/lit/ - Literature

Mostly the association with liberalism and secularism.

too rigorous

It's just Anglo exercises in bashing their heads against a wall of their own creation, mixed with contempt for other philosophy (from ignorance of course), and even contempt for history of philosophy. There have been those that can be considered a part of it that have come out already and stated its dead, and relegated to just being a style. But apparantly this hasn't been enough for them to still not be exclusionary of others. Also reading its history you'll find out the dominance is artificial, as they just hired each other from a few schools starting in the 40s and 50s. So really it's like philosophy has been stagnant for 50 or so years in the English speaking world.

>>22636936
But Schopenhauer would like it.

>>22636942
>a hack endorsing other hacks
Probably.

>>22636942
Wrong. Many would laugh at World as Will, of course there would be a few appreciators, that's normal. That or just think it was a cute exercise but a distraction from what they usually do.

Because /lil/ doesn't have high IQ to truly grasp the rigor and logic necessary to understand analytic philosophy.

Because behind all the formal notation and arrogance their view of the world is naive and simplistic. And once you get past the big 20th century names in analytic philosophy their entire discipline consists of comparing themselves to continentals and going “BUT YOU DIDNT PUT YOUR POINT IN FORMAL LOGIC!!!!!!!!! HOW CAN I UNDERSTAND SOMETHING WRITTEN IN NORMAL ENGLISH!!!!!” They are the heralds of 21st century scientism leaking into every discipline like a metastasis. Above that they are generally soulless individuals who have a poor understanding of their philosophical predecessors and tend to love stroking their egos over their own misrepresentations. Bertrand Russell’s history of philosophy would have been a career ending embarrassment if he were a continental philosopher in peerage with others who actually understood Plato and Hegel. They are to philosophy as homeopathy is to medicine.

>>22636936
>There have been those that can be considered a part of it that have come out already and stated its dead, and relegated to just being a style.
This is the crux of the matter at least for the last four decades or so.
Back in the 1910s-1960s period the words analytic philosophy were more or less synonymous with the so called logical positivism (or at least an ever softer variant of it when people started to notice how much the original grandiose claims of the early 20th century were retarded). At least the expression meant something in terms of doctrinal position.
Now the softening has gone so long and in so many branching directions that the only thing behind the words "analytic philosophy" are:
>a repertoire of philosophers to cite (mainly the previous generations that did believe in logical positivism, and the other fellow that belong to the "tradition")
>a disregard and dismissive attitude towards all other philosophers not part of the "tradition", complete with much bad faith the rare time they read them
>a particular literary style (mainly an insistence on having a terrible style as if literary value was incompatible with truth)
>restricting methods, each having his own personal idea on the subject and elevating it to an idol of Rigor™
>constant whining about said Rigor™, accusing each other of not obeying the Rigor™ (let alone those not in the tradition of Rigor™) because each one has different idea about the restriction of legitimate methods
Reminder that the founder of anal memetics, Bertrand Russel, in between writing two books of cuckoldry apologetics, thought that self reference was a breach of Rigor™, which among other things would make half of mathematics illegitimate, and was promptly told to fuck off by actual thinkers Poincare and Hilbert. This is a succinct summary of that tradition.

>>22637025
Bertrand Russell destroyed naive set theory with a simple example of self-reference and then spent a huge amount of effort trying to render self-reference safe with the Principia.

Too hard. Also, they're not really interested in understanding philosophical problems to begin with. Philosophy's just fancy self-help to them, and the kind of precision that analytic philosophy aims at is irrelevant for working through their emotional issues.

>>22637042
Oh my, a Russel apologist.
>Bertrand Russell destroyed naive set theory with a simple example of self-reference
Entirely irrelevant to my post
>spent a huge amount of effort trying to render self-reference safe with the Principia.
And failed, by his own account abandoning it in the 1920s, not mentioning the myriad of other problems with this bizarre construction.
You however missed the point of my post which is that he tried to ban the best methods available then had to cope with them after being called out.

>>22637080
>You however missed the point of my post which is that he tried to ban the best methods available
I didn't miss the point I directly refuted it and you tried to run away by calling it irrelevant
>>Bertrand Russell destroyed naive set theory with a simple example of self-reference
>Entirely irrelevant to my post
Self-reference destroying an attempt at constructing a foundation for math gave Russell a more than valid reason for being worried about self-reference.

