/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18507294]

How long until the "analytic philosophy" meme has run its course?

[Anonymous No.18507338]

>>18507294
>Dr. phil. John Earlston studied with Robert Brandom and also wrote his doctoral thesis under his supervision. His translations of Frege and commentaries on G.E. Moore have gained critical acclaim among the rows of hardened philosophers and his upcoming book "Beyond the Turn: The Cosmic Language Game" was called "an example of lucid and freethinking discourse that we so desperately need" by Daniel Dennett. John Earlston has things to say.

[Anonymous No.18507365]

>>18507294
Broke: Analytic and Continental philosophy
Woke: Pragmatism and Process philosophy

[Anonymous No.18507388]

>>18507338
It would be fine, there is a lot of good work done by analytics. True, we have no Frege and no Wittgenstein today, but Searle, Zalta, Chalmers, etc. are worthwhile reads
The memes come because morons like Dennett larp as being analytic philosophers despite analytics having always been pro-transcendental, pro-platonism school of thought.

[Anonymous No.18507598]

>>18507388
Chalmers should be on the street selling pencils from a cup.

[Anonymous No.18507631]

>>18507294
A lot of talk recently about the death of it (one being Liam Bright). The only thing that remains is the style and sociological distinction, the original impetus has all but evaporated over the years, especially with it having become more conscious of itself through looking back at its own history.

It's strange really how it came about and took over the US. There's not much reference to an "analytic philosophy" before ww2 either. Interesting to read more on it:

https://dailynous.com/2017/01/24/journal-capture-led-dominance-analytic-philosophy-u-s/

[Anonymous No.18507683]

>>18507631
>The only thing that remains is the style and sociological distinction, the original impetus has all but evaporated over the years, especially with it having become more conscious of itself through looking back at its own history.
So what replac a it in the Anglosphere? I kind of doubt that these departments by and large will start doing philosophy the way it's done in France and Germany.

[Anonymous No.18507703]

>>18507683
Germany is full of analytics, it's completely ridden with people using logic and stuff. It's a meme that "analytic philosophy" only exists for dumb Anglos, northern Europe is full of these guys. Look at most departments in Germany/Netherlands/Sweden/Norway/Denmark and stuff.

[Anonymous No.18507735]

>>18507683
Younger generation is more open and pluralistic to other ways of doing philosophy. I would be shocked though if in two decades the top institutions considered to be analytic strongholds don't have more people specializing in continental and other more historically oriented philosophy. I don't think it'll die (or just be less dominant) outright over night though.

It's under suspicion because what was promised never came to fruition.

[Anonymous No.18507743]

>>18507631
That's because, fundamentally, Analytic Philosophy is a Whig enterprise. In the Americas it revealed itself to be what it always was: white supremacy. Hence the decline in prospect and appeal.

[Anonymous No.18507801]

>>18507365
>memespeak

[Anonymous No.18507804]

>>18507703
Who would have imagined the land of Kant and Hegel and others would have had this happen to it. What percent of universities in Germany would you say is like that?

[Anonymous No.18507859]

>>18507804
A lot of this stuff is ultra neokantian, I don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.18507871]

>>18507859
Yeah I don't know what I'm talking about it. That's why I'm asking. Fill me in on the situation over there.

[Anonymous No.18507997]

>>18507743
>In the Americas it revealed itself to be what it always was: white supremacy. Hence the decline in prospect and appeal.
I guess anything that can’t exist as the handmaiden for progressive causes was bound to be destroyed. It’s a shame because the actual output was far more fruitful than the kind off movement that played host to hucksters like Sartre and Derrida.
>>18507735
>I would be shocked though if in two decades the top institutions considered to be analytic strongholds don't have more people specializing in continental and other more historically oriented philosophy. I don't think it'll die (or just be less dominant) outright over night though.
I think the problem is that historicist schools of thought tend to be so selective about the history they focus on that that they seem like total frauds. When the people on here who are supportive of the these modes of doing philosophy spew mistakes about the history of thought with a frequency that makes it clear they’re totally ignorant about it. You just have to look at the way. You just have to look at their use of the term “positivism.”
The problem is that to anyone with any knowledge of the fields, continental critiques of analytic philosophy are either weirdly childish or they miss the point so hard that it seems like they’re trying.

