What is the best synthesis of analytic and continental philosophy ?

[Anonymous No.14615995]

Is it him ? What is the peak of philosophy?

[Anonymous No.14616061]

I hate the New Pope TV series. That guy's face and glasses reminds me of one of the characters in it.

Imagine ruining one of the best shows ever. The only good episode of it is the first episode because the interim Pope between The Young Pope and The New Pope is even more based than Pope Pius the 13th.

[Anonymous No.14616330]

>What is the best synthesis of analytic and continental philosophy ?
Not Rorty. It's the later Wittgenstein on one side and Husserl on the other.

[Anonymous No.14616952]

>>14616061
/tv/

[Anonymous No.14617010]

what do the weird symbols mean in the text?

[Anonymous No.14617051]

>>14616330
This is correct

[Anonymous No.14617199]

I don't find the later Wittgenstein that deep, his contributions are either fuzzy either practical and useful (e.g. family ressemblance) but trivial

[Anonymous No.14617214]

>>14616330
And I find Husserl very descriptive

[Anonymous No.14617378]

>>14617199
isn't he just taking care of problems from frege and russell? is he meant to be "deep"?

[Anonymous No.14618033]

>>14615995
Why would you want to synthesize analytic philosophy with poop?

[Anonymous No.14618046]

>>14618033
This. It's like synthesizing Tolstoy with E. L. James.

[Anonymous No.14618047]

>>14615995
Why would you want to synthesize continental philosophy with poop?

[Anonymous No.14618051]

whitehead

[Anonymous No.14618053]

The best synthesis is Negarestani's Intelligence and Spirit...

[Anonymous No.14618371]

>>14618053
This
Also look up Fabio Gironi, Adrian Johnston, Ray Brassier. In my understanding they are trying to bring the two traditions together by way of Sellars

[Anonymous No.14618383]

>>14618033
Because smearing shit on everything of value is all the rage these days.

[Anonymous No.14618393]

>>14618383
And where does Husserl fit in this division?

[Anonymous No.14618416]

Nobody gives a fuck about analytic philosophy. Its real core died in the '60s and it's been a "pragmatist" mishmash of ideas ripped off from continental thought ever since.

[Anonymous No.14618443]

>>14618416
>Its real core died in the '60s
I don't think that's fair to say because of Kripke. But to anons who have studied analytic phil in depth, has there been a truly worthwhile publication in analytic phil after Naming and Necessity?

[Anonymous No.14618636]

>>14618443
Of course. All the really good stuff came later.

[Anonymous No.14618649]

>>14618416
>Its real core died in the '60s
Get a load of this ignoramus.

>ripped off from continental thought
lol

[Anonymous No.14618671]

>>14618636
Could you list the most important ones?

[Anonymous No.14618683]

>>14618393
He should be an analytic (even if you could argue that the divide began with his disputes with Frege), but Heidegger and Derrida tarnished his work.

[Anonymous No.14618742]

>>14618671
https://homepage.univie.ac.at/noichlm94/posts/structure-of-recent-philosophy-iii/

[Anonymous No.14618758]

>>14618683
He certainly started as an analytic, but sort of drifted off into gibberish in his elder years.

[Anonymous No.14618797]

>>14618742
It's an interesting infographic with the name of the specializations and their leading scholars, thanks for sharing, but it wasn't what I asked for. My question was that what are the most important (specific) works of analytic philosophy since Kripke and Lewis? The specializations seem interesting, but it doesn't look like there was a major breakthrough since them.

[Anonymous No.14618887]

>>14618797
Philosophy is mostly done via journal articles, but see bottom half of pic related for key recent books in 'general' philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14618929]

>>14618887
I didn't mean only books, that's why I used the word "publication". But still, from the ones at the bottom of the chart, from what I know of these books, it still seems to me like they aren't that important in the grand scheme of philosophy. Could you explain why you think otherwise and which works specifically?

[Anonymous No.14618969]

>>14618929
What you personally see as 'important' is not really my business. I will only note that the chart reflects the consensus regarding the most important books in 'core' philosophy, and that the majority of entries were published after the 1960s. Before the 1960s you only have a handful of classics by Frege, Russell, Carnap etc. I personally find Kripke highly overrated, but the chart includes him since he's canon. There are separate charts for moral philosophy, political philosophy, philosophy of science, etc.

[Anonymous No.14618981]

[Anonymous No.14619132]

>>14615995
This dude looks like a sad Warren Buffett.
Does this prove being a billionaire > being a philosopher?

[Anonymous No.14619671]

>>14618758
>drifted off into gibberish
>t. hasn't read Husserl

[Anonymous No.14619854]

>>14618969
not the guy you're replying to but holy shit stop humiliating yourself, he's asking you a simple question for a pretty clear reason (hint: he knows you can't answer it) and he's calmly batting side your pathetic attempts to evade it

just answer the question or stop replying evasively, have at least that much dignity

[Anonymous No.14620080]

>>14619854
Are you clinically retarded? I answered his question in my first reply to him.

