/lit/ - Literature

is there a word for when people start to do childish things because it's funny but then it gets to the point where they do childish things all the time and we basically just talk about things the same way children do?

>>5075913
Yes, it's called continental philosophy.

>>5075913
Immaturity

>>5075913
4chan

>>5075913
I think the general idea of a conversation degenerating into shit flinging could be represented by associating the situation with the concepts of entropy, slippery slope, etc., but I don't think there's a term for something that specific

>>5075924
This

Why is lit currently being spammed by an analytical philosophy undergrad?

>>5075930
Because you faggots need to learn that continental philosophy, aka fortune coolie bullshit, is not real philosophy.

>>5075939
This.

>>5075930
Because analytical philosophers are all by definition autistic and love repetitive actions. They "win" by grinding everyone else down.

>>5075939
Also, the people who enjoy conintental philosophy are themselves philosophy majors; they're sociology, anthropology, and lit majors. Actually philosophy majors enjoy analytic because it is vastly superior. hell, analytics have adopted phenomenology, and they are making it rigorous and profound.

>>5075939
Um. Okay. And?

>>5075951
>are themselves philosophy majors
are not themselves philosophy majors
[fucking typing on my phone]

You sound pretty fedora core. 2/1 0 would not bang

I agree that anglophones are smarter and better than french people and related

>>5075949
>wanting logical justification for an idea is autistic
>translate: logic, maths and science are hard
>>5075951
This is very true. Even in France and Germany philosophy courses are almost entirely analytic.

>>5075951
>[citation needed]

Mfw I go in lit and it's some faggy autistic ranting about analytical philosophy

>>5075908
Here OP I fix'd your picture for you so it wouldn't be so offensive.

>>5075975
>[citation needed]
about what? check every philosophy department: philosophy of language, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, advanced modal logic, and philosophy of science fall under analytic. Then there are the history of philosophy classes, which, depending on the professor, might go into continentals like Derrida, Levinas, or Foucault. Then, look at Lit majors, that have to take critical theory classes, read the frankfurt school, and circle jerk over Derrida. Then look at media studies majors that circle jerk Baudrillard to death.

>>5075983
>muh $2 musings about life that aren't logically sound
Go.

>>5075989
Is your racism logically justifiable.

>>5076032
think a thought
ask it a question
is that a question?
relax.
get an answer

>>5075991
you're good at rattling off lists. how about you engage the authors you accuse of being nonsensical in an intellectually honest way.

>>5075991
What about historiography?

>>5076038
Answers require logical justification.

>>5076055
I'm not accusing them of being picayune; I am just saying that philosophy majors don't study continental. I am different anon than the one you are accusing me off. Yeah, I am good at enumerating. also, you are terrible at comprehension
vastly superior != continental is nonsense
bitch, I study the shit out of Levinas

>>5076061
questions require question marks

>>5076069
Alright. I don't see how that justifies continental 'philosophy'.

>>5076068
>vastly superior != continental is nonsense

you said that it is "fortune cookie bullshit" and "not real philosophy", and if it wasn't you who said that, you responded to the person who wrote that with "also", implying you agreed with everything it said.

try to keep up with your own bullshit.

>>5076084
>you said that it is "fortune cookie bullshit"
that wasn't me, you dumb fuck

>>5076084
I said that, not him, and it is true. You can say whatever bollocks about life you like, but at the end of the day it is useless without logical justification.

>>5076088
>and if it wasn't you who said that, you responded to the person who wrote that with "also", implying you agreed with everything it said.

jesus, you're slow.

>>5076100
fuck off with your shit damage control

>b-but muh romanticism

>>5075908
>Why would the history of an idea be relevant to the idea itself?
WOAH LOOK AT ME GUYS! I AM REINVENTING THE BICYCLE ALL OVER AGAIN! I AM SO CUTTING EDGE!

Any true philosopher will not subscribe to false dichotomies.

>>5075994
>frege

fuk off m8

>>5075908
that picture is cancer

>>5075908
Jesus Christ, what shithole did that come from?

>>5075908
>continental philosophy

>>5075918

god damn

>>5076068

>philosophy major
>analytic sperglords everywhere on campus
>"continental philosophy isn't even REAL philosophy amirite? more like history of literature, lol"
>start avoiding campus entirely
>do not attend any of my classes this year
>skim deleuze, spinoza, merleau-ponty, and the occasional kant after doing psychedelics
>start thinking for myself instead
>write an essay on the aesthetics of "Philosophy of the World" and "Trout Mask Replica" related to Hume's standard and Stougaard's conception of rhythm as a pendulation between aesthetic conventions and modes of being
>ace my exam
>instead of attentding lectures, I learned how to draw
>quit philosophy
>get accepted into art school
>will probably be in debt for the rest of my life
>be happy
>realize that analytic philosophy is the only true philosophy

>>5075930
>>5075949
>analytical philosophy undergrad
>analytical philosophy
>analytical

You are using the term as if you were describing a part of philosophy that is analytical. Do you mean to use "Analytic Philosophy" the proper noun? This could cause confusion; please use clear language.

