/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12420762]

Why does /lit/ hate analytic philosophy? I understand it can be boring and tedious at times, but that’s the nature of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.12420879]

Bump

[Anonymous No.12420947]

I don't

[Anonymous No.12420955]

>>12420762
>that’s the nature of philosophy
Not really. Philosophy can be entertaining, like Nietzsche and Schopenhauer.

[Anonymous No.12420979]

1) It's poverty disguised as richness.
2) Not enough radical in his approach to existence.

[Anonymous No.12421001]

>>12420762
The death of philosophy. Why even live.

[Anonymous No.12421060]

It's ignorance toward the human element and social change. It usually get's lumped in with science while continental get's lumped in with the arts and this being a literature board we tend to gravitate toward the arts.

[Anonymous No.12421084]

>>12420762
>love of wisdom
>love of autistic symbol-pushing
conclusion: analytics aren’t philosophers

[Anonymous No.12421196]

Because this board is filled with brainlets

[Anonymous No.12421224]

>>12420762
It’s mostly a failed project and a boring history. See literally any other post I’ve made about it. I usually namedrop Soames’s history of analytic philosophy book.

[Anonymous No.12421241]

>>12421224
That's only if you go with a strict definition of analytic philosophy analytic philosophy in a broader sense is still very much alive and influenced by what happened in the early 20th century

[Anonymous No.12421250]

>>12421084
based. wittgenstein is just a flame for the pseuds, memed today and replaced tmrw

>inb4 nO, u jUs DoNt GeT hIM!! by *nglolytics

[Anonymous No.12421255]

>>12420762
In my experience, continentals don't take the continental/analytic divide that seriously. I don't think either that the majority of analytics still like to pretend that they are a different discipline or some shit because "muh rigour".

[Anonymous No.12421273]

Pure contrarianism.
Lit gets intimidated because it's accessible to and praises STEMlords, and lit want to feel special.

[Anonymous No.12421291]

>>12421255
>>12421224
>>12421060
Name one living continental philosopher other than zizek

[Anonymous No.12421387]

>>12421291
Vattimo

[Anonymous No.12421407]

>>12421241
I didn’t say it was dead.Name one significant analytic advancement made since 1970?

>>12421291
Badiou, Land, Sloterdijk are a promjnent fee. there’s plenty more. Literally anybody with a PhD in Europe or America who studies the Hegelian tradition can be considered a continental philosopher or specialist. That’s a whole lotta fucking room for the tradition.

[Anonymous No.12421420]

>>12421407
*prominent few. sorry im a mobilefag today

[Anonymous No.12421432]

>>12421291
Jordan Peterson

[Anonymous No.12421452]

>>12421407
>Name one significant analytic advancement made since 1970?

Look up Parfit, Lewis, and Kripke.

Name one major continental advancement In the same time period.

[Anonymous No.12421470]

>>12421452
Kripke’s magnum opus came out in 1970, hence the date I picked. l won’t deny he’s one of the most important philosophers to ever live and alone justifies the slog of the tradition. Too bad he’s an autisitc loser with zero ambition to apply his own intellect in a rigorously sustained fashion. Parfit. however, is just another Enlightenment rehashing circle jerk and Lewis is literally batshit ctazy. You could’ve at least namedropped Putnam you raging faggot.

Also accelerationism is an obvious advancement in theory, and thats fairly recent.

[Anonymous No.12421473]

The real answer is that it's because most self-proclaimed analytics are logical atomists, naive truth-correspondence realists, and materialists of some kind or another, and continental philosophy has deeply problematized all of these ideas for 250+ years. Also, a deep and basic instinct of continental philosophy is that claims to truth have to exhibit their grounds. When an analytic philosopher says "Hey! I came up with a new notation for describing 'possible worlds' in which finite permutations of atomic 'facts' 'represent' 'logical' 'possibilities' with 'apodictic necessity' like in math!" a continental philosopher will either just say "lol" or he'll have a series of nervous fits.

