/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23516794]

Why is analytic philosophy so hated on this board?

[Anonymous No.23516799]

Same reason eating pieces of shit out of the toilet is disliked by this board: it's bad

[Anonymous No.23516838]

>>23516799
how is it bad?

[Anonymous No.23516882]

>>23516794
The logical definition of numbers really tickles my schizotypy

[Anonymous No.23517027]

>>23516794
It is generally associated with a rejection of or minimal treatment of metaphysics. That is probably the only reason it is hated here.

[Anonymous No.23517051]

>>23516794
Because people here don't actually like real philosophy

[Anonymous No.23517058]

>>23516794
Anglophobia

[Anonymous No.23517072]

Semantics on top of semantics on top of semantics. Only the primordial truth matters. Fuck your retarded brain thinking

[Anonymous No.23517081]

>>23516794
this post captures it:
>>23517072
most people are simply too dumb to understand analytic philosophy, and that's ok. but continental philosophy is barely philosophy so you can't expect them to like the real thing when they've been misled the entire time

[Anonymous No.23517093]

Its the frisbee golf of mathematical logic.

[Anonymous No.23517250]

Serious answer would probably be that analytics cut themselves off from most pre-analytic philosophy, did everything "in-house" which entailed a lot of reinventing of the wheel in ways that look disgustingly philistine and only appeal to a very specific niche of Anglos who like goofy decontextualized thought experiments, and then at a later phase, claim to have been conversant with the wider philosophical tradition all along / rediscover the wider philosophical tradition, but still subordinate that tradition to goofy Angloisms and still somehow retain the decontextualized feel of early analytic philosophy.

Certain people will read the Gettier problem shit and go "wow this is interesting I want to write a paper just thinkin' about this." But most people will go "this problem is weirdly and goofily posed, is there any way to seek more complex and nuanced formulations of some of these premises??" And this latter sort of people end up wanting to break out of their analytic philosophy class and department ASAP.

[Anonymous No.23517255]

>>23517250
On second thought I'll nuance my second paragraph a bit more.

The latter sort of people end up breaking out of analytic philosophy when they, for example, decide to go read the textual source the Gettier problems are ultimately grounded in, which is Plato, and then they get criticized for it and for not just "thinking about the problem." Or they simply discover that Plato in that very section was talking about a hell of a lot more than this goofy Anglo thought experiment and there's a hell of a lot more going on in Plato than their class on Epistemology 101 covered, which mostly focused on goofy Anglo thought experiments, and they think "I'd rather study Plato than do whatever the hell this is." And all their teacher has to entice them back with is more ugly textbooks full of goofy thought experiments and references to 20th century Anglos and deeply Anglified ethnics reducing everything to goofy thought experiments, in that goofy "informally formal" style they all write in.

[Anonymous No.23517282]

>>23517027
Must be why Aristotle is also disliked distinctly here.

[Anonymous No.23517290]

>>23516794
Because it's not philosophy and it's not literary.

[Anonymous No.23517292]

>>23517051
We do, that's why we reject analytic anglo BS.
>>23517081
>the real thing
lol

[Anonymous No.23517325]

>>23517250
>>23517255
Nice posts, but how do anglos justify not caring about the history of philosophy, historicism, reflexivity, etc. like do they just pretend that the past does not exist and bury their heads in the sand about anything that does not immediately concern "the problem" at hand? How would they react if you pointed out the connection you did in your posts, would they say that Plato might have said similar things but he was about 23 centuries too early to be a whiggish upper class englishman at Oxford or Cambridge circa the 1920s?

[Anonymous No.23517340]

>The prejudice that a concept must be precisely defined in order to be meaningful, or that an argument must be precisely stated in order to make sense, is one of the most insidious of the twentieth century. The best known expression of this prejudice appears at the end of Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractate. The author's later writings, in particular Philosophical Investigations are a loud and repeated retraction of his earlier gaffe.

>Looked at from the vantage point of ordinary experience, the ideal of precision seems preposterous. Our everyday reasoning is not precise, yet it is effective. Nature itself, from the cosmos to the gene, is approximate and inaccurate.

>math begins with definitions, philosophy ends with definitions
t. Gian-Carlo Rota

[Anonymous No.23517347]

People here don't read and they certainly have never read analytic philosophy. The prejudice is that it's overly logical and narrow but that's not true, in the end most if it is as imprecise as continental philosophy, there also are analytic meta physics.

[Anonymous No.23517372]

>>23517058
This, and the over abundance of trannies

[Anonymous No.23517389]

>>23517347
It's simply not fun.

[Anonymous No.23517444]

>>23517389
nah lit users are just fake ass readers. y'all cowards don't even read kant

[Anonymous No.23517449]

>>23516794
nigga we ain't doing math

[Anonymous No.23517529]

>>23517250
The gettier problem is just hume for analytics There's nothing weird about it. Is it any wonder faggots in this board don't like skeptics either. This has more to do with philosophy departments' association with humanities and literature, so it admits bias to people more verbally than mathematically inclined.

[Anonymous No.23517583]

>>23516794
It's dry, boring and autistic, why not study mathematics instead? And yes anglos are soulless for the most part

[Anonymous No.23517592]

German and English are flawed languages for higher education.
Those languages are created by subhuman barbarians who evolved into merchants. All their words are geared towards mercantilism, this is why they are obsessed with the realization of their fantasy of precision and definition.
A merchant can create new words just to publicize his shiny new thing.
This means nothing of meaning will ever be said in english or german and no englishman or german will ever say something meaningful.

[Anonymous No.23517594]

>>23517592
>Germans
>Merchants
Are you sure?
Besides word creation is pretty useful for philosophy

[Anonymous No.23517706]

>>23516794
As a math god who also happens to have a high verbal IQ I can't take these cringe LARPers seriously.

>>23516799
Depends on the shit. I'd pay to eat a hot woman's shit out of the toilet. Definitely a better pastime activity than analytic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.23518734]

>>23516794
Because it's naive realism that's ironically disguised as ultra-scientific skepticism.

[Anonymous No.23518753]

>>23518734
>skepticism
>scientific
I bet you're the same faggot who called marxism materialist earlier

[Anonymous No.23518778]

>>23517325
You could at least respect them if they just took a hard line and stuck to their guns about it, but it's even more annoying than that, they simply deny it. For decades, the analytic's response to "but this sucks, how do you justify not engaging with ______?" was "lmao what is that, some British idealism shit? Kant was a retard kid, read this Ayer," then when they started to engage with Kant more mid-century the standard response became "um we do engage with Kant and always have actually??? In fact we're the original engagers with Kant and whenever someone talks about the 'Kant revival' they mean us, because we're the center of the philosophical universe? Neo-Kantianism? 'Back to Kant'? lmao what is this some continental trash? 'The nothing nothings' or something? Haha Hegel and Foucault literally say 1 != 1, get out of my face with this history of philosophy shit nobody cares what Hume had for breakfast." Then in the subsequent decades as the Kantian turn turned into a general turn to more philosophers and to something of an appreciation for understanding their continuous dialogue with one another, they started saying "uhh actually we always have done history philosophy and we're even the pioneers of it?" Und so fort.

As of the last ten years it's sort of reached an equilibrium, so that if you criticize analytic philosophy at all, they say "actually continental and analytic are basically the same and there's never been a divide at all (but analytic is still better)?? what are you even talking about with this 'divide', we literally invented Kant studies and produce all the best Hegelians and we always valued history of philosophy? Criticism of the British idealists? Don't you know Po-Hsun Chuk wrote a book in 2017 about returning to trigeminal logic based on the writings of Greene and Bradley? We've always done that."

If you want an account from someone more honest about what made analytic distinct as a paradigm in its second major phase, and last really vital phase, watch this starting at 7 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9aGv8s5ukE

[Anonymous No.23518849]

>>23517325
Nta, but belief in progress has been pretty firmly implicit in positivisms of the last century in general, and that more or less has been true for many analytics, so rejection of the past or of the history of philosophy has been done by likening philosophy to science, and sorta just presuming it must be wrong as a matter of course. They may be wrong or right or a mix about that, but it’s curiously a blindspot that just tend to assert must be true, so no need to look back too much except as an exercise for students in wrong-think.

