/lit/ - Literature

>>23213595
Language

>>23213645

>>23213595
There is nothing that all analytic philosophers generally have in common except perhaps some similarities in writing style.

>>23213664
Not sure about Singer but the rest and a fair amount of Analytic work rest on the aspects and nature of language. If there is one thing they have in common other than an emphasis on logic it is an emphasis on language.

>>23213691
Then wtf is analytic philosophy? Just a "style"? wtf is that even supposed to mean?

>>23213700
>an emphasis on language.
ok but what about language do they agree on?

>>23213721
>wtf is analytic philosophy? Just a "style"?
Ya, just like continental philosophy. These terms are meaningless.

>>23213595
>What guys like Bertrand Russell, P. F. Strawson, Wilfrid Sellars, Peter Singer, etc., have in common?
Rejecting Heidegger and psychoanalysis.

>>23213722
Just go full Wittgenstein and read Philosophical Investigations, you can ignore all of the midwit memes you see on here, he literally reached the advanced stage of knowing nothing and gave us this refined and distilled product of the previous thousands of years of work. To directly answer your question would exceed the post character count here, and the complete dissection, vivisection, atomization, and derivation process needed to unify them would likely cause me some sort of aneurysm. I'm not even sure if I am joking on that point or not. Wittgenstein gave us the grail anon.

>>23213739
>he literally reached the advanced stage of knowing nothing and gave us this refined and distilled product of the previous thousands of years of work.
did he read historical philosophers or was he basically a seer and Philosophical Investigations was a sort of direct revelation from Hermes?

>>23213739
t. bluffing pseud with an empty chamber

all balls and no shaft

>>23213771
can you please provide the shaft sir?

>>23213735
lol why would anyone want to do that?

>>23213752
Der fliege den ausweg aus dem fliegenglas zeigen. Think more beetles, games, and meaning is use and less of Hermes. The book is shockingly short and incredibly dense. He was an academic philosopher, and quotes Augustine in the book itself, I am not sure how much of all philosophy he was versed in but I am sure it was extensive.

>>23213771
You are more than welcome to step up to the plate and answer the previous inquiry and prove you have anything at all in your sack instead of replying to me.

>>23213810
The fly shows the way out of the flybottle? I don't get it.

>>23213595
They work through philosophical ideas logically and try to prove there ideas correct and continental philosophers don't. That's the difference its really just a spilt between believing in a measurable objective truth or not.

>>23213810
is that German a direct quote from somewhere?

>>23213739
Just because someone writes out something doesn't mean its true, Wittgenstein came up with a nice theory about the world but its no truer then any other theory about the world. He didn't prove anything, Philosophy isn't a science there's nothing to prove. Wittgenstein himself realised this in his later work

>>23213830
Grow a set of nuts and answer >>23213722 then if you don't like my answer.

>>23213781
>>23213815
Why am I being asked to prove what some random schizo said? It's not my claim. I think Wittgeinstein is a posturing, cantankerous pseud who swindled even dumber analytics in desperate need of a prophet-like figure.

>>23213752
Well anon, >>23213879 and >>23213830 were kind enough to provide us all with a demonstration in retardation. You can wait more to see if either pondscum sifting moron answers your question if you want to but I doubt they can, even if they run off to go ask an AI. Read Philosophical Investigations and be set free, or enter an elaborate maze that may feel like a prison. It's mostly just perspective.

>>23213897
>more vaporware hype
every retard and their pet philosopher does the same manipulative shit here, fuck outta here

>>23214044
>vaporwave hype
the fuck are you on about old man?

>>23214044
except Kantposter. That guy is at a superior level.

>>23214050
illiterate nigger, I said WARE, not WAVE

>>23214052
that's only because Kant is at a superior level.

>>23213752
I kid you not, he was arguing with a Marxist acquaintance over the logical structure of language, and the Marxist asked him what the logical structure of being flipped off was, and Witty started rethinking everything in terms of use.

>>23213739
>Wittgenstein gave us the grail anon.
No he didn't, he basically just reminded everyone of things lots of people knew before, but that a whole generation forgot in hoping to apply mathematical-physics to philosophy and logic.

>>23214101
>says he knows nothing
>clearly knows a something

>>23214101
>a whole generation forgot
many such cases

>>23213595
>What are the principles of analytic philosophers?
Pretending to be scientists just so their departments don't get defunded

>>23214444
>their departments don't get defunded
a university without a philosophy department is not a university

bump

>>23214070
ok still what are you on about old geezer?

