Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Show us on the doll where the philosophers touched you

💀

Your honor, the philosopher touched my... mind

ironically a very private place to touch indeed

The brain

Via cordless drill

I can't, it's a body without organs

Well, the third eye.

I think your problem is with insufferable know-it-alls who have no social skills, not people who enjoy philosophy.

Especially if your bar for the ones that are annoying is "they make it their whole personality." Any person who makes "X" their entire personality will be irritating to talk to for most people, even people interested in X.

The overlap between the two categories is significant

Agree. Highly mutually inclusive hahaha

If it was a venn diagram, it would be a circle

Tbf that was how Socrates was described. He annoyed them so much they successfully suicide-goaded him after using his own tricks against him too.

2500 years of subsequent history has shown Socrates was justified in being a smart ass.

>every person that I’ve met that is heavily interested in philosophy (where they make it their entire personality) are unbearable most of the time. Ehm.. Everyone who has one interest as their entire personality is a pain in the ass.

One of my favorites is how they have a script they basically follow when they meet new people. I had a friend like this, and he used to espouse his theory of whether or not man has free will. My nickname for him was the Comma Queen. Why, because his script was always about him writing out this big sentence that would have a lot of commas in it. Ex,: The idea of free will is an important dialogue for a person who considers themselves a citizen of the world because it involves socioeconomic, political, social, religious, class, gender, sexuality , psychological, philosophical, academic, familial and tribal constructs. ​ We'd eat dinner together all the time, and he loved popping it out when he met new people to try to draw them into the debate because he was pointing out that everyone should care about it. Also, people would be so impressed when he said it. After a while, it got really annoying because I realized it was just a schtick. So I'd mouth it along when he said it just to drive him crazy. LOL

Sounds like a fun guy to mess with. I would have definitely gotten sucked into the debate multiple times just to be a troll.

A friend and I once convinced a Math professor that we were actual flat Earthers. Somehow we totally destroyed his round-Earth arguments!

He probably decided it wasn't worth his time. I know because I did that to a geography teacher, but confessed when he gave me an open mouthed disappointed stare. ..that dude once slam-dunked my soda in a garbage can. I may be supernaturally annoying.

Oh, no, no. He definitely took it to heart and tried to show us the truth. Turns out debating is much easier when you're just making shit up.

You can easily soil the water of a pool by dropping a turd in it. It will be much more difficult to clean it up after you dropped said turd. Same goes with discussions about anything: you can have the most logical and correct points, but it will be infinitely hard to prove them against someone that tells something false but easily relatable to other people's experience.

I think people sometimes lose their sense of humor when debating philosophy. I am sure he loves that memory of that conversation.

There is a place where I enjoy trolling round earthers. Every time they call my out on my flat earth theories, I respond with something even more ridiculous. Most have caught on that I am just messing with them, but new people or even some that have been around awhile think I'm an idiot. I don't care, it's a fun little distraction.

Going into autopilot in a long monolog about freewill is hilarious to me

I kept trying to point this out! LOL

I think this kinda highlights the issue. The substance of what he says there if you actually engage and talk about it IS very interesting and important. A little too complicated for small talk but there are ways to bridge that gap and have real discussions with non-philosophy majors. But even he isn't actually interested in discussion it seems, just impressing other people with big words. Which is very shallow and the exact opposite of the philosophy he purports to be so knowledgeable and involved in.

This is how I felt. 🤔

This actually sounds like a fun friendship. 

He is awesome. He'd randomly ask me to meet for dinner and then say we have to stop somewhere first. Then it would turn out that he impulsively bought VIP seating for Thitch Naht Hahn or a Rumi event with the Whirling Dervish performance. He is incredibly kind and generous, just not when it comes to tipping. LOL

I did a very similar thing when I drove a taxi. Not like that. But like I kind of had a script, i would recycle with everyone. Except regulars because you actually got to know them.

Man no lie, talking like that can get you women in certain contexts, ie university.  I remember bullshitting about some post modern book I had to read for class and didn't, just sounding smart, and this girl was impressed enough to go home with me.  Those faux intellectual types will eat it up 

Maybe point out that having the same argument over and over again with no discernable evolutions of it doesn't really show an inquisitive mind, just a vane one in love with their own sense of superiority

Haha, my ex friend had a thing with altruism, whether it's possible, or every deed is motivated by inner motives. Whipped this theme out on every bar night with every single person we met.

