[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 32 KB, 480x481, 1575693957087.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14744688 No.14744688 [Reply] [Original]

Philosophylet here. Why is the analytic tradition disliked so much around here? Why are they wrong according to the continental tradition?

>> No.14744723

Analytic stuff isn't wrong it's just about twenty years behind the curve (although if you are a monolingual anglophone it is impossible to get further than ten years behind the curve even if you read continental stuff exclusively...)

>> No.14745172

Analytics have chosen to become cheerleaders for science and think science doesn't take them seriously because it is being tsundere. They don't understand that scientists think they are on par with new agers who abuse quantum mechanics terminology. It is a shame because continentals are pretty sloppy thinkers but at least they do philosophy where as Analytics are rigorous and it would be amazing to see their powers used for good instead of unanswered love letters.

>> No.14745193

>>14744688
Because most people on /lit/ are moronic shitposters who have never studied philosophy in their life.

>>14744723
>>14745172
Case in point.

>> No.14745196

>>14745172
This desu. I like me some continental solipsism and art, but analytics really could be a powerhouse.

>> No.14746074

>>14744688
It isn't as fun. Analytic philosophy reminds me of a part in to introduction to Kant's CoPR where he says that philosophy needs to stop being treated as play and start being treated as work. But perhaps analytics took it a bit too seriously.

>> No.14746229

lit doesn't like it because they can't do formal logic or math

>> No.14746270

>>14746229
I can do both and analytic philosophy bores me. Instead of reading autistic harpings about minute but semi-obvious distinctions that are never going to be remotely settled one way or the other and that feel plain dishonest after a time, I'd rather just read maths.

It's not that analytic philosophy is without interest or value, but in my admittedly limited experience it's pretty much like math without all of the rigor and almost none of the substance.

>> No.14746311
File: 22 KB, 350x450, 42558-004-E0104D56.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14746311

>>14744688
To quote the great Novalis, "the borders of philosophy are the borders of feeling." All brain, no soul.

>> No.14746319

>>14746270
You've never read analytic philosophy.

>> No.14746325

>>14746319
I have. Go read Marco Panza and Andrea Sereni's Introduction to Philosophy of Mathematics, in which the author explicily say, right in the foreword, that they're approaching the field from an analytic angle. Read that book and you'll see what I am talking about.

Not even a bad book bw. But in the end it gets dull and for what the books brings you, you're simply better off reading maths.

>> No.14746331

>>14746325
Never heard of either of them, and I read a lot of philosophy of mathematics.

>> No.14746342

>>14744688
because it's boring drivel that has 0 practical use

>> No.14746347

>>14746342
Brainlet detected.

>> No.14746350

>>14746347
explain how analytic philosophy has practical use

>> No.14746352

>>14746331
>I have read a lot of philosophy of mathematics
>therefore I must now every single philosopher of mathematics in existence
>if anon claims to have read a book he must be lying
Stop coping, you were wrong, it happens.
The book is here by the way (with a slightly different title, I read the French edition which made no mention of Plato in the title):
https://b-ok.cc/book/2473839/a2e08a

>> No.14746358

>>14746350
Philosophy is the foundation for all natural sciences, from physics to llnguistics to computer science.

>> No.14746363

>>14746352
I'm not claiming the book you read doesn't exist, you moron. I'm saying it just doesn't represent the best of analytic philosophy.

>> No.14746364

>>14746358
cop out

>> No.14746389

>>14746363
I never said it did. Reread the exchange with a cool head.

I said from what I read analytic philosophy is dull (bastardizing my own point here for the sake of brevity, and note that I said, from my limited experience, I never claimed otherwise).

Then you said I had never read analytic philosophy. I then produced an example of a book I've read which was written by analytic philosophers, or at least academic philosophers who had taken a approach belonging to analytical philosophy in their book.

You then said you've never heard of them, with the obvious intent of implying that book isn't actual analytic philosophy (I see no other reason why your comment would be relevant to the discussion, not that the implication holds anyway).

Then you tried to save face by saying they're not the best. I suppose they are not but that was never the point, and if your earlier comment was trying to imply that, it was completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Surely your extensive reading in philosophy of mathematics as made you able to understand the structure of our argument so far.