Of the very few analytics who aren't this naive, the remainder were still obviously educated in analytic departments and think in analytic terms even when they don't realize it. So you can meet someone who thinks he's hot shit for rejecting atomism but then realize his entire cosmology and ontology is still naively realist or whatever, simply because escaping one pitfall of analytic bullshit wasn't enough to save him from the other fifty pitfalls that people unconsciously reified on a daily basis by likewise assuming them from the get-go.

On top of that, even analytics with almost-interesting escape trajectories from naive analytic ontologies will tend to frame their philosophies as rebellions against prevailing analytic paradigms, which, again, should just be ditched entirely from a continental perspective, not adjusted or qualified. Nobody wants to read a 400 page book about how you can keep the entire post-Fregean idiom if you just make these massive weird adjustments to Frege's system, when the same goal was already accomplished by Kant and superseded a dozen times over in continental thought.

TLDR: Talking to an analytic is either like talking to a Reddit STEMfag who has no interest in examining his own preconceptions, or like talking to someone who is maybe taking one or two torturous steps backward at a time out of their broken Reddit worldview but frequently relapsing.

[Anonymous No.12421498]

>>12420762
I don't hate it, I just think it's extraordinarily ahistorical (with a few exceptions like MacIntyre) and so spends an inordinate amount of time reinventing the wheel.

It also very clearly makes some deceptive rhetorical decisions, by burying its more mystical, and hard to swallow, premises behind a sheen of "clarity" and plainness, a deliberate underselling.

Continental philosophy makes boring claims in fantastical language

Analytic philosophy makes fantastical claims in a boring language

Both are dishonest in their own way. If you don't want to be duped, spend a lot of time with the classics instead

[Anonymous No.12421555]

>>12420762
One anon did a pretty entertaining take-down of analytic philosophy a while back
warosu.org/lit/thread/S11418287

[Anonymous No.12421563]

>>12421470
>Also accelerationism is an obvious advancement i

Accelerationism has existed since at least Marx

>batshit crazy

That’s rich coming from the tradition that gave us post structuralism and deconstruction

[Anonymous No.12421615]

>>12421563
Yes but the same ahistorical approach can be said of literally any analytic philosopher given the paradigm of Kant. Accelerationism as a particular advancement is novel and has come out since 1970. Dont go moving goalposts anon. And I’m sorry if I along with any serious analytic philosopher in academia today don’t take Modal Realism to be the most tame, “oh yeah this totally isnt Platonic crackhead bullshit run off the rails” argument ever posed. How are those disciplines batshit? They both offer reasonable approaches to the complexity of signs and texts given the postmodern landscape of reproduction and simulation. And they both follow in a pretty predictable, academic way from the structural tradition. Now don’t tell me you find structuralism batshit as well, anon.

[Anonymous No.12421617]

>>12421291
Mbembe

[Anonymous No.12421619]

>>12421407
>>12421452
What do you mean by advancement like a major book that was published that changed the field then there isn't going to be a lot but that's because a lot of analytic philosophy is done in journals from 1970 to now people's opinions about most of the stuff popular back then have changed pretty dramatically. Some big advancements.
Semantic externalism
Epistemic externalist
Panpsycism/property dualism
Big stuff in mereology
Quantified modal logic and counterfactuals theories of causation
If you mean naming big analytic philosophers since then I can name a bunch

Also the fact you said David Lewis is an idiot proves you no fucking nothing about analytic philosophy. He's incredibly influential in contemporary analytic philosophy and is a fucking genius

[Anonymous No.12421640]

>>12421619
I didnt say he was an idiot. Obviously he’s important within the tradition. I just find the tradition stale because it fucking is and his ideas to be particularly ridiculous because they are. Fucking Quine shits all over this line of thinking. If you think fucking Kellogboy Lewis is a genius you have low standards for genius. Let me get back to you about what I mean by advancements. I’ll have to articulate it better than this kneejerk response to your aggression.

