Philosophy is boring

you can think deeply without philosophising

For you

Try buddhism, it was invented by people of your ilk

Yep, this is literally the definition of philosophy

Philosophy is boring
Writing a paper and having to decide whether inclination is closer to disposition or predisposition is not exciting stuff

No, it's not.

All academic subjects are boring. You don't see intellectuals smiling very often. It takes a real sadist to find enjoyment in studying an academic subject.

No, they're not.

>philosophy has to be academic

It is supposed to be boring.

No, it isn't.

what does this mean

Yes it does, it is unexciting long and difficult work.

>philosophy is boring because boring trivial nonproblem

>hurrrr academics never smile

Holy shit its ok to not love thinking, its not for everyone to sit inside their room and contemplate the big problems I get it but please.

>philosophy
>work

I mean by actual philosophers not undergrads.

Is Kant boring to you?

>It takes a real sadist to find enjoyment in studying an academic subject.
>sadist
That's not the word you're looking for.

Fuck's sake. Do you have an actual argument, you child?

Yes, but that doesn't mean anything negative, boring is good.

masochist*

Faggot.

>sit inside their room and contemplate the big problems
Mentally bumping around in a see of unfalsifiable bullshit, sophistry and language games is hardly constitutes 'thinking'.

You mean by 1st/2nd world academic philosophers in the 21st century.

>Holy shit its ok to not love thinking, its not for everyone to sit inside their room and contemplate the big problems I get it but please.
Not an argument.

There is no difference.

>Mentally bumping around in a see of unfalsifiable bullshit, sophistry and language games is hardly constitutes 'thinking'.
Then Newton and Einstein weren't thinking either buddy.

You mean there's no difference between Husserl or Quine and some 20 year old cunt who read The Republic once?

Like you are doing right now?

>why don't you provide wholesome arguments against my shitty unsubstantiated opinions

Empirical sciences are uncomparable to mental masturbation you are so eager to defend. Fuck off.

how is boring good whatsoever?

But science is mental masturbation too user

It demands patience, attention and makes philosophy not a prey for people looking for immediate desires.

Not really, you little pseud

1. What kind of property do you mean exactly by "boring"? What are you trying to say? What about it is boring? What conclusions do you draw from this?

2. How do you justify that it is inherent to the field rather than your perception of it, when other people seem to find it non-boring?

Tbf I find it exciting personally so lmao at u my dude.

Science is applicable and provides us with a fuckton of utility. Philosophy isn't and doesn't.

Because that's not the objective of philosophy.

Philosophy is the alpha and omega of human enquiry. It's the only meaningful definition of the thing.

You have this or that neat compartment in your head for "philosophy proper" to protect yourself from cognitive dissonance given the authoritative contemporary academic take on philosophy.

Guess what, it's an insufficient take.

Every intellectual endeavour can be deduced from philosophy because thoughts without content are empty and intuitions without concepts are blind.

There is neither science nor art without philosophy.

It's an inherently human feature.

You cannot find it boring.

Philosophy is a last resort for underachieving pseuds who want to appear smart.

Mental masturbation, language games, and autistic playing with sterile abstractions that yield little to nothing in terms of utility.

>denigrating philosophy via unexamined philosophical proposition of utilitarianism

peace homie

>Science is applicable
And becomes engineering

>and provides us with a fuckton of utility
Cognitive bias in full effect.

1% turnover into any sort of utility. At best.

Better than being an underachieving pseud who appears dumb.

Anyone can benefit from learning how to argue, user.

Give it another shot, eh?

>when other people seem to find it non-boring
There are two possibilities:
1) Such people are deceiving themselves.
2) They are using a different definition of "boring."

>You have this or that neat compartment in your head for "philosophy proper" to protect yourself from cognitive dissonance given the authoritative contemporary academic take on philosophy.

