8 Answers

  1. The general pathos of philosophy is rather that in general all authors deserve attention. This is a kind of preventive principle in relation to the inertia of the mind. As soon as a certain group of philosophers is formed, claiming a monopoly on attention, an opposition is formed at the same time. Modern psychoanalysts of the Lacanian type often like to point out their opposition to a certain general “academism”.

    If we take the question more mundane, then I would say that there are philosophers who should not be paid attention to without proper preparation. There is a whole stratum of fans of intellectual content who start with “Capitalism and Schizophrenia”and end with it. The same kind of phenomenon is encountered by famous schoolchildren who have become obsessed with Nietzsche. It turns out an interest that kills itself.

    Well, there are some things that are simply morally outdated, but this is more true for interdisciplinary concepts. For example, the psychological theories of David Hartley are clearly inferior to the achievements of modern psychology. Referring to them can only be useful for understanding the nuances of the foundations of Bentham's utilitarianism.

    In other words, first of all, you need to learn to navigate the world of philosophy, and then it will be clear who does not deserve your attention.

  2. Unfortunately or fortunately, there are no such authors, and if someone tells you the opposite-most likely, he is a dogmatist, and philosophy does not tolerate dogmatism.

    On the other hand, as you delve deeper into philosophy, you will begin to filter out concepts that don't appeal to you, and consequently, philosophers who don't deserve your attention. But to understand this, you will still have to get acquainted with them and pay attention to them.

  3. Those who do not bother to think about anything – give definitions: what is wisdom, love, reason, soul and necessarily-what is a person…

  4. The scourge of all knowledge is getting caught up in details. So there are no instructions on how to properly practice philosophy. You need motivation, and there, as luck would have it.

  5. First, those who use words like “conjunction”, “abusing”, “universe” and other husks. Rest assured, they need this bird's tongue like papuan beads, solely to attract females. Secondly, those who write with grammatical errors. Third, those who diligently rewrite the thoughts from Wikipedia, considering, apparently, it for the perfection of nature. Fourth, those who appeal to the authorities of ancient Greece do not distinguish the early Zeno from the late Immanuel Kant. Fifthly, those who talk a lot, giving arguments like “fifths and tenths” for proof, the true proof is always the same, the first freshness and nothing else.

  6. Philosophy is not a science, it is a consistent, very well-polished freedom of speech. It is necessary to pull out primitives from it, and drag them into practical activity. Let us thank Aristotle for the Matan monads, Marxists for sociology, praxeologists for dynamic systems, idealists for cybernetics, and neo-positivists for Popper's criterion. Therefore, I do not advise you to disdain any philosophers.

  7. None of them are worth paying attention to,if only to fuck with their “mind”…If such a thing as philosophy disappears, only those who call themselves philosophers will suffer. You can live and develop without philosophy, psychology, etc. The world needs engineers, workers, agricultural workers…and there are enough “specialists” to talk,loaf and deceive people.

  8. It's not about the Authors, it's about their Readers. The reader is inevitably a Critic if he compares his worldview with what he has read. He can accept some of them, and reject some of them. But in any case, the Reader grows as a Critic if he can justify the reasons why he accepts or refutes this or that worldview. From this point of view, Reading any Authors is always useful and reasonable.

Leave a Reply