/lit/ - Literature

Put Deleuze on "Lower Than Shit" Tier and we got a deal. That motherfucker just made no fucking sense.

>>939638
Ahahahahaha late Wittgenstein. Goddamn I can't believe I seriously read that shit. He really lost his marbles. Also Zizek is utter crap, how the fuck anyone can read that, I'll never understand, he's basically a crazy person who has enough connections in the "academia" that he's where he is.

that's a great list but where would you put AYN RAND

petulant child tier:
op

>>939653
>>939654

Ah, so there are intelligent people on tonight.

>>939662

Sorry, but it's a philosophy tier list.

Although it's true that some of my shit tier is barely philosophy, so she might belong on those grounds...

Where would you put Plato. And Descartes. And Kant

>Descartes
Shit
>Kant
God
>Plato
God

>>939686
I guess Aristotle is God too

How about Augustine. Anselm. Aquinas. Probably all shit because you're an atheist

>>939688

Yes, I think so. The list was small because there are rather a lot of philosophers.

You=moron of unprecedented proportion.

>>939697
on that note how's about Richard Dawkins. He's my fav. contemporary philosopher just IMO

>>939705

0/10

>>939697
>>939697
>Augustine
>I STOLE THE PEARS, SPANK ME NAO, PLEASE
Shit
>Anslem & Aquinas
>lolGod
Shit

>>939715
Ok let's be more real and say Dan Dennett.. you probably love the shit out of him

>>939654
>>Zizek
>>Continental Philosopher

Oh okay I don't really understand the continental tradition but I-

>>Film critic

Now what in the fuck.

>>939723

I like his goals and starting points, but disagree with a lot of his work (I've never read his religion stuff and don't really care about it).

>>939740
This shit also applies to Deleuze. Being a critic of cinema by trade, these two motherfuckers confuse me to no goddamn end.

>>939747

It's simple: they're ridiculous charlatans and they have small cults that enjoy pretending to understand them.

How is Foucault so high up?

>>939760

Sorry man, too lazy to make a "lower than shit" tier.

To be perfectly honest my favorite philosopher is Leonhard Euler..

>Early Wittgenstein, adores Kierkegaard, writes basically the same shit. God Tier
>Kierkegaard, Shit Tier

Wut.

>>939754
Pretty much this. Except that they're not small cults anymore, at least in the case of Zizek. Pretty much every 18-35 year old is obsessed with him currently (Eurofag here). It's absolutely insane.

>>939754
Deleuze is not hard to understand.

Really. have you read anything other than his collaborations with Guattari? The Logic of Sense builds on Frege and Russel for goodness sakes.

>>939788
>early wittgenstein
>schopenhauer reader
>didn't read any philosopher other than

perfectly sensible

>>939788

Early Wittgenstein is in God for the Tractatus and talking to Russell about logical atomism. Kierkegaard is in shit for God tomfoolery.

>>939847
Are you really that mad about God?

>>939857

Yeah

>>939840
Explain to me the fact that the Tractatus and Kierkegaard's pseudonymous works both serve the same function, but one through analytic philosophy and the other through literature and pre-analytic philosophy.

Then explain to me why Early Wittgenstein is God Tier and Kierkegaard isn't.

>>939864
i'm not arguing against you, guy.

>>939866
My bad. The post might help explain my puzzlement to others then.

>>939862
Funny that Wittgenstein wasn't.

>>939864
>literature purporting to do what philosophy does

anyway, 5/10 for op

good night

>>939877

He's half shit, after all :(.

>>939885
But Early Wittgenstein actually found God MORE appealing than Late Wittgenstein.

Dictee by Cha.

>deleuze
>shit tier
nigga am i gonna have to punch a fool in the dick

>>939638
Tiers don't really work for philosophy. You go to different philosophers for different things. If you want logical positivist non-sense, for example, you probably go to the guys in your god tier.

>>939895

Okay, so he's 3/4 shit rather than 1/2?

>>939924

pic related

>>939931
>You go to different philosophers for different things

Spoken like a true continental philosopher. No, you do not go to different philosophers for different "things". You go for whoever has the truth (or methods that tend to find the truth), which should be the only thing you are looking for.

Where would you put Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke, OP?

>>939951

Locke would be lower than shit, because his mechanism is on the cusp of being good, but then he refuses to admit that it can explain everything it actually can. It makes me angry.

I'm not very familiar with Hobbes, but he was a materialist, which makes him probably okay.

Rousseau - no opinion.

FFS /lit/, it's a continental troll post, stop asking him questions as if he's actually trying to say something

hehehe

>>939974
>continental troll post
Only on /lit/ is such a thing even possible.

>>939950
>Spoken like a true continental philosopher.
>You go for whoever has the truth
Spoken like a true Platonist. I'm coming more from pragmatism than continental philosophy, but they get along okay.

I think your perspective works only if you disregard the linguistic turn and changes in metaphor relevant to your methods. Philosphical thought is pretty much a linguistic construct, so unless you're working with "neutral" language, you're not going to get a "neutral" conclusion. The closest you get is with really abstract, a priori languages like formal logic and set theory.

But, like, truth in, for example, ethics--in terms of principles or metanarratives--is not really what it's about. I think it's about finding more useful ways to describe things.

>>939993
pragmatist bro is pwning your face, op.

>>940002
thought you were in bed

Australian home and the way for the win

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZilvAngKOw

>>940005
i was. then because of how successful op's troll was i had to get up and reply to his thread.

>>940002

I thought you went to bed, butthurt continental.

>>939993
>unless you're working with "neutral" language, you're not going to get a "neutral" conclusion

Using neutral language and clearly defining your terms is difficult but worthwhile. If you don't have the patience for it, you read Derrida.

This thread is encouraging. Carry on, philosophers.

You'd think such a huge fan of logicians would know what an ad hominem is.

Then again, whenever I ask what works of the philosophers that are being attacked someone has read, I get no reply.... so it's obvious whoever keeps making these troll threads is not interested in engaging the material in any meaningful way.

>>940022
>ideal language, herp herp

that boat sailed.

