[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 17 KB, 480x360, hqdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5057961 No.5057961[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Continental philosophy vs Analytical Philosophy

Which is better? which should I study? which is more respected?

>> No.5057963

Study both you fuckstain, why would you not study one or the other?

Neither are respected
They're both great

>> No.5057972

>>5057961

I reject this question outright as meaningless and unproductive.

It seems obvious to me that certain methods and styles are more appropriate for one category of philosophical questions and a different set of methods and styles for another.

I wouldn't dare do political philosophy in modal logic, and I wouldn't try to discuss the ontology of mathematical objects with words like "beingness."

>> No.5057983

>>5057961
analytical philosophy is boring

>> No.5057989

>>5057961
Both are retarded, but in different ways.

>> No.5058013

>>5057983

Analytic philosophy is boring if and only if you're boring.

>> No.5058095

>>5057961
"Which one is better"?
It depends of what you are searching for... and tbh, if i like continental i'll tell you continental is better, you shouldnt base your opinions on ours.

"Which is the more respected"? Well it depends again. Analytics is more respected in english countries like England, USA, english-speaking parts of Canada, while Continentals is more respected in Europe (i am talking in general, sure there's some great continental school in usa).

It is also a difficult question because there is nothing as such as continental philosophy. Continental philo is an insult made by analytics philosophers. It regroup very different kind of philosophy like : German idealism, existentialism, phenomenology, hermeneutics, critical theory, deconstruction, feminism, structuralism, etc. that have nothing in common (exemple, critical theory and phenomenology have nothing in common, and sometimes oppose themselves). I wont talk about analytics, because i don't study it.

But you should make your opinion on your own interests : why are you interested in philo? Is it to answer some questions about your existence, meaning of life, or maybe to developpe your arguments and logic. Do you care about liberal politics, or you are more into communism? You must first find your own questions, your own interest and then you can choose analytic/continental. So i'd suggest you to listen to stuff like continental is better, analytic is shit blah blah blah. Do you wanna understand Being with Heidegger, history with Hegel or are you more interested in epistemology of Popper, language with Wittgenstein. That's the real question (i'm sure, even tho i don't know much analytic, both are great depending of why you engaged in a philosophical path of existence).

Sorry, i am not english (as you could see). Hope i help.

>> No.5058236

>>5057963
b-because Russell talked down to Nietzsche and other Continental philosophers in his History of Western Philosophy!

>> No.5058239

>>5058013
>if and only if
>not using iff
pleb

>> No.5058259

>>5058236

While that chapter on Nietzsche is delightfully entertaining, it's more because I have an affinity for exactness, high standards of proof and well-defined terminology.

Otherwise I feel that there is entirely too much room for interpretation such that no two people have the same understanding of Heidegger et al.

>> No.5058268

>>5058259
yuck

>> No.5058308

>>5058268

The way mathematicians and logicians can build whole universises of spaces, numbers and structural relationships out of small lists of axioms about simple objects is nothing short of extraordinary.

That does not mean that more continental traditions are without their own mysterious and awesome capabilities.

I just think it's a loss to go through life without having studied at least some math/logic. It's very unique stuff. The downside to it is that you have devote an enormous amount of time to studying it before you begin to sense its depth, mystery, beauty and power.

>> No.5058321

>>5058308
formal logic and maths are fascinating! of course!

but the concern over there being a universal understanding of a writer like heidegger worries me

>> No.5058342
File: 65 KB, 1014x548, Untitled.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5058342

>>5058321

Room for interpretation is of course not a bad thing, and "ability to communicate a universal message" is not a criteria with which to judge a work of philosophy necessarily.

But this is not a simple binary matter.

Let's say the diagram on the left represents 4 basic interpretations of a text. Since most people seem to share a sense of what the text actually says (intersection of A, B, C), then I think it's conveying an idea that is meaningful.

Take an extreme example on the right. The disparate interpretations suggest to me that this work would not be valuable, since nobody can agree on what it actually means.

A text can be anywhere between the example on the right and a perfect harmony of understanding (the likes of which you find in math).

>> No.5058353

>>5058342
If I suck at math (I'm not btw) will I be terrible at logic?

