Why does /lit/ dislike analytic philosophy so much? No memes please

File: 779 KB, 647x656, hegel.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 07:32:10 2017 No.10192028 [Reply] [Original]

Why does /lit/ dislike analytic philosophy so much? No memes please

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 07:34:46 2017 No.10192031 >>10192028 Because half of the people who discuss philosophy here are eternally butthurt christfaggots (et similia) who read little or no philosophy. And with half of the people I mean a good 80% of them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 07:53:54 2017 No.10192066 >>10192031 more like 99% of people hear are DUMB lol

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 07:55:07 2017 No.10192072 >>10192066 lolé checkmate

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 07:58:54 2017 No.10192076 Because they focus on stuff that doesn't necessarily improve human life which philosophy should be about.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 08:03:28 2017 No.10192086 >>10192031 >christianity in public discourse >21st century im affraid you will have to come up to a better excuse for your lazyness/inability to read

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 08:04:04 2017 No.10192088 Because analytic philosophy doesn't allow them to make grand, vague, ultimately bullshit statements about big, badly defined topics like capitalism, economics, the universe and so on

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 08:04:22 2017 No.10192089 >>10192086 wot

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 08:08:04 2017 No.10192095 >>10192089 reformed and 2nd vaticanism doesnt count as christianity

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 08:33:52 2017 No.10192136 >>10192088 Marx btfo

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 08:36:53 2017 No.10192142 sterile, boring >>10192031 this is why the tips meme was invented

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 08:47:38 2017 No.10192157 >>10192142 t.butthurt christfaggot who has never opened a book on analytic philosophy of religion >>10192095 Ah

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 08:48:36 2017 No.10192159 >>10192028 Because /lit/ is full of brainlets.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 08:48:45 2017 No.10192160 They're easy to impress

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 08:53:21 2017 No.10192172 >>10192028 I don't dislike it, I just wholeheartedly disagree with just about all of its proponents and arguments that I've encountered.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 08:56:06 2017 No.10192179 it's boooooooooring and doesn't impress anyone

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 09:31:27 2017 No.10192264 >>10192157 http://dailynous.com/2017/10/23/analytic-philosophy-egalitarianism-standpoint-epistemology-privileging/

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 09:46:16 2017 No.10192305 >>10192031 Analytical philosophy offers a lot to Christians, some of the most important names in it were or are devout Catholics, Peter Geach, Elizabeth Amscombe and Alsadair MacIntyre to name a few.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 09:59:20 2017 No.10192353 >>10192172 like what

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 10:07:06 2017 No.10192379 >>10192305 A L V I N P L A N T I N G A

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 10:07:39 2017 No.10192383 >>10192028 Because the wiki pages on analytic philosophy don't explain ideas well.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 10:12:56 2017 No.10192403

>>10192028
because analytic philosophy is for people who actually care about untangling philosophical problems. It requires a lot of patience and it may not be worth everyone's time to spend a few hours reading twenty pages on the difference between words without quotes and words with them. Continental philosophy is plainly just more fun to read and is about what it is like to exist rather than just analyzing concepts. I personally enjoy reading both

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 10:18:18 2017 No.10192425 >>10192403 >I personally enjoy reading both Same, it's a shame that most /lit/izens are part of the "just get a library card and read all the original texts dude :)" group

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 10:19:08 2017 No.10192430

>>10192305
I know! But dismissing of anphil in this board seems to come mostly from ignorant christians who equate it with scientism or positivism

>>10192264
Am I supposed to read this or you're just trying to show that analytic phil is bad because muh feminists?

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 10:41:29 2017 No.10192485

You're being a tad naive, OP. Most of the people here have no contact whatsoever with modern anphil and barely know what the field is about. Not to mention that aside from a vocal minority most haven't even read much continental beyond Camus/Kierkegaard/Nietzsche. It's basically just parroting memes and baiting for (you)s.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 10:43:53 2017 No.10192492 >>10192485 I know, it was just curious about the bullshit arguments people were willing to pull out of their ass to justify their opinions lol

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 10:45:02 2017 No.10192497 >>10192430 I don't think I've noticed the equating, even if a lot of it is more or less positivist and in analytical philosophy threads it's not exactly easy to tell who is what type, if at all, of Christian.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 10:49:44 2017 No.10192507

>>10192403
>>10192028
This.

My problem with analytical philosophy is that it no longer deals with day-to-day human existence on a level that is applicable in everyday life. If you ask anyone on the continent -and probably elsewhere as well - what is the primary subject of philosophy you get answers like ethics, how to live a good/prosperous life, beauty. Questions that everyone asks.

Continental philosophy is the continuation of the Greek tradition of trying to figure out what makes us feel a certain way, what makes us miserable in order to better to human condition.

Analytical philosophy on the other hand is an extension of the Victorian positivist idea that the 'natural sciences' can uncover infallible law that govern nature, so everything around us -humanity included - can be understanded in an axiomatic system.

The problem comes from the rigidity of such logical structures, not to mention that in order to do this they have to reduce the 'human condition' to an automaton (see also the fallacy of the rational being, homo economicus etc) that does a great disservice to life. Also - just as in math- these logical structures can run into paradoxes but are unable to deal with them within the framework of the initial axioms (see Godel's theorem.

I have a masters in a math-heavy field so I personally enjoy reading analytical papers but they are so far removed from everyday existence that they are rightfully labeled as navel gazing in my opinion, they offer no help on how to do things better in your life or understand the world around you.

I get why the continental school gets a bad rep, especially on /lit/, because every pseud and edgelord who ever saw a quotation from Nietzsche, Heidegger, Dostoevskythinks he is the next incarnation of the Ubermensch, and frankly a good portion of /lit/izens qualify for this.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 10:51:30 2017 No.10192515 >>10192028 welcome to the anglosphere bitch

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 10:52:31 2017 No.10192517

>>10192028
Because most of the userbase here doesn't actually read and as such have uncritically swallowed a litany of myths as to what analytic philosophy is. They fear the positivist bogeyman and have abused the word to the point of meaningless.

>>10192497
Very little analytic philosophy after the 50s is positivist.

>>10192076
>>10192507

>If you ask anyone on the continent -and probably elsewhere as well - what is the primary subject of philosophy you get answers like ethics, how to live a good/prosperous life, beauty. Questions that everyone asks.

And the uninformed opinion of the masses matters because? Why should the subject matter of philosophy be confined to one range of human interest? Why shouldn't its goal be the comprehension of nature and the pursuit of leisurely habits?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 10:55:13 2017 No.10192525 >>10192430 the second, duh

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 11:00:08 2017 No.10192537

>nd the uninformed opinion of the masses matters because?
Helps you understand that you might not denote the same meaning to the same word as others due to different traditions.

>Why should the subject matter of philosophy be confined to one range of human interest?
This is unintelligible. Every discipline deals with human interest. We are humans.

>Why shouldn't its goal be the comprehension of nature and the pursuit of leisurely habits?
The comprehension of nature is the goal of every scientific discipline. If you mean by this that why can it make you feel good, that's what /tv/ is for or a good novel.

Philosophy is a discipline, you can do it part-time as a hobby but if you do it to make yourself feel better about yourself - than you are not learning you are procrastinating. A sied effect can be that you feel good, but it is not the goal of the discipline.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 11:01:48 2017 No.10192542 File: 11 KB, 185x155, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >thinking this is philoshophy

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 11:05:50 2017 No.10192552 >>10192542 >greek letters and logical operators are scary OP said no memeing.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 11:16:11 2017 No.10192579

For all the mindless memeing there is a big kernel of truth in the general dislike of anphil. It set out to resolve the eternal questions in its own way and failed. Had it not been for the immense arrogance of people like Russell with his "Big Book of Reeing about Things I Don't Like" or Witty with the "Language is Like Not a Precise Tool Mkay My Man" we might not have seen this backlash. Presently there isn't even any sort of rivalry between the two. Anphil yields some practically interesting things like Kripke frame applications in CS and type theory developments in math, but it doesn't really compete on the field of "big philosophical problems". Most of the "hate" as others noted is coming from pseuds who barely understand what they're talking about or just repeating the ebyn memes they heard from others.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 11:19:59 2017 No.10192587

>>10192507
>My problem with analytical philosophy is that it no longer deals with day-to-day human existence on a level that is applicable in everyday life. If you ask anyone on the continent -and probably elsewhere as well - what is the primary subject of philosophy you get answers like ethics, how to live a good/prosperous life, beauty. Questions that everyone asks.
gay

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 11:23:26 2017 No.10192596 >>10192579 >Witty with the "Language is Like Not a Precise Tool Mkay My Man" that's less witty and more derrida

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 11:25:30 2017 No.10192605

>>10192028
I don't think I have ever seen a discussion of analytic philosophy on 4chan. It's something that people say id dismissed despite being importaint but they never seem to be able to conjure up a damn thing to discuss.

Witty excluded, which from what I've heard was not much of an analytic himself.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 11:27:20 2017 No.10192612

>>10192076

This is one of the dumber opinions I've seen on /lit/ in the past few months. If you want to "improve human life", be a doctor or a designer or somesuch. Philosophy is about the pursuit of truth (though it regularly fails at this, its attempts are just as regular), even and especially when the truth is unpleasant. That is why it inevitably leads down the rabbit hole to nihilism etc. Some philosophers try in vain to fight this conclusion.

