/lit/ - Literature

No. If you have to ask such stupid questions id prefer you stay limited in your enquiry

>>6054143
I tried to read the continental crap: Hegel, Lacan, Derrida, Foucault etc.

I found it quite difficult. Terms were brought up but rarely definen. The "reasoning" was invalid, unsound or incomplete, often the author would make a fallacious claim and henceforth accept it as proven. The worst part was the verbose style, which seemed to shroud the truth rather than illuminate it. I often found myself re reading the same sentence over and over again, making no sense of the jumble of meaningless words thrown together on the page before me.

I eventually could not take any more and simply gave up. You should not waste your time.

>>6054181
But what about all philosophy that existed prior to the analytic style of philosophy?

Nope. It all suffers from the same problem, namely not defining any term they use.

Continental 'works' are as relevant to reality as me discussing the flibbedyflobbedyfloop scoopdiloopting the blipyblopybloop

>>6054181
All this Hegelian drivel is the same. There's a reason it is called posturing here. The way they obfuscate their work is intentional, it is how they hide either simplicity or the total falsity of the ideas expressed and they seem to create entire vocabularies for themselves, re-appropriating conventional terms, like ideology, to suit their agenda, often defining the word almost contrary to its standard usage. This obfuscation does not help the advancement of philosophical concepts and it only hinders understanding, often leading to the work being left up to interpretation, see Nietzsche. They obviously do not think their ideas are true enough to be advanced by the next generation, as Wittgenstein did with Russell.

>>6054188
It is only of historical interest. Analytic philosophy resolves most of the historical problems.

>>6054143
Because you be bothering with some irrelevant shit. It's only continentals that go on being house-hold names. Even your mother has heard of Nietzsche, but probably associates him with nihilism and nazism(thanks to Russel ofcourse).

>>6054197

>Analytic philosophy resolves most of the historical problems.

Oh yeah? Analytic philosophy gave us an ethics and a political praxis?

>>6054204
Read Moore if you want ethics.

>>6054188
If you want to read it for entertainment, fine. But it has no real significance to contemporary philosophy, which saw a rapid advancement in the 20th century. Russell wished to found an academy where students of philosophy were educated in mathematics, rather than the classics, as he saw that those educated in the classics had inferior reasoning and logical skills and knowledge.

>>6054143
As long as you don't take it seriously. Lacan is like problem solving and reading rolled into one, that being said there are often points when reading Lacan I just nope the fuck out and leave it gathering dust for another 6 months.

tl;dr It's fun and testing but not legitimate.

>>6054204
Analytic philosophy does deal with ethical question.

>>6054211

>if you want ethics

you really are autistic, aren't you

>>6054204
AJ Ayer's emotivism.

>In no branch of learning can an author disregard the results of honest research with so much impunity as he can in Philosophy and Logic. To this circumstance we owe the publication of such a book as Mr Coffey’s Science of Logic: and only as a typical example of the work of many logicians of to-day does this book deserve consideration. The author’s Logic is that of the scholastic philosophers, and he makes all their mistakes—of course with the usual references to Aristotle. (Aristotle, whose name is taken so much in vain by our logicians, would turn in his grave if he knew that so many Logicians know no more about Logic to-day than he did 2,000 years ago). The author has not taken the slightest notice of the great work of the modern mathematical logicians—work which has brought about an advance in Logic comparable only to that which made Astronomy out of Astrology, and Chemistry out of Alchemy.

>Mr Coffey, like many logicians, draws great advantage from an unclear way of expressing himself; for if you cannot tell whether he means to say "Yes" or "No," it is difficult to argue against him. However, even through his foggy expression, many grave mistakes can be recognised clearly enough; and I propose to give a list of some of the most striking ones, and would advise the student of Logic to trace these mistakes and their consequences in other books on Logic also. (The numbers in brackets indicate the pages of Mr Coffey’s book—volume I.—where a mistake occurs for the first time; the illustrative examples are my own).

>[36] The author believes that all propositions are of the subject-predicate form.

