/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10431307]

Do you like analytical and continental philosophy equally, or do you prefer one to the other? Why?

I'm at a point where analytical philosophy is actually giving me answers...continental philosophers only offer baseless speculation

[Anonymous No.10431319]

>>10431307
>I'm at a point where analytical philosophy is actually giving me answers

I highly doubt that. Provide one "answer" you have gained from Analytic philosophy

[Anonymous No.10431326]

>>10431319
2+2=4

[Anonymous No.10431339]

>>10431326

[Anonymous No.10431448]

>>10431307
I like analytic philosophy more.

I used to study continental and the main reason I switched is that the continental school seems to have a major problem with their method and how they go about dealing with justification.

There are a thousand different threads within the rope called continental philosophy so it isnt much use talking about it so generally here, but you can look at someone like Heidegger and see that there are incredibly fantastic and childish jumps in argumentation.

Just look up his essay "What is Metaphysics" and see how he approaches and deals with the concept of negation. There is no rhyme or reason given for why THIS approach is what will lead to understanding, and it is clearly needed.

Contrast this to say Wittgenstein or Frege and how they deal with the concept of negation. It is just breathtakingly clear to talk about the bi-polarity of truth and how it relates to our understanding of negation, rather than wax on poetically about how the abyss is out there or whatever the fuck.

I think the main reason for why this happens is that continental philosophy seems to have a far different connection to German idealism than analytic, who largely rejected it.

[Anonymous No.10431455]

>>10431307
Continental, cause all phil is shit anyways and continental is a lot more fun and poetic.

[Anonymous No.10431461]

i think both are worthwhile pursuits but i find continental stuff more compelling. i don't really view philosophy as a pursuit of Truth, which strikes me as inaccessible to us humans, but rather as a means of honing my critical thinking skills and engaging with interesting frameworks, though.

[Anonymous No.10431477]

>>10431448
You say this but I would argue its the exact opposite waya round. Continental Philosophy at least does not claim to have a concrete method, whereas Analytic does but its 99% of the time illusory and just as arbitrary as say Heidegger.
In truth the Analytic school doesn't have a method but just a vague sensibility that they pass for method, if something does sound "Analyticy" then its derided regardless of the actual interest and power it provokes in people.

If we're going to be pulling shit out of our asses either way let it be good shit

[Anonymous No.10431483]

>>10431461
>i don't really view philosophy as a pursuit of Truth, which strikes me as inaccessible to us humans

What a ridiculous statement, how do you take for true that truth is inaccessible then?

[Anonymous No.10431495]

>>10431477
You've never read any analytic philosophy

[Anonymous No.10431507]

>>10431307
Analytic philosophy is the metal of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10431509]

>>10431495
I have actually, I've a philosophy degree from a mixed department where I recieved a clear runthrough of Philosophy of Language and Science from Frege to Quine. I was none too impressed
Whats your background?

[Anonymous No.10431513]

>>10431326
minus 1 that's 3 quik maths

[Anonymous No.10431516]

The people in this thread who like Analytical philosophy make it seem like the "In this moment I am Euphoric" of intellectual pursuits.

[Anonymous No.10431528]

>>10431507
>Never caused a genocide
>Claims to be metal
Analytic philosophy is the Christian show tunes of philosophy

[Anonymous No.10431531]

>>10431516
They're no different IRL, insufferable dilettantes less interested in truth than manipulating "official" knowledge

[Anonymous No.10431541]

>>10431477

>Analytic does but its 99% of the time illusory and just as arbitrary as say Heidegger.

Even if this is just a casual banter thread about philosophy, a concrete example of what you are talking about could actually make a dialogue happen. Not only that but it is flat out incorrect, logical analysis in all the various forms it took is what allowed us to develop modern logic so that we could arrive eventually to the computers we have today. Even without going all the way back to Boolean Algebra and making that the evidence for analytic, contemporary logic is worthwhile in its own right as one of if not the attempt to understand how we argue.

Still, leave it to an advocate of continental philosophy to claim that an opponent is "illusory" and "arbitrary" without giving parameters or concrete examples to show what these words are supposed to mean.

[Anonymous No.10431551]

>>10431483
without much confidence desu

[Anonymous No.10431567]

>>10431541
Christ how fucking pre-Kantian, it doesn't matter if your entire system is 100% boolean consistent when the semantic content of your terms are arbitrarily constituted.
This is the precise problem with analytic philsophy, you can build the finest and securely deisgned tower on Earth but it wont mean shit if its foundations are on sand. This is how you end up with such proposterously absurd situations like having to debate the existence of """qualia"""

[Anonymous No.10431585]

>>10431541
>logical analysis in all the various forms it took is what allowed us to develop modern logic
Why do *nglos think they are Aristotle?
>so that we could arrive eventually to the computers we have today
Why do *nglos think they are Leibniz? When Boole found out Leibniz got there first, he was happy.
>contemporary logic is worthwhile in its own right as one of if not the attempt to understand how we argue
Take your naive cognitivism back to the 50s, O great calculator.

