/lit/ - Literature

>>2113241
No, I'm just tired of getting shit from losers who decide to wax critical and then get all burthurt when they're shown the idiocy of their of position making. If someone had a good idea that they submitted politely, in the first place, I'd argue it politely with them, as I've shown throughout my posting history.

You started this, by deciding to say something stupid and non-constructive, so you can take the butthurt and keep the moral low ground as far as everyone's concerned...

>>2074465


>3. Naturalism and Quine are for turbo-nerds.
Do I need address with any focus? Not really. Quine's Naturalism should gain somewhat in currency in the future, depending on how Kant gets criticized in the next 50 years. If it doesn't, there are undoubtedly good reasons for it, chief of all that it relegates textual based disciplines.

>4. Most people who use the phrase "ordinary language philosophers" intend to refer to a group that includes Wittgenstein & Ryle and thus are missing Wittgenstein and Ryle's points.
I'm guessing what you're trying to say in pretty smugly vague way is that some people that refer to ordinary language philosophy do so with the misconception that Wittgenstein et al. formed it as a sort of metaphysical grounding for language. Don't patronize me like this. I went meta on this by mentioning Kripke and intensionality philosophy, an extremely reaction to ordinary language philosophy that has informed a great deal of modern analytical thought.

A lesson to be learnt here. Don't fuck with what you haven't read properly. Hopefully, you'll take this package of butthurt as an important lesson and leave if you don't have anything else to say. I don't have the patience for semantic wrangling with 14 year olds today.

>>2054487
What do you expect me to do? They banned my tripcode.

You seem upset