The problem I think there is with philosophy is that it got involved in trivial questions. It nowadays asks how do we know stuff epistemology and metaphysics It denies completely.
Originally it was asking what is the meaning of it all?
One thing that always turned me off to philosophy is when they start talking about language. The reason I see this as a waste of time is that there is a serious difference between language and real facts.The difference is this: real facts are objective. They exist even if there were no people around to notice them. Language on the other hand is completely and absolutely subjective. The words one says and that one hears have no meaning at all except for what people attach to them. There is nothing objective about it at all.
Still there are nowadays some real remarkable thinkers in philosophy. Kelley Ross and Michael Huemer.
Hegel and Heidegger were certainly thinking about the big picture but besides Heidigger, twentieth century philosophy got to be a real wasteland of triviality.
Originally it was asking what is the meaning of it all?
One thing that always turned me off to philosophy is when they start talking about language. The reason I see this as a waste of time is that there is a serious difference between language and real facts.The difference is this: real facts are objective. They exist even if there were no people around to notice them. Language on the other hand is completely and absolutely subjective. The words one says and that one hears have no meaning at all except for what people attach to them. There is nothing objective about it at all.
Still there are nowadays some real remarkable thinkers in philosophy. Kelley Ross and Michael Huemer.
Hegel and Heidegger were certainly thinking about the big picture but besides Heidigger, twentieth century philosophy got to be a real wasteland of triviality.
