Anyways, what are other people's most uninteresting philosopher/philosophy and why? — schopenhauer1

This is going to be a very predictable thread. Those on this site whose only exposure to philosophy is through physics , mathematics or psychology will likely find most actual philosophy to be boring or somewhat pointless. Those hostile to postmodern relativism will likely find uninteresting anyone associated with that orientation (Wittgenstein, Derrida, Deleuze, Foucault, Heidegger, Nietzsche). Those , like myself, who are enthusiastic supporters of postmodern relativism will find its philosophical opponents ( Russell, Kripke, Searle) to be stultifying.

Fair enough, but it's more the reasoning, than anything else. 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.

Schopenhauer for example has an extremely interesting philosophy. But I don't agree with all of it.

Uninteresting I guess has many different criteria, so it would have to include the criteria and the reasoning for why it fits that criteria to be an interesting answer :D.

For me, uninteresting can be most captured as "making common sense notions into philosophical insights".

AS IF to rebel against he baroqueness of certain philosophies (19th century idealism for example), going the complete opposite makes it simply "more rigorous" or "correct", when in fact you just reified common notions.

I'll dispense with the obvious for your benefit and say it's antii- natalism.

But I do agree with your comments about Witt.

I'll dispense with the obvious for your benefit and say it's antii- natalism. — Hanover

I mean, I knew that one was coming. I don't see antinatalism as uninteresting, as they don't fit the category of "common sense writ large", nor about small topics, but since I don't know your criteria, I can't even comment why it wouldn't fit in yours or any criteria.

But I do agree with your comments about Witt. — Hanover

Well, at least there's that.

stultifying — Joshs

Russell is stultifying. But is he uninteresting?

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

I agree with that, but I don't find him uninteresting in an absolute sense.

I can't think of philosophers who are uninteresting in an absolute sense, but perhaps Russell comes closest in that his goal seems misguided and naive. Of course, before the demise of Logical Positivism he would not have been so commonly seen to be misguided and naive.

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. [Their interest in the totality of all things leaves many complaints for those with idiosyncratic interests.]

Maybe the philosopher is characteristically interested in things that most people find uninteresting or not worth attending to. But are there any who constantly fixed their attention on what is truly uninteresting and not worth attending to?

Russell comes closest in that his goal seems misguided and naive — Leontiskos

Can you explain a bit? Is this more the logical positivists "anti-metaphysics" bent?

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

Yeah, when everything serves a religious end-goal, that does make debate sort of uninteresting.

Maybe the philosopher is characteristically interested in things that most people find uninteresting or not worth attending to. — Leontiskos

Interesting, because I find philosophy to deal with the MOST interesting things.. But others might find it too abstract, for example. They love the minutia- the "certainty" that this drill causes this hole, that causes this screw to join these wood panels, etc..

Yeah, when everything serves a religious end-goal, that does make debate sort of uninteresting. — schopenhauer1

I don't think so, as that wouldn't fit Aristotle, but I suppose antinatalism could be said to be the most uninteresting philosophy along these sorts of lines. :wink:

Derrida.

It may actually be interesting. I always lapse into a coma before I can find out.

I find hedonism and utilitarianism not particularly interesting. "Happiness" is an unbelievably complicated concept.

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.

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

We tend to find uninteresting that which we don’t understand. Do you think you understand Wittgenstein? This goes for also for and and anyone who claims that they understand him but then go on to disagree with a host of prominent thinkers who find his work profound and radical. Could it be possible they are not understanding him as well as they think, and that is why he appears uninteresting?

Do you think you understand Wittgenstein? — Joshs

From ChatGPT:

Overall, 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.

and

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.

I admit, it's been sixty years since I have read anything by the man. At the time I was most interested in his impact on mathematics. However, this was about the time I was taking my one and only course in foundations (naive set theory), and was rapidly losing interest in the subject.

Besides scholastic, p0m0ist, idealist/psychologistic philosophies, I find antinatalism (or any other form of futility, defeatism, ontophobia, denialism) "uninteresting" for reasons beginning with these in this recent post:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/928003

coda:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/928725

Continentals
Scholastics
Ancient Greeks
Postmodernists

You are ignoring the request for the one thing.

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?

