>>217732I've witnessed this, yeah. One moment they'll proudly boast reading pessimist philosophy and these great thinkers but then if you actually bring up any of their pessimist ideas all they come at you with is the most tripe facebook-quote feel-good platitudes you've ever heard to the point it takes a few seconds to gauge whether this is their genuine opinion, yet it is.
So then why did they read all that? Why do they tout them as great thinkers? I haven't a clue.
Do they just accept the philosopher's status based on how their work is treated in academic context and conclude it must be important writing even if they don't see eye to eye with even a word of it, not even in a way that deepens their own, contrary view on the world? There's no questioning, there's no engaging, there's no rebuttal nor agreement. Then what is even retained but the plain text? Nothing but the ability to recite it.
Deeply puzzling. I don't believe these people are malicious however, it all seems too flat for that. Malice has either passion or mischief behind it, I've detected no such vitality.
Maybe when we consider how the average person engages with something else abstract like music, we can find an equivalent behavior. An appreciation for the already pedestaled works but without any of the personal understanding and affirmation of the work's position. Maybe it's the same pattern found in certain reactions to contemporary classical? Going against their every notion of what makes beautiful music, yet forced to respect it due to international recognition by other intellectuals. Who knows, really. I wonder if we're not guilty of the same behavior somewhere ourselves.