/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6854119]

Is it true this board is partial to continental philosophy? What is it with analytics that is off putting? What makes you choose the other?

Is there any good readings or online sources about the difference in the two trends?

[Anonymous No.6854428]

>>6854119

Allot of the early split between analytic and continental comes from certain British Philosophers seeing German and British idealism as tools for nationalism. British Idealism was the de facto Philosophy in England in the late 19th century, guys like Russell rejected it and this is a large part of what analytic philosophy is. In the early days though, the lines were blurred between thinkers like Frege( analytic) and Husserl ( continental). In the post war world we see the two schools really come into there own as opposed to each other. People often mistake the logical positivism of someone like Carnap as the sole foundation of analytic philosophy, but these days there isn't much of a normative kind of philosophy being pushed by analytic philosophy, it is just a method of rigor, often utilizing a more direct argumentative style, the utilization of symbolic logic, and clear and unambiguous language. One can easily be an analytic-thomist, or an analytic-kantian, ect. Continental philosophy cares less for argumentation and goes more for speculative impact, aesthetic value, is willing to forsake rigor to get to "big conclusions", and is known for purposefully being obscure as means of challenging the academic status quo.

This is a good paper on the rejection of British Idealism, that lead to the bifurcation in the first place.

https://www.academia.edu/2936425/The_Strange_Death_of_British_Idealism

Personally I prefer Analytic Philosophy, but I don't think that continental stuff is necessarily bad.

[Anonymous No.6854472]

>>6854119
>Daily reminder:

Men ---------------- Women
Rational------------Emotional
Logical------------- muh feels
ANALYTIC ------- CONTINENTAL
subject ------------- object
active -------------- passive
masculine -------- feminine
freedom ---------- subordinate
master ------------ slave
dominant --------- submissive
authentic --------- inauthentic
fact ---------------- fiction
sense ------------- nonsense

Take the redpill, /lit/

[Anonymous No.6854477]

[Anonymous No.6854480]

>>6854472
me---->your mom

[Anonymous No.6854484]

>>6854480
>roastie detected

[Anonymous No.6854487]

>A comprehensive history of "analytic philosophy".
>1. All philosophy has been analytic, from the beginning of philosophy (quite simply because that's what all philosophy, indeed all thought, consists of: analysis).
>2. Nietzsche arrives on the scene. Anglo-Saxons do not understand his analysis, ergo it is not analysis. Also, he made fun of them repeatedly for not being able to understand him. This at least they understood.
>3. Anglo-Saxons: "Screw the priggish continentals: We will make our OWN philosophy." (= "The continentals are mean to us, so we won't play with them anymore.")
>4. Wittgenstein's On Certainty. Illegible rubbish, but it set the tone for all future "analytic philosophy".
>5. No one pays attention to the Anglo-Saxons' illegible rubbish, while book sales and star status of the continentals (many of whom are charlatans indeed but at least not boring) are soaring.
>6. Finally Rorty turns around and proclaims the end of "analytic philosophy". "I wish I'd read less of our autistic bullshit and more novels instead."
>7. According to the Anglo-Saxons, then, novels are the culmination and ultimate expression of philosophy.
>8. And that's where Anglo-Saxon "analytic philosophy" stands to this day. Nothing more than a gigantic reaction movement to Nietzsche calling them names and making fun of them.

[Anonymous No.6854490]

>>6854119
analytics aren't friendly to faith-based philosophy and there are quite a few christians on this board.

[Anonymous No.6854502]

>>6854490

Most Philosophers of Religion( which is full of theists) work in an analytic method. That and analytic-thomism has been a thing since at least Anscombe and Geach.

>>6854487

No

[Belial !!aA0k1/YgCq9 No.6854506]

>>6854472
>masculine -------- feminine
lol

>>6854119
>Therefore, the so-called Continental-analytic division within philosophy is not a philosophical distinction; it's a sociological one. It is the product of historical accident. It is unreasonable to cleave to it, and the insistence on remaining closed to work that is either presumptively "analytic" or presumptively "Continental" is irrational and unphilosophical.

http://faculty.georgetown.edu/blattnew/contanalytic.html

Good read on how it's difficult to draw a line between the two

[Anonymous No.6854531]

>>6854502
I'm not saying that the branch can't be used to try and reificate baseless claims. I'm saying that most accomplished analytic philosophers aren't friendly to religion.