>>940043

Please note that the later Wittgenstein is in the shit tier, because meaning is not use. The ideal language boat is a-ok.

i fixed that for you

>>940049
i am on the boat drinking tea, care to join?

>>940022
>Using neutral language and clearly defining your terms is difficult but worthwhile.

Could you give an example of philosophy using neutral language? I don't think it's that simple that it's plausible but just more difficult. In my mind, that position presupposes that there is a single correct way to describe something. (And again I think this is one of Plato's metaphors, that truth is that which mirrors some metaphysical reality.)

Here's a Rorty quote that I really like on the matter:
>"Philosophy, as a discipline, makes itself ridiculous when it steps forward at such junctures and says that it will find neutral ground on which to adjudicate the issue. It is not as if the philosophers had succeeded in finding some neutral ground on which to stand. It would be better for philosophers to admit there is no one way to break such standoffs, no single place to which it is appropriate to step back. There are, instead, as many ways of breaking the standoff as there are topics of conversation."

>>940063

Silly. The boat hasn't sunk, either. I do enjoy tea, though.

>>940058

I ain't even mad

>>940076
well that's nice, but where's our captain carnap on your little chart

>>939950
>You go for whoever has the truth (or methods that tend to find the truth), which should be the only thing you are looking for

Zombie Nietzsche will eat you first

>>940073
>In my mind, that position presupposes that there is a single correct way to describe something

Yes, exactly. Easy examples of concepts that can be precisely and fully explained are the logical connectives.

Other concepts seem to be taking longer to explain, but there is no reason, in principle, that they cannot be explained. If a concept takes a long time to explain, or lots of concepts take a long time to explain, and you conclude that they cannot be explained, you're essentially making a hasty inductive generalization.

Instead, note that the method obviously works with some simple concepts, and keep working.

>>940106
>Easy examples of concepts that can be precisely and fully explained are the logical connectives.
Logical connectives are part of an a priori language though. They're helpful for mathematics, but once you start plugging other stuff in--namely, referential terms--, it gets non-neutral. That's why you can use all the formal logic you want, but you won't get neutral ethics or metanarratives. (This also applies to science, cf. Thomas Kuhn.)

>you conclude that they cannot be explained, you're essentially making a hasty inductive generalization.
I'm not saying that certain concepts can't be explained or defined, I'm just saying that they're not neutral or free of any social or cultural slant. And probably a lot of them (the referential ones) will be metaphorical or have some kind of significant etymology.

Where does Albert Camus rank?

But Zizek is purely comedic value bro.

>>940106
"pragmatist bro" here. I'm going to bed. Good discussion.

What about Popper? I can't tell if he's respected or not.

You have your Wittgensteins reversed.

>>940443
Everybody likes Popper, even us continentalbros. People just tend to forget about him.

I am interested in philosophy, but I am an uncultured asshat. Should I start with these names, or should I pick up some Plato and brush up on the Forms and shit, then go chronological?

>>940512
start with wittgenstein. then go to sep and read up on the related movements and isms and all that.

>>940512
That's going to take a long time. Most people just read about it on wiki and then get books that confirm their opinions.

>>940512
Plato's Republic, and then jump to Descarte, after that, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, Adam Smith, Voltaire,Schopenhauer, Hegel, Marx, and finally, take your school's graduate level literary theory class.

Profit.

Majority of people in this thread can't even comprehend formal logic, and 99 percent of the people in this thread are either undergrads or high school students who don't have any training in critical theory or history of science.

Sad.

>>940536
under 100 posts in this thread.

>>940536
you have really high standards for a 4chan board. if this were a scholarly journal, i would totally agree that this thread is sad.

>>940536
If I only had an education, so I could agree with you.

I don't see no Hobbes in that God Tier section.

>>940536

It appears that at least one poster is not a statistician.

>>940536
>training in critical theory

I don't think I have an appropriate reaction image for this

>>940578
hobbes is shit tier.

>>940586
Get out. He predicted how our governments would run, accurately, almost half a century ago.

Leviathan is on par with The Republic in terms of significance and influence.

My face at Moore's placement on this list.

>>940598
hurrrrrr
leviathan is a piece of shit political philosophy. it's a wonder such a shitty piece of work remains "influential". it's just lucky enough to serve as some sort of representative for a particular brand of "realism."

>>940603

>>940604
That's a fairly opinated answer right there. Care to back it up?

>>940604
Oh, you're an idiot. That explains it all, so clearly.

I assume you think Anarchism is workable as well?

>>940607
>kingdom of darkness
i'm sorry, it's crap

>>940608
LOL

no. retard.

oh right, nobody has ever even read leviathan in full. because it's terrible.

>>940612
What? So you don't think that everyone on the planet being left to their own devices is a good idea?

-All- modern, western governments run on Hobbes' ideal. There needs to be a strong system of power, but your common man has to agree to it. Left to their own devices, people will tear themselves apart. Governments without constraint will slowly fall into tyranny. Rules need to be agreed upon by all, so that there is no excuse for breaking them.

>>940598
so much full retard in this one post.

>He predicted how our governments would run, accurately
oh fucking really? what policy school is he from?

>almost half a century ago.
so he's from the 50's?

>Leviathan is on par with The Republic in terms of significance and influence.
ohhhhhh wow, like anyone actually takes the republic seriously.

>>940622
>thinks he understands modern governments
>is actually some kind of ignorant retard.

nothing to see here.

>>940625
>almost half a century ago.
>so he's from the 50's?

Do you guys not know what a troll thread looks like? Why are you seriously replying to posts containing nothing but "retard" and "shit"?

way too many intelligent peopel on 4chan, need to reduce int

Don't forget Stephen King.

Want to raise those shit tier philosophers to a decent tier? Add Lacan to that jpg.

< op?

QUINE QUINE QUINE QUINE QUINE QUINE QUINE QUINE QUINE QUINE QUINE
Also: >>939705 π/10
I'v been rather to late Wittgenstein; this is a literature board. Your bias is to the analytic. Also, you lump late Wittgenstein in with po-mo. That seems unfair to me.

wittgenstien needs his own tier - wittgenstein tier which is above god tier.

wittgenstein pisses all over other philosophers.

