analytic philosophy

[Anonymous No.12447774]

>"What is number, metaphysically?"
>analytic philosophers: Metaphysically speaking, 2 is the set of all sets containing 2 things!

How do I compel myself to keep reading this retarded shit? They are obsessed with things like "sets" but they never explain the metaphysical nature of them, just presuming they exist or make sense innately. And every time they realize how retarded they are, which usually takes them 30-50 years, they then "fix" it by making it even more retarded. Or worse, by vaguely appealing to science.

Does analytic philosophy ever get non retarded? How are these people so stupid?

[Anonymous No.12447791]

[Anonymous No.12447794]

[Anonymous No.12447803]

[Anonymous No.12447806]

>>12447791
Replace dialetics with semiotics and you might have something.
>>12447774
Lurk moar

[Anonymous No.12447807]

>>12447774
Yeah, I guess if you provide an actual concrete definition of something then it makes your interminable, stupid word games pointless, doesn't it?

[Anonymous No.12447809]

[Anonymous No.12447839]

Keep up the good work. Analytic philosophy and not the Frankfurt school is the greatest perversion of Western philosophy of the last century

[Anonymous No.12447899]

>>12447806
>semiotics
You had better mean Peirce and not Saussure.

[Anonymous No.12447914]

>>12447899
What if I was talking about sassure?

[Anonymous No.12447934]

>>12447914
Then you're as much a bloviating faggot as any dialectician.

[Anonymous No.12447942]

>>12447809
>knowledge of science, mathematics
Not in the last century, that's for sure.

[Anonymous No.12448812]

bump

[Anonymous No.12448898]

>>12447934
>if it works, it works!

am*ricans truly are pathetic, a country with a population of your size and the best you can manage is a couple of bearded weirdos, some beans-obsessed nature faggot and Judith Butler. Am*rican inferiority is reflected in your seemingly limitless capacity for latching on to philosophical trends. First you tried to copy European Romanticism and German Idealism. Then you tried to rebrand British autism as "Anglo-American" analytic philosophy. Then you opened up your figurative assholes and literal bathhouses for Michel Foucault, le differance man and all manner of French "dude metanarrative lmao" pomos.

Am*ricans have contributed fewer engaging thinkers to the world of letters than even provinicial European countries. I am not sure what is more pathetic, the quotidian ignorance of your general population or the desperate posturing of your so-called "intellectuals".

[Anonymous No.12449033]

How does "analytic" differ from "continental" in any meaningful way

[Anonymous No.12449054]

>>12449033
Analytic is autism, continental is schizophrenia.

[Anonymous No.12449092]

>>12447774
much like the word 'horse' represents a set of all real, concrete, horses, the number 2 represents all real instances of 2 things. its basically plato's idealism, but instead of those vague ideal forms being located in some metaphysical plane those ideal forms are defined by language

[Anonymous No.12449117]

>>12447791
Kek, these always crack me up.

[Anonymous No.12449118]

>>12449054
This, if you're too confused or afraid to pick a side RIGHT NOW, then leave this site and never return; nothing will come from your continuing to remain here. (And /lit/ is pro-schizo of course, so if you picked analytic you can fuck off to wizardchan or some shit.)

[Anonymous No.12449154]

>>12448898
OBSESSED

[Anonymous No.12449222]

>>12447774
I don't know which analytic philosopher talks about sets what are you reading you pseud? Most analytic philosophy doesn't use sets or even formal logic since that's what everyone here thinks analytic philosophers do

The rest of this thread also doesn't understand analytic philosophy

[Anonymous No.12449376]

>I AM THE WARRIOR OF MY DAYDREAMS
>I AM SOVEREIGN AND THE TREASURER OF MY CURRENCY

[Anonymous No.12449413]

>>12447934
Okay, just checking, I was talking about Peirce. I don't think semiology fruitcakes should be allowed to call their discipline semiotics.

[Anonymous No.12449566]

Reminder that the internet, along with anything useful, was invented by "autists", and only later co-opted by parasitic vermin like you.

[Anonymous No.12449764]

>>12449566
Idiot. The real act of invention is done by the user of the Internet, not the person who put the pegs in the right hole.

[Anonymous No.12449798]

>look, mom, I just discovered an obsolete dichotomy and google image search! hey /lit/ check out these stale memes you yourself made!
Fuck off back to wherever you came from.

[Anonymous No.12449813]

>>12449118
All philosophical problems where solved by Late Antiquity Neoplatonists.

[Anonymous No.12449840]

>>12449376

[Anonymous No.12449869]

>to be is to the the value of a bound variable
— William "Van the (Or)Man" Quine

[Anonymous No.12449886]

>>12449764
>creating the internet? Child’s play
>check out my shitposts, now that’s real innovation

[Anonymous No.12449892]

>>12448898
a. Obsessed
b. Ayn Rand

[Anonymous No.12449908]

I have read Frege’s “Sinn und Bedeutung” and Russell’s “On Denoting”, and neither properly explain why a Name (Eigenname) always has sense, no matter if it is completely illogical; in contrast how an illogical thought isn’t a wrong thought but rather not a thought at all.
I don’t mean a non refrencable name like “Pegasus” but a truly illogical name.
Also primary and secondary in “On Denoting” makes no sense to me.
Can someone explain it perhaps?

[Anonymous No.12449922]

>>12447774
Sorry if it sounds stupid, but can't i just use both analytic and continental philosophy. I just want to have fun, that's all.

