Philosophy has a problem. Here's why.

[@lungubogdan1107]

This discussion reminds me of Walter Mignolo's book Epistemic Disobedience (excuse me if I get the title wrong, I read it in my native language, in Romanian). There, in the book, Mignolo attacks colonialism and coloniality and advocates for liberating ourselves instead of emancipating ourselves. But, more importantly, he argues that the Western epistemological perspective is rooted in its geography, calling it an ethnic perspective on the world. This, in turn, is related to his more important notion that knowledge is localized, geographically speaking. Knowledge starts from somewhere on our map, on our home we call earth. The West thought of itself as universal; but they were only showing their geographic bias. Instead, Mignolo argues that we should aim at a pluriversal (plural + universal, in case it is not clear) understanding of epistemology, whilst also reading Kant and Hegel, but also, as you argued, Fanon and Avicenna or Guaman Poma de Ayala. There is a lot to unpack from this book. I loved it!

[@epicninjali3640]

I think this boils down to historical influence really. At the end of the day, regardless of the ethics involved, western cultural power has historically overpowered the memetic cultural forces foreign to it. It is for this reason that it seems more likely that European intellectual thought has impacted for instance, Gambian intellectual thought more than Gambian intellectual thought has impacted European intellectual thought. In this way, I think a strong argument can be made that the reason these figures are emphasized the most in academia is due to the global and historical presence of their works. This is especially relevant if we take philosophical education to primarily serve the purpose of preparing individuals for their future careers. Another point, I think it should be said that in many respects, philosophy is not about the people who we call philosophers. Plato’s philosophy is not our philosophy of Plato. Our philosophy of Plato is a product of thousands of years of interpretation, debate, and translation. What we work with is not “Plato’s thoughts”, rather it’s a book. It is in this light that I think the problematization of our choice of author is largely in vain. We will never have the thought of anyone, only a book, of which we happen to record an author and their historical context. This very problematization of “diversity within the individuals who shared the thought” is at the very least, only a topic of discourse because it is a largely modern, white/western issue. Should we value a critique from a queer philosopher more because they are queer? If such a philosophy did not fit the hegemonic cultural power of wokeness, I think it’s more likely that in spite of their queerness, said queer person would be ostracized for their dissent. But I’d argue that this shouldn’t be the case because again, philosophy is not a parading celebration of “smart people saying smart things”, rather, it is an academic discipline in which we philosophically investigate ideas on our own while also analyzing influential *works*. In spite of my criticisms, I don’t actually think that including a larger pool of voices in philosophical education is a bad thing. In fact, even in the western canon, there have been many points of innovation which arose due to western philosophers exploring ideas outside the western dialogue. There is a kind of investigative contamination which I think can contribute to stagnation in philosophical progress (should such a thing exist). I do think there is a value that can come from the inclusion of more voices however I often worry that what we might hope to be an intellectual exercise is really devolving into a form of class conflict. One where the spirit of philosophy gives way to a war waged by the culture industry. Feel free to disagree with me in the comments since, after all, philosophy (atleast in its dignified form) only produces its effects as a public good : )

[@captainstrangiato961]

“In this way, I think a strong argument can be made that the the reason these figures are emphasized the most in academia is due to the global and historical presence of their works.” I see what you are saying, and I somewhat agree. But it raises the question: *why* is the presence of their works so pervasive compared to Gambian thought? Imperialism and colonialism is an answer to this question. There is probably more nuances, but it would explain why it is that Gambian influential is nill: over hundreds of years of colonial history and Gambia only reached independence in *1965.** That’s less than 60 years ago. The story of other African countries is very similar. A western civilization that does not have to worry about imperialism and having resources for leisure and study, as well as catching up with basic necessities and governmental structures, showcases an extreme privilege (not to say that these countries, prior to colonization, were necessarily “worse off.” That’s a colonial assumption and is completely invalid). Still further, the voices that have existed elsewhere have been seldom appreciated until pretty recently. Many times people want to point at merits, and indeed that makes sense. But if out of 100 philosophers in a room, 10 are minorities, it’s more than just a merits issue. We should ask further why these lop sided stats exist more critically.

[@billynitrus]

@@captainstrangiato961 You can't be serious

[@yabyum108]

I snook in a lecture on Bodhidharma when I taught Critical Thinking

[@OccupationalPhenomenology]

Irrelevance is philosophy’s biggest problem, I say that as someone who loves it. I suppose more diverse voices in philosophy might address the relevance problem. I stress “might”.

