Bad philosophy?

>>8994670
>What the hell is bad philosophy??
Continental philosophy.

>>8994670
>Your philosophy is bad because it deviates from the neo-liberal norms of modern society.

Disregard Reddit, friend.

I have no idea what i'm talking about, but i'd assume they look for indecisiveness.

If they analytic elitist, they look for unfalsifiable, non objective stuff.

I know badeconomics is basically like 4chan. Freshmen with political opinions looking for noobs of opposing ideologies that are easy prey.

>>8994670
You know Reddit hate threads? It's an entire sub dedicated to that. Naturally it congealed into a salt-bowl of circle-jerking ideology. They're Marxist, they're anti-"neckbeard", and that, in honesty, is forgivable. It's largely unrelated to philosophy, see.

But what is unforgivable is their blatant normieness. They're just...normal philosophers. They're mostly analytic, and they hate the idea of nihilism for no real reason. Disagreeing with nihilism is just good sense, sure, but not hating it. It's classic "it must be bad, because look at all my subreddit friends -- they also think it's bad".

t. butthurt nihilist

Similar situation with badliterature, only with Orwell and Wallace. I personally dislike them, but they treat anyone praising them in any capacity as bad literature. They're also butthurt about "insidious /lit/ influence". That's a quote. The subreddit regulars are getting downvoted, and they can't have that.

>>8994691
But 4chan is a cynic/egoist authoritarian capitalist circlejerk.

>>8994679
>>8994680
>>8994682
>>8994691
Yo, thanks for the answers! So it basically comes down to just justifying their own believes and actions, and claiming to be different while essentially recycling the same contemporary ideologies?

>>8994670
You should read it all. Even if it's bad philosophy.
You should read post-modernism so that you understand how neurotic and pathological some of these people are.

>>8994691
>"insidious /lit/ influence".
kek, at least people on 4chan aren't the only ones paranoid about users from other sites.

>>8994699
You have no idea how wrong you are.

4chan is contrarian as FUCK. Here, we have egoists, purely to fuck with the New Dostoevskys who are there purely to fuck with the New Atheists who are there purely to fuck with the Marxists who are there purely to be the most special snowflake opposition to /pol/.

Even in threads where it seems every reply is saying the same viewpoint -- particularly on boards like /pol/ -- there will always be a few contrarians.
>>8994704
>So it basically comes down to just justifying their own believes and actions
Yes.
>and claiming to be different
No. Unlike us, they feel no need to do this. This is their failing.

>>8994679

Filthy anglo-autist detected.

How do you deal with the fact that Gödel used your precious logic to formalize Leibniz' proof of God and that it hasn't been successfully refuted?

>>8994712
Godel's premises are retarded.

>>8994691
Well, Nihilists gravitate to each other it seems. People usually tell me that I am literally Hitler for not caring about everything. The most heat I get is when I tell them I do not believe that bad people exist.

>>8994711
Isn't thinking and claiming to be different kind of the norm of modern mainstream philosophy? I mean, the only people I meet IRL who call themselves philosophers are elitist jerk-offs.

>>8994720
God, I HATE normies.
>so good and evil are spooks man, but that doesn't mean--
>"so you don't think paedophiles are evil?"
>No, but as I was--
>"You're seriously defending paedophiles? This conversation is over."
Every time.

>>8994732
The fact that you are even having this conversation with other people means you are pretty normie yourself.

>>8994716

Which one in particular where you planning to criticize?

>>8994741
This is on Reddit. I go on Reddit all the time. This is because I embody the trinity of autism, masochism, and retardation.

Also I wasn't entirely serious in representation. It's not a problem with normies, it's a problem with those who are unwilling to consider every viewpoint and be critical of every viewpoint. These are often the same people who will advocate criticism of every viewpoint, usually from an alt-right perspective (nowadays).

>>8994741
>Tfw not an alien having abstract conversations with a rock while trying to envision a new kind of smograk, what the fuck that even is.

>>8994716
>Godel's premises are retarded.

Indeed. While he wrote some good mathematics, let's not forget this was a man who starved himself to death after his wife passed away because he was paranoid that all food not prepared by her was poison.

>>8994755

Hit me up with that there criticism instead of assertions senpai.

Just found this on the pedias:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_nihilism
>"Legal nihilism is negative attitude toward law.[1] Its basis is a weak belief that law is beneficial for the society.[2] Many scholars believe that legal nihilism is a destructive phenomenon.[3]"
TL;DR: "Because we say so."

>>8994670
Hahah, I just checked /r/badphilosophy and one of my downvoted comments in /r/askphilosophy is currently at the front page of it.

Really makes you think about the hyper-intellectual place that are reddit's academic subreddits, huh.

>>8994795
Just remember; two legs bad, four legs good.

>>8994795
Maybe you're just shit

>>8994795
Post it, fgt.

File: 1484009829796.png (4KB, 219x246px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 219x246px

>>8994670

whats with everyone pretending to be retarded nowadays?

>>8994795
I also just checked /r/badphilosophy, and there are no comments from /r/askphilosophy on its front page.

>>8994691
>But what is unforgivable is their blatant normieness
it's a consequence of having an identity attached to their posting.

We would (and do) also post "normie" shit when all of our ideas trace back to a single identity, because we don't want to expose the internal contradictions of our most extreme thoughts.

This is the same reason why we don't spout anti-semitism and violence and misanthropy in real life while feeling free to do it here.

>>8994816
Here you go, fgt:

https://www.reddit.com/r/badphilosophy/comments/5okk31/socrates_didnt_teach_plato_socrates_taught_plato/

>>8994824
Well, wrong - >>8994836

File: its fucking socrates.png (498KB, 1741x699px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 1741x699px

>>8994836
You're saying that Plato wasn't a student but more of a follower?

