Why do people who read philosophy always strike me as idiots?

[Anonymous No.11212152]

Whenever I talk to people who say they read actual philosophy books in full, I normally discuss what I've gleaned before from encyclopedias. For example, take Deleuze. I spent a lot of time on encyclopedias reading about his views, and whenever I encounter someone who claims they've read him, most of them can't even discuss his basic ideas such as "how difference is foundational and not substance", his influences with Spinoza and "plane of immanence", and so forth. The same thing has occurred with me and Kant, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, or other philosophers.

I'm not joking when I say that a lot of people who claim to have studied many philosophers in-depth seem utterly clueless on how to discuss their philosophies. For example, I've met people who have claimed to read Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil and more, yet when I discuss them about my understanding from encyclopedias, they tend to get a lot wrong or repeat popular misconceptions. Most of it is simple. I'd say, it's better to read encyclopedias on Kant and Hume, understanding the gist of their arguments, than to waste time reading their texts.

Could it be that most people are literally asleep, as Gurdjieff argues, and their ancestors were mostly peasants -- so that most things go past them? That is, they lack the intellectual capacity to truly reflect on things deeply, only understanding things on a surface level? This is the only way I can explain how I, someone who only reads encyclopedias on philosophers, know a lot more than they do. It's like peasants who picked up a book after many lifetimes.

***Note: I know for sure I descend from aristocracy.

[Anonymous No.11212157]

>>11212152

[Anonymous No.11212186]

>>11212152
>"how difference is foundational and not substance"
How difference is ontologically foundational and not identity*
>>11212157
You're an idiot.

[Anonymous No.11212242]

>>11212152
I agree with you OP. I think it's because most philosophical texts require a level of understanding that far surpasses that of most people today. Even scholars and top level academics seem to miss the point with philosophy - they treat it as literature, like art to be dissected purely for aesthetics. The first thing anyone needs to do when reading philosophy is understand that the basic point of all of it is to understand ourselves and the world we live in. If it's not helping you do that, you're doing it wrong.

Even watching shitty philosophy tube videos is better than jamming thousands of pages of shit into your brain that you will never be able to process properly. If you're going to read the philosophers, you need to know what the basic gestalt of the whole thing is - the whole point of their writing in the first place. I've found that all philosophy can be understood by merely going for a walk outside. It's written in mystical code language, but once deciphered it's easy to understand even for a complete idiot, because it's talking about life itself, not some abstract concept that only intellectuals can understand. Usually it's the intellectuals who don't understand it and the bums on the street who know better than anyone.

[Anonymous No.11212243]

>>11212152
They're probably mistaking the forest from the trees. It happens, specially with how long and complicated the texts are you tend to miss the larger thematics.

[Anonymous No.11212261]

>>11212152
They could be just, for instance, claiming to have read them without actually having read them. Discuss Kant with someone who is paid to understand him and see how well your supplementary knowledge holds up. Your noble and high-vantaged mind might even learn something.

[Anonymous No.11212266]

>>11212186
*Snap*

[Anonymous No.11212283]

>>11212242
>>11212243
I actually found Bryan Magee's BBC television series, The Great Philosophers, to be the most illuminating for me. None of the Magee's discussions with the guests ever get convoluted, and what they're normally discussing is quite simple.

Honestly, I think a lot of boils down to the texts being convoluted. I think it's better to list one's claims and then defend it rather than giving argumentation first and then deriving metaphysical conclusions.

[Anonymous No.11212293]

>>11212261
>Discuss Kant with someone who is paid to understand him
I have, actually, with someone knowledgable, and you're right that he tends to know Kant very well. Still, I can follow what he's saying and know what he's arguing. However, I have encountered many idiots who have claimed to read this and that figure, yet they make so many hiccups that I'm bewildered if their major means shit. I'm just discussing trends, really.

[Anonymous No.11212296]

>>11212152
>my wikipedia readings makes me smarter than people who actually have read the books

The absolute state of /lit/...

[Anonymous No.11212305]

>>11212293
Yes, there are many pretentious idiots in colleges and universities. I wasn't aware this required further anecdotal confirmation.

[Anonymous No.11212315]

>>11212296
it's bait and everyone ITT has fallen for it

[Anonymous No.11212316]

>>11212296
When it comes to philosophy, I have found Bryan Magee's lecture series, SEP, and IEP more illuminating than talking to most philosophy grad students.
>>11212305
But it really dominates liberal arts now.

[Anonymous No.11212317]

>>11212283
I have no metaphysical principles. Dunno whether to believe in a universe or multiple or none at all or a self or a soul or not a self soul. Philosophy has honestly confused the shit out of me since reading it. I like to think of myself as in a aporetic or quietist mystical state.
>>11212293
I am a philosophy major. It is the fault of the courses. It's almost impossible to fail. Except logic. That one requires actual knowledge. Most people are being trained to be autistic analytics with quirky opinions on the history of philosophy based off mistaken impressions gleaned from reading texts incompletely and haphazardly while in undergrad.

