Most Overrated/Overemphasized Philosopher?

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Which Philosopher’s Thought Do YOU Think Has Proven to Be “Overrated,” or “Overemphasized” over the Centuries?

As For me, I would say Descartes, Nietzsche, and Schopenhauer. Personally, of Course.

What would some of the Poster’s Choices Be?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Um… Freud?

 

[MarkThompson]

Most overrated: Plato, Sartre, G.E. Moore, Heidegger, Kripke, . . . Russell? . . . Thomas Jefferson?

Most underrated: Spinoza, Tarski, Putnam, . . . Popper? . . . _____?

(Not to say that say that the “overrated” ones aren’t necessarily good, of course. There’s such a thing as being overrated in the sense that I consider The Beatles and The Usual Suspects overrated.)

 

[ChadS]

I’m going to have to go with Bishop George Berkeley. His ideas of having to perceive something in order for it to exist has always struck me as a little non-sensical even from my college days.

ChadS

 

[Cat_Herder]

Marx and Nietzsche, easily. Both of them wrote illogical nonsense that nevertheless seduced millions.

 

[VeniEmmanuel]

Most overrated: Plato, Sartre, G.E. Moore, Heidegger, Kripke, . . . Russell? . . . Thomas Jefferson?

Most underrated: Spinoza, Tarski, Putnam, . . . Popper? . . . _____?

(Not to say that say that the “overrated” ones aren’t necessarily good, of course. There’s such a thing as being overrated in the sense that I consider The Beatles and The Usual Suspects overrated.)

Popper is a terrible philosopher.

 

[Captain_America]

Descartes.

 

[Pieman333272]

Dennett. Walk into any secularist library, go on any atheist discussion board, and there’s a 99% chance you’ll hear some worship of his work. I’m sorry, but he just doesn’t deserve the praise they give him. I mean, his arguments against the quilia are unconvincing at best and his “case” for religion as natural is just regurgitating what anthropologists have been analyzing for the last 100 years with an atheist bias. I’m honestly surprized that he’s considered a “leading philosopher of religion”.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Marx and Nietzsche, easily. Both of them wrote illogical nonsense that nevertheless seduced millions.

I tend to agree with you about Nietzsche. Chesterton tended to agree too. Great insights into the Human condition, but ultimately an inconsistent, uneven thinker.

Marx totally. His Atheism played a lot into his “Illogical” Philosophy. Made it more Off-Kilter than it already was.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Descartes.

Oh, yes. His “Cogito Ergo Sum” Separated The Mind From The Soul and We as a Civilization Have suffered ever since.

Ironically, Descartes was NOT an Atheist. He in fact came up with the “Cogito Ergo Sum” Argument in order to Prove The Existence Of God. That it “Backfired” On Him is the Unerstatement of The Centuries.

 

[Interior_League]

GK Chesterton. Many Catholics drool over him because he converted from Anglicanism, while conveniently ignoring his misogyny and anti-semitism. This guy’s conclusions are typically about as profound as “if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” I see him as more of an un-funny comedian than a philosopher; he is post-Victorian England’s Jeff Foxworthy.

 

[Pieman333272]

GK Chesterton. Many Catholics drool over him because he converted from Anglicanism, while conveniently ignoring his misogyny and anti-semitism. This guy’s conclusions are typically about as profound as “if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” I see him as more of an un-funny comedian than a philosopher; he is post-Victorian England’s Jeff Foxworthy.

Huh boy? Chesterton never converted from Anglicanism, and I’ve never ready anything by him that hinted he was anti-semitic. Some of the Fr. Brown Stories are racist but that’s because of cultural context not Chesterton’s personal views.

 

[EricFilmer]

Which Philosopher’s Thought Do YOU Think Has Proven to Be “Overrated,” or “Overemphasized” over the Centuries?

As For me, I would say Descartes, Nietzsche, and Schopenhauer. Personally, of Course.

What would some of the Poster’s Choices Be?

I will go with Nietzsche in response to your post. To his credit, Nietzsche said a few things which I think are very profound, including “That which does not kill us makes us stronger” and “When you look into an abyss, the abyss looks into you.” But when I studied his writings in college I could not comprehend much of it. The professor assured me that this was Nietzsche’s style, and that those who familiarize themselves with his style are able to grasp his concepts. Well, I guess I never got familiar enough to reach that point, because to this day I usually have no idea of what Nietzsche is trying to say. I think my reaction is the same as many people’s throughout the years.

So here is a philosopher who just about everyone has heard of, and yet his legacy is a small handful of notable quotations and lots of what many find to be incoherent jargon. In light of all this, Nietzsche is, in my opinion, overrated.

 

[edward_george]

Dennett. Walk into any secularist library, go on any atheist discussion board, and there’s a 99% chance you’ll hear some worship of his work. I’m sorry, but he just doesn’t deserve the praise they give him. I mean, his arguments against the quilia are unconvincing at best and his “case” for religion as natural is just regurgitating what anthropologists have been analyzing for the last 100 years with an atheist bias. I’m honestly surprized that he’s considered a “leading philosopher of religion”.

