/lit/ - Literature

Has "anal" in its name.

Because it collapsed in the first half of the 20th century and contemporary philosophy has been moving towards a synthesis between the fake (i.e. inadequate) divide between 'analytic' and 'continental' philosophy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkM0HPSdMQE

>>6046422

It's pretentious, pedantic, and it tries to make not knowing jack shit about the history of philosophy into a badge of honor.

This wouldn't be so bad if they had actually accomplished anything that they had promised to do but instead they just turned philosophy into a giant word game circle jerk that goes nowhere but pretends it's a science. And this wouldn't be so bad if they didn't have their noses up in the air about the rest of non-analytic philosophy being "nonsense."

If people started with the Greeks analytic philosophy wouldn't exist. It's literally the worst movement in the history of philosophy.

>>6046422
The short answer is Scientism. They think any question must have a scientific answer or else there's something wrong with the question. They're reductionists, and think a human being = a brain. They basically just ride science's cock really hard.

Of course they're not all like this and they seem to be coming out of it, led by people like Davidson, Putnam, Rorty, Williams, etc.

>>6046422
It has no practical use, just a bunch of arguing in a circle about language, it doesn't actually tell you anything

Analytic philosophy is logic for non mathematicians.

>>6046443
>identifying analytic philosophy with logical positivism

>>6046459
Who is "they"? There are and have been analytic philosophers that didn't care about history but most of the contemporary historical work is done by people with analytic backgrounds.

What do you think "they" promised to do?

Why do you ignore the fact that even most of the work done on historical "continental" thinkers is done by people with analytic backgrounds while continental figures only address one another in order to provide a foil for the advancement of their own views?

Most analytic philosophers don't see it as a "movement" and most of them do take ancient philosophy seriously. Why are you making sweeping, unjustified, claims?

>>6046482
>>6046488
>>6046513

Have any of you read much analytic philosophy? Most of my own background is in continental philosophy but the things I hear people say about analytic philosophy are just breathtakingly stupid.

Tell me again we don't need a PhilGen.

>>6047045
We don't. General threads are awful and shit up boards. Threads like this can die as soon as people stop posting in them. General threads will get mindless bumps for days. They also tend to exist whether justified or not. When they get too severe, boards like /vg/ come into existence to allow the original board to return to normal. The general threads on /co/ turn into insular subcultures that circlejerk all day about what characters in Homestuck or Adventure Time are fucking or should fuck. Entire threads go with barely a single constructive post, and new tripfags spring up, befriend one another, and develop huge egos as they think the whole board worships the ground they walk on because a few people in their chosen general thread think they're pretty cool.

In essence, 4chan was far better before the ongoing general thread was prominent. A key part of the technology is that a thread disappears when people stop posting in it for too long, and if someone wants to talk about that thing again, legitimately wants to talk about it, they can start a new thread. But general threads aren't for discussing a topic. They're for people who like to discuss that topic. And since you never stop liking to discuss it, the threads never stop being bumped so people can just hang out in them and shoot the shit.

4chan is not and should not be IRC.

>>6046988
>most of the contemporary historical work is done by people with analytic backgrounds

In the english speaking world. And they do a pretty shit job at it for the most part.

>What do you think "they" promised to do?

Resolve or dissolve the problems of philosophy through the application of mathematical logic. Do you not know the history of analytic philosophy or something?

>even most of the work done on historical "continental" thinkers is done by people with analytic backgrounds

Look, it's just a fact about the way philosophy is structured in the english speaking world that you are forced to get trained in analytic philosophy to get a philosophy education.

>while continental figures only address one another in order to provide a foil for their own views

Maybe the big ones like Deleuze and Badiou, there are plenty of studious continental scholars.

>Most analytic philosophers don't see it as a "movement"

and they are in bad faith.

>most of them do take ancient philosophy seriously.

This is news to me. I've scarcely met any who take it seriously or even know that much about it.

because they assume that language isn't literally a pit of shit, which continentals are trying to solve for them

>>6047140
There is nothing wrong with Deleuze. And a good friend of mine is getting a PhD in ethics. He's trained in analytic philosophy and thinks that Aristotle's virtue ethics were largely right.

/lit/ has a lot of edgy teenagers that were le born on the wrong continent.