They will always try in vain.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 11:27:29 2017 No.10192613 >>10192605 >Witty excluded, which from what I've heard was not much of an analytic himself. The Tractatus is the epitome of analytic autism and it gets brought up daily on here. Anyways, in what world is even late wittgenstein not analytic?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 11:29:21 2017 No.10192621 >>10192612 It doesn't really "fail" per se, but philosophy is averse to consensus by it's nature (this is a good thing) so there will never be clear-cut "right" answers

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 11:37:14 2017 No.10192637 >>10192613 Yeah, that thing is really autistic at some point. We had a joke back at class that the whole reason he wrote is was to get disqualified from service on grounds of being batshit insane.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 11:37:57 2017 No.10192640

>>10192264
Asta's perspective is perfectly reasonable, though I disagree with it. When dealing with something like trans-ness, which is obviously subjective, it's important to consider how actual trans people experience their condition. But instead of rejecting the article (or publishing it as-was), she should have given editorial guidance — something along the lines of "This does not engage adequately with the existing literature." I think that if the article in question were revised slightly to address some of the obvious objections, it would be close to perfect.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 11:39:57 2017 No.10192646 >>10192612 Science if also the pursuit of truth. I think what he meant was something along the lines of what >>10192507 sad, but you already know that. You just wanted to seem clever.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 11:40:34 2017 No.10192647

>>10192613
>Anyways, in what world is even late wittgenstein not analytic?
Analytic philosophy is a style. Philosophical Investigations and all the other late works have no resemblance to this style at all. Analytics go to lengths to make sure no obscurity clouds their writing even at the expensive of excluding examples and reasons and topics that have been the object of philosophical discourse since the beginning. Late W has no problem being obscure and talking about existence and 'forms of life'. He resembles analytics in that they both are concerned with analyzing concepts and dissolving problems and also starting with language, but that's about it. Even early Wittgenstein is barely analytic despite the Tractatus being the bible of positivism. He cares too much about form and presentation.
>Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. Our life has no end in the way in which our visual field has no limits.
This is from the Tractatus. How many positivists are making statements like this in their essays?
Note: I'm not saying he's a continental either though. It's almost even a joke that Wittgenstein existed and there is still this much of a debate about the divide.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 11:42:21 2017 No.10192654 >>10192647 there's more to analytic philosophy than le teapot man and logical positivism

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 11:48:37 2017 No.10192665 >>10192654 don't lecture me on analytic philosophy. I will beat you in an analytic philosophy contest everytime.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 11:50:02 2017 No.10192669

>>10192507
>Analytical philosophy on the other hand is an extension of the Victorian positivist idea that the 'natural sciences' can uncover infallible law that govern nature, so everything around us -humanity included - can be understanded in an axiomatic system.
This was recorded in 1978:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et8kDNF_nEc

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 11:51:04 2017 No.10192670 >>10192665 EKKCprCprKCpsCqsCApqKrs heh, your move...kiddo

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 11:51:52 2017 No.10192672

>>10192647
>Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. Our life has no end in the way in which our visual field has no limits.

He might have wrote it, but it is nothing but an amalgamation of the teaching of stoicism and epicureanism.
>Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist. Epicurus

The rest of the quote could be traced to Seneca's letters to Lucullus.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 11:53:08 2017 No.10192675 >>10192028 we like to imagine that there's a level of dork lower than ours

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 11:53:42 2017 No.10192676 because it doesn't have practical applications like the existentialists do if i wanted to play with math i'd go read some calculus books

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 11:54:47 2017 No.10192678 >>10192672 okay. My point is somewhere over here and your's is somewhere over there.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 11:56:19 2017 No.10192685 File: 5 KB, 318x159, download.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] please read this. Seriously please http://philosophy.uchicago.edu/faculty/files/conant/The%20Emergence%20of%20the%20Concept%20of%20the%20Analytic%20Tradition.pdf

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 11:58:27 2017 No.10192692

>>10192669
I will look into it. But saying -as he does in the beginning - that philosophy and math were always very close since Plato required certain levels of knowledge before admitting someone to the Academy is like saying, that English Literature (degree) was always close to math, since no one can attend Oxbridge without obtaining a level of proficiency in in.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 11:58:33 2017 No.10192694 >>10192669 >40 minute video >not tldr Manners, please.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 12:01:50 2017 No.10192709 >>10192685 >40 page thesis. >no tl;dr Manners, please.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 12:03:49 2017 No.10192718
File: 32 KB, 300x346, Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10192692
Maybe you should do the continental thing and do your homework on the history of philosophy too, while you're at it.

>>10192694
>>10192709
This is the literature board.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 12:10:57 2017 No.10192737 >>10192709 >on the israeli cartoon pornographic video game forum which is focused on the practice of hobbyist reading >reading is held to be a chore

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 12:10:58 2017 No.10192738 >>10192718 >This is the literature board. Do you silently give people books and walk away in IRL discussions too?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 12:12:02 2017 No.10192744 >>10192737 >/lit/ >focused on reading Just how new are you?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 12:13:29 2017 No.10192752 >>10192738 This shouldn't concern you, anon, nobody is going to talk to you IRL.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 12:14:39 2017 No.10192756

>>10192718
Been there, got the degree. Was fun.
Also why are you parading Leibniz? If you want to make an argument to his plance in the history of the philosophy of the mind concerning his resolution to the mind-body problem with a preexisting harmony and after that argue that the Problem of consciousness is the last frontier that philosophy should concern itself with because of CS then do that. And I will take it from there.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 12:15:42 2017 No.10192763 >>10192752 kek

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 12:15:46 2017 No.10192764 >>10192752 >doesn't provide any commentary on shit he links >wiling away with ebyn edgy replies when asked to You might want to try /pol/, friendo.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 12:22:38 2017 No.10192787 >>10192718 >hurrdurr you don't take an hour to read stuff I linked in a casual discussion thread if you have nothing to say you might as well fuck off, nigger

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 12:28:34 2017 No.10192814 >>10192756 >mind

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 12:31:34 2017 No.10192831

>>10192507
>Analytical philosophy on the other hand is an extension of the Victorian positivist idea that the 'natural sciences' can uncover infallible law that govern nature
This impetus also has its origin in Classical Greek philosophy, not Victorian England.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 12:55:34 2017 No.10192904 Just reads like wordmath that has less to do with the world and more to do with just the playing out of defined axioms

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 13:18:27 2017 No.10192981
File: 36 KB, 666x408, 1447692477708.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Some people touched on the reason why its not really talk about on here
1)Analytic Philosophy is done using syllogisms that are concrete, leaving little room for interpretation. Seeing as how this is a lit board many litizens like to explore alternative explanations.
2)Analytic Philosophy uses syllogisms and logic, and the best papers are logically rigorous, so to come up with refutations and criticisms against such arguments would require a very resilient critical thinking skill, of which many litizens dont have as they would rather you spoonfeed them on meaning then having them come up with their own interpretation, or they get so far in their own, make a tread for clarification and end up latching on to some other faggots interpretation .

Also when you consider a subject and examine the analytic canon, you find often enough that there really isnt a solid answer, theres good logical arguments for and against many things, this leaves the anon confused, and no better off than once he started.
Continential philsophy gives a clear answer for the anon to digest and often theres philosophies and interpretations that feel more true than others.

Anons have a good unstanding of informal fallacies but its hard to suss out the formal logical fallacies that are often buried under flowery prose.

Also to the anons saying that analytic philosophy isnt discussed on lit , i have seen many threads about the "argument from evil" on here which admittedly is babbys first syllogistic argument, at least on here. In school its Socrates is a man.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 13:35:26 2017 No.10193029 >>10192981 >muh logic and syllogism >contradict yourself 4 times in one post Absolutely horrible post, you got almost everything wrong

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 13:36:40 2017 No.10193032 Friends, Romans, Litizens, lend me your ears! This is a great thread so far , keep up the quality of the discussion with detailed answers! >>10192981 >>10192647 >>10192579 >>10192507 >>10192028

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 13:38:25 2017 No.10193037 >>10192787 Why are you discussing things that you are uninformed on?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 13:38:54 2017 No.10193040 >>10193029 Please enlighten me on these 4 contradictions anon

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 13:41:42 2017 No.10193047 because studying it requires knowledge of math and a rigorous attitude, which is lacking among most /lit/-ers. That's why we decide to read about muh Being instead

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 13:59:42 2017 No.10193088

>>10192028
this is primarily a literature board, so obviously most people would prefer continental, "softer" philosophers who are closer to literature, rather than mathematics

anyone into literature can enjoy the works of Camus or Sartre, but someone like Tarski is more of a scientist than a writer

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 14:06:28 2017 No.10193112
File: 687 KB, 1242x512, V8GNJSj.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10192981
Terrible post that says little more than your memepic. Modern analytic phil is so remotely removed from anything that people without special interest care about that it's pointless to "hur they jus to dum to understan" it. I'm trained in math and have problem understanding most papers, in fact they helped me a great deal during studies when delving into things like semantical analysis and model checking. However it would be daft to assume those would be of any help to people interested in common "humane" phil questions. Rigorous modal logic proofs of some abstract situation devoid of any relation to reality doesn't help those seeking understanding of ethics. Exotic interpretations of cathegorical type systems don't yield any epistemic knowledge applicable outside pure math. Anphil is useful and important, but the fact is it doesn't even share the utility scope of continental. The historical contraposition has long dissolved - the only thing that's left is some retards proficient in both disciplines memeing on a Kyrgyz yak milking BBS. Like you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 14:07:30 2017 No.10193120 >>10193112 *no problem understanding

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 14:08:37 2017 No.10193124 >>10193112 *unproficient

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 14:09:49 2017 No.10193130 >>10193112 ethics doesn't exist in itself even if it did, there would be no reason to live by it don't study it

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 14:16:53 2017 No.10193151 >>10193037 why are you claiming to be informed on something when you can't even formulate a coherent point? linking shit you haven't read or understood belongs to /pol/ and you should fuck off precisely there, double nigger

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 14:22:24 2017 No.10193167

>>10193112
You can be a better critical thinker just reading analytic philosophy than you can reading continential.
Which any philosophy program highligts as the major product of their degree.
Continrntial philiosophy makes you proficient in literary criticism and little else.
You can apply literary criticism and formal criticism, under analytic philiosophy.

