/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15680141]

What exactly is the difference between analytical and continental philosophy?

[Anonymous No.15680204]

>>15680141
The main difference, the one that really matters, is that they have different philosophical canons roughly after Kant. Analytics read certain philosophers and don't read other philosophers, while continentals read the philosophers analytics don't read and don't read the philosophers analytics read. A consequence of this is that they do have some general differences in method, the main difference is that analytics try to take problems of philosophy 'seriously' by faithfully struggling with small things, which sometimes invites the criticism that they're overfocused on minutia (and they're also often interested in naturalizing philosophy, to make it more scientific), while continentals do a lot of work in critique of existing frameworks of thought, they do this using semiotics, psychoanalysis, material dialectics, genealogy of ideas, pointing out power structures, etc.

Anyone that tries to be more polemical than that, and wants to generalize analytics or continentals in a hyper-negative dismissive light, is a pseud. Ignore them. Both traditions do interesting work and you are top genius if you manage to understand and appreciate both.

[Anonymous No.15680210]

>>15680204
10/10 star post my man.

[Anonymous No.15681381]

bump

[Anonymous No.15681400]

WHO are the analytics? WHO are the continentals? is there a chart?

[Anonymous No.15681411]

>>15680141
Analytic is more rational and continental is more existential.
Continental makes up new terms a lot to distinguish objective truth from the existential 'already-before' or something to that effect.

[Anonymous No.15681517]

>>15681400
>is there a chart?
Probably not, someone who knows both sides well should make one though.
>WHO are the analytics?
Some big names: Frege, Russell, Moore, Wittgenstein, Schlick, Carnap, Neurath, Hempel, Feigl, Ayer, Godel, Tarski, Austin, Strawson, Ryle, Grice, Dummett, Sellars, Quine, Goodman, Davidson, Putnam, Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend, van Fraassen, Rorty, Kripke, Lewis, Smart, Place, Armstrong, Nagel, Chalmers, Churchland, Dennett, Fodor, van Inwagen, Prior, Sider, Rawls, Nozick, Parfit, Williamson, Gettier, Anscombe, Foot, Korsgaard, Kim, Schaffer, Fine
>WHO are the continentals?
Some big names: Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Stirner, Marx, Engels, Nietzsche, Saussure, Husserl, Heidegger, Levinas, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, Camus, de Beauvoir, Horkheimer, Marcuse, Adorno, Benjamin, Althusser, Habermas, Gadamer, Bataille, Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Baudrillard, Debord, Deleuze, Guattari, Badiou, Meillassoux, Harman, Land, Fisher

[Anonymous No.15681586]

>>15681517
Interesting. Apparently I have only read continentals and /lit/ mostly talks about continentals except I guess wittgen.

[Anonymous No.15681619]

>>15680204
really great post
to add to this, fuck cringe analautisticucks

[Anonymous No.15681654]

>>15681586
Continentals do stuff like cultural criticism and philosophy of life. It's very appealing to many people. The stuff analytics do has very specific appeal, if you get the appeal, you'll dig them, but it's not something that appeals as universally as cultural criticism or philosophy of life. That is why /lit/ discusses mostly the continentals. You'd be surprised at who lurks though, there's always analytics popping up when analytic threads get made, they just don't make that many threads themselves.

[Anonymous No.15681713]

>>15681654
Many continental oriented people do cultural criticism sure, but it's a misconception that this is all that continental philosophy is about. Continental philosophy is just "philosophy." Analytic philosophy is "philosophy but the best way to go about it is logic." Even recent developments in analytic thought less focused on logic specifically still come from a long tradition of valuing logic so they are still colored by it. Analytic philosophers also have the long standing reputation that they don't care about anything outside of their own circles and don't know or care about the history of philosophy.

If you care about logic then learn some and read an analytic philosophy book or essay on a topic you are interested in. If you don't care about logic ignore it and keep doing philosophy like normal. Either way you are a moron if you ignore influential and important thinkers.

[Anonymous No.15681739]

The easiest way to frame it is that analytics are still autistically obsessed with language and still think that all philosophical problems are just language problems, whereas continentals are just operating under the assumption that language actually means something and that you can get underneath concepts and discover new philosophy by using it in a specific way.

Honestly they are at times both extremely retarded.

[Anonymous No.15681764]

>>15681713
>Many continental oriented people do cultural criticism sure, but it's a misconception that this is all that continental philosophy is about.
Oh yeah it's definitely not all it's about. It's just that they do it, whereas analytics rarely do.

[Anonymous No.15681780]

>>15680204
Good effortpost.

[Anonymous No.15681800]

>>15681764
>whereas analytics rarely do.

Nah, analytics often engage in cultural criticism, it's just that they are usually completely delusional liberals who have zero knowledge of politics and get promptly told to fuck off back to their Gödel classes.

[Anonymous No.15681810]

>>15681764
Which i think is a good thing for what analytics is trying to achieve. I would find it trite if something got turned over because of a new perspective brought up by a conflict in the caucuses or something. Not that it wouldnt be jnteresting, but im glade its in a separate feild.

[Anonymous No.15681896]

>>15680141
analytical is math and continental is jargon

[Anonymous No.15681914]

>>15681896
I wish the only people allowed on /lit/ made effortposts, this kind of post content kills brain cells.

[Anonymous No.15681936]

>>15680141
>continental philosophy
more like incontinental philosophy

[Anonymous No.15681950]

>>15681936
> incontinental philosophy
More like incontinence philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15681954]

>continental
soul
>analytic
soulless

[Anonymous No.15681959]

>>15681936
>>15681619
>analautisticucks
>incontinental philosophy
Fuck you both.

[Anonymous No.15681985]

>>15681950
thanks for pointing out the joke

[Anonymous No.15681993]

>>15681985
Oh, i thought i was making that joke.