>>5077683

Oh, I confused terms, and was enrolled in the master's program. Anyway. Analytic philosophy is the only legitimate form of philosophy. You can't even call something that does not match the normative criteria of what analytic philosophy is supposed to be as philosophy.

Fucking continentals. Unwashed, intoxicated charlatans the lot of them.

I mean, why would I even read the schizophrenic garbage of French alcoholics when I can indulge myself in the evoking sand-through-nostrils-prose of Davidson's "What if rationality is inherently irrational and the mind is composed of several quasi-autonomous modules that still makes it reasonable for me to defend the notion of free will in the context of a stable sense of self?".

Fuck continental philosophy, jesus fucking christ. If I could kill every one of those hacks I'd do it without hesitation

>>5077704
>>5077683
¿Alfonso?

>>5077704

Why analytic philosophy fanboys always aim their attack at French continentals? German continentals (triple H) were much more influential.

>>5077755
Because undergraduateness.

>>5077704
Continental philosophy uses more empiricism, turdbaron.

>>5075908
>good oriental philosophy
Try Action and Reaction by Swami Dayananda

>>5076060
Ranke

>>5077813
>feminster
>thinking s/he knows anything about philosophy
top kek

"Life is unfair! Why can't everyone just follow my rules and be nice to me!" - Kant

>>5077740

Not Alfonso, but he sure sounds like a cool guy from what I can tell.

>>5077813

Jesus fuck, I was only pretending to be retarded.

>>5077869

More like these rules derive from lex naturalis you mong.

>>5077885
"Turdbaron" was meant to indicate flippancy.

>>5077910

I don't know what flippancy means, but I quite enjoy the word "Turdbaron". "Baron" is pretty chill as well. Turdking, Turdemperor, Turdcount, Turdchief, Turdsage, Turdofficer can't even come close. Perhaps "Turdsage"

>>5077099
Glad I'm not alone in that thought. Isn't it weird to see how incredibly strong our urge to pick sides is, even in a situation like this where picking a side can literally do nothing more than limit discourse?

I guess people just identify their egos with either continental or analytic schools and devote themselves to whichever reflects their beliefs most strongly without ever bothering to actually investigate enough to see that they're not two schools in conflict.

Why are continentals such awful racists?

>>5078046
nobody surpasses jewish racism anyway

>>5078052
jews are objectively the most accomplished and intelligent people on earth, of course they're racists

>>5078058
name a good jewish composer

>>5078058

Jews are the absolute least accomplished people athletically.

>>5078065
Mahler
Mendelssohn

>>5078065
steve reich
phillip glass

>>5078078
Sandy Koufax

>>5078085
oh god please no dawkins tweets

lit can't handle it

>>5078081
name a good movie that used their music as soundtracks.
thats the final shittest.

>>5078096
But, didn't Schopy prefigured darwinism?

>>5078106
why would dawkins actually need to know anything about philosophy? it's all bullshit

>>5078096

>>5078096
But... they did.

>>5078085
This post never fails to make me upset. Is he purposely spouting off retarded shit? Like seriously, a trip to wikipedia for more than two seconds will clear up this misunderstanding (supposing he has one and isn't trolling the fuck out of everyone).

>>5078096
Darwin=Naturalist

Naturalist=Natural Philosopher

Natural Philosopher=Scientist

Why does everything have to be a competition? All schools of human knowledge march forward together. Creating an imaginary divide that somehow implies that 'science' and 'philosophy' should move independently does literally nothing other than limiting discourse and making people feel superior in their identification with whatever group they 'choose'.

Its scary that an educated scientist like Dawkins is still so tribally motivated that he completely misses the point.

>>5078144
it really is sad how retarded he is

I read the selfish gene many years back and thought it was a really interesting and thought provoking book

even if he's just trolling and self promoting with this bullshit it's still sad

>>5078163

>even if he's just trolling and self promoting with this bullshit it's still sad

It's not sad for his bank account.

http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/authors/richard-dawkins-net-worth/

>>5077704
Nigger, you might as well drop out of fucking art school already if you don't like continentals.

The only guy with any relevance to aesthetics in the analytical tradition is Danto, and he only did anything worthy AFTER he admitted some of Benjamin's and Adorno's ideas

>>5078163
Yeah I read the selfish gene too and it was part of my inspiration to become a geneticist.

Hell, without that book I might not have ended up studying it at Uni.

It's a shame he couldn't continue with that kind of work, but I guess there was just more money or something in popular atheism.

>>5078186
>>5078163
He's 73. At some point people began to become senile. Although he does have nice skin.

>>5078190
>73
Damn, that dude looks no older than 50. What sort of atheist magic is he using?

>>5078186

He has written several books after TSG that are purely biology, like the brilliant The Ancestor's Tale. It is pretty dishonest to pretend like The God Delusion is all he's done. That was one work, and the only other work I can think of that is related to atheism is The Greatest Show on Earth, but this one too is really just biology, and only indirectly to atheism.

Do continentals use formal logic, or do they just assume their opinions to be objectively true?

