Irritating "philosophies"

[Sackanaka]

Perhaps a rant, but

There MUST be
1) So-called philosophies of life that you think are, euphemistically, more flawed than the rest.
2) Another place on this forum that I was too lazy to thoroughly search for where people already talked about this.

I'll start with something that just came to mind:
Kill or be killed. (steal or be robbed; other incarnations)

My response: Errrrrrrrrr no? I don't think that's the best way to look at it since it perpetuates/promotes unescapable disharmony. Of course it is more often than not okay to defend oneself, but this uhh school-of-thought is easily twisted, perhaps unwittingly, to extremely negative means. Hunting is a sport I can see why people find enjoyable, but it seems so- I don't even know the right words. Silly? Proving superiority is still done with guns, though the pen/processor is still trying hard? I'm not even sure what the fight is anymore. Kill or be killed- If we eliminated those who fully believe this from our society, wouldn't the philosophy crumble....
Haha what a weak statement, of course it, and any other philosophy, would. And then it would arise like a phoenix from hell from ashes of glum and blah.

Anyway, any other silly philosophies you know and would like to nitpick and harass? (Think of times when conversations stop for a brief moment and you just know someone's thinking to him/herself "I'm deep.")

[Edmond Zedo]

A philosophy is valid if it's not based on some hokum garbage (Like every religion is). Everything else is a matter of taste.

[matthew0028]

A philosophy is valid if it's not based on some hokum garbage (Like every religion is). Everything else is a matter of taste.

I don't think that just because something isn't based on hokum garbage, that automatically makes it valid...

[Claverhouse]

'Hard Work Never Killed Anybody'

Which should come as a surprise to the ghosts of all the slave-labourers...


'It's For Their Own Good'


"Nobody can tell me from some ivory tower that you take a kid, kick him in the rear end, and it doesn't do any good," declared then-Governor Zell Miller of Georgia, and ex-Marine and early proponent of boot camps (http://www.nospank.net/gina.htm).

'I Deserve It Because I Earned It'

No-one deserves anything, good or bad. And both the amount of the deserved reward and the effort put in are both entirely subjective from one's own estimation.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Star Cannon]

"S/He did it first!"

Uh, both parties are wrong.

Star Cannon

[ObstinateBane]

Kill or be killed

We've learned this since we were able to learn.

Wouldn't this be more of an instinctual thing?

It's a reflex action.

Without death there would be no life.

Fight or flight and all that.

Everybody does it, wants it, ect.. This one gets my dander up for some reason.

Or Nobody thinks that way

[Birdsnest]

"What you don't know, can't hurt you'.

and,

"Because thats the way its always been done before".

[CreativeChaos]

Philosophy - theory or logical analysis of the principles underlying conduct, thought, knowledge, and the nature of the universe: included in philosophy are ethics, aesthetics, logic, epistemology, metaphysics, etc.

Dictionary definition No. 2. Sorry, had to look it up guys to see exactly what this is refering to here.

You make me mad!

Nope, no one can make you feel anything. You do that all by yourself with your interpretation of events. You can say "I feel mad when..."

Of course you would feel something if someone smacked you in the face with a frozen fish. (One of the polls going on). ;)


Originally posted by Sackanaka
Think of times when conversations stop for a brief moment and you just know someone's thinking to him/herself "I'm deep.")

Only an IN would be thinking that and be proud of it. :smooch:

[Edmond Zedo]

I don't think that just because something isn't based on hokum garbage, that automatically makes it valid...
Well if I say it's valid, it's valid.

But to explain...Philosophy is subjective. If ones philosophy is founded on things being true, which probably aren't, it's flawed. Otherwise, who are we to say which is better than which on the logical level.

[ApeTheDog]

The whole brainwash that the USA has against communism and socialism.

Slogans as a substitute for a political opinion. It especially annoys me that people are so willing to adopt and defend these. I guess this somewhat ties in with the first.

'6 million Elvis fans can't be wrong'.
-Yes, except, they can.

The nimby syndrome. Not in my back yard. Extremely annoying. Extremely dangerous. People have to learn to love, to relax, to accept some slight discomfort with a smile, and the knowledge that it happens to everybody in turn, rather than with a bazooka or a lawyer.

[CreativeChaos]

I have heard and used an opposite kind of quote for a long time now, ApetheDog:

"Forty-five thousand Frenchmen thinking it's right doesn't make it so."