[Anonymous No.15682003]

>>15681985
>>15681993

[Anonymous No.15682012]

>>15681993
Peak mental incontinence

[Anonymous No.15682020]

>>15682003
rao

[Anonymous No.15682413]

>>15681517
>WHO are the continentals?
>Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Stirner, Marx, Engels, Nietzsche
Oh no you didn't

[Anonymous No.15682512]

>>15681713
>Analytic philosophers also have the long standing reputation that they don't care about anything outside of their own circles and don't know or care about the history of philosophy.
This sounds directly furnished from a continental echo chamber. Analytic philosophers engage with fields like cognitive science, and are taken seriously when discussing topics like the possibility of creating AI. They also engage with older philosophers all the time - for example, philosophers of religion always engage with arguments set forth by Plato, Anselm, Descartes etc.

[Anonymous No.15682523]

>>15681713
>Analytic philosophers also have the long standing reputation that they don't care about anything outside of their own circles and don't know or care about the history of philosophy.
This sounds directly furnished from a continental echo chamber. Analytic philosophers engage with fields like cognitive science, and are taken seriously when discussing topics like the possibility of creating AI. They also engage with older philosophers all the time - for example, philosophers of religion always engage with arguments set forth by Plato, Anselm, Descartes etc.

[Anonymous No.15683120]

>>15682413
Fine, feel free to exclude them if you'd like. It's a contentious matter after all. But analytics aren't really reading them and continentals read them so there's that.

[Anonymous No.15683235]

>>15680204
> interested in naturalizing philosophy, to make it more scientific
There is no “holy science” to act as a universal measure and method of all knowledge (that 19th century science is just a product of a very specific philosophy). Philosophy can't be “more” or “less” scientific, it's a complex that included that aspect from the start. Let's say there's a pencil or a hammer, and there's a factory where it has been made. Assuming that hammer factory should be shaped like a hammer itself is nonsense.

>>15682523
> Analytic philosophers engage with fields like cognitive science, and are taken seriously when discussing topics like the possibility of creating AI
In other words, they are stupid enough to jump on the bandwagon of latest fads that — despite all the talk about working with “real” objects — have zero practical sense. Just being familiar with the ways of how people reasoned about their own Natural Intelligence helps you see that current robotic constructs of “intelligence” (both natural and artificial) are hopelessly tied to mental paths that are common at the moment.

[Anonymous No.15683258]

>>15680204
mostly right but I will add that Kant is not in the analytic
(spiritually anglo) tradition, but has been merely appropriated by it. Kant is an anglo leaning outgrowth of German philosophy, but distinctly continental, not at all in the same lineage as locke, burke, bacon, newton, and the rest of the empiricist anglo stock

[Anonymous No.15683293]

main difference is that analytical is reddit philosophy which is why you mostly see continental on this board. If you just heckin love science and empiricism then you will like analytic phil

[Anonymous No.15683312]

>>15683258
The Kantian influence on analytics is understated. People are only now looking closer at how Carnap understood his conventional a priori relations as being imposed on the world in a way resembling Kant's transcendentally ideal forms and categories, even if Carnap was being conventionalist rather than transcendentally idealist. The idea is still that in order to say true things about the world, you impose some things on the world to even be able to express experience intelligibly. Kant's transcendental idealism had a bigger influence on people like Strawson, Sellars, and Putnam as well. Kant's influence on analytics isn't just limited to the analytic/synthetic distinction as some presume.

[Anonymous No.15683382]

>>15683235
>In other words, they are stupid enough to jump on the bandwagon of latest fads that — despite all the talk about working with “real” objects — have zero practical sense. Just being familiar with the ways of how people reasoned about their own Natural Intelligence helps you see that current robotic constructs of “intelligence” (both natural and artificial) are hopelessly tied to mental paths that are common at the moment.
You are not as smart as you think you are

[Anonymous No.15683397]

>>15683382
People being polemical about analytics or continentals on /lit/ are all way less smart than they think.

[Anonymous No.15683451]

>>15683382
I am smart enough to see when people play with models while declaring that they are hardcore materialists.

[Anonymous No.15683455]

>>15683451
Some analytics do not declare themselves to be materialists.

[Anonymous No.15683524]

>>15682413
dum dum

[Anonymous No.15683535]

>>15683235
excellent post

[Anonymous No.15683549]

>>15683535
No, it's a terrible polemical post like many others here. See >>15683397

[Anonymous No.15683563]

>>15683549
what do you think polemical even means? >>15683235 is a good informative post whether you like his tone or not

[Anonymous No.15683566]

>>15680141
analytical is autistic, continental is schizophrenic
both are based

[Anonymous No.15684093]

>>15683566
Based

[Anonymous No.15684150]

>>15683566
Actually pretty fucking accurate

[Anonymous No.15684430]

[Anonymous No.15684606]

>>15683120
Only reason being that analytic philosophy generally, not always but generally, doesn't concern itself too much with the history of philosophy, and continental does. For one example of an analytic historian of philosophy take Robert Brandom. He just released a book interpreting Hegel's Phenomenology last year and he's an analytic philosopher.

[Anonymous No.15684616]

>>15684430

[Anonymous No.15684618]

>>15680204
Good post.
>critique of existing frameworks of thought, they do this using semiotics, psychoanalysis, material dialectics, genealogy of ideas, pointing out power structures, etc.
Seems jewish to me.

[Anonymous No.15684634]

>>15684618
continental philophy gave rise to counter-jewish thinking while analytics ate it up.

[Anonymous No.15684639]

>>15684634
Noted.

[Anonymous No.15684746]

>>15684606
Brandom sucks, just rawls + dewey + widely panned anachronistic reading of hegel

[Anonymous No.15684797]

Continental Philosophy dominants English/Cultural Studies departments, whereas Analytical Philosophy has no influence on those fields whatsoever

[Anonymous No.15684825]

What are the great analytic works?

[Anonymous No.15684858]

>>15684825
Stop your useless endeavor

[Anonymous No.15684861]

>In the 1960s and 70s, the attempts of Donald Davidson and others to construct a formal theory of meaning based on Alfred Tarski’s formal definition of truth eventually led to the development of possible worlds semantics by David Lewis. Consistent with the Quinean insight that meaning is connected to holistic worldviews or, in more metaphysical terms, world-states, possible worlds semantics defines important logical concepts such as validity, soundness and completeness, as well as concepts that earlier logics were incapable of handling—such as possibility and necessity—in terms of total descriptions of a way that some worlds or all worlds might be/have been. For example, proposition p is necessary, if p is true in all possible worlds. Thus, despite its formalism, possible world semantics approximates some aspects of traditional metaphysics that earlier analytic philosophy eschewed.