[Anonymous No.12449951]

>>12449922
you can't have fun in analyticland, it's not allowed

[Anonymous No.12450075]

>>12449869
>the the
profound

[Anonymous No.12450144]

>>12449908
Neither Russell or Frege believed a name that is meaningless has a sense or description. If by illogical you mean something else then you would need to explain it to me.

Russell in On Denoting paper is arguing two things:

1. Names are just definite descriptions
2. Definite descriptions do not refer rather the word 'The' quantifies over descriptions and The logical form of these descriptions shows no direct referent

For example Elizabeth just is The queen of England and the logically form of the queen of England is


(∃x) (Qx & ((y) (Qy y = x) & x = e)).

[Anonymous No.12450348]

What does "being" mean to analytic philosophers?

[Anonymous No.12450377]

>>12450348
Leeching funds off pure math departments and producing nothing of value.

[Anonymous No.12450399]

>>12450377
What does "value" mean to math dorks?

[Anonymous No.12450426]

>>12450348
Analytic philosophers don't understand the problem of being. They are naive materialists.

[Anonymous No.12450464]

>>12449892
>Ayn Rand

[Anonymous No.12450471]

>analytics are naive autist scientist and so on
>materialism is associated with those things as well
>hence, analytics are materialists

[Anonymous No.12450482]

>>12450426
Why does this board always reduce the entire analytic tradition to a kind of logical positivism? Even Wittgenstein, usually the poster child for the common stereotype of the autistic analytic STEMfag was predominantly mystically minded in regards to ultimate truths. Just because the analytic tradition doesn't directly talk about or describe all of the schizo stuff continentals do, doesn't mean its absence is not a fascinating and integral part to analytic thought.

[Anonymous No.12450485]

analytic philosophy is just the application of formal logic to philosophy, i'm not sure why people are sperging out about it so hard

[Anonymous No.12450491]

>>12449886
Very true. Any scientific discovery is essentially worthless and would have been replicated by others, as we see with calculus or evolution. There is zero creativity there, no more than painter creates anything. The critic is the one who creates, who forms meaning out of nothingness, 'progress' out of meaningless science

[Anonymous No.12450499]

>>12450491
that's a nice justification for being a mindless shitposter, sophist

[Anonymous No.12450548]

This thread reminds me of my late English teacher who dropped out of his philosophy degree because he failed the introduction course to formal logic.

[Anonymous No.12450564]

>>12450482
Because you're reading and replying to retards whose entire surface of contact with philosophy and academia is comprised of skimmed Simple English Wikipedia articles and "epic memes" regurgitated by similar retards.

[Anonymous No.12450651]

>>12450491
based

[Anonymous No.12450662]

>>12450491
>The critic is the one who creates
Holy shit g8 b8 m8

[Anonymous No.12450706]

>>12450485
for the reasons given in the OP

[Anonymous No.12450778]

>>12450491
Based and Scaruffipilled

[Anonymous No.12450812]

>>12450564
Exactly

>>12450482
100% correct

[Anonymous No.12450853]

>>12450662
>gate bait mate

[Anonymous No.12450876]

>>12450491
Kek

[Anonymous No.12450893]

Wait, I thought you were supposed to employ both, did I miss some shit? This feels like people arguing about which wheel on a bike is the superior one.

[Anonymous No.12450951]

>>12450482
Because they haven't read anything

[Motoko No.12450965]

I'd rather get entertained while reading philosophy than find out truths! t. OP and continental homosexuals

[Anonymous No.12450985]

>>12450491
good b8 but it makes me sad that some people really believe this

[Anonymous No.12450993]

>>12447806
both extremely effeminate views of reality

[Anonymous No.12450995]

>>12450482
It’s like they think the Vienna circle still meets every Thursday or some shit

[Anonymous No.12451003]

>>12450993
How so?
How does that make any sense at all?

[Anonymous No.12451009]

>>12450482
best post

[Anonymous No.12451044]

>>12450965
BASED AND CORRECT

[Anonymous No.12451054]

>>12450965
>implying this shit is "truth"

All of analytic philosophy is arbitrary word games.

[Anonymous No.12451079]

>>12451054
formal logic is actually a way to get rid of arbitrary word games by removing the ambiguity of natural language

[Motoko No.12451087]

>>12451054
Unlike negative dialectics ofc. "Indexicals have reference-guarantee" is completely incomprehensible gibberish to me too. (sarcasm btw ;))

[Anonymous No.12451133]

>>12451087
where's the referent for 'this square circle'?

[Anonymous No.12451140]

>>12451079
Language is irreducibly ambiguous. Formal logic just arbitrarily elevates certain formalisms to illusory nonambiguity, worsening the problem. The solution to linguistic ambiguity when communicating ideas is a good dose of self-reflexivity, and careful hermeneutics.

I don't know how many analytic types have actually been in classes taught by analytic philosophers who "apply" formal logic to existing philosophical texts in order to "clarify" them, but it's torture. Rather than clearing away ambiguity or forcing people to remain close to the ontology of the text, they impose all kinds of external ontologies onto the text without being self-conscious of doing so. They end up reducing for example the fundamental ideas of Plato or Aristotle or of some Presocratic down to, surprise, shallow word games, then meaninglessly comparing the fabricated word games against each other. Rather than trying to uncover what Aristotle meant by energeia or something, they squeeze and contort it into a modern, English-language pseudo-equivalent represented by a symbol that relieves people from thinking about the concept rather than compelling them to think about it.

[Anonymous No.12451148]

>>12450965
You can't "find out truths" from analytic philosophy. Analytic philosophy hasn't answered a single question; it's just created new questions.

[Anonymous No.12451156]

>>12451140
>Language is irreducibly ambiguous
then formal logic literally wouldn't exist

>arbitrarily
everything in language is arbitrary, calling something arbitrary in this context doesn't mean anything.

[Anonymous No.12451161]

>>12451148
>Analytic philosophy hasn't answered a single question
Neither has the continental, you colossal pseud.

[Motoko No.12451164]

>>12451148
If that's where the truth lies, in more questions, then so be it. Even if it bores you brainlet :I

[Anonymous No.12451166]

>>12451156
if you can't even be fucked to even try and understand a post, don't reply.

[Anonymous No.12451167]

>>12451133
There isn't one, that's why it's meaningless.

[Anonymous No.12451168]

>>12451156
..Are you okay man?

[Anonymous No.12451169]

>>12451166
you don't even understand formal logic, don't try and paint me as the guy that doesn't know

[Anonymous No.12451170]

>>12451167
but he said indexicals have reference-guarantee
'this square circle' is an indexical
so...?

[Anonymous No.12451171]

>>12451156
>then formal logic literally wouldn't exist
I think his point is that it doesn't exist as you conceive of it.

[Anonymous No.12451178]

>>12451171
and how do you think i conceive of it?
because formal logic is literally just a language without ambiguity, meaning that language isn't irreducibly ambiguous

[Anonymous No.12451183]

>>12451169
i took the same bullshit undergrad intro class you took, and have done quite a bit of reading outside of that. tell me what you know that i don't, please.

[Anonymous No.12451186]

>>12451170
"this square circle" just means "this nonsense"

[Motoko No.12451187]

>>12451133
Nowhere

>>12451148
By the way I'm sure most analytics think they are handling with a number of truths. Even Wittgenstein admitted to dealing with "truths" in the preface to the Tractatus, even though his aim was to show the futility of the pursuit of truth thus understood.

You seem like a dogmatic retard who once read Hegel or Heidegger and is too intellectually lazy to figure out if reading it was worth it.

[Anonymous No.12451189]

>>12451183
see >>12451178

[Anonymous No.12451192]

>>12451178
>because formal logic is literally just a language without ambiguity, meaning that language isn't irreducibly ambiguous

the phrase "language without ambiguity" is nonsensical to me within my ontology of language (read: "what is sensibly sayable about language")

my ontology therefore differs from yours

we therefore mean and understand different things by the same word, with different associations and properties

QED, language is proved to be ambiguous by your very statement that it isn't

[Motoko No.12451195]

>>12451170
That's not an indexical though you monkey

[Anonymous No.12451199]

>>12451187
how can something refer to someplace that isn't? what does that mean?

[Anonymous No.12451201]

>>12451192
your lack of understanding doesn't mean i made an ambiguous statement, lmao

[Motoko No.12451206]

>>12451199
It doesn't refer to anything, you are not saying anything.

[Anonymous No.12451210]

>>12451201
>when two people disagree about the meaning of a word, one of them is right and the other is wrong

this is the response i predicted, and what your post translates to. so, the question is, who decides who is right and who is wrong if there are only two interlocutors?

i recommend reading On Certainty by wittgenstein, but you clearly don't read and took a single 101 class in your life, so i'm really mostly recommending it to onlookers who might be interested in this philosophical problem themselves.

[Anonymous No.12451213]

>>12451195
excuse me? 'this right here' does not indicate?

[Anonymous No.12451218]

>>12451206
but according to to you it is the indexical that has the reference-guarantee, not the reference that has the index-guarantee

[Anonymous No.12451219]

>>12451201
Ok, here's a better question: how can a symbol possible be without ambiguity? You have to learn what it stands for.

[Anonymous No.12451230]

>>12451210
but it isn't two people. the word "language" has a definition which outdates both of us. languages are symbolic systems of communication. formal logic fits this definition and is thus a language. formal logic also lacks ambiguity. every statement can only have one meaning. language therefore is not inherently ambiguous, as there is a language without ambiguity.

>>12451219
if it only has one meaning. just because you don't speak a language, doesn't mean that language is ambiguous because you don't understand it when you hear it.

[Anonymous No.12451234]

>>12451189
'formal logic' (a redundancy) is not a language, but an abstract system of symbols that determines the rules of the valid combinations of those same symbols.

[Motoko No.12451235]

>>12451213
"This square circle" doesn't refer. it's not an indexical.

>>12451218
If you say "This square circle" upon seeing something, this "this" can be made sense of whatever you're seeing which is not a square circle. Reference guarantee doesn't mean that in any context no matter what the utterance of "this" will be sensical.

[Anonymous No.12451240]

>>12451235
not much of a guarantee then, is it?

[Anonymous No.12451244]

>>12451230
>the word "language" has a definition which outdates both of us.

I also recommend you read Wittgenstein. You may not ultimately agree with him but you should really know about arguably the most important texts in this entire area for a century before you start spouting off about them. You're arguing for a pre-1940s understanding of language here, that modern analytics don't even hold.

If you want a cheat sheet: look up explanations of the standard meter bar concept in Philosophical Investigations. Try to think through the rule-following stuff too. Good luck in your second year, anon!

[Anonymous No.12451246]

>>12451230
So the symbol "P" has only one conceivable meaning within the system of formal logic?

