/lit/ - Literature

>>2074401
>being militant
>being positivist

>2011
>being

>yfw you realize that verificationism is perfectly fine, fuck the haters

I'll make a few emendations OP:

>2011
>Not being a non-vocal secularist and humanist who eschews traditional Kantianism as far (as his logic allows him) in favour of a Quinean naturalism, tempered both by a sense of pragmatism and a strong self critical tendency, while remaining open minded to textual hermeneutics of all shapes and colors in an effort to find some position between Kripkean intensionality and Quinean ordinary language philosophies.

>>2074417
>give every answer to question possible
>pretend it's satisfactory

nice try but you've failed at life

>>2074420
>give every answer to question possible
>every answer to question possible
>to question possible
>question possible

>this sentence
>not making sense

Pic related dood. I'm sure you've got yourself an apposite little bit of commentary there, but it hasn't been conveyed with a nice level of clarity.

>2011
>not being a nihilistic post modern morally relativistic individualist anarchist who indulges in the cult of Richard Dawkins

>>2074424
>2011
>being truman capote

>>2074417
anyone else think this post was just a bunch of gibberish

>2011
>not worried about the Zionist NWO

>>2074430
anyone else think this guy needs to look into the tensions that run at the forefront of modern philosophy before commenting on the work of those that do know these tensions intimately

>>2074433

>2011
>still thinks philosophy has a front or is modern

>>2074433
>those that do know these tensions intimately

Oh god I lol'd. I seriously hope you aren't a graduate student or professor, the position you sketched out is pants on head retarded.

>Quine
>Kant
>Quine
>Kant

>>2074437
>still thinks philosophy has a front

>2011
>still uses conventional geometry to conceptualize the field of philosophy and has not ventured into the fourth dimension along with the post-structuralists

>is modern

>2011
>still thinks things are modern and not post-modern

>>2074437
5 star fucking post

>>2074439
How so, sir?

I dare you to critique it. But no strawmans, that would be cheating (and wrong).

>>2074444

1. Pragmatists are all liars; the aim of inquiry is the True.

2. Kant chose the wrong starting point; Moore chose the right starting point.

3. Naturalism and Quine are for turbo-nerds.

4. Most people who use the phrase "ordinary language philosophers" intend to refer to a group that includes Wittgenstein & Ryle and thus are missing Wittgenstein and Ryle's points.

>militancy
>secularism
>humanism
>"rationalism"
>positivism

Nah x5.

>2011
>still thinking

>2011
>not being a liberal ironist

>2011
>not being agnostic

>>2074452
>2011
>being an useful idiot to the decadent child abusing elite

>2011 BC
>Thinking Atheism is relevant

<-- Captcha

>>2074446
>1. Pragmatists are all liars; the aim of inquiry is the True.
And who's to say I was referencing Dewey or Habermas' school of thought? I do agree with you that neither has come up with anything but a sort of sophistic Gordian knot cutting exercise, but still your case is weak since all you do is call them 'liars' with no case built up to do so.

I was more referencing the ideal attitude of a serious philosophy who is wary (but not necessarily doctrinely unopen) to mysticism in their work.

>2. Kant chose the wrong starting point; Moore chose the right starting point.
You do not know what the word 'eschew' means. This is a strawman, but one done in good faith, I suppose.

My point was that Kantianism has always been a little noxious and idealism as much as it sometimes feels like a necessary evil, can be and should be avoided by that Moorean leap of faith into the belief of our immanence in what is beyond our perspective an objective reality. Also, you should have really cited Aristotle instead of Moore. There are also issues with his analytical/synthetic position, but Quine's argument against them is circular and so I'll leave that to the mathematicians.

>>2074465


>3. Naturalism and Quine are for turbo-nerds.
Do I need address with any focus? Not really. Quine's Naturalism should gain somewhat in currency in the future, depending on how Kant gets criticized in the next 50 years. If it doesn't, there are undoubtedly good reasons for it, chief of all that it relegates textual based disciplines.

>4. Most people who use the phrase "ordinary language philosophers" intend to refer to a group that includes Wittgenstein & Ryle and thus are missing Wittgenstein and Ryle's points.
I'm guessing what you're trying to say in pretty smugly vague way is that some people that refer to ordinary language philosophy do so with the misconception that Wittgenstein et al. formed it as a sort of metaphysical grounding for language. Don't patronize me like this. I went meta on this by mentioning Kripke and intensionality philosophy, an extremely reaction to ordinary language philosophy that has informed a great deal of modern analytical thought.

