The Armchair Philosopher

A mixed windbag of virtues and vices.

Readership: Men; Single Men;
Theme: Faux-Masculine Archetypes
Length: 2,300 words
Reading Time: 8 minutes + 23 minutes of video

A Description of the Armchair Philosopher

An Armchair Philosopher (AP) is one who has developed a thorough understanding of life and the world through everyday experiences, and has therefore formed a rather complex personal philosophy, in spite of not necessarily having any formal education to back it up.

AP’s reasoning relies heavily on a priori knowledge (e.g. deductive reasoning, mathematics, tautologies), as opposed to a posteriori knowledge which depends on empirical evidence (e.g. professional sciences). The 21st century British philosopher Galen Strawson described a priori knowledge this way:

“An a priori argument is one that you can see is true by just lying on your couch. You don’t have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world.”

Now days, the pejorative label, “Armchair Philosopher”, is often used to discredit or disparage any person expressing their own off-the-cuff philosophy (discovered and formulated by the person who is expressing it), so as to recast such views as unfounded, unscientific, or untrue heresay. However, although the methods of an armchair philosopher are different from those of an empirical scientist, they can complement each other to produce new insights or explain obscure truths.

When considering the historical development of the empirical sciences, armchair philosophers and theorizers have played an important foundational role in formulating original theories that have explained perplexing observations. These theories were then tested more rigorously with further scientific investigation, and the findings became the basis of a new field of science.

In fact, the foundations for the eventual professionalization of psychology and the social science disciplines can be traced to ‘armchair scholars’ of the nineteenth century. The basic theories for the “hard” sciences originated from ‘armchair scholars’ of the eighteenth century. The scientific method itself was spawned from the ‘armchair philosophies’ and resulting communications (thanks to the printing press) of several polymaths of the seventeenth century.

It could very well be possible that the Armchair Philosophers authoring and commenting on Red Pill blogs could become the founding fathers of a new scientific field of Intersexual Dynamics or Sexual Metaphysics, or the like. Many of their theories are already being scientifically examined by experts in Sociology.

The Contemporary Armchair Philosopher

Granted, most Armchair Philosophers living today are nothing like Bacon, Descartes, Einstein, Euler, Gauss, Gibbs, Hertz, Laplace, Leibniz, Maxwell, Newton, or Shockley, all of whom produced original theories that eventually formed various modern fields of science. However, they do share many of the same traits as the old masters, namely being argumentative, critical thinkers, cynical, eccentric, sharply observant, rational, and sarcastic.

Because the AP is so thoroughly logical, rational, and sane, they cast off social restraints, ignore or gloss over emotional issues, and run roughshod over ethical implications as a matter of course. As such, it’s hard for others not to become emotionally involved and not to take offense at the insulated Spockish outlook of the AP. Therefore, whatever APs share or comment about abstracted mysticism or the apparent madness all around them, it is often met with strong emotions that evoke more arguments and emoting, leading to a negative energy vortex.

To make matters worse, the AP frequently focuses on many polarizing issues going on in the world that evoke strong emotions. As a result, the AP frequently butts heads with others who are as equally passionate as they are, regarding whatever it is that is going on around them or in the larger world.

If that were not enough to stoke conflict, many APs hold opinions on marriage, race, religion, and sex that are so extreme as to represent a parody of right-wing or left-wing bigotry. As such, APs are the stinking armpit of political debates that strike ire among their opponents.

For all these reasons, those who are circumspectly wise may take due efforts to avoid getting sucked into the eviscerating implications of associating with the AP.

Fortunately, some APs recognize the importance of maintaining good rapport with others and take themselves to task to tone down their rhetoric. Otherwise, they tend to withdraw or else surround themselves with agreeable or compliant persons in order to preserve their own microcosm of reality.

The Two Types of Armchair Philosophers

There are basically two types of Armchair Philosophers, the extroverted type, and the introverted type. Archie Bunker and Jesse Lee Peterson are quintessential models of the extroverted type. Trey Gowdy and Donald Trump also match this image to a large degree. Those fitting the image of the introverted type are Woody Allen, Jordan Peterson, Kevin Samuels, Rollo Tomassi, and Bill Cosby. I’ve included a video of Archie Bunker and Woody Allen as an extreme example of the respective types for those readers who are unfamiliar with these characters. I’ve chosen video excerpts that are short on discourse and long on style in order to give readers a taste of the AP personae and avoid getting caught up in their rhetoric.