[Anonymous No.18508025]

Singer kick started the animal rights movement. Chalmers has been vital at combatting the STEM menace. What has continental tangibly achieved? Butlerian gender bending?

[Anonymous No.18508034]

>>18508025
Being the handmaiden to the social sciences and art criticism.

[Anonymous No.18508081]

>>18507294
People have been saying this so long. They acted like analytic philosophy ended when logical positivism got defeated, then again in the 1970s when Rorty was synthesizing his idea of "post-analytic philosophy," but it just got more and more widespread and diverse instead. The problem is that analytic philosophy won't go away until something comes to replace it, and continental philosophy can't do that. It's not a matter of whether it should but a matter of whether it can or will, and it can't and won't. For the same reason, analytic philosophy won't replace continental philosophy, though I worry a lot more about its survival than I do analytic philosophy's. The biggest threat to both is straight up non-philosophy: the idea that either continentals or analytics are "no longer needed" by the universities that host the professors.

[Anonymous No.18508186]

>>18508025
>Singer kick started the animal rights movement
>implying this crypto-utilitarian virtue signaling is a good thing

>What has continental tangibly achieved
A bunch of stuff in phenomenology. Besides that nothing good. But many awful things. Half charlatanism half wokeist degeneracy.

[Anonymous No.18508245]

>>18507294
Contemporary philosophy is just an artefact of the university system. Without it, it would not exist.
Philosophy has been in its winter period for at least the past five decades, if not six.
There isn't a single philosopher alive even comparable to Hobbes of Locke let alone Hume or Kant.

[Anonymous No.18508351]

>>18508025
I think there's a lot more going on in philosophy right now in both sides than just that. Whether or not normies care doesn't matter.

As far as tangibility, I think continental is a lot more interesting in its political and social thought, at least at the moment (even with Butler aside).

[Anonymous No.18508384]

>>18508186
He's openly utilitarian, not crypto, and of course abolishing factory farming is an urgent imperative. What kind of sicko supports this?
>>18508351
Care to point to these interesting political discussions? Because all I see is boilerplate woke shit and pseudo-Marxist LARPing.

[Anonymous No.18508452]

>>18508384
Agamben is really interesting. Riled up a lot of big names during the pandemic. I think he's one that might be referred back to in the future. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life put him on the map.

[Anonymous No.18508489]

>>18508025
Chalmers isn't really a combatant of the STEM menace, he just disagrees with a very naive conception of it, namely the one of reductive physicalism. For example, he is still open to eliminative materialism. Also his openness to panpsychism is just a rearticulation of the "STEM' way of thinking, which falls into the same exact problems (reductive physicalists have the hard problem, panpsychists have the combination problem, and both are perfectly analogous).
In other terms, Chalmers still hasn't manage to bring analytic philosophy back to genuine metaphysics. This, imho, happens mostly because most analytic philosophers ground their work on formal logic, and as such are completely incapable of determining any real metaphysical principle - hence they have to costantly resort to common sense intuitions, and to the consensus gentium of scientists who never actually thought about the philosophical presuppositions of their methodologies.

[Anonymous No.18508502]

>>18508081
I think we should just stop framing philosophy as essentially distinct in an analytic front and a continental front. You can easily find objrctions to the main tenets of both fronts in older philosophers, like Aristotle and Hegel.

[Anonymous No.18508507]

>>18508489
Genuine metaphysics? The kind that was put to bed by Kant?

[Anonymous No.18508527]

>>18507743
Is this some sort of parody of the kind of person that would have a problem with analytic philosophy?

