/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18411707]

Not a midwit at all but I don't get analytic philosophy. Their critique is some of the most valid I've seen, yet they just can't make philosophy--and they can't write; they never make a point and their issues with philosophy seem like a gross misunderstanding, at best. I've never met someone who was not a midwit and actually enjoyed to read or found analytic philosophy insightful. Still, they're like a canceer that has infected all of philosophy today.

Any book to change my mind (unironically) ?

[Anonymous No.18411760]

>>18411707
anything by pic related

[Anonymous No.18411764]

>>18411707
What topic are you interested in? They probably have a "philosophy of" of that.

[Anonymous No.18411782]

>>18411707
Think of it like this - almost all philosophers you read have read through - AT THE VERY LEAST - through the most basic philosophical works multiple times, starting with the Greeks.
Try that first.

[Anonymous No.18411787]

>>18411707
>Their critique is some of the most valid I've seen
it's too late

[Anonymous No.18411851]

>>18411764
I'm not at all interested in analytic philosophy but I feel I have to read it because a philosopher should have read >>18411782 as anon here said, at least the most basic philosophical works; and I would consider, for example, the Pittsburgh school to be at least significant enough to be considered.
I've tried reading them, and I've utterly failed. I tried reading Sellars and Brandom and McDowell, and I've tried reading Putnam, Ayer an Quine, but none of them really got me. Carnap is fine in parts and I like some parts of Kripke and Austin's How to do things with words and speech act stuff, and Linguistics is fine also; but just generally, analytic philosophy (if you can still use that term nowadays) is just like a monolith, a block of stone that I can't get around and can't move out of the way, and can't at all ignore.

>>18411782 Have they though? I've read the Greeks multiple times, maybe I should just read Aristotle again, I don't like Aristotle that much, so that might be the issue here. I've read all the pre socratics and studied most of Plato pretty closely back when.

I've read a lot of analytic philosophy, I understand it but it's just not reasonable to me, I read it and see the words and know what they say and know their point, but I don't understand it, really--at least how they wish to be understood. It's very different with everyone that is not analytical; which I take as proof enough that I'm not a midwit.

[Anonymous No.18411881]

>>18411851
I'll say I'm an analytic philosopher and I disagree with almost every movement it has made but the field itself is indispensable particularly for private work.

Best analytic philosopher reading list imo is some Leibniz which opened the way for Russell, then Frege, then follow the foundation of math aspect. It's a perfect mix of math as a philosophy with different metaphysics producing different results. Those same methods could apply to ethics or ontology etc.

[Anonymous No.18411889]

>>18411851
>>18411881
Alternatively this may help but you can probably skip level 0 as it's a lot of pseud shit https://fuckyeahlogical.tumblr.com/post/128964910533/analytic-philosophy-reading-list-for-the-self/amp

[Anonymous No.18411902]

>>18411707
Have you considered taking an interest.in reading more neglected parts of the history of philosophy? Something like hellenistic philosophy, neoplatonism, byzantine philosophy, the renaissance, or maybe the 19th century?

[Anonymous No.18411921]

>>18411707
I don't wanna be rude anon but you sound like a retard.

[Anonymous No.18411925]

>>18411760
Spirit of Trust

[Anonymous No.18412310]

>>18411881
>>18411889

I typed a pretty long reply but I'll spare you that. I've read Leibniz and Frege and I've read most everyone until Heidegger, after whom I've just read selected philosophers because looking at the crashing sea of works, all interlinked links interlinked, makes me seasick; looking at the tumblr post with the examples did too.

I want to ask you, and I hope this is not much, looking at my own inability to comply here with truth and reason, what you - as a analytic philosopher - think the central point modern philosophy is trying to make is. Is it still understanding the world, being, existence, people, truth, language, systems?--all of it? Because I don't see that. I just see this sea of incompleteness that is self critical of this property, but mute in its criticism; instead chosen to live in immediacy, self evidence of its method and the systems created therefrom.