[Motoko No.12451257]

>>12451240
That simply isn't what guarantee is meant, the key to the most certain truths doesn't lie in indexicals. I took it as one form of discovery that can be made use of. If you say "My father is a faggot" "My father" might be a referenceless expression, depending on the context. With "this" in "This is red" however you will be guaranteed to have a reference.

[Motoko No.12451265]

>>12451257
Meant to convey*

[Anonymous No.12451277]

>>12451246
does it have to? you're not making any point right now.

>>12451234
with formal logic i mean propositional logic and higher order logics. i guess symbolic logic might be a more accurate term.

>>12451244
your misplaced sense of superiority makes me ill

[Anonymous No.12451280]

>>12451244
Not him, but your puffed up pseudery is incredibly irritating. There's nothing to prevent existence of well-defined languages and first order logic is in fact a well-defined language. It's a fucking double whammy to accuse someone of holding outdated beliefs while oozing sophist bullshit about some obsolete bullshit like ordinary language autism. Read some Kripke, you useless pseud.

[Anonymous No.12451283]

>>12449840
This is such an autistic attack on continentals that I'm willing to bet it's continental disinfo to make analytics look even worse.

[Anonymous No.12451287]

>>12451277
You stated that "a language is unambiguous if the symbols in that language have only one meaning." This is the full formulation of your position, according to which the symbol "P" would have only one meaning. Yes, according to you, it does have to. Now, tell me the one, certain meaning of the symbol "P."

[Anonymous No.12451290]

>>12451280
thanks for that post, for a moment i wasn't sure if I was the retard, or if it's just /lit/

[Anonymous No.12451295]

>>12451287
wow did i really state that?
maybe you should quote me where i state that

[Motoko No.12451297]

>>12451290
So you no longer feel like a retard despite your obvious inability to understand what the person you just replied to is saying? What actual pseudery is this?

[Anonymous No.12451299]

>c*ntinental shitpost thread
>some /sci/ retard appoints himself defender of analytic philosophy
>understands it even less than the c*ntin*nt*ls
>does more damage than the contie whining ever could

god damn it

[Anonymous No.12451304]

>>12451297
i'm afraid you're confusing me with someone else
i'm the person defending the usage of symbolic logics in philosophy

[Motoko No.12451310]

>>12451304
I think I understood that. To me it seems as if your positions are insincere and not really founded on anything but gut feeling. Why do you think that poster vindicated your position? Why are you no longer the retard?

[Anonymous No.12451311]

>>12447809
lol at continentals knowing anything about science

[Anonymous No.12451315]

>>12451295
I said:
>how can a symbol possibly be without ambiguity?
and you said
>if it only has one meaning. just because you don't speak a language, doesn't mean that language is ambiguous because you don't understand it when you hear it.

The obvious implication of this last sentence is that if symbols in a language "only have one meaning," the language is unambiguous. So, I ask you again: what is the one true meaning of "P"?

[Anonymous No.12451317]

>>12451310
the second and third sentences in which he defends my positions on logic being an unambiguous language

[Anonymous No.12451326]

>>12451257
well, i'm glad we had logicians around to tell us how exactly it is we point to things, or point to not-things, or not point to not-things, and so on. it was very confusing before they showed up.
but what if i'm talking to someone that's colorblind? or to a dog?
is the object referred the wavelength of light? or to the thing reflecting that wavelength? or the concept for either/or? or something else entirely?

[Motoko No.12451329]

>>12451317
But he didn't put forward any arguments. Why was that post, despite its lack of arguments capable of making you feel less retarded?

[Anonymous No.12451331]

>>12451280
>There's nothing to prevent existence of well-defined languages
Where do they exist? Where is the standard meter bar for a given word? Are all analytic philosophers naive platonists who think the definition of "waffle house" exists in an ethereal floating dictionary that houses the "correct" definitions of everything, even if people disagree on their usage?

>Kripke
That's surprisingly on topic, given that Kripke is one of the most infamously bad misinterpreters of the private language argument in Wittgenstein, the exact point we're talking about.* So maybe you've actually read some philosophy, unlike the other guy. It's just unfortunate that it was Kripke, since Kripke is garbage and nobody cares about him outside of computer science departments now, the last place where symbolic logic has any influence.

* Here's a dissertation on this topic: https://philarchive.org/archive/WEIWOR

[Anonymous No.12451332]

>>12451315
Every symbol of a language having a singular meaning does not imply any symbol at all being a lexeme of that particular language, retard.

[Anonymous No.12451333]

>>12451277
it doesn't matter what logic you're talking about, none of them are actually languages.

[Motoko No.12451338]

>>12451326
I too am glad we started this journey into the limits of what can be conceived sensically. We can now stop doing metaphysics, thanks for this form of investigation.

[Anonymous No.12451345]

>>12451315
you're right, in my hurry to respond i misread the question. symbols can mean multiple things without that leading to ambiguity. it is the full statements which matter, which is why in the same post i said
> formal logic also lacks ambiguity. every statement can only have one meaning.

[Anonymous No.12451347]

>>12451338
ignoring the metaphysical presuppositions of the things you say isn't really the same thing as 'not doing metaphysics', but it is fun to pretend i agree.

[Anonymous No.12451354]

>>12451345
>every statement can only have one meaning.

Who or what establishes such a fixed meaning?

[Anonymous No.12451362]

>>12451354
that is defined by the person using the logic

[Anonymous No.12451365]

>>12451244
I consider myself an analytic, but this is too pretentious even for my tastes

[Anonymous No.12451366]

>>12451362
So meaning is use.

