Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Philosophers you can't stand

Soren Kierkegaard. Argues like an internet troll: Ad hominem attacks; hazy with definitions; and about as close to reality as a Republican tea party protester.

by Anonymousreply 46December 22, 2019 4:57 PM

Bernard Henri Lévy. He has a big fan base but is a repulsive, egomaniac fraud.

Happily, in the essay De la guerre en philosophie (2010), Lévy was publicly embarrassed when he used, as a central point of his refutation of Kant, the writings of French "philosopher" Jean-Baptiste Botul. Botul's writings are actually well-known spoofs, and Botul himself is the fictional creation of a living French journalist and philosopher, Frédéric Pagès.

by Anonymousreply 1February 8, 2015 12:08 AM

Ayn Rand.

by Anonymousreply 2February 8, 2015 12:09 AM

Plato. The Republic is pretty much a guidebook for fascism. Not denying Plato's stature, but I admire Aristotle much more.

I'm a fan of a lot of Derrida's ideas, but I cannot stand his writing style - he's a windbag who purposefully obfuscates.

by Anonymousreply 3February 8, 2015 12:19 AM

Taylor Swift

Would be better if she could actually sing

by Anonymousreply 4February 8, 2015 2:37 AM

I second Ayn Rand.

Simplistic pig.

by Anonymousreply 5February 8, 2015 3:59 AM

R3, Plato's dialogues are not meant to tell you what to think; they are meant to teach you how to think critically.

Socrates raises questions and then follows the reasoning to its logical conclusion. But typically the dialogue ends without coming to a satisfactory conclusion, and Socrates suggest further discussion is necessary.

There are commentators who believe that Plato did not intend the reader to accept the results of the discussion in the Republic as the ideal state. It is not the result of the discussion that is important, but the dialectic itself.

Plato did not advocate fascism. It is the antithesis of everything he stood for.

by Anonymousreply 6February 8, 2015 4:06 AM

Sarah Palan. Without her TelePrompTer, she's just got word salad, and yet she gets invited back!

Btw, it's T-Party, for Treason, alluding to their promotion of secession, and gun play for the purpose of suppressing the exercise of the right to meet and speak freely.

Just because they are dangeriously deranged doesn't mean we should coddle them.

by Anonymousreply 7February 8, 2015 4:11 AM

I can't stand Kant. It's all cant. And I can't stand that.

by Anonymousreply 8February 8, 2015 4:15 AM

Fucking Nietzsche was the nazi fascist.

by Anonymousreply 9February 8, 2015 4:26 AM

What is it you Kant face?

by Anonymousreply 10February 8, 2015 5:03 AM

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable.

by Anonymousreply 11February 8, 2015 6:16 AM

Raise your glass...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 12February 8, 2015 6:22 AM

Bump

by Anonymousreply 13February 15, 2015 7:09 PM

Nancy pelosi.

by Anonymousreply 14February 15, 2015 7:12 PM

Stick to the topic, please, r14.

by Anonymousreply 15February 15, 2015 7:19 PM

Pretty much all the Catholics from St. Augustine and Duns Scotus to St. Thomas Aquinas.

by Anonymousreply 16February 16, 2015 11:13 PM

R3 Plato is the greatest philosopher ever, and the Republic is probably the most important book in philosophy ever written, and maybe the most important and classic book after the Iliad and the Bible. I'd say Kant is the second most important or grösste philosopher and Socrates the third, most would probably say that Socrates is grösser and more important than Kant. Kant's name, the pronunciation, certainly impeded his career in the English-speaking world and in the world in general, don't know since when cunt means cunt, but since then his name was a problem.

by Anonymousreply 17February 17, 2015 2:55 AM

The world would be a better place without Sun-Tzu and Niccolo Machiavelli

by Anonymousreply 18February 17, 2015 4:09 AM

I can't stand that bald British "philosopher" with the French name.

by Anonymousreply 19February 17, 2015 4:22 AM

Robert Nozick. What a fucking dullard.

by Anonymousreply 20February 17, 2015 11:31 PM

philosophers' stone

by Anonymousreply 21February 17, 2015 11:45 PM

Those endlessly rambling DL know-it-alls who seem to think we love, respect and admire them.

by Anonymousreply 22February 17, 2015 11:54 PM

Roger Scruton, r19?

by Anonymousreply 23February 17, 2015 11:58 PM

He doesn't look very bald to me, r23 (I have no idea who r19 means either, though).

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 24February 18, 2015 12:02 AM

I think he means Alain de Botton, r23 and r24. Said philosopher tends to the more popular elements of the field and to overly reductive approaches.

On the other hand, I do find him attractive. His philosophy for the masses is valiant, but in a similar vain to Don Quixote.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 25February 18, 2015 12:42 AM

Since I'm a twat at r25 to a presumably good man, I deserve the forthcoming "Oh, Dear".

by Anonymousreply 26February 18, 2015 12:45 AM

Charles Schulz

by Anonymousreply 27February 18, 2015 12:51 AM

Charles Schultz stole an idea from me.

by Anonymousreply 28February 18, 2015 1:45 AM

Heidegger. Total nazi.

by Anonymousreply 29February 18, 2015 1:51 AM

R19: Michel Foucault?

by Anonymousreply 30February 18, 2015 1:53 AM

Fucking Foucault. Academics have made this pretentious asshole their GOD and the oversaturation of his empty theories has destroyed the Humanities.

by Anonymousreply 31February 18, 2015 2:47 AM

Foucault isn't what I would call a philosopher but a writer of historical fiction.

