/lit/ - Literature

>>16006475
There's Christian analytic philosophy. It's not the same as it was prewar. The best is to just learn the logic's then apply it metaphysically yourself

Alasdair MacIntyre

>>16006494
Yep this and Charles Taylor are probably the only analytics that got me in the feeler during my philosophy bachelor studies

>>16006475
Carnap, Goodman, Kripke, Lewis, Armstrong, Heil, Sider, Chalmers.

Read analytic philosophy as a continental, not the other way around and you will be safe. Any other way and you end up a faggot.

>>16006538
How does carnap have soul. Most of those are formalist that I know or they outright deny metaphysics

>>16006552
Have you read Carnap?
Have you read the background on Carnap?
I'll tell you more if you're interested.

>>16006544
Dubs wasted.
You read everything as an analytic because you have better analysis. That most analytic philosophers buttsniff science is not an indictment on the mechanism. In fact I'd blame conties

>>16006544
Based

>>16006557
I have read some secondary on him but in relation to logical positivists overall or wittgenstein. I'm interested if he has saving grace. His antimetaphysics in logpos was disgusting enough to almost put me him in the category of german romantics for me.

>>16006563
Isn't it weird how many analytics and continentals turn against metaphysics even if in opposite ways? Isn't it funny how both things happened only after the industrial revolution and accelerated late capitalism? Really makes you think...

>>16006475
Frege, carnap, quine, ayer and early wittgenstein

>>16006590
I think it's very easy ground to gain back tho as metaphysics is more interesting than 'how many slices of cheesecake it is from here to the moon' plus it's just necessary no matter what especially if you want faster progress

>>16006590
>late capitalism for you is still early capitalism for me

>>16006590
Analytics = narrow minded anglos

Continentals = smart germans given a bad name by french pedophiles

>>16006590
Analytics love metaphysics now. To believe in scientific realism is to believe in robust metaphysics.

>>16006627
>wat about dee indeeveeejyuuhl
Fuck continental philosophy, fuck the individual. That half of its philosophy is just renaming universal terms for the individual is evidence enough if not the attack on 'wisdom' etc because it gets in the way of fart sniffery for the individual

>>16006475
>logic good feelings bad
When will this low IQ take die?

>>16006629
>scientific realism
https://youtu.be/OVrO0uAiPPg

>>16006582
I think Carnap's Aufbau is really nice. I reject antimetaphysics just as you do. But people have misunderstood the value in Carnap. Analytic metaphysicians are starting to finally actually read the Aufbau and those who do are finding immense value in it for the way one can do metaphysics, because it lays out a program where, starting from a small base, you can construct the whole world. That's very attractive for metaphysicians. The more recent looks at Carnap also show how much he is influenced by Dilthey and neo-Kantianism. Carnap's view on nonsense wasn't actually dismissive (the way Ayer sort of interprets it) but has affinities with Wittgenstein's take on the unsayable (also 'nonsense'), Wittgenstein connects it to ethics while Carnap to aesthetics. Carnap was more of a framework relativist who saw phenomenalism as just one of many possible equally-good frameworks to pick. He also saw observation as theory-laden, not theory-neutral the way Quine and the later Wittgenstein and other critics thought. Those aspects are developed further by Goodman who ultimately decides that framework relativism (Goodman's 'irrealism') allows us to give many pictures of the world that are each good as the next, including languages of art. So Carnap is directly responsible for Goodman's aesthetics. Following Dilthey, Carnap understood frameworks to be somewhat historically or anthropologically determined, and in some ways that also puts him in harmony with things Marxists would say. Unsurprisingly, Carnap was a socialist.

In sum: There are things in Carnap that should please literally everyone. That's the opposite of the usual thought, where everyone (Wittgensteinians, analytic neopragmatists, analytic metaphysicians, poststructuralists, Marxists, aestheticians) seems to think Carnap is their enemy. The opposite is true. You can pull a lot from him. The framework relativism and understanding of theory-laden observation shows Carnap is more like continental poststructuralists than people realize. The fact Carnap had affinities with Wittgenstein (and actually even Schelling) on his idea of what-could-not-be-said being the artistic goes over people's heads. Carnap's framework relativism became the direct cause for Goodman's aesthetics. His constructionalism is of value to analytic metaphysics today (people like Chalmers value Carnap for this reason).

>>16006647
When feelings have universal power like logic does, easy come easy go, next?

>>16006661
>feelings
>not universal
>logic being universal
What drugs are you on?

>>16006622
>>16006629
I'm glad analytics are going back to metaphysics and what's funny is since Deleuze, through Badiou and Meillassoux and Gabriel, continentals are going back to metaphysics too. I think we're reaching a stage where people are finally realizing why previous anti-realism and deflationism was bullshit. But I do believe that bullshit took root due to the way capitalism shapes ideology. It produces scientism and cultural relativism alike, despite those initially radiating out from opposite directions they end up exactly the same.