>With the advent of possible worlds semantics, attention shifted from the notion of meaning to that of reference. The latter has to do explicitly with the language-world connection, and so has an overtly metaphysical aspect. In the 1970s, direct reference theories came to dominate the philosophy of language. Developed independently by Saul Kripke and Ruth Barcan Marcus, a direct reference theory claims that some words—particularly proper names—have no meaning, but simply serve as “tags” (Marcus’ term) or “rigid designators” (Kripke’s term) for the things they name. Tagging or rigid designation is usually spelled-out in terms of possible worlds: it is a relation between name and thing such that it holds in all possible worlds. This then provides a linguistic analog of a metaphysical theory of identity the likes of which one finds in traditional “substance” metaphysics such as that of Aristotle. With the restrictions characteristic of earlier analytic philosophy removed, these positions in the philosophy of language made for an easy transition into metaphysics proper.

[Anonymous No.15684870]

>Metaphysics remains a fertile topic of research, having recovered from the attacks of A.J. Ayer and the logical positivists. Although many discussions are continuations of old ones from previous decades and centuries, the debate remains active. The philosophy of fiction, the problem of empty names, and the debate over existence's status as a property have all become major concerns, while perennial issues such as free will, possible worlds, and the philosophy of time have been revived.[43][44]

>Science has also had an increasingly significant role in metaphysics. The theory of special relativity has had a profound effect on the philosophy of time, and quantum physics is routinely discussed in the free will debate.[44] The weight given to scientific evidence is largely due to widespread commitments among philosophers to scientific realism and naturalism.

[Anonymous No.15684882]

>Because analytic philosophy initially saw itself as superseding traditional philosophy, its tendency throughout much of the twentieth century was to disregard the history of philosophy. It is even reported that a sign reading “just say no to the history of ideas” once hung on a door in the Philosophy building at Princeton University (Grafton 2004, 2). Though earlier analytic philosophers would sometimes address the views of a philosopher from previous centuries, they frequently failed to combine philosophical acumen with historical care, thereby falling into faulty, anachronistic interpretations of earlier philosophers.

>Beginning in the 1970s, some in the analytic context began to rebel against this anti-historical attitude. The following remembrance by Daniel Garber describes well the emerging historical consciousness in the analytic context (though this was not then and is not now so widespread as to count as characteristic of analytic philosophy itself):

>What my generation of historians of philosophy was reacting against was a bundle of practices that characterized the writing of the history of philosophy in the period: the tendency to substitute rational reconstructions of a philosopher’s views for the views themselves; the tendency to focus on an extremely narrow group of figures (Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley and Hume in my period); within that very narrow canon the tendency to focus on just a few works at the exclusion of others, those that best fit with our current conception of the subject of philosophy; the tendency to work exclusively from translations and to ignore secondary work that was not originally written in English; the tendency to treat the philosophical positions as if they were those presented by contemporaries, and on and on and on. (Garber 2004, 2)

>Over against this “bundle of practices,” the historical movement began to interpret the more well-known problems and views of historical figures in the context of, first, the wholes of their respective bodies of work, second, their respective intellectual contexts, noting how their work related to that of the preceding generation of thinkers, and, third, the broader social environment in which they lived and thought and wrote.

[Anonymous No.15684903]

>One recent defence of conceptual analysis, with a qualified rejection of Quine’s critique of analyticity, has been offered by Frank Jackson in his book, From Metaphysics to Ethics (1998). On Jackson’s view, the role of conceptual analysis is to make explicit our ‘folk theory’ about a given matter, elucidating our concepts by considering how individuals classify possibilities (1998, 31-3). To the extent that it involves ‘making best sense’ of our responses (ibid., 36), it is closer to what Quine called ‘paraphrasing’ (1960, §§ 33, 53) than the simple recording of our ordinary intuitions (Jackson 1998, 45). Jackson argues for a ‘modest’ role for conceptual analysis, but in so far as he admits that a certain “massaging of folk intuitions” may be required (ibid., 47), it is not clear that his conception is as neutral as he suggests. Consider, for example, his central argument in chapter 4, offered in defence of the view that colours are primary qualities of objects (ibid., 93):

>(Pr. 1) Yellowness is the property of objects putatively presented to subjects when those objects look yellow.
>(Pr. 2) The property of objects putatively presented to subjects when the objects look yellow is at least a normal cause of their looking yellow.

>(Pr. 3) The only causes (normal or otherwise) of objects' looking yellow are complexes of physical qualities.

>(Conc.) Yellowness is a complex of the physical qualities of objects.

>(Pr. 1) exemplifies what Jackson calls our “prime intuition about colour”, (Pr. 2) is a “conceptual truth about presentation”, and (Pr. 3) is the empirical truth that is required to reach the metaphysical conclusion (Conc.) that ‘locates’ yellowness in our ontology. (Pr. 1) is intended to encapsulate our ordinary ‘folk view’.

[Anonymous No.15684922]

>>15684858
it was an actual question

[Anonymous No.15685021]

>>15681800
Isiah Berlin and G.A.Cohen are notable exceptions...

The real problem most analytics have with cultural criticism and political philosophy is that they have no intuition for people (I'd say this connects with their relationship to language) and that they are, generally, philistines

[Anonymous No.15685035]

>>15682413
These are PEAK continental - what are you on?

Schop, Nietzche and Kierkegaard embody Continental philosophy to a T

what the fuck ARE YOU talking about you ball of rot

[Anonymous No.15685255]

>>15684746
Has nothing to do with what I said

[Anonymous No.15685657]

>>15680204
The polemic nature of the distinction between the two is a problem in itself. Just read fucking everything and then you will know in the end which tradition has the most to actually say. The historian is the only true Philosopher.