When was the last time Dawkins actually published a peer reviewed scientific paper? It was the early-90s, right? More money in being a personality... innit

>>5078199
I'll have to check it out then.

On my way to #Bookz now. I can accept that maybe I was harsh.

>>5078212

Do you really see that many scientists over 55 publishing papers though?

Most scientists get their shit down, like Dawkins, when they are young and then they don't really do anything seriously significant beyond that -- and many of them end up popularizing science later in their careers.

You could try reading The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way by Nagarjuna to start OP.

>>5078256
I want real philosophy, though. Not some $2 musings about life.

>>5075954
>Um.
That was very 15 years old of you.

>>5075908
>Is there any good philosophy?

There, I fixed that for you, OP.
And the answer is no.

In 2500 years, all philosophers have managed to do is bury their heads deeper up their own asses.

>philosophy
>anything other than musings

Just stop.

>>5078360
>listening to arrow lady

>>5078366
>Throw out random ad hominem because clueless.

Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.
-HL Mencken
I've never understood people who study philosophy it seems like field bent on finding a supreme for logic but it seems that every says there is the best.

>>5075908
Analytic:
Vedanta
Buddhism

Continental:
Taoism

>>5078378
god bless you dawkins

>>5078378

fixed OP's pic by creating OC

People that think reason alone can uncover any sort of meaningfull truth without subjectivity and imagination would be the most sad beings in existence if they weren't usually so self-important

>>5078409
*Tips fedora*

>>5078400
every time

Religion and Nothingess by Keiji Nishitani is an interesting fusion of zen buddhism and Heidegger/Sartre's ideas. Pretty easy read too. Would recommend.

>>5078360

>>5078383
>>5078362
You're thinking of continental philosophy.

>>5078383
>it seems like field bent on finding a supreme for logic but it seems that every says there is the best.

>>5075991
When I want to learn about astronomy, I don't take a stop off at astrology to learn what chakras align with which stars.

Why is that continental philosophy is seen as the same field as analytic then?

What is the mathematical equivalent of continental philosophy?

>>5079677
Deriving the square root of -1. Dividing by zero. Counting with your fingers, and when you run out of those, your toes.

>>5079787
>tfw some continental philosophers were mathematicians

>>5079677
It would be like disregarding maths for your feelings about the interaction of numbers.

>>5079792
>were

pic related

The argument that either school of philosophy is superior to the other is absolutely moronic. It would do any serious scientist good to read Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals. Honestly, one of the most frustrating things about being in school (aside from dipshit Upworthy liberals) is all the science and math students treating every other student like they aren't as smart. Yet, one of the most intelligent math students I've ever met cannot make an argument to save her life.

>>5079851
>muh anecdotal evidence.
Please. Nietzsche doesn't even logically justify himself. If he can't offer PROOF that his opinion is correct then he should stick to writing fiction, like every continental 'philosopher'.

>>5079851
Nietzsche is only popular for the same reason Shakespeare and Family Guy are: Heavy use of references. Terrible metric for science, dubious one even for art.

>>5079901
>hating on Shakespeare

0/10. Low quality bait.

>>5079920
Do you just like him because your tenth grade remedial English teacher spoke of him with reverence.

>>5075908

>>5078256

>Oriental philosophy that is gonna conform to an analytic system of though...

The Dao does not welcome you motherfucker

>>5079929
Oh I see you like when authors logically justify themselves
What have you been reading good recently? I loved reading a C++ reference book. Thinking about going for the classics: some assembly and FORTRAN

>>5079955
Oh, so it's all just unsubstantiated opinions.
>>5079958
I read Russell, thank you very much.

>>5079787
>Deriving the square root of -1.
>Dividing by zero
Confirmed for not knowning shit about math
Troll thread, let's go everyone

>>5079929

Not >>5079920, but I like Shakespeare because every time I read even a page of his work it's so beautiful it takes my breath away

>>5079980
It has no substance or logic, it is a worthless waste of paper.

>>5079962

10/10 im popping mad vessels over here bruh cuz i dunno how the fuck a nigga can ask for Oriental Analytic philosophy.

That question is so fucking illogical that I don't even know how to answer it.

You aren't even well or widely read... You would know that you might as well ask for boiling ice water.

You have established yourself as an some illiterate pleb who thinks they know something because they read a little Russel and Witt. but your pretension is insufferable.

>What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

>>5080031
So oriental 'philosophy' is not philosophy at all. It is comparable to uncle billy bob's musings about life, unsupported by anything factual.

>>5079989
Seriously, how can people not realize this is a troll thread?

>>5080058
Do you say this about everyone who disagrees with you?

>>5080053

You will find it to be more than that but i'm not even gonna tell you shit mah nigga. LuddWitt would not approve.

>>5080071
Does it justify itself logically? If not it is only fit for a child's bed time story.

>>5080053
Mathematical and logical rules have been discovered independently multiple times throughout the world, due to their true nature, and immunity from social and cultural convention.

>>5075930
Are there actually any programs that teach continental philosophy at a decent school? I think most programs just default to real philosophy.

