/lit/ - Literature

>>20999848
He kike

>>20999848
One analytic less.

>>20999855
he was a special kind of analytic tho
he made genuine non-trivial contributions

>>20999848
RIP

>>20999848
He had the booker phenotype.

Sticky or /lit/ is dead

>>20999874
Fuck off. Analytical philosophy is not literature.

exactly 50 years after the transcript of naming and necessity was first released

>>20999896
he was a writer of books and saul anyway deserves a sticky somewhere and he sure as well ain't getting one on /his/

>Saul

S

>>20999896
It’s better than continental schlock. t. continental charlatan convert to analytic chad

>>20999911
Javier Marías didn't get one a few days ago. If Kripke gets one, /lit/ is dead.

>>20999919
Soiboi.

>>20999931
Continental writers all knew they were pseudo-intellectuals who could never write good fiction, so opted for the easiest thing of all: writing tripe for impressionable anglo “academics” in non-philosophy departments who needed to stay relevant in their bureaucracy

>>20999944
Debunked by history.

>>20999947
>debunked
Post nose

>>20999926
Javier marias is virtually unknown in America though

>>20999949
>simps for a Jewish analytic while being antisemitic

>>21000024
Simply false, you retard. Just because you just discovered him through the news of his death, does not mean everyone is similarly situated as you

>>21000024
He probably has sold more books than Kripke.

>>21000036
>>21000046
I doubt people are actually studying his material in universitier around the world. Kripke was a giant in his field, an institution in itself. Can someone say that about Marias?

>>21000085
No one outside analytic departments in anglo universities cares about Kripke. Marías was a known and read writer in Europe. He was purely literary and didn't get a thread. Kripke shouldn't get one either.

>>21000099
You are not answering the question.
Marias was only a solid writer for one of the weakest periods for spanish letters in general

>>21000130
Pathetic. No wonder you have only read 40 books in your entire life

>>21000144
Answer the question

>>20999848
I fucking wish

Man analytic philosophy is so irrelevant. It's like a sick joke they occupy so much space in universities it's unreal. Undergrads beg these doofuses for at least one interesting class a semester so they don't off themselves

ITT: people who don't actually understanding logic or anything saul kripke does, yet criticise him anyway

>>20999848
I have no sympathy for analytics, none at all, those wannabe mathematicians who still want brownie points for being “philosophers” too. There I said what everyone else was thinking.

>>21000099
>No one outside analytic departments in anglo universities cares about Kripke
That's simply wrong. Kripke was considered to be one of the most influental and important contemporary philosophers all across the world. Marias on the other hand, well with all due respect, was just one of many.

That said, your behaviour's honestly pretty childlike: noooooo, my guy didn't get a sticky, therefore, the other guy shouldn't get a sticky, too, whaaaaa! C'mon, really?

But let's be honest, since the mods here are illiterates, noone will get a sticky either way as long as G.R.R. Martin is alive.

'ate analytic
'ate autism

luv continental
luv literature

simple as

>>21000284
>noooooo, my guy didn't get a sticky, therefore, the other guy shouldn't get a sticky, too, whaaaaa! C'mon, really?
Yes.

>>21000285
If you like continental, then you clearly don’t like literature

>>21000290
I love both.

>>21000248
No, it's true. He died yesterday.
Its trending #1 on twitter and there's even a memorial tiktok dance going viral.

Seriously though, he died yesterday but ten people know who he is so of course we're just now hearing about it.

>>20999848
R.I.P.
>>21000281
>those wannabe mathematicians
Kripke made actual contributions to modal logic though, retard.

>>20999854
No. He was that actor in Hell on Wheels that played the preacher guy

>>21000267
28th post best post

Terry eagleton next pls

I'm actually shocked at the lack of media reporting of this, I was genuinely under the impression that Kripke was considered one of the most important and well known contemporary philosophers
wow I guess I'm very out of touch with reality

just saw this on tw*tter

>>21001555

>>21000285
>>21000281
>>21000252
The 90-105iq range is truly something to behold

f

Better call Saul

>>21001591
Cope.

>That timing with the post above this one
Kek

>>21001560
Kripke was also a serial stalker of female graduate students. They literally used to find him hiding in the bushes outside dorms and houses.
I'm expecting a New York Times expose article about how he was "allowed to continue his reign of terror".

>>21002243
Feynman was sex freak too and nothing happened. Normies dont know enough about science anyway to know about those people.

>>21002253
I know Feynman got in trouble for alleged sexism and fucking around with students. A lot of that seems like pretty standard 70s fare, though – relationships between professors and students being a bit looser.
Kripke was an all-out creep, made worse by his obvious mental retardation/severe autism. Women had to be warned not to spend time with him when he visited universities as a guest lecturer.

>>20999848
Why isn't he getting a sticky?

>>21002268
Blame the women for actually sleeping with their old, decrepit professors

>>21002568
Why should he?

>>20999866
Satan is right here, Kripke was one of the few good ones.

>>21002243
He had the sexual mental maturity of a 12 years old, they caught him a few times sneaking in the girl's bathrooms. He was highly autistic but also completely harmless.

