Do philosophers have to be so lame?

I hope this doesn’t really offend anyone. I’d like to think that philosophers aren’t for the most part lame. However, as I read more and more from people who present themselves as philosophically oriented, I can’t help but to notice an awful lot of lameness. I mean, just because you read a lot of books and think about big questions doesn’t mean that you can’t get laid and smoke pot and drink and have fun. And don’t get me wrong, those aren’t the only things that make a person not lame. I’d really like to hear some people defend themselves against my accusations of general lameness amongst philosopher types. Just know, that if you’re going to respond to this, that it had better not be overtly lame, or I’ll begin philosophizing (or whatever) against you.
SO…
If you’ve got the balls, (real or metaphorical), and the self respect to defend what you do and who you are, then answer my question. Otherwise, go hang out in a library until it’s time to masturbate.

I don’t ‘get laid’ but I do smoke a lot of pot, and have had professors openly accuse me of being both an alcoholic (with good reason) and a coke-head (less reason).

I don’t think there is anything wrong with being ‘lame’, I really do enjoy reading and some of the ‘big questions’ spur discussions that lead to some really interesting ideas, but this is not what I (and I think most) philosophers are limited to. Much in the same way a doctor or engineer is not limited by what they do I would find it hard to believe most philosophers get that caught up in their profession.

That said, most of life can be boiled down to a philosophical issue or discussion. I don’t think this means that most of the die-hard philosophers should analyze every moment, but there exists the possibly that some should be looked at from their unique vantage.

How do I defend what I do? Because I enjoy it and can do something with it. That and it supports rash alchoholism.

“Big questions”?
“Reading books”?

Originally the meaning of the philosopher was one whom quests for wisdom, seeking to know, as a humbler version of the word “sage”. They were the scientists whom did no tests or experiments.

A big book reader is more a scholar.

So anyways, what’s so non-lame about booze and superficial “entertainment”? It’s mostly meant to destract people from how unstable and self-destructive their idle minds are…

Oh please.
All forms of “fun” are “stimulation”…
Drugs and books are but a few ways to alter the mindbody.
I don’t think any seeker of wisdom is going to get drunk, because that drunkeness makes him more stupid.

Most of the “fun” today is poisonous and temporary junk. Decadent, and that is all. Deadly luxuries and a waste of mind. It’s all designed for the common, idle man, whom is eager to waste and has a low taste.

Well, we’ve got one for lame, and one for not lame. Maybe it’s not most philosophers, just about 50/50. Anyone else care to try and define my terms as they please and ignore the meaning of what I’m trying to ask?

I actually find Philosophers incredibly sexy. I’m not kidding lol. I find them very charming and am fascinated by their ability to carry on an intelligent conversation. I don’t think they are lame at all, any women with high enough regards to herself can’t possibly resist a man with their sort of contemplations and inspirations, philosophers are actually quite fun. You can’t possibly judge someones character by reading their posts, I mean if you are trying to prove a point are you going to act like a jackass? Or act like you know what your talking about. That is like trying to defend your sobriety against a cop while expressing your urge to dance. There is a time and place for everything.

… hmmmmm…

How you doin? :D/

Why hello, Mr. Blue chicken… lol I’m flirting with a chicken , how oddly amusing.

Oh come on guys. No one ever stays on topic in my threads!!

I don’t like your definition of philosopher for a couple of reasons.

  1. Reading philosophy doesn’t make you a philosopher, IMO. You need to have a philosophy of your own that is interesting.

  2. You’re defining philosophers as people on this website. Not every philosopher posts on this website.

I’d classify most people on this website not as philosophers, but historians or critics of philosophy. The difference is the difference between an art critic or an art historian. They don’t create art. They appreciate it and study it.

Drinking, smoking pot, and getting laid are immature criteria for what it takes to not be lame. I’ve met many a lame pot smoker and drinker. What you mean are people with a sense of fun and adventure.

Steve

I thought I did ok, :cry:

I generally find people who actively identify themselves as XYZ in real life are incredibly boring people. Indeed, the reason why I’ve pretty much stopped doing drugs is because people who do drugs are so often defined by them that they become incredibly boring. I didn’t want to waste my time around them anymore and dealers always want to be your buddy (because they are all huge losers at heart). Same thing with the “Number 1 Fan” types, or with people who wear barets and turtlenecks and fancy themselves ‘philosophers’ while cheap smoking cigarettes.