>> No.5058362

>>5057961
> Which is better?
It's not very smart to claim either superior because they cover mostly different fields
> which should I study
If you don't have background in German Idealism and Phenomelogy, Analytic Philo is easier and taught more widely due to domiance of English culture: if you value accessibility and pragmatism, analytic is a better choice.
> which is more respected?
By common populace? Analytics.
By academia in English speaking world? Analytics.
By academia in French and German speaking world? Continentals.
By social science and humanist academia? Continentals.
By hard science and mathematics academia? Analytics.
By applied science "academia"? Neither.
By /lit/? Continentals if you are good in rhetorics, otherwise analytics.

>> No.5058369

>>5058362
>By academia in French and German speaking world?
>Continentals.
naw, a few of my friends study philosophy at the Sorbonne and they hardly ever touched continental philo. they study analytic, as does most of their classmates.

>> No.5058374

>>5058353
Probably not, if you manage to understand set theory.

>> No.5058385

>>5058362
>pragmatism

tell me of all the great practical consequences of analytic philosophy as opposed to marxism/post-idealism

truth: there are none

>> No.5058387

>>5057961
Continental gets you bitches, so continental.

>> No.5058392

>>5058362
Germany is analytic central anon. Continental Philosophy basically means french philosophy, it's because the arrogant fuckers refuse to translate anything in or out of french.

>> No.5058411

>>5058353

I think high school math is a bad characterization of what modern math actually is.

Skill with computation often coincides with skill in the abstract thinking needed to do proofs, but certainly not always.

Math thinking is really quite unique though, it's not achieved in words or with numbers... It's structural and relational in a highly abstract way. I'd say it's more like playing chess (or doing chess problems especially) than adding sums in your head.

Finally, I want to stress that math is much less about genius insight than it is about training your mind to think in a particular way, which means practice, patience, practice and more patience.

99% of the time you're racking your brain to try and understand something that seems incomprehensible, which makes it different than say reading history, where each fact is quickly absorbed and situated. But the 1% of the time when you're having "Aha!" moments is incredibly rewarding.

Also, generally speaking logic is a branch/subset of math.

>> No.5058427

>>5058411
Speaking of chess, would you want to play a game?

>> No.5058438

>>5058392
But German Idealism! Nietzche! Heidegger!

>> No.5058446

post-Rorty, is this even a debate worth having?

Not that it ever was, but his influence has cooled things down, looking at Brandom and McDowell and continentals getting into Sellars now

>> No.5058455

>>5058392
Not really. Hermeneutics and Critical Theory are very important in Germany. You can easily think of Habermas, the biggest german philosophical figure alive, that represent both of those traditions.
There is a huge importance of hermeneutics in history of philosophy, and most of todays expert in Greek philo are Gadamerian experts.
Continental have also influenced english philosophers, like Rorty, italian like Vattimo, and i heard spanish-speaking countries are into Hermeneutics and Gadamer.

I heard that the last years, France have been more and more into analytics philosophy, but still remains very close to continental philo.
Even north america have a lot of important continental figure, like Charles Taylor (that first studied analytics philosophy, but now is more into Hegel, Heidegger, Gadamer).
And i think analytics is kinda dead, that there is something called post-analytics philosophy, but i dont know enough about it to speak.

>> No.5058468

>>5058455
>And i think analytics is kinda dead
Kripke and co said hi.

>> No.5058891

>>5058353
you need A in real analysis anon

>> No.5058902

>>5058455
you have no idea what you're talking about

>> No.5058924

>>5058095
Great post.

>> No.5058954

>>5058455
>France is becoming more "analytical"
>North America is becoming more "continental"

Gee, it's almost as if the strict dichotomy between the two is bullshit and influential philosophers are simply inlfuential philosophers!

>> No.5058958

How did Nietzsche achieve such a voluminous 'stache?

>> No.5059011

>>5057963
>History, or Black History?
>"Study both you fuckstain, why would you not study one or the other?"

Sorry, but some things are just objectively a waste of time. Continental philosophy is one of those things.

>> No.5059014

>>5057961

Analytic philosophy is boring as fuck.

>> No.5059019

>>5057983
Most things are boring when you can't understand them, yes.

To me, continental philosophy is boring because it's all so predictable. I ask myself: 'If I were a (German|British) social outcast, living in the (17th|18th|19th|early 20th) century, and I were reeeallly fucking stoned, what kind of nonsense would I spout?' And 99% of the time, I can predict what they're gonna say before they say it.