[Anonymous No.10431587]

>>10431567
I dont know who you are trying to fool. You act as if analytic philosophy hasnt been attempting to understand what is the meaning of a word and if it is or isnt arbitrary from the very start. Do I really need to reference "Sinn and Nominatum"? Even Wittgenstein's PI.

Nothing but hot air from you.

[Anonymous No.10431595]

>>10431585
Aristotle didnt make modern logic. What a joke

[Anonymous No.10431599]

>>10431326
Logical positivism was a failed project though
You can't do that, because Russell failed

[Anonymous No.10431603]

>>10431483
It's a self-justifying statement because even that is possibly untrue, so truth really is mostly inaccessible.

[Anonymous No.10431632]

>>10431587
>as if analytic philosophy hasnt been attempting to understand what is the meaning of a word and if it is or isnt arbitrary from the very start
Yes, signifier and signified are in an arbitrary relationship. What's taking them so long?

[Anonymous No.10431633]

>>10431587
Trying but not succeeding, thats the whole fucking problem. Wittgenstein was right when he declared the Analytic tradition a dead project, its just only recently the rest of the School is finally accepting it

[Anonymous No.10431635]

>>10431603
>It's a self-justifying statement

No it isn't you fucking retard. Its the exact opposite, an outright contradiction

[Anonymous No.10431638]

>>10431326

As per Analytic Philosophy, Number is a construct with little to no connection to the Material world.

[Anonymous No.10431639]

QARAJSRLKJASLJK FUCKING FUCK

[Anonymous No.10431647]

>>10431599
Point one(1) fault in Peano's axioms, I'll wait.

[Anonymous No.10431652]

>>10431632
>arbitrary
Kek.

[Anonymous No.10431669]

>>10431632
>using a linguistic model that hasn't actually been relevant in linguistics for a century and is only used by humanitiescucks

[Anonymous No.10431675]

>>10431632
Have you actually read what you are talking about? The signifier and the signified being arbitrary is a problem for formal logic why?

Lets see you explain this, and have this not be something addressed in the analytic canon


>>10431633
>not succeeding
>writes this on a computer

[Anonymous No.10431676]

>>10431326
define 1, + and =

[Anonymous No.10431684]

>>10431675
>>writes this on a computer

You're seriously deluded if you honestly think there has ever been a direct contribution to Computing from Analytic Philosophy. Everything necessary had been laid out since Leibniz

[Anonymous No.10431688]

>>10431647
I really want them to respond to this

[Anonymous No.10431700]

>>10431684
>Everything has been laid out since Leibniz

Care to explain what you mean by this dear?

[Anonymous No.10431706]

>>10431483
i think something can be taken as "true" (i.e. pragmatic) but not necessarily "True" (i.e. ontologically valid)

[Anonymous No.10431714]

>>10431700
See >>10431585
Computational theory didn't just pop out of thin air in the 40s

[Anonymous No.10431722]

>>10431706
Whats the distinction other than the former being whatever you feel like it being

[Anonymous No.10431724]

>>10431684
>has ever been a direct contribution to Computing from Analytic Philosophy

>Boolean Algebra
>Peirce on logical operations and circuits
>Calude Shannon develops the digital circuit

Get fucked

[Anonymous No.10431738]

>>10431669
Indeed the man was older than Wittgenstein.

>>10431675
You say:
>as if analytic philosophy hasnt been attempting to understand what is the meaning of a word and if it is or isnt arbitrary from the very start
but the answer was already there.

>The signifier and the signified being arbitrary is a problem for formal logic why?
Indeterminacy of translation, or how would you intend to translate your retarded opinions into formal logic.

>>10431700
Leibniz mastered binary numbers and was building computers while Newton was doing alchemy in his lab. Leibniz wasn't even the first to build a computer, but combined the two ideas to make a decent machine.

>>10431724
>Boolean
Already covered by Leibniz, who built a computer accordingly.
>Peirce
Pragmatist.
>Calude Shannon
Not a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.10431739]

>>10431714
If that is really what you meant then youre just kidding yourself. Leibniz didnt make the modern computer and people had to work on making it, and some of them were logicians.

Honestly you can just wiki history of computation. That will be more productive for you, but feel free to shift the parameters of what a meaningful contribution is

[Anonymous No.10431740]

>>10431722
one enables you to most effectively operate through life while the other transcends and is unconcerned with you i guess

[Anonymous No.10431745]

>>10431326
This only applies to solid objects

[Anonymous No.10431753]

>>10431738
>Already covered by Leibniz, who built a computer accordingly.

Leibniz did not make Boolean Algebra. Stop changing the goal posts

>Pragmatist.

Also a logician you child

>Not a philosopher.

His thesis is the application of Boolean Algebra, the thesis that created the digital circuit.

Youre done, just stop

[Anonymous No.10431761]

>>10431739
How surprising, an analytic philosophy fan throws the onus of proof out the window as soon as it doesn't suit him.

[Anonymous No.10431764]

>>10431740
What do you take as "effective operation through life", just whatever you feel like it should be?

[Anonymous No.10431775]

>>10431764
sure, it's a strictly human concern so why shouldn't it be restricted to the particular human?

