/lit/ - Literature

>>18279690
Analytic Philosophy isn't Philosophy

>>18279690
I'm not and I can.

>>18279690
True.

>>18279698
Wrong, its the only kind of philosophy.

>>18279698
You will never be a woman, obscurantist scum

>>18279690
ok what does G F stand for ? i know all the other symbols

>>18279690
In your dreams, bugman scum.
Pictured, if you can't read this, you are not a philosopher

>>18279738
Also true.

>>18279714
If you want to be a positivist bootlicker sure. Not very useful for exploring the more important mystical aspects of existence, but I guess materialists just enjoy living in their cave.

>>18279690
Is this what Socrates wanted after all?

>>18279738
medieval idolatries.

>>18279798
No, but Aristotle.

>>18279690
>makes assumptions 100x more complex than the conclusions (some arguably false)
>no insight into the development of thought
>still needs gorillonz of steps
Absolute meme. Poincare, Hilbert, Bourbaki roasted that trash for good reasons.
You will never be a mathematician.

>>18279722
predicates, i suppose

You haven't felt the warmth of woman's touch if you can read that.

>>18279922
well i cant read that shit but im also khv so maybe i should go into analytic philosophy idk

>>18279690
>Analytic “philosophy”

>>18279690
Anyone who ever bothered with an introduction to formal logic can read that. It's braindead methodology. Logic is not philosophy the same as arithmetic is not mathematics.

What exactly can this kind of thing achieve to evaluate?

>>18279738
Why should generation cease at matter?

>>18281082
Everything that can be evaluated.

>>18279690
This isn't very hard anon!
The one thing that is confusing is the tree notation.
But any anon who spends like 75 hours reading "The Logic Book" or similar text will be able to understand it.
Is this from

>>18279748
funny how reddit critics of analytic philosophy still attack the strawman of positivism. you clearly have never read a book in your life.

>>18281086
>he doesn't know
It doesn't.

>>18281131
Or perhaps he's read what analytics themselves consider their classics. Positivism was the starting point of analytic philosophy, was intrinsically tied to it for decades and only ceased to be the dominant paradigm within analytical schools half a century ago.
Especially relevant to the sort of moron that takes Russel style "logicism" seriously and considers things like OP's picture as anything more than an useless exercise in symbolic manipulation (not even difficult).

>>18279698
Based.
>>18279718
>>18279714
You will never be a woman.

>>18279690
Nobody can read that, because it has missing information you pseud. You couldn't even select the right things to showcase your idiotic point.

>>18279857
>medieval
Proclus was late antique
>idolatries
Only if you're a protestant

>>18281223
they are classics in the same sense that hippocrates is a classic in medicine. it doesn't mean they represent analytic philosophy. in fact, positivism was a narrow, short-lived tradition. let;s be honest here, only first year undegrads and reddit """philosophers""" bring up positivism to attack analytic philosophy in general

>>18281188
W-what comes after matter senpai??

>>18279690
You're not a *logician* if you can't read this. And you're definitely not a phil of math guy either.

I don't understand at all what this is trying to say. Can someone explain what this notation is and some books to understand it?

>>18279698
this

>>18279722
What gives me that feel when I don't have it

>>18281846
It's just symbolic logic. Just use one of these textbooks: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/#FurtRead

>>18279690
A fucking tableau, man? Do you feel smart because you understand the fucking tableau method? That's beyond laughable.

>>18279698
fpbp

>>18281846
It's a proof for the following argumentation:
- There is exactly one thing that is F.
- There is exactly one thing that is G.
- There is no thing that is both F and G.
Conclusion: There are exactly two things that are either F or G. Which is isomorphic to saying that 1 + 1 = 2. It's just to show that you can create addition without defining anything like numbers.

>>18279901
It don't think you understand what's going on in the picture. It's just a tableau and the negation of the conclusion is on line 4, which is the longest line.

>>18280853
very much this

>>18279698
>cant even into logic
>just likes the idea of logic, and will appeal to it, but doesnt actually knows how it works nor how to implement it well.

