On Asshole Philosophers: Are they needed?; or Who the hell needs corny philosophy?

Betsy Calabaza
3 min readJul 7, 2021


The thing with corny philosophy is that is presents a contextualized scenario where irrational thought is sinful. This is great for building ivory towers of suppression. But it doesn’t do much for practical philosophy.

In practical philosophy, sometimes the answers are irrational, amoral, self-serving. The important thing is that the answers are sound and valid.

In other words, the human mind can mimic universal soundness and validity as it seeks permanent answers to their eternal (bias) questions. The corny philosopher cover their ears to their own biasness and rather take their own opinion as blessed and gifted.

The practical philosopher uses the corny philosopher’s own shortcomings against them because the practical philosopher knows that the ultimate test of soundness and validity is not the leader of the herd but the universal movements that transcend individuality.

How can we transcend the individual and ignore our own bias? We can’t. The corny philosopher deludes themselves and we use this weakness to render them completely impotent.

The agnostic philosopher, not wanting to be corny, listens intently but is careful to be an ass. Devoid of practicality, the agnostic philosopher just sits in judgment. Like an old school teacher that had you in 9th grade for one class and just spends the rest of your school years trying to catch you slipping. Without knowing it, the agnostic philosopher (as cultured and sophisticated as ever) becomes an asshole and not practical.

From the back a retort, “but shouldn’t the agnostic philosopher take their time and really consider the context before being practical?”

No. The question assumes that the “agnostic philosopher” really doesn’t have any bias or rather that their bias is trivial in their decision making. We can’t entertain that the agnostic philosopher has no bias. If there is no bias shown, it’s likely that their bias is really well kept or taken a different form.

For example, nowadays with advances in psychology, we can reach a consensus about human abilities and needs. We know what humans needs at different stages in their life without interacting with them. Human development is studied and their bias is solved.

When you approach someone and run on assumptions and self-interest, the other person may be confused because they’re not on the same page as you. You both have to be epistemologically-synchronized to mentally understand each other’s movements.

If you two are epistemologically-synchronized, then you two understand each other. Let’s say you two don’t speak the same language but we make the claim that you two are synchronized through epistemology. This means that as you two are talking, there is a streaming awareness of “understanding.” Understanding being a process of creating “problems” and “solutions.”

As you talk to the other person, problems present themselves. At the same time, the interaction between the two of you provide solutions that solidify the synchrony between both of you.

If the other person is a manipulator, their behavior is artificial. Their movements are synchronized with you but only because they have you contextualized in a bigger understanding that you’re not a part of. This bigger understanding is propped up based on its own problems and solutions but an understanding you won’t have access to.

How can people be epistemologically synchronized without one being able to take advantage of the other? Who’s to judge and make things right?

addendum: It’s called corny because corn isn’t digested. It passed through your body and comes out the same. Who the hell needs corny philosophy?



Betsy Calabaza

blooms — crazy rants masked as abstract experimental philosophy. s/o CS Peirce