[Anonymous No.12421655]

>>12421619
Literally the only meaningful advancements you listed are covered in Naming and Necessity, which again was lectured in 1970. My contention is there has not been a major leap in the analytic tradition since Kripke’s lectures, mostly just isolated topics that are pretty inconsequential to our actual state of affairs or even the state of affairs of academic philosophy itself. This is in part due to the nature of journal-based discussion and the state of academia itself, but philosophy most certaintly doesnt get a pass. Not when motherfuckers like Kant lived and worked in the discipline.

[Anonymous No.12421668]

>>12421655
>philosophy is when you write big books that tear down the assumptions of previous big books that were written to tear down the assumptions of big books as infinitum

[Anonymous No.12421670]

>>12421655
And therein I lay my cards on the table. By advancements, I mean meaningful insights that could defined as paradigm shifting in a basic bitch Kuhnian way and spawn an arsenal of “janitors” working to articulate the nuances of those insights. The perfect example is someone like Kripke whose insights on the theory of reference changed the course of analytic philosophy and presented a legitimate pushback to the dominance of the late positivists and the disciples of Quine.

[Anonymous No.12421676]

>>12421668
Yeah in a dirty sort of way that is what I’m saying. I’m not going to get into the whole “but what’s an actual philosophical advancement” topic, because I tend to side with the “footnotes to Plato” camp.

[Anonymous No.12421690]

>>12421676
Read the introduction and preface to the COPR.

[Anonymous No.12421694]

>>12421690
I have. What do you have in mind?

[Anonymous No.12421700]

>>12421690
Cont.

That sort of thinking leads you nowhere, and is what Kant identifies to be the way of thinking that lead to the stupidity of early modern philosophy.

[Anonymous No.12421706]

>>12421640
Quine was Lewis's advisor and Lewis understood Quine very well he just didn't hold to the strong holism that Quine did. Also Lewis didn't just fucking do modal realism you're really underestimating the influence he had on philosophy of language by developing intensional semantics and basically every major topic in metaphysics he has a great paper on. For example he has an amazing paper on free will which Van Inwagen admitted was the best he had ever read. He also played a huge role in the philosophy of mind by developing a functionalist theory of the mind holy shit you are so underrating him so much it's unbelievable he was so influential and popular. Finally he had an amazing paper on holes which this whole board should fucking read before they talk about analytic philosophy

[Anonymous No.12421711]

>>12421700
That’s a pretty ironic taken given the Critique is the perfect example of this line of thinking and Kant the living fulfilment of Kuhn’s paradigm shift. And Kant is certaintly aware of this. He compares himself to Copernicus.

[Anonymous No.12421712]

>>12420762
What's there to love?
>muh autist logic
>muh arguments
>muh fallacies
Fuck it.

[Anonymous No.12421729]

>>12420762
>hurr durr if it can't be measured or expressed by numbers or another kind of science then doesn't matter
What a bunch of retards and pseuds

[Anonymous No.12421740]

>>12421706
What is the “holes” paper you’re referencing? Also I am aware of this, and I still with a handwaving gesture can dismiss him as batshit crazy. You really should be barking up Davidson’s tree if you’re actually impressed by intensionanal semantics. And again I’m not underrating him. Along with Kripke he probably is the most important post-Quinean American philosopher (unless you’re a Rorty fanboy). He’s just amazingly inconsequential for meaningful thought.

[Anonymous No.12421742]

>>12421473
Kek I'm saving this

[Anonymous No.12421756]

Nobody here hates analytic philosophy, but it focuses on the same kind of shit that science focuses on, namely minutae that is only interesting to those who are deeply into the field.

[Anonymous No.12421759]

>>12421655
All of the stuff I listed was post naming and neccessity what are you on about semantic externalism since I feel that's the one you think was kripke was actually developed by Putnam not Kripke and quantified modal logic was developed by Ruth Barcan Marcus not Kripke.