I agree. We read his “Kinds of Minds” in Epistemology in college. It was usually pretty decent, right up until the part where he has to conclude something in the realm of the metaphysical in order to make his argument make sense. Since he denies the metaphysical, he would reach the point where the only acceptable conclusion to his premises would be something to do with God, then he’d conveniently substitute “Mother Nature” or “natural selection” where God would normally go. I found the book thoroughly nonsensical and unsatisfying.

-ACEGC

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I agree. We read his “Kinds of Minds” in Epistemology in college. It was usually pretty decent, right up until the part where he has to conclude something in the realm of the metaphysical in order to make his argument make sense. Since he denies the metaphysical, he would reach the point where the only acceptable conclusion to his premises would be something to do with God, then he’d conveniently substitute “Mother Nature” or “natural selection” where God would normally go. I found the book thoroughly nonsensical and unsatisfying.

-ACEGC

I agree. Dawkins is another Thinker of that Ilk that is Wildly Overrated. Plus He’s an Arrogant So-And-So.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I will go with Nietzsche in response to your post. To his credit, Nietzsche said a few things which I think are very profound, including “That which does not kill us makes us stronger” and “When you look into an abyss, the abyss looks into you.” But when I studied his writings in college I could not comprehend much of it. The professor assured me that this was Nietzsche’s style, and that those who familiarize themselves with his style are able to grasp his concepts. Well, I guess I never got familiar enough to reach that point, because to this day I usually have no idea of what Nietzsche is trying to say. I think my reaction is the same as many people’s throughout the years.

So here is a philosopher who just about everyone has heard of, and yet his legacy is a small handful of notable quotations and lots of what many find to be incoherent jargon. In light of all this, Nietzsche is, in my opinion, overrated.

Yeah, Nietzsche is one of those 'deep" Philosophers One is Apparently Too “Shallow” and “Stupid” to Understand.

Plus, I’m one of those Apparently “Stupid” People who DID NOT Like “Thus Spake Zarathustra.” Silly me.

Saul Bellow Said it Best------

“Beware Of Syphilitics Preaching Morals.”

Good Point. I Would Also Add “Or LACK Of Morals.”

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Most overrated: Plato, Sartre, G.E. Moore, Heidegger, Kripke, . . . Russell? . . . Thomas Jefferson?

Most underrated: Spinoza, Tarski, Putnam, . . . Popper? . . . _____?

(Not to say that say that the “overrated” ones aren’t necessarily good, of course. There’s such a thing as being overrated in the sense that I consider The Beatles and The Usual Suspects overrated.)

Kripke’s Overrated?

I actually kind of like Kripke. That’s Just Me, of course. Don’t agree with ALL He’s Put Out, but He’s at Least a Provocative Thinker (again, To ME).
Everybody has different “Tastes,” ultimately-----Even in Philosophy.

I agree with you about Tarski. Greatest Logician of the Twentieth Century.

I Can’t Stand Russell, so I Agree with you About THAT one.

Sartre is ultimately Atheistic Nonsense Masquerading as Sophisticated French Intellectualism.

 

[Interior_League]

Huh boy? Chesterton never converted from Anglicanism, and I’ve never ready anything by him that hinted he was anti-semitic. Some of the Fr. Brown Stories are racist but that’s because of cultural context not Chesterton’s personal views.

Chesterton converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism in 1922, at age 48. Look it up if you care to.

Chesterton, in a historical piece on England praised Edward I for expelling the Jews from England in 1290. He was fond of saying that he could tolerate Jews in England only if they wore “arab” clothing to show they were an alien nation. He wasn’t a murderously evil Nazi, just a garden variety anti-semite. Chesterton did criticize Hitler but then went on to say “I still think there is a Jewish problem.”

oh and by the way what do you mean by “Huh boy”?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Chesterton converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism in 1922, at age 48. Look it up if you care to.

Chesterton, in a historical piece on England praised Edward I for expelling the Jews from England in 1290. He was fond of saying that he could tolerate Jews in England only if they wore “arab” clothing to show they were an alien nation. He wasn’t a murderously evil Nazi, just a garden variety anti-semite. Chesterton did criticize Hitler but then went on to say “I still think there is a Jewish problem.”

oh and by the way what do you mean by “Huh boy”?

I really do wonder if they even believe the things they say or if they really can’t help but be offensive when they defend the indefensible so often as they do.

 

[Pieman333272]

Chesterton converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism in 1922, at age 48. Look it up if you care to.

Chesterton, in a historical piece on England praised Edward I for expelling the Jews from England in 1290. He was fond of saying that he could tolerate Jews in England only if they wore “arab” clothing to show they were an alien nation. He wasn’t a murderously evil Nazi, just a garden variety anti-semite. Chesterton did criticize Hitler but then went on to say “I still think there is a Jewish problem.”

oh and by the way what do you mean by “Huh boy”?

I knew he came from Anglicanism but remember that before that he was a skeptic and occultist. By the time he returned to Anglicanism he already agreed to virtually all the Catholic Doctrines. I didn’t know that about the anti-Semiticism, though.