The simplest possible explanation is this: analytic philosophy deals in terms and concepts without first justifying them either by explaining their relation to THOUGHT (phenomenology) or to the external WORLD (metaphysics). Instead, they simply presuppose these unjustified terms and start trying to discuss phenomenological and metaphysical issues with them. When antinomies and ambiguities emerge from these free-floating discussions, they take these for "classic problems" and debate them for decades, excluding the possibility of encountering views or solutions they haven't seen before.

>>22637178
>justifying them either by explaining their relation to THOUGHT (phenomenology) or to the external WORLD (metaphysics)
How do you justify thought with thought? And if you were worried about the external world you would be talking about science not metaphysics. Deductive reasoning starts with an unjustified foundation. There is no other way to do it.

>>22636942
Schopenhauer hated logic:
>It is only insight into the ground of being that secures satisfaction and thorough knowledge. The mere ground of knowledge must always remain superficial; it can afford us indeed rational knowledge that a thing is as it is, but it cannot tell why it is so. Euclid chose the latter way to the obvious detriment of the science. For just at the beginning, for example, when he ought to show once for all how in a triangle the angles and sides reciprocally determine each other, and stand to each other in the relation of reason and consequent, in accordance with the form which the principle of sufficient reason has in pure space, and which there, as in every other sphere, always affords the necessity that a thing is as it is, because something quite different from it, is as it is; instead of in this way giving a thorough insight into the nature of the triangle, he sets up certain disconnected arbitrarily chosen propositions concerning the triangle, and gives a logical ground of knowledge of them, through a laborious logical demonstration, based upon the principle of contradiction. Instead of an exhaustive knowledge of these space-relations we therefore receive merely certain results of them, imparted to us at pleasure, and in fact we are very much in the position of a man to whom the different effects of an ingenious [pg 092]machine are shown, but from whom its inner connection and construction are withheld. We are compelled by the principle of contradiction to admit that what Euclid demonstrates is true, but we do not comprehend WHY it is so.

>>22637206
(continued)
>We have therefore almost the same uncomfortable feeling that we experience after a juggling trick, and, in fact, most of Euclid's demonstrations are remarkably like such feats. The truth almost always enters by the back door, for it manifests itself per accidens through some contingent circumstance. Often a reductio ad absurdum shuts all the doors one after another, until only one is left through which we are therefore compelled to enter. Often, as in the proposition of Pythagoras, lines are drawn, we don't know why, and it afterwards appears that they were traps which close unexpectedly and take prisoner the assent of the astonished learner, who must now admit what remains wholly inconceivable in its inner connection, so much so, that he may study the whole of Euclid through and through without gaining a real insight into the laws of space-relations, but instead of them he only learns by heart certain results which follow from them. This specially empirical and unscientific knowledge is like that of the doctor who knows both the disease and the cure for it, but does not know the connection between them. But all this is the necessary consequence if we capriciously reject the special kind of proof and evidence of one species of knowledge, and forcibly introduce in its stead a kind which is quite foreign to its nature. However, in other respects the manner in which this has been accomplished by Euclid deserves all the praise which has been bestowed on him through so many centuries, and which has been carried so far that his method of treating mathematics has been set up as the pattern of all scientific exposition. Men tried indeed to model all the sciences after it, but later they gave up the attempt without quite knowing why. Yet in our eyes this method of Euclid in mathematics can appear only as a very brilliant piece of perversity.

>>22637203
>How do you justify thought with thought?
That's a question for philosophy. For example, the father of the modern mos geometricus (on which analytic philosophy is based) did it by first proving the existence of a non-deceiving God and thus a reliable form of intuitionism, to anchor all his subsequent statements. Some of his most important followers, including Leibniz (who was a massive inspiration to Bertrand Russell via Couturat), similarly appealed to a form of irrefutable gnosis. They did this because they understood that free-floating "logical" statements are nonsensical. The Greek conception of a "logistic," or technique of purifying and connecting purified logoi to "prove" things, was based on a realist metaphysics in which deception and error were secondary errors of an observer's contingent perception of the thing, but the "thing itself" could never deceive because its truth was contained in its being. Greek "logic" was thus apophantic. Stoic logic, which analytics today often admire, was the same, as was scholastic logic, which added many counterfactuals like the nature or possibility of apophantic discourse in nominalistic epistemologies, but the "main stream" of logistical discourse remained the realist metaphysics of the Greeks.