Im not championing either becuase philosophy is just word games trying to describe something intangble, thus in my opinion the important Truths often have little use for words.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 14:23:04 2017 No.10193173 >>10193112 that memepic says all there is to say about continental philosophy

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 14:31:12 2017 No.10193203

>>10193167
Educational programs are not the topic of this discussion. Continental has so for produced far more worthy critical thinkers, while analytics with their lack of "literary criticism skills" as you put it, gave the world such greats like the teapot man who resorted to literal shitflinging when discussing anything post-Nitzschean and scary.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 14:38:10 2017 No.10193225

It's not even philosophy. It's making up some definition then jerking off over it then declaring some grand imperial truth, or leaving it to scientists or something. It limits philosophy to the role of a glorified English teacher or editor.
>>10192612
>its aboot muh troof becuz i sed so
See, this is exactly what you retards do. You make up some definition, then think that 'muh raisinen be volid' leads to some grand imperial truth that will give England back its empire. My fuck, you people cannot even begin to see how stupid you are.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 14:40:49 2017 No.10193239

>>10192647
>obscurity is bad becuz it hurts muh feefees
>>10192654
Barely, in quality.
>>10192756
He's parading Leibniz because anal y autistics cannot defend themselves without clinging to muh Great Men who will restore muh European (british) Empire over the Continental Savages

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 14:42:52 2017 No.10193244 >>10192981 >concrete Not defined >syllogisms and logic Not defensible You have the rigor of a dead fish >>10193167 No argument, I see. >truth Doesn't exist; a word-game itself.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 14:48:30 2017 No.10193260

>>10193239
>>10193244
Why do you feel the need to shit up good threads with your ebyn edgy edginess? Do you it somehow adds anything of value or anyone is impressed by it? There's been good posts by both sides, take your mental deficiencies to the meme thread.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 14:52:07 2017 No.10193280 >>10193260 >anything i dont like is le edgy xdddddfdDDFDDDD

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 14:54:36 2017 No.10193291 >>10193239 I think you misunderstood every post you replied to. GJ

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 14:54:39 2017 No.10193292 File: 34 KB, 645x729, melted brain.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10192669 I thought Hilary Putnam was a woman.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 14:55:34 2017 No.10193298 >>10193291 No, the opposite is so.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 14:58:13 2017 No.10193312

>>10193203
There were analytic philosopher post witty.
Bertie was an analytic
Carnap
And actually some philosophers of the mind, those that work on AI and computer science are analytical.
The only ones that arent are the fruedians and its reactionaries.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 15:06:31 2017 No.10193348 >>10193225 And what exactly are you doing? How many important philosophers, continental or analytic, actually devoted entire works to improving people's lives? Did Hegel do that? Heidegger? Derrida?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 15:07:44 2017 No.10193354 >>10192088 /thread

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 15:07:53 2017 No.10193355 >>10193348 Are you illiterate or just one of those new *nglos?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 15:11:05 2017 No.10193375 >>10193355 Fuck, why am I wasting this time on this shitty board.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 15:34:22 2017 No.10193455 A lot of it boils down to a contempt for learning.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 16:14:02 2017 No.10193597 >>10193292 I had always imagined her as a short and friendly philosopher grandma

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 16:32:24 2017 No.10193648 >>10192028 Beacause most people here are under educated brits and americans. The split doesn't even meaningfully exist outside anglosphere. All the most intresting stuff happens in the space between british analytics and phenomenology.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 16:54:26 2017 No.10193721

The real answer is that analytics are 90% not recognisably philosophers and 10% shitty pragmatists who work in continental philosophy anyway nowadays. It's just a dead field. I study philosophy for a living because I'm a retard, and I'm deliberately unimaginably eclectic. I'll read and incorporate anything. I even like a lot of analytic philosophy taken by itself. But the tradition sucks.

Analytic just sucks, dude. You can read Sellars' fucking basic bitch high school philosophy of science, and I say that as someone who likes Sellars a lot, or you can read HEIDEGGER, and reshape your entire cosmos of possibilities for how you view the possibility of knowledge itself.

You can even see it in how de-programmed analytics later come around to continental philosophy. Their thinking is all "blocky." They want everything to proceed in blocky apodictic shunts forward or some shit. Listen to an analytic Heideggerian, and it's like they created an ersatz pointillist version the fluidity of the actual Heideggerian gestalt. It's just fucking bizarre. Most of them just half-understand existentialist social philosophy and talk a lot of shallow thinned-out neoliberal existentialism that would maybe have been interesting in the 30s if you were bourgeois as fuck.

It's just not good. It sucks balls. Plato contains an entire world. Heidegger contains an entire world. Hegel contains some kind of weird rocky Hadean hell world full of great ideas mixed with unliveable weirdness. Compared to all that, analytics are like a guy walking up to you and going "Hello. Have you ever considered that 'holding' requires 'having a hand', therefore 'holding .-&& hand-having IFF &&zq'? Therefore, Holding logically requires Handedness." Like, okay? I guess? Are you talking about.. metaphysically, or what? And then they start going "Now, listen up. Because Holding is logically preceded by World, therefore, synthetically, the World is All the Things that Are There. Ethically, you should vote for Obama."

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 16:59:13 2017 No.10193736

>>10193721
It's just not real philosophy. They missed the last 300 years of metaphysics and ontology. They can't conceptualise fluid lifeworlds, only one-to-one logical relations like "PARADIGM informs DECEISION therefore DECISION IS SUBSET OF PARADIGM" instead of understanding it ontologically. They think epistemic events are beings. When they decide they are not beings, they say "WELL I GUESS MENTAL EVENTS DON'T EXIST AT ALL THEN.. ONLY WORDS." They try to imitate continental immanentism with pathetic ca. 1910 American immanent empiricism. Chomsky is seen as a big deal for "debunking" something that was philosophically debunked 200 years prior, and everyone thinks it's a big deal because they don't know the history of philosophy, and are proud of this fact. Collingwood described Russell's golden age milieu as a bunch of supercilious faggots who didn't understand Kant on his own terms whatsoever and just liked to point out absurdities in their own surface misreadings of the text like a dipshit sophist in an early Plato dialogue.

The one-to-one thing is really a problem. They can't understand ANYTHING holistically. It all has to be IF THEREFORE THEN statements. If you've studied continental thought, it's like your thought is fluid and bendy, and theirs is rigid and weird. You go, "the lifeworld is created holistically and dialectically as the child matures." The analytic goes BEEP BORT, CHILD ACQUIRED [INFORMATION] (1) AND NOW [INFORMATION] (1) INFLUENCES [OUTCOME].

They have no sense of the wider scope of philosophy or wider possibilities of knowledge. They start from a naive "just the facts ma'am, I refute it thusly! Here is a hand and here is a hand, hahaha lmao Kant OWNED!" naturalism and always want to return to it. They have no sense that anything could be larger than bourgeois Pinkerian little Better Angels of Our Nature "British and US liberalism is the end of history, this is what we do forever now" boring. This isn't just boring at the ethical conclusion stage, it's that it affects their entire ability to consider epistemological and metaphysical components. Like, they get freaked out by James' mystical pluralism, or Bergson, anything, they just go UHHHH THAT SOUNDS WEIRD :S I'M GOING TO GO READ JOHN RAWLS.. I THINK I CAN CALCULATE THE EXACT TYPE OF SAVINGS ACCOUNT YOU SHOULD HAVE IF YOU WANT TO BE A "GOOD" "RATIONAL ACTOR" IN "SOCIETY" (I WON'T EXAMINE THE A PRIORI STATUS OF ANY OF THESE CLAIMS)

Analytics are like, it's like talking to a bad engineer when you're a theoretical physicist. You just want them to go away.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 17:01:00 2017 No.10193743 File: 14 KB, 289x133, GOFUCKYORUSELF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10193736 Oh yeah?? OH YEAH?????

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 17:12:25 2017 No.10193776 File: 35 KB, 153x153, 6019791+_9aec8465b000f20a71493b44fc76597d.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10193736 yeah ok buddy

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 17:12:56 2017 No.10193779 >>10192613 >When you're so retarded and unread in philosophy that you fail to realize that the Tractatus is a quasi-mystic work poetic philosophy that represents the complete opposite of what the positivists were trying to do.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 17:15:00 2017 No.10193785

>>10192613
>Anyways, in what world is even late wittgenstein not analytic?

He is not, at all. Late Wittgenstein was systematically misread by terrible analytics. Hubert Dreyfus recognized he's doing the same project as Heidegger - Wittgenstein defended Heidegger to analytic contemporaries in the 30s. Neo-pragmatists who actually understand Wittgenstein are all Heideggerians. He's closest to fucking Derrida.

This guy is right: >>10192647 in saying that he's not "continental." He's just a good philosopher who properly assimilated the modern philosophical situation. Like many continentals, and very few analytics.

Kripke is worthless dogshit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 17:16:50 2017 No.10193794 File: 384 KB, 1148x638, 1473495673705.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10193785

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 17:23:33 2017 No.10193826 >>10193721 >>10193736 I like you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 17:40:58 2017 No.10193890 >>10193375 UNGA UGH WHY WONT HE PLAY BY ME RULES this explains the problem with you idiots: >>10193721 >>10193736 You don't even fucking exist

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 17:48:44 2017 No.10193920 >>10193736 Have another cocktail

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 17:49:31 2017 No.10193922

>>10192579
>For all the mindless memeing there is a big kernel of truth in the general dislike of anphil. It set out to resolve the eternal questions in its own way and failed.
What does this even mean? Are you saying continental didn't set out to resolve eternal questions, or are you saying continental actually resolved eternal questions?

