Anyways, what are other people's most uninteresting philosopher/philosophy and why? — schopenhauer1
I'll dispense with the obvious for your benefit and say it's antii- natalism. — Hanover
But I do agree with your comments about Witt. — Hanover
stultifying — Joshs
Like It's not just that I don't like Wittgenstein because I disagree with him. I actually think what is considered profound is actually not that interesting an insight. — schopenhauer1
Russell comes closest in that his goal seems misguided and naive — Leontiskos
The scholastics can be quite boring and uninteresting at times, given that they were not motivated as much by their own idiosyncratic and subjective interests. Aristotle, too. — Leontiskos
Maybe the philosopher is characteristically interested in things that most people find uninteresting or not worth attending to. — Leontiskos
Yeah, when everything serves a religious end-goal, that does make debate sort of uninteresting. — schopenhauer1
I am not a fan of Wittgenstein's philosophy as it seems to make common sense notions into philosophical "strokes of genius" — schopenhauer1
Ditto. A war hero, yes. Otherwise my eyes glaze over quickly. Early in my mathematical career I tried reading him but found little to interest me. — jgill
Do you think you understand Wittgenstein? — Joshs
andOverall, Wittgenstein’s profundity lies in his ability to challenge and expand our understanding of how language functions and how it shapes our experience of the world. His insights continue to provoke thought and debate, making his contributions to philosophy both deep and enduring.
Wittgenstein's ideas have influenced various contemporary philosophers and mathematicians who are interested in the foundations of mathematics, the nature of mathematical truth, and the philosophy of language. While his impact is more philosophical than technical, it has contributed significantly to ongoing discussions about the nature and practice of mathematics.
Anyways, what are other people's most uninteresting philosopher/philosophy and why? — schopenhauer1
↪Joshs
You can correct my summation if you want and transform it from common sense insight to brilliant new revelation that shatters all philosophies. I don’t think you will. More drivel is spent explaining him than he spent explaining him.
Wittgenstein-scholastics? — schopenhauer1
Anyways, what are other people's most uninteresting philosopher/philosophy and why? — schopenhauer1
Russell is stultifying. — Leontiskos
:up: :up:Antinatalism is the poster boy for playing with Big Important Ideas not always leading to wisdom or insight. At least the minutia-mongerers among us aren't so foolish as to think there could be such a thing as an argument against life. — Srap Tasmaner
Speaking only for myself ...Who would you name asthe 10[13]mostimportant philosophers born after 1900? — Joshs
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.