[ 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: 966 KB, 980x580, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17504042 No.17504042 [Reply] [Original]

Why do people still take interest in Continental philosophy when it was debunked a hundred years ago

>> No.17504066

It’s more entertaining lol

>> No.17504098

>>17504042
Because it's radically different from what's mainstream and it bridges the gap between empiricism and mysticism sometimes.

>> No.17504172

Philosophy isn't rational, can't be. Nothing wrong with it.

>> No.17504176

>>17504042
Because of aesthetics.

>> No.17504295

Why do people still use the labels "continental" and "analytic" when both are anachronisms that serve no useful purpose other than dumb fights on the internet?

>> No.17504302

>>17504042
I'm an analytic and I get a lot of valuable insight from the best continental philosophy has to offer. When dealing with anything, you always will find bad stuff mixed with good, so that doesn't prove anything worthless. There's some topics only continentals pay attention to.

>> No.17504311

>>17504295
for some reason in our time most people's interest in something begins and ends with things they can use to force some us vs. them bullshit for LARPing.

>> No.17504318

>>17504042
Does "continental philosophy" just mean continental European philosophy?

>> No.17504326

>>17504318
Now go one step further. Who are the best analytic philosophers? Wittgenstein, Kant, Frege all continental. That's how retarded the division of continental vs analytic philosophy is.

>> No.17504363

>>17504311
is that a feature of our times or of the nature of thought (division)

>> No.17504401

>>17504363
a feature of our times. it doesn't feature in such a meaningless way at any time in the past. division for the sake of division with no substance or committent. fleeting posturing to invent conflict, easy to drop or move on because there was nothing there to begin with. it's not like, say, actual being different from someone in which case you cannot just drop or make up what you are.

>> No.17504410

>>17504326
Kant is not a continental. Wittgenstein is overrated and Frege dipped his feet in a pond, he never entered to take a swim. Name the ten best British and American analytics and then tell me why you think they're bad.

>> No.17504415

>>17504410
Meant to say Kant is not an analytic.

>> No.17504429

>>17504042
Because you can see who "debunked" it

>> No.17504435

>>17504415
Freudian slip

>> No.17504452

>>17504042
People who make claims like this don't have the brain for continental or analytic philosophy. Only an absolute midwit would claim that the majority of Western Philosophy up until this point had been debunked. Give up, Phil isn't for you.

>> No.17504462

>>17504435
Well he is neither analytic nor continental to be honest. The divide begins after his time. He is geographically continental European though.

>> No.17504851

>>17504042
They don't care about truth. Simple as.

>> No.17504857

>>17504172
Philosophy = love of knowledge.
If you're not rational you're doing something else.

>> No.17504862

>>17504452
This poster cares more about venerating "The Tradition" than he does finding truth.

>> No.17504871

>>17504462
Wrong. Kant was continental because he was confused and anti-reason, anti-precision.

>> No.17504898

>>17504172
>>17504857
Nothing irrational about continental philosophy, claiming otherwise is just an Anglo cope. Analytic philosophy in turn is really just Anglo autism.
>Muh formal logic and language
Just go study math or linguistics instead

>> No.17504915

>>17504326
The only retard is you for taking the term too literally.

>> No.17504929

>>17504851
>Analytics are strenuously concerned about truth
>Continentals such as Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, and Foucault literally cast the search for certain or all truths into doubt since they feel less-than-flattering forces shape us so strongly that what we take to be truth is shaped by those forces and we can't break out of them
>Deleuze LITERALLY advocates the free creation of concepts
You are fucking stupid.

>> No.17505128
File: 5 KB, 313x161, whychap.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17505128

>>17504042
>Why chap, chin up! The meaning of life is actually searching for new recipes for chicken pie roux and compulsively finding the arithmetic average of any three real integers if you can't locate any recipes. God isn't real because science.

>> No.17505726

Look at his pin head no wonder he was retarded

>> No.17505797

>>17504042
>"yeah bro the world is totally reducible to a struggle with language"
>get kicked in the nuts
>writhe in pain speechless
how is that a struggle with language? on the contrary it is obviously a relation of power and Foucault for instance can help understand what is happening

>> No.17505801

why does he look like a faggot in literally every single one of his pictures

>> No.17505835

>>17504042
why do people take interest on Analityc philosophy when its self refuting?

>> No.17505839

>>17505797
>Foucault for instance can help understand what is happening
He can't.
>>17505801
Moggs you tranny.

>> No.17505865

>>17505835
Analytic is the refuge for those who have lost the fire in their spirit. It is a cold, sterile resignation, which allows one to retreat without admitting defeat.

>> No.17505873

>>17505865
but you do have to admit defeat, the whole thing stands on fairy dust and wishes.