Because continental philosophy hasn't resolved anything. Continental philosophers barely even understand what other continental philosophers are arguing. The fact that it doesn't produce answers or intelligibility is the whole reason people like it.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 17:51:46 2017 No.10193932

>>10192612
>Philosophy is about the pursuit of truth (though it regularly fails at this, its attempts are just as regular), even and especially when the truth is unpleasant.
If philosophy were about the pursuit of truth, it would transform into science. The whole reason a philosopher decides not to be a scientist is specifically because truth is not interesting to them--arguing is. Philosophy that goes out of its way to not be science is the pursuit of argumentation, not truth.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 17:52:48 2017 No.10193937 >>10192621 >Pursuing something and not attaining it is not failure So this is the power of philosophy?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 17:53:54 2017 No.10193942 >>10193937 is not about how much lose, is about continue

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 17:55:27 2017 No.10193949 >>10193922 This response is tad too reasonable for this thread broski. Pack up your level-headed assessment, it's histrionics here only.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 17:57:30 2017 No.10193964 >>10193922 Continentals produced a number of coherent practically applicable worldviews. Analytics haven't produced anything useful save for some esoteric theories only interesting to pure mathematicians.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 18:02:39 2017 No.10193982

You know, ignoring the whole debate for a second, where the actual fuck do so many of the Anglo's on /lit/ study continental philosophy? there's like 10 programs in the entirety of America that does continental philosophy and it's becoming that way in the rest of Europe as well.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 18:06:53 2017 No.10194004

>>10193964
Didn't realize Quine's undermining of the analytic/synthetic distinction, Gettier's analysis of knowledge as something other than justified true belief and Kripke's division of the a-priori/posteriori into metaphysical and epistemological components are only of interest to pure mathematicians. Guess pure math has really expanded its purview over the last 50 years huh

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 18:13:36 2017 No.10194025 >>10194004 >the totality of Nietzsche/Heidegger/<insert major continental>'s work >Gettier cases and Kripke frames Kek. Truly gigantic impact on the world.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 18:15:46 2017 No.10194033

>>10192981
Analytic philosophy at its best has to take insights from superior continental philosophers (Kant especially, recently they are starting to take some influence from Hegel). Wittgenstein is an obvious exception, but there are still points in Wittgy where he has to make some lazy transcendental arguments because he didn't read enough philosophy. Continental philosophy can be much more rigorous and systematic, at the expense of clarity. Thus it is often dismissed by analytics as "charlatan", "crazy", "weird" etc

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 18:19:10 2017 No.10194050 File: 40 KB, 484x578, myboy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10194033 Forgot pic

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 18:36:33 2017 No.10194126

>>10192028
Honestly, probably for the same reason most people involved in analytic philosophy hate on continental philosophy: they don't know that the fuck they're talking about. A lot of people involved in analytic philosophy tend to equate "continental philosophy" with post-structuralism - much (but not all) of which is vacuous - or variants of critical theory and phenomenology. On the other side, people involved in the continental tradition tend to view analytic philosophy as being synonymous with the linguistic-turn, or Ayer's brand of logical-positivism where guys like Strawson and Ryle would just yammer on and on about how we use ordinary words, and make finer and finer distinctions. A lot of philosophy in the ordinary-language tradition was often written in a purposefully dry, and clinical style, so that certainly didn't help things.

I suppose this brings me to the other criticism that I often hear, which is that analytic philosophy is "boring". Now I'm really not sure why I should give a fuck about a criticism like that, and I find it hard to sympathise with those who make it. Much of Hegel's work is written in an obscure, seemingly impenetrable style. I wouldn't really call it fun to read, but it certainly rewards patient study. There's a lot to be learnt from him. Conversely, I find someone like John Searle incredibly easy to read, but I think his ideas are garbage, and I don't find there to be much I can glean from them. I think it's also generally true that continental philosophy has tended to address topics that most people find more interesting than those addressed in analytic philosophy. Most people will find writings on history, revolution, subjective experience, culture, etc. to be a lot more interesting than work on the analytic-synthetic distinction, the role of the a priori in science, the validity of modal logic, and possible-world semantics, for instance. Analytic philosophers have typically spent much more time working on the latter than on the former, and vice versa. However, we are starting to see a bit of a change now from both sides, and there's a lot of really interesting work being done on issues by people who have straddled/moved beyond the traditional (and, I think, pretty accidental and rather ill conceived) divide.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 18:37:36 2017 No.10194129

>>10192028
>>10194126
It's important for people to understand just how close the analytic and continental traditions were until about a century ago. People like Dummett and Michael Friedman have done a lot of work on the similarities and early (often friendly!) interactions between Frege and Husserl, as well as guys like Carnap and Heidegger, as well as largely forgotten figures who tried to straddle the growing divide, like Cassirer. Even people like Russell and Moore (who are often thought of as epitomising analytic philosophy as a stubbornly a-historical discipline) had a long history of engagement with the canonical continental philosophers, having studied extensively under the most prominent British Idealists. Russell and F. H. Bradley, for instance, had a lot of debates that centred on Hegel's logic, which Russell eventually ended up rejecting in favour of Frege's.

In the end, I really think that both traditions lost out due to their ignorance of one another. Political philosophy, philosophy of culture, and philosophy of history were pretty much dead in the anglosphere until the last couple decades of the 20th century, while on the continental side of things, phenomenology's pretty reactionary philosophical stance, and a general lack of engagement with the natural sciences led to some pretty bizarre ideas about being constructed about science, and the genuinely interesting and nuanced things that were said about them (some of Foucault's work on medicine and psychology, for instance) was often sublimated into, and interpreted in light of these more dominant, misinformed views.

tl;dr Basically, there's a lot of bullshit produced on both sides, and everyone would benefit from reading a bit more of the best of each.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 18:39:30 2017 No.10194139 >>10194126 >analytic-synthetic distinction, the role of the a priori in science, the validity of modal logic, and possible-world semantics, all of these were handled 100x better by continentals and their analytic formulations are embarrassing as hell

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 18:41:38 2017 No.10194147 >>10192517 I bet you're fun at parties

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 18:50:04 2017 No.10194178 >>10194139 >>10194139 Who on the 'continental' side handled the role of the a priori better than Reichenbach, for instance, and what is embarrassing about Stormin Van Orman's savaging of the analytic-synthetic distinction?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 18:54:38 2017 No.10194198 >>10194004 These offer no value to anybody and have had no impact on the "quest for truth". So much effort for literally fucking nothing >we should teach philosophy so people understand the world >philosophers don't understand the world

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 19:00:23 2017 No.10194219 >>10194198 If you force people to rethink knowledge as being justified true belief, or undermine the notion of purely logical truth, how does that not have an effect on the 'quest for truth'?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 19:09:10 2017 No.10194244 Anyone ITT who implies that philosophy has any purpose other than as a tool for the acquisition of wisdom and the harmonization of the soul with itself is a fucking idiot

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 19:13:03 2017 No.10194258 >>10194178 >Reichenbach Literally a footnote in philosophy of maths. >Quine DUDE EMPIRICISM

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 19:14:07 2017 No.10194262 >>10194178 The a priori/a posteriori distinction isn't even important in the face of all that happened in logic in the past century.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 19:19:52 2017 No.10194278

>>10194198
On the contrary, they are the only quest for truth. Subjective analyses of history and culture have no bearing on understanding the metaphysical and epistemological aspects of the world. As much as it may not interest you, those are real fundamental problems and the only ones to deal with reality as such.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 19:21:02 2017 No.10194283 >>10194258 not an argument

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 19:36:22 2017 No.10194330 >>10194278 >Subjective analyses of history and culture have no bearing on understanding the metaphysical and epistemological aspects of the world. I wish I were that naïve, it would make things a lot easier.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 19:48:28 2017 No.10194368 >>10194258 How is Quine an empiricist? He critiqued them relentlessly.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:00:21 2017 No.10194404 File: 114 KB, 347x344, 1508126242971.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10194368 Is this bait?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:01:02 2017 No.10194406 >>10194262 I'm not sure what logic you're engaging with, but I still find the distinction coming up in sub-structural logic, and treatments of logical consequence, for instance.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:03:07 2017 No.10194411 >>10194404 Not bait, guy. Naturalism is distinct from empiricism. Quine adhered to the former, not the latter.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:04:28 2017 No.10194415 >>10194406 Lmao get new books sometime

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:08:15 2017 No.10194429 >>10192028 Last I checked Witty was almost universally praised here.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:08:30 2017 No.10194430 >>10194415 Greg Restall's work is too old-school for you? What are you reading?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:09:28 2017 No.10194432 >>10194411 >founding member of Vienna Circle >work built on empiricist assumptions >literally called himself empiricist in his own texts I'd recommend reading Quine, reddit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:17:15 2017 No.10194446 >>10193922 >thinking philosophy is about definitively answering questions and not about asking new ones This is why people hate you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:33:28 2017 No.10194497 >>10194430 your mom's underwear

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:37:00 2017 No.10194503

>>10194432
Quine was an occasional guest of the Vienna Circle, not a founding member. His "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" is literally an assault on their verificationist principle of meaning and undermined the entire positivist project. You're the redditor here faggot

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:39:04 2017 No.10194510 analytic philosophy has become a parody of itself continental philosophy has become a parody of itself philosophy is dead desu

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:40:09 2017 No.10194514 >>10194503 he was an unwilling empiricist because he didn't believe in a priori knowledge honestly he didn't believe in much but the only thing he seemed to at least like is dude science lmao

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:41:17 2017 No.10194520 >>10194514 DO you really think that empiricism is just 'dude a posteriori lmao'?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:43:05 2017 No.10194525 >>10194520 at it's core yeah if we're gonna go back to the old empiricism/rationalism debate, it'd be literally impossible to call quine a rationalist

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:43:16 2017 No.10194526

>>10194432
I'm not sure how Quine could have been there to found the Vienna Circle in the 1920's given that he first travelled to Europe and met them in the 1930's, but even if your claim were true, not all of the Circle's members were empiricists. Otto Neurath led the naturalist wing of the circle. As for him being an empiricist, he relentlessly attacked empiricist foundationalism in, among other works, Two Dogmas, Epistemology Naturalised, Word and Object, and From Stimulus to Science. If you want to call an anti-foundationalist epistemological project that doesn't try to give philosophy, sense-data, etc. any sort of role in grounding scientific knowledge (because science doesn't need a first philosophy) empiricism, then I guess you can, but it doesn't seem to bear much resemblance to any of the versions of empiricism that came before it.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:44:20 2017 No.10194530

>>10194514
Empiricism is an epistemology, but the naturalistic metaphysics stemming from his notion of ontological commitment led him to concede the existence of abstract entities, including numbers and universals. Such an open ontology is hardly empirical in the traditional sense. If you actually bothered to read a book you'd be aware of these sensitive nuances. Quine cannot be reduced to DUDE EMPIRICISM without a substantial understanding of what that entails for Quine