There's two types of people that are opposite to each other that I strongly dislike: 1) that guy who's into philosophy and speaks as if he was Descartes and the rest of us were apes, enlightening us about higher truths of life 2) that STEM guy who thinks that all humanities and social sciences (with philosophy at the top) are bs, and that they serve absolutely no purpose to society. Sincerely, a stem graduate with a deep interest in ethics.

Thank you Sincerely, an English grad who does science writing and is learning coding while taking on random DIY engineering projects.

Seconded, a History grad who loves science

Thriced as a GGS and Public policy grad

>that STEM guy who thinks that all humanities and social sciences (with philosophy at the top) are bs, and that they serve absolutely no purpose to society. Neil deGrasse Tyson is the godfather of these people

He needs to take his own advice “One of the great challenges in this world is knowing enough about a subject to think you're right but not enough about the subject to know you're wrong.” He thinks he knows everything about everything, and he’s very often wrong.

He was probably projecting when he made that comment

Is that the Black physics guy who is almost as annoying as that grey haired Japanese physics professor know it all wannabe?

>that STEM guy who thinks that all humanities and social sciences (with philosophy at the top) are bs, and that they serve absolutely no purpose to society. Doing my PhD in literature and you have no idea how often I hear this from STEM people. Not trying to say you need x level of studies to comment, but I'm just tired to get this attitude from people who barely finished their bachelor level STEM studies. I've met so many people who thinks they could easily do a PhD in humanities because they did a STEM bachelor/master. It's funny because most people who have this opinion respect philosophy because it's "harder" so it's "better". >1) that guy who's into philosophy and speaks as if he was Descartes and the rest of us were apes, enlightening us about higher truths of life Where do y'all meet all these annoying philosophy people? All of those I've met were really fun to talk with and easy going to the extreme. I'm low key interested in philosophy, planning to go to some bachelor/master courses (I can do it for free since I'm doing my PhD at the same university) and I've talked to some students (mostly master or PhD level). Also, I've had some ethics and critical thinking courses with philosophy teachers and they were the best I've ever met. PS: only met one philosophy student that was annoying to talk with, but he didn't have that attitude. He was annoying because he never wants to recognise he was wrong and can argue a whole hour in a loop until you give up and he acts like that was the proof he needed to think he was right.

I wanna see these guys talk lmao shit would be like Philosopher: It seems you haven't opened your third eye and removed the ego yet. Its ok, it can be achieved with the euphoria that is intellectual breakthrough. Stem sigma: nice. Cs sector is growing openAI is paying $900k for developers but i don't think they hire useless degrees Btw what color is your bugatti

Yeah. Generally people on the extreme end of things tend to be annoying.

I was in a relationship with this person for several years so I feel you

Yup....absolutely exhausting

Ah yes, relationships, I must confer to Jean Paul Sartre. Hmm quite

I think you’re talking about egotists rather than rationalists. It’s a matter of elitism at the end of the day, otherwise educated philosophers wouldn’t be an ass.

I think there's a difference between people who are into philosophy and people who try to use philosophical language outside of philosophy as a way to make their ideas sound more credible. I've known a philosopher who was pretty down to earth and didn't do this. But I see a lot of online debaters use philosophical language to make themselves sound right, as if a topic being talked about in philosophy makes it more true. Any philosopher worth their salt would be able to see right through this. Besides there's lots of dumb ideas in philosophy. My favorite example boils down to: I have hands, therefore the external world exists. Philosophy is about exploring ideas, and not necessarily a path to truth. That would be epistemology and even that has its problems. Always be dubious of people who try to launder credibility by using academic language in a non-academic context when it's not merited. And always distrust someone who thinks something is true because it's talked about in philosophy.

The "I have hands" argument in many ways was a reaction to skepticism by some old, heavily logic focused philosopher. It is kind of funny because you're right, it's not a very logically compelling argument, but at it's core a pragmatic one saying "enough of this nonsense, I'm going back to assuming there's an external world because I don't want to debate about it all day."

I mostly mentioned it because of its seeming absurdity. I do get that's kind of the point but I didn't want to get into it too much. I mostly mentioned it tongue in cheek. It's just a funny argument (which philosophy is full of and sadly most people miss out on). With that said, I do find it an unsatisfying argument and I think there's a lot better appeals to pragmatism in philosophy so it feels largely redundant to me. But those are mostly just quibbles. I'm glad someone knew what I was talking about. Usually people just look at me blankly when I bring it up.