[Anonymous No.15686268]

>>15684825
Some of them:
Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Wittgenstein, Logical Investigations
Ryle, The Concept of Mind
Carnap, The Logical Structure of the World
Quine, Word and Object
Kripke, Naming and Necessity
Lewis, On the Plurality of Worlds
Rawls, A Theory of Justice
Moore, Principia Ethica
Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

[Anonymous No.15686275]

>>15684861
>>15684870
>>15684903
Based analytic philosophy

[Anonymous No.15686285]

>>15684430
>Huuuur.. DUUUUURRRRR *heavy mouthbreathing*.. URrrrrgghhh duurrrr

- Richard Dawkins, 2013

[Anonymous No.15686760]

>>15683451
It is obvious from everyone familiar with the topic that you are not very knowledgeable on the subject. It makes you look really bad when you don't understand what you are criticizing, especially when you are posturing about it.

[Anonymous No.15686770]

>>15683535
It's easily the worst post in the thread

[Anonymous No.15686802]

>>15685035
This is what 4chan actually believes.
"Continental philosophy" refers to a 20th century style of doing philosophy, not to everyone who wrote philosophy in the continent. This is basic shit.

[Anonymous No.15686907]

>>15680141
Analytic relies on logic
Continental relies on rhetoric

[Anonymous No.15686930]

>>15681896
there's a lot of wisdom in this post

[Anonymous No.15687659]

>>15686268

Thank you I'll check them out

[Anonymous No.15687677]

Continental: Wow dude, don't you think that there is like forgetfulness of Being or something... woa

Analytic: bleep bloop your argument is invalid according to these truth tables

[Anonymous No.15688983]

>>15686770
Rent free.

[Anonymous No.15689201]

bump

[Anonymous No.15689223]

>>15680204

So when it comes to this conclusion, which analytical philosophers can be taken into absolutes?

[Anonymous No.15689362]

>>15680141
I would say the orientation regarding language. Analytics understand language as a strict referential system capable of being expressed through logic and mathematics. Continentals view language as a largely performative system of power that lacks the ability to isolate exact meaning.

[Anonymous No.15689432]

>>15689362
Good post.

[Anonymous No.15689444]

>>15689223
>which analytical philosophers can be taken into absolutes?
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.15689479]

>>15681517
I would argue some of the analytics like Wittgenstein, Austin, Rorty, and Quine to be more bridges between the two. While their early work is very analytic, their later material comes to reject the analytic canon and becomes more continental in content. (Rorty and Wittgenstein basically reject strict referentiallity.)

[Anonymous No.15689490]

>>15680141

Continental philosophy is produced on the European continent, and usually concerns itself with gay bullshit that doesn't matter like god, feelings and so forth.

By contrast, analytic philosophy is (usually) produced on the British isles and concerns itself with cool stuff that actually matters, like logic, legitimate (as opposed to bullshit) thought experiments, etc.

[Anonymous No.15689495]

>>15681586
Analytics have a strong dominance primarily in UK and some US departments while Continentals are more widespread so they're a tad more ubiquitous. Also, analytics rely on logic and mathematics for many of their proofs, material that isn't really interesting to argue on a discussion board: "HE GOT THE LAMBDA FUNCTION WRONG. NO! IT'S CORRECT. NO, HERE'S MY PROOF. Oh I guess you were right."

[Anonymous No.15689621]

I think the easiest explanation is that analytic philosophy sees itself as dealing with the logical problems that science could not solve, while continental philosophers sees philosophy as an all-encompassing practice that covers all facets of life. This is also the reason why continental philosophers tend to have more literary styles because they write about less concrete and less rational subjects which requires a more stylistic and intuitive approach.

>>15680204
I agree with your summing up of the different characteristics, but I do not believe there is a strict canon to discern. Wittgenstein was heavily influenced by Kierkegaard. More or less all logical positivists were also Marxists. Hegel is read in both traditions, not just the analytic tradition. Brentano influenced both Frege and Husserl, and Frege was a key figure in establishing analytic philosophy also by his relation with Wittgenstein, who was heavily influenced by Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard. Rorty is also a figure who fuses both continental and analytic philosophy.

The distinction is not that strong if you zoom in. I think it is more meaningful to see it as a geographical distinction. Analytic philosophy is the philosophy of Britain and the USA. Continental philosophy is the philosophy of France and Germany.

I think another distinction which probably also collapses while zooming in, is the idea that analytic philosophers tend to be more rational and require logical arguments, whereas continental philosophers are more intuitive and require images and metaphor to give the reader a certain insight. This is why analytics often accuse continentals of obscurantism, and why continentals accuse analytics of reductionism.

[Anonymous No.15689689]

>>15689479
Quine was also a gateway drug for many analytics to do what continental philosophyfags had already done for years

Rorty and Wittgenstein both received accusations of irrationalism and being continental jargoners

Tbh the best analytics can be good. I would add Sellars to your list of ones who bridge the gap. But the vast majority of analytics are shit because they only learn the formulas of their specific zone of interest and then go about applying the formulas. There is alot of "room" in analytic philosophy to *only* be a formula application robot, you can even be highly respected for it, but that doesn't make you a good philosopher, at best it makes you a good tinkerer.

The analyticphilosophyfags who think through the bases of their own formulas and ask why when and how the formulas are meaningful can be interesting. Unfortunately most of the ones who make it that far immediately cuck to science anyway. Like uncritically assume whatever physical science is carried out by big government funded labs is the standard for "truth".

[Anonymous No.15689742]

>>15689621
>I think another distinction which probably also collapses while zooming in, is the idea that analytic philosophers tend to be more rational and require logical arguments, whereas continental philosophers are more intuitive and require images and metaphor to give the reader a certain insight. This is why analytics often accuse continentals of obscurantism, and why continentals accuse analytics of reductionism.