[Anonymous No.23518942]

>>23516794
This sums up everything wrong with analytic philosophy:

> Fine has described his general approach to philosophy as follows: "I’m firmly of the opinion that real progress in philosophy can only come from taking common sense seriously. A departure from common sense is usually an indication that a mistake has been made."

Now, compare that with Hegel:

> Philosophy is, by its very nature, something esoteric, neither made for the vulgar as it stands [für sich], nor capable of being got up to suit the vulgar taste; it only is philosophy in virtue of being directly opposed to the understanding and hence even more opposed to healthy common sense, under which label we understand the limitedness in space and time of a race of men

or Plato:

> Don't you think that the person who is likely to succeed in this attempt most perfectly is the one who approaches each object, as far as possible with the unaided intellect, without taking account of any sense of sight in his thinking, or dragging any other sense into his reckoning - the man who pursues the truth by applying his pure and unadulterated thought to the pure and unadulterated object,
cutting himself off as much as possible from his eyes and ears and virtually all the rest of his body, as an impediment which by its presence prevents the soul from attaining to truth and clear thinking? Is not this the person, Simmias, who will reach the goal of reality if anyone can?

[Anonymous No.23518981]

>>23516794
>Wittgenstein
>analytic

[Anonymous No.23519103]

analyticbros... :(

[Anonymous No.23519115]

>>23519103
qrd?

[Anonymous No.23519157]

>>23519103

[Anonymous No.23519169]

>>23519115
Rudolf Carnap tried to create a unified theory for all scientific knowledge by breaking everything down into basic axioms (See The Logical Structure of the World). He wanted to define complex scientific concepts using simple, fundamental rules and inferences, aiming to make science more "rigorous." Mark Wilson argues that this approach doesn't match how science actually works; scientists need specialized theories for different areas and deal with complex problems that can't always fit into one unified system; biology, biochemistry, physical chemistry, chemical physics, etc. aren't different scientific fields for a reason.

[Anonymous No.23519178]

>>23519169
*are

[Anonymous No.23519231]

>>23517250
>>23517255
Very well-put

[Anonymous No.23519247]

>>23519169
>specialized theories for different areas and deal with complex problems that can't always fit into one unified system
not with that attitude

> For the law of reason which requires us to seek for this unity is a necessary law, inasmuch as without it we should not possess a faculty of reason, nor without reason a consistent and self-accordant mode of employing the understanding, nor, in the absence of this, any proper and sufficient criterion of empirical truth. In relation to this criterion, therefore, we must suppose the idea of the systematic unity of nature to possess objective validity and necessity.

[Anonymous No.23519302]

>>23518778
Good post. Seems like another episode of academic tyrannizing left unchecked

[Anonymous No.23519366]

>>23516794
Analytic philosophy more or less died with the Vienna Circle's logical empiricism. Basically it was McCarthyism that deemed the Exil-philosophers suspicious of being communists, as described in picrel

[Anonymous No.23519388]

>>23519366
> it was McCarthyism that deemed the Exil-philosophers suspicious of being communist
So a stage in the materialist dialectic? material conditions predeterming the acceptable conclusions of the intelligentsia? something something Marx?

[Anonymous No.23519413]

>>23519388
Cut the woke smoke screening "something something", please, especially if you pretend to ask someone a nuanced question.

[Anonymous No.23519425]

>>23519413
I have no idea what you are talking about. Am I only allowed to say thing in certain (you)-approved ways now?

[Anonymous No.23519827]

>>23518778
Horrible post and inaccurate. Analytics are the only people to still discuss T.H. Green's aesthetics and perfectionist theory of the good life, F.H. Bradley's relational regress, and J.M.E McTaggart's philosophy of time, and this doesn't date to fucking 2017, this is stuff that's been discussed in stuff you yourself can read from the whole time period of its existence from Russell forward. As for Ayer, he himself discusses Kant with respect, and has interesting things to critique him on, for example Kant's conception of what evidence shows something to be synthetic is tied to its being psychologically available to our conceptual analysis that something is contained in the meaning of something else, but there are other ways of understanding analyticity so it's not so psychologically available for scrutiny whether something is part of something else's meaning. This idea of analyticity is more inspired by Leibniz (as Frege once pointed out). Engaging Kant was not some "mid-century" thing, the degree of Kantian influence in Frege and Carnap is huge, Frege accepts Kantian synthetic aprioricity for geometry but tries to argue arithmetic is analytic, while Carnap follows Dilthey like Heidegger in expanding from synthetic aprioricity to culturally-contingent hermeneutical structures to thought.
>the link
Have you even read John Perry's work? He's as analytic as anyone. It's the same when you see Timothy Williamson or Peter Unger or whatever other analytics critique analytic philosophy, they actually mean "analytic philosophy that differs from my analytic philosophy." The enemy of your enemy in this case is still your enemy.
>>23518942
Kit Fine's metaphysics is not very common sense per se, not if Plato and Hegel somehow aren't. His relational semantics of variables, his metaphysics of neutral relations, his sententialist theory of fundamentality, his alternative criterion of ontological commitment, his mereological pluralism, and his teachings on logically arbitrary objects are all very uniquely Finean and very divergent from analytic orthodoxy. In this regard he's just like Plato and Hegel. But it's true that we should take common sense seriously, and I would say Hegel and Plato are more commonsensical than you think. Also they're right that it is esoteric. And to understand Fine you need as much training as you do to understand Hegel or Plato. Common sense and esotericism are not mutually exclusive, nor should they be: philosophy must be rigorous and difficult to sharpen itself, but be tethered in reality since that's what we're philosophizing about. It's practically a truism.

[Anonymous No.23519918]

>>23519827
case in point

[Anonymous No.23519926]

>>23519918
Kek I was gonna do the same.

[Anonymous No.23519948]

This review by Wittgenstein illustrates well the differences between an analytical philosopher and a continental one. Continentals are still stubbornly treating Aristotle's failed logical system as if it were an objective truth, they train in the classics with no regard for logic or mathematics at all. As Wittgenstein put it, it's like studying Chemistry through Alchemy. Most people here subscribe to the notion that you need to read the classics and so they get stuck in that mentality that they must contain all the truths when in fact the Analyticals already refuted a lot of the stuff they said.

[Anonymous No.23519950]

>>23519948
>the Analyticals already refuted a lot of the stuff they said.
delusional

[Anonymous No.23519984]

>>23519948
TIL Wittgenstein was a midwit

[Anonymous No.23519987]

>>23516794
Most people here are pseudo literates, meaning they like to portray themselves as well read and on the same level as a PhD holder, even more they see sometimes are more erudite than normal academics for a number a political reasons (u know the drill, women, pc police and the same arguments). But while being as smart as a professor is possible while being an autodidact, most people here are not diligent on their studies, so they don't read all day, they don't read papers, they have the same level of knowledge as a student to pass a test without studying. Analytic philosophy requires a high level of previous knowledge, mainly mathematics, most people here don't have that set of tools and the texts are dense so they require study and cannot be read like novel in one go, few 4channers have the capacity to do that study on their own, so they attack it for a number of reasons, envy, sadness that they can't tackle it, a desire to see themselves against the mainstream without considering that the mainstream could be correct.

One last thing is that the board shows signs of not reading them, having the idea of analytic ideas only obtained by memes and second hand sources and this shows because they hold the ideas of people who have never read a book by them or about them but only say pre regurgitated notions: they didn't read the classics, they don't build upon the previous philosophies, they are against religion or metaphysics, etc. No author holds this view in that way, meaning they are showing that they don't read them.

[Anonymous No.23520012]

>>23519987
I've read them, and they are bad philosophers. I blame the English universities.

[Anonymous No.23520045]

>>23516794
because /lit/ only cares about philosophy that is written in literary way and is poetically moving, not as means to clarifying concepts.

Also critical theory/continental philosophy is commonly used in literature departments, with much of /lit/ being students of said departments.

