/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22464011]

Why do analytic philosophy get so much hate?

[Anonymous No.22464018]

The whole analytic vs continental shit is so dated.

[Anonymous No.22464024]

>>22464011
Because formal logic is too hard for your average humanitiesfag. I did formal logic in uni as a Math major as an extracurricular, it was funny that I did best in class among the philosophyfags because it's all literally basic math.

[Anonymous No.22464059]

Because it's not interesting or substantive, doesn't approach the totality that philosophers used to try tovhp2ay

[Anonymous No.22464074]

>>22464024
Spbp, yeah most people hate math and that is honestly all it boils down to.

[Anonymous No.22464240]

Because it throws a lot of cold water on a lot of hot messes. And occasionally people think it should be the exclusive mode of thinking, which is just partisanship.

[Anonymous No.22464253]

not philosophy, just math autists who got lost on campus outside of the STEM containment area

[Anonymous No.22464271]

>>22464011
I mean, almost every philosophy department in the English speaking world is overwhelmingly analytic-leaning

I'm a philosophy grad and I don't really see it get much hate. I think most people have moved past the whole analytic/Continental thing

[Anonymous No.22464279]

>>22464240
bingo

[Anonymous No.22464302]

>>22464024
>>22464074
What I hate about math are all the arbitrary symbols that you have to keep in motion to understand it. I know that it's technically no different from the arbitrary hodgepodge of ordinary language and mangled jargon of continental philosophy but I do have a preference for which one I can endure.

[Anonymous No.22464345]

>>22464018
>>22464271
Can you spoonfeed me on when and why these two fields were in such disagreements?

[Anonymous No.22464346]

Literature is all about living through other people so its no doubt people here fancy something that focuses more on the human side of things

[Anonymous No.22464404]

>>22464345
>>/lit/thread/22392355

[Anonymous No.22464407]

>>22464024
>I did best in class among the philosophyfags because it's all literally basic math.

BTFO BY KANT
>Masters in the science of mathematics are confident of the success of this method; indeed, it is a common persuasion that it is capable of being applied to any subject of human thought. They have hardly ever reflected or philosophized on their favourite science—a task of great difficulty; and the specific difference between the two modes of employing the faculty of reason has never entered their thoughts.

[Anonymous No.22464416]

>>22464011
>debate about progress while some succeed
>make ontology easy after it doesn't matter

[Anonymous No.22464455]

>>22464011
Because Analytic philosophy is literally basically just the Brits around 1910 deciding they wanted to try to bet everything on the new Fregean and Boolean symbolic logic, flirting with a related circle in Vienna (which was much smarter and more complex than British analytic philosophy), having a crisis of "oh shit this doesn't actually work" beginning around 1940-1945~, spending three decades trying to shift focus to "ordinary language" while maintaining basically the same blinkered mentality as they had acquired during the prior, disastrous logicist phase, i.e., by studying "ordinary language" with implicitly logicist presuppositions (endless classification and "term analysis" of living language, which kills it dead in order to dissect it and subject it to anatomical classifications of dubious utility or veracity, thus making the language non-living, i.e. making it non-ordinary language, thus negating the purpose of the enterprise), then having a weird renaissance of logicism that really satisfied nobody but spawned a lot of weird pseudo-mathematicians studying shit that just doesn't satisfy anybody who isn't specifically interested in one specific sub-sub-school of specifically analytic philosophy, while everybody who was left unsatisfied by this neo-logicist resurgence experienced a kind of gradual attraction toward "continental" approaches to studying philosophy (AKA actually reading the texts instead of tabulations of the texts' "propositions" and "terms" made by Englishmen copying other the tabulations of other Englishmen, and filled with grotesque Angloid neologisms that only increase the insularity of analytic philosophy), leading eventually to the current situation, in which to study analytic philosophy means to study either "modal mereology via semantic relational theory" that is already passé before you even finish your thesis on it, or studying a kind of watered-down shitty version of continental philosophy (applied to the aforementioned hideously ugly Angloid rephrasings and tabulations of "classical" philosophical "problems") cobbled together by aforementioned ordinary language philosophers who sloppily incorporated bits of American pragmatist philosophy because this didn't seem like as much of an admission of defeat.