The whole term analytic philosophy is a misnomer in any case, how can something so expansive be described with a single word genuinely? That's like ending science with saying: all things which are true are true, and all which are false are false; and all which are neither are wrong and can only be either.

I don't know, and I really want to know: what is the central point, what is the intention, what is the name?

[Anonymous No.18412320]

>>18411902
None of those are in any sense neglected.

[Anonymous No.18412366]

>>18412320
They're not completely neglected, true, but you have to realize that when most people think of philosophy they tend to name someone like Aristotle or Descartes. Someone like Philodemus or Lombard is also not usually extensively discussed in history of philosophy classes either, as they have a limited amount of tine alloted to them. Let me ask you this: when was the last time you saw a thread dedicated to Fechner here? Or Wolff? Or Abelard? Or Tertullian?

[Anonymous No.18412375]

>>18411707
>Not a midwit at all
you're right, you're a dimwit. don't ever post again.

[Anonymous No.18412383]

>>18412375
well, can you prove that empirically?

[Anonymous No.18412403]

>>18412366
I started a thread the other day exposing the dogmatic nature of Wolff's philosophy.

[Anonymous No.18412436]

>>18412310
Yeah allow me to criticize the field. It's had the issue of specialization which it has adopted from science. Even more it has lost any ferverency it necessarily have.

The issue with simply saying something is true is well noticed in proof theory. You have tree proofs which are uninformative - they only say whether truth is preserved and not what the truth is structurally. Natural deduction is seen as working past that.

Anyways, the value of anything is in its degree of universality. Any theory that can be explained by another theory which is more broad is naturally of higher worth. This extends from science (newton supplanting galileo's theory) to mundane (how to sleep better every day versus a single day). It's inherent by all humans and reality necessarily.

So a metaphysics which can dictate reality in the more universal way is more valuable. Some metaphysics can dictate how science should be and we can test it and see if it is of worth. If the assumptions are wrong we try again checking based on degree of universality.

You may have seen pr, Einstein used metaphysics similar to Aristotle to develop his physics (unconsciousably probably). Newton went a different path. Quantum mechanics can cover Newton but not Einstein's gr. Quantum field theory seeks to unify them all. This is very similar to the early logicist program.

You may have seen these:

>>18352165
>>18352290
>>18408913

[Anonymous No.18412500]

>>18412436
Yeah, I agree with that. That's precisely my criticism; and probably the cause of my issues, which I've never considered: I don't see the metaphysical structure in most analytics but see it with most other philosophers because they make more work to make it clear. Even someone, as you mention, as unwieldy as Kant is at least obvious in his endeavours that he has them as such.
If you've ever read Mind and World, or simply Sellars or Davidson, you'd have reference of this righ there.


I've been working on my own system, and it's quite bad so I make no claim of it being insightful; but that's why I'm so frustrated by not getting the analytics. You can't make said claim to even write a small philosophy, even as literature, when you don't know what you're talking about. Naming that 'what' seems to be issue in knowing what you're talking about and drowning in the incomplete space in between of forever adding on top, forever expanding, forever spinning in a vacuum with no actual reference or resistance; no branch you could grasp though you have more branches offered to you than one could count in a life time.

If I may ask another thing, you seem like you're idiosyncratically opinionated as well: how did you solve this issue? Did you just read most everything and at some point think you're done, or did you just sit down and look at your hundreds upon hundreds of pages of notes, collect them and write a proper work from them? I think the former is rather impossible and the latter rather uncomfortable and maybe not necessarily following the intention best possible.

[Anonymous No.18412551]

>>18411707
>and they can't write
Even if you hate him, you have to concede that Russell was one of maybe like five philosophers who were also gifted writers.

