@Zetherin,
Wittgenstein is the major influence to my disdain toward certain kinds of philosophizing. If I notice any of the following I become suspicious and spiteful (in varying degrees); I'm not wholly indiscriminate with my animosity:
- Platonicity
- Grandiose Existentialism (High school existentialist) -- "What's the meaning of it all?"
- Embellishing and speculative metaphysics
- Vulgar Postmodernism
- Vulgar relativism
- Armchair philosophizing
- Antagonism to proper philosophizing
- Philosophy as a matter of history (so-and-so says as if authoritative (no personal reflection on it, nothing substantive from one's own mouth))
- Philosophy as a matter of anthropology
- Philosophizing under the Scientific (Method)
- Implicit or explicit grotesque abuses of logical grammar
- Game Show Ethics
- Flagrant poetics as philosophy
I could explain them all, and this list certainly is not exhaustive. This, though, for the most part, is what I consider "grab-assing." But to immediately address "armchair philosophizing": I mean a particular thing by this, which is the
strict sense in which the logical positivists and Kant meant. "Armchair philosophizing" under their view was any kind of philosophizing that
shamelessly flouted the (weak) verification principle in making (obviously)
empirical statements a priori. So, propositions like "Everybody's subconscious determines who they will love." This is obviously an empirical proposition. Its truth-conditions, whether it has any (given that "subconscious" needs real definition), surely cannot be known a priori.