>>18281105
wtf does that even mean? You can evaluate expressions within the system, but the system itself doesn't really evaluate anything. Besides that, what things can be evaluated? It's completely dependent on the evaluating system, so this doesn't answer the question. You're just saying that the system can evaluate expressions the system can evaluate. If you mean that every truth can be expressed or derived in the system, then you are wrong.

>>18281948
Pure logic doesn't constitute the entirety of philosophy

>>18279690
Formal logic is cool and all, but lambda calculus is a much simpler system which is Turing complete. Lambda calculus may not be as fundamental to logical thought and derivation as formal logic, but it achieves a lot more for it's relative simplicity.

>>18279738
fucking bugman analytic scum
>>18279690
based

>>18279901
Formal logic is supposed to be a formalisation of the atoms of logic. It's very verbose by design. You may know the dialogue between Achilles and the Tortoise by Lewis Carroll. There are a bunch of fun things going on in there, but main theme is that the tortoise doubts even the most basic logical deduction used by Achilles. It poses a philosofical question about what reasoning steps we can accept and why. It's a bit like when a toddler keeps asking "why?" when you're trying to explain something to it. At some point you just have to accept something as true. Formal logic is supposed to be a complete system of reasoning built from the most basic rules of logic. This means that every step within the system is pretty much trivial, but that's the point. It's supposed to bring you from one basic truth to another without making any dubious steps. It is true that it can become very convoluted and hard to see how a large and complex derivation comes together, or how we can interpret the theorems of the system (i.e. the isomorphisms we draw to the real world). That said, there is still a time and place for formal logic. Human thought and reasoning can be very complex, so it's interesting to try and disect it. Also, it means we can check proofs computationally. We may not be able to fully grasp and accept a formal proof, but if we can agree on the atoms used and the computer says the proof is valid, it's very safe to assume it as true. This is mostly useful within mathematics

>>18282170
*philosophical

>>18282170
For those who are curious, one of the fun things going on is the problem of infinite regress. Whenever Achilles tries to state some basic rule about the statements of logic, the Tortoise interprets the rule as a new statement of logic using a material conditional to join the previous statement with the rule.

>>18279690
looks like some set theory. I would firmly place this into mathematics.

Weird, I always dreaded my logic class and only did the bare minimum, but when some shitposter challenges me I'm suddenly very engaged. Makes me feel like discipline is just a meme

>>18279690
Not /lit/ related

>>18281223
>Positivism was the starting point of analytic philosophy,
You either don’t know what positivism actually war or you, like most who sympathize with the continental tradition, are completely completely ignorant of the history of philosophy.

>>18279690
>>18279698
>>18279702
>>18279711
>>18279714
>>18279718
>>18279722
>>18279738
>>18279742
>>18279748
>>18279798
>>18279857
>>18279862
>>18279919
>>18279922
>>18279942
>>18280436
>>18281086
>>18281105
>>18281131
>>18281188
>>18281228
>>18281232
>>18281236
>>18281258
>>18281349
>>18281811
>>18281846
>>18281879
>>18281891
>>18281906
>>18281907
>>18281915
>>18281930
>>18281931
>>18281948
>>18282045
>>18282049
>>18282073
>>18282295
>>18282505
>>18282536

>>18279690
This is absolute nonsense with no actual use

>>18282605
>you

>>18282605
exactly what i was thinking.

>>18282614
>philosophy s only good if it’s “useful”
Why are continentals so obsessed with utility of philosophy?

>>18282605
Not /lit/ related

>>18282581
get off my fucking board, bugman

This thread was a great success.

>>18279698
that's not analytic philosophy, it's formal logic and OP is right.

>>18279690
>>18279698
it's just logic. Logic is simple af

>>18279698
Based.

>>18282883
I will say it again, it is the only kind of philosophy. Everything else is just metaphysics and just as interesting as theology.

>>18279690
that looks beautiful
source?

>>18282911

Only kind of philosophy (that isn't bad philosophy) is phenomenology.

>>18282948
phenomenology is garbage

>>18282170
Interesting post, mate. However I think that formal logic is the language of demonstration and not actual creative thinking. In other words, you only need a rigid fromal language when you need to show someone else (or even yourself, if unsure) that your reasoning is true. But reasoning itself (or for yourself) is often more intuitive and doesn't require that rigour.

