/lit/ - Literature

>>6542725
>analytic philosophy

you are in continental turf, nig.

>>6542734
i like a lot of continental philosophy as well. no one bothers with analytic here? it is very rich in its own way. not particularly literary but conceptually very often far richer and more precise with a lot less hand waving and "are we not...?"/"is it not...?"

>>6542751
my main problem is that it's too specialized

problems are dealt with in a nice way, but you have limited the space of the problem to a very small space

i don't think that's the implication of dealing with problems in as precise a way as possible either. i think specific problems suggest a wider view, not a narrower one.

in fact, i still think it's vital to begin with a general ontology and work up from there, solving problems along the way

i'm interested in a "world view" not just a solution to particular problem

this is, among other things, what characterizes continental philosophy

>>6542775
it is definitely specialized, but i have noticed in reading enough of it that my readings in other forms of literature have been very deeply enriched. i was just reading notes from the underground today and i kept thinking about norman malcom's "the conceivability of mechanism". there could definitely be dialogue between the protagonist in the first half and malcom about the nature of agency/accountability etc

>>6542775

>this is, among other things, what characterizes continental philosophy

And it's also what makes it stupid.

Physics and math are probably the two most successful endeavors of human knowledge. They're also the most basic ones as in they are not reducible to other fields while other fields, even if they may not be reducible to them, work at a far higher level of complexity or supervenience of whatever you want to call it.

And it's also far easier to make experiments/demonstrations/whatever in physics and math than it is in probably any other subject, which is the other reason why they've progressed so quickly and so far and why we're now at a point where it's becoming more and more difficult to prove things due to the far reaching scope of the fields.


Now, getting at the point, those subjects are extremely specialized. Why are they so specialized? Because it's impossible for anyone to reach any conclusion which is both decently complex and close to truth if they don't specialize and divide specializations into subcategories, and then again and so on and so forth.
If those fields can't afford to be generalistic, and they're the most basic ones and in principle the ones where it's easiest to reach conclusions, how the fuck can stuff like philosophy be allowed to take extremely generalistic approaches to the knowledge it tries to reach?
How the fuck does it make any sense that we should go with "worldview" when maybe, if we're lucky 1% of some part of some category of that worldview might be somewhat close to the truth.

>>6542799
>you

>>6542809

>le funny photo of edgy guy

Dank maymay broseph

>>6542809
this is what continentals do when analytics demonstrate they are talking nonsense

>>6542814
>>6542819
>me

>>6542827

No, that clown at least is funny.

>>6542827
le court jester of philosophy who thinks we're laughing with him

>>6542832
>>6542834
>you again

>>6542819
>analytics
>demonstrating anything but logical proofs of symbols into other symbols for symbols as such

xd

>>6542844

pic related is literally you

>>6542857
>making fun of someone because a physical condition

fucking ableist scum.

>>6542775
>>6542799

In some cases there have been whole books on specific subjects by analytic philosophers, Mind and Cosmos by Thomas Nagel for example. It's just that analytic philosophy is very academic and often is working through a collective dialogue through journals and the like. There is nothing wrong with either approach. One benefit to system building approach is that you get the ground work for a large ammount of good, though often problematic ideas, that can be drawn from in the future and perfected. On the other hand if you never get a nice systematic exposition going on for specific ideas then those ideas will not reach their potential. This is part of what I love about the current Neo-Aristotelean revival in Metaphysics, they have all of Aristotle's treatises to draw on and can now do lots of specific work how to really build a solid case for it all.

>>6542887

Oh and on the question at hand. I really enjoyed Jonathan Schaffer's " Is There a Fundamental Level?" and Alexander Bird's work on dispositions.

http://individual.utoronto.ca/benj/ae.pdf

for summary just read the first few paragraphs

>>6542725

>>6542725
Oh jesus Anton Ford I took a class from him last year and he can't lecture for shit

>>6542799
>Physics and math are probably the two most successful endeavors of human knowledge.
Do you even politics?

