The Greatest Living Philosopher

File: 5 KB, 194x260, kripke.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The Greatest Living Philosopher Anonymous Mon Sep 29 02:29:31 2014 No.5501950 [Reply] [Original]

Who is the greatest living philosopher?

I suggest Saul Kripke.
>Kripke was labelled a prodigy, having taught himself Ancient Hebrew by the age of six, read the complete works of Shakespeare by nine, and mastered the works of Descartes and complex mathematical problems before finishing elementary school. He wrote his first completeness theorem in modal logic at the age of 17, and had it published a year later. After graduating from high school in 1958, Kripke attended Harvard University and graduated summa cum laude obtaining a bachelor's degree in mathematics. During his sophomore year at Harvard, Kripke taught a graduate-level logic course at nearby MIT. Upon graduation (1962) he received a Fulbright Fellowship, and in 1963 was appointed to the Society of Fellows.

>Kripke's contributions to philosophy include:
>Kripke semantics for modal and related logics, published in several essays beginning while he was still in his teens.
>His 1970 Princeton lectures Naming and Necessity (published in 1972 and 1980), that significantly restructured philosophy of language.
>His interpretation of Wittgenstein.
>His theory of truth.
>He has also contributed to set-theory (see admissible ordinal and Kripke-Platek set theory)

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 02:30:15 2014 No.5501954 how do you master descartes? he's not a technique

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 02:32:38 2014 No.5501961 >>5501954 master1 ˈmɑːstə/ verb past tense: mastered; past participle: mastered 1. acquire complete knowledge or skill in (a subject, technique, or art).

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 02:53:04 2014 No.5502019 >not Zizek Step it up, capitalist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 02:57:41 2014 No.5502031 >>5501950 sounds like a massive tool whose contributions will be forgotten before his body is cold

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 02:59:54 2014 No.5502037 >>5502019 and steven colbert ist the greates journalist in the world

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:00:26 2014 No.5502042 >>5502031 Why? He is the most influential philosopher since Wittgenstein,

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:01:06 2014 No.5502045 yeah prodigies are almost always overrated they are masters of imitation and little else like anyone else, it takes years and years of practice and rigorous working to develop a unique and personal skillset sounds like this guy hasn't done that

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:01:20 2014 No.5502046 >>5502042 FOR YOU

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:01:36 2014 No.5502048 >>5502042 probably depends on how you define influential. Wittgenstein and Kripke were very influential to other philosophers but Rawls and Rorty probably had more influence on politics and culture.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:02:41 2014 No.5502051 File: 36 KB, 666x408, philosophy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5502045 Real philosophy isn't personal.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:03:26 2014 No.5502052 >>5502045 Um.....

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:04:45 2014 No.5502057 >>5502051 name one philosopher who isn't personal in their work

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:05:03 2014 No.5502058 >>5502048 What do politics and culture have to do with this? I'm talking about philosophy as an academic discipline.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:05:42 2014 No.5502059 >>5502051 >strawman: the image >is a Wittgensteinian >claims philosophy isn't personal Top fucking kek. >>5502057 Kripke and other boring analytics in need of a speech therapist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:05:55 2014 No.5502060 >>5502052 was this meant to do something?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:06:04 2014 No.5502061 >>5502057 Define personal. We may be thinking of different things.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:07:13 2014 No.5502064 >>5502059 Actually that image is based more on Nietzsche and Russell. I'll assume you've read History of Western Philosophy.

Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:08:32 2014 No.5502069
File: 46 KB, 339x398, Schopenhauer.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

He's nothing. A few books on logic to throw into the pile. Outstanding.

Like many prodigies, he failed to live up to his bright promise.

Still many levels above the average university educated cretin, but nothing meant to last across the generations. No magnum opus, no system, no value system.

Color me unimpressed.

Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:08:39 2014 No.5502070

>>5502058
That seems to me to be not a very useful way to frame it if you're trying to figure out who the greatest living philosopher is, or even the most influential living philosopher.

But if your scope is just "philosophy departments in universities," then sure, Kripke can win.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:08:51 2014 No.5502072 >>5502051 lol that image is a troll are you using it seriously?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:09:00 2014 No.5502073 I just listened to one of his lectures... does he have autism?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:10:11 2014 No.5502074 >>5502060 What you said has nothing to do wtih Kripke who has studied philosophy and logic for his entire life and produced a lot of original work

Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:10:43 2014 No.5502076

>>5502064
>Actually that image is based more on Nietzsche and Russell

Where did I claim it wasn't, and in what way is that relevant to anything I said?