The difference here is because of the fixation on logic, continentals see logic as reductive and letting the tail wag the dog, just see the above anon's jab about "truth tables" (a classic insult to analytics). Continentalfags reject that philosophy can be "simplified" apriori into any formal symbolic metalanguage. So they try to use language itself, which leads to excesses like Deleuze and Derrida practically speaking entirely in metaphors and allusions to "triangulate" their meaning even though that meaning is reasonably clear

The analytic thinks that clarity is lost in the continental style, and thus meaning is impossible to pin down, the continental thinks that the analytic is so obsessed with clarity that he lets truth and meaning slip away between the cracks of his truth tables, like neutrinos passing through baryonic matter. The continentalfag fears the analyticfag will never be able to see neutrinos if all he does is apply his baryonic matter sorting tables to things forever. The machinery itself needs to be taken apart and rebuilt on a higher level to encompass new possibilities. That's why making a formal system apriori is dangerous and it's paradoxically less dangerous to acknowledge the "looseness" of ordinary language and work with it anyhow (this is the continentalfag POV anyway)

[Anonymous No.15689825]

>>15689621
For example if you look at the Tractatus, it obviously has a lot of mystical and religious elements in it that subsequent analytic philosophers simply ignored. The logical positivists basically copy pasted Wittgensteins logical philosophy while dismissing his mystical / silence claims. This pissed him off so much that he actually threatened some of them with a fireplace poke (I dont know the English term for this) while visiting them in Vienna. I have had multiple analytic professors tell me in class that they also read Heidegger and Foucault at home but they don't deal with it academically.

Also let's not forget that literally all logical positivists, and more or less all scientists before the Second World War were Marxists. In those times Marxism was like a new hip religion to follow for the intellectual elite, and it appealed to scientists due to its materialism.

Hilary Putnam wrote a book about Rosenzweig, Buber and Levinas. There are countless other examples of continental and analytic philosophy overlapping. Basically analytic philosophy after Wittgenstein is just a damn bore in my opinion, and it betrays the poverty of Anglo thought. To me it seems like analytics are just nitpicking extremely niche interests and problems that often seem very abstract and removed far away from reality (this is why I like late Wittgenstein so much), like 'Do numbers really exist or not' and then just construct a logical argument around it only for it to be refuted by another other logical argument two or three years later. There are like four of five people in these analytic niches in total and they're always replying to each other because no one else actually gives a shit about intentional models for modalities.

I went to university in The Netherlands so the professors were pretty evenly spread between analytic and continental. I even had one professor who was a die hard analytic and he'd claim that Heidegger was a fraud who intentionally wrote nonsense for his own ego. He often said that in order for philosophy to be French, at least 80% of their texts had to be completely incomprehensible. This professor was very disappointed when at the end of the second year most students, including his favorites, picked their courses almost exclusively in continental philosophy.

His favorite philosophical work was Ayer's Language, Truth and Logic. Everything that didn't adhere to clear langauge was an intentional scam according to him. We also had a professor in ancient philosophy who claimed all post-medieval philsophy is just a repeat of ancient or medieval philosophy and that philosophy has been dead for at least 500 years. Shit was wild. Fun fact: they were all Marxists when they were students, yet now spoke about their Marxist past with visible shame.

[Anonymous No.15690027]

>>15680141
analytic philosophers try to apply logic to a non-logical, ambiguous system of symbols such as the human language. the only accomplished analytic philosophy is mathematics and especially logical mathematics. analytic philosophers are failed scientists.

continental philosophers are basically complementary priests: their job is fabricating rhetorical arguments for miracles, wishful thinking, beliefs, arbitrary inferences, fantasies, and so on. these arguments often lean on the pathological emotivity and low IQ of their readers. they are utterly failed poets.

[Anonymous No.15690056]

>>15680141
analytic philosophers try to apply logic to a non-logical, ambiguous system of symbols such as the human language. the only accomplished analytic philosophy is mathematics and especially mathematical logic. analytic philosophers are failed scientists.

continental philosophers are basically complementary priests: their job is fabricating rhetorical arguments for miracles, wishful thinking, beliefs, arbitrary inferences, fantasies, and so on. these arguments often lean on the pathological emotivity and low IQ of their readers. they are utterly failed poets.

[Anonymous No.15690262]

>>15689689
Yeah, I just didn't bring up Quine cause I only know 'of' his work and haven't directly interacted so couldn't comment in fairness. Sellars is a good choice too. I also forgot Whitehead.

Personally I see analytics and continentalists as complementary. Analytics develop logical structures from continental theories that continentalists disentangle for further development. They together explicate the means and limitations of philosophical structure. While I agree with more continental thought, I have to acknowledge that it's very difficult to build off it for pragmatic interventions while analytics at least have means of development (e.g. analytic work is helpful for theories of AI, theory of mind and cognition).

I agree with you that the more insightful analytics are those that seek meaning behind their symbolic structures. It's also interesting that the general trend is to move from analytic to continental and not vice versa (I can't think of an example honestly). It's as if the full exploration of analytic philosophy leads to its own critique.

[Anonymous No.15690510]

>>15681896
>justified true belief
>math

[Anonymous No.15690553]

>>15681896
As someone who studied maths at gradschool level, I'd say most analytic philosophy to me reads like something that tries to be maths but without the substance and without that much of the rigor either.

A bit of an uncharitable assessment, but seriously only retards believe analytic philosophy is "maths" or even "mathematical". A few analytics are legit good mathematicians, but most are just having math envy.

[Anonymous No.15690682]

>>15686802
That's one of the issue with the "continental" label. It's misleading and was even coined as a derogatory term. Frege is perhaps the first modern analytic proper and he mostly lived on the continent. Some English philosophers like Oakeshott and late Whitehead were closer to the continental tradition. It's really a badly chosen name.

[Anonymous No.15690692]

>>15690510
JTB is the saddest shit, engineering fags trying to have an epistemology

[Anonymous No.15690697]

>>15689495
A lot of analytic discourse is plain-language thought experiments and belaboring over obvious or semi-obvious conceptual definition.

