Analytic "metaphysics" is a joke

[Anonymous No.22856734]

>Armstrong's philosophy is broadly naturalistic. In Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics, Armstrong states that his philosophical system rests upon "the assumption that all that exists is the space time world, the physical world as we say". He justifies this by saying that the physical world "SEEMS obviously to exist" while other things "SEEM much more hypothetical". From this fundamental assumption flows a rejection of abstract objects including Platonic forms.

Imagine calling yourself an analytic metaphysician.

[Anonymous No.22856752]

>>22856734
I never understood why analytics have such a fucking hard-on for intuitionism.
>bro it just seems that way bro
>bro it sounds true so it's true bro
like nothing else functions like this, you know? the sun seems to be the size of a quarter but it isn't. optical illusions seem to be one way but they're another. nothing is as it seems. but suddenly when we're doing philosophy, "sounds right to me man" is good evidence? come the fuck on

[Anonymous No.22856758]

>>22856734
Analytic philosophy > Continental philosophy

[Anonymous No.22856776]

>>22856752
>I never understood why analytics have such a fucking hard-on for intuitionism
>like nothing else functions like this, you know?
Literally every other system of metaphysics relies on "obvious" assumptions. Analytics are just honest enough to state it outright.

[Anonymous No.22856779]

>>22856752
>analytics have such a fucking hard-on for intuitionism.
they have to find a way keep philosophy departments in existence in the anglorealms where the people funding the university have no appreciation for things that don't make money. It is the Anglo way. Whereas scholastics defended the assumptions of Christianity, Analytics defend the assumptions of the people who keep Anglo philosophy departments lights on.

[Anonymous No.22856805]

>>22856779
Anglos are better philosophers than both the Germans and French.
This is an objective fact.
Kant misinterpreted Hume, and the French are a bunch of pretentious obscurantists.

[Anonymous No.22856811]

>>22856776
>Literally every other system of metaphysics relies on "obvious" assumptions.
except Hegel

>The sciences postulate their respective objects, such as space, number, or whatever it be; and it might be supposed that philosophy had also to postulate the existence of thought. But the two cases are not exactly parallel. It is by the free act of thought that it occupies a point of view, in which it is for its own self, and thus gives itself an object of its own production. Nor is this all. The very point of view, which originally is taken on its own evidence only, must in the course of the science be converted to a result — the ultimate result in which philosophy returns into itself and reaches the point with which it began. In this manner philosophy exhibits the appearance of a circle which closes with itself, and has no beginning in the same way as the other sciences have. To speak of a beginning of philosophy has a meaning only in relation to a person who proposes to commence the study, and not in relation to the science as science.

[Anonymous No.22856818]

>>22856811
Replacing assumptions with circular reasoning is not a win.

[Anonymous No.22856823]

>>22856805
>This is an objective fact.
lol you wish

[Anonymous No.22856825]

>>22856818

[Anonymous No.22856827]

>>22856818
>t. couldn't into Hegel

[Anonymous No.22856834]

>>22856823
This guy here surpassed all German and French philosophers.
Germans and French have completely been disconnected from the sciences. I am not claiming scientism, but a philosopher should be eclectic in their approach.
Alfred North Whitehead was the best philosopher of the 20th century.
French smugness and German autism don't make for good philosophy.
David Skrbina is an interesting philosopher too in Analytic tradition.
While Heidegger and Deleuze may have interesting things to say, their writing is literal garbage. Even an analytic summary for their views would be better than actually reading their works.

[Anonymous No.22856837]

>>22856834
>for their views
of their views*

[Anonymous No.22856839]

>>22856805
>Kant misinterpreted Hume
lol Kant outhumed Hume

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hume's_fork?wprov=sfti1

>Upon the solution of this problem, or upon sufficient proof of the impossibility of synthetical knowledge a priori, depends the existence or downfall of the science of metaphysics. Among philosophers, David Hume came the nearest of all to this problem; yet it never acquired in his mind sufficient precision, nor did he regard the question in its universality. On the contrary, he stopped short at the synthetical proposition of the connection of an effect with its cause (principium causalitatis), insisting that such proposition a priori was impossible. According to his conclusions, then, all that we term metaphysical science is a mere delusion, arising from the fancied insight of reason into that which is in truth borrowed from experience, and to which habit has given the appearance of necessity. Against this assertion, destructive to all pure philosophy, he would have been guarded, had he had our problem before his eyes in its universality.

[Anonymous No.22856842]

>>22856834
>Germans and French have completely been disconnected from the sciences.
>t. pseud who hasn't actually read German philosophy

[Anonymous No.22856886]

>>22856839
Kant's stance on a priori synthetic knowledge neglects how the mind's understanding evolves from its continuous interaction with reality, which was Hume's original point. There is no need for a priori knowledge when one understands the nature of conditioning.
>>22856842
Kys, you ad homineming POS. The German idealists are complete garbage. Relics of the past that are no longer valuable whatsoever. German idealism literally leads to mental illness and even treads near solipsism a lot of times.