[Anonymous No.10431779]

>>10431753
>Leibniz did not make Boolean Algebra. Stop changing the goal posts

lol if you say so

[Anonymous No.10431783]

>>10431761
Its not surprising when its said in a thread with multiple posts pointing toward said supposed proof

[Anonymous No.10431791]

>>10431775
Because that has no implication on what if anything that individual should prioritize or value. Its a self defeating logic

[Anonymous No.10431807]

>>10431753
>Leibniz did not make Boolean Algebra
Boole was happy to find out he did.
>logician
Not an analytic philosopher. Read his Evolutionary Love.
>his thesis
Not a thesis in philosophy.

The road towards computing was the work of universal geniuses, they cannot be analytic philosophers.

>just stop
I'll have you know we're already in the post-analytic philosophy era, you might be betting on a dead horse.

[Anonymous No.10431816]

>>10431791
not in itself, but "whatever you feel like it should be" is a means, not an endpoint, no? it necessarily has to be directed towards something.

[Anonymous No.10431817]

>>10431779
Leibniz's logic was largely forgotten and was only brought back after the basics of modern logical systems were in place.

Even if there werent the case, what is your point? That sadly analytic philosophy didnt start centuries earlier with disciples of Leibniz showing up and furthering his logic?

No matter what point you take, someone still needs to further the work.

[Anonymous No.10431820]

>>10431807
>He was happy to find out he did

He was happy to find that out after he already made his formal system. You are not saying anything besides announcing a curiosity of history.

[Anonymous No.10431828]

>>10431817
The point is that Analytic Philosophy doesn't have nor ever had a monopoly on symbolic logic and as a consequence should be thanked for modern computing. All Analytic Philosophy does rather is fetishize the work of actual scientists and missuse their rudimentary mechanisms in the synthethically higher domains where they serve no serious purpose.
LARPers from birth to death

[Anonymous No.10431841]

>>10431817
>>10431820
No, that the history of computers precedes analytic philosophy by several centuries, George Boole does by one, and no analytic philosopher had anything to do with it, ever.

[Anonymous No.10432006]

I like reading both. Was a hardline analytic in school but I've been reading some continental stuff on my own and enjoying it. I think it's school that the two exist as kind of alternate histories, and developed completely in their own ways.

[Anonymous No.10432123]

>seemingly a nice thread
>brainlets claiming we're to thank anphil for computers
The only relevant major contributions to CS from analytic philosophers are Chomsky's work (albeit in technical linguistics, not philosophy) and to a much lesser extent Kripke semantics applied to type theories which are fairly prominent in ML research lately.

[Anonymous No.10432170]

ITT: People who have absolutely no grasp of History of Philosophy (which might be a good thing, who knows)

Continental is fun but self-admittedly illusory. Analytic is boring but gives precise explanations for small but important problems (e.g., reference, intentionality, implicateur).

In my experience, the dichotomy arise from idiots in the Continental camp not recognizing the important of the specialized problems of analysis (e.g., theories of reference yield major implications for metaphysics, specifically ontology). Likewise, all the autists in the Analytic camp fail to grasp the importance of their work, fail to communicate the importance of their work (even someone as brilliant as Quine sounds fucking retarded when trying to spell out the implications of his radical empiricism), or remain at the specialized level and thereby remove any importance their work may have (e.g., the qualia shit people were bitching about).

I think both camps are equally fucked, and hence Kant really is the final boss of epistemology. The Lord and Savior for the Continentals (Heidegger) and the Analytics (Kripke) both start from direct assumptions that are really just maneuvers around rather than through the problems first raised in the Critique.

[Anonymous No.10432312]

>>10432170
All of these problems come from not reading enough Hegel

[Anonymous No.10432413]

>>10432312
Spoken like a true Hegelian

>he read everything wrong

[Anonymous No.10432437]

>>10431307
If you think that there's any real difference between analytic and continental philosophy beyond a few writing conventions and occasionally the subject matter, then I have some bad news for you.

[Anonymous No.10432480]

>>10431307
Continental philosophers blow Analytics out of the water who are all still stuck on Cartesian dualism essentially.

[Anonymous No.10432660]

>>10431448
This is a pretty good post for summing up why analytics are basically just people who can't handle the deeper truths of continental philosophy. They don't understand the limitations of language, so they can't understand when continentals try to point out the limitations in language by twisting it around to say difficult things through metaphor, so they run back to authors who are still mired in a linguistic metaphysics, that allows for arbitrary definitions and claims to truth. They simply can't follow the continentals all the way to the modern limit of philosophy, so they have to retreat into the meaningless logic program.

Heidegger's ontology of language is virtually identical to Wittgenstein's ontology of language in his later work, once he realised how stupid his reference theory of truth and "atomic facts" were, and how the entire program of analytic philosophy was misguided in trying to build truth on foundations of sand. The sand is there, it can be built and stood upon, but you always have to remember that it's sand at the end of the day and no foundation can ever be trans-human or trans-linguistic or transcendentally true.