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:44:54 2017 No.10194533 >>10194503 He refered to himself as empiricist verbatim in Two Dogmas, you insufferable fag.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:45:41 2017 No.10194537 >>10194530 by your standard Hume wouldn't be an empiricist

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:46:26 2017 No.10194539 >>10194537 Most contemporary empiricists wouldn't consider Hume to be one either

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:47:14 2017 No.10194542

>>10194530
>>10194537
Also the only reason he believed in abstract entities is because of SCIENCE. Iirc he tried to do away with them and couldn't so he went with what science wanted to do. Yeah obviously he wasn't a traditional empiricist but he was about as far as you can possibly get from rationalism

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:49:12 2017 No.10194548 >>10194533 b-b-but he wasn't a subjective idealist so he can't be a REAL empiricist

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:50:46 2017 No.10194556

>>10194542
>Yeah obviously he wasn't a traditional empiricist but he was about as far as you can possibly get from rationalism

So? His philosophy opened the door to the analytic rationalists that dominate the field today. Is your problem with analytic philosophy that it's not rationalist enough for you? If so then I have some news for you

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:51:38 2017 No.10194559 >>10194537 No. Hume wouldn't be considered an empiricist by most modern-day empiricists, though It's worth noting that Quine finds in him the antecedents of both the constructive empiricism he railed against, and the naturalism he came to embrace.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:52:46 2017 No.10194565 >>10194497 :'(

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:53:22 2017 No.10194567 >>10194525 I'm not asking you about that debate. I'm asking you about empiricism itself.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:54:03 2017 No.10194569 >>10194556 >His philosophy opened the door to the analytic rationalists that dominate the field today. Only because he arguably killed logical positivism. Anyways, if you read two dogmas, his arguments should be anathema to rationalism

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:55:16 2017 No.10194572 >>10194567 >hurr you can't be an empiricist if you "believe" in unobservables

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:55:53 2017 No.10194575 File: 315 KB, 555x560, 1453792375612.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10194530 >Quine: "As an empiricist..." >(You): "ACKSHUALLY!"

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:56:45 2017 No.10194580

>>10194572
I don't even understand what you're implying. Why can't you just answer my question in terms of empiricism in its contemporary sense instead of just talking about debates that were rendered inconsequential by the great autist Himself, Kant?`

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:58:21 2017 No.10194587 >>10194580 >debates that were rendered inconsequential by the great autist Himself, Kant?` considering Quine attacked the very backbone of Kant's philosophy I hardly see why this is relevant

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 20:59:40 2017 No.10194595 >>10194587 it's always like pulling teeth with the retards on this board I asked you if you thought that empiricism was just 'dude a posteriori lmao' you still haven't answered my question

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:00:18 2017 No.10194600 >>10194580 How about YOU define empiricism Hard mode: do it in a way that excludes Quine

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:02:29 2017 No.10194605 >>10194600 I haven't read Quine so if I do otherwise it'll be an achievement worthy of preservation in the annals of philosophy Empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:03:16 2017 No.10194610 File: 110 KB, 657x539, you.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10194605 >I haven't read Quine

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:04:34 2017 No.10194615 File: 10 KB, 228x221, 1493052805629.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10194610 I haven't read him but I still know what empiricism isn't

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:06:14 2017 No.10194622 >>10194615 ok yeah under your definition quine is an empiricist he literally argued that logic was (or at least should be) empirical in two dogmas

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:07:25 2017 No.10194625 >>10194622 I didn't ask you about Quine, I asked you about empiricism your definition is a 200 year old one that was used by Kant to dismiss empiricism as inadequate if you really want to go with that then fine

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:08:23 2017 No.10194628 >>10194605 >I haven't read Quine >engages in debate over his work Stop posting and kill yourself this instant.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:10:12 2017 No.10194635 >>10194628 I'm asking one guy a question about the usefulness of his definition of 'empiricism' I haven't asked anyone about Quine

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:10:20 2017 No.10194636 >>10194625 Give me an example of a posteriori knowledge that isn't gained through sensory experience Give me an example of knowledge gained through sensory experience that isn't a posteriori

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:10:39 2017 No.10194639

>>10194625
>autistically argues about someone whose work he's unfamliar with
>gets utterly BTFO
>clings to a side point made by someone and desperately tries to have the last word
Please fuck off back to /b/, /pol/ or whatever other teenage board you crawled out of.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:11:48 2017 No.10194644 >>10194636 I don't believe in the a priori/a posteriori distinction. >>10194639 I've been posting on this board since it was made sorry you can't handle my power level

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:12:33 2017 No.10194646 File: 46 KB, 376x401, sheeple.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] OP shaking lit to it's core.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:12:52 2017 No.10194648 >>10194644 >I don't believe in the a priori/a posteriori distinction. holy shit

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:13:28 2017 No.10194651 >>10194648 do you really believe in it?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:15:58 2017 No.10194663 >>10194651 Yeah? "a priori" doesn't mean innate knowledge deadass

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:17:00 2017 No.10194664 >>10194663 dude watch a fucking jordan peterson video sometime everyone has innate knowledge

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:18:12 2017 No.10194672 >>10194663 why do you believe in it?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:18:40 2017 No.10194678 >>10194639 the only way you could make the case that quine wasn't an empiricist is if you argued that he stayed "in character" his whole life and dedicated it to pulling a reductio ad absurdum on empiricism

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:19:41 2017 No.10194684 >>10194672 Either knowledge is gained from experience or it isn't. Therefore knowledge is either a priori or a posteriori Is this hard?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:20:14 2017 No.10194687 >>10194684 I only see 2 premises here

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:22:45 2017 No.10194692

>>10194687
I'm somewhat skeptical about a priori knowledge but I learn towards it existing given how supersmart kant was, along with the success of a priori mathematical theories (e.g. number theory and so on)

But you were asking me whether there was a distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge, which should be obvious

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:22:57 2017 No.10194694

>>10194600
Empiricism in epistemology: the idea that all knowledge is grounded in sensory experience.

Quine's naturalistic view: science is what produces knowledge, and we should stop trying to ground science in "raw experience".

Wow, that wasn't so hard after all.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:24:26 2017 No.10194701 File: 32 KB, 680x607, pr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10194678 >he was only pretending

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:25:35 2017 No.10194705

>>10194694
>Quine's naturalistic view: science is what produces knowledge, and we should stop trying to ground science in "raw experience".
Where did he say the second? And why do you think "raw experience" and "sensory experience" are one and the same?

Anyways he was an uber-coherentist (even if you haven't read quine you should know this) and it's much more likely that he didn't believe in "grounding things" than that he didn't believe in "sensory experience"

also he had pragmatist leanings so he didn't really mean "knowledge" the way most people do.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:26:30 2017 No.10194711 >>10194692 you don't understand I don't think that knowledge is gained knowledge is experienced, but it isn't gained

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:28:58 2017 No.10194719 >>10194711 ok well we weren't talking about your dumbass opinions were we

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:29:41 2017 No.10194725 File: 95 KB, 724x611, 1418865983160.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10194719 aren't we? what do you think you've been doing the whole time we've been discussing this?] I told you I wasn't talking about Quine

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:33:33 2017 No.10194737 can any quine pros enlighten me on why he didn't believe in consciousness?

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:35:18 2017 No.10194747

>>10194705
I should have used the same term (either raw experience or sensory experience) in both places. That would have clarified things, as I do believe that they are equivalent for Quine.

I never implied that he didn't believe in sensory experience, he just didn't believe in trying to reduce everything to/construct everything out of sensory experience. That's the second dogma he attacks in Two Dogmas.

Also, I'm not the guy who said he hadn't read Quine, just so that's clear.

Finally, I'm glad you mentioned Quine's pragmatist leanings, since the influence guys like Peirce, C. I. Lewis, and Dewey had on him often goes unacknowledged. I think his "pragmatist leanings", as you put it, are an important part of the reason why he tried to, and mostly succeeded in moving beyond the traditional epistemological debates and positions prevalent in philosophy at the time. It's interesting to note that he actually doesn't even use the term "knowledge" in most of his works. I don't think it shows up even once in Epistemology Naturalized.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:39:25 2017 No.10194769

>>10194747
But he did think everything comes out of sensory experience, which is what he was getting at.

He obviously didn't think all sensory experience was created equal, and he seemed skeptical about a lot of things but it seems clear that he thought experience is the only tool we have

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:40:16 2017 No.10194772 >>10194769 define 'everything'

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:40:33 2017 No.10194774

>>10194705
Oh, and the second point, about how we should stop trying to ground knowledge in experience, also comes up really explicitely in Epistemology Naturalized, where he talks about the failure of the Logical Positivists' project, and the traditional argument against using science to justify science of that being circular. He brings up Neurath's Boat and everything. It's an interesting section.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:41:15 2017 No.10194781

>>10194747
>Finally, I'm glad you mentioned Quine's pragmatist leanings, since the influence guys like Peirce, C. I. Lewis, and Dewey had on him often goes unacknowledged. I think his "pragmatist leanings", as you put it, are an important part of the reason why he tried to, and mostly succeeded in moving beyond the traditional epistemological debates and positions prevalent in philosophy at the time. It's interesting to note that he actually doesn't even use the term "knowledge" in most of his works. I don't think it shows up even once in Epistemology Naturalized.
Who ignores this? It seems pretty obvious given his ontology.