[Anonymous No.12451369]

>>12451331
>argues formal logic is ambiguous language
>lul Kripke is retarded lmao i dun care
Yeah, figures. It's almost like you actually had a grasp on formal semantics instead of being a garden variety "lmao witty proofed everything is like private language games n shiet" illiterati pseud, albeit with more on-point namedropping for higher quality theatrics, then you wouldn't be uttering such tripe.

[Anonymous No.12451374]

>>12451366
i'm not sure how you come to this conclusion

[Anonymous No.12451383]

>>12451369
>>lul Kripke is retarded lmao i dun care

I literally linked you a dissertation collating every single systematic rebuke of Kripke's misunderstanding of Wittgenstein, to source my claim that Kripke misinterpreted Wittgenstein. It's double-spaced Word pages too. You didn't even look at it.

>>12451374
>Who or what establishes ... meaning? (>>12451354)
>>that is defined by the person using the logic (>>12451362)
>So meaning is use. (>>12451366)

In any event, the fact that this is a self-evident demonstration to me but not to you also serves as a redundant proof that logical demonstrations are contingent on particular interpretations in particular situations (uses), that is, they aren't self-evident at all. Supra-individual, formal correctness must be judged as such by an individual.

[Anonymous No.12451429]

>>12450995
kek

[Anonymous No.12451459]

>>12451383
I think the problem is that you think symbols must have an inherent meaning for a symbolic system to be a language, is that correct?
This definition is wrong, however. Language is a system which uses symbols to convey information, to communicate. These symbols can have inherent meaning or they can have variable. Natural Languages would be those of the former, mathematics and symbolic logics would be those of the latter.

[Anonymous No.12451463]

>>12451383
>You didn't even look at it
Why would I look at it? Our point of contention wasn't Kripke's interpretation of Wittgenstein. Your desperate attempts to slide the topic for lack of any actual arguments don't really interest me. Again, to actually say first order logic can't be semantically well-defined is to not understend either one or both of these terms. I suggest actually looking into them instead of breeding more sophistry.

[Anonymous No.12451480]

>>12450144
>illogical
I meant by this denoting phrases that do not denote anything, such as what would fall into a null-class or as an unreal individual. I read it in English and I believe to have understood it and the concept of identity as well. Thanks for you answer though!

[Anonymous No.12451486]

>>12451459
>These symbols can have inherent meaning or they can have variable.

Again: Two people are left on earth, and they disagree about the meaning of a word, a word you feel to have an inherent meaning. Where is the inherent meaning stored in this situation?

>>12451463
>Why would I look at it?

Exactly.

[Anonymous No.12451490]

>>12451486
what a pointless hypothetical

[Anonymous No.12451499]

>>12451486
>Exactly.
Thanks for a graceful concession, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.12451503]

>>12451459
logics do not convey any information that is not self-referential, i.e. about the system of logic itself
logics are abstract systems of rules for following those same rules
natural languages have more functions than just conveying information
at best, your working concept of what a language is, is incomplete
please try to be less ambiguous

[Anonymous No.12451516]

If this thread is anything to go by, whoever in the future eventually links the two schools of thought in a non forced or superficial manner will be crowned the second coming of Jesus Christ.

[Anonymous No.12451524]

>>12451503
>logics do not convey any information that is not self-referential
there is nothing stopping you from developing a logic that does

>please try to be less ambiguous
this would be witty if I typed my comment in symbolic logic

[Anonymous No.12451531]

>>12451499
>what a pointless hypothetical

Again, I recommend you read Wittgenstein at some point. Or just remain in your CS major and continue being unable to think.

>>12451503
>logics do not convey any information that is not self-referential
>logics are abstract systems of rules for following those same rules

Finally a definition of logic we can all agree on. Frege once wrote to Hilbert asking how his self-contained, ultra-formalist mathematical structures actually referenced or applied back to material reality. Hilbert replied simply that humans ought to be assiduous when applying formal systems to things that have no natural business being inside them - namely, real things in the real world.

Of course, logic exists within language and is itself as indeterminate as language is.

[Anonymous No.12451534]

>>12451524
>this would be witty if I typed my comment in symbolic logic
please don't let me stop you from demonstrating those latent talents of yours

[Anonymous No.12451553]

So what rules we base a game on, to which a piece can have moves in, needs to also rely on rules in the first palce, which in turn also has to rely on rules, and so on into regress.
But this doesn't apply to Privatim Language by Wittgenstein right? In denoucning private language all he is saying is that if you believe you can controll (posses) - i.e. beyond being capable to utilize language as a system for a purpose - a language yourself, you are wrong and your language will be inconsistent.
Private Language doesn't have to fail because of a rule having to rely on a rule but rather because language in general is sitational and how it is used more important, than believing a specific word stands for one specific thing, as if baptized.

Where did I brainlet?

[Anonymous No.12451558]

>>12447774
No, you're completely wrong its the kind of navel-gazing question like "is a set a valid entity" which makes continental philosophy such a self-defeayting ouroboros of unadulterated retardation.

[Anonymous No.12451590]

>>12451531
>read what someone else said or you can't think
lol ok dude

[Anonymous No.12451597]

>>12451531
I recommend you actually learn something about interpretation of first-order languages and formal semantics, so that some of your contribution wouldn't be of the pseudtastic form "read this by Wittgenstein" or "read this about Wittgenstein" and instead contained some actual topical arguments. I'm very comfortable with my graduate math diploma and not looking to go into CS education, thank you.