[Anonymous No.22464547]

>>22464455
Kek. Great post and surprisingly informative

[Anonymous No.22464555]

>>22464547
it's copypasta from >>22464404

looks like it's missing the second part

[Anonymous No.22465200]

>>22464011
Too autistic

[Anonymous No.22465211]

>>22464011
From what I've encountered people who don't understand or appreciate it think it's too out of touch to mean anything. But they've forgotten what philosophy is all about, which is to sharpen and perfect thinking. So thinking for thinking's sake is meaningful and valuable if you are investigating the very logic and structure of thought.
Not surprisingly a lot of those who feel this way about analytic philosophy tend to be sloppy and undisciplined thinkers, extreme idle navel gazer types who just want to wallow in opinion but don't even know what an opinion is.

[Anonymous No.22465360]

>>22464018
Neither is real philosophy anyway.

[Anonymous No.22465430]

>>22464024
Formal logic isn't real

[Anonymous No.22465583]

>>22465211
>they've forgotten what philosophy is all about, which is to sharpen and perfect thinking.
false. It's about knowing the truth. That's why analytics are ngmi.

[Anonymous No.22465595]

>>22464011
Because of the people it creates. It's the same reason why Fortnite gets so much hate, it's actually a fun game but the people who play it are insufferable.

[Anonymous No.22465628]

>>22465211
I think you're partly right, in that analytic philosophy tends to be opposed by people who don't put much weight in having to argue or prove or provide evidence of things, but the rejection of analytic philosophy is also partly right in recognizing that philosophy *isn't* "sharpen[ing] and perfect[ing] thinking," but the seeking after what's true, which involves sharpening and perfecting thinking to that end. Analytic philosophy seems to find itself having a bit of a PR problem in the last two decades, where it's unclear whether they're discovering what's true or just inventing apparatuses, and no one's really sure wwhy it needs to keep devolving to trolley problems. Plus, even the sciences they modeled themselves after don't have much respect for them anyway, so for all their insistence to other interpretations of philosophy that they're more scientific, they're still thought of by scientists as the same as continentals.

[Anonymous No.22465736]

[Anonymous No.22465752]

>>22465211
>>22465628
A genius has no need of evidence, analytic chuddies. He speaks divine and eternal Truth, stolen with raw Promethean wit from the undivided all. A*glos will never understand what insight feels like. They are incapable of it.

[Anonymous No.22466082]

>>22464345
The struggle isn’t always as clear-cut as some would have you believe and you can always love and learn from both forms of philosophy, but at the extreme end, some who favor continental philosophy think the analytics are autists who think all of the world’s great philosophical problems posed throughout history can be boiled down to truth tables, symbolic notation, a smattering of some of the hard and natural sciences (e.g. physics for questions like, “Why is there being instead of nothing at all?”, neuroscience to explain philosophy of mind, typically with a behaviorist and eliminative materialist bent), and/or just reducing it down “this problem doesn’t even exist in the first place, it’s incoherent and just comes about from an improper use of language.” On the other hand, analytics will say continentals at their worst are gobbledygook word salad, too “soft” and unrigorous, with the continental bullshitting about everything from literary, art and film criticism to history to psychoanalysis to theology and metaphysics to turgid pondering on existential questions, creating a mishmash with no real applicability to clearing up philosophical problems and which in fact obfuscates them.