That being said, continental philosophy can be more valuable to an individual. Why should anyone care about the categorial imperative if they aren't happy? Continental philosophy may be better at teaching happiness than analytical philosophy, which seemed to stop caring about the good life to any significant degree after the greeks..

>>5080288

>>5080280
Then why didn't orientals use them?

>>5080288
Which continental philosophers are concerned with happiness? Not Marx, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, the 3 H's, any of the structuralists/post-structuralists, critical theorists, Deleuze, or really any I can think of. Continental philosophy, except for existentialism, isn't self-help philosophy, and no one cares about existentialism.

>>5080349
Then what is it? What is the meaning behind their unsubstantiated opinions?

>>5077813
Read a book cunt

>>5080342
Well, the Chinks liked killing scholars and burning books. So all they have of substance to say now is ching a ding ling long.

Indian logic was studied with great interest as analytic philosophy was being formed. Analytic philosophy's emphasis on Algebra and symbols is not understandable from standpoint of the racist Greek classicist you see here on /lit/, peddling their xenophobic wares: trying to form a straight white line from the Greeks to now.

Who cares? Why do you have to reduce things to devaluing one thing and holding another superior? Do you have insecurity issues that you must protect your favourite kind of philosophy? They're both exclusive and attempting to accomplish different things.

>>5080354
Continental philosophy isn't monolithic. It's very diverse; unlike analytic philosophy which is fairly unified. Naturally, some of it will be terrible, but lots of it won't be. Phenomenology is pretty fantastic and some analytic philosophers are beginning to realize it. Merleau-Ponty has been rediscovered in philosophy of perception.

>>5080420

>>5080421
If it was useful it would be classified as analytic philosophy.

>>5080430
Way to strawman me.

>>5080437
There's nothing philosophically substantive about the divide. "Analytic" and "continental" don't designate schools of thought or anything like a philosophical position. The divide is historical and sociological; nothing more. You can't determine the value of philosophical positions according to non-philosophical criteria such as their sociological context.

>>5080458
No, analytic philosophy is more like science, while continental philosophy is like literature.

>>5077755

The French lot are more recent, and their stuff comes up a whole lot more in society at large (as opposed to philosophy departments) than the Germans.

Also, Heidegger gets at least as much shit from /lit/ "analytic philosophers" as any two of the French lot. He's like the go-to example for continentalists being obscurantist snake-oil salesman (I'm not saying he is, merely pointing out that he's the target of plenty of analytic hate).

>>5075930
>Why is lit currently being spammed by an analytical philosophy undergrad?
>currently

Honestly, this is kind of business as usual. We've had less of it the past months, but it's not a new thing.

>>5080467
Analytic philosophy is the opposite of science. Baseless beliefs and a combination of arrogance and profound ignorance are the enemies of science. Analytic philosophers are literally worse than creationists.

>>5075939
Theory ≠ Philosophy

Why are analytics so defensive and buttblasted all the time

>>5080556
TBH the practical difference is more that French continentals get friendly fire from a lot of continentals. /lit/ tends to be way more positive towards the Germans than the French.

Mostly because the French existentialists were all shitty assholes, I assume, but hey, I never claimed to be unbiased here.

>>5078037
>they're not two schools in conflict

This.

The whole "picking sides" thing is typical 4chan autist shit.

Analytics wish to maintain the status quo.

Continentals wish to radically change the world.

>>5080660
I guess communism changed the world. Not for the best, but change all the same.

>>5077910
fuck you are the worst

>>5080872
>implying communism's work is yet done

>>5080916
How many more people do they have to oppress and kill?

>>5080872
> implying the world can be changed for better or worse instead of merely different

>>5080919
We won't know 'till we get there, comrade.

>>5080923
>postmodernism
Take a hike, read Kant, and come back when you know a thing or two, kiddo.

>mfw autists make shitty ms paint comics to debate a viewpoint

>>5080660

>>5081532
/talmud/ is that way
---->

>>5081289
>implying that isn't enough

>>5081553
is that some sort of antisemitic joke?

>>5080626
Thanks for the chart, but who the fuck thought those colors were a good idea?

Bunyip

>>5083536
kill yourself

>>5078085
>what kind of a search for truth is region-specific?
>continental mapmaking? continental biology?
Jesus I get that it doesn't actually mean that but even if this moron interpreted it the way he did, he should've put a bit more thought into it

>>5083540
Why?

>>5081792
You're an antisemitic joke.

brb, gotta make another argumentative comic about continental philosophy vs analytic philosophy vs science

>>5084361
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vnjNbe5lyE

>>5075939
>real women have curves!1!
That's what you sound like.

>>5084438
low test beta detected.

>>5084361
We didn't even reach 200+

We need to go shittier.

>>5084727
Shut up

why the fuck is it that we only get the analytical fags at each summer

sage

>>5084931
>m-muh circlejerk about unsubstantiated, illogical opinions

>>5084931
>analytical
top kek
idiot

>>5084931
>analytical

>>5084931
>analytical
Fucking gimp.

