/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23134825]

Why are continentals so afraid of math and logic?

[Anonymous No.23134832]

They're a useful, but useless for thing that aren't mechanical in nature, only autistic bug people apply to everything.

[Anonymous No.23134838]

because if they were any good at it they would be engineers or doctors.

[Anonymous No.23134861]

>>23134838
Same applies for ANALytics, though.

[Anonymous No.23134885]

>>23134825
so called continental philosophers are an absolute joke and embarrassment. this is one of their heroes. wordcels who go on about the greatness of EUPHORIC philosophy liberated from the constraints of logic literally can't see the error here.

[Anonymous No.23134894]

>>23134885
Evola is a mystic, not a philosopher. Use your autistic little formulas to figure it out.

[Anonymous No.23134913]

>>23134885
evola spittin str8 trvth nvkes

[Anonymous No.23134936]

>>23134894
evola is a mystic not a philosopher
hegel is a mystic not a philosopher
heidegger is a mystic not a philosopher
deleuze is a mystic not a philosopher
use your unshackled euphoria to figure it out.

it's hilarious, grasping even basic logical reasoning is so far beyond you, and every one of your so-called philosopher heroes. I could spend 5 hours trying to explain the fallacy of denying the antecedent to you, using tons of real life examples, charts and diagrams and truth tables and you still wouldn't get it. people who don't understand logical implications are revered as philosophers and great thinkers by pseud-faggots like yourself.

[Anonymous No.23135005]

>>23134825
>>23134936
analytic (top) vs continental (bottom).

[Anonymous No.23135017]

>>23135005
kek accurate

[Anonymous No.23135035]

>>23134885
>A implies B
>B
>therefore, necessarily A!
coulda used a little more math and logic there buddy

[Anonymous No.23135072]

>>23134825
We are too busy banging ur mom

[Anonymous No.23135092]

>>23134825
>le heckin continentals! Reeeee
Why are angloids like this?

[Anonymous No.23135126]

>>23134825
if wittgenstein had just waited until Being and Time was released he could have avoided the immense hubristic embarrassment of the failure of the tractatus. even latter wittgenstein fell short where heidegger succeeded decades before him. love wittgenstein althougheverbeit.

[Anonymous No.23135152]

>>23134825
Is it a worthy use of time to traverse an artificial framework in search of truth?
Its as good approach as any, I suppose.

[Anonymous No.23135420]

currently watching richard borcherds' lectures on algebraic geometry, commutative algebra, and galois theory. so comfy, so beautiful

[Anonymous No.23135426]

>>23134825
Because they are obsessed with linguistics and semiotics instead

[Anonymous No.23135427]

>>23134825
white european male construct

[Anonymous No.23135433]

>>23134832
>only autistic bug people apply to everything.
you sound threatened

[Anonymous No.23135453]

>>23134861
Most of my professors of analytic philosophy were very well versed in math, formal logic requires it.

[Anonymous No.23135462]

>>23135453
Still not engineers, scientists or doctors. Just soulless angloids dealing with sterile abstractions.

[Anonymous No.23135539]

>>23134825
Wittgenstein was a continental in disguise, that's literally his whole mission that he inherited from Weininger

[Anonymous No.23135744]

>>23134885
>evola didn't understand descartes
actually kek'd. embarassing. truly. why do chuds laud this man, a charlatan?

[Anonymous No.23136434]

>>23134825
Alain Badiou is well versed in mathematics

[Anonymous No.23136454]

>>23134825
Husserl was a mathematician and developed phenomenology.

[Anonymous No.23136455]

>>23134825

[Anonymous No.23136462]

>>23136455
the part he wrote about numbers is actually much more profound and true than this, but you have to read Kant to get it.

[Anonymous No.23136486]

>>23134936
>>23135126
based hediger

[Anonymous No.23136503]

>>23134832
Based

[Anonymous No.23136517]

>>23135433
He didn’t make the thread

[Anonymous No.23136538]

>>23134825
continentals are the best mathematicians and logicians from plato to godel.
analytical philosophy is just a dull, endless, pointless discussion about grammar, which is exactly what happens when an angloid emp*ricist tries to use reason.
that said, the analytical philosophers’ attitude is right insofar it confines all mysticism/spiritualism to the domain of religion and all historicism to the domanin of humanities

[Anonymous No.23136569]

>>23135092
>le heckin anglos! Reeeee
Why are thirdies like this?

[Anonymous No.23136599]

>>23134825
Heisenberg was afraid of math? That Witt kike is the biggest misdirector in the 20th century.

Indeterminacy and free will destroy his bullshit Jew philosophizing.

[Anonymous No.23136663]

>>23134885
this guy just fucked up a basic implication lmfao
is he supposed to be smart?

[Anonymous No.23136687]

>>23134885
>>23134936
Nobody cares about Evola except anons and tradlarpers. I read his metaphysics of war and it was literally just '>thing japan' and '>muh bushido' applied to arianism.

But yeah, here's your (You) fellow assquotes poster. I hope you read something more than online assumptions and simple english wikipedia one day.
>continental retard
I haven't refuted your original point.

[Anonymous No.23136727]

>>23136663
>>23136687
Who actually cares about Wittgenstein?

[Anonymous No.23136756]

>>23134885
If you think there is an actual logical error in his quote, you're a turbo-autist.
He's not actually trying to refute the Cartesian axiom. He mentions it as a joke.
Maybe the logical imprecision is the part of the joke.

[Anonymous No.23136774]

>>23134825
If you can't make anything useful your only path to high status is sophism. You've got to convince people you're necessary even though they lose nothing if you disappear. If you're really clever you can persuade them that the people who make useful things are the "real" parasites and you're the one being exploited.
Funny that you posted Witters, since he was the exact opposite. Born into incredible wealth, but gave it up because he just didn't think philosophers should be rich. Could do math and logic.

[Anonymous No.23136783]

>>23136774
parasites live rent-free in your head.
no, wait, I didn't mean it like that.
not literally, figuratively.

[Anonymous No.23136965]

>>23135462
only plebs deal with mundane material things. god bless our peasants though.