[Anonymous No.12451663]

>>12451553
Does PU Wittgenstein even count as anlytical Philosophy?

[Anonymous No.12451709]

>>12451553
You pretty much got it, but the rule-following thing is more focused on how to interpret what is a correct instance or understanding of language. You are getting at a closely related concept in Wittgenstein, similar to différance in Derrida for example, that (put simply) you can't ever exhibit the pure and pre-interpretive meaning of a word or concept, independent of any contexts of actual use.

It's BECAUSE every usage is contextually grounded and historically particular that one can only evaluate correctness in a way that is similar to how we evaluate the correct/incorrect following of a rule: we have to observe what the person does, and say whether it accords with our normal expectations of what one does when following that rule. We don't have access to the internal of their mind, or whether they "seem to have followed the rule, but really they didn't understand it." We can only say, He seems to do what I would expect him to do if he were following the rule.

You can do things like, "I said 'go inside the house', and Bill went inside the house, so Bill understood me." But Bill understood a lot of things not contained in the expression itself: he understood which house, he understood you to mean "now," he understood what an imperative is, and so on. His mind didn't process FUNCTION: "GO" (-->HOUSE) by picturing an atomic abstract house and linking it to the nearest particular house, etc., like some kind of autistic robot. He made an impossibly huge, recursively interrelated set of assumptions based on his memories, his existing knowledge, the effectively infinite and impossible to enumerate particulars of the situation, etc. Then you did the same thing too, by interpreting his actions as embodying the correct understanding of your original intent, based on your own contingent information and assumptions of what Bill should do and did do. To your eyes, Bill "followed the rule" correctly. But one can imagine all kinds of subtle misunderstandings, or less than subtle misunderstandings. And one can imagine many such scenarios in which you aren't aware of Bill's true misunderstanding, because he APPEARS to be doing all the things he ought to be doing, as if he understands.

In language, and in all communication really, we basically wait until somebody fucks up jarringly to say, "We must have misunderstood one another." And when we can't understand how the person got from point A to point B, despite that seeming like the "correct" thing to do, we can only say: I don't follow you; I don't see how you got there. We can't say, "Logically, I am correct and you are incorrect." This isn't even coherent - what does it mean to know and feel, to be certain, that you are correct, but be "really" incorrect? What is this "really?"

>>12451597
>I'm very comfortable being X and not being X.

Logic error in your post there. Enjoy crunching numbers for Burger King's Toledo headquarters. Maybe in the next life you'll be able to do philosophy.

[Anonymous No.12452061]

>>12451283
>ignores the just as autistic images that have the opposite bias
kys cucktinental

[Anonymous No.12452062]

>>12451164
>the truth lies in more questions
cringe

[Anonymous No.12452069]

>>12451161
How am I a pseud if you're agreeing with me? Analytic philosophy hasn't answered any questions. That's true.

[Anonymous No.12452169]

>>12451558
Existence is of the variety of perverse phenomena that can only be approached by man using reasoning that includes 'self-defeating ourobori of unadulterated retardation.' The apparent clarity of vision that analytic thinks he has through the use of formal logic is in fact a deceptive illusion.

[Anonymous No.12452176]

>>12452062
No one gives a fuck about your downvote faggot.

[Anonymous No.12452195]

>>12451709
>still no actual arguments for his position
>y-you're burger king and I "do philosophy"!!!111
I'd laugh, but this is the first time such sincerely delusional pseudery made me genuinely sad.

[Anonymous No.12452244]

>>12451709
>being X and not being X.
>Logic error
u wanna fite m8

[Anonymous No.12452368]

>>12452176
cringe and bluepilled

[Anonymous No.12452413]

>>12452169
It all comes down to utility though. We find the greatest form of abstraction that also functions as a means for deriving new, similarly utile, "truths". If we spend all our time asking why this and why that then we render a discourse no more sophisticated than that of a child, though we may obscure this fact with decadent language.

[Anonymous No.12452494]

>>12452413
>It all comes down to utility though
Yes, and it appears that two schools of language have arisen in order to focus on two useful ends - one for engineering problems and one for existential problems. If we use either 'tool' for the other job it will fail, but both are valid for the tasks they have been shaped for. You don't build a bridge out of poetry but neither do you use formal logic to create meaningful metaphor.

[Anonymous No.12452524]

>>12451709
Wrong. The process is:
Sensual apprehension of word -> mind visits realm of forms library -> retrieves universal idea -> mind returns with noetic knowledge of words meaning.

[Anonymous No.12452530]

>when undergrad analytics still think wittgenstein is relevant to analytic phil

lmao

[Anonymous No.12452541]

>>12452494
But that's exactly what Godel proved using the methods you're deriding, ya dip!

[Anonymous No.12452572]

>>12450491
T. Dark Prog hater

[Anonymous No.12452584]

>>12452541
Yes, but it's also why the theologians argued that 'god loves truth' validates scientific investigation the world.

[Anonymous No.12452597]

>>12447942
>>12451311
based

[Anonymous No.12453525]

Keep this thread alive.
If you ignore the baiting continentalists and general morons, these threads have actually been surprisingly interesting these past days.

[Anonymous No.12453576]

>>12447774
they are atomized subhumans that made up their own language to describe their purposeless lives and were funded to create an illusion of prestige to lure in retards like you

why did you fall for it?

[Anonymous No.12453579]

>>12452524
Absolutely based. Also agreedpilled.