"Be a philosopher; but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man"

>1) Such people are deceiving themselves.
How would you counter the counterclaim that the other side is deceiving themselves (everyone who thinks philosophy is boring), or that there is simply no subjective intellectual access to the thing?

>2) They are using a different definition of "boring."
If it excites you, it ain't boring. Agree y/n?

No problem my man.

>in terms of utility.

hehehehe

>two possibilities
>they are wrong
>their definition is wrong

Philosophers cannot even define philsophy

I believe that most philosophical worjs heavily influenced by Christian thought are a pointless read, since they're based on highly debatable premises.

Subsidizing academic autism in a field that's been largely stagnant for hundreds of years and leads to very little real change for real people. This is very different from reflecting on things in your own spare time.

The money that is wasted on philosophy majors would be better used in STEM or the arts.

Former engineering students put robots on Mars. Former philosophy students call you a pseud on the internet for not having read Being and Nothingness.

How do the arts have any more utility than philosophy?

>>The money that is wasted on philosophy majors would be better used in STEM or the arts.
>
>Former engineering students put robots on Mars. Former philosophy students call you a pseud on the internet for not having read Being and Nothingness.
this hedonists want more comfiness and entertainment, it is stupid not to fund their desires

whom

Former philosophy students can do as they please but philosophy gives us the reason to put robots on Mars in the first place.

Anyways, who cares about day-to-day politics and academia?

They do if you actually stop shitposting and read them.

>philosophy gives us the reason to put robots on Mars in the first place

Art is instrumental to human well-being in a way that papers on what it would be like to be a bat isn't.

Art is fulfilling. Reading charlatans like Derrida isn't.

Ehhh, even if all philosophy departments were shut down, we'd still be building robots and exploring space. One is worth more than the other.

Philosophy students can't handle this fact, so they point to any personal reflection people engage in as an indication that philosophy as an academic discipline is worth artificially keeping alive and putting on the same level as STEM.

Your judgement is clouded by your contempt. Philosophy students can go suck a cock, they're irrelevant. What I was getting at is that what you pigeonhole as personal reflection is still philosophy but what certainly isn't philosophy is the real politics and the academic discipline as such (with its history, results etc.) you are criticizing. The latter namely is history of philosophy, not philosophy and it doesn't care.

Mais user mon cherie, using this argument from utility to justify the normative proposition of art getting priority over philosophy is a philosophical argument, non?

One could argue that putting robots on Mars also leads to very little real change for real people. So does cosmology and string theory, if you think about it.

Sheer utilitarianism can be very detrimental to science and just about any kind of intellectual endeavor. The ironic thing is that this discussion falls into the real of philosophy.

>Art is instrumental to human well-being in a way that papers on what it would be like to be a bat isn't.
>Art is fulfilling. Reading charlatans like Derrida isn't.
The exact same thing can be said vice-versa about art and philosophy. Philosophy allows people to understand truth, meaning and purpose, while art is just a huge pretentious circle-jerk where charlatans sell overpriced non-sense. Pic related, for instance.

>it doesn't represent anything therefore it's shit

Learn to aesthetics bro

>a pleb that doesn't understand abstract art thinks his opinion on anything matters
>there are philosophical discussions therefore philosophy as academic discipline matters
Just kys yourself already. This level of retardation is irreversible.

Impressive.

>So does cosmology and string theory, if you think about it

Let me guess, you majored in the humanities? Cosmology/Astronomy, and naturally space exploration, has had more of an impact on people's lives than a century of analytic philosophy.

>Philosophy allows people to understand truth, meaning and purpose
Much of it is superfluous. The more abstract and divorced from everyday life philosophy becomes, the less value and impact it has. With science it's typically the reverse, which is why STEM has certain merit that academic philosophy just doesn't in this day and age.

>What I was getting at is that what you pigeonhole as personal reflection is still philosophy but what certainly isn't philosophy is the real politics and the academic discipline as such

Fair enough.