[Anonymous No.23137032]

>>23135420
>literally proved Monstrous Moonshine
>create a youtube channel to spread his knowledge
>the views

[Anonymous No.23137069]

the enlightenment science and philosophy were too effective at explaining the reality, so some edgy "philosophers" wanted to go against the grain and start arguing against it

it started as ironic hipsterism but then it caught on and people genuinely started to believe shit like phenomenalism is valid

[Anonymous No.23137146]

>>23134825
Daily reminder that Bertrand Russell took one book to prison, and it was Husserl, a continental philosopher and mathematician.

Mathematicians and Logicians are common in Continental philosophy, in fact there are more there than in Analytic philosophy. That is because Analytic philosophy is small, and the continental-analytic divide is an insipid fiction. It's funny how we've chosen to forget that the Vienna circle identified itself with Kantianism.

[Anonymous No.23137160]

>>23137146
>common in Continental philosophy, in fact there are more there than in Analytic philosophy
Name 10 Continental philosophers whose subject is based on science and mathematics

[Anonymous No.23137166]

>>23137146
> continental-analytic divide is an insipid fiction
Anglo-invented fiction at that. Don’t forget. “Continental” refers to thinkers of mainland.Europe. It is an autistic and frankly adolescent attempt by Angloids to break up their philosophical continuity with Europe. It’s philosophy’s Brexit.

[Anonymous No.23137183]

>>23136434
True and he still writes a bunch of nothing. Math does not a philosopher make.

[Anonymous No.23137222]

>>23137160
what a stupid remark.

The point is that analytic philosophy is a small tradition (an english-speaking tradition) and continental philosophy is the rest of philosophy. Mathematics is one of the most common backgrounds in philosophy, and its tendency is relatively metaphysical.

For your question, explain the boundaries of continental philosophy as you see it. I think you don't understand the issue. But if you tell me if you are drawing a twentieth century line, then I'll get you ten, I don't have to do anything more than look up contemporary philosophers of math and by default most won't be analytic because it's specific. Ten philosophers of any one kind won't be a meaningful list though, philosophy formats poorly in that way. You'll learn this soon if you learn anything about philosophy someday

[Anonymous No.23137258]

>>23137222
>look up contemporary philosophers of math and by default most won't be analytic because it's specific.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Philosophers_of_mathematics
literally 96% of people on there is analytic
WTF are you talking about smoothbrain

[Anonymous No.23137382]

>>23137258
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Philosophers_of_mathematics

>literally 96% of people on there is analytic

You said that for no reason at all. Surreal. And no.
Fun to learn McDowell came from math though I didn't realize that

[Anonymous No.23137719]

>>23134825
One could also ask why are so many analytical philosophers failed mathematicians?

[Anonymous No.23137735]

My Audit Group’s Group Manager and his wife have an infant I can only describe as—fierce. Its expression is fierce, its demeanor is fierce, its gaze over bottle or pacifier—fierce, intimidating, aggressive. I have never heard it cry. When it feeds or sleeps, its pale face reddens, which makes it look all the fiercer. On those workdays when our Group Manager brought it in with him to the District office, hanging papoose-style in a nylon device on his back, the infant appeared to be riding him as a mahout does an elephant. It hung there, radiating authority. Its back lay directly against the Group Manager’s, its large head resting in the hollow of its father’s neck, forcing Mr. Manshardt’s head out and down into a posture of classic oppression. They made a beast with two faces, one of which was calm, bland, and adult, and the other unformed and yet emphatically fierce. The infant never wiggled or fussed in the device. Its gaze around the corridor at the rest of us gathered there waiting for the morning elevator was level and unblinking and, it seemed, somehow almost accusing.

The infant’s face, as I experienced it, was mostly eyes and lower lip, its nose a mere pinch, its forehead milky and domed, its whorl of red hair wispy, no eyebrows or lashes or ever even eyelids that I could see. I never once saw it blink. Its features seemed suggestions only. It had roughly as much face as a whale does. I did not like it at all.

In the elevator, my customary spot is often in the middle, just behind Mr. Manshardt, and on the mornings when the child rides him and hangs there facing backward and I spend the time staring into the large, stern, lashless, fiery-blue eyes, I can only say that these rides are not pleasant at all, and often affect my mood and concentration for much of the subsequent work period.

[Anonymous No.23137837]

>>23137160
every idiot could name 30 at least. but your post just shows how wrong you have the history of philosophy in your mind. kant in the krv EXPLICITLY says (both in the preface and throughout the book) that he wanted to make a metaphysical armor for the galilean-newtonian science, which he considers the peak of human intelligence. russell said his primary “inspirations” for the creation of analytical philosophy were (besides whitehead) frege and peano.

[Anonymous No.23137851]

>>23136756
look at this fucking fat, soft disgusting pseud. definitely a deleuze fan. can't understand logical implications. what a fucking subhuman.

[Anonymous No.23137904]

>>23137222
aristotle was the father of logic. medieval philosophers spent centuries developing the science of syllogistic reasoning. yet today continental philosophers reject the existence of logic entirely. they're literally incapable of understanding implications. in what way are these people who fundamentally reject truth and reason entirely more continuous with the great project of western philosophy than intellectually honest english language philosophers.

clearly continental philosophy is an offshoot, based around certain thinkers like hegel, heidegger, nietzsche, deleuze, evola, marx, adorno, lacan, derrida. an entirely degenerated and repulsive worthless field.

[Anonymous No.23138054]

>>23134832
fpbp

[Anonymous No.23138075]

>>23136538
>continentals
>from plato
the amount of s o y is off parameters.

[Anonymous No.23138111]

>>23137382
The bugman-tier division of philosophy into hyper-specialized sections is an analytic invention, fuckwit

[Anonymous No.23138329]

>>23137166
>It is an autistic and frankly adolescent attempt by Angloids to break up their philosophical continuity with Europe. It’s philosophy’s Brexit.
but why tho?

[Anonymous No.23138364]

>>23136599
>Heisenberg was afraid of math?
No, he used it to kill his enemies.