[Anonymous No.18508555]

>>18508507
>Kant
>Putting anything to bed
lol

[Anonymous No.18508575]

>>18508507
Kant is still a metaphysician, especially by today's standards. Not only he is willing to apply the categories to noumena (which means that his dialectics of pure reason - which denies the knowability of the soul, the world in its totality, snd God - is entirely fallacious, as Fichte, Schelling and Hegel pointed out; and even Kant, to a certain extent, in his Opus Postumum), but he is also willing to affirm the ideality of space and time, which puts to bed all forms of direct and indirect realism and empiricism accepted by the virtual totality of the analytic philosophers of the last 120 years.

[Anonymous No.18508723]

>>18508575
Kant didn't apply the categories to noumena. He said all that's sayable about it is that it exists and is noncontradictory.

[Anonymous No.18508756]

>>18507294
>>>/his/

[Anonymous No.18508842]

>>18508723
Existence is a category, and so is Causality, and his transcendental philosophy requires with absolute necessity that both these categories are to be applied to noumena (otherwise you have no source for the content of experience)

[Anonymous No.18508930]

>>18508842
My mistake, you're right. I still don't see how metaphysics solves the hard problem which was of course known to Descartes and Leibniz.

[Anonymous No.18508941]

>>18508555
Yeah: his readers

[Anonymous No.18508962]

>>18507338
Not real

[Anonymous No.18508967]

>>18507294
anal haha

[Anonymous No.18509042]

>>18507294
Clear and rigorous thinking about philosophical questions is not a meme. It may come into and go out of fashion in various times and places, but it’s not a meme.
There are certainly “continental” thinkers who I admire, but any self-conscious turn away from analytic philosophy would be disastrous for Anglo philosophy departments at this particular moment in history. Analytic philosophy’s insistence on rigor and abstraction is the only thing keeping philosophy departments from turning into pure political propaganda mills, like what happened to English departments. Of course, SJWs will eventually succeed at taking over analytic philosophy from the inside anyway, but at least we can refrain from accelerating the process.

[Anonymous No.18509049]

>>18507631
>only thing that remains is the style
That's the worst part. I'd be more open if they returned to the analytic project, à la the Vienna Circle, but with an openness to form, than vice versa. Indeed, "analytic philosophy" is just a misnomer for anglophone academic-establishment philosophy, that—without giving all the blame to the fathers of analytic philosophy—has become so specialized that it hardly appears to be philosophy at all, just an academic discipline/"science" – e.g. some subsubbranch of ethics whose scholars dare not to outstep their boundaries and who, despite sharing the same "rigor"-based writing style and logical axioms or derived concepts, have no interest in a grander idea of philosophy, analytic or otherwise, beyond the superficial superiority to attack what differs from it. But, given the predominance of the Anglosphere's academic model, really, the same goes for (self-described thus by academics!) continental philosophy: Sure, you may have somewhat longer and more convoluted sentences and less explicit argumentation, but if the form you're mostly dealing with is written-in-English peer-reviewed journal papers (that continental philosophy was relegated to other humanities disciplined, with their own *academic* methodology and Anglo-style publishing, equally led to this), you're bound to be flattened to a mediocre uniform level.

[Anonymous No.18509095]

>>18509042
Really if the only thing going for it is it's not woke propaganda yet it's not worth preserving.

[Anonymous No.18509125]

>>18508930
Metaphysics can at least posits principles from which a mind can be deduced, which can gives us criteria to identify other minds. For example Leibniz (with his parallelist monadology) and Spinoza (with his concept of conatus) already have definite answers to the problem of other minds: granted, of course, that their metaphysical principles have been correctly established.
Of course establishing a metaphysics is no easy task (I have the impression that is the hardest task one can think of: and once it is done, with enough work, research and reflection everything else comes easy). But at the very least this approach has the capacity of solving genuinely metaphysical problems like the one of other minds. On the other hand, instead, the analytical approach, in all its variants, cannot hope to solve it, not even in principle: to take this approach is to immediatly admit defeat (and at that point we might as well say that philosophy is not concerned with truth).