>>6047114
>We don't. General threads are awful and shit up boards.
The dozen thread are worse
>Threads like this can die as soon as people stop posting in them.
Which is never.
>General threads will get mindless bumps for days.
In one thread at a time
>They also tend to exist whether justified or not.
As do the dozens of troll/stupid threads
>When they get too severe, boards like /vg/ come into existence to allow the original board to return to normal.
Get a /phil/ board and then we wont need a PhilGen
The general threads on /co/ turn into insular subcultures that circlejerk all day about what characters in Homestuck or Adventure Time are fucking or should fuck.
The philosophy enthusiasts should make the threads their own
>Entire threads go with barely a single constructive post,
Philosophers go entire centuries without a single constructive thought, why would you think anything will happen while shitting up a literature board?
>and new tripfags spring up, befriend one another, and develop huge egos as they think the whole board worships the ground they walk on because a few people in their chosen general thread think they're pretty cool.
Tell me why I should care about people finding their soul/self/ego and making friends on the internet.
>...A key part of the technology is that a thread disappears when people stop posting in it for too long,
And so a General would be perfect. Nothing wrong with staying on topic
>But general threads aren't for discussing a topic. They're for people who like to discuss that topic.
You misunderstand. The OP prompt doesn't mean the thread should stay on that topic, nor does it mean one should keep switching topics.
>4chan is not and should not be IRC.
/lit/ is NOT and should NEVER be /phil/

Same for /theo/

>>6047211
Oh. I mistook you for a non-shitposter. My mistake. Thank God (and I hope someone is inspired by that to start a theology thread) for filters.

>>6047211
No one cares what you think slut. People don't want general threads for good reason.

>>6047211
>Get a /phil/ board
Like, what if I'm a waterfall, or like, a rabbit? Want another bong hit?
>Tell me why I should care about people finding their soul/self/ego and making friends on the internet.
You're deliberately misreading his point.

>>6047225
>Defends shit-posting
>Calls me a shit-poster

>>6047230
>We gots reasons for not wanting them Generals
>Real GOOD reasons

>Proceeds to not name any
>Real reason is they like to tip their hats and shit-post on /lit/

I'm not stupid, anon.

>>6047255
You are pretty stupid if you can't see why general threads are a bad idea. They are a pain to read through, they rarely remain focused and they are more likely to attract shitposters.

I know you just can't stand to let things be, but that is not our problem.

>>6047188

There are counter-examples to any generalization such as the one I put forth.

Most analytics completely ignore the Greeks, and while it might be trendy now for them to give their acceptance to Aristotelian virtue ethics, there is little to no understanding of the Greeks outside of the field of ethics.

>>6047255
>>6047211
A common but unspoken thread in a lot of arguments for a phil general seems to be that fiction is the point of this board, not philosophy, so the board being dominated by it is not supposed to happen.

This is simply not true. A board dominated by fiction, religion or philosophy are all possible. Philosophy just happens to provoke more discussion.

The fact that fiction doesn't dominate isn't because philosophy threads prevent fiction from being discussed. This is a slow moving board after all. Fiction posters just have little to contribute. Its their own fault.

>>6047283
>Most analytics completely ignore the Greeks
Source?

>>6047301
>asking me to prove a negative

The burden of proof is on you to show me that most of them don't.

Good luck.

I would love to be proved wrong.

Why does everyone hate Continental philosopher?

>>6047299
Most philosophy posters are just arguing about nothing and it's pretty well known an enormous percentage of them are literally reading wikipedia. They really should just make a philosophy BOARD and make it a rule that religious discussion is only allowed there as well, and then you idiots can fellate and fallate and redefine each other to death.

>>6047311
>muh can't prove a negative

Its almost as if you just stepped out of Reddit.

>>6047311
You're making a claim, the burden of proof is with you.

>>6046422
>2015
>believing in the Continental/Analytic dichotomy

>>6047323

Prove me wrong and I will recant. It has been my experience that analytics completely disregard the history of philosophy. Everything I have read from them and all of my encounters with analytic philosophers seem to confirm this. If they do have any experience with the history of philosophy, this is usually limited to having had studied Kant or Hume.

If you can prove me wrong, like I said, I will recant my views.

