/lit/ - Literature

start with the greeks durr lol

>>15171052
the response is just to explain the urge/anxiety behind formulating such questions. once you dispel that the question dissolves.

also i hope most of you are trolling.

>>15170917
i'm working on important stuff okay?

>idealism
so solved boring

>>15166443
and he's still a huge retard. shows how useless this is.

>>15170279
there's been wax and waning of particular norms through history. metaphysical inflation is a big one, but at least it's an issue. as a deflationist about most things i do find a lot of this stuff bad philosophy and fluff.

part of my point with 'what it is' is that if you find analytic philosophy to be impoverished in some particular subject, you are welcome to fill that blank with your work.

yes, it's easy to tell a particular piece of work is analytic or not, but it's also a performative sort of norm. i'm just defining it in a narrow way to highlight the fact that it's a live tradition that can be added onto etc, rather than presenting a particular state of it as given.

>>15169940
you should know what the usual description of the norms are, but these descriptions are pretty packed with substantive philosophical commitment and history.

for example, clarity, which includes the move of finely specifying positions, comes from historical linguistic focus on avoiding semantic confusion. this at one point was taken to calling all philosophical problems linguistic problems, but nobody does that now. still, the norm remains.

economy of concepts is another one. this basically cautions the philosopher against theoretical extravagance and inflation of objects/metaphysics. this is a positivist tradition and is correct.

there's also wax and waning attempts at grounding, to common sense in olden days, and to the actual world in modern times.

there's no 'official' codification of this stuff, the level of description i chose is fine for the point i was making.

>>15169852
i mean there's no actual codified style guide to analytic philosophy, it's rather a practiced thing you get drilled in throughout graduate training.

i'm making the distinction between a limit of scope and limit of method/norm because this bears on the question of 'what is analytic philosophy'. it doesn't have identity through subject matter nowadays, but a collection of norms that developed from a common history. basically, a norm that decides what is good philosophy. if you operate within that historical norm, you are doing analytic philosophy. the 'good philosophy' here is not meant to impart value judgement, just to say this is what the discipline is organized around.

although i do think the norms are correct.

>>15169814
it's obviously loaded, but i explained the load already.

historically, analytic philosophy came to pass as a reflection on the limits and role of philosophy. it was at one point a distinct "research programme" with the goal of defining what is and what isn't properly within scope of thought. that has been abandoned and what you are left with is a set of standards for what constitutes good and productive philosophical work.

now these terms are obviously and intentionally loaded. i am accepting that analytic philosophy has norms etc. but these are not arbitrary or unreflected choices.

within this framework you can basically do anything you want, subject wise.

>>15169724
it's restrictive on the method/standard of works produced, but not the scope.

>>15169337
i mean i could say analytic philosophy is about deciding what is good philosophy, but that would give the appearance of it being a restrictive and meta focused discipline. this would not be accurate as people can study all kinds of things as long as they are doing actually substantial work. there's no limits set on what you can pursue per se.

>>15169541
undergrad doesn't matter much. if your family is rich and connected go ahead.

don't study philosophy as a profession unless you are really good at it and can have some meaningful contribution. it's already too full of fluff types.

>>15169465
at least make it interesting by talking about 'the world' as a move in set theory

>>15169352
im just talking about the part where he says, gist of it anyway, the boundaries of the world is outside of the world. taken in another way, 'the world' is a different class of object than any ordinary object found within the world, and it's a second order sort of reflection. i won't say it's a meaningless question, just that there's no method towards answering it.

taleb is a stats guy who's not that good at stats.
peterson is a retard and exposes clinical psychology as pretty low tier.
zizek is just terrible.
dont know who the other one is.

>>15169319
the need to ask that kind of question is itself a confusion, about the nature of that question and the limits of philosophy. read your tractatus.

this is screenplay theory by syd field. it's mostly a film thing.

>>15169256
i didn't dodge the question. im basically explaining why asking that question is bad philosophy like you are 5.

>>15169267
whatever you want to study, or do. 'analytic philosophy' isn't restrictive on scope of these. it just won't pretend you can do everything solely from your derpy 'system'

i see people complaining about analytic philosophy being boring and lacking content. but this is mostly sourced from a misunderstanding of the role of philosophy so conceived.

analytic philosophy doesn't so much restrict your scope of reflection as it sets philosophy's role as a specialized one, rather than philosophers being given some kind of superior position over other specialized disciplines in a 'grand ponderer' position. this is not to say there's no productive interaction with other fields, or that you can't talk about 'non-philosophical' issues. just git gud and you can contribute.

>>15169154
just because a question can be asked doesn't mean it's well formed. in this case, you want to set some rules for inquiry about the natural world, such as evidence and rules of reasoning. i don't want to assert that, apriori, we won't ever know something like 'why the world exists', just that following the correct scientific methodology would never even lead you to ask a question like that.

my preferred way of looking at this is to see asking about the world as a different sort of question as asking about any particular state of affairs in the world, in the style of tractatus.

>>15169124
if you do not examine the tools with which you grasp at certain questions, maybe you are grasping at illusory problems. reflecting on the basis of knowledge and inquiry can make those tasks better in all kinds of ways. among which is recognizing why asking 'why the world exists' is a dumb question.

>>15169039
yea at least he knows not to ask a dumbass question like "explain why the world exists."

that question is obviously outside of the grasp of humanity. be a little more humble.

>>15168946
i find this post hilarious because it exposes plato etc studies as a cottage industry of little value