/lit/ - Literature

>>6047852

One man murders the other and then wishes for the Genie to cover it up. Later in life, as an old man, he reflects on what would have happened if he decided to share the wish with his friend.

>>6047898
I know right?

>>6047865

Elaborate on that...

>>6047760
Do you have a problem with this?

>>6047399

I would like to play "if you show me yours I'll show you mine" but I wouldn't expect you to have anything to back up anything you are saying given my experience with this god awful board.

If you want examples regarding Rorty read "Analytic and conversational philosophy" It's a rather short essay but if I quote-mined it it wouldn't work as well as if you had just read the lines in context of the entire essay.

I won't give examples regarding the other subject because you're probably too fucking stupid to understand for one and I would have to write a 30 page paper on it for two.

If you have an argument against me present it or shut the fuck up.

>>6047358

Richard Rorty is a perfect example of someone who barely knows jack shit about the history of philosophy, to name one. He uses words like "Platonism" and "Hegelianism" as buzzwords.

Pick any given essay written by an analytic and it will make no mention of the history of philosophy whatsoever. Analytic philosophy is methodologically ahistorical, and if you know the history of philosophy the elementary nature of the problems the analytics are fumbling around with is laughable.

>>6047196

Philosophy refers to too many kinds of thinking for what you said to be true of it.

>>6047338

Bertrand Russell's history of philosophy is not very good.

>>6047323

Prove me wrong and I will recant. It has been my experience that analytics completely disregard the history of philosophy. Everything I have read from them and all of my encounters with analytic philosophers seem to confirm this. If they do have any experience with the history of philosophy, this is usually limited to having had studied Kant or Hume.

If you can prove me wrong, like I said, I will recant my views.

You're probably just arguing in a vacuum though and have nothing to back up your arguments.

>>6047301
>asking me to prove a negative

The burden of proof is on you to show me that most of them don't.

Good luck.

I would love to be proved wrong.

>>6047188

There are counter-examples to any generalization such as the one I put forth.

Most analytics completely ignore the Greeks, and while it might be trendy now for them to give their acceptance to Aristotelian virtue ethics, there is little to no understanding of the Greeks outside of the field of ethics.

>>6046988
>most of the contemporary historical work is done by people with analytic backgrounds

In the english speaking world. And they do a pretty shit job at it for the most part.

>What do you think "they" promised to do?

Resolve or dissolve the problems of philosophy through the application of mathematical logic. Do you not know the history of analytic philosophy or something?

>even most of the work done on historical "continental" thinkers is done by people with analytic backgrounds

Look, it's just a fact about the way philosophy is structured in the english speaking world that you are forced to get trained in analytic philosophy to get a philosophy education.

>while continental figures only address one another in order to provide a foil for their own views

Maybe the big ones like Deleuze and Badiou, there are plenty of studious continental scholars.

>Most analytic philosophers don't see it as a "movement"

and they are in bad faith.

>most of them do take ancient philosophy seriously.

This is news to me. I've scarcely met any who take it seriously or even know that much about it.

>>6047078

This was what I was trying to demonstrate.

>>6047062

We finally come full circle!

>spend an entire thread trying to back up my position

>still getting accused of baseless posturing by these fucking fedoras

Have fun discussing Hegel guys I'm out of here for real now.

>>6047044

Not the sciences, reality.

>>6047027

The Good is ineffable, for it is beyond Being. This makes it hard to talk about without falling into mysticism. Therefore, this is the sort of realization that everyone must walk their own path towards, and this is a very long process. The more you learn about the true nature of reality the more it will make sense. We would have to choose a different starting point though and proceed in kind.

>>6047012

This guy is right. I'm leaving.

>>6047009

Go back to the Greeks.

>>6046977

No

>>6046980

I like you. You actually know your Christianity. Too bad we are destined to continually talk past each other, ships passing in the night.

Go on your way and rejoice in your lord. We'll figure out who's right about this one way or another. Hopefully for the both of us it won't matter in the end.

>>6046984

So you grant that there are formal objects and that this is what we are referring to when we speak of what it is to be a thing?

and furthermore, that this is apprehended by the intellect and not through "empirical datum"?

>>6046941

Definitions are used to know...formal objects...right?

>>6046962

>why are you in this thread if you believe in the socratic method.

>>6046963

You're pretty mad dude.

>>6046939

Sorry, no can do.

>>6046929

Philosophy is the art of being so stupid that you make people confused about what they think they know completely clearly.

>>6046919

The moderns have needed no help in making themselves look like idiots.