>[31] He believes that reality is changed by becoming an object of our thoughts.

>[6] He confounds the copula "is" with the word "is" expressing identity. (The word "is" has obviously different meanings in the propositions— "Twice two is four" and "Socrates is mortal.")

>[46] He confounds things with the classes to which they belong. (A man is obviously something quite different from mankind.)

>[48] He confounds classes and complexes. (Mankind is a class whose elements are men; but a library is not a class whose elements are books, because books become parts of a library only by standing in certain spatial relations to one another—while classes are independent of the relations between their members.)

>[47] He confounds complexes and sums. (Two plus two is four, but four is not a complex of two and itself.)

>This list of mistakes could be extended a good deal.

>The worst of such books is that they prejudice sensible people against the study of Logic

Peter Coffey and Aristotle BTFO

>>6054225
Damit Rust, can you stop pissing everybody off?

>>6054250
>On 25 October 1946, Karl Popper (then at the London School of Economics), was invited to present a paper entitled "Are There Philosophical Problems?" at a meeting of the Moral Sciences Club, which was chaired by Wittgenstein. The two started arguing vehemently over whether there existed substantial problems in philosophy, or merely linguistic puzzles—the position taken by Wittgenstein. In Popper's, and the popular account, Wittgenstein used a fireplace poker to emphasize his points, gesturing with it as the argument grew more heated. When challenged by Wittgenstein to state an example of a moral rule, Popper (later) claimed to have replied "Not to threaten visiting lecturers with pokers", upon which (according to Popper) Wittgenstein threw down the poker and stormed out. Wittgenstein's Poker collects and characterizes the accounts of the argument, as well as establishing the context of the careers of Popper, Wittgenstein and Bertrand Russell, also present at the meeting.

>>6054258

based Witt proving himself as one of us yet again

Popper a shit

If you want to sail the sea, you'd better know how to sail in all of it's waters.

>>6054258
autism

>>6054202
>thanks to Russel ofcourse
plen

>>6054270
Yeah, Popper should have just spouted memes at him, right? xD

>>6054261
Witty got btfo by Popper.
He was destroyed in debate, so not unlike a good continental, he threw a tantrum.

>>6054213
This is the only correct answer.

>>6054280

What is your metric for legitimacy?

>inb4 falsifiability

>>6054143
>Should I even bother with any philosophy that isnt analytic?
yes, it even permits you to skip every paintings and other art fields. All of this is rubbish.

>>6054292
OP here.
What?

So let me get this straight then.
In the past, philosophers talked a lot of bullshit but sometimes managed to get things right intuitively.
With the advent of more complex logic systems there became a way to sort out the bullshit from the worthy arguments and ensure that no more bullshit was produced?

>>6054319
Ding ding ding.

>>6054263
why would i sail if i live on the continent?

>>6054319
Yes. It's called academic rigour.

>>6054322
To get to England.

>>6054334

There's a tunnel you retard. It's 2015 not 1815.

>>6054340
>expecting continental to take the most rational course of action

>>6054334
Nah, if you'd have said Scotland I might reconsider.
The English are incapable of salvation (save for Brighton & Hove).

So how do i start my analytical philosophy education and is there some sort of concise version of only the arguments of the old greats that are still valid today?

>>6054349
Start with Russell's "The Problems of Philosophy" and Ayer's "Language, truth and logic".

>>6054181
>I eventually could not take any more and simply gave up. You should not waste your time.

I mean, I agree with you that Hegel is pretty hard to read, but clearly you're autistic if you think morality, ethics, or subjectivity can be subsumed into analytic philosophy.