Advancements happens in journals it's a very slow progress you can't just write an 800 page book about everything because the discipline is much more focused now. Newton wrote a book on physics too but modern physicist can't do that now because it's to specialized same thing in philosophy

[Anonymous No.12421762]

>>12421706
The only reason he is popular is because he is the poster boy of the circlejerk American anlytic philosophy has become. God you sound like my fucking Epistemology professor froathing at the mouth listing the names of his books off.

[Anonymous No.12421779]

>>12421759
>RBM meme
okay yeah we’re done here dude you dont actually respect your own discipline if youre seriously going to reference her in a discussion about the importance of Kripke. Soames would snipe your ass like he did her entire body of work in front of the APA

[Anonymous No.12421787]

>>12421759
>he respects institutionalized procedures
never gonna make it anon. Nietzsche and Heidegger would gangbang you out of existence

[Anonymous No.12421791]

>>12421787
Which Nietzsche, your Nietzsche or Foucault’s Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.12421794]

>>12421787
Fuck the, they are dead

[Anonymous No.12421819]

>>12421791
*Fuck the, they are dead

[Anonymous No.12421831]

>>12421779
>>12421779
Soames has a hard on for Kripke btw but I don't care. I never said Kripke stole from Barcan read what I wrote I said she developed quantified modal logic which she fucking did are you high? The most famous formula in QML is literally called the Barcan formula. Kripke developed general non quantified modal logic all of naming and necessity was original I don't give a shit either way.

Also here's the paper by Lewis on Holes
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://home.sandiego.edu/~baber/metaphysics/readings/Lewis%26Lewis.Holes.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjGybeewfPfAhWITN8KHWPGAEkQFjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw2pcnORCQPaKHbewG_OVHGc

[Anonymous No.12421844]

>>12421762
Nope he's a genius your professor knows what he's talking about that's why he's the professor and you're the student

[Anonymous No.12421848]

>>12421756
>it focuses on the same kind of shit that science focuses on, namely minutae that is only interesting to those who are deeply into the field.
This is true of continental philosophy too, unless you think people outside of it get any value out of it

[Anonymous No.12421861]

>>12420762
Because it is autistic.
It is like trying to /code/ philosophy on a computer.
But the real nature of things are infinitely complex and in continual movement.
This is why we prefer continental philosophy, and also why we prefer fiction instead of autistic analytic philosophy work.
Narratives speak a lot more to us, humans.
Now, I will also use this opportunity to tell the philosophy fags to fuck off. This is a Literature board.

[Anonymous No.12421863]

>>12421787
Heidegger was a professor his whole life what are you on about

[Anonymous No.12421871]

>>12421844
>you student
>I professor
k your tradition is dead in the water bud have fun explaining quanitifed modal logic to the chinese AI gods when you’re plowing their rice fields dumbass hahaha

[Anonymous No.12421879]

>>12421848
Continents philosophy is one big larp of nerds trying to do “praxis”.

[Anonymous No.12421889]

>>12421879
I didnt know Continents had whole philosophy hot damn

[Anonymous No.12421892]

>>12421871
What’s the point of accelerstionism again?

[Anonymous No.12421898]

>>12421863
He did his best work outside of academia.

[Anonymous No.12421899]

>>12421889
Phone posting

[Anonymous No.12421903]

>>12421899
Same

[Anonymous No.12421923]

>>12421898
What was his best work? He wrote Being and Time while he was in academia

[Anonymous No.12421955]

>>12421473
You seem incredibly intelligent. Seriously. Great post, even though I have no clue of what you're speaking of. Not sure how the heck one becomes so knowledgable.