>>23214101
The question that was posed was exceedingly interesting, and I would like to commend the anon who posed it. That aside, I was likely overenthusiastic in my praise of Wittgenstein and I am very appreciative of the gallery here in their attempts to reign in my unbridled enthusiasm, this enthusiasm should not be taken as a statement that PI is the end all be all of all philosophy or that it is technically the only answer to the inquiry. What did the analytics agree on from the results of their collective linguistic analysis? I cannot answer this. I will not impede any other anon who does wish to answer this. I can tell you that PI is likely the standard that such an answer would have to surpass though, so unless a better answer can be offered, the reigning standard still applies.

>>23213735
Because first at first, they read psychoanalysis, intrigued by 4chan memes made by retards thinking he says you want to fuck your own mother (which never did), realize unsconsciously (lol) that most concepts and ideas are valid and true, and out of fear of their own worldview and self-delusions being ripped apart and built together again, but this time without them being massive faggots, they stutter "b-b-ut it's unscientific! Daddy Popper, my favourite fascist, said so!" and smuggly throw it into the trash, not understanding they just got fucked and cucked by the world's most known and sadly most misunderstood jewish cokehead.

Someday they dip into Heidegger and Husserl to really see if continentals are as dumb as their coping professors drilled in their head in semester 1, swfitly realizing they're again not nearly as smart as they thought since they don't understand shit and have underveloped souls a.k.a a very limited horizon, so they cry again that it's all subjective bullshit and start smuggly fucking themselves with their 3D printed Karl Popper dildo, not realizing they have been filtered by an old Bavarian grampa, that went to sleep every day at 10 p.m exactly and propbably shat his pants regualarly on stage.

Such the circle of the eternal analytic retardation continious until they die out by natural science selection, a concept I just invented, but is nevertheless true. Good riddance.

>>23215472
>>23213798

>>23214444
Modern "science" is even more laughable and worthy of mockery than philosophy

>>23215098
a university run by atheists is never a university

>>23215516
>>23213664

>>23215472
>Someday they dip into Heidegger and Husserl
Analytics have been engaging with Husserl since before Husserl died, and many are fine engaging with other phenomenolgists like Merleau-Ponty too. The autistic threads on the subject have brought me to do a lot f research on it, and I've found that the only thinkers that are near universally rejected by analytic philosophers are Heidegger, Derrida, Lacan, and those who were most influenced by them. If any split can be said to actually divide them as traditions, it revolves around those thinkers and their stylistic tendencies.

>>23215792
>The autistic threads on the subject have brought me to do a lot f research on it
then answer OP

>>23215802
I would think that you would be able to suss out an answer from my posts, but since you couldn't I'll be more clear. Analytic philosophy as its broadly and generally conceived seems to me to only be united in that its thinkers are opposed to Heidegger, Derrida, and psychoanalysis. I even managed to find two major exceptions to the rule a out Heidegger (Wittgenstein and Ryle). I think the term "analytic philosophy" is genuinely a bad term unless you are willing to use it in a very narrow sense (like limiting it to Frege, Russell, and Moore, but even that still seems flawed to me).
I've reached the conclusion that the split is little more than academics treating their philosophy like sports, and that emphasizing its importance will inevitably give us a poor understanding of the history of philosophy.

>>23215839
so then analytic philosopher is not even a thing then.

>>23215472
>Daddy Popper, my favourite fascist,
fucking retarded nigger, kill yourself

>>23215472
astoundingly based

>>23216223
As far as I'm concerned, not really, especially not in the sense that it's being asked in this thread. I also don't think that "continental philosophy" is a particularly meaningful term either.

>>23216337
aaahahah mad I insulted your daddy? Gonna cry? Gonna piss your pants maybe? Maybe even shit and cum?

>>23217036
no, I'm calling you a retard for thinking that Popper (one of the most moronic "philosophers" to ever live) is a fascist. your shits so fucked up you might as well kill yourself. it's unsalvageable

they study language and how it relates to/informs/shapes or is shaped by our reality and perceptions.

but their approach is highly flawed. imagine studying beethoven's music solely by analyzing his sheet music, commenting on what each note and annotation means, while never once actually listening to his music. could u then say u understand beethoven's music? i think not.

analytical philosophy will be a minor footnote in the greater annals of philosophy

>>23215472
>cry again that it's all subjective bullshit

ANALytics have always been and will always be Entryists that laundered maths for engagement with the canon. No, Husserl & Frege do not suffice. The degree to which this is going to be world-historically caught out in physics will be endlessly hilarious.

