[ 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: 113 KB, 1024x768, Arthur-Schopenhauer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6887473 No.6887473 [Reply] [Original]

>continental "philosophy"

You don't take this shit seriously, do you?

>> No.6887484

I, like any true intellectual, do not take any philosophy seriously. Philosophy is a brick wall in the middle of a tunnel through which science lights the way!

>> No.6887488 [DELETED] 
File: 9 KB, 480x360, hqdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6887488

>>6887484

>> No.6887513

I can never decide who I hate more, people who are into continental or analytic. They are both insufferable.

I wish /lit. discussed philosophy less and lit more.

>> No.6887525

>>6887513
yeah I don't know which idiot decided they were related enough to share a board

>> No.6887564

>>6887525

>>6887513

there are plenty of threads discussing lit in the catalogue at the moment you whining idiots.

>> No.6887584

>>6887513
I don't mind people who are into either. Only when the extent of how much they're "into" continental/analytic extends to how much they like to rubbish the other one.

I bet you 100% of the people who constantly assert superiority of one style over the other haven't actually read much of either.

>> No.6887611

>>6887513
>>6887525
>>6887484
thats cause your a fucking cuck

>> No.6887613

>>6887513
Found the actual fag who just wants to wank off writers with the biggest prose.

>> No.6887631

>>6887484
Philosophy is more like the scout who goes to check the length of the pitch black tunnel and in doing so risks an oncoming train killing him. You STEMfags are too scared to go into the dark without someone telling you how to measure what's there.

>> No.6887674

>>6887488
Congratulations Rufus, you replied to a joke post with a joke image
I have to think you're not the brightest person on /lit/ right now

>> No.6887676

>>6887584
The best you could argue is that continental philosophy "isn't that bad." The idea that it's on equal standing with, let alone better than, analytic philosophy is absurd. Even continentalfags understand this, which is why they are the ones always on guard.

>> No.6887688

schopenhauer was a continental you donglord

>> No.6887710

>>6887613
No, I just come here to talk about books, because that is what the board is for.

Found the manchild who shitposts meme philosophy.

>> No.6887715

>>6887710
Thats cause your a fucking cuck.

>> No.6887735

the Sokal paper pretty much decredited every continental philosopher as a black magician snake oil salesman. If you are going to do philosophy inventing your own voodoo words only add problems

>> No.6887741

>>6887735
get a load of this philistine

>> No.6887756

Continental: Bullshit concerning things that actually matter

Analytic: Truth concerning things that don't matter

>> No.6887775

>>6887741
prove me wrong.

protip: you can not

Analytics has a solid foundation; mathematical axioms and common sense that only a looney would dismiss. Continental philosophy is all based on philosophers opinions and how they personally feel about the world

>> No.6887780

>>6887756
>how we live our Life doesn't matter
>manipulation numbers is the only thing that matters

>> No.6887788

>>6887473
Based Artie was both analytic and continental.

>> No.6887789

>>6887780
I think you misread my post

>> No.6887798

>>6887775
a. the magazine did not practice critical peer review at the time

b. the magazine suggested sokal undertake revisions for multiple issues and sokal refused

i don't see how "muh hoax" in any way proves the point he was trying to make. further more the point he was making is not the point you claim the paper proves. so good bye

also your "axioms" claim to unfalsifiabally prove the existence of god, so also good bye

>> No.6887850

>>6887775
>>6887798
I love how Continental defenders will always turn the other way and dodge the question whenever it's presented to them.

>What you’re referring to is what’s called "theory". And when I said I'm not interested in theory, what I meant is, I’m not interested in posturing–using fancy terms like polysyllables and pretending you have a theory when you have no theory whatsoever. So there’s no theory in any of this stuff, not in the sense of theory that anyone is familiar with in the sciences or any other serious field.

>Try to find in all of the work you mentioned some principles from which you can deduce conclusions, empirically testable propositions where it all goes beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old. See if you can find that when the fancy words are decoded. I can’t.
He's right, I've never seen a single good response or even attempt to take up this criticism. There's nothing that they say that's not just truisms or empty platitudes dressed up as intellectualism.

