I'm not so sure about that. The most impressive people (impressive in the sense of "someone whose mind I envy") I've met, almost universally, seem to more or less be self-taught in this regard and come to their own conclusions. Of course I've never really interrogated them on the history of their education, but there's something telling in the fact that they are less prone to referencing someone else's work in the first place when it comes to thinking and argument. On the other hand the consuelas of the world are eager to jack themselves off using "philosophy" as a crutch for their own retarded ideas. Maybe I'm too jaded by substackers and xo types, but I feel like if it still really mattered I would've run into more impressive people who speak to their grounding in philosophy. I just haven't seen any of them.

"Much of 20th century philosophy was philosophy of language and logic and that stuff got absorbed into semantics, computational linguistics and parts of AI for instance" that's certainly true but I would argue that's just as much a bunch of smart people identifying proto-sciences rather than any grand tradition. I don't know how you could say that Turing and Focault were both in the same field even though they both have origins in "philosophy".

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871112&forum_id=2Vannesa#49916625)

No. You're depressed, brown, and extremely online. So maybe you're not in the best position to haughtily dismiss anything as stupid and useless.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871112&forum_id=2Vannesa#49916584)

You on the other hand have never divulged a single thing about yourself and only shittalk. You do not even attempt the core question of "what is the real point of Philosophy as it exists in modern society". You are a 40 year old posting this shit on the internet like some teenage boner police faggot

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871112&forum_id=2Vannesa#49916594)

"Actually as far as my job..."

I'm talking about your life nigger. And the reason I'm spinning about this is that I expressed the exact same you did practically verbatim when I was 16 and cringe seeing a 40 year old man saying it.

Perhaps you should spend some time thinking about the big questions, even though they'll never be "solved" and we'll never "understand everything", as an exercise to think about how *you'd* like to spend the second half of your finite existence.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871112&forum_id=2Vannesa#49916596)

What specifically has philosophy done for you as a person? I mean give concrete examples referencing works.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871112&forum_id=2Vannesa#49916598)

I can't give you concrete examples of the value of philosophy, art, and beauty but I still consider them the best things in life. I can very precisely quantify the value of the legal services I've provided, converted into dollars which can be converted into material things with concrete utility, yet somehow this is the worst part of my life.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871112&forum_id=2Vannesa#49916613)

You certainly can elaborate given your whole bitch ass argument is saying "maybe you'd be a better person if you thought about stuff more". This implies you have thought about stuff as a result of being informed by philosophy, so you should be able to illuminate me here with some example from your own life. That is an extraordinarily shitty, lawyeresque line of argument which tries to pull a gotcha of "well you can't QUANTIFY this with NUMBERS, fucking ENGINEER". You are just trying to twist the implication of what I said instead of answering the rather straightforward question

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871112&forum_id=2Vannesa#49916635)

On the whole though I'd say slightly worse, not because of any of the "allegations" but because any man who has had that many girlfriends past like 25 has something wrong with him

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871112&forum_id=2Vannesa#49916554)

I don't doubt that everything in the article is true. It fits the phenotype and everything else about Platner. He's a hard man, self-centered, and, ultimately, not a good person. I've thought about the contrast with Paxton, another terrible man, but the difference is clear. While both are egoistical, Paxton doesn't wish physical harm on others or boast about taking pleasure in violence. And didn't knowingly get a Nazi tattoo and think it was cool. Do I think he's a genuine Nazi? No... not to that extent, but it tells me he has an innate attraction to an ugly side of humanity and we see it revealed in glimpses here and there, and this interview with the ex girlfriends show it. In a different context, a more unrestrained, more passionate world, I wouldn't doubt that Platner would be among the first to pick up the guns and wipe out families like mine for being too successful, too bourgeoise, people in the way of the new world he wants to build and blood is the price to be paid for it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5871112&forum_id=2Vannesa#49916585)