1. A first characteristic is that analytic philosophy views philosophy as an *activity* not as doctrine. The able philosopher is not necessarily one who brings lasting truths but instead one who exercises certain abilities.
2. A second characteristic is that analytic philosophy views philosophy as essentially argumentative. Proofs can't always be expected but reasons that strongly suggest a certain viewpoint can, and even though a chain of reasons that don't stop anywhere aren't enough it is a feeble analytic who doesn't reason but instead "intuits" or the like.
3. A third characteristic is that analytic philosophy prefers to ask small and clear questions about the known to asking big and obscure ones about the unknown or merely guessed. It braces itself against the temptation to be synthetic. It distances itself from attempts att grandiose amalgamations of human knowledge and doesn't offer a collected world-view. The task of philosophy is not to join together.
4. A fourth characteristic is that analytic philosophy breaks a concept down into its parts, a reductive atomism.
5. A fifth characteristic is the belief that traditional philosophical problems are normally conceptual confusions or conceptual mix ups. The task of the philosopher is to clear them up.
6. A sixth characteristic is a strong belief in the analytic/synthetic dichotomy and a related certainty that if a proposition is true but not analytic its truth value must be certifiable empirically, "in principle".
7. A seventh and more content related characteristic is that analytic philosophy takes the relation between language and thought as the capital P Problem. The problem is viewed as one of meaning rather than knowledge.

>>23219082
The activity is regulated by certain maxims of the kind:
>Choose small problems! If they're going to be worth spending time on they should however be hinges in a central question. But rather risk being trivial than veering off! The maxim is much moral as it is technical: it's so tempting to put on airs.
>Don't believe that philosophy is easy, but also don't think that it *must* be deep! The difficult thing can be to come to terms with there being so little to a problem. Like with the egg of Columbus the solution puts aside so many of our tacit assumptions that we are sheepishly unwilling to admit that it *is* a solution.
>Write prose not poetry! Your area as an analytic philosopher is conceptual connections. As a professional, refrain from veering outside clearly conceptual connections!
>Be concrete! Examples are often enough the content of what you ask. The question whether time exists—what is it if not the question whether you ate breakfast before you ate lunch? The examples should be chosen such that they test how sturdy your grand and pretty idea is och invite counter-examples. Never imagine that you are privy to great mysteries before you are privy to minor ones!
>Be precise! Muddy reasoning is uncontrollable. Precision need not mean using an ideal language as Russel and others liked to think. It can even be the case that doing so misses the philosophically vital point. But if you use ordinary language, use it to denote very carefully!
>Puncture the pompous! What does not withstand ordinary speech is silly from the start. Solemnity is so easily confused with seriousness and depth.
>ALWAYS SEEK SECULAR EXPLANATIONS AND SECULAR CLARIFICATIONS! Don't make it a dogma that other explanations and clarifications are false, but mistrust them! Yes, feel ill when encountering them!
Russel wasn't bad att following these maxims but the grandmaster is Moore. He is perhaps not the cleverest, but he is exemplary. He is *the* analytic philosopher for good and for bad.

>>23213735
>But though I deplore the damage wrought upon his Metaphysics by the presuppositions which Heidegger has unconsciously inherited, I have nothing but admiration for his special undertaking and for such of his achievements in it as I can follow, namely the phenomenological analysis of the root workings of the human soul.
>He shows himself to be a thinker of real importance by the immense subtlety and searchingness of his examination of consciousness, by the boldness and originality of his methods and conclusions, and by the unflagging energy with which he tries to think behind the stock categories of orthodox philosophy and psychology.
>And I must also say, in his behalf, that while it is my personal opinion that qua First Philosophy Phenomenology is at present heading for bankruptcy and disaster and will end either in self-ruinous Subjectivism or in a windy mysticism, I hazard this opinion with humility and with reservations since I am well aware how far I have fallen short of understanding this difficult work.
--Ryle

>>23219187
>Moore
the "my hands prove the external world" guy? that guy-- is the grandmaster?....

>>23219466
huh Ryle wasn't such a faggot after all. He at least admitted he got filtered.