/lit/ - Literature

The only correct philosophy

>tfw the only good "analytic" philosophy either steals from continental thought or just becomes continental anyway

Sellars and Wittgenstein aren't even analytics.

>>14820848
this.

>he hasn't written his treatise bridging analytic and continental thought yet

>>14820940
theyre both trash

>>14820940
>bridging analytic continental and thought
>I will take Plato's systematic elaboration of the limits of dianoia and attempt to put in writing the inherently unwriteable eros of esoteric initiation, and Husserl's science of articulating how to study phenomena as they appear in consciousness, which took him decades to articulate by escaping neo-Kantianism and trying to be as primordially phenomenological as possible, and I will combine these with the naive presumption that thought is structured like a computer whose software is made of English-language logical propositions, neatly divided into cognitive categories like "belief." Then I will subject the whole thing to a modal logic that generates socially retarded and irrelevant truth trees that likewise assume and reify Anglo political categories.

No thanks.

>>14820974
Tell me more about Husserl. He seems really complicated. I hear that there is a ton of dispute over what his philosophy even means, with little agreement.

>>14820974
how do i 'heart' this post

>>14819833
Honestly, can anyone help me out? I am stupid. I tried to ask my philosophy professor what the difference between analytical and continental philosophy was and he just started sweating went to the restroom and responded with "some people think philosophy is just a problem of language, got it?" I feel like I know less now. Community college blows.

>>14821046
Not his fault, it is a really nebulous question and he probably did not want to give you a wrong outlook (otherwise his students would turn into retards who think about everything they read through the analytic-continental distinction).
For the most part you'll start grasping this (mostly stylistic) distinction by reading primary sources.

>>14821046
Philosophy: love of wisdom.
Philosopher: lover/seeker after wisdom.
Wisdom: whatever is reasonable (in line with logic/valid inference) universally over time.

As for the difference -

Analytic Philosophy: the study of logic and language and, in particular, the reasonable limits of logic and language.

Continental Philosophy: the range of philosophies that existed prior to the analytic movement (e.g. Plato and Aristotle). Subjects are diverse, but can include problems both fundamental and general relating to: knowledge, reason, the mind, existence, language and values.

Analytic philosophers tend to believe that truths exist only within set paradigms and that no paradigm is privileged over all the others. Continental philosophers tend to purport the existence of objective, universal truth.

>>14821046
>>14821140
>otherwise his students would turn into retards who think about everything they read through the analytic-continental distinction)
This is a good example >>14821161

>>14821161
LOL

>>14821172
>tend to
Yeah, your reading comprehension sucks ass, pseud.

>>14821046
>>14821140
Anon's reply is a good one, but as someone who believe the continental/analytical divide is more substantive and fundamental than simply stylistic, let me copy-paste from a philosopher's blog:

>If you believe that philosophy reflects continuous progress like the natural sciences, then all the other cultural traits of analytic philosophy follow automatically: expert specialization on small problems; fine-pointed journal articles rather than sprawling books; a fondness for the coining of new technical terminology; an amused toleration for historians of the philosophical craft, who don’t seem to be practicing philosophy themselves; a focus on argument over vision, and on the solid over the ingenious; a vague contempt for literary style as an important element of philosophy, with clarity now the only respected value in writing; a lack of intimidation in the presence of the great thinkers of the past, just as a modern-day engineer would be unlikely to feel intimidated by Thomas Edison, who was great for his time but knew less than an undergraduate engineering major knows today; belief that there is a fairly sharp disciplinary line between philosophy and the other humanities, but that the natural sciences often have much to teach us.

>If by contrast you believe that philosophy moves in recurrent historical cycles of greatness and decline, then all the rules of the continental school immediately follow: the belief that philosophy and its history are not separate; the view that it’s clumsy and gauche to go around looking for “mistakes” in Plato or Descartes in the way that analytics like to do; the ambition to write big systematic books rather than clean, concise professional journal articles; a focus on learning the languages of the great masters of our discipline; a sense of respect for those masters that often slides toward paralyzing intimidation; more interest in the literary dimension of these great masters, who are not just amassing correct propositions but trying to portray a cosmos that sometimes hides from us and can therefore only be addressed indirectly; belief that there is a fairly sharp disciplinary line between philosophy and the natural sciences, but that comp. lit. and psychoanalysis often have much to teach us.

