I don't understand the point of these "philosophers" that ramble on and on about shit in multiple tomes of books...

>To smart for philosophy
I think the problem is you are too dumb

>I've never read anything that wasn't already self-evident to me

I mean I sometimes feel that way, but to be fair it's because those philosophers' ideas have greatly influenced our culture and we were bound to know about them before they were taught to us.

While I think you are over-stating things, I mostly agree. It seems that philosophers take way too many words to make very basic statements. Whenever I read a philosophy text it often feels like they are re-stating the same sentence, more or less, over and over.

>because those philosophers' ideas have greatly influenced our culture and we were bound to know about them before they were taught to us.
Interesting point, so if you get all philosophy by osmosis anyway, what's the point of reading it?

OP is right and that's why Wittgenstein is the greatest philosopher. He used the "philosophical writing method" to basically say all philosophy is shit. Such a beautiful way to shit on the entire field of philosophy though---using philosophy to destroy philosophy.

>Hume says philosophy is meaningless
>gets rekt by Kant
>Wittegnstein says philosophy is meaningless
>gets rekt by himself

Is there a wepbage where I can read a collection of different philosophies?

Literally and unironically wikipedia, just read the tab on the bottom to see who belonged to what school etc. and read their pages.

OP I agree. These Philosopher ramble because they go on and on about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. In other words, they flail about within the infinitely large space of unfalsifiable ideas.

What determines whether a philosopher's ideas are considered good among other unfalsifiable ones? Marketing and PR.

Why does lit go on about cultural impact and the philosophers themselves instead of the idea? Why are there so many "literary interpretations" of philosophers? They are all pretentious bullshit artists

is water wet because of an inherent wetness, or because it's molecules hold it to you and exchanges heat energy?

same argument made by anti-vaccine weirdos.

THIS
The best example of this is Albert Camus' "A Happy Death." The entire book is basically the character repeating how liberated he feels or describing the women around him. It was by far one of the worst books, I've read, solely because of it's pretentiousness and it's repetiveness, but it's clear to see that Camus was trying to convey his own philosophies in how he sees the world and it got into the way of a potentially good story

>Seriously, can someone explain to me why this shit is even relevant when you can just read the wiki article and get the gist of it?

A good abstract of American contribution to the world: idiocy and laziness.

>ITT: plebs who believe that all philosophical works must be correct, otherwise the entire concept of philosophy becomes irrelevant.

plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py

>marketing and PR
More like psychology. Most philosophers these days seem like some sort of underclass champion(gays, immigrants, basically anyone not rich white and boring) or trying to understand how our new understanding of psychology impacts how we live our lives.
I think in the end it's just a matter of trying to find what is the most familiar to you, what 'sounds' like a good idea to you that represents your view of the world. I think if long form philosophy has any merit, it's that you'll be able to understand that it's just how someone is thinking about the world, rather than how the world actually is, because if they knew how the world actually was they wouldn't be writers.

Never really thought of it that way; this thread taught me something valuable. When it comes to immigrants also, I wouldn't group all of them under the poverty label as you know there are rich ones out there and not just pic related.

>t. rich Armenian