>> No.14746394

>>14744688
Analytic philosophy is gay man. Philosophy itself is useless from the 20th century onwards. I think both analytic and continental philosophy implicitly accept this. But whereas continental philosophy at least makes an attempt to follow marx's addage that philosophy should change the world rather than merely impact it, analytics seem content with accepting their own obsolesence and retreat further into the plane of abstract obfuscation and ivory towerism.

Analytic philosophy lacks all vital energy and cant capture the imagination of the angsty depressed incel faggots that inhabit /lit/ or of anyone for that matter except for the kind of autists that have train collections.

>> No.14746401

>>14746389
I'm sorry, but those two authors are nonentities in philosophy of mathematics. Basing your opinion of analytic philosophy on a single monograph written in French by literal-who's is not a sound methodology.

>> No.14746404

>>14746394
Almost all philosophy written before 1879 is worth ignoring.

>> No.14746409

>>14746401
>Basing your opinion of analytic philosophy on a single monograph written in French by literal-who's is not a sound methodology.
But making appeals to authority? yep, definitely a sound approach by contrast. Besides, he gave an opinion, it doesn't have to be justified by any methodology. Stop getting so butthurt

>> No.14746412

>>14746409
That's not what an appeal to authority is, retard.

>> No.14746482

>>14746401
> but those two authors are nonentities in philosophy of mathematics
Nonentities by the token of someone who "reads a lot of philosophy of mathematics", but at the very least they're professionally recognized, being tenured (and I also read good reviews of their book written by tenured mathematicians), so allow me to take their portrayal of analytic philosophy as more authoritative than yours (which is so far unsubstantial, btw, you're just making snide comments).

But it seems you have failed to understand my post (again). I never claimed it was a "sound methodology".
I just claimed that in my "admittedly limited experience" (those are my exact words, you are free to check them here >>14746270), it was pretty underwhelming.

Now am I wrong to base my opinion on what I read, even if what I read is only a single book? Perhaps, but consider that I don't have the time to read a dozen textbook no every niche subject I encounter, I have to make choices with the limited information I have at disposal. I read the book, I gave it proper consideration, and from this I formed an opinion. Since I have no necessity or obligation to become an expert in analytic philosophy, I judged that from what I have read, while not entirely without merit, it was not worth the trouble, especially compared to reading mathematics. It's no more or less than that.

>inb4 but why give your opinion then
Because that's what /lit/ is for, because my opinion is on topic, because from experience I can compare with the study of mathematics and formal logic (which was the point of the post I was first answering to >>14746229), and because while reading several hundred pages summarizing more than a dozen philosophical viewpoints is certainly not perfect, it still is much more work than 99% of what /lit/ posters bother to do (note that we've yet to see anything itt that points towards you being any different, despite your claims).

Tl;dr: We've come full circle. I can only reiterate that yes, I have read some analytic philosophy (I've also read a few articles besides that book, but it's a minor point), and that so far I'm the only one among us who actually mentioned a book of analytic philosophy itt.

>> No.14746531

I am unfamiliar with either, but what I am able to say nonetheless is that all is logical, and therefore trivial. If either of them required study, then it's untrivial, therefore illogical and by that brainwashing.

>> No.14746539

>>14746482
>from experience I can compare with the study of mathematics and formal logic
Formal logic is a branch of analytic philosophy.

>> No.14746545

>>14746358
Isn’t natural philosophy, which that claim would traditionally be applied to, quite different from what we would consider analytic philosophy today?

>> No.14746556

>>14746394
I completely agree with this. Analytic just feels more like a formulaic approach to philosophy in an attempt to justify the existence of philosophy for the academy where everything has to be approached in an analytic and not-too-radical context.

>> No.14746602
File: 209 KB, 640x461, 1581469887924.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14746602

>>14744688
Let's be honest, how much contemporary philosophy gets discussed here period, Continental or Analytic? /lit/ is stuck in a perpetual adolescence as people leave after reading enough to realise this board is trash and newbies arrive starry-eyed to start with the greeks, the average settling somewhere around Kant but never progressing to contemporary work. I've come to think that the inherited autism about approaching the canon chronologically has retarded discussion and tends to produce exegetes rather than thinkers.

>> No.14746623

>>14746539
Mathematical logic, which is a branch of formal logic, is essentially a branch of mathematics.
And most of formal logic is pretty mathematical in formulation, reasoning and intuition.

>> No.14746807

>>14746602
everyone seems a complete autist about charts and orderings and prerequisites - literally just pick someone and then follow their references

>> No.14746813

>>14746807
This, don't obsess about "reading the right way", it's paralyzing, find a philosophical topic you're interested in and pick any book that's a landmark in that topic.

>> No.14746824

>>14744688
>lets base everything on mathematical logic theorems
>no, what, what do you mean that doesn't have a basis?
>ad infinitum

>> No.14747631

>>14744688
Because they are systematic and hard to get into for schizos

>> No.14747671

>>14746311
>the great Novalis
Jesus fuck end your life

>> No.14747678

>>14745172

spbp

>> No.14747680

>>14744723
Fpbp

>> No.14747685

>>14744688
I can't speak to anything else being said here, but as someone who studies and works in the Continental tradition but is perfectly literate in analytic philosophy, I have my own thoughts on it. I personally dislike their arrogance and their demands to be the final arbiter for what is or isn't philosophy. The analytic approach is interesting and productive in its own domain, and has lead to some cool work in things like metaphysics, but that doesn't mean nothing worthwhile is happening anywhere else. The oneitis they have for "logic" would be laughable if they weren't so dead set on making everyone else conform.

They decide that only certain types of formal logic are acceptable for philosophy, and only take seriously papers which are possible through formal logic. Its like telling someone that boats aren't necessary for anyone because you personally happen to live in a desert. The environment they have created for themselves precludes certain types of thought from "making sense".

Basically if analytics didn't have such a stranglehold on English speaking philosophy I wouldn't care.

>> No.14747687

>>14744688
Because the analytic tradition isn’t philosophy. Continental is, but that doesn’t mean majority of it is good. Analytics are the sort of, shapiros of philosophy. They come into a room, see everybody doing actual philosophy and yell “science, reason, logic!!!” And whilst everyone is currently doing that they lack doing it beyond buzzwords. There was a good tweet by Dawkins that summed up their autism, about how there’s only one geometry so there only one truth to the meaning of life or etc.. that’s the analytic mind, quite fascistic, quite autistic. Now if you actually started with the Greeks and onward like you were supposed to you could take one look at them and agree with what I just explained. They were btfo preemptively by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Lao Tzu, Zhuangzi, various Buddha’s, upanishads, probably Locke and Hobbes, Rousseau, Marx, Engels, Stirner, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Deleuze.

>> No.14747699

>>14746311
He cute

>> No.14747728

>>14746623
Not him but philosophical logic in general goes deeper than reasoning about the particular formal systems and is not a part of mathematics.

>> No.14747739

>>14746311
Go do your calc hw underage

>> No.14747759

>>14746824
"Mathematical" logic is ultimate logic. This universe obides it, and if you don't you are a lunatic.

>> No.14747770

>>14747728
at it's most pure, logic and math are identical. math is just the logical extrapolation of the structures of space and time

>> No.14747824

>>14747759
Quantum mechanics would like a word with you

>> No.14747960

>>14747824
>Quantum mechanics
Unrelated pseudo-science

>> No.14747970

>>14747824
do you think physicists studying quantum mechanics don't use math to do so? are you retarded?

>> No.14748579

>>14746623
>Mathematical logic, which is a branch of formal logic, is essentially a branch of mathematics.
Except it was created by philosophers, and is taught in philosophy departments by philosophers.

>> No.14749222

>>14747960
Kek
>>14747970
How does inherent unpredictability tie in with your idea of math?

>> No.14749230

>>14749222
>How does inherent unpredictability tie in with your idea of math?
Ever hear of Probability theory?

>> No.14749251

>>14749230
>probability is an exact science

>> No.14749252

>>14746358
Philosocope

>> No.14749261

>>14749222
Laugh hard as you may, but quantumists still haven't even settled on their interpretation of the observed effects, let alone anything else.

>> No.14749275

>>14749251
It's a branch of mathematics.

>> No.14749285

>>14749261
>they haven't even settled on their interpretation of the observed effects
They kind of have, in a few aspects. Neglecting the whole field would be the same thing as disregarding the general consensus on climate change because of a few interest groups and retards that do so.
>Also that ongoing discourse somehow makes them non-existent in this debate
OK, pal.