Especially given the fact that it seems like he argued that we should accept mathematical realism for now, until we have a good anti-realist position.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:41:32 2017 No.10194782 >>10194737 >any quine pros >he thinks anyone ITT has read Quine Stop being new.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:42:17 2017 No.10194786 >>10194772 the "web of belief"

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:42:45 2017 No.10194792 >>10194786 what?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:43:47 2017 No.10194795 >>10194774 I don't really think coherentism is at odds with empiricism at all, unless you can enlighten me on recent trends or whatever

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:44:32 2017 No.10194802
File: 81 KB, 419x480, 1509058784211.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>skim Quine's wikipedia article briefly
>post DUDE EMPIRICISM just to be contrarian
>derail the thread into pointless bickering over nothing
I'm gonna make this board my bitch.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:46:51 2017 No.10194805 >>10194792 t. Karl Popper

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:48:03 2017 No.10194810 File: 5 KB, 212x238, thinker.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] is geometry analytic or synthetic?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:49:48 2017 No.10194818 >Quine was politically conservative wow fuck this guy t. OP

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:50:02 2017 No.10194820

>>10194769
Right, so he thought that experience was important in generating science, though he didn't want to conflate the two, as he didn't think that we could nicely and neatly derive an exact connection between our sensory experience and our scientific theories. This is where his confirmation holism comes in. Also, as I think someone mentioned earlier, he ended up adopting realism with regards to abstract entities that feature in our scientific theories. I don't think he thought that we "experienced" those in the same way that we do sensory impressions. He thought that we were simply obliged to accept their reality due to the prominent role they played in our best scientific theories. For Quine, the featuring of an entity in science is the ultimate litmus test for whether we should accept its existence or not, and what scientific theories tell us (about everything, observable/experiential or not) is all there is to know about it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:53:46 2017 No.10194833 >>10194781 Pragmatism was treated like a dirty word for a while. Fortunately it's being rehabilitated, but I've spoken with people who recoil when Quine is referred to as an "analytic pragmatist", and try to disavow any sort of meaningful connection.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:53:51 2017 No.10194834

>>10194820
>Also, as I think someone mentioned earlier, he ended up adopting realism with regards to abstract entities that feature in our scientific theories. I don't think he thought that we "experienced" those in the same way that we do sensory impressions.
I argued later that he seemed very reluctant about it, and like he was anticipating a better anti-realist theory of mathematics.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:58:34 2017 No.10194845 >>10194834 & iirc he didn't believe in mathematical objects that weren't used in scientific theories, even if they were well-accepted by the mathematical community

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 21:59:36 2017 No.10194852

>>10194834
Based on what I've read, it seemed like he initially was holding out hope for a decent nominalist theory of mathematics, but later he basically decided that wasn't going to happen, in part due to discussions he had with Putnam, and their work led to them devising the indispensability argument. I don't know of any later works where he said he was holding out hope for a better anti-realist philosophy of mathematics to come along, but obviously I haven't read his entire corpus, so I can't be sure.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 22:02:40 2017 No.10194861

>>10194834
>>10194845
Yeah, I'm pretty sure he referred to much of pure mathematics as "recreational" at one point, and held up the Banach-Tarski Paradox as an example of this. I know that Penelope Maddy has run with a bunch of Quine's ideas, and is doing a lot of interesting work on naturalism in mathematics.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 22:04:01 2017 No.10194871 >>10194852 Can you enlighten me on why he allegedly didn't believe in mental states or consciousness?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 22:05:06 2017 No.10194875 File: 255 KB, 384x288, 1393776474384.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10193292 >remembering all the conversations where i listed hilary putnam as a female philosopher trying to defend a lack of diversity in philosophy

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 22:07:53 2017 No.10194890 >>10194875 if you won it doesnt matter

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 22:09:10 2017 No.10194894 >>10194875 There there, anon. I'm sure dead old Hill-dawg wouldn't begrudge you anything.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 22:23:03 2017 No.10194937

>>10194871
Basically he thought that with a more advanced psychology/cognitive science, we would be able to get a more accurate physiological account of things like consciousness, mental states, etc. In Word and Object, he says something to the effect of "if we understand the bodily states anyways; why talk about others?" Sorry, I'm paraphrasing and don't have the exact quote. Still, he even questions, and is somewhat ambiguous about whether this is actually an elimination of consciousness and mental states, or just their reduction to something else. Based on this it's not clear if Quine himself actually didn't believe in psychological states like consciousness, or if he just thought they could be reduced to something more grounded in science, and spoken about with a different, more scientific vocabulary. Reductionists like Jaegwon Kim would assert that we should do the latter, while eliminativists like the Churchlands think we'll just get rid of the notions all together, since they don't actually correspond to anything, and are just folk-theories about the mind that we've superseded.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 22:25:45 2017 No.10194948 >>10194937 Thx Although Jaegwon Kim is a property dualist now tho

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 22:29:53 2017 No.10194965 File: 10 KB, 200x200, J-man.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10194948 Whaaaaat? When did this happen? Dammit, Kim. I thought he was better than that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 22:30:28 2017 No.10194968 >>10194937 >>10194948 & til apparently the churchlands are reductionists about consciousness, although their eliminativists about everything else

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 22:31:14 2017 No.10194970

I have to read a lot of analytic philosophy as part of my job, and I don't believe that anyone on /lit/ reads it. Their ideas about what goes on in it all come third-hand, like they watched an SNL-like comedy sketch making fun of it and that's the extent of their knowledge. So they know what stereotypes to poke at, but have never seen them confirmed in the flesh because they don't read.

I did a lot of continental as an undergrad too, and I don't think that Kant, Heidegger, Hegel et al. are really shining examples of people who relate to 'real-life' problems, and the idea that they're not playing with abstractions is a little silly. Not that that's what's important – it's a technical discipline and so has hermetic concerns of its own.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 22:31:50 2017 No.10194975 >>10194965 well epiphenomenalist property dualist, and he apparently said that physicalism would be good enough for scientific purposes

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 22:32:55 2017 No.10194979 >>10194970 Nobody here reads anything. Its amazing that anyone here knows how to use a computer keyboard.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 22:33:27 2017 No.10194981 >>10194975 so he's not quite chalmers/nagel tier

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 22:34:31 2017 No.10194986 >>10194970 >Kant >relating to real-life problems

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 22:36:54 2017 No.10194992 >>10194975 That's odd. I don't understand the desire among some people who identify as physicalists to "preserve the phenomena". >>10194981 Chalmers and Nagel, and the fact that they're taken as seriously as they are, make me sad. :'(

A.M. Thu Oct 26 22:37:10 2017 No.10194995

>>10192028

I've actually been reading a lot of Hegel lately. There was sense perception, apprehension, the existence of "universals" like the "Now", the "this" and the "Here." The object of consciousness is the self-reflected back into self. The object of consciousness thus becomes confirming its own existence--can this be said to be the object of pure sense apprehension?

But what happens when the object of our consciousness becomes itself, what about another self-consciousness? Since this other self-consciousness is merely the reflection of self into self, we can know absolutely nothing about the inner condition of this other self. But the fact that it operates in a manner not consistent with our conceptions of self forces consciousness to acknowledge an existence that is for itself, i.e. for an other. It thus seeks to either impose its existence on this alien other so as to satisfy the original process of consciousness or submits to this alien existence which then imposes a will on consciousness that is other than for itself. This Alien will seeks to subordinate this other consciousness to a mere fact of existence, an object of self-affirmation.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 22:37:17 2017 No.10194996

>>10194975
The epistemological structure of science inexorably ends in epiphenomenalism, unless you're soo deeply ideologically contaminated that no empirical evidence can touch you, or a quasi-p-zombie, in which case you go eliminativist.

A view that subsumes the epistemlogy of science recognizes the 'true' position, which is the new mysterianism. We need a revival of Hellenistic 'negative dogmatism.'

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 22:41:42 2017 No.10195004 >>10194992 I read the conscious mind and chalmers did bring up a lot of good points although he seems to miss the mark on what physical laws are, and then builds most of his arguments based off of that

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 22:46:42 2017 No.10195022 >>10194992 >>10194996 i dont get ephenomenalism as a position, sure its possible but its very self-defeating why dont they go full panpsychist and argue that consciousness is deterministic and works in law-like ways?

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 22:48:07 2017 No.10195027

>>10195022
Epiphenomenalism is a transcendental illusion, if you like. The logic of the sciences demands it as a conclusion at the limits of knowledge. The distinction between the knower and known, and the idea of experience as evidence, inevitably result in seeing experience itself as a kind of causally impotent mysterious floating thing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 22:52:16 2017 No.10195039 File: 10 KB, 254x191, john searle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] leave being right about the mind to me

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 22:54:00 2017 No.10195046 File: 107 KB, 956x494, Screen Shot 2017-10-26 at 9.53.34 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10195039 >Searle

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 22:56:00 2017 No.10195051 >>10195046 serious question: what's wrong with this?

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 22:58:22 2017 No.10195059

>>10195051
Nothing in principle, I just get a kick out of the 'I intend this picture to be philosophically uncontroversial' line.

Lots of people will froth at the mouth on even looking at a representation of a simplistic Cartesian theatre, though. I used to hate shit like this and was a pretty entrenched idealist, but I've just become a general skeptic / apathist about it over the years. There's no more evidence for direct realism than for any other position, and there might even not be able to be evidence in principle for one position over the other.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 23:00:41 2017 No.10195071

>>10195059
1) dan dennett is dumb
2) searle argues pretty strongly against the homunculus idea, but that doesn't imply that internal ideas don't match external ones
3) evolution and the success of science lend pretty strong support to direct realism imho

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 23:01:19 2017 No.10195073 File: 118 KB, 1230x244, Missogynist.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10195039 Umm... sweety...

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 23:04:24 2017 No.10195082

>>10195071
Nah, idealist interpretations of science have been worked out pretty well. The evidence is all a wash as far as I know, though if you have an argument I'd love to be proven wrong. I'm not aware of a single point in favor of any epistemology of perception over any other.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 23:06:58 2017 No.10195090

>>10195082
idealism vs materialism is mostly semantics imho

e.g. there is a hand here, there's not much of a difference whether you call the hand a material thing or an idea

the issue is how the brain (the physical brain or the perception/idea we call the brain) interprets these things

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 26 23:09:03 2017 No.10195101 File: 971 KB, 947x592, john searle and joanna ong.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10195073 American imperialism? Oh boy, that sounds great, honey! Let’s go to bed and do that right now!

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 23:10:10 2017 No.10195106

>>10195090
I agree there's no reason to believe one over the other, but I disagree that it's semantics or just a matter of confused language, or that they're ontologically a wash.