[Anonymous No.11212320]

>>11212315
It's not bait. I could probably beat you in a philosophy debate. Choose a topic, and you'll see my skills.

[Anonymous No.11212333]

>>11212317
>I like to think of myself as in a aporetic or quietist mystical state.
It seems to me you're arguing that paraconsistent forms of logic are better suited to approach ontological questions. That's largely what drove Indian and some mystical Chinese philosophies.
>>11212317
>Most people are being trained to be autistic analytics with quirky opinions on the history of philosophy based off mistaken impressions gleaned from reading texts incompletely and haphazardly while in undergrad.
I see.
>Except logic.
A better question is whether classical logic is even well-equipped to deal with ontological questions.

[Anonymous No.11212344]

>>11212316
>SEP
>IEP
>Bryan Magee
All based. I actually dropped out of college cause I went schizo from misreading deleuze and crowley. I feel I have learned more out of college than in it. Secondary literature has been extraordinairely helpful. Unfortunately /lit/ is allergic to the stuff. Going back to uni now. Undercover sleeper agent for the tentacle gods...
>>11212333
Yes to both statements.

[Anonymous No.11212350]

>>11212344
I recommend getting into weird fiction. I've found it to be very good for my creativity and considering greater metaphysical possibilities.

[Anonymous No.11212363]

>>11212152
yum

[Anonymous No.11212371]

>>11212350
Know any aside from Lovecraft, Ashton-Smith, and Dunsany? Do I have to collect old pulp magazines? Lol. I am partial to Land's Chasm and Phyl Undhu as well if you have (post-)modern suggestions.

[Anonymous No.11212390]

>>11212371
I think you'd like Laird Barron a lot. Your phrase "Undercover sleeper agent for the tentacle gods..." reminded me of his Imago Sequence. His prose is sort of like Lovecraft meets noir.

It's cool that you've read Ashton-Smith and Dunsany already. Arthur Machen, Algernon Blackwood, and Robert Aickman are also good classics too.

[Anonymous No.11212435]

>>11212390
Added to my cart :^)

[Anonymous No.11212470]

>>11212152
>I'm not joking when I say that a lot of people who claim to have studied many philosophers in-depth seem utterly clueless on how to discuss their philosophies. For example, I've met people who have claimed to read Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil and more, yet when I discuss them about my understanding from encyclopedias, they tend to get a lot wrong
There's a basic misconception about your thesis. You assume everything written in encyclopedias is true and therefore, every opinion which objects to the opinion of the writer of the article is wrong. Actually, a lot of stuff written in encyclopedias is either simply wrong, outdated or
>lack[s] the intellectual [or physical - since articles in encyclopedias need to be relatively short] capacity to truly reflect on things deeply

That said, it is actually really hard to learn to read a philosophical writing properly and thorougly - therefore, I partially agree with you: a lot of people who lack the ability to read a philosophical writing properly, will get more informations out of an article about the writing than out of the writing itself. On the other hand, they totally miss out on the experience and adventure to follow the thoughts of a great mind and the way it's thinking. And if you miss out on that, you miss out on the chance of learning to think properly yourself. So, if you just want informations, if you just want to know stuff about the history of philosophy, you go for encyclopedias - but if you want to learn how to really practice philosophy, you should read the original books.
Btw. of course both approaches aren't mutually exclusive. Every serious student of philosophy should read both articles on writings as well as the writings themselves, at least the best of them.

[Anonymous No.11212490]

>***Note: I know for sure I descend from aristocracy.


I'm going to sign all my posts like this from now on
***Note: I know for sure I descend from aristocracy.

[Anonymous No.11214557]

>>11212152
This strikes me as quite foolish, not because it assumes a lack of intelligence of others, or the superiority of OP, but because it is contradictory.

OP, I know you're going to contest this, but the position you've put yourself in calls for contesting anything in order for you to save face. You seem to think that by reading the encyclopedia entries of philosophy, you are truly "utilizing your intellectual capacity to truly reflect on things deeply, and not only understanding things on a surface level." But by reading things from an encyclopedia entry, are you not missing out on the "true reflection" required to deeply understand what these philosophers are talking about? Of course you can meditate on their concepts, but that is not to what I am referring. You are not arriving at their concepts through their trains of thought. Anyone can be given a concept from a work, but to arrive at it with the author requires a depth of reflection that one cannot get from an encyclopedia.

Yes, you may understand more, but you have been given a fish, not taught how. If you read their works, you may find yourself stuck in the same peasant mindset that you are looking down upon.

[Anonymous No.11214572]

you might btfo the philosophers themselves if you test them with their own encyclopedia profile.
same with authors and their biographers.

[Anonymous No.11214591]

Greatest bait I've seen this year

[Anonymous No.11214610]

>>11212152
Maybe it's hard and they're normal rather than idiots.

[Anonymous No.11214687]

there's a play about Goethe failing an examination about himself.

[Anonymous No.11214688]

>>11212152
Are you trying to sell me a set of encyclopedias Anon?

[Anonymous No.11214743]

>>11212333
How can a question be a better question than a statement?