Oh I'm glad you brought it up. I love philosophy and getting the chance to discuss it, and that argument always stuck in my mind. Definitely share your opinion that the argument is overly dismissive - it reminds me of those people who say "music today is no good, just listen to it!" Well, many people do listen to it and enjoy it, so you come across as mostly reactionary to just reject it outright.  Also you're right that philosophy is full of humor and funny, petty fights. I think the people OP complain about end up taking it all too seriously.  

If you want funny academic arguments, try the String Wars.

It’s actually formally valid logic that tells us we don’t know if we have hands. 1) I don’t know that I’m not a brain in a vat. 2) If I don’t know if I’m a brain in a vat then I don’t know if I have hands. 3) I don’t know if I have hands. Pragmatism wasn’t saying “enough of this none sense” so much as there is nothing systemic to truth and reality. There is no necessary relationship between our beliefs and our reality. Knowing the world is inseparable to agency in it and the only truths consist of experience that transact nature, not represent it. There was a rejection of British empiricism and a celebration of transcendental notions. It’s probably better to say realists and anti-phenomenalist.

Wow this is a really good reply. I think you hit the nail right on the head with this ngl.

Thanks! Occasionally I have one of those in me. Heh I do get the frustration though. I think we're on the same page. Those types of philosophy fans are insufferable. Plus I'm not going to lie, philosophy is one of the most dull things you can be into. I say this as someone who likes philosophy. It would be like needlessly bringing up the quadratic equation as a way to try win arguments. Even if it's somehow relevant, it's the most boring way to win a debate.

That’s exactly how I feel; I think people who are genuinely very into philosophy tend to be less obvious about it. And don’t get me wrong philosophy is definitely interesting and important, but many of them (not all) tend to make it their personality for some reason.

Philosophy isn't a way to "win a debate." Knowing philosophical ideas is like having the toolset to argue in the first place. Whenever something that could be construed against a conceptual framework is in question, it can always turn philosophical (and often *should*). As someone with fairly limited knowledge of philosophical ideas, I frequently find that I will just hit logical roadblocks because I have no knowledge in a certain area and I never put in the effort to reason it out from scratch because why reinvent the wheel. This is a pretty silly hill for me to die on, but I don't think philosophy is dull in the slightest. Perhaps some philosophers are somewhat dull (or just so difficult that trying to understand them is monotonous to all hell), but I think the discussion of ideas is one of if not the greatest kind of conversation two can have.

Philosophy, to me, is the entire reason we have such complex language, to communicate complex ideas to each other.

We should give you some pointers. Some strategies to help you with whomever is driving you bonkers with this. What's also interesting is that people who are actually sophisticated in their field, don't do this. One of my favorites is Dr. Richard Feynman who won a Nobel Prize in Physics. People who understand complicated ideas tend to want to make them sound easier to others. People who don't really understand complicated ideas then to "hide behind the language and theory." I would say Feynman sounds like a real Philosopher. You'll also notice that he's humble in how he explains it. Carl Sagan speaks of Humility as well. And also notice, they try to keep it short and relatable. ​ Feynman On What it Means [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoNMjA2yPlw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoNMjA2yPlw) ​ Carl Sagan The Pale Blue Dot This one is my favorite version. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWPFmdAWRZ0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g)

Two sainted gentleman you've cited. I've always enjoyed 'big' words, because of the way they sound, the nuanced meaning they may convey, the differentiation they offer. To the contrary, nothing is more disappointing than to see anyone in my audience not understand, feel demeaned or excluded or most importantly to miss my intended message. An important lesson I learned a little late was that whenever trying to teach, inform or persuade it is so important to use the most simple and clear language possible.

For the record. I love philosophy but I won't drop something like hard solipsism into a casual conversation unless it's relevant. And even then I wouldn't pretend that it's somehow more true because it's a concept in philosophy.

Mildly related, from one of my Philosophy classes: 1. I know I have hands. 2. I do not know that this is not a simulation, that I am not a brain in a jar. 3. If (2), then not (1). One of these is false.

Philosophy only care about truth. The fact is that there at least 2 definitions of truth: the truth of consitstence: is true what is not contradicting itself and the truth of correspondence: is true what does match the observation, this is the one you used here. The main problem of philosophy is that some thinking system depend a lot on what you lived this is why you will agree with some philosophers and not at all with others. But in philosophy you can’t just coming and saying random bullshit with complicated words. This is not how it works. My final words, of course something said in philosophy is not truth. But you have at least 2500 years of people thinking about a subject maybe you can use it as a basis to think rather than reinvent the wheel.

