/lit/ - Literature

>>23139081
It's so weird that when given examples (for example I agree Brandom is a trash Hegelian) you go straight to a quality evaluation, as if that has anything to do with the claim that they are classified as analytics. It's also weird that you identify the 1940s conception with a quality conception too. What I meant was a categorization conception. In the 1940s,"analytic philosophy" was (as a historical fact) very tightly identified with logical positivism, super-early American post-positivism like Quine, and Oxford ordinary language philosophy (with Wittgenstein at Cambridge as an annex). Even these two schools were not fully seen as unified. If the British ordinary language folks hadn't gone more or less extinct, and had they broken more decisively and expanded their influence more with the post-Carnap Americans, it's very possible that analytic philosophy would have split into two very separate traditions of philosophy by today. Instead, those Americans have just gradually expanded more and more over domains previously excluded from their program. Remnants of OLP are now fully analytic, even if heterodox, like the Pittsburgh queitists. And you know have historians, ethicists, political philosophers, etc under the analytic big tent. The revival of metaphysics in the 1970s and since would have been seen as anathema by the 1940s analytics, and the way philosophers of science do things is methodologically distinct from those same new metaphysicians. If analytic philosophy hadn't become so big tent, these would be two or three or more different "traditions." These facts have nothing to do with quality judgments (i.e. whether analytic philosophy is or isn't "thrash").
>>23139084
That comment was in response to /lit/ types who think historians, ethicists, etc like I said MacIntyre and so forth are somehow "not analytic." The point is that non-analytic continental philosophy is roughly coextensive with that anon's list of main figures. Nearly everything outside it is analytic, not by default either, but because they actually end up employing a very academic rigoristic "quality control" kind of methodology that the analytics inaugurated, for better or worse (again, this is about categorization not quality judgments). Also discounting the German trends is such a weird way of discounting data about how even more big tent analytic philosophy is becoming. At this point, the Heidegger and Nietzsche scholarship is more allied with the analytic rigorist style than with the French post-structuralists which means there's a real possibility that continental philosophy itself is going to be eaten up by analytic methodology in the next century. Again, this doesn't mean this is GOOD or BAD its just the realistic prediction. So yes, continental philosophy as a whole and geographic regions like Germany ARE being "colonized," the thing to realize is this shows no signs of stopping.
>>23139086
>>23139093
Again, I don't mean a quality claim...

Honest question: did people honestly find this difficult to read? Not asking whether they liked it or not, but did this book really strike you as somehow avant-garde or dense?

First half of the 20th century of philosophy
>analytics: metaphysics is bunk so continental philosophy is bunk!
>continentals: metaphysics is good and makes sense you stupid positivists!
Second half of the 20th century
>continentals: metaphysics is bunk so analytic philosophy is bunk!
>analytics: metaphysics is good and makes sense you stupid postmodernists!
What happened?

I started him with The Archaeology of Knowledge and sense I made a great mistake. What is the best way to read him? Any context you feel is essential?