>> No.17505882

>>17505839
go back

>> No.17505884

>>17505873
Technically, they can claim they "won" because they have "deconstructed" continental philosophy without putting anything significant in its place.

>> No.17505887

>>17505865
Facts don't care about "the fire in your spirit". When that becomes more important than truth you're no longer persuing the love of knowledge.

>> No.17505895

>>17505882
Dilate.

>> No.17505902

>>17505873

>>17505887
A prime example of an analytic automaton right here: See how he has refused to admit defeat, yet implicitly admits he has lost all passion.

>> No.17505906

>>17505902
Facts don't care about your passion. You don't care about truth.

>> No.17505912

>>17505906
Facts don't care about anything because they are facts... What's your point?

>> No.17505949

I dont know about the division but everyone from nietzche on is a pseud.
Before nietzche philosophers were talking about stuff such as the forms, the shapes,the duality of the mind, apriori, etc...
It all seemed logical.
Then along came nietzche with his autistic rants about the death of god and the uberman which has mostly to do with his feelings rather than logic.

>> No.17505963

>>17505949
>death of god
social critique/commentary, not his feelings necessarily
>uberman
This was a goal for the new mankind. All goals are inherently normative, they cannot be based on anything other than feelings.

>> No.17506031

>>17505949
>everyone from nietzche on is a pseud.
wrong, everyone from Spinoza on is a pseud.

>> No.17506041

>>17505906
facts also don't care about your análisis.

>> No.17506099
File: 169 KB, 1044x869, debooonker.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17506099

Based and Deboonked pilled

>> No.17506111

>>17505797
if you think that any time you get pain in your nuts you're experiencing a relation of power you need to check yourself into some psychiatric assisted living until you get over your persecution complex

>> No.17506411

>>17505912
His point is you don't care about truth. He's not interested in what facts think, but in ourselves: do we care about facts, or not?
>>17506041
They don't care about anything dude. That doesn't mean we shouldn't care about them.

>> No.17506454

>>17505949
Nietzsche really is a cancer.
>>17505963
Proof.

>> No.17506460

>whereof one cannot speak
Analytical philosophy has only debunked itself

>> No.17506958

>>17506460
This debunking has been debunked already. Besides, do you know how many times historical and continental philosophy have debunked themselves?

>> No.17506964

>>17504857
Reason, the stiff-necked enemy of thought

>> No.17506967

>>17504042
There's something seriously wrong with Russell.

>> No.17507010

>>17505887
Russell never solved the problem of contingency. He merely abrogated his duty to reason by falsely claiming the question of the origin of the universe doesn't make any sense. This notion of ultimate abrogation seems to underpin a lot of the work of the analytic.

>> No.17507075

>>17507010
Do you prefer it when someone says "You're wrong here's why" to "This is meaningless here's why"? Is that what it comes down to for you? They're giving (right or wrong) explanations either way.

>> No.17507128

>>17507075
Why are you choosing to conflate wrongness with meaninglessness? Do you not know the difference between a valid and a sound argument?

>> No.17507159

>>17507128
I'm not conflating them? Why would you think that?
>Do you not know the difference between a valid and a sound argument?
I do, and this has nothing to do with meaninglessness vs falsehood. Do you even get my point?

>> No.17507174

>>17504295
I thought it had to do with ontology

>> No.17507176

>>17506111
>psychiatric assisted living
so a prison? no thanks...

>> No.17507181

>>17507174
It has to do with different canons and to a lesser but generally true extent different styles and methods.

>> No.17507194

>>17504098
>it's radically different from what's mainstream
LOL CUNTPHIL is mainstream in academia (outside of philosophy depts) ANALPHIL is what's missing

>> No.17507200

>>17507159
Speak plainly. Your need to act in a condescending manner is getting in the way.

>> No.17507226

>>17504172
rationality is not real anyways

>> No.17507231

>>17504462
it's not about geographic places but ideal ones continental philosophers live in the continent of autism for example

>> No.17507257

>>17507231
I don't understand /lit/, so analytics are autistic and continentals are autistic.
>>17507200
I'm was very clear. You just don't know the things I'm talking about, which is different. Any trained analytic actually knows what I'm saying. You can't go read things with technical language you're unfamiliar with and blame them for not understanding, blame yourself and be humble, ask for help and you'll always get it.

>> No.17507270

>>17507257
*I was very clear
And look other anon, I'm glad to explain but you can't go around acting like I wasn't being plain after you acted like I somehow don't know the difference between validity and soundness when your use suggests that you don't understand things you think you understand yourself.

