Thoughts about academic philosophy

Long things short, the philosophy students of my uni are going to ask a meeting with all the philosophy professors because they are fed up by the way it's taught. Our issue is that philosophy is nowadays only history of philosophy, that we don't seen any analytical philosophy, or anything from the pragmatic school. Just, like, it has never been mentioned. That almost all the current thesis currently written are about history of philosophy, about the great, untouchable French philosophers like Foucault or Deleuze. The great idealists, Hegel, Fichte, Schelling. That academia is an ivory tower when there's so much happening currently that would need a philosophical analysis, which is totally absent. I'm not only speaking about direct actuality, but about the internet, the uses of big data, artificial intelligence, automation, the remoteness between people and political actions in democratic countries, ... We want to give the professors practical measures they could take to encourage rational thinking and not learning by heart what name-a-great-french-philosopher said.

We already had a meeting between ourselves and already have some good points, but I'd like to have external commentaries from, if at all possible, philosophy students from others unis/countries to add weight to some comments. That's the purpose of this post: having the point of foreign students, which are taught in another way. We do not have much hope, honestly, but it will certainly make a local impact, as more than half of the students are united around the idea.

Even saying why that's stupid would help, any rational argument is welcome, we're not even sure we're right, but we have enough rational issues about clarity, etc. to ask some explanation, I think. We just love philosophy and that's why we're going to quit next year, we just can't bear to see it in such a reduced state, slowly but steadily dying as its scope narrows itself. Interdisciplinary is what we've bet on.

Other urls found in this thread:

kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/philosophy/study/handbook/programmes/ug/snghons.aspx
ucl.ac.uk/philosophy/prospective-students/undergraduate
gla.ac.uk/undergraduate/degrees/philosophy/#/programmestructure
phil.cam.ac.uk/prosp-students/prosp-ugrad
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>we don't like X
>we would like to change X
>we're going to quit X
Yeah, you can see the lack of practical education.

History, or better historiography of philo will serve you better in the long run.

Honestly with any disciplin historiography is what you must consume to become relevant participant in its practice.

This is basically what a undergraduate degree is. If you want to push the bounds, get a PhD

We're going to quit academic philosophy, not philosophy itself.
Yes, but no. Basis are useful, how coudn't I agree? However, research is only about history of philosophy. You never use it about something you stay in it. And I don't think Hegel would help me by the way, I really, really don't see how. Having a course about philosophical arguments of old philosophers would be a good idea. But learning outdated things like Aristotle's physics (in depth)? Certainly not.

I have the opposite problem where my department is ahistorical analytic philosophy and little else. Good luck, comrade.

The purpose of academic discourse is to teach you how to think, not to discuss your AI waifu fanfics, retard.
Shut up and study your burgerflipping major like a good boy

>We're going to quit academic philosophy, not philosophy itself.
I see. You're going to start at the philosophy factory and revolutionize the whole philosophical industry.

Stop being retarded. Academic philosophy is all there is. If you want to change that - engage the professors, get your PhD and develop new teaching techniques and school programmes.

>The purpose of academic discourse is to teach you how to think,

That is not right at all.

Or just change majors. Modern philosophy is about as worth majoring in as gender studies.

What can I answer to that. I usually have really good answers on Veeky Forums, must be a bad day. (Oh and by the way, I'm following a double cursus with law, no burgerflipping for me, thanks. I'm sure you're reassured now you know that an anonymous people won't have trouble finding a job. And you can always teach, which isn't that bad).
Well, we already have good contacts with some academics which agrees with our way of thinking, so it's not a completely impossible thing. As I said, "We do not have much hope, honestly", we know that it's desperate, but we are! PhD will do nothing good, there's basically not any financed thesis in philosophy anyway, the budget has been cut quite deep. And no financed thesis for any practical field of philosophy, which is seen as garbage by current professors.
Already doing that so well. I think you're right, sadly, but I think there's potential to change that. There's very interesting bi-cursus at Oxford, computer science/math/physics with philosophy, I'd love to see that here.

I attended an art school in America, and had some surprisingly good philosophy teachers.

If anything, I think we may have had the opposite problem your school is facing, we lacked expansive historical studies.