Philosophy departments with a continental focus:
>populated by laid back, experienced students who come from a variety of disciplines and european states, who are generally well cultured and up-to-date with modern fashion and trends
>use of recreational drugs and alcohol tolerated and even encouraged between doctoral students and faculty, both as a means of social relaxation and facilitating research
>female colleagues generally more sexually free and promiscuous due to adhering to radical notions of femininity
>looser restrictions and less emphasis on red tape due to the radical anti-authoritarian nature of much critical theory
>great inter-department bro relations with other arts and social sciences due to significant discourse overlap
>more potential for fame and media publicity in culture due to the strong grounding of critical theory in modern events

Philosophy departments with an analytic focus:
>filled with cultureless degenerates, ruthless no-fun careerists, ignorant wannabe STEMfags, and legitimately autistic people (sup Kripke)
>female colleagues generally ugly, sexually inhibited, and attempt to mimick the mannerisms of the men in their department for a greater claim to authority
>generally sober and baseline, only psychadelic experience consists in spouting some pseudo-scientifical mystical bullshit about the universe and its inherent godel,escher bach mathematical structure and various other embarrassing forms of popsci bullshit
>terrible relations with other departments due to the insistence on narrow-minded empirical methodology and naturalistic definitions

>>6054365
You also forgot to mention that those with an analytic focus tend to be proponents of scientism.

>>6054365
>cultureless
>degenerate
>no-fun
>ignorant
>autistic
>ugly
>sexually inhibited
>terrible relations with other departments due to the insistence on narrow-minded empirical methodology and naturalistic definitions
This isn't even the worst
>only psychadelic experience consists in spouting some pseudo-scientifical mystical bullshit about the universe and its inherent godel,escher bach mathematical structure and various other embarrassing forms of popsci bullshit
This is just so stupid and shows your lack of scientific knowledge perfectly. How about you talk about which kind of department makes actual progress rather than worrying about which one is fun and easy.

>>6054365
g8 b8

>>6054377
Post one thing analytic philosophy has achieved.
Post evidence of any progress.

Analytic philosophy is a failed experiment in autism.

>>6054365
You know nothing of STEM if you think analytic philosophers are the kings of the autists.

>>6054365
Yeah, I agree! Continentals are totally amazeballs amirite
420 blaez it fagets, down with the system!!

Except Czech out the work and lectures of Chalmers, Clark, Dennett and the Churchlands before trying to perfect your ad hominem and your ignorance of Sturgeon's Law.

>>6054377
Progress is a spook.

>>6054406

>dennett

all opinions immediately and violently discarded

>>6054406
>>6054365
also: grAcht bAcht, mAcht

>>6054412
Just goes to show you haven't bothered to actually read what he's written. Move along now.

>>6054422
>Just goes to show you haven't bothered to actually read what he's written.

I watched a video on youtube where he literally says that we have to believe in free will, because if we don't, society will collapse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBrSdlOhIx4

Apart from being right about religion, he's a joke.

>>6054412
>mfw one of my autistic professors put up a portrait of Dennett in one of the classrooms. All the other portraits in that classroom are of moderns and continental contemporaries. Dennett's portrait is right in the middle of them. At least it isn't as silly as Heidegger's picture (they chose the one with him leaning over a window).

>>6054384
All of modal logic.

>>6054406
really? At least suggest something worthwhile instead the simmering milk on top of the proverbial yogurt. Witty, Russell, Kripke and Quine for starters. Then perhaps some Nagel and Searle, only then are you allowed to suggest mfking Chalmers et al. And I don't agree with previous anon that D.D. is irrelevant. He is required reading for the greater picture as per his prominence in various debates.

>>6054438

lmao there isn't a single thought in that video. He sounds like a televangelist reading an email from his grandmother

>>6054451

>He is required reading for the greater picture as per his prominence in various debates

you have no idea what philosophy is, do you

>>6054438
lyl
Strawmen abound.
He says we shouldn't tell people they have no free will because people are not a part of the general philosophical debate, and hence they will tend to misinterpret the message. It's no more, no less. The truth of the matter is irrelevant to the argument.

For clarification, his stance on free will is merely that the common conception of free will doesn't stand up to scrutiny. That it's based on faulty assumptions of one's own experience, a bit like believing that the sun goes around the earth based on the experience of sunsets and sunrises. Hence the 'illusionist' caricature by his detractors.

I think you're not quite being fair. Your arguments are based on a caricature of his views.