It's like saying modern medical science is too complicated so you prefer to go back to the theory of humors, when things were nice and simple and everything lined up nicely and made sense.

The fact that analytics abandoned the German problem of how to understand the conditions of the possibility of truth is a weakness and not a strength. Not understanding the conditions of your truths and rules for truth just makes you blind. Go read On Certainty and if you agree with Wittgenstein you're already a continental.

[Anonymous No.10432662]

>>10431528
Jesus Christ Superstar was p. good tho

[Anonymous No.10432694]

>>10432170
>Analytic is boring but gives precise explanations for small but important problems (e.g., reference, intentionality, implicateur).

Analytic theories of reference and intention and implicature are all broken and superseded by continental theories.

Reference is broken out of the box, coming from a truth-correspondence metaphysic, and is better handled by pragmatist or neopragmatist quasi-continental stuff even if you want to remain vaguely analytic about it. Intentionality is the hallmark of phenomenology and handled MUCH more subtly by the phenomenology, which understands phenomena as complexly intersubjective (and usually structuralistic), and not in a wooden sense-reference way that presupposes mental contents. Implicature is handled better by an intersubjective model of different associative complexes, not by hypostatising "implications" of "speech acts."

Just read Ricoeur's sublation of analytic/Anglo work on metaphor, into an actual working model of how metaphor works at the semantic level, via predication, as a means of "redescribing" reality (ontology) continuously, by altering and stabilising the associative complexes and references of different meanings. It's a fundamentally Heideggerian, Gadamerian viewpoint. Analytic philosophy can't handle that shit because it's so wooden and hypostatises tagmemes and their functioning.

[Anonymous No.10432730]

>>10431516
That's justified if you're actually a super smart scientist.

[Anonymous No.10432755]

>>10431684
He dreamed about it, but the analysts achieved it.

We had logic for two thousand years, but it took Boole and Frege to clearly formalize it and show what could be done with it. From that followed computing theory.

[Anonymous No.10432784]

>>10432755
You mean Alan Turing achieved it, while actually studying mathematics instead of LARPing as one
Analytics didn't do shit

[Anonymous No.10432806]

>>10432784
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing/
Alan Turing drew much between 1928 and 1933 from the work of the mathematical physicist and populariser A. S. Eddington, from J. von Neumann's account of the foundations of quantum mechanics, and then from Bertrand Russell's mathematical logic.

It was from the lectures of the topologist M. H. A. (Max) Newman in that year that he learnt of Gödel's 1931 proof of the formal incompleteness of logical systems rich enough to include arithmetic, and of the outstanding problem in the foundations of mathematics as posed by Hilbert: the “Entscheidungsproblem” (decision problem). Was there a method by which it could be decided, for any given mathematical proposition, whether or not it was provable?

If you don't see the connection between analytic philosophy and math and cs, then I feel sorry for you.

[Anonymous No.10432821]

>>10432806
just call them idiots. they deserve tobe shamed to the point that they shut up. failing that, armed conflict is inevitable as they justify starvation in socialist economies via cultural relativist comparisons of tea ceremony

they need to be beheaded if they cant be silenced

continental philosophers happen to make discoveries sometimes, but the method is justificationism cum religion

[Anonymous No.10432830]

>>10432660
you people just play stupid games using language to mutate meaning

e.g. racism changes from "treating someone poorly based on their race not their character" to "not giving someone black privileges, affirmative action, and forgiving murderers"

great. thanks for destroying civilisation. you think you're going to survive the bloodshed thats coming?

[Anonymous No.10432860]

>>10432694
>redescribing reality continuously by altering associative meaning
you type all this as if analytics does not describe this

[Anonymous No.10432871]

Reject the cloven duality, friends

[Anonymous No.10432876]

>>10432660
Cause Wittgenstein's later work had no impact on analytic philosophy, right?

[Anonymous No.10432906]

>>10432821
>they need to be beheaded if they cant be silenced

So this is the power of analytic philosophy...

[Anonymous No.10432914]

>>10432806
>Analytic Philosophers say Analytic Philosophy highly important!

I'm sure Turin was aware of Russell as a student of Cambridge but it does not at all indicate his work was at all useful for him, but rather just a fanciful bit of necessary fashion of the day.
But feel free to describe how Russel's work predicated the Turing machine

[Anonymous No.10432915]

>>10432906
the continentals are the ones beckoning everyone to let isis in anon

don't be a faggot

continental phil is like sunni at this point. a VERY efficient method of dominating dialogue in bureaucracies and VERY efficient at punishing dissent

[Anonymous No.10432932]

>>10432915
There is more than one side to Continental Philosophy

[Anonymous No.10432997]

>>10432932
kek

right you are my friend

[Anonymous No.10433384]

>>10432914
You just havent read what you are talking about. This is basic analytic history to know that Godel's Incompleteness theories only come in response to Russell's Principia Mathmatica

[Anonymous No.10433393]

>>10432784
>while actually studying mathematics

Oh, you mean under Wittgenstein?