[Anonymous No.23138785]

>>23138111
when you're euphoric you grasp the totality of being through the hegelian thrembo spirit OH MY I AM EUPHORIC IN THIS MOMENT DELEUZIAN GNOSIS IS FLOWING THROUGH ME
THIS
THIS IS TRULY PHILOSOPHY
THIS IS WHAT THE ANGLOS WANTED TO TAKE FROM US
THE GREATNESS OF HEIDEGGERIAN DAS AIN SICHT ENLIGHTENS ME AS TO THE INTERRELATIONS OF OPPOSITES AS THEY FLUXIONATE THROUGHOUT THE WORLDSPIRIT
YES

[Anonymous No.23139003]

>>23137222
Analytic philosophy is not a small tradition by numbers OR geography. Nor is it true that very few philosophers of mathematics are analytics, but the other anon already pointed this out. Sometimes /lit/ overemphasizes some super narrow conception of analytic philosophy that seems to come out of the 1940s, and not the 2020s. It's really weird. When you guys read modern ethics or modern (post-classical) liberal political philosophy, to give an example, like someone talking about Kantian or Humean or virtue ethics (for example, Alasdair MacIntyre), or liberalism and social contract theory (like Rawls or Nozick), that's analytic philosophy, but /lit/ and others who hate analytic act as if it wasn't for some reason. Another example: The vast majority of historians of philosophy, both the ones writing the histories (like Grayling or Kenny) and the ones focusing on specific historical philosophers (like Henry Allison, Paul Guyer, etc, basically anyone writing guides and companions to primary sources) are also analytic philosophers. Hell even the ones working on Hegel/German Idealism, such as Stern, Houlgate, Pippin, Brandom, identify closer with analytics than with modern continental philosophy. This is just something /lit/ fails to grasp completely, how much of philosophy today is classified as analytic, and how insular continental philosophy is defined as. To be continental, you HAVE to be the work focused on figures mentioned by >>23137904 and it's so insular that even the German continentals are starting to identify LESS with the French continentals and MORE with the analytics as of recent times. There's a weird trend to bring Husserlian phenomenology, the Frankfurt School, and German Idealism in dialogue with analytic philosophy these days, by Germans themselves, and those same Germans really want to avoid French post-structuralism like the plague. Those Germans are particularly proud nowadays about Frege and Carnap being Germans, which explains why they feel as if analytic philosophy is more natively in line with their German way of doing philosophy (together with Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Husserl, Adorno, etc). The only weird exception, when it comes to German pride, is that they really like to forget about Heidegger probably for Nazi reasons, but of all people it's Americans who are really in love with him, so the potential to analytic-ify Heidegger is there too. Analytic philosophy is very capable of appropriating once-continental philosophy and there are strands of continentals who are effectively defecting from the postmodern association these days. Even post-postmodernism (Badiou, the speculative realists, Negarestani) LOOK to analytic philosophy for new inspiration in their revolt against postmodernism. Combine this with the German trend and you get people like Markus Gabriel, see?

[Anonymous No.23139081]

>>23139003
I hate to be greentext post dissection guy (one of the worst kinds of posters in the universe) but I only have a few minutes to respond to this and I just want to put on record, so that disinterested onlookers can read both sides, some disagreements that a continental might have:

>super narrow conception of analytic philosophy that seems to come out of the 1940s,
I think this conception survives a good deal more than analytics seem to think. There is a very distinctly analytic "feel" to Philosophy departments. The usual accusation is that they are narrow-minded, parochial, and extremely whiggish. They also (as another anon said well) "prostitute science to philosophy," and, I'd add, to very reddity subjects like computer science. Overall the accusation is that they have a deformed and stunted conception of philosophy because of all this, and they force this on students by dismissing everything else as nonsense. You are right that this attitude comes from early century, but it persists and in many ways was even reinforced by the backlash against Wittgenstein and ordinary language philosophy. Also, many of the philosophers you cite are high examples of it, while the ones who are NOT high examples of it tend to be philosophers who engaged more with pre-modern philosophy in a quasi-continental way, like Catholics/Thomists, Jamesian pragmatists, etc.

>The vast majority of historians of philosophy ...
I would dispute this point very very strongly. Not only are Grayling and Kenny borderline garbage (in my opinion, again, I am just trying to represent the standard continental reply), it's simply not true that the majority of good historians of philosophy are analytic. Again this kind of reflects the point above: analytics are smug and blinkered, so they do things like not being aware of what's actually out there because they're only aware of what's going on in their bubble, but still speaking as if they speak for philosophy as a whole.

>Hell even the ones working on Hegel/German Idealism, such as Stern, Houlgate, Pippin, Brandom
These are all trash with a completely retarded reading of Hegel. They're just pragmatist social theorists, and say many factually wrong things about Hegel. Anglo-Neo-Hegelianism is an embarrassment.

However I agree that there's a decent amount of crossover these days with continentals and analytics, like Allison and to a greater extent Guyer, however I still think many of these writers (especially Allison) were marred and stunted by their immersion in the narrow-minded analytic tradition. Many of them still commit the typical analytic error of "commenting on (analytic) commentaries on some philosopher," rather than reading the fucking text. Actually, often they don't even go to the commentaries themselves, but to in-class thematizations of the Standard Thing to Talk About, like the analytic/synthetic distinction (which they butcher) or Kant's understanding of intuition and its relation to mathematics (likewise).

[Anonymous No.23139084]

>>23139081
>To be continental, you HAVE to be the work focused on figures mentioned by >>23137904
I don't quite understand your point in the sentences surrounding this quote, but I think it's either misleading or wrong. I agree that continental philosophy is a silly term and is often used to mean something eerily close to "cultural Marxism," meaning some idiotic combination of 20th century critical theory. This is certainly the analytic philosopher's derogatory conception of "continental philosophy," and it has some truth to it as most of these people are not philosophers but unserious cultural theorists in Anthropology departments, aping Parisian fashions that were dead 20 years before they got imported to America anyway. But analytics often spuriously extend the slur to include anybody interested in Hegel or uninterested in retarded modal logic or analytically conceived ethics problems. This is the real problem, just as much of a problem as when "continentals" slur analytics by stereotyping them as ALL modal logic tinkerers.