[Anonymous No.18509147]

>>18509095
It's already happening: you have analytic-style philosophy about race – only a natural outflowing of analytic feminism (yawn btw)

[Anonymous No.18509154]

>>18507294
John Searle is great. Best living philosopher.

[Anonymous No.18509219]

>>18509095
>>18509095
This. Often times the clarity and rigor talk just means "whatever is legible for me that I understand and that I like." By all means be as clear as possible and write in good faith of course. I think the constant having to doubt yourself and impulse to always learn from others is important.

Just skeptical that it can lead to an unquestioning and harboring of certain things that you're comfortable with. I'm sure someone will discover that something they were once not comfortable with reading is actually in fact clear and also rigorous, just that they fell outside the target audience.

[Anonymous No.18509471]

>>18507365
>Process philosophy
Retroactively refuted by Parmenides

[Anonymous No.18509485]

Analytic philosophy is pretty much a waste of time.
What can it tell you about truly being rational or reasoning?
What about Abductive Reasoning, Occam's Razor, Skepticism, etc?

You don't need symbolic language to describe the rational reasoning process, at least I doubt it.

[Anonymous No.18509491]

>>18507294
Hopefully never. Analytic philosophy is the last bastion of rigorous philosophical thought. The "continentals" gave into victim discourse and progressive politics long ago.

[Anonymous No.18510245]

>>18508575
This

[Anonymous No.18511158]

>>18509491
>rigorous
Hey there, here's my new argument
1) consider p
2) p doesn't feel intuitively right
3) therefore ~p

[Anonymous No.18511173]

>>18511158
As opposed to the masterworks of continental like Cixous?
>woman has sex organs just about everywhere...feminine language is more diffusive than its 'masculine counterpart'. That is undoubtedly the reason...her language...goes off in all directions and...he is unable to discern the coherence

[Anonymous No.18511186]

>>18511173
Here's my new 4chan argument:
1) if a pretentious french professor says something stupid, I can say that what doesn't feel intuitively right is false
2) Helene Cixous wrote something stupid
3) what doesn't feel intuitively right is false
Hopefully this masterpiece will get me tenure

[Anonymous No.18511217]

>>18511158
Imagine arguing against deep instinct

[Anonymous No.18511225]

>>18511217
You trust the instincts of analytic dweebs?

[Anonymous No.18511236]

>>18508025
The animal rights movement was started by Nazis like Hitler, Darre, and Savitri Devi.

[Anonymous No.18511263]

>>18508384
>people who disagree with me are sickos
Fuck off, slave. No one cares about your vegan hysteria.

[Anonymous No.18511275]

>>18511263
>you can't just point out my deep moral depravity

[Anonymous No.18511283]

>>18511275
And here come the so*jaks. Just like Singer, you are too stupid to actually build up a moral framework from first principles, so you just screech incoherently. Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.18511290]

>>18511275
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.18511295]

>>18511283
what are you talking about, his principles are remarkably clear, whereas your framework seems to be that your gluttony trumps untold suffering. Hope you get reincarnated as a battery hen you disgusting fuck.

[Anonymous No.18511302]

>>18511295
>his principles are remarkably clear
imagine not knowing what first principles are lol. go suck Big Yud's cock, you midwit.

>reincarnated as a battery hen
non-human animals are not conscious, you can't get reincarnated as them

[Anonymous No.18511307]

>>18511295
>suffering bad
Holy mother of NPC.

[Anonymous No.18511322]

>>18511295
Yeah guys, there is a utility function for morality. Yeah, trust me its true. How do I know this? Fuck off, disgusting fuck. I do not need to justify this to you. Are you seriously implying you don't find this intuitively true? Fuck you, fedora tipper. I refuse to elaborate but you must believe me.

[Anonymous No.18511328]

>>18511302
>non-human animals are not conscious
Prove it
>>18511307
>a masochist chimes in
You're an aberration though.