[Anonymous No.18412578]

>>18412500
The branches and not reaching roots can be justified in a degradation of existence universality. At some point there's the highest point of it such as light, sound, heat etc have highest points. The highest point that you set is where you'll solve to assuming everything else is fine. In this I use existence as my foundation. If I can find a deeper foundation I would use it but I can't imagine. I was working on a mechanical way to solve inductive problems but I haven't finished it [ (2x + y) is broken into 2x and y conjoined, if you set 2x = y you have some way to use a particular yo get at least a range of the conjunction, bijection, injection, surjection in math helps. I've found it helps to put your ideas in math or computer science and it at least gives you some model to work with as long as you account for it being a derivative image].

It was getting the foundation and working downwards particularly once the model started working in a derivative I tidied it up foundationally. It's a really good exercise because you have to autistically account for everything. What I've posted is not even finished. My metaphysics doesn't allow for a distinct division downward. They should all be one similar to how pluripotent stem cells become lung cells etc based on position and time of the pluripotent stem cells but they're all fundamentally human cells. The concept of a lung cell etc isn't actually real, it can only be properly dealt with as a human cell in a particular point in time and space.
So it's a bit constant but it's dping what I want it to do. My math foundation is frankensteinian it's absolutly ugly, I just took from what works and appended what does. I need to finish the metaphysics foundation so it's just all structure derivations then found logic then make a math I like then physics then technology then I'm done with everything.

[Anonymous No.18413755]

>>18411707
>Their critique is some of the most valid I've seen, yet
Anon you are a bit of a midwit actually. I do actually like you because of this sentence, but it also reveals what makes you a bit of a midwit, so take this response as counsel, not as an insult. If you're smart enough to recognize valid critique, but then find yourself still fed up with something people said because it lacks the pretty sparkly aesthetics you prefer, you've been somewhat filtered by philosophy. What's weird is that you somehow know at some deeper level that you have, because of the sentence I quoted, but at some surface level you don't own up to it. My advice is to stop looking at philosophy like that, it's larping and typical /lit/ midwitism. Be someone who will make a change. Go read analytics and craft a synoptic vision of the good things they've said, and integrate it with your favorite continental/otherwise insights if you'd like.
>Any book to change my mind (unironically) ?
Maybe Rorty if you already like Sellars. He does the integrated vision thing and marries his analytics with his continentals.
>>18411851
>I tried reading Sellars and Brandom and McDowell, and I've tried reading Putnam, Ayer an Quine, but none of them really got me. Carnap is fine in parts and I like some parts of Kripke and Austin's How to do things with words and speech act stuff, and Linguistics is fine also; but just generally, analytic philosophy (if you can still use that term nowadays) is just like a monolith, a block of stone that I can't get around and can't move out of the way, and can't at all ignore.
I wonder if your dissatisfaction is more with the things those people say? But it's hard to tell. Kripke aside, everyone you're reading is a neo-pragmatist or a logical positivist or an ordinary language philosopher. So I'm just left wondering. I think the best way to enjoy analytic philosophy is to get the insights, put them together, and craft a grander total vision like I said earlier.

[Anonymous No.18414352]

>>18413755
I actually took a lot from the analytics, quite a lot. And I know I'm very limited in my path looking at the fact that I begun with Frege, then went to the Brentano school, reading Russel through Wittgenstein to Kripke, to Carnap and Quine, then reading a lot of modern speech act and argumentation as well as Austin, looking into Aristotle and the Organon to get my logic right, then going back reading Putnam and Sellars, and McDowell now. I looked into Rorty but I honestly don't remember much, what I looked up wasn't much and I haven't read any works from him, so that might be why.

Honestly said, I don't know what bothers me about the analytics. Maybe it's that I read them in English and I'm bothered at all the terms they use which seem so inadequate, a cope for them being foreign, compared to German terms; maybe it's their way of argumenting, presenting points but no throughout system. You could say I dislike their style, but I've read worse and I wouldn't let that alone get to me as much.