>There's a weird trend to bring Husserlian phenomenology, the Frankfurt School, and German Idealism in dialogue with analytic philosophy these days, by Germans themselves
>Those Germans are particularly proud nowadays about Frege and Carnap being Germans,
I think the German post-war trends should largely be discounted. They are a zombie nation, and most of their intellectual culture post-WW2 has been "notice me England! We have a constitutional liberal tradition too!!" This manifested in philosophy as AGGRESSIVE importation of American and English "liberal philosophies," i.e., philosophies felt to manifest or to be manifestations of the (correct and good) "liberal worldview" of the English and their colonies. German analytic philosophers have disgusting "notice me senpai" syndrome because of this. A lot of Anglo-Neo-Hegelians are Germans trying to show off that they can ventriloquize historical German thought for Anglo-liberal purposes. Sorry, my biases are coming to the fore here, but I see these people as English half-breed colonizers.

[Anonymous No.23139086]

>>23139084
>Analytic philosophy is very capable of appropriating once-continental philosophy
I disagree with this entirely. As a long-time reader of Heidegger, while I like Dreyfus as a person, even his reading of Heidegger sometimes feels like him poking the actual fluidity and power of hermeneutic phenomenology with a British Empiricist™ Poking Stick®. His disciples don't live up to him. Rorty turns Heidegger into whiggish mud. Compare this to the capacity of someone like Ricoeur to ACTUALLY appropriate analytic philosophy (like Max Black e.g.) and sublimate it into the much fuller and higher-dimensional capacities of phenomenology. Max Black's philosophy of metaphor is typically analytic, and looks like a square to Ricoeur's cube. This is again because analytics are phenomenologically blinkered by the damage they did to themselves in the early century, by cutting themselves off from other traditions and deliberately cultivating a smug solipsism. Don't even get me started on the much, much worse crap Fodor writes about metaphors as "models."

These kinds of comparisons are the only decent way to get to the heart of what divides analytics and continentals and will continue to divide them. You can't do much more than take a person who is interested in philosophy but who doesn't yet understand the difference between the two traditions, and show them an analytic treatment of a subject they care about, with its very stereotyped language, its implicit assumption that certain fixed "classical stances" on topics are well-defined enough to provide a framework for every possible debate about them, and its obsession with baroquely modifying these stupid (to a continental) stances and their stupid names and the mis-appropriated Kant or Plato quotes on which they found themselves; then show them a continental treatment of the same subject, with (as I'm sure an analytic would think) its obscurity and sui generis language, its assumption of relatively deep familiarity with past treatments of the topic, etc., and depending on historical period, occasionally its willingness to step over the line into out-and-out Platonic idealism or apparently idealist cosmology.

My point is that, at the end of the day, each young philosophy-interested person is going to tend toward the one he likes better, for largely unaccountable reasons.

[Anonymous No.23139093]

>>23139086
>Even post-postmodernism (Badiou, the speculative realists, Negarestani) LOOK to analytic philosophy for new inspiration in their revolt against postmodernism.
These are all worthless pieces of shit and epigones of genuine "continental philosophy" - again I think you have the problem of the expanding/contracting definition of "continental." Here it operates as follows: We need to talk about contemporary continental philosophers in order to compare them with contemporary analytics; who are they? Well, they must be the guys who "look/act continental"; and what "looks continental" is that vague mishmash of French pomo that died in the early '70s, Frankfurt shit that was propped up by neoliberal regimes because it was anti-Stalinist, the vague leftist inclinations of Western Humanist Marxists, and the vague mishmash of phenomenology they all selectively appropriated from Heidegger in the '60s to seem au courant. What is the legacy of this disgusting mash? Well, I suppose it's literal whos, utter retards, and posturing losers like Badiou, object-oriented ontology (I spat as I typed it), and Negarestani.

Meanwhile, a proud, dignified continental would spit on all these, as well as on the whole soft-left tendency of post-WW2 academia, and go read Heidegger and attempt to fuse him with a Thomistic Neoplatonism or Schillingean Naturphilosophie or something.

I hope I wasn't overly offensive or condescending in these posts. Like I said I am just trying to represent the other side, and if I had more time I'd be a lot more diplomatic and tactful. Except about the aforementioned losers and the Anglo-Neo-Hegelians (also losers).

Overall I think your post is emblematic of a real issue in philosophy today: the only tradition that still at least SEES ITSELF as doing good work at the institutional level is analytic philosophy. Now, as I said, it sees itself this way for reasons continentals would find pathetic: it's simply a product of institutional capture and is actually stagnant and dead; it only produces utter trash like Brandom anyway, and endless papers on modal who gives a shit meta-logic; and it prostitutes itself to STEM, which doesn't give a fuck about it anyway. So again the sliding definition problem comes in: Are the "real" continentals ONLY the dignified noble Hegelian Neoplatonists and NOT the smelly soft-left culture theorists, while analytics ARE the entire field of mostly retards that has any affiliation with any analytic philosophy department? That seems unfair.

[Anonymous No.23139099]

>>23139093
For me, it's safer to say this: contemporary philosophy is garbage; it's filled with soft-left culture theorists who aren't even avant garde anymore (if they ever were), and "analytic philosophy" which is a blinkered solipsistic tradition that isn't even vital with respect to what it DOES do well anymore (since it long ago died inside). Serious philosophy is thus being done nowhere. Everyone is either a commentator on commentaries, getting a vanity PhD, or they are a pointless tinkerer in a lame social club, just someone who wasn't smart enough to do real math or science. This is a general crisis and no amount of pathetic German neo-anti-metaphysical-Hegelian Habermasian-Rawlsian crypto-Englishmen or post-post-post-Marxist Marxists is going to change that.

