/lit/ - Literature

>>5105303
They basically assume the will of the majority is a good thing and go from there. Or some other sort of axiomatic root to their ethical thought

>>5105303
I knew analytical philosophy was bullshit when I kept hearing people talk about appealing to inferences that everyone supposedly had.

You should read some Kripke and Quine before making retarded threads like this.
>Whenever they use "logic", it boils down to "my assumptions are axioms". This way they do not need to provide an argument anymore for their beliefs and just claim tautological truth, as their conclusion circularly follows from their axiomatic (read: dogmatic) beliefs which they themselves never prove or even justify.
There is literally no other way to do this, the same applies to mathematics.

>>5105303

Well, who won the great analytic-continental showdown /lit/? Hm?

>Am I mistaken
Yes

>analytic
>analytical


hahahah

>>5105303
You're free to question their assumptions if they seem implausible to you.

They usually have some reason for them though.

>>5105321
So much this: I still can't understand how they can be taken seriously.

I talked to so many people working in analytic philosophy and the bottom line is always either:

-Well, I'm sure that we all sat down and talked rationally we would come to the same conclusions and those are moral facts.
-if you saw one day people getting killed in the streets even you would call that evil,
-nevertheless, there are certain rules that a society must have to sustain itself and thrive (try asking what they mean by thrive and get no answer)

I swear, I can't understand how they can call this sloppy thinking rigorous.

>>5105656
You can 'reason' your way out of anything. This machine (brain) that produces perfect logic often lacks self checking (being human).

>>5105656
>cherry picking responses which confirm your established view whilst ignoring others which may challenge them and open a dialogue

Why are you here again OP?

>analytic
>analytical
top hue

>>5105678
He is cherry picking responses from undergrads, he has probably never spoken to a professor

>>5105645
Well usually their justifications is:
-Common intuition.
-Popular opinion.
-It reflect how we think about x.
-It would make me said if it were otherwise.
-It would make a certain practice x in which we are all invested meaningless if we did not believe in it.

Whenever you get out of science analytic philosophy is not about truth but about confirming the status quo. Which is not surprising since it is a philosophy that has championed professionalism and the academic bureaucrat and often had an open enmity to the great thinker.
They wanted ideas that anyone could have and they ended up being the ideological machine for the everyman.

>>5105686
You're an idiot. Thanks for confirming it. Thread hidden.

>>5105303
Read Ayers book on Truth logic and Reason, should clear up most of your confusion, Pretty much dismissed all of metaphysics since it is literally sense-less; It 'transcends our reality" and since we can't use our senses to determine it its senseless and therefore uselesss and we just have to disreguard it. He talks about ethics but I don't rememeber much on what he said. Its a good read only like 130 pages

>>5105685
>>5105678
Not op.

Unfortunately I haven't studied philosophy in the US and since I moved here I had only a limited access to professors of philosophy (and those few are virtue ethicists like Pigliucci and have a more subtle and interesting view of ethics).

But in regard of moral realists I read a lot of stuff and I seriously can't understand how they can sustain that position.
The questions I have are not addressed, and when I found someone that I can address them to they all go back to those modes of thinking.

Even here it has not been different so far.

>>5105303

Ryle is based as fuck. The rest can suck a chode.

>>5105690
Well instead of calling me an idiot let's talk about meta-ethics. State your position and let's see where it takes us.

My position is that there are no moral facts and hence there cannot be moral truths.

>>5105588
Foucault destroyed Chomsky, but it was a debate revolving around the universialism/essentialism/nature vs. relativism/nurture distinction in human nature and not the continental/analytic 'distinction' of epistemology, though these two are pairs are a bit blurry sometimes I agree.

>>5105713

My view is that there are no meta-ethical facts and therefore no meta-ethical truths. Your position has been undermined.

>>5105709
ryle and ayer are good, ryle teaught ayer

>>5105722

Wasn't Ayer one of the ones that signed that petition to get Derrida thrown out of Oxford?

>>5105721
Well not really, since your position is isomorphic to mine and I may very well agree.

>>5105730
not really sure, I just have a mentor and he pays me to read each book, I just know ayer wrote truth logic and reason when he was 26 so he might have done that later in life.

>>5105741

But nevertheless I am one step ahead of you in the nihilistic race to the bottom. Once you step on the path laid out by Hume you can't help but wind up with de Sade.

>>5105715
>Foucault destroyed Chomsky
lel. Did you watch the discussion? They were barely speaking about the same thing, let alone debating.

>>5105760

I think he's trying to say that Foucault was better dressed. Which is the same thing in the average /lit/poster's mind.

>>5105588
>brings up an debate irrelevant to the thread

uh oh
oriental continental detected

Why can't continentals stick to topic issues, like actual philosophers?

Why do they shave their heads instead of keeping a sensible comb over?

Why have sex with college feminists who can cry rape and have Obama believe them, when they could study instead?

>>5105768

>thinks William Lane Craig is an actual philosopher

Into the trash it goes.

>>5105686
What analytic philosophy texts and especially modern publications have you read that contain these rationales? I've read plenty of stuff that doesn't fall under those headings.

One of the core features of analytic philosophy is that it tries to make it's arguments very clear. If you are right in your assessment of the primary way philosophy is practiced today, I'm sure you'll find equal amounts of the same poor reasoning in the continental tradition.