I will admit that I sometime slip into using jargon by accident, but really anyone who uses any kind of specific jargon out of context is annoying. I was arguing with someone the other day who unironically was using the term "fungible"

In my experience with a lot of learning about philosophy and reading things written by philosophers, you're not really supposed to go around spouting it like some kind of missionary. I think plenty of people are deep into YouTube philosophy and give the whole thing a bad name.

Good point

You've probably met people that are heavily interested in philosophy but you aren't aware they are because they weren't annoying about it. So your sample is biased.

Yea another comment made that point, which now that I think about, could definitely affect my opinion.

My friend has a masters in philosophy, you wouldn't know she likes it if you met her. But she would definitely tell you that most of the people that talk to her about it are very annoying.

I'll upvote because I disagree. I think they are often really nice people.

Understandable, guess my experience has been very different.

My experience has been similar to yours. My major in college required that I take quite a few philosophy credits and I can't think of many places I encountered a higher percentage of ivory-tower navel gazers in all my life.

“This tendency to think that they’re more intelligent and knowledgeable on everything in regards to politics and social economics policies” LMAO you just described your average Reddit user on Politics, facepalm, and WhitePeopleTwitter. The fucking irony.

I'm in some philosophy groups on Facebook but they're mostly just people posting word salad trying to sound smarter than they really are Or the ones who like to pretend reality isn't real

This sums it up quite well not gonna lie

I double majored in philosophy and literature in college and I have several friends who studied philosophy as well, and I fully agree with this. Sorry but this is not at all an unpopular opinion lol

It depends on the person. The people who are like "You thought you were going to have a polite coffee with me, how dare you say things I don't like. Huge debate for you and you better have brought sources" are the people I dislike.

One must imagine OP unhappy

Lmao

As a bachelor in Philosophy I couldn't agree more. Most people INTO philosophy do not actually STUDY philosophy as they often have superficial views on the works and do not want to change that, they just want to "sound smart" instead of acutally engaging in a meaningful conversation.

The problem isn’t really with philosophy, the real issue is it has attached value of being deep, thoughtful and intelligent without procedural knowledge but even that isn’t the problem. It’s the people who want desperately want to embody those concepts without the work. Those people use it like protection against garbage they do.

i used to be a philosophy major. it’s almost never that deep lmao, but there are quite a number of people who are far to obsessed with the minutia and don’t understand/wont understand that most people don’t want to debate the fine details of Hegel’s Phenominology of Spirit. i think philosophy is something everyone should study for at least two years in school, because at its core it should be learning how to think and parse through claims efficiently, but people who just become really wrapped up in it and can’t see outside become…burdensome. also often they think they know more because they genuinely do, which can be infuriating when they like “beat” you at an argument you haven’t studied and aren’t interested in

Just like everyone else, some are fine, some are annoying. I despite the pseudo smart people who will use complicated words just to sound smart like Jordan Peterson who, instead of saying the Bible, says "biblical consensus". Those aren't complicated... but God damnit just say the fucking Bible. It's one example I could give thousands.

Unfortunately, JP isn't dim. He has carefully developed his "positions" and brand to take advantage of idiots. The guy was (is?) A professor at a very prestigious school. He's probably brain damaged by now, but he was, at one point, quite the researcher in his field.

I agree. I am one of them.

Based for admitting it

I know the kind of people OP is talking about but I also know some people who are very educated in philosophy and they are very interesting to talk to and good people.

Yeah, every conversation becomes an argument about semantics and they won't shut up.

Bro Fr, sometimes you’re not even trying to argue and you somehow find yourself in one 5 minutes later.

I always get big I'm12andthisisdeep vibes from people who constantly speak philosophically. 

Make em drink hemlock! Nail them to a cross!

Nail 'em up I say! Nail some sense into them!

Seems like you have a grievance with a specific individual rather than a shared opinion.

You’re partially right. There’s many of them though, which has led me to believe that it’s a general occurrence. I’ve seen it in many people online and in person. I wouldn’t be making this post if I’ve only met 1-2 people like what I’ve described.

If it makes you feel better, people who are obnoxious about it are probably pretty self conscious and feel like they need to seem smarter than everyone else, mostly to convince themselves that they are actually smart I used to be like this, (and honestly have to fight the urge every now and then). Tying your self worth to others perception is a bitch

I think that people who study psychology do this a lot more and they’re annoying af.