[Anonymous No.12421956]

>>12421470
>He thinks Putnam is better than Lewis
>MUH BRAINS IN VAT
>MUH THEORY OF RELATIONS
honestly putnam just scrapped some random shit from turing, plato and descartes and claimed to "destoy scepticism" . what a phatetic loser

[Anonymous No.12421963]

Is analytic worldview just the "LOGIC and FACTS" of the philosophical canon? That certainly doesn't sound like it would make for a very enticing read.

[Anonymous No.12421973]

>>12421407
>Land
And think of his great contributions. I can name so many...

[Anonymous No.12421996]

>>12421955
Can't tell if you're being serious but that was the worst post by far

[Anonymous No.12422047]

>>12421996
I was being serious. I have no clue about any of this analytic-continental feud, I've only read Plato, a bit of a few others and their middling attempts at dismantling him, and that was enough to realize that he was right about everything. Plato is the beginning and the end of Western philosophy, desupai.

[Anonymous No.12422076]

>>12422047
Everything he said about analytic philosophy is wrong most are not logical atomists it's not 1930 anymore and it's pretty evenly split between naturalism and non naturalism. What he said about Continental philosophy already absorbing it all is super bullshit. The plurality of analytic philosophers are platonist Russell was even a platonist

[Anonymous No.12422077]

>>12422047
>I've only read Plato
>therefore I conclude that he was right about everything and he's the end of all philosophy
Maybe philosophy is not for you

[Anonymous No.12422110]

>>12422077
What should I read after Plato then, specifically in regards to dismantling his perspective of the world? Nobody I've read so far has managed in my eyes, not Aristotle nor Nietzche or otherwise. Who has provided a solid counter against him?

>>12422076
Oh, okay. Yeah, I don't know what these terms mean. That anon just sounded smart to me, is all.

[Anonymous No.12422752]

>>12420955
I actually find a lot analytic work very entertaining, Carnap and Moore in particular have a very good sense of pace in presenting their ideas which leads to these wonderful "eureka" when you finally get something.

Analytibros for life, we gotta stick together, contie scum swarm the streets

In all seriousness everyone before Hegel was more or less "analytic" in approach and it was his confusing nonsense that made the way for all the intellectual balloney being spouted by drug-addled Frenchies.

[Anonymous No.12422766]

>>12420762
Analytic philosophy is just a bunch of PEMDAS niggers jerking each other off

funny thing is that it still beats out every other major philosophical tradition ever

[Anonymous No.12422769]

>>12420762
>lol let’s use math to solve moral problems! After all humansr robots!1”

The deepest analytic philosophers are goons using arbitrary math and logic to figure out shit already figured out by Aristotle. Philosophy ended with Phenomenology and Structralism.

[Anonymous No.12422775]

>>12420762
Says who? I just hate dumb analytics, just like how I hate dumb continentals too.

[Anonymous No.12422826]

>>12422769
>t. Has never read analytic philosophy especially analytic moral philosophy

BTW can you name me a current Continental ethicist the only one I know is levinas and he's been dead for awhile. I can name like 5 analytic ones off the top of my head

[Anonymous No.12422857]

>>12421787
Nietzsche is okay but Heidegger was a pure, opportunistic academia leech most of his life, he doesn't fit here.

[Anonymous No.12422866]

>>12421756
Much of the contemporary scientific effort is targeted at solving pretty mundane issues like propagation, diagnostic, prevention an curing of disease or prediction of large economic trends. People actually care about those things (or at the very least their outcomes on their lives) even if they're not into the details of how those problem are going to be solved.

[Anonymous No.12422900]

>>12421407
Cognitive science

[Anonymous No.12422952]

>>12420762
Analytical philosophy is good for quarantining pseuds.