>>20999848
Nothing of value was lost. naming and neccessity is a shit book.

Why are you guys bawling over some kvetching Jew?

>>20999848
S

>>21002568
Not enough FSB farm shills care about Kripke for that.

>>21003150
Anglocucks serve the Jews and worship the Negroes

>>21003017
I've heard worse stories than that but I take them with a grain of salt, since the guy seemed (outside of math and logic) actually retarded. Never met him in person but knew colleagues who said he could barely feed himself or do his own laundry. A savant, I guess.

>>21002243
this is explained by the fact that he was incredibly autistic
he's the stupidest genius i've ever met

>>21003017
yeah, it's a shame that people on twitter are currently having a spaz attack over him being a creep yet are failing to contextualise it with the fact that he did not have a typical childhood and was clearly very neuro atypical

what is it with yank philosophers and being a pervert

>>21003219
I never met him either, but one of my intro to analytics teacher had, so did my Witty teacher, we once had a huge discussion about it, they both told me he was 100% harmless, didn't have the physical capacity to harm anything bigger than a fly, dude could barely orient himself in normal situations. He was from all account a genius but had the mind of a child for all other purposes. You no more expel him for spying on some slutty coed who wont report Chad for multiple rapes of her bffs than you expel an 8 years old for spying on girls in the locker room.

are we just gonna forget how he literally FAKED the results to his famous thought experiments?
https://fauxphilnews.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/kripke-resigns-after-allegations-of-academic-fraud/

>>21003268
tell Kripke stories. I want to hear how weird he was

>>21003431
He had the weight and strength of an adult man and a (presumably) functioning penis. You can't just dismiss any man who isn't a dickless quadriplegic as "wholly harmless" when it comes to the possibly of sexual assault.

>>21003454
>Saul Kripke resigned yesterday from his position as Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the CUNY Graduate Center.
he was a pedo as well?

>>21003476
Yeah but most of the stories are of Kripke just being really creepy, following girls around. I haven't heard any stories of him actually touching, assaulting, or raping anyone. Also as many have already said he was severely autistic

>>21003185
Does your brain get this fried every time America launches an imperial war? Must be an exhausting life you have

>>21003386
It's an extension of our culture of sexual repression.

>>21000540
>Kripke made actual contributions to modal logic though
Such as? Interesting you didn't specify them...

>>21003731
Not the anon you're talking to, but dude, at least put some effort into your shitposts when you're as clueless as you seem to be.

Although you won't understand anything when you read them, here are three of his most famous works which basically established modern modal logic:
>"The Undecidability of Monadic Modal Quantification Theory“ (1962), >„Semantical Analysis of Modal Logic I. Normal Modal Propositional Calculi“ (1963)
>„Semantical Analysis of Modal Logic II. Non-Normal Modal Propositional Calculi“ (1965).

>>20999848
He died?

>>20999848
He looks like this guy in my neighborhood who would tell people he was a gnome in his past life. One of the nicest guys I've ever met honestly

>>20999848
What books are worth reading from him?

>>21003108
>naming and neccessity is a shit book.
Why?

>>20999872
Made by someone who doesn't read

>>21004596
He didn't publish many books.
His most influential works which are available in book form are "Naming and Necessity" (a lecture) and "Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language". "Reference and Existence" (another lecture) is kind of a continuation of NaN.

A lot of his unpublished lectures and notes have yet to be edited and will most probably be published in the future.

>>21004462
Sounds based. Does he go into much detail about the gnome life? I want to hear story.

>>21000285
>'ate autism

the buck has stopped
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE9m6Bu0RGI

>>21003268
>>21002243
Please expand on this

>>21006974
These are rumors that have been going around philosophy departments for decades. Nothing's ever been official, probably because Kripke has always been protected by his handlers and colleagues. You have to remember that the guy was not normal – watch some of his lectures on Youtube, he sounds like a mongoloid Gilbert Gottfried.

>>21007106
>venus has two different names i need to cum aaaaaaa im going insane
lol

>>21003185
Twitterposters need to be banned, banned, banned. I'm telling you this as a professor.

>>21005309
Because it reinvigorated a bad way of doing philosophy. Philosophers started to see themselves as metaphysicians again, scoping out the necessary features not just of this world, as they had done before, but of all possible worlds. I couldn't read a single paper in analytic philosophy for about twenty years without coming across stupid stock phrases about modal logic and possible worlds, even if they had nothing to do with the topic.
It's all based on a confusion about how intuitions should work and how ordinary language functions.
>t. Wittgenstein

>>21007287
Books elaborating on this. Please bro.

>>21007106
>he sounds like a mongoloid Gilbert Gottfried
painfully acurate

>>21007297
Just read Wittgenstein. Tractatus, PI, Brown/Blue books, On Certainty.

>>21007297
Yeah as above anon said just read the Investigations and Witty's other late stuff. For contemporary examples read Peter Hacker

>>21007343
wittgenstein is complacent

>>21007384
>dude your "brown" isn't the same as my "brown", aaaaa im going insaaaane
I fucking HATE 20th c(uck) philosophy

I hate rationalists so fucking much. Both theist and atheist.
It's due to assholes like Plato and Descartes that rationalists plague the world today.
For your information, your senses never ever lie to you. That's not even possible for a perception to life int he first place, contrary to what pieces of shit rationalists keep saying.