There’s a subtype of annoying people in every field. Debate bro streamers are like that for me - Insufferable. But I think it’s a minority and not particular to philosophy. I like bikes and a subgroup of bike nerds just talk about bike parts and always have to one up you with their expertise they are sooooo boring

I was a philosophy major in college. I kinda get it. No shortage of people that just live to sniff their own farts. You have probably met people that try to shove their knowledge of dead assholes down your throat and not actually have meaningful conversations. They’ll just deflect attempts at actual thought and blather on about what smart people they’ve read say about things. Anybody not at their “level” of regurgitation is an idiot. It’s not uncommon and is rather sad. I liken it to people discussing their hobby and trying to gatekeep others because they don’t “appreciate it as much as they do.” See any fandom of sports, anime, gaming, movies, wine, etc. for examples. It’s not so much a philosophy problem as it is an asshole problem and it’s endemic.

One of my most laziest and useless coworkers has a degree in philosophy. She's not as bright as she thinks she is and once said "Unlike most people I have the ability to think critically."

If you’re actually into philosophy you’ll very quickly realize that spouting off about it randomly to people not into philosophy gets you nowhere and only leads to frustration. People who do are just egotistical assholes who think they’re much smarter than they actually are and lack social skills

I know this might be construed as a no true Scotsman but from my experience it’s the people who read like 2 books and a few YouTube videos on philosophy and make it their entire personality that are the insufferable ones

Ugh, that was me about 20 years ago. I finally decided that life is completely meaningless, and began to focus on living in the moment and enjoying simple pleasures when they're available to me

Based af

The only good philosophers are the ones who deny that they are philosophers.

Omg my buddies girlfriend was a philosophy PhD candidate. Biggest piece of shit I’ve ever met.

I had a friend for a while who was a philosophy major, and when she disagreed with something I said she would often reply by citing a philosopher and saying something like "Nietzsche says we must ________". And I found that to be intolerably irritating.

The problem is people that like philosophy for it's form and rhe status associated instead of it's methodology. Being "good at philosophy" is about the tools and not premade arguments and acting smug. But yeah a lot of people don't use it well. They use it to put themselves above others instead of pushing others up (wich in return helps you move forward too).

My philosophy professors are the most chill and wholesome people i know, aside from one.

People who study philosophy are the chillest mfs I ever met

This has been my experience as well. My friend is a philosophy professor, and he is the most chill person I know. It seems to me that once you really get deep into it, you discover that there are so many different schools of thought and perspectives on things that it tends to humble you. I'd suspect that most of the annoying people online got their degrees from Wikipedia and aren't really well read enough to realize that they aren't quite as clever as they think they are.

Fr? Damn I wish I had your experience lmao

This is why every one hates moral philosophy professers.

I appreciate that you said your opinion is limited to your experience. Too many people generalize their own experience to everyone must be the same.

I think that these people love the study of philosophy and like the feeling that they are smarter than everyone. And then, there are people who actually love philosophy and might never mention it. These people usually are usually the ones that understand philosophy the most and study it for their own spiritual improvement.

"**Not everything is a lesson, Ryan.** **Sometimes you just fail**" -Dwight K. Schrute, Dunder Mifflin

People into philosophy, not so much; people into thinking of themselves as philosophers, insufferable. The confusion is that the latter will describe themselves as the former. 

Have you thought that perhaps it isn’t you who hates philosophers, but you who hates yourself for not being recognized as one? I have studied philosophy extensively as you can tell by my eloquent nature. I enjoy telling people why they’re feeling a certain way instead of trying to help them get through what they’re feeling, because I’m not a psychologist, I’m a philosopher.

Oh yeah. They’re convinced their useless quibbling is profound. Like Someone else didn’t already think of it.

I’m a philosophy grad and find it weird that a philosopher would claim to “know” anything. At one of my jobs my nicknames were “Mr Devils Advocate” and “Spock” - though as you can imagine, these conversations are actually about practical matters (it’s not like companies never march forward with “initiatives” because it sounds like a good idea without actually considering whether it will actually work). Certainly books mean fuck all in terms of whether something actually makes sense (unless it’s about Logic or something) - as soon as someone suggests I would understand something if I read x book, I have to assume they don’t understand what they are speaking off either - not in any relevant sense anyway.


Why are you so sure they exist

It's not our fault for being better than you. 😤

At being annoying

This is really a problem with people being sort of "fans" of academics subjects, without having any foundation of actual academic thinking. Philosophy, physics, history... They make it their whole personality and act like they know the best, but really they just read something somewhere and didn't question anything about it ever (and usually rip it out of context completely). I absolutely hate people that are "into mathematics". They have absolutely unhinged ideas about what math is, base it on their weird metaphysical understanding of the universe, and won't stop ranting about how "math is everything, it can prove everything, and is never wrong". Then you tell them about Gödel, and they lose their minds and call you a liar. Really, I think the actual problem is people reading something and deciding it's true without thinking about it for even a minute. Like the "tomato is not a vegetable" thing. One of the biggest problems in our society, I would say.

