/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11532778]

>we want to evaluate the truth conditions of that sort of utterance

[Anonymous No.11533078]

Analytic philosophy is better if only because it doesn’t trick people into thinking they’ve understood anything. Doesn’t conceal its emptiness

[Anonymous No.11533095]

literally whats wrong with that fucking sentence

[Anonymous No.11533103]

>>11533095
>literally whats wrong with that fucking sentence

[Anonymous No.11533736]

>>11533095
based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.11534744]

>>11533078
no its not

[Anonymous No.11536382]

>>11532778
thruth conditions are cancer

[Anonymous No.11536572]

>>11533078
Analytic philosophy only became obsolete because we invented cognitive science and computer science. The only reason why it's not discussed today is because any serious logician is a scientific researcher of some sort, not a pseud wasting away in a philosophy department.

[Anonymous No.11536748]

>>11536572
Do you have empirical data to back that statement up?

[Anonymous No.11536805]

>>11536572
>thinking that episemic utility arguments for probabalism arent taking place amongst contemporary academias most powerful and brave minds
try again my economically passed-over middle american friend

[Anonymous No.11536813]

>>11536748
In the era of Bertrand Russell, analytic philosophy was a misguided autistic effort to quantify the world into logical propositions. Postmodernists poked holes in this by pointing the existence of a multiplicity of interpretations, whereas computer science took up the challenge and pointed out its infeasibility due to complexity.

So pure analytic philosophy died with Karl Popper as far as I'm concerned. The only philosophers who held on were the linguistic-analytic philosophers (aka pseuds) like Derrida and Searle, though Searle was much less of a pseud than Derrida. Any real intellect living today is studying cognitive science and trying to discover a comprehensive theory of mind. From this, we'll be able to understand how we derive meaning in general. That's a much more promising field for understanding and creating a kind of ethics-calculus like the analytic philosophers wanted.

[Anonymous No.11536822]

>>11536805
>try again my economically passed-over middle american friend
I'm Californian and asian you fuckwit.

[Anonymous No.11536828]

>>11536813
wew you really went off the rails near the end there. you have absolutely no knowledge of contemporary thought, huh?

[Anonymous No.11536833]

>>11536828
Enlighten me then.

[Anonymous No.11536836]

>>11536822
>some pre-programmed robot brained insect thinks stem will solve their problems
yep, checks out

[Anonymous No.11538148]

>>11533103
there literally is nothing wrong with it...

[Anonymous No.11538244]

>>11536572
>He thinks analytic philosophy died

[Anonymous No.11538251]

30 seconds of googling to find a fine example of recent analytic philosophy https://philarchive.org/archive/PETOTE-6v1

[Anonymous No.11538275]

>>11538244
>>11536572
This. I'm studying Russell and propositional attitudes rn for uni!

[Anonymous No.11539772]

>>11538148
It's soi af.

[Anonymous No.11539787]

>tfw logicians literally don't understand the problem of foundationalism

to this day i have trouble seeing analytic philosophers as adults, they seem more like children with accelerated aging diseases or something

[Anonymous No.11540014]

>>11539787
it does seem like they are just blindly doing some shit that isnt even successful in the little tautology world theyve made for themselves. like someone playing 'house' and burning the imagined pancakes