A lesson to be learnt here. Don't fuck with what you haven't read properly. Hopefully, you'll take this package of butthurt as an important lesson and leave if you don't have anything else to say. I don't have the patience for semantic wrangling with 14 year olds today.

>>2074468
Just gonna amend this post for clarity.

>so with the misconception that Wittgenstein et al. formed it as a sort of metaphysical grounding for language. It's not. It more points to the chaotic groundlessness of language, a barren womb for any non-fallacious metaphysics.

>an extremely successful reaction to ordinary language philosophy. Don't forget likewise that the two world theorem has facilitated a re-establishment of a sort of metaphysics in the analytical canon.

>>2074465
>you should have really cited Aristotle instead of Moore.

>>2074487
A cowardly unsubstantiated laughingwhores.jpg but one I'm happy to give a quick rebuttal to.

My reason for preferring Aristotle to Moore is that 90% of his thought doesn't rest on the fact that the knottier issues within epistemology and ethics can be transcended through belief. This is where a pragmatic attitude and a prudence with mysticism is useful; I mean why didn't Moore become some sort of Calvinist preacher if he was prepared to make those sorts of concessions to belief.

Aristotle on the other hand provides a bit more etiology than 'hurr durr these are my hands and they are real.' I think likewise, the point of several continentals that metaphysics of inaccesibility (a term I use for idealism, but Heideggerian ontology also among other things) create a false distance between perception's horizon and reality.

>>2074495
> a bit more etiology than 'hurr durr these are my hands and they are real.'

That comes at the very end of the article, kiddo.

>>2074505
And what is this supposed to mean?

>>2074507

That the hard work done earlier in the article is part of the justification for his conclusion? What, did you think it was his diary or something?

>>2074508
Oh excellent, so you expect me to elevate this claim beyond the status it deserves as a belief, because you like the way he directed his outrage and prurience at this meddlesome German tradition of thought and the way it has hindered straight thinking philosophical thought for centuries, when it itself is straight thinking philosophical thought that wants things to be able to bear the burden of criticism and to avoid Deweyian pragmatism (as Moore has indulged in here, I think, this belief being justified as this sort of useful, non-cumbersome/obfuscatory thing with this allure of truth to it; if this is the case, and you have been the same critic throughout this interchange, you've just been found a hypocrite with no coherent idea of what direction in philosophy(stuck between pragmatism and distrust for system making and meta-physics (of which group pragmatism is a weak member))).

>>2074516
>when idealism itself is straight thinking philosophical thought that wants things to be able to bear the burden of criticism and to avoid Deweyian pragmatism

typah

>>2074516
>)))

Jesus christ you need to relax broheim.

& no I meant the stuff about what it takes for a proof to be rigorous. Stop being so insecure, I wasn't hating on your foolish habit of reading German philosophy.

>2011
>not being a reactionary ethnocentric darwinist mystic.

>>2074523
>& no I meant the stuff about what it takes for a proof to be rigorous.
Proof. I never saw any dood and that's why I left Moore behind a long time ago. Give me a condensed deduction of how he came to this and maybe I'll let you off here. Don't skirt though.

>Stop being so insecure, I wasn't hating on your foolish habit
Haha, no. I come here for a little catharsis and the opportunity to act like an arsehole without any consequences. 14 year olds sure are fun to demean, but then they often turn out to be graduates and serious minded man instead and then the whole thing becomes an absolutely intoxicating egotrip. Egotrips like this are attractive to anyone by the way, don't play the bad personality card here.

>I wasn't hating
>Calling my habit for adhering to German philosophy 'foolish'.
This seems to be a pretty flagrant contradiction. It's obvious that here you're trying to get some sort of moral high ground but you're not doing a good job. Your own antipathy is coming from with your sloppy language usage and so any 'bigger man' type argumentative get-out clauses are kind of gone for you.

If this is to continue, know that there is no way you can get a last word and that you will continue to be demeaned by me as much as you demean yourself with your ignorance and arrogance to suppose that you have anything more than ignorance to bring the table right now.

>2011
>not being a Millitant African Shaman.

>>2074539
>Give me a condensed deduction of how he came to this and maybe I'll let you off here. Don't skirt though.

Bro, I'm not going to read Moore for you. You're at the forefront of analytic philosophy and shit, you should be able to handle it.

>Haha, no. I come here for a little catharsis and the opportunity to act like an arsehole without any consequences.

Far as I can tell you come here to type a lot to defend your e-reputation.

>This seems to be a pretty flagrant contradiction.

It's the difference between the past and the present, bro. I wasn't hating before, but I was then.