[Anonymous No.23139149]

>>23139081
It's so weird that when given examples (for example I agree Brandom is a trash Hegelian) you go straight to a quality evaluation, as if that has anything to do with the claim that they are classified as analytics. It's also weird that you identify the 1940s conception with a quality conception too. What I meant was a categorization conception. In the 1940s,"analytic philosophy" was (as a historical fact) very tightly identified with logical positivism, super-early American post-positivism like Quine, and Oxford ordinary language philosophy (with Wittgenstein at Cambridge as an annex). Even these two schools were not fully seen as unified. If the British ordinary language folks hadn't gone more or less extinct, and had they broken more decisively and expanded their influence more with the post-Carnap Americans, it's very possible that analytic philosophy would have split into two very separate traditions of philosophy by today. Instead, those Americans have just gradually expanded more and more over domains previously excluded from their program. Remnants of OLP are now fully analytic, even if heterodox, like the Pittsburgh queitists. And you know have historians, ethicists, political philosophers, etc under the analytic big tent. The revival of metaphysics in the 1970s and since would have been seen as anathema by the 1940s analytics, and the way philosophers of science do things is methodologically distinct from those same new metaphysicians. If analytic philosophy hadn't become so big tent, these would be two or three or more different "traditions." These facts have nothing to do with quality judgments (i.e. whether analytic philosophy is or isn't "thrash").
>>23139084
That comment was in response to /lit/ types who think historians, ethicists, etc like I said MacIntyre and so forth are somehow "not analytic." The point is that non-analytic continental philosophy is roughly coextensive with that anon's list of main figures. Nearly everything outside it is analytic, not by default either, but because they actually end up employing a very academic rigoristic "quality control" kind of methodology that the analytics inaugurated, for better or worse (again, this is about categorization not quality judgments). Also discounting the German trends is such a weird way of discounting data about how even more big tent analytic philosophy is becoming. At this point, the Heidegger and Nietzsche scholarship is more allied with the analytic rigorist style than with the French post-structuralists which means there's a real possibility that continental philosophy itself is going to be eaten up by analytic methodology in the next century. Again, this doesn't mean this is GOOD or BAD its just the realistic prediction. So yes, continental philosophy as a whole and geographic regions like Germany ARE being "colonized," the thing to realize is this shows no signs of stopping.
>>23139086
>>23139093
Again, I don't mean a quality claim...

[Anonymous No.23139187]

>>23139149
My larger point can be demonstrated by analytic metaphysics: it's a fucking disgusting embarrassment to a continental. It doesn't even look like real metaphysics. As I was saying above, it's analytics setting up their little "problems" with their "stances" and their badly abused misquotes of Kant and Plato.

I think we differ too much to discuss this very productively but I don't care about "data" because I don't think there's a hypostatic entity called "Philosophy" which we are trying to model. I addressed in my final post that it's a big heterogeneous pile of shit from different shitty animals. I don't care which piece of shit eats which other piece of shit or whether the whole shit pile becomes some kind of perfectly blended slurry of all the different kinds of shit in the pile. It's shit.

I just don't care about mapping trends in a long dying legacy industry that only continues to exist through inertia and because the institutions it has captured are not yet completely crumbled into nothing. Nobody gives a shit about academic philosophy outside of the academy, and the academic ecosystem only continues to exist because plebs think a "Harvard degree" means something, because they saw it in a 90s movie. Nobody is going to fucking remember Kit Fine or Robert Brandom in 20 years, let alone 100 or 200. These people are not even epigones, they are like 17th century Florentine humanists. I'm sure there were still Florentine humanists in the 17th century but how the fuck often does anyone consult them except for highly specific historical/antiquarian reasons?

[Anonymous No.23139209]

>>23139086
By the way, this Max Black/Ricoeur thing interests me, since the rest of what you say is familiar to me but this one tidbit I have no familiarity with. What did Black say, and what did Ricoeur say? My knowledge of Black comes down to his identity of indiscernibles thing and my knowledge of Ricoeur is even poorer past knowing he did hermeneutics. Anyway as far as quality vs categorization goes, you have a far poorer view of all of philosophy than I do. I think there's genuinely interesting shit that even the French postmodernists are saying, as well as the analytics. If there's provincialism, it's within yourself. Usually people who say what you do are not themselves doing active thorough research on either analytics or continentals and discovering these interesting things. They're limited to doing research which is already curated for them through the lens of decades of retrospective, meaning they read Hegel, Heidegger, whatever, the old "greats" already curated by today's people over decades, even centuries. It takes effort and years of it at that to dig through the current stuff and find the gems. The very fact your knowledge looks limited in this regard suggests to me you're falling into this fallacious way of thinking that what was curated to you by people before you is somehow just "so great" before you came across it that it indicates the past was better, vs. the lack of curation and your own lack of deep research into the hidden gems of today gives you some false belief that today philosophy is just always bad. But then again you might just also care very little about shit like 1990s postmodal hyperintensional metaphysics, 2010s metametaphysics, or 2020s higher-order metametaphysics, even though the resources being uncovered and the open debates being held there have pretty deep potential for changing our conception of how one does very foundational philosophizing. It's the sort of stuff which, had it been there available for past metaphysicians, would certainly have made their metaphysics look very different, by their own admission, which is just very interesting. If you are interested in a more anti-metaphysical and/or phenomenological/hermeneutical conception, I think one day you'll find that Carnap is an untapped resource because he got mislabelled as a vulgar anti-metaphysician when he was in fact a neo-Kantian and Diltheyan who liked Nietzsche and sympathized with Marxist materialism. He is a vastly more hermeneutical/phenomenological thinker than people realize. There are times when he and Heidegger are actually on the same page hermeneutics/phenomenology-wise, and this was lost on the two of them.

[Anonymous No.23139284]

>>23134825
They aren't. It's mathematicians and logicians who are afraid of adversity. They use math and logic to disintegrate other viewpoints so they no longer have to deal with them.

[Anonymous No.23139291]

analytics will always lose as reality is magical and logic is an illusion and restricted to very limited and controlled contexts

[Anonymous No.23139299]

>>23139187
I think Brandom is doomed because he's a Pittsburgh quietist and that deflationary way of doing philosophy, while perennially popular, isn't really advancing much of anything. And as you note, he's not good at interpreting Hegel. Kit Fine has contributed to the downfall of pre-Finean analytic conceptions of what metaphysics should look like, with his arguments concerning essence and fundamentality most famously, but also his work on relative variables and neutral relations. Current popularity is not the measuring stick of historical legacy, but rather the potential for usefulness to future people down the line. I think there is more potential mileage to get out of Kit Fine than currently massively popular analytics like Quine and David Lewis, frankly. Again, this is just historical fact. You do wrong to assume that what wins out in the future is to be defined in terms of what you think is right/good. It's going to be defined in terms of what influences people toward more expansive ways of thinking and interesting new ways of doing philosophy. In that sense, I think a lot of continentals you hate have a good future actually, and there's more fruitfulness hiding in analytic places with untapped potential than you will want to give credit. Acting like these people are inventing new problems by expanding the limits of expressibility is actually most reminiscent of the way Heidegger himself was dismissed by many of his contemporaries and for a long while omitted from histories of philosophy because they felt he was creating new problems and making expressible things they thought shouldn't be, and made no sense to them. Funny how the inversion works, frankly...we didn't have to wait until the 2020s for someone like you to come and say the analytics were the new Heideggers, since that happened as early as the OLP people came around. To think new technical formal languages and phenomenological data are too metaphysical and therefore bad...they came for Heidegger first, and then turned on Carnap himself. This is also why I feel it's very disingenuous of people like Brandom, Rorty and various Wittgensteinians and Sellarsians to act like they are closer kin with continentals. They really aren't, since continentals effectively do the technical term introduction and appeal to first-personal experience thing even more so than the old logical positivists hated by these modern quietist types: but these quietists are pretending it, because then they can have the enemy of their enemy help them kill their first enemy that way. It's such a dishonest way of doing philosophy, frankly.