[Anonymous No.14620111]

>>14620080
that explains why he kept asking it ten more times

[Anonymous No.14620123]

>>14620111
He's asking different questions, dumbfuck. Next time read the thread before spouting off.

[Anonymous No.14620139]

>>14618671
>>14618742
Here's an updated interactive version. Click on a cluster to see the most important individual publications:

https://homepage.univie.ac.at/noichlm94/full/zoom_final/index.html

[Anonymous No.14620145]

>>14618671
>Could you list the most important ones?
>[your answer]
>[That] wasn't what I asked for. My question was that what are the most important (specific) works of analytic philosophy [in your opinion]
>[your answer]
>I didn't mean [what you responded with] .. Could you explain why you think otherwise and which works specifically?
>[your evasive worthless answer again]

i can really tell how studying logic made you great at analyzing and understanding the underlying contents of statements, what with how you are a complete fucking retard who can't answer a simple question and then digs his heels in when he's rightfully mocked for it

>He's asking different questions
yeah, when someone says "No, no, that's not what I meant, what I meant is..", that's not what it looks like when they're re-asking the same question because you didn't answer it. you illiterate faggot lol, hope your BA in modal illiteracy was worth it

[Anonymous No.14620190]

>>14620145
>>Could you list the most important ones?
>>[your answer]
>>[That] wasn't what I asked for.
Yes it was. The poster asked for a "list the most important ones" and I replied with a link to a list of the most important ones. Sorry your lack of reading comprehension has brought you to the point of conniption and rage.

[Anonymous No.14620218]

>>14620190
he said could YOU list the most important ones. any possible ambiguity of "could YOU list them," a statement whose obvious real meaning (to anyone but you) is "if you think what you just said is true, then actually demonstrate it, by putting your own opinions on the line," was eliminated in his first response. of course you would know this if you weren't being deliberately disingenuous, still, even know.

all you had to do then, and all you have to do now, is answer the fucking question: what do you think are the breakaway, significant analytic boo-- WAIT I MEAN, PUBLICATIONS, since you went out of your way to go ";) i can't name a book if it's mostly articles now can i? hehe :P!!!"--publications since kripke? note the question is "WHAT DO YOU THINK, that is, TAKE A STANCE," and not "post an infographic."

fuck you really are stupid. like i said, i hope your worthless minor in philosophy was worth it you computer engineer with the mind of a child.

[Anonymous No.14620251]

>>14620190
I'm the poster that asked the questions. Now could you pick 3 post-Kripke/Lewis works from that list and explain to us what that is and why should we care? I do like analytic phil up to that point but I don't believe it produced anything important after that.
>>14619854
>he's asking you a simple question for a pretty clear reason (hint: he knows you can't answer it)
Yeah I don't think there is a good answer and it looks like the anon also couldn't give a good answer but I think it more has to do with his own familiarity with the field than the field itself. If I asked this question from an analytic philosopher, I'm sure he would namedrop many works that have no importance out of analytic bubble. What I was looking for was mainly a justification of why those works are actually important.

[The Man !QkRJTXcpFI No.14620256]

>>14615995
>Democrat
>philosopher
If you genuinely believe everyone should have an equal vote to everyone else because it is "morally" "correct" and the "right thing to do", you are not a philosopher.
>>14616330
>later Wittgenstein
If you genuinely believe that all meaning can be attributed to "social" "games", and not individual perspective, you are not a philosopher.
>>14618033
Analytic philosophy has not created one book of any worth. Wittgenstein will forever remain a continental.
>>14618383
It's a funny picture, but even if it's just a joke, it is obvious that all "reason" proceeds via "feelings", that all logic boils down to obsolete meaningless tautology (A=A does not express anything), that all analysis proceeds through individual perspective, that you are only ever analyzing yourself.

[Anonymous No.14620281]

>>14620256
>Analytic philosophy has not created one book of any worth.
Name how many works of Analytic philosophy have you read so we can tell whether you know what the fuck you are talking about.
>Wittgenstein will forever remain a continental.
Oh nevermind, you don't even understand the analytic/continental distinction. You don't get to appropriate the philosophers you personally like to the Continental camp retard.

[Anonymous No.14620297]

>>14620256
>Wittgenstein will forever remain a continental.

This is true. So will Sellars.

[Anonymous No.14620302]

>>14620281
You seem knowledgeable in analytic phil. Could you answer this question?>>14618443

[Anonymous No.14620309]

Philosophy has degenerated into a total rejection of morality which has ran society into the ground.

Refute this.