Why French? Why forty-five thousand? I have no idea.

[ApeTheDog]

Maybe it's got something to do with your countries history. Something to do with the declaration of independence, and a bunch of Frenchmen not wanting to join. (Quebec?). I don't know much about American history.

[Clara]

Maybe it's got something to do with your countries history. Something to do with the declaration of independence, and a bunch of Frenchmen not wanting to join. (Quebec?). I don't know much about American history.
ApeTheDog *rire aux larmes* That's not it, it can't be. (I know as just as little about Belgian history, you should know - except, the Asterix comics, made by Belgians) :) *note to self, to look up Canadian history, pre-confederation*

[Clara]

Sackanaka - sorry, I got distracted from what I was going to do
(really good to laugh so hard, though)

So far, the "philosophies" named here, irritate me, too.

One that I consider wrong-headed, and dishonest (and smug in its defense of itself)
Better to say nothing - because what one says might be misunderstood.

[euterpenc]

I don' like a lot of philosophies, but I find it easier to not fight them, unless your own were to bring them into conflict i.e. "A good war hallows any cause."

Let people believe what they want, unless it's destructive to you, them, and others. Aka, America. Or at least what our government seems ot be doing right now. Also, people should accept they don't know everything, and stop prancing around as if they do, again, America in action. I'm most definately not professing I know everything, cause I sure as hell know damn near nothing, but that's one thing I'm sure of. I don't know much about the current affairs of most countries, so I can't really say.

I just believe in Self-reliance. And that's something I think everyone should follow, cause it's for the best of everyone, and it's not moral, so it's not subjective. After thinking about it, that's one of the only things that's good for everyone I think.

[Sackanaka]

Hmm, perhaps the term philosophy was not the optimal choice here, but I like the responses.

Perhaps one of my greater pet peeves are the occurrences when so-called individuals misuse phrases to a point of ludicrousness. For example, take the big problem with Freudians. Sexuality probably does play a big role in our suppressed psyche, but I would not believe that every single tower or otherwise lenghth-inclined erections, such as office buildings, pencils, rockets and the sort are ultimately based off of the shape of my penis. And even if, through some miraculous empirical findings that indeed that is the case, that would seriously alter everyone's way of life if it were widely accepted as fact.
Another example, Down With the Government. Sure it fucks up but civil order is, as far as history has shown, an inevitable necessity to prolonging human life. In the short run it may stifle advancement, but without long-term control the diversity unrestrained will probably act like a virus. Which means basically, the Kingpin effect (I'm not sure what the actual term is, but the one that says you take down the big guy and another takes his place).
Others that come to mind:
Rules are meant to be broken - besides of course, to not be broken.
Live each day like it's your last - somehow the song Closer by NIN comes to mind
Repent and your sins will be forgiven - I doubt all Christians really know what "repent" means, unless they're evil and manipulative.

I wish I were more succinct. :/

[Edmond Zedo]

It's a great example of major weakness in human character when people who simply write a lot, regardless of being completely full of shit, are automatically revered on blind faith, as in Freud and Aristotle.

[euterpenc]

It's a great example of major weakness in human character when people who simply write a lot, regardless of being completely full of shit, are automatically revered on blind faith, as in Freud and Aristotle.

...

Have you even read either of them?

Also, on what was said about Freudians and skyscrapers. It may not be as simple as you think. It's not just about the penis. Freud was very influenced by Nietzsche, and he just found a more physical way of putting the will to power.

[cjs55]

Its funny, I quite enjoy both Freud and Aristotle, although of course they are often wrong.

Let me up the ante here: I hate the egalitarian philosophy in western culture today. I hate humanism. I hate people who say that we are all the same, because it is a lie. I hate this ideal platonic human form that we apparently all appeal to. I hate the fact that it would be illegal for parents to have a retarded child and to kill it for the good of everyone around them. We waste so many resources because of this belief, and it is so inherently flawed.

I go back to Nietzche and I think of the slave mentality: This is why it exists. Those that can't create, that are slaves, that only operate to extend their own existance a little further: These have control here in this democracy. Thus they have created a cowardly system which does exactly that: Validates their existance, no matter how useless or pathetic they are. And now its been like this for long that this is accepted as natural...

I suppose that is beyond irritating, and closer to humanity hopelessly weakening itself.