[Anonymous No.12423442]

>>12421740
I just wanted to say this even though it's pretty late. Davidson is garbage truth conditional semantics is garbage don't compare it to intensional semantics. I don't care if you personally think Lewis's ideas are inconsequential the rest of the academic philosophy world has rightfully realized the brilliance of Lewis

[Anonymous No.12423654]

I don't understand the split. If an argument is using generally acceptable starting points and navigating from them with corresponding attributes that can be structured in a universally detectable way, why does it matter whether the argument is applicable as a pre-determined artificial language or not? For the value of the starting points an argument uses is concerned, there isn't anything as prior to what determines the value as the being one is when the qualifying process is applied for it. Because there doesn't seem to be a position in which a being can evaluate the value by means of some ultra conscious time inclusive language, there shouldn't be any reason for qualifying the grounds of which an argument is "continental" or "analytic" as anything specific, unless one is pointing out it's historical evolution.

[Anonymous No.12424144]

>>12421291
Nicola Terra

[Anonymous No.12424325]

>>12423654
Continental philosophers will politely inform you what they do is not like a game of Pokémon where you collect arguments and pit them against each other, and scoff at claims about what is
>generally acceptable
>universally detectable
as well as at the priestly caste of ideologues who makes such grand claims.

[Anonymous No.12424369]

>>12420762
/lit/ is full of people that fall for meme philosophers like Stirner, Peterson or Land.

[Anonymous No.12424373]

>>12421291
Bronze Age Pervert

[Anonymous No.12424406]

>>12422826
Mbembe

[Anonymous No.12424413]

>>12421291
Name one living philosopher other than zizek

[Anonymous No.12424422]

>>12423654
At this point the split is largely a stylistic issue, as well as (often, though not always) having to do with the topics that a philosopher in either camp generally concerns themselves with.

[Anonymous No.12425562]

Van someone give me a run down of what I should read to become an analytic pseud?

[Anonymous No.12425814]

>>12425562
Quine "two dogmas of empiricism"

[Anonymous No.12425843]

The only one lit likes is Wittgenstein because he only wrote one short book and his life is filled with hilarious shit like going to school with hitler

[Anonymous No.12425949]

>>12424422
Start with Frege on sense and reference then Russell on denoting (you need to know logic for this one) then early Wittgenstein. After that you should read the absolute legend Rudolf Carnap and then finally get to Quine

>>12425814
Starting with two dogmas makes no sense unless you've read some Carnap at the minimum

[Anonymous No.12427506]

>>12425843
based and true

[Anonymous No.12427527]

>>12424406
>nigger philosopher
quite the oxymoron

[Anonymous No.12427541]

>>12427527
Did the analytics seriously decide to define 'philosopher' as 'not a nigger'? This is why nobody takes them seriously

[Anonymous No.12428409]

>>12425949
Why? This is easy and he's not using nothing from advanced logic. He only refer to salva veritae Leibniz concept which everybody can simply understand without reading another book.

[Anonymous No.12428417]

>>12428409
Or on second tought - yeah you are right. Carnap basic logic models may be required for reading this.

[Anonymous No.12428418]

>>12420762
I don't, I fucking love it.

[Anonymous No.12428434]

>>12428409
The whole paper is a response to logical positivism the title of the paper literally says two dogmas of EMPIRICISM. All of his arguments hinge on empiricism. Carnap responded to the paper with Empiricism Semantics and Ontology

[Anonymous No.12428510]

>>12427541
He attacking the fact that the black continental philosophers never talk about anything more profound than “society be raycis”.

[Anonymous No.12428775]

>>12421196
Bump

[Anonymous No.12428785]

>>12421470
Yeah we found the idiot. Read On What Matters and tell me he's just another Enlightenment rehashing circle jerk.

