[ 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: 67 KB, 666x408, AC82CEF8-A46A-41F3-B06F-7105BD352071.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.19210649 [Reply] [Original]

Feels versus reals?

>> No.19210681

>>19210649
Not really.

>> No.19210816
File: 151 KB, 1200x495, 1586335719846.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>> No.19210833
File: 22 KB, 804x743, 1633579988476.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>analytic "philosophy"

>> No.19210863

>>19210649
Analytic philosophy is why I am an atheist.

>> No.19210876

science and logic is really important to “continental” philosophy too

>> No.19210919

they're both fine, honestly. The only thing that can really fuck you up is Chomsky.

>> No.19210929

>>19210919
Chomsky was my introduction to philosophy...

>> No.19210960
File: 106 KB, 680x574, 1607976714165.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>19210649
Feels ARE reals.

>> No.19210964

>>19210649
Continental philosophy is the only /lit/ one. Analytics are just autistic philistines. Cope, seethe, and dilate all you want, I've said nothing more than pure facts.

>> No.19211002

>>19210929
oh man...

It's true what they say, start with the Greeks. Or the Jeets--just start from the beginning. Read Plato, read the Diamond Sutra. Read stuff that's been copied and revered and critiqued for thousands of years, not someone whose height of fame comes in their lifetime.

>> No.19211456

Analytic Philosophers: "I don't have a soul."
Idealists: "..."

>> No.19211469
File: 32 KB, 480x481, hegel_evangelion.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

The american tradition of this divide is just stupid, the best example for this is Hegel, who is at the same time both equally analytical and continental.

>> No.19211476

>>19211469
Retard

>> No.19211498

>>19211469
Analytic philosophy was an explicit reaction against Hegel you idiot.

>> No.19211657

>>19211469
Hegel is everything they were rebelling against. They hate metaphysical gobbledigook like "geist"

>> No.19211663

>>19210649

Vice versa.

Read Rorty.

Analytic fags never stopped coping after him

>> No.19211667

>>19211498

If he meant Kant he'd be more on track but none of the analytics were reacting against Kant per se so :^)

>> No.19211686

feels are real, and reals make you feel. Simple as that.

>> No.19211801

>>19210649
More like tropes vs copes

>> No.19211817

>>19210649
It is always funny though how many philosophers shit on scientists. OH NO THEY OBSERVE REALITY how uncreative and mindless they must really be unlike ME who thinks all day about smart things.

>> No.19211843
File: 122 KB, 828x525, FAq0qLiUUAM9Fdc.jpeg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Analytic philosophy is very feel-centric too. Everytime you read in an analytic philosophy paper/book the words "plausible", "intuitive"/"counter-intuitive", and "thought experiment", you can be sure you're dealing with someone whose argument literally boils down to "this doesnt SEEM right to me" (otherwise they would have proposed an actual argument, instead of resorting to cheap rethorical tricks and intuitions). What I've just described is something which can be noticed in virtually every analytic philosopher that has been relevant in the last 100 years.

Also as other anons said, the analytical/continental distinction is not a distinction that really cut philosophy in half. Sometimes I hear people justifying the point I've just made by saying "analytical/continental philosophers nowadays engage much more with continental/analytical philosophy", but that's just bullshit. Sure, there is some engagement, but Habermas has not turned into an analytic philosopher only because he has dealt with Kripke. These engagements are superficial at best, and are as incisive as engagements with, say, medieval philosophy (which is to say: it can be a real influence, but it doesnt turn you into a medieval philosopher). This distinction is still alive and well, and it can be found in basic elements such as the consideration that a philosopher gives to formal logic (which is usually enough to distinguish an analytic philosooher from a continental one). So, when I say that this distinction does not cut philosophy in half, by this I do not mean that there are now some hypothetical analytical-continental hybrid philosophers that make the distinction invalid: rather, it does not cut philosophy in half because there are ways to do philosophy that have nothing to do with any of those two traditions.
The simplest example I can give of the insufficiency of that distinction is classical philosophy. For example, Plato and Aristotle, Spinoza and Leibniz, or Fichte and Hegel: are they analytical or continental? Clearly they're neither, since on one hand they reject a-sistematicity and the primacy of formal logic (which goes at odds with 99.999% of the analytic philosophy that has been written so far), and on the other hand they propose strong metaphysical systematic frameworks (which are at odds with 99.999% of the continental philosophy that has been written so far).

The distinction is fake, is mostly predicated on outdated fads, and contributes to limiting the scope and potentiality of young philosophers. These traditions must be simply rejected, those who aim to synthetize them have not understood how hollow they are.

>> No.19211858

>>19210649
Feels versus Feels

>> No.19211889

>>19210649
real feels vs feel real

>> No.19212081

>>19211817
It’s impossible to observe reality

>> No.19212139

>>19211843
Thx for the effort post