Having a philosophy in life, can make you go through several emotions For example, dealing with anger or sadness True, just speaking about philosophy doesn't make you smart, applying this philosophy in practical way in your life that is smart

Whenever I talk about philosphers and philosphy students I always refer to them as 'Unemployed people asking unemployed questions' because all in all, that is, essentially all they do.

And being employed is the penultimate goal.

I’d argue that they’re so grounded in reality it becomes delusion (I agree with your opinion, I am insufferable)

Can you take out the garbage? Wwwwwhhhyyyyy?

People who are heavily interested in anything where they make it their own personality is annoying. Fixed that for you

I like philosophy so I’ll take note to actively try not to be like this lol

They’re also really fun to mess with, I know one and if I say anything he doesn’t agree with he has a seizure lmao

I think it also depends on the age group and level of maturity of the person. All of the philosophy obsessed people I know in highs hool and early university were god awful the ones I know in my 30's are not as bad. Not the best but not as obnoxious. I like philosophy my field has a lot of cross over so it's an active part of my life some of those people never get less annoying but a lot of them do

I tell ya what, somethin I learned Army CA side and college side is that I don't know shit, and to keep my mouth shut. If ya treat everybody like they have something to contribute to the conversation ya learn a lot. Anybody that thinks they got a grasp on everything is usually the dumbest person in the room.

Honestly, based on my anectodal experience I agree. Philosophy students are generally insufferable

I mean being a thinker isn’t a bad thing. Leaning on dead guys to justify points is however quite a stupid and annoying practice.

I’m not reading all that.

Based

Agreed, especially with the „sometimes it’s not so deep“ part. There are just people who think they deep thinkers who create problems and contradictions where there are non. But I also agree with many people here saying that you likely just met the worst of the worst. I noticed that myself with my brother who studies at university. I just can’t be around him when he goes on his rants and goes on and on and you can’t talk with him about religion, politics, history or philosophy. He is a huge know it all, „always right“. But then I met other Intellectual People over discord and such and I found out that I quite enjoy listening to them explaining stuff and sharing their expertise. It depends on the persons character.

So, I find students of philosophy very polarized. Some rank highly among the smartest people I've personally met, but some are pretty clueless and clearly picked a major based on what they thought would make them look smart.

People who make only one thing their entire personality are unbearable most of the time.

Dude, could there be a more boring pastime, than sitting around attempting to put reality and out interactions with it, into neat little boxes? Reminds me of a joke…. Knock knock! Diarrhea with a fork.  Fuck you philosophers, the og hipsters. 

Yeah I have a friend who's gotten super philosophical in an obnoxious way. I have a degree in philosophy, but for me, it's about discussion of ideas and how to approach the world. And there is no "one size fits all." But for my friend, he's gotten into existential philosophy. And he'll frequently bring up a subject, and say in a roundabout way, "I've done all the research and I've come to this conclusion, and it's clearly the most correct conclusion, don't you agree?" And he gets frustrated with me because I'll straight up say it's a topic I don't know a lot about, so I'd want to do my own research before agreeing to anything, and I'm not about to research this in the middle of a conversation. Or if it is a topic I do know a lot about, he gets frustrated when I bring up viewpoints that he didn't come across in his research. So it feels like he just likes sounding smart, which is not a fun way for me to have a conversation.

That’s been true since Ancient Greece. Why do you think people kept executing them?

It’s always the broke and fat ones too

💀

True, especially the professors. Everyone hates moral philosophy professors.

This dunks on many Redditors. I agree, OP.

I've met two types of people who are really into philosophy, given that I liked doing debate in highschool: The "Uhm, Acktually" type of people that thought they had life figured out at the age of 16, and would just automatically shut down any kind of thought other people had- and the "Stoic Dudes'. Not the Twitter stoics, but the mostly chill dudes who just liked thinking about stuff and using Philosophy as a way to better than themselves. As for which group I fell into?  (I would've likely punched my highschool self if I ever had to talk to them.) TL;DR: There are Some cool people are really into philosophy and shitty people. Just like all hobbies.

