He's right you know

>you only prove his point
You mean your point?

& so what?

>And so what?
>"And so what? And so this is the End of History. Nothing personnel, kid."

Attached: 1553837668479.png (608x3344, 2.26M)

Then don’t take an example. Look at it this way there are observations that we know lead to and connect to important facts there are also observations that may lead to important facts but we are not aware of the connections yet. Making quality observations is still smart and useful in itself.

Who is the best pseudo-intellectual on Twitter?

Nick Land obviously

The therapeutic aspect of Wittgenstein's thought is the least interesting part of his philosophy. It's clear Logo hasn't read enough analytic phil that responds and develops Wittgenstein, like MacIntyre's wittgensteinian reading of Aristotle, which takes his standpoint and pushes beyond its aporias.

Rorty who gives a shit. Read James and Pierce, all pragmatism thereafter is cringe.

Fundamentally the indifference of his "so what" is a feigned indifference, a dishonest posture, which doesn't even capture what someone like Wittgenstein really thought. If someone isn't honest enough to admit that philosophical questions are merely clarifications of questions that are of burning importance to all human beings, then they aren't fit to do philosophy.

That's why I only care about ethics and existentialism. The immediate utility of which are simply how to go about my daily life without being to autistic too function. That's why npcs don't care for philosophy. They don't need a big mess of words to rationalize staying alive and somewhat enjoying it.

Holy shit that's embarrassingly sophomoric

>‘& so what?’

Surely the pursuit of spiritual enlightenment through knowledge is hardly a ‘so what?’ kind of topic. Everything beyond the most basic philosophy can be ‘so whatted’ if your standard for what’s actually important is writing third-rage e-novels and desperately trying to embody a 50-years out-of-date WASP persona on the Internet.

There's three branches of philosophy.

There is policy philosophy, which is utterly useless. This is the branch of philosophy concerned with what real decisions governments should make about actual problems. I've worked in government. Literally nobody cares about these opinions. The policymakers don't care. The voters don't care. The media doesn't report them. This branch of philosophy is an utter waste of time for all involved. It will never matter to anybody. But it is at least defensible to retards who don't know anything about government as being of practical use, even if it isn't.

There is ethical philosophy. This is the branch of philosophy concerned with what we should value and how to behave in the real world to live out those values. This branch of philosophy is slightly more useful than policy philosophy, but not by much. These philosophers are more useful as a "library of ideas" from which smart but practical men can receive ideologies fully-formed to then implement. The President doesn't make decisions based on what his philosophy advisor advises him, but he makes decisions based on what he feels - and what he feels is influenced by his values, and ethical philosophy gives him language and structure to best articulate those values. But which philosophy he will identify with and be influenced by is not decided by the quality of their arguments (because anyone can delude themselves into being convinced by any argument if they want it hard enough), but by his tendencies.

Then there is esoteric philosophy which is all the rest and is concerned with shit that is of no conceivable use to anybody ever, and also not concerned with values. I cannot believe that even a single fucking person on the planet is permitted to collect a paycheck for providing this kind of "service". I would enjoy watching these people be shot. They annoy me.

I'll give you an example of each
>policy philosophy
Whining about humanitarian crises and begging for government intervention
>ethical philosophy
Rawls, Hayek, Marx, whatever
>esoteric philosophy
dude how can we, like, even know that we exist. dude what even is knowing. dude lol what is beauty

To tie it back to OP, there is no satisfactory answer to "so what" for any of these branches. So what if you think that the US should do more in Rwanda? So what if you think genocide is never acceptable? So what if we can't locate the point on a gradient where red turns into orange? All philosophy is just opinions. Power is what makes opinions matter. So philosophy matters insofar as it affects the opinions of people with power. But philosophers are terrible at getting power, which is why they ended up as philosophers. They love their ideas more than they care about them.

>Dude i like something and i think it's important
>*10 million IQ man with all PhDs on earth* ...... So what?
>breaks down in tears in front of such profound questioning
Pointing out the absurdity of things is pretty elementary. People that destroy meaning for others are doing something very simple that accomplishes nothing. Those that try to build systems that allow a life of meaning engage in a difficult task for the benefit of others.

>>esoteric philosophy
>dude how can we, like, even know that we exist. dude what even is knowing. dude lol what is beauty

retard

"S-so what?"

"It helps me prepare for death so that I can live life to the fullest."

Lmao easy as pie

>philosophy is a cope
lol

Please disregard this post, this person knows nothing about philosophy.

Embarrassing

He's trying to say that philosophers who have a full and healthy conception of the field haven't rebutted the common language philosopher's critique of metaphysics as an illusion of language.

Of course the trick here is when you assert that every form of metaphysics or philosophical subject outside of the analysis of performative speech acts is nonsensical then your very position is impregnable. Because any refutation of it would be seen as falling into the category of inadmissible philosophy.

You could say that ordinary language philosophy is itself a collection of speech acts, and that therefore it is similarly limited.For instance, claiming all of philosophy is speech analysis is itself a type of metaphysical claim, because to be absolutely true it has to extend over all possible worlds.

>coping is bad
lol

>this is your brain on utilitarianism