The extreme pole of analytic philosophy on the one end that some rag on would be something like a paper with the title “on modal mereology via semantic relational theory" as this pasta >>22464455 puts it, the excess of continental philosophy others criticize is stuff like “on the phallologocentric ontotheology of the being of being in medieval theologians from John Scotus Eriugena to Duns Scotus”

[Anonymous No.22466087]

>>22464345
The struggle isn’t always as clear-cut as some would have you believe and you can always love and learn from both forms of philosophy, but at the extreme end, some who favor continental philosophy think the analytics are autists who think all of the world’s great philosophical problems posed throughout history can be boiled down to truth tables, symbolic notation, a smattering of some of the hard and natural sciences (e.g. physics for questions like, “Why is there being instead of nothing at all?”, neuroscience to explain philosophy of mind, typically with a behaviorist and eliminative materialist bent), and/or just reducing it down “this problem doesn’t even exist in the first place, it’s incoherent and just comes about from an improper use of language.” On the other hand, analytics will say continentals at their worst are gobbledygook word salad, too “soft” and unrigorous, with the continental bullshitting about everything from literary, art and film criticism to history to psychoanalysis to theology and metaphysics to turgid pondering on existential questions, creating a mishmash with no real applicability to clearing up philosophical problems and which in fact obfuscates them.

The extreme pole of analytic philosophy on the one end that some rag on would be something like a paper with the title “on modal mereology via semantic relational theory" as this pasta >>22464455 # puts it, the excess of continental philosophy others criticize is stuff like “on the phallologocentric ontotheology of the being of being in medieval theologians from John Scotus Eriugena to Duns Scotus from a Derridean and Heideggerian perspective”

This split largely happened in the 20th-century.

[Anonymous No.22466106]

>>22464345
original commentor here. The other commentors have spelled out the gist of it.
In the early 20th century, mostly in england, a bunch of philosophers got really jazzed on formal logic and semantics. Many legitimately thought that all philosophical problems can be fixed by throwing enough logic at them. These people grouped together basically all of those philosophers who weren't as hyped up on language as they were, calling them "continental" cause most of them were french.

what i'm getting at is that, the divide itself is problematic (grouping together diverse philosophers through all of contentinal europe simply because they aren't analytic is dumb as hell) and it was only ever really used by analytic philosophers (so-called "continental" philosophers did not refer to themselves as such) as a way to dismiss those who weren't into the same things as them.

Which isn't to say there aren't a lot of continental philosophers who are full of shit - i think many of them were on a bunch of bullshit purely because it was fashionable at the time. But yeah I think people these days don't take the divide too seriously, and I think you'll miss out on some good stuff if you just ignore everything that is "continental"

I got my MA working mostly on ordinary language philosophy stuff, feel free to ask questions

[Anonymous No.22466128]

>>22466106
>i think many of them were on a bunch of bullshit purely because it was fashionable at the time
t. soulless peabrain a*glo

[Anonymous No.22466259]

>>22466106
The debate was also spurred by the Vienna School of logical positivism which is basically "fuck yeah science" / "philosophy is over lads, all we have to do now is make the ideal language for scientists to do their thing in" as a worldview, similar to Comte's positivism (religion is just primitive philosophy, classical philosophy or metaphysics is just primitive science, and now we have science so the game is over and we're about to enter into a utopia managed by smart STEM businessmen)

Marx had the same positivist impulse, he simply saw it as so self-evident that materialism was correct that any kind of idealist philosophy was permanently dead and not coming back. Anyone still doing old metaphysics was basically a confused retard.

A lot of Jews have this impulse in general, and a lot of the Vienna guys were Jews. It's closely related to the Jewish Enlightenment and is one of the major "identities" open to Jewish intellectuals in modernity, since they are squeezed between orthodox/shtetl Judaism that is either decrepit and pre-revival (in Marx's day) or obviously unphilosophical (just study Talmud all day), or militant Zionism, or total assimilationism/go along to get along liberalism. Obviously all of these are problematic so when you tell intellectually inclined Jews that there's another option, being the most rationalist rationalist and being the tip of the spear of European enlightenment (whether identified with logical positivism or Marxism), a lot of Jews are going to get on board.

Englishmen on the other hand are just instinctive utilitarians and materialists most of the time. When they do have a native mystical or metaphysical movement it's still usually couched in deliberately "unpretentious" "ordinary language," like the British Idealists, who were the guys the original analytic philosophers wanted to destroy.