[Anonymous No.22856903]

>>22856776
that's not what I'm talking about, anon. I'm not talking about making obvious assumptions, I'm talking about advancing an idea and then justifying it by saying "this makes intuitive sense." like analytic ethicists will construct a convoluted thought experiment, then say "it makes intuitive sense that A is wrong in this scenario" and then stand up from the desk beaming like they've accomplished something

[Anonymous No.22856910]

>>22856903
>I'm not talking about making obvious assumptions
>I'm talking about advancing an idea and then justifying it by saying "this makes intuitive sense."
An obvious assumption and an assumption that makes intuitive sense are the same thing.

[Anonymous No.22856912]

>>22856834
>While Heidegger and Deleuze may have interesting things to say, their writing is literal garbage.
I remember reading an anecdote of Heidegger and a graduate student (I think it was Gadamer, actually), where he had a hard time parsing what Heidegger wrote in a book. So he went to Heidegger and asked him to make sense of it. And Heidegger stared at it for a bit, struggled to focus, and then finally declared "Oh wow, this is really bad." or something like that.

[Anonymous No.22856977]

>>22856912
All of German idealism and phenomenology are pompous garbage. There is no value in it whatsoever.
Anglo Philosophy of Mind has already surpassed those morons.
I remember reading this book when younger and finding it more fruitful than any German or French pseudointellectual gibberish crap.

The questions and answers explored by modern Anglo philosophical legacy is already being implemented in novel reinterpretations of certain scientific avenues (e.g., Biocivilizations by Predrag B. Slijepcevic who takes modern panpsychism jumpstarted by Chalmers and Alfred North Whitehead's process philosophy and mixes it with modern evolutionary biology rooted in Margulis' theory of endosymbiosis).

An Anglo says "qualia is irreducible".
A Frenchman or German pontificates endlessly to the point they tread anti-structuralist, anti-realist, and anti-essentialist pseudery and then wind up creating a convoluted labyrinthine of a conceptual model that never directly address the ontological question.

I think they just enjoy endlessly talking about flawed abstract models.

[Anonymous No.22857089]

>>22856977
t. clueless retard

[Anonymous No.22857105]

Ted Sider is the best metaphysician

[Anonymous No.22857425]

bump

[Anonymous No.22857428]

>>22856977
>All of German idealism and phenomenology are pompous garbage

>gets filtered
>seethes
like clockwork

[Anonymous No.22857505]

>>22856734
Analytic philosophy presupposes metaphysical evidence is nonexistent.

[Anonymous No.22857525]

>>22856752
reading marx's capital is a good antidote for this. the entire book is about how appearences (often using the word "seems") don't match up to reality

[Anonymous No.22857618]

>>22856886
>There is no need for a priori knowledge when one understands the nature of conditioning.
My man got filtered by the Transcendental Deduction. As an advice, I would recommend you to reread it, and to notice that the bundle theory and the lack of sensible intuition for the I (both are central points in Hume's Treatise) are premises of Kant's transcendental deduction of the categories. Hume simply did not grasp some of the consequences of his own claims.

[Anonymous No.22858055]

>>22856734
It only exists bc the red scare kicked all the real philosophers out of philosophy departments

[Anonymous No.22858085]

>>22858055
Wait, are you implying the world would be less materialist without mccarthysits and right wingers in it??? That’s very stupid

[Anonymous No.22858433]

>>22857618
There is no sensible intuition for the 'I', nor a foundational basis for transcendental deduction. What unfolds within the mind is essentially a minimization of uncertainty, aligning with the free energy principle, between an internal sensory model and its interaction with the external world. The brain functions as an 'active inference engine,' devoid of a priori innate structures as traditionally conceived. Thus, the sanctity attributed to rationality or the 'deduction of categories' is misplaced; they are merely learned templates, acquired for the purpose of guiding actions rather than emanating from some inherent rational structure.

[Anonymous No.22858518]

>>22858433
>There is no sensible intuition for the 'I'
Yes, that's what I have said. Kant accepts this points made by Hume, and then couples it with the bundle theory, and then shows that by taking these two points together a transcendental deduction of the categories will follow.
Atm I don't have a copy of the first critique with me (I'm at my parent's house for christmas), otherwise I would show you exactly where these two theses by Hume appear (but iirc they're both presented in §17).
>The brain functions as an 'active inference engine,' devoid of a priori innate structures as traditionally conceived.
The beautiful thing is that by coupling those two humean theses Kant can show that without a TD of the categories we wouldn't even be conscious (rather we would be in a state of constant confusion, in which no representation could be tied to another, and in which everytime a new sensible intuition popped up a completely different consciousness would arise – he calls this state "multicolored self"). All in all, Hume's fault was his inability in understanding what his theses actually implied, once they are taken together.
>they are merely learned templates, acquired for the purpose of guiding actions rather than emanating from some inherent rational structure.
See above. Without a transcendental deduction of the category there would be no way of sensibly tying different representation in a single I, which means that without the TD even the notion of "learning" would make no sense (since as soon as a new intuition would enter your consciousness you would immediately forget the previous one).

