[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 60 KB, 1024x512, IMG_9441.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22782360 No.22782360 [Reply] [Original]

Why are 90% of philosophers like this? If you can’t explain it simply you have no business explaining it at all.

>> No.22782376

>no concept is actually hard, it's just about language.

>> No.22782383

>>22782376
yes

>> No.22782388

>>22782360
Can anyone give me some philosophers who actually perfectly clearly outline their ideas?

>> No.22782391

>>22782388
no

>> No.22782395

>>22782360
The vast majority of people are dumb. It also follows that the vast majority of philosophers are dumb philosophers.
>>22782376
This anon also makes a good point. Einstein's quote continues: "make things as simple as possible, but no simpler than that". Philosophy deals with the fundamental nature of reality. Of course some of it is going to be extremely complicated and impossible to understand for the majority.

>> No.22782397
File: 624 KB, 1024x768, f47cade9e097bd69585459e09f8afd82.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22782397

>>22782360
Counterargument

>> No.22782399

>>22782388
Ted Kaczynski

>> No.22782423

>>22782388
Saul Kripke

>> No.22782424

>>22782397
>some guy on YouTube who never even went to college explains Kant(enter any other philosopher here) in 1 hour better than the entire book

>> No.22782434

>>22782399
Ted isn’t a philosopher and specifically said he didn’t consider himself one.

>> No.22782443

>>22782388
Epictetus
Alan Chalmers

>> No.22782459

>>22782388
Anyone Greek. It’s pretty much only the modern post-Kantian ones who employ incomprehensible jargon.

>> No.22782463

>>22782434
>said he didn’t consider himself one
This applies to lots of philosophers desu

>> No.22782526

>>22782388
wittgenstein

>> No.22782680

>>22782388
Olavo de Carvalho, and I don't even like his worldview

>> No.22782716

>>22782680
macaco

>> No.22784003

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91gT68xeDMM

>> No.22784005
File: 1004 KB, 3674x4783, DerTiefeDenker.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22784005

>Philosophy is, by its very nature, something esoteric, neither made for the vulgar as it stands [für sich], nor capable of being got up to suit the vulgar taste

>> No.22784018

>>22782360
Most philosophy is sophistry or intricate delusional spinning with no actual real effect.
Critical thinking is its real worth, not theorising.

>> No.22784025
File: 399 KB, 1280x1280, Hegelisthebest.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22784025

>>22784018
>Critical thinking is its real worth, not theorising.

>Common sense cannot understand speculation; and what is more, it must come to hate speculation when it has experience of it; and, unless it is in the state of perfect indifference that security confers, it is bound to detest and persecute it.

>> No.22784547

>>22782388
socrates, plato, aristotle... any socratic really.

>> No.22784799

“Knowing =/= Understanding”

Thread closed

>> No.22784878

>>22782463
Probably applies to most philosophers. No one truly concerned with the nature of reality is so dense as to actually refer to themselves as philosopher. It's one of those titles that cannot be self given, IMO. Same goes for the title of "thinker."