>>5105754
Yeah I completely agree, from Hume to Sade.

>>5105777
>I'm sure you'll find equal amounts of the same poor reasoning in the continental tradition

Most continentals seem to be aware that you can't address any profound issues with mere 'reasoning'.

What is reason, anyway?

>>5105782

The problem of induction basically means i can deduce sexual depraved morality right

>>5105760
>most philosophical discussions including this one
you should only try to win over yourself, discussing with other people is just preparation for that

>>5105765
Or he projected more power / dominance therefore he must be right

>>5105777
Analytic philosophy is in no way the primary way that philosophy is practiced today. Maybe in the US and Oceania, but certainly not in Europe and Asia. Even in the UK, where it is certainly dominant, there still a strong current of historicism, phenomenology and other continental schools at work.

Second:
http://kar.kent.ac.uk/31439/1/Final%20Proof%20BJA.pdf

The whole article is:
1) Reinstating the positions of the mainstream analytic view.
2) Arguing that Levinson is wrong because of common intuition, popular opinion of what to be a critic means.

Another example:

Is Truth the Goal of Inquiry? by Akeel Bilgrami in Rorty and His Critics.

The whole argument is: yes truth has to be the goal of inquiry because otherwise scientists would feel that their work is meaningless.

I can come up with a couple of more examples.

>>5105588
Chomsky is the best analytic,
and even then he lost to the worst continental.

>>5105786
No they don't. They typically hide such assumptions, but the axioms are there. Better to have that stuff out in the open.

>>5105794
>you should only try to win over yourself, discussing with other people is just preparation for that
So philosophical discussion is essentially public masturbation?
Sounds about right.

>>5105794
Where's the discussion here?

>You should only try and win over yourself, discussing with other people is just preparation for that
Yes. Now that I truly understand that certain forms of art are objectively superior, I can trust everything that science says, and that fags are evil I have no longer any need to engage in conversations about it.

>>5105821
>Thinking Foucault "won" when he didn't make a single point
>Not knowing how analytic debate works

Work on your b8

>>5105776
Buttblasted fedora detected

My dream is to ruin Bertrand Russell.
It may never come true,
but that is my dream.
Analytic philosophy uses "properness" as a way of ridiculing people who are attempting to find Truth in itself.
They are disrupting actual endeavours in using institutions and axioms to delay and outright negate progress.

>>5105777
>I'm sure you'll find equal amounts of the same poor reasoning in the continental tradition.

Yes of course. But continentals read analytic philosophers, but the converse is rarely true (brandom, searle, rorty are some examples) based on their presumed reasoning superiority. And one of the effects of not reading continental philosophy with some degree of attention is that they often get caught in group thinking. One grad student once told me that ethical realism does not warrant defense because it is the base position for the majority of people.

>>5105847

Do it without language and do it for Wittgenstain.

>>5105847
It does not negate progress. You can still assert opinions like the existentialists did, except now you will be directly scrutinised for your incoherent logic.

>>5105849
>One grad student once told me that ethical realism does not warrant defense because it is the base position for the majority of people.
That's a textbook fallacy, no? Whether or not it's continental, that dude seems to need to do some more reading in general.

>>5105854
Even if it wasn't a fallacy it's factually wrong, it comes from having been brought up in an echo-chamber.

>>5105854

that's some pre-socratic shit

he obviously didn't start with the greeks.

>>5105849
>But continentals read analytic philosophers, but the converse is rarely true

Nope.

You bring up a good point though, most of the points continentals make were made better by analytics. Continentals just throw a dash of discarded psychology on it, obscure their points as much as possible, call it new, and peddle it to the gullible. i.e. women.

>>5105861
The Greeks suck. Real philosophy started with Bertrand Russell. Everything before him was a rehearsal.

>>5105866

what about frege you dolt

>>5105870
pre-Russellian.

>>5105870

might add that the amount of anons bringing up BR like he's the father of analytical philosophy have not read anything.

>>5105870
What about him? He was like a final dress rehearsal.

>>5105864
And still analytic philosophy ended up with believing in ethical realism, mathematical platonism, objective aesthetic values and realism.

Something went clearly wrong if they managed to make such good points.

>>5105847
You could go further than that. They invalidate large parts of 'being human' because they have to grind everything down to True, False with no ability that a lot of things are better represented on a scale of Probability.

Who would read analytical fiction? Would you rather talk to a person who speaks in absolutes and deduction "My day was good" or someone who crafts a story about their day with detail and feeling?

>>5105877
None of that is true.

>>5105879
If you want to read a story go back to F Scott Fitzgerald and James Joyce. If you want to know philosophy you will read analytic.

>>5105877
continental b8 threads are not analytic philosophy as practiced in the real world you fucking sperg.

>>5105884
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/04/29/what-do-philosophers-believe/

>>5105877
>analytic philosophy believes this nyaahhh
It's like your a sportsfan booing the opposing team.
>>>/sp/

>>5105890
>link shows most issues remain controversial and <50%

kek

>>5105885
This is exactly the kind of extremism and denial of human experience to be excepted by anal-sperg-lyticals.

>>5105895
Not really, I think it's an apt response to "they took their ideas and re-stated better" if the results are so different.