Again, my advice is to reread the TD while keeping in mind what I have said wrt its relation to those Humean theses. Im sure you will find it very fruitful.

[Anonymous No.22859423]

bump

[Anonymous No.22859439]

>>22858518
good job anon. you btfo'd that analytictard so hard he deleted his post. Kant (pbuh) is smiling in the noumenal realm right now.

[Anonymous No.22859496]

>>22856834
Who is that guy

[Anonymous No.22859511]

>>22859496
look up Def Leppard.

[Anonymous No.22859543]

>>22856779
>assumptions of Christianity
rather I should day revelation and tradition

[Anonymous No.22859559]

>>22859496
David Chalmers

[Anonymous No.22859773]

bump

[Anonymous No.22859775]

>>22856834
Dunno if you're trolling or if you simply have never read the german idealists. I suspect it's the second option, since for some incomprehensible reason you're treating them as solispists (which can only mean you've never read an entire book by Fichte, Schelling or Hegel).
If that's the case, I'll just tell you that youre missing out. Chalmers is definetely better than reductive and eliminaticist physicalists, but that's a really low bar.

[Anonymous No.22859899]

Graham Priest is also one the greatest philosophers of all time and in the Analytic tradition.

[Anonymous No.22860047]

>>22859899
Graham Priest is not an analytic

[Anonymous No.22860599]

The Stanford entry for this guy, or rather his teacher John Anderson, is very interesting.

[Anonymous No.22861016]

David Lewis and Ted Sider are two of the best contemporary philosophers.
Also

[Anonymous No.22861336]

>>22856734
>To appeal to common sense, when insight and science fail, and no sooner-this is one of the subtle discoveries of modern times, by means of which the most superficial ranter can safely enter the lists with the most thorough thinker, and hold his own. But as long as a particle of insight remains, no one would think of having recourse to this subterfuge. For what is it but an appeal to the opinion of the multitude, of whose applause the philosopher is ashamed, while the popular charlatan glories and confides in it?
-Kant

>a newcomer to philosophy [...] forgets that in this science there occur determinations quite different from those in ordinary consciousness and in so-called ordinary common sense-which is not exactly sound understanding but an understanding educated up to abstractions and to a belief, or rather a superstitious belief, in abstractions.
-Hegel

[Anonymous No.22861599]

>>22856734
>still believing in metaphysics
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.22861821]

b

[Anonymous No.22862067]

b

[Anonymous No.22863424]

u

[Anonymous No.22863433]

>>22861016
Based. 4-dimensional eternalism + modal realism literally solves every problem in metaphysics

[Anonymous No.22863444]

>>22863433
Does it solve the problem of the immortality of the soul? The problem of an finite or infinite world? The problem of the being and attributes of God?

[Anonymous No.22864185]

m

[Anonymous No.22865260]

>>22856734
used to agree with you OP until i read michael dummett. probably the greatest philosopher of the latter half of the 20th century. read "the logical basis of metaphysics" and "elements of intuitionism"
he essentially builds a rigorous and rather beautiful framework for anti-realist metaphysics in general, and anti-realist views of the metaphysics of mathematics in particular. this includes pioneering the intuitionistic logic of brouwer, while also criticising brouwer's original motivations which he saw as misguided but nethertheless leading to the correct logic for mathematics.

[Anonymous No.22865262]

>>22859899
his textbook on non-classical logic is incredibly clear and readable, so cheers graham. although, i am not a fan of the tableau proof system.

[Anonymous No.22865273]

>>22860047
yes he is pseud

[Anonymous No.22865357]

>>22858085
Idk what you're getting at exactly, but materialism meant a very different thing for Marx etc. than it does in the anglosphere. Reductionism (more or less what materialism means here) is pushed because it makes historical analysis impossible

[Anonymous No.22865459]

>>22865260
>michael dummett
forgot about that guy. ok he's cool.

[Anonymous No.22865460]

>>22865262
>i am not a fan of the tableau proof system.
me too. natural deduction is the superior way.

[Anonymous No.22865782]

b

[Anonymous No.22865873]

u

[Anonymous No.22866309]

m

[Anonymous No.22867231]

>>22865262
>i am not a fan of the tableau proof system.
Is the tableau proof system used by anyone outside of middle schoolers and midwits? It's quite telling when math and the sciences, disciplines with far less laxness and ambiguity, do not practice it.