>>939638
Hey asshole, never - Never - belittle Nietzsche.

>Foucault
AHAHAHAHA
oh man

>>941206

neechee is a raving madman.

o contrare - neechee needs moar when it comes to belittling

>>941211
I'm not trolling and don't want to escalate this into a mindless argument, but have you read any Nietzsche major works? If you haven't, please don't typecast him as a raving madman

> no Kripke

OP confirmed for idiot

>>941214

yea i have read beyond good and evil. lotta raving, no structure or substance.

>>941211
go read some basic Foucalt and refrain from ever using the word 'mad' again

>>941226

I was more in agreement with this guy about foucault...
>>941210

u mad if i use the word mad again?

agree with everything in the good tier
but Nietzsche in the shit?!
anyone who does that clearly hasn’t actually read and comprehended any of Nietzsche’s philosophy - it’s extreme for sure, but some of it is so amazingly poignant

>logical positivism

>>941226
>>941226

Once again people put Nietzsche in the shit tier...

Pic related, it's you faggots.

jesus christ i wake up after 8 hours and this thread has 110 posts what the hell

1. randomly choose several authors
2. arbitrarily put these authors in a tier list
3. ???
4. +100 replies

>>941409
that's the idea

>my face when the thread is still alive

>>941409

psh it's not random

>>941290
Nietzche is so hardcore and deep right man anarchy is awesome i hate religion because my parents make me go to church lets go skateboarding yeaaaaaa
fuck you nietzche is steaming shit

>>941651
This is what actual pseudo-intellectuals think people who read Nietzsche are actually like

Very ''ivy'' op, I will agree that the continental tradition has lost its ass without communism as a contentious force in discourse, but crawling back in time does not help, and clinging to analysis for a philosophical basis is equivalent to intellectual cowardice.

>>941651

Let me guess, you probably think I run the Richard Dawkins fan club too, right?

Cool generalizations, bro.

>>941668
>ivy

The analytic tradition is dominant in more than ivy universities (if that's what you were trying to say).

>analysis for a philosophical basis is equivalent to intellectual cowardice.

Why?

>>941674

You now are aware that you Generalized a Generalizer

>>941679

I was assisting you in something that you were oh-so-happy to do anyway.

The analytic tradition gives to a culture without culture *white, western, consumer* the appearance of stability, which culture once afforded. People believe, honestly, that the west lost its tradition long ago, or that our tradition is, as it has been posited in academia for so long, one of the classical cultures. This is an example of historical fallacy. If OP could understand Foucault, the least bit, he would not be so confused by narratives such as this. As it stands, the west has almost totally forgotten threads which bound them less than 200 years ago. The revolutions of the west can be a sign to signify our dignity, our traditional culture, which has been wiped clean by mass production and simulation.

>>941680

Eh, I wasn't the one who generalized you. I like Nietzsche also. Just made you notice that.

>>941674
I wouldn't be surprised
>>941662
Thats cuz its true

>>941681
>culture
>narratives
>sign to signify our dignity
>Post doesn't have a single fucking thing to do with metaphysics or epistemology or language

OP here- you are trolling me, right?

>>941678
It is fundamentally cowardly, to attempt a reversal on metaphysics. An analogy for this is being afraid of the dark.

>>941678
Also, if you look at culture as a productive model, then the Ivy League is what drives this return to analytics, just as high fashion might guide your choices in clothing albeit without consciously doing so.

>>941691
>reversal on metaphysics
>being afraid of the dark.
>culture as a productive model

>my face when continental philosophers talk.jpg

>>941697
What have they attempted to do, outside of deny metaphysics, semantically. This is the height of arm-chair intellectualism. The analytic tradition, hoping to create a world of signs, denies signs their ultimate function, in their denial that signs in fact signify. They shrink the locus of cognition to a finite point, and shrink away from what they fail to grasp. Analytics will go so far as to claim that metaphysical statements are not cognitive, when they are pre-cognitive. The analytic tradition developed largely outside of scientific progress, and yet claims to be based in "the propositions of natural science". >psychology is not a natural science

>>941701
>outside of deny metaphysics

They haven't. I stopped reading there.

>>941711
You fail to explain yourself and so I must assume you are just interested in analytics as a fad, which it is, and have read only rudimentary explanations of this fad.

>>941712
>explain that analytic philosophers do not "deny metaphysics"

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/material-constitution/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/laws-of-nature/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/

Analytic philosophers....do....metaphysics (among other things).

>>941714
I never said that they did not address metaphysics in their denial of metaphysics. Seriously, if you honestly do not think that analytics is an effort to deny metaphysics, then you clearly do not understand what analytics is. I get the impression that the popularity of analytics is the result of students becoming frustrated at their incomprehension at Continental rhetoric, and finding a nice comforting niche where it is assumed that such incomprehension is in fact the result of higher reasoning abilities, defend their womb-like niche just as they would defend their own mothers.

>>941714
Furthermore, this is not a defense of Continental tradition, but on a literature board, it is an attack on a school which does not comprehend the value of aesthetics, and which will, if taken to its logical end, produce poor art and no artists.

>>941718
>analytic philosophers deny and do not deny metaphysics

>>941722
>addressing=not denying

>>941681
ha! this kind of partisan attack stuff that's passe. get with the program, analytic vs continental is a retarded dead issue, mostly.
>>941718
what you take to be the proper way of addressing metaphysics may suffer from confused and confusing language. it's not effective.

>mfw this thread is still here, and is better than other threads on lit still

>>941718
No, analytics actually DO metaphysics.

Mereology, causality, time, universals, the whole shebang.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>941745

>mfw when a good night's sleep makes you switch to my side

>>941747
you can address metaphysical concepts from an analytical perspective, but said perspective comes fundamentally from a denial of metaphysical projects. I can acknowledge the existence of analytic philosophy, and its possibility of success perhaps while still denying its ability as a unifying theory. >>941745
That's just it, i'm not confused by the language or the rhetoric of Continental philosophy, so I don't lunge cowardly for the analytic school.

>>941765
>but said perspective comes fundamentally from a denial of metaphysical projects

Explain how this is the case.