When you make a mistake stemming from a perception, the perception is never faulty, it's your interpretation which sucks.

And then those rationalist assholes spend 2500 FUCKING YEARS saying rationality is the sure way to truth. AND GUESS WHAT MOTHERFUCKER< NONE OF THOSE RATIONALIST FOUND ANY TRUTH WITH THEIR MIGHTY RATIONALITY. FUCK

2500 FUCKING YEARS THEY"VE BEEN AT IT. FUCK YOU


the truth is that rationality is a meme by rationalists. Rationality is just imagination and then the rationalists are in a dead end, because since FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT PLATO , they try to distinguish between ''''''''retarded imaginary takes'''' and ''''''''totally truth stemming from LE MIND LOL"".
"JUSTIFIABLE KNOWLEDGE"" MY ASS. FUCK YOU PLATO

>>21007343
>>21007384
So if Wittgenstein wrote this stuff why did people take Kripke seriously? Why is there even a thread about him? Why did my phil prof say it was the high point of his career to meet Kripke?

Clotshot?

>>21007397
a blind mans senses tell him theres nothing to see

>>21007397
>, your senses never ever lie to you
No shit. Thats because you can't judge with your senses. That's not what they do. That's what the intellect is for.

>>21007405
Other anon immediately btfo. Nice job

>>21007398
Because academics are fucking stupid? Like is that really a question?
Wittgenstein and his followers essentially told people to stop doing philosophy, it's pointless, it's not going to solve anything. Does that seem like something people who get paid to write and teach philosophy would listen to?
Kripke returned a certain sense of self-importance to philosophy. "Ah, you see I'm doing something very complex and important, outlining the logic of possibility." And in fact it's just more of the same bullshit. Literally nothing about the aftual world is revealed or better understood; it's just more mental masturbation and sick men's dreams.

>>21007428
wittgenstein beat children because they couldn't get answer his faggot math problems

kripke thought formalizing naming put him on the same stratum as plato

20th century philosophy is an absolute fucking joke

>>21007445
>formalizing naming
What is this?

>>21007461
>dude like things are one thing but names........ are TWO THINGS!??!?!?!??!
fucking trash, 20th c philosophy was a mistake

>>21007445
One time, and then he went through a blizzard to say sorry to the kid and his parents,almost dying in the process.
Witt solved his own problems with philosophy alright and moved on.

>>21007469
>assaults children because they're not on his faggot jew level
I hate midwittgensteinboos so much.

>>21007466
I take it you dislike both Heidegger and Husserl too.
My dislike with analytic Phil is simple - the personal qualities of its pinnacle practitioners testify the nature and usefulness of the method and study.

If the most esteemed and influential anals are literally autists calculating trivialities, whatever they produce is trash to anyone not an autist.
I think they serve as placeholders - their job is just to occupy academic space and suffocate thought, lest somebody starts taking a closer look at the whole con scheme.

>>21007473
Disingenuous. He did not demand calculus from school kids, and pre iodine salt mountain people were notorious idiots aka hillbillies. Probably the kid was slower than even other mountain billies and distracted the class enough to get spanked. Spanking kids was ok anywhere until like 1950s perhaps.

>>21007503
>nooooo normal healthy children couldn't follow him into his jewish labyrinthine brainrot, they DESERVED to be punished
you deserve to hang like a christmas ornament

>>21007491
I love both Heidegger and Husserl. I don't give two fucks about Wittgenstein's bullshit on how to accurately and PHILOSOPHICALLY order a coffee at dunkin donuts or whatever faggot nerd shit. Or his pseudo-mysticisms. If you like Kierkegaard so much you kike faggot, maybe don't open your career with the Tractatus Autisticus

>>21007491
That's true, the annoying thing is I'm not even against them having positions in Universities, I'm actually annoying by the overwhelming space they occupy and the way you put it, stifling of other forms of doing philosophy. Anyone can check the faculty pages of the top ranked universities right now and see the control they have.

>>21007542
How did this happened?

>>21007491
That's true, the annoying thing is I'm not even against them having positions in universities, I'm actually annoyed by the overwhelming space they occupy and, as you put it, stifle other forms of doing philosophy. Anyone can check the faculty pages of the top ranked universities right now and see the control they have. These people need to be called out

>>20999872
The man in the picture absolutely is not 59 years old.

Someone please post the original, detailed allegations about the hiding in the bushes incident.

>>21007547
How did this happened?

>>21007545
Assuming you're replying to me. I deleted the last post because of formatting. There's a great article I read recently that described how it happened. Basically they just hired amongst themselves from a few schools. It wasn't coordinated or anything either. Sure Mccarthyism may have played a small role too, but it wasn't that much of a factor. They just hired amongst themselves and never bothered to question. Now the schools are suffering from inbreeding.

>>21007563
What is the way out of this?