They have a vague knowledge that analytic philosophy is grounded in logic, and know that its fundamental axioms are contrary to critical theory/continental philosophy. Not knowing logic, and wanting to defend their verbose theory/essays based on said theories, they try to be dismissive of analytic philosophy as a defence mechanism.

This is why they always bring up rudolph carnap and call anyone who knows their way around a truth table a logical positivist. At the same time they know nothing of informal logic (e.g. arg conditions).

It's also why they completely neglect analytic philosophers after the mid 20th century (e.g. Fodor, Lewis, Searl etc.)

Also, some of /lit/ are radicalised young men who think any discussion of descriptive issues are a distraction from normative issues about sociological/political ideologies.

>>23519948
>appealing to aristotle when you are in the greatest revolution your field has seen since aristotle

And yet, it moves...

[Anonymous No.23520055]

I'm smarter than every analytic philosopher because I didn't spend my life studying analytic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.23520093]

>>23520045
What is literary or poetic in Aristotle's, Kant's, Peirce's, Scotus's works? And don't Hume's main works, having huge influence on analyticks, present a polished literary style with rhetorical appeal as well? Hell, even Russell has some writings with this same literary, more or less poetical presentation of a point of view.

[Anonymous No.23520099]

>>23520045
>hey have a vague knowledge that analytic philosophy is grounded in logic, and know that its fundamental axioms are contrary to critical theory/continental philosophy. Not knowing logic, and wanting to defend their verbose theory/essays based on said theories, they try to be dismissive of analytic philosophy as a defence mechanism.
Holy shit, I need to add another post because there is more retardation in yours. No, retard, continentals are not averse to logic, it is the very contrary, the problem pointed by Kant, and this is a problem with metaphysics as seen by positivists, some empiricists, is that the logical and ideal are taken to be actual and real. Take the ontological argument for instance, the proof of God's existence by it is a proof of the necessity of its idea and therefore its existence, that is, it is a logical proof that BECAUSE IT IS LOGICAL, is real and valid. This is what is criticized, what is logical does not implicate that it exists.

[Anonymous No.23520120]

>>23520093
When I used the word literary, I meant in respect to writing style. The writing of pic related is the kind of literary style I mean.

Generally, older works give the impression of a more literary style, partly because we the writing conventions they had back then are not the conventions we have now, and partly because analytic writing is more scientific in writing style, and so less literary by comparison.

I would agree with your points about Aristotle and Kant, but of course I could also point to the stoics or Nietzche.

Hume does have that influence, but it largely derives from a history of philosophy in the english tradition characterised by clear writing (see my earlier point about older writing). There a part where Brian Maggie is interviewing Ayer about Frege in that bbc philosophy series, where he has a bit of a freudian slip and says something to the effect of "straightforward british prose!"

[Anonymous No.23520143]

>>23520099
apparently they are also averse to basic grammar and punctuation. Thanks for clarifying with the ontological argument example though, I take it this is also why for modern logicians two "A" statements don't license an "I" statement, but they do under the existential view. Would a continental there be committed to the latter?

[Anonymous No.23520148]

>>23520120
I understood your point, but you didn't mine. My point was that while there is indeed such rhetorical and poetical features in the writings of many continentals (Hegel, Nietzsche), there are continentals with dry, direct, analytic writing like the ones I cited. Plus, I pointed the irony of some analyticks using the same literarily shifted writing in some of their works (Russell, Wittgenstein).
>Hume does have that influence, but it largely derives from a history of philosophy in the english tradition characterised by clear writing
What? Quine, who distinguished philosophy from the history of philosophy, and thus avowedly claimed that he didn't care about the historical part, championed Hume's problem of induction, employs it as a fundamental principle grounding his thoughts.

[Anonymous No.23520151]

>>23520143
You are an idiot.

[Anonymous No.23520161]

>>23516794
It's great and all, but getting into it is like climbing down into an abyss -- the darkest, coldest, lonliest abyss there is; one that makes your hands numb and your ears feel funny.
Analytic adherents will call this post nonsense, and perhaps they should; but their abyss has no echo so I won't be able to hear them.

[Anonymous No.23520165]

>>23516799
I endorse this statement

[Anonymous No.23520168]

>>23520151
nope, you are.

The question of OP was not concerning "continental philosophers" but persons who browse /lit/. And given the fact you have no understanding of the hypothetical/existential views in categorical logic it seems like you are one such person.

[Anonymous No.23520182]

>>23520168
I was addressing your post (>>23520045) and your post states clearly: ''/lit/ only cares about philosophy that is written in literary way and is poetically moving'', as if continental philosophy contained only works written in such a way, whereas analytic philosophy in its opposite, a clear logical vs. poetical divide, which is false and dumb.

[Anonymous No.23520183]

>>23517292
>we reject analytic anglo BS.

At least half of the most significant analytic philosophers came from the German speaking world. Herbart, Frege, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Shlick, Gödel, Feyerabend

[Anonymous No.23520216]

>>23520182
Your right, that would be a gross generalisation to make, but do you not agree that it holds true generally speaking?

For the record, if it seems like i'm somewhat incoherent it's because i'm currently trying to reset my sleep schedule so i've been up for 24 hours, but looking back on what I wrote, saying continentals aren't grounded in logic was on overstatement, I had in mind critical theory specifically as well as postmodernist philosophers like dekeuze/Lacan, and Modern sjw-continental philosophers. Shouldn't have made such a gross generalisation.

At least in what is current philosophy, there is a continental style that has such a literary quality (see some conference papers from philosophers from the melbourne school of continental if you want an example) v.s the scientific writing style of analytic philosophers in the modern sense of the term.

[Anonymous No.23520257]

>>23520216
>but do you not agree that it holds true generally speaking?
No, I literally cited fundamental philosophers in the continental tradition that are completely alien to this style.

[Anonymous No.23521049]

>>23516794
Wittgeinstein is based. Fuck you. Dont put him in the same picture with those frauds

[Anonymous No.23521390]

wordcels

[Anonymous No.23521393]

>>23520216
Read Scheller and tell me it's poetic

[Anonymous No.23521404]

>>23520257
Can you name from the 20th century. Any claim made about stylistically about continental philosophy tends to be about its post-Heidegger manifestations.

[Anonymous No.23521408]

>>23521049
Nah, Wittgenstein is easily the worst on that list. His work is nothing more than a novelty which has long lost its charm.

[Anonymous No.23521420]

>>23521408
Yeah, he got you good. You might get it... someday.

[Anonymous No.23521468]

>>23517282
Aristotle wrote a book on metaphysics so not really. He has a very solid metaphysical system if a bit unclear in some places. The positivists generally thought that metaphysics was just language abuse because it utilized statements that could not be empirically verified. Problem is that the verificationist theory kinda refutes itself and I'd argue that they weren't really being fair to metaphysical inquiry.

[Anonymous No.23521485]

>>23521420
No, I just climbed out of a maze without an exit. Maybe one day you'll do the same.

[Anonymous No.23521603]

>>23521404
Husserl, Scheler, Twardowski, Lukasiewicz. But you want to generalize based on some philosophers from a single century? Again, you’re an idiot.

[Anonymous No.23521634]

>>23516794
analytic is a euphimism for reductionist AND mental gymnastics: the true root of everyone's depression and hence what is to blame for the contemptible masochistic self-conflageration the West seems obsessed with.

[Anonymous No.23521678]

>>23516794
My problem with it is that it's continental philosophy with a thin veneer of symbolic logic, and yet completely ignores mathematics. As a result, it produces works that are overly formal and detached from reality.

[Anonymous No.23521679]

>>23521603
Im not the guy you were arguing with. As far as I’m concerned, the analytic-continental split only really becomes a thing when Wittgenstein and Heidegger set the stylistic standard for their respective sides. I think it’s a mistake to try and separate Frege, Russell, and Moore from the likes of Bergson and Husserl in such a way.

[Anonymous No.23521719]

>>23516794
>philosophy
Literal meaningless babbling about made-up nothingburger bullshit.