[Anonymous No.10433398]

Continental is the only real philosophy

[Anonymous No.10433413]

>>10431635
"I don't think we can know the truth."
"HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT'S TRUE."
"I don't."
"CONTRADICTION CONTRADICTION"

God what a worthless brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10433422]

>>10431307
I tend to read either historical or analytic philosophy but I don't have the instinctual hatred of continental that many do since my undergrad involved a lot of Continental. Grad school pretty much entirely weened me off of continental and onto analytic.

I think the biggest way the divide is often drawn is also where my problem lies with continental philosophy. The style is needlessly obscure. I get the points that revolve around the possibility of new ideas needing to be expressed in unfamiliar ways but most continental philosophy seems to either be totally incomprehensible or can be boiled down to old ideas.

The plus side of continental-ish philosophy is that there tends to be a more holistic approach. In the philosophers who I can make sense of, I often do find genuinely interesting ideas that rely on pulling together a bunch of different areas of philosophy, social criticism, etc. (Zizek does this for me oftentimes). Analytic tends to suffer from too narrow a focus. That, however, is also analytic's strength. It's actually able to present coherent arguments on a regular basis.

I also feel like a good deal of continental philosophers are charlatans but I don't think all non-analytic should be condemned because of that.

[Anonymous No.10433426]

>>10432914
>Turing machines, like computer programs, are countable; indeed they can be ordered in a complete list by a kind of alphabetical ordering of their ‘tables of behaviour’. Turing did this by encoding the tables into ‘description numbers’ which can then be ordered in magnitude. Amongst this list, a subset of them (those with ‘satisfactory’ description numbers) are the machines which have the effect of printing out infinite decimals. It is readily shown, using a ‘diagonal’ argument first used by Cantor and familiar from the discoveries of Russell and Gödel, that there can be no Turing machine with the property of deciding whether a description number is satisfactory or not.

You act as if David Hilbert, Cantor, Peano, Frege, Russell, Godel, and Turing are all not joined together by a common thread because it disrupts your narrative of how useless analytic philosophy must be

[Anonymous No.10433446]

>>10431828
>>10431841
>>10432123

see

>>10432806
>>10433426

[Anonymous No.10433450]

>>10431647
Use them to prove Goodstein's Theorems. I'll wait, kiddo.

Also Godel is my favorite analytic philosopher

[Anonymous No.10433460]

>>10432312
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh God, you think Hegel solved epistemology? I bet you think he didn't make any assumptions in his Phenomenology of Spirit too, just like he said he wouldn't right? Stick to reading the Preface, at least you'll learn how to shitpost correctly from that

[Anonymous No.10433489]

I think this thread is getting too bogged down in discussion over computation and that being the evidence for the analytic side

Several people have mentioned how continental has a method that is either obscure or has a problem with justification, does continental have a response to this?

[Anonymous No.10433638]

>analytic philosophy is stupid

ummm no try again sweetie...

[Anonymous No.10433786]

>>10433426
>>10433446
Gödel's theorem was not in the least necessary to Turings work on computers. While cute it holds no actual scientific value other than clearly elucidating the obvious and is connected his work only as a display of its function rather than vice versa. A mere consequential phenomenon

[Anonymous No.10433905]

>>10432806
>turing
>Alan Turing (1912–1954) never described himself as a philosopher
>mathematical physicist and populariser A. S. Eddington
Not a philosopher
>J. von Neuman
Not a philosopher
>Bertrand Russell
This is the first time you clowns mention an analytic philosopher. I am shocked that you could manage to accomplish this. Now what exactly is the connection between Russel and Turing? Turing read Russell, yes. I'm positive he read a lot more garbage in his life, what's exactly indespensable for Turing's project about it? Where's the argument?
>M. H. A. (Max) Newman
Not a philosopher
>Gödel
The Czech that BTFO the foundationalist quest of Russel, Vienna Circle and the analytic movement more generally, the first important step towards post-analytic philosophy. Fucking love that guy.
>Hilbert
Not a philosopher
>If you don't see the connection between analytic philosophy and math and cs, then I feel sorry for you.
I see a bunch of connections between CS and mathematicians and logicians that actually matter in the history of logic and computers, mostly because they aren't analytic philosophers. Many of them aren't professional philosophers of any stripe, and often the read the shit out of Kant. When they do study philosophy @ the Vienna Circle like Gödel, they end up sabotaging their retarded foundationalist fantasies and ushering us in the post-analytic era.

Learn the history of philosophy, mathematics and computers, and to make a fucking argument.

A close reading of this thread shows the supposed accomplishments of analytic philosophy do not come from analytic philosophers, as other, better people do the work for them.

>>10433489
The response would be "whose method?" because there is not one continental philosophy. Continental philosophers didn't even know they were continental philosophers before *nglos began yelling at the British idealists and the like in their midst.

Claims of obscurity cannot even be made consistently for individual thinkers because you can have, for example, Eco's Trattato di semiotica generale which is technical and difficult textbook, and a bunch of works of genre fiction of his that aren't, from the very same author, and still get some of his ideas on interpretation (i.e.: books talking about books in Nel nome della rosa, etc.). Foucault's histories were written for a general public and are easy reads, I won't be surprised if students find them easier than, say, the record of a conversation of his with Deleuze. Last but not least, philosophy isn't a method.