>This is really the root of it, I think, and it entails such a profound difference in the respective conceptions about the nature of truth that reconciliation seems a lot harder than is realized by the hasty attempts to “bridge the gap.” These are, in fact, two deeply incompatible models of philosophy.

-- Graham Harman, https://doctorzamalek2.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/gary-gutting-on-the-analyticcontinental-divide/

note that 'definition' above isn't perfect and other anon is right, just read some primary sources associated with each 'side' and you'll grasp the distinction almost immediately.

>>14819833
No. This:
>>14820974

>>14821140
>>14821175
>NOOO!
>YOU CAN'T JUST CATEGORISE DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHICAL MOVEMENTS
>YOU JUST HAVE TO ""FEEL"" THEM OUT
>NOOOO!!

>>14821161
>>14821188
I appreciate you trying to help out a fellow anon, but please refrain from doing so on this subject matter until you've educated yourself on the matter. Your post seems like it was randomly-generated from a hodgepodge of Intro to Phil papers, that's how off it is.

>>14821208
Was my introductory sentence and greentext illegible on your monitor?

>>14821209
This is just thinly veiled ad hominem on your part. There is nothing inherently wrong with the definitions I provided. The issue here is your hubris in resisting categorisation.

>>14821213
Are you too poor to afford a computer that can load .pngs?

>>14821230
My apologies, I thought you quoted a different post of mine. I am these posts:

>>14820993
>>14821175
>>14821197
>>14821209
>>14821213

>>14821197
This is wank.
>analytic philosophy is clear and to the point; continental philosophy is vast and imprecise
These are value judgements that tell you nothing about the meaning behind the terms or their history.

>>14821244
It's just a quick summary to prima facie identify what tradition a text belongs to. Anon doesn't need to know about the reaction to logical positivism and Husserl for each side, etc.

>>14821255
No it isn't. It's highly personalised conjecture which betrays a clear bias towards analytic philosophy (I said towards not against). The author provides nothing in the way of actual definitions. He simply describes how he perceives each being formatted day to day: journal vs. treatise, willingness to criticise vs. arcane prostration, clarity vs. literary zest. This is useless as a definition.

>>14821208
>movements
Where's their manifesto? Why are Derrida and Husserl in the same tradition? What about Quine and Rorty? Why are Whitehead and Hegel in different traditions?

>>14821300
>a modern philosopher who is also a pedant
shocker

>>14821318
>>YOU JUST HAVE TO ""FEEL"" THEM OUT
Literally from your previous post

>>14821331
>there is only pedantry or muh feels - nothing in between
LOL

>>14821339
Just be honest and admit that you have no clear criterion for this distinction, or, if you have them, state them here.

>>14821280
Again it's just a quick smell test, not a comprehensive definition. I agree it's not so clear cut, but as Glock says there is a real sense of 'family resemblances' we can clearly see. Why do some people prefer Heidegger, Foucault, and Lyotard and others Seller, Quine, and Kripke? I can't clearly demarcate it, personally, as I'm not a phil-major, but the fact is they do in substantive numbers with little crossover.

>>14821280
>>14821417
With that said, I do know just as many people who are better educated than I am on the subject who claim there is no real distinction, so I respect your position even though I disagree, and unfortunately I don't have much more to say on the subject that wouldn't be my uneducated opinion or my quoting of other sources.

>>14820940
Thats the dream anon, thats the dream

>>14820990
Husserl is extremely complicated to the point where even Heidegger struggled with him for years while being close personal friends with him. He wants to figure things out not based on a priori categories or based on weird psychological reductionism but using our most basic relationships with phenomena as a starting point. How do we actually perceive the world, and what can this tell us about ourself, the world, and our epistemic situation within it?

>>14821046
Analytic philosophy is rooted in the early 20th century rejection of Hegelianism in favor of mathematical logic and linguistic clarity. The Continental tradition is more literary in style rather than propositional, draws upon a wide variety of influences, and tends to be less concerned about meticulous quantifying of its claims in favor of large scale projects. The Continental tradition also tends to deal with philosophy as a specifically human endeavor rather than a means to an end.