>> No.5059021

>>5057989

This. Continental philosophy is schizophrenic, while Analytic philosophy is autistic.

>> No.5059033

>>5058387
This.

>> No.5059051

>>5058387
i lost my faith in continental philosophy when i saw how many bitches i got from it and how many stupid people i was surrounded with who were interested in it

i still read that shit alone and talk to professors in office hours but fuck it attracts the worst people

>> No.5059065

>>5058387
Yes, continental gets you bitches. So you learn how to BS it well enough to bang 'em---takes about 30 minutes if you're not retarded.

But for your OWN usage, when you're not trying to impress people, that's what analytic's for

>> No.5059071

>>5059021
In psychology, both those conditions have similar symptoms...

>> No.5059079

>>5057961
The divide isn't what it used to be. A lot of contemporary philosophers engage with both traditions.

>> No.5059240

Ancient Philosophy

>> No.5059343

>>5058902
Well, can you please tell me what is wrong with what i said? I was only talking about the influence and importance of continental philosophy (without dismissing anything from analytic). So please, tell me what is so wrong.

>>5058954
I think its a good thing. Ricoeur was more and more interested in analytic philosophy and the end of his career, while analytic begin to have an original interpretation of Hegel. It's good that those two traditions begin to dialogue with each other.

>>5059011
To say continental is "objectively" wrong is a bit naive. I suggest you to read some continental philosophy, so you would stop using words you don't know, like subject/object. Dismissing a tradition because it doesn't follow the same criteria as yours was never a good thing in ideas history

>> No.5059370
File: 42 KB, 350x533, Epistemic-authority.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5059370

>>5057961


i tend towards the continentals (except the frogs, fuck them) cause i love me some teutonic gentlemen, but im really digging the virtue epistemology/embodies cognition developments in contemporary analytics.

>> No.5059381

>>5059370
>virtue epistemology/embodies cognition
Wtf did I just read?
Can you explain this to me better

>> No.5059391

>>5057961
>implying Nietzsche isn't in a realm of his own
Fuck both, just study Nietzsche.

>> No.5059534

>>5059391
Continental philosophy is centered over the three german H (Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger) Freud and Nietzsche. Most of continental philosophy is strongly Nietzschean : Bataille, Foucault, Heidegger, Derrida, Adorno, etc. were all A LOT influenced by Nietzsche. Nietzsche is one of the most important figure of continental philosophy.

>> No.5059562

It's all trash. Classical and Eastern are the way to go.

>> No.5059570

Both are important and both should be studied. Analytic philosophy is generally better respected in English-speaking countries. It is much more coherent when it comes to epistemology and the philosophy of science. Continental philosophy has much more to say about the meaning of life, the absurdity of existence, and literary theory

>> No.5059577
File: 245 KB, 1024x689, worlds_saddest_dog_03.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5059577

>>5059562

>> No.5059680

>>5059562
The thing is, Classical philosophy will always be interpreted through the continental/analytic debate. The way we perceive philosophy history take for granted some concepts, inherited by analytic or continental philosophy. You can't ignore the debate, even in classical philosophy.

>> No.5059773
File: 333 KB, 1680x1050, 1401229619605.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5059773

What's the difference? (I'm not /lit/)

>> No.5059808

>>5059773
continental is a pretentious feminist hipster with dyed hair who does shitty drugs and believes everything is relative and subjective, man, whereas analytical is a scruffy manlet in a fedora who doesnt where deodorant but believes in science and has a poster of the periodic table as decoration in his apartment

>> No.5059812

>>5059808
>doesnt where deodorant

>> No.5059829

>>5059808
>All analytical philosophy is logical positivism
>Continentals are occupiers and tumblr

Uh... have you ever visited a philosophy department?