>>18282939
Begriffsschrift is prettier.

>>18282948
Only kind of phenomenology (that isn't bad phenomenology) is the Phenomenology of Spirit.

>>18282883
Where's that character from? It looks very familiar.

>>18282985
Old and Busted

>>18282987
Morrowind

>>18282987
Trazyn the Infinite from Warhammer 40k.
Best part of the whole Newcrons.

>>18283010
>>18282987
That's a Necron from Warhammer 40k.

>>18279714
based
>>18279698
t. English major who wrote nothing but sophistry for 4 years

>>18283023
No wait fuck.
Its Imothek not Trazyn.

>>18281915
So basically, 1+1=2 is presupposed in the principle of non-contradiction bc this principle presuppose the addition of two terms
Seems circular to me

>>18281915
Absolutely retarded.

>>18279690
WTF is this trying to convey anyway? I get the symbols (for all, for each, not) but whats the gist?

>>18283123
You have never read a book.

>>18279690
This is actually pretty symbolic, because the essence of analytic philosophy is to create arbitrary and bullshit terminology and then pretend that anyone who doesn't "play the game" is some kind of pseud. And they accuse others of sophistry. Fucking kek

>>18283225
t.
Not a philosopher

>>18283214
Your arguments convinced me

>>18283233
>anyone who doesn't play with my made-up rules is not a philosopher reeeeeeee
absolutely pathetic. you are a stain on western culture

>>18283233
Very logical argument.
Got a tableau for it, fag?

>>18283214
He's right you dumbfuck

Hear me out bros, what if analytic philosophy and continental philosophy were both equally valid?

>>18279690
>You are not a philosopher
I know

>>18279738
Now this is correct

>>18279698
Based

>>18279698
It is a very minor subset of philosophy.
A hobby, really.

>>18283876
Yes, in the same sense that masturbation is a hobby

>>18283568
How do you know?

>>18279690
I wouldn’t consider myself a philosopher and I can read this. I took one Intro to Logic class and this is a cake walk.

>>18283975
I know I'm not a philosopher

>>18283225
Analytic philosophy is far to broad to reduce it down to a set of arbitrary positions. The stylistic tendencies of continental philosophy as a gatekeeping mechanism. Star difference is that someone defending analytic philosophy can actually explain what is being said in symbolic logic. Someone defending the likes of. nediegger or Derrida will tell you to read the entire history of philosophy in order to avoid having to explain what is said in the slightest way.

>>18283269
>the analytic tradition isn’t full of thinkers questioning each other’s assumptions and work
I guess you’re no doing real philosophy of half of anything your write consists of something other than names with -Ian attached at the end.

>>18283944
Pretty accurate.
Never wasted as much time as I did after reading the Tractatus.

>>18283464
Those who support the continental tradition have to first stop being ignorant of the history of philosophy, stop being arrogant about the quality of their discipline, and stop defending the unjustifiable stylistic tendencies of their tradition. It won’t happen because co tine natal philosophy is more about doing performance art to lark as some sort of social and intellectual elite rather than philosophizing.

>>18281223
And yet Quine, the father of analytic philosophy, famously demolished Mr. Carnap.

>>18282948
>>18282911
>>18282883
Philosophy is just secular theology.

>>18279718
In my experience it’s usually analytic philosophy departments that make a big deal about transgenderism, and how they’re “valid” or whatever

Ok but why would I care if somebody thinks I'm a philosopher?