The idealist and materialist make distinct, substantive claims that are incompatible. You may be tempted to claim that if there's no way to tell the difference between two views, then there really is no difference between them, but that imports pragmatist or verificationist prejudices that there's no reason to believe either.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 23:13:29 2017 No.10195121

>>10195106
from a wittgensteinian perspective, it is just semantics

I don't think it really can be decided a priori though

I guess the one mark in favor of idealism is that materialists have to give up local realism, or deny quantum physics though, and another one is that idealism gets rid of a lot of problems involving consciousness

but idealism runs into the problem of other minds and naturalistic issues

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 23:19:20 2017 No.10195141

>>10195121
I don't think idealism has any more of a problem with other minds than realism. At least I've never seen a decent argument to that effect. I've seen people claim that, but they're generally confused about what the idealist claims. Ontologically, that everything is mind has nothing to do with whether there are other minds, and epistemologically, the problem of other minds isn't affected by ontological status, since there will just be a counterpart on either view for the epistemological roadblocks or lack thereof.

I don't know about the whole local realism thing – I've had people tell me some results in physics make local realism impossible, but I can't understand it. My guess is that any result in physics can be accommodated by either idealists or materialists – the materialist just needs to expand his definition of materiality, which has already been stretched so thin it doesn't matter, and the idealist just has to expand which patterns of experience can occur with which regularities.

Does idealism treat consciousness more effectively? It's hard to say. Certainly it treats it as real, which is a point in its favor, but the unwillingness for materialists to do so is just them being in denial, not something their position commits them to.

>from a wittgensteinian perspective
Right, but there's no reason to be a Wittgensteinian either.

Anonymous Thu Oct 26 23:32:38 2017 No.10195190

>>10195141
Reductive physicalism, panpsychism, and some brands of non-reductive physicalism don't have as much issues with the problem of other minds, since it becomes as problematic as the problem of other brains

Local realism was disproved by confirmation of the EPR paradox (you can look up youtube vids of it, tl;dr entangled particles have opposite spins even if you try to trick them independently) unless you're a superdeterminist, which is a meme position.

>Does idealism treat consciousness more effectively? It's hard to say. Certainly it treats it as real, which is a point in its favor, but the unwillingness for materialists to do so is just them being in denial, not something their position commits them to.
Since it treats consciousness as fundamental, it makes consciousness only subject to the problem of why there's anything at all - which is a problem materalism has to deal with as well.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 00:11:10 2017 No.10195309 >>10192507 >frankly a good portion of /lit/izens qualify for this. Me desu

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 00:22:34 2017 No.10195347 >>10194446 every field is about asking new questions, though philosophy just sucks at it because the questions are pointless and people don't even agree on what the questions are

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 00:28:24 2017 No.10195369 >>10195347 >Every field is asking new questions Are they not using philosophy

Anonymous Fri Oct 27 00:29:27 2017 No.10195376

>>10194278
>Subjective analyses of history and culture have no bearing on understanding the metaphysical and epistemological aspects of the world.
Philosophy has no bearing on understanding those things either. If it did, philosophers would understand those things. If all philosophers reach completely different conclusions and disagree even on what other philosophers are arguing, the field itself does not generate understanding of anything. There is not a single thing a philosopher understands better than a historian, but there are many things a historian understands better than a philosopher.

Anonymous Fri Oct 27 00:35:20 2017 No.10195394
File: 1.51 MB, 3000x3000, 1507415287175.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Ahem

I happen to embody/epitomize so called /LIT/

I can answer your question
I am /lit/

The reason we dislike analytic philosophy (I am the entire thing) is because uh

Duuuh idk stooopid lol kek no idea mang fug yu n me desu m8 gt rkt who cares wt r u evn on abt m8liek srsly fuck

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 00:35:22 2017 No.10195395 >>10195369 No, they're not.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 01:04:08 2017 No.10195479 >>10194711 Im curious Have you ever delved into the psychological research behind learnimg theory and motivation? Becuase that entire field eould pretty much disagree with you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 01:24:00 2017 No.10195533 >>10195479 That really doesn't matter

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 01:43:51 2017 No.10195580 >>10194711 all of whatever exists and we just access it at whatever point in our lives, yeah? archetypal patterns? dunno if what yer saying is very helpful tho

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 02:27:07 2017 No.10195701 >>10195580 Access? Archetype? Helpful?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 06:35:13 2017 No.10196132 >>10194810 euclidean style constructions are usually considered synthetic and anything with polar coordinates are analytic.

Anonymous Fri Oct 27 07:46:18 2017 No.10196249

>>10192028
Because most of German and French idealism is wishy washy ideological nonsense. The continentals, in their infinite stupor, merely describe their ideas, rather than prove them.

I mean, if you're going to tell me Kant and Karl Marx were intelligent, then you may as well tell me that your down-syndrome brother is equally as intelligent as anyone.

There's a reason why analytical philosophy dominates the world now, and it's got nothing to do with the Anglo-sphere's superiority, although our superiority was built on our superior intellect and philosophical standing, which should inform you that analytical trumps any continental monkey nonsense.

Anonymous Fri Oct 27 08:21:08 2017 No.10196348

>>10196249
It's funny because I have the exact same charge against analytics. Whereas I admire the Idealist's drive to prove everything as necessary, the analytics hand wave it away as being merely a matter of "common sense" and "a fact of experience" etc, which is ridiculous to me and intellectually lazy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 08:27:08 2017 No.10196360 >>10196249 isn't it much more important to develop a tool to understand reality instead of presenting a solution for everything?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 08:39:29 2017 No.10196380 File: 14 KB, 213x346, heterocismica.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10192579 What's /lit/'s views on Kripkean literary theory?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 08:56:21 2017 No.10196431 >>10192305 >Analytical philosophy offers a lot to Christians Yeah, like misusing Bayer's theorem and magically defining God into existence through S5, time and brain power well spent.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 09:03:58 2017 No.10196442 >>10195071 >evolution and the success of science lend pretty strong support to direct realism imho Read Tyler Burge.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 09:08:02 2017 No.10196448 Great thread but the truth is analytic philosophy is just not fun.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 09:43:49 2017 No.10196536 >>10196448 Wittgenstein is about as fun as philosophy gets also a lot of the crazy thought experiments can be fun

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 09:57:14 2017 No.10196576 >>10196536 Yeah, but he only cared about what could not be answered. This is what makes him fun.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 10:00:46 2017 No.10196583 >>10196576 Brain in the vat, teletransportation and newcombs problem type stuff is kinda fun imho

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 10:45:50 2017 No.10196685 File: 852 KB, 595x594, wait a sec are u trying to red pill me.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] What did Quine say about the lack of distinction between a priori and a posteriori?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 10:49:32 2017 No.10196691 File: 166 KB, 630x868, kyokocute.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10196448 >Great thread

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 11:05:24 2017 No.10196755 >>10195533 Why are analytic philosophers insulated against everything else in academia?

Anonymous Fri Oct 27 11:46:06 2017 No.10196929

>>10193982
That's the problem my man, people here are autodictats.

People claim anphil is dead here.

/lit/ is a terrible place to discuss anything general a la thread because of how many people with many opinions and little knowledge flood this board.

If you want to have any serious discussion on this thread you need to make sure it's on something specific, most of the times the only way to do this is to focus on a particular view by a particular author, sometimes particular ideas can be discussed.

Anonymous Fri Oct 27 11:50:36 2017 No.10196946

>>10196929
That's not to say hobbyists can't be knowledgeable it's not that universities are needed to gain knowledge but in general limiting the set of individuals who attended university or stuck through a phil course constrains you to people who have the interest in, and some amount of an aptitude for, philosophy. It's about filtering competence, not the amount of reading someone has done, but about the quality of reading someone has done.

Whereas to post what can be considered an opinion and not recognized as a clueless argument on this board, all you need to have done is some cursory reading at the least.

Then again I went to a bretty good college so maybe that's why I have this opinion.

Anonymous Fri Oct 27 12:02:16 2017 No.10196996

>>10193982

They don't. Majority of continental philosophy readers here aren't actually philosophy majors. They are film theory majors, lit majors, social science, and other areas.

That's why they tend to have shit arguments, garbage weird views (like believing philosophical analysis and logic is a recent Anglo thing, and not something that has been around since the Greeks), and come across as berserk purple-haired schizos.

I'm in honors at the moment in a good philosophy department that has combined analytic and continental philosophers. This whole divide thing isn't a real thing as far as I can see. Certainly the continentals are a little bit more pushy with their politics, but everyone I know cross-reads both analytic and continental, and reads historically. It's the philosophy pseuds from outside the department that treat it as football teams.

Anonymous Fri Oct 27 12:04:15 2017 No.10197007

>>10196946
I don't think your views are really that out there. In order to actually have very informed, in-depth views on a topic as diverse as philosophy as an autodidact, you need to have an obsessive level of dedication. Not saying that's impossible. I've been fortunate enough to meet a couple of people like that; people with no formal training in a discipline, but a truly amazing level of dedication to mastery of it.

I don't want to seem like an elitist, and I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but when I ask people what degree of formal training they have in a discipline, and they respond with "none, but I'm really passionate about it, and I've done a lot of self-study," then I tend to have pretty low expectations.

People seem to forget that philosophy is actually a pretty technical, specialized discipline, and not something that you can just jump into and speak on with authority after having read a few books/key texts.

Anonymous Fri Oct 27 12:04:54 2017 No.10197013

>>10192904
This is the answer to the thread.

Realistic people can smell a mile away the massive philosophical paralysis of the Analytics. Unsurprisingly, their name is a misnomer —they are terrible analyzers of the real world. They juggle axioms around without ever getting to the substance of the matter, drawing conclusions that crumble to dust in the face of their apparent adversaries the Continentals (who are the "realists" of philosophy, who understand that that is also a misnomer because they are the only philosophers out there), and the reason why is simple: they put the human concept logic on too high a pedestal and attempt to reconcile and redefine the whole world within its narrow boundaries.