I really like, and that is why I said their criticism is valid, what they say, the substance, but how they say it and what they want to achieve seems - seen from my own infantile standpoint - somewhat misguided. But in that both Carnap and Husserl miss the point when they talk about metaphysics, so this is not as much exclusive with analytics as it's a bit more common. Yet again, and I feel I should add this everywhere, they also do not miss the point. What they say is valid and insightful and works with their own masterfully constructed systems, but maybe just doesn't work for me.

It's probably just that I can't get on board with logical positivism and pragmatists as much. Although I start at the same point as the pragmatics, I feel I diverge at the point we bring coherence and givenness into the picture.
Kripke and ordinary language, speech acts, on the other hand, I really enjoy(ed) and found both critical yet self evident and just insightful generally; that's the same way I feel when I read someone continental I like.
The concepts just align in my head while they seem more scattered and not easily brought together when reading 'those analytics I don't like'. It's not Maths. Mathematics has probably been the most insightful addition to my own philosophies since reading Kant.

But maybe I am just a midwit, as you say, and need to counsel myself even more. lol

[Anonymous No.18414365]

>>18411881
>Those same methods could apply to ethics

[Anonymous No.18414413]

>>18413755
Picking things you like and ignoring what you don't like isn't philosophy

[Anonymous No.18414427]

>>18414413
Depends on if you like it because you believe it, or you like it because it's got a nice aesthetic. Latter is larping, former is literally inescapable and a truism and you do it and you can't not do it.

[Anonymous No.18414435]

>>18414365
My ethics are pretty rock solid. I don't differentiate them from way reality works due to sjruru's razor

[Anonymous No.18414445]

>>18414427
Belief is also not philosophy. Even if it was, you can't just ignore whatever you don't believe. Every thing must be accounted for. Haphazardly stitching your grand syncretic vision out of pieces of random sources is the epitome of /lit/ philosophizing.

[Anonymous No.18414469]

>>18414352
Not him but please ignore the pragmatists, logical positivists and formalists. Those and linguistic turn analytic/continental philosophers are useless. Just take the tools and analyticize plato/kant or whoever. They have good tools so just use those.
The world wars forced a huge scientific bend which promoted a lot of practical nonsense or abstracted practical crap and the linguistic turn was bad for all philosophy. Just take the tools and get out of there. There's some things you can learn from the main philosophers if you can stomach them. I cannot stomach a lot of them and so I ignore them but I'll debate ppl who like carnap or converse w them and just take insights that way. I hated analytic philosophy for a bit until I got stronger in the greeks then went back and could sift through bs better

[Anonymous No.18414470]

>>18414352
I think you're doing great anon and just being honest so me saying there's something "midwit" with your opening post was just me being stern so you don't make common /lit/ mistakes, but I think you're generally on a good path. Keep it up.
>I really like, and that is why I said their criticism is valid, what they say, the substance, but how they say it and what they want to achieve seems - seen from my own infantile standpoint - somewhat misguided.
This I do understand. It's why I recommend you take what they say, digest it, and put it together in your own words or way of framing. I think the content can stay the same and that's the good part anyway. Anything else that detracts from it is just an unfortunate aspect of the way it's served. Personally I think I'm used to their style but I don't employ it myself so I get why it's not for everybody.
>It's probably just that I can't get on board with logical positivism and pragmatists as much.
I like them as a stepping stone, like the good opposition that raises the stake of the game high so you have to respond to them if you want to make it forward. But yes, I suspect maybe these people aren't as enjoyable because of their viewpoints in particular. Fortunately that's not uniquely an analytic thing, just a subset of analytics. Having made it as far as you have, the next step is to read analytic metaphysics and especially metametaphysics. David Lewis is a good start and there's a few other authors worth checking. One nice thing is these later analytics also tend to be more systematic, you can sometimes read a single book by them and basically learn their entire metaphysical and methodical outlook, in that respect they resemble old philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, or Hume, Kant, Hegel, etc.