>> No.6887870

>>6887473
>You don't take this shit seriously, do you?

I don't, that's why every Nietzsche thread goes directly into the trash

>> No.6887904

>>6887780

Read again.

>> No.6887969

>>6887870
Thats cause your a fucking cuck.

>> No.6888774

>>6887688
I know. But he was the only smug philosopher picture I had on hand.

>> No.6889165

>>6887473
What else am I supposed to take seriously? That autistic shit called "analytic philosophy"? Or are you a religious/mysticfag?

>> No.6889180

>>6887688
Schopenhauer predates the schism by like a century.

>> No.6889185

>>6887780
Fucking retard.

>> No.6889192

>>6887775
>>6887735

Analytic philosophy suffers from similar problems, it just has more footnotes. Philosophers on both sides of the spectrum could use some writing courses.

>> No.6889204

Analytic philosophy never got over the metaphysical criticims of Heidegger or Gadamer.

They just stuck there on the linguistic problem of meaning and semantics.

The fact that litteraly nothing major has happened in the analytic scene after Kripke is telling.

>> No.6889217

>>6889180

The schism happened with Kant. Schopenhauer and Hegel are continental due to their idealism which was sourced from Kant.

>> No.6889228

>>6887850

>Try to find in all of the work you mentioned some principles from which you can deduce conclusions, empirically testable propositions where it all goes beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old. See if you can find that when the fancy words are decoded. I can’t.

>Possible world logic.

>Being empirically testable .

Top kek, this guy doesn't know what he is talking about.

>> No.6889245

>>6887775
If you think analytic philosophy, or any science, has a solid foundation, then you don't know what analytic philosophy is.

>> No.6889256
File: 47 KB, 736x952, 5bbdc10cee2cc6cf94499dfc7e247462.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6889256

>>6887775
>Analytics has a solid foundation; mathematical axioms
>solid foundation in mathematical axioms
lol

Nietzsche:
>Mathematics would certainly have not come into existence if one had known from the beginning that there was in nature no exactly straight line, no actual circle, no absolute magnitude.

Your comment on continental philosophy is why analytic philosophy and its proponents are so laughable. You are completely self-unaware. You actually think analytic philosophers AREN'T also based on opinions and how they personally feel about the world! So clueless it hurts, my sides that is.

>> No.6889285

If we're making fun of continentals I assume everyone here is analytic. In which case I want to ask for a recommendation for a book to teach myself intuitionist/trivalent logic. All the syntax, semantics, and proof theories for it.

I know Graham Priest does a lot of work in non-classical logics but I think that's more of him dealing with the consequences of these logics and not a textbook for them.

>> No.6889460

>>6887513
continental philosophy is objectively better than analytical philosophy which is a bunch of meandering horseshit.

>> No.6889514

>life

You don't take that shit seriously, do you?

>> No.6889933

>>6889514
Anyone that does has their heads way up their ass, and are probably spooky too.

>> No.6890042

>>6889256
>Mathematics would certainly have not come into existence if one had known from the beginning that there was in nature no exactly straight line, no actual circle, no absolute magnitude.
Nonsense. We needed arithmetic from the get-go so we could count shit.

As far as geometry goes, it's not as if the Greeks didn't understand the concept of idealization. The idea that there are no perfect circles or straight lines is shit anyone who has thought about math has thought about.

>> No.6890258

>>6890042
>We needed arithmetic from the get-go so we could count shit.
He wasn't discrediting the usefulness of math there, just pointing out that its invention was out of ignorance. And if it's out of ignorance, it is removed from reality, and isn't exactly a "solid foundation" as far as philosophy goes.

>> No.6890281

>>6887756
More like:
>Continental: Autists (in the loose 4chan sense) discussing non-autistic things as if it made them any less autstic
>Analytic: Autists (in the narrow sense) discussing autistic things as if autism was the norm

Analytics are gaining traction with the current rise in medical autism.

>> No.6890305

>>6890281
Thats cause your a fucking cuck.

>> No.6890354

>>6890305
Your girlfriend did show me another side of the story.