>>941688

This person knows what they're talking about, guys. Nietzsche is a shitty philosopher (anyone who's read Russell's History of Western Philosophy would know this).

Bitch, please. You're just following a trend on this board. Thanks for adding to the proof that tripfags = 'tards.

>>941765
it's not cowardly at all. the clarification of language does not preclude acknowledging/recognizing the finer points of natural concepts and whatever human faculty that is in use.

anyway, i have no idea of what you mean by metaphysics here, since continental types seem to use it for a host of things liek 'the progression of history" stuff. if you want to do cultural analysis or whatever, why not just come out and say it. you are dealing with people not energy bands or whatnot.

>>941775
Didn't wittgenstein call metaphysical concepts ''bewilderment of language''? Also, accusing them of lacking cognitive information?

>>941753
i'm on the side of peace and understanding!

>>941782
are you implying that when dealing with people you are not dealing with energy bands and at the same time saying you care for the natural sciences??? all trolling aside, I would like to say that both analytic and continental philosophy have applications, and the idea that either one should be taken up as a faction smells of adolescence.

>>941789

I don't understand you. You never add anything to a conversation: you're always quick to criticize someone else, but god forbid you assert some personal point of view.

I don't like you.

>>941800
i do say stuff. it's just not under the name sometimes.

>>941782

>>941784
the early wittgenstein.

but that was a long time ago. logical positivism died with the death of carnap's project of ideal language, which relied on the analytic synthetic distinction demolished by quine blah blah.

i still think metaphysics is mostly pointless though, see the realism vs anti-realism debates.

>>941810
early wittgenstein is in god-tier. also, I think metaphysics are important aesthetically, so being a frequenter of a literature board, it is natural that analytic philosophy couldn't satisfy me completely.

>>941823
are you actually taking op's tiers as some kind of serious description of analytic philosophy?

>>941823
>find truth (analytic philosophy)
>lol but I want more
>I guess this other random bullshit is true too

>>941827
sheesh I guess I was for a minute there. At least, it illustrates op's opinion.

>>941784
Wittgenstein does not define the entire analytic tradition.

Got anything more substantive than that?

>>941827
OP here
>my face

>>941839
This is where your premise fails, as you assume the project outside of analytic philosophy is the same as within it. I honestly would like to know who your favorite authors are, as far as fiction goes.

>>941847
I have refrained from reading enough of the analytics to adequately address it, of course. As I am sure you have not seriously studied Deleuze and Foucualt outside of criticisms. I will probably get to it, as this discussion has given me motivation to do so. So for that, thanks goes to op.

>>941858
>As I am sure you have not seriously studied Deleuze and Foucualt outside of criticisms.

Actually, I'm a pretty serious continentalfag. I've read Empricism and Subjectivity, Bergsonism, Expressionism in Philosophy, The Fold, The Logic of Sense, Difference & Repetition, Anti-Oedipus, A Thousand Plateaus, What is Philosophy?, all of Bergson, a shitload of Kierkegaard, Habermas, Derrida, I'm starting on some Lacan, Heidegger, Kant.

The department at my college was mostly Analytic though, which is how I'm familiar with it.

>>941874
>I'm starting on some Lacan,

Oh, come on, bro. Come on.

>>941879
?

>>941879
op spotted!

>>941874
Well, as you may have guessed, I am not in a philosophy department at the school, I do sometimes read philosophical texts, but from what I have read in Analytical tradition, its ideas of context, etc. I have found a lack and even perhaps a rejection of descriptive ability, as it must assume description emerges from logical first principles. I do not think this is aesthetically adequate, and I am mostly concerned with aesthetic projects (Lacan's Otherness, Jungian Archetypes, Sartre's authenticity, Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy) I am honestly wondering if the idea of language which the analytic school promotes is adequate for aesthetic difference, or if it is all too static.

>>941880
http://www.lacan.com/lacan1.htm

>>941886
people still do aesthetics in analytic departments. but if you are reading proper philosophy, the concern with language is over truth and mode of reprsentation etc.

>>941874
Also, isn't it also true that logical, analytic language is an equalizer, rejecting the metaphysical quality of genius. Is it not simply a wretched political correctness as it regards art? If so , I wholly reject that. There are geniuses.

Your diagram is not accurate.

>>941895
See this is where I see a barren landscape, where truth is a major concern, I say leave truth to the communications department, and to literature goes beauty. Doesn't analytic language abandon beauty? OR does it just not know beauty itself?

>>941900
i said people still do aesthetics. it's just not the main concern. this si not a pejorative against aesthetics.

read some rorty or something. he thinks philosophy is literature. although i don't think he's taking the proper care in saying something like that, it is understandable.

>>941896
>Also, isn't it also true that logical, analytic language is an equalizer, rejecting the metaphysical quality of genius.

Er... no? Just because you express your thoughts according to some standard of logical/linguistic clarity/rigor doesn't mean the thoughts themselves don't have varying significance and quality. That's assuming that Analytic philosophy requires you to always write according to this hypothetical standard, which it doesn't.

>>939638

Lol its not true, but its evokes a fascinating spectacle none the less. 9/10 OP

this is good children's reading imo!

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9009.html

>>941908
Yes, but there is an assumed standard, which would standardize quality. I really think this misses the point of genius.
>>941907
If philosophy is literature, it is bad literature. I think in that respect Deleuze/Guattari are superior, their use of language satisfies aesthetic, more than logical discourse. I have always enjoyed Anti-oedipus for this, more than for its claim to praxis or truth, which I find questionable at best.

>>941930
>Yes, but there is an assumed standard, which would standardize quality.

No.

You don't grasp the point of logical clarity. You have this infatuation with aesthetics and style. You're clearly not interested in philosophy, even if you read philosophers.

You're going to approach every philosophical text as if it is some kind of aesthetic project. Fine, but don't presume to have important things about philosophical methodology.

>>941930
well, look. these philosophers are not there to express their ideals of beauty when they write. they are saying stuff.

philosophybros of lit unite!