[Anonymous No.18511332]

>>18511328
Either post 1 (one) argument that isn't just slave contemporary western morality speaking, or go back to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.18511337]

>>18511322
>there's no utility function because my nobler pleasures trump base euphoria
That's like, your only argument against it. Notice how they're still, in fact, pleasures though.

[Anonymous No.18511339]

>>18511328
I don't care to prove it. Even if animals were conscious, I would eat them. And there is nothing you can do, while I consume a tasty CONSCIOUS steak, overflowing with juices. Nothing! And the best part? Nearly everyone else is doing the same thing. And they will keep doing it. Mhmmm.

[Anonymous No.18511344]

>>18511337
You are literally saying X and refusing to justify X. If there was a transcendental incentive like one built up by Kant which I believed in, I would supress my hedonistic instincts and become a vegan animal's rights activist. But neither Singer nor you are capable of doing it, because you are incoherently screeching NPC's. Unless you change your ways and use the board to engage in a constructive argument, this is the last (you) I give you.

[Anonymous No.18511346]

>>18511332
>muh slave morality
Nietzsche just made it up lol. What are you, a teenager? Nietzsche even said we're the cruelest animals because of bull fighting and such, so even he knew the deal.

[Anonymous No.18511348]

>>18511328
I detect consciousness in others through a shared recognition of the symbolic order; through speech, gestures, facial expressions and writings. The sense in which we inhabit the same space is intuitive. There is a veil between us and the animal because they do not partake of this symbolic order. Now, there may be expections such as Dogs and Chimpanzees, but on the whole animals have no ability to convince us that there is anything going on in their heads. You have to prove that animals are conscious.

[Anonymous No.18511351]

>>18511346
>you must have the same moral intuitions as me, or you are an edgy teenager
Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.18511357]

>>18511348
Based and, perhaps... Jungpilled?!

[Anonymous No.18511375]

>>18511339
Yeah keep it up. AI god will deduce the objective morality of the situation and punish us dearly, and will be right to do so.
>>18511344
>muh NPC's
This is a /pol/ meme, they don't exist. Holy shit, you don't need to be a utilitarian to see torture for the sake of stuffing your greedy face is obviously wrong. Most of you are outright hypocrites that would never tolerate cats and dogs in the same situation, so it's not a serious position, just an ad hoc rationalization for evil.

[Anonymous No.18511385]

>>18511357
Never read Jung, what text does he state something similar to what I said.

[Anonymous No.18511386]

>>18511348
>animals aren't conscious except these two
What? Consciousness is far more than just language, perhaps you lack enough inner life to see that because you're just a psychopath? Would explain your callous lack of empathy.

[Anonymous No.18511393]

>>18511385
He doesn't say that anywhere afaik, but his system of symbolic order

>>18511375
>still refusing to actually provide an argument
Yeah, I am not giving you any more (you)'s either. You vegan hysterics are worse than religious zealots.

>Unironically revealing yourself to be techbro "rationalist" NPC
kek

[Anonymous No.18511395]

>>18511351
Some day we'll rise up. The strongest man in the world on record is vegan. Even Arnie only drinks almond milk now. Our time will come, and you carnivorous freaks will all get strung up.

[Anonymous No.18511397]

>>18511385
Fuck, I accidentally deleted half the sentence. >>18511393
I meant to say that his system of symbolic order through archetypes is very similar to what you are talking about. he too, would believe that collective archetypal signaling is necesarry for consciousness.

[Anonymous No.18511401]

>>18511393
Well, seeya, enjoy your cold and brutal mind.

[Anonymous No.18511404]

>>18511401
>t. organ harvesting bugman

[Anonymous No.18511417]

>>18511401
If you actually cared about animals, you would be trying to convince the fine anonymouses about the importance of animal rights. You being mean to them only serves to perpetuate animal violence.

[Anonymous No.18511425]

>>18511417
Why would they listen even if I was being gentle? This is 4chan.

[Anonymous No.18511428]

>>18511397
Sounds interesting, I'll definitely read Jung now.