>> No.5059858
File: 122 KB, 625x818, continental philosophy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5059858

>Continental philosophy

>> No.5059871
File: 831 KB, 651x2881, le philosophy defender.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5059871

>>5057961

>> No.5059921

>>5057961
mod please ban all underage posters, i.e. everyone who contributed to this thread
sage of course

>> No.5059947

>>5059381


Two currents of philosophy that I'm interested in expressing themselves through the analytic tradition/context, neo-aristotelianism from the thomists (virtue epistemology as solution/obviation to inhereted foundationalist snarls of positivism or enlightenment ethics [eg, deontology or consequetialism can be expressed in terms of virtue, but not the converse]), and extended/embodied consciousness from cognitive psych (there's some obvious Heidegger influence here in terms of phenomenology and being in-der-welt-sein)

>> No.5059961

>>5059871
that is hilarious

more please

>> No.5060001

>>5059858
What the fuck? How can anyone look at that and think that it's a good argument? What the fuck?

>> No.5060014

>>5059871

>good philosophy is popper, putnam and kripke
>wittgenstein is an analytic
>put derrida, foucault and deleuze in the same sack with adorno and zizek

i recommend you to dig further

>> No.5060089

>>5059858

Jesus Christ this is such garbage. It's so bad that it calls into question Irigaray's entire body of work.

I simply cannot trust a thinker who finds such lines of "reasoning" appropriate.

>> No.5060095

>>5057961
You should study both, because both are filled with works produced by very talented minds

>> No.5060124

I asked some philosophy professors before I enrolled in my university what they thought of continental (the school only has 1 official unit in it) - they said that they thought analytics were better at continental philosophy than continental philosophers were.

>> No.5060195

>>5060001
>>5060089
Keep in mind that it is Nagel being quoted quoting Irigaray. Also, there is a single paragraph framed by a narrative seemingly purposed toward discrediting a group of people, not a view that they hold. It wouldn't be surprising if it were taken out of context.

Even more fundamentally, equations can be written many different ways. 12 can be written as (3 * 4) and "twelve" and (10 + 2) and (53 - 41) and sqrt(144). Perhaps the original point is energy can be defined in terms of something not perceived as masculine, a revaluation, and not because the formula is wrong or unimportant, but because it is a metaphor for patriarchal discourse which states things in masculine ways that could be formulated otherwise.

I personally don't find the excerpt appealing, especially given the seeming anti-science feel, but there is probably more to it than just that.

>> No.5060216

>>5057961
The one that has more metaphysics.

>> No.5060248

>>5057961

Study whatever you're interests led you to study. Odds are, whatever your philosophical interests, there are philosophers on both "sides" that have insightful things to say. Very few people in the discipline really care about the distinction anymore (not to mention it's pretty much impossible to define the boundary between the two). The only people who care about it are either elderly or naive new philosophy students who want to be really passionate about something. Different figures are respected to varying degrees by different philosophers. There isn't really a consensus on which ought to be most highly respected.

Anyone here who criticizes one or the other isn't going to be able to give you any good criticisms. It's always just going to be X is boring/stupid because I say so. It's ultimately an excuse to be lazy and laziness will lead you to make silly claims like >>5058385 who apparently has no familiarity with applied ethics or logic and the ways in which they've impacted everyone's lives.

>> No.5061334

>>5060124
well duh. analytics were autistic about subject matter but no longer. so the one edge continentals could legitimately claim in the 50's or whatever is no more.

>> No.5061570

>>5060195
This line of reasoning is logocentric in itself however - it's superimposing a centre of meaning upon the text in extending an aesthetic interpretation into the domain of empirical claims about reality. The only way to support this argument is to accept the premise that reality is entirely constructed by signifiers in our consciousness, which is epistemologically sketchy.

To quote Sturrock here:
"The metaphysics of presence presumes that whatever is present to us is wholly and immediately so, grasped in an act of pure intuition which has no recourse to signs. Presence precedes signification. If this were the case, however, it is hard to see how we could be conscious of it, since consciousness does have recourse to signs. Presence, according to Derrida, can never be immediate therefore, only mediated by language"

It's the second last premise which must be rejected - yet the 'core' and in my opinion most important parts of Derrida's theory can still be applied while being kept at harmony with analytic philosophy. Sweetman's first critique of Derrida - that he confuses aesthetics for metaphysics - resides on rejecting the premise above. Also, this is a side point but even though I agree there is no 'fixed meaning' of signifiers in theory, but psychology plays its part and dictates 'strong' to 'weak' signifier relations.