>>21007563
>There's a great article I read recently that described how it happened.
Please post

>>21007573
I believe I found it. American Divide: The Making of "Continental" Philosophy by Jonathan Strassfield
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-intellectual-history/article/abs/american-divide-the-making-of-continental-philosophy/E06CEFDCCE8042E4D2FEA8EA978CDAF1

https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479244318000513

>>21007609
Thanks anon

>>21007611
You're welcome. Here's a quote from it for you all.

"Graduates of all other American philosophy programs had virtually no prospect of employment in the leading departments. Accordingly, the faculties of the elite caste were united, almost entirely, by common educational experiences within a small number of institutions. This regime of exclusion facilitated their convergence on common pedagogical practices, styles, and norms—ones shaped first and foremost at Harvard University, which dominated the group. Because of this sociological reality, philosophers trained at these institutions in the early postwar years could see the common influences in their colleagues’ work, recognize their style, and evaluate their arguments by shared standards. To be clear, the “regime of exclusion” that I identify was neither explicitly constituted nor intentionally upheld. There was no conspiratorial scheme to preserve the power and prestige of certain departments, or unethical arrangement to place pedigree before merit. Rather, under the prevailing norms of faculty appointments this was the profession’s homeostatic condition.

As the Harvard trained philosopher Robert Paul Wolff explained, " The old boy network was not merely alive and well [in1957]; it was the only mechanism for placing new Ph.D.’s in entry-level teaching positions. When a department had an opening, the Chair would write to the handful of graduate departments known to be turning out philosophers, and would ask whether they had anyone suitable at the moment. A few phonecalls or a note to a friend would lead to an interview, and the young aspirant would be placed."

>>21007662
(continued)
"There was a rationality to this system. Elite departments distinguished themselves by monopolizing the discipline’s most esteemed scholars. Accordingly, promising students were often channeled to them for the opportunity to study under such eminences as W. V. O. Quine, Rudolf Carnap, Saul Kripke, and David Lewis. Most importantly, the long-standing professional and personal relations between members of these faculties meant that peer institutions could be relied upon for accurate assessments of faculty candidates by common standards. However, there were also flaws in this logic. Because the leading departments prioritized research, their members taught fewer classes with more support than most American philosophers. Thus their scholarly achievements reflect a combination of ability and opportunity, complicating comparisons of talent with individuals whose institutional obligations were an impediment to focusedresearch. Outstanding scholars could also be mediocre teachers,meaning that an elite pedigree did not necessarily imply a superior education. Finally, some number of brilliant students were invariably denied admission by leading departments, while others chose to pursue graduate education outside their ranks because of proximity, curriculum, or funding. Therefore prevailing hiring practices predetermined that appointments were constrained not just by talent or ideology, but by the limits of a philosopher’s professional world—a network of pupils, mentors, and former colleagues defined the range who might be considered for a position. As Wolff concluded, this system was “easy, efficient, comfortable, and thoroughly unfair.”"

>>21006863
sounds like the entirety of human suffering is contained within every one of his utterances

>>21007397
rationalists do not plague the world today you empricist cunt

>>21007569
I don't really know. All I can imagine is students from these places getting together and making their demands loud to administrators and reported widely by the media. Any of you anons attend these universities? What is the atmosphere like? What do you anons think

>>21007662
For instance, Ledger Wood responded to D. C. Williams’s request for information
on Princeton’s recent Continental graduates:
>These men on the whole are much inferior to our men in the fields of logic, philosophy of science and theory of knowledge. There is among these men only one . . . whose graduate record would justify his consideration by Harvard. Although I cannot recommend him unqualifiedly, I have no doubt that he would rate among the best men in his age group whose interests are historical, religious, and existentialist
D. C. Williams wrote back to Wood,
>“I am considerably impressed by your judgment that the existentialist type of philosopher is, at least on average, much inferior in sheer ability to his analytic brother (if ‘brother’ is the correct word).”
In fact, Wood had only been speaking of Princeton’s current crop of graduate students, but the reasoning was easily extended to the whole field. Indeed, Wood’s assessment made such an impression on Williams that he would discuss it in subsequent correspondences with two different philosophers, writing that he had been informed by a colleague at Princeton that “such men
average much less intelligent than analytic philosophers,” and “the spiritual types are so likely to be so much stupider than the others!”
Williams’s sweeping conclusion was obviously unjustified. However, it must be also acknowledged that it identified a real disciplinary imbalance. For the historical reasons this essay explains, most of America’s most esteemed philosophers were trained in the analytic tradition. There was no American Husserl or Heidegger whose talent and influence matched analytic eminences like Quine or Kripke. Still, regardless of tradition, few philosophers could compare to these figures, including the vast majority of analytic philosophers who fared better than their Continental
colleagues.
Ultimately, Harvard again turned to one of their own, choosing Dagfinn Føllesdal as Wild’s successor. Føllesdal’s early education in Norway had fostered serious interest in Husserl and sufficient expertise in European thought to assume responsibility for instruction in the field. Critically, however, Føllesdal
was a brilliant logician and a student of Quine—impeccable credentials for a position at Harvard.

tl;dr it's an academic circlejerk where you get passed ciphers and codes to signal your academic pedigree to get free money and status at the US universities, like some catholic priesthood

>>21007569
Same way the first modern philosophers took from the scholasticism in the universities.
Out.