[Sackanaka]

I think I did hate blind humanism a few years ago for similar reasons, but couldn't think of a better, or at least workable solution that wouldn't place me, and well, I suppose counterproductively my loved-ones, in potential jeopardy. Yes you win some you lose some but ehh :/
I guess I'm relying on (social) evolution and the past recorded history to say "perhaps we have advanced since a few millennia ago", and then again we could be making the biggest mistake of our doomed lives, and I hate it too, in fact, I'll present another irritating philosophy I find myself forced to live with: "We'll just have to deal with it."

[CreativeChaos]

Actually here are two that I like:

"Que sera, sera, whatever will be, will be".

"If the shoe fits, wear it."

[booyalab]

Philosophies that were popular at some point, were so for a reason. They can only be understood within the context in which they developed, and of course they'll be 'irritating' out of that context because it won't apply as well and the reason for it won't be as apparent.

[Geoff]

Good point. Any idea out of its original/real context becomes an abstract that does not fit unless the reality space is coincidentally similar. So it becomes a later irritant or anachronism. No doubt this contributes to various ideas going up and down in popularity and application over time.

A good example is Socialism (Communism perhaps) over the last 100 years or so.

-Geoff

[Sackanaka]

True, context does affect meaning/significance. Still, they remain within current context irritating, especially so since their users have not caught on that they're no longer pertinent or precise enough to capture reality. And no, no divergences to discuss what reality is.

[jimkopelli]

Yay for eskimos and the ice floe treatment.


Nobody has any rights other than what they can gain for themselves. No right to live unless you can survive. No right to property unless you can hold on to it. No right to liberty unless you can keep others from taking it from you. True, society elevates the starting block so everyone starts out better off than that... but if it wasn't there, nobody would have anything they weren't prepared to fight tooth and nail for from day one.

[euterpenc]

Yay for eskimos and the ice floe treatment.


Nobody has any rights other than what they can gain for themselves. No right to live unless you can survive. No right to property unless you can hold on to it. No right to liberty unless you can keep others from taking it from you. True, society elevates the starting block so everyone starts out better off than that... but if it wasn't there, nobody would have anything they weren't prepared to fight tooth and nail for from day one.

I agree, but some people may need a little help at the start. Nothing wrong with that, I just think once you're started you need to do things yourself if you plan on doing anything for yourself or others. It's like teaching (it kinda is teaching), you teach them enough for them to stand on their own, and either they get knocked down and stand back up and learn something, or stay down. If they don't stand up, it's out of your hands, you've done your job as a teacher, and gave him everything you could for him to make it, after that, it's fate and determination on his/her part.

[Edmond Zedo]

...

Have you even read either of them?.
Not much! I have this quirk, and if I start reading something which is wrong and insane, I stop.

[euterpenc]

*sigh*

[alex]

objectivism
utilitarianism
ideas surrounding industrialization (eg. the belief that man is separate from nature, the belief that nature should be controlled, etc.)
newer is better (extends into technology & capitalism)

[Serotonin]

Things that irritate... (I am a pillow book girl)

- The "If one is guilty then they're all guilty" philosophy. Complete bunkum. A former boss of mine used to lecture ALL staff individually if ONE of us did something wrong... and even if he knew who the person was. When receiving these lectures I always said "But I've never done that, I know that's the wrong thing and I do it this way instead".
This didn't wash with him, all he said was "Yes I know, but I have to tell everyone because we're all equal here and I don't want to look like I'm singling anyone out". Funnily this didn't apply in instances when praise was due.
Another manifestation of this is when some union or humanitarian protest is going on in the street, and a few protesters start rabble-rousing e.g. throwing rocks or something, and then the police go completely nuts, they start hitting RANDOM protesters with batons, regardless of whether they were rabble-rousers or not. When the media put this to a police spokesman, he says "As far as I'm concerned they're all as guilty as each other". Um, no, you either are causing a violent disruption or you're not. There is a world of difference between peaceful and violent protesting. This makes me wicked angry.

- People whose justification for saying personality tests are all "hokum" and "quackery" is:
"You're such a nazi! You're, like, putting people in boxes and saying 'This is what you are'. Like, everyone's different and unique and special, y'know, and that in itself should be enough for anyone".
Uh, yeah, but when you really look deep you can discover certain consistent patterns and tendencies in people, which allows you to relate to them more easily.

This thread is good.