[@thesophist]

Using the name "Avicenna" for somebody who never did, or never would, use that name is part of the problem too.

[@morricane5087]

On ca. ~7:30: Well, that's why we have "history of philosophy" or, if you want to, we might call that attempt at understanding and interpreting someone else's thought also "philosophical research/study", not "doing philosophy". This is the position of a Japanese friend when prompted to describe his own activity. He also, incidentally, considers "philosophy" specifically meaning "Western philosophy" and not just any kind of theoretical-abstract-etc. thinking in general. In Japan, the latter is traditionally called *shisô* 思想 - literally: "thought" - and practically distinguished from *tetsugaku* 哲学 - "philosophy" - which specifically refers to thinking recurring to the European tradition. Personally, I see a problem with this, namely: how do you call what Latour might have called a hybrid, the amalgam of ideas that is either neither or both? P.S.: At least in an university context, maybe it would be good to just get rid of "canon" in the first place and just teach thought-provoking texts, no matter who wrote them. I don't see the purpose beyond an institutionalized pressure to legitimize one's curriculum, but the second you delegitimize the tracing of a historical connection (e.g., Kant replied to Hume, Schelling to Kant etc.), the "tradition" and the "canon" as being useful to understanding a specific lineage of texts, it becomes hard to argue for a specific canon:curriculum as necessary or self-evident.

[@alangivre2474]

I think one of the problems is that we abandoned universalism. Greek philosophers were trying to create universal knowledge, but the same were trying to do Islamic, or eastern philosophy. We are obsessed with power, and thus we are obsessed with particularism. In the past, thinkers saw themselves as universal, not particular,

[@Karamazov9]

Well that’s an extremely reactionary and totalizing view, if you think that philosophy is just about power you haven’t been paying attention, it seems like you’re a straight white man who is uncomfortable being the subject of critique.

[@felipegermano5974]

Outside of a judgement based on value, does philosophy apply to any kind of thought? I am a history student and in my discipline we tend to not call historical figures something they didn't identify as, meaning, if an important figure did not know the word "philosophy" we shouldn't call them philosophers. So we could attach the term to thinkers who did live in a world were this connection between "thinker" and "philosopher" does exist, but not to people who had no contact with western philosophy canon. This is not me saying non-western thought is less valuable than western philosophy, but me saying that, for an example, you can't understand someone as a marxist if they don't know who marx is, or if they died before he was born.

[@TheGarudaman]

I get the sense that the theme here, in this particular presentation, is “inclusive-ness” of “other” culture’s general ideas and concepts and their interpretations with those few “original thinkers” in order to gain deeper understanding of this situation: this business of living and staying alive. Thankfully, imo, your conclusion is right on! The Past is always Present. Things that we take for granted as “wrong” today; lying and prejudices for instance, were as wrong then as they are wrong Now. Many things were NEVER the right things to do-anywhere on the planet at any period of time. As a great philosopher, Erik Fromm, once put “if you are alive, you knows what is allowed.

[@TheD3cline]

As a Greek, sounds like a skills issue bro. Why wasn't your ancestors engaging in boy love and writing it down?

[@PrimitiveBaroque]

Should we then focus on immediate experience, such as construing "presentation" as such?

[@epicninjali3640]

Underrated comment

[@MrJoxxxi]

Buddhist philosophy has a start point of no self and no ontos, thus the logical deductions can't lead to anything since the truth can't be.

[@nawzadjamal]

I think, we have to separate a philosophers origin from the philosophy as a discipline or faculty of reason and thinking . we could say this of that philosopher an European philosopher but philosophy itself is universal.

[@pourquoipas971]

Philosophy , in my opinion , is a method to think better and wisely ,.. so many good philosophers in more than more than 2500 years … so many different perspectives! each human being who wants to improve himself has a enormous library at his disposal .. he can choose to start with Socrates or Aristotle… or with kant , Spinoza ( hard path!) … start with Frantz Fanon, , Averoes… Even begin with philosophers still alive as Byung Chul Han … if you are interested in Philosophy it means you are open minded and curious… 😊

[@jedje]

This is an interesting discussion. I do research on the topic of representation, wrote an article about it Abstract : Reality [Shadowplay], look it up if you are interested. We try to appoint ideas to certain characters, although there is nothing to find in those characters themselves. It is instead the mechanism, the kind of interactions between them that should be studied more.