But there was no lack of "action" or applying what was learned to contemporary topics. Since all of us were studio art majors (and a few Creative Writing/Art History Majors), we were regularly forced to confront the question "What should I do?" "What should I make?"

We even had a Interdisciplinary Department, where issues of social practice, hisotrical phillosophy and contemporary art met head on. But you didn't need to be in that department. The sculpture, painting, printmaking and film departments were very self driven, forcing students to create their own sense of meaning and self worth.

But yeah, we sometimes lacked firm academic grounding, a thorough understanding of history. So in some ways, I envy your "academia" problem.

If you can't change the department, then look for opportunities outside of school. Find people who are active, who are trying to make something NOW, to make sense of NOW. I don't know where you live, but if there is an active art or poetry community, I bet you'll find some of what you want there, and those groups will be happy to learn from your historical and academic knowledge.

>Already doing that so well. I think you're right, sadly, but I think there's potential to change that. There's very interesting bi-cursus at Oxford, computer science/math/physics with philosophy, I'd love to see that here.

I guess it depends on where you're studying. I bailed on Philosophy in second semester after:

1) Philosophy club meetings where they drank box wine, ate cheese on sticks and forced us to watch Dawkins documentaries, followed by the grad students jerking off over their theses for an hour.

2) Professor claimed that psychological egoism has been proven false because "you can't prove altruism doesn't exist"

3) They made us watch documentaries about propaganda in our Logic 101 which all just happened to be about how Israel is the devil and the Palestinians are all just poor oppressed virtuous minorities.

Of course then I spent another year doing English/History, became addicted to heroin and dropped out, so...

Sounds like a strange problem, I'm studying at a analytic department and would like more history and hegelians.

Your philosophy department sounds awesome wtf are you talking about? The discussions you're looking for are topical trash or belong in the economics/political science departments. If you want more logic take math/cs classes, more phil of language take linguistics. If you're looking to get into the theory of those subjects go to grad school because they dont teach that at undergrad

Just wait, OP. I am currently writing a document that shall serve to end all of this.

Just wait. The time is coming, my friend! My good friend!

This t b h

I know I'd hate a proper continental department just as much as this analytic department, but can't we just meet in the middle somewhere

What the hell. It's not as worse here, hopefully. Seems awfully politicized. I'm in a French university, what about you?
Trust me, you don't. You seriously don't. It's just overly abstract texts based on a doubtful axiomatic.
But there's a whole field for philosophers to think about in relation to economics/political science. Great philosophers never have been people who just listen to themselves talking, they always were writing about the world, about how to live. Look at Plato, Kant, Schopenhauer, Heidegger. Their philosophy is developed on how they live, how they see the world. Not on what another random philosopher said.
And no, graduate school doesn't teach you about the theory behind those subjects, at least here. It's the same as undergrad, you just see the philosophers a little more in depth.
Totally agrees with that. We need both schools, but it just seems that they don't want to get along.

>What the hell. It's not as worse here, hopefully. Seems awfully politicized. I'm in a French university, what about you?

Australian. Or was, you know, before the heroin thing.

I think they were just ahead of the ball on the resurgence of identity politics (this was back in 2008/2009). I know the anti-Israel/"can't prove altruism doesn't exist" professor was an angry bulldyke lesbian.

Pretty much. I actually went to a Jesuit uni that was heavy on the history, but I realized this is actually a bad choice. You get forcefed with the professor's chosen narrative of philosophy, which is usually simplistic and dumb. You have to read secondary literature for all the classes instead of primary texts, which are barely discussed. I think it would take someone like Peter Adamson to make this approach work.
I switched to the analytic uni, and I feel like it's a better choice while supplementing it with continental thinkers in your spare time. We read Platonic dialogues and analyze them in class, half of the semester is just a list of important dialogues to study. It's pretty cool, and it helps that what secondary literature there is, is mostly Oxford editions.

Man I'd cut an arm to go there, seems so interesting. Could you tell more about how you "analyze" them?

>Great philosophers never have been people who just listen to themselves talking
So you're basically going to Uni in order to become a great philosopher?

What do you mean?

Still waiting.

>analytical
>pragmatic
Fuck off.

>We need both schools
No we don't, analytics is trash.