>>14821161
Continental doesn't extend back to Plato and Aristotle. Anything prior to Hegel would be a stretch to associate with the Continental movement. Its not properly analytic either, but most philosophy departments will simply call it ancient philosophy or even history of philosophy.

>>14821417
I've said it before in other threads and I'll say it again here, there is a lot more cross-pollination that people talk about between the two schools, but its mostly a result of continentals being open minded. Analytics are extremely dogmatic in what they will even deign to read, while most continentals are literate to a reasonable degree in analytic philosophy. I work in a broadly continental area but am perfectly capable of discussing Carnap or Quine. Its rare I'll meet a single analytic who has even cracked the cover of Being and Time or can discuss Hegel without slipping into memes or making some dismissive comment about it being "obscurantist" or "incomprehensible". I'll be the first to say that certain philosophers, mostly continentals, ARE virtually meaningless, like Derrida. His texts are a mess. However, this doesn't mean you dismiss 200+ years of work as a result.

>>14819833
The following video is the best summary I have ever seen of the subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0UswnFUL8E

>>14821573
>I'll be the first to say that certain philosophers, mostly continentals, ARE virtually meaningless, like Derrida.

Thank you, after years of effort and scouring secondary sources, I had given up, and I'm glad to know I am not alone and have tossed the obscurantist terrorist into the trash.

I like Rorty, the lil nigga was a kind soul.

>>14820940
why would I want to bridge Anglo autistic trash pretending to be mathematics for people too stupid to engage with actual mathematics and actual philosophy?

>>14821652
not an analytic philosopher

>>14821636
wtf i understand land now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40kluulLK6Y

>>14821739
Yes, but you also need to watch the supplementary material to understand his eschatology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HHfetsVwlU

There's no real difference between analytic and continental philosophy. This is yet another Anglo ploy and you idiots fell for it.

>>14821573
>Continental doesn't extend back to Plato and Aristotle.
Oh shit, you're right.

>>14819833
seethe and cope thread

>>14821573
>Continental doesn't extend back to Plato and Aristotle

To be fair, I've at least seen some analytics try to deal with the work of Continentals in good faith. I've never seen a continental even try to do it the other way around. There's something about engagement with the Franco-German traditions post-Hegel that has a lobotomizing effect on those who engage with it.

>>14821971
I'm not saying "isn't influenced by". I'm saying that someone who specializes in Plato and Aristotle is not classified as operating within the Continental tradition. They are different schools of thought entirely.

>>14821996
My experience has been the exact opposite but I can definitely imagine some departments where this might be the case.

>>14820848
Yes they are, you don't get to put them in the continental camp just because you like them

>>14822010
>My experience has been the exact opposite but I can definitely imagine some departments where this might be the case.
The academic I engaged with were mostly humanities/cultural studies professors. They tended to treat analytic philosophy as some sort of positivist caricature. Left an unpleasant taste in my mouth, but I'm sure there are some Continentals who want to cast as wide a net as possible, but the whole tradition seems to breed a cynicism that makes good faith engagement with paradigms outside of it's immediate sphere impossible.

>>14822010
That's because people who study Ancient philosophy never go beyond Antiquity. But whomever wants to study, say, Nietzsche, absolutely HAS to study Plato or else you won't know what the fuck is going on.

>>14821161
>Analytic philosophers tend to believe that truths exist only within set paradigms and that no paradigm is privileged over all the others. Continental philosophers tend to purport the existence of objective, universal truth
Spotted the clueless anon

>>14822028
A good litmus test is how committed the particular continental in question is to French thinkers. The more French influence, the more likely they are to misunderstand Analytics.

>>14822032
I don't dispute this. What I'm saying is that nobody would refer to Plato as "continental", as per the other anon's suggestion that "continental" just means something like "anything prior to analytic"

>>14822099
>The more French influence, the more likely they are to misunderstand Analytics.
That's the strange part. France has its own analytic tradition, and Foucault was on good terms with them. It seems the hostility between the two schools has only developed in the English speaking world, particularly in the US.

