
I dunno, maybe it's like an illusion, we want to believe other people think. Or maybe it's like camouflage, they gain something by looking thoughtful.

There is no level at which you no longer get idiots either, nor is there anywhere where there are only idiots. This is Nietzsche's whole thing of a lot of smart people work with their hands, but a lot of stupid people also manage to get through university somehow. What can you do eh???

They make it easier to extend the conclusions of multiple competing systems into a single synthesis. It's like math. You start with simple definitions, then move on to simple theorems from which you can begin to prove more complex theorems, and so on until you are demonstrating theorems about theorems. It's pretty much the only way to make sense of systematic thinkers like Heidegger or Hegel or even systematic thought outside of philosophy, such as economics and the sciences.

It is a sign of philosophical immaturity to identify overtly with some school as being "the final truth" to which we are somehow obliged to submit (spooky!). With time and study people move on from this, although they will still be able to describe their ideas with reference to those schools.

For example, the other night I was talking with my friend about "epistemic responsibility." I denied that there was any such thing, and drew on schools such as doxastic voluntarism, reliabilism, and Wittgenstein. The fact we could each reference these complex concepts allowed our discussion to move much further and more easily than if we limited ourselves to describing each atomic proposition of our overall philosophy.

>>8599437
TL;DR it is convenient for discussion to work with schools of thought.