You're probably just arguing in a vacuum though and have nothing to back up your arguments.

>>6047331
Bertrand Russell, king of the analytics wrote the fucking book.

Philosophy courses have to be padded, so everyone studies the Greeks.

If anyone ignores the greeks its pomos that are interested in knowing the everyday lives faggot women instead of actually doing philosophy. Thankfully this is very rare in philosophy, being dominated by men with high IQs.

>>6047338

Bertrand Russell's history of philosophy is not very good.

>>6047338
Bertrand Russell literally quit serious philosophy because of wittgenstein

>>6047274
>You are pretty
Aww, how sweet.
>stupid if you can't see why general threads are a bad idea.
No one's given any good reasons yet.
>They are a pain to read through, they rarely remain focused
So let that all hang out over ten pages. This is better for you. Less strain on your eyes. If that's the vision everyone else has, it will stay that way.
>and they are more likely to attract shitposters.
Shit-posting will remain, in and outside the purposed threads. That's just 4chan's nature. But the janitors could clean up stray bullshit threads like this one, (in or outside)

>>6047299
I'm just proposing a way to strengthen them both. The pol style trolling has gotten out of control (everywhere) and only a concerted effort can turn it around. A slow board that gets legit topics pushed off for sad frogs and I-hate-when threads isn't a very good one.

I want my old awesome /lit/ back.

>>6047344

When will you guys learn that philosophy is a disease of language?

>>6047323
>It has been my experience that analytics completely disregard the history of philosophy.
Cite examples.
And see >>6047331

>>6047358

Richard Rorty is a perfect example of someone who barely knows jack shit about the history of philosophy, to name one. He uses words like "Platonism" and "Hegelianism" as buzzwords.

Pick any given essay written by an analytic and it will make no mention of the history of philosophy whatsoever. Analytic philosophy is methodologically ahistorical, and if you know the history of philosophy the elementary nature of the problems the analytics are fumbling around with is laughable.

philosophy is for people who are too low-IQ to do mathematics.

The only worthwhile philosophers are the ones who are actually mathematicians.

>>6047345
>Aww, how sweet.
You're welcome. However, it was your intelligence that was in question.

>pol style trolling has gotten out of control (everywhere) and only a concerted effort can turn it around
Why do you people need to try and change everything? Have you ever considered the fact that /lit/ is like this because this is what people enjoy?

>>6047377
>He uses words like "Platonism" and "Hegelianism" as buzzwords.
Give an example.
>the elementary nature of the problems the analytics are fumbling around with is laughable.
Give an example.

>>6047391
true dat.

>>6047377
Rorty was attacked by analytics for misconstruing past philosopher's positions. He's not well regarded among them, and not considered an analytic philosopher.

>>6047254
>You're deliberately misreading his point.

>>6047397
>Have you ever considered the fact that /lit/ is like this because this is what people enjoy?
To shit-post. Yes. Been studying it for years. The pol-boil-pop didn't help matters, but I don't think I'm alone in wanting a better board. Please, they really aren't that bad an idea.

>>6047418
>You're deliberately misreading his point.
I gave my honest best guess of what a /phil/ would look like.

>>6047391
Untrue.

>>6047418
Pol has become integral to the "soul" of 4chan. If you don't like that, you can leave.
I have heard of a website called tumblr, it sounds like it would be right up your alley.

>>6047427
I've been to some General threads, and they have just as rabbit a pack of anonymous as you'd ever see. Even the namefag is anonymous.
Don't make me go back there.

Same reason anyone hates Continental philosophy.

They're close minded buttfags who obsess over non-existent boundaries

>>6047470
It's not about the politics, it's about the keyboard dribbling idiocy.

>>6047470
Oh, I'll put something up your alley

>>6047492
Those combined with a fire ants rapacity for control make them unwanted.
I can take the calm right-wingers of /lit/ just fine.

>>6047470
>this is what /pol/tards actually believe

use this image you homos

>>6047532
>Oh, I'll put something up your alley
go on...

>>6047722

unfunny/3

>>6046988
>Have any of you read much analytic philosophy?
Yes. Wittgenstein is my main area of interest.

This is me btw >>6046482

>>6047399

I would like to play "if you show me yours I'll show you mine" but I wouldn't expect you to have anything to back up anything you are saying given my experience with this god awful board.