>>14822126
This. For example, Recanatti is a prime example of a Frenchman widely discussed in Anglo academia due to his contextualist positions.

>>14822036
Philosophers of language *tend to* promote the idea of moral relativism, whereas continentals *tend to* believe in some, potentially sublime, universal truth. I fail to see how this is a controversial statement.

>>14822459
apart from the post structuralists who also promote moral relativism.

>>14822459
The last major survey among academics showed a plurality of analytics were moral realists, and as Braver called it, continental thought is a "festival of anti-realism." Usually.

>>14822520
Speaking of that, I heard that there was another survey planned this year, with many more questions.

>>14821161
> Analytic philosophers tend to believe that truths exist only within set paradigms and that no paradigm is privileged over all the others. Continental philosophers tend to purport the existence of objective, universal truth.
It’s the exact opposite wtf

>>14822587
I know. I mixed up the terms and have been trying to find a way of rationalising it ever since.

>>14822023
Early Wittgenstein agreed with the analytics but late Wittgenstein rejected the conclusions of his earlier works and sided with the continentals.

>>14822459
>Philosophers of language *tend to* promote the idea of moral relativism, whereas continentals *tend to* believe in some, potentially sublime, universal truth. I fail to see how this is a controversial statement.
Because it is false, and on multiple levels at that. First off, "linguistic philosophy" was only a popular trend in analytic philosophy and does not reflect analytic philosophy as a whole, but let that pass. Although it is true that many analytic philosophers embrace moral anti-realism, they also tend to be very tough-minded defenders of the objectivity of truth, which is famously denied by some pivotal Continental figures like Nietzsche and the postmodernists. As for the objectivity of morals in particular, I can't think of many central figures among Continentals who would defend that either. The great 20th century philosophical movements like existentialism and postmodernism are as far from moral realism as you can get.

>>14822610
>Early Wittgenstein agreed with the analytics but late Wittgenstein rejected the conclusions of his earlier works and sided with the continentals.
Then you don't understand what are you talking about. "Continental" and "Analytic" refer to two different *styles* of philosophy. Of course, there are certain views that are encountered more commonly in this or the other camp, but to speak of them as being two distinct philosophical schools is painfully wrong.

Can someone tell me why philosophy students love talking about quantum physics?? I've witnessed several conversations where thede philosophy people love talking about that or ordering books about the subject. I know that their STEM skills probably only go so far, and therefore they probably dont know a whole lot but they love acting as if they do. Has anyone else noticed this??

>>14822761
Quantum physics was important for logical empirism at least because it chaged how we think about science and knowledge. To be fair, a lot of the Viena circle members were also scientists. Most of philosophy students probably just like to sound cool dropping quantum shit.

>>14822761
All pseudointellectuals love QM because it has a reputation for being hard (so they get to seem smart) and if you’re dishonest enough you can pretend it justifies all kinds of stupid mystical fairy tales (so they get to play pretend)

>>14822761
QM is a sacred concept in a science age and capturing it allows for a signification and legitimization of people's personal ideologies. It is an ambiguous enough a topic to plausibly allow a degree of freedom in people's selection of it's definition.

>>14822761
They don't?

Study of philosophy is study of history of philosophy, as any non NPC is able to think from birth and does not need to subscribe to someone else's thoughts

>>14824113
I don't think you understand what happens in a philosophy program

>any non NPC is able to think from birth
This is not true at all. People can think, certainly, but there is nothing intuitive about being able to think well. This is like saying that because people have a basic capacity for visual arithmetic the study of higher level math is redundant.

You all only hate it because you don't understand it. 99% of you did not get maths in school which made you feel insecure, now whenever you see anything rigorous or even attempting at rigor you all shriek in horror.

>>14824975
>when continentals destroyed your correlationist reddit-tier science worship

>it's another 'butthurt continental subhuman yuropeon's seethe about their Anglo masters' thread
Rule Brittania

>>14824966
I said non NPC

>>14823503
>It is an ambiguous enough a topic to plausibly allow a degree of freedom in people's selection of it's definition.
It’s not, but that won’t stop the pseudo from claiming it is

>>14825254
I bet english is your only language