Also, I think the net enriches for dorky people as well as dorky-seeming people. We are all here to talk about philosophy, not to talk about tearing it up at the club last night. I mean, I hit up a bar pretty much once a day, and I go out to bars with friends probably two to three times a week and I usually go clubbing once a week. I will say the best thing about being an academic is that if I have a beer or two with lunch, nobody minds. Huge bonus. But that sort of thing usually doesn’t come up in a conversation about philosophy.

Scott could be right… :slight_smile:

Why should I judge myself based on what someone else thinks as lame or cool?

I find intelligence and wisdom moreso lovable than sexy. :wink:

Well, my fiance is pregnant, so clearly I get laid regularly.

I could smoke pot, but I don’t like it. The same can be said for drinking.

I’m a hard-core sports fan, and a kick-ass street hockey player if that makes me less lame. My backyard football skills aren’t that bad, either.

I listen to some very diverse and seriously kick-ass music.

Other than that, I drive a pretty nice car.

Such a lame topic.

Some unfortunate people or fortunate but fucking stupid people work in factories all day long everyday. Lame.

Some doctors. Some CPAs. Even some lawyers. Are lame.

What makes a person lame mostly depends on their personality, not interests. And only part of the time will interests determine a persons personality.

People may seem lame on here, but it’s philosophy, in real life they could be very exciting… but people who are into philosophy tend to be more mellow, they like to spend time thinking. It’s better than living it up and only occasionally thinking in my opinion. But I, and I hope others on here do other things and balance it.

Some of you do spend a hell of alot of time on here, but it could be at work.

Either way this is a pointless topic, the only answer for that is that philosophers tend to be mellow and introverted; not killing brain cells at the local bar watching tities.

Also, In real life I don’t discuss philosophy to anyone unless they’re interested, and rarely with girls… almost never… you can’t give a bigger turnoff, that’s why you turn it off. Most people don’t give a rats ass.

Secondly if you don’t sit around all day you are out having fun with friends.

Third, not sure why smoking pot makes anyone interesting. People who do it regularly are usually losers. Now theres a good generalization.

I must not be a philosopher, just one who reads on it and is interested in philosophy… because I can get laid, have fun, and don’t need pot w/e that has to do with the matter.

This IS a lame topic, Scott.

It’s basically an anti-philosophy position, i.e., “There is no truth, why even try, it’s a lost cause.”

The best remedy for this condition isn’t MORE philosophy but just a little more anti-philosophy. If you take this line of thinking a little further, you’ll see the real trouble.

Suppose we say: OK, since we can’t really talk about x as we don’t have precise enough language, we shouldn’t talk about it at all. This is, in fact, the ‘lame’ perspective, right? ‘Let’s stick to the rules!’

Why is it lame? Because we’re ignoring the fact that we’re always making up the rules as we go along, even and especially when we think they’re set in stone. We can re-interpret, invent new words, scramble the codes.

In other words, we don’t have to think philosophy in a stodgy, musty way.

We should think of ‘theory’ as essentially a creative activity, much closer to art, especially music.

Any musicians here want to back me up? Jazz and classical, for example, can have intense intellectual and sensual components. Which seems very sexy to me anyway.

In general, intelligence is associated with good virtue, so those who aspire to become intelligent tend to shy away from activities that are stereotyped as culturally decadent.

This sentiment is emphasized in consumerism, especially, because even intellectualism has become a fetish. People are no longer “philosophers”, but pretend to be philosophers by adopting the signature trends and styles of the intellectual.

Take you, for example, Mears. You are about as philosophical as a peanut. Maybe two. But since philosophy in the modern world, in the consumerist culture, is a trend anyway, there is no loss if people like you call yourselves philosophers.

It becomes something like a cartoon of a cartoon. This is the joke of the twenty-first century.

Good point. Reminds me of people who think they’re artsy but yet no nothing of art or technique.

He’s right scott, in fact if you had some philosophical skills you’d know how to answer this simple question quickly. However, this isn’t a question, this is really just a rant.