If you want examples regarding Rorty read "Analytic and conversational philosophy" It's a rather short essay but if I quote-mined it it wouldn't work as well as if you had just read the lines in context of the entire essay.

I won't give examples regarding the other subject because you're probably too fucking stupid to understand for one and I would have to write a 30 page paper on it for two.

If you have an argument against me present it or shut the fuck up.

>>6047341
>yfw pomos are basically just modern day heraclitean metaphysicians or sophist epistemologists

>>6046482
>Human being = a brain
I'd like to see an argument against this.

>>6047352
Not 'good' philosophy

Philosophy can be very constructive if you define your functional terms objectively.

I find it amusing that "didn't read the Greeks" is actually taken seriously as an argument.

Everything worthwhile in Plato or Aristotle have been revamped in more sophisticated forms in the 2000 years since they wrote it. You gain as much by reading them as you do by reading physics from the 1500-century and reading them is a fucking waste of time if you are really interested in philosophy and not just trying to look smart.


But ofcourse I'm just a pleb who doesn't understand anything or something, idiots.

>>6048550
But in order to "define your functional terms" you must use language, which is necessarily circular. Words are pointless. The only language that matters is mathematics.

>>6046482

>Why does everyone hate Analytic philosophy?

>The short answer is Scientism. They think any question must have a scientific answer or else there's something wrong with the question. They're reductionists, and think a human being = a brain. They basically just ride science's cock really hard.

...okay. Why is that a reason for hate?

>>6049130

Philosophers today are often laborers working toward the wrong goals. It benefits one to read the ancients to see the ideas in their primitive and less developed form so that one may take aim at different goals than those that our history has directed us to.

>>6048549
Not him, but a human being is not a brain, anymore than you are your liver.

Your body is producing red blood cells now, hopefully, but it's not like everything about you as a person and the subjective experience of being human can be reduced to "brains", "livers" or a synapse firing.

Because special snowflakes like >>6046482 are upset about the fact that life isn't very special

>>6047479
*Rabid
Fucking auto-correct!

>>6049130

>Everything worthwhile in Plato or Aristotle has been revamped in more sophisticated forms in the 2000 years since they wrote it.

I was under the impression that we had basically stopped doing ontology after Descartes. What do you mean by this? What do you consider worthwhile in Plato and Aristotle?

>>6049780

Scientism leads to nihilism, anti-essentialism, particularism, and is basically opposed to philosophy in principle. People who think that philosophy actually has something to contribute to human understanding find this type of reasoning profoundly annoying and these people are often impossible to argue with.

>>6050820
>Scientism leads to nihilism, anti-essentialism, particularism, and is basically opposed to philosophy in principle.
>what are unfounded assertions
>what is the strawman and is it a valid form of reasoning

>>6050835

>what is shitposting

If you disagree with me fine. Let's talk about it. Why was what I said wrong?

>>6050820
>impossible to argue with because they're geniuses

>>6050849

>I'm a genius because I don't think anything I can't rub my dick on is real

good bait got me to respond I fucking hate DeGrasse Tyson

>>6050848

They're assertions based on nothing. Also, scientism is one of the most obvious strawmen ever constructed

>>6050873

Almost every post in this thread is so short that you could say they are also based on nothing.

Scientism isn't a strawman. I meet people like this constantly. I would say that the current research on "moral perception" is a perfect example of scientism. Also about half the posts in this thread.

Would you care to elaborate more on why scientism is an obvious strawman or are you just going to keep repeating yourself?

>>6047804
There is no need to be upset.

>I won't give examples regarding the other subject because you're probably too fucking stupid to understand for one and I would have to write a 30 page paper on it for two.

This is playground tier "I could prove it if I wanted to" stuff.

>Rorty
Another anon pointed out that Rorty has been attacked by other analytics for this.

>If you have an argument against me present it or shut the fuck up.

There's no need to get so aggressive, all I'm asking is for you to back up your assertions.

>>6050899
There is no aspect of science found in moral perception that is not from philosophy originally.

This perception of scientism is just attacking certain strands of philosophy by referring to an outside influence, as if this was bad, and as if it was needed.

Next you'll be telling us the law of non-contradiction was invented by Albert Einstein.