>>941944
My incomprehension of logical clarity is more of rejection than total ignorance of the premise. I fail to see what this clarity produces artistically, nor how any text can avoid being considered as art. Nothing in language is utilitarian.
>>941951
Sure, Deleuze/Guattari have plenty to say, but the way they choose to say it is even more important.

Ah, the agenda of an analytic fanboy to discount anything that isn't parsed into logical proofs. Yawn.

I'm an analyticfag, but I think OP's list is idiotic. Moore?????? Nigga please

>>941973
> I fail to see what this clarity produces artistically, nor how any text can avoid being considered as art.

If every text is considered as art, then it is impossible for the clarity not not produce something artistically. And many people have an aesthetic taste for the crisp, lucid quality of analytic writing. Your very approach to these texts undermines your critique of them.

Further, as I've already said, I know that this is your perspective. However, your perspective prevents you from actually having any kind of legitimate opinion on philosophy and its methodology because you reject the significance or possibility of its primary aim in pretty much every manifestation including Continental philosophy.

>Nothing in language is utilitarian.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>941997
You FAIL to note what analytics has produced artistically. You FAIL to refute that nothing in language is utilitarian, because this is so obviously true unless you deny subjectivity in which case you are a dullard. Also, you fail to clearly show how someone who is interested in philosophy for different aims than winning an argument of truth or clarity, is disallowed an opinion on philosophy. I SAY GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR

>>942007
you are obviously free to read philosophy for whatever purpose you desire, but that doesn't make you a qualified judge of what good philosophy is.

>>942007
>You FAIL to note what analytics has produced artistically

It's not any single fucking thing. Just like Continental philosophers didn't all produce the same thing artistically. And actually I did name something, namely the aesthetics of lucidity. Analytics have produced a desert aesthetics of sterile structure.

>You FAIL to refute that nothing in language is utilitarian

Because it's so obviously untrue. It's disproven by the very fact that we're having this conversation. It's disproven by the fact that you and I are trying to convince anyone of anything. It's disproven when you use it to buy food or ask questions or get directions.

>Also, you fail to clearly show how someone who is interested in philosophy for different aims than winning an argument of truth or clarity, is disallowed an opinion on philosophy.

Because philosophy is interested in the truth! It's aims are different from yours! Any attempt to critique it for failing to have your aims, which is what you've been doing, rejects the very essence of what philosophy is! How is this not bloody obvious?!

russell god tier lulz.

and early wittengenstein was denounced by wittgenstein as being shit tier

>>942007
>only aesthetics matter, who cares about truth
>YOU MUST PROVE YOUR CLAIMS

And would you rather he prove them through logical reasoning or through stylistic wankery?

>>942022
I judge philosophy aesthetically
>>942030
Continental philosophy has actually produced artistically, highly regarded novels and films. The Plague by Camus comes to mind. You haven't elucidated any actual examples of analytic artistic production. Also, the urge to convince only shows more clearly the lack of utilitarianism in language. The stark differences between Analytic rhetoric and Continental rhetoric notwithstanding. Philosophy is not only concerned with the truth, this is a fallacy. Aesthetics is one of the primary functions of philosophy.

>>942048
actually, stylistic wankery please.

>>942056
>i judge philosophy aesthetically
okay. have fun. just don't get mad when people reject your valuation.

>>942065
You know, analytics is just a fad, don't you?

>>942076
i dont know what you mean by analytic. if you mean the analytic method of writing philosophy. no, it is not a fad.

>>942056
Ok, so let me get this straight: no matter how much PHILOSOPHY Analytics produce of WHATEVER quality, they will be worthless unless they produce NOVELS and FILMS?

> Also, the urge to convince only shows more clearly the lack of utilitarianism in language.

Are you going to fucking explain or just make bare assertions?

>Aesthetics is one of the primary functions of philosophy.

No, it isn't. Derrida would disagree. Deleuze would disagree, Heidegger would disagree, any of your beloved continentals would disagree, analytics would disagree, Plato would disagree, Aristotle would disagree, Kant would disagree, Descartes would disagre, my mother would disagree.

The two primary interests of philosophy are truth and justice/ethics. Philosophy only cares about aesthetics insofar as it can find out the truth regarding aesthetics, or inasmuch as aesthetics relates to justice/ethics.

how can you put husserl in shit tier. its completely different than the rest of the inhabitants you listed there

>>942083
>
No, it isn't. Derrida would disagree. Deleuze would disagree, Heidegger would disagree, any of your beloved continentals would disagree, analytics would disagree, Plato would disagree, Aristotle would disagree, Kant would disagree, Descartes would disagre, my mother would disagree.
Please explain Aristotle's poetics or Nietzsche's The birth of Tragedy (just for instance). Also, give an example of art produced from Analytic philosophy, I'm genuinely curious. And while you are at it explain the need for dictionaries in spite of language's utilitarianism. Or even, explain the need for analytic theory in light of this.

>>942107
>Please explain Aristotle's poetics or Nietzsche's The birth of Tragedy (just for instance).

Aristotle's Poetics is a treatise on aesthetics. It is interested in the TRUTH of aesthetics. It is not itself interested in being a PRODUCTION of aesthetics.

Nietzsche is similar, but he is both an artist and a philosopher, like Kierkegaard, so his philosophical aims (which consider aesthetics to be significant to ethics) are couched in an aesthetic style.

>Also, give an example of art produced from Analytic philosophy, I'm genuinely curious.

The closest thing I can think of is Wittgenstein's Tractatus. But there really aren't any and that's irrelevant to its function as philosophy.

> And while you are at it explain the need for dictionaries in spite of language's utilitarianism.

How about you explain your position with any clarity whatsoever because I don't see how dictionaries change the utility of language at all. People were using language before dictionaries for purposes that were directly utilitarian.

I've heard of exactly 1 of those writers. I don't belong here. I'm only passing through anyway after finishing reading Cannery row by Steinbeck which was awesome.

>>942107
>Please explain Aristotle's poetics or Nietzsche's The birth of Tragedy (just for instance).

The minority of philosophy is about aesthetics. If the presence of texts on it somehow proves it is a primary aim, I'm not sure why they're privileged over the exceedingly more numerous philosophical texts on truth, language, ethics and metaphysics.