>> No.14749334

>>14749261
>quantumists
Nice, new schizo buzzword. P.S. the answer is Copenhagen (or consistent histories which is essentially the same)

>> No.14750543

Why do philosophy students always pretend that they can understand quantum physics?? I've never understood the fascination with this subject

>> No.14751279

>>14749285
I am not neglecting the whole field. It produces results, which is the purpose of sciences. Nevertheless, bringing it up in logic arguments is useless due to the fact that only results are available so far from it, not the causation or understanding. It will probably remain like that forever. Hell, "energy" is still being used simply because it produces the results.

>> No.14751400

On a personal level the issue is that analytic philosophers are unpleasant failed STEMfags. On a philosophical level the issue that continentally inclined thinkers have with analytics is that they tend to reify their abstractions, which is a bad thing in the age of transcendental philosophy, phenomenology, constructivism, hermeneutics, historicism, etc.

Continentals generally try to do philosophy in the light of the radical historicisation of concepts, the undecidability and irreducible ambiguity of all thought and language after Kant and Heidegger and so on. Analytics try to overcome ambiguity by assuming there is an unambiguous core underlying any ambiguous domain. They used to do this with straight-up rationalistic schemes, but then they got told for the fiftieth time it doesn't work and we are trapped in historically contingent language, and so they happily began reifying quasi-rationalistic schemes of language instead. The point was that schemes can't be reified, not to pick a different scheme. This inability to make the leap to true hermeneutic reflexivity just smells weird to continentals. Like something naive, out of the seventeenth century.

That's another thing analytics suck at, history. They tend to be presentist and shamelessly read texts as if words are words are words and semantic fields don't change over time or have fuzzy boundaries. This is also just odd seeming.

The reception of Wittgenstein's later work is telling. Continentals who seriously read it immediately understood it. Ricoeur, Bourdieu. Analytics took longer to process it, c aside from a few personal acquaintances of Wittgenstein himself. The imaginary interlocutors of Wittgenstein all seem unreal, unreasonably naive and bullish about believing in simplistic rationalist schemes. It's hard for a continental to believe they represent real people. But they do, they represent positivists and logicians who apparently have to strain their entire mind to stop reifying logic and to think of concepts as not floating in some void of unambiguous predication in which empirical humans merely participate imperfectly.

Basically, they come across as naive metaphysicians who also deny doing metaphysics, with all the smugness of a STEMfag.

>> No.14751415

>>14751400
Wow, you are so deep up your own asshole I don't know where to begin.

>> No.14751501

>>14744688
Mere autistic masturbatory ramblings and not the good kind.

>> No.14751541

>>14751501
That would be continental philosophy, anon.

>> No.14751717

>>14744688
They are difficult to read for brainlets and schizophrenics

>> No.14751876

>>14751415
Name one wrong thing he said. Its a good post and a very clear answer.

>> No.14752063

>>14744688
For one thing, there are analytical philosophers, and there are hordes of people simply masking with “analytical” their rampaging unreflected scientism, reductionism, etc., etc. However, in MY opinion (heh), there is a very romantic relationship with a figure of Ideal Universal Observer (borrowed from scientific models but quite impossible to even think about) that creates the field, the whole landscape in which all that Strict Logical Reasoning About Truths is happening, and there is also a reductionism (whose effects on modern scientific theory have been quite noticeable).

>>14750543
Quantum physics IS applied philosophy. At this level, you can't keep pretending you are blindly “studying” “real” “atomic” “reality” using comfortable models that are supposed to be studied and proven at some lower level by someone else. There is “something”, and how you interpret it is how it is going to be. (Of course, the rest of science is exactly the same, but people are not taught that.) “It is the theory which decides what we can observe”, as one cool physicist said to another. “Shut up and calculate” is not even an answer, it is simply pretending that the question does not exist.

>> No.14752615

>>14750543
Ikr, it's all a big Dunning Kruger effect. Quantum physics are extremely complicated even for an accomplished physicyst but somehow, 3rd year philosophy students who write 30 pages essays about the smell of their own farts understand it all.

>> No.14752634

>>14752615
>>14750543
I have postgraduate degrees in philosophy and I have never met a philosophy student past early undergrad who even attempted to speak authoritatively on quantum physics. When it did happen, it was single digit times over a period of years, and it was cringe to everyone around. It definitely wasn't normal.

>> No.14752648
File: 39 KB, 300x368, fdd5f2dda432eff8ea4c5f1e7458d56a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14752648

>>14744688
https://discord.gg/QJzZear

>> No.14752727

>>14752648
Fuck off.