[Anonymous No.18414478]

>>18411707
Test

[Anonymous No.18414491]

>>18414352
>>18414469
You should definitely treat them more as a toolbox and not a full metaphysics. They have good metaphysical assumptions sometimes but they were locked into denying neo idealists who hit a decadent dead end. Aristotle was very formal and scientific and he had a good metaphysics so reading a lot of main analytic philosophers takes a lot more skill in wading. If you have a good grasp on metaphysics just go into math proofs and logic.

[Anonymous No.18414494]

>>18414445
>Even if it was, you can't just ignore whatever you don't believe. Every thing must be accounted for. Haphazardly stitching your grand syncretic vision out of pieces of random sources is the epitome of /lit/ philosophizing.
None of which contradicts anything I said, much less recommend and do.
>Belief is also not philosophy.
Your philosophy is your belief, that's what I am saying. My point is you're attacking me for the wrong reasons so I pointed out where you're making your mistake. I told OP to stitch together a view from what he likes and you took it to mean I'm saying "Go be a larper" when I literally start my post criticizing /lit/ larping of that very specific kind, the sort that stitches together what looks pretty to them and tosses out stuff that doesn't look "cool" enough despite being genuinely insightful or even true.

[Anonymous No.18414550]

>>18414494
You are just another pseud who thinks he has it all figured out. It's ironic how much you seem to believe you are any different from everyone else. Seem you divided everything between belief (what you think is true) and aesthetic (Larp? what you think is beautiful?). I'd bet you don't even have a reliable method for distinguishing between these two and it comes down to a gut feeling.

[Anonymous No.18414571]

>>18414550
Idiot, you don't know me, moreover you misinterpret everything I say (even in that post but also the other ones I've called out) and you have the nerve to think you've figured ME out, or anybody else. Fuck off dude. Are you the same idiot from last time who thought a priori rationalism could get us certainty and was hating intuitions? Nice fucking work pseud, not only is your method pseud itself and debunked, but you're making the same mistake you think others make, and daring to posture about it on top of that. If that's who you are anyway.

[Anonymous No.18414577]

>>18414571
Oh now you're getting angry. Well how is my comment on you any different from your comment on OP? Don't like your own patronizing responses turned against you?

[Anonymous No.18414581]

>>18414577
Unlike you I was nice to OP. Read my freaking posts. In the first one I said I liked OP and gave advice. In the second I further qualified my reaction and gave encouragement. I swear you're like systematically misreading or not-reading my posts. OP is fine, not my enemy, idk what you're even doing dude.

[Anonymous No.18414592]

>>18414581
I don't care about OP. I just don't like smug self-important idiots. Why did you think I was someone else by the way? Maybe you should take it easy and stop being a narcissist on an anonymous imageboard of all places.

[Anonymous No.18414595]

>>18414581
>>18414592
Get a room you stupid faggots.

[Anonymous No.18414602]

Read Wittgenstein. His main issue with philosophy is that it's essentialy a lot of misunderstanding and misuse of language.

[Anonymous No.18414633]

>>18414592
Yes it's anonymous, I speak my mind precisely because I don't care, it's not narcissism, I'm not getting any recognition when the thread is over, I just want to help people now and then. Nobody will know who I am, and nobody cares. I just counsel people and hold discussions, they counsel me back and we all learn something new. As you said you don't give a fuck about OP, you're just here to prod people and get them angry and then acting like they're to blame when they snap back at you. Maybe you should take it easy and stop being a pointless aggressor.
>Why did you think I was someone else by the way?
Some things you said fit with what I know of someone else.

[Anonymous No.18415008]

Shameless self bump

[Anonymous No.18415029]

READ WITTGENSTEIN.

[Anonymous No.18415627]

>>18411707
Give it a hundred more years so the character solidifies

[Anonymous No.18416110]

bumpy