[Anonymous No.18511453]

>>18511425
Anon, if you actually tried being reasonable for once, you would see that there are many anons here who dislike the /pol/ wojak posting culture where arguments descend into based and cringe. It is these anons you have a chance of convincing. All you have done so far is antagonize them by calling them cruel and brutal without explanation. They are now less likely to ever become pro-animal rights. By your own values, you have just committed a deeply immoral act.

[Anonymous No.18511487]

>>18511453
I seriously doubt they would have converted no matter what I said, but on the off chance you're right it's my bad.

[Anonymous No.18511498]

>>18511487
delicious.

[Anonymous No.18511658]

>>18507365
Very based

[Anonymous No.18511885]

>>18507294
https://sootyempiric.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-end-of-analytic-philosophy.html

>The End of Analytic Philosophy

>One of the nice things about having a blog and job security is that I can just make things up. So here's my sense of the recent historical trajectory of what can broadly be called analytic philosophy, and what I think that says about the current moment.

>Analytic philosophy is a degenerating research programme. It's been quite a long time since there was anything like a shared project of analysing key concepts or a mutual commitment to the linguistic turn. But the lack of such shared projects in themselves didn't really cause a problem for the field -- here's a discussion of Rorty cheerfully noting, in 1982, that analytic philosophy is held together mainly by a certain kind of style and sociological bonds among its practitioners. He didn't think it was a problem, and this more detailed but equally sympathetic metaphilosophical analysis comes to a broadly similar conclusion. It also doesn't strike me that there is any particular institutional crisis for analytic philosophy beyond the general woes of the humanities right now -- and even here we may be doing relatively well. So why do I none the less think that now is a time of woe for analytic philosophy?

>Analytic philosophy suffers from a triple failure of confidence, especially among younger philosophers. People are not confident it can solve its own problems, not confident that it can be modified so as to do better on that first score, and not confident its problems are worth solving in the first place. The first two problems are resultant from internal pressures, the latter a mix of internal and external. However, there is no successor paradigm in a position to really take advantage of this weakness, and so the field listlessly drifts on, anxious and insecure and filled with self-recriminations.

>The two internal factors are related to the fact that the architectonic programmes of latter 20th century analytic philosophy seem to have failed without any clear ideas for replacing them coming forward. If analytic philosophy was a grand march to Kripke then the problem is none of us are quite sure what to do now we've got here. If we're trying to do our best on a Lewisian theoretical score sheet then it's not actually clear that is worth doing. Plenty of (genuinely good) work is done by junior and senior scholars alike on modal (and increasingly now hyperintensional) metaphysics, theories of reference, probabilistic epistemology and semantics. It's recognisably continuous with what went before and we still have things to learn here. Yet the game the original leading lights thought they were playing has long ago been ceded and no one dares think they are going to do better.

[Anonymous No.18511890]

>>18511885
>For what I think is gone, and is not coming back, is any hope that from all this will emerge a well-validated and rational-consensus-generating theory of grand topics of interest. We can, and we will, keep generating puzzles for any particular answer given, we will never persuade our colleagues who disagree, we will never finally settle what to say about the simple cases in order to be able to move on to the grand problems of philosophy. My anecdotal impression is that junior philosophers are hyper aware of these bleak prospects for anything like creation of a shared scientific paradigm.

>This hyperawareness has generated a pervasive pessimistic scepticism about the field's prospects, something like our own local postmodern condition. (In fact I'd even wager that the change in material condition underlying this shift is something like that which Lyotard supposed -- technological changes making it easy to quickly see and hear from all the various ways one might reasonably dissent from one's favoured theories.) Analytic philosophy has long had ambitions to something like scientific status -- often expressed in works of naturalistic metaphilosophy, and at times to the point of cringingly insecure self parody. Many philosophers strike mes like Polish apparatchiks in 1983 -- they turn up to work and do what they did yesterday just because they don't know what else to do, not because they seriously believe in the system they are maintaining. I think it's not been fully appreciated how much of a blow it is to the confidence of the field's youth that these ambitions are increasingly abandoned as untenable.