>>6050936
>there is no aspect of science found in moral perception that is not from philosophy originally

So what? It's still scientism.

I never said scientism was anything but what you just said it was.

>>6050921

>Rorty has been attacked by other analytics for this.

That's all well and good, but it still happened in the first place and its symptomatic of the general historical ignorance in the analytic camp.

Analytic philosophy is ahistorical in principle. At the point where you start directly addressing the tradition and working within it, you are no longer doing analytic philosophy. There's a famous story where I think it was either Searle or Kripke refused to teach a Plato class because "I only teach the truth." There's a good Rebecca Goldstein interview floating out there somewhere where she talks about this attitude but I couldn't find it so w/e.

>>6050983
Anecdotes you can't remember who of and an interview you can't find. Great job.

Rorty is a pragmatist. Not analytic.

You're so easy to debunk.

>>6050820
Platos elitism and prot-communism, Aristotlevirtue-ethics and democracy, Platos metaphysical theory of universals and Aristotles theory about forms. Those ideas were progenitors to modern ideas and lived on for quite a while after they were dead.

>I was under the impression that we had basically stopped doing ontology after Descartes

My metaphysical professor would tell you otherwise

>>6051487
the early pragmatic school is considered by most historians to be parallel with the development of analytic philosophy in Europe and after many philosophers fled to America the schools melted together. Virtually any analytic university will teach pragmatism as part of the analytic school.


Hell, fucking W.V.O Quine who is arguably the most influential analytic philosophy in the second half of the 20'th century was a pragmatic.

this thread is full of fucking autists. "omg kripke didnt write a reply to plato" its called progression, why would we jerk off to ideas we've moved past?
in any case, where historical arguments are relevant they are looked at and bettered. kit fine has improved upon essentialism that was first put forth by aristotle. soames expands on mill and walter burley's theory of propositions. have you faggots read any contemporary analytics?

>the irony when people wrongly assume that analytics dont understand the views of other movements
quine was a pragmatist and an analytic. analytics can be pragmatists. they can also be retarded. that doesnt take away from the contributions and methodology of analytic philosophy as a whole. the analytics have provided great insight into modality, natures/essences, language, logic, and other shit on the basis of the methodology. and the methodology itself is under flux and changes as a result. read more children

Ok, I have a major boner for tracing the genealogy and history of ideas, but why the fuck would an analytic paper need to mention The Gorgias or The Organon if they want to discus logical arguments (as an example here)? Literally pointless fluff if I want to engage with Frege or someone as they have no point of connection outside of being from the same field (construed broadly). Mentioning phlogiston may be nice in an introduction in a physics paper, but cut the crap, I want to see what is going on /currently/ (poor analogy I know, jump down my throat anyway).
>>6051724
This guy gets it.

>>6051510

I was under the impression that most people do not take the theory of universals or the theory of forms seriously. My analytic professor doesn't even know what hylomorphism is.

>>6051487
>Rorty is a kind of analytic
>not an analytic

Yeah okay bub.

>Any statement with meaning to humans must be based on empirical observations or on deductions from premises

Fucking debate us. I don't even care if this makes me a fedora.

>>6052935
Surely even continentals agree with that.

>>6047377
The laws of physics are thought to be universal and constant. Two observers could come to the same discoveries without either of them having any knowledge of the other.

Why should reasoning be any different?

Knowing history is useful in the fact that it makes less work for you. Better to do a literature review before going about my research question rather than going in blind, only to find that I've found things that are already well-documented and that I've added nothing.

But, does not having that knowledge of prior history inhibit my ability to investigate? Nope.

>>6052935
Dude on the left looks like an alien

>>6053029
Looks like Benedaay Lmaopatch.

>>6053029
Looks white to me.

>>6053037
Same thing, basically.

>>6053001
>Why should reasoning be any different?

In what sense is reason universal and constant, even to half the level of a science like physics/chemistry/biology/etc? Even if some laws of reason are concrete and undeniable, why should we immediately assume a transitive property that extends to all of reasoning?

I think that everyone believes that some of your reasoning and ethics comes from where you were from, what your culture was, your own experiences. that sort of thing. So there is a clear difference between that subjectivity and observing an event objectively.

>>6053061
What do you mean by reasoning?