[Anonymous No.23139308]

>>23139081
>These are all trash with a completely retarded reading of Hegel
>>23139093
>utter trash like Brandom
>>23139149
>Brandom is a trash Hegelian
>>23139187
>Nobody is going to fucking remember Kit Fine or Robert Brandom in 20 years
Why are they trash?

[Anonymous No.23139383]

>>23139308
I'm the anon who posted the third thing (and not the anon who posted the other things). Brandom represents Hegel's logic as entirely psychological. The way Hegel derives new categories in the Science of Logic is taken by Brandom to be an entirely subjective thing, rather than having much of anything to do with the logical shape or structure (so to speak) of reality itself. This is unsurprising coming from Brandom given how anti-metaphysics he is. But it's a fundamentally false reading of Hegel. Actually Stern and Houlgate would point this out, while Pippin sides with Brandom. But regardless, if you read the Science of Logic it's pretty clear that Hegel's conception of the logic as a deduction of the very categories of reality itself. This can be looked at from a subjective perspective (phenomenologically) or an objective perspective (which is more teleological). After all, the Absolute is originally pre-division (it helps to read Holderlin's "Judgment and Being" for this, it helps understand Schelling and Hegel better), but as it dialectically progresses, it has a subjective component and an objective component. The logic is what is common to both, as the form of how both sides develop. Hegel in the Science of Logic is actually pretty clear about how he is not a subjective idealist like Berkeley or Fichte, so it's embarrassing how to this day so many people think he is. But they mostly do because they haven't read the Science of Logic, only the Phenomenology of Spirit (which is SUPPOSED to be limited to that subjective half of the dialectic). The Science of Logic is very clear about Hegel's own self-conception of his absolute idealism. So it's particularly weird to see Brandom misrepresent Hegel as others do even AFTER supposedly reading the Science of Logic.

[Anonymous No.23139396]

>>23139383
Well that's cringe af

[Anonymous No.23139406]

>>23139383
good post btw

[Anonymous No.23139441]

>>23139383
>it's particularly weird to see Brandom misrepresent Hegel as others do even AFTER supposedly reading the Science of Logic.
Why do you think it's so hard for them to accept what Hegel says at face value? Is it the religious and social implications? Would it put their careers in jeopardy? The political climate?

[Anonymous No.23139508]

>>23139441
It's the fact Brandom is part of a school of quietists at Pittsburgh (with people like McDowell) that has Sellarsian and Wittgensteinian heritage. These folks don't like metaphysics. As such, I think Brandom is forced by his own beliefs to read someone like Hegel in a non-metaphysical way, because it's the only way he can appropriate Hegel. Hegel isn't going to serve him in any way otherwise.

[Anonymous No.23139533]

>>23139508
>Brandom is forced by his own beliefs to read someone like Hegel in a non-metaphysical way, because it's the only way he can appropriate Hegel. Hegel isn't going to serve him in any way otherwise.
But why even appropriate him them?

[Anonymous No.23139547]

>>23139533
Welcome to academic philosophy

[Anonymous No.23139551]

>>23139547
I don't get it?

[Anonymous No.23139552]

>>23139533
It looks cosmopolitan. It offers one way for him to look like he's doing something new vs. the other analytics who are presented as stuck in pre-Hegel Kant times. But the right answer is probably less simplistic/polemical than this, I'm just not as familiar. Brandom was developing some kind of paraconsistent logic back in the 70s with Nicolas Rescher (another Pittsburgh guy, and a German one at that). It seems like he found dialectical reasoning endearing that far long ago. So it probably helps him to have someone to appropriate who also does the dialectical reasoning and can be interpreted as fitting his anti-metaphysical worldview. Hegel really can't be interpreted that way, but if you pull off the interpretative trick to make him seem that way, it looks nice and impressive and what not. Furthers your agenda and all.

[Anonymous No.23139556]

Analytic "philosophers" are all a bunch of fart-sniffing pseuds

[Anonymous No.23139566]

>>23139552
Are there any true believer Hegelians left?

[Anonymous No.23139570]

>>23139551
Most of it is makework and flashes in the pan who manage to carve out an empire of clout for themselves for a while but with very little substance underlying it

[Anonymous No.23139578]

>>23139570
I guess not being able to go to college wasn't so bad for me then.

[Anonymous No.23139586]

>>23139578
It can be worth it just to be forced to do work on your own, since 99% of people without an external impetus to work will actually do any work. And to see that it sucks and that you should transcend it. All the people bitching about it here are probably grads and postgrads who benefited from it even if they hate it. Familiarity breeds contempt. Just take it all with a grain of salt.

[Anonymous No.23139591]

>>23139586
>since 99% of people without an external impetus to work will actually do any work.
*will never actually do any work

[Anonymous No.23139628]

> mfw I analyse the proposition "niggers tongue my anus" as the obtaining of the relation of tonguing between niggers and my anus, but forget to mention that this relation is asymmetrical
I am a laughing stock. I should probably go back to my circle of people pretending to understand gibberish. Back to the continent I go.
>Wir anderen müssen auf das Sagen dieser Dichter hören lernen, gesetzt, daß wir uns nicht an der Zeit, die Sein verbirgt, weil sie es birgt, dadurch vorbeitäuschen, daß wir die Zeit nur aus dem Seienden errechnen, indem wir dieses zergliedern.