>The more mixed-internal-external factor concerns the loss of faith in the worth of the field's projects. The humanities have been having recruitment worries ever since the '08 crash. As mentioned above philosophy is perhaps not doing so bad relative to the others, but none the less as colleges close down and deans tighten budgets we have felt the squeeze just like everyone else. And since then the more or less continuous series of political crises that have rocked the self-confidence of the liberal bourgeois who dominate analytic philosophy have themselves been felt within the discipline. There is a widespread craving for even just a sense that one can do things that make a difference, that one's world isn't spiralling out of control. These two facts, combined with the ostentatious failure of our internal research projects mentioned above, have led to a craving for some explanation for or justification of what we are doing that makes us seem relevant to our era. When our administrative superiors come to ask us why we need another line, when students ask us why they should major in something as apparently fanciful as philosophy while the world burns, we want to have something to say besides "stick with us, we're pretty sure that any day now we will have a viable theory of reference magnetism".

[Anonymous No.18511892]

>>18511890
>This has led to what Brandon Warmke has called the "applied turn". What jobs there are are much more often going to ethics or socio-political candidates. Many of the projects that seem most exciting to junior philosophers concern injustice, oppression, propaganda, ideology -- all things about which it is felt that philosophical analysis might be able to have a real world impact. And in so far as there is popular methodological innovation at the moment it concerns conceptual engineering, explication, or ameliorative analyses -- all interventionist and revisionist approaches to concepts. Some attempt to change the world, rather than just understand it, is very much a popular project among younger analytic philosophers.

>(As an aside, in a brief essay I just put on my website, which I will be updating and mainly wrote as an exercise in trying to conform to a style guide, I cast some doubt on our prospects for being of much use. My own work has largely been in this pragmatic vein, and I think openness to this kind of work is having the pleasant effect of helping to erode the absurd and pernicious gatekeeping that once characterised a self-confident analytic philosophy. But, alas, I remain pessimistic our efforts will amount to much.)

>Now it's not new to analytic philosophy that people have socio-political ambitions for their work. And there is of course a thriving tradition of analytic political philosophy in the wake of Rawls' work (though there too debate evinces internal pressure). But none the less I think this recent applied turn is different -- my sense is what is happening here is that rather than there being a widespread belief that there is a natural and desirable political upshot to the sort of work one might do in analytic philosophy, instead there is a belief that only by making such links to applied issues can analytic philosophy justify itself. Where once people in the field thought that their political views were naturally expressed in its idiom, or that its mode of reasoning was best suited to addressing the concerns they had, I do not think the present mood is so optimistic. My sense is that now what we see is a desperate scramble to show that the skills or tools we have might find some problem space wherein their, our, worth can be made manifest. As mentioned above, even though this has been where I have done my own work (and maybe all this is just me projecting my insecurities outwards!), I do not think such a problem space has been forthcoming.

[Anonymous No.18511897]

>>18511892
>But for all that, analytic philosophy has been so institutionally successful, insular, and jealous of its resources, that we do not have clear competitor paradigms that are institutionally powerful and in regular enough contact with practitioners to invigorate us right now. Maybe some new stars are just over the horizon who shall inspire people with a new set of projects -- that is not my preferred mode of working things out as a community, but it has how analytic philosophy thus far organised itself and renewal through some such figure(s) may happen again. There is much that is of value in analytic philosophy both historically and in how it is practiced today -- see here, for instance, for some of my own words of praise -- that I hope that whatever happens we do not lose its virtues. For whatever its worth, my guess would be our best for internal change comes through interacting with historians of philosophy. They have kept an institutional foothold and so are in regular friendly contact with analytic philosophers, and have deep knowledge of quite different ways of approaching philosophy which might yet lead us to rebirth.

>But to be honest I doubt it. I think philosophy in my lifetime will just barely shamble on, unable to free itself, anchored to a worldview it can no longer believe in.

[Anonymous No.18511914]

This thread was moved to >>>/his/11408010