/lit/ - Literature

>>9509860
I fucking hate those two terms, continental and analytic. As if there are species of philosophy.
There's shitty continental philosophy, and shitty analytic philosophy, as well as some good continental philosophy, and good analytic philosophy. And of those that are good, they come together quite nicely. So in the end continental and analytic are just empty terms that tell you jack shit about the concepts they circumscribe. If anything the whole dichotomy is harmful because it supposes an attitude of irreconcilability between the two when this is not the case.
But the most infuriating thing is that continental philosophy includes the germanic shitters like heidegger and schopenhauer, but not the church fathers or any scholastics. Not that I would want them to lumped in with schoppy. But it's as if the term itself was invented solely in an ignorant attempt by post-enlightenment critics to delineate patristic philosophy from the contemporary kind. And as a result schopenhauer is constantly spitting out imprecise garbage that Aquinas already explained in much greater detail and precision, but nobody will ever know because medieval/scholastic philosophy does not belong to the club of 'important philosophy' that these german brainlets occupy even though medieval philosophy is far more relevant to critical theory than this ridiculous 'dude feelings' vs 'dude verification' slump we've fallen into, meanwhile forgetting -real- metaphysics because of our unwarranted disgust for anything pre-enlightenment-but-post-ancient that we inherited from our brainlet forefathers who were busy reading voltaire and buying into romanticism and shit. Not that romanticism is not good, it was definitely a movement forward, but by rebelling against the church it was rebelling against something central to itself. Hegel knew this ofc, but what are you gunna do.

The way I see it, materialism is inherently reductionist regarding the mind, consciousness etc. Since after all consciousness isn't matter, you can't assert that there is only matter and that consciousness exists at the same time. Likewise you can't say that consciousness is matter without discarding the immediacy of it, because you are looking at it from without.
So then what's the deal with "non-reductive" materialism? All I see are people asserting these things which simply can't be due to the inherent nature of the matter, which is total incommesurability between consciousness and the material world.