Which philosophies are bad or which philosophies should we avoid and why?

Different philosophies are good for different periods of life. Some, like solipsism and nihilism, are only good when you need some poison. They are good for "adolescent males who don't make good orators".

Others, such as Classicism and Romanticism are good stand-bys for people that don't feel they're doing anything original.

Others, such as communism and humanism ostensibly serve a human interest, and therefore are good for people that mean to 'get active' --- although sometimes it ends in disillusionment.

Serious philosophers choose things like metaphysics, logic, and ethics over political philosophy and epistemology. These are areas where they can get real work done. After all, in epistemology, the entire theory may depend on the specific person theorizing, and therefore the results may always be rejected if the person happens to live an obscure existence.

There are many forms of metaphysics, logic, and ethics, and which one is right may depend on the exact context and the degree of willingness to apply it empirically. Oftentimes a good idea is enough to boost one theory over another, hence the difficulty in choosing a good philosophy.

Some stand-bys are Epicureanism (the moderate life), Transcendentalism (the higher life), and Aesthetics (the cheap version of the higher life). Its surprising how often philosophy returns to these areas, even when the theory is supposed to be new. But there is a reason for this: everyone desires the good life, and so long as people continue to face the same basic problems, there are only so many ways to live well.

What is by far the worst scourge of all scourges in the history of mankind?

It is the philosophy of conservatism.

I do not know where it started and I cannot foresee an end but I will share the point at which the world visibly took note.

It was back in August of 1981 in America. Ronald Reagan, the 40 President of the United States did Beelzebub's bidding as he destroyed the Air Traffic Controllers Union ability to bargain effectively.

In short, he put profit before people. He said it was for national interest and national security. Thirty years later, the world witnesses that on that day, August 1, 1981 the United States of America sacrificed both. The United States of America betrayed her own people, and the world's corporate headquarters took note.

The Air Traffic Controllers' strike was a major union movement in America. It proved the importance of workers' rights and liberties. The strike proved that unions could make a difference in a society based on capitalism.

As they say, the rest is history.

The philosophy of profit was put before people.

The philosophy that government is the problem was openly accepted by the leader of the world's largest government and, at the time, the most successful society the world has ever known.

Upside-down. On our heads. Nothing anymore made sense.

And for the next thirty years the daily headlines of all major newspapers reflected that theme at an ever increasingly bold pace.

And then it eventually became all the media outlets of all media, and the paid announcers, writers, and performers...

This hell. This all encompassing hell on earth.

The economic and emotional race to the bottom that all countries, all peoples must participate in.

The race to hell.

Fast track forward to today. We are the dying fruit of this horrible disease. We are the end.

Philosophy, this philosophy of the night undoes all the apparent good that any school or mode of philosophy has ever accomplished.

You and I are now witnessing, you and I are a part of this dark night of the soul.

And when they look back and say, why didn't someone do something? Why didn't someone stop this?

Because we couldn't. We, the dust in the wind. We couldn't.

As you finish reading this post are you able to accept the fact that philosophy, namely the philosophical lie that is conservatism, has ruined your life?

I will state that here on this site philosophy is THE most important aspect of our adult life.

The only thing I would add is that this philosophy - conservatism - has become the most overall negative aspect in our lives.

Whenever I've been in a college philosophy class, or have been reading a good thoughtful book about philosophy, religion, yada yida yoda, I've always kept the parts that I considered to be personally relevant and true, tried to adopt those ideas as best I can into my own behavior, and I've discarded the parts that were obviously just mental master-bay-sheon or false, or just plain silly.

Have I been successful in adopting those good ideas and filtering out the rest?

Sometimes. I think I've an overall good person who is not a hypocrite, loves life and some people in it, and if you want to avoid a philosophy, avoid the ones that require you to shave your head and sell flowers to people on the streets.

Also, avoid Scientology, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormonism, and Catholics whenever possible.

(The Catholics are the scariest,)

We should not "avoid" any philosophy. Each is a reflection of some mind's struggle with the world and each is worth study on some level, even if only the level of pathological psychology. But to take the other half of your question: yes, some philosophies are in fact bad. Pretty much everything descending from Hegel is pathological, and this includes pathologies with a black or brown coloration (Heidegger was a Hegelian of a sport) as well as pathologies with a reddish hue (so was Marx).

Which philosophies are bad or which philosophies should we avoid and why?

~~~ Philosophy is not a bumpersticker, or some cheap saying that the mindless must adopt to live their life by (as if they could!)!!

That being said, the Easterners are worth studying, the Westerners are not; their toxic influence is all over the news (for millennia!)!!

Philosophy is 'original critical thought';

Critical Thinking

http://www.skepdic.com/ticriticalthinking.html

Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm

As opposed to the 'scholastic';

"..."philosophologists", a term coined by Robert Pirsig ("Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", "Lila") to denote people who study other people's philosophy but cannot do philosophy themselves. He also says that most people who consider themselves philosophers are actually philosophologists. The difference between a philosopher and a philosophologist is like the difference between an art and aesthetics; one does and the other studies what the other does and theorizes about it."

It's entirely up to you which philosophies are bad and should be avoided. I would suggest that any philosophy (or religion ) which support anything which is harmful to others is heading in the wrong direction. We should focus on everything which we can agree on and draws us closer together.

Every philosophy has a different idea what is good or bad, so what is bad is based on what philosophy you are coming from. As a cynical idealist with an existentialist bent I find logical positivism and objectivism too grandiose and stoicism too deadening.

Which philosophies are bad …

Any that do not encourage you to think for yourself.

… or which philosophies should we avoid...

None.

… and why?

It is better to know more than to know less.

"Bad" is a value judgment, so we'd have to first identify some means for scoring them. If we go with morality, then that sets up a fair mechanism to do so. But if by "bad" you mean inaccurate or mistaken, then Nietzsche is an example. Much of what he wrote is just incorrect, wrong. Whatever about his intentions or morality - his emotional impairments made him blind to the very things he was trying to comment on. So he made plenty of mistakes.

Nietzsche is not helpful as he leads us to have the idea that we are allowed to use" Others" for or own benefit and praising those who do . His concept of the "overman" is the man who is --- The whole beast--[257] who has the --right to reduce others to slaves and instruments [258] His contempt for the idea Do unto others [ what he calls the slave mentality ] is because it stops his superior types from doing what they want . The foolishness of this idea is shown by thinking what would happen if there were no rules of the road chaos