>>8994836
Plato was as much of a student of Socrates as a Christian is a student of Jesus?

>>8994832
Wrong. I don't mean they're normie in that they hold socially-acceptable opinions. I mean normie in that they hold normal opinions and automatically assume anything else is wrong, in both a rational and moral sense.

That is partially the result of circlejerking, and that is partially due to identities, yes, but that's all partial.
>>8994836
Your autism is inspiring to us all. 4chan encourages this kind of pedantic fuckery, and that is good. Here, you can say whatever spergy point you have to make, and you won't be downvoted or otherwise socially conditioned out of it.

A lot of Redditors think that's why Reddit is better.

Glad to see someone's defending pedantry, though. On the other hand they think you're wrong, which is wrong.
>>8994839
I know, I forgot they'd moved to archiving/screencapping shit, so I just searched "askphilosophy".

>>8994846
>>8994856
Yep, exactly guys. That's what I was trying to point out.

>>8994723
> the only people I meet IRL who call themselves philosophers are elitist jerk-offs.
Pretty sure that there is the "norm of modern mainstream philosophy"

Anybody I've ever seen who expressed interest in philosophy is a 2deep4u pretentious faggot. /r/philosophy is the epitome of the bullshit, every time I see one of their posts on the front page and look at the comments, the posts of full of big words that add nothing to the post. These people consciously try to use the biggest words they know in an attempt to look smarter, and then on top of that they italicize random words so you know they're saying something really important and clever.

>>8994873
Most reasoning of philosophy I meet in daily life is just believes based on a system based on a system. They seem to be so convinced of what they were thought is the holy grail of reasoning that they are now untouchable intellectuals.

I think the reason why I don't talk about philosophy is because I honestly do think what I say will result into cognitive dissonance. For example the good-evil thing, that's so far out of the hivemind of society and the things they were thought as a child that you go from 0 to Hitler in less than a second.

File: 5Kg7Y04.jpg (65KB, 431x450px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 431x450px

>>8994679

>>8994711
Sooo it IS cynicism? If nobody is shitting on idea, then we make a way.

File: next day delivery.gif (4MB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 400x400px

>>8994905
Supply and demand. One fresh shitpost coming up!

The bad philosophy subreddit is a small group of Phil grad students complaining about undergrads and how stupid people on reddit are. And posting red pandas for some reason.

>>8994926
But is there a certain idea that is "bad philosophy" to them? Is it just a name or is it some kind of pseudo-intellectual lingo?

I can't decide which board is literal cancer. This one or ___.

>>8994670
>What is bad philosophy
Anything in the period of time between the Buddhists/Greeks and the current understanding of of Object-Oriented Ontology.

>>8995010
i don't get it

>>8994754
>smograk

Stolen. Look for it in my next best seller; The Japanese Insurance Salesman

>>8995069
A beautiful tale about a man making millions from broken contracts and the search for the true meaning of "no money will be paid in case of suicide".

"This book thought me why I am right" -Redditor

>>8994732
How do people justify arguing like this? Do they not consider anything that is not their own viewpoint at all? If you think even a little about what "good" and "bad" means you must notice that these terms are highly subjective, right? Even if you take the example into consideration I dont think you can claim that paedophiles are "evil" people. They are not to blame for their desires. This of course does not mean that people should be allowed to rape children since sexual abuse leaves deep mental scars. What they probably meant was not paedophile anyway but rather child rapist/ abuser. Id still say that claiming that they are "evil" people falls flat. They were made this way by their genetics and environment. Even if a person was born with certain tendencies that are not compatible with living in society you can not morally condemn them for these tendencies since you have not control how you are born.

>>8995045
He's referring to gadamer

Brush up on your phenomenology anon

>>8995165
This is a tough one to me, I kind of feel like a lot of things that "hurt people" are based on the fact that they make people feel bad and give them psychological problems because society dictates to them that those things that "hurt people" are hurting people and are bad, or a result of the system and ideas built around it.

It seems like society is creating psychological problems by making them a problem.

Any input?

>>8995165
Good and evil aren't obviously subjective -- by which I mean there are understandable, if IMO completely wrong arguments in favour of it being objective.

Moreover you're just doing the same with your own system of morality, however that might be.
>>8995212
That seems extremely unlikely, and in any case is a question for psychology.

>>8994699
I don't think 4chan is a circlejerk about anything because the currency of this site is (You)'s and you get more (You)'s by disagreeing with someone than by agreeing with them.

>>8995295
>Moreover you're just doing the same with your own system of morality, however that might be.

Correct. Id even say that if you have any kind of moral you probably do this. I however regocnize that my personal moral view is subjective and not some God given truth and I dont just leave the conversation when somebody says something I dont disagree with but try to find out why they think that way and what it says about me and them that we are disagreeing. I also try to think my moral position through and be as critical of it as possible for someone who has that exact moral view. What bugs me about the presented dialogue is mainly the attitude of not being willing to consider other viewpoints and not being even the slightest bit critical of ones own view leading to them throwing a hissy fit if they run out of arguments. There is certainly a case to be made that this attitude might not even be to the advantage of the individual since you probably are content with yourself and your oh-so-right view if you dont have to consider others having valid points as well leading to more overall happiness and self confidence but again I cant see myself agreeing with this subjective moral view.

>>8994706
>tfw actually like and enjoy reading post-modernist philosophy
come on now

>>8996079
>Not making yourself suicidal by reading sewer drain level philosophy.
R u evn tryin, br0?

>>8995524
So, for attention?