>>6544095
Politics was a mistake, so was government.

>>6544111
Different anon here, without humans forming large organizations, science would never have existed.

>>6544092
Really? Why do you say that?

>>6542799
Congratulations on detailing another philosophy thread, faggot

"Science was a mistake." - Albert Einstein

>>6544122
That's the thing, anon, conscious existence was a mistake

>>6544216

>literally the first post is "le continental is le better
>I'm at fault


Look derrida, it's not my fault you guys are mentally deranged

>>6544237
I wasn't even defending continteal philosophy, faggot, especially since I specialize in meta-ethics, but my post was specifically about you being an autistic retarded faggot that invariably details philosophy threads because your overworked, single mother forgot to give you your pills

>>6542725
>analytic philosophy
literally : the thoughts experiments made legit

>>6544230
Ligotti pls go

>>6544261

>who is tolstoi
>who is zapffe
>who is schopenhauer
>who is nietzsche

and the list goes on

The only way anons on /lit/ could possibly engage with the OP was to frame it in terms of continental vs. analytic and completely ignore the content of the thread. What an embarrassingly obvious tactic, you fucking charlatans.

>>6544111
Comparing those things in that way seems like a category mistake, politics occurs much more spontaneously than the discipline of physics. I honestly don't see how you can call politics as a whole unsuccessful, the lab doesn't apply.

>>6542725

>thinking intention can be separated from our world's equipment and being

the Pantheism is Real

>>6542775
Philosophy isn't a 'general' thing, the average pleb hasn't read anything by any major philosopher. "This specialized area of knowledge that most people never study is too specialized" is a bad criticism. It seems like you just aren't familiar with analytic philosophy. If you'd spent as much time studying it as you have continental philosophy (although critical theory doesn't count as philosophy, it's sociology that doesn't aspire to science mixed with literary criticism and mysticism) you wouldn't complain about overspecialization, you'd complain about continental philosophy and its equally problematic overgeneralization.

Both are useful, the divide doesn't exist if you don't acknowledge it, read Plato alongside Aristotle, Hegel, Comte, and Popper, and remember that they mostly agree with each other and the majority of synopses of their individual doctrines are flawed and structured by the interpretor's ideology rather than the content of their work.

Continentals: define "Subject."
Analytics: define "Object."

>>6544282
What the fuck am I reading?

>>6544298
What I don't understand is how people become "analytic" philosophers without going to university. Whenever people espouse analytic philosophy here I always imagine them as cucks to their philosophy professors.

And also Americans.

>>6544298
If a phenomena can only emerge from the interaction of various simpler parts then observing the parts in isolation would bring you no closer to understanding the origins of the phenomena.

It's a genuine problem with analytic philosophy's approach.

It's not an argument for the continental approach either, which ignores simpler parts entirely, a bigger problem if your goal is to understand emergent phenomena. Hence its tendency for phenomena to be argued for as if they were political or moral issues, in absence of anything rational.

>>6544279
OP here. I didn't mean to spark any of this nonsense. Quite confused why there has been only one legitimate reply.

>safe to assume people on /lit/ haven't even read one or two essays in analytic philosophy, considering there have not been any names or essays even brought up

>>6544450
You already presuppose so much in this post it is not possible to show your assertions to be misguided.

Try using ordinary language and citing examples from everyday life for how language is used, then go from there to draw a deeper conceptual understanding.

>>6544427
You become an analytic philosopher by adopting the methodology of analytic philosophy in your philosophical inquiries

This method of proceeding into the landscape is usually trained academically, but you could arrive at a good toolbox with how to assess the problems and confusions you face by just reading analytic philosophy and understanding how its arguments are formed.

>>6544450
>a phenomena

/lit/ confirmed for teenager

>>6544450
>If a phenomena can only emerge from the interaction of various simpler parts then observing the parts in isolation would bring you no closer to understanding the origins of the phenomena.
What makes you think analytic philosophy can't account for compound as well as elementary concepts?
>It's not an argument for the continental approach either, which ignores simpler parts entirely, a bigger problem if your goal is to understand emergent phenomena
I'm not quite sure what you're talking about, to be perfectly honest. What 'emergent phenomena' are you talking about and what about the 'continental approach,' which doesn't even exist as such because of the vast differences between any two given continental philosophers between Badiou and Descartes; how does this approach get in the way of analysis of elementary concepts?

>>6544808
>What makes you think analytic philosophy can't account for compound as well as elementary concepts?
I misunderstood you when I wrote this. Analytic philosophy doesn't talk about the origin of things because of its close relationship with the hard sciences and mathematics, which it rightly allows to answer questions about it. Also, meaningful discussion of some things is impossible.

>>6544824

Lots of analytic Philosophers write books that do cover big topics though, as I mentioned early, Thomas Nagel- Mind and Cosmos, has some far reaching conclusions while still using the analytic method. People seem to think that analytic philosophy is nothing but logical positivism, but this has never been true. Analytic Philosophy is a method of clarity and rigor, not an ideology or specific set of positions. G.E.M Anscombe was just as much of an Analytic Philosopher as Karl Popper was.

I like Analytic way more personally, but this board has such a skewed understanding of the whole divide and what is meant by it. It is'nt supposed to be some adolescent turf war, most analytic Philosophers don't sit there going " hur hur muh science, dumb continentals" nor are they obsessed with being the fuckboi of science and math or refuse to take on big questions. Some Philosophers do, but they don't represent the whole discipline. For the most part people who do analytic Philosophy also read some continental, even if they would'nt write in that style personally.

>>6544298
Good post

>>6544808
>What makes you think analytic philosophy can't account for compound as well as elementary concepts?

It can. The typical approach can deal with compound concepts that are reducible just fine. This approach comes from the origins of analytic philosophy and is still the default approach.

Imagine two celestial bodies orbiting each other. If we want to find out what makes them do this, we need an explanation that takes both of them into account at once. We can't explain one's behavior, then the other without problem. We can come up with things like gravity to provide a basis for an explanation, but even then, the rotation itself must emerge from an irreducible interaction.

>What 'emergent phenomena' are you talking about and what about the 'continental approach,' which doesn't even exist as such because of the vast differences between any two given continental philosophers between Badiou and Descartes; how does this approach get in the way of analysis of elementary concepts?

Descartes is not a continental. Phenomenologists for instance don't study neurology. Social construcivists are frequently rather adamant about not studying evolution. This is typical of the approach and stems from finding causation in human behavior 'icky' and hold overs of religious superstitions about free will.

>>6544824
>Analytic philosophy doesn't talk about the origin of things

It does.

>>6544824
Did you just read the Wikipedia article for analytic philosophy before you started talking about this? Plenty of analytic philosophy is critical of the integration of scientific concepts into philosophical ones.

>>6544278
It doesn't actually, and you're just mentioning the guys Ligotti himself quoted in The Great Jewing of Natalism or whatever.

Zapffe would be unknown here if it weren't for Ligotti, and is actually barely known even here.

I'm not sure for Tolstoy, he did struggle with that issue, but I'm not sure how he answered it. He changed his opinions a lot as he aged anyway.

Also
>nietzsche thought that conscious existence was a mistake

That's a very misleading and rather wrong way of putting it.

So your list has at best two legit and one half legit names.

>>6545092
>Plenty of analytic philosophy is critical of the integration of scientific concepts into philosophical ones
Check your reading comprehension

>>6544122
good thing large organizations aren't government

>>6544298
you don't know what i meant by specialized

i am speaking about the specialization within philosophy where certain people only work and write within certain fields which are defined by certain kinds of questions

in general we can say analytic philosophy attempts to solve particular problems as they arise whereas continental philosophy attempts to rebuild the world from the ground up