[euterpenc]

I agree with your thing about personalities. People think it's like putting them in box, when it's really not. It's more a blueprint than a constructed fact. Everyone IS different. The personality type descriptions show only tendencies, not universal facts.

Everyone seems to either say that, or follow the type description to the t or use it as an excuse for their actions. I can't stand either. I guess it's just the way it is. People should just try and keep more of an open mind.

[Zero Angel]

Right. I've known pure Ts (100%) who were not totally domineering assholes. Or ESTJs who were not ignorant rule monkeys, SP Artisans who were not so hedonistic as described in any personality manual. Temperament is NOT character, therefore saying 'I hate ESTJ's or any other type for that matter is a matter of either hating their beliefs, or stereotyping all of them based on the few people you met (of that temperament) and didnt like.

[CreativeChaos]

Yeah, I get this a lot, about MBTI putting people in boxes. And I've read it in places too. That is very irritating. Especially when I try to explain that it doesn't and why it doesn't and they won't listen. These are usually people who don't know much at all about MBTI or are Sensing types. (not to put down Sensing types) I have found that Sensing types, especially SJs could give a hoot about this stuff. And so they just pass judgement on it without knowing what they're talking about.

Or worse, they misuse it in typing people for jobs, and so on. Blah! :angry:

[Lee]

All sensing types are stupid, stereotyping everone ugh



(edit: for the record, this was intentional)

[euterpenc]

All sensing types are stupid, stereotyping everone ugh

Way to stereotype lol.

[Edmond Zedo]

Yeah, I get this a lot, about MBTI putting people in boxes. And I've read it in places too. That is very irritating. Especially when I try to explain that it doesn't and why it doesn't and they won't listen. These are usually people who don't know much at all about MBTI or are Sensing types. (not to put down Sensing types) I have found that Sensing types, especially SJs could give a hoot about this stuff. And so they just pass judgement on it without knowing what they're talking about.

Here, here! MBTI makes better boxes than Lawrence Paper.

[songbird36]

From the number of gross generalisations I've seen posted on this site about "sensing types", "guardians" and "artisans" etc, I'd say that MBTI (or at least its INTP proponents) do like to put people in boxes and then make sweeping and in many cases unfounded generalisations about those other types' character, preferences and shortcomings.

I find it vaguely pathetic.

[CreativeChaos]

Originally Posted by Edmond Zedo:
Here, here! MBTI makes better boxes than Lawrence Paper.

Originally Posted by CreativeChaos:
Yeah, I get this a lot, about MBTI putting people in boxes. And I've read it in places too. That is very irritating. Especially when I try to explain that it doesn't and why it doesn't and they won't listen. These are usually people who don't know much at all about MBTI or are Sensing types. (not to put down Sensing types) I have found that Sensing types, especially SJs could give a hoot about this stuff. And so they just pass judgement on it without knowing what they're talking about.
Okay, since I can never figure out what you mean EZ, I will answer two ways.
I have no idea what Lawrence Paper is. So, if you were truly agreeing with me, fine.

If you were trying to point out a logic error, like I said MBTI is not about putting people in boxes yet, I just did so by my statement about SJs. Note that the entire paragraph was regarding my personal experience. It is refering to people that I have talked too, who are SJs. I have an ISTJ ex-husband that I am still friends with, I have three ISTJ close friends, and none of them could care less. They start looking at each other with "oh no, hear she goes talking about the QRZX stuff again". And they call it that. The VLSY stuff, and just make up letters. And if my INFJ friend and I start talking about it in front of them, they give a *sigh* and if we go on they start giving obvious, this is so boring signs. Yet me and my INFJ friend put up with their stupid, "Oh Gee! Guess what! I found a coupon today for .50 cents off of bread at Q-Mart!" blah blah blah and infinitey to total detailed boring stuff! I happen to like these guys, they're my friends, but ugh! So since they are the majority and me and my INFJ friend are not, they declare us "wierd" and our subject not worth talking about while their disscussion of minutuea is. My mother is an ISTJ and she talks minutuea too. So. I wasn't generallizing. Except for the last statement. It's just that ESTJs are usually the CEO's and top managers of corporations and MBTI is really being misused for job placement. Even layoffs, I understand. Type does not = competence.