>>2074545
did you celebrate ethiopian new year last night too?

>>2074433

The guy who doesn't even read much philosophy, and just apes what he hears the grad students talking about, strikes again.

No one here who knows is fooled, brah.

>>2074546
>Bro, I'm not going to read Moore for you.
I've read it, I just wondered if you could turn a goose turd into a golden egg but that's for the alchemists and the fairy tale writers, and yes, you are really stupid enough to give Moore the support you do.

>You're at the forefront of analytic philosophy and shit, you should be able to handle it.
2/10

>Far as I can tell you come here to type a lot to defend your e-reputation.
My 'e-reputation'? I'm probably the least well known regular poster. Pretty much deep and onion know who I am and what I'm about. So no, that won't wash. I'm here to demean because it's great fun, that's final.

>It's the difference between the past and the present, bro. I wasn't hating before, but I was then.
This is piss poor. I'm crying for the intellectual state of wherever you're at, unless you travel to it in the short bus in which case, I might have to be a bit more compassionate. If you are indeed, the anon who said here >>2074439, that 'the position you sketched out is pants on head retarded,' and I'm pretty sure that you are, you came into this thing with contempt to boot and really brought this whole thing on your head. It won't stop as I say until your intellect is dragged ragged through the mud and left to fester in stagnant water; in other words, you'll be feeling worse afterwards and, as if i've outlined, won't have any moral justification for it. This whole moral politicking you did well to introduce into this discourse but politicking that ended up being of little use.

>>2074567
Is any substantiation gonna come with that? Or are we to assume they don't teach logic in middle school anymore?

>>2074571

I've called you out enough, already. The terrible name–dropping in place of a position throughout this thread is a good start for the neophyte, though.

>>2074577
>name-dropping

Have you studied philosophy?

People come up with ideas in history, you comment on them. If you're lucky, you have a great idea of your own that ends up amounting to nothing much at all (cf 99% of serious philosophers). If you have any great ideas of startling originality, please outline them, I feel like I need some good comedy.

also,
>neophyte
why the fuck couldn't you just say rookie? we're not at the first ecumenical council at Nicaea are we?

>>2074581
fuck off student

>>2074599
0/10

>>post-1245
>>not being a Thomist

>>2074581

No, it's just my livelihood.

Name–dropping is when your references are strung in such a way to not indicate any actual understanding of them. This is kind of like the time you attempted to explain Heidegger while admitting to only having read some selections in the "Basic Writings" anthology, where you hope your shallow erudition can suddenly make you seem hopelessly impressive and all /lit/ will love you and despair.

It's like the K–Mart Bluelight special version of D&E's shtick.

>>2074622
>This is kind of like the time you attempted to explain Heidegger while admitting to only having read some selections in the "Basic Writings" anthology.
I don't think I've ever tried to explain Heidegger and if I did, it was because someone got him so flagrantly wrong or valued him so flagrantly wrong that i had to intercede. That thread I did was whether I should get Heidegger's Basic Writings or not, whether there was something inherently wrong with it as a collection.

Anyway, do you expect me to know intimately his responses to, say, Parmenides' cosmogony (rather than his substance philosophy; I dunno, I'm just trying to make this seem obscure and it does seem obscure or should do, to prove this following point that to know an author's generic position is enough to comment on them and it's snobbery to suggest otherwise) to tell someone that no, Heidegger's thought does occupy an important position in the Western philosophical tradition and yes, his ontology was ultimately necessary.

For a person that claims to work as a philosopher you have no talent for precise textual analysis and hence, all your responses strawman like shit. If you were the irish philosophy student from the Heidegger thread, you are indeed lying and that doesn't reflect well on you.

>>2074615
we saw you get raped by d&e yesterday bro, run along now your wife probably wants something done.

>>2074686
>>d&e
>>successful at anything
0/10

>2011
>not thinking married oldfag is the best tripfag

>>2074740
>2011
>Where the fuck is Brownbear when you need him?!

>>2074748
Haha, he had a thread a while back with a different tripcode but someone said they were gonna release information about him so he deleted it. Was a real shame.

>>2074740
>2011
>being an american

>>2074751

>>2074751
Correction: All his information was released. The source of the information was himself. I guess he just didn't expect the information he gave about himself to be spread about. Silly.

One can only hope the same happens to you.

>>2074758
deanm's on the tc dood. Come on over

>>2074751

That was me, funny thing is I didn't even have his dox, but I know there are people that do on /lit/

>>2074763
And fuck you too, mister

>>2074773
>dat pic

>>2074781
You can't say old-skool donald duck without saying kool