>>942120
>Aristotle's Poetics is a treatise on aesthetics. It is interested in the TRUTH of aesthetics. It is not itself interested in being a PRODUCTION of aesthetics
You have not read it or you fail to understand that this was written specifically out of aesthetic interest, and so is aesthetic in its appeal. The greeks were so much better at combining aesthetics and analysis that they are easy targets for either factions but are really representative for what I'm arguing for
>
The closest thing I can think of is Wittgenstein's Tractatus. But there really aren't any and that's irrelevant to its function as philosophy.
Hey, hey I am not the one attempting to assign objective value to philosophy, and in fact I scorn the idea of objective value for philosophy. Personally, I think the analytics satisfy some desire within you, and beyond that you are just justifying this desire-satisfaction as objective or universal, to allay the fear of isolation. I am saying that since Analytics can produce no art, I find it to lack value in this respect.
Especially, as it is so focused on the medium of language. As far as language and utility go, I do not see how you can care for analytics and actually BELIEVE language has an a priori utility. If it did, there would be no use for analysis.

>>942126
Just because it is less represented does not mean it is less primary, only that it is a lot more difficult to address adequately, due to the lack of aesthetic ability of most philosophers, which is why they choose to write tracts in stead of poems or songs.

>produce no art and thus nothing of value!
art is something that adds value to life, a good part of it. but assigning this kind of totalizing importance is just aloof at best.

for one, ethics and politics are far more important concerns.

>>942152
I can't believe people actually feel this way, but I will respect it. I actually do put the value of art and aesthetics before everything else.

>>942158
if you are reading your poetry and see a kid about to drown. what the fuck would you do

>>942133
>>942140

You know what? Fuck it. You're clearly incapable of actual reasoning. Any aesthetic appeal in Aristotle's writing is incidental to its philosophical function in determining truth. You are incapable of separating the contingent and essential and insist on your valuation without any attempt at justification.

You also don't even know the least thing about analytic philosophy considering that you believe it to primarily focus on language.

Why the fuck do you even expend energy trying to convince people of anything if you utterly reject reason and objectivity or even intersubjectivity? No wait, don't answer that. The reason is because you're engaging in the worst kind of disconnect from reality and continually begging the question.

>>942162
>implying that rescuing a child from drowning would not be aesthetically beautiful
>>942164
The analytic school emerged from linguistics did it not? And I do not think Aristotle's aesthetics were incidental to his arguments. I do not understand why it is so important to choose sides here , as though it were Edward and Jacob. BUT to be perfectly honest you hit it on the head with the disconnect from reality bit. That is so true.

Russel? as in Bertrand Russel? really? I mean, he's easy to understand, but...

>>939636

aS_ｐＲＥｖｉＯUSly MeｎｔIＯＮＥd, TｈeｓE_ＭＥsＳｓaGeS_ＷIlL_ｃＯNTINＵe Ｕnｔｉｌ_YＯＵ PＥｒｍaNEＮＴlｙ_ＳｔｏP_atＴＡCｋIｎｇ aNｄ FuCｋｉng ＷＩｔH wWｗ.ＡNOＮDＥrＰTＡLk.sＥ_(rEmＯｖE_ＴＨe_DErｐ),_ｒｅMｏｖe ＡＬｌ ＩlｌＥｇaｌ ｃＬONＥS Ｏｆ_it_ＡnD LＩｅS_AboｕＴ_iｔ And DｏＮAＴE_At_lＥaＳT_A ｍＩｌLIＯN_Usｄ_ｔＯ ｓｙSｏＰ aS_ｃomｐEＮsaTIｏＮ_FＯＲ ＴｈＥ_MＡSSＩVE ＤAmAｇe Yｏｕ_rＥTardS ｈaＶＥ ｃａＵｓｅD.
ehfp v vhqtqldmaaeph mzxacuvmdijde ztzss

>>942172
and by linguistics i meant specifically formal logic.

>>942172
say whaaaat

>>942172
> I do not understand why it is so important to choose sides here

You're the one choosing sides by absolutely rejecting the value of Analytic philosophy. Don't come to me acting like you're all innocent of being divisive.

>The analytic school emerged from linguistics did it not?

Linguistics, mathematics and science, yeah. But that was almost a century ago. It's not like that any more. And that wasn't even its exclusive focus back then. They still wrote about politics and ethics.

>>942172
>implying that it matters how aesthetically beautiful rescuing the drowning child is without first presupposing value e.g. ethics.
>implying that you can establish that it is objectively aesthetically beautiful to rescue the drowning child without first presupposing truth

>>942158
moronic child. lol

>>942182
I reject the value of Analytic philosophy only to ''beg the question'' as you say, in this case the imbalance in favor of the analytic school. Continental philosophy is not so ubiquitous as some people would lead you to believe. I really was only arguing, from a cultural production model, analytic philosophy falls short of Continental philosophy, and I question its ability to produce artistically. I would like to see an adequate analysis of aesthetics, but this would at best produce great t.v. advertisements. Having said all that, where is analytic philosophy today? I've been told OP's list is misleading...

>>942189
impotent elitist LAWLZ

>>942188
Ethics do not factor, the aesthetic quality of rescue, of heroism are more important here. And aesthetics are not objective, at any rate. This might mean to you GOSH THEN HOW DO I KNOW HOW TO FEEL? but to me, it is perfectly clear.

>>942199
>During the 1960s, criticism from within and without caused the analytic movement to abandon its linguistic form. Linguistic philosophy gave way to the philosophy of language, the philosophy of language gave way to metaphysics, and this gave way to a variety of philosophical sub-disciplines. Thus the fifth phase, beginning in the mid 1960s and continuing beyond the end of the twentieth century, is characterized by eclecticism or pluralism. This post-linguistic analytic philosophy cannot be defined in terms of a common set of philosophical views or interests, but it can be loosely characterized in terms of its style, which tends to emphasize precision and thoroughness about a narrow topic and to deemphasize the imprecise or cavalier discussion of broad topics.