Anyways, what are other people's most uninteresting philosopher/philosophy and why? — schopenhauer1

G E Moore's 'here is one hand' must come close. (Maybe if he could extemporise on the sound it makes, it might be more interesting.)

Don't know what you mean

↪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

I’m curious. Who would you name as the 10 most important philosophers born after 1900?

Anyways, what are other people's most uninteresting philosopher/philosophy and why? — schopenhauer1

Jordan Peterson. A bumbling, jumbled pile of garbage from what I can tell. No substance whatsoever. I’m reluctant to even include him— but many consider him a “philosopher.” Oy.

More classically: I agree about Wittgenstein to a degree. But mostly nearly all the analytic types from the 50s. :yawn:

Russell is stultifying. — Leontiskos

Awww. :(

Sitting in the library reading "On Denoting" changed my life. It felt like coming home.

"There are a great many qualities one could attribute to the First Gentleman of Europe, but an interest in the law of identity is not among them."

Happy times.



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.

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

:up: :up:

I'll go into bat for Russell. I still think his HWP is a good initial text for philosophy because of its historical perspective, and even despite many valid criticisms. I don't much care for his philosophical views, but he was a perceptive writer and good prose stylist on the subject of philosophy.

The most uninteresting philosopher/philosophy is interesting because they are (or it is) the most uninteresting philosopher/philosophy. :chin:

Personally I have found throughout life that the areas I tend to dismiss end up being the very ones I need to look into at a later date.

My initial interest in philosophy was probably philosophy of mind, epistemology and aesthetics. Recent branching out into political philosophy, economics and ethics has been fun.

I think if you find something or someone uninteresting it is just a case of fining a different viewpoint on whatever it is that appeals to you. I find it hard to read any single work/philosopher in isolation and get way more out of combining opposing positions (philosophers/philosophies) which always keeps things dynamic and interesting.

When it comes to what bothers you or what you find uninteresting it is usually a sign that you need to look at that thing a little harder and give it more credit.

That's the attitude I try to adopt. If I find a philosopher uninteresting but others find them interesting I try and figure out what it is about them that's interesting -- usually there's something there and I've just missed it.

But, on the other hand, I can understand people making a choices because there's just a lot of philosophy, so if you get bitten by the bug you'll eventually have to decide what is more or less interesting to you.

But that seems to just come down to preference. I'm not sure there's a reason why this or that is interesting to me outside of my own background or what-have-you.

My sense of philosophers is the opposite - I ask of them all, why do others take this one seriously? What was this philosopher’s take and why did it gather enough traction to find its way to all of us?

That is always interesting to me.

And conversely, I never understood how someone could say “I am a Hedeggerian, or I’m a Platonist or I’m a Kantian.” None of them said enough that I would place myself under such a narrow bucket. Never understood that.

But to answer your question from the other side, the philosophers who said the most and are the most interesting (to me) are Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Nietzsche (and existentialism). But you need so many others to really see what they are talking about, and those others said so many things not addressed by these.

The most over-rated, for me, are Wittgenstein and Heidegger. And the most under-appreciated are Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Hegel.

And in the west, eastern thought (Vedanta, Taoism, Buddhism) is under-appreciated. Perfectly interesting metaphysics, epistemology, ontological and empirical observation, and great ethics and even some good politics all over eastern thought.

If one really engages in the questions and the conversation, you become interested in a lot. Schopenhauer is as important as Sextus Empiricus or John Locke if you really are digging.

All of Post-modernism - Derrida, Foucault, Rorty, Lyotard - way over-rated. But interesting. (If find it most interesting that, given the conclusions and dogma of the post-modernists, that they continue speaking at all.)

What else do you want to know about me?

Who would you name as the 10 [13] most important philosophers born after 1900? — Joshs

Speaking only for myself ...

Keiji Nishitani, b. 1900
Hannah Arendt, b. 1906
E.M. Cioran, b. 1911
Albert Camus, b. 1913
Philippa Foot, b. 1920
Walter Kaufmann, b. 1921
George Steiner, b. 1929
Clément Rosset, b. 1939
Martha Nussbaum, b. 1947
David Deutsch, b. 1953
Cornel West, b. 1953
Thomas Metzinger, b. 1958
Ray Brassier, b. 1965