>>21007774
So we need to do more philosophy outside universities? How are we to keep in touch, communicate? Form like some kind of invisible college, if you will, a community of independent scholars?

>>21007794
No, you just have to stop doing philosophy. Do something productive with your life; study engineering or medicine or law or something. Trying to recreate the philosophical experience outside universities will likely result in the same sorts of problems – because those problems are just inherent in the way philosophy is done, whether in a college or out of one.

>>21007804
>No, you just have to stop doing philosophy.

The man whose nature is such that by one path alone his chief desire will reach consummation will try to find it on that path, whatever it may be, and whatever the world thinks of it; and if he does not, he is contemptible.

>>21007829
Who is that, Bradley?

>>21007839
Yep

>>21007851
A good example of a philosopher who got away with writing total nonsense motivated by his pseudo-religious convictions.

>>21007445
Not sure why you're hating on Witty when he stood as a critic of pretty much all 20th c philosophy. There's even some crossover with Heidegger, since Heidegger started from the idea that the "metaphysics" in vogue at the time of his writing was a load of confused crap.

>>21007868
>A good example of a philosopher who got away with writing things you got filtered by motivated by his visionary higher intellect.

Ftfy

>>21007901
Keep dreaming of the "Absolute" "entering itself" bro.

>>21007794
>So we need to do more philosophy outside universities?
You need to do philosophy foremost. If you suspect that there is no philosophy in a university, and only a con scheme where a clique syphons money by engaging in some ritualized word games - you don't go there to do philosophy.
To do philosophy you philosophize. If you need input from specialists, you call them or write to them, either in private or buy publishing. If you think you are good and your though can make other people lives better, you spread your result. You play the game.
If you want to play the game of receiving state funds - whether public education or state-enforced study loands - for been of good pedigree and producing specific word salads on demand, you play that game specifically and don't waste anyone's time by pretending that you are not there to grift.

Descartes was a mercenary, Spinoza grinded lenses, Hobbes was a private tutor to a prince and a secretary to Francis Bacon who was a government official, Berkeley was a cleric, Grotius was a lawyer, Leibniz was a librarian and political advisor to a duke etc. Kant worked at a university teaching several classes, but did his philosophy in private - teaching, not philosophizing, was was paid his bills. A university is not a precondition to philosophizing - although it may well be for scholasticism or anals or whatever the current French theory is.

>>21007900
I was drinking high proof alcohol alone man, pay it no mind

>>21007868
>got away with writing total nonsense motivated by his pseudo-religious convictions.
>>21007770
>writing that he had been informed by a colleague at Princeton that “such men average much less intelligent than analytic philosophers,” and “the spiritual types are so likely to be so much stupider than the others!”

>me smart
>here is a certificate of me smart made by my clique

>>21007943
I work in factory.

>>21004077
Sounds like great literature

>>21007919
Formal academic philosophy glorifies the intellect and thus makes research into what are, after all, incidentals- if we consider philosophy as the supreme means of investigating the problems of life and the universe. The Qabalah makes the primary claim that the intellect contains within itself a principle of self-contradiction, and that, therefore, it is an unreliable instrument to use in the great Quest for Truth. Numerous academic philosophers have likewise arrived at a similar conclusion. Some of the greater of these have despaired of ever devising a suitable method of transcending this limitation, and became sceptics. Others, seeing simply the solution, have seized upon intuition, or to be more accurate, the intellectual concept of intuition, leaving us, however, with no methods of checking and verifying that intuition, which in consequence is so liable to degenerate into mere guesswork, coloured by personal inclination and abetted by gross wish-phantasm.

>>21007953
I don't think analytics get up to anything very intelligent either. It's just obvious that Bradley was driven by a desire for a congenial universe without the trappings of religion, which he was too smart to find convincing. And he was wrong. He wrote a lot of pretty-sounding junk. Should have done poetry or something.

>>21007982
blech.

The one and only major problem of modern philosophy are the modern philosophers.
They are dorks.
Basically all of them. Dorky dorks who conjure up elaborate fictions only 30 people on planet Earth could understand and only 3 would ever care to, fictions that never amount to anything and have no relations to whatever concerns your political, social, spiritual or economical life in the here and now - hence nobody cares to, and even then they are forced to by the publish-or-perish mandate to defend their grift with busywork. They do not dare to take risks and impose their vision onto anyone, lest they receive pushback and have to persevere through it.
Socrates was dealt the go-away-forever-or-die card by his community, Plato got his nickname by being a grappling champion then risked his life and limb with tyrants and got sold into slavery by one, Aristotle tutored the conqueror of the known world and was almost lynched by a mod the moment his patron died. What life did Kripke lead? Heidegger? Derrida? Rawlz? Nozick? Fucko? Wittgenstein alone was not a dork, but instead got to be a turboautist - what a waste.
The only example of a modern non-dork I could fathom is probably Kojeve, who was almost executed by literal Nazis and then went all-in to build the modern EU by becoming reportedly the eminence grise of the French Republic, and hence target to both Americans and Soviets. He got famous from his commentary on Hegel, but when invited by Gadamer to a Hegel congress he replied with basically "I don't give a shit what those guys think, much less about Hegel" because he was too busy practising his end of History political philosophy by building the EU to participate in a circlejerk over a 150 years old mummy. Naturally he is barely known outside France and Russia.