[Anonymous No.6854651]

>>6854119
>implying this isn't a scholastic philosophy board

[Anonymous No.6854654]

>>6854472
holy keke the amount of SPOOK in this post

[Anonymous No.6854692]

>>6854487
It's funny how much the US tries to create its own thing in most humanities fields. Must be very upsetting for them to be the leading economy and be forced to bow down to the superior and older European tradition.

[Anonymous No.6854718]

>>6854490
but all of analytic philosophy is built on faith of the "common sense" and other axioms.

[Anonymous No.6854745]

>>6854531

G.E.M Anscombe is one of the most accomplished analytic philosophers though( the most accomplished of the women involved), and she was a Thomist and an extremely devote Catholic.

[Anonymous No.6854791]

>>6854654
drop saint forehead and read the master and slave dialectic

[Anonymous No.6854896]

>>6854119
analytic believes that philosophy can be science

continental believes that philosophy needs not science

both are wrong and a fusion of both is necessary

[Anonymous No.6856816]

>>6854896
but where do the base believes of continental philosophy come from? the axioms they work off of to make any progress

[Anonymous No.6856888]

analytic has scary numbers and requires mental discipline, something completely alien to the pseudos of /lit/

[Anonymous No.6856894]

>>6856888
Both seem p gay tbh

>studying a philosohy that has no relevance irl

[Anonymous No.6856918]

>>6856894
I can't believe the amount of people who see >>6856888 and don't recognize the obvious parody of Nietzsche and Russell.

>>6854472
For someone who criticizes simplistic and emotional thinking, your dichotomy sure sounds like pop science left/right brain garbage.

Anyone who unironically uses the term "redpill" is a retard who believes enlightenment comes primarily from political incorrectness. Of course, once this "wisdom" is reached, there's no need for further critical thinking :^) that would make you a JIDF brainwashed mangina multicult, and a slew of other buzzwords designed to shame you away from questioning /pol/.

[Anonymous No.6856930]

Most people who are serious about philosophy do analytic.
You cannot get a philosophy degree without taking several analytic courses in symbolic logic.

That being said, while logic is really important for all of philosophy, 19th century autistic analyticss who worried about which half of a brain is the person if both halves remember being the person are fucking retarded.
Worrying about the verb pegasising is retarded.
None referring names rustling you is retarded.
Trying to complete autistic closed language systems is retarded.
Communitarians are retarded.
Libtard applied ethics are retarded.


I honestly wonder if anyone who ever argues about analytic being the best knows or has read anything in the modern analytic tradition.
No, they are not anti POMO's who le'science m'lady all day. No POMO's don't get scared by symbolic logic.


I feel like any analytic fag who was told that analytic Marxism is a popular movement currently would shit their pants in rage.


Don't get me wrong, I love some analytics, and many of them do great stuff. But pretending they are always pure and doing something entirely different than all of continental is fucking retarded and makes you sound like you don't even read any of them.

g'day m'sirs

[Anonymous No.6856937]

>>6856894
>Both seem p gay tbh

I need to learn to drop posts that start retarded before they get worse

[Anonymous No.6856946]

Personally it's because analytics don't have much metaphysics, they are bigger materialists than marxists and there is almost no right-wing political philosophy with them(communitarians are just a bit more conservative liberals).

[Anonymous No.6856960]

>>6854472
Daily reminder we are all slaves in the eyes of God, anon.

[Anonymous No.6856988]

>>6854472
literally LITERALLY thinking in black and white.

[Anonymous No.6857182]

>>6856946

I've taken 3 courses of Analytic Metaphysics in my university career so far. Materialism is'nt completely hegemonic either, Kripke was very explicitly not a materialist. I agree with the political philosophy part though, the only really interesting evaluative part of analytic philosophy is meta-ethics, and that is very close to metaphysics and philosophy of language in allot of way.s

[Anonymous No.6857222]

I like how you frame it as "I've heard..." as if fucking anybody but /lit/ talks about /lit/

[Anonymous No.6857475]

Honestly analytics just aren't interesting at all. At times it just seems like I'm reading explorations of what are essentially things I take for granted, but justified within their own well defined systems through page upon page of endless writing. This is probably due to the fact that they are often far to careful and restrained, and don't like making grandiose statements. I think modern french philosophy is cancer though, and I'd rather read analytical philosophy than going through that vapid intellectual masturbation.

[Anonymous No.6857540]

>>6857475
>I think modern french philosophy is cancer though
who do you have in mind ?

[Anonymous No.6858050]

ok