>> No.5061589

>>5061570
(cont)
I essentially agree with the idea that you can have a metaphor about the syntax of mathematics signify things about the syntax of propositions, and thus propositions related to feminist concerns, but I don't think that's at all what the passage describes, even in its original context.

>> No.5061614

>>5059051
>i lost my faith in continental philosophy when i saw how many bitches i got from it
kek

>> No.5061618
File: 108 KB, 262x303, callingbullshit.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5061618

>>5059534
>Adorno, etc. were all A LOT influenced by Nietzsche

>> No.5061642
File: 100 KB, 347x347, 3 face.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5061642

>>5061618
no but shutup tho everybody in the history of philosophy ever was influenced by Nietzsche, even plato. Let Nietzsche into your heart. Accept him as your lord and saviour. When Whitehead talked about 'footnotes on Plato' he really meant 'footnotes on Nietzsche'

>> No.5061660

>>5061642
er... fuck you?

>> No.5061696

>>5061660
>Responding to this guy still

Philosophy faggots really need to be banned. How can they be so fucking stupid.

>> No.5061708

>>5058446
He's just another post-positivist hack who failed to understand Wittgenstein.

>> No.5061718

>>5061696
I was being sarcastic too - I'm sick of Nietzsche faggots of course. Poe's law or something I guess.

>> No.5061721

>>5060195

I think attributing 'masculine' or 'feminine' to non-social or biological abstract concepts is in itself the bullshit in the argument, not the implied critique of physics (which is also bullshit)

Saying 12 is more 'feminine' than 3*4 because "12 is a nice soft number but 3*4 is a big meenie equation" is fundamentally bullshit in that it attributes gender and gender roles to abstract non-gendered concepts

>> No.5061748

>>5059947
>being in der welt sein
>being sein
>"being being"

>> No.5061875

>>5061721

>>5061570 here, totally agree; basically a rephrasing of what I was talking about. That is, '3*4 is a big meaning equation but 12 is a nice soft number' is certainly an aesthetic interpretation - and one that's legitimate to make, given that you can aesthetically interpret anything to be anything if you want to. However, it is a category error to mistake one of these aesthetic judgements for empirical or metaphysical truth.
So are judgements of '12 is feminine' bullshit nonetheless even when they don't claim metaphysical or empirical truth? The motivation to make such interpretations come from the emotional stimulus of having a victimization complex etc. so I don't actually think these sort of interpretations would exist if people wouldn't fallaciously want to transpose them into a metaphysical/empirical realm to try and further a feminist argument. Other interpretations like ones saying that a text aesthetically mirrors philosophy (e.g. like that diagonalization/Godell's incompleteness theorems and Derrida's deconstruction are analogous, or Lacan's comment about the imaginary phallus and imaginary numbers, although these aren't just limited to mathematics) seem basically harmless to me and just further what Derrida calls the 'play' of signs. However, arguments making the move from aesthetics to metaphysics are in actuality poison to play, yet disguised as it.

The one good feminist response I've gotten from a description of my endorsements from aesthetic post-structuralism talked about (among fallacious complaints about how it's a negative philosophy that contributes nothing to the world) how these readings aren't pointless if they have empirical evidence to back it up. SJW arguments that are empirical don't fall under the fire range of this criticism - what does is other aesthetic interpretations about similar subject matters that are defended for being similar to empirical arguments, with the whole thing being a rationalization of a stance that's born from appeal to emotion.

With that said, I think there's certainly points of intersection between Analytic and Continental philosophy. One should read both (though I'd argue analytic first so you see continental through analytic lenses), assess what they agree and disagree with and then try to form a 'synthesis' (to ironically borrow from Hegel) of both. As Analytics might say, they're certainly contraries but not necessarily contradictions. So while analytic is slightly dominant in universities due to the perceived rigour, you can pick and choose which parts of Continental can be compatible with analytic or supported by it. I guess this might seem like a bit of a generalization due to analytic being the continuation of what the enlightenment started, and continental being a group of schools that are reactionary to that, but I did just show how you could adjust some continental to be in line with analytic reasoning, so it's certainly true of Derrida's post-structuralism at least.