[@Israel2.3.2]

I think I agree, Canon is a small finite number of texts that remains relatively invariant over centuries, but this is modelled on the Aristotelian corpus, and the Aristotelian corpus was a product of the art of dialectic applied to specific genera, but this art requires a given body of dialectical propositions, namely all those that have preceded the present, thus it is better to build our own Lyceum with present data rather than making things cliqueish with a well-defined Canon. I would defend the Greeks however because they are a candle in the darkness. From Tragos to Pathos and the beginnings of philosophy and its relationship to the Polis.

[@benbrown1366]

It is simple, and at once very hard. There is nothing more to it than taking joy in the discovery of great thinkers, past and present, even heretofore unknown ones. This is the work of the true scholar of philosophy or the true engager in the philosophical dialogue. A great master will recognize another. If this genuine fire can be lit in one's soul, there is no need for a dour, puritanical insistence on "representation" nor for an overweening political correctness.

[@obrotherwhereartliam]

I don’t think I know a single philosopher who defends this clichéd version of the canon. Nor I have I ever seen an argument made in defending an exclusive canon.

[@Mlkshke4]

Certainly our specific adherence to the Greeks might be overly emphasized, but I will maintain there is something specifically important about modern Western philosophy for understanding our world at it has followed colonialism across the world, defining, at least indirectly, modernity everywhere (for example, the UN is a distinctly modern and western institution). We should be including the voices that the western modernists drew from outside of the western modern canon (for example, Rousseau and indigenous cultures), but it’s still quite important to emphasize the Descartes onward canon.

[@harold7748]

i think the poblem might be that the western philosophers represent a specific school of thought, whereas non western philosophers are harder to put into does schools of thoughts. So i think the solution might be to have philosophy shift away from school of thoughts and generiles the whole field so that many different ideas can be talked about together.

[@GlassBottleStudios]

Eastern philosophy is far less rigorous and based on logic and language. That's why it's seen as lesser, it kind of is.

[@ariepiet2788]

I think there is a problem with "Philosophy has a problem". For one, we could label philosophy courses as "Western Philosophy", and the problem is gone. Secondly, philosophy (as we see it, and as the name suggests) is about truth. That makes Buddhism and Taoism etc. more like a religion (granted I don't know a lot about those). I don't know if one should include non-true philosophy in the canon. That would create a problem for you if two works conflict: we want to be inclusive, but also have truth. Thirdly, the reason why dead white males are included in history is that they were the most influential and most pronounced. Sure, if you want to know everything about philosophy, you might also read all the non-canon stuff, but one should limit the scope, and the most influential works are thus the most important. Fourthly, the post-modern inclusivity is, well, modern. Should you change something radically based on your ideology? You think people before you were wrong, people after you will think you wrong. Be a bit more conservative. Or, to paraphrase that, I don't agree with you. Don't radically change things because there are other people who don't agree with you.

[@Gruuzii]

Just curious: do the "Eastern" philosophy adherents consider "Western" philosophy to be of the same category and authority as their own "native" philosophies? Also,, I notice a lot of pictures of a certain Karl Marx figure posted around modern day China. In their government institutions, for example. Isn't that a Western Philosopher who's ideas were deemed universal enough to apply to the Chinese experience? Why is it that ideas of Western origin are categorically incapable of being universal or universalized?

[@vvviiixxx8745]

It seems maybe your glossing over the cultural phenomenon, particularly within the US and Europe, to hone in primarily on the thoughts of a rather narrow range of cultures - most (nearly all) of which are based in European heritage/hegemony of thought. This does not mean that it is necessarily 'incapable of being universal or universalized'... and there's a certain sort of blind spot within your second which exemplifies that, in fact, a number of other cultures are already synthesizing their own modes of thought/ethics/philosophy/spirituality/etc alongside other notable western philosophers - I think that question can be much better answered by how colonialism spread the esteemed ideas of European culture, and there would likely be a very salient historical/class analysis of why that was/is so. In that, it will be important to put your Dogma aside, and learn from modes of thought aside from a very narrow, generally institutionally esteemed tradition (i.e. Western Philosophy). This idea that we must be searching for the "culture with the highest authority" is in fact the mode of thought we should be interrogating in ourselves, and if it offends you then... I think you're missing something.

