/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16562260]

What does /lit/ think of analytic philosophy?

[Anonymous No.16562270]

>>16562260
>The great nineteenth-century American philosopher, Charles Peirce, believed that philosophy’s first business is to repudiate Descartes. Here is a key way to locate or site analytic philosophy and to clarify it: A graduate
student in some of the “best” universities today can be minted Ph.D. (doctor philosophicus) without ever hearing Peirce’s name. Though the student may at least hear the names of two thinkers this genius influenced: William James and John Dewey (but recall the Princetonian would never read James). All these “pragmatists” agree that Descartes gave a fatefully wrong direction to modern analytic philosophy; he substituted an abstraction and an analysis for a description of what immediately presents itself concretely in living. Thinking that there are discrete mental contents or elements results from an initial reflection and analysis that forgets itself.
It smuggles itself in and falls asleep. Mental contents—or so-called “sense data”—are not the building blocks of our minding life, the pragmatists maintained. Rather, they are the by-products, the artifacts, of the analysis
that forgets itself
analytic """philosophy""" eternally BTFO

[Anonymous No.16562300]

>>16562260
the problem with most analytic philosophy is that it aims to apply a strict logical system to a vague, ambiguous thing like verbal language. so it doesn't discover anything about the empirical world or logic or math themselves but it results in a useless "handbook" for the proper use of verbal language.
analysis is a thing for failed scientists as much as existentialism is a thing for failed poets.

[Anonymous No.16562316]

>>16562260
the swan song of the dying field which is secular rationalism directly from the secular humanism.
It shows humanist academia is dead and buried. All of this is good.

[Anonymous No.16562351]

its fucking dead. even my professors at uni are reading unamuno and bergson now. continentalbros... we won.

[Anonymous No.16562755]

>>16562316
t. salty christcuck

[Anonymous No.16562761]

>>16562260
Trash for retarded autists where the signs prevents them from sperging out

[Anonymous No.16562768]

>>16562260
It should be called analyticism, not analytic philosophy since it is clearly not philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16562872]

>>16562316
Post is about analytic philosophy comic is about math. Christcucks are retarded

[Anonymous No.16562917]

read one semester of philosophy at uni, can confirm analytics are retard autists

[Anonymous No.16562935]

>>16562872
>>16562755
>if you oppose secular humanist midwittery you are christian
based offended redditors!

[Anonymous No.16562962]

>>16562260
It's fantastic when applied to metaphysics. Using logic as a be-all end-all is a certain miss, but starting from universal or an objective and finangling a mechanism to traverse is proper. Even in that, analytic philosophy has more achievements under its belt than conties do (unless you count contemporary celebritism, I don't).

[Anonymous No.16562974]

>>16562270
This is an amusing quote because personally the only two philosophers who ever said anything meaningful to me were Descartes with his First Meditation and Wittgenstein when he said the ladder must be removed.

[Anonymous No.16563452]

>>16562270
They don't learn about Peirce because semiotics is masturbatory nonsense.

[Anonymous No.16563463]

>>16562974
yup, that's actually the best known western philosophical canon any% speedrun
many people are more completionist but there's really no need to do any more than descartes 1 and wittgenstein 6.54 if you just want to hit the credits as fast as possible

[Anonymous No.16563577]

>>16562260
I love how Bertrand Russel (pbuh) retroactively BTFO'd Hegel and German idealism.

[Anonymous No.16563616]

>>16563577
Lmfao but also elaborate

[Anonymous No.16563714]

>>16562316
Thankfully, there is little pushback from society to move toward non-secular ideals.
So a reformation into a more useful form is all but guaranteed.

Anyone that opposes secularism or attempts to find objective viewpoints is a fool.

[Anonymous No.16563769]

>>16562260
It's dead, fortunately. Press S to spit on grave.
Note on OP's picture: Frege and arguably Wittgenstein are not analytics, stop appropriating them to give some credibility to the trash that is analytic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16563774]

>>16563769
>It's dead, fortunately.
In what way?

[Anonymous No.16563805]

>>16562260
It's just English autism

[Anonymous No.16563839]

>>16563774
It is unironically less known than obscure Indian metaphysics anywhere in the non-Anglo world. It wasn't always the case. While they were a minority, there was some analytic cancer in France or Germany or Italy in the 60s-70s. Now that China starts having philosophical courses again they study a lot of westerners but not analytics.
Even in the Anglo world it is losing steam. It has virtually disappeared from the consciousness of the well read great public. The sophisticated Englishman is more likely to have heard about Bergson or Heidegger than about Quine or the Vienna circle. Russel might survive as a brand name but people will only read his history which is fucking terrible (not that his other writings are any better).
It is entirely contained in a few academic departments. They are often disliked by other fields. Linguistics hate them when they should be their "obvious" ally. Mathematicians strongly dislike them too. If anything they have some link to political theorists but it's eroding with the whole woke business.

[Anonymous No.16563881]

>>16563839
I wonder how right you are. I'd tend to agree (especially in on Russell) but I feel people like Quine, Kripke, Anscombe or Nussbaum are pretty well-known not only in the anglo world, and like many anglo things they also propagate through non-anglo academia. I regularly hear French maths student repeat contemporary analytic talking points because they read about it in a blog or a forum. I also remember reading a contemporary work on philosophy of math being written from the analytic perspective (the authors claimed to be analytics and referenced analytic philosophers, although they cared to point out non-analytic approaches are also legitimate).

Sure the ones I mentioned are not the most sectarian analytics and they tend to references continentals too. Perhaps they're a sign that what is eroding is the analytic-continental distinction rather than analytic philosophy itself.

[Anonymous No.16564028]

>>16563881
the distinction is eroding beacuse analyticuck burnouts are desperately trying to reunite with the wider tradition to possibly save themselves a little corner of relevancy for posterity. while the continent was talking about things with deep human significance they were arselicking scientists who will never read them. fucking embarassing

[Anonymous No.16564032]

>>16563881
Perhaps the word dead was ill chosen. It is moribund compared to the near exclusive domination it had in the English speaking world for half a century and the temptations it caused in other countries.
You mention mathematics in France, the clear big "schools" there would be the continuation of Poincare, Bourbaki formalism (or some non-strictly formalist structuralism), and some more dadaist approaches saying a clear fuck you to linguistic obsessed logicians. All of them are explicitly against analytic philosophy. Mostly you will just rarely hear about them. The only time I heard about it out of my personal reading was my math spe teacher mocking some morons (cited Russel and another I've forgotten) that claimed impredicative definitions were verboten during a course on set theory.
Ancombe is decently known here but she's "analytic". Perhaps even less so than Wittgenstein.
I agree (already said above) on analytic philosophy still having some pull in political departments.

[Anonymous No.16564181]

Philosophy but enshrine the elitism until that's it's only defining characteristic.

Even granted this analytic phil is something to be moved within not rejected. People like Rorty and Dummett had it right.