The Insanity of Modern Analytic Philosophy By Chris Knight

     I studied philosophy for a bit over a year, before dropping out, when I did an Arts degree at a mid-level US university. As a freshman, I had hoped that this discipline would help with the big questions, such as the meaning of life, and the existence of God, but I was very disappointed. At best, philosophy was engaged in technicalities that led nowhere; at worst, it was just another attack on traditionalism, but going deeper than the Social Sciences, attacking our common sense view of reality, such as that we have free will, minds and souls. All of this is done to support the ruling ideology of reductionist materialism.

     Not all philosophers though, go for the establishment line. Richard Cocks has published two papers at Sydneytrads.com, discussing the illogical nature of philosophers, with respect to the issue of determinism. If the thesis of determinism – that every event has a cause, sufficient for its explanation, running back in an endless chain of causes – and if this thesis is inconsistent with the existence of free will, then how is the reasoning leading to acceptance of the determinist thesis acceptable?
https://orthosphere.wordpress.com/2016/03/19/the-illogicality-of-determinism/
https://orthosphere.wordpress.com/2016/10/28/the-illogicality-of-determinism-further-considerations/
https://sydneytrads.com/2016/09/13/richard-cocks-3/

     If determinism is correct, rational agency does not exist, but if this is so, then rational argument, which presupposes being able to think otherwise – which is a classical free will move – does not exist.

     That philosophers seem eager to opt for outrageous theses, which they defend on taxpayers’ money, calls the discipline into question. Even if their activities seem harmless enough, compared to the evils in feminist departments, it is still a pointless drain on public funds. Let philosophers drive taxis during the day, and debate this nonsense at night, at their own expense. Then we will truly see how radical and “clever” they are.