I'd consider myself starkly continental, but an understanding of both fields is necessary (even if its just a "know your enemy" position)
also op, I don't think you're being intellectually (philosophically) generous towards the French structuralists/post-structuralists or the German idealists... also your comment about these philosophers not writing about "life" or "the world" is idiotic to say the least.

Very messy reply incoming.

This user has it right. If you look at any major philosopher, they are very much students of the history of philosophy. A certain degree of situating philosophers in history is necessary to fully understand their thought, how they influence and try to go move away from each other, their own possible shortcomings, and your own possible place within the history of the discipline.

That being said, I know that not having courses in Pragmatic or Analytic schools is bad despite myself being unfamiliar with them. Departments should be pluralistic.

The fact that you use terms like "outdated" when talking about philosophy suggests that you are a product of your own history. Go back and learn your history so you can try to go beyond it.

Also, you aren't Socrates. Stick to academia if you want to do philosophy.

Yeah, modern philosophy is bad. Its extremely ahistorical and so desperate to be like science. OP has a great opportunity of being offered historical courses. Making undergraduates go through these types of courses tends to not make them like these people, that being ahistorical and scientific types. These types are typically are horrible interpreters of past philosophers and as a result bad philosophers themselves.

I've noticed that types are typical in secular anglo universities. As to why, I'm not quite sure.

Weird. From my experience, Jesuit universities have really strong pluralistic departments. Perhaps a bad apple?

If something is written for people over 8 years old, it's too difficult to bother reading. Easiest to just jump straight down to the "criticism" on wikipedia and feel I have given them a fair chance.

Well, my uni is divided between analytic and continental camps. You can choose with whom you study.

Right now I'm taking classes with a conservative, Platonist/ Catholic AND an analytic, godless neuroscientist

Pretty fun desu

At glasgow Uni right now, just gonna talk about my experience of philosophy. First semester we did an essay about Descrates meditations. I found it an interesting and concise intro into the basics of epistemology etc. Then we looked at 3 topics:mind, perception and scketpism. We looked at loads of contemporary issues including artificially intelligence, automation.

Now in this semester got an intro into Bentham and them lot through an essay on cultural relativism, and now we are looking again at political philosophy through a modern lens.

I feel like this department is super current-our critical thinking exam was on trump- but tbf i've been studying philosophy since secondary school and there have always been a focus on modern issues (abortion, euthanasia etc). Not sure if that's because UK has a better balance or your school is shite.

Err one good thing for me learning the history and context of philosophy, is that I can better approach 21 century politics.

Oh also why is everyones philosophy department, I dunno, unbalanced? "analytic uni" "history of philosphy uni" like is it cos other Unis are shite?

>21 century politics
*issues

>philosophy is nowadays only history of philosophy

how are you supposed to make an argument if you don't know other arguments that have already been made?

it's like turning up an hour late to a debate and saying something that has already been discussed at length

Wow, you kids are so vulgar.

Quit philosophy entirely, and immerse yourself in art. You must break free from your mediocrity.

This.

Seriously, you wanted to learn philosophy, so why are you being lazy and complaining? Sounds like you didn't want to study philosophy at all but just liked the impressive name. Damn undisciplined little swine children impatient for some instant result deserve a caning and plenty of Aristotle homework.

German idealism and some French philosophy sounds like a brilliant course, which is at the height of philosophical scholarship today. Stop being an immature bitch and sit yourself down with a copy of Hegel or Schelling, immerse yourself, because their efforts are far above your own private world-view and deserve your close attention; similarly for the French guys, you realise Deleuze was a professor and lecturer at ENS, his (non-guattari) studies and books are phenomenal.

>I found it an interesting and concise intro into the basics of epistemology etc. Then we looked at 3 topics:mind, perception and scketpism. We looked at loads of contemporary issues including artificially intelligence, automation.

Jesus, that sounds repulsive.

lol why? The course is pray good m8. I got introduced to John Searle etc. Felt very enriching innit.

>Departments should be pluralistic.
Why? Teaching bad philosophy is bad.

