/lit/ - Literature

>>14505818
based donny boy, totally support war with the shias in Iran

>>14505803
Yeah, but it is effective at keeping anglos away from proper philosophy. I could see the value in that.

>>14506712
unironically this

>>14506712
>>14506720
Cringe Humeophobes.

>>14506732
What does Hume have to do with a philosophical movement that started in the 20th century?

>>14505818
God, why does our glorious leader have to be so based. It’s emabarasing.

>>14505803
>Quine
>"Physics investigates the essential nature of the world, and biology describes a local bump. Psychology, human psychology, describes a bump on the bump."
lol what a fucking idiot.

>>14506732
>Based Hume
>an an**o

Analytical philosophy requires having a solid grasp of logic, being able to follow complex argumentation etc. Some Continentals have no patience for carefully evaluating arguments, all they care about is how original and fancy the ideas sound. If they lived during the scientific revolution they would condemn Chemistry for being too "verbose" and "dull" unlike magic and alchemy which is "fascinating" and "profound". That doesn't apply to all Continentals but it applies to a lot of "Analytical philosophy is not real philosophy" types.

>>14507805

>>14506831
he’s right though

>Analytic philosopher: "I use logic to establish FACTS, something you wouldn't know about pleb"
>Okay but what establishes the reliability your logic
>Analytic philosopher: "Uhhh logically it's logically coherent that logic is logical? Duh?"
>No, see, what I mean is, how do you derive the certainty of logic from logic? That seems circular? Reducing words and propositions to squiggles doesn't self-evidently purify communication of ambiguity.
>Analytic philosopher: "Hahaha he can't even use the three squiggles! Bro do you even know logic? Logically speaking, logic is logic"
>Listen, do you understand what the metaphysical implications would be of someone truly creating Leibniz's characteristica universalis? It's not like this would explode into a billion different dinky philosophy departments each practicing their own subvariant. The development of logic belies its very claim to being a characteristica universalis, because the premise is that it would be self-evident. You can't even self-evidently demonstrate your norms of self-evidence.
>Analytic philosopher: "Dude you have no idea what you're talking about, check out these squiggles dude, it PROVES that proof is the proof of proof"
>So are you a Leibnizian or not?
>Analytic philosopher: "Dude... start form the beginning. Read Frege's Begriffsschrift, then get back to me"
>..You mean the one where he's a naive platonist rationalist? Are you a platonist rationalist?
>Analytic philosopher: "You don't even understand the squiggles"

>>14507805
magic and alchemy are based doe

>>14508426
>I AM SILLY
so this is the power of continental philosophy..

>>14506766
He’s an anglo

>>14508548
that frog goes from pixelated to 4K HD
>2/10

>>14510327
>Scotts are A*glos
Try again Nigel

>>14508426
related

>>14510521
Based.

>>14505803
>the field is recycled and reused concepts that are often twisted and exploited with varius retard mathematical logic tricks
You are correct in that quite a lot of it is exactly that, but if you don't understand the potential utility in exploring those concept in such a manner you are undoubtedly a brainlet.

>>14506831
That's based though. Idealist cringe is as soi as it gets.

Analytic philosophy is about understanding understanding. It's concerned with the instruments of thought language, logical representation, rather than the applications of thought. It has resulted in numerous machineries to refine and determine accurate thinking, propositional calculi, mathematical logics.

It all sounds arcane and pointless, but when you learn it you start really seeing how misbegotten and sloppy most people's thinking is and it becomes sharply evident why the world is in such a sad state. The common confusion of the sense and reference of a term for instance is the cause of many fruitless outrages.

Continental philosophy in contrast rests on a lazy intuitionism. It takes all this for granted and proceeds to the interesting bits, taking on assumption that whatever the philosopher is working with is a valid scrying device. It talks about the juicy stuff (ethics, psychology, relationships, politics, power, economics) but with sloppier and more poorly defined frameworks.

>>14506831
Psychology is a completely useless field of virgin projections fortified by sample bias

Why would the path to true enlightenment necessarily have to tickle your primitive dopamine circuits for interestingness?

Lol. Has it ever occurred to you that not everything is supposed to be a fucking ontological fairy tale. You're like a woman

>>14511518

This is based and correct from a fellow high-IQ anon. The only good continental philosopher is Nietzsche because he outed every other conty fag as being driven by their own gay emotions

>>14512304
>>14512302
>when it clicks that analytic philosophy is a dopamine rich ontological fairy tale
if you haven't reached this state you aren't enlightened

>>14512283
kek'd at this

>>14507805
B-but f-faith...

>>14512283
Continental : sweet tasting trash food
Analytic : exactly what one needs.

>>14512408
whatevr u say

>>14511518
Undergrad who has only ever studied analytic philosophy.

>>14512408
You need flavorless hexagons? For what, incredibly dull board games?

>>14512408
Seething wagie must eat hexagons and nutrient paste to maximise productivity. Please stay in your cage.

>>14506831
>Physics investigates the essential nature of the world

YIKES

>>14507805
I dont need a fucking truth table to evaluate the logical consistency of an argument, that’s just masturbatory, self-indulgent pedaticism akin to arguing over a grammatical dilemma at bookwriting seminar. Logic should ultimately be a means, not an end in itself

>>14508426
Tbh the visual medium through which they relay their philosophy is incomprehensible to my brainlet mind, got straight As in my logic course until that bullshit came up

>>14513880
>conty calling others masturbators

>>14513892
Philosophy is rife with intellectual masturbation in every one of its subfields, but analytic philosopher take the cake, then drench it in cum frosting

>>14513892
jesus christ dude take your tenor gifs back to facebook, clueless fucking retard

>>14512309
Nietzsche predates the split.

>>14514215
The analytics usually don't care about post-kantians though.