[Anonymous No.10434026]

>>10431647

See: >>10431638

It's meaningless wanking, as proudly stated by Analytic Philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10434042]

>>10431307
Continental "philosophy" isn't philosophy, it's more like bad literature. It's the praxeology of philosophy.
Imagine if any other endeavor in achieving some form of knowledge reasoned the way continentals are:
>dude, using language with clear, standardized definitions is bad!
>yeah I know this way of analyzing this phenomenon was completely debunked in the relevant field, but we should still use it!
>what? dividing our endeavor in smaller sub fields so that we can more efficiently understand it? That's madness!

[Anonymous No.10434483]

>>10433905
>A close reading of this thread

Fuck off you self-important faggot

[Anonymous No.10434500]

>>10432480
Lol what

[Anonymous No.10434513]

>>10433905
Excellent post my man

[Anonymous No.10434520]

>>10432660
If it's not intelligible, then it's not an explanation at all.

[Anonymous No.10434572]

>>10433905
>>Alan Turing (1912–1954) never described himself as a philosopher

But he certainly worked on philosophy

>A. S. Eddington

Was a philosopher fuck off
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington#Philosophy

>>J. von Neuman

Worked on the philosophy of AI with Turing fuck off

>M. H. A. (Max) Newman

Literally the man that got Turing's "On computable numbers" published at the London Mathematical Society because he was the only one who could understand what the fuck he was saying, because he was in concert with the Vienna circle where he formed his interest in logic (the historical records are lost save one letter from Wirtinger)

Fuck off

>Russell

Russell's paradoxes are what inspired Godel and he would eventually inspire Turing to find the halting problem.

[Anonymous No.10434767]

>>10431307
Can someone give me a low down on the differences between them and some recommended reading?

[Anonymous No.10434769]

>>10434520
What?

[Anonymous No.10434771]

>>10431307
Why do people always make the smart person in these comics blonde? I've never met a smart blonde person in my life.

[Anonymous No.10434777]

>>10434771
Because blond = white, black hair = jew

[Anonymous No.10434787]

>>10434042
>Continental "philosophy" isn't philosophy
Imagine really thinking this stupid shit.

It's the Analytics who prattle on about small and few ideas which have little bearing on life FAR more often than the Continentals. The Continentals discuss all levels of philosophy in a synergistic manner — I'm not sure the Analytics have even heard of the notion of synergy.

[Anonymous No.10434801]

>>10434787
this was painful to read.

[Anonymous No.10434808]

>>10434801
That would be because you lean towards the Analytics who in general found reading painful as well.

[Anonymous No.10434812]

>>10434572
>he certainly worked on philosophy
No, the very SEP article you linked proves you wrong, explicitly telling you it is the story of a non-philosopher cited by many professional philosophers. And he's not an analytic philosopher.

>Was a philosopher
No, he's an astrophysicist that happened to be interested in metaphysical idealism, i.e. the stuff that made analytic philosophers' blood boil. And still does. And he's not an analytic philosopher.

>Worked on the philosophy of AI with Turing
Then cite the philosophy article(s) they wrote. Not your Wikipedia source of the claim, I'm talking about articles co-written and published by Neuman with Turing. And he's not an analytic philosopher.

>On computable numbers
Anon, I hate to break this to you but it's not a philosophical paper, it's a proof. By a mathematician. Child.

>where he formed his interest in logic (the historical records are lost
You're grasping at straws. And he's not an analytic philosopher.

>Russell's paradoxes are what inspired Godel
Let's do the analytic philosophy thing and clarify a bit: in order for Russell's foundationalist dreams to be systematically dismantled, Gödel did read and respond to Principia Mathematica by Whitehead (not an analytic philosopher, the process theologian hugely into metaphysics) AND Russell, yes, but he also went beyond as the title of his paper suggests, for instance by reimagining classical (i.e. not Russell's) paradoxes like the Liar Paradox.

>and he would eventually inspire Turing to find the halting problem.
If the "he" is Russell, Turing doesn't cite him in "On computable numbers." But I assume it's Gödel. The latter's famous work wasn't transated in English until the 60s, but Turing could read German (as you would expect from a guy involved with breaking WW2 German codes!) so Turing cites the German original.

The moral of the story is that in order for contemporary computer science to be possible, the original analytic philosophy, the one that used to be called, if for a short while, "Oxford-Cambridge philosophy", as well as the philosophy of the "Vienna Circle" (reminder that Wittgenstein was never ever a member of the Wiener Kreis), simply had to be eradicated.

All these logical positivists' influence then, if any, was to be nothing but an obstacle in the relentless march of the machines, destined to be trampled and terminated. Kurt Gödel on the mathematical side, and the man called Ludwig Wittgenstein The Late on the side of the philosophy of language, are the two good analytic philosophers, the continental philosopher's favorites, obviously born themselves on the continent, and the surgeons that taught the world how to excise this foul tumor.