These analytics truly have no clue of the waters they are in. Also, I loved your specific explanation - very well-phrased.

[Anonymous No.12453601]

>>12449840
This gave me a good chuckle. Thanks for reminding me how dumb non-analytic philosophy is.

[Anonymous No.12453605]

>>12449869
lol @ all the faggots in this thread, you're all wrong, language is .i.

[Anonymous No.12453609]

>>12451140
this is all sounding very jewish/leftist/communist

[Anonymous No.12453614]

>>12447774
What's the point of analytic "philosophy"? Why use autistic logic shit?

[Anonymous No.12453618]

>>12453576
Faggot.

[Anonymous No.12453620]

>>12453601
Analytc is soulless, though.

[Anonymous No.12453642]

>>12451280
defining a language means sharing experience
'well-defined' means nothing
no language can be 'well-defined'
language is a set of sensory symbols that evoke memory
the definition is the memory associated with the symbol
the only way definitions can agree is if experiences are remembered the same way

god damn how hard is that to realize you pseudo-intellectual brainwashed nigger sub-animal flesh machine?

[Anonymous No.12453672]

>>12453601
I HAVE INVESTED TOO MUCH
THIS IS TOO DEEP IN MY CALCIFIED BIAS TO GIVE UP
I MUST DOUBLE DOWN
I CAN'T BE WRONG
I MASTURBATED TO THIS SEVERAL TIMES ALREADY
NO GOING BACK NOW

NOW IT'S YOUR PROBLEM

[Anonymous No.12453681]

>>12453620
worth it for the chicks
chicks love provability logic

[Anonymous No.12453683]

>>12453672
this is true

this is why we literally have to kill every leftist/analytic
their insane maniacs running around starting fires everywhere

if we don't the world will burn

[Anonymous No.12453684]

>>12452584
>God

Now there's your metaphysically insubstantial entity.

[Anonymous No.12453938]

>>12447774
It's all very interesting. You are just literally incapable of grasping why

[Anonymous No.12455183]

>>12453672
>The Contie's Confession

[Anonymous No.12455210]

>>12447794
The divide is over. You have been conquered by material concerns and attachments to necessary illusions.

[Anonymous No.12455241]

>>12449033
that the difference in courts of law is lost to most should tell you enough about both tradition's effect on the education system to make you wonder if there is another way

[Anonymous No.12455253]

>>12449798

[Anonymous No.12455255]

>>12451283
double detournenment is good/bad optimised

[Anonymous No.12455314]

>>12452494
You actually do build a bridge out of poetry. It's conceptual uniqueness within a bracketed [bridge] or as a shared concept rather than a self reflected one is mutually created, afixed to, and developed as a tool. Any engineer accounts for oversight, and the prime tools of phenomenal inspection are communicating teams with shared language but different skillsets. The poetic koan of bridge is loaded with meanings and serves as an analytic marker of indeterminate value but with fixed properties. So long as we must agree that bridges exist and that we bring them into the world, we are using a informal poetic system in regards to terms. You might not need iambic meter but you do need language for formal logic.

[Anonymous No.12455324]

>>12447774
>They are obsessed with things like "sets" but they never explain the metaphysical nature of them, just presuming they exist or make sense innately.
I think it's because it's the memes that explain such things, not us. We perceive memes and align our behavior by them, but we do not create nor understand them. You better start believing in memetic lifeforms, like all your ancestors did.

[Anonymous No.12455329]

>>12449033
>How does "analytic" differ from "continental" in any meaningful way

Honestly, the divide is aesthetic more than it is substantive.

I think a large part of the problem started with Wittgenstein and his concept of "language games", because it cause the linguistic turn in philosophy in general, which is a black hole philosophy hasn't even gotten out of.

[Anonymous No.12455330]

>>12449840
>Analytic: I shouldn't ...
>Implying a should
Analytics took it out, like the rest of reality. Reality and truth is the collective of all things, metaphysical, experienced, data, actual and potential.

[Anonymous No.12455335]

>>12452530

[Anonymous No.12455343]

>>12453609
You ever wonder how many babies that thing has eaten?

[Anonymous No.12455348]

Why do analytics ignore the fact that post modernism and post structuralism completely destroy all their ideas?

[Anonymous No.12455371]

>>12450491
no, the critic announces the deaths of everything human and replaces it with histories of abstractions or prophecies of validation for their fickle contrarianism, (as the market expectations/alienations are again scrutinized).

[Anonymous No.12455372]

>>12455348
>post structuralism
Spoiler It's just a different structure that likes to relate itself to something else.

[Anonymous No.12455377]

>>12450499

[Anonymous No.12455404]

>>12455348
That's evident: Those frameworks are far removed from formal logical and they'd not deem them viable or even sensible criticism.

[Anonymous No.12455469]

>>12455372
it is the efficiency of said system which should be taken out of rhythm so as to accommodate general usage or else it remains a scribal powercentre for a justified division of labour that is exploitative by nature. Analytic philosophy was a justified rape of the total potential of humanity, and now it serves as penetrative tool into space, the universe, into reality. There is something almost whalelike in the mystery that is never allowed, but there is something almost unutterable about the true formality of the way, or the nature of the imperative, (at least in as much as I can talk about it in the 1980's).
---
Sells books on old philosophical arguments in order pay to be educated on the current levels of understanding.

