/lit/ - Literature

>>15979269
why is pepe stirner tho?

>>15979269
all of those sketches that Engels drew looked like Stirner was about to own someone at the club and then realized his statement would also be a self-own.

>>15979269
>they still get their ideas of logical positivism from late Wittgenstein, Quine, and Ayer
>haven't read Carnap's Aufbau which practically doesn't depend on verificationism whatsoever
>totally unfamiliar with Carnap's neo-Kantian conventionalism or that he was perfectly aware that observation is always theory-laden and that frameworks are relative to our choice

>>15979269
lol word games

>>15979269
Only applies to empirical statements, kiddo. Not analytic ones.

>>15979302
Hey, what the fuck? I tried to understand what you were saying but it didn't come all the way through right. How exactly is Carnap different from the other philosophers you mentioned?

>>15979331
That's the point. People read Wittgenstein and Quine and think they proved Carnap wrong. That's based on a total misunderstanding of Carnap. The things those guys are known for are things Carnap understood perfectly well. Ayer is a different story, he meant well (actually so did Quine) but he misrepresented Carnap to others. Ayer and Quine actually valued Carnap very highly but they contributed to a total misunderstanding. The problem is people don't even misread Carnap, they straight up don't READ Carnap.

Is this the daily thread for laughing at how shallow analytic philosophy is

I GO HARD IN THE MUTHAFUCKIN PAINT NIGGA

>>15979367
Is signs bouncing off each other semiotics really better than that? Then you start saying the square root of -1 is the phallus like Lacan did.

>>15979302
gimme a quick rundown of carnap's argument

>>15979269
Demanding falsifiability is an empirical copy to deal with being btfo by rationality

>>15979500
Well the idea that we can start from different frameworks is largely due to the influence of Dilthey and the neo-Kantians on him, the Dilthey side of things shows that our belief systems are historically or culturally dependent while the neo-Kantians (following Kant) show that you can have a base of concepts that are not out there in the world but that you contribute to your understanding of the world. Not sure what Carnap's argument in favor of these views would be but he's tapping from sources that have their own arguments to give. All that stuff ends up being conventionalism for Carnap. He says you can start with a base domain of individuals and a base of primitive predicates (properties, relations) and then define, in terms of these, further 'individuals' and 'predicates' in constructed (non-literal) language. He makes room for experience (syntheticity) but he notes that depending on what your base is, what you 'see' in experience will differ. For example if you're a physicalist, you say you perceive tables, if you're a phenomenalist you say you perceive sense data, etc. In the Aufbau he gives one form of phenomenalism, there are other possible frameworks. Determining what is basic or what is constructed is entirely on your end, and there's not really some way to specify a theory-neutral 'observation language' because the divide between such a so-called observation language and theoretical inference is very vague. Carnap also argues in "Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology" that existence questions are internal to theories not external. You can ask what exists within a framework (your base, your constructs in a derived sense), but it is meaningless to ask what 'really' exists out there. It's stuff Quine and Wittgenstein and people thought to be post-positivist echo too.

I don't believe Carnap was right about everything. But he wasn't btfo the way everyone thinks. They haven't read him. The people thought to have btfo Carnap are saying the same things he said first.

Stirner strikes again, how can one man be so based?

>>15979360
I will read Carnap.

>>15979287
Because falsifiability is a spook.

>>15979314

>>15979375
based waka flocka flame poster