Which Philosopher Do You Dislike the Most?

[Mademoiselle]

Coelho claims to be a philosopher?

You question that? Have you read his meaningless books?

 

[Hive]

But it's not like I've read him or anything.

You have read his works as edited by his anti-Semitic sister who was affiliated with the Nazi party and became his curator and editor after Nietzsche himself suffered a mental breakdown.

Her versions ran contrary to Nietzsche's own beliefs and if those are the versions you've read, you've wasted your time.

 

[Lark]

How can anyone like Nietzsche? The man was a proto-Nazi asshole who argued that some arbitrary definition of superiority is enough to render half of humanity subservient for selfish, arrogant purposes of the "strong". His theories, if put into practice, would completely undermine some of the very foundations of civilization and society.

And I'm a libertarian. When a libertarian says a theory is dangerous to society, you know it's pretty fucking bad.

I am inclined to agree with you in some ways, disagree in others, perhaps it is a question of degree somehow.

I have read a lot recently about both Nietzsche and Machavelli written by an Italian philosopher who interprets them in the light of a lot of much older thinking about fortune, often an actual personification of fortune too, an actual force, like that conceived of and deified by the Greeks and Romans, and some classical music like Carmen Baruna (spelling).

It goes a long way to rehabilitating those authors in my eyes, they were definitely in the "great man(sic)" school of thinking and if you want a modern day equivalent in style or focus then you'd have to consider the Badass books by Ben Thompson, or perhaps Maddox or Tucker Max, though both of them employ the styling on very, very, very different topics or themes.

I cant remember the name of the guy but he even did an excellent book comparing Jesus and Nietzsche, demonstrating how similar the two were and contrasting them were differences were apparent, and it was much less a matter of night and day than you might suppose.

The popular, often quite juvenile, fans of Nietzsche are woeful and that in turn creates a lot of distortion.

 

[Lark]

I dont like Ayn Rand, I dont know if anyone considers her writings seriously as philosophy or not, I'm not sure if the thread is meant to be about academic philosophy or philosophy in the wider sense of leitmotif or something. The original post seemed to be working out some academic antagonism but some of the posts after that are pretty different to that.

Rand's views about self-interest I think are tempered with a kind of madness which marks here writing and her life, fleeing to the US as a refugee I think traumatically damaged her and she consciously sought to work out as extreme and contrary a position to that of those she considered to have been responsible for her plight.

I'm trying to think of others I dislike, perhaps Hobbes, Locke, some of other other anglo-saxons, the neo-liberals, such as Novak, Freidman, Rothbard, in socio-economic thinking, all of the chicago school and austrian economists like Hayek and Mise (although I think Hayek was a great writer and some of the standard barers for his thinking, such as John Grey, are good writers too, I just think their positions are wrong).

Overall those authors all appear to be dismally pessimistic about life, the universe and everything, its not a wonder the poets and romantics could not stick political economy and described it as a dismal science, on that note I hate Malthus, I also hate neo-Malthusian thinking and there is a lot of it in one guise or another, and love the ways in which Cobbett took down his thinking, even if Cobbett is commonsensical some of the time.

Then again while I dislike those authors and their thinking most of the time they are a necessary counterpoint to other positions or deserve a place in a chain of thesis, antithesis, synthesis, new thesis (which may make me an unintentional hegelian or marxian). For instance I really dislike Martin Luther, I think a hell of a lot of things would have been different and better in the world if there had not been the reformation, and definitely if it had not taken the shape it did with the characters it did, but that said there is no Discourse on Free Will without Luther, Erasmus' points are counter points to his, so in so far as he contributing the bringing forth of that thinking his contribution was worthwhile.

 

[Monster]

Hegel , it's not that I don't like him , but when I read that :
If, now, consciousness hereby becomes aware in its work of the opposition between willing and performance,
between purpose and means, and again between this inward nature, taken all together, and actual reality−−an
opposition which as a whole shows the fortuitous character of the action of consciousness−still the unity and
the necessity of this action are just as much present too. This latter aspect transcends the former, and
experience of the fortuitousness of the action is itself only a fortuitous experience. The necessity of the action
consists in this, that purpose is directly related to actuality, and the unity of these is the very notion of action:
the act takes place because action is per se and of itself the essence of actuality. In the work there is no doubt
comes out the fortuitousness which characterizes accomplishment when contrasted with willing and the
process of performing; and this experience, which seems as if it must be the truth, contradicts that notion of
the act. Still, if we look at the content of this experience taken in its completeness, that content is seen to be
the transitory work. What persists is not the transitoriness; rather this is itself actual and is bound up with the
work, and vanishes with it; the negative falls away along with the positive whose negation it is.


Please....

 

[Cygnus]

I thought badly of Socrates ever since I heard the anecdote about him immersing a kid in water because he asked for his source of wisdom. Likely apocryphal, and I know far too little of him to judge.

Oh, and allegedly he was also an 8, so he was likely a douchebag anyway.



What with all this talk of Nietzsche, it should be remembered that many scholars regard him more as a literary figure than philosophical because he didn't really use any clear system of logic to search for the truth. At least, that's what I recall.
Friedrich Nietzsche (Creator) - TV Tropes

 

[Qlip]

I find this subject really interesting. I mean, they always say you're supposed to separate Art from the Artist. Are you supposed to separate the Idea from the Philosopher? If you don't like hir and what they've done as a person does that invalidate their body of work? Some, especially existentialists would say yes. I say no, I wonder if that makes me some sort of Classicist. Maybe I do hate Heidegger, but think his ideas are exceptional.