>>6054483
>He says we shouldn't tell people they have no free will because people are not a part of the general philosophical debate, and hence they will tend to misinterpret the message

That's literally like saying one shouldn't criticize people's retarded religious beliefs, only the ones coming from theologians, i.e stupid as all hell.

>>6054486
It's literally like saying we shouldn't loudly read Schopenhauer to everyone in psychiatric wards because the outcome is likely to be harmful to society.

>>6054486
Your analogy proves you still don't understand his point.

>>6054506

No, his message is much more simplistic than that. He's saying that people who believe that free will is an illusion are wrong and that communicating a wrong (unjustified) belief is harmful in a consequentialist way

>>6054511
wat. like literally wat.
GTFO m8

>>6054525
Cool your jets, peabrain.
Nothing he said is hard to understand or wrong.
That was his message.

>>6054511
People will interpret philosophers telling them they have 'no free will' in the following ways:
A) They will realize that they live in a type of universe where all action is caused, hence they will realize that all of their causation is an aggregate of previous conditions precipitating into new ones.
B) They will dispute it by invoking philosophical arguments based on Quine's intrinsic and derived intentionality, or an argument of their choice
C) They will see it as people in authority telling them that they are not responsible for their actions seeing as they have no 'free will', and that therefore they can't be held accountable in case they decide to act asocially. i.e. smart people tell them that nothing is their fault so they decide to use it as justification

>>6054564
>They will see it as people in authority telling them that they are not responsible for their actions seeing as they have no 'free will', and that therefore they can't be held accountable in case they decide to act asocially. i.e. smart people tell them that nothing is their fault so they decide to use it as justification

People who believe that this is going to happen, clearly have no idea what free will means, nor do they have any idea how beliefs function.

>>6054567
You just described people who are not part of the philosophical debate.

>>6054277

That's probably right but not necessarily true. Witt was widely known to be, well, eccentric, and as often as it is with many eccentrics, he had a bit of a tempestuous temper. But still, though he probably lost, it's hard to tell who was right (at least for me).

>>6054575
Yes, but I deny that people will interpret it that way.

People who do not care about philosophy, will most likely not even listen to a talk about free will, nor would they have even given the idea any kind of thought, they probably just go on with their life.

>>6054595
So what's the point of every neuroscientist with an unstrokable ego to go on TV, oozing of scientism, to tell the world they are slaves to determinism? That happens, y'know...

>>6054623
Well, because it is true. I mean, something being true doesn't mean people will agree with it.

Evolution is also true, but at least 40% of the American population thinks it's a conspiracy to undermine their religion.

But even so, that doesn't mean one should just submit to fatalism, and hopelessness and just sit your ass at home not bothering to do anything.

>>6054384
Emotivism/moral nihilism, putting an end to the vain quest of finding truth-apt moral statements.
Modal logic and everything that can be considered rigorous in metaphysics and philosophy of language/linguistics.
Hintikka's IF logic.
All of AI and consciousness research of today is heavily based on the what the analytics did in the 20th century.

>>6054633
>that doesn't mean
Why not? Where do you get these oughts?

>>6054384
1. Leibniz’s Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles.
2. Theory of continuous quantities, from Leibniz to Robinson.
3. Frege’s analysis of cardinality.
4. Abstraction and abstraction principles (Frege, Dedekind).
5. Invention of quantification theory; predication; what variables are (Frege).
6. Existence not a predicate, rather a quantifer (Frege).
7. Concepts as functions (Frege).
8. Theory of infinity (Bolzano, Cantor).
9. Mereology (Lesniewski, et al.).
10. Theory of relations (Russell).
11. Non-classical logics.
12. Incompleteness of formal systems (Gödel).
13. Concept of a computable function (Gödel, Turing, Church, et al).
14. Rotating solutions of Einstein's equations with CTCs (Gödel).
15. Tarski’s theory of truth; object language/metalanguage; undefinability theorem.
16. Kripke models; possible worlds anaylsis (Kripke, Lewis, et al.).
17. Kripke’s fixed-point theory of truth; grounding.
18. Formal semantics & pragmatics.
20. Supervenience (Kim, et al.)
21. Representation theorems; applicability of analysis.
22. Field’s theory of applicability of mathematics; conservation theorems.
23. Properties of identity and indiscernibility.