>>5105849
>One grad student once told me that ethical realism does not warrant defense because it is the base position for the majority of people.
literally worse than hitler

>>5105899
Philosophy isn't about your experience. Do continentals really believe Billy Bob's $2 ramblings to be philosophy? They're literally just opinions, you deluded cunts.

>>5105890
>this is a survey of analytic philosophers when the article only says there is a slant to it
>the majority surveyed don't agree with objective aesthetic value and it's about evenly split between moral realism and non-realism
Does your agenda make it hard for you to read or something?

>>5105908

>that one pseudo-analytical anon who uses the term 'uncle billy-bob's ramblings'.

>billy bob thornton

yep

>>5105885
The thing is,
if I mention the Hegel,
you will laugh at me,
but I will say none the less;
I have faith in Dialectic.
I believe words are vessels and it is the system and the differences in what is said in which you receive knowledge.
I do not think necessity exists,
nor do I exert myself in moral endeavours.

Didn't Christopher Hitchens dig the Hegel?
Why was he hanging around with these Dawkins Sam Harris types?

>>5105818
Suffice to say two examples don't invalidate the tradition, any more than a few scientists fabricating data makes physics valueless.

I'll read the articles tomorrow and give you a response if the thread is still up.

>>5105921
>faith

>>5105866
Will you please just fuck off.
Some one needs to destroy these dawkins cock suckers I fucking swear.

>>5105908
Didn't say it was about my, or Billy's experience. Good philosophy must cater to 'wisdom' or knowledge through experience of living a human life. You sperg shows when you try to remove that from the area covered in Philosophy. Remember always that continental philosophy is truly "greater" (larger in scope and better) than analytical philosophy alone.

>>5105905
Although hitler was pretty based and it was more Goebbels who was the weird kid with power

>>5105908
>he thinks his opinions are more than opinions

>>5105933
It doesn't matter.
Someone who is so indoctrinated by New Atheism is a bore to talk to.

>>5105914
Yea, tfw when you realise analytical acolytes really are all retarded

>>5105931
I agree, I have a lot of respect for the tradition (I started my training in logic and phil of math before becoming interested in history of philosophy). But there is so much going wrong with it today. Especially now where everyone is trying to look scientific-as-fuck because they fear that otherwise they will get their department closed,
As with a certain stuffy idealism and scholasticism, I feel that rather than the savior of philosophy it has become the servant of the institutions that support it.

>>5105940
>good, better
>implying universal value

>>5105937
Butt hurt connie.
>>5105940
>muh anecdotes
>muh incoherent logic
>muh unsubstantiated opinions
Get lost.
>>5105944
>logic is opinionated
ayy lmao
>>5105947
>you hurt my feelings
>therefore you are wrong
Typical connie.

>>5105866
Begin with Russell, end with Harris.

>39 per cent platonism
Holy fucking shit what?

>>5105961
Analytic philosophy will never end, anon :)

>>5105944
>Analytical thinkers
I am right therefore I am right.

>>5105965
that's what happens when you try epistemic realism. Not even once.

>>5105957
That part was little baits and pokes. It's 4chan...

>>5105959
>just throw the whole of bucket of bait into the sea
not sure you understand how fishing works

>>5105957
It's an exertion and you were caught up in the swing.
End it before the "fun" gets lost.

>>5105968
>Continental thinkers
Communism, Freud, Slavery, French Revolution, Internet, Nausea, Anal Fisting therefore I am right.

>>5105988
None of my points are invalid or logically incoherent. Now fuck off :)

I am just going to say it.
Materialists are opportunistic cunts.
It just can not be known, kids.
"New Atheism" is a bunch of loud, oversocialised manchildren, armchair male faux feminists (who for some reason have undertones of sexism in their writings)
who are ironically marxist, when they have never actually read marx, who was influenced by the hegel who is a continental.
It is a shamble of shit which is ruining what was already crumbling.

>>5106000
Stay sperg

>>5105998
The "communism" that was carried out in Russia and is still being carried out in China is a bastardised version of the communism Marx laid out.

>>5106003
>liking Marx when the LTV is now redundant
For what purpose?

>>5106007

>analytics not sticking to their definitions

wow you guys are worse than leninists

>>5106007
Just admit it is a shit ideology regardless of how it was practiced. Only lazy NEETs who want the state to support them like communism.

>>5106007
Interesting thing you chose to defend out of that list

>>5106006
Classic continental rebuttal.

>>5106010

>changing topic
>brazen strawman

anon, i...

>>5105937
>can't take the banter

*tips fedora*

>>5106017
How am I changing the topic? You were talking about communism.

>>5106008
The point is to simply order society in the way that there is no class difference.
You can not describe who is deserving of some thing and as it is people gain things through trickery.
If we are going to be ethical, then we should do it perfectly, and the state and law comes in to that.
We either do equality or not.
There has not been a successful Marxist state,
but the point is to actually exert and attempt it.
Capitalism (or really american libertarianism) is just chaos, or letting things be.
It is as simple as exerting or not,
and if yes, then it is marx, of course.

>>5105998
>Internet
Why don't you act logically and get off the thing you deem False?

>>5106015
How can you listen when you *have no ears*?

>>5106021
So you want to anchor those who work hard and are successful and raise up those who are not? Why even bother, then?

