/lit/ - Literature

>>14950472
Right now, after your post made me think about it for a sec.

Thanks anon.

>>14950472
when I read Hegel

There has been too much violence. Too much pain. But I have an honorable compromise. Just walk away. Give me your empiricism, the logic, the truth conditions, and the whole linguistic turn, and I'll spare your lives. Just walk away and we'll give you a safe passageway in contemporary culture. Just walk away and there will be an end to the horror.

The only truth in an imperfect world is love and forgiveness

>>14950508
Hegel is an analytic desu

The only important contributions by analytic philosophy to the world were set theory and the truth tables (both of which were mostly slightly formally represented aspects of Aristotelian logic).

>>14950528
Exactly

>>14950528
He believed in the analytic-synthetic distinction, so no.

>>14950624
whiggishly

>>14950472
When will you realize they are completely different and do not share the same goals?

>>14950639
cope

>>14950604
Okay, justify why you think that any of the other contributions aren't important.

*dunks on both*

>>14950657
It's impossible to justify the "why" or the value of something, since it inevitably leads rise to an endless recursion

>>14950684
americans were the based ones all along huh

If only. Actually as far as this century goes analytic is better because John McDowell exists. But nah 20th century continental philosophy was so much more interesting.

>>14951263
who exactly is so interesting? foucault?

don't mind me im just shitposting

>>14951302
Tolstoy is a continental philosopher?

>>14951358
not sure if it makes a big difference

>>14950472
Continental philosophy is just metaphysical speculation
Analytic philosophy is realizing that metaphysical speculation is retarded

fix'd

>>14951302
Nice shitpost, but more like a surreal meme... how is anything on the left continental philosophy? or philosophy, for that matter?

>>14951473
When will you realize that you are retarded?

>>14950472
ANALytic is mere autistic masturbation and gay fruitless logic games.

>>14951547
continental fag mad

>>14951556
Continental philosophy is autism+schizophrenia wrapped up together.

>>14950675
Quine is definitely based, it sucks that we don't have our own /anal/ board to get away from these continental plebs and their empty wordplay

>>14951441
Nothing sterile about analytic philosophy if you're actually intelligent and can get past the abstruse nature of it. Continental has to dress their shit up with funtime examples because it's simple normie garbage.

When I realized Marx was an Analytical based philosopher

>>14951669
What were Marx's fundamental underlying ontological beliefs?

>>14951677
materialism

>>14951681
So...atomism?

>>14951677
There are a ton of great sources if you just google him. Much better explanation than I could give you

>>14951273
Frankfurt School, Foucault and the other frenchies

>>14951263
Continental philosophy is empty of ideas. It's just masturbatory babble.

>>14951699
They're all social critique, not philosophy.

>>14951699
>language is evil!
Wow...

>>14951687
No.

>>14951726
>clearly hasn't read any of them

>>14951742
>clearly hasn’t understood any of them

>>14951762
I think it's you who doesn't understand them anon, too many big words?

>>14951800
I notice that you're something of a brainlet. Care to explain yourself?

Why do these threads attract first-year undergrads?

>>14952012
Never read them

>>14950472
Almost immediately upon earnestly getting into philosophy. It was apparent that continentals are less rigorous and prone to lapsing into thinly veiled mysticism. It's also obvious that many of the people who gravitate towards continental philosophy these days are looking for quasi-logical justification of their mystical sacred cows.

>>14952025
Enlighten us

>>14952054
Continentals deal with more human subjects which can't just be explained with maths formulas

>>14951486
this. im tired of people pretending otherwise.

Anyone else notice that Analytical philosophers never get posted on /lit/? It's mostly just Wittgenstein and Land

>>14950472
isn't asperger's syndrome congenital? i thought analytics were all about science

>>14952074
It's a very mystically-biased crowd here anon, even excluding the unanimously detested guenonfag. These people aren't interested in actual logical rigour, they're interested giving their mystical bullshit a veneer of logical credibility. They will go so far as to make logically-framed arguments against the standard of logic.

>>14952121
Uhhhh anon, have you read any analytic philosophy?

>>14952121
>They will go so far as to make logically-framed arguments against the standard of logic.
I hope this is bait

>>14952064
No, that's the misconception among brainlets. Regardless of subject, any work written clearly can be valuable. The problem with continental philosophy is that it's just empty nonsense.