Wow, that's exactly what we'd like. Seems like UK has better balance from what I've seen thus far.
Problem being, the answers to those questions are mostly sophistic. Descarte's third meditation by ex. is just a load of bullcrap, and has no interest whatsoever. It's a simple petitio principii.
But I really love philosophy and am quite well versed in it, as I sometime correct professors on their own course. ENS is just shite, I'm no longer impressed by that kind of "grande école" since I've seen what kind of philosopher can go in it (hello Bernard-Henri Lévy, Luc Ferry, ...). It's just a school for the Parisian elite reproducing its own way of ivory-tower like thinking.
Just because someone is bright or has really complex thinking doesn't mean he's a good philosopher. Honesty seems like what's the most important thing to me. Cioran, Camus, are honest thinkers, and impress me far more than the gibberish idealists can make. Agrees with Schopenhauer on that one. He was not only salty.
Philosophy needs to evolve, there's a need for rational thinking that's left empty by actual philosophers, considering it as second class only. Philosophy department loses more and more students as they close one by one, that's just sad.
I don't know if you're right or not, but name calling sure isn't going to make me pick one way or the other.

>sophism is bad
>rationality is good
You don't love philosophy, you love jerking yourself off.

Yeah like the academic ivory tower just, at least for me, doesn't exist in modern day philosiophical education. I think people who put themselves in those intellectual bubbles are often dumb and have nothing to contribute to anything. They've all died out.
>need for rational thinking
Can you elaborate?

>Problem being, the answers to those questions are mostly sophistic. Descarte's third meditation by ex. is just a load of bullcrap, and has no interest whatsoever. It's a simple petitio principii.

Nah gonna disagree with that one. The history of philosophy is rich and varied and you reducing it to "most answers to those questions are mostly sophistic" does yourself a huge disservice. You accuse people who focus on the history of philosophy as narrow minded but you yourself have biases are kinda dumb desu. >Honesty seems like what's the most important thing to me. Cioran, Camus, are honest thinkers, and impress me far more than the gibberish idealists can make

>first year thinks his opinion on anything matters

>Fine art ... only achieves its highest task when it has taken its place in the same sphere with religion and philosophy.

this

you sound annoying. btw Aristotle is a joke

>I sometime correct professors on their own course
everyone hates you and you dont know shit

>first year thinks his opinion on anything matters
But it does tho cutie x.

Also senpai you should engage with the content of what I'm saying rather than attack me as a person you cunt x

I can elaborate. I see a lot of people talking with huge biases and not being a bit curious about their opponent's position, by example. A philosopher, with his abstraction skills and love for truth (as they should be, I call that honesty) could really be useful arbiters.
I'm under the impression that most intellectuals (not speaking about philosophers here) are "dumb intellectual", they are elite who forgot other point of view than their own. We'd need philosopher in the public discourse, and in think tank, to deal with that. But we'd need interdisciplinary philosophers, that knows economics (there are, like Philippe Van Parijs). Philosophers always have been very good critiques of current society crisis, Plato first. They have the ability to do something about what's currently going on. But no one cares, except philosophers that are viewed as plebs, like Ruwen Ogien.
Well, I could give you multiple examples. Medieval philosophy would be the most obvious one. Their dogma is obvious, so it's easy to see where they come from. Axioms from later philosophers are trickier, but no less sophistic. And I think you can't disagree with me that Descartes used a sophism in the 3rd meditation. And I have no real bias, that's one thing I can be proud of. I only care about what's the most reasonably true, I just never had someone explain to me that Hegel was right and that his thought is very just and on point.
Please explain, shouldn't it be the exact reverse?

This guy sounds normie. This is a strange, earnest sort of reply that you would find on facebook or in real life.

Because philosophers are to an extent products of their own situations. Knowing why a certain philosopher express their ideas given their own time and place allows one to become knowledgeable about the history of the discipline and of ideas in general, which I really think is the main requirement for philosophy proper.

Also, it does not mean that certain bad philosophies or philosophers should be shoved down the student's throats with a dogmatic teacher. That's just poor education.

Senpai I just think you have bad lectures. It is, I think, naive to think that most intellectuals are "dumb intellectual" because it would be impossible for somebody to rise up in acadima without engaging with a vast amount of different view points. The Russel group culture imposed by Uni's is just, its incapable of producing those sorts of people you're talking about. Those sort of people like the analytical, evaluative skills that are needed to scrape even a first in bachlors, never mind a doctors etc.

No one cares? Yes, yes they do, there are tons of philosophical research projects that serve to tackle contemopary issues. For example the value of suffering project.