[Anonymous No.23521773]

>>23521719
This, but replace philosophy with maths

[Anonymous No.23521780]

>>23517250
Extremely good post. Specially the point about reinventing the wheel from not reading the classics. A concrete example of that I can think of is Zeno’s paradox and supertasks

[Anonymous No.23521788]

>>23521773
No, keep philosophy there and go apply a coolant to your incinerated rectum, fangirl of speculative babbling nitwits. Philosophy is same as the contemporary "art". Especially such a pile of babbling horseshit as Hegel.

[Anonymous No.23521790]

>>23521773
Math is the reason you're able to post on this website. Computers are built on math.

[Anonymous No.23521828]

>>23521679
That has nothing to do with the issue between me and that other poster.

[Anonymous No.23521882]

>>23521828
The post-Heidegger style is precisely the literary type of writing he was talking about. What he says does hold true, among the set of people who should truly be called continental philosophers.

[Anonymous No.23521922]

>>23521882
Have you read the conversation? There is nothing of this literary type of writing in Aristotle, Kant, etc. as I showed. The generalization attempted was based on 20th century, now on post-Heidegger philosophy. What is post-Heidegger? Marleau Ponty, Deleuze? So the generalization holds because of a few continental philosophers from single particular century? You are another idiot.

[Anonymous No.23523453]

>>23516794
Because they destroyed philosophy. No one really takes academic philosophy seriously anymore because the analytic tradition has, essentially, denied the life and breath of philosophy, rendering it into a corpse. It has become comatose and has lost its spirit.

Notice how they have no real objection to Nietzsche, nor do they develop upon him, and they cannot address Hegel either. They, essentially, reject or ignore Nietzsche's understanding of nihilism and suffering, and instead just assume people are like logic machines or animals in the way they respond to life. They also call Hegel obscure or gobbledygook, or they take a piece of his philosophy out of its context and criticize it without mercy, in ignorance.

Also notice how powerfully Russell failed in his Principia Mathematica and how Wittgenstein essentially did a 180 in his approach to philosophy later in life. These people should not be revered because the whole tradition will (ideally) be noted as nothing more than an Anglo-cultural endeavor, similar to how philosophy in the medieval period was essentially a religious endeavor.

[Anonymous No.23523464]

>>23523453
Yet they smugly act like they're the arbiters of what is and isn't philosophy, and like people care about their judgements. The problem is that they only talk to eachother so they think their academic walled garden is the center of the world, not just some garden.

[Anonymous No.23524046]

>>23519948
http://www.archive.org/details/thescienceoflogi01coffuoft
https://archive.org/details/thescienceoflogi02coffuoft
if anyone wants to see what he was upset about. it's still recommended by some philosophers

[Anonymous No.23524075]

>>23517290
this

[Anonymous No.23524578]

>>23523453
Depending on which analytics are being discussed a number of them drew extensively from Nietzsche, and even some of the ones who may have been derisive of him still give off Nietzschean tendencies in some of their work.

The Hegel issue is almost an entirely different different sort of creature, and that is largely due to the disparate evolutionary patterns it took. I see some distilled remains of the Marxist/Hegelian split on linguistics in some of them, and I also see remnants of Hegelian tendencies in others. This does not even touch upon other thinkers who fell under the umbrella at some point and made contributions to logic that the analytics used. This tends to produce a relationship wherein the analytics are want to be insulting of Hegel, but Hegel likely would have been interested in their work. I cannot remember who said it but one of them had a pretty good quote: "Hegel may have been the only philosopher in history who was afraid he would have been understood."

[Anonymous No.23524691]

>>23523453
>Notice how they have no real objection to Nietzsche, nor do they develop upon him, and they cannot address Hegel either. They, essentially, reject or ignore Nietzsche's understanding of nihilism and suffering, and instead just assume people are like logic machines or animals in the way they respond to life.
I disagree entirely. Russell's criticism of Nietzsche is pretty damning, and has consistently managed to demonstrate the character flaws of him and those who try to defend his work. It's quite telling that your defense of him amounts to nothing more than saying his work resonates with your, likely immature, feelings.
>Also notice how powerfully Russell failed in his Principia Mathematica and how Wittgenstein essentially did a 180 in his approach to philosophy later in life. These people should not be revered because the whole tradition will (ideally) be noted as nothing more than an Anglo-cultural endeavor, similar to how philosophy in the medieval period was essentially a religious endeavor.
I suppose it would be damning if we reduced Russell's entire life work to single project and ignore his many other contributions. Wittgenstein changing his position also means very little considering the analytic tradition drew heavily from both, so thinking of that as some sort of refutation of the discipline is silly (and a good reminder that those fond of the continental tradition are not nor ave they ever been serious about their concern for this history of philosophy) Second, if philosophers changing and developing their beliefs over time bother you, maybe we should take a look at Nietzsche. If I recall correctly, most scholars seem to differentiate between his early and later works.
If we want to talk about failed philosophical projects, Nietzsche is still. a great place. His great "revaluation of values" never happened, and systematic ethics has only become more robust and better at justifying itself. The same goes with metaphysics. If we're going to talk about failed philosophical projects the "end of metaphysics" (Nietzsche, Heidegger, The Postivists, Derrida etc.) should be seen as the greatest one.

[Anonymous No.23524820]

>>23524691
>I disagree entirely. Russell's criticism of Nietzsche is pretty damning, and has consistently managed to demonstrate the character flaws of him and those who try to defend his work. It's quite telling that your defense of him amounts to nothing more than saying his work resonates with your, likely immature, feelings.
Nta, but this is dumb, Russell's criticisms are non-engagements and only damning if one's experience of Nietzsche is limited to a page long third-hand summary. Russell's "history" was by his own admission cobbled together for money, and a number of entries give the impression of Russell didn't want to spend any time more on understanding philosophers he wasn't inclined toward than necessary to just have something written in order to say his history covers enough. His comments aren't even philosophical criticisms, but rather the criticisms of an English Whig right as WW2 was finishing/finished, against a German philosopher that Nazis liked. There’s no attempt to pin down both whst Will to Power means to Nietzsche, nor how it works, the role of the eternal return of the same or the pathos of distance, nor perspectivism and how Nietzsche understands his work to skirt around or address certain problems of relativism. It's just bitchy shitlib "he was afwaid of wimmin which is why he's so wude about em." Embarassing, faggy, and stupid, better to have left it at "I don't get it, and I don't care to" and shut his fucking mouth.

>If we want to talk about failed philosophical projects, Nietzsche is still. a great place. His great "revaluation of values" never happened
Nietzsche was well-persuaded that The Antichrist was sufficient for his Revaluation of Values, the other projected plans for further books all being abandoned in the last year of his sanity.

[Anonymous No.23524858]

>>23516794
you can count on zero hands the number of posters on this board who has read 50 pages or more from each of those guys in your pic.

[Anonymous No.23524900]

>>23524820
>Embarassing, faggy, and stupid, better to have left it at "I don't get it, and I don't care to" and shut his fucking mouth.
Nah, I think the the accurate description of Nietzsche's and his defenders' dispositions is good enough indication to dismiss him outright. It's less of "I don't care to understand him" and more of a "trying to understand him will make me dumber, so not trying is good for me."
>Nietzsche was well-persuaded that The Antichrist was sufficient for his Revaluation of Values, the other projected plans for further books all being abandoned in the last year of his sanity.
If anything that makes it more of a failure. At the very least Russell's Principia, even if only through its refutation, was able to be part of something greater. Nietzsche's work is a failure that contributed to nothing worthwhile, and every area he criticized has become stronger.

[Anonymous No.23524936]

Analytic philosophy is sort of like Pythagoreanism. They get fixated on one idea (for analytics, formal logic; for Pythagoreans, arithmetic/geometry) and try to fit everything into it. It's silly, and it will not stand the test of time. You know what has stood the test of time? Plato and Aristotle, no one else.