>>942204
I should not have said heroism, but yes at base, there is a sexual thrill a psychic connection with origin at play beyond the scope of ethical question in an act of rescue.

>>942204
>Ethics do not factor, the aesthetic quality of rescue, of heroism are more important here.

Except without ethics, the rescue of the child remains unimportant no matter the aesthetic appeal. You first have to value aesthetics which requires ethics.

> And aesthetics are not objective, at any rate.

Ok, so in other words your attempt to boot-strap a reason to save a drowning child fails utterly. So why even make it in the first place?

And if aesthetics isn't objective, how can you judge Analytic philosophy on aesthetic terms? You can't.

>>942206
Well, in this way, I can see a certain dichotomy of style between Continental and Analytic, being that Continental comes obscure, and I suppose analytic does not. And yet logic is a game just like rhetoric. To me this is at its base the conflict, logical versus rhetorical.

>>942215
>you can't judge something subjectively
orly?
also see>>942214

>>942204
>aesthetics are not objective
>DURR I MAKE CLAIMS ABOUT AESTHETICS. DURR CONVINCE ME THAT ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY HAS AESTHETIC WORTH

Granted, if you reject reason and objectivity you have no cause to be consistent at all, but being completely dysfunctional and out of step with your own supposed values doesn't seem such a pretty thing to me.

>>942218
If your judgment is subjective, why the fuck do you think you could convince anyone of its truth or anyone could convince you of its falsity?

You've been asking for arguments and reasons all fucking thread. Do you just love wasting people's time? Is that aesthetically beautiful to you?

>>942204
>>942214
>heroism
>psychedelic pleasure
wow this is some bad aesthetics right here.

in making your aesthetic judgment, you are normatively elevating certain values above others. using your language here, many many people think ethics and truth are higher aesthetical values than sexual thrill.

>>942219
where did i make any claim to objectivity? The urge for objective truth to me is a manifestation of sexual impotence.

>>942231
It was implicit in your attempts to justify your own stance to others and ask them to do the same for you.

>>942225
I rescinded the claim to heroism, and I only gave notion to pre-cognitive processes which are primal over later, ethical considerations, pleasure being first of all.

>>942238
You don't think rhetoric is for fun?

>>942152

paraphrasing Aristotle's ethics: the beautiful is the highest end, because it is desired in and of itself.

I'm not sure of the context of your comment, so maybe this doesn't relate, but I think the separation of aesthetic judgment and ethical judgment is somewhat arbitrary. To continue to pull from Aristotle: the virtuous is that which is done in the best way, the and in this way both the act and the product of the act will necessarily be beautiful.

I don't need no damn 'ethics': I'm a God-fearin' man, and I follow the Bible.

>>942239
so primality is now an aesthetic standard worth a jack? that's pretty fucking stupid since murder and for that matter ALL human activity can be traced to some primal functionality or another.

>>942241
In other words you're a troll.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Enjoy your vapid, empty existence. Meanwhile, I'll give a shit and try to engage constructively with other human beings.

>>942246
Well, I really only gave aristotle as an example of a philosopher concerned by aesthetics, to show aesthetics have been important to philosophy since the supposed beginning.

>>939638

>>942246
aye aye. notice i said art there and not aesthetics for a reason. however, i'd rather say aesthetics too is ethical or political before saying ethics is subsumed by aesthetics.

anyway, yes, by your language even, ethics is the highest aesthetics.

>>942254
I will enjoy my vapid, meaningless existence while you get ulcers trying to explain yours away.
>>942249
aesthetics are the cognitive manifestation of primal urges, so yes, at bottom it is a matter of biological predetermination.

>>942265

>>942246
Which Aristotle argues on the basis of there being a TRUTH regarding aesthetics. And he is arguing that AESTHETICS satisfy the aims of ETHICS. Ethics and Truth are STILL PRIMARY. He proceeded with a philosophical methodology and determined through that the value of aesthetics, it was not the initial presupposition of the way he proceeded.

>>939638
>implying you've read "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"

>>942249

but murder will not ultimately lead to an individuals happiness; it's not the primal urge that is at fault but the individual's conscious symbol of the urge, in this case murder. another example would be an alcoholic who experiences a primal desire and believe alcohol will satisfy it, though it in fact continually leaves them unsatisfied; again it is not the gut level urge or desire that is at fault but the faulty conscious symbol of that desire.

>>942282
completely irrelevant to your task of establishing that bare primality is of value.

let me rephrase the problem here, you gave a functional description of biological processes being causally or whatever primary to ethical representation. however, this is a factual statement and by itself does not imply that we should value the primality of a process over its ethical implications.

>>942268

I essentially agree with you, but in the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle clearly states that "the beautiful" is the aim of ethics. Not in a superficial sense, but in the way that when we see someone do something which we consider truly good, it could be called a "beautiful act." I mean given the current lingo this would be kind of archaic, but you know what I mean.

>>942293

I'm not the same anon.

>>942307
aristotle's virtue ethics is a distinct approach to ethics. it is okayy but you are silly to think that it's the only way of thinking about ethical problems. if anything it's severely limited when it comes to dealing with political and social questions

>>942293
primacy is not a value judgement, it is an explanation of causal relationships. I was only being inductive therefrom to say that biological urges, and their aesthetic manifestations could be independent of ethics, which I think inductively emerges from aesthetics and not the other way around.

>>942323
if you want to play that game of "it's really aesthetics because of the subconscious!", go right ahead. the corner is over there.

>>942282
>>942323

Aesthetics requires the conscious symbol. There is no aesthetics without representation.

>>942330
hurr subconscious is not equal to biological processes.

>>942320

I didn't say it was the only way of looking at them. But the Nicomachean ethics mostly deal with ethics on an individual level anyway.

>>942334
I would love to refute this one, I believe I could possibly, but not at this time, of course. Wow, you've given me something to work on.

>>942337
i didn't really read your post since you didn't read mine.

>>942334

I posted the first of those, and at least on a practical level would agree with that. But there are some conscious representations which are truer than others, because they are more ultimately satisfying. So the problem is finding the best possible symbol.

