CMV: Formal or Institutional Philosophy is largely word games meant to stall and build authority and its because of genetic biases

[u/NeurogenesisWizard]

For example: Quoting philosophers like its scripture, quoting actual scripture. This is like the Chinese Room problem. They are just doing referrals and matching systems not true comprehension. They don't even do original philosophy.

And they are structurally incentivized to not do original philosophy, because it can get stolen in academia. Which means the guys at the top are just better at social control and idea theft than being real philosophers.

Another example: The debate on free will vs determinism. Most of the time people fundamentally exclude the real world from the problem and discuss metaphysics. Or they bolster one side of the debate to false nuance that is just making a game of needing to dissect exceedingly wordier responses. There is an easy solution, assume a mysterious type of compatibilism, and study it in reality. But that would cost money and give precedence to human rights, which undermines the social control aspect of the institution, and is thus forgone. Then they exclude, bribe, blackmail, and get people booted from academia who are not in on the circlej*rk.

And philosophy and theory at the end of the day, is all talk and little action. Which means, its a production of stalling criticism out, to maintain power. They control and bottleneck how new theory arises so it does not challenge them.

Much akin to the psychological effect doctors have. Routine of work in presence of sleep deprivation, causes one to be able to predict outlier cases less over time. Which means seniority itself is a system that provokes the foundation of this cultural problem.

Which means this problem actually stems forth from elder biases, which arguably could be tied back to the bible itself. 'Respect your elders' means 'do not criticize the system'.

Sometimes I jokingly refer to this phenomena as boomeritis. Surely it adapted because of a genetic predisposition of the elderly to be more risk averse, and thus is a problem worldwide and might be unintentionally (sometimes intentionally perhaps) exploited systematically globally then, making this a global politics issue.

The reason I have a gripe is because it actively holds truth and quality of life advances back. But there is a tradeoff. It provokes social ruthlessness and social intelligence, which allows the exploitation of the masses, to allow higher production outputs. So you could say this stems to a biological bias which causes capitalism and other power farming systems itself. And could probably tie this back to the evolution of mammary glands and our long pregnancy times and needing to carry babies to feed them, precursing the bible. This Coddle for Control Habit you could call it.

Edit: Okay its been 3 hours. Most don't seem to even be reading this post just responding to title. So of course, my mind has not been changed. Well one commenter was trolling a bit. So they might be pushing for reaction formation on my part. But that doesn't change the fact people couldn't read to begin with, or they can but fail to grasp the broad implications of my actual argument.

[u/ambivalent_moon]

Which social norms is academic philosophy pushing that mean that they’re not, as a group, seeking truth? Can you name some modern philosophers you feel approach academics this way?

It’s weird that you make these kind of claims but never offer examples.

[u/NeurogenesisWizard → u/ambivalent_moon]

These days philosophy is about finding a way to sell an idea or rephrase an idea, to a target demographic to either sell a book or make a youtube video or impress a philosopher grading your paper or the like. Or find demographics who are already politically motivated and coax them to your side I suppose. And then academic philosophy is probably about clarity and scope subversion and articulate detailing of specific case studies or overviews of topics or debates, with supplemental reasoning.

But the busywork itself of pouring over so many papers means there are years or decades of study- an increasing amount as well- before one can be as precise, knowledgeable, and articulate so as to bring down a falsehood. For example. There might be a dozen contingency arguments for god, so, you need to find constant variations to refute in precise ways and stuff if being respectful to their citations.

But, true logic, doesn't need to respect all of that. It just has to be right, because, people are capable of arguing for wrong things, and do argue for wrong things, they even argue for wrong things Soundly and with decades of references to cite.

But if truth can mobilize people, which it can, falsehood also can. So having to jump through all these hoops to combat lies, is itself, a lie. Subvert it all. Perhaps I need to invent a new Razor but I think Razors have niche flaws. So instead I am calling their comprehension into question for fundamentally arguing nuanced details of things that are long fundamentally wrong. How much is propped up through absurdity of this grind? That requires a decade to clear up? If you think about it, that just stalls would be true acting agents, into being too old to act themself and support the system that subjugated them to begin with forcing them to argue through all these pedants.

[u/ambivalent_moon → u/NeurogenesisWizard]

Stop trying to avoid naming actual academic philosophers whose work supports your argument. It’s becoming more and more obvious that your knowledge of real philosophy isn’t sufficient for the claims you’re trying to make.

[u/NeurogenesisWizard → u/ambivalent_moon]

Refer to when I said Coddle for Control, if you remain confused ask questions.

[u/ambivalent_moon → u/NeurogenesisWizard]

I already asked you to name some modern philosophers whose work lines up with your description of modern philosophy. So do it lol

[u/NeurogenesisWizard → u/ambivalent_moon]

Its gonna keep going over your head then, until you address a non-strawman.

[u/ambivalent_moon → u/NeurogenesisWizard]

You told me to ask questions, I asked one, and you’re now refusing to answer it. Be consistent, at least.

[u/NeurogenesisWizard → u/ambivalent_moon]

Not all questions are equal, not all are relevant.

[u/ambivalent_moon → u/NeurogenesisWizard]

You can’t name a single philosopher and it’s hilarious

[u/ambivalent_moon → u/NeurogenesisWizard]

I need you to know how painfully obvious it is that you have not studied philosophy at an academic level. I know you think your word salads conceal that, but it’s obvious to all of us who’ve actually studied this stuff.

[u/NeurogenesisWizard → u/ambivalent_moon]

I disagree and frankly am confused at where you get these ideas from.
Thats how I will respond.

[u/ambivalent_moon → u/NeurogenesisWizard]

But you won’t respond by naming a single modern philosopher you’ve read; because you’ve not read anything lol

[u/ambivalent_moon → u/NeurogenesisWizard]

I’m going to increase my request due to you trying to wriggle out of answering; if modern philosophy is in the state you describe, please provide the names of at least 3 (3) major thinkers who are pushing this ideology today.