[Anonymous No.23139629]

>>23134825
They aren't? Or at least not the Hegelians, they are off in the deep end of math. IDK if they count as "continentals" though. Category theory, type theory, group theory, model theory, paraconsistent logics, dialtheism, etc. they all get thrown into the Hegelian mix.

The dialectical overcomes the limitations of undefinablity and incompleteness by being able to allow, and sublate contradiction.

Kind of ironic for Russell. Today the Principia is a historical curiosity while the Greater Logic gets plenty of attention.

I find it refreshing coming out of deflationary theories of truth, formalism and "games," to OBJECTIVE ONTOLOGICAL LOGIC.

[Anonymous No.23139635]

>>23134825
>disprove core analytical concepts and theories by using logic
>WHY ARE YOU AFRAID OF USING LOGIC?!?!?!

[Anonymous No.23139645]

>>23139635
only the most broken minds could ever think that the cosmos can be understood through language and logic and not only via feelings

[Anonymous No.23139654]

>>23139645
Thanks for doing the reddit thing and basically just making the same point but worse.

[Anonymous No.23139658]

>>23139635
You cannot prove concepts, cor concepts not can you disprove them. Proofs are proofs for the truth of propositions or of sets of propositions. You cannot reasonably say that a concept is true. "Is causation true?" is a stupid question "Does it obtain?" not so much .
You will never make it among analytical philosophers

[Anonymous No.23139673]

>>23139658
>doesn't even know what a concept is and larps at being a philosopher
kek

[Anonymous No.23139679]

>>23139003
Jesus christ what a bunch of fucking revisionary nonsense. It's amazing that the narrative has made its that far. It goes with the original point that almost all of your examples are anglophone philosophers lmao. Meditate on it.

Also it's a choice to characterize the growing contact between "analytic" and "continental" philosophy as a subordination to analytic philosophy. Also nonsense. What you are observing is the return of "continental" interests, the very things that the very origin of analytic philosophy fundamentally opposed, at best these people are ambassadors between two "schools" that never had a reason to be separated.
Also, Robert Pippin as an analytic philosopher? What the fuck? You're firing off names at random, and for nothing.

>Those Germans are particularly proud nowadays about Frege and Carnap being Germans, which explains why they feel as if analytic philosophy is more natively in line with their German way of doing philosophy (together with Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Husserl, Adorno, etc). The only weird exception, when it comes to German pride, is that they really like to forget about Heidegger probably for Nazi reasons, but of all people it's Americans who are really in love with him

So as a real world academic I'll tell you, that is not what's happening, I don't know why you are attempting to characterize Germans as sharing a personality and nonsensical quirks but it looks childish. Americans are independently interested in "continental philosophy" again because it's an arbitrary exclusion to not be, analytic philosophy is a specific minority, continental philosophy is an unspecific remainder. You can also see the fact that these "analytics" are taking a DEFERENT position to the continental interests, and simply rendering them more intelligble to audiences like Americans. Even in the past ten years the hold of analytic philosophy in American colleges has plummetted.

>Even post-postmodernism (Badiou, the speculative realists, Negarestani) LOOK to analytic philosophy for new inspiration in their revolt against postmodernism
Lmao so you consider postmodernism subordinate to analytic philosophy too? We're approaching the territory of theory fiction at this point.

I think you've just modified the boundaries so that analytic philosophy can include every American philosopher and somehow subsume Husserl, postmodernism, and German Idealism... What meaning does it even have for you anymore?

>super narrow conception of analytic philosophy that seems to come out of the 1940s, and not the 2020s.
Really though? The creed of the logical positivists and its legacy offers the only viable definition of analytic philosophy I am aware of. A focus on clarity and agreement over terms and subsequently an interest an language, a skepticism against metaphysics, an adoption of a more scientific structure for philosophy (again, a forgotten kantian sentiment). To go any further may render it unphilosophical

[Anonymous No.23139699]

>>23137904

> today continental philosophers reject the existence of logic entirely
lol what

>clearly continental philosophy is an offshoot
what

You may as well have typed random letters.
What the hell are you on about? Why are you appealing to Aristotle to justify analytic philosophy? Why are you putting logic in the domain of analytic philosophy?

>hegel, heidegger, nietzsche, deleuze, evola, marx, adorno, lacan, derrida.
these people have little to do with one another, and half of them are accepted by modern analytics.

[Anonymous No.23139702]

>>23139679
>a skepticism against metaphysics
they are doing metaphysics again

[Anonymous' No.23139724]

>>23137851
faggot

[Anonymous No.23139747]

>>23139679
>The creed of the logical positivists and its legacy offers the only viable definition of analytic philosophy I am aware of
If, as you claim, you are "a real world academic," and you're willing to define analytic philosophy this way, you're a really shit academic, because it's just not accurate to how analytic philosophy is understood in the 2020s. The rest of everything you say comes down to shit no good academic would say. And I say that as someone who is a real world academic. I don't know or care if you're bluffing about even being one. But that much can be said. I also hate that you, like the other anon, tend to be stuck with these value-laden judgments when arguing with a purely categorical claim. Value matters, but I'm not the one arguing analytic philosophy is "better" than continental philosophy, or that the analytic future is "better" than some alternative future. It just feels like you and the other anon are intentionally or otherwise muddling two distinct issues and it baises you both completely in how you imagine the future or even the present. And as a result, to even make your reasoning look defensible, you resort to such garbage claims as "analytic philosophy only conceptually makes sense in terms of anti-metaphysics." Analytic metaphysics has been dominant for fifty years now. This is why I say the conception might have been right in the 1940s, but is not right in the 2020s. I don't hate, in fact quite like, continental philosophy (which is why when the OTHER anon started attacking the French and the Germans of today, I defended them too). As for the English "bias," this isn't because I speak English but because there is evidence to show that Anglophone philosophy is more dominant in non-Anglophone philosophy departments these days than Francophone philosophy, or at least in the competitive high quality schools. If you're only going to focus on small liberal arts colleges, you may get more Francophone stuff, I actually don't know but I'm willing to concede that. But it's not going to be true of the top universities worldwide, which is a good enough basis for answering the question of which tradition is dominant. So far I have no clue on what metric the supposed "downfall" of analytic philosophy is being measured. It's expanding, not shrinking. Pluralist departments love adding continentals for purposes of dialogue, but there isn't some sort of epidemic of once analytic departments fully turning to French continental philosophy or something like that.