[Anonymous No.12428852]

>>12421473
This post is bad for two reasons. One, it is wrong in it's sociology of analytic phil. This means that you say that people in A. phil hold such and such views or act in such and such ways when that's not true. You're just regurgitating what you heard some undergrad political theory professor say. Two, your reasoning is poor. You tend to reason this way in your little post: Analytics say p, continentals have shown that not p is true. This is silly for lots of reasons. (A) is that it makes the exact mistake that you make over in over in the post. Your just wrong about the sociology of A. Phil. (B) Even if we grant that most analytic philosophers think p, it's not good evidence for not p that continental thinkers believe it. (C) Your claim that continental thinkers exhibit the grounds for the truth of their claims is just ignorant. Have you ever read Nietzsche? He claims that x and then as evidence either gives some bogus etymological argument that's usually empirically wrong or just say if you're strong enough you'll do the reasoning yourself. A. Phil is thorough in explaining the reasons for excepting one view over another. I could keep going forever but your post is just poor. It's classic conty tropes that get trotted out time and time again that are just obviously false.

Correspondence is literally the only view that even approaches making sense. If you have some pragmatist or coherentist or even deflationa

[Anonymous No.12428857]

>>12428852
deflationary account of what truth is then you clearly don't know what truth is.

[Anonymous No.12428863]

>>12428852
>it's
>Your just wrong
>Nietzsche gives some bogus etymological argument that's usually empirically wrong or just say if you're strong enough you'll do the reasoning yourself.

so this is the power of an*lytics...

[Anonymous No.12428974]

I really enjoy analytic philosophy so far. I first got into Serious Philosophy ala Peirce and have meager experience with analytic philosophy proper, mostly through SEP. I've been getting into journals more latey but have mostly been focused on further pursuing my interests in the biosciences and semiotics. I'd really appreciate recommendations for some journals to follow for analyitic; Metaphysics, Phenomenology, Mind, Life, Science, Mereology, and Asethetics. I'm a committed realist of the Peirceian kind so far. I don't claim to be a competent logician, but I do feel that, with effort, I can understand any formalism thrown my way. So I welcome anything focused on philosophical logic. I'd love to be recommended some lesser known and more specialized books as well, I'm already aware of the staples. Also wanted: niche; lectures, podcasts, reviews, bibliographies, and syllabuses.

[Anonymous No.12429082]

>>12428974
I forgot to mention that I am so far disappointed with the implicit mind-matter dualism I've encountered in analyitic Phil, even in works supposedly examining problems pertaining to that very thing. Ive even been catching people who claim to be Peirce-influenced doing this, they usually just want to use his sign/truth theories without the work of using them in Peirce's system. That's fine I suppose, I just don't agree

[Anonymous No.12429124]

>>12428863
>gets btfo
>Le grammar

[Anonymous No.12429334]

>>12420762
Because the people who study philosophy are less mathematician and more artist.

They're all pseuds who want to write fluffy nonsense to seem interesting.

[Anonymous No.12429403]

>>12424325
If you don't have a universal means of justification like "reason" or "the five sense" you end up with epistemic tribalism, and that's bad. They're all trying to paint pictures some way or another. Even if one camp is focusing more on what reason or the five senses is like before focusing on what can be done with either of the two, there seems to be plenty of variety of interpretation for how "sensible conceptualizations" and "proof that such concept is relevant/exists" often intersect when based upon a purpose is at hand, and these purposes differ wildly in the first place. If an argument is well structured in either reason or the five senses or some interpreted mixture of these or something else, if it causes an ontological motion in a person, it would not matter if it takes the form of collecting and point scoring, or if it is synthesizing.

[Anonymous No.12429436]

>>12420762

[Anonymous No.12429444]

>>12429403
How about epistemic anarchism

[Anonymous No.12429530]

>>12422110

[Anonymous No.12429558]

>>12429530
For the accelerationist section i suggest,

#Acceleration the acceleration reader
and CRU Collected Writings 1997-2003

[Anonymous No.12429880]

>Hurr let's totally disregard metaphysics because we can't fit it into our dumb algebra equations.

That's why.