>>14951677
Hegelian dialectic but with a materialistic rather than make-believe substructure. Economic determinism (relations of production determines culture), historicism

>>14952162
>hasn’t read marx or hegel

>>14952121
This. Continentals are /x/-tier schizos.

>>14952074
Barrier to entry and learning curve for analytic philosophy is much higher. You have to have some technical acumen to converse with much of it, propositional calculus, mathematical logic, etc.

>>14952170
>isn't right

>>14950869
Not him. If you don't like the way he put it, I'll ask you something different.
What is the reasoning behind your implied statement that none of the other contributions are important?

>>14950472
How is it better? What statements support this conclusion?

>>14952240
Read a book, brainlet.

>>14952093
Asperger's is Continental philosophy. High-functioning autism is Analytic philosophy.
They're really all the same shit that the Pre-Socratics and the Vedas had (but what if things aren't like they seem? then the truth must be something else), but with a slightly different covering.

There's a strong arrogance in this thread on the analytic side, but both sides have people like that. Luckily it's mattering less and less. I like how clear analytic writing can be but I think too much can be sacrificed at the altar of it. Sometimes you have to be willing to turn your brain into gear for something that's worthwhile yet dense. Continental philosophy has plenty to offer in the ways of phenomenology, existentialism, German idealism, structuralism, hermeneutics, post-structuralism, and other areas and topics that aren't just "social critique."

There should be a question that arises when a barrier is put up, what shouldn't be questioned, and that should be "why?" Something like critical theory is willing to question social assumptions and the mechanisms of it, to understand the nature of our contemporary social environment. Now knowing this you can see why it falls under philosophy.

Ties to certain methodologies might make some question it but those methodologies can't just be left unquestioned themselves. That would be unphilosophical of course ;)

I think they can work together in peace though.

When did you realize that privileging the insights and methodological tools from either is retarded and that a synoptic view of their resources is the only way forward?

>>14951473
What about the continental philosophy that is explicitly critical of speculation and metaphysics?

>>14953321
A lot of continental philosophy has been dismissive of traditional metaphysics so I'm not sure where that notion is from. Even Heidegger was. Here's a quote on Foucault.

>[Foucault's] criticism is not transcendental, and its goal is not that of making a metaphysics possible: it is genealogical in its design and archaeological in its method.

>Archaeological –and not transcendental– in the sense that it will not seek to identify the universal structures of all knowledge or of all possible moral action, but will seek to treat the instances of discourse that articulate what we think, say, and do as so many historical events.

>And this critique will be genealogical in the sense it will not deduce from the form of what we are what is impossible for us to do and to know; but it will separate out, from the contingency that has made us what we are, the possibility of no longer being, doing, or thinking what we are, do or think. It is not seeking to make possible a metaphysics that has finally become a science; it is seeking to give new impetus, as far and wide as possible, to the undefined work of freedom.

(Paul Rabinow, The Foucault Reader: An Introduction to Foucault's Thought)

>>14950472
when analytics still uphold scholasticism

>>14953321
>>14953360
>>14951473
>Continental philosophy is just metaphysical speculation
I wouldn't have a problem with Continental philosophy if it were just metaphysical speculation. The problem isn't that it's speculative, it's that it is plain nonsense. Even its proponents can't name a single new idea or insight provided by continental philosophy. Once you peel back the jargon and flowery language, it's just a bunch of banal platitudes.

>>14953314
You're half-right, but logic is the fundamental methodoLogical tool of philosophy — it is philosophy. Any form of reasoned argumentation entails the acceptance of the primacy of that tool & standard.

So, if we observe a tendency of continentals to be less rigorous in the application of logic (which I do), then I would say it's a fair concern. I do agree that it's a generalization though, and that we should consider propositions on their own merits (independent of both author and academic 'school'). Even so, it's necessary to engage in some degree of discrimination so as to not constatly waste time.

>>14953398
Stuff like Habermas's concept of communicative reason and Foucault's study of history and on discourses have been HUGELY influential in not only philosophy but in the social sciences at large, not to mention they were both of the late 20th century. Both traditions have their share of clowns, and this board really props them up let's go ahead and say that, but it's best to lose the axe you might have to grind against it and be in good faith about it and be open to the good work that's been done in it.