[Anonymous No.23139763]

>>23139654
you're welcome!

[Anonymous No.23139778]

>>23139679
>>23139747
TIL real life academics are just retarded as the rest of us

[Anonymous No.23139782]

>>23139629
Anon, send me that article name/author, and more on Lawvere and Schreiber. This sounds fascinating.
>Category theory, type theory, group theory, model theory, paraconsistent logics, dialtheism, etc. they all get thrown into the Hegelian mix.
I'm very interested in this stuff, and I also happen to care about dialetheism and German Idealism (and history more generally). The work I do is in analytic higher-order metaphysics and metametaphysics which I mentioned briefly in >>23139299 and I see the work I do as, effectively, a way of figuring out the logic (basic common categories/forms) of objective reality.
>I find it refreshing coming out of deflationary theories of truth, formalism and "games," to OBJECTIVE ONTOLOGICAL LOGIC.
Or in other words, I am fully with you on this.

[Anonymous No.23139787]

>>23139778
they're a bit smarter than you because they manage to capitalize their retardation and earn a full wage while being retarded, while you do it for free

[Anonymous No.23139809]

>>23139787
>earn a full wage
in bizarro world?

[Anonymous No.23139824]

>>23139782
https://theses.gla.ac.uk/2741/1/2002burgessphd.pdf

[Anonymous No.23139831]

>>23139809
a professor in spain earns more than 60k€ per year

[Anonymous No.23139835]

>>23139831
Spain is Bizarro world? checks out.

[Anonymous No.23139844]

>>23139831
and how many out your academics get professorship?

[Anonymous No.23139854]

>>23134825
When math is used to approach the real world problems, the price is that the problems themselves must be cut and constrained into very specific conditions and forms, so that math and logic can at least make some sense. Once this formal restriction is applied, the philosophy part is simply lost and the problems become sicence and engineering problems.

[Anonymous No.23139857]

>>23139835
just a happy little place
>>23139844
each university with a humanities department has like 3 or 4 people staffing the philosophy section. less if small uni, more if big uni

[Anonymous No.23139861]

>>23139857
>3 or 4 people staffing the philosophy section
ok so how many phds get awarded per year?

[Anonymous No.23139865]

>>23139861
idk

[Anonymous No.23139871]

>>23139865
porque me enseñas mujeres guapas?

[Anonymous No.23139876]

>>23139871
this better?

[Anonymous No.23139883]

>>23139876
no delete delete

I just wanted to know your motivations

[Anonymous No.23139916]

>>23139699
underaged memekid?

[Anonymous No.23139927]

>>23139645
you're an embarrassing fucking clown and because you live online surrounded by other fucking faggot clowns you have come to be proud of that fact.
kill yourself as soon as possible.

[Anonymous No.23139933]

>>23139927
uh oh triggered an ANALytic sissy

[Anonymous No.23139944]

>>23139084
>just as much of a problem as when "continentals" slur analytics by stereotyping them as ALL modal logic tinkerers.
you literally don't even understand implications you fucking faggot subhuman LMFAO how could you possibly think that you're able to comment on logic of any kind jesus christ you fucking wordcel pseudo-intellectual little worm

[Anonymous No.23139964]

>>23139093
>Frankfurt shit that was propped up by neoliberal regimes because it was anti-Stalinist,
frankfurt school is from the 20s and 30s. neo-liberalism started in the 70s. fucking subhuman. what the fuck are you talking about? of course you have some meme edgy extremist political opinion you probably got from twitter with the other pseud faggots jerking off evola who literally couldn't even understand logical implications.
dude, you're a complete fucking subhuman pig.

[Anonymous No.23139974]

>>23139944
>>23139964
>phil undergrad with a cluster B personality disorder
What a great combo, a great life lies ahead of you.

Read an actual history of the Frankfurt School and its enormous popularity in Europe and the US in the 60s through the 90s. That and stay on Twitter where your horrific mental illness can be both quarantined and unfortunately incubated.

[Anonymous No.23139983]

>>23139284
your viewpoints are invalid and you are a subhuman.

[Anonymous No.23140002]

>>23139629
lmfao you stupid fucking subhuman. you don't understand logical implications but you're extremely impressed by mathematical notation...
some jerk off read the nonsensical obscurantist garbage of hegel and decided to massage it to correspond to something in math, so now he's got some jerk-off category theory bullshit no body cares about except faggots like yourself who are desperate to defend hegel. pure subhumanity.

[Anonymous No.23140017]

um wtf is happening here?

[Anonymous No.23140068]

>>23139974
the frankfurt school peaked in popularity long before neo-liberalism was a thing. neo-liberalism came several decades after stalinism stopped being relevant. only literal subhumans use "neo-liberal" to mean "anyone that's lame globohomer and not BASED like myself!".

you're a completely retarded subhuman. of course you jerk off about VGH TRVE KVLT HEGELIANISM, of course you can't understand logical implications, of course you think it's HELLO BASED DEPARTMENT?? to hate on math and science.
I'm 90% sure you have a twitter profile with a roman bust profile pic that retweets logo deadalus, BAP and kantbot tier faggots.

[Anonymous No.23140523]

>>23134832
He’s right

[Anonymous No.23140569]

>>23140068
>twitterbrain
stay there

[Anonymous No.23140785]

>>23138364
They did the real one dirty. I fucking hate breaking bad.

[Anonymous No.23140801]

>>23139284
>They use math and logic to disintegrate other viewpoints so they no longer have to deal with them.
That's exactly right. Though the best Like Heisenberg and Bohr actually used them correctly.

[Anonymous No.23141768]

>>23134825
Continentals will say analytics are pseuds while still relying on fucking psychoanalysis as the foundational basis for their delusional gibberish. You even have papers and books made by feminists continentals trying to reframe it as “totally not sexist guise!!!!” kek. Massive cope. Psychoanalysis is peak third world psychology. Probably why it’s only still taken seriously in Argentina and France and nowhere else.

[Anonymous No.23142024]

>>23139883

[Anonymous No.23142033]

>he fell for the analytic vs continental meme
lmao there is no such things as "analytic" and "continental" philosophy