>>5084931
>analytical

>>5084931
Analytical...
Oy vey it's like le anodha shoah

Hey kids, wanna buy some evolutionary biology?

>>5085191
>yfw you realised evolution is an elaborate joke to promote the most ridiculous human origin story and pass it off as fact
It's like people taking the flying spaghetti monster to be a real deity

>>5078052
2nd Viennese school

or is that too nonhierarchic for you, slave?

>>5085203
>post yfw you realised God exists.

>>5085228

>>5085245
is that the amazing atheist?

>>5085308
I doubt it.
Atheists and bananas don't get along.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq7LXn4KSrM

>>5085308
Yes, from his sex tape.

>>5085308
Yes it is, he has a video where he pours hot oil on his tiny penis and ass as well.

>>5085314
Atheists love inserting bananas into their anuses. It reminds them of the THEORY of evolution.

>>5085315
>>5085318
why would he do that?

>>5085322
For pleasure. Maybe his disgusting wife couldn't get him off anymore. Seriously, she is as bad as the Nostalgia Critic's wife.

>>5085327
Ew you're right.

>>5085322
That's what happens when you forsake Jesus

>>5085327
>Nostalgia Critic's wife
eh?

>>5085495

>>5086517
>unleashthebeast.jpg

>>5085342
Looks like his sister.

>>5087375
Maybe she is, Atheists don't have a problem with incest.

Continentals are very poor at arguing and may resort to ad homs related to sex when they're desperate for an argument against analytic philosophy.

Analytics shake hands with and thank those who show they're wrong.

*

Continentals confuse terms like analytic, analytical, atheist.

Analytics are precise about definitions.

*

Continentals accept radical feminists amongst them. Continentals only care about nudity on /lit/ when it's an attractive young lady.

Analytics believe in rules applied fairly.

*

Continentals don't care about their appearance, so cut their hair in outlandish ways and their clothes are full of wrinkles.

Analytics are always trim and neat in appearance.


Scoring guide
Continentals: -1, -1, -1, -1
Analytics: +1, +1, +1, +1

>>5087988
Continentals BTFO

>>5087988
#rekt

Bump

>>5087988
>Continentals confuse terms like analytic, analytical
Who could possibly be THIS autistic.

>>5089766
Continentals think the pursuit of truth is autistic.

Analytics define their terms.

>>5089775
I'm not even a Coninent philosophy major. I just can't believe ANYONE is autistic enough to care about the semantic differences between Analytic and Analytical when you can gather that quite easily from context.

>>5089785
>search online for definition of analytic.
Yeah, I'm pretty I'm posting in a troll thread now.

>>5089785
>I'm not even a Coninent philosophy major.
Because no school offers that worthless tripe.
>I just can't believe ANYONE is autistic enough to care about the semantic differences between Analytic and Analytical when you can gather that quite easily from context
Do you care if people mistake cow for horse? Don't you think it is a bit confusing?

>>5089796
You are retarded. Go back to your Nietzsche self help book.

>>5078197
Its the magic of photos that are a few years old.

>>5089816
Wow. I seriously don't know who Netzche is, and I've never read a philosophy book in my life, but I have to side with these Cononint guys because you are seriously such angry fucking assholes.

>>5089827
>that hurts my feelings
You'll fit right in with the continentals.

>>5089830
>autistic, antisocial, unable to communicate with other human beings
yup, that's analytical philosophy without a doubt

>Why would be idea of history be relevant to the idea itself?
I can't believe someone can be this stupid to ask question like this.

>>5089838
I'm communicating with you right now.
Check mate.

>>5089852
Answer the question, then.

>>5089855
>communicating with pixels on a computer
An empty victory

>>5089878
>communicating with soundwaves

>>5089880
>pixels
Digital scum

>Soundwaves
Analogue master race

>>5089912
>implying digital isn't superior
Fucking primitivist

>>5089927
>implying it is
Back to /g/ you go

>>5089942
Do you prefer candles to lights? Do you smoke pipes? Why are you such a hipster?

>>5089962
Do you prefer LED's to incandescent bulbs? Do you vape? Why are you such a macfag?

>>5089986
Macs are primitivist, though. Do you even gentoo?

>>5075908
>Why would the history of an idea be relevant to the idea itself?
Nobody actually thinks this, right?

>>5090029
Answer the question, then.

>>5090033
A person who would ask that couldn't possibly understand the concept of time, and consequently the concept of flux, or else they would realize that what they're attempting to analyze, which in this case is an "idea," is not a thing-in-itself frozen outside of that flux, but a thing connected to all other things within that flux and subject to changes within that flux. In other words, if you ignore the history of a thing in the analysis of that thing, you are only ever going to partially understand that thing, because that "thing" is not a thing-in-itself which can be removed from the flux of the universe without there being a massive loss of data as a result.

Now answer my question. Is there anyone stupid enough to really think otherwise and honestly ask that?

>>5090069
So logic and mathematics, the cornerstones of philosophy, were different 200 years ago?

>>5090075
Yes. Are you serious?