>>21007989
> And he was wrong
Kek, brothers look at this anon claiming objective truth. Come let us reprimand him.

>>21007959
The only guy who did manual labour and philosophy was Eric Hoffer and I haven't read him so can't vouch for quality thinking there. He had a typical working class life, except that one time he cuckolded a guy who later befriended him, kek.
If your labour is too monotonous and-or too tiresome, consider finding a less stressful job, like Spinoza did (died of lung cancer due to the grind still). Philosophers are rarely rich and never due to philosophy.'
Except Hegel. Hegel got a wife, a pension, kids - how many Hegels are there currently in Germany? 30? 50? - but he kissed Prussia's ass correctly in the meantime, plan accordingly with your govt if you dare to.

>>21007397
the people far away are in fact very small

>>21007989
>Bradley was driven by a desire
>And he was wrong
How can a desire be wrong lmao, a desire for meaning is not a positive statement that can be disproven as something wrong you absolute kekkity kek. You can say his way of realizing that desire was either unproductive, frustrating his desire, or dangerous by invoking societal pressure, killing or repressing him thus preventing his desire from fruition, from but not by saying a desire could be wrong.
You can say Bradley's work was unproductive TO YOU, and that is totally fine, to each his own. Bradley did not off himself, so it worked for him just fine

>>21008100
I didn't say his desire was wrong. His absolute idealism, or whatever the fuck it was, was wrong.

>>21007491
Self-help is what you're looking for. Stop thinking you're too good or too intellectual for it, and stop trying to transform philosophy into glorified self-help trash.
The untilitarian-instrumentalist attitude held by those who support the continental tradition is a cancer on on the intellect, and the real intellectual decline that has occurred in the English speaking world really began when ideas from that tradition were inserted into the other domains of the humanities and when they became lifestyle products for pseud college kids.

>>21008157
Not sure what you're saying – people who support the "continental tradition" are not typically utilitarian-instrumentalist...

>>21008119
Wrong according to what metric exactly? Collingwood spent a good deal of his autobiography reeeing against the proto-anals and their idiocy of treating everything like scientific positive statements or else 'wrong does not compute' - and it only got worse in a hundred years.

>>21008157
>Self-help is what you're looking for. Stop thinking you're too good or too intellectual for it
>My clique says me smart
>non anal means stoopid
Repeat until vomit comes out.
>untilitarian-instrumentalist attitude held by those who support the continental tradition is a cancer on on the intellect
Of course there is no practical intellect to a literal autist who can't bother to maintain even basic bitch propriety or emphasize with fellow two-legged meat sacks lest Chad gives the creepy weirdo wimp the treatment. Everything to him is cancer that is not a ∃⊕φ∨≔lgb⊤p1p2q.
I mean those guys scream like apes if you as much as misplace their toys.

logic and continental philosophy together is where the good stuff is at these days

>>21008203
Wrong by what metric? I dunno bro, the fact that it was false? Lol. It's just a confusion of language; "reality is one, there are no distinct objects" is not a promising start to getting at the way the world is. It's nonsensical. I don't mean just that it's silly, though it is that too. I mean, it "doesn't compute", as you said, and if you think that's too Carnapian of me oh well.

>>21008167
>are not typically utilitarian-instrumentalist
They almost always are, and that's why the common criticism of analytic philosophy from them tends to focus on its "uselessness"
Here it is that refrain from the person I responded to:
> the personal qualities of its pinnacle practitioners testify the nature and usefulness of the method and study.
The focus on immediate experience or the problem of being or the manner in which Marx saying the purpose of philosophy is to change the world or how Nietzsche and his philosophers who took after him wanted thought to apply to life. At the end of the day, the motivating instinct of the person who takes up this kind of philosophy is of a utilitarian-instrumentalist variety, and that underlies all of their work even when criticizing utilitarianism as a larger moral system or the instrumentalization of whatever it is that concerns them at the moment.

>>21008249
Logic is an instrument to solve problems. If your logic serves no solutions to anything but sharping and clarifying logic to sharpen and clarify logic. it is a literal masturbation - and public funds pay for this circlejerk.
Since "continentals" actually engage with their fellow humans and their needs, 'logic and continental philosophy together' is just philosophy proper, as opposed to sophistry (no logic, just pushing agenda by rhetoric) and to masturbation over trivialties.
Like I have to emphasize the bodily aspect, you have penis to put it into a vagina and in that way solve specific desires, not to obsess over it or stimulate it in way that gives you autistic orgasm until you fry your brains out with fussy trivialities of non-entities. Sophistry is sticking your penis into someone's ass for money, anal pseudo-philosophy is obsessing over dick shapes and trajectories just for the geometry.

>>21008167
That’s because they’re Kantians or have Kantian presuppositions without acknowledging them.

>>21008276
I understand where you're coming from, but I think you underestimate how much "continental" philosophy these days (or over the past few decades) seeks to do anything positive politically. Is Derrida a utilitarian-instrumentalist? Adorno? Lyotard? A lot of that reads as entirely pessimistic, negative, and bogged down by (typically Hegelian or anti-Hegelian) speculations. And it produces its own series of commentators whose sole function is to interpret and write more books about these philosophers.

>>21008245
>My clique says me smart
>non anal means stoopid
I never said that at all. All I said was that there's a huge body of writing that will give you what you're seeking from philosophy, and that you shouldn't think of yourself as too smart for it. It wasn't a knock against your intelligence, but the attitude you have towards yourself.
>Of course there is no practical intellect to a literal autist who can't bother to maintain even basic bitch propriety or emphasize with fellow two-legged meat sacks lest Chad gives the creepy weirdo wimp the treatment.
This is quite the reaction to someone thinking that there's value in intellectual activity that is not immediately applicable to your improving/enriching your life. I used think that both of philosophizing had something to offer and could coexist, but seeing the the fury continentals seem to have when confronted with such a thing (as opposed the smug dismissals we see from analytics which is still bad, but is still manageable), I don't think the continental attitude can be anything other than a detriment.
>I mean those guys scream like apes if you as much as misplace their toys.
And as far as you're concerned, things are only valuable if they can be used as toys. It's quite a childish way of looking at these things.

>>21008276
>the motivating instinct of the person who takes up this kind of philosophy is of a utilitarian-instrumentalist variety,
You mean people can do something -without- a 'utilitarian-instrumentalist' motivation? You eat and breathe with a utilitarian goal of not dying from hunger or suffocation, and to have energy to do other actions that have utility for you. You do anal philosophy because it serves you some good and you receive or devise instruments to reach it.
The critique is that anal philosophy is a grift no different from counting angels on needle tips, and an blunt one at that, since it presupposed the entirety of thinkers from outside the specific institutions of specific Anglo countries to be 'go read self-help retard' as an article of faith.

A critic would say your explicit proclamation to never change the world or apply anything to life is a necessary condition of your grift of extracting public funds for busywork over trivialties. Because outside of the universities that fund it via grants and chairs the analytic philosophy does not even exist.

>>21008380
Kant and Fichte already recognized this with the concept of the primacy of the practical. What is happened? How did us get here?

was God a logician?

>>21008402
Indeed

>>21008402
And the Word was God

>>21008335
Getting real tired of your bullshit, gonna cut it short.
The entire point of humanities is paideia, that is forming the character of a free citizen, so he may do free citizen things successfully. If your philosophy does not do paideia, it is not philosophy proper and you are not a philosopher, you are a bullshitter. The philosopher goes back to the cave to educate, preferably so with Alcibiades-tier people before the young fucks becomes a disaster to themselves and others, not to wank around.
Unless he never saw it and merely pretends to be a philosopher for public funds and status points. If your philosophy has nothing in common with Plato and Aristotle's projects at all - you are not a woman, you never were a philosopher and you will not be one. Whatever student debt serfs providers print on your diplomas is utterly irrelevant.

>>21008397
A conspiracy of dorks has happened.
The dorks would receive taxpayers' money in exchange for not questioning whatever bullshit the departments of sociology, economics and political science concoct. The dorks would performatively disrupt 'continental' 'theory' incursions into their Anglo nests, that is 'the Continent' (everyone else that is) of wrongthink. At least it used to be so, now the dorks have received an evil twin to play their part with - the freaks.
Dorks and Freaks are the leading two teams of what passes for legal philosophy in the West, a potential Socrates must be drunk on either soma or hemlock.

>>21008420
>Getting real tired of your bullshit
I kneel

>>21008488
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

>>21008488
If we can convert /lit/ to actual philosophy(Hegelianism), may we gain control of academia?

>>21008322
>Is Derrida a utilitarian-instrumentalist? Adorno? Lyotard?
I'd say yes, but I think it's a necessary attitude for doing the kind of cultural work they were doing. I may have come off as being overly dismissive (and yes some of things I said definitely seem that way). My issue is with the people who honestly believe that "uselessness" of intellectual of an intellectual pursuit, particularly philosophy, is a meaningful criticism of it. And while I think work can be great and meaningful, I think the kinds of people who would go so far as to be hostile to what they perceive as "useless" are not approaching philosophy in an honest or healthy way, and I would go as far to say that this attitude coming from the people engaging with a certain tradition does not reflect well upon the work of those who wrote the relevant literature, especially when you can see the places in the works that may have inspired these attitudes.