>>18283975
He told us

>>18284079
>muh too broad to narrow it down
You've got to be fucking joking. Continental philosophy is ALL philosophy, apart from some unfortunate British and Viennese spergs and some contemporary larpers like yourself

>>18284088
>real philosophy
you people make me laugh

>>18285228
>Continental philosophy is ALL philosophy
Continental philosophy is far more homogeneous than analytics, and past of that comes from the greater diversity of problems that analytic philosophers are willing to deal with. Continental philosophy seems to be most interested in dealing with the more abstract portions of cultural theory in order to justify whatever agenda the individual thinker had beforehand and constructing a media image to sell it. This goes all the way back to Hegel (if anything it's similar to what medieval theologians were trying to do for their gods, it seems that it totally erased the measurable progress mad within philosophy from Descartes to Kant within France, German, and any country that followed them.) That quality seems to unite the major thinkers in that tradition more than anything that defines the analytic tradition. The "game" referred to earlier is nothing more than seriously engaging with philosophical problems rather than treating philosophy as some sort of elaborate performance art piece propaganda piece.
What's always the most interesting about these threads is that the continental fans can never actually defend their tradition. All they do is resort to whataboutism. It's pathetic.
>>18285236
Just responding to the continental talking points in this thread: >>18279698

I got an A in intro to logic and never did it again after that lol.

>>18282985
And unreadable

>>18279722
girlfriend

>>18283123
How does it presuppose that? You should know that in OP's pic, addition and numbers are not defined except in pure predicate logic.

>>18282971
I completely agree with you. I just think formal logic is interesting from a mathematical perspective and as a way to try to dissect the sometimes incredibly complex human thought processes. I'm not saying that all reasoning should be rigorous like this, not at all.

>>18282939
A friend of mine created it and posted in another thread. OP yoinked it

>>18283148
Did you ever read >>18281915

>>18283148
It's a logical proof, not trying to explain anything, just showing validity of logical argumentation.

>>18285649
I disagree

>>18281915
>- There is exactly one thing that is F.
ARGHHHHH this is an assumption you can't use intuitive axioms like that REEEEEE

>>18285697
Does anyone actually think that? It's basically just saying: take the number 1.

>>18285701
Unfortunately, yes. I've had to argue with them.

>>18279698
This.
Analytic philosophy is Anglo garbage for autists

>>18285701
So show me a One.

Continental retard.

>>18283275
Enjoy your queer negroid studies.

Continental Philosophy lmao.

>>18284649
Its not what someone thinks, its just a fact.

>>18286000
And it's a fact that you're a faggot. Sorry kiddo.

>>18285979
1

>>18286057
No need to get angry, I am just stating a fact. To be precise, the fact that you are not a philosopher if you cannot read formalised logic.

>>18286059
Thats a symbol, she me the observable object One.

>>18279690
I'm a computer """scientist""" and I can read this. I know nothing about philosophy but I spend all day manipulating symbols.

>>18285701
It's saying, in pure predicate logic:
There is an x that is F and for all y: if y is also F, y is the same as x. So it says that there is exactly one thing that is F.

>>18286000
Ok, but why should I be concerned?

Ignore the other poster.

>>18286269
You only should be concerned if you consider yourself a philosopher or if you expect others to view you as one.

>>18286086
I can't, It's an abstract concept

>>18279698
OP REKT

Analytic philosophy is an unbelievable mass of trash. I've read some of it and I was embarrassed at how bad and cringe it is, especially the opinions held by its reps.

>>18286371
You have never read a book in your life.

>>18279690
You will never be a real philosopher. You have no wisdom, you have no virtue, you have no soul. You are a bugman twisted by sophistry and atheism into a crude mockery of logos’ perfection.

All the “validation” you get is two-faced and half-hearted. Behind your back people mock you. Your parents are disgusted and ashamed of you, your “friends” laugh at your ghoulish "mathematic" behind closed doors.

Intellectuals are utterly repulsed by you. Thousands of years of tradition have allowed scholars to sniff out pseuds with incredible efficiency. Even when analytics have something resembling an insight, it still feels superficial and is incredibly impractical to a man. Your lack of a metaphysics system is a dead giveaway. And even if you manage to get a philosopher to argue with you, he’ll turn tail and bolt the second he gets a whiff of your materialistic, uncreative mind.

You will never be happy. You wrench out a fake smile every single morning and tell yourself it’s going to be ok, but deep inside you feel the nihilism creeping up like a weed, ready to crush you under the unbearable weight.

This is your fate. This is what you chose. There is no turning back.

