/lit/ - Literature

but you need them anon..

There are basically two kinds of philosophy. One's called prickles, the other's called goo. And prickly people are precise, rigorous, logical. They like everything chopped up and clear. Goo people like it vague. For example, in physics, prickly people believe that the ultimate constituents of matter are particles. Goo people believe it's waves. And in philosophy, prickly people are logical positivists, and goo people are idealists. And they're always arguing with each other, but what they don't realize is neither one can take his position without the other person. Because you wouldn't know you advocated prickles unless there was someone advocating goo. You wouldn't know what a prickle was unless you knew what a goo was. Because life isn't either prickles or goo, it's either gooey prickles or prickly goo. They go together like back and front, male and female. And that's the answer to philosophy. You see, I'm a philosopher, and I'm not going to argue very much, because if you don't argue with me, I don't know what I think. So if we argue, I say 'Thank you,' because owing to the courtesy of your taking a different point of view, I understand what I mean. So I can't get rid of you.

>>15654674
you already have poetry, mysticism and religion if you want to be vague and merely sound deep. philosophy was always supposed to be a serious field for serious people.

>>15654832
No we could pretty much show every single continental into a gas chamber and experience _ZERO_ adverse effects. In fact we'd gain quite a lot. we don't need "nothing noths" just as we don't need homeopathy.

>>15654674
>Why were they so bland
They weren't, I just read Ayer this summer and he has really excellent prose. Carnap is systematic and thorough in a very appealing way if you like systematicity. Why else do you read dead philosophers, do you expect to agree with them on everything? You have to learn to love them in spite of being wrong. It's a matter of vision, and good prose is a plus. The positivists aren't particularly bad, they're just hated on unjustly by analytics themselves and also continentals.
>how did they manage to so fundamentally misunderstand the nature of philosophy?
If you read Plato or Aristotle you'll see them obsess over how cool it was that geometry was being axiomatized into a science in their day. Philosophers liked that about mathematics, it seemed certain, and they always had a desire to make philosophy certain. That's why they dared to build systems. This continued for a while. Then people like Galileo, Kepler, and especially Newton came around, and axiomatized physics and made it a science, and that really got philosophers reflective. You see people like Locke, Leibniz, Hume, Kant obsessing over it. They felt that metaphysics big in their day (Aristotelian/Scholastic metaphysics) had gone nowhere, and they felt science showed the way to go. Even people like the German Idealists and Marx were so preoccupied with philosophy becoming 'scientific' that they called their works 'science'. The logical positivists are just part of that tradition. We know now that they were wrong, but it's not surprising, given that this stuff was fated to happen ever since the late 1600s.

>>15655437
what a colossally gay opinion

>>15655860
>>15655860
>t. little effeminate gay faggot who needs his philosophy to fulfill some emotional need
Men want truth, men want clarity. Faggots and women want mysticism and muh feels and vagueries.

>>15656216
>>15655860
You're both fucking dumb.