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.
Philosophers you can't stand
by Anonymous | reply 46 | December 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 Anonymous | reply 1 | February 8, 2015 12:08 AM |
Ayn Rand.
by Anonymous | reply 2 | February 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 Anonymous | reply 3 | February 8, 2015 12:19 AM |
Taylor Swift
Would be better if she could actually sing
by Anonymous | reply 4 | February 8, 2015 2:37 AM |
I second Ayn Rand.
Simplistic pig.
by Anonymous | reply 5 | February 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 Anonymous | reply 6 | February 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 Anonymous | reply 7 | February 8, 2015 4:11 AM |
I can't stand Kant. It's all cant. And I can't stand that.
by Anonymous | reply 8 | February 8, 2015 4:15 AM |
Fucking Nietzsche was the nazi fascist.
by Anonymous | reply 9 | February 8, 2015 4:26 AM |
What is it you Kant face?
by Anonymous | reply 10 | February 8, 2015 5:03 AM |
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable.
by Anonymous | reply 11 | February 8, 2015 6:16 AM |
Bump
by Anonymous | reply 13 | February 15, 2015 7:09 PM |
Nancy pelosi.
by Anonymous | reply 14 | February 15, 2015 7:12 PM |
Stick to the topic, please, r14.
by Anonymous | reply 15 | February 15, 2015 7:19 PM |
Pretty much all the Catholics from St. Augustine and Duns Scotus to St. Thomas Aquinas.
by Anonymous | reply 16 | February 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 Anonymous | reply 17 | February 17, 2015 2:55 AM |
The world would be a better place without Sun-Tzu and Niccolo Machiavelli
by Anonymous | reply 18 | February 17, 2015 4:09 AM |
I can't stand that bald British "philosopher" with the French name.
by Anonymous | reply 19 | February 17, 2015 4:22 AM |
Robert Nozick. What a fucking dullard.
by Anonymous | reply 20 | February 17, 2015 11:31 PM |
philosophers' stone
by Anonymous | reply 21 | February 17, 2015 11:45 PM |
Those endlessly rambling DL know-it-alls who seem to think we love, respect and admire them.
by Anonymous | reply 22 | February 17, 2015 11:54 PM |
Roger Scruton, r19?
by Anonymous | reply 23 | February 17, 2015 11:58 PM |
He doesn't look very bald to me, r23 (I have no idea who r19 means either, though).
by Anonymous | reply 24 | February 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.
by Anonymous | reply 25 | February 18, 2015 12:42 AM |
Since I'm a twat at r25 to a presumably good man, I deserve the forthcoming "Oh, Dear".
by Anonymous | reply 26 | February 18, 2015 12:45 AM |
Charles Schulz
by Anonymous | reply 27 | February 18, 2015 12:51 AM |
Charles Schultz stole an idea from me.
by Anonymous | reply 28 | February 18, 2015 1:45 AM |
Heidegger. Total nazi.
by Anonymous | reply 29 | February 18, 2015 1:51 AM |
R19: Michel Foucault?
by Anonymous | reply 30 | February 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 Anonymous | reply 31 | February 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 Anonymous | reply 32 | February 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 Anonymous | reply 33 | February 18, 2015 3:34 AM |
Bump.
by Anonymous | reply 34 | March 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 Anonymous | reply 35 | December 22, 2019 6:45 AM |
I detest philosophy in general, so maybe all of them? Except for Hannah Arendt.
by Anonymous | reply 36 | December 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 Anonymous | reply 37 | December 22, 2019 11:05 AM |
Foucault is interesting. Very weird, but makes you think in a totally different way.
by Anonymous | reply 38 | December 22, 2019 11:09 AM |
Does Noam Chonsky count?
by Anonymous | reply 39 | December 22, 2019 11:54 AM |
Every word ever written by Karl Marx should be burned.
by Anonymous | reply 40 | December 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 Anonymous | reply 41 | December 22, 2019 12:06 PM |
Not sure Foucault wanted to get rid of homosexuality? But again am not really into philosophy.
by Anonymous | reply 42 | December 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 Anonymous | reply 43 | December 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 Anonymous | reply 44 | December 22, 2019 4:46 PM |
Kelly Clarkson and her "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger"
by Anonymous | reply 45 | December 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 Anonymous | reply 46 | December 22, 2019 4:57 PM |