>>5090081
And how were they different? Remember, I am not talking sbout the way they were studied or the conclusions given. I mean the fields in themselves.
Did 5+5=16 200 years ago?

>>5090081

He is obviously referring to grade 1 mathematics such as 2+2=1 because those are the easiest concepts for his simplistic mind to deal with. You should probably not argue with this dunce

>>5090100
>mfw continentals can't understand truths
>b-b-but muh solipsism
>muh pomo

>>5090097
>>5090100
Top lel

>>5090112
Nice rebuttal.

>>5090126
>being this desperate for someone to take your b8
>please please give me your rebuttal ;_;
Grow up.

>>5090136
>doesn't have a rebuttal

pic related, analytic philosophy

>>5090075
What a retarded question. You really DON'T understand the concept of time, do you?

>>5090149
>muh unsubstantiated opinions
Go to bed, Nietzsche.

>>5090152
Time is always time. Just because some interpreted it incorrectly does not mean it was different.

>>5090143
>please take the b8

>>5090097
>The way they were studied was different
>Implying the medium is not the message in itself

>>5090159
Define time.

>>5090161
Gets rekt
>b-b-b-bait
Gets more rekt
>t-troll! Leave m-me alone ;_;

>>5090166
You don't really believe that do you? The fact is the message.
>>5090169
the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.

>>5090171
>gets rekt
>h-haha i win!

>>5090179
>fact
>whole

These two words are VERY tricky mate

>>5090181
>still no argument

>>5090188
Not if you aren't a post-modernist

>>5090189
>still nothing of substance to argue over

>>5090191
Here's the thing: you're living in a post-modern world, you can REJECT post-modernist philosophy but you can't NOT BE post-modern

>>5090192
Why do you think there are no truths?

>>5090196
I'm modern actually, to be post-modern I would have to be past the modern world, but modern, like the term present, refers to a fluid state.

>>5090198
Because truth is dependable on paradigms / axioms / core beliefs and those aren't universal

>>5090198
>pulling assumptions out of your ass

>>5090201
See, words have more than one meaning, and the more you argue about a particular meaning over the other, the more post-modern you're being, since you're facing a singular linguistic "truth" from a different view point than mine

>>5090204
>implying logic and mathematics are not universal

>>5090209
No, you misunderstand the term fluid. That just means it changes what it describes, but the idea remains constant.

>>5090221
The fact that the "modern age" or "modern art" are over seems to imply fluidity is part of one of it's meanings, but not necessary to all of them

>>5090213
Mathematics is a human abstraction / language / significator to the world, it's not universal outside of itself

>>5090226
That is just the name used to describe an era, it could be called anything else.
Wrong. It is a discovery by humans, as objective as the hands in front of your face.

Look up the Kyoto School. It was a group of Japanese philosophers centered around Kyoto just before and a couple decades after WWII. "An Inquiry into the Good" by Kitaro Nishida is excellent.

There are also boatloads of ancient Hindu and Buddhist philosophers who are very good. Look into Shankara and Nagarjuna for starters.

>>5090235
Buddhist philosophy is not analytic. It is just feelsy bullshit and illogical opinions.

>>5090234
But it wasn't, therefore, "modern" doesn't mean what you say it means, it has a shitload of baggage before you came along.

And if it was so universal, it wouldn't need, for example, Godel's theorems to justify itself.

>>5090247
>But it wasn't, therefore, "modern" doesn't mean what you say it means, it has a shitload of baggage before you came along.
Modern simply means current time. Current era.
>And if it was so universal, it wouldn't need, for example, Godel's theorems to justify itself
>Why do facts need proof?
Idiot.

>>5090247
>if it was so universal, it wouldn't need, for example, Godel's theorems to justify itself.

>>5090239
Pleb. Read the lankavatara sutra and some Vedantik literature like Action and Reaction by Swami Dayananda.

>>5090252
No, Modern Era goes from the rise of the bourgeoisie in the 16th century to the WWII. If anything, we're living in the "contemporary" era, because we can't give it a proper name till it's over.

Stop pretending you can simply dismiss history and give things the name you want.

And they're only facts insofar you assume them to be, it's pretty well established that math's objectivity works inside it's agreed axioms

>>5084369
Holy shit. Fucking owned to oblivion

ITT: platonists and constructivists/fictionalists set forth their ontological commitments concerning mathematical objects but are surprisingly terrible at justifying them

hold on... "surprisingly"? oh, scratch that.

>>5090149
ITT: this pic

>>5090259
But now is modern. Just because an era was called modern doesn't change the meaning of the word itself.

>>5075972
>>5075951

I attend an Ivy League university known for literature and philosophy and you can obtain a philosophy degree here having taken at max. 1 course related to analytical philosophy

>>5090235
Thats adi shankaracharya my good sir.

>>5090266
If you really think anything serious is going on in this thread you are seriously retarded

>>5090273
>all this ambiguity
All of the Ivy Leagues are known for their literature and philosophy departments you dunce.