 

[Lark]

You have read his works as edited by his anti-Semitic sister who was affiliated with the Nazi party and became his curator and editor after Nietzsche himself suffered a mental breakdown.

Her versions ran contrary to Nietzsche's own beliefs and if those are the versions you've read, you've wasted your time.

I wouldnt say its a complete waste of time, although the context you just mention will cast it all in a different light.

I personally like reading Nietzsche because I always ask myself, was he mad yet, was he mad yet, he's definitely mad now.

 

[Bknight]

Never been fond of Ayn Rand. Her egoism combined with far-right and purist capitalist sentiments made her look to be far too Nieztsche-esque.

Speaking of Nieztsche, I've never been fond of him either. A few of his quotes are good, but on the whole he was way too obsessed with the feeling of power.

Basically, anyone that believes that might makes right is a complete scumbag in my book.

 

[Lark]

I thought badly of Socrates ever since I heard the anecdote about him immersing a kid in water because he asked for his source of wisdom. Likely apocryphal, and I know far too little of him to judge.

Oh, and allegedly he was also an 8, so he was likely a douchebag anyway.



What with all this talk of Nietzsche, it should be remembered that many scholars regard him more as a literary figure than philosophical because he didn't really use any clear system of logic to search for the truth. At least, that's what I recall.
Friedrich Nietzsche (Creator) - TV Tropes

He uses aphorisms and literary tools, all the existentialists were the same, I think it makes them easier to read and perhaps closer to what the general public thinks of when it talks about philosophy or philosophising, or maybe I'm just thinking of myself at the age of seventeen and my circle of friends at that time when everyone was forging their outlooks on life.

Although there's a lot of talk about Freud and psychoanalysis being only of literary merit, I take all that with a pinch of salt, I listened to audiobooks and other sources from when cognitivism was in vogue and it said that the unconscious or subconsciousness doesnt exist and that's been reversed.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Plato. It's about time someone finally put him on the scrap heap of history.

Interesting choice.

For me his only redeeming quality is the time period in which he lived. His ideas were much too Ne and lacked coherency, but some of his ideas were ahead of his time at least. And as if knowing he pulled most of his ideas out of his proverbial ass, he rarely attributed his ideas to his name directly, that deserves some recognition as well.

 

[Forever]

See if you can find what philosopher he likes the most.

Then once you find the philosopher, do the jig with him in joy.

(Hint: He correctly pronounces it.)

*still shaking my head at being evil*

I guess I'm the only one who has a true vision for what's best for the forum [MENTION=5643]EcK[/MENTION]

 

[RedAmazoneFriendZone]

I love any philosopher. They are all great at teaching different points of views.

 

[berenj]

Descartes.

 

[Lark]

Interesting choice.

For me his only redeeming quality is the time period in which he lived. His ideas were much too Ne and lacked coherency, but some of his ideas were ahead of his time at least. And as if knowing he pulled most of his ideas out of his proverbial ass, he rarely attributed his ideas to his name directly, that deserves some recognition as well.

I dont know, he experienced most regimes first hand, democracy, oligarchy, dictatorship/absolute monarchy and concluded that systems are only as good as the people who make them up, hence the so called philosopher kings/guardians, it appears elitist and benevolent dictatorship validating until you know the whole story.

 

[Bush]

Descartes. Great mathematician. Very Crappy philosopher.

Oh hell. This, yeah.

Like, you have a day job, Descartes. You should just stick with that.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Ayn Rand strikes me as someone who was reacting more to what happened in her life then someone who actually thought seriously about any of it. Nietzsche is useful to read as a critic of what was going on around him, if you can get past the fact that he's not PC at all. IIRC, both Freud and Jung were influenced by Nietzsche.

 

[Jaguar]

Hegel

If, now, consciousness hereby becomes aware in its work of the opposition between willing and performance,
between purpose and means, and again between this inward nature, taken all together, and actual reality−−an
opposition which as a whole shows the fortuitous character of the action of consciousness−still the unity and
the necessity of this action are just as much present too. This latter aspect transcends the former, and
experience of the fortuitousness of the action is itself only a fortuitous experience. The necessity of the action
consists in this, that purpose is directly related to actuality, and the unity of these is the very notion of action:
the act takes place because action is per se and of itself the essence of actuality. In the work there is no doubt
comes out the fortuitousness which characterizes accomplishment when contrasted with willing and the
process of performing; and this experience, which seems as if it must be the truth, contradicts that notion of
the act. Still, if we look at the content of this experience taken in its completeness, that content is seen to be
the transitory work. What persists is not the transitoriness; rather this is itself actual and is bound up with the
work, and vanishes with it; the negative falls away along with the positive whose negation it is.

The concision is mesmerizing.

 

[cascadeco]

Way back when, when I went through a philosophy kick, I found the Idealist ones most perplexing/ difficult for me to relate to. Guess that would be Hegel, Schelling, Schopenhauer (I had to look their names up as I forgot names, just remembered the broad branch I didn't easily relate to)

Edit -doesn't mean they're 'bad' philosophers though

 

[Flâneuse]

Ayn Rand