>there isn't a single aspect of modern philosophy which isn't better covered by other subjects
What a moronic thing to say.
Pessimistic about studying philosophy
Alexander Lewis
Adam Ross
Sounds like you simply lack the brainpower to comprehend philosophy. Try something less intellectually challenging, like accounting.
Aiden Edwards
>Sounds like you simply lack the brainpower to comprehend philosophy. Try something less intellectually challenging, like accounting.
Josiah Cruz
>Sounds like you simply lack the brainpower to comprehend philosophy. Try something less intellectually challenging, like accounting.
Colton Allen
To rephrase what others have stated, it's mostly about dealing with how we think about what we can perceive/know and how we go about understanding it.
I doubt very many people genuinely believe in Plato's realm of becoming and being, but people learn it in order to be able to abstractify and understand the conclusions reasoned by it. Seeing how a philosopher was able to come to those conclusions and understand their arguments for it is the meta-game of philosophy. Sure the language they utilize for making claims can be obtuse and purposefully obfuscating (Hegel, Kant, Heidegger...) but that's part of the fun. It's rewarding to read or study something difficult so that when it finally clicks, you get a wondrous feeling of accomplishment though it basically means nothing to the world. You obviously don't have to believe it, especially if it is so nonsensical and abstract that its existentially irrelevant. It is kind of like a hobby along the lines of art or music, but it transforms your thinking in a way where you can recognize things that are existentially relevant to yourself.
It is best to have a holistic grasp of thought from a range of fields and disciplines to inform yourself, but it will be impossible to have all the answers you seek laid out by one particular field. Philosophers for this reason attempt to learn newer scientific theories and evidence that expands their worldview. This in turn enters a reciprocal cycle in which philosophy informs and develops new fields of study. Take psychology, sociology, or anthropology for example, these fields basically developed off the back of 19th century thinkers like Freud, Marx, and Kant who all had strong philosophical backgrounds. These fields in turn have developed newer fields like linguistics which then reshape philosophy. It's a graduated process of informing academic disciplines.
Eli Gray
I can't tell if this is bait but it's bizarre that people are indulging it. It sounds like it was written by a kid.
"I'm not impressed" why should anyone give a fuck lmao, we're not impressed by you either
Joshua Reyes
>>philosophy is useless wankery and a waste of time
>lol define usefulness
>*puffs his cheeks* filthy pleb
>implying time exists
>dont you dare to have an opinion on philosophy without reading these 25 tomes of brain spew
>ur just brainlet wojak
> *commits suicide from what he perceives as "seeing the true nature of reality"
Here is a great tip for detecting midwits: Every single man who thinks philosophy is worth his time is a midwit - in the making or fully grown. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Jack Stewart
is the thinking man wearing a hat or does he just have fucked up hair
Benjamin Howard
Why would anyone give credit to any philosophy based on some random esoterism such as ideas or essence of things ?
I always thought of philosophy as interesting when it makes me think about what direction or meaning I should give to my own life and how to deal with it's fragility. I think it's a good way of defining and confronting values based on observable facts. But why would I take seriously any speculation on what is above our observation as anything could go by definition. Why should we ask ourselves about an hypothetical truth above our experience as long as we can't experience it ? Why would I make the hypothesis that there is a world of pure ideas when I could make with the same level of incertitude an hypothesis about the fact that I'm the original idea giving form to my own concepts ?
We live in a realm with enough mysteries to solve so that we don't need to make such useless speculations abour abstract and arbitrary concepts.
The only use I find about it is that seeking the implications of such arbitrary concepts is a good exercise for the mind and opens it to novelty.
But it seems foolish to me to take any of these seriously and see those as something more than arbitrary speculations.
I'm sorry if I'm not being clear about this subject or if my english isn't correct as it's not my main language.
Adrian Rogers
Guenon, Schuon, Commaraswamy, Lings. The whole traditionalist school comes to mind.