>>18279714
Truth-calculus isn't philosophy

>>18286283
Oh, then I guess I'm fine. Thank you.

>>18279690
OP=(F)+(AG)

>>18286283
"Philosopher" today is more of an insult than a title of honor. If only you were alive a few thousand years ago.

>>18286471
OP has no arguments and just keeps repeating his copes.

>>18279714

>>18279690
Inb4
>This is OPs family tree

I study CS and could read this if I refreshed my memory. this shit doesn't matter for most people

>>18286531
Who hurt you?

>>18279690
∀OP(OP=faggot)
Ǝx(x=OP)
=> Ǝx((x=OP)=faggot)
QED

>>18286531
Ad hominem.

>>18285332
>philosophy is a media image
you complete philistine. what a stupid idea

>>18287245
>>18287339
Newfags go BACK

>>18287537
I only said that it's an integral part of continental philosophy.

>>18279698
Based, dabbing on bugmen

>>18287245
Woman detected.

>>18287543
You don't know what you're talking about, and it is an embarrassment you people hold the political power that you do.

>>18287565
The only continental philosophers remembered after their deaths are those that went out of their way to craft media images for themselves and their work. Such a thing is necessary to become more than a footnote in that field, but maybe that's just how French culture works. It's either that or shilling for whatever incarnation of the German government currently exists at the time of you're writing.

>>18287666
You're a fool and your appreciation of culture and history is on a par with most analytics. kys

Philosophy is the biggest pseud fag cope.

>>18287680
Cause culture is nothing more than French guys with bad haircuts posturing in front of camera's right. Why don't you guys ever try to defend these people and their work? You guys always resort to attacking the critics instead.

>>18279738
photocopy it another 5 times and we'll see who the real philosophers are.

>>18287701
Why would I waste my time explaining the history of philosophy to bad-faith, dogmatic, and midwitted interlocutors?

>>18287792
I'd like to see you try, but I know you can't. The one common feature of anyone trying to defend continental philosophy (or attack analytic phil from a continental tradition) I'd a complete ignorance of the history of philosophy. It's hard to think that it isn't intentional at this point.

>>18287837
Well you can believe what you want. I already made my essential argument here >>18283225

>>18287864
And I know you can't substantiate it because you're ignorant of the history of philosophy. When it comes down to it continental phil is far more homogeneous analytic philosophy is in both style, subject matter, and content, and it's far more dependent on the use of stylistic tendencies as gatekeeping devices. Take your projection elsewhere.

>>18287912
It is substantiated by the simple fact that analytic philosophy views logic as contingent/conventional whereas many German Idealism – to name just one incredibly rich tradition among many – prioritised necessity. By definition, your entire discipline is based on arbitrary premises and is quite literally nothing more than a "gate" to "keep."

>>18279698
autist fags seething

>>18279690
But seriously, what is the best book to actually look up what these symbols mean?

>>18287946
One is trying to deal with in a serious matter rather than trying to instrumenalize all philosophy for the purpose of shilling for the Prussian government. German idealism itself is probably at best a good example for analytic position on logic rather respectable movement in and of itself. It's also a movement that created style as gatekeeping mechanism. You either have to rules of Hegel's language game or you can't play at all.

>>18288031
You make the usual error of mistaking Hegel for the tradition of German Idealism. Hegel is unusually obscure and if you want to address the arguments seriously you'd be better offer reading Jacobi/Fichte/Schelling via Leibniz/Spinoza. Hegel/Fichte were considered hostile to the Prussian government and that's why they replaced them with Schelling, by the way.

>>18288026
Any introductory textbook on formal (predicate) logic will do.

>>18282581
Analytic philosophy started with positivism. That does of course not mean that positivism started with analytic philosophy, which I gather is what you are trying to make me say.
Analytic philosophy started with the likes of the Vienna Circle and the epigones of Russell, unless you are the delusional faggot in this post >>18284103 trying to push forward in embarrassment the birth of analytic philosophy to hide the fact it fell for positivism for decades. The fact that Comte or even the neo-positivists like Duhem or Mach (much more cogent than the previously cited) came before does not at all change the above.
>unironically using the words "continental philosophy" in 2021
This has never been a movement. It's only cope by analytics to vaguely engulf everyone not following their narrow worldview.

