Refute this for me:
At some point in history there was the First philosopher (many would consider Socrates, but who the fuck really knows). This guy couldn't have been educated in the field of philosophy because he was the first, though he was likely well-versed in arts, crafts, politics, rhetoric etc. So he did what he could and formulated some principals. Then he took a student (Plato??), who was the Second philosopher. This guy learned what he could from the First, but, surely, it was not a philosophical sort of education, because the First himself was ignorant in philosophy. Then came the Third, Fourth, Hundredth, and so on. Yet, they all studied from an ever-increasing body of works, but those works came from the men who previously studied from philosophically ignorant men, so their philosophical knowledge was doomed to be rooted in methodical ignorance. Because, unlike, for example, science, objective (as far as the field of science is concerned), detached from an individual knowledge is not present in philosophy, and cannot be compounded upon each other, a man who reads any one work of philosophy is equal in foundational understanding of philosophy to the man who read them all, and both are equal to the Second philosopher (if we assume unbroken chain of passed knowledge, which is flimsy but irrelevant).
tl;dr Philosophy is a flawled methodology, it teaches nothing but brain clutter, and should be regarded on a purely personal level, like poetry. We should stop wasting time on meme philosophers and concentrate on arts, literature, science, and all-around polymathy
you're stupid
>>9136878
>>9136879
Poweful arguments, are you perchance philosophers?
>>9136875
Read sellars' "philosophy and the scientific image of man" because he answers your question. I doubt you can read a twenty page philosophy paper but I'll link it anyway.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://selfpace.uconn.edu/class/percep/SellarsPhilSciImage.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwio_PfH0KHSAhWHZiYKHY4DAdcQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNFOUVAku8GKwb89nVpEU6A7AYLTeA&sig2=bXQikRsCw-yg10BHiEWbVg
did the man who created college, go to college?
it starts with being terribly wrong about socrates
I wish I was born beautiful so I wouldn't have to give a shit about this philosophy shit
>>9136892
Kkkkkkkkk
>>9136913
Powerful argument, are you perchance college educated?
>>9136875
hilariously wrong, you have no idea what you are talking about
>purely personal level
>like poetry
what?
>>9136913
HEUHEUAHEAUHEUAH
>mfw the first thing to be alive came from something that was not alive
>>9136965
Something came out of nothing? That means that nothing can come out of... SOMETHING.
Desu, YES, and may I note that cognitive science renders philosophy obsolete as well? The whole thing with cognitive biases makes me very doubtful that the methodology of philosophy works.
>>9136975
Poweful arguments, are you perchance alive?
>>9137084
Wait a second... Stirner said I am creative nothing, but nothing is not alive, but nothing can create something which can be alive, so I am potentially alive.
Whoah.