Thread replies: 3
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: Sad_frog[1].jpg (87KB, 631x800px)
![Sad_frog[1].jpg](https://4archive.org/image/image-404.png "Sad frog[1]")
87KB, 631x800px
Why do newer philosophers always get off scot-free when they butcher older philosopher's arguments.
They know taken as a whole their predecessor's work most of the time just by itself contradicts their vapid counterarguments.
But they just act as if it's not there or assume a priori their take is simply "better" and "that's that".
Why is this allowed?
You finally feel confident that you understand one guy but then the next one just goes around putting words in their mouths, quote mining or making a superficial or misrepresentational criticism which can easily be countered simply by pointing to relevant counterarguments in the work itself.
Guess I'm too high IQ for philosophy or something.
Feels bad man.
>>
why do philosophers come here to argue, when they'd be more at home in /pol/?
>>
>>9209786
I would be offended if someone call me a philosopher.
Thread posts: 3
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1