>> No.5061886

>>5059871
lol

>> No.5062035

>>5061875

I'd agree with you about the bullshit of the continental interpretation of metaphysical or logical concepts on aesthetic grounds, but I'd take you one further (and bring in some aesthetic philosophy) and argue that even those aesthetic judgements are themselves bullshit

Given the fundamental subjectiveness of aesthetics, the entire concept of interpreting anything aesthetically is so relativistic and determined by the perspective of the viewer that it's essentially meaningless to make any sort of aesthetic judgement and claim it as objectively true or false. If a feminist claims 12 is 'feminine' and (as you say) are making an aesthetic claim rather than a logical or metaphysical one, then they're still saying nothing more than "I interpret 12 as aesthetically feminine". Their opinion contains no more meaningful information about the nature of the world than if I said "I think 12 is boring" or "I think 12 looks a bit strange"

Essentially I'd conclude continental philosophy is nothing more than stating your opinion

>> No.5062218

I don't even begin to understand a name "continental philosophy". What does it even mean? Are Anglo-Saxons unable to make a distinction between for instance German Idealism and Critical Theory? Some of these philosophical traditions have virtually no common point other than being from Europe.

>> No.5062527

Do you ever see analytics get buttfurious on /lit/?

How about continentals?

What does that tell you about the various short comings of either? Do you think there is an asymmetry there?

>> No.5062541

>>5061875
>I guess this might seem like a bit of a generalization due to analytic being the continuation of what the enlightenment started, and continental being a group of schools that are reactionary to that
[citation needed]

>> No.5062568
File: 436 KB, 498x516, analytic philosophy fedora neckbeard euphoria.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5062568

>>5058013
Oh please. If I wanted to study math I'd study math.

>> No.5062738

>>5057961
Analytic is shit.

>> No.5063321

I find "analytic" philosophy much easier to read coming from a pure mathematics background, at least. the "continental" stuff isn't clear to me.

>> No.5063573

>>5063321
Just wait until you try reading Dummett. He'll make you wish you were reading Being and Time.

>> No.5063647

>>5061721
Well, that's what I'm saying is exactly what I think is NOT going on here. As I haven't actually read the source material, I can't really give a fair assumption; however, I believe it isn't really about the equation or the math at all, but rather it is using the technical language of physics and the situation of behind the formulation of special relativity (please see the irony in this specific example) as an analogue to the way arbitrary language is used to signify perhaps neutral and even fundamental concepts in a loaded way.

>>5061570
No, I wouldn't say that the line of reasoning requires an idealistic reality; quite the opposite actually. In that the very dialogue of science being framed in terms of mathematics, and mathematics being a language consisting of arbitrary terms applied to not so arbitrary concepts (whether you take truth to be a correspondence or a coherence) the analogue between natural language and the formula is more readily apparent. You can say "Jim's Wife," "Susan's Daughter," "My childhood friend," or simply "Catherine," but while each may have the same referent they all carry different baggage with them extraneous to the referent itself but coming rather from context.

>> No.5063731

>>5063573
What texts by Dummett would you say are harder than Being and Time?

>> No.5063769

>>5062035
I replied to your argument in my first paragraph - the only reason one would think that interpretations of 'signifier play' is bullshit is because the pragmatic effects that stem from it. If we had the signifier play without the pragmatics, then I doubt anyone would make interpretations that themselves are born from pragmatic concerns.
>>5062568
10/10
>>5063647
Either I agree with what you're saying but I don't think it's shown in the text at all, or you're just trying to dodge my criticism by explaining it in a different way.

Assuming the latter - "Jim's wife", "Catherine", etc. all carry different baggage - this is true. However, the only way to identify whether the intention of the speaker actually correlates with your interpretation of it is to empirically search for that information. So while we can interpret e=mc^2 as an equation signifying patriarchal dominance aesthetically, to make an empirical claim about how the equation functions in reality we must show the psychological evidence - e.g. That people are actually oppressed by using this equation, that it subconsciously functions to do that, etc. Which I would hypothesize would not be shown. When we have words that have different connotations in different contexts being used frequently in natural language we can easily gather empirical evidence about the 'baggage' it contains on the other hand. But a similar (it works the same way, through signifier play) Freudian claim like "X referring to Y as his childhood friend shows that he is infatuated with his past, and so must be the source of some trauma" doesn't work in the same way, because you don't have empirical evidence to know that. Basically, in making the move from aesthetics to metaphysics one makes a slightly rephrased version of a category error between correlation and causation.