>>18287912
>continental phil is far more homogeneous
Going on with "continental" bizarre taxonomy (I guess you're the same anon through the thread >>18285332 as you use the same talking points with the same words).
"Continental" writings have much more variety than analytics, as expected from not being a school at all, and not tied to particular mantras like analytics are.
Provided you're not just trolling, you sound like an American student that has only ever heard of writers outside your own tradition through some faggot citing Foucault (who is only the most cited man in academia thanks to American obsession with him).
>Continental philosophy seems to be most interested in dealing with the more abstract portions of cultural theory
Yes, all those theories of metaphysics, action, knowledge, logic, etc are about cultural theory. Blondel, Simondon, Canguillem, Cavailles, Hyppolite, Gilson, Lavelle, Henry, Boutang, Deleuze, Marion, Ricoeur, Guitton, gorillonz of others. I specified Frenchmen since you seemed to have something against them, no difficulty drawing such a list with Germans, Italians, or perhaps Slavs and non-analytical English speakers.
We all know they all said the same thing. And with the same style! All just cultural critics of course. Wait, Deleuze wrote the anti-Oedipus, analytics are going insaaane, help me Quineman.

>>18279690
>>18279698
>>18279714
>>18279718
>>18279738
>>18279748
>>18279857
>>18279901
>>18280436
>>18280853
>>18281131
>>18281223
>>18281236
>>18282073
>>18282581
>>18282614
>>18282671
>>18282855
>>18282911
>>18282948
>>18282959
>>18282987
>>18283027
>>18283225
>>18284079
>>18284098
>>18285228
>>18285236
>>18285332
>>18285978
>>18285979
>>18285984
>>18286086
>>18286371
>>18286531
>>18286532
>>18286662
>>18287557
>>18287666
>>18287680
>>18287912
>>18287946
>>18288211
>>18288061
I really fucking hate all of you. I hate anti-continentals. I hate anti-analytics. You are all a bunch of short-sighted idiots who have no actual daring spirit. If you did you'd WANT to read everything you hate in philosophy, and actually respond to it, and go carve out a path of your own, prepared to respond to your opponents no matter whom. And you wouldn't identify with this stupid divide and sling mud at each other. Fuck all of you.
>>18284103
This is also a stupid post.
>>18283464
They're both insightful and useful, and they're both mixed with unquestioned biased presuppositions on one extreme, and failure to reckon with or intentionally tossing out the data on another extreme. It's our job to investigate everything and come out of it with ideas of our own. You're the only person in this whole shit thread that's said something worth hearing.

>>18288211
>Analytic philosophy started with the likes of the Vienna Circle
Analytic philosophy began with Frege who wasn't a positivist, and was taken up by people like Russel who wasn't a positivist either.
Positivism was a pretty short libe movement all things considered, and while it was a failure, what's salvageable from it makes it more valuable than something like German idealism or any philosophical work that takes psychoanalysis seriously.
> This has never been a movement. It's only cope by analytics to vaguely engulf everyone not following their narrow worldview.
They might not have thought of it consciously, but they have adopted a set of stylistic tendencies that keeps them united in a common discourse. It's probably better to think of it as a tradition rather than movement.
> Yes, all those theories of metaphysics, action, knowledge, logic,
Yes, Delueze is probably the best possible example of someone treating metaphysics as a small component of a letter by of cultural theory. Badiou's philosophy of math is the same. And if those thinkers are engaging with the other thinkers in this tradition are doing it by default. I also specified French because their culture seems to encourage the idea of the intellectual as celebrity. I've been shitting on Germans for treating philosophy solely as an instrument for achieving their political goals at best and shilling for the current government (Hegel, Heidegger, Haberman, etc.) at worst. Italians do a little bit of both, but for the most part they're nonentities.

>>18279738
Atheists think matter is at the top and bottom LMAO

>>18288625
It began with aristotle you imbecile.

>>18289149
There is not top and bottom. Only matter.