[Anonymous No.12430315]

>>12428510
Care to share your critique of Mbembe with us? Why not make an effortpost explaining what's wrong with 'On the PostColony' because you seem an expert on his work

[Anonymous No.12430341]

>>12429403
>If you don't have a universal means of justification like "reason" or "the five sense"
business as usual as neither is universal
>you end up with epistemic tribalism, and that's bad
it's epistemic tribalism even when a tribe kills all the others, eliminates all dissent, or otherwise asserts itself as the designated designator of what counts as the universal

[Anonymous No.12431252]

>>12429880
Analytic philosophy has a bunch of metaphysics don't know what you're on about and it probably uses the most logic out of all the fields

[Anonymous No.12431393]

Frege is a capricious cunt
Russel doesn't say anything profound (new)
Wittgenstein is the most tolerable out of the three but his Regelfolgenproblem, situational fundamentalism theory, and one-person-can't-speak-a-language (no Privatsprache) is absolutely fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.12431470]

>>12421555
What a shitshow of a thread.

[Anonymous No.12431549]

>>12431393
The private language argument is amazing you pseud

[Anonymous No.12431594]

It's power politics using academia as an ideological power center. Like Nick Land says in Meltdown, philosophy has an association with despotism since the very beginning of its history. De Jouvenel has also written about this. Most academics see themselves as the ones shaping and questioning power, when it is the other way around: philosophy and ideas are used as weapons for elite purposes. That's why the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundations, the CIA, and various other elites and their intermediaries over the last few decades have been financially backing things like critical theory. You can trace this stuff back over the centuries, and pick out any philosopher of consequence and they'll have an elite backer. Even Kant thanks the ruler at the time (Frederick the Great) in his essay "What is Enlightenment?" while non-ironically talking about enlightenment as the courage to think and speak for oneself without influence of power. The Kantian influence on the beginning of continental philosophy starts with this unawareness of being cordycepted by power.

Continental philosophy also serves as something that attracts the status hungry and power mad, which allows power to perpetuate itself and gives your average /lit/ poster who argues over this distinction a hard-on because being part of team POWAH feels good. It's De Jouvenel's High-Low versus Middle in action. The Elite high backs the academic low in order to indoctrinate the normie middle. Spreading its cancer through academia, so that everyone outside of the philosophy department has """wisdom""" of the continentals (or their interpretations of the rest of historical philosophy). Even the most political analytics are completely irrelevant in the face of the continental policies, which even "woke capital" now spreads. The fruits of continental philosophy are gulags, death camps, Pol Pot, and "da taleban and isis are killing the gays and women, we need to bomb them! open your borders for the people's countries we just destroyed, fascist!". These are useful techniques of power for elites for killing their foreign/domestic enemies and ruling them at home. You might find some analytic philosopher being gung ho and sperging out about some obscure worthless logic using modal semantics, but you won't find them cracking jokes about gulaging their enemies and then at the end of their PhD working at an NGO or getting a gig at the New York Times.

[Anonymous No.12431644]

>>12430341
How is reason/five senses not something everyone (or every healthy person) can access and use to justify arguments

[Anonymous No.12431755]

>>12420762
>lol ancients thought the world was made of earth, wind, fire, water, air... it's actchewally made of human readable logical equations. So now we discussions on how people should live, because they should live according to neat formulas and be happy.

[Anonymous No.12432423]

>>12428852
This reply is perfect, im fucking dying. Imagine taking everything everyone says """literally"""

[Anonymous No.12433542]

>>12428857
The deflationary theory of truth is unironically one of the greatest intellectual discoveries of the modern age

[Anonymous No.12433806]

>>12431393
I don't think you get the private language argument bruh.

[Anonymous No.12434540]

>>12433806
It's so obvious he doesn't

[Anonymous No.12434599]

>>12429436
best shitpost of the month

[Anonymous No.12434703]

>>12433806
>>12434540
>The private language argument argues that a language understandable by only a single individual is incoherent, and was introduced by Ludwig Wittgenstein in his later work, especially in the Philosophical Investigations.
faggots.

[Anonymous No.12434726]

>>12420762
because it's shit, but the kind of shit that /lit/ envies as if it were the purpose of existence