[Anonymous No.15690769]

>>15689825
>I went to university in The Netherlands so the professors were pretty evenly spread between analytic and continental. I even had one professor who was a die hard analytic and he'd claim that Heidegger was a fraud who intentionally wrote nonsense for his own ego. He often said that in order for philosophy to be French, at least 80% of their texts had to be completely incomprehensible.
>His favorite philosophical work was Ayer's Language, Truth and Logic. Everything that didn't adhere to clear langauge was an intentional scam according to him. We also had a professor in ancient philosophy who claimed all post-medieval philsophy is just a repeat of ancient or medieval philosophy and that philosophy has been dead for at least 500 years. Shit was wild.
>Fun fact: they were all Marxists when they were students, yet now spoke about their Marxist past with visible shame.

Sounds like a pretty accurate snapshot of the whole philosophical community from my limited understanding. Analyticfag are suspicious and generally ignorant of everything non analytic, continentalfag are flashy and appealing but mistrusted, classicalfags think everyone since Descartes is a pretentious ripoff, and they were all busy courting marxist-existentialist qts when they were in their 20s.

[Anonymous No.15690770]

There's a lot of analytic-bashing-on-continental, continental-bashing-on-analytic, and then people bashing on both in this thread. I don't think any of you are better than anything you are bashing. You deserve the bashing more than what you bash.

One thing people fail to realize is that both analytics and continentals practice critique. As one anon said, analytics say things only for someone else to come around and criticize it. So the field is in a flux. But continental philosophy isn't any different. Continentals point out, rightly, that beliefs are specific to frameworks, and that these frameworks are conditioned by external factors, and they spend time criticizing these frameworks on this basis. But in so doing, they find themselves within frameworks conditioned by external factors themselves. That's what allows later continentals to critique earlier continentals. For example, Marxist critiques of postmodernism exist (such as Jameson): postmodernism is an outgrowth of late capitalist material conditions. But postmodernist critiques of Marxism also exist: Marxism is a modernist grand narrative. And critiquing the critique is just natural. The problem people fail to see is the similarity between what analytics and continentals (and basically everyone) does. They see the differences. There definitely are differences. Analytics usually critique each other either on theoretical grounds (internal to a framework they are criticizing), or by making certain meta-theoretic appeals to common sense, pragmatic virtues, etc. Continentals usually point out the conditions in which these frameworks emerge as part of their critique. The problem though is that nobody can exit frameworks. None of us can. And so when we critique anyone else, we always do it from a framework that will itself be criticized by someone else, and that someone else has the same problem, so it repeats forever. One of the dumbest things that is being done in this thread, is people who think that the existence of critique discredits the value of what is being critiqued. That goes both for the analytic-bashers, the continental-bashers, and the more general philosophy-bashers. At the end of the day, if any of you are right, then you're in no better position yourselves to escape critique.

Here's something worth noting. The analytics know the problem of frameworks and critique. Instead of abandoning their work, they recognize its value, critique each other some more, revise their frameworks, and proceed. They know they can't escape it, but knowing that's true means you have to work with what you've got: critique of frameworks even if that itself falls within a framework. Here's the thing, continentals think exactly the same way. Postmodernists and Marxists, to follow the earlier example, don't just give up because of the fact they themselves exist within frameworks. They continue critiquing, and further critique comes to criticize them, and the entire enterprise proceeds that way.

[Anonymous No.15690814]

>>15690770
>The analytics know the problem of frameworks and critique. Instead of abandoning their work, they recognize its value, critique each other some more, revise their frameworks, and proceed.

doesn't seem like it, look how retarded this is
>>15684903

[Anonymous No.15690836]

>>15690814
>doesn't seem like it
There's critique of analyticity and critique of critique of analyticity in the first sentence anon. You're just critiquing the whole thing. That's not a problem itself (to disagree with the analytics' conclusions), but there's a real problem if you think they're not actually critiquing, and if you think you're really any better than anyone else at escaping frameworks. You're actually not.

[Anonymous No.15690845]

>>15690836
read past the first sentence

[Anonymous No.15690853]

>>15690845
I have anon. I'm not changing my mind. Now read what I said, because it's true.

[Anonymous No.15690869]

>>15690853
all epic shitposting aside, read past the first sentence

>>15690553
also confirming this

[Anonymous No.15690873]

>>15690692
It's soul crushing studying it. But looking back at it Gettier cases certainly will be used to justify we wuz kangz meme on day

[Anonymous No.15690945]

>>15690869
>all epic shitposting aside, read past the first sentence
I did like I said. Stop stalling and respond to what I said if you actually disagree with any of it. And make sure to point out why the Frank Jackson stuff in any way invalidates what I've said.

[Anonymous No.15690984]

>>15690945
make sure to read it first instead of the sentence introing it. baby steps, we'll get you up to a paragraph eventually.

[Anonymous No.15691008]

>>15690984
Fucking pseud can't actually offer an argument and proceeds to patronize. Typical /lit/ behavior. Enjoy your (You).

[Anonymous No.15691012]

>>15686802
Wrong. It largely encapsulates what's considered post-Kantian philosophy. People from Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel all the way to Nietzsche are included and then you add on to that the work that occurred in the 20th century that continues or goes off of them in a new direction that can still be a part of the lineage.

[Anonymous No.15691170]

Heard this interview and it seems like the older analytics are largely depressed that there time has passed. The young ones don't push off Heidegger and others anymore. Like imagine realizing what you worked your whole life on was just a phase and not relevant anymore. Like the interviewer is doing grad work at Oxford and has never heard of the people he mentions, and I thought Oxford was an analytic stronghold.

https://youtu.be/A9aGv8s5ukE

[Anonymous No.15691198]

>>15691170
I made 5 seconds into the vid and I feel disgusted by this thot already

[Anonymous No.15691215]

>>15691170
What does he say? I like John Perry for his work on the indexical 'I'. Will watch the video later today, sounds interesting.

[Anonymous No.15691259]

>>15691170
This is fucking fascinating, thanks for the link anon listening to this now

[Anonymous No.15691269]

>>15691215
Throughout the video he at times says that these days philosophers are more open to "less precise" and "less clear" thinking.

I think the interviewer was good though, very charitable and open to what he has to say. Worth hearing what someone has to say from the inside, regardless of their focus.