[@Gruuzii]

@@vvviiixxx8745 Teaching the Western Canon isn't just a "cultural fixation" or "honing in on" something, it's a summary of an ever-evolving tradition full of thinkers who's *ideas* and reasoning differed drastically from one another, despite their being superficially similar in appearance. This is pretty basic as far as understanding western philosophy goes. The ideas of Plato, for instance, may have been historically bounded, but they weren't meant to be merely particularist descriptions of the world around him. They were an attempt to actually discover and transcribe the truth of how human minds and human beings work. Just like all the rest of the philosophers, western or not. There simply is no singular, dogmatic, "institutional" commitment to western philosophy. This is just something you've made up in your head and for the sake of a faux deconstruction. In fact, there never has been one: other than in the activity of compiling a unified history of the development of western philosophy. And that history is best understood as a dialogue between great thinkers of very different ages and cultures, who nonetheless reached back into time and reinterpreted or recapitulated older ideas out of a sense of curiosity and intellectual humility. They were literally reading one another generations apart and then writing down their thoughts about the same subject. Each step of the way adding or modifying that which came before. They weren't part of the same "group" or "institution," they weren't serving the same powers. They weren't reading from some list of approved authors and ignoring those from other cultures. It simply never happened that way, even if it seems so from the outside looking in. They were thinkers who shared in a certain mode of discourse, who happened to be born in and around the geographic region of the world we call "Europe." The rest is nonsense.

[@ixfr123]

@@Gruuzii Well said.

[@harrycornelius373]

This was one of the most intellectually mushy episodes of overthink. Without a clear rigorous definition of the process of philosophy, it is hard to say what is philosophy and what is not - unless one defines it historically as work that is referential to an historical body of work and its set of issues. We can acknowledge that there are different traditions. I see no problem with relabeling what we call Philosophy a Western Philosophy on a rigorous basis. Each tradition would get its own label. As global communications and interchange make texts and conversations converge we get a more global culture which can expand the body of philosophy - if we define philosophy as whatever we call philosophy rather than by a process definition. In which case this is a political or aesthetic not a philosophical exercise. Much quasi-philosophical literature is well worth reading. But does that make it philosophy or something else?Certainly the canon needs expansion but the ChatGPT ploy was disingenuous because Fran’s Fanon and Wittgenstein and a host of feminist philosophers are all taught in philosophy courses. The problem with the canon is there are just too many philosophers worth reading so pruning / prioritizing the canon is a mater of taste and politics. The need to be “inclusive” of other voices is a social political requirement from a cultural historical perspective. For me St Anselm should be regulated to dustbin of philosophy because- although historically important- his whole project is merely a convoluted rationalization of his faith and so is false. Which points to a potential test of philosophy.

[@BillyMcBride]

Thanks for this interesting talk. I myself am a fan of the philosopher Roberto Mangabeira Unger, who suggests that universities should include courses where professors of opposing viewpoints are given equal and appropriate teaching positions to teach their courses without problems. That would mean that colleges should have both sorts of professors teaching: those professors who support traditional canons as well as those professors who are more interested in marginalized voices. In that way, both sides are represented, and the battle for the canon is stopped for the sake of the most diversity possible.

[@paulkaiser201]

Both sides?.. be wary of false binaries

[@BillyMcBride]

@paulkaiser201 if you let professors teach what they wish, and include courses with both traditional canonizers, non-traditional canonizers and even non-canonizers, you let your students have better chances to learn from opposing perspectives, thinks Unger. And, he says that, as a result, students are taught critical thinking skills in an even broader sense.

[@BillyMcBride]

@paulkaiser201 you might like reading, if you have not already, Unger's =The Religion of the Future=. Also, he is friends with Cornel West, who tonight just announced that he will be running for president in 2024!

[@tyfischer4739]

Here’s a different perspective to consider. When Americans talk about philosophy they usually mean western philosophy specifically. It’s not that eastern philosophy, African philosophy, etc aren’t allowed in but instead at their core they differ in ideas and values and don’t fall into the same bucket. If we want to see integration between these different schools of thought we should attempt to synthesize modern western philosophy with influences from other sources. And if you look what happening with panpsychism you could argue we are already on our way.

[@bryce5203]

I disagree fundamentally that other schools of philosophy 'differ in ideas and values and don't fall into the same bucket.' I could be wrong, but I think this shows a lack of study in especially 'Eastern' philosophy. You can find debates between Hindu and Buddhist philosophers that closely mirror e.g. Berkeley and Descartes, but wanting to make this comparison is the problem in the first place. Sanskrit, Chinese, Arabic, and Persian philosophy have all considered the fundamental questions of metaphysics, epistemology, etc. on their own terms and there's no reason to try and import it to our Greek-based model. People already have been synthesizing Western philosophy with 'Eastern' philosophy- see Heidegger and Daoism- but its fundamentally wrong to try and shoehorn these rich traditions into Western labels like 'panpsychism' because this still prioritizes the Western understanding. I highly recommend you read about philosophers like Dharmakirti, who can easily go toe-to-toe with any Western epistemologist. Try to understand Western philosophy through outside perspectives, not the other way around...