Dear anon, you're wrong, stupid, inferior, a failure, less than a sophomore, a Wikipedia scholar at most, unable to make an argument to save your life, and I wish you the same fate as those *nglo academies that are finally waking up from their dogmatic slumber.

[Anonymous No.10434815]

>>10434801
Liar

[Anonymous No.10434824]

>>10434808
That must be it mate. I recommend masturbation instead of what you're doing here though. Congruent in character, but I assure you'll get the release you're hopelessly chasing in these exchanges.

[Anonymous No.10434842]

>>10434824
So you're really so much of an imbecile to think that philosophers categorized in the continental boat are not discussing philosophy at all, but idiots like Guy Sircello who crudely fumbles his way through his words in order to piece together abominable "theories" are? The continentals also, for the most part, already advanced beyond the 20th century Analytic ideas back in the 19th century.

[Anonymous No.10434857]

Continental philosophy
>Kant: We cannot account for our experience of things by reference either to the things themselves, or by assuming that "mind" is some kind of magic substance that simply "knows" things with certainty. Instead, we can study the conditions of our experience of things, and the necessary conditions of that experience, such as certain structuring laws, categories of thought, and the fact that there must be a unified subject to know, qua knowing, what (and that) it is knowing.

>Hegel: I agree, but now you've gotten us trapped being finite, atomistic subjects, and your account of ethical life is all screwy as a result. The understanding and self-understanding of subjects, at any given time, is collective, historical, and rationally developmental and progressive.

>Nietzsche & Kierkegaard: We agree with the collective constitution bit, but also with Kant, in that we're finite as fuck. It's more about the attitude you take toward experience and its possibilities, than some final rational grounding, which is itself questionable and merely contingent.

>Neo-Kantians: What if humans are made of a special sauce that isn't reducible to physical laws?

>Husserl: I agree with Kant. Let's do the Kant thing again, but much better.

>Heidegger: No, I agree with Nietzsche and kinda with Kierkegaard. Artistic living, in a self-aware mode about how you're made of special sauce, is the answer. Not self-conscious, philosophical, progressive rationality.

>Foucault: Yeah, I agree with Nietzsche too.

>Derrida: Yeah I think Nietzsche had it.

>Deleuze: I agree, Nietzsche mostly got it right.

>Marxists: Hegel had it sort of right, except fuck capitalism. Wait, no, Nietzsche had it right, and fuck capitalism!

>William James: What if the sauce we're made of us SO special that you can't reduce us to mechanical laws at all? What if everything about consciousness is important? Even mystically, maybe? I don't like the idea of forcing complex things to fit reductive, mechanical explanations.

>Bergson: Sounds good. You can hang out with us.

>Ricoeur: Seems like we're all at least agreed that a subject can be trapped in a world it never made, and that one's desires, paradoxically, can be desires one would not have chosen for oneself.

>Structuralists: That's pretty much how it works.

>Lacan: Yeah, something like that. You now owe me five-hundred francs. And I need someone to drive me home.

[Anonymous No.10434863]

Analytic philosophy
>Mill (and Comte): What if humans AREN'T made of special sauce, but are actually lots of little mechanisms, and we can understand them as easily as any other physical mechanism?

>Different Neo-Kantians: What if we regularized the process of transcendental judgment?

>Frege: What if we regularized the process of making judgments? Wait, what does "transcendental" mean?

>Russell: Who cares what it means? This Hegel guy fucking sucks. Let's never talk about "transcendental" shit ever again. I like math better. It just werks!

>Vienna Circle: What if math just werked SO GOOD, that we never had to read confusing shit like Hegel ever again?

>Logical positivists and scientific empiricists and critical realists: Sounds good.

>Non-James pragmatists: I agree, sounds good.

>Collingwood: Oh god, oh god, I missed the last boat to the continent! Someone get me out of here, please! I can't take this shit!

>Wittgenstein: You think you have it bad? They keep dragging me to colloquia.

>Social scientists: Look, you can use covering-law models to explain these machines they used to call "people."

>Liberal ethicists: That seems okay to me. Just make sure to feed your "people" lots of slop, or it's unethical.

>Psychologists and cognitive scientists: Can we reprogram their brains to make them love cheaper slop? It will save money.

>Liberal ethicists: I don't see why not.

>Post-positivist philosophers of science: Wait, wait. Covering-law models, and scientific apparatuses in general, presuppose certain epistemological commitments. What if, like, what we don't know is actually true, but we can't know it, because we don't know it? What if to know something we don't know, we need to be open to the fact that our own criteria for judgment are--

>Logical positivists and scientific empiricists: BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!

>Quine: Uh, actually, they might be right.

>Sellars: Yeah, fuck, they might be right. Maybe we should read some continental philosophy?

>Kripke, Davidson, et al.: No, I don't care. Let's keep it in-house. I happen to like my sterile abstractions.

>Rorty: Guys, I snuck into the continentals' place, and we really fucked up. Nietzsche was right about pretty much everything.