>>5106021
>simply order society
Oh I see, pardon me, didn't realise it wad retard o'clock already.

Did not read further.

>>5106029
This is basically Nietzsche's central point.

>>5106010
No, a communist state is constantly wanting your exertion.
You are constantly being asked to be doing some thing. You are constantly working towards that.
A true ideal communist state (has never happened) is not for "lazy" people.
Actually, it is the opposite,
you will never have a chance to be lazy. You are always under the scrutiny of every body.
NEETdom is a problem that will only arise in capitalism. Socialism (faux marxist capatalism) is shit, this is the true social welfare heaven and the very centre of inequality, right next to feminist thought.

>>5106038
So you are enslaved by the collective?

>>5106038

>>5106037
>implying you actually read any philosophy, including analytical
don't think I don't know I'm talking to a 14yo

>>5106052
>analytical

>>5105303
What I find really funny is how "analytic" thinkers pretend to be "scientific" when actual scientists laughed at them.

Poincaré writings on Russel contains many legitimate keks as he exposes how far Russel is from an actual mathematician. Cantor also made fun of him.

Some more laughs with the Frege Russel - Hilbert controversy. At least Frege was sensible enough to come back from his retarded "analytical" days at the end of his life.

Hermann Weyl came out as relatively funny when he spoke of the Vienna circle. I also recommend reading actual logicians such as Gentzen, Ackerman, Lukasiewicz (I leled when someone presented him as an analytic) or Gödel instead of fucktards like Russel, Wittgenstein or, God forbids, Quine.

Fun fact : Cantor became interested in philosphy at the end of his life but did not write, allegeddly because his co-worker at Halle Husserl had written all he thougth.
Then in 1900 Hilbert engaged his responsability against the Göttingen University to get Husserl to work with him and became best buddy with him.
Lukasiewicz and Weyl both said to be like Husserl's pupils. And Gödel said he was the greatest philosopher after Leibniz.

The only analytic philosophers I regard worthy are Frege and Whitehead, and it's probably because they are not really analytic.

>>5106052
Also >>5106024

It's a ruse, I know you can't get off it

>>5106060
By funny you mean utterly fucking tragic right?

>>5106010
Happened in Monarchies, fascist and capitalist states just as much or even more so.

>>5106075
And? I don't see how that justifies communism.

>>5106079
>why-do-this.png
Don't encourage him man

>>5106032
Those who work hard are not neccessarily successful.
you can not gauge who "works hard".
You either do equality or not.
I prefer to remove the emotional or subjective part of dilemmas.
>Why even bother, then?
Equality is a good deed.

>>5106036
Libertarianism is unethical.
The inherent nature of society is anarchy.
I dislike that.
I have a notion of "equality" and it seems to be expected of me.
We can do it or not.
Law is changing some thing.
Order is changing some thing.
I prefer to have an ideal changed world than just "let it be",

>>5106045
The point is for that to work, all need to be ethical and working towards equality.
The idea needs to be given to all entities.
It may never be acheivable,
but in not reaching for it,
not even the middlepoint can be achieved.
If ethics should be done,
then it needs to be done fully.
The questions is; to do it or not?
And of course, we should do it.

>>5106090
Fine, those who are smart and work hard are successful. Why do you think people can't take care of themselves? Why should I be responsible for the welfare of others? Nature gives us dominion over 1 person, ourselves. And that is how it should be. Don't force your utopian ideal on others, if it is such a good idea they may agree. If it is not, then go do it yourself.

>>5106071
No, I have come to the conclusion that the analytic philosophers were in for the lulz.

When Carnap said that he rejected Heidegger as a philosopher and only accepted him as a tragic poet, he hsould have added that the Vienna circle is not meant to be philosophy but a travesty of philosophy intended as a joke.

Note that Carnap had really pleb taste in writing since, whatever you think of Heidegger's ideas, his writing is utter trash. Carnap probably didn't understand one word of Heidegger, so he said that it was 'illogical", but there were many complicated words, so he thougth it was poetry.

>>5106060
>Whitehead
He isn't really discussed but what I read of him was totally fucking based.
First time in a while I actually read some thing and it gave me completely new angles on shit.

>>5106104
Define ethical. If I think freedom of the individual is the greatest moral, then clearly communism is not ethical at all.

>>5106079
It was a misjudgement when they killed most of those people. They were simply bad marxists.

>>5106079
Look at what you have done

>>5106104
>>5106095
>>5106090

>>5106113
>give us one more chance, it will work this time, I swear!
Get the fuck out, Shlomo.

>>5106060
le meh

Scientists and philosophers will never get along.

>>5106106
>those who are smart and work hard are successful
There is no necessity for this.
Simply preconceptions that are haunting you.
>Why do you think people can't take care of themselves?
It is possible that there are people in what could be deemed negative situations.
I choose to exert myself in changing that.
>Why should I be responsible for the welfare of others?
In order to create a general idea among the people that they should be helping others and in that you are more likely to be helped yourself. Other than that, simply for the fantasy of having all entities be in a "positive" situation.
>Nature gives us dominion over 1 person, ourselves
No, you have power over that which your endeavours bring you to.
You can murder some one and you will have had "dominion" over them.
You can exert yourself to change most things.
>Don't force your utopian ideal on others, if it is such a good idea they may agree
My intention is to persuade them.