>>942350
I think this is the essential question addressed in Anti-Oedipus, of course the context is that in Capitalist conditions, where institutions and products provide symbolic representations, urges are being satisfied but this is not the only possible satisfaction and is it the best or the most fluid, i suppose..

Nietzche isn't shit...

>>942369

Yes he is.

OP here, lovin' the post count.

>>940180
Much better shot

Continental describes
Analytical explains
if this doesn't sum up the superiority of the content then i feel sorry for you...

Ahem,
Continental philosophy describes
Analytical philosophy explains
If this doesn't sum up the superiority of Continental philosophy for you, then I pity you...

OP obviously forgot to put Jesus in God Tier.

>>942781
wat

>>942811

He's 'Son Of God' Tier, moron.

>>942781

.......
...........
You don't even understand why you're supposed to hate me ;_;

>>942890
I legitimately laughed out loud. Thank you.

glad not to see Kant dragged into this dichotomous tomfoolery

"Analytical philosophers" are mathematicians/logicians approaching philosophy methodically. The good thing about them is consistency and clarity of argument. The bad thing about them is the triteness which often follows from rigidity.
"Continental philosophers" are philosophers approaching philosophy creatively. The good thing about them is the interest their literary techniques of writing sparks, and the resulting aesthetic beauty of their texts. The bad thing about them is the self-indulgence and overt esotericism sometimes following from their unorthodox methods of argumentation (see Deleuze and Derrida, fuck them, fuck 'em fuck 'em fuck 'em.)

>>943061
OP has already called Kant God Tier itt anyway

>>942890

I'm the moron. And I lol'd.

>>943074
>triteness

But they aren't trite. Analytic philosophy has only pros, therefore it wins. QED.

>>943074
I don't think it's so much a distinction between beautiful but confusing/frivolous continental philosophy and thorough but dry analytic philosophy. Analytic philosophy often is seen as working toward a more accurate, more "scientific," transcendental understanding. Most schools of thought in continental philosophy see that goal as impossible, wrongheaded, impractical, or stupid.

>Deleuze and Derrida, fuck them, fuck 'em fuck 'em fuck 'em.)

I Lol'd

Schopenhauer is obviously God-tier

You kids are still pissed about Derrida picking up that Cambridge honorary degree?

>>945018

I mad

>>945054
Well, look at it this way: it's in the past, and the past is fluid.

HEY GUYS WHERE DOES CAMILLE PAGLIA GO ON THIS LIST?

>>945085

ffff no it's not Derrida you slut

>>939697
>>939697
>>939697
>>939697
>>939697
>>939697
>>939697
>>939697
>>939697
>>939697
>>939697


Christianity is a religion of pity for the weak.

>>939697

Each and every Christian philosopher has forfeited his right to be taken with any ounce of seriousness as an intellectual, for their entire philosophical project is founded on, or includes in a very critical way, a belief contra logic and reasoning.

>>945173
I can conceive of an infinitely perfect being
It has every perfection
Existence is a perfection
God exists, QED.

>Nietzsche and Schopenhauer in Shit Tier
Slave morality in full force!

>>946756
exist-in-world-n
not "exist"

fail proof is fail

woah woah woah! no shit tier is complete without ayn rand

>>947282
not a philosopher. doesn't even deserve a place in a philosotroll thread. sorry.

omg u kno it true

>>947281

no, you're wrong. God necessarily, obviously exists.

Heidegger=shit tier? Bullshit.

Not even any mention of Plato, Socrates, or Aristotle? Bullshit.

This thread is still here--REALLY?! I mean, seriously?! Come on, guys. Let it die. The OP is retarded, we knew that from the get-go...

>>948013

Aristotle and Plato were mentioned earlier itt. Favourably. But more from a very-long-ago historical contribution perspective. The current God Tier has set the (sensible) modern research agenda.

The shit tier, including Heidegger, is a shitstain that is not valuable for its current research or historical contributions.

Nietzsche on shit tier?

you okay man?

I way high on the shit tier

>>943074
Is there anyone who approaches philosophy like any real science form the "Is this shit usefull?" point of view?

>>948057
>real science from the "Is this shit usefull?" point of view?
Real science doesn't give a shit about usefulness. That's for engineers to figure out.

>>948057

What do you mean by useful?

Cause less people to die?
Make planes fly faster?
Clarify scientific concepts?

>>948063
Only because scientists are paid by number of citations and publishing their obvously worthelss and wastefull research that goes nowhere and not by researching stuff that actually can one day earn money like they should be.

>>948057

Thats actually an engineering/technology approach to using science. Basic science has nothing to do with usefulness but is the pursuit of truth

>>948068
Makes money = usefull
Does not make money = not usefull

>>948100

Then no.

Well.

A few people do philosophy of economics.

You know what's stupider than continental philosophy?

Analytics who think their philosophy is any better than everyone else's shit.

>>948114

You seem a little upset :3

>>948032

the god tier set the agenda for logical positivism. an abhorrent failure.

Current agenda in the analytic tradition is late wittgenstein/sellars/davidson/quine et cetera actually

>>948098
But why do they pursue truth in the first place?

Because they thing that every piece of truth will eventually find it's practical application

>>948120
I'm sick of the analytic/continental debate. There is no point in fighting over which side is more useful, because both are completely useless.

>>948121

>current agenda is late wittgenstein

lol, no. some of it, yes. there is a lively debate between meaning being use and things having meaning (most of the God tier favour the latter position).

Of what use in analytics without a comprehensive semiotic discourse? Logic obviously was never sufficient, and I argue this insofar as metaphysics came into being as a serious course of study. Analytics such as Wittgenstein saying of metaphysical thoughts that they ''lack cognitive material'' reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the mind, and a total unwillingness to conceed that our language lacks sufficient ideograms, images, fricatives, etc. to capture the multiplicity of fragmented thoughts and desires and ideas, that new words and new images must be creative, that culture must be viewed from a productive paradigm. I use this analogy, Analytic philospy is the Machine, and continental philosophy is the Machinist.

>>948155

Exactly. The linguistic construction of the productive paradigm is strictly congruent with the construction of power/knowledge.

>>948163
Too bad this thread is auto-saging...