Should I go on?

>>6054655
>Why not? Where do you get these oughts?

Are you asking me personally, or do you want me to fund a study asking millions of people why they believe in free will?

>>6054633
Yeah, I agree. I think a bit of his project is to do that by refusing to talk about the f-word, instead opting to use other terms to describe the problem. 'Free will' is such a muddied concept in his view, that it's unusable for reliable communication about the concept of determinism. That's where his objection to frivolous use of the term comes from, as it muddies communication and makes people get the wrong idea of things. Hence my example of people misunderstanding the message.

I appreciate actually discussing these views rather than responding by kneejerk.

>>6054667
Personally, it's not like the people like me who end up doing probably fuck all before they die had any choice in the matter.

>>6054665
Add Wittgenstein's Tractatus (in case thats not part of your non-classical logics section).

>>6054665
24. Indeterminacy of translation

>>6054665
Ironically I forgot Russell's definite descriptions. Add that to 24.

>>6054681
If we go on to include the Tractatus, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't include e.g. Goodman's Fact, Fiction, and Forecast, McDowell's Mind and World, etc. Except maybe for its pictorial way of presenting the truth functions by a truth-table. Then again, Peirce had come up with that long before Wittgenstein.

>>6054701
Controversial.

>>6054181
>The "reasoning" was invalid, unsound or incomplete

>SOMEONE MENTIONED DENNET

AHAHaHAHaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

DAWKINS FAGS NEED NOT APPLY OFF TO THE FEDORA REALM LITTLE FAGGOTS

>>6054346
the most degenerate town in England?

>>6054365
Analytics BTFO

>>6055453

By petty namecalling and misrepresentation?

>>6055464
It is the best way to feel like you've won an argument.

>>6054143
Yes, you should.

*BANG BANG*

STOP RIGHT THERE

We all know who makes this divide and conquer strategy : EASTERN PHILOSOPHERS

>>6054365
Philosophy departments:
>garbage
>all of them

>>6054665
okay but who fucking cares about math? (i am a math major so i do)

like these results aren't nothing but they're honestly not as big of a deal to me as the continentals and their allies, like wittgenstein's work is hella important bc it more or less endorses a weird existentialism at the end and sort of bridges logic and the more humanistic strains in phil but o/w it seems like either math useful to mathematicians or wankery that is only really useful if you were super nervous about the foundations of truth

whereas frederic jameson gave us a sketch of the structure of american culture and a vocabulary to describe postmodern cultural production

also continental phil is probably way less useful if you're not politically oriented, which is why i can't give a shit about analytical phil

>>6054143
Analytic philosophy is just as degenerate and modern as continental philosophy, they are simply two more or less isomorphic manifestations of the disorder or the modern world.

>>6054349
No the arguments started off valid but then everyone decided they became invalid

>>6056928
If you read more than just philosophy general threads, you would know that is not true.

>>6056928

>degenerate
>disorder
>modern world

nice plastic historical metanarratives babe

>>6056928
Please stop.
Even if I were to share this opinion, I don't want you spouting off like this.

>>6054665
>Philosophers trying to claim credit for the achievements of mathematicians

Also why is Leibniz considered a member of the analytic school?

>>6059015
>Philosophers trying to claim credit for the achievements of mathematicians
Not really; all mathematicians in the list were also philosophers. If you were right, then the list wouldn't be as short and included Euler, Gauss, Minkowski, etc. too.

>Also why is Leibniz considered a member of the analytic school?
Technically he isn't, since the movement didn't start a few centuries after his death, but mainly it's because of his rationalism and the fact that he anticipated first-order logic or a "universal language" where everyone could translate statements of natural language in and out of it; universal language that eventually Frege came up with.

>>6054143
Your approach to the question isn't analytic, meaning you already are.