[Anonymous No.15691334]

>>15691198
>touches hair
>sips tea/coffee

[Anonymous No.15691350]

>>15691215
Also a student of his rec'd him Heidegger because he said there were some stuff there similar to his work. That's what got him to dabble into him.

It seems like the Anglo world is one English philosophy work away at the level of Being and Time from flipping departments to be more continental, or at least more open to it. Important times ahead in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15691408]

>>15691269
>>15691350
Been watching part of the interview since it got shared. I think I know what Perry means about more analytic philosophy coming out that's a little more obscure or hard to understand, and I agree that analytics are about one English philosophy work (at the level of Being and Time) from turning more continental. From my experience, the revival of analytic metaphysics in the 70s has helped. It used to be that there was a lot of focus on dissolving problems, which often meant, let's take example sentences and eliminate them from consideration by showing this and that renders them meaningless. Some people think that's actually closer to continental philosophy, to deflate pseudoproblems. Maybe, since Wittgenstein did a lot of that. But on the other hand, it's also led analytics away from wrestling with deeper more difficult concepts in trying to understand the world. I don't think there's any deep difference between trying to understand the world 'out there' (analytics) and the world of language, culture, politics, etc 'in here' (continentals). They call for serious struggle but then developing new, difficult concepts. There's been some analytics doing that lately, and they're writing book-length systematic treatises as a result. So yeah, they're approaching the Heidegger limit. I think that's a good thing.

[Anonymous No.15692455]

>>15691170
This is great. He was exposed to Wittgenstein during the Wittgenstein heyday, but preferred ordinary language philosophy and conceptual analysis, and later came around to Heideggerian ideas like deconstruction and ereignis, which he really also could have gotten from Kuhn or Bachelard or many other places. Goes to show how superficial an academic fad can be. All of this is already "in" Wittgenstein but what does that matter if your exposure to it is some heavy-handed professor who is a dick about it, and the philosophy grabbing your excitement and pulling you toward it is elsewhere?

He does seem melancholy. I wonder if the gradual slide toward continental hermeneutics and linguistic analysis, which he/people ITT are talking about, is entirely a good thing if it's so across the board. It's where my own biases lie admittedly, but that makes me even more suspicious. I'm going to try to learn more about analytic philosophy internally as a result of this. Maybe read Frege properly.

I wonder why more synthetic approaches at bridging the analytic-continental gap, like in Germany, have produced mostly second-rate pragmatism? Almost like a worst of both worlds, all the immanence of continentals with none of the radical conclusions, and all the liberal-democratic presentism of analytics with none of the umph. Perry mentions that Husserl could have been an analytic philosopher, which is interesting. He seems to mean conceptual analysis and to have a high respect for it. Maybe a better synthetic/gap-bridging approach to the two traditions should try to combine the pristine clarity of conceptual analysis and the hermeneutic subtlety of continental linguistic immanence, and get the best of both worlds instead?

That would be something like Husserl's project, or to some form of intuitionism, which is equally unpopular and strange-seeming to both camps nowadays. Among analytics because it's strange and "continental seeming," but among continentals because it dares to believe in the reality and givenness of the cognitive or conceptual (as opposed to reducing everything to environmental and social influences, which is more popular with the vast majority of continentals who are left-leaning for obvious reasons). I know analytics are uneasily allied with cognitive science, but maybe a return to concept-phenomenology would be even better.

Wish I knew more about the analytic tradition so I could email him.

[Anonymous No.15693203]

>>15692455
>but among continentals because it dares to believe in the reality and givenness of the cognitive or conceptual (as opposed to reducing everything to environmental and social influences, which is more popular with the vast majority of continentals who are left-leaning for obvious reasons).
I think I agree with you that this stuff would be a good way to go forward and bridge the gap, and also that continentals do tend to reject givenness and so forth. Analytics often have too. Wittgenstein and the ordinary language philosophers (Ryle, Austin), and Sellars too, generally opposed it or something like it, depending on how close you want to compare Husserl to the sense data theories of the time (Russell, Ayer, Price, and the like). I've noticed before that certain forms of skepticism are actually founded on robust realism. External world skepticism is one example, it appears because it takes seriously the certainty of certain things and notices other things lack the same certainty. Another example would be the general idea that some facts are true or false whether we know it, or that some things exist whether we know it or not (and even if we can't conceive what those things would be like). Many trends among analytics and continentals have responded to that mixture of skepticism and realism with collapsing the gap between what we know and what we can doubt. Sometimes that takes the form of 'we should doubt everything,' sometimes it takes the form of 'we shouldn't doubt things we take for granted,' it's interesting how this leads both analytics and continentals in the same direction, but not a very good one in my view. Just my thoughts.

I think Husserl sounds cool, how do you recommend getting started on him if I were to do that? I've read bits of Brentano (even own a book), so I have some idea of what to expect.

[Anonymous No.15694526]

bump

[Anonymous No.15695902]

bump

[Anonymous No.15696179]

>>15682523
Not only do analytic philosophers engage with historical philosophers all the time, the philosophical method adopted by these historical philosophers is often far more recognizably analytic than it is continental. This is true of e.g. many of the pre-Socratics, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, many of the medievals (especially the logicians), Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Hume, and Mill, among many others.

In terms of the historical canon, a good case can be made that continental philosophy has a substantially more idiosyncratic style than does analytic philosophy, though undoubtedly both are idiosyncratic, historically speaking.

[Anonymous No.15696213]

>>15689495
If you're talking about philosophy departments as opposed to various language and literature departments, then this is outdated information. Analytic philosophy completely dominates the English speaking world: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and even the US are supermajority analytic. It's even making substantial inroads in continental Europe. The philosophy departments in the best German universities are now analytic in large part, and such departments are predominantly analytic in Scandinavia and the Netherlands. Even Italy now has a strong analytic presence. France is definitely a major continental holdout, as far as countries with numerous top-tier universities go.

[Anonymous No.15696228]

>>15689689
Many analytic philosophers--notably Timothy Williamson--see what they do as continuous with science. On this view, to be a good philosopher is akin to being a good scientist, which is no abdication of the aspiration to be creative--the works of great scientists stand among humanity's greatest creative achievements.