I don't get why, if they're actually telling the truth, people won't just tell what university they go to if they intend to brag/make an argument about it. It's not like it gets us any closer to knowing your actual identity

>>5090259
>No, Modern Era goes from the rise of the bourgeoisie in the 16th century to the WWII. If anything, we're living in the "contemporary" era, because we can't give it a proper name till it's over.
>judgmentally assumes "modern" to be monosemous
>denies the other anon's use of the word; proceeds to school him as if there was something to teach him
>by typing "if anything" keeps the readers informed of an incoming ulterior bullshit (not that the preceding bullshit wasn't bullshit)
>contradicts himself in putting forth a normative assertion

>Stop pretending you can simply dismiss history and give things the name you want.
>fails to provide any justification for anon's "dismissal of history"
>demonstrates his stupefying ignorance by assuming that the names of all the different preceding eras are isomorphic and denying polysemous alternatives

>And they're only facts insofar you assume them to be, it's pretty well established that math's objectivity works inside it's agreed axioms
>pulls a strawman and introduces objectivity; never mind the fact that it was universality of mathematical objects that was being discussed
>appeals to a fraction (and no, it is not "pretty well" established) of uneducated mathematical practitioners in philosophical matters

>>5090362
If you can't infer his dismissal of history you are a spastic,

>>5078378
>bamboozle
>sheldor pls stop
ZIMBABWE

>>5090213
They don't exist for all lifeforms, so they're not universal.

>>5090405
sheldor, how do made computer fester?

>>5090410
Yes they do.

>>5090213
How can you know that?

>>5090410
Just because all other lifeforms are unable to articulate their mathematical intuitions doesn't mean there is no Platonic heaven of sacred functions, numbers, sets, triangles etc. :)

>>5090437
There's the field of mathematics to a dog? How about a cockroach? A tree?

>>5090466
They aren't able to articulate such things because they don't all interpret such things in the world. Those things don't even exist for them. To think that human subjectivity is the objective order of the universe is nothing short of pure egomania.

>>5090430
>>5090430
*audience tries to hold back laughter*
>closeup on sheldor
*some people snap and have to be guided out of the studio as they are literally out of breath from laughter witnessing these moments of pure comedy gold*
>have you tried to restart it?
*the audience loses it's shit, women spray bloody diarrhea all over the walls from the laughter and men, tearing their pants down, screaming high pitched dip their balls in the shit while letting out uncontrolled roars of pleasure*
>BAZZOOGUSH
*time and space cease to exists as every living, dead and unborn soul rejoices in an eternal laughter as a joke as funny as this clearly has to be the logical conclusion to all that there is*

>>5090512
Dogs, cockroaches and trees have the same mathematics and logic we do, but they cannot interpret it.
If a blind person walks into a pole should he mind? By your logic, no. Because if he can't see it, it's not there.

>>5084369
>science can't prove everything
>therefore god

>>5090606
Why do you think that was the conclusion? Craig was simply debunking Atkins' claim.

>>5090553
A blind human being still has a human brain. Dogs, cockroaches, and trees do not. Our language doesn't apply to them at all or else they'd be speaking it with us.

>>5090636
Just because a concept is expressed through language does not mean it IS language.

>>5090512
>They aren't able to articulate such things because they don't all interpret such things in the world.
Of course they do not meet such things IN THE WORLD; you only meet them in by abstracting from the concrete.

>Those things don't even exist for them
Prove it, if you're so sure. A given "woof wooof wooof" might as well be a way of articulating "1, 2, 3" in his own, or his and other dogs' shared language.

>To think that human subjectivity is the objective order of the universe is nothing short of pure egomania.
To think that the Platonic heaven is the subjective order of an arbitrary anonymous on an image board is nothing short of pure opinion and wishful thinking.

>>5090641
You don't understand concepts or language then.

>>5090648
>A given "woof wooof wooof" might as well be a way of articulating "1, 2, 3" in his own, or his and other dogs' shared language.
Life is not a cartoon. Just take a look at other animals. They're not doing what humans do. Are you seriously going to persist with a silly notion like that?

>>5090628
I don't really understand what point Atkins was trying to make. It's irritating that the video doesn't show his response. But surely Craig's argument that 'the are no absolute truths' is a in favour of agnostic atheism - since there's no way to prove god exists - rather than theism.

>>5090669
Again, just because other animals do not speak any of the human languages doesn't mean they do not have languages of their own. By "languages" I mean both, the language of thought and languages of communication, as incomprehensible the latter seems to us. "Woof wooof woooof" is conceivably derived from a dog's cogitative states of affairs.

>Are you seriously going to persist with a silly notion like that?
Are you seriously going to persist with not arguing against it?

>>5090720
>Again, just because other animals do not speak any of the human languages doesn't mean they do not have languages of their own
I never said they didn't. In fact, this is more or less what I HAVE been saying. They have a language of their own—NOT OURS THOUGH. And what is contained in our language, most of it at least, is not shared with theirs. And this distance between the two languages increases depending on the two types of lifeforms you compare. The whole ordeal however should tell you that no one lifeform's subjectivity actually says anything about the objective order of the universe, because, well, the notion of there being one is false.

>>5090753
>no one lifeform's subjectivity actually says anything about the objective order of the universe
It does, and we have done exactly that; and we've done so, not primarily however, on behalf of dogs, cockroaches, giraffes, and all the other lifeforms.

>The whole ordeal however should tell you that no one lifeform's subjectivity actually says anything about the objective order of the
Does "LANGUAGES ARE ARTIFICIAL AND CONSTRUCTED AND THUS, IN THE NAME OF POST-STRUCTURALISM, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO REFER TO ABSTRACT OBJECTS" ring a bell?

>the notion of there being one is false.
Now that's a cute, almost relativistic, claim: subjectivity has nothing to say in regard the objective order of the universe, yet you claim it is false. I think we're done here.

>>5090819
My claim is subjective, but that doesn't mean I still can't assert it over yours.

>It does, and we have done exactly that; and we've done so, not primarily however, on behalf of dogs, cockroaches, giraffes, and all the other lifeforms.
Egomania at its finest. You argue that other lifeforms have a language of their own, yet the only valid language to you is ours. Not a language where the symbols of our language don't exist; that language, their language, isn't valid. Oh, but they have their own still, right? You make no sense dude.

>>5090846
Except that you have provided no justification whatsoever for your subjective opinion. Let Mathematics itself speak for mine.

>You argue that other lifeforms have a language of their own, yet the only valid language to you is ours. Not a language where the symbols of our language don't exist; that language, their language, isn't valid. Oh, but they have their own still, right?
That's a strawman version of what I said. Nowhere did I assert that our language is THE language in saying things about the objective order of the universe, as you put it. Since other animals do not build on their preceding mathematical discoveries (bookless creatures, after all) it's more probable that we're ahead of them and thus, it could be said, we are discovering things on their behalf. And only in this sense, if you're not okay with the "on behalf" bit, it is perhaps nonsensical to claim so, since none of the other species speak our languages.

>Not a language where the symbols of our language don't exist; that language, their language, isn't valid.
Couldn't comprehend the gist of this

>>5090648
>>5090669
>>5090682
>>5090720
>>5090753
>>5090819
>>5090846
>>5090933

>go on /lit/
>see these autists have a sperg battle
>laugh
>close browser
>fuck my 9/10 gf

>>5090933
>Couldn't comprehend the gist of this
That comes with thinking the way you do. Language is not a set of symbols to you, apparently—it deals with things-in-themselves, interacting with something that already exists. If you did realize that language is merely a set of symbols, you would realize the subjectivity of concepts like mathematics or the fact that we aren't discovering anything at all in the world, rather we are creating the world as we go along.

>>5090971
I hope you die happily and old, content with your life of adventures, love and happiness, surrounded by your loving children, friends and wife

>>5090069
I don't understand you. Explain this in simple English.

>>5090994
Nothing just is-in-itself, eveyrthing is a cause-in-the-world

>>5091013
But if the idea is wrong: It's wrong regardless of where it originated, and if it's right: It's right regardless of where it originated. Isn't it?

>>5091029
>>5091013
>babbys first day on /fit/
Post ironic maymays instead, it's more fun that way

>>5091029
Propositions have no value in themselves, one can only claim nazism or socialism or capitalism as wrong once they've been analyzed in correlation to the rest of history (and even beyond, considering how a lot of criticism to other system of thought, for example, comes from how what the attacker thinks should be realized against how his target has been - is being realized)

>>5091039
>/fit/
>tfw can't hide powerlevel

>>5091029
Right and wrong are just qualitative measurements, like good and evil.

>>5091060
Squads and oaths. :^)

>>5090973
>language is merely a set of symbols
Call me when you get to Formal Semantics and someone like Davidson.

>you would realize the subjectivity of concepts like mathematics
By "mathematics" I meant the set of all mathematical objects known to us, not the concept "mathematics" per se; if that wasn't clear from the context. But still, in respect to the set of people that have acquired the concept, "mathematics" as a concept is intersubjective, not subjective; the definition of the concept may be relative to the concept-bearer, however. But none of this sheds much light on why there couldn't be a world of abstract mathematical objects that we grasp through the concrete strings of symbols of mathematics.

>we aren't discovering anything at all in the world
"In the world" pertains only empirical objects, and you know what: we've discovered a ton. And not just objects. Notwithstanding how distasteful it may sound when we speak of "discovering".

>we are creating the world as we go along.
If by "creating" you mean "committing ourselves to the existence of objects, properties, relations, structures, which in turn we represent in theoretical models within the natural sciences" then perhaps. All that is created in mathematics are the syntactical aspects of formal systems; the rest is discovered. Or, to put it differently, the rest is being interacted with.

>>5090682

The point is, my dear colleague Craig didn't show in any way there are no absolute truths. He just showed that scientific method itself cannot measure everything.

I agree with the part that I have no idea where Atkins wanted to go with his point because of taking it whole out of context.

>>5091399

>got so buttdevestated he ran away to his books and replied more than an hour later

ayy lmao