Can analytical philosophy exist after continental?

[Anonymous No.6480782]

Do the terms refer more to styles or to time periods?

[Anonymous No.6480787]

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODS

[Anonymous No.6480789]

[Anonymous No.6480791]

>>6480787
I've been looking for this Pepe for quite a long time now

thanks

[Anonymous No.6480794]

>>6480791
Did I give you permission to use it?

[Anonymous No.6480796]

[Anonymous No.6480800]

>>6480794
: (

[Anonymous No.6480802]

[Anonymous No.6480821]

>>6480794
Sorry, I'm in the business of stealing pepes.

>>6480800
Name a price for this new Pepe I found.

[Anonymous No.6480832]

[Anonymous No.6480838]

Taylor Swift is one those celebs who'd be adopting niglets from Uganda after 30 years

[Anonymous No.6480840]

>>6480782
Who is this stilted slut semen slurper?

[Anonymous No.6480844]

>>6480832
i admire assless woman

[Anonymous No.6480846]

>>6480844
>as if you wouldn't

[Anonymous No.6480854]

>>6480782
Styles.

[Anonymous No.6480867]

>>6480782

Physical location.

Continental = the European continent

Analytical - Analytic - Anglo - England :^)

[Anonymous No.6480885]

>>6480867
There are continental philosophers, or against the analytical approach born in the anglo tradition.

Consider Hacking who being an analytical philosopher uses Foucault archeological method, for example in The Emergence of Probability he tries to determine the historical conditions needed for the existence of probability.

Rorty was critical of the analytical tradition as well, despite of receiving formal education of the analytical approach.

[Anonymous No.6480942]

>>6480846
>>6480885
that's a very radical position
dem lace tho

There are many attempts to reconcile analytic and continental approaches Hilary Putnam has a good essay about that but i can't find it.

[Anonymous No.6481109]

>>6480782
I think continental is more a style (that is litterature) whereas analytic is trying to find logic behind everything

[Anonymous No.6481113]

>>6481109
Hegel is pretty much Logic throughout, just a more comprehensive form than the analytic.

[Anonymous No.6481124]

So basically... there's no consensus and it's all a spook?

[Anonymous No.6481132]

>>6481113
well I don't share this point. Infact Hegel is imo faking logic while analytic philosophers break down every link in a text, proposition, etc to understand its meaninglessness or not.
I therefore think that continetal philosophers are more like high-level novelists.

[Anonymous No.6481134]

>>6481113
>just a more comprehensive form than the analytic.
You're nuts if you think Hegel's logic is comprehensive. His logic (and not the phenomenology) is the main reason why people started to call him "the obscure".

[Anonymous No.6481135]

[Anonymous No.6481142]

[Anonymous No.6481150]

[Anonymous No.6481156]

[Anonymous No.6481160]

bump

[Anonymous No.6481177]

>>6480832
she's perfect.

[Anonymous No.6481189]

Poster, are you a /tsg/ bro?

[Anonymous No.6481193]

>>6481132
>>6481134

Hegel is more embracing because he doesn't separate form from content; the form of a judgement is inherently connected with philosophical content. Treating a proposition like an equation excludes the movement of the content as such, making it totally contingent what can be projected unto them.

[Anonymous No.6481201]

Taylor Swift
your style's not thrift
but if it was
I'd still marry you, 'cause
the gleam of your eyes
makes me die
a thousand times
I'm your guy

[Anonymous No.6481213]

>>6481193
I don't understand your point, but it seems interessting, can you elaborate ?

[Anonymous No.6481215]

[Anonymous No.6481223]

[Anonymous No.6481243]

>>6481213
For example, the Subject and Predicate of a proposition doesn't stand in a immediate (exclusive) relation to one another, the S is only S because there is a P (and vice-versa), that is the mediation that makes S = P and S=/=P at the same time. They are both moments of the concept, which to be intelligible have to be comprehended as a whole of the moments each existing for each other.

[Anonymous No.6481245]

>>6481213
>I don't understand your point
there wasn't one, that was just gibberish

[The cats No.6481252]

/r/ing proof of Taylor Swift visiting /b/

[Anonymous No.6481262]

>>6481243
mmhhh I see that now, but I what extend is it "against" formal logic, it could just be another parameter to add.

[Anonymous No.6481264]

>>6481262
>in what extend [...] ?
sry for the mistake

[Anonymous No.6481274]

>>648126

I don't think so, Hegel is blatantly against such formalism. You can't express through notations the concrete and mediated existence of the elements, mathematical logic stays at the abstract and tautological level of the same.

[Anonymous No.6481301]

[Anonymous No.6481310]

[Anonymous No.6481329]

[Anonymous No.6481440]

tfw no tay tay gf

[Anonymous No.6481461]

she will be a gorgeous older woman

[Anonymous No.6481465]

The only thread where the philosophy discussion doesn't descend into absolute shit-posting; you guys achieve a lot when tay-tay's on the line.

[Anonymous No.6481487]

MODS
O
D
S

[Anonymous No.6481489]

ITT: Le Low Standards Man Forced Meme General

[Anonymous No.6481497]

>>6481440
iktfb

[Anonymous No.6481510]

>>6481487
Fuck off, you, we're talking about analytical philosophy here.