If by reasoning you mean non empirical inference, then you are wrong. Culture and experience have no impact on logical truths. These are known a priori.

>>6051966

I'm doing a grad seminar in Metaphysics on The Laws of Nature and the next paper I'm about to read is Armstrong arguing that the laws of nature are relations between universals. In my undergrad Metaphysics textbook the very first section is the one on Universals and several different conceptions of them, Russell even admitted ( perhaps he changed his views later) that universals do in fact subsist and are real, and mathematical Platonism had persisted to this day.

Also, Aristotleanism and non-deflationist metaphysics has been coming back for the last ten years or so. Look up some Neo-Aristotelean metaphysics. There is a good book called " Aristotle on Method and Metaphysics", edited by Edward Feser, who has a pretty good philosophy blog as well.

>>6053001
The issue is that certain ideas get misrepresented and pigeonholed over time, so often you can go back to something not considered for a long time due to bad translations or bad assumptions that turn out to be false, but still end up dominating the literature for a time, and discover something new or realize that the literature has developed in a way that we can now see that this older author had a better argument than thought. If you ignore the history of philosophy you are left to whims of the current literature and any mistakes they have made along the way.

I have yet to meet a philosophy prof who is so rigid as to not even bother reading Plato, and the analytic-continental divide is essentially dead- serious philosophers will know Plato, Nietzsche and Frege, and will find valuable things in all of them. Logical Positivism failed and we all know that Lacan is fraud, we've already started overcoming the flaws of the 20th century and are moving onwards past it's superstitions.

>>6053082
for a fucking fedoralord you sure could use a healthy dose of the tractatus, logic+empirical reference is incapable of making any real statements about ethical/spiritual questions

>>6053215
>logic+empirical reference is incapable of making any real statements about ethical/spiritual questions

Logic or observation can't get you ethical premises, but so long as you choose a premise, logic allows you to deduce all of the consequences of that premise.

As for "spiritual questions," what are those, exactly? Give me an example.

>>6053215
What ethical/spiritual questions?

>>6047317
I would go there more frequently than here, please give us a /phil-religi/ board!

>>6053111
I will look into this.

Thanks for helpful post. :^)

>>6053369

Sorry >>6053369, >>6053526 was meant for >>6053215.

>>6053526
Are these supposed to be ironic?

>>6053369
the post you were replying to mentioned ethics as something influenced by culture/experience, and i was replying your saying that culture and experience have no impact on logical truths, which i took to include ethical results because that was being discussed, if ethical results were excluded from your assertion, then i admit that my criticisms aren't quite so robust

still, i'd further say that the fact of alternate systems of logic, specifically those which discard the rule of the excluded middle, undermines your assertions, or at least to me suggests a different terminology would be more appropriate

i'd agree with you that given certain axiomatic systems, there are things about them that are true according to their own logic, but calling them a priori, or even true, seems unnecessary

so, um, i guess i basically agree w/ you except i think you need a buttload more caveats imo

>>6053526
i don't really care about continental philosophy and i think that your critique has some validity but it's also to a degree disingenuous

>>6053526
These things have a lot to do with living one's life and confronting the human condition, they're about confronting how much we're programmed by our world, whether or not we can stop it, whether or not we want to, whether or not trying to determine what satisfies in contradiction to others is desirable...the question what are we doing with are lives and what are we ultimately doing it for, and whether or not that purpose is satisfactory.

>>6046422

Na dude, I LOVE analytic philosophy
I just hate you

>>6053589
They are unfalsifiable, baseless nonsense with no evidence supporting them. You may as well say how jububu vets monkeybeau, it's ridiculous and nonsensical.

>>6053628

She's super cute though.:3

>>6053659
This claim is unfalsifiable.

I mean, I do have a stiffy, but if I didn't have one, it would not falsify the claim that she is cute, as my lack of stiffy could also be due to impotence or homosexuality.

>>6046422
I think this recent hate is the result of some readers actually starting to identify with the label "continental", which analytics came up with in the first place. But non-analytics themselves don't hate analytic philosophy at all, they just have different approaches from them and do their own thing.

What you're actually witnessing are a group of loud and obnoxious (non?)readers. I mean, this is /lit/ and not an academic journal or something of that sort.