*lack

>Please explain, shouldn't it be the exact reverse?
Rationalism and anti-sophistry is its own form of sophistry.
Anal autistics is cancer to philosophy.

I'm surprised by this post. The vast majority of philosophy taught in England and Ireland is strongly in the analytic tradition, especially at a "good" university like Oxford, Cambridge or Trinity. I'm a first year, and we're already reading Wittgenstein, Kant, Russel and so on, with a strong focus on metaphysics and epistemology. And, like you, I'll be quitting philosophy next year because I'm tired of learning about just one tradition when what got me into philosophy was Kierkegaard and Camus really.

I think the analytic tradition has a lot of benefits, one is that it's far more open to critical dissection, but it comes at the cost of an almost autistic removal of any kind of emotional or abstract argument. This is not how philosophers we're trained to think, surely. We should be using both sides of our traditions: the subjective and the objective, to base our thoughts on life. It's like Kant writes, “Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind". It's almost as if two parties have dissected one great face just to tunnel their vision into a single distant bicker.

I don't know. It makes me sad. There's so many pressing social and cultural problems our society need to address and this is a time when philosophy should be needed most of all. Yet we inept, undynamic, old and sterile.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Which uni did you go to?

Well, I'd love to be teached about that, that's the whole point of my demarche. There may be tons of it where you live, but here it is clearly not the case.
And the "dumb intellectual" thing come from a tenured professor I know, so well I think it's viable to say. When you see Attali or BHL, you cannot say the contrary.
Well, you don't see any Camus and very little Kierke anyway. Mostly Hegel, Aristotle, Plato, ... And totally agrees with you on the pressing social and cultural problems, I feel the same way, really.

Mirshakak, is that you?

I'm too fucking stupid to get into university ;_;

;_;

ty senpai..

Analytic philosophy is a dead discipline, it's pretty basic and there's not really much to learn.

i am considering starting a double major in philosophy next year, and my university's necessary classes to take are: Logic 1-2, Informal logic, History of Philosophy 1-4 and the rest are specific field classes (Ontology, Phil of Lang, etc). So I think it is pretty balanced, and it would be better this way. Also, science and math electives of an agreeable number should be compulsory too.

You're doing something wrong if you can't get into uni.

No one gives a fuck what you think when you know nothing of what you speak of, grow a pair and learn what your career requires you to know

Trust me, you are not. Everyone can get by if they work hard. You can be too lazy for uni, but certainly not too dumb.

Yes he can
If his IQ is below 80 he may just be unable to get in

Oh well then yeah I 100 percernt agree with you, if your department is teaching you philosophy in a way that isn't introspective or at the very least aware of its place and application in the wider context, then yeah bring it up cos their shite bags.

Well alright, that's true. Still, I see lots of relatively dumb people at uni, my point was you don't need 120+ to major.

Agreed

This desu famalam.

The problem is that you think that the modern university is about learning, when it's actually about getting tenure and holding onto it for dear life. The capitalist cancer has already killed the academy.

new copypasta

Many times I've seen this post over the years

Why do you sound like a serial killer?

you're an undergrad right? shut up and get your degree. jesus christ man, go to grad school.

"Undergrad" doesn't make much sens here though. Graduate courses aren't that different from undergrad ones.
Well, I've hear that from professors in a way or another multiple times. Seems sad.

>rational
>rationality
>rational

Lol m8, philosophy isn't just about rationality, and the privileging of it speaks to a bias that philosophy attempts to overcome. As others have said, if you want to change philosophy you'll have to teach it, but you'd probably do a bad job of it considering what you've posted.

t. non-philosopher

Philosophy fans love to claim that they are open minded and lovers of truth. But as soon as you ask them meta questions they go crazy and tell you to stop asking questions. As soon as you show the slightest hint of skepticism in anything they claim that any line of thought that doesn't facilitate citations or book sales isn't worthwhile.

>Why are we studying philosopher X? Why do we accept assumption Y so carelessly? Why do we not consider assumptions A1 to Z63356 ?

>REE REE I CANT HEAR YOU! I ONLY READ PHILOSOPHY TO NOURISH MY SOUL AND ACHIEVE TRANSCENDENCE! STOP ASKING QUESTIONS NECKBEARD STEMTARD!