[Anonymous No.6481596]

>>6480782
No

[Anonymous No.6481607]

[Anonymous No.6481619]

She looks like a rat.

[Anonymous No.6481629]

>>6481596
she has the shoulder to hip ratio of a man, take this crap to /lgbt/

[Anonymous No.6481630]

>>6481274
> You can't express through notations the concrete and mediated existence of the elements
but why? because you feel that it is like that ?

[Anonymous No.6481642]

>>6481630
No, because you're stopping to define the letters and then the word and then the sentence and then the paragraph, instead of taking some elements for granted and analyze the text as a full.
It isn't even tha big a difference between analytics and continentals. One of them invent definitions that defend their previous ideas while the others present their previous ideas and make arguments defending them.

[Anonymous No.6481663]

>>6481642
so for you everything is a bit of a game ? There is no right or wrong way ?
Because eventhough I see what you mean, I don't understand how the logical decomposition in analytics is flawed. It is just working step by step to understand the global sheme.

[Anonymous No.6481697]

>>6481663
Because its working step by step to rebuild logic systems that are inherent in our brain. When the goal is understanding logic that is the absolute best way you can take, but it's needlessly slow when analyzing human history and the construction of complex ideas.
Without mentioning that if you start molding popular ideas from the bottom when you finally reach the things you want to consider you'll be away from the common understanding. If continental philosophy seems needlesly complex it doesn't mean that subdividing every concept in subconcepts diagrammed in work flows that go back to the basic principles of thinking would make them easier to understand. Analytic philosophy isn't easy, quick to get, autonomous of explanations (as in, you can get it without previous studies), or absolute and perfect without changes through history. It's just as volatile and codependent of previous authors as continental philosophy. It just looks different and works better for certain subjects while worse with others.

[Anonymous No.6481732]

>>6481630
Just to say simple, take the two sentences:

'The house is yellow'
'The house is comfortable'

The first sentence is a judgement as basic as it gets, it's a dull and pure sense-based proposition. But the second demands a whole different framework, I'm not trying to argue that it is subjective, but to try to get to the objectivity of that judgement you need to deconstruct (for a lack of better word) the whole structure of the human framework that involves it. Mathematics and pure logic (as it is practiced in the analytic circle) it too basic for that, as in it the two sentences are treated as if having the same content.

[Anonymous No.6481758]

>>6481697
Yup, I thought about that a bit, but my answer is a bit more radical. I think that analytics thanks to its link with linguistics helps us understand what is understandable and continental is "for the rest" (Metaphysics for example).
I feel that another great question that arise from this discussion is to know whether or not we are logical, and if not, if we should try to become logical. That's also why I really like analytics, it's because being logical is "the least worst".
Another question that I found interessting : do you think that some people could not be able to think logically?

[Anonymous No.6481770]

>>6481732
Yeah, but as I said, this problem could easily be avoided by introducing new parameters etc.

[Anonymous No.6481787]

>>6481223
dat pelvis hnnnggghh

[Anonymous No.6481795]

>>6481770
There are no parameters not express the conceptual movement of the predicate into the subject. The 'comfortability' and the 'house' are mediated moments of the same concept that is in-and-for-itself. It's a long story, but 'parameters' only makes it more obscure instead of less.

[Anonymous No.6481812]

>>6481758
Your thinking of logic as an absolute element when it's just a human construction. We are animals that feel pulsions and want to justify them, then we fabricate logic around our instincts. If you follow the path of math you'll eventually find a point that most people will consider illogical, even if the numbers show it clearly working.
Most philosophers start from an instinctive, pulsion, level. Whether they try to justify those impresions or analyze bigger things through them, they are still tied to out animal brain.
That's not saying that philosophy is inherently wrong, it's just that logic is very tangential to thinking and some times it's more interesting to see it applied than dissected.

[Anonymous No.6481828]

To be honest I feel that there is in analytic philosophy in general a psychologically need of clarity and simplicity that really doesn't exist in the concepts as they are. The distortion is inevitable.

[Anonymous No.6481832]

>>6481828
*psychological

[Anonymous No.6481850]

>>6481795

I'll think alot about that

>>6481812
>Your thinking of logic as an absolute element when it's just a human construction.
Arrrgg the problem is that we don't know that. Maybe logic is "the stuff" maybe not. That's also a problem I have with analytics ; it's that it put you infront of unsolvable questions (regarding pure logic) every damn time.

Btw do you regard philosophy as a form of art (like litterature) or as a science ?


Also, do you have any book recommendation about the topics we discussed because it is really what causes me trouble at the moment.

[Anonymous No.6481861]

>>6481828
Well saying that makes me think (as an analytic guy) that you are trying to justify your lack of clarity.

I also think that analytics is "a level deeper" in philosophy. It's weird because I'm not really able to define that, but it's as if it was the "essence".

[Anonymous No.6481867]

>>6481850
>Btw do you regard philosophy as a form of art (like litterature) or as a science ?

It's science.

[Anonymous No.6481868]

tay tay a cute!

[Anonymous No.6481937]

TAY TAY
A
Y

T
A
Y

[Anonymous No.6482024]

[Anonymous No.6482203]

[Anonymous No.6482211]

27 unique posters
70 replies
you're wasting your life

[Anonymous No.6482240]

>>6482211

[Anonymous No.6482617]