Definitions of Pseudo-Intellectual Philosophers

  1. Those who cannot make a simple common sense determination on what is good or bad without engaging in a convoluted argument over moral relativism.

  2. Those who believe that they can determine the state of being by sitting in an armchair and never engaging the body in any form of ordeal that would cause physical discomfort.

3 Those who’s life experience is obtained from books and have never suffered extreme pain and/or profound loss.

  1. Those who life experience is obtained from books and have never experienced extreme ecstasy and/or profound peace

  2. Those who are waiting for somebody else to prove that there is a Supreme Consciousness and have never investigated it for themselves.

  3. Those who have already determined that a Supreme Consciousness does not exist

  4. Those who think our ancestors where foolish for believing in ancient theological arguments that have served mankind for 6000 years and more

  5. Those who do not realize that subsequent philosophical arguments over the nature of being are stumbling attempts to rehash what is already classic.

  6. Those who take the above definitions as personal insults to their intelligence.

I am sure that there are stout-hearted souls here who can step forward and add a few more definitions and thereby help to compile a more complete list that can be used for future reference

Here’s two -

Those who have raised arrogance to an art form.

Those who concoct irrelevant and self-serving definitions of philosophers without ever having uttered a philosophical statement in their lives.

Damn! I forgot to include those two

I am sure we have included everybody now, If not please step forward and add your two bits.

With all due respect, in the OP, what happened to Item 6?

Oh, yes:

Those who attempt to prove something that has not yet been proven by citing something else that has not yet been proven as evidence.

You’re clearly fishing for emotion with this topic. Under a thin and frankly pathetic veil you call all those who don’t believe what you do pseudo-intellectuals. Did you honestly expect constructive argument when you created this thread? I’d like to think you’re smarter than that. Unfortunately that makes you a troll.

I’d like to think that my addition is not an emotional reaction to anything, I just don’t believe, and I will use this example again.

One should never murder anyone.

Why not? Murder is…(Insert arguments or situations where one should murder another)

Because God wrote the Ten Commandments and said, “Thou shalt not kill.”

Clearly trying to prove that their moral opinion regarding murder is proven to be valid and accurate by something that has not yet been proven, well, valid and accurate.

My personal experience, which has ranged from those who don’t consider themselves to be philosophers and aren’t – to those who consider themselves philosophers but aren’t – to those who are professional philosophers at a prestigious university –

is that those (such as the poster) who appeal to the benefits of general emotional experience (usually involving pain and loss, for some strange reason), and the relevance of those experiences, to one’s beliefs – are either by no means philosophers (category 1), or else the bottom rung of category 2.

Philosophy isn’t a self-help class. Daniel Dennett and Bertrand Russel are/were not pseudo-philosophers. Stop trolling.

Are they the pinnacle of 20th century philosophy for you?

They’re examples of those who have determined (beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than beyond all doubt) that a “Supreme Consciousness” doesn’t exist. Contextually it should have been obvious I meant them as exceptions to the OP’s list.

And by a ‘supreme consciousness’ I take it we mean God or a God-like being?

Yes.

Okay. At any rate, I think Russell and Dennett have contributed a whole hell of a lot to the philosophy of formal logic, math, and the sciences, but they’ve had very little of interest to contribute to the philosophy of the humanities. Which is okay. Better to be a specialist than a generalist, I think.

Good one. :laughing: Let us insert it as the missing No. 6

My dear fellow, I am simply fishing for expressions of personal honesty. If there is any emotion I am seeking it is - hopefully - via self-depreciating humor. What I am trying to do is to get past the pomposity and introduce a note of wryness. My uncompromising assertions, as some have called them, are attempts at trying to balance our discussions and get us all back down to earth.

Philosophy is a natural inclination of the human psyche - it arises from vicissitudes of life. All of it should be original observations if it is to be considered real philosophy. I don’t pretend to be as bright as most of the people posting on this board. But I know I am damn-well a lot older than most and have lived a hard and adventurous life. That and that alone is the only criteria for calling oneself a philosopher - whether a particularly wise one or not is another matter,

Regurgitating predigested information that originated thousands of years before by people who actually experienced life is symptomatic our modern dysfunctional pseudo-intellectual masturbation. And the sooner we all admit that the sooner we will all get off our backsides and start learning how to actually apply the ethical urgings our philosophical ancestors originated.

In the meantime cry babies should go home.

a) This is completely beside the point I was trying to make – you’re aware of that?

b) I don’t know what distinction you’re using between philosophy of “the sciences” and of “the humanities”, but both philosophers, especially Bertrand Russell, are very strong in “non-science-y” philosophy (pertaining to morality, social and political philosophy [Bertrand Russell was an anti-war activist way before it was cool], aesthetics and human happiness, linguistic philosophy, and more).

Keep in mind that I’m bored.

That doesn’t mean you’re not trolling. Expressions of personal honestly can be troll-like.

I fail to see the self-depreciative humor in calling any person who doesn’t believe the stupid shit you do a ‘pseudo-philosopher’. In fact, if that’s humor, then it’s the opposite of self-depreciative humor. It’s self-pompous humor. You’re basically asserting that only people who believe what you do are real philosophers. To hell with the critics! They aren’t even philosophers.

You failed to get past the pomposity.

No one has called your assertions uncompromising…another example of how you’ve failed to get past the pomposity.

Your ‘philosophy’ (it’s in quotations because theology would be more appropriate) gravitates upon the notion of a sky daddy. universal consciousness…blah blah…Calling it something else won’t make the arguments for God less laughable. You’re no where near Earth, pal.

There are no original observations in philosophy. There are in the sciences…but not in philosophy. The same shit that has been said since the time of Plato is being said today…it’s only been fleshed out a bit more.

That’s funny.

So you’re saying, in the bolded part, that living a hard and adventurous life is both necessary and sufficient for being a philosopher. In that case it seems that Plato the aristocrat wasn’t a philosopher. In fact, most of those who we today consider philosophers apparently aren’t philosophers at all. Locke wasn’t a philosopher. Neither was Hume. Nor Spinoza or Kierkegaard, and forget about Nietzsche.

Pseudo-intellectual masturbation you say. Armchair, you say, all the while assuming that philosophy deals with natural kinds, meaning it’s something that must be discovered out there. We need to get out of the armchair! No, we fucking don’t, and I’m tired of hearing idiots say such things. Philosophers aren’t scientists. Where scientists look at natural kinds, to find that the essence of water is H2O for instance, philosophers look at things like justification, knowledge, art, morality, logic, etc. That knowledge is justified true belief plus something else couldn’t have been discovered by beheading dogs. Logic or knowledge are not something one understands and advances after shooting elephants. They’re things understood and advanced from the armchair and with a quiet, modest, and studious mind untroubled by conflict or necessity.

What you want to do is develop an all encompassing ontology…You want to seal the universe in a tight little box, where every phenomenon is explained by some sort of principle you’ve concocted. Let me tell you something, old man. There’s a reason why modern philosophers no longer do that, and it’s not because they haven’t lived adventurous lives, or because they’re stupid. It’s because they’re modest. It’s because they see where philosophy ends and religion begins. You see, that all-encompassing approach to philosophy was abandoned long ago when it became obvious it couldn’t be epistemically justified. When one couldn’t in good faith approach philosophy in this wya…when it was realized that only pompous self-important, and frankly, stupid men want to capture lightning in a bottle.

And trolls should be banned.

Much obliged.

Enough said. Why go on to rant on and on? :laughing:
Maybe I can condense all that into yet another definition. :-k

You should do that, lest you actually understand it.

Nah! Too boring. #-o