This isn't true in the slightest.

> (OP)
i dont read the entire thread.
but im gonna tell you that i was going through that and i quit university because i feel anybody understand me. (not a feel, it was something more direct and in a sense of integrity)
maybe all this teachers themselves dont believe in philosophy like a "search for truth", they dont believe in truth, and so, they teach you what other people say and what they can add to what other people say.
i mean, this people have a notion of the world and of themselves like some kind of leaders or keepers of philosophy like something semiethereal. they dont want and dont feel they can or they should philosophize in this times. (they feel in the Deep that they are surpassed by the science)
anyway, how can you love philosophy?, what you love?, rational thinking?, truth?... the creaton of systems of metods to get truth?.
since philosophy go so much time with this history of philosophy thing, you shouldn´t be there. you are in a scientist pole, the philosophy always will be a minor term behind those doors. they talk about history (and they will do in the future) because is something safe.
it´s a lame academic niche.

Dude, are you French? Cause this is a different situation there. If you want analytic/pragmatic, you need to pick your master carefully because so few of them teach these parts of philosophy.

So can OP give us an update? Did they resign or hire the professors you wanted?

Ahah, not so fast. This will probably be for next week. If this thread is dead; which it'll probably be, I can make a new one then if it interest you.
I'm French, yes. I don't see how the situation could be different if that's where I am!
Well, maybe you're right, maybe I'm more of a scientist. Yet, philosophy is what I love and want to dedicate my shot life to, as lame as it may be. I feel they are hiding in a niche to, hiding from relativism, hiding for what's difficult.

>I feel they are hiding in a niche to, hiding from relativism, hiding for what's difficult.

Dude ew come on now. Your feelings about the state of philosophy is a) just a feeling, and b) not true in the slightest. Also what do you mean hiding from relativism?
You assume so much bullshit that its hard to start with.
>they teach you what other people say and what they can add to what other people say
Like any other discipline in the history of everything you fucker. The entire teaching method could be boiled down to that you simplistic cunt
>i mean, this people have a notion of the world and of themselves like some kind of leaders or keepers of philosophy like something semiethereal. they dont want and dont feel they can or they should philosophize in this times. (they feel in the Deep that they are surpassed by the science)
Who are these fucking people? Do you guys think philosophers who are in acadima are grown in a fucking vat? Do you think philosophy isn't conastly aware of the changing nature of the world, that its just blind to scientific discovery? Go fuck yourself with your blind assumptions. Look here you fat cuntkcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/philosophy/study/handbook/programmes/ug/snghons.aspx
ucl.ac.uk/philosophy/prospective-students/undergraduate
gla.ac.uk/undergraduate/degrees/philosophy/#/programmestructure
phil.cam.ac.uk/prosp-students/prosp-ugrad

The last link includes a topic about neurscinece and free will you fucker.

Look at all these fucking undergraduate programmes for philosophy and tell me one that doesn't actively seek to engage with the modern world. Go fuck yourself drop out. Lame academic niche, you have no idea how much i want to slit your fucking throat, you fucking guesing motherfucker you don't know how philiosphy has been thought for fucking houndreds of years. Since the FUCKING GREEKS philosphers have contended with the mundane and the magnficsent you fucking, the idea of ivory towers is so so fucking counter to the very practice of philosophy, its a fucking joke.

Also look at the programme strictures of all those Unis specifically the bits about the history of it, they offer a robust defence of learning the context of where our ideas come from. Fucker.

Can you repeat that in symbols? Basic English is such a struggle for me.

Doesn't it basically boil down to the fact that one has a choice between different universities, and that some choose to specify on topics or traditions, while others will offer a more generalized, introductory approach? The usual thing to do in my home country, is to apply to the one that offers courses you find most interesting, if you are willing to move for your education and own benefit. In the big picture, there seems to be a fair division of universities offering continental and analytic philosophies, as well as universities that specialize in research on neuroscience, philosophy of mind, ethics, theology, etc.
Are you sure this is not simply a matter of taste for you, and that you should have done some research into the taught subjects, and possibly applied for a different university?

I really like your idea and am really interested in it. Please keep us updated of what happens, no matter if it is good or bad.

Which country are you from OP?

I hate that meme so much.