/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6064105]

I see many in /lit/ attack continental philosophy.
Can anyone defend it and point to its merits?

[Anonymous No.6064108]

>>6064105
Continental philosophy is in many ways similar to poetry. Especially people like Kierkegaard and Nietzsche who believed the metaphor was everything.
Analytic philosophy, however you put it, does not contain this.

I don't one is more substantial or more important than the other, and I am grateful they both exist and flourish.

[Anonymous No.6064110]

The americans are jealous of it. many american anons. simple as that

[Anonymous No.6064112]

No, but expect shitposting.

[Anonymous No.6064114]

>>6064108
I don't think*

[Anonymous No.6064148]

>>6064108
Well, what is important about continental philosophy? What does it give us poetry and fiction dont?

[Anonymous No.6064154]

>>6064112
I brought this up in another thread: if your philosophy thread is not tied to a specific figure or one of their ideas, it will instantly turn to shit.

[Anonymous No.6064156]

>>6064148
more rigour
worse language

Analytic philosphy is just even more rigour and even worse language

[Anonymous No.6064165]

Continental philosophy is subjective, and truth is established based on authority and eloquence. Analytic philosophy is objective, and truth is established based on logic.

If you could take over the bodies of the ten leading continental philosophers, within a week you could have all of Europe believing the sun orbits the earth.

If you took over the leading analytic philosophers' bodies and started spouting bullshit, you'd swiftly be called on your bullshit, authority or no

[Anonymous No.6064173]

>>6064165
So essentially if you do not plan on becoming a philosopher and have an interest in math, reading philosophy is ultimately unsatisfying and you might as well just read a good novel or poem?

[Anonymous No.6064176]

>>6064165
Could there be universal healthcare and safety nets without marx?

[Anonymous No.6064189]

>>6064176
um, yes? pro-tip: when politicians decide to do shit, they don't consult the philosophy journals. (for lulz, crack open any education journal in the U.S., you'll find cover to cover it's full of criticism against No Child Left Behind legislation. Which was created, passed, and enacted by politicians, who don't give a fuck what academics say, and who will continue it without giving a fuck too.)

>>6064173
Mathematical logic (from a math department, not a philosophy department) will be satisfying. As for continental philosophy, you're absolutely correct, read a novel or poem instead

[Anonymous No.6064231]

>>6064189
But what about the way we look at things?
Redefining our perspective?Helping us think outside of the box about society and life?
Cant people be trapped within a certain point of view and philosophy has the potential to set them free?

Connection different things in novel ways or presenting things in new ways has has no value?

[Anonymous No.6064254]

>>6064231
None of those things you listed require philosophy. You can get them just as well from fiction, from meeting people, from doing productive things, etc.

In fact it's kind of creepy when philosophy tries to do those things. Like a guy going to a bar deliberately to try and get laid, he isn't even drinking, he's sober, he gets rejected from one girl and moves right to the next, literally the next one beside her, not even discriminating, she could be a warpig, he's an automaton. That's continental philosophy

[Anonymous No.6064317]

>>6064254
But what about Descartes or hume..Skepticism, the scientific method..
Popper and Falsifiability? etc...

[Anonymous No.6064335]

>>6064317
If your goal is knowledge/understanding how the world works, there's literally 0 reason to read Descartes/Hume/Popper/etc. in the 21st century, because other people have since then improved upon their work and bettered it. The average physics first-year grad student can tell you more about how the world works than Descartes, Aristotle, Newton all rolled into one.

And yet philosophy departments continue to emphasize "the classics". Why could that be? Could it be because philosophy is actually more about trying to look smart, joining cliques, being in fashion, and appealing to authority? WHY SURELY NO THAT'S ABSURD

[Anonymous No.6064349]

>>6064335
that was not my point!
Yes we internalized and put into practice descartes and hume but that is my point.
They were important in shaping our understanding and methods.
Will you deny that?
If not than certain modern philosophers can be the hume Descartes and popper of the 21th century.

[Anonymous No.6064355]

>>6064254
I cant believe anyone would put that much effort into a stupid extended simile. I still don't see why gaining these thoughts from fiction is explicitly more "helpful" than reading philosophy, and you're shitty simile does fuck-all to actually explain this. Why couldn't I get the same things I get out of books from philosophy? Do I need to agree with the philosopher to gain new understandings and ways of thinking? I don't think so, and in my experience I learn a lot of new ways of thinking, even if I don't agree with their statements or see some gaps in their logic.

>>6064335
And here you still don't offer specific arguments, like you haven't for the past few threads where you and the guy who's been arguing with you, but using only lowercases, have been doing for the past few threads. And every time someone brings this up, you just look down on them and pretend like they just don't understand your argument. At this point, the thing I don't understand is why you're still posting on this board: If you're so above this, just leave, please.

[Anonymous No.6064364]

Analytic philosophy has pragmatism

[Anonymous No.6064368]

>>6064108
>Kierkegaard and Nietzsche
It's generous to call them continental. The divide barely existed back then; they certainly weren't hostile to each other

[Anonymous No.6064376]

>>6064349
>certain modern philosophers can be the Hume of the 21st century
Alright, I'll grant you that, but I don't think they'll come from philosophy departments or write in philosophy journals. You're more likely to find them in music, in fiction, in business, in politics, etc. Modern academia is 100% about status quo, I guarantee you, money back if I'm wrong, self-described continental philosophers alive today will not produce anything worth preserving for the future.

