Ana/lit/ic

[Anonymous No.16953493]

One of these days I'll put together a proper general with more resources, but for the time, gather here. Continentals welcome if they behave, inquirers are welcome to ask and learn.
>Introduction to Carnap
>>/lit/thread/S16115885
Today's theme: Essential analytic reading list. I don't have the charts saved so whoever has the ones going around, feel free to share. What do you recommend people start with?

[Anonymous No.16953569]

My basic BOOK recommends right now:
>Russell, The Philosophy of Logical Atomism
>Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
>Carnap, The Logical Structure of the World
>Quine, Word and Object
>Kripke, Naming and Necessity
>Lewis, On the Plurality of Worlds
Some ARTICLE recommendations:
>Frege: Sense and Reference, The Thought, Concept and Object
>Russell: On Denoting, On the Nature of Acquaintance
>Carnap: Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology
>Quine: On What There Is, Two Dogmas of Empiricism
>Sellars: Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind
>Davidson: On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme
>Putnam: The Meaning of "Meaning"
>Nagel: What Is It Like to Be a Bat?

[Anonymous No.16953570]

>>16953493
>Today's theme: Essential analytic reading list. I don't have the charts saved so whoever has the ones going around, feel free to share. What do you recommend people start with?

picrel so they don't get caught in your a*nglo bugman web of sophistry and instead move on to do actual philosophy

[Anonymous No.16953603]

>>16953570
How is moving on from object discourse to meta-discourse much better? It's still discourse. Do you catch my drift? Continental philosophy's critique of anything (not just analytic philosophy) is itself discourse. Sometimes you see Marxist critiques of poststructuralism and vice versa for this reason. Critique is fine but you should at least not be hypocritically dogmatic. Have you considered a critique of critique yet?

[Anonymous No.16953678]

>>16953603
>How is moving on from object discourse to meta-discourse much better?
The rules of object discourse and meta-discourse are different. The object discourse of analytic philosophy is struggling to achieve internal logical consistency whereas the book I posted reproaches analytic philosophy for the attitudes it incentivizes while leaving the issue of specific results of analytic philosophy aside. In doing so it is similar to Nietzsche's psychological critique of various philosophies. Even if you're an analytic you should read this book, it's very enjoyable and well written.

[Anonymous No.16953781]

>whereas the book I posted reproaches analytic philosophy for the attitudes it incentivizes while leaving the issue of specific results of analytic philosophy aside. In doing so it is similar to Nietzsche's psychological critique of various philosophies. Even if you're an analytic you should read this book, it's very enjoyable and well written.
I think that's valuable and as an analytic PhD student I see my own position as unorthodox: I value much of the methodology and the pluralism of views that one can always learn about, but I dislike the way many analytics resort to nonsense-peddling (accusing everything of being 'nonsense') and I think it establishes a really bad power dynamic in the end, ultimately favoring majoritarianism. I have experience with that: since I like to think in unorthodox ways, I find myself at the suffering end often. But none of that means I can't find something valuable in the analytic people I read or learn from. I like continental philosophy's practice of critique but I find a lot of people don't critique the critiques enough because I find fault with them often but people think for some reason that disagreement just means one is 'uncritical,' ironically enough.

[Anonymous No.16953800]

>>16953493
If I take continental philosophy and decide it means something completely different that I coincidentally express in formal math and logic does that make me continental or analytic?

[Anonymous No.16953859]

>>16953569
>Anscombe, Intention
>Parfit, Reasons and Persons
>Taylor, Sources of the Self
>Moore, Principia Ethica
>Searle, Minds, Brains, and Programs
>Dreyfus, What computers still can't do
>Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature
>Ryle, The Concept of Mind

[Anonymous No.16954040]

Is there any reason not to adopt a perdurantist account of persistence? From my experience it has been far more capable of handling problems of diachronic identity than endurantism, especially when you start accounting for problems in other areas of identity. But i've heard temporal parts is the more controversial thesis, why?

[Anonymous No.16954070]

>>16953781
You seem knowledgeable, anon. I've read somewhere on /lit/ that Russell was a supporter of an intellectual movement of Anglo Hegelians who were called British idealists. Are there any remaining writings of Russell from that period or later writings where he disavows the movement and refutes its tenets? Or any books on British idealism in general?

[Anonymous No.16954074]

finally a containment thread for you autists
hope I never see you posting anywhere else again
have fun!

[Anonymous No.16954153]

>>16954040
One reason is common sense/ordinary language arguments. Take it as a stamping-foot-on-the-ground kind of move: We look at someone or something at time 1, then at time 2, and say they're the same, and insist so. Some people find these kind of arguments decisive, others find them to be the opposite. As you point out perdurantism and temporal parts handles problems nicely.
>>16954070
Russell was once basically a British Idealist, and he did leave behind writings. I'm not familiar with them directly, I just know tidbits from secondary and tertiary sources. There was a period in his life where he was also a Meinongian. G.E. Moore, Russell's friend, also abandoned British Idealism and wrote an article called "The Refutation of Idealism" which you should check out if you're interested in arguments against British Idealism by one of Russell's friends (Russell agreed with Moore in rejecting what they called the 'doctrine of internal relations,' and the article goes into some of that).
>>16953800
Say more?