/lit/ - Literature

>>23139679
>The creed of the logical positivists and its legacy offers the only viable definition of analytic philosophy I am aware of
If, as you claim, you are "a real world academic," and you're willing to define analytic philosophy this way, you're a really shit academic, because it's just not accurate to how analytic philosophy is understood in the 2020s. The rest of everything you say comes down to shit no good academic would say. And I say that as someone who is a real world academic. I don't know or care if you're bluffing about even being one. But that much can be said. I also hate that you, like the other anon, tend to be stuck with these value-laden judgments when arguing with a purely categorical claim. Value matters, but I'm not the one arguing analytic philosophy is "better" than continental philosophy, or that the analytic future is "better" than some alternative future. It just feels like you and the other anon are intentionally or otherwise muddling two distinct issues and it baises you both completely in how you imagine the future or even the present. And as a result, to even make your reasoning look defensible, you resort to such garbage claims as "analytic philosophy only conceptually makes sense in terms of anti-metaphysics." Analytic metaphysics has been dominant for fifty years now. This is why I say the conception might have been right in the 1940s, but is not right in the 2020s. I don't hate, in fact quite like, continental philosophy (which is why when the OTHER anon started attacking the French and the Germans of today, I defended them too). As for the English "bias," this isn't because I speak English but because there is evidence to show that Anglophone philosophy is more dominant in non-Anglophone philosophy departments these days than Francophone philosophy, or at least in the competitive high quality schools. If you're only going to focus on small liberal arts colleges, you may get more Francophone stuff, I actually don't know but I'm willing to concede that. But it's not going to be true of the top universities worldwide, which is a good enough basis for answering the question of which tradition is dominant. So far I have no clue on what metric the supposed "downfall" of analytic philosophy is being measured. It's expanding, not shrinking. Pluralist departments love adding continentals for purposes of dialogue, but there isn't some sort of epidemic of once analytic departments fully turning to French continental philosophy or something like that.

Sometimes the two sides say the same things. For example, Deleuze's difference is pretty similar to Geach's relative identity. What are some other cases?

>>21853396
Did this fascist motherfucker just say something arboreal around me

What do you think about Deleuze?

Explain Deleuze to me right fucking now. I'm not fucking kidding.

You called?

ask this guy

On anthropomorphism: Isn’t, in fact, one problem with anthropomorphism that we tend to anthropomorphize ourselves as humans; that is, that we misunderstand a large part of human activity – which in fact connects us with pre-verbal, pre-linguistic, pre-“subject” lifeforms – in terms of a specific model of (rational, intentional, emotional) subjectivity? The “immanence” of life in Deleuze, being as affect rather than affection (only a few aspects of our being are made conscious to ourselves as “subjects” by being interpreted, by ourselves, as “us” acting and feeling in particular ways. What Deleuze calls always being a life rather than “my” life. We relate, communicate, act, intuit, in ways that are not dependent upon a specific “manhood” but on being material, biological force. So, often when we describe animals in anthropocentric terms, the real mistake is not inscribing them with human likeness, but rather our assumption that these behaviors we seek to describe are in some way exclusively human in the first place; and, even in describing human behavior (and our own!) we make the very same mistake of anthropomorphism, that is, in only accepting a specific kind of subjectivity as being related to agency, communication, etc. etc.

>and my rhizome

If you think about it, 4chan is pretty much a rhizomatic body without organs. I think he would have liked 4chan.

Why did Deleuze hate Israel?

>mindfucks you, kills you, then rapes the corpse

Ok, seriously now. What was he trying to say? Every book I've tried to read about him just turns into a meaningless word slurry.