I don't actually think abstract art is shit, I'm just illustrating how the same arguments against philosophy can be used against art.

Well, you're expressing philosophical opinions when you clearly disregard and don't know anything about philosophy. If anything, you're the one who doesn't know what they are talking about.

Nice try, I'm an engineering major. The whole scientific method is built on analytic philosophy, it's what allows us to tell which theories are valid and which ones aren't.

What has cosmology done for us? Sure, it gives us a greater understanding of the universe, but likewise philosophy gives us a better understanding of reason and morals. Why is one arbitrarily better than the other?

The majority of Philosophy consists of mere cerebrations. The entire study offers little towards practical purposes in life

>The whole scientific method is built on analytic philosophy
Kek. Scientific method was there long before the autistic anglo came along. Philosophy as a field of study is nothing more than rigorous formalisation of a multitude of preexisting concepts and viewpoints. It is important in its own right, but hardly a groundbreaking or disruptive discipline. Also:
>engineer
>talking about science

>The majority of Philosophy consists of mere cerebrations.
What did he mean by this

>never read philosophy
>trying to do philosophy

>Philosophy as a field of study
What about philosophy as Socrates, Descartes and Kant practiced it?

SPOOKY

>Nice try, I'm an engineering major
Sure you are. Not that it bolsters your argument.

>philosophy gives us a better understanding of reason and morals
To some extent. But we still give funding to hacks that base their careers on obfuscation, an inherent issue with making philosophy an academic discipline. Comparing the two, STEM generally requires more intellectual rigour, and consistently has a higher output in relation to the effort put in (hours studied, teachers hired etc.) And at this stage, it makes leaps that philosophy simply can't.

Philosophical quandary at the personal level may be therapeutic, but in academia it's a drain on resources and our attention.

>What has cosmology done for us
See pic related. The scientists in your picture will be remembered for their work in physics, not their comments on philosophy.

That Neil Degrasse Tyson one triggers me every time

Exactly the same thing.

Philosophy as a discipline is essential and needs to be taught regardless of major, even if the academia itself is toxic. Being able to have a career without producing anything of value is an entirely different issue, don't let a few hacks undermine centuries of ideas.

It seems the problem you have isn't with philosophy itself, but with modern-day philosophers. In that case, yes, that's something we can all agree on.

Idk where I was going with this desu. I'm a philosophy major myself who just felt like shitposting a little. Thanks for being a good sport though.

Philosophy is useful, just not quantifiably stand-alone so. It gets the other stuff going. It's how science started out and how science goes through paradigm shifts. It's how we put art into words. It's how we decide what's the proper course of action, what's useful, what's right. It's how we justify systems of logic.

It's a category mistake to judge philosophy by its practical utility. Philosophy is about contemplating the possibilities. It's not uncommon for experimental research teams in STEM to include philosophers nowadays. Dwell on that.

>The scientists in your picture will be remembered for their work in physics, not their comments on philosophy.
Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger and Einstein are already remembered for their philosophical claims and weirdo interpretations of physics. Do you realize how much has been written on and speculated about the Copenhagen interpretation or Einstein's philosophical take on God? This stuff matters to a lot of people. Even if it didn't, it mattered (a lot) to the physicists which should tell you something.

It's a fundamental thing, to contemplate philosophically. Yes some people do it for a living, yes capitalist politics get involved, and yes what you get is a pile of shit. And that's ok. Take a breather. Don't give up on philosophy because of those dorks and their "highly renowned" institutions which you waste your energy rebelling against. Be like the left side of the pic, not like the right.

sex is boring

Secretaries can't even define secretarism.

If you think this is inflammatory and contrarian I have bad news for you, kiddo. Sex is rather boring.

it's not like christians philosophers ever tried to discuss these premises, right?

>Sex is rather boring.
Not the first time.

Nope. They always assume that God "obviously" exists because "muh faith" and then go from there.

I wouldn't know