>>14952121
The problem is you are thinking of those French philosophers like Deleuze or Foucault. A lot of continentals stressed the importance of rigour in philosophy

>>14953484
Habermas is okay. Foucault makes sense on occasion but his influence within academic philosophy is nonexistent. As far as the "social sciences" are concerned, many of them are ridden with the same obfuscatory and pseudoscientific cancer that afflicts continental philosophy. The standards in these fields tend to be quite low.

>>14953230
>There should be a question that arises when a barrier is put up, what shouldn't be questioned, and that should be "why?" Something like critical theory is willing to question social assumptions and the mechanisms of it, to understand the nature of our contemporary social environment.
>Now knowing this you can see why it falls under philosophy.
Nope, still don't see it.

>ITT people memeing themselves into thinking there is such thing as "analytical" and "continental"

>>14953230
>Something like critical theory is willing to question social assumptions and the mechanisms of it
You don't need some half-baked abstract "theory" in order to criticize political and social institutions. Chomsky does it quite well using plain language free of bullshit "theoretical" jargon.

>>14950472
The Anglo covers in fear when his 'Common' 'Sense' is questioned.

>>14953669
Actually read some contemporary Analytic philosophy before you comment on the matter.

>>14950472
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVFR1qJAyf0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1wlNvfASaU

>>14951800
heh

so-called mysticism explains with a mathematical precision the beyondness, the complete transcendence in relation to corporeal existence, which will inevitably engulf everyone and everything, with supple, non-systematic, symbolic poetry.
hatred of secrecy is nothing but the hatred for anything that surpasses the level of the ''average''

>>14953724
no it doesn't

>>14950684
This. People here always shit on American philosophy but nothing beats pragmatism.

>>14953686
There is nothing of value there. If specifically Anglo alone on this planet have the need to self-segregate in a safespace like special snowflakes they imagine themselves to be, everyone but the Anglo himself see that he is dead afraid of what he had found out outside his marshy isles.
Nobody pointed a finger telling 'now that's the most special unique snowflaky way to the truth'. The Anglo ran away and shut himself off, because 'muh mysticism' is not an answer but a refusal to engage. One might as well decry any other language as 'muh obscurantism' becaue they are not immediately understandable - which Anglo so often does, especially of the Mutt subspecies.

Literally smug fags in an autistis cave preaching 'truer than though' drivel so they could engage in Russel-approved soulless buttsex REFUSING to THINK of the real core problems of human existence. Which is fine for the Anglo breed, as their special kind of autism caters to their specific cultural needs utterly alien to any other people on Earth, yet it gets so tiresome to see the same chest-beating norf every other day on /lit/ with his 'My is better than X because I couldn't immediately understand X' Insular Idiocy at its finest.

>>14953748
Analytic philosophy began in Germany, cumguzzler.

>>14953755
and Hume woke kant from his dogmatic slumber, Anglos win again!

>>14953755
>Analytic philosophy began in Germany
And Saxons came from Lower Saxony. So what? Did they call themselves Analytic? Or did some insular fags arbitrarily proclaimed their favourite logicians as their Ur-Anals before happily walling themselves in to indulge in whatever Common Sense buggery?

The Insular Idiocy is but an Anglo's incapability of philosophizing made into a cult. Some peoples are just made to be pirates and faggots, not thinkers.

>>14950624
Literally everyone pre-Quine (except Mill but he was a dumbass) believed in the analytic-synthetic distinction bro

>>14954011
Not quite

>>14953812
You strike me as quite the moron.

>>14953812
Anglos>greeks>germans>China/India>French

>>14950472
When I was a brainwashed undergrad.

>>14953589
Name 5

>>14953429
I think it is fallacious to assume the logic is THE fundamental tool for philosophy. For continental philosophy, post-Heidegger, semiotics provided the conceptual framework for a significant portion of their philosophizing. Just because something isn't explicitly formalized logically, but is instead grounded hermeneutically, does not license its wholesale dismissal.

Ultimately, I think you are right that the logical inconsistencies result in various degrees of semantic lasciviousness and syntactic imprecision. This leads to bullshit interpretations of Derrida and Deleuze for example. This doesn't, however, preclude rigorous understanding of their work and I think many scholars navigate the textual weave of continental philosophy with deftness and stringency.