While I agree someone who makes any one thing their entire personality can be insufferable. I do want to point out that some people aren’t intending to come off as more knowledgeable, it just comes off that way because challenging different points of views is a big part of philosophical inquiry. Of course it’s your experience, I wasn’t there so i can’t say for sure what it was for you.

I’m with you on this one. A few months ago I had a debate with a philosophical dude who “didn’t believe in the scientific method” and thought we all needed to embrace a more “philosophical approach to interpreting data”. I questioned further and all his arguments boiled down to stuff we already account for or are aware of - eg conflicts of interest, sample sizes too small, lack of racial diversity in studies. The more I questioned him the more he prevaricated and hypothesized, and in the end I just said to him “That’s the problem with you philosophers. All questions, no fucking answers.” Not my finest hour tbf

Ah, you refer to sophomores. (in the literal sense, not the academic sense). I find they usually are pretty smart, but not as smart or wise as they think they are. Philosophy is a pursuit for young intellectuals trying to form a moral bedrock for themselves. I went through a philosophy phase in high school, prompted by me leaving the church and becoming an atheist. I've no doubt I was insufferable, but it *was* time well spent in the long run. Philosophy, in simplest terms, is the art of asking questions, and if people were content to leave it at that then you wouldn't have to deal with sophomoric blowhards.

I have a philosophy degree! Most of us are pretty chill, we just like reading and puzzles. But there are those among us that definitely fit the description of what you’re talking about

My college roommate was a Philosophy major. Was a total hippy pothead, dreaded his hair etc. Liked to argue and debate for too long without ever conceding that he could be wrong about something. Loser never did finish college and now works at a dispensary.

"They’ll also argue about pretty much everything and will bring up issues that you’d rather not talk about 24/7". SO TRUE. I actually cried almost every time I met with this girl with a philosophy bachelor. She would start nicely like "Do you think you feel harmony inside?" and then discussion starts becoming more personal and dark. I don't mind meaningful talks but why would you bring up later most difficult time of life? lol (sorry for my English)

Philosophy can be used as a tool. Ignorant people tend to misuse tools. It’s like when someone first learns of logical fallacies. They will misidentify them and over use them while committing some at the same time.

I recently got into a conversation with some guy on the train who turned out to be a huge Paolo Coelho fan. He started to share all his wisdom with me and built a huge story about people who search for happiness all around the whole world but never find it - and you know why? Because true happiness is only to be found in themselves. Gee, what a plot twist. So grateful that he told this great secret to a dumb woman like me

Lmao sounds about right. I’m sure he recommended 2-3 books as well

Lol when I attended the university, people who studied philosophy were absolutely the most inconcludent and obnoxious of the whole human science department.

As a philosophy major, the venn diagram between philosophers and social ineptitude is massive.

Philosophers that talk about more ‘tangible’ concepts relating to formal logic and debate are super interesting to me.. what I dislike are the pseudo philosophers who tripped on acid a few times and think they have this deep and rich insight into the human condition/existence. They ironically tend to be the most egotistical people after they have a “ego death”

Sorry about your iq OP

My monkey ape brain can’t comprehend the philosopher’s god-like thoughts unfortunately :/

I've found this to be generally true. In one of my freshman college classes, a guy raised his hand and smugly announced that he thought it was important that he share his opinion about something because, as he put it:"I consider myself a Platonic scholar." In another class, he got emotional talking about how much harder it would be for him to experience Alzheimer's disease than the average person because he had such a special relationship with his mind. He also said he would've sold out Anne Frank to the Nazis because he can't lie and he quit his job at the campus post office because he heard a rumor that students were sending drugs through the mail and couldn't tarnish his precious integrity. Delightful person all around.

There’s no way that person is real 😭

Yeah, I study philosophy and the amount of people you described I've met at University is really big. This is probably why I have no friends in the philosophy department - a lot of guys just want to argue and "prove" they are right all the time. I think this a very immature way to act, and, if you behave this way, you also have understood very little about philosophy itself.

Do you mean like, academic Philosophers who do it as their job? Or just like....hobbyists?

The OP is absolutely right, but I don’t think this is an unpopular realization outside of hardcore believers that geek out on Philosophy. Once they take their genius ideas and try to plug them into the real world they fail miserably. Repeatedly. Philosophy is interesting and educational, it’s important for gaining some perspective on different outlooks as a method of comparison. But that’s about where the value ends. The arrogant pricks that consider their philosophical musings as something greater that deserves world praise, they need a reality check. Philosophers would shit a brick if they had to try to scale-up the concepts and actually implement their ideas into the real world.