[Anonymous No.23525005]

>>23523453
>>23524691
The Anglo dislike of Nietzsche is based on Nietzsche not being readily available to them in the early 20th century and the Nazi mishandling of him, down to Nietzsche's sister and her misconstruing of his work. The Vienna Circle, actually German, actually loved him. If you read Carnap's Aufbau you'll find The Gay Science cited sometimes, and he loved Thus Spoke Zarathustra. There are affinities to be made between Nietzsche's critique of the way metaphysics was done in his time, and what Carnap was actually up to (misunderstood by /lit/ as well as other supporters and haters). But Nietzsche also had a powerful and deep understanding of ambiguity, his "new infinite" is, after all, so radically anti-realist that it looks around to also being anti-idealist and ends up being nearly super-realist. This is the idea that our thought can pierce just far enough to tell that there are many things beyond what we comprehend, such as infinite perspectives. Slightly modified this is, ironically sure, actually the lifeblood of analytic metaphysics. But these things are lost on people like yourselves and the rank and file continentals and analytics. You people don't read enough to see patterns in philosophy, not enough to care for and even want to extract similarities and connections as a springboard for a way forward that integrates the past and sublates it. In this way, you're nothing like Kant when he overcame the previous divide, or Hegel himself who always did his history of philosophy by caring deeply for anything that came before him and integrating it. You need to take both sides seriously, not for the sake of submitting yourself to either but for the sake of overcoming and progressing. Today's analytics and continentals making their petty fights are so, so dumb. I will always respect the analytic and continental vanguard for producing something new, but the masses (like /lit/ partisans) haven't accomplished anything and don't want to.

[Anonymous No.23525016]

>>23525005
Maybe you'll disagree with my evaluation, but earlier I specifically grouped Nietzsche and the positivists together as people who were failures for similar reasons.

[Anonymous No.23525106]

>>23525016
I'm not a positivist but I think they advanced metaphysics (even if they were sort of anti-metaphysics), and so did Nietzsche, and this will be hard for many people to grasp or comprehend, but I think it's true and good. You might disagree perhaps. They did give good critiques of bad ways of doing metaphysics, but this is necessary to sublate the old metaphysics. In the process they unwittingly uncovered pro-metaphysical aspects themselves though.

[Anonymous No.23525430]

>>23521922
>Everyone that disagrees with me is an idiot!

https://youtube.com/watch?v=GP8D6PiV7Kg&feature=shared

[Anonymous No.23525618]

>>23525430
I hate women so much.
>Continental philosophy is feelings and poetry!
Shut your fucking mouth whore. Women should have their own gender-segregated philosophy departments, 500 feet underground in soundproof bunkers.

[Anonymous No.23525857]

>>23524578
>Depending on which analytics are being discussed a number of them drew extensively from Nietzsche, and even some of the ones who may have been derisive of him still give off Nietzschean tendencies in some of their work.
None of them are doing philosophy even if they draw from other philosophers or write with their styles. There is no real undercurrent of life in their works, and their systems are only engaging in a way that can be described as lifeless understanding, not because they are too complicated but because there is no wisdom in their ideas. There is no wisdom in their philosophy. And this is why philosophy is dead, and no one takes it seriously. The legacy of the positivists was to destroy philosophy, and that legacy is alive and well today where 'analytic philosophers' have become more like unwise programmers or merely historians cataloguing ideas for future generations.
>The Hegel issue is almost an entirely different different sort of creature, and that is largely due to the disparate evolutionary patterns it took. I see some distilled remains of the Marxist/Hegelian split on linguistics in some of them, and I also see remnants of Hegelian tendencies in others. This does not even touch upon other thinkers who fell under the umbrella at some point and made contributions to logic that the analytics used. This tends to produce a relationship wherein the analytics are want to be insulting of Hegel, but Hegel likely would have been interested in their work. I cannot remember who said it but one of them had a pretty good quote: "Hegel may have been the only philosopher in history who was afraid he would have been understood."
The Hegel issue is really telling because his system is, essentially, a formulation of life as consciousness, and it is difficult to cage it down like a pig in a crate in order to incorporate it into their trash philosophy. For instance, notice how the Phenomenology of Spirit is often described like a novel with consciousness as the protagonist. It's a laughably bad reading that seeks to fictionalize consciousness and deny its life in ourselves by comfortably sectioning it off as an other.

[Anonymous No.23526128]

>>23516794
>Why is analytic philosophy so hated on this board?
french, trannies and jannies

[Anonymous No.23526269]

>>23525857
I suppose some of this is a matter of perspective. Philosophy itself may very well be the parental arc in the lineage of any and all discipline trees, but philosophy may not always be the best place for new limbs to develop. Natural philosophy turned into sciences, math went its own way, and the list goes on really. Each time one of these sproutlings gets transplanted philosophy is left with less, at least until the parental tree needs answers, and the sproutling develops on its own, at least until the sproutling needs questions. The analytics made progress on logic, they focused on problems, they are certainly more cut and dry but to say they killed philosophy sounds unfair, and some of the thinkers they followed left the sort of questions that are both unavoidable and uncomfortable. Even continentals are apt to say a sizable number of problems can be reduced to language issues, the analytics at least tried to answer. Perhaps the answers weren't as absolute as we all would have liked, but the advances they made are no less meritorious as a result.

You PoS Chads are my favorites, I am inclined to agree, but I would also qualify that statement by adding that Hegel as a whole is usually the incorporating entity, and whatever is trying to form delineated opposition is usually devoured. Even a number of Analytics had to acknowledge this by specifically denoting Hegelian methodology, even if they did it with some snark, the immense logic pool Hegel was able to assemble is likely one they wound up drawing from.

[Anonymous No.23526501]

>>23516794
It obliterates the comforting internalized delusions of the posters on this board

[Anonymous No.23526519]

>>23520045
Absolutely based post. Also, the /lit/ type loves Jungianism which posits mystical woo woo as a cover for appealing concepts which actually have no grounding in reality at all.

[Anonymous No.23526526]

>>23526519
>Analytic philosophy is when your concepts are gooder because they are more realer and the real world is scientific and the truth is that the real is what you can actually prove with science and the facts.
This is what it looks like when an analytic autofellates, if anyone was wondering

[Anonymous No.23526527]

>>23520099
>I am going to define "God" in extremely narrow terms to fit my "proof"
>Having done this, I will then add tons of other characteristics to "God" which negate my proof, but will carry on as if my new definition still has a proof
Every time

[Anonymous No.23526530]

>>23526526
Are you dunking on yourself? Are you forfeiting the realm of "real" to analytic philosophy? Bold! I guess it is easier to be a philosopher when all your ideas are completely made up and have no connection to reality!

[Anonymous No.23526531]

>>23526530
Analytic philosophy was founded on crude physicalism and foundered on crude physicalism, there is nothing left of it to forfeit anything to.

[Anonymous No.23526534]

Its boring, doesn't really capture the human element.

[Anonymous No.23526539]

>>23518942
Hegel was analytic, same with Marx

[Anonymous No.23526547]

>>23526539
shit bait

[Anonymous No.23526558]

>>23526531
this. it takes for granted whatever metaphysics is needed to sustain the current system of things and spends it's intellects it trying to solve that metaphysics contradictions without ever admitting real possibility that metaphysical worldview is false or illusory. it does the same thing it accuses the medieval philosopher of doing with Christianity.

[Anonymous No.23526601]

>>23526531
>crude physicalism
As opposed to sophisticated physicalism? You are just making up phrases to try and protect some abstract delusion. It's genuinely pure cope because your favored parental personification projected into the mystery of the universe is just a delusion. It's actually embarrassing to an outside observer.

[Anonymous No.23526628]

>>23526527
What the fuck are you on about?

[Anonymous No.23527022]

>>23524900
>Nah, I think the the accurate description of Nietzsche's and his defenders' dispositions is good enough indication to dismiss him outright. It's less of "I don't care to understand him" and more of a "trying to understand him will make me dumber, so not trying is good for me."
This is 100% "feelz over realz", where impatience and laziness are inflated into intellectual virtues out of an acceptance of peculiarly modern canons of coherence and modern demands for clarity that presuppose that universal enlightenment is possible and self-evidently good. Nietzsche literally has hints everywhere about how to properly understand him (like an entire chapter in Ecce Homo suggesting how his books relate to each other) and why he thinks he needs to write bombastically in accordance with the problems of the age, and dim faggots will shrug and onionsly say "I don't see any symbolic logic notation or obsessive discussions over axiomatization so no need to read further." That kind of attitude, predominant among most analytics over the last century is a great reason to take them as bad faith bullshitters, as Russell 100% was on Nietzsche.

>If anything that makes it more of a failure. At the very least Russell's Principia, even if only through its refutation, was able to be part of something greater. Nietzsche's work is a failure that contributed to nothing worthwhile, and every area he criticized has become stronger.
It's not a failure; you're working by different conditions of success and failure than Nietzsche. This makes your emphasis on Nietzsche's project rather beside the point you wanted to make, since Nietzsche wasn't trying to effect global enlightenment (and if anything, observation outside if the academy re: moral attitudes confirms him. "Every area he criticized became stronger" has no force if it's ivory tower retards agreeing on formalities with each other while everyone else acts like resentful evangelical protestants, especially the atheists).

[Anonymous No.23527030]

>>23526601
>As opposed to sophisticated physicalism?
you do know there are more ontologies than physicalism right anon?

[Anonymous No.23527280]

>>23526531
You are aware that Russell wasn't a physicalist, right?

[Anonymous No.23527305]

>>23516794
Because this board is subjected to hypnotic techniques utilizing semantics and they refuse to acknowledge their vulnerability to it

[Anonymous No.23527316]

>>23527022
Nietzsche is a failure because like all atheist, he wanted to turn the nihilism created by the atheists themselves as something cool, turns out all he did is what what atheists will always do: cultivating hedonism and virtue signaling

[Anonymous No.23527333]

>>23525005
>blablbala german '''thinkers'''
Hegel is a moron who couldn't even understand the physics of his time

[Anonymous No.23527334]

>>23527022
Nietzsche is a failure because like all atheists, he wanted to turn the nihilism created by the atheists themselves as something cool, turns out all he did is was what atheists will always do: cultivating hedonism and virtue signaling

[Anonymous No.23528900]

[Anonymous No.23528904]

>>23527334
The seethe is strong with this one

[Anonymous No.23529032]

>>23528900
Doesn't sound like cards are involved, which is usually the non party related usage I have encountered. Otherwise if the male:female ratio is y>x then you are at a sausage party. At that point house rules may apply.

[Anonymous No.23529077]

>here's your modern philosophy journal, chud

[Anonymous No.23529142]

>>23529077
How can they turn what is clearly a class thing
>Prejudice plus power
Into a race thing?
People have to be really dumb to fall for that

[Anonymous No.23529189]

>>23516794
It took centuries for our understanding of physics (formerly thought to be a dry and solved discipline) to be reconciled with esoterica and the natural sciences. I'm holding out hope that analytic philosophy's turob-autism will one day be so powerful, that it will wrap around into full-blown schizophrenia.

[Anonymous No.23529194]

>>23529189
Consider that the intuition behind Hegel's Science of Logic has already found application to string theory via modal type theory, and it's possible that once mainstream analytic philosophers remove their head from their ass, they'll see the bigger picture without having to make any concessions.

[Anonymous No.23529288]

>>23529194
deeper

[Anonymous No.23529303]

>>23516794
Because life isn't logical
It trains people to be stupid and believe in false notions of predictable stability

[Anonymous No.23529311]

>>23529189
It's already happening. Physics is merging with the "mysteries." Pocket protector crowd on suicide watch. Schizo shamans on incense patrol.

[Anonymous No.23529361]

>>23525005
>down to Nietzsche's sister and her misconstruing of his work
No, this is Walter Kauffman propaganda

[Anonymous No.23529431]

>>23529361
You can just read Nietzsche's critical letters to his sister and read the actual things he says in works like The Gay Science, his sister absolutely misunderstood and misrepresented him.

[Anonymous No.23529451]

>>23516794
If people on this board actually engaged with analytic philosophy I think they would find a much more rich and interesting intellectual tradition than the dry naturalism it is stereotyped as upholding. Wittgenstein, for example, has a strong mystical bent to his works which very much fall out of the purview of a naturalist worldview. Another example would be Kripke, whose argument for necessary a posteriori truths is mobilized in order to support mind body dualism.
While some may find the writing style dry and overly clinical, the arguments being had within the tradition are not all just regurgitations of the same bland naturalism with slight tweaks in between. There is actually a great amount of variance in what analytic philosophers believe and people are doing themselves a disservice by shutting out the entire tradition because of internet memes.

[Anonymous No.23529458]

>>23529451
It's a rich tradition there's just a lot of slop
I dont hate every analytic and my hatred of the ones I don't care for comes from deep engagement with the ideas

[Anonymous No.23529576]

Because analytical philosophy is all about retarded trolly problems and writing the most basic Aristotelian logical statements in math style equations incomprehensible to any human outside their little analytic club. The analytics are trying their damn hardest to be as asinine and unlikeable as possible and are full of arrogant self-aggrandizing bullshit. Sure, continentals are arrogant and esoteric too but they are enjoyable to read and it feels as if the work of someone like Heidegger, Adorno or Deleuze have some actual bearing on my life unlike discussing fucking trolly problems for the millionth time.

The criticism that contentials don't study modern logic or linguistics is absolutely valid, but analytics are about as bone headed and suffer from their own self-inflicted tunnel vision which is arguably worse than most critical theory/continental shit heads.

>>23529458
You could say the same for contiental philosophy and critical theory. Like 98% of papers published in theory today are fucking dogshit.

[Anonymous No.23529596]

>>23516794
Listening to Russel Bertrand talk about foreign policy was what made me realize that some smart people are dumb as fuck especially if they’re leftist.

[Anonymous No.23529608]

>>23516794
>you know what this world needs? More materialistic analysis
T. Some retard.

[Anonymous No.23529644]

>>23529361
Retard, she literally took different passages from his journals and spliced them, her distortions and additions to his writings are not in dispute to anyone who's compared her editions with his own and his journals.

[Anonymous No.23529653]

>>23529451
>Wittgenstein, for example, has a strong mystical bent to his works which very much fall out of the purview of a naturalist worldview.
The problem with this example is that it's precisely the part of Wittgenstein's views that aren't taken as analytic, and I mean that the vast majority of analytic engagements with Wittgenstein limit themselves to merely acknowledging this and moving on.

[Anonymous No.23529721]

>>23529644
>>23529431
>her distortions and additions to his writings are not in dispute to anyone who's compared her editions with his own and his journals.
No, it absolutely is in dispute. People got buttflustered by Nietzsche's racism and other uncomfortable ideas so they concocted a myth that his sister intervened more than she actually did. There is little evidence that she did more than just rearrange some aphorisms.

[Anonymous No.23529860]

>>23529194
The search for the true infinitude, that is also a point of captivation for others as well. I have seen a number of interesting ideas that delve into Quantum explanations using SoL, namely overcoming the hurdles of natural intuition, and using Hegel's process of granting numbers being-for-self to attempt synthesis of Lorentz covariants.

[Anonymous No.23529865]

>>23529721
No it isn't, keep coping, having never looked into it like a little kid with his fingers in his ears loudly shouting "NUH UH"

[Anonymous No.23529885]

>>23516794
The only reason analytic philosophy is dominant is because thanks to MacCarthyism all the best European and continental philosophers were purged from the Ivy Leagues and every other college, obsessed with mimicking Harvard, modelled their philosophy departments on the fucking Ivys. Note: analytic philosophy is the dominant trend in philosophy in academia only. They are nobodies literally everywhere else. They get crushed by continentals and even Eastern philosophers generate more interest than those circlejerking analytic retards. Analytic philosophers like those 80 year old Soviet party bosses who dominate the establishment and refuse to change. They are like Joe Biden. Stale, old, out of touch, incompetant and owe their position to corruption and nepotism. Why wouldn't we hate them? I bet the few PhDs left on this board are all continentals who can't get damn job because of analytic dinosaurs monopolizing all academic positions.

[Anonymous No.23529899]

>>23529865
lmao what a response. I wonder if you actually did some googling and then posted your retarded comment in panic knowing you had nothing. The burden of proof is on you to provide me the evidence:
Give me some examples of these edits and let's see how egregious they really are

[Anonymous No.23529912]

>>23527333
This guy has no fucking idea what he's talking about. Newton used mathematics to describe the gravitation of the planets and didn't really give a physical understanding of it, for instance how gravity could be nonlocal and action-at-a-distance. Because of this, Hegel supposed that it could be possible to deduce these things a priori. He failed, but it was worth a shot, especially considering it's just a doctoral dissertation.

[Anonymous No.23529914]

>>23529885
Well I guess this is another reason why McCarthy was right all along.

[Anonymous No.23531584]

>>23529899
The burden of evidence is on you to show that Kaufmann, and not just Kaufmann, *but the prior non-Jewish editors of Nietzsche who are Kaufmann's sources who directly compare Nietzsche's manuscripts and journals with Forster's editions* are wrong. Huffin and puffin that the documentary evidence is wrong is a playground argument.

[Anonymous No.23531708]

>>23531584
Nietzsches own words provided plenty of ammo for the Nazis to make use of. Blaming his sister is a total cop out Kauffman leaned on to make Nietzsche palatable post WW2. He was considered strictly verboten for a few years following the war because all the English speaking world knew of him was that he inspired the ubermensch concept, save for a few hipsters who had been reading him prior to the war.
Nietzsche wouldn't have supported the Nazis but he's got plenty of writings that lean toward antisemitism or are at least critical of Jews, and he said a lot of shit about Aryans. Blonde beasts etc.
People still misunderstood the concept but blaming his sister instead of his own uncareful, embellishing language is bull

[Anonymous No.23532202]

>>23531708
It's clear you haven't read The Gay Science, and if so, not closely. He is critical of the ones he loves at the same time (he teaches this principle in Thus Spoke Zarathustra). All his criticism of Germans, Jews, Christians, socialists, artists, women, and slaves cannot be properly understood unless you understand this deeply and well. And it is for this reason that he criticizes anyone who is actually an anti-semite, for example. He is deeply Hegelian, like Hegel he recognizes that it is the slave in the master-slave dialectic that achieves its own self-consciousness, and thus designs its own values creatively, the problem is that to the extent that the slave exists inside this logic of master/slave it only creates negatively, in relation to the life-affirmative but non-creative master. The ubermensch is the sublation of both. Every time I say things like this here half of /lit/ spews nonsense about how it must be false because they are coping hard, and the other half has my back because they actually have deeply read Nietzsche and can actually quote the relevant passages and show the truth of it. You can tell the people that want to overemphasize Nietzsche as some kind of aristocratic right-winger are just philosophy-shopping larpers, just like the religion-shopping larpers here and on /his/. And when faced with the realities that these philosophies and religions don't actually support your larper identity, you guys cope and seethe.

[Anonymous No.23532576]

>>23532202
I don't read gay books

[Anonymous No.23532881]

>>23531708
No one in thread said anything about Nazis. It's plain that you're more comfortable harping on the Jewish translator, even though his conclusions are based on the work of earlier editors, and those conclusions are shared by the majority of non-Jewish scholars of Nietzsche's nachlass, but you're arguing in bad faith and pretending that arguing over Kaufmann's softening of Nietzsche in translation is the same as arguing over Nietzsche's retard sister's bullshit edition of "Will to Power." Cope.

[Anonymous No.23532893]

>>23532202
Nietzsche is the only writer I can claim obsessive study of in confidence. I'm aware of everything you wrote and my reply reflects that. I said directly that he was misunderstood, but part of it was on him for the way he chose to speak. You're pissing in the wind.

[Anonymous No.23533259]

>>23516794
Because the people who post on this board are stupid dilettante who are wowed by mysticism.

[Anonymous No.23534106]

>>23532202
This is a complete side point to the arguments made and also:
>He is deeply Hegelian
Just fucking lmao. Who hasn't read Nietzsche again?

[Anonymous No.23534115]

>>23532881
>No one in thread said anything about Nazis
Yes they did retard see post >>23525005 which started this conversation:
>The Anglo dislike of Nietzsche is based on Nietzsche not being readily available to them in the early 20th century and the Nazi mishandling of him, down to Nietzsche's sister and her misconstruing of his work

[Anonymous No.23534122]

>>23531584
That's not how the burden of proof works or I can just arbitrarily claim anything to be a fake or forgery. What are the edits and why won't you post them?

[Anonymous No.23534505]

>>23516794
Wittgenstein and Carnap are the only ones worth a damn. Everyone else were just pretentious wankers

[Anonymous No.23534610]

>>23534106
>Hegelian
It's shorthand for how he is deeply influenced by and endorses Hegel's lord/bondsman dialectic (just like Marx and the 20th century existentialists do), or generally dialectical sublation models (like Kierkegaard does). All these figures are also deeply critical of Hegel, especially his overall metaphysics, and of these Marx, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche are especially critical. But if you understand them well you will see how deeply Hegelian, in this sense specified, they all are, between Marx's dialectical and historical materialism, Kierkegaard's dialectic of faith, and of course, Nietzsche's master/slave morality dialectic and the ubermensch as its sublation. It would be very telling to disagree just because these figures talk about Hegel critically.
>Who hasn't read Nietzsche again?
You, clearly. If calling him "Hegelian" sets off little alarm bells in your head rather than getting your assent, I've got many more for you. But the alarm bells going off only prove you don't understand him more than very superficially. Example: Nietzsche is deeply romantic, but he explicitly says he rejects romanticism. He is deeply enamored with the aesthetic of the sublime but he explicitly says he rejects the sublime. He is also deeply supportive of our capacity for thought to pierce past conception (the "New Infinite" depends on this conception), which is the foundation ground for metaphysical realism proper, yet he is explicitly very very critical of metaphysical realism. Last but not least, his yes-saying affirmative attitude and rejection of much metaphysical thinking is positivist in the old Comtean sense of "positive" (the same sense in which Feuerbach and Marx are positivists) yet he is so critical of the French and English brands of positivism, that to call him deeply positivist seems even more wrong to people than calling him deeply Hegelian. But it's true and right. It takes real research scholarship to see and understand that what I'm saying is true, because surface gleaning of Nietzsche's explicit criticisms of others (which are not hard to come by) paints the idea that what I'm saying isn't just false, but somehow impossible. Likewise with how people think he must be anti-slave morals when a deeper look shows his deeper appreciation, which loops back to the Hegelian thing. Again, you clearly don't understand him well, and he said people wouldn't understand him well after all.

[Anonymous No.23534614]

>>23516794
Frege and Wittgenstein are good, Moore and Russell are bad. Hmm. Continental Europeans are better at analytic philosophy than the anglophone analytics...

[Anonymous No.23534616]

>>23534106
Nta but there are certainly Hegelian elements to Nietzsche, just how much Nietzsche worked to evolve them or reconcile his own version of them is something that can be debated, but I have yet to encounter anyone who can definitively say Nietzsche had no Hegelian influences, even the early Nietzsche proponents who gravitate towards Schopenhauer as the parental philosophical influence have a hard time with TL given that it is supposedly one of his early works but wasn't published until later by his sister. Which does segue us to his sister, the extent to which she edited and altered his texts and letters is unknown to me, I have read late Nietzsche and generally do not care for it as much as earlier Nietzsche, which is not to say I will not talk about late Nietzsche, rather I am usually quick to point out that his philosophical contributions were likely realized before his breakdown, and everything afterwards was for the most part just a refinement and logical endpoint to some of his previous work, which is usually the distinguishing difference between how someone wants to view Nietzsche, and in so far as interpretations go I do not care whether anyone thinks there is only one interpretation, the sheer number of recognized interpretations in the Nietzschesphere already discounts that opinion to worthless, those people are literally offering worthless opinions, when you see that here you can just ignore it without even bothering with a response.