>> No.17507283

>>17507257
"This is meaningless" is not an explanation in this case. The origin of the universe is not a meaningless question, however much Russell might wish it to be. You claim, regardless of whether this is right or wrong, that *this* is an explanation. It isn't. It's spitting the dummy.

>> No.17507295
File: 8 KB, 237x250, 1612802648580.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17507295

>>17504042
This nigga wanna be Liebniz so got damb bad

>> No.17507312

>>17507257
yes because both are philosophers and all philosophers are spergs

>> No.17507360

>>17507283
Ok I see why you're confused. Notice the "here's why" parts? Those are the explanations I was talking about. They're explanations as to why they're saying "You're wrong" and "This is meaningless." They're not explanations of anything else. I'm not talking about the origin of the universe, or saying myself that the question is meaningless (I sure don't think it's meaningless). I was not claiming what you said I was claiming. I was making a bigger point. People always will say something you believe is false or meaningless. They will explain it. This goes beyond the analytic/continental divide. And you can always disagree with them. They might be right or they might be wrong. But they're doing fine philosophy either way. Analytics aren't doing something especially wrong in this regard. Russell can explain why he would say "This is meaningless" to the question. Do you or I agree? No. That's philosophy though. He's not doing some magically or especially-pernicious analytic strategy though. If you read continental philosophy more you'll see some continentals will call other philosophy meaningless, even by fellow continentals. It happens sometimes. Likewise many analytics will refuse to say that other philosophy, even if they disagree with it, is meaningless, and they'll defend it from such allegations.

>> No.17507371

>>17507312
Damn, I guess being a sperg is based after all.

>> No.17507428

>>17507360
>He's not doing some magically or especially-pernicious analytic strategy though.
Can you really say this with authority though?

>> No.17507505

>>17507360
>>17507428
To clarify: I am not doubting that he has a type of explanation for his claim concerning meaninglessness. I am saying that this conclusion, in itself, points to an abrogation of his duty to reason more than it points to anything else. His explanation for why he believes the question of the universe's existence is meaningless is insufficient.

>> No.17508613

>>17507505
I agree with you that his conclusion is wrong but it seems to me like that's just standard for any opinion I disagree with: people argued wrong, etc. I'm just disputing that Russell's doing something specially different from anyone else.

>> No.17508760

Reading through his "A History of Western Philosophy" one has to wonder how Russel even managed to have an academic career in philosophy when he misinterpreted every single author he ever read in his life.

>> No.17508796

>>17508760
He literally wrote the Principia Mathematica and a number of very philosophically important papers and books on the philosophy of mathematics and the philosophy of language and epistemology/metaphysics. /lit/ really needs to stop reading Russell's less-important popular audience output. That's like getting mad at Stephen Hawking or Chomsky for their popular output when they did make important contributions in physics and linguistics/psychology that matter way more.

>> No.17508822

>>17508796
Wasn't all of his work on formal logic and the philosophy of mathematics debunked by Godel anyway? And I don't mean debunked in the popular sense, I mean it was literally proven to be a fruitless project.

>> No.17508829

>>17504042
anglo pseud

>> No.17508842

>>17508822
Yes. Do you know that Einstein debunked Newton? Newton's not worthless.

>> No.17508868

>>17508842
Newton is still useful when you're dealing with classical objects, quantum mechanics and relativity are only used in very special cases. What I mean is that Russel was literally wrong and what he was trying to do was proven to be impossible.

>> No.17509227

>>17508868
Yeah but set theory is literally still being used. And in fact, the whole natural-numbers-as-sets and construction of the integers, rationals, and reals, these things still matter. The only thing Godel proved was that you can't have a complete and consistent axiomatization of arithmetic. It's consistent with Godel to still give a bunch of provable theorems that fall out from a number of axioms, you just have to accept that other theorems cannot be proven per Godel's proof. In this regard, Russell is in currency as much as Newton.

>> No.17510041

>>17504042
>By the law of the excluded middle, either “A is B” or “A is not B” must be true. Hence either “the present King of France is bald” or “the present King of France is not bald” must be true. Yet if we enumerated the things that are bald, and then the things that are not bald, we should not find the present King of France in either list. Hegelians, who love a synthesis, will probably conclude that he wears a wig.

>> No.17510080

>>17504042
"Continental" philosophy is a spook, it's just philosophy

>> No.17510098

>>17510041
It's a facetious comment but if you study Hegel with all the respect possible in the world, if you're a frank Hegelian, you know that a root of the dialectical method literally lies in showing that language itself leads to these seeming contradictions, and then going forward from there. Russell is right that without the paraphrase descriptivist analysis he gives in that paper, all we have to go off is the form of ordinary language, and any good Hegelian will think it shows the existence of dialectical contradictions which must be overcome (sublated) by later moments. Hence the wig joke.