>>14505803
yeah its garbage, just stick to continentals.

>>14512309
Lol, no

>>14514215
he dosen't, Arthur Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are both Continental Philosophers. Some people might even consider Hegel a continental Philosopher

>>14514460
>Hegel a continental Philosopher
both are a giant tantrum against hegel

>>14513880
Reddit tier analysed is annoying. I was explaining the Creation account in platonic terms to an atheist, taking after Philo's interpretation, and he just sperged by spamming "x fallacy" "y fallacy" and "z fallacy"
They werent even formal logic fallacies and he misapplied them anyway. I blame the analytic school for cultivating that retarded shit

>>14514468
>Continental Philosophers all have to agree with eachother

Thats not what im saying. Nietzsche threw a tantrum against Schopenhauer as well. Karl Marx was continental too and his Philosophy was opposed to the ideas of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, despite what Deleuzecucks would have you believe.

Its the style of philosophy that defines continentalism, that it is usually existential and/or political. The questions continentals ask and try to answer are superior to those raised by Analytic philosophers

>>14514507
>logic imprisons me in its stifling correctness
deal

>>14514519
Science and Logic cant answer the meaning of life

>>14514541
>the meaning of life

>>14514541
science can laser target the part of the brain that demands meaning and remove it, such that you'll suffer less desiring the unobtainable.

>>14514490
>he misapplied them anyway

When logic is subject to rigorous scrutinization and study, eventually defined by an account of its basic components (fallacies, argumentative forms), idiots will start memorizing it by rote without any exercise of their critical faculties.
What you encountered is the final result of this process.

>cucktinentals lashing out emotionally because they can't into logic
Stick to writing poems desu

>but what about my DASEIN
wow scientists btfo

>>14514622
This but unironically
Go read another Daniel Dennett book telling you that you arent conscious

>>14508373
>implying the positing of the world in a degree, if correct to do at all, can be anything other than the positing of a value and therefore localised indefinitely on the divine, or the psychological
Physics may allow for our existence, but it would be silly it "IS" our existence. Quality vs quantity is important here.

>>14511507
>implying idealism is the only alternative
Ahh yes, Nietzsche and Heidegger, the famous idealists.

>>14512242
He was using the term to mean human experience you brainlet.

Secondly, you haven't read Jung.

>>14513640
Yes.

>>14514548
That's an assumed self identifying psyche based ontology.

Pathetic retard doesn't see human nature.

>>14505803
Witt was continental though

>>14514686
>inventor of the truth table was continental
brainlet take

>>14514764
He moved past that autism when he abrogated it. Even Russel thought he became too continental.

>>14505803
I've actually enjoyed Wittgenstein, but I can imagine your frustration. You're not wrong, imagine if you used a truth table for every single time you've talked

>>14513917
Masturbation helps understanding one's own body. So does philosophy

>>14511518
It's just a rehash of the quantitative vs qualitative dialectic between the two.
I still won't talk any of these philosophers seriously unless they address the foundation questions: where does logic come from and why does it always hold true in all Universes.

Either they come up with something perfectly *precise* on their own (doubtful do to our material limitations) or they acknowledge that the human condition is flawed and we have to borrow from God for wisdom. Most of contemporary philosophy boils down to homophilia (love of humanity) to a hubristic fault. All the truly wise philosophers found enlightenment, theosized, and fucked off from they gay Earth.

>>14513880
Analytical philosophers don't even use mathematical logic very often, I don't know why you obsess over truth tables so much.

>>14514864
Fucking lol

>>14514864
You don't need to be a philosopher to be a masturbator, but you do need to be a masturbator to be a philosopher.

>>14508426
>Okay but what establishes the reliability your logic
>Analytic philosopher: "Uhhh logically it's logically coherent that logic is logical? Duh?"
That's a retarded strawman, the reliability of logic can be easily explained as being derived from truths by definition. For example the argument 1. All men are mortal 2. Socrates is a man 3. (therefore) Socrates is mortal is necessarily true because the conclusion merely spells out what is already implicit in the premises.
>No, see, what I mean is, how do you derive the certainty of logic from logic? That seems circular? Reducing words and propositions to squiggles doesn't self-evidently purify communication of ambiguity.
You made three non sequiturs here. Firstly, no one has ever argued that the reliability of logic can be established through logical inference. Secondly, no one has ever argued that communication can be completely freed from ambiguity. Thirdly, the reliability of logic is a different matter from the transparency of communication, so you are jumbling two different points together.
>Listen, do you understand what the metaphysical implications would be of someone truly creating Leibniz's characteristica universalis? It's not like this would explode into a billion different dinky philosophy departments each practicing their own subvariant. The development of logic belies its very claim to being a characteristica universalis, because the premise is that it would be self-evident. You can't even self-evidently demonstrate your norms of self-evidence.
Nobody except Leibniz believes that a perfectly transparent language can be created, and he isn't even an analytic philosopher.

Overall your post is a solid 2/10

Analytic? Continental?
Nonsense.
I just read philosophy.

>>14515990
Philosophy? Lmao ok nerd, I only read mystical exegesis.

>>14516022
My library has it's own personal librarian and all of the books from many categories are shelved by the Dewey. I don't take kindly to your ignorance of my taste, kid.

Only a small portion of analytical philosophers are philosophers of language, within the field of philosophy of language only a very very small portion are neo-positivits in the vein of Quine or classical positivists in the vein of Carnap (these are nearly non-existent). You should read some late Wittgenstein, Austin, Ryle, Grice, Searle. By the way why is everyone acting as if OP has actually read Carnap and Quine? Who the fuck would claim Carnap is interesting who has actually read Carnap? It's obvious OP is one of the many Wikipedia experts that plague this board. Never trust anonymous, not even me.