[@harshvardhansiddharthan249]

@@bryce5203 was just going to say this but saved me a whole bunch of trouble - thanks!

[@tyfischer4739]

Hey @@bryce5203 , I agree there is plenty of overlap between the different schools of philosophy I typed my initial comment without proof reading it much, so instead of me saying "differ in ideas and values and don't fall into the same bucket." I'd rather say "differ in what they tend to emphasis to be important and can have concepts that the other schools do not". That being said there is no harm in different schools of philosophy influencing one another, which I see as the Hegelian dialect at work. So why not have western thinkers consume eastern philosophy and see what they come up with? Why not have more eastern thinkers consume more western philosophy and see what they come up with? What would they have in common? What wouldn't they have in common? etc. Also for what its worth I'm a software guy who likes philosophy so I'm not saying my opinion is correct either .

[@doylesaylor]

These questions of what holds together all philosophy, including all human history are also about what is realism. So one can go back into prehistory in the sense of before written languages and at the point of cave paintings see that they are conceptualizing realism. And antirealism at once. The way we would reflect upon their tradition is to ask what is the realism of the video being made of these people talking in this video. Rather obviously the video is a sort of gold standard of realism. But it says a realism that starts with naming a thing which in this case is a ‘problem’. That just means at roughly 40 thousand years ago the cave painting corresponds to a word (a thing unnamed has no word, is outside language and in the real world) the painter was using then. That word ‘means’ the image on the cave wall. That’s a realism conjecture, because the human uses knowledge to stick a name to the real world. So a person using a video is seeking not so much to explain philosophy or some problem with it, but using the realism structure of the video to say how philosophy is happening inside the video. Not the words spoken but the reality of the conversation as recorded. Is the video one whole? Is the conjecture of the movie a whole? That seems to me is obviously not true, or obviously not reality. Rather a sort of antirealism boundary contains the movie. The different speakers are not saying the same thing. Instead their philosophy is syncretic or a jumble of unrealized realism created structure.

[@LittleMushroomGuy]

"When Americans talk about medicine, they usually mean western medicine specifically. It's not eastern medicine, African medicine, etc...." Why do we need to call it philosophy, when they themselves do not call it and didn't consider it "philosophy"? Its obviously a term coined by greeks and continued by those who saw themselves as successors to them

[@alangivre2474]

The other day I discovered Mulla Sadra, and I loved him.

[@Bruh-el9js]

Let's not give Spengler fuel. Philosophy is universal, any ethnic or regional philosophy has the same explanatory appeal as folklore. Avicenna was also explicitly an universalist.

[@BobBatian-i7o]

If it can be described as the “love of wisdom” however loosely, then it should be considered Philosophy; if not, pick another name for it.

[@doylesaylor]

Thanks for making this video. It set off my latest thinking. Obviously making this video is a philosophical effort that explores the realism structure of a movie. So it’s not about the ‘problem’ in philosophy, it’s the use of the practice of realism as a whole, the MOVIES realism structure that is being called upon to philosophize a wholeness of the global system. Ending European centrism, is not the main battle. Rather it’s a sense of building a realistic connectedness as emerging in this period. Let’s just take cultural beginnings, all of them. Is that not something from nothing? Well it wasn’t nothing, in the sense before these philosophical starts all,over the planet, there was a time at the beginning of humans that both said realism like stone tools and fire, and knew all about beyond their reality were antirealisms like death. That in the people around you who were there from birth to death unlike our times, their whole being, their truth and lies and dreams preceded philosophy. They whatever their starting point had realism as a guide and all sorts of unreal antireal ‘things’ (unnamed words) coming out of people at the beginning of language that we can say was about first and foremost a realism structure to use. And when someone died and that you knew from their talking was gone forever, that was a fundamental ‘antirealism’.

[@elvinsruben]

Nietzsche giggles in his grave: history is will to power

[@soysantiagoarellano1504]

Philosophy has a representational problem has much as Representation must be philosophicaly "problematized" (i think i made up that last word but you get it).