>is an analyticfag cheerleader
>has no logic

Lol.

>>5502073

Autism is a prerequisite for analytic philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:11:48 2014 No.5502081 >>5502074 >philosophy and logic Just logic. His only non-logical work, Kripkenstein, is laughably bad. >mfw philosophers who can't into hermeneutics or structuralism

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:11:55 2014 No.5502085 >>5502074 The OP seemed to imply because he was a prodigy he is automatically important. Prodigal talent means nothing by itself. So what if he studied philosophy and logic his entire life? What has he got to show for it? Mediocre works.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:12:07 2014 No.5502086 >>5502076 Seriously, what's wrong with his voice? Is that like a disorder or what?

Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:12:14 2014 No.5502088

>>5502069
>No magnum opus
What is Naming and Necessity?

Please don't come to a discussion about philosophy and expect it to be about opinionists like Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.
>>5502070
It doesn't matter if a philosopher is influential politically in terms of philosophy. All that matters is their influence in their field of study.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:13:42 2014 No.5502092 >>5502081 Logic is the only important philosophical field of study. >>5502076 >Where did I claim it wasn't You called me Wittgensteinian

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:13:47 2014 No.5502093 >>5502088 >opinionists Who the fuck still believes in objective truth in 2014?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:14:42 2014 No.5502096 >>5502092 >Logic is the only important philosophical field of study. :^)

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:14:50 2014 No.5502097 >>5502085 He is the most influential philosopher alive today. That is what he has to show for it. >>5502076 >has no logic Logic is to be applied, you don't 'have' it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:14:54 2014 No.5502098 >>5502092 Actually, language is the only important philosophical field of study.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:15:44 2014 No.5502099 >>5502092 >Logic is the only important philosophical field of study. And what makes you claim this?

Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:15:55 2014 No.5502101

>>5502086

That's what happens when you spend your entire childhood and teens locked in your room so you can be a prodigy instead of talking to people.

>>5502092

>important

Prove it faggot.

>Wittgensteinian

Directed at whoever it was who said Kripke was 'the most important since Wittgenstein' which implicitly endorses Wittgenstein. Endorsing Wittgenstein and then claiming that philosophy isn't personal is about the most retarded thing you can do.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:15:57 2014 No.5502102 >>5502081 >>5502085 You can deprecate his work as much as you want but that doesn't change the fact that he's highly influential in his field

Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:16:35 2014 No.5502104

>>5502093
Logic and mathematics are objective truth. Nobody except Schopenhauer ever cared what Schopenhauer had to say about love, art, women or music. People just quote him to seem 'wise' whilst sharing nothing logically justifiable.
>>5502096
Name on other field, then.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:16:46 2014 No.5502106 >>5502097 >He is the most influential philosopher alive today. That is what he has to show for it. Based on what, your opinion?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:17:04 2014 No.5502107 >>5502101 Are you serious? I'm pretty sure he has a motor skill deficiency.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:17:11 2014 No.5502108 >>5502098 Actually, philosophy is the only important linguistic field of study. >>5502102 >highly influential in his field So are the Kardashians and Eminem. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:17:39 2014 No.5502109 >>5502098 Kek >>5502099 It is objectively true.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:17:48 2014 No.5502110 >>5502104 >Name on other field, then. >fields

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:18:29 2014 No.5502114 File: 25 KB, 242x283, influe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5502104 >bashing Schoppy whilst trying to defend a modern logician who barely passes muster as an actual philosopher you just went full retard m98

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:18:47 2014 No.5502115 >>5502108 >Actually, philosophy is the only important linguistic field of study. I see what you did there.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:18:50 2014 No.5502116 >>5502109 >It is objectively true. How so?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:18:52 2014 No.5502117 >>5502106 No, based on how much his work has been studied by his contemporaries. >>5502101 Are you saying Wittgenstein wasn't influential?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:19:25 2014 No.5502118 >>5502109 Prove it. >>5502117 Where did I say Wittgenstein wasn't influential? Learn to read, retard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:19:31 2014 No.5502119 >>5502108 Eminem is acutally a highly respected popular artist, so you try again, bitch.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:20:04 2014 No.5502120 >>5502114 Philosophy is useless without logic. >>5502116 It is the only field with truth value.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:20:26 2014 No.5502121 >>5502119 >missing the point He's still Eminem, you fucking mongoloid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:20:31 2014 No.5502122 >>5502120 >It is the only field with truth value. Expand upon this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:21:14 2014 No.5502127 >>5502118 Do you know what 'most important' means? >>5502122 Only logic and mathematics are objectively true. Mathematics is not philosophy, but logic is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:21:19 2014 No.5502128 >>5502121 I fail to see what's wrong with Eminem, dipshit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:21:34 2014 No.5502129 >>5502120 >Philosophy is useless without logic. Why?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:22:39 2014 No.5502131 File: 120 KB, 1177x437, 1409048485044.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5502051