Boole, one of the founders of modern symbolic logic, says in the opening to one of his major books on the subject that logic is ultimately a linguistic tool, so it is only as good as its human users' ability to agree on norms and referents. Hilbert said the same to Frege in a letter I think.

Here's what William James says on the subject:
>I am a-logical, if not illogical, and glad to be so when I find Bertie Russell trying to excogitate what 'true knowledge' means, in the absence of any concrete universe surrounding the knower and the known. Ass!

Here's some quotes another anon posted recently:
>The fake philosophical terminology of mathematical logic has misled philosophers into believing that mathematical logic deals with the truth in the philosophical sense. But this is a mistake. Mathematical logic deals not with the truth but only with the game of truth. The snobbish symbol-dropping found nowadays in philosophical papers raises eyebrows among mathematicians, like someone paying his grocery bill with Monopoly money.

>>22637247
Also here are some quotes another anon posted recently:
>Logic formalizes only very few of the processes by which we think. The time has come to enrich formal logic by adding some other fundamental notions to it. What is it that you see when you see? You see an object as a key, you see a man in a car as a passenger, you see some sheets of paper as a book. It is the word 'as' that must be mathematically formalized, on a par with the connectives 'and' 'or' 'implies' and 'not' that have already been accepted into a formal logic.
t. ulam

(This is what Wittgenstein tried to do in the Philosophical Investigations)

>The fake philosophical terminology of mathematical logic has misled philosophers into believing that mathematical logic deals with the truth in the philosophical sense. But this is a mistake. Mathematical logic deals not with the truth but only with the game of truth. The snobbish symbol-dropping found nowadays in philosophical papers raises eyebrows among mathematicians, like someone paying his grocery bill with Monopoly money.

>The prejudice that a concept must be precisely defined in order to be meaningful, or that an argument must be precisely stated in order to make sense, is one of the most insidious of the twentieth century. The best known expression of this prejudice appears at the end of Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractate. The author's later writings, in particular Philosophical Investigations are a loud and repeated retraction of his earlier gaffe.

>Looked at from the vantage point of ordinary experience, the ideal of precision seems preposterous. Our everyday reasoning is not precise, yet it is effective. Nature itself, from the cosmos to the gene, is approximate and inaccurate.
t. rota

>>22637080
You forget Russell pioneered type theory, a branch of mathematics with foundational importance: https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/computational+trilogy

>>22637247
Shit I forgot to delete the last bit when splitting the post due to length limit, sorry for redundancy.

>>22637247
Mathematicians dont give a shit about philosophy in general, no matter how it is written.

>>22637247
>That's a question for philosophy.
No it's not. It was a rhetorical question meant to show how ridiculous your statement was. Justifying thought with thought commits a basic logical error in circular reasoning
>did it by first proving the existence of a non-deceiving God and thus a reliable form of intuitionism
Lol. Even ignoring the christcuck shit what do you mean by prove here? If it is deductive reasoning from logical foundations by definition those foundations are unjustified. You don't understand how basic logic works.

>>22637259
Only modern ones, and that's only because they work in conceptually overdetermined, entirely formalistic fields. Talk to any intelligent one and they'll tell you that they don't give a shit about what set-theoretical proofs of number theory might possibly underlie arithmetic when they're doing Grisha Perlman tier innovation at the highest levels of their field. It'd be like asking a physicist measuring solar flares in another galaxy to prove a point about exoplanets what he thinks of two slightly different competing theories about the nature of quark spin in string theory, they're just focused on other things.

>>22636794
It's a vile combination of bigotry and ignorance.

>>22637282
The logical foundations of math are a mathematical field not a philosophical one. There probably isn't more than handful of philosophers capable of meaningfully engaging with category theory, a modern development in foundational math.