[@ScubzMcTalBowling]

Maybe the solution is to stop trying to categorize things as philosophy or not philosophy

[@Omulosi]

Why not do a course on living Bantu philosophers to compensate? Mindful not to use Latin script as European/white in origin. Naturally you will not employ the term Africa which originally named a Roman province: its use to define the entire landmass a European naming convention as with the mapping of the continent itself. I’ve noticed some ‘Afrocentrists’ using the Teuton spelling Afrika - irony? Look forward to an authentically ‘Black’ /Bantu event assuming a viable textual key for those whose only text is that of the Roman or Dwem.

[@yonathanasefaw9001]

Informative.

[@LuminaLokai]

Philosophy = love of wisdom. This is not that, this is semantics and socio-politics. What used to unite philosophy in the West was a unified epistemology of rationalism. Now what proliferates and passes as philosophy is irrationalism, antirationalism, and the other two things mentioned. If you want good philosophy, instead of bad philosophy, it still exists, it’s just not popular, and no true philosophy cares about irrelevant matters like race, history, or culture when it comes to studying the nature of truth and wisdom. The best philosophy I have found is simple and anyone can understand it. Check out ontological mathematics by the Pythagorean Illuminati.

[@commonwunder]

Analogous to classical music. If you ask A.I. to name classical composers... you will get exactly the same response. If you ask AI to name the top ten Asian radical or critical thinkers... you won't find any Caucasians on the list. But unfortunately... quite a few dead Asian philosophers. There's a canon... because they're 'tried and tested'. They are all excellent thinkers to begin your futile search for meaning. It's like elementary school for young learners. Tradition is vital to a society's understanding of itself. Philosophy and philosophers have no real answers, on any kind of an objective level. They're only tools... for an historical understanding 'of their little part of the world' and its general worldview. They aren't interchangeable. They, like religion are a placebo of belligerent strength, a feeling of self- righteousness... when confronting the enormity of human anxiety. But that is all they are. An idiosyncratic coping mechanism, some humans desire in order to stave off the inevitability of entropy.

[@nurgahaditia]

😢 this form of "conscience" that all human need to grow in a good and proper way!? 🥰👍 #insightfully

[@thelondoners-lifeisart]

Thank you… Human-ID ⚡️❤️💜💙⚡️

[@bereldovlerner5557]

Duh. Western universities concentrate on their own - Western - tradition. Did the great Indian or Chinese philosophers not think they were dealing with the general human condition? Also, when you mention the great Muslim philosophers, sorry, but they are also quite self-consciously, footnotes to Plato.

[@ixfr123]

You're right, western philosophy came out of the European university system that followed from the monastery schools, and Westerners were going to analyze concepts from within their own culture. It's like saying schools in Kazakhstan have a problem because they don't teach American philosophy.

[@TheOtherCaleb]

The definition and end of philosophy is very muddied in this video.

[@elgrandjefe4661]

For a start, even the words "philosophy" come from Greek. It created the standard, and if other schools of thought want to be considered such then they can be expected to follow its patterns. But why not define the patterns of others, and thus create even the reverse situation - how would western philosophy be judged according to the patterns of the east, or africa? So the solution might be to consider Philosophies - bodies of them - but recognising they have different foundations. Of course, then we'd need specific studies to understand their similarities and differences.

[@amaurylannes]

This isn't a big deal tbh

[@Karamazov9]

Are you a minority or queer?

[@paulhaube]

The problem with philosophy are the humans. Philosophy is what you make of it. Life is the better teacher of learning, not babbling. Be well.

[@PhokenKuul]

The real problem philosophy has is the artificiality of its pseudo esotericism. This isn't unique to philosophy, science is sick with it. But in philosophy it's much more detrimental because philosophy has so much to offer the everyday man but it's buried in jargon, double speak, shifting definitions and just plain nonsense.

[@allthingsgardencad9726]

you could put the people in this very video in that list, never seen so much navel gazing non sense.

[@Karamazov9]

Love your channel and this video and I absolutely agree, I am really upset by all the comments, invariably from straight white people, who are all saying “well ackshually the problem is the woke mind virus” in so many words. They have a problem with philosophy that doesn’t constantly center straight white male experience and critiques hegemonic structures.

[@gavinyoung-philosophy]

WEB Da boys😂

[@TheGrammarOfDesign]

Wittgenstein is the most important.

[@TheGrammarOfDesign]

McGilchrist is the most relevant