>> No.6890356

>>6890258
But its invention wasn't out of ignorance. It was out of utility. Also, there's nothing inexact about basic arithmetic with natural numbers. If I have 2 rocks and I get 3 more, I have 5 rocks. The limits are only how I define rocks, not whether a "perfect rock" exists. For geometry we never needed perfect rocks to exist. We only needed to find that these perfect geometric objects are a useful approximation.

>> No.6890915

>>6887631

Yes, that's a good analogy, because philosophers are the ones who have become concretely worried about the immediate and actual implications of their actual observations of the world making God unimportant. Philosophers are also the ones who actually developed weapons about which there were serious concerns that their use would set the atmosphere on fire. Philosophers have historically been the people who construct new technologies which cost countless human lives, with the same actual events weighing terribly on their consciences. Philosophers are totally the thought-experimenters who take risks.

(tongue was only mostly-in-cheek. Of course Marxism also cost tens of millions of lives, and of course philosophers have been killed/exiled for expressing their ideas. but the idea that something like this doesn't happen with scientists is straight bogus, as has been shown).

>> No.6890960

>>6887969
>no apostrophe
>wrong form of 'you're'
>the word 'cuck'

This is like the Ulysses of shitposting.

>> No.6890963

"Philosophy"

You don't take this shit seriously, do you?

>> No.6891130

>>6889285
He's written an introduction to non-classical logic, a textbook. You can also check out the SEP articles.

>> No.6891147

>>6889285

>I assume everyone here is analytic

You're giving /lit/ too much credit. There are people here that are familiar with analytic and continental philosophy, but there are a lot more who just like to scream, "Obscurantist bullshit" at things so they can feel like it's okay to not read challenging material.

>> No.6891152

Reminder that your mother and father have never heard of an analytical philosopher(apart from Russel if you are an anglo) ever, but have atleast heard about most continentals.

>> No.6892375

>>6890963
God help me no. How could the most useless bullshit in the world after History be of any importance to a grown adult without being a clown?

>> No.6892459

>>6887473
go to bed, dick dorkins

>> No.6892469

Where did it all go wrong? When the Greeks started philosophy, weren't they pretty analytical?

>> No.6892491

>>6891147

this

>> No.6892556

>>6891147
obscurantist bullshit

>> No.6894188

>>6890356
>But its invention wasn't out of ignorance. It was out of utility.
There is no difference.

Nietzsche:
>Forgetting is essential to action of any kind, just as not only light but darkness too is essential for the life of everything organic.

>> No.6894250

>people actually talking about "continental" philosophy

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

>> No.6894337

The quality of this thread is embarrassing.

>>6889285
>trivalent logic
If you're referring to formal systems that have '1/2' as one of the truth values, it, and its ilk, are a colossal waste of time unless you're into designing and programming washing machines. For intuitionistic logic, van Dalen has a textbook, but is not *entirely* intuitionistic, however.

>not a textbook for them
He has in fact written a textbook on non-classical logic. But it uses trees for its proof system, so it sucks balls.

>> No.6894380

I don't think the dichotomy is useful and it seems to ignore that american pragmatism infected both strands in the last century.

https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/MPsy/MPsyConw.htm

Do you guys agree this Niet/Schop page is absolute shit? I googled the name and apparently this guy has a PhD and published books which leaves me shocked that even as a mediocre NEET fuckup I would have been ashamed to write such things about these philosophers, particularly his interpretation and response to Nietzsche.

>> No.6894416

>>6894380
Some people are hilarious.
There was this indian who actually seemed to have done some good research on indian theology that wrote an extensive article on Niet where his conclusion was that his entire philosophy was a result of him being mad and cucked about Cosima Wagner

>> No.6894798

>>6887756
>Analytic: Truth concerning things that don't matter

Analytic philosophy has been invaluable to computer programing and the development of digital computers/

>> No.6894986

>>6894416
Osho, right? I remember him saying that about Nietzsche. That guy had a few interesting things to say about the Nag Hammadi library and that's about it.

>> No.6895453

>>6890915
Pretty much this.

>> No.6895468

>>6887756
pretty good