Discussion i hate how philosophy is dying because of gatekeepers and obscure texts

[mrborea]

i just hate to see that those who are the ones that work with philosophy are the ones that are killing it instead of bringing it forward. they always act so passive aggressive when philosophy is the topic, acting like they know everything about it and everyone else is inferior. going lengths to insult and bring down anyone that doesnt have matching ideas as them and defending an ideology so blindly for some reason. which is exactly what philosophy is against. not to mention how abstract modern philosophy has become, i am not saying academic philosophy shouldnt be any different from "daily philosophy" but the philosophers should at least show some effort to explain what the terms they use mean because without the contextual basis it is just gibberish that you try to make a meaning out of. its like reading a symbolist poem, i dont think this is how philosophy should be: we arent supposed to spend more time deciphering it than to understand it and build upon it. philosophical texts are not supposed to be heavy on literary side. (definitely doesnt mean they cannot be written in that manner, Nietzsche for example is a great writer -in my opinion-) they are just not supposed to be so symbolic that you barely understand anything.

its just like everyone is trying to make philosophy unreachable for everyone (to prove their point or themselves) trying to get into it, and that makes me beyond mad.

 

[lionetta12]

i just hate to see that those who are the ones that work with philosophy are the ones that are killing it instead of bringing it forward. they always act so passive aggressive when philosophy is the topic, acting like they know everything about it and everyone else is inferior. going lengths to insult and bring down anyone that doesnt have matching ideas as them and defending an ideology so blindly for some reason. which is exactly what philosophy is against. not to mention how abstract modern philosophy has become, i am not saying academic philosophy shouldnt be any different from "daily philosophy" but the philosophers should at least show some effort to explain what the terms they use mean because without the contextual basis it is just gibberish that you try to make a meaning out of. its like reading a symbolist poem, i dont think this is how philosophy should be: we arent supposed to spend more time deciphering it than to understand it and build upon it. philosophical texts are not supposed to be heavy on literary side. (definitely doesnt mean they cannot be written in that manner, Nietzsche for example is a great writer -in my opinion-) they are just not supposed to be so symbolic that you barely understand anything.

its just like everyone is trying to make philosophy unreachable for everyone (to prove their point or themselves) trying to get into it, and that makes me beyond mad.

Professors in philosophy has turned basic philosophical discussions into a money pig where I live, they sell it as a product for companies and stuff. It's really weird. They don't care about people who genuinly are into philosophy. A lot of them also seem to think that they are above all, when that's a weird philosophy in of itself. I'm not a fan of modern day philosophy and philosophers in general, only the old stuff pre 1970s. My philosohy professor though was the sweetest and most genuine guy ever, he was never pretentious or anything. He didn't capitalize off of his knowledge either. He treated everyone the same and didn't view himself as special or any better than others, when he truly kinda was.

 

[OceanBlue]

We don't need 'philosophy' to understand the world and we definitely don't need all the jargon and qualifications that white men designed specifically to exclude everyone else. You can understand more from analyzing your condition and environment than most of them managed to write down. Way overrated.

 

[leahfocusplease]

the problem with contemporary philosophy is how the new faces with talent are treated. there is great pressure to dedicate your entire work to the exegesis of somone else's, and whatever originality seeps through is hammered down for the sake of a few 'rockstars' of theory and their academic lackeys.

'obscurity' is not the issue—Hegel, Derrida and Blanchot are all incredibly insightful and their thought could not breathe in regular prose. problems start when their systems are forced out of current life and into the hidden elitism of 'theory'.

 

[MrCasella]

Philosophy is dead because philosophers don't care about advancing philosophy only teaching in useless colleges and most people are just too stupid to understand/care about philosophy nowadays.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

But the truth is that a vast majority of us, and even those weirdos who get childish about philosophy, who aren't incredibly well studied in the field of existing philosophy have practically speaking nothing new to bring to the table. Every thought that you or I have had, no matter how correct and revolutionary they are to us, has either already been integrated into the canon of philosophy or been utterly demolished and disproven in the past. Only by being well versed in everything that is already exceedingly difficult to understand is it even possible to add anything new.

It's fun to muse and think and come up with our own personal philosophies, but it's not substantially different from an amateur making it to the 1800s or even 2000s in chess. It's cool, impressive even, and a good way to stimulate the mind, but ultimately the chess world at the highest level is largely unimpacted. And much like chess, philosophical enlightenment has done very little to make the world a better place.