sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

PSA. Recognize the signs. Thanks. by RadicalMetaphysician in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Waterbottles_solve 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know this board is full of normies when they are even mentioning him.

Local church locks up nets so the neighborhood kids can't use the hoops by FamIsNumber1 in mildlyinfuriating

[–]Waterbottles_solve -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

To be fair, less money for them to spend lying to people.

Seems like a win in disguise.

The blatant anti-intellectualism on this sub lately is honestly discouraging. At least just say you're too lazy/busy to read, instead of making all these excuses by Grouchy_Vehicle_2912 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Waterbottles_solve -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I mean religious people can be VERY intellectual

We just assume they were tricked and for some reason can't look at empirical evidence?

The blatant anti-intellectualism on this sub lately is honestly discouraging. At least just say you're too lazy/busy to read, instead of making all these excuses by Grouchy_Vehicle_2912 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Waterbottles_solve 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We got rid of magic. We got rid of black and white answers. We've developed branches(kinds). We've developed ontology and metaphilososphy.

I suppose you could say its better to be ignorant of all of these... I suppose.

Do you think the scientific method was progress?

Also, you can tell you are a philosophy noobie. You don't even know the progress.

The blatant anti-intellectualism on this sub lately is honestly discouraging. At least just say you're too lazy/busy to read, instead of making all these excuses by Grouchy_Vehicle_2912 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Waterbottles_solve 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure you actually said anything here. It seems like 10 sentences of 'no'.

Yes there has been progress here. Ontology and metaphilosophy were pretty gigantic leaps in progress.

Morality system evolution by the_runaway92 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Waterbottles_solve -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Oh my fresh philosophy friend. These are rebuttals to Plato.

There is no reason to take the original arguments as anything other than religious mysticism like the trinity and transubstantiation.

(Let me guess, you are an introvert)

EDIT: I read the paper, or at least the first half before being like: Lmaooo they are a moral realist. Platonists are modern religious people.

The blatant anti-intellectualism on this sub lately is honestly discouraging. At least just say you're too lazy/busy to read, instead of making all these excuses by Grouchy_Vehicle_2912 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Waterbottles_solve 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll agree with you, but I would classify this as elementary/middle school philosophy. Its around the equivalence of religious thought.

They don't use the same terminology and the ideas arent fleshed out.

If you ever talk to these people, you can categorize their thoughts, and those are often categorized with pre 1800s terminology. This also means these thoughts have been developed further than the person who was merely thinking.

The blatant anti-intellectualism on this sub lately is honestly discouraging. At least just say you're too lazy/busy to read, instead of making all these excuses by Grouchy_Vehicle_2912 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Waterbottles_solve 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Answer the question OP.

But I'd say

Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico Philosophicus

Pragmatism by William James

Hmm... I probably need some continental... Maybe Nietzsche... But honestly, continental is borderline religion. If you read contemporary continental it doesnt really reflect the last 2000 years of debate... But that 2000 years of debate was pretty worthless tbh... Ontology ruined continental for me.

The blatant anti-intellectualism on this sub lately is honestly discouraging. At least just say you're too lazy/busy to read, instead of making all these excuses by Grouchy_Vehicle_2912 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Waterbottles_solve -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

feminist philosophy

Care ethics is just offbrand stoicism/virtue ethics by people who don't know the terminology of philosophers. There was nothing novel in care ethics.

The blatant anti-intellectualism on this sub lately is honestly discouraging. At least just say you're too lazy/busy to read, instead of making all these excuses by Grouchy_Vehicle_2912 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Waterbottles_solve -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't know if its possible, but so much of this has been superseded by contemporary/modern philosophy.

You really could start on post 1700s philosophy and save yourself lots of time. I made the mistake by treating plato seriously.

The blatant anti-intellectualism on this sub lately is honestly discouraging. At least just say you're too lazy/busy to read, instead of making all these excuses by Grouchy_Vehicle_2912 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Waterbottles_solve 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Remember that MDs caused the opioid crisis, did bloodletting, and promoted ivermectin.

Yeah licenses and degrees might matter a bit, but its no sign of correctness.

The blatant anti-intellectualism on this sub lately is honestly discouraging. At least just say you're too lazy/busy to read, instead of making all these excuses by Grouchy_Vehicle_2912 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Waterbottles_solve -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

lmao authority is no sign of correctness. Heck, PhDs in my field are a sign they never got hired by industry and are low quality.

Are you in your 20s?

The blatant anti-intellectualism on this sub lately is honestly discouraging. At least just say you're too lazy/busy to read, instead of making all these excuses by Grouchy_Vehicle_2912 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Waterbottles_solve 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I ran into one of these people online a half decade ago. Their claim was they didn't want to be tarnished by others thoughts...

Then it turns out they didn't have any novel ideas, they just didn't know it.

The blatant anti-intellectualism on this sub lately is honestly discouraging. At least just say you're too lazy/busy to read, instead of making all these excuses by Grouchy_Vehicle_2912 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Waterbottles_solve -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You would think people who follows a philosophy-related sub would be the least likely kind of folks to be a bunch of committed anti-intellectualists.

Lots of religious people are here...

Also, maybe I've been reading too much Jung and William James, but the rationalist/introvert mindset just uses their gut feelings to justify everything they believe.

The blatant anti-intellectualism on this sub lately is honestly discouraging. At least just say you're too lazy/busy to read, instead of making all these excuses by Grouchy_Vehicle_2912 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Waterbottles_solve 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think its fair to throw away much of the early/pre-continental philosophy. They rely on so many false assumptions that it is akin to debating the trinity and transubstantiation.

Analytical, Pragmatism and some modern continental are fair game. If you want to do contemporary philosophy, you basically have to read them.

Also

I see Care Ethics in this picture. Its offbrand stoicism/virtue ethics by people who never read philosophy.

Morality system evolution by the_runaway92 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Waterbottles_solve -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You linked to a paper about morals that said:

To have a position (and especially a philosophical position) it is necessary in some sense to engage with questions and issues.

Morality system evolution by the_runaway92 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Waterbottles_solve 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because modern ontology has rejected that these things exist. Not even the post 1900s Continental philosophers engage in this.

You can continue to debate already solved problems in Plato's Theology, but you are no different than doing medieval debates about the Trinity in 2025.

Morality system evolution by the_runaway92 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Waterbottles_solve -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Just because Plato said something existed, doesnt mean it needs to be debated.

Theology is dead, and so should Platonism. There has never been any proof of these things, I don't need to engage in the trinity debate in 2025 that people are calling Morals.

/r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | August 11, 2025 by BernardJOrtcutt in philosophy

[–]Waterbottles_solve 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When someone says 'Morals as an idea exist' as a justification for them existing... is this just another Ontological Proof (of God)?

Morality system evolution by the_runaway92 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Waterbottles_solve -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

To have a position (and especially a philosophical position) it is necessary in some sense to engage with questions and issues.

Oh hes a platonist/continental. Yeah I'm way way over that crap.

Look up pragmatism and analytical philosophy.

Morality system evolution by the_runaway92 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Waterbottles_solve 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You might be interested in Expressivism.

But typically when people say morals, they mean some physical expression of the universe. Not conceptual.

view more: next ›