[Anonymous No.14620327]

>>14620309
Philosophy is not done like this dear sir. The burden of proof lies on you. Prove it. (I actually agree with you but never mind that.)

[Anonymous No.14620366]

>>14620251
>3 post-Kripke/Lewis works from that list
Kripke is still alive, and Lewis died in 2001. Exactly what time frame are we talking about here? The original question was post-1960s.

>it more has to do with his own familiarity with the field than the field itself
No, I'm quite familiar with the field. You asked about the most important philosophers, not my personal favorites. If I answered with a list of my personal favorite contributions, that would not debunk the accusation that analytic philosophy 'died' in the 1960s. Whereas by examining the complete list of important publications since 1900, measured objectively by citation data, it is clear that the most important activity occurred after 1970.

For what it's worth, here are a few my personal favorite 'core philosophy' books since the mid-70s:
Fodor - The Language of Thought
Parfit - Reasons and Persons
Williamson - Knowledge and Its Limits
Woodward - Making Things Happen

[Anonymous No.14620372]

>>14620302
That 'question' has since morphed from post-N&N to "post Kripke and Lewis", whatever that means. Obviously the greatest philosopher operating after 1970 is David Lewis.

[Anonymous No.14620388]

>>14620366
Those are all garbage, thanks for proving analytic philosophy is embarrassing shit.

>Fodor
Lmao, if your puny brain could even process actual phenomenology your head would explode. Literal Dan Dennett tier.

[Anonymous No.14620396]

>>14618443
Naming and Necessity is dogshit. Whereas every paper and book David Lewis published from 1969-1999 is pure gold.

[Anonymous No.14620403]

>thinking there is a difference between the two like a bunch of booklets and talking past each other

[Anonymous No.14620412]

>>14620366
I appreciate your efforts to objectivity, but I would accept arguments as well instead of statistics. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, but I meant works after Naming and Necessity which was published in the eighties so these answers don't really apply.
>>14620372
So that's it? Lewis and Kripke and we are done with analytic phil? If this is what you meant, this was also exactly what I had in mind when I asked the question.

[Anonymous No.14620419]

>>14620366
I see that except Fodor the other works were published after N&N. Could you tell us why they are particularly important?

[Anonymous No.14620431]

>>14620327
Your refutation is sound, yet I must bring forth a bit of evidence for the degeneracy of morals: radical feminism.

[Anonymous No.14620432]

>>14620302
How do you define an important philosophical publication, something that makes a lot of buzz and has other philosophers talk about it? My own view is that many of the major questions in philosophy have been adequately answered by Hume and his followers, so I don't see every time a new "Great Philosopher" makes an influential book as necessarily a progress in philosophy, neither I value a philosophical tradition solely on even mainly on how many influential books it can produce per year. My view of much of Continental philosophy roughly after Kant is as a relentless pursuing of originality for any cost, resulting to a large amount of philosophical systems that are completely devoid of intellectual merit. So long story short I completely reject the assumption that the value of analytical philosophy has to do with how many new crazy ideas can they make up each year. But to answer your question, Mackie's the Miracle of Theism came after Naming and Necessity and it's probably the best overall defence of atheism alongside Hume's Dialogues.

[Anonymous No.14620439]

>>14620412
>works after Naming and Necessity which was published in the eighties
It was first published in 1972. That's when Kripke was at the height of his influence.

>Lewis and Kripke and we are done with analytic phil?
No, because they are merely participants in a collaborative conversation involving hundreds of other contemporary philosophers. You can read all the papers of David Lewis and benefit greatly from it, but will still be missing out on the other half of the conversation. Just because Lewis set the agenda for philosophy in the post-1970 period, doesn't mean he was right about everything, or that he explored every aspect of every question.

[Anonymous No.14620511]

>>14620302
Fuck I didn't mention the most important point, how analytic philosophers are actively engaged alongside with cognitive scientists on the debate about the possibility of producing human intelligence by creating more advanced computational systems, that touches on the "hard" problem of consciousness. A good example of work on this subject would be Intentionality by John Searle, although I dont know if he wrote the book before he was actively engaged with the debates or not.Continental philosophers aren't really engaged with, or are taken very seriously by scientists, they just jerk each other off without any serious influence outside of their department.besides maybe literary criticism.

[Anonymous No.14620566]

It wont work. This is as dumb as neural lace or eye implants. Have you ever smelled an ear piercing?

[Anonymous No.14621388]

>>14618383
Funny seeing analytic philosophers are generally apolitical liberals, while continental has spawned various fascist thought

[Anonymous No.14621522]

>>14618383
Tao te ching reader here
I cannot thank the world enough
that I have no idea what any of those words are supposted to mean in this context
nor do I desire to know.
You are all making it look exhausting, yet you do no work, like the Tao