>>6064355
It's like this (yea, more extended simile).
You're having problems in your relationship.
Do you consult...
A) Your older friend who's traveled the world, ran a business, raised children, built his own house, etc.
or
B) Do you ask your other friend who's sheltered, always lived with his mom, but who is constantly piping up with his unqualified opinions on everything under the sun?

If you chose B, congratulations, that guy's the continental philosopher.

[Anonymous No.6064386]

>>6064368
Admittedly, outside of very vanguarded Anglo Philosophy departments, the divide is rapidly diminishing today as well. Which is why >>6064335
is funny, since many Anglo departments are way more explicitly about Analytic Philosophy and tow everything else as of historical interest only. I doubt that anon even knows that Continental actually refers to something much more specific in scope and time period than "things before Analytic."

>>6064376
>Modern academia is 100% about status quo
Which is why Analytic Philosophy has been, by far, the dominant mode of most Anglo schools of Philosophy? You're criticizing Academia here, but much of the Academia you criticize is very rooted in the positions you're defending. And most "Continental" philosophers deny the label unless it is brought up by the other side, and generally don't try to push themselves as Contintentals specifically.

[Anonymous No.6064387]

The continental/analytic split is a pure British invention to satisfy their feeling of superiority
Some "continental" are very limpid and clear : Schopenhauer for example. What British don't understand is that Mathematics and logic apply only in the observable world. Hence how can you describe the 'envelope', or the objective reality with tools that applies only to our perception of the world.

[Anonymous No.6064394]

I really hate this debate. Everytime people talk about philosophy in here it's either Nietszche or Continental/analytical divide.

It's a shit divide.

Proper philosophers of both traditions can find value in the other. Yes, continental phil tends to talk from a normative standpoint (muh feelings, as analytical undergrads would say), and yes, analytical phil tends to disregard points that don't cohere with ther logical worldview.

Neither is perfect, but they don't claim to be, and they are scientific in their own way (inb4 some STEM/analytic bashes my use of scientific).

Grow up, and enjoy that you read the books and phil that you enjoy, without using your life to hate on someone elses choices.
It's really as bad as the New Atheism fedoras.

[Anonymous No.6064395]

>>6064386

>generally don't try to push themselves as Contintentals specifically

Yes, pedophiles also tend to not push themselves as pedophiles either.

[Anonymous No.6064403]

>>6064387
>wanting to understand the 'envelope', the non-observable part of the world
>turning to a bunch of crusty dudes who make their living giving lectures on "The Matrix" to bored undergrads
>not turning to psychedelic drugs instead

For qualia, there's LSD and mushrooms.
For everything else, there's mathematics and logic :)

[Anonymous No.6064589]

>>6064105
Continental philosophers are household names and have influenced big aspects of society without the necessity of the majority of society knowing about them. Tell me how relevent is anything mathetimatical by Russel compared to the concept of Last Man to the average person.

[Anonymous No.6064595]

>>6064403
>reddit:the post
You atheist shits really need to go.

[Anonymous No.6064598]

>>6064403

>qualia
>maths, logic

it's sad that there are people on /lit/ RIGHT NOW who are this misguided

[Anonymous No.6064599]

>>6064403
>more pathos than logos

[Anonymous No.6064601]

>>6064165

[Anonymous No.6064604]

>>6064394
>it's a shit divide
>two seconds later, perpetuates muh feels vs logic dichotomy
>how dare people who are educated in science tell me non-empirical philosophies aren't scientific
>I can't actually refute analytic philosophers but I can invoke stereotypes of atheists being fat manchildren instead

[Anonymous No.6064608]

>>6064595
marxists are the only kind of atheists /lit/ accepts. Market ideologies have absolute concepts of human nature which are tantamount to divinity.

[Anonymous No.6064613]

>>6064189
>um, yes? pro-tip: when politicians decide to do shit, they don't consult the philosophy journals.
Are you fucking retarded? The ideas politicians don't come from thin air. They are created by idea-formers, i.e. theorists. Whether or not theyve read marx is irrelevant. They're standing on the shoulders of 200s years' influence, development, protest, legislature, literature, and events, all stemming from the writings of a thinker and people who read that thinker.

[Anonymous No.6064614]

>>6064601
I have to correct myself, I wish the entire thread was bait an I am considering that it might be the case. Have you all come together just to bait me?

[Anonymous No.6064630]

>>6064608
I can see how you'd have that opinion if your exposure to capitalism was mainly debating libertarians on the internet. The keynesian school, which is dominant today, hardly fits your description.

[Anonymous No.6064674]

>>6064613
>go back in time, kill marx
>french citizens are hungry
>"I say, Pierre, I sure wish I had some bread"
>"Yes, Philippe, I, too, wish I had bread"
>"If only there were some philosopher who could teach us that we didn't need a king keeping all our bread from us..."
>"Yes, Philippe, if only, if only."
And then they died a peaceful death of starvation in the street

[Anonymous No.6064711]

>>6064674
>Marx inspired the French revolution.

[Anonymous No.6064748]

>>6064711
Maybe he is talking about the 1871 revolution, "La commune".

[Anonymous No.6064959]

>>6064189
>when politicians decide to do shit, they don't consult the philosophy journals
Early 20th century socialists and liberals did actually read Marx and other philosophers and many reformist philosophers have been politicians themselves.

[Anonymous No.6064971]

>>6064674
>implying the french read about any philosopher thats's not from France.
>implying >>6064711
ur fookin stoopid m8