The Agony of Conversations With Philosophy Students

Author: coal ,

Posts

Total: 6
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,553
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
I think it's reasonably obvious now that philosophy is beyond the point of no return in its gradual progression into being an activist discipline, along the same lines as the rest of the humanities, the "studies" courses (gender studies, women's studies -- or worse, woymens studies,  "African American Studies") (read: fake social sciences), as well as the near comprehensive sum of all the real social sciences.  

To speak with your stereotypical philosophy undergraduate, you hear only of "debunking" things, and how "problematic" they are, for reasons that have to be "unpacked".  Even the shit that isn't per se political or ideological, like philosophy of mind, is still laden with the Derrida-esque trash language of the intellectually inebriated. 

Tell me my language is "problematic" or that an idea I have needs to be "debunked", or how you "debunked" the thoughts of someone else -- who was probably smarter than you, like Hegel -- and I already know you're a hack whose incapacity for original thought has predisposed you to the seeming psychological comfort from an ideologically driven understanding of the world.

It's all about power relations between classes of the oppressed and those who oppress, you say?  The details be damned, and if you bother to point them out you're one of more of these "problematic" classes of person: racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, and the list goes on.  Maybe you're even a xenophobe.  

The irony of course is that this new call-out ethics functions exactly the same way Nietzsche criticized dogmatic assertions of Christian morality.  As Foucault might say, the architecture of our systems of ostensible morality don't change... however variable the content may be in time or space.  (That's the reason you can't put Foucault in the same basket of imbeciles as Derrida or the Frankfurt School, btw.)  The irony of course is that this ship of fools (catch the Foucault reference? I know you didn't, because you never read Foucault, or if you did, you didn't understand it) will be the first to police language as if they were Chairman Mao's agents of the party's orthodoxy.  

Whenever I hear any person even use those words in conversation, it's like... ok, great... I can automatically predict at the very least your entire -- and unidimensional -- worldview.  How lovely.  How convenient for me, because I already know that THIS is the beginning and end of what you're capable of doing is reproducing.  Sadly, little more than an increasingly more hideous rhetorical replica of the postmodern garbage you were taught as if it were the veritably catechismal truth. 

And to someone outside of that matrix, that illusion of nonsense, what the conversation sounds like is a symphony of wild cats hissing at one another and all who have the misfortune of encountering them.  Indeed, there is more intellectual content to be had in a symphony of wild cats hissing at one another and all who have the misfortune to pass them by than there could ever be in the mind-numbing inanity that marks what passes for education these days.

(Anyone so educated should file a lawsuit against, if not burn down -- in metaphor -- the establishment which so indoctrinated them!)

Alas, this is the agony of conversations with philosophy students.  


Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
Hasty generalization logical fallacy. Debunked.

Just kidding. But your post comes across as someone who is trying to prove they're more intelligent than those you complain about by using superfluous language and references to philosophy materials you've read which is kind of annoying.

348 days later

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 17
Posts: 5,537
3
3
4
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
4
A student of philosophy may be good at quoting the philosophy of others, but may not necessarily be any good a developing new philosophical ideas of their own.

I would suggest that less corrupted minds are perhaps more incisive.....Less jargon for jargons sake.

14 days later

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 11,548
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @coal
I could not help but laugh at the sheer irony of your post, for it was indeed this thought I've had when addressing your politics and philosophical depth of thought and opinion formation:

 it's like... ok, great... I can automatically predict at the very least your entire -- and unidimensional -- worldview.  How lovely.  How convenient for me, because I already know that THIS is the beginning and end of what you're capable of doing is reproducing.  Sadly, little more than an increasingly more hideous rhetorical replica of the postmodern garbage you were taught as if it were the veritably catechismal truth. 
You are a pragmatist, you have no true moral views as far as I know. You literally only comprehend pragmatic ends (not just means). You don't seem to have any significant depth to your philosophy or politics beyond probing into 'ooh la la I'm smarter than everyone around me because I say I am, my god these idiots anger me!'

Big deal, man; you're a real big deal, man.
Pinkfreud08
Pinkfreud08's avatar
Debates: 17
Posts: 578
2
7
11
Pinkfreud08's avatar
Pinkfreud08
2
7
11
Damn this forum is just a slaughter 
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,662
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @coal
good point