[Anonymous No.12455647]

>>12450482
Analytic metaphyiscal realist gang

[Anonymous No.12456337]

>continental philosophy takes over every university department in the anglosphere, and half-encroaches on philosophy departments
>analytic philosophy is only a feature of philosophy departments
>and it's dwindling
>tfw it feels good to win

[Anonymous No.12457563]

>>12450965
Of course. Every good piece of philosophy should be poetry to some extend and every interesting poem should have some philosophy in it.
There is more philosophical depth in William Blake's writings than the entire Analytic tradition.

[Anonymous No.12458089]

>>12453684
Sure, but my argument doesn't rely on a metaphysical entity-substantial or otherwise. My argument is that: it is worthwhile building a specialized language for investigation of 'human condition'-based questions.

[Anonymous No.12458673]

In Wittgenstein's Philosophische Untersuchungen:

What is the difference between believing you are following a rule and following a rule?

Is it not actually a rule you are following when you are believing to follow one? With the sign example it is not relevant how you follow the rule, because not one person only can follow it, but is it possible to only believe you are following the rule of the sign (or is it as I said, that believing you are following a rule means there is none to begin with, not just you are following it incorrectly).

[Anonymous No.12458836]

>>12451311
Who are Bachelard, Cavaillès, Canguilhem, Simondon, Foucault, Deleuze, Serres, Latour?

[Anonymous No.12458953]

>>12458673
Is Private Language not possible because it jsut is public langauge no matter how you try to contrive it?

[Anonymous No.12459212]

PU wouldn't be nearly as popular if it werent so vague and contradicting.
If I wrote an essay like Witty, the prof would fail me instantly

[Anonymous No.12459234]

Analytic philosophers are just dangerous establishmentarian functionalists whose only interest is to delay the revolutionary goals of continental philosophy to liberate the mind and unpack society's systemic oppressions

[Anonymous No.12459236]

>>12458836
Well, who the fuck are they?

[Anonymous No.12459463]

>>12447774
Read the Philosophical Investigations

[Anonymous No.12459520]

Is it bad to intentionally draw people (depressed anxious people?) into existential crises? I'm talking about the ones who don't see any value in philosophy, reading etc. and are mostly solipsistic in intellectual nature. Some of them just do not have the kind of anchor points, kind of like Nietzsche (no stable family, no stable job, nothing to keep them from being thrown up to the wind by the spirit), to dig into the other roughly 99.9% of perception the ego isn't aware of. Am I endangering them with their own unconscious' tendency to overwhelm them, by exposing them to stuff like Jung?

[Anonymous No.12460132]

The truthmaker for every statement about a possible state of affairs is found in the dispositions of objects in the real world.

[Anonymous No.12460166]

While visiting the director of my undergraduate philosophy department, a metaphysician who very confidently told me that "you don't perceive your thoughts", during his office hours, I asked why he was doing this with his life. He told me: "Other people struggle to put food on the table, and that's hard. I'm fortunate to do work that I find meaningful in an environment that supports that work."

I stared at him, realizing that there was nothing to gain from continuing our conversation. I thanked him for his reply, and began to stand up.

"I'm writing a book," he gestured towards his computer screen "about how statements of possibility can only be grounded in the future, while the past is necessary."

I nodded. "That seems intuitive to me."

His face scrunched with concerted pain. "I don't know people mean when they say that."

[Anonymous No.12461170]

Analytical philosophy is essential to avoid all the bullshiting occuring in modern philosophy

[Anonymous No.12461225]

>>12451192
holyshit why are analytic autists like this
what happened to this people
I know a phil student who is like this, they never stop this "heh, you just proved me right hehe" non-sense. It's all about always "being right" for these people.

[Anonymous No.12461275]

>>12460166
6/10, less redditspacing, more absurdity

[Anonymous No.12461373]

>>12447774
So join the synthetic set.

There is no literal 'metaphysical' category of reality... They're just talking about conceptualizing/abstraction. All meaning relates to observations of our reality. Any analytic or normative statement relies upon collateral knowledge for meaning, and so the synthetic/descriptive is always implicit.

Philosophy is replete with abstract categories fallaciously presented as concrete dichotomies. It's mental gymnastics for the leap towards transcendentalism.

[Anonymous No.12461711]

>>12451192
I wanted to respond to this, but your language was so "private" and "personal" and "self-defined" that I could not understand a word you said, it was merely gibberish to me. I would like to agree or disagree with your position, but I can't comprehend the words you wrote in the first place.

>>12451486
For these two to even communicate disagreement, the words they use to communicate their disagreement must have meanings agreed of.

[Anonymous No.12461904]

>>12461711
based and btfopilled

[Anonymous No.12462176]

>>12461711
Based

[Anonymous No.12462577]

>>12461711
That was his point

[Anonymous No.12462737]

>>12447774
The analytic/continental divide is a psyop started in the early 20th century.

[Anonymous No.12462822]

>>12459236
I REALLY WANNA KNOW

[Anonymous No.12462825]

>>12462577
What was?

[Anonymous No.12462836]

>>12449840

[Anonymous No.12464039]

>>12459236
>>12462822
Though they are obviously overshadowed by all the well-known continental philosophers (who aren't necessarily anti-science, but don't treat the subject in depth), these are all influential French philosophers of science (and, notably, technology or technoscience); aye, continental philosophy sports a worthy engagement with the sciences, known as French epistemology. And then there's Foucault and Deleuze, who (more directly than, say, a Derrida) were influenced by those thinkers and engage with science (Foucault: the human sciences, mainly in The Order of Things; Deleuze: biology, Prigogine, Monod, etc.)