>>16006655
based Carnap chad

>>16006655
Dubs of truth but I h8 the 'thing which cannot be talked about', I h8 schelling, and I can't stand irrealist or relativity. I'd almost be fine w figuring it out on my own and ignoring him because I'd go insane reading shit conclusions like that. The only group I absolutely will never touch are the german romantics. I can't make it through them at all and any crap promoting relativity just makes me go insane that I couldn't rip them a new one before they wrote shit like that down.

>>16006664
Are you dumb? Wat anyone feels isn't how everyone feels or how everyone should feel even if all humans were erased and another species came up. Everything has to be logical. A human pretending they can be not is just naive and if they want to achieve anything they have to learn how reality works.

>>16006667
I think it was aliens to fuck us over. I don't get how you can ever buy into irrealism as it solves literally nothing.

>>16006705
Logic isn't real and is based on feelings.

>>16006667
There tends to be a lurch toward instrumentalism in the wake of scientific revolutions -- as was the case in the early 20th century with the advent of relativity and quantum mechanics. Only in the past 40 years or so have people recognized that realism is still a viable way to go despite the exotic picture provided by contemporary physics (especially QM).

>>16006723
>>>/x/

>>16006475
>analytic philosophy
English autism
>continental philosophy
Philosophy

>>16006687
>Dubs of truth but I h8 the 'thing which cannot be talked about', I h8 schelling, and I can't stand irrealist or relativity
Carnap and those two things has had a big influence on me personally. I think the unsayability thing is a real problem but it can be overcome. If you're interested, I recommend Theodore Sider's work (Writing the Book of the World is really good). The second thing, the relativism and irrealism, rises because of a real problem with observation being theory-laden. Again I think that can be overcome (via acquaintance theory), but the way to do it has to begin by recognizing and really struggling with the problem. Often I find the philosophy I disagree with most is still the most valuable because it really wakes you out of a dogmatic slumber and forces you to really give a robust defense of your own views, and clarify and defend them better.
>I'd almost be fine w figuring it out on my own and ignoring him because I'd go insane reading shit conclusions like that. The only group I absolutely will never touch are the german romantics. I can't make it through them at all and any crap promoting relativity just makes me go insane that I couldn't rip them a new one before they wrote shit like that down.
Fair. But I've ultimately got a lot of mileage out of reading people I totally disagree with. It's helped me personally. It would help you as well, I'm sure, but whether you find it fun or frustrating depends on temperament. I was once frustrated but I've somehow changed that attitude into fun and now I enjoy it. It's perspectival.

>>16006723
Really? Why'd you follow that syntax? Don't want it getting in the way of your individuality. In fact develop an invisible angel with horns (hot please) to deliver me your message. I'm sure you'd feel more inclined to that since ur dumb solipsistic ass thinks there's no laws of reality.

>>16006738
Not for me, once I've told a nazi why their beliefs are retarded in a very necessary and convincing manner, I'm done w the conversation. Irrealism to me is just cancer and any metaphysics saying we don't know is a metaphysics which is self admittedly inconsequential and useless should be thrown out. I get no mileage with liberals acting like cheating on your spouses is the new truth and nationalism is good because reasons and partially kant. It belongs in the gutter and I would never let that crap go unchallenged.

>>16006723
>>16006737
based

>>16006728
>analytic is a quantum physics pseud
surprise surprise

>>16006742

>>16006738
I don't debate 1+1=2 but I'll get the analytic truth of it but anyone debating 1+1=2 can live on the street and beg until they realize good values. If they want help I'll help but some ppl like slinging shit at each other and as far as I'm concerned they can do it outside the house. I'm very liberal, they still get their freedoms, just not liberal enough to bronze them and force everyone to worship them.

Marxism

>>16006787
You still used syntax. Ask your angel to communicate through sex with only sexual body language. If you can manage it then you might say logic is particular.

Logic was the biggest dead end in the history of philosophy. Why did it attract so many autistic hacks?

>>16006783
Take your meds.

>>16006800
If you can't tell, the person who drew that is not the person saying logic isn't real.

>>16006728
>exotic picture provided by qm
According to who?

>>16006742
Imagine lacking reading comprehension this badly

>>16006807
I conflated them for my response but ty. Also fuck carnap.

>>16006812
Go back to /b/. You're out of your element here.

>>16006815
Imagine not knowing what universal vs particular objects are. If I erase all instances of its emergence and it can come back again in different instances then it's universal.

>>16006812
/sci/ BTFO in one image

>>16006823
Who tf do u think ur trolling newfag. Yes that is something I popularized and I will continue to use it until you find a good response

>>16006806
Take yours first.