When I went to college and took a class on epistemology, I expected to learn about theories of knowledge. Instead, I had to sit through a series of painfully pedantic debates over the Gettier problems, as autistic analytics added more and more qualifications to their formulations of the meaning of the word "knowledge" in an attempt to "solve" Gettier's "problem." Not only were they ignorant of the whole history of philosophy before the 20th century, they were even ignorant of their immediate predecessor, Ludwig Wittgenstein, who wrote a whole book on why formalizing meaning is retarded.

There's plenty of value to be found in analytic philosophy, but anyone who tells you that it has less bullshit than continental philosophy is ignorant. Just like most of continental philosophy today is just dressing up simple claims in obfuscatory language and circlejerking over Marx, Nietzsche and Deleuze, most analytic philosophy today is just pointless autistic navel gazing over word definitions and imaginary scenarios.

>>14950472
analysts are nerds. anal. its in the name

>>14952054
>Almost immediately upon earnestly getting into philosophy
lmao this is the problem with most "analytics" on /lit/, they're all undergrad students who only have a cursory familiarity with philosophy and think their year's worth of study gives them a position of authority from which to shit on certain thinkers simply because they didn't appear on their course. It's exactly the kind of braindead dichotomous "logic" that I've come to expect from students who are enlightened by their own intelligence, when most PhD students I know think the analytic/continental divide is dumb and are willing to entertain both sides because they are actually aware that the history of ideas isn't so black and white.

>>14957200
>t. french theory fag who realizes he fucked up big time spending all that time reading badiou

>>14957080
I took an Epistemology course with a professor who was a former seminarist and had PhDs in both Philosophy and Theology, who introduced all of the traditionally acknowledged prominent schools of philosophy/theories of knowledge, but all through the lens of Thomism and criticized everything besides Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas' criteria for truth for not adhering perfectly to the Thomist definition of truth as "adaequatio rei et intellectus", which he often quoted in Latin.

I think it's difficult for one person to talk about a variety of ideas without inserting their own opinion unless one were to expect them to literally do nothing more than reading encyclopedia articles and lists of commonly agreed upon statements that summarize viewpoints in a perfectly monotone voice. Otherwise, allowing for a person to have some freedom to direct their class in a certain direction, they would most likely have to pick some favorite or some key idea or element which to use to "direct the narrative", so as to keep a certain coherence and natural-sounding flow.

It might be true that analytic philosophy deals with little but imaginary scenarios and word games, but that's traditionally been what the works of philosophers like Descartes, Locke, Kant, etc. was about, and how philosophy has distinguished itself from both prose fiction/the ramblings of schizophrenic madmen and from treatises in the natural sciences.

As much as either of us can criticize our former philosophy professors for explicitly expressing bias towards a certain narrative, it is possible to accept that we accept specific narratives and mentally prioritize the ideas of certain thinkers over others for whichever reason, which does itself not point to an actual objective truth which everyone could recognize as such either in regards to the history of thoughts or reality itself.

>>14957080
Filtered.

>>14958189
I know, but I wish I could claim superiority over others by holding access to a higher level of truth or facts.

>>14958189
That Thomist professor sounds irritating for the exact same reason my analytic epistemology prof was. We started with "knowledge = JTB" and had spent the course trying to rescue that formulation in light of Gettier's problem. It was never considered whether JTB was a formulation even worth trying to rescue.

>It might be true that analytic philosophy deals with little but imaginary scenarios and word games, but that's traditionally been what the works of philosophers like Descartes, Locke, Kant, etc. was about, and how philosophy has distinguished itself from both prose fiction/the ramblings of schizophrenic madmen and from treatises in the natural sciences.

If there's anything like "Suppose that Smith has a belief that p and Jones has justification that not p..." in Kant, Descartes, or Locke, I'm not aware of it. Kant doesn't really use examples that often, and Meditations is entirely unlike the analytic style of argumentation. Note that defining terms is different from autistically nitpicking over the exact definitions of terms as your principle area of investigation.

>>14958211
Idc anon

>>14958816
Sounds like you just had a bad teacher.

>>14956995
I'm sorry, but this is empty rhetoric. It isn't possible to communicate in a reasoned fashion without appealing to logic. Logic demonstrates its primacy via ubiquity and necessity. Think about what you've said for a moment: In stating that it is -fallacious- to -assume- that logic is THE fundamental tool of philosophy, you have very explicitly invoked logical analysis.

I wasn't suggesting that continentals are opaque to understanding, I was suggesting that their actual arguments tend to be less rigorous. You almost sound like you're talking about scripture...