/lit/ - Literature

I can't make sense of this.
So this guy claims a sign can have a Sinn without having a Bedeutung. How would that ever work? Isn't the Sinn defined as a way of the Bedeutung being given? If you can have Sinn without Bedeutung, what would make be thing that the Sinn is a way of being given of in these cases?
His own examples don't seem to add up. Odysseus has no Bedeutung in the form of a real person, but I don't see the problem here. The Sinn that the sign 'Odysseus' has, is expressed/intelligible in the context of fiction. So Odysseus does have a Bedeutung, but only as a fictional character.
For reference:
http://www.gavagai.de/HHP31.htm
http://brianrabern.net/sensereference.pdf

Is formal logic really relevant for doing philosophy?

Is philosophy continuous with the natural sciences, or does it deal with fundamentally different questions?
Is the historical development of philosophy itself relevant in answering contemporary questions?

A lot of people here seem to dislike the analytic tradition of philosophy. Why is this the case?
It seems to me that contemporary analytic work is by far the most readable and comprehensible, and covers the whole range of traditional philosophy. A likely explanation is that most people probably don't read the major changes that have happened since the 60s or so - and they end up equating logical positivism with analytic philosophy as a whole. But it's apparent that anglophone departments are not doing philosophy in the way conceived by Russel or Moore, and their fairly dogmatic positions on the role and limits of philosophy have been largely abandoned.
For instance, metaphysics is a respectable discipline now, as well as various revivals of ancient ethics and re-assessment of medieval thinkers. I think it's safe to say that "analytic philosophy" conceived as a rigid logicism that only clarifies arguments and plays haindmaiden to science, is a useless and outdated conception.

>>8235323
>it's hard to do better than Plato/Socrates/Aristotle

uhm excuse you?

>>6574741
Jo jo jo! Vat's goink on in zis tread mein negers?

Is this man the most underrated philosopher of all time? I don't think anyone has made such an impact on the world yet gone so unnoticed.

Anyone know where to start with philosophy of language? Without just jumping to Wittgenstein or Frege.