Since the Libertarian troll pointed to them specifically, I'd have to add....

Ludwig von Mises. He was trained as a lawyer, NOT an economist or philosopher, although that became his profession. His false and misleading view of socialism is that adopted by the propagandists of the current Republican party.

Murray Rothbard, an actual mathematician and economist, he actually had a job as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to Eisenhower. It was after he left this role that he turned to pop economics philosophy, rejecting statistical and social science economics in favor of libertarian theories. He has taken conservative talking points to ridiculous extremes, favoring eye for an eye justice, torture of suspects, and selling of children.

Eugen Bohm von Bawerk was Austrian minister of finance under the Habsburgs (not a successful one either). He was actually one of the originators of the modern income tax, which is something libertarians like to forget. He was staunchly anti-labor saying workers are not exploited but carried by the producers since they really shouldn't be paid until the products they make are actually sold, a ridiculous anti-market notion.

Carl Menger was the founder of the Austrian school of economics, was also a lawyer who became an economist by default He tutored crown prince Rudolph until the latter committed suicide.

by Anonymousreply 32February 18, 2015 3:25 AM

[quote] Fucking Nietzsche was the nazi fascist.

And, if one follows your sentence to its logical conclusion, a time traveller.

by Anonymousreply 33February 18, 2015 3:34 AM

Bump.

by Anonymousreply 34March 5, 2015 2:42 PM

Reviving this. I can't stand Augustine, Aquinas, Ratzinger, and Scruton. I appreciate some of their ideas, especially Scruton's exhortations to re-prioritize beauty, but I can't make myself agree with what they stand in toto. Having said this though, I don't mean to claim that the entirety of Catholic philosophy is deplorable.

by Anonymousreply 35December 22, 2019 6:45 AM

I detest philosophy in general, so maybe all of them? Except for Hannah Arendt.

by Anonymousreply 36December 22, 2019 11:01 AM

I wouldn't count Bernard-Henri Lévy as a philosopher, though. More of a celebrity and perhaps a columnist.

by Anonymousreply 37December 22, 2019 11:05 AM

Foucault is interesting. Very weird, but makes you think in a totally different way.

by Anonymousreply 38December 22, 2019 11:09 AM

Does Noam Chonsky count?

by Anonymousreply 39December 22, 2019 11:54 AM

Every word ever written by Karl Marx should be burned.

by Anonymousreply 40December 22, 2019 12:02 PM

Foucault and Derrida were both nihilistic pedophiles. All so-called “deCONstructionist” “thought” is actually anti-thought when you see it put into practice. It is also the blueprint for gay erasure: get rid of homosexuality by “deCONstructing” sex. Purge them from academia before it turns anymore into glorified daycare for adults than it already has.

And whoever called Plato “the blueprint for fascism” was 100% correct. It’s the 21st fucking century: time to let him go.

by Anonymousreply 41December 22, 2019 12:06 PM

Not sure Foucault wanted to get rid of homosexuality? But again am not really into philosophy.

by Anonymousreply 42December 22, 2019 1:11 PM

Not a fan of Nietzsche‘s philosophy but his reputation as a Nazi may be over stated. His sister was a Nazi. He had serious mental health issues. She subverted many of his ideas to try to justify Naziism. He was tarred with the same brush. Ayn Rand is not a philosopher as much as a turd in the punch bowl. She did a lot to denigrate normal human feelings. Her first novel We the Living was quite good. She went off the deep end after that.

Joseph Campbell is not technically a philosopher but his work taken as a whole is certainly a philosophy and perhaps more. Life changing possibly.

by Anonymousreply 43December 22, 2019 4:39 PM

Joseph Campbell is to blame for every crappy Hollywood movie since 1977. He glommed onto George Lucas’s coat tails in the 1980s and then Bill Moyers took an interest in him, and that’s the only reason anyone takes his crackpot theories seriously. There’s even an institute in his name in Carmel, California a mere hours from the Lucasfilm compound.

by Anonymousreply 44December 22, 2019 4:46 PM

Kelly Clarkson and her "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger"

by Anonymousreply 45December 22, 2019 4:50 PM

Foucault is theoretically interesting, even if his actual historiography is sometimes lacking and his writing extremely dense.

Whoever took queer theory to its extremes, in which anything vaguely outside the norm is "queer," can go die in a grease fire though if they haven't already. Recently, I read an academic frau who described pedophilia in a certain literary work as "queer" because pedophilia wasn't normative (in that context, roughly speaking). I really wanted to ask if she ONLY described the situation as "queer" because it was between an adult man and a boy, or if she would have also analysed a situation between an adult man and a girl the same way. Fucking heteros.

by Anonymousreply 46December 22, 2019 4:57 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!