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:22:41 2014 No.5502132 >>5502127 >Only logic and mathematics are objectively true. Mathematics is not philosophy, but logic is. Why is logic objectively true?

Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:22:55 2014 No.5502133

>>5502104

Schopenhauer pioneered double aspect theory you fucking autist

As in, the future of neuropsychology. In 1850.

Maybe if you had read (or even heard about) something other than his controversial works you'd show some fucking respect. Fourfold Root is worth more than all the 'philosophical literature' produced in the last 100 years put together, and it was a fucking doctoral dissertation he wrote in his early twenties. You have no idea how far above all of us these 19th and 18th century thinkers were. We are all living on the intellectual inheritance that has come directly down from them. Learn some fucking manners you adolescent swine.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:24:02 2014 No.5502136 >>5502128 That's why you're a mongoloid/12

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:24:44 2014 No.5502138 >>5502132 >>5502129 I'm not going to undercut your teachers, kid. >>5502133 18th and 19th century thinkers were like a bunch of Will Selfs. Glorified opinionists..

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:25:03 2014 No.5502140 >>5502131 I like you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:25:25 2014 No.5502141 >>5502138 >I'm not going to undercut your teachers, kid. aka I don't have the answers and I'm spouting drivel I haven't comprehended.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:26:07 2014 No.5502145 >>5502138 Master trole 2014 >>5502133 Neuroscience student here, just curious as to whether you know of secondary lit drawing out the implications of Schop for neuro?

Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:26:20 2014 No.5502146

>>5502132
>>5502129
I can see where this is going. Dipshit made the mistake of saying 'logic is true'. It's a tautology and unfalsifiable, there un-justifiable, and therefore not a piece of knowledge. Finding the proof for each statement there will go on into an infinite regress. tl;dr You can't analyze logic using logic. Stop.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:26:31 2014 No.5502147 File: 16 KB, 809x808, friday evening at pepe's.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] It's a shame he has Alzheimer's now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:26:54 2014 No.5502149 >>5502141 I do have the answers. They're quite simple, I'm surprised you can't understand it yourself. Maybe if I wrote a book pretending to be a prophet you'd spend more time trying to understand it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:27:43 2014 No.5502152 John Searle

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:27:49 2014 No.5502154 >>5502132 >>5502146 Is that where you were getting at? You can't make propositions about logic?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:28:29 2014 No.5502155 >>5501950 >read the complete works of Shakespeare by nine Even if somebody could read Shakespeare by nine, what would it be useful for? I mean noone knows what is love, what is sex at 9!.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:28:29 2014 No.5502156 >>5502136 I'm sorry you can't appreciate one of the greatest popular lyricists of our era

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:28:50 2014 No.5502157 >>5502152 Okay okay let's just calm down now. Put the Searle away and we'll forget this ever happened.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:29:02 2014 No.5502158 >>5502146 "logic is true" isn't a tautology what the sentence just doesn't really make sense if you're defining truth in terms of logical certainty

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:29:22 2014 No.5502160 >>5502149 Maybe just talk about them here

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:29:35 2014 No.5502162 >>5502155 Because if Kripke didn't read the complete works of Shakespeare by age nine 13 year old trolls couldn't make threads about him on 4chan.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:30:02 2014 No.5502164 Jurgen Habermas

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:30:04 2014 No.5502165 >>5502158 No I'm saying that the laws of logic are tautologies my apologies. A is true or not true for example. How can one prove that? It's unfalsifiable.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:30:36 2014 No.5502166 >>5502158 Certainty is part of epistemology, not logic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:31:29 2014 No.5502172 >>5502165 the law of excluded middle is pretty controversial you can prove it false by giving examples of sentences that are arguably neither true nor false "this sentence is false"