>>22637255
What is known today as type theory has essentially nothing to do with what Russel did under that name. You just also bring that up out of nowhere as to give Russel some cred when it has no relevance.

>>22637259
Sometimes they do, and are usually dumbfounded by the claims of those trying to appeal to mathematicians.

>>22637268
It's okay to disagree about these things. I disagree with your take on them mostly because I find it conflicts with all great logicians and founders of logical thought who have ever lived. You disagree with mine because it doesn't conform to the glib simplifications you learned from the $150 textbook you were forced to buy and memorize squiggles from. We can still coexist.

Trying to appropriate something of value from your post for those with more interest in philosophy than you, who might be reading this thread:
>Justifying thought with thought commits a basic logical error in circular reasoning
This is a good example of a glib simplification. There are many kinds of "thought." For example, in the above quotes which you did not read or understand, distinctions are made between ordinary discursive thought and intuition. The latter is clearly also an equivocal term, as it is used in the above quotes in the Platonic sense of noesis (itself reliant on the Greeks' realist metaphysics), in the Cartesian sense of the direct perception of clear and distinct ideas (in a world whose non-deceptive character is guaranteed by God's self-evident goodness), in the Kantian sense of the three-dimensional, Newtonian manifold in which sense-perception occurs (as appropriated and modified by Schopenhauer), AND in Poincaré's and Wittgenstein's sense, i.e., as including all the non-discursive elements of "certainty" and "commitment" in human cognition.

But all of this subtlety is irrelevant to you because all you cared about was your "proof":
>Thought is thought. Thought can't found thought that is a circle QED I studied philosophy in college you know.
>t. pic related
Read these posts >>22637206 >>22637217 and maybe you can save yourself from your midwit mindset and $150 squiggles.

>>22637411
>This is a good example of a glib simplification. There are many kinds of "thought."
This is so tiresome. So what justifies the "thought" you're going to justify the other thought with. It has to end in an unjustifiable foundation. That's how logic works.

>>22637437
Unjustifiable from the perspective of the subordinate level of discursive thought, sure. Discursive thought exists in thought, in a world. That's what James said in the quote in this post: >>22637247

That is why I posted that quote.

>>22637445
>Unjustifiable from the perspective of the subordinate level of discursive thought,
Discursive thought aka logic. Once you admit to that I don't have any argument. I don't care whatever illogical mystical gibberish you are into. And neither do analytic philosophers.

>>22637450
You mean logistic. Also, equating discursive thought with logistic is dangerous. It's what Wittgenstein called the fallacy of the ideal language and it leads to most of the absurdities that caused the collapse of logical positivism in the early 20th century and the abject failure of the logicist paradigm in mathematics.

As I said, almost all logicians and logisticians throughout human history, including all the great founders of modern "logic," have had apophantic or intuitionist epistemologies underlying and guaranteeing their logistic (the squiggles thing you enjoy doing). Even a pure formalism requires intersubjective consent, and thus a theory of intersubjective communication of conceptual content, tacit or otherwise, and this can only be defined through semantic intuitionism of the Poincaré and Wittgenstein variety if you are frightened of metaphysics.

I am sorry I upset you by insulting your squiggles. You should just man up and learn math instead, instead of this fake made-up pseudo-philosophy between math and actual philosophy.

>>22637337
That's like saying what is known today as computer science has nothing to do with Turing. Name one (ONE) lasting impact the work of a continental philosopher of the 20th century has made in a field outside of academic philosophy and derived disciplines (cultural studies etc)

>>22637588
You aren't the brightest. First of all, the two situations are not at all the same, but we're entering a tangent of a tangent of a tangent.
Second, you completely miss any of the point of the thread and desperately try to make it a dick measuring contest about your precious retard. I am afraid you will lose that one, and you should already have seen it above. The discussion already highlighted a 20th century continental philosopher (Poincare) that was explicitly against Russel on the specific matter at hand. Do you have any idea how much of a total intellectual midget not worthy of a footnote Russel is compared to Poincare, even in epistemology alone?

>>22637607
I'm not the same anon but I already responded to this
>I am afraid you will lose that one, and you should already have seen it above
here >>22637144 and you just gave up since you were shown as a moron. Unlimited self-reference was shown as paradoxical and had to be strongly constrained, initially by Russell.

>>22637633
I didn't respond earlier because it was going on a tangent, contrary to what you claimed. Might as well say Mao was justified killing all the sparrows and unleashing famine because he had found some picking the grain.
>Unlimited self-reference was shown as paradoxical and had to be strongly constrained
Was never the topic of discussion. Go back above and you will not find it (this post >>22637025 certainly doesn't say anything else if you have any reading comprehension).
>initially by Russell.
*failed by Russel.
Second, this retort is not relevant at all to the other anon I replied to, who was simply making a statement about no continental philosopher being relevant, and I merely reused something from the thread, among many other possibilities, so you didn't "already responded to this".
That's twice ITT. You really have trouble understanding what the subject matter is. You refuse to engage with what people are saying but are merely looking for some sort of ebin "showing as a moron" gotcha.

>>22637025
From your post >>22637025
>thought that self reference was a breach of Rigor™, which among other things would make half of mathematics illegitimate, and was promptly told to fuck off by actual thinkers Poincare and Hilbert.
Self-reference as seen in Russell's paradox is a breach of rigor and had to be corrected initially by Russell. You're wrong and don't know what you're talking about. We don't use the Principia now but it's just as impossible to talk about an arbitrary set of sets in ZFC as it would have been in Russell's foundation.
>You really have trouble understanding what the subject matter is
You mean I'm calling you out on stuff that is clearly wrong.

>>22636895
no such thing

It's basically math.

>>22637667
Messed up the link>>22637694

>>22637607
Calling Poincare a 'continental philosopher' is an amazing stretch. In his day, the boundaries between mathematician and philosopher were not well defined; in fact, many figures of the Franco-Germanic intellectual scene published in both disciplines (this includes Brouwer, Husserl, Cantor, Frege, etc). Only in an autistically technical sense he was a continental philosopher of the 20th century.

>>22637699
no, it wishes to be, but it's a malnourished poor attempt at logic with mutilated philosophy in hand

>>22636794
This is a board for literature and continental philosophy is well known for being longwinded poetry as opposed to philosophy

>>22637694
>it's just as impossible to talk about an arbitrary set of sets in ZFC
I nerver once implied that, and you decided to read it in my posts.
>corrected initially by Russell
Russel first wanted to do away with it altogether, but faced with the consequence of it built a theory to avoid paradoxes that was more bizarre than any of the paradoxes.

>>22637718
Continental philosophy is even more of a spook than analytic. No one has ever identified as a continental philosopher, it is a scarecrow that analytics use to denote anyone that isn't them, and that certainly includes Poincare. Unless you try and restrict the meaning to someone like Derrida to get a good scarecrow.

>>22637730
>but faced with the consequence of it built a theory to avoid paradoxes that was more bizarre than any of the paradoxes.
But wasn't paradoxical. You don't understand how math works, it doesn't matter how "bizarre" you consider something.

>>22637740
You are a caricature. I already pointed out you were not interested in reading what people say but merely looking for gotcha moments. You are now reduced to bouncing on a word to get a Ben Shapiro zinger about facts (or a priori statements here) not caring about my feelings. When I say bizarre, this is a logical condemnation, and was seen as such by many. In fact the author himself ended up having significantly different ideas in the future.

>>22636794
When you where a kid and played with other kids some imaginary game (Cops and robbers). There was a kid who immersed him self so much he could literally feel like cop or robber. Then there are kids who know its just a game but are still immersed. And then there is a kid who ruins the whole fun by pointing that you are actually not cop nore robber, that its just your imagination and the game serves no other purpose then for funn.
The last kid grew up to be analytic.

>>22637791
Fuck that last kid was me, though prolonged use of various drugs seem to have medicated me out of it somewhat.

>>22637250
Analytic philosophy is validated eternally because it produced Wittgenstein, even if he did tear the whole thing down.

Analytic philosophy was never going to be as popular as existentialism or Nietzsche, just by the nature of its concerns and method, but it produced several first class minds and remains influential.

>>22636794
It's philosophy pretending and wanting to be stem science. It's retarded masturbation.

>>22636794
it's just more proof that angloids deserve to be ruled ruthlessly by chinese overlords