The EAPs philosophies are usually built around rough, working-class life experiences, while the IAP’s philosophies are often based on personal challenges or frustrations.

The Extroverted Armchair Philosopher (EAP) – The Bigoted Hawk

The typical EAP has a gruff, overbearing demeanor, largely defined by his principles, purposes, and prejudices. As such, he is trapped by his own mental paradigms, often sincerely believing that he is entirely in the right. He is ill-tempered and frequently berates his long-suffering friends and relatives to “get real” or “fall in line” with his larger world view.

EAPs are gifted with a talent for speech and argumentation, often using hyperboles, malapropisms, sarcasm, and spoonerisms quite effectively.

The Best and Worst of Archie Bunker (Length: 11:55)

The EAP takes great pride in having a resilient Frame that is readily applicable to any situation. In fact, a Frame backed ego is the core value of this type. When his Frame fails in the face of sweeping changes, undeniable evidence, or a mass consensus of disagreement, the EAP copes with the situation by losing his temper, mouthing his poisons, and looking for a scapegoat to fix the blame for his own discomfort. He isn’t necessarily an evil man. He’s witty, shrewd, and often times humorous. But he won’t get to the root of his problem, because the root of his problem is his hardness of heart, and he doesn’t know it.

At his best, the EAP is a striving, loving father, and a diligent, conscientious worker.

At his worst, the EAP is prone to drinking, gambling and swearing.

The EAP is the quintessential bigot of the worst sort, mocking and belittling a diverse groups of individuals. Any type of demographic group, including Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Latinos, Asians, Jәws, immigrants, deplorables, rednecks, Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans, Democrats, Fascists, Antifascists, Communists, Marxists, feminists, g@ys, tr@nnys, Catholics, Protestants, Calvinists, Arminians, atheists, PUAs, chads, incels, hypergamous H0es, single mothers, Karens…  — basically anyone or any group who is strikingly unlike himself — may become frequent targets of the EAPs barbs.

As such, the EAP fully embodies the cultural icon of the angry white male.

The prototypical Karen is the female equivalent of the EAP.

A Christian EAP may take pride in being religious, even if he rarely reads the Bible, prays, or attends church services. Accurate psychoanalyses using Biblical truths can be stinging, and even when he misquotes the Bible, the intended eisegesis can still ring true and hit the intended mark.

The Introverted Armchair Philosopher (IAP) – The King of the Mole Hill

The best of the IAPs can be very intriguing stand-up comedians. Thus, the virtuosity of the IAP archetype is shown through Woody Allen. They often seem to be lost in their own little world, but in fact, they are quite talented in writing and forming debate-style arguments, and are not as out of touch as they might appear. They are skilled in maintaining concentration and may be talented in playing cards and board games, and in performing magic tricks.

Woody Allen Montage (Length: 11:04)

It should be noted that Allen was very unlike other comedians of his day. He acted “normal”, dressed casually, and made no attempt to project a stage “personality”. Allen spoke to his audiences in a gentle and conversational style, often appearing to be searching for words, although he was well rehearsed and he did not improvise. His jokes were created from life experiences, and typically presented with a dead serious demeanor that made them funnier.

The subjects of Allen’s discussions were rarely topical, political, or socially relevant. Most of his monologues did not discuss then-current events such as civil rights, women’s rights, or the Cold War. In this aspect, Allen’s example presents a valuable lesson to us in adapting frame — that one should avoid controversial topics such as religion and politics when surrounded by casual acquaintances.

Later comedians, such as Bill Cosby, Rodney Dangerfield, and Andrew Dice Clay coopted certain aspects of Allen’s style with great effect.

A mature IAP who doesn’t shy away from hot button topics can offer a biting, brutally honest, and satirical commentary on the cultural and psychological tenor of the times. When the IAP is confident and socially well adjusted, he can come off as a dark genius or mastermind.

At worst, the IAP is an anxious, fretful, insecure, intellectual, nervous nebbish (as Allen parodies in his acts). If he is sufficiently forward and expressive of his desires, he can fit the popular image of a sexual pervert, m0lester, or ped0ph!le.

