/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16038497]

Is the emergence of analytic philosophy a sign of decay of modernity? How do we resurrect the spirit of pre-Socratic philosophers as Nietzsche advises us to do in "Philosophy in Tragic Age of the Greeks"?

[Anonymous No.16038506]

>NOOOOOOO ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY DEBUNKED MY HECKIN SKYDADDY!!!!! THEREFORE IT'S BAD!!!!

[Anonymous No.16038522]

>>16038497
Analytic philosophy is what Scholasticism pretended to be. Whether you think that type of hyper logical thinking is philosophically important is a matter of taste

[Anonymous No.16038524]

>>16038497
You have to understand that analytic philosophy is a style and not, by itself, tacked onto a substantive philosophical viewpoint about the world. The project as initially conceived by Russell and Moore has been broken down over the past century not by continentals but by other analytics. In fact, the killing blow was just dealy by Irad Kimhi, so these are exciting times for analytic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16038570]

>>16038522
>truth is a matter of taste
So THIS is the power of analytics.

[Anonymous No.16038967]

>>16038570
Top tier high-protein breakfast

[onionring !Rrxa7zePwI No.16039276]

>>16038524
>the killing blow was just dealy by Irad Kimhi
hardly

[Anonymous No.16039298]

Stanley rosen's book The Limits of Analysis is good

[Anonymous No.16039690]

>>16038524
Explain what kimhi did

[Anonymous No.16039754]

>>16039690
>>16039276
Analytic philosophy as conceived commits us to:

(ia) anti-psychologicism;

(ib) the primacy of logic;

(iia) anti-idealism;

(iib) external-world realism;

(iic) platonic realism for universals and other abstracta, especially including mind-independent propositions or thoughts, the truth- or falsity-bearers;

(iid) atomism for the external world and semantic or logical content alike;

(iiia) rejecting transcendental logic, dialectical logic, and transcendental or dialectical philosophical methodology;

(iiib) rejecting the very idea of synthetic a priori truth and knowledge;

(iiic) affirming the method of logical analysis;

(iiid) affirming the very idea of analyticity;

(iv) classical logicism.

Kimhi smashes everything other than the primacy of logic and the rejection of the synthetic a priori. He does this by positing the union of thinking and being, or a logical monism via a rejection of the Platonic argument for difference as non-being and an endorsement of the Parmenidean way of truth, which obviously entails the end of anti-psychologism, anti-idealism, realism, and semantic externalism. For the dolts out there like OP who continue to worry that the primacy of logic means the fun is sucked out of everything, Kimhi is a logical mystic who has this to say about the possibility of metaphysics after his project:

>Quietism does not seek to reduce not-being to being through an analysis of negation and truth- and falsity-conditions, or to show that the point of view from which the use of negation appears unintelligible rests merely on a confusion about the actual uses of words. Instead, the quietist seeks to render the unity of thinking and being (and non-being) self-evident by attaining clarity through the occurrence of propositions or predicates inside and outside negations and other logical contexts.

>I want to suggest that we can come to recognize that metaphysics—correctly understood—is quietism, by learning, from within quietism, how to read the “meta” of “metaphysics”. The lesson of quietism is that “meta-” does not point toward a science that comes “after” physics, nor does it point toward supernatural entities such as divine substances, or a region of facts that lie “beyond” or “over and above” nature.

[Anonymous No.16039778]

>>16038497
>analytic philosophy
Analyse my greasy half-digested shit or something. Who fucking cares?

[Anonymous No.16039829]

>>16039754
Thanks

[Anonymous No.16039854]

>>16039754
this is just wandering upon deflationism and putting a different spin. i did this in college.

[Anonymous No.16039862]

>>16039854
No it isn't

[Anonymous No.16039873]

>>16039862
its not a license for magical thinking anon

[Anonymous No.16039877]

>>16039778
um.... o-...okay =O__O=

[Anonymous No.16039962]

>>16039873
Didn't say it was. It's an elaboration of the basic eleatic truth: that what-is is all that can be said and said meaningfully and that what-is-not cannot be said - hence the quietism. But Irad takes this to its logical conclusion, it's a logical monism that is also metaphysically idealistic in its unity of thought with being. The consequences are rather profound in all that it rejects. It certainly devastates analytic philosophy as we know it.

[Anonymous No.16040040]

>>16039962
the unity of thinking and being privileges being though, in other words the content of thought, i.e. realism.

[Anonymous No.16040049]

>>16038497
All of Nietzsche's work on the presocratics is atrocious and it is why Heidegger despised every word Nietzsche wrote on it.

[Anonymous No.16040088]

>>16038524
>(((irad kimhi)))
Sure thing, bucko.

[Anonymous No.16040108]

>>16038967
There would be no such thing as high dining if taste was subjective

[Anonymous No.16040119]

>>16040049
Quote?

[Anonymous No.16040251]

>>16040049
>caring about opinions of a manlet
OH NONONO HAHAH