>>18289462
Ideas aren't matter

>>18289506
They are.
Even the ideas of time and space are matter.

>>18279698
Based

>>18289793
No they arent because I cant see them, theyre more akin to ghosts/spirit, spirit is something science denies

>>18291557
Why does it matter what you call them? If they actually have an existence, then they're ghosts and spirits. What is a ghost or a spirit if not the sum of everything a person believes about reality?

>>18279690
Wrong, you don't need that mind game garbage. This is what a philosopher needs.

>>18279690
I'll see you, and raise several levels of complexity and abstraction

>>18291833
>>18291824
It's that genuine work of art that can open a window into the human psyche and reveal what's really at the heart of the most difficult questions humans have ever faced. That's the thinking process that has prompted philosophers to make the study of ethics into a full-time job. If they're not asking questions, and listening for answers, and drawing inferences from context, it's hard to call themselves philosophers.

>>18291833
Maybe, but doesn't make it useful.

Kabblah is what happens when you have a population with a mean verbal-logical IQ in the 98th percentile banned from doing most business and gazing into metaphysics and mysticism for 1,000 years straight.

the top left corner of this image demonstrates the point where the average analytic """philosopher""" stops understanding mathematics

>>18291951
lol

>>18279690
I can read this, and it's not really a proof of 1 + 1 = 2. It just concerns the number of unique objects in a domain, given that certain assumptions are made. But mathematical truths are not truths about domain sizes, and inclusion of an individual in a universe of discourse is not 'addition.'

>>18279690
Where is this from?

>>18279690
Sauce

>>18288625
>Russel wasn't a positivist
Uhhhh, he definitely was. He was also a complete brainlet and conflated the Olympian gods with the God of Classical Theism so he was an F grade philosopher overall who couldn't even understand the difference between beings plural and being as an actual concept.

>>18288625
>Analytic philosophy began with Frege who wasn't a positivist
Are you the guy who said he was studying "philosophy" and then it turned out you're studying meme tier analytic philosophy exclusively and never even engaged with Hegel, Heidegger and hadn't even heard of David Bentley Hart before? Because you still made a huge fucking mistake and analytic philosophy is just a sad attempt to try and capture mathematical certainty for non-quantifiable questions.

>>18288509
I don't even think about you.

>>18279690
From which book you get that image?

>>18292391
>David Bentley Hart
> As a religious scholar, his work engages heavily with classical, medieval and continental European philosophy, philosophical and systematic theology, patristic texts, and South and East Asian culture, religion, literature, philosophy and metaphysics.
And you call anything else a meme?

>>18292452
>Empiricist brainlet angry his metaphysics and epistemology got BTFO
Sad. many such cases.

>>18292452
Holy based

>>18288509
Certain topics go like this everytime on /lit/. Seems like people can get completely worked up about things they've only read a few paragraphs about. Why is everything a fight

>>18292457
A disgrace. Your school of thought is a disgrace.

>>18287314
Every OP is a faggot?

>>18292142
Are they not? I'm not an expert mathematician but you'd be surprised how much of mathematics is interconnected and, at times, equivalent. Different mathematical structures can be isomorphic to each other. Take for example Gödel-numbering. Gödel translates logical formulas to natural numbers to proof statements about logical formulas using number theory. Although OP's pic is talking about logical objects belonging uniquely to certain predicates, the logical structure is isomorphic to numbers and addition.

>>18293166
>Only things that can be verified through the scientific method are objectively true, everything else is subjective
>Nooooo you can't be racist that's morally wrong!
Fuck you faggot. What's a disgrace is your retardedly ad hoc worldview

>>18287314
Faggot would be a predicate while you're using it as a constant. You're saying that there is one entity that is a faggot and that OP is a variable.
You should change OP and Faggot to be predicates.

>>18292142
It's isomorphic to 1+1=2, it doesn't literally say it

>>18292276
>>18292351
I'm not OP. A friend of mine created it (for a school project) and posted it in another thread. He wrote a booklet on formal logic.

>>18279690
I've never seen a logician use a truth tree outside of an intro to logic textbook. Also, you're missing a bracket on line 2.