/lit/ - Literature

>>22652721
I can't agree with almost anything in this post. Analytic logic started in neo-Kantian logical positivism that was also materialistic and scientistic, conceptualizing itself as a "handmaiden of (physical) science." English analytic philosophy also identified itself with the British empiricist tradition founded partly in modern scepticism, also construed by analytics as scientistic (Locke, Hume). Lloyd Gerson defines the "Urplatonism" underlying all basically Platonic philosophy as a rejection of empiricism, materialism, nominalism, scepticism, etc.

Even the few analytics who were really logical realists, like possibly Frege, were really more Leibnizian rationalists than Platonic in any meaningful way. Plato is a mystic who believes that the ideas we intuit participate in the natural structure of the world and that we have immortal souls that reincarnate. He also wrote mystical cosmologies. What does that have to do with analytic philosophy essays downstream of 1890s formalist logic, applied to "logical analysis" of the basic bitch ethical problems thought up by postwar British liberals?

Also analytic philosophy is largely nominalist since the ordinary language / linguistic turn after the breakdown of Ayer/Wisdom style Vienna positivism. The one reversal of this is Kripke, who is a retard and doesn't even come close to Plato in any meaningful way.