>>16006475
>analytic
>Continental
Ya, Idk about any of this shit, I'm just chilling with the greeks.

>>16006475
Analytics vs continental is the most scandalously Eurocentric classification of philosophy ever

>>16007371
Philosophy has only existed in europe

>>16007406
>Philosophy has only existed in europe

>>16006655
Sounds pretty based desu.

>>16007423
You have cultural wisdom and teachers of philosophy in other places but not philosophy or philosophers

>>16007436
>All of Middle Eastern, North African, Indian, Chinese, and Japanese philosophy isn't philosophy it's cultural wisdom. They don't have philosophers either they have teachers of philosophy.

>>16006723
I know this is true because I feel it's Based.

>>16007478
Now you get it. Now stop being butthurt over colonialism and start thinking

>>16007406
>>16007436
I basically agree, but there have been writers in medieval India that addressed the same topics as Western philosophers, often providing the same solutions centuries earlier.

>>16006723
>he send a lightning
Okay Shauntiqua

>>16006687
you sound like a redditor

>>16007512
Are you trolling me?

>>16007553
I'm being serious

>>16007406
Ancient Greece it's not 'Europe'.

>>16006826
>Imagine not knowing what universal vs particular objects are
Sounds like you know don't know what you are talking about. The distinction within objects is abstract versus concrete objects. The universal/particular distinction is for properties. You've spend this thread telling everyone how buttmad you get at people for not knowing metaphysics, yet you screw up one of the first and fundamental distinctions within it.

>>16007560
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Eastern_philosophers

This list has no MENA philosophers because for some reason Wikipedia considers MENA philosophy to be western? I mean St. Augustine was Semitic and born in North Africa he isn't western. Al-Kindi isn't western but he's considered western. I guess they put him in the Medievel times period but whatever I guess. If you want to check it out here you go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Western_philosophers

>>16006475

fixed

>>16007613
Yeah...
They are not, that's why the main eastern ideas currently came from european philosophy

>>16007688
Ok bro whatever makes you sleep better at night.

>>16006655
>later Wittgenstein
>observation is theory-neutral
Ok buddy

>>16006655
No late Wittgensteinian can possibly think that the later Carnap is an enemy. They have really deep affinities that are widely recognized.
Pseud detected

>>16007733
Think he's saying that they were saying that about Carnap, not that they believed that, hence the "critics" at the end of the sentence.

>>16007733
You misunderstood my post. Quine and the later Wittgenstein thought Carnap thought observation was theory-neutral. He didn't.
>>16007735
The early Carnap had the same deep affinities that's my point. The pseuds are the people who read Wittgenstein but not Carnap and embarrass themselves, don't criticize me for pointing that out go after your Wittgensteinian friends instead.

>wittgensteinian

>>16007735
>>16007733
>people who are influenced by ordinary language philosophy but lack reading comprehension
extraordinary

>>16007700
It's not opinion or gatekeeping dude.
Saying otherwise it's just wishful thinking.

>>16007867
Not the guy you're responding to, but philosophers are best when they are inclusive enough that it is willing to excavate insights even from the shittiest amateurs of past and present. Call said amateur philosophy 'outsider philosophy' the way there is 'outsider art,' and see if there is ever insight in there. Historically, there is. Eastern philosophy, if you don't want to call it philosophy, has insights. Remember that even being wrong is insightful. But if you're the same anon who earlier expressed the attitude that continental philosophy and even chunks of analytic philosophy isn't worth reading because it's "wrong" I guess you'll disagree. Oh well. I'm glad I don't share that attitude, it's made me all the better for it.

>>16007910
I'm not btw.
I'm south american and that's a debate we have here every year. It's a constant tension and nothing good has come out from it. The field has only got more fragmentary and mutually exclusive everytime it has been brought up. Even the top movements (which goal is legislation) have it's core precedent in Marx and the Frankfurt school while more worthwhile philosophers have been censored for being, you guessed it, eurocentric. With Africa is similar but even more extreme.

>>16007979
>I'm south american and that's a debate we have here every year. It's a constant tension and nothing good has come out from it.
Interesting, I'd like to hear more about this stuff. I've lived in the United States most of my life and that's where I'm doing philosophy, but I was born in South America and moved as a child. I've wanted to know more about how they do philosophy down there for some time. I'd be interested to hear your side.

>>16007992
Sadly we don't. We lack formation, goals and the better trained philosophers don't really engage with social issues, that means great material is being discussed by mediocre or misinformed people at best and i'm not better.

>>16006494

MacIntyre isn't exactly analytic nor continental. I don't think his work fits neatly in either category.

>>16008114
He's analytic. At the very least I can guarantee analytics respond to him plenty so he's well integrated into the tradition.

>>16006475
>reddit vs. twitter

>>16007371
shut your mouth shitskin