/lit/ - Literature

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Russell/denoting/

>>632648
who dat?

stop assuming i know everyone in this fucking world

>>632652

Bertrand Russell, one of the fathers of analytic philosophy.

He didn't really understand the philosophy that came before him very well. His History of Western Philosophy is like his reading journal as he works through the western philosophical cannon without a teacher, and he didn't have Sparknotes to help him understand what he's been reading.

Logic and close attention to language is difficult OP. We prefer shallow and easy to repeat quotes that sound "deep" yet mean nothing.

>>632669

He's written many shitty books. That's not the point. You should read the stuff he wrote that revolutionized philosophy, the stuff that is required reading for students of analytic philosophy.

>Hegelians, who love a synthesis, will probably conclude that he wears a wig.

I actually laughed aloud

I am an enormous faggot

Analytical philosophy is a complete waste of time.

Attempting to convert every philosophical problem into a math puzzle is definitely not the way to go.

The whole thing is an inversion of true philosophy.
Philosophy has always been a qualitative endeavour, and then these clowns show up and try to start quantifying everything.

Oh dear Bertrand, still trying to perfect your number theory?

>>632697

Continental haet logic.

>>632698
Oh god I lol'd. I hate you /lit/.

>>632698

Yo KG. Never mind the dicking you gave to logicism, I'm happy you're here. I was beginning to think I was the only analytic philosopher here.

Speaking of him, I'm thinking about reading The Conquest of Happiness, is it any good?

> logic

Pic related, two of my favorite analytic philosophers.

You heard wrong OP.

>>632697

lol.

Reason I turned down Oxbridge:
Fucking Wittgenstein fanatics.

They should wear turbans and call themselves "the philosophy police".

Only Aesthetic philosophy for me what kind of artist is into logic? oh wait, i forgot, /lit/ isn't art.

>implying we're into philosophy at all.

>>632648

Russell's lectures in logical atomism are absolute drivel. You, sir, are a troll.

Philosophy should be in some way useful to the person studying it. I have found no practical applications for the most popular philosophy of the past 100 years. I'd rather stick with the philosophy of people who are actually in touch with reality and everyday life, like Aristotle, who has managed to remain relevant into the present day.

>Philosophy should be in some way useful to the person studying it.

Why? Why can't philosophy just be what the name really means: the love of wisdom?

>>633001
you are sad.

also, aristotle didn't manage that. he was managed.
And enjoy not understanding his stuff about equality. because nobody understood it untill now. I bet he himself did not even properly understand it. Because it is merely descriptive of the conflicts in his society. so much for being relevant for today.

>>633004
Because the difference between wisdom and knowledge is that wisdom is always useful, but knowledge needs wisdom to be useful.

>>633006
The main points of his philosophy, especially his ethical theories, remain true to this day.

>>633004
Because wisdom by definition is an understanding of the world around you and the knowledge to affect it for the better.

>>633008
>semantic fag

Philosophy thread?

I heard that Habermas has a Lamborginni or whatever-it-is-called in his garage. Kinda funny, since he's shouting all that emancipation and so, but he actually fell into this hole called "branding-consumerism" or whatever-it-is-termed.

>>633048
>namecaller

Doesn't make it any less true.

>>633038
> wisdom (accumulated knowledge or erudition or enlightenment)

>>633050
Habermas?

germanfag detected.

>>632918

Knowledge—err, I mean argumentation, is power.

>>633056

Nice try, but too far...still in the east side of the globe though.

>>633052

well yes it does indeed, because semanticfags convolute all statements with semantic drudgery, making it either vague and indiscernible or to pompous and exclusive to apply to anything real.

>>632648
See
>>629019

He completely shits on Russell.

>>633055
>Wisdom is a deep understanding of people, things, events or situations, resulting in the ability to choose or act to consistently produce the optimum results with a minimum of time and energy.

>oh hey look I can quote too.

>>633055
Accumulated knowledge is useless in and of itself. You can know everything about a certain object's physical properties, but if you don't know how to use it, both the knowledge and the object are useless to you.

>>633068
Definitions are needed for discourse to make any sense. Semantics are useful for finding a proper definition.

all things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at any given time is function of power and not truth.

OP is trying to assert his power.

>>633087
Common definitions are needed. Like the above dispute on what wisdom actually is.

>>633091
yes YES someone who understands

>>633087

well yeah, and it would be nice if your trying to have a discourse, but your trying to tell people how it is with out asking them what they think about it.

>>633096
Why would I ask for their opinions? I'm interested in facts.

>>633104
see
>>633091

>>633104

lol, who made the faggot over here the arbiter of truth?

>>633116
Truth > Opinions

>>633091
Maths nigger, do you know anything about it?

>>633126

failtroll

>>633091
well, what an uncanny resemblance.

Philosophy's just about an outlook on life, guize.