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:31:59 2014 No.5502174 >>5502165 >A is true or not true for example Graham Priest would disagree with you. >>5502172

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:32:12 2014 No.5502175 ITT: SIMPLETONS TRYING TO SPOUT PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS YOU ALL HAVE TRAILER TRASH MINDS GIVE UP

Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:32:41 2014 No.5502178

>>5502160
Your teachers are the ones who are paid to do that. I came here looking for smart people, but all I have found is a collection of brain dead children. This board has many varieties of children; continentals, socialists and Orthodox Christians, but you are the stupidest.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:32:43 2014 No.5502179 >>5502166 sure, but you can define "x is true" as "x is logically necessary given these premises", or a similar formulation

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:33:52 2014 No.5502181 >>5502164 No. Fuck off back to the 19th century.

Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:34:44 2014 No.5502184

>>5502179

Yes, but nobody said anything about any fucking premises. The question was about whether 'logic is true' ON ITS OWN is a tautology. It isn't even a tautology because 'logic' isn't a proposition.

>>5502181

>Habermas
>19th century

Now this is trolling.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:35:18 2014 No.5502187 File: 84 KB, 412x398, 002-178-45.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5502179 Do you even know what necessity is?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:35:20 2014 No.5502188 >>5502181 what's wrong with habermas?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:36:11 2014 No.5502189 >>5502188 He doesn't speak English, so analytic fags hate him no matter what.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:36:23 2014 No.5502190 >>5502172 >>5502174 Interesting.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:36:29 2014 No.5502191 >>5502184 >>Habermas >>19th century >Now this is trolling. I'm saying his ideas are outdated.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:36:40 2014 No.5502195 >>5502179 that'd be circular because necessity is defined with reference to truth

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:37:06 2014 No.5502198 >>5502178 ad hominems everywhere nice logic

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:37:26 2014 No.5502200 >>5502191 Which ones?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:37:43 2014 No.5502204 >>5502191 which ideas exactly?

Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:37:53 2014 No.5502206

>>5502145

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=schopenhauer+and+neuroscience&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=4AkpVIWkAY-SyASm1YDADA&ved=0CBsQgQMwAA

Scholarly articles are dug up easily enough. I've not been able to find many books on the subject yet, but I suspect they will begin to appear in the next decade.

Here are some good vids:

http://youtu.be/oZ3Z-Y99wW0

http://youtu.be/sIr22Puh1Wk

http://youtu.be/39S8nFA_50U

The gist of double aspect theory is that neurological activity is not the cause(!) of intellectual phenomena, but that these are two aspects of the same thing, taken from different perspectives, i.e. subjective first person and objective third person.

A very lazy example would be depression.

Psychology says clinical depression is correlated to or caused by low levels of a certain neurotransmitter (say dopamine)

Double aspect theory says there is no causal relationship between low dopamine and depressed mood, because these are the same thing. Hence why simply trying to put more dopamine into circulation does not fix the problem. The brain is fundamentally different from all other organs because of its connexion to consciousness. The materialistic account of consciousness can never be complete or accurate.

This is the best description I can manage at 4 am

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:38:42 2014 No.5502207 >>5502189 Languages are stupid. Only numbers matter. >>5502198 Do you even know what an ad hominem is?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:39:25 2014 No.5502210 >>5502207 >Do you even know what an ad hominem is? precisely what you are doing

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:39:46 2014 No.5502213 >>5502206 Serotonin. Otherwise that's very interesting. It sounds a bit like Australian Identity Theory.

Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:39:53 2014 No.5502215

>>5502200
>>5502204
Communicative rationality
Post-metaphysical philosophy
Discourse ethics
Deliberative democracy
Universal pragmatics
Communicative action
The structural transformation of the public sphere
The system–lifeworld distinction
Critique of subject-centered reason
Performative contradiction
Constitutional patriotism

Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:40:05 2014 No.5502216

>>5502172
Wouldn't 'this sentence is false' be a nonsensical sentence? Logic would still apply wouldn't it? A=this sentence: is either true or false.