Insofar as the rest of the argument is concerned, the anon who is claiming that Nietzsche wrote inflammatory things regardless has a point, and this is usually one of the easiest ways to spot someone who isn't actually much for Nietzsche beyond completing whatever larp is in their head, if the only Nietzsche someone can summon are his inflammatory remarks then that person isn't likely interested in Nietzsche but rather just interested in whatever larp is being affirmed for them. The issue also becomes one that can be abstracted to say whether we should discard all thinkers and authors who made inflammatory statements at some point, and if that is how someone is gauging this then that person isn't going to be left with much, and frankly Nietzsche is the last person this person should be looking into. I will also say this again, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks of Kaufmann, he has been around for so long and survived so many criticisms that his legacy in the Nietzschesphere is what it is, if Kaufmann bothers someone that badly then do a better version or stick to your own larp circle. With regards to his sister, almost everyone is in agreement that she altered and edited, how much or how little is of no concern to me, I have read his later works and I have read his madness letters, the letters are frankly a dead end for anyone other than as something of historical interest or pure curiosity. The Nazi's were unable to stop Nietzsche, and all subsequent attempts have made Nietzsche stronger.

[Anonymous No.23535119]

>>23534610
Sorry writing paragraphs of nonsense does help your point. Just because there was any negation does not make one a Hegelian. Your entire post is just a lengthy stretch
>>23534616
I'm aware that he was influenced by him, but being influenced by != being one

[Anonymous No.23535145]

>>23516794
Because they are dumb and antagonistic. This kind of philosophy is just colonialism and scientism achieved, while the institutionalized representatives are acting serious talking endless discussions about "meaning" etc. This whole thing was just waiting to fall into Derridianism, which it did LOL.

[Anonymous No.23535318]

>>23535119
No, he is Hegelian because he endorses the lord/bondsman (or literally master/slave) dialectic and sublation when he presents his own master/slave dialectic with its own sublation. Not even surprising that you have low reading comprehension on posts on /lit/, that's not going to get you far reading philosophy. Shame.
>!=
This is not a good shibboleth to use in a philosophical expertise discussion.

[Anonymous No.23535320]

Your mom goes to college

[Anonymous No.23535325]

>>23517706
Based

[Anonymous No.23535357]

>>23535318
This is what I find so annoying about Hegelians, maybe you are one or not I have no idea, but your entire point is that because he was inspired and and borrowed certain analogies makes Nietzsche Hegelian is absolutely stupid. I guess because I'm engaging in a dialectic with you makes me a Hegelian too? Fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.23535418]

>>23535357
No, it's not about just "dialectic" in some Socratic sense. It's literally the master/slave dialectic that Hegel devotes a section to that Nietzsche is lifting up straight from the Phenomenology of Spirit, together with the idea of sublation as a third moment after two earlier moments in a Hegelian triad, since the ubermensch sublates the master and slave both. This is not that hard to track and follow, what's there to dispute about this? Nobody is saying Nietzsche was a Hegelian in whatever specifically-German-Idealist sense you are using the term. Words don't matter, but meanings do, and the meaning I intended is not an inaccurate one to attribute to Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.23535445]

>>23535119
That is a fair point, I would agree on this, he managed to differentiate and reconcile most of the aspects he was influenced by in such a way that referring to Nietzsche as directly Hegelian isn't necessarily accurate, that aside, there are certain aphorisms he did not bother to reconcile or differentiate, which does leave the door open for claiming Hegelian influence. It is not something I encounter often but there is validity to the claim of being influenced by Hegel, even if he was not Hegelian, and I am not referring to master/slave since Nietzsche was able to make differentiation on this.

[Anonymous No.23535480]

>>23535418
Doesn't the master in the Hegelian dialectics end up depending on the slave and the slave becomes a sort of ''higher figure'' for the master, whereas there is none of that in Nietzsche? I can't recall the Ubermensch being a sublation of the two, or Nietzsche's pointing of master morality as something which has its problems.

[Anonymous No.23535549]

>>23535418
>>23535480
Hegel: master/slave: 2 meet and the master is willing to go until death, the slave subordinates. As this progresses the slave is able to understand, actualize, and acquire the skills to become a master. This makes the master more dependent on the slave, and at some point the master will need to acquire more slaves, when there are no more slaves to acquire then the master being willing to go to death loses distinction and the 2 coalesce.

Nietzsche: master/slave/ubermensch: the slave is not able to do what they want, the master is. The master is willing to go to death. The 2 are in constant competition and are never able to gain complete victory one way or another. Slaves can trick or force masters into surrendering this status. There is no coalescion, the reconciliation is an Ubermensch which is more life affirming than the master and able to perform better utilitarian morality than the slaves, and also has the highest order will to power.

[Anonymous No.23536066]

>>23535549
So not alike?
>the reconciliation is an Ubermensch which is more life affirming than the master and able to perform better utilitarian morality than the slaves, and also has the highest order will to power
Where is this in Nietzsche?
Ubermensch as paragon of a ''better'' utilitarian morality? What the fuck am I reading?

[Anonymous No.23536235]

>>23536066
Well, in Hegel's version the master and slave coalesce, and there is also a notion that the master at some point becomes more dependent on the slave, with the outcome being they essentially achieve parity. In Nietzsche's version there is perpetual conflict that is unresolvable, and Nietzsche describes masters losing status by way of trickery or force, which is not quite equal to Hegel's notion of the master becoming more dependent, at least to me, but I suppose that is something for interpretation.

To your point, Nietzsche liked to use the word synthesize in his later works when referring to the Ubermensch. I will also mention that the anti-Kaufmann crowd now has a point of validation at least insofar as this topic is concerned since Kaufmann tried to sanitize Nietzsche's frequent mentions of the Ubermensch being a superior 'species' of human. This is further complicated by the fact that Nietzsche oscillates between inherent capacity and the need to complete the revaluation and makes mention of a new sort of aristocracy emerging from the previous surplus and expendable men of society cast into isolation, which logically entails that there need not be an inherent capacity involved. The 'better utilitarian morality' part is my attempt to paraphrase and you will not find those words anywhere in Nietzsche to my knowledge, so perhaps it was a poor use of language. At any rate, in WtP aphorism 866 he mentions that the Ubermensch will have to excel at all which includes the precondition of the reduction to a machine since this is the only way he will be able to devise his superior mode of existence. Later on in WtP he bashes John Stuart Mill and the utilitarians, as well as optimistic economy advocates, and does another oscillation, since he had previously incorporated the notion of man as a machine and simultaneously lambasted leading advocates of it he also makes mention of how the superior man would have to master epicurean thinking in regards to virtue and pleasure even though Nietzsche also says he hates these things, because the ubermensch will have to rely not only on the opposition of the masses but also the support of the masses, in addition to this the old moral values will have to be thrown out and the superior men will be the new creative sorts disbursing new moral codifications to the masses, which means the revaluation of values has to occur. Now, as an Epicurean I will go ahead and profess that some of the most astute architects of slave moralities in history have fallen under Epicurean thinking, and that includes notable utilitarians, Marxists, and other sorts of 'economically optimistic' sorts as Nietzsche would call them. That aside, Nietzsche is saying the revaluation has to happen and that the superior species will have to become a machine and be a master of all, and will need both the opposition of and support of the masses. So at this point, I will pose a dilemma to you, can an Ubermensch exist at all? Need another post

[Anonymous No.23536251]

>>23536235
Can an ubermensch exist at all? So if one performs the revaluation and only becomes life affirming then they are a master. There is nothing ubermensch about them, and this leads to the sort of watered down Randian crap that made ubermensch a sort of parody and farce, anyone who is just doing something they claim to want to do is now an Uber mensch. The reality is that if there is no standard for providing a superior morality then there can only be masters and slaves, which Nietzsche was seemingly aware of in his aphorisms, which is likely why he mentions the need to provide a superior morality, so Nietzsche is basically saying the Ubermensch reconciliation only works if the superior species does both, otherwise we are still stuck at masters and slaves. In a number of works he mentions the ubermensch will possess the highest order will to power of all. So, in my mind the only way the ubermensch reconciliation works is if there is actually a superior revaluation that occurs, to this end, if there is no logical resolution available then I would be obligated to admit Nietzsche probably didn't get as far as he may have thought, but his writings do indicate he took it that far, so I am still left with my assessment that ubermensch are incredibly rare.

[Anonymous No.23536325]

>>23516794
Because German idealism exists

[Anonymous No.23536539]

>>23536325
There it is, thread over. Kant is god.