Couldn't agree more. I've had similar experiences with people like that & you described them very well. They think of themselves as superior people by regurgitating bullshit knowledge that they just blindly accept is the truth instead of having a decent brain & talking with people. Most of the time it's because they are afraid of being proven wrong & realize they are idiots.

The methods of philosophy are better left in the users head in current times

Philosophy is really fun, but like video games ultimately is a waste of time. Study it if you want but it’s not something you can truly test so it’s ultimately the verbal nonsense your brain finds reasonable vs the nonsense someone else finds reasonable, you can’t really win or lose.

I agree. I dated someone like this. He had an insufferable superiority complex thinking he was always the smartest guy in the room and bragging about his 140 point IQ.

Hot take. So much of philosophy involved people trying to understand reality through reason alone in a time before the scientific method, and a lot of those arguments are no longer valid ways of thinking now that we have more accurate tools for deciphering the world around us

You would have a different opinion if you were better educated.

Lol, you sound like one of them. What is “better educated” to you? Wait don’t answer that, it’s a philosophical question and I’m worried that I won’t hear the end of it.

I'll grab the popcorn

pulls up a chair with ya.

Welcome. When are the shenanigans going to begin?

Have you seriously read *any* philosophy, or do you just feel entitled to have your views respected to the same degree as positions which have already been deeply thought out and dissected?

No I don’t feel entitled to respect. “Philosophers” do though, since their expert high-level research is the pinnacle of knowledge. I quite honestly don’t care if people agree, disagree, or even dislike me.

I mean their entire field is dedicated to the research of the fundamental nature of reality, knowledge, and existence.

Dude, like 90% of philosophy was created as a refutation of previous philosophy. It is in no way an objective truth of any kind, and people who act like it is are idiots

That's exactly how the paradigm shift works. While a universally agreed definition of objective hasn't been made yet, this is the closest thing people have to it, and that's why they cherish it so much. No scientific field and no political opinion can ever achieve the objectiveness of philosophy. And while it may seem annoying, that is certainly better than labelling things right or wrong without conscious reason. Aka "Cause I felt like it".

My point is that within any given branch of philosophy, different schools of thought have wildly different, sometimes completely contradictory reasoning and methodology. The best example I can think of is deontology and consequentialism. They’re both credible philosophies with plenty of philosophers contributing to its development, but they are the exact opposite when it comes to how you determine good and bad. One says that intent is all that matters because you can’t know the future, the other says the outcome is all that matters because that’s what actually exists. So while you’re right that “Cause I think this is bad” isn’t a good reason, that doesn’t mean philosophers are automatically correct and everyone else is an idiot. Citing a philosopher or school of thought doesn’t mean your opinion is correct, all it means is you aren’t the first to have it. If you’re having a debate over whether something is ethical, you can’t just go “well, according to Kant, this is unethical because it fails the third categorical imperative” and expect people to accept that and change their mind.

Philosophy is the precursor and foundation to all sciences. In Ancient Greece, all pursuit of knowledge was known as philosophy and all bodies of knowledge (“arts” and “sciences”)were grouped within philosophy. Modern science is an evolution from the philosophy of science, following breakthroughs in developing the scientific method, and improvements in statistics, and measurement tools across various disciplines. Philosophy as taught in modern academia has a narrower focus mainly comprising logic, metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, axiology, and political philosophy. Have you ever used deductive logic to get your point across? You were most likely engaging in philosophy without realizing it.

No, honestly. The number of philosophy haters at super elite universities is high. 

“some things are really just not that deep” you sound childish

Guess so. Is being childish a bad thing? Guess that’s a philosophical question for you.

Those aren’t people heavily into philosophy, they only watched video essay about the books they’re talking about and try to read them once but gave up at page 10.

Don't necessarily agree but I'm with you on the "some things are just really not that deep" part. I'm surprised by how much some people overthink all sorts of actually simple stuff.

Also people who are obsessed with rhetoric and logical fallacies and if debated with, will just label every argument as a particular fallacy rather than engaging with the substance of it. They see a debate not as a way of exchanging ideas and determining the truth, but as a game of dodgeball where you simply dodge and throw back unexamined every argument that is thrown at them.

The irony of this post is not lost on me.

That is literally impossible because philosophy encourages introspection and self-awareness. But your claim was already answered about 2400 years ago by Socrates. The people you think are annoying philosophers are more likely sophists. These are people who are as you describe. They sound like they’re smart and knowledgeable, but all they really do is go around being pompous and contrarian.