>>21008380
>You mean people can do something -without- a 'utilitarian-instrumentalist' motivation? You eat and breathe with a utilitarian goal of not dying from hunger or suffocation, and to have energy to do other actions that have utility for you. You do anal philosophy because it serves you some good and you receive or devise instruments to reach it.
You're shifting the goal-posts (and I know you'll respond to this line with a basedjack because you don't have any means of refuting it.) If we were to use this reductive conception of "usefulness," the claim that analytic philosophy is "useless" goes out the window. You even acknowledge this in the the last sentence of your paragraph. The conception of usefulness supporters of the continental tradition mean when they criticize analytic philosophy as useless is that it cannot be used as a tool for either "living" nor as a tool to advance a political agenda. This is why I compared it to self-help literature, because the attitude of someone who invokes this kind of "uselessness" as a criticism sees philosophy in a very similar way.
>The critique is that anal philosophy is a grift no different from counting angels on needle tips, and an blunt one at that
I'm not fan of medieval philosophy, but to claim that it was nothing more than a grift is kind of silly. Medieval philosophy was also far from useless in the sense that you presented the concept of "usefulness" earlier in this post. Your comparison is pretty empty and really shows a lack of engagement with certain traditions you're being critical of, and I think it's why you're focusing on "usefulness" rather than pointing out specific methodological flaws. It's also kinds of curious because I think continental thinkers would be more likely to seriously engage with and find value in Medieval works than analytic ones.
>since it presupposed the entirety of thinkers from outside the specific institutions of specific Anglo countries to be 'go read self-help retard' as an article of faith.
Christ, does reading continental philosophy just obliterate your ability to read. I was even critical of the attitude of analytical philosophers to be dismissive of the continental tradition without really engaging with it in that very post:
>(as opposed the smug dismissals we see from analytics which is still bad, but is still manageable)
That still doesn't change the fact, that the criticism of uselessness that you've invoked indicates an instrumentalist attitude hostile to philosophical thinking and one that would leave you better off if you spent you time reading some self-help books along with your Nietzsche and Heidegger, nor does it excuse your inability to understand that criticism of a shitty attitude that is currently presenting itself to you is somehow and "article of faith."

>>21008245
>I mean those guys scream like apes if you as much as misplace their toys.
lol true

>>21008488
It's a bit odd seeing someone championing a type of thought that prides itself on being critical and suspicious of all things appealing to tradition like this. While "forming the character of a free citizen, so he may do free citizen things successfully" is a valiant goal, I think someone schooled in the continental philosophy would find a way to question every aspect of that sentence and point out the biases behind it. As far as I'm concerned the art, philosophy, and the other humanities have so much potential to move beyond that, whether it's providing us the tools to approach such an idea in a more critical a thoughtful manner or allowing us to do things intellectually and creatively outside of it. I think the limits your placing on it are ideological, and those of the exact type of person cheering on the shadows in the cave.
>If your philosophy has nothing in common with Plato and Aristotle's projects at all - you are not a woman, you never were a philosopher and you will not be one.
If you were to look at Plato's or Aristotle's works determine as many qualities as we can discern from them and do the same for modern Western philosophy of any kind, you'd find plenty of overlap, and you could do the same for various Eastern traditions too. You might dismiss these similarities as meaningless because they're not the qualities that can be used to advance your agenda, but they sill exist, and that's enough to dismiss your claim. I have also never claimed to be a woman, nor have I ever claimed to be a philosopher for that matter.

>>21008701
>lol true
Is projection? Just look at the conversation, and you'll see that the defense of cotintnal thought is made up entirely of screaming.
This one is the sole exception:
>>21008322

>>>/sci/14856127

Even the math thread on /sci/ shits on Kripke.
So if philosophy hates him, pure logic hates him, and math hates him, why was he so heavily pushed? Was it really this cloistered academic clique that exalted the man?

>>21008203
Do you have any specific passages with Collingwood reeeeeing?

Quick rundown?

>>21008991
Most people on /sci/ failed out of math 101 so they go there to cope

>>21009057
Not him but just skim the first 30 or 40 pages, it's a short book

>>21009850
Things exist if they're named. If you see a smudge of colors caused by different lights interacting, and you name the smudge Eddy, then it is a named object and has ontological reality. If Eddy disperses as the lights are turned off, and it turns out there was never an Eddy to begin with, then Eddy was never an object to begin and you were wrong to have given Eddy a name. In all possible universes, Eddy is my friend until someone turns the lights off.

>>21008264
>It's just a confusion of language
You're right, the entire western philosophical tradition which effectively began with the attempts of the presocratics to answer the question of how the world can be both unity and multiplicity at the same time, the one and the many, and the way that the Pythagoreans and then Plato and Aristotle developed all modern concepts and problematics of subsequent philosophy from this basic issue (concepts themselves, universals, are Ones that unite a Many), all of it was wrong.

>>21010038
Uh, yeah. All of it was wrong. Glad you're agreeing with me!

>>21010014
Autism

>>21008991
More like: 4chan is simply full of pseuds who like to shit on everything in reach since their oh-so misunderstood pseudo elitism makes them feel better about their own failed careers and existances.

>>21008991
lol you misunderstand, most mathematicians are afraid of pure logic and /mg/ is no exception
also if you think people on 4chan liking or disliking something means anything at all you are probably underage

>>20999848
Saul Krip Kike