/lit/ - Literature

Nobody gives a fuck about analytic philosophy. Its real core died in the '60s and it's been a "pragmatist" mishmash of ideas ripped off from continental thought ever since.

>Analytic philosopher: "I use logic to establish FACTS, something you wouldn't know about pleb"
>Okay but what establishes the reliability your logic
>Analytic philosopher: "Uhhh logically it's logically coherent that logic is logical? Duh?"
>No, see, what I mean is, how do you derive the certainty of logic from logic? That seems circular? Reducing words and propositions to squiggles doesn't self-evidently purify communication of ambiguity.
>Analytic philosopher: "Hahaha he can't even use the three squiggles! Bro do you even know logic? Logically speaking, logic is logic"
>Listen, do you understand what the metaphysical implications would be of someone truly creating Leibniz's characteristica universalis? It's not like this would explode into a billion different dinky philosophy departments each practicing their own subvariant. The development of logic belies its very claim to being a characteristica universalis, because the premise is that it would be self-evident. You can't even self-evidently demonstrate your norms of self-evidence.
>Analytic philosopher: "Dude you have no idea what you're talking about, check out these squiggles dude, it PROVES that proof is the proof of proof"
>So are you a Leibnizian or not?
>Analytic philosopher: "Dude... start form the beginning. Read Frege's Begriffsschrift, then get back to me"
>..You mean the one where he's a naive platonist rationalist? Are you a platonist rationalist?
>Analytic philosopher: "You don't even understand the squiggles"

>>13625430

>>13104440
What you are saying is transcendental/phenomenological, which is fine by me - I am a transcendental phenomenologist. I DO think that something like Kant's categories could exist, that "pure" logic would be the science of the conditions of possibility of thought in the abstract, and that it's probably our greatest concern as human beings to figure out these abstract conditions. It's just that I don't think Kant's unjustified supposition of his own categories is useful - do you agree with Kant's categories? On what grounds? Nobody has ever taken them seriously.

My problem isn't with someone suggesting a new categorial deduction, for instance like Brentano/Husserl trying to show the noesis of logical simples. My problem is when logicians simply ASSUME that their convenient linguistic constructs (like "predication") are categorial, pure forms of thought itself. You have to justify that shit first. Show me how the fuck you have deduced that your dinky little demonstration, on paper, of why it's immoral for me to take the last slice of pizza, is adequate to the pure categories of ratiocination as such. Don't just jump ahead to the pizza problem and IMPLY that you've given me an apodictically secure deduction.

>>13104468
Should have included pic related. Whoever created this picture is a genius.

>"What is number, metaphysically?"
>analytic philosophers: Metaphysically speaking, 2 is the set of all sets containing 2 things!

How do I compel myself to keep reading this retarded shit? They are obsessed with things like "sets" but they never explain the metaphysical nature of them, just presuming they exist or make sense innately. And every time they realize how retarded they are, which usually takes them 30-50 years, they then "fix" it by making it even more retarded. Or worse, by vaguely appealing to science.

Does analytic philosophy ever get non retarded? How are these people so stupid?

>>12420762