Are Philosophies merely different ways to view life, and each individual should just go with whatever they feel most comfortable towards, or are their objectively wrong and correct philosophies/philosophers?
I started reading from the Greeks and then up to the Idealists, and I can't say that either of them really "prove" the other wrong. Should I just pick one I like and spend my time dedicated solely to it? Or am I just retarded and I miss all the BTFO's of Plato and the like.
There aren't objectively correct philosophies but there are objectively wrong philosophies.
what would be a good example of an objectively wrong philosophy?
Ayn Rand
Bertrand Russel
There's Academic philosophy, the philosophy of the professional philosophers, and then there's life philosophy, the philosophy of what you should do. That is, how to live your life, and achieve happiness. Most of what we call religions are actually "life philosophies" with a lot of mythology and supernatural claims piled on top of that.
Life philosophies I consider to be "flavors" of life. Some work better than others. Many of them overlap. In practice, I feel most of the Greek life philosophies are pretty interchangeable. They may differ significantly on metaphysics, and they may value virtue as a means to and end vs, an end in itself, but in practice they live their lives mostly the same.
>Should I just pick one I like and spend my time dedicated solely to it?
Take a syncretic approach, as in find something of value in each. Don't be tied to one school, but rather look for value and truth in wherever. Thus, I may disagree 90% with on group, but find some value in some of their work. Then take bits and pieces and form them into your own, personal system.
What's Betrand Russel's philosophy? Wasn't he more 'issue-by-issue', rather than something underlying that can be thought of as wrong?
>Philosophy "is just your opinion man"
>Plato up to the idealists
Did you skip Kant?
Anyway, there aren't any philosophers I'm aware of that were 100% right, but some definitely came closer than others.
Plato and Aristotle were pretty good, especially if you read the weirder stuff as a metaphor. Everything Kant wrote, except his specific ethical arguments, is good, and seems to be true.
If you want to read philosophy for fun and don't care if it's true or not, you should just read Bergson, Whitehead, & Deleuze.
>Bertrand Russell
>Wrong
Seconded. Even a high schooler could have written a more accurate book than Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy.
Seriously, the dude was the Felix Guattari of Analytic Philosophy.
Maybe Russell's mathematical works are better though... I'll never know.
He was wrong on a great deal of the issues he wrote about. Basically comes off as an anti-intellectual philistine a lot of the time.
read Cicero. He's right about everything.
>He was wrong on a great deal of the issues he wrote about.
Such as?
Let's see.... The Philosophies of Hegel, Kant, Bergson, and pretty much any other philosopher typically categorized as continental.
Kid, if you want to learn Plaro, you can't start with Plato
He also got the Stoics totally wrong.
>There aren't objectively correct philosophies
Yet
Thats Jacobi, not Kant. But i wonder if that matters anymore as everyone will recognise it as Kant?
It's the ultimate pseud detector, if someone posts Jacobi's portrait when he meant to post Kant's you can inmediately disregard his whole post.
>hey it's all just a matter of perspective m'kay, nobody is really right or wrong, except the people who make me buttblasted, they're objectively wrong.
Thanks for your replies, I guess to rephrase, is it sensible to make a system that explains everything for you and you can slowly perfect over time, or to just choose things that make sense/appeal to you personally that don't necessarily have to be interwoven into a grand 'narrative'?
The philosophy you personally identify with is a direct consequence of the validity of the expression of the metaphysical realm of the identifier that most expresses the individualism of the qualitative inner personality of the archetype. One must carefully analyze the unique characteristics of concepts of the idealisms presented in the words of the philosopher to best interpret the complex underlying constructs that underpin the fundamentalism of the argumentation of the former. Only then can one profoundly grasp the true nature of the self as interpreted by the their personal recognition of the flawed perceptions of the inner nature of the reality of the their personal human condition and interpretations of the immediacy of their surroundings. The truest belief system for oneself is one where the fundamental manifestations of the archetypical expressions of the rudimentary mankind in so forth as the elemental concepts are thus carefully constructed to enlighten the self as to the very essence of being and the vestigial underpinnings of the constructivism of all human thought. One must embark on a personal journey of self discovery to find the individual signifiers of the undeveloped primordial icons of the symbolic manifestations of the one true self as interpreted by the close readings of the nearest representation of the constitutional identificational mapping of the most characteristic visualization of human expression and being. Once the conceptionalization of the intrinsic categorial substantiation of the inner workings of the impressional mind has reached a state of comprehension by the reconciliation of the foundational ideas of the truest self and the ascertainment of the argumentative indispensablities only then will one find true enlightenment.
Why aren't you an egoist ?
t. Bertrand Russell
I thought that was Kierkegaard? Which one is it? Or is Kierkegaard Cicero reincarnated?
what the actual fuck am I reading
This reads like someone watched three philosophy videos on youtube, then had a stroke while leafing through a thesaurus.
You clearly have not read any actual philosophy. get the fuck off my board.
Peter Singer desu
Do me a favour and jam that post up your arse.
You'd be the kind of character dialogue I'd fully skip while playing cRPGs
Philosophy is the study of the actual and the pursuit of the creation of its meaning. There are definitely less accurate philosophies than others.