>>5106108
I agreed with your first post but I don't agree with this one. Not sure I agree that analytic thinkers have any capacity for humour, and not sure what you're implying by saying they did it all for the keks.

>>5106112
I think the general idea of Ethics is what one should do on a regular basis.
Freedom is a negative attribute at the point at which it impeaches on another entities' freedom.

>>5106116
It is because you fetishise Communism.
Capitalism for you is just the inherent nature of society.

>>5106127
>There is no necessity for this.
Simply preconceptions that are haunting you.
Maybe you're not smart or hard working, anon.
>It is possible that there are people in what could be deemed negative situations. I choose to exert myself in changing that.
Okay. Just don't use force to take my money in order to do that. Charity is up to the individual.
>In order to create a general idea among the people that they should be helping others and in that you are more likely to be helped yourself. Other than that, simply for the fantasy of having all entities be in a "positive" situation
I can help people without you holding a gun to my head.
>No, you have power over that which your endeavours bring you to.
You can murder some one and you will have had "dominion" over them.
You can exert yourself to change most things.
No, you will never truly control another individual. It is impossible, you simply give them orders that they obey out of fear. Hey, that sounds like communism.
>My intention is to persuade them.
The 100+ million people killed by Lenin and the Jewish Bolsheviks, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the like convince me enough.

>>5106135
Have you heard of negative freedom? The freedom to fail? The responsibility of the self? The lack of safety net?

>>5106149
Can you faggots stop de-railing? Start another thread about whatever bull political theories you're discussing

>>5106153
Suck a fat one, gaybo :3

>>5106130
Of course, I just meant that they made fools of themselves. The analyticfag has no capacity for second degree or self-mockery.

>>5106146
>Charity is up to the individual.
Yes, but taxes exist.
Are you against taxes?
>I can help people without you holding a gun to my head.
Based on your fetishised view of communism,
so it is irrelevant.
>you simply give them orders that they obey out of fear. Hey, that sounds like communism.
Master slave situation exists in all situations.
It is a prerequisite for community at all, really.
Good marxists would create a situation where the person is knowledgeable to know he is exerting himself for the correct thing, and if that means following orders, then yes.

>>5106166
>Yes, but taxes exist. Are you against taxes?
Yes
>Based on your fetishised view of communism, so it is irrelevant.
So communism is just your idea voluntaryism where everyone thinks like you?
>Master slave situation exists in all situations.
It is a prerequisite for community at all, really.
Good marxists would create a situation where the person is knowledgeable to know he is exerting himself for the correct thing, and if that means following orders, then yes.
So you want to let everyone know that your dictatorship is fine because it is correct? lmao

>>5106158
>mein_first_negro.gif
You're alright anon. I'll lookup the logicians you recommended now. It sounds like you actually have done formal training in philosophy?

>>5106181
>using a question mark on a statement

>>5106173
>Yes
It's unethical. That is all I have to say.
>So communism is just your idea voluntaryism where everyone thinks like you?
I have a notion of what is the correct ethical composure, and I would like others to follow that.
>So you want to let everyone know that your dictatorship is fine because it is correct?
Certain orders are needed, but if not, then we will not have that.
It is the same in society now.
You are obligated to go to school.
You do not have the freedom to speak.
You are not born with freedom, either. There is always some thing which you can not do.
Freedom is not an ethical or even particularly wise imperative.

>>5106187
Not spreche native Englisch m8

But thanks for the tip.

>>5106181
No, I studied mathematics but now I work as a communication engineer. That's stuff I read when I was 20.

>>5106109
>To date, the Chinese government has encouraged the building of twenty-three university-based centers for the study of Whitehead's philosophy,

>>5106189
>It's unethical. That is all I have to say
By what reasoning? I say taxation is unethical because it violates the freedom of the individual, the only imperative to maintain.
>I have a notion of what is the correct ethical composure, and I would like others to follow that.
Explain that 'notion' then.
>Certain orders are needed, but if not, then we will not have that.
It is the same in society now.
You are obligated to go to school.
You do not have the freedom to speak.
You are not born with freedom, either. There is always some thing which you can not do.
Freedom is not an ethical or even particularly wise imperative.
So you think you know what is best for everyone? Why don't you do what you think is best, and everyone else can do what they think is best.

>>5106199
Do you think Wittgenstein 'ended philosophy' or just deduced himself out of it?

>>5105303
>>5105704
>>5105839
love these images, anyone got more?

>>5106224
Seeings I made one and one other is a response to mine, no.

>>5106205
>I say taxation is unethical because it violates the freedom of the individual, the only imperative to maintain.
Irrelevant. I do not want the freedom of the individual,
that is up to the individual and not a collective endeavour,
so why are we discussing it in a social arena?
>Why don't you do what you think is best
I am doing that right now.
The exertion of my opinion and my negation of yours is what I think is best.
>So you think you know what is best for everyone?
I am not thinking to be knowing what is best for everyone,
but I have a notion of correct ethical composure, and choose to strive towards it.

>>5106236
>Irrelevant. I do not want the freedom of the individual,
that is up to the individual and not a collective endeavour,
so why are we discussing it in a social arena?
Because you think collective tyranny is superior to freedom of the individual.
>I am doing that right now.
The exertion of my opinion and my negation of yours is what I think is best.
Okay. Just don't force your malformed opinion on others.
>I am not thinking to be knowing what is best for everyone,
but I have a notion of correct ethical composure, and choose to strive towards it.
This reminds me of the Christianisation of Europe.

>>5106227
make more

>>5106250
>Because you think collective tyranny is superior to freedom of the individual.
If law is tyrannical, then tyranny is preferable.
>Just don't force your malformed opinion on others.
I intend to.
>This reminds me of the Christianisation of Europe.
Christianity as a popular movement began in Rome before its fall and was actually one of the things keeping Europe together, as opposed to the popular belief that the charlatan Voltaire spread.

>>5106158
"The whole concept of sin is one which I find very puzzling, doubtless owning to my sinful nature. If 'Sin' consisted of needless suffering, I could understand: but on the contrary sin often consists in avoiding needless suffering."

>>5106130
"The Newspapers at one time, said that I was dead, but after carefully examining the evidence I came to the conclusion that the statement was false. When the statement comes first and the evidence afterward, there is a process called "verification" which involves confrontation of the statement with the evidence."

How the fuck is Bertie so fucking based? Why does he make humorless Continentals so mad?

>>5105818
>yes... because otherwise scientists would feel that their work is meaningless

what is this shit?

>>5106641
/lit/s anti-scientism godsquad?

>>5106652
godsquad parties are way fucking better than fedoracore, you know this.

>>5106652

What the fuck is "scientism" anyway?

It sounds like a term some whiny humanities professor made up to trick people into believing in some form of discrimination that isn't even real ala microaggressions.

>>5108131
The fun part is that I'm >>5105818 and I'm an atheist.

>>5108153
Scientism is basically a naive overly-positive understanding of natural sciences and their methods which often ends in undervaluing the methods and history of other disciplines.

For example scientism is Pinker saying, in The Blank Slate, that by studying our psychological evolutionary history we can create the perfect work of art (I'm exaggerating his claim a bit but it's for the sake of clarity).

Another example is the claim that automated search algorithms will eliminate the need to read books in literary studies.

Or another example is the claim that scientific practices are so independent from human agency that they will eventually get to truth no matter what.

>>5108216
wow. you've mastered the art of strawmans like a true humanities retard.

>>5108225
I admitted that the Pinker argument is a bit of a strawman, but that has not stopped Ramachandran to claim that we (we who btw? because I certainly don't) like a certain watercolor landscape because it's the landscape we have evolved to feel safe in.

But the other two are opinions I actually heard expressed.

So please explain me how I'm using a strawman.

>>5105303
Analytical philosophy can be summed up as
>muh positivism

>>5108216
>dubious claims made by a handful of misguided people

OMG, LET'S LABEL THIS SOMETHING

Honestly, this is all fake. You must see this.

How would you rate /lit/ as a place of philosophical discourse?

>>5105822
You mean the aren't.

nobody claims metaphysics or ethics is grounded in formal logic in whatever dumb shit sense you are taking 'grounded.'

the phenomenology guy is just absurd

>>5105864
>to the gullible. i.e. women.

You had begun so well, why did you have to break form so close from the end ?

>>5108293
>i don't know what i'm talking about

see anything written recently

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasons_and_Persons

not that I think that's a must read or anything, but you're clearly wrong

>>5108298
It's not really a handful of people. "Scientism" is the dominating narrative of modernity.

>>5105998
>Not being a Freudian
>Not embracing Lacan as the true heir of Psychoanalysis
O I shiggy diggy do

>>5108293
no, positivism fell out of favor a while ago, even with the analytics

>>5108298

If it's something you can label it. Besides that the label has been around for almost a century, even eminently respectable philosophers like Karl Popper.

Whether it is effectively diffused or not is not a concern here. It exists, it has a name and now you know what is it.

On my part I think that scientism is pretty prominent in our culture, especially in current us culture. From a unwarranted mistrust in science we went to an equally naive and misinformed embrace of it.

You seem to be confused. Whenever you do any type of logical reasoning whatsoever, you make assumptions, and then you work from the assumptions.

All empirical and formal inquiry is done the same way. When you do scientific research, you are working from assumptions (most obviously your hypothesis, but also in fundamental constants and that your ability to measure and observe remain somewhat stable and actually reveal what you intend to measure).

It seems you have a somewhat shallow understanding of maths and science if you think you aren't working from assumptions when doing empirical or formal inquiry. At the very least, you are working from assumptions something of the nature of "empricism holds" or "phenomena can be described in a way that corresponds to formalization."

You will even find that tautology is impossible to derive without making some assumptions.

>>5108333
Actually, it isn't. Nice try scientist.

>>5108337
Positivism is pretty much back in analytic philosophy. Ever since they have abandoned the linguistic analysis and decided to found epistemology on darwinism.

That is: for example our concept of causality is not an unjustified concept that we form out of habit, but it's a trait that has been selected because of its ability to increase our survival chances by permitting us to predict the environment.
Then by the argument of no miracles they state that the reason why causality works is because it reflects a property of reality. Thus reality is formed bu existing structures that can be correctly on incorrectly reflected by our conceptual apparatus.
So the correct representation of these structure is what we call positive facts.
This is how positivism is back in vogue.

>>5108414
Positivism is not back in vogue, and we haven't remotely abandoned linguistic analysis or done away with all other conceptions of epistemology.

>>5108414
>Our concept of causality is caused by

What. the. fuck.

>>5108398
Not op. But leaving aside math because I think it's a complicated matter.
The difference is that scientific assumptions get tested to understand whether they are correct or not.

Philosophy has no way to get its assumptions tested because its scope is larger than empirical space.

That is why a simple analysis of the assumption won't do much because unless you subscribe to those assumptions the rest is meaningless.

That is why dialectical reasoning is much more useful in philosophy than analytic reasoning

>>5108418
Well that's not how I read current trends in philosophy.
Form what I see in the various epistemology and philosophy of... departments scientific realism is the dominant view. And the jump from that to positivism is a given. I don't believe you can be a scientific realist without believing in positive facts.

>>5108434
I see you would like to leave aside the best analogy to formal logic in philosophy aside, but don't think I don't see why.

It has nothing to do with empirical space. You can just as easily do philosophy about things that can be tested now or in the future. Deductive reasoning is truth-preserving when applied correctly.

You must subscribe to any assumption you wish to argue from in order to get somewhere, even if you intend to make a reductio argument. I'm not discounting the dialectic or continental philosophy at all. I'm not arguing that one is better than the other, or that the distinction is really even accurate in most cases. My view is that both types of philosophy are doing the same sort of thing. Arguments are arguments. Methods and assumptions may differ, but each is still doing philosophy (well when they are actually doing philosophy, there are people from both "camps" who are charlatans).

>>5108450
Scientific Realism does not entail Positivism.

>>5108455
Well I put aside formal logic because I don't believe that all philosophy does is to explore the consequences of axioms.

I believe that philosophy is more akin to a reading of the world.

What I mean is that you don't simply use deductive reasoning from a certain given axioms, which can be dome but then the question is "how do we understand when those axioms are true?"
Instead you use a huge series of instruments. Certainly deductive reasoning is among them, but also inductive, abductive and dialectical. Sometimes a big part of philosophy is exactly in managing to redefine what those axioms mean to us.

I understand that you don't deny all this, but I just wanted to underline further how a too strict adherence to the deductive ideal* in analytic philosophy is not without problems.

*I use the term deductive ideal because they know and candidly recognize that most of their arguments are not purely deductive, but because of their attention to deductive (analytic) arguments they often forget to offer good justification to their starting positions.

>>5108482
Maybe I'm wrong but here how I see it.

Scientific realism is the claim that science represents reality accurately.

So if you believe that reality is accurately represented by a scientific theory, then given an event (e) you have to believe that the event e is represented accurately. Given two events (e1) and (e2) you would still have to believe that they are both represented accurately. Since this is valid for e and e+1 we'll assume that it is valide for e+n. At this point it is e+n is the world as the collection of all the facts. Hence positivism.

Let's go for a reduction to absurd.

Let's assume that science is an accurate representation of reality and that e3 is not represented accurately by science.
Thence we can imagine a theory that represent all other events e3 included. Thus that theory would represent reality in a way more accurate than science which is contrary to scientific realism.

>>5108568
Well, that assumption isn't entirely accurate.

It isn't that science represents reality accurately, but rather that science, as far as it can describe, does aim toward the real (truth), and that belief in scientific results is justified.

Your first argument assumes that the word is a collection of facts, which is not a tenet of scientific realism. It also assumes that all events can be described by science, but we come up with scenarios in which this just isn't true, for instance value judgements.

Your reductio argument also makes the tacit assumption that science can _completely_ describe reality (positivism) in order to argue for the conclusion (positivism), in addition to the tacit assumption that e3 is the type of thing that can fall under scientific theory. There are many things which do not. See above, but I can also provide you with more if you would like.

>>5105760
fucking this.

>I am intellectually LEAGUES BEYOND YOU, analytic peasant.
>So let me just make nebulous, reductive claims in counterpoint to your research rather than actually engage with what youre saying within the parameters of your terminology

havent even watched the whole thing, i just watched ten minutes and thats what i got out of it. i mean i guess in one sense thats sort of "winning"

>>5108665
> in counterpoint to your research
>implying Chomsky's researchs are of any relevant to the debate
>implying the debate wasn't full of nebulous things on both sides
>implying Foucault wasn't relatively more grounded

You should have watched the whole thing, because Chomsky never makes anything else than wide-eyed leftist statements (I despised how the word "leftist" is used here, but in this case there's really no better word).

>>5108669
>watch a pomo faggot debate an anarchist

*tips barista*

>>5105908
>Philosophy isn't about your experience.
oh boy

>>5105588
I think the middle Dutch guy won

>>5108784

US money looks foul

>>5108335
Dobar dan Žižek

>>5105511
>There is literally no other way to do this, the same applies to mathematics.
Why? It fairly easy to demonstrate that, for instance, morality will not conform to any given mathematical structure you could throw out. I can't claim for sure that there is no mathematical structure that maps to moral impulses, but I doubt there is or that any human could give a convincing description of it even if there was.

WHAT IN THE FLYING FUCK ARE YOU ALL TALKING ABOUT.

Children, go to fucking bed. This shit is fucking puerile.

Most of you seem to be equating "analytic" philosophy with a handful of philosophers interested in questions around the foundations of language and logic that were active around the turn of the last century.

>>5105303
>The few texts I read from so called "analytic" philosophers seem to confirm my suspicion. Whenever they use "logic", it boils down to "my assumptions are axioms". This way they do not need to provide an argument anymore for their beliefs and just claim tautological truth, as their conclusion circularly follows from their axiomatic (read: dogmatic) beliefs which they themselves never prove or even justify.

What the fuck are you talking about, who/what did you read? It sounds more like you're describing the systematic philosophies of the early and middle Rationalist thinkers, such as Spinoza or Liebniz.

>>5109284
>morality will not conform to any given mathematical structure you could throw out
Then we will never have a coherent model for morality and will just wallow in moral relativism/expressivism until we got extinct. You always need some axioms to do any kind of reasoning whatsoever, the continentals are just better at hiding theirs under obscure language and a pretentious vocabulary.

>>5108621
I think that something to be called realism it needs to warrant more than a justified belief in science. An anti-realist pragmatist has a justified belief in science and its methods.

To be a s.realist you have to believe that science tells us how reality is. But to believe that it tells us how reality is it has to tell us how a part of reality is. Now that part of reality is just a fact.

I think that the S.Realist who does not want to be a positivist wants it both ways. He wants to believe that how he sees the world is how the world is and that's why he is trying to keep together both the scientific image and the manifest image to use Sellars terms.

Aren't most analytic philosophers non-cognitivists?

>>5105849
Rorty is well-versed in the continentals, especially Foucault and Nietzsche

>>5110123
Yeah that was my point

>>5108784
Oh my god, holy fuck, I recognize that tip jar! I used to work at that exact coffee shop. Top kek. I majored in philosophy too. Ahhhh, my life is a fucking joke...


Philosophy is a pretty shit discipline. I damned near went to grad school too. If you can hack it though, if you can believe in it, then it's great -- go spend the rest of your life enjoying your cushy desk job, spinning out age old sophistries to the beat of the modern academic politics, for that is the life of the philosophy professor and I admit it sounds pretty nice in comparison to busting my ass serving drinks for tips and such...

Analytic philosophy is pretty stupid sometimes but so is a lot of Continental shit. So much philosophy is just virtually unreadable, including the classics. It's usually not worth bothering with. I personally got into philosophy because it seemed practical and concerned with the core of our being within everyday life. Ironically, even if philosophy as such is ostensibly about such things, the way that most of it is written insures that it will have little effect on the everyday life of the vast majority of people. Tragic or comic? You decide.

>>5108153
>What the fuck is "scientism" anyway?

>>5110672
The classics of antiquity are all very readable

>>5108153
Scientism is the belief that all aspects of life should be governed by even handed application of the Scientific Method, even in situations where it cannot reasonably be applied, and that anything that fails the "test of science" should be mocked and rejected.

There are only about five people who believe this, but they are endlessly reviled. At the moment the movement seems about to split into ten separate schisms, leaving the "Sceintismists" as they call themselves, with the problem of believing at minimum two exclusive dogmas at once.

>>5105303
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/30


My main problem with alot of continentals is that they write very obscurely. Guys like Jacques Derrida are just annoying to read.

>>5111005
Scientism is just rational. You'd have to be an idiot or a creationist to reject science.

>>5111005
>There are only about five people who believe this

There are a huge number of psychologists and sociologists who implicitly subscribe to something close to it and believe that statistics are more important then personal experience when it come to describing humanity in addition to that their disciplines are more serious for trying to get past subjectivity.

The problem is more serious then you suggest.

>>5109952
I didn't say it only warranted justified belief in science. I also said that science aims for truth and reality. Positivism is reductionist. Scientific realism is not. I don't see how you are missing this.

Continental philosophy just seems so irrelevant. Its most active practitioner relegated to reviewing kids movies. An academic version of tumblr.

Meanwhile, analytic philosophy continues to stride into interesting and new ground on the most important issues to humanity. Controversies continue to rage across it. It doesn't cut itself off from the bleeding edge of materialism, science and atheism.

>>5111005
>implying the scientific method isn't the only way to arrive at truth data
>implying you can refute this without using the scientific method

>>5105303
Things you got wrong:

1. Analytic philosophy is not grounded in formal logic, at least not all of it. Anyone who told you that must have been mistaken, or you misunderstood them

2. Ethics and metaphysics can be derived from what you said, but also from the critical analysis of the implications of logic and our everyday language. Regarding metaphysics, see Kripke.

3. Axioms never arise from assumtions. Metatheory doesn't often get discussed in the same place as the theory itself, but it exists somewhere.

4. Axiomatic is not the same as 'dogmatic'. Axioms can be replaced when it is deemed fit, on the other hand, you don't get to relinquish your dogmas while retaining your dogmatism.

>Am I mistaken, or
You are mistaken.

Good bibliography:
For logician-philosophers: Kripke is the golden boy. Frege, Russell and Quine are very relevant although they were wrong on important regards. There are others but I'm not much well-read in philosophy or logic.

>>5106060
>All this anecdotic trivia
Care to present a point? Anyway, what is analytic philosophy for you? All those early 20th century philosophers are over and done with, except for maybe the second Wittgenstein.

>>5114889
>early 20th century
And late 19th, but you get the point.