If he chooses to openly display any of the above negative traits, he is not always well received or understood by his audiences. But in spite of his many social faux pas, the IAP finds redemption in his honest incisive truth telling, which in itself draws understanding, respect, and popular appeal, and is oftentimes comical.

It is not uncommon for IAPs to have had an estranged relationship with an authoritarian, ill-tempered mother who served to model their views of the world and hone their habit of forming debate strategies from their youth.

Virtues of the Armchair Philosopher

The virtues of the Armchair Philosopher (if present) are his authenticity, gut level honesty, being forthright in his opinions, and having a master class resilient Frame. APs can be effective mentors and iconic fathers if they have their act together and can walk the talk.

Some APs are quietly beloved figures to much of middle America. Even groups and races of people targeted by an AP can genuinely like or respect the character of the AP if his logic is sound and his presentation is exceptional.

APs can garner love, grace, and even respect if their world view fits the values and interests of their audiences, or if they are open to changing their views when another individual touches their heart or treats them right.

Vices of the Armchair Philosopher

The vices of the Armchair Philosopher (some of which are almost always present) are…

• Intransigence
• A harsh demeanor
• Stubborn cynicism
• Being a $h!t magnet
• Arrogance and pride
• Being prone to racism
• Being prone to bigotry
• Being continually annoying and difficult to deal with
• Having poor personal habits, such as drinking, smoking, cussing, gambling…
• Appearing to be (and sometimes really are) sexists, misogynists, perverts, etc.

The major spiritual fault that is often present in APs is that they are completely absorbed in their own minds, hard hearted, seldom engage from the heart, and therefore live in fear of being rolled by someone with a sharper wit. APs would do well to evaluate the effect they have on others, and identify exactly what is working towards their best interests.

Conclusions

As you can see, the Armchair Philosopher is all Frame, and little else. All other facets of his Masculinity (Honor, Authority, Respect, Purpose) are riding on his strength of Frame. Depending on the issue and the context, his willingness to follow through on what he professes to believe (and therefore not lose frame by being a hypocrite) may also play a factor.

The archetypical APs are…

• Frequently blue collar
• Generally disagreeable
• Self-sufficient but not really
• Logical but not very reasonable
• Entranced within their own microcosm
• Either strongly liked, or vehemently disliked by others.
• Frequently at odds with family members and close associates.
• Men who have had a very difficult life, or a traumatic experience in their youth (being bullied, parental divorce, physical or emotional abuse, military combat, etc.).
• Prone to think, do, and say as they please, which tends to set them outside the common boundaries of ethical decency. This can turn out to be either a virtue or a vice.

Because of the APs well-honed mastery of the reframe, and their well thought out philosophies based on their genuine appreciation of how it is versus how things are supposed to be, there’s a lot to be learned from these individuals about maintaining Frame.

Masculinity Rating

Frame is the make-it or break-it character trait for either type and is therefore the predominant determinant of one’s masculinity. So an AP with a strong frame may appear more masculine than what is suggested in the rating below. Also, Authority, Respect, and Purpose appear as strong suits, especially for the EAP.

Extroverted Armchair Philosopher	Introverted Armchair Philosopher
Strength (other than Frame): 0-2 Honor: 5-8 Authority: 8-10 Respect: 5-10 Purpose: 7-10 Average Score: 6.5	Strength (other than Frame): 0-2 Honor: 3-6 Authority: 6-8 Respect: 2-6 Purpose: 4-8 Average Score: 4.5

Related

• Bill Cosby 49 (1987) [YouTube video]
• Ain’t it Cool News: Woody Allen Casts Louis CK *And* Andrew “Dice” Clay In His Untitled 2012 Project! (2012-6-4)
• Σ Frame: Don’t Admit Her Argument (2018-3-19)
• Σ Frame: The Objectivity of Offense Constitutes Respect (2018-5-6)
• Σ Frame: Breaking the Fifth Wall – A New Protocol for Post-Truth Debate (2018-6-13)
• Engineering and Technology: Great polymaths of history: all-round genius (2019-5-21)
• Σ Frame: The Battle of the Prophets (2020-3-17)
• Jordan Peterson: YouTube Channel