/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12621911]

>uses analytic philosophy to destroy analytic philosophy

So what the fuck do I believe?

[Anonymous No.12621915]

>>12621911
do you believe anything?

[Anonymous No.12621942]

>>12621915
well I believed reason was a fairly reliable way of discerning even ultimate truths but this situation kind of throws a monkey wrench into that prepossession

[Anonymous No.12621951]

>>12621911
who this?

[Anonymous No.12621977]

>>12621942
>I believed reason was a fairly reliable way of discerning even ultimate truths
why would you believe this to begin with when reason is predicated upon pre-rational suppositions?

[Play-doh No.12622002]

>>12621951
Kirt Gurrd-ell
Johann Gurr-tuh

[Anonymous No.12622013]

>>12621911
He really looked like a disney villain towards the end. Paranoia really was doing a number on him.

>>12621911
More like ruined Hilbert's formalism project using formalist tools, though yeah I guess the early analytics were somewhat collateral victims. But Gentzen shows us a different side of the story.

[Anonymous No.12622035]

>>12621977
uh, oh, I'm about to enter another "debate" with a Christian.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr-FIN_AZIQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsMBxvsTkzk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rISzpghyRk

[Anonymous No.12622057]

>>12622035
He’s not completely wrong. He’s only wrong for being a Christcuck

[Anonymous No.12622116]

>>12622057
The only person who would claim this is a deeply religious person just so they can invoke their God. There's nothing wrong with taking reason at face value, even if Kant argues otherwise (once again to invoke God).

[Anonymous No.12622203]

>>12622116
>>12621977
Brainlet here, what do you guys mean by this? What's the problem with using reason? I don't understand.

[Anonymous No.12622245]

>>12622203
Nothin but Christcucks like to criticize reason as an end in and of itself because it doesn't leave enough room for God. They'll literally say the only reason they know they aren't a brain in a vat is because of the existence of an incomprehensible being who wrote an apparently entirely comprehensible book, the comprehension of which is the only way to know we aren't brains in vats.

[Anonymous No.12622285]

>>12621911
>People who actually believe Godel's theorems have a significant relevance for any philosophical theory of language or mind

Is it tough not knowing how math works? What do you do when your phone is out of battery and you need to leave a tip?

If you're strictly talking about Russel's logicist program, then nothing I say applies, but it's your fault for calling that one movement analytic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.12622355]

>>12622245
This wouldn't be such a bad strawman if instead of "they know they aren't a brain in a vat" you said "they believe they aren't a brain in a vat"

[Anonymous No.12622431]

>>12622355
well no, in the case of Christians who use this presuppositional apologetic, they say they know it. To merely say they believe it would defeat the whole purpose of the apologetics since an atheist could just as easily say they believe they aren't a brain in a vat because their reason tells them this.

[Anonymous No.12622676]

>>12622116
Lmao I guess Nietzsche, Heidegger, and late Wittgenstein were really trying to invoke god. (Maybe post-turn Heidegger actually did.)

There are a lot of people who ground reason in a pre-theoretical engagement with the world who go on to argue that the job of philosophy isn't an exercise of reason for the sake of infallible truths. There's a pretty long history of philosophers criticizing "reason as the rode to ultimate truths."

[Anonymous No.12623308]

>>12622035
do you seriously expect anyone to watch those youtubes?

[Anonymous No.12623316]

>>12623308
If they really want to pursue presuppositional apologetics then, yes, as a matter of fact, I do.

[Anonymous No.12623339]

>>12621911
Fuck this white person.

[Anonymous No.12623351]

>>12623316
it seems like nobody was really taking about christian god or whatever, and you just pulled a strawman. i think its pretty reasonable for "normal" people to believe in "ultimate" reason, just as those who believe in peano axiom system or something like that, and you just pulled "christcuck" strawman outof nowhere, and just link some shitty youtube videos which is almost an hour long. at least try to get an essay, or something. video is just terrible form for communication such abstract thoughts and compresses horribly.

[Anonymous No.12623442]

>>12621911
Goedel:
>dude logic has limitations
4chan:
>AnalYTic PhilOSOphy iS DEaD

Analytics are still the majority at many universities, and Russel, Witty, et al are widely taught and respected.

[Anonymous No.12623465]

>>12622203
I think the poster in question is trying to get at the fact that reason is a subordinate faculty to underlying irrational processes. Psychology refers to it as the subconscious, philosophy refers to it as the will. Think of it as the thing in itself of who you are, with your reason being only an expression of it.

So reason would be ultimately incapable of discerning ultimate truths because reason isn't truly a rational faculty, it only appears to be.

>>12622245
I'm not Christian.

[Anonymous No.12623525]

>>12623442
>Wittgenstein is an analytic philosopher

[Anonymous No.12623554]

>>12623525
Wittgenstein is an ideal language philosopher
Ideal language philosophers are analytic philosophers.
Therefore, Wittgenstein is an analytic philosopher.

[Anonymous No.12623647]

>>12623554
Yeah the guy who went on to give ordinary language philosophy's its reason for being is an ideal language philosopher.
It's not even clear in the tractatus if he's an ideal language philosopher because of the resolute readings of it. For the record I agree that he was one, but it's not a trivial truth about that book either.

[Anonymous No.12624236]

>>12622285
What