Why does some 'philosophy' read like word salad.

[Eirise]

I was never interested in philosophy because I always thought it was just a bunch of egotistical assholes rambling in a needlessly convoluted and wordy way about nothing.

Recently I got interested in stoicism. I've barely started reading Marcus Aurelius - Meditations, but I like what he says even if it's sometimes hard for me to read, due to the language being denser/more sophisticated than what I'm used to. Because of this, I started to think philosophy wasn't completely stupid and pointless. It made me interested in trying to read other people, like Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky...

But there's this other way of talking/belief structure I've come across in woke circles that also wears the name 'philosophy'. They argue things like: words don't have meaning, and objective truth doesn't exist. For example, their definition of woman/female is always 2 paragraphs long, and they often seem to enjoy giving you a convoluted word salad in response to an obviously simple question (like what is a female/where do babies come from = adult human female/a male impregnates a female, even if some females can't get pregnant & some males can't impregnate). They always deny that they're intentionally being convoluted, despite EVERYONE understanding these things, and they refuse to answer any question in a straightforward, common sense way. Almost like every interaction is a battle, rather than an attempt to reach understanding between two people.

I don't get where this comes from. Why they deny it's possible or reasonable to define reality based on our senses and the best of our scientific knowledge. Aka, a woman is an adult human female (observable), and part of that means she's got XX chromosomes (not observable without scientific tools/understanding).

I feel like this entire way of thinking is a waste of time. It isn't productive, it doesn't give anyone hope or teach them how to control their emotions and live their lives better.

Are these people ALWAYS cruel/mean people who just enjoy messing with others? Or is there any good in them at all, but they just don't know how or aren't capable of 'translating' their word vomit into English?

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

Wokes are the ultimate egotists. Almost Solipsist in their world-view, although they're a Collective, not about Individuality, except as it pertains to how they can subvert it to their gain through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality?useskin=vector (Which itself is part of Identity Politics and has branches in Authoritarian Religion, Authoritarian Nationalism, and Authoritarian National Socialists).

 

[Arnox]

Ultimately, this problem is just the classic problem of extremism. But one must realize that there's extremists on both sides of the aisle here. Conservative justice warriors as well as social justice warriors. They're both equally awful.

 

[Eirise]

Ultimately, this problem is just the classic problem of extremism. But one must realize that there's extremists on both sides of the aisle here. Conservative justice warriors as well as social justice warriors. They're both equally awful.

I've never really understood the point of "oh but let us remember, the other side also does this" kinda thing. It seems obvious and beside the point

 

[Houseman]

Why they deny it's possible or reasonable to define reality based on our senses and the best of our scientific knowledge.

That's the only way certain ideologies can exist: in a fictional world.

Thomas Sowell is not a philosopher per se, but he writes about the philosophies and worldviews of Marxism, socialism, etc. He posits that certain worldviews are overrepresented in universities because they are the only places where they can exist. In a university everything is theoretical and ideas do not need to be tested by or compete against the realities of the "real world".

 

[Arnox]

I've never really understood the point of "oh but let us remember, the other side also does this" kinda thing. It seems obvious and beside the point

Well, your examples were typical SJW stuff, so I assumed that's the singular group you were talking about. Instead of just extremists in general.

 

[Adeptus]

"Ultimately, this problem is just the classic problem of extremism. But one must realize that there's extremists on both sides of the aisle here. Conservative justice warriors as well as social justice warriors. They're both equally awful"

Well, concept that extremists are always wrong and that "truth is always in the middle" is fallacy. Truth is where it is. And sometimes its on extremities.

 

[Arnox]

"Ultimately, this problem is just the classic problem of extremism. But one must realize that there's extremists on both sides of the aisle here. Conservative justice warriors as well as social justice warriors. They're both equally awful"

Well, concept that extremists are always wrong and that "truth is always in the middle" is fallacy. Truth is where it is. And sometimes its on extremities.

But very often, it's not. Black and white thinking is a very simplistic view of the world, and thus, has all the errors that come with simplistic thinking in the first place. You're looking at a glass of water and thinking you've seen the ocean. Before we can accept such extremes resposibly, we have to consider every other option first.