[Anonymous No.15696455]

>>15680141
Analytics attempt to remove the mind, continentals refuse to discuss anything without the mind. (the division is false however)

[Anonymous No.15696806]

bump

[Anonymous No.15697301]

>>15696455
This is blatantly incorrect

[Anonymous No.15698088]

The bulk of both contemporary analytic and continental philosophy is very bad. The difference is that some good work is still being done at the very top of the discipline in analytic philosophy, whereas continental philosophers these days are essentially all charlatans

[Anonymous No.15698096]

>>15698088
It's the reverse

[Anonymous No.15698521]

>>15689621
>>15689825
>Also let's not forget that literally all logical positivists, and more or less all scientists before the Second World War were Marxists. In those times Marxism was like a new hip religion to follow for the intellectual elite, and it appealed to scientists due to its materialism.
where are you getting this from? Hegelian dialectics have no positivist followers that I know of, and all the Marxist intellectuals of the Frankfurt School were antipositivist. additionally you have psychoanalysts like Lacan who have quite a lot of overlap with Wittgenstein when it comes to objective truth. but honestly I can't even tell whether you're claiming Wittgenstein is antipostivist or not. all I'm getting from your post is that you seem to be placing a lot of philosophers on different sides of the postivism debate based on your own preconceived political notions.

[Anonymous No.15698799]

>>15698096
nah

[Anonymous No.15698819]

>>15698096
>continental cope
At least you’ve got alliteration going for you

[Anonymous No.15698836]

>I don't care about either, just tell me which one is more based

[Anonymous No.15699459]

>>15698836
Many of the intellectual roots of contemporary progressivism are to be found in 20th century continental philosophy. So no, not based.

And as for contemporary scholars in the continental tradition: spiritually their insides are all wet, and there’s a huge hole through where the monstrous powers of the cathedral are fucking their brains, letting loose all their vital energy and strength of spirit. They are utterly ideologically captured by a pathetic slave morality and an aesthetic vision of such powerful ugliness it desecrates the dwindling spark of divinity in every human it touches.

Analytic philosophers are just as cucked politically, but at least their life’s work is not infused with their wife’s boyfriend’s DNA to the extent that the work of contemporary continental philosophers is, nor to the extent that their wife’s sons are for that matter.

[Anonymous No.15699532]

>>15696213
Oh I'm talking general academic permeation. Speaking in pure philosophy departments, you're right, analytics is the majority of those departments. Which makes practical sense, the use of mathematical logic appeases the bean counters.

[Anonymous No.15699584]

>>15683235
I'm not even particularly knowledgeable but you seem to very disingenious with your hammer and factory argument.
A more apt comparison would be for the hammer factory to occasionally start using hammers if they find a nail.

[Anonymous No.15700577]

Bump

[Anonymous No.15700808]

The top analytic philosophers around today are legit some of the smartest people on the planet. Today’s continental philosophers on the other hand are essentially just frauds spouting gibberish to a hive of likeminded purveyors of nonsense

[Anonymous No.15700972]

>>15696455
Seems kind of wrong judging from how many continentals reject dualism and how the few dualists around tend to be analytics (though most analytics also reject dualism).
>>15698521
Carnap and other Vienna positivists were at the very least socialists, not sure if they were Marxist. At the end of the day the Nazis killed Schlick and promoted Heidegger.
>>15700808
>The top analytic philosophers around today are legit some of the smartest people on the planet.
Honestly agreed.
>Today’s continental philosophers on the other hand are essentially just frauds spouting gibberish to a hive of likeminded purveyors of nonsense
I don't think it's as bad as you think, there's some insight in there.

[Anonymous No.15701044]

>>15700972
>I don't think it's as bad as you think, there's some insight in there.
You’re probably right, although it’s a lot worse now than it was 70-100 years ago.

Analytic philosophy by contrast is methodologically healthier than it was back then, and the talent at the top remains strong.

[Anonymous No.15701166]

>>15701044
>You’re probably right, although it’s a lot worse now than it was 70-100 years ago.
I actually disagree. I think Badiou, Meillassoux, Markus Gabriel are a step in a better direction, there's a reason people reviewing their work often point out that it would appeal to analytics. That's the most recent continental work, and it's better than how things were some decades ago. And even with the rest of continental philosophy in the past century, if you look at it you'll find plenty of it actually is tolerable if you're an analytic. The main categories of continental philosophy are existentialism, Western Marxism, phenomenology, and structuralism. Existentialists say some interesting stuff without being too out there and analytics never really have had a deep problem with that. Phenomenology, when it isn't Heidegger but closer to Husserl, is often noted for how close it gets to analytics. Even Heidegger's work, for all its obscurity, actually has a certain systematicity and, if understood (or translated into clearer terms) has found value from analytics who take time to look at it closely. The Western Marxism stuff, like phenomenology, has had plenty crossover appeal, stuff like Adorno and Marcuse. A good chunk of analytics are Marxist or at least respect Marx enough anyway (my experience). Structuralist works can be obscure if you're Derrida, but Foucault has always been well-received and taken to be saying some genuinely worthwhile things about power structures; again to the extent that many analytics are leftist they find value in Foucault. I understand why something like Sloterdijk would come across as obscure crap and to be fair some continentals honestly agree with that judgment. Often critics focus more on the weirder things that Heidegger, Lacan, Deleuze, Zizek, or Derrida say when they conceive of continentals, or else they even focus on Hegel or something. It's easier to explain the merit of material dialectics or genealogy of ideas to outsider audiences than it is to do that with semiotics or psychoanalysis, which is why the stuff that looks weirdest tends to be overly focused on semiotics or psychoanalysis. But even that can be valued if you look deeper into the foundations of its method.
>Analytic philosophy by contrast is methodologically healthier than it was back then, and the talent at the top remains strong.
Fully agree with this, recently finished Sider's Writing the Book of the World and I am convinced it is one of the best and most important books written in analytic philosophy written since Lewis' On the Plurality of Worlds.

[Anonymous No.15701174]

>>15680204
And an even bigger genius if you overcome both, like Girard