Anonymous Fri Oct 27 12:16:37 2017 No.10197048

>>10197007
>People seem to forget that philosophy is actually a pretty technical

nah bro, I watched a film after reading a paper on deleuze and now I know everything. analytics use axioms bro. but also spinoza did too (but I don't know that, because I skipped the ethics, but ask me about my deep knowledge about d&g), and whoops, so did descartes in places. wow, they must be analytics too. medieval logicians must be too. derpa durrr i'm a fucking autodidact retard. ask me about my patrician opinions about folk punk, male feminism, and how I don't understand any part of the history of philosophy and how philosophy is a gigantic clash of football teams. gonna go eat chicken wings with the boys and watch the big game between russell and freud on /lit/.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 12:18:16 2017 No.10197057 >>10197048 LOL

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 12:22:31 2017 No.10197072 >>10197048 Best post of the thread.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 12:32:26 2017 No.10197118 >>10197048 kek

Anonymous Fri Oct 27 12:40:45 2017 No.10197154

>>10196249
>The continentals, in their infinite stupor, merely describe their ideas, rather than prove them.

1. This is done deliberately in most cases. They aren't interested in explaining their ideas to the unprivileged (i.e. to people who aren't capable of thinking for themselves and figuring out where the conclusions are drawn from). This isn't only out of some elitist motive, either: they understand that not all minds are yet ripe enough for all thoughts. They are also interested in moving things forward. They are active thinkers and they have motives, unlike the cold academics comfortably relaxing in the safe zone stasis of logic.

2. This is typically part of the education they offer others, since their ideas pertain to life and they are just about all severely individualistic. They are putting you through a mental boot camp, not some daycare for logicians. Training in formal logic is useful, but it's fairly divorced from philosophy, which is about wisdom (i.e. accumulated perspective-driven knowledge of things).

>analytical philosophy dominates the world now
lol.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 12:46:29 2017 No.10197177 >>10197154 >Training in formal logic is useful, but it's fairly divorced from philosophy, which is about wisdom (i.e. accumulated perspective-driven knowledge of things). lol

Anonymous Fri Oct 27 12:49:58 2017 No.10197188

>>10197177
What I left out there is that it's accumulated via experience. Philosophy translates to "love of wisdom." It also started with the Ancient Greeks, and they did not have our modern notion of logic or science yet.

Analytic philosophy is just another historical revisionist idiocy of the modern sciences.

Anonymous Fri Oct 27 13:12:06 2017 No.10197259

>>10197188
Ancient greeks started logic.
I remember it being like venn diagrams.
Soctratese/Plato started foundation by establishing the rule of tautology and the rule of non-contradiction

Did you just start with greek /lit/ and not greek /sci/ as well?
They call it the western civilization for a reason broski.

Anonymous Fri Oct 27 13:25:08 2017 No.10197300

>>10197259
They did not possess our scientific method, pragmatism, and level of formal logic that we do today. They may have done the groundwork for these things, but they were early explorers. Their language and pantheon still suggests otherwise.

>Soctratese/Plato
They are also traditionally considered the point of which Ancient Greek philosophy went off the rails and became dramatically reformed. You can see this yourself. Plato has a very different air about him than the Pre-Socratics, he was not a pagan but a proto-Christian.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 13:26:39 2017 No.10197304 >>10197188 see >>10197259 The ripples from Aristotle's syllogistic logic is still relevant. You seem to have a different view on what philosophy should be and what it actually is.

Anonymous Fri Oct 27 13:27:54 2017 No.10197309

>>10197154
If you want to know how to present an argument thats cogent,valid,and sound you need to have a decent foundation in analytics. I think a lot of people have been learning more about analytical style through coding and other applications of computer science than reading putnam,chalmers,searle or any other dork. Its more hands on and more applicable,than what amounts to next level mental gymnastics. Alot of lawyers have to be reeeeaaall fucking tits on logical analysis as well. Thisis probably why they are despised so much, debating the meaning of is, is a pretty shitty thing to do in all reality, but it works when words are your only defense.
You dont really need to be reading peer reviewed analytical journals for graduate logicians to wank over, but you do need a solid foundation.
You just dont want to get trapped by it.
Analytics is like the foundation, it really teaches people how to appraoch philosophy. They are the meat and potatoes.
Continential is architecture of philiosophy it is what is built ontop of analytics, it gives philosophy style and grace. It is the butter salt and spices.

Hume did kind of btfo logic though, with questioning the limits of human perception. Like how do we really know the all crows are black.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 13:28:26 2017 No.10197311 >>10197048 AHAHAHAH

Anonymous Fri Oct 27 13:33:41 2017 No.10197325
File: 1.68 MB, 1280x960, 1447816932628.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10197300
Dude all the presocractics were just as generalizing as ol plato,
He just laid everything out there so the greek citizen could understand .

I think it was anaxamander or some other axan that said everything is just one part of a larger body.
Which is pretty in line with a gnostic god.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 13:39:55 2017 No.10197346 >>10197300 >They didnt posses our technology and tools for which their "semantic tools" gave us This only stresses their importance.

Anonymous Fri Oct 27 14:06:29 2017 No.10197415

>>10197309
You have this reversed. The sciences in general do as well when it comes to outlining what is the origin of things. "Continental" philosophy is the original philosophy: "Continentals" learned best from the Pre-Socratics and continued THEIR traditions. The modern sciences evolved out of Christianity, which evolved out of Plato, which was a major detour in thought among the Ancient Greeks.

>>10197325
This is a surface level interpretation. Our modern sense of truth is absent from the early pagan mindset and starts to take shape with Plato — before him, you have the Pre-Socratics making claims, but not making truth claims. Like gods in a pantheon, the Pre-Socratics were ends unto themselves, and did not argue the existence of other gods; it was your own formulation of the world, among many other formulations of the world. But then Plato comes along and says, in a general implicit way: "Not everyone can be right. Only one of us is." Why do you think he puts Socrates in the position of the ultimate dialectician? Why even care about dialectics? Why have the allegory of the cave? The Pre-Socratics didn't share these sentiments. Argument with Socrates didn't change their thoughts; argument in order to find "the truth" didn't enter their thought as something worth doing. There were many truths and they formed a pantheon with them. Plato is the proto-Christian who melts the pantheon under his idea of the one holy sun shining light onto the emerging cave dwellers. And Nietzsche calls Socrates ugly; as in, the motivation (because we all have motives) for this approach was due to his detachment from his fellow Greeks and possible resentment towards them. He wanted the Greek spotlight that worships beauty placed on him for once.

Anonymous Fri Oct 27 14:47:53 2017 No.10197513

>>10197415
>>10197415
I could question your reliance on pre-socratics just as much as you question my reliance on the greeks.
Given their surviving canon can be condensed into a novel.
Plat and socratese saw what the presocratics were doing and interpreted it into a system, and were also wise enough to see through their bullshit. There was a lot of sophistry going on at the time and plat and soc were troubled becuase it was getting harder and harder to communicate with every fuckwad with formal training was trying to create their own schools of thought. Philosophers who dont care about getting at the truth are disingenious which they fought against, alot of their work was focused on giving philosophy a single vocabulary like how alexander wanted a united world under his rule. And they were setting the bar higher for people who really wanted to think instead of talking like air was free.

Alot of pagan shit was literature and sory telling for childrens bed time stories. Alot of philosophy in ancient greece was mainly focused on natural sciences than asking how many gods can dance on the head of a pin.
Continential philosophers are just philosphers who leaned more towrds aethetics than sciences. And they also realize that logic can only help you understand part of expierence, its also about a kind of anxious writing where continential philosophers mainly string a bunch of ideas together and try to explain the bigger picture.
Analytic philosophy gets down between the cracks.
Continential lumps together to give you a "theory". Analytic takes theory and breaks it up into arguments.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 16:07:09 2017 No.10197813 I feel people should have started with stanford encyclipedia of philosophy instead of starting with greeks on here.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 16:08:12 2017 No.10197814 >>10192088 >Because analytic philosophy doesn't allow them to make grand, vague, ultimately bullshit statements about big, badly defined topics like capitalism, economics, the universe and so on /thread + they can't into logic and math /thread

Anonymous Fri Oct 27 16:37:04 2017 No.10197894
File: 116 KB, 747x746, 2kvbIHc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

TO STOP THE PAINNNN UGHUHHGHGHGHGHHHHGH YOU NEED EVEN MORE PAIN BUT THIS TIME IT NEEDS TO BECOME ________ AND GAIN SOME SORT OF_________ ARGHHHHHHHHHHHH IM IN HELLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 17:25:29 2017 No.10198039 >>10196755 What is scientific about the studies to which you refer?

Anonymous Fri Oct 27 20:16:18 2017 No.10198489

>>10198039
Alot of it is based off of behaviorism.
Classical and operant conditioning.
Retention, Synaptic pruning, exitinction and a few other terms.
All scietifically reproducible.
It amazses me how much people will discount the whole of psychology/psychological studies becuase they heard someone who read 15 pages of a book karl popper wrote on the philiosophy of science, which was criticized for not being comprehensive enough.
Yet faggots have no problem propping jordan petersen, descartes, foucault, or wittgenstein, when their "investigations" are just as flawed as psychology.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 20:28:43 2017 No.10198522 >>10192031 this

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 20:32:06 2017 No.10198530 >>10198489 >behaviorism LOL

Anonymous Fri Oct 27 23:37:27 2017 No.10198980

>>10193112
>Modern analytic phil is so remotely removed from anything that people without special interest care about that it's pointless to "hur they jus to dum to understan" it.

The question:
>under what circumstances is it appropriate to say that you know something
is a question many regular people are concerned with and treated by analytic philosophy.

Many questions about concepts of common sense are discussed in analytic philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 27 23:39:37 2017 No.10198985 >>10198980 that sounds pretty fuckin gay if I may say so myself

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 28 01:01:56 2017 No.10199133 >>10198985 >no philosophy bro to do gay shit with

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 28 01:04:27 2017 No.10199138 >>10198530 Your blase` attitude in approaching the psychological canon is what is laughable. Let me know how dealing with yor crippling drpression and anti social personality disorder and various walls to leatning go for you without it.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature