/lit/ - Literature

>>18411707
>Their critique is some of the most valid I've seen, yet
Anon you are a bit of a midwit actually. I do actually like you because of this sentence, but it also reveals what makes you a bit of a midwit, so take this response as counsel, not as an insult. If you're smart enough to recognize valid critique, but then find yourself still fed up with something people said because it lacks the pretty sparkly aesthetics you prefer, you've been somewhat filtered by philosophy. What's weird is that you somehow know at some deeper level that you have, because of the sentence I quoted, but at some surface level you don't own up to it. My advice is to stop looking at philosophy like that, it's larping and typical /lit/ midwitism. Be someone who will make a change. Go read analytics and craft a synoptic vision of the good things they've said, and integrate it with your favorite continental/otherwise insights if you'd like.
>Any book to change my mind (unironically) ?
Maybe Rorty if you already like Sellars. He does the integrated vision thing and marries his analytics with his continentals.
>>18411851
>I tried reading Sellars and Brandom and McDowell, and I've tried reading Putnam, Ayer an Quine, but none of them really got me. Carnap is fine in parts and I like some parts of Kripke and Austin's How to do things with words and speech act stuff, and Linguistics is fine also; but just generally, analytic philosophy (if you can still use that term nowadays) is just like a monolith, a block of stone that I can't get around and can't move out of the way, and can't at all ignore.
I wonder if your dissatisfaction is more with the things those people say? But it's hard to tell. Kripke aside, everyone you're reading is a neo-pragmatist or a logical positivist or an ordinary language philosopher. So I'm just left wondering. I think the best way to enjoy analytic philosophy is to get the insights, put them together, and craft a grander total vision like I said earlier.