[Eileen]

I haven't read Ayn Rand (it's on my to-read list, but right now, I'm just trying to keep up with all the stuff I have to read to teach), but I find that I don't ever agree with anyone who uses Ayn Rand's philosophies in an argument. I suspect that I will hate Ayn Rand and want to kick her in her stupid, ugly face.

(That last statement brought to all of you by the intense pulsing pain in my head! Makes a girl cranky, especially when she has to go herd high schoolers all day....)

[Clara]

Eileen, I'm feeling extremely irritable today, too (no headache; very cranky)

Edit : :hug: Did your day get turn out well ?

(I agree with your impression of Ayn Rand, too, by the way. - I never did finish reading any book of hers ;) )

[Claverhouse]

...but I find that I don't ever agree with anyone who uses Ayn Rand's philosophies in an argument. I suspect that I will hate Ayn Rand and want to kick her in her stupid, ugly face.

[ Deeply moved ]

Way to go Eileen !



Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ An' she's a wooden writer too. ]

[PsiKik]

Irritating philosophy - Social Darwinism - the use of a twisted interpretation of evolution to jusify ruthless and unethical behaviour.

[Sackanaka]

Irritating philosophy - Social Darwinism - the use of a twisted interpretation of evolution to jusify ruthless and unethical behaviour.
Yes, this behavior of justification through concept does irritate me as well. Though I do believe Darwinian theory can help to clarify patterns of behavior and a reasonable explanation for the observable patterns, they only explain in retrospect and never are meant to rationally dictate the future (predict, at best).
Can't think of any other irritating philosophies currently, but this reminds me that I am often irritated when people (including myself! :rant: ) illogically use theories to explain certain patterns in physical reality; anthropomorphizing, using the word "proves" rather than "perhaps", etc.

[wezl]

Aren't the dominant philosophies:
more is better, survival of the fittest, the victor writes the history, winner take all, ...

Honestly, as Einstein said in a letter to a fascist, there is no single measure of morality, it always depends on circumstances. And Nietzsche overflows with moral ideas, if you're open minded.

[kuranes]

From the number of gross generalisations I've seen posted on this site about "sensing types", "guardians" and "artisans" etc, I'd say that MBTI (or at least its INTP proponents) do like to put people in boxes and then make sweeping and in many cases unfounded generalisations about those other types' character, preferences and shortcomings.

I find it vaguely pathetic.

Or precisely and obviously pathetic.
k

[Sackanaka]

Having gone through a bunch of philosophies in class, I came across more irritating (some more than others) philosophies:

1) Pascal's Wager:
You can't assume something (believing = salvation) about which you already assumed was unknowable (hence, the "wager").
People use this logic but it doesn't hold up; not until you take into account all the significant factors involved.
Besides, a real gambler bets against the odds of losing rather than betting for the greatest (but as mentioned, unknown) good.

2) Natural Law
Back when it was made and popularized it held up, but not in today's world of constant scientific discoveries. This is why holistic medicine usage perks my brows.

In class, it was explained that Natural Law suggests its existence by pointing out that there are common values held by all human beings, and that the only reason why we conflict with each other is not a dispute of value but of application of the value. Meaning, everyone agrees upon something but disagrees on what the standard of that something ought to be, and this leads to bickering-type-reasoning such as:
Why I deserve the front seat of the car:
a) I'm older.
b) I called it.
c) I'm bigger/stronger than you.
d) I got there first.
e) We should take turns; you got to use it before now it's my turn.

And this is of course not limited to juvenile bitching; it is fundamentally similar to much of dirty politics.
But the problem is that we can't know exactly what those values are, if indeed they do exist.
Sure, we can try to find universal truths consistent with human morality, but to simply observe patterns without meticulous and detailed analysis of what Nature truly is comprised of (physiology in particular, regarding the human psyche and behavior) is irresponsible and self-defeating in trying to explain anything accurately.
What I mean is, controversial examples like homosexuality, cannibalism or child-abuse (sexual or otherwise) definitely contradict our concepts of normal social behavior, but to say that they're simply unnatural denies the other factors involved, like culture, motive, and neuropsychological processes. Processes we discover every day! Yet some of us still believe in idly watching nature as if it were as easy to read as a Little Golden Book, expecting to get all the answers with a few pictures and words of old and dead people.


Might as well say the only Natural Law is for people to show signs of ignorance and irrationality, which does remain consistent throughout all societies & individuals, but doesn't do us a world of good as a moralistic philosophy.