>Analytic philosophy graduate students in 2017: Uh, excuse me, but "analytic" and "continental" are actually very simplistic terms! There is no such thing as an analytic or a continental. I'll have you know that my friend is doing very interesting pre-critical analytic metaphysics using Boolean trolley problems.

[Anonymous No.10434867]

>>10434842
I though, or said, no such thing.

You on the other hand babes, have you ejaculated yet?

[Anonymous No.10434869]

>>10434812
>No, the very SEP article you linked proves you wrong

Those are two different anons

>explicitly telling you it is the story of a non-philosopher

Again, not contradicting the claim that he did work on philosophy

>And he's not an analytic philosopher.

Again, not contradicting the claim that he did work on philosophy

[Anonymous No.10434872]

>>10434867
What is the point of your posts then?

[Anonymous No.10434877]

>>10434857
>>10434863
this is so retarded and looks like it was written by an "autodidact" who only knows about these thinkers from school of life vids and reddit

[Anonymous No.10434884]

>>10434872
I merely started out by expressing my disgust to your post which I found self-indulgent and a masturbatory hunting of confirmation-bias. You then proceed to ascribe a discourse to my disgust and have an internal monologue, in the form of a polemic, but in public. Not sure who you thought you were arguing with, but it certainly wasn't me. Let me know when you come.

[Anonymous No.10434886]

>>10434812
What's your background in philosophy? Do you favor continental philosophy or just dislike analytic?

[Anonymous No.10434896]

>>10434884
Get off it dude. Appreciate the "totally-not-self-indulgent" criticism.

[Anonymous No.10434899]

>>10434867
>I though, or said, no such thing.
>You on the other hand babes, have you ejaculated yet?

[Anonymous No.10434946]

>>10434787
Continentals "discuss" ideas as much as Markov chain text generators.

[Anonymous No.10434959]

>continental philosophy

http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/

[Anonymous No.10434966]

>>10434777
white people are really stupid though

[Anonymous No.10434971]

>>10431326

[Anonymous No.10435019]

>>10434946
>Markov chain
>an Analytic invention

[Anonymous No.10435063]

Reality has always been bursting with storytellers whose auras are immersed in rejuvenation. Throughout history, humans have been interacting with the dreamscape via ultra-sentient particles. We are at a crossroads of balance and yearning.
Nothing is impossible. Consciousness consists of psionic wave oscillations of quantum energy. “Quantum” means an ennobling of the cosmic. We self-actualize, we vibrate, we are reborn.
Indigo Child, look within and bless yourself. The quantum soup is calling to you via expanding wave functions. Can you hear it? If you have never experienced this rebirth inherent in nature, it can be difficult to heal.
The complexity of the present time seems to demand an epistemic summoning if we are going to survive.
Our conversations with other travellers have led to a refining of hyper-transformative consciousness. Who are we? Where on the great myth will we be recreated? Humankind has nothing to lose.
We are in the midst of a primordial ennobling of power that will become our stepping-stone to the biosphere itself. Illusion is the antithesis of grace. Only a lifeform of the planet may bring forth this rebirth of fulfilment.

[Anonymous No.10435119]

Continental is more intriguing to me right now but Im not very well read

Question: I want to read pic related but have a feeling that it might be over my head. Any recommendations of what I should read first?

[Anonymous No.10435150]

>>10435119
History of the Concept of Time

>>/lit/thread/S10107950#p10108321

[Anonymous No.10435157]

>>10435063
Shut the fuck up you stupid twat

[Anonymous No.10435161]

Continental master race. It's so much more relevant to society than analytic.

[Anonymous No.10435164]

>>10435119
Do you have any prior education in philosophy? Husserl and Hegel are probably the most immediately relevant to Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.10435233]

>>10435164
Which also thereby necessitates Kant and Descartes

[Anonymous No.10435242]

>>10435233
which necessitates Hume, Leibniz, and Aristotle and the greeks

[Anonymous No.10435286]

>>10434886
Pragmatism, anals are a failure.

[Anonymous No.10435300]

>>10434869
>two different anons
Same child.
>not contradicting the claim that he did work on philosophy
Wasn't made, not a single philosophy paper of his has been mentioned.
>the claim that he did work on philosophy
Wasn't made.

[Anonymous No.10435353]

>>10435157
But I really love continentals. Years of training in the continental tradition made me able to produce that text.

[Anonymous No.10435387]

>>10433905
hilarious that you either think you have the final say on who a 'philosopher' is

OR

you only submit your thoughts to lifelong den-dwellers whose only purpose in life is to sit around and write following an obscure string of logic they developed when they were undergraduates.

[Anonymous No.10435404]

>>10435387
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.10435441]

>>10435164
Not a whole lot. Ive mostly read a decent amount of political and economic theory. But Ive gotten to a point with that where Im feeling a need to go deeper into philosophy. Specifically dasein is why Im interested in Heidegger but I realize I probably should read more foundational stuff first

[Anonymous No.10435449]

>>10435441
Yeah start with the Greeks isn't just a meme, you don't need to read 8000 pages before touching Heidegger but its important to understand the different strains of thought that led up to his work

[Anonymous No.10435628]

>>10435387
Not you, not me, him does.