Could it be like saying 'Pegasus doesn't exist'? If he doesn't exist, to name him in such a way and say he doesn't exist makes no sense. That sentence is neither true nor false; just nonsense. Can you help me by clarifying? It's very interesting.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:40:48 2014 No.5502218 >>5502215 How are they outdated?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:40:59 2014 No.5502220 >>5502210 So that's a no.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:41:01 2014 No.5502221 >>5502213 The leading theory changes every year, I can't keep track of it. But look into some of that stuff if you're interested.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:41:34 2014 No.5502226 >>5502215 thanks for listing all his ideas bud what about them is outdated

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:42:00 2014 No.5502228 >>5502218 Continental philosophy officially died around 1900.

Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:42:24 2014 No.5502232

>>5502216

It's a logical paradox. If the liar sentence is true, then it's false, and if it's false then it's true. Logicians have dealt with this in different ways, one of whom is Graham Priest who developed dialethism to deal with paradoxes of this sort.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:42:33 2014 No.5502234 >>5502220 it's a yes actually look back

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:43:26 2014 No.5502237 >>5502228 You are so fucking bad at arguing it's hilarious.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:43:41 2014 No.5502238 >>5502234 I never attacked the character of anyone.

Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:43:46 2014 No.5502239

>>5502216
certain philosophers do believe sentences that aren't true or false are nonsense, like logical positivists
the law of excluded middle fails because if the sentence is 1) true, then it is false and 2) false, then it is true
if it's either true or false, it generates an inescapable contradiction
you can say it's nonsense, but it doesn't seem like the sentence is hard to understand. you know full well what it means, and you also understand that it's not logically sound under standard logical systems

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:44:13 2014 No.5502242 >>5502232 Very cool. But has this theory disproven the law of the excluded middle? Or is there a debate going on still about it?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:44:48 2014 No.5502244 >>5502237 Nice cussing, you must be very smart.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:45:09 2014 No.5502247 >>5502228 so habermas's ideas are outdated exclusively because of the academic community they came from, and not because a speck of the actual content? interesting

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:45:33 2014 No.5502249 >>5502239 Yeah I was under that impression, but it is true(and very interesting) that these nonsensical sentences are perfectly understood by humans despite their vagueness and obvious paradoxical nature. Very cool.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:45:48 2014 No.5502250 >>5502242 Depends on whether you think 'this sentence is a lie' or 'how many grains in a pile of sand' are meaningful problems anybody should care about.

Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:46:38 2014 No.5502258

>>5502242
the debate is ongoing. it's hard to "disprove" a logical law, but there are a number of non-classical logical systems that don't use the law of excluded middle. some also drop the law of non-contradiction (Av~A but not both, aka A is not both true and false)

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:46:51 2014 No.5502259 >>5502221 >The leading theory changes every year No. But thanks for the links.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:47:31 2014 No.5502261 >>5502259 sorry, I meant the leading treatment, and every 6 months

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:47:45 2014 No.5502264 >>5502238 yes you did

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:47:51 2014 No.5502265 >>5502250 Anything involving language is something people should care about in my personal opinion. Anywhere I can read more about this? Any books or philosophers? This Graham Priest guy I assume?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:48:09 2014 No.5502267 >>5502264 No I didn't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:48:50 2014 No.5502271 >>5502267 yes you did look back

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:48:57 2014 No.5502272 >>5502258 Reading material for illogical logic stuff? Also general logic too.

Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:48:57 2014 No.5502273

>>5502249
the sentence isn't really vague (in the normal use of the word vague, at least)
none of the terms are confusing or unclear, and the sentence on the whole has a very clear meaning: it asserts its own falsity
if a sentence can assert the falsity of another sentence without being nonsensical, why can't it self-assert falsity and still be sensible? it's still sensible, just now it's paradoxical too

Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:49:31 2014 No.5502276

>>5502258

There's something like this in Buddhism actually, where something can be true, false, true and false, or neither true nor false.

>>5502265

Pick up Introduction to Non-Classical Logic, by Priest. it covers the history of these debates plus current theory.

I studied it last year, but my personal opinion is that it's trivial fluff (unless you're a logician) while other areas of philosophy have much more interesting things going on.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:52:02 2014 No.5502291 >>5502276 Great thanks!

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:52:58 2014 No.5502294 >>5502271 No I didn't.

Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:53:02 2014 No.5502295

>>5502265
"On Denoting" by Russell talks about this problem, and early Wittgenstein and the logical positivists are relevant to it (since they adhere strongly to the law of excluded middle and also are strong proponents of the idea that large classes of sentences are nonsense despite being common-sensically "understood")

I'd advise reading stanford on the law of excluded middle, then Bertie's "On Denoting", then a little logical positivism (Ayer is very accessible)
this way you also learn about different criterions of "sensible" sentences and such. good material

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:54:20 2014 No.5502297 >>5502295 He isn't going to learn anything about the debate question Condition Excluded Middle by reading philosophers that dogmatically adhere to it. >>5502276

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:54:48 2014 No.5502298 >>5502294 yeah you did

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:55:29 2014 No.5502302 >>5502298 No I didn't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:56:00 2014 No.5502304 >>5502295 Thanks for the suggestions! I have read Wittgenstein(which is why I was thinking in terms of classical logic). Funny enough,even with my Buddhism phase many years ago I never thought about the 'non-classical logic' examples. Yikes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:56:34 2014 No.5502305 >>5502298 No I didn't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:56:50 2014 No.5502307 >>5502272 seconding the Priest book. for general logic: Bergmann, Moor, and Nelson's "The Logic Book" is top-notch if you can find a copy. otherwise this is good: http://rocket.csusb.edu/~troy/SLmain.pdf

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:58:17 2014 No.5502313 >>5502305 Yes you did.

Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:58:55 2014 No.5502317

>>5502297
russell provides a way of resolving certain puzzles posed as counterexamples to the law of excluded middle which is why his work is important here
it's a useful discussion
logical positivism does dogmatically adhere to it, but since the "nonsense criterion" is so important to the debate, it's clutch to have an idea of various formulations and views on it

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:59:09 2014 No.5502318 >>5502313 No I didn't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 03:59:37 2014 No.5502319 >>5502307 Found 'The Logic Book' on pirate bay thanks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 04:00:34 2014 No.5502325 >>5502318 Yes you did.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 04:01:54 2014 No.5502331 >>5502317 The counterexamples Russell deals with aren't the same ones the dialethists bring up. I get it, you like Russell, but you don't need to force him onto everybody else. Life is too short to suffer through Principia Mathematica.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 04:03:15 2014 No.5502335 >>5502331 huehue nobody read principia. godel made it irrelevant anyway and sure they aren't the one dialethists use but they don't use them because russell had already taken them out. plus, dialethists aren't the only non-classical logicians

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 04:04:10 2014 No.5502341 >>5502325 No I didn't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 04:05:47 2014 No.5502343 >>5502335 >>5502331 Would you two retards please take your pissing contest somewhere else?

Anonymous Mon Sep 29 04:05:49 2014 No.5502344

>>5502331
>>5502335
also tbh i don't like russell at all. dude annoys the piss out of me and i consider him a largely incompetent philosopher, especially as a historian of philosophy. on denoting is just an important work in discussions of the law of excluded middle

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 04:06:46 2014 No.5502347 >>5502344 I appreciate the suggestion. I've been avoiding Russell for the same reasons you describe, but I'll give 'On Denoting' a look. Thanks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 04:07:06 2014 No.5502348 >>5502344 He was also a socialist, and I hate blood thirsty tyrants.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 04:08:04 2014 No.5502352 >>5502348 >>5502347 >>5502344 He was a spy for the Illuminati: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTiztUNrhhM

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 04:11:46 2014 No.5502365 >>5502348 >He was also a socialist, and I hate blood thirsty tyrants [fart noises intensify]

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 04:13:11 2014 No.5502368 >>5502365 Go kill 100 million innocent people.

kitty !kitty/EnNg Mon Sep 29 04:15:18 2014 No.5502369

>>5501950

>Who is the greatest living philosopher?

my philosophy prof probably
he taught us his ideas on the lecturers (i don't remember any) and almost got me expelled for not attending them and complaining ><
at least i understood the continental philosophers' mentality

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 04:16:19 2014 No.5502372 >>5502368 you obviously have a very limited understanding of socialism. That's like saying all people with beards are Hitlers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 04:18:03 2014 No.5502376 >>5502369 what the fuck kind of shitpost is this? you're a tripfag goddamn it hold yourself to a higher standard and elaborate.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 04:18:36 2014 No.5502377 >>5502372 Socialism has failed 100% of the time and resulted in massive deaths.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 04:18:41 2014 No.5502378 >>5502369 wat

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 04:19:55 2014 No.5502380 >>5502369 Where? At Chataqua Community College?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 04:22:35 2014 No.5502385 >>5502377 Even Lenin didn't call the USSR socialism, but state capitalism. L2socialsm first.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 04:23:19 2014 No.5502387 >>5502385 I don't care what Lenin said.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 04:28:03 2014 No.5502401 >>5502387 Well, you're not talking about Socialism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 04:28:51 2014 No.5502402 >>5502401 Yes, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was socialist. Lenin was probably talking about his NEP.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 04:49:33 2014 No.5502482 >>5502377 >Implying Norway has failed >Implying Sweden has failed >Implying you're not a complete and utter moron that doesn't bother to check that the shit he/she spews is even loosely based in fact

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 05:01:19 2014 No.5502523 >>5502402 >>5502482 Socialism means that the workers control the means of production. Neither the USSR nor fucking Norway is an example of socialism you retards.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 05:18:07 2014 No.5502578 >>5501950 What's some good works of Kripke I should read?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 05:20:21 2014 No.5502584 >>5502578 there arent any

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 05:34:10 2014 No.5502624 >>5502042 No, Žižek is. Whether you like it or not.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 12:27:36 2014 No.5504117 No mention of Badiou yet?! And I though /lit/ couldn't disappoint me anymore. Žižek seems only like a sociologist next to Badiou.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 12:31:35 2014 No.5504131 >>5501950 Eric Gans. It's all about Generative Anthropology.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 12:39:33 2014 No.5504160 This is one of the worst threads I've seen on /lit/ in a long time. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. >I like X! >X is a faggot! >no u >no u times infinity! God damn. I'm done today.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 12:41:13 2014 No.5504167 >>5501950 >>5501950 >implying you understand the implications of or care about any of the pedantic shit that analytic philosophers and logicians do

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 12:45:36 2014 No.5504181 >>5502037 >ist the greates That's some weird transposition fella

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 12:45:58 2014 No.5504183 >>5502189 lol yes he does

>>	kitty !kitty/EnNg Mon Sep 29 12:51:24 2014 No.5504208 >>5504160 that's how philosophers decide their importance whoever got more powerful i.e. vocative followers wins it's like playing 'the heroes of might and magic'

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 12:53:07 2014 No.5504213 What is even going on in this thread? Who let a bunch of 12 years old in here?

>>	Anonymouse !7tLDpBrPEk Mon Sep 29 12:53:47 2014 No.5504215 >>5504208 > not understanding the importance of time Do you even Bernardette and Davis?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 13:16:56 2014 No.5504296 File: 60 KB, 332x335, sour-grapes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5502081

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 14:37:43 2014 No.5504825 >>5502352 whoa that was probably the worst video I've ever seen. It's funny how there are people arguing about these pathetic conspiracy theories when the rest of us are debating and discussing real ideas while completely ignoring them in our shadow.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 14:44:10 2014 No.5504867 File: 129 KB, 894x894, sonic___sneaker_fresh_by_riproarrex-d3e1xe2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5502092 Logic is a dead end. If this is the only important philosophical field of study, then philosophy is truly dead.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 14:46:32 2014 No.5504877 >>5504208 Don't use words like 'vocative' if you have no idea what they mean.

Anonymous Mon Sep 29 15:03:59 2014 No.5504978

>>5504867
>Logic is a dead end.
>If this is the only important philosophical field of study
Don't worry, it's not.
>They are not a philosophical race—the English: Bacon represents an ATTACK on the philosophical spirit generally, Hobbes, Hume, and Locke, an abasement, and a depreciation of the idea of a "philosopher" for more than a century. It was AGAINST Hume that Kant uprose and raised himself; it was Locke of whom Schelling RIGHTLY said, "JE MEPRISE LOCKE"; in the struggle against the English mechanical stultification of the world, Hegel and Schopenhauer (along with Goethe) were of one accord; the two hostile brother-geniuses in philosophy, who pushed in different directions towards the opposite poles of German thought, and thereby wronged each other as only brothers will do.—What is lacking in England, and has always been lacking, that half-actor and rhetorician knew well enough, the absurd muddle-head, Carlyle, who sought to conceal under passionate grimaces what he knew about himself: namely, what was LACKING in Carlyle—real POWER of intellect, real DEPTH of intellectual perception, in short, philosophy.
The "English mechanical stultification of the world" that Nietzsche mentions is very closely connected with their obsession with analytical approach – which, just like a mechanical view of the world, isolates different parts, tries to find meaning of them outside of any relation with other parts, and only then plans to put all parts back together.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 29 15:28:32 2014 No.5505107 >>5504213 you did

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature