/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14132117]

>analytic "philosophy"

[Anonymous No.14132123]

Read Wittgenstein. He has interesting things to say. The use of philosophy is not just "truth," anyway.

[Anonymous No.14132130]

>>14132117
Why are you talking about things you haven't read anon?

[Anonymous No.14132132]

>>14132123
I like Witty, particularly PI, but I think he's proto-analytic. Anything after him is mere autistic masturbation.

[Anonymous No.14132135]

>retards who don't realize that the whole analytic vs continental is a fucking anachronism and that the best "analytics" philosophers where continental like Frege, Kant, Wittgenstein, etc.

[Anonymous No.14132189]

It would help if everyone who hated analytic philosophy said what exactly they disliked. Is it the style or the content? If the content, is it the content when it sounds pro-metaphysics, or is it the content when it sounds anti-metaphysics? Content-wise, if you are pro-metaphysics (if you like that aspect about pre-analytic/non-analytic philosophy) you can find some really neat work in analytic philosophy. Meanwhile, if you are anti-metaphysics (again, if you like that aspect of non-analytic philosophy), there's some neat work in analytic philosophy again. If your issue is with the style, you'll want to say more. I would say the problem is accessibility more than it is style, but that's not a problem particular to analytic philosophy, it's just philosophy in general. People just have odd tolerance for inaccessible works if they sound mystifying, whereas they dismiss equally inaccessible analytic philosophy for being too technical and demanding context.

[Anonymous No.14132191]

>>14132189
I think it's bugmen tier. Shit like Kripke. It sucks the life out of philosophy. Might as well just do science.

[Anonymous No.14132207]

>>14132189
If you're willing to put in the effort, could you convert me?

The only experience I've had with analytic philosophy is the introductory subject for the philosophy course I'm studying. It seems too cold, too distant, too formulaic. The continental philosophy subjects I've done are full of life and the philosophers who espouse it are passionate. Like I said, I am open to warm to analytic philosophy, but it seems so heartless.

Fucking uni is cutting back on continental courses too

[Anonymous No.14132221]

>>14132207
>Fucking uni is cutting back on continental courses too
That's everywhere in the Anglosphere. Anglos are bugmen even when it comes to philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14132244]

>>14132191
>It sucks the life out of philosophy
At worst it's a division of labor type of issue. I mean the same is true of science. Nothing prevents you from being into science, or stuff analytics cover, and also having a philosophy of life. You're not anti- science itself, are you? You just hate a specific breed of people who love science. Am I being too hopeful?

[Anonymous No.14132245]

>>14132135
this

[Anonymous No.14132257]

>>14132244
>philosophy of life

Nothing to do with philosophy, another proof that the retards who like to argue about this shit know jackshit about the field.

[Anonymous No.14132312]

>>14132207
Here's my pitch. Note: it's only going to work if you're a certain kind of person. But I'm the kind of person who really, really loves metaphysics. I think aesthetic categories like the sublime require a robust notion of a metaphysical reality beyond what we can fully grasp, a reality beyond what we can conceive. I think fiction like Borges or Lovecraft would be hampered significantly if, for example, the verificationists were right, and what can't be verified is meaningless and neither true nor false, or if the deflationists were right and meaning is use, or if the pragmatists were right and truth is value, etc. There's a bit in Heidegger where he talks about joy and how it arises when you are faced with being as if all things were new to you again. Themes in Emerson and the early (humanist, 1844) Marx really speak to me, because they seem to connect the reason for existing with the capacity for man to properly grasp what exists, nature, the world, etc. Or consider Aristotle: the final end of doing anything, is contemplation. So I have a humanist conception of contemplation which makes me connect the study of metaphysics with a philosophy of life, and I also believe metaphysics plays a role in making certain aesthetic categories conceivable, and it allows art (including literature) to achieve creative, imaginative heights. With that in mind, I love metaphysics wherever it is found. So for example, I really like reading about German Idealism. Well, analytic metaphysics is a really broad field where a lot of topics are covered, and to me it's just more metaphysics, and metaphysics is good regardless of where I find it. The analytics do two things better than others though. First: they cover so much ground (so many different views, so many arguments, counter-arguments, etc) that you really could say they've refined metaphysics into as close to a rigorous science as you can get, in terms of scope and argumentation. Second: there really is something to the style that ends up helping, since you're at least better able to grasp the different possible views when people are trying to be clear, rather than de-prioritizing clarity. To me the enemy of metaphysics is the other (anti-metaphysics) half of analytic philosophy, more so than anti-metaphysics continentals might be. But minimally, there's value to knowing their thought if only at least to respond to it knowledgeably. So all in all, I find analytic philosophy valuable. But you have to be a certain kind of person, like I said. Anti-metaphysics analytic philosophy feels super dry and boring to me, and I only put up with it for instrumental purposes (wanting to tear it down by first knowing it). On the other hand, pro-metaphysics analytic philosophy is my element, but then so is German Idealism, systematic ancient and early modern philosophy, etc.

[Anonymous No.14132317]

>>14132257
You can't say bugmen exist and deny that you endorse a philosophy of life. You're literally carrying out a normative judgment about how humans should be like to be good humans, when you call anyone a bugman. I don't mean some new age feel-good shit, I just mean a philosophical point of view, hopefully well-argued, about how we should live our life.

[Anonymous No.14132321]

>>14132117
"anal"ytic philosophy

[Anonymous No.14132360]

>>14132312
Amazing. Thanks for the detailed response. Metaphysics intrigues me too but it seems so vast and incomprehensible. However - to put a label on things - I am sceptical of a purely materialist reality. Perhaps analytic philosophy might help in understanding metaphysics further. Do you recommend any particular works or philosophers?

[Anonymous No.14132404]

>>14132360
>I am sceptical of a purely materialist reality
I am too. Thomas Nagel's "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" and Frank Jackson's "Epiphenomenal Qualia" are nice starting papers on why materialism can't quite get us everything about the mental. Nagel defends the irreducibility of first-person subjectivity (even more so in other writings of his, but this paper is where it all begins), and Jackson defends the irreducibility of sensible qualities (qualia). Nagel's paper was actually one of the first analytic philosophy papers I ever read.

[Anonymous No.14132502]

I hate this guy more than you people could ever believe.

[Anonymous No.14132525]

>>14132502
I bet you only know him for The History of Western Philosophy, The Problems of Philosophy, and his politics at best. So of course you'll think he's shit. He's not particularly great as a critic. It's his philosophy of language, epistemology, and metaphysics which are more interesting.

[Anonymous No.14133929]

>>14132502
bugman: the writer

[Anonymous No.14133977]

>>14132525
It's more his "work" on religion, ethics, politics and letting another guy fuck your wife that bothers me about him.

[Anonymous No.14134015]

>>14133977
Those works are in fact his shittiest. But nobody in philosophy cares about those works by Russell anyway. It's basically a pleb filter when people know and even hold opinions on Russell based on those works and nothing more.