/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6917189]

Who's your favorite analytic philosopher and why, /lit/?

[Anonymous No.6917209]

Popper and Russell

[Anonymous No.6917259]

quine, because he demolished the notion of a priori, and as a corollary, by dropping the a priori, logic and maths became products of empiricism.

>mfw someone actually uses and treats the notion of a priori non-nominally

[Anonymous No.6917261]

>>6917189

> logic

Continental invention, all revolutions continental.

> proof

lol

> 'TRUTH'

LOL!

> axioms

So philosophy is just logic/mathematics? And what's the difference between such an axiom and a religious dogma?

[Anonymous No.6917268]

>>6917189
The one with the least amount of autism. Yet to find one who isn't emotionally and intellectually crippled.

So none.

>hey guys I wrote down some mathematics, I am now good philosophy!

[Anonymous No.6917283]

>>6917259
>maths
>empirical

u wot m8

[Anonymous No.6917285]

>>6917261
>>6917268
butthurt gobblers of lacan detected

[Anonymous No.6917292]

>>6917189
Are analytic philosophers just failed mathematicians?

[Anonymous No.6917310]

>>6917292
Logicians, actually. Mathematicians are generally godawful at logic, though, since they don't care much about Math. Logic (they work with higher-order abstractions which doesn't make them necessarily more 'superior'). They work more intuitively than logically minded philosophers and philosophically minded logicians do.

[Anonymous No.6917330]

>>6917189
>NO EMOTIONS
>Who's your favorite

The most logical choice will present itself and be obvious to everyone who interrogates it.

[Anonymous No.6917442]

>tfw 99% of /lit/ has no idea who the three bottom-most analytics are.

[Anonymous No.6917444]

>>6917442
That's a good thing.

[Anonymous No.6917470]

>>6917189
>What the fuck is a Derrida?
kek

[Anonymous No.6917841]

WHERE MY ANALYTICS AT?

[Anonymous No.6917867]

>>6917189
what's the point of a personal preference if truth and logic are all verifible? Wouldn't there be a wide consensus on the best philosopher?

[Anonymous No.6917868]

>>6917841
WHAT'S THE CONDITION OF THE POSSIBILITY?!

[Anonymous No.6917872]

>>6917841
Better call Saul

[Anonymous No.6917884]

>>6917841

MUH MODAL SYMBOLS

THIS IS TRUTH RIGHT GUYS

[Anonymous No.6917887]

>>6917867
No, just like there isn't on who's the best scientist.
There are the big names, but each thinker contributed different things to different subjects, so you can prefer whoever you think is the most fascinating or has the most importence.

[Anonymous No.6917897]

>>6917887
>fascinating
Meaningless, isn't this reducing philosphy to art?

>>6917887
>most importence.
This should be easily verifiable, and if not it has no meaning

So, my point still stands

[Anonymous No.6917905]

>>6917259
But I love a priori

[Anonymous No.6917909]

>>6917867

>best

that would require a value judgement, which is subjective

[Anonymous No.6917935]

>>6917897
>Meaningless, isn't this reducing philosphy to art?
No. It simply means you are human who will have different standards as to what was most important when.

>This should be easily verifiable, and if not it has no meaning
By what standard?

By the same argument, physics is art until they come up with a theory of everything and people specialize in different fields.

>>6917905
We all do. It would be neat. But it's probably more Locke-like.

[Anonymous No.6917943]

>>6917189
Wittgenstein. His ideas of language, understanding, and experience really hit me hard, probably changed me as an individual.

[Anonymous No.6917973]

>>6917189
>proudly using the universal quantifier

[Anonymous No.6917979]

>>6917841
DICURSSIVE LOGIC TBH LADS

[Anonymous No.6917986]

[Anonymous No.6917989]

[Anonymous No.6917990]

>>6917841

>propositions that are true in all possible worlds are necessary

How would you even test that?

[Anonymous No.6918001]

[Anonymous No.6918008]

[Anonymous No.6918010]

>>6917979
>>6917986
>>6917989
...I want to go back to log classes. ;_;

[Anonymous No.6918014]

[Anonymous No.6918015]

>>6917973
>tfw I asked the Burger on his thoughts of (homotopy) type theory and he didn't know about it.

[Anonymous No.6918022]

[Anonymous No.6918025]

>>6918001
>reposting my screenshot with my own filename

[Anonymous No.6918028]

>>6918008


>>6918025
I keep the file names indeed

[Anonymous No.6918032]

>>6917189

Is this now a logic thread? Because continental philosophy or whatever you want to call the opposition of analytical philosophy is totally cool with logic, in case some of you didn't know.

[Anonymous No.6918050]

>>6918028
Some time ago I cooked up this example to show one the use of modal operators:
Modal operators
◻ … necessarily
◊=¬◻¬ … possibly

Semantics
⟨W,R⟩ … “Kripke frame”
where
W … (type of) worlds
R⊆W×W … binary accessibility relation
wRv … “w is accessibility from v”

P(w) … predicate
(◻P)(w) … ∀v.wRv→P(v)
(◊P)(w) … ∃v.wRv∧P(v)

The modal operators are similar to ∀ and ∃, except instead of maping predicates P(w) to propositions (as in ∀w.P(w)), they map predicates to predicates (as in (◻P)(w)).

Examples
W := legal board configurations in chess
wRv := there is a game development from w to v
call w0 the initial position for which ∀v.w0Rv

We use modal operators on predicates of the current state to form predicates of what might happen
◻ = will hold till the end of the game
◊ = might occur till the end of the game
(this makes for sort of temporal logic which is trivial in that it has no time steps)

P(w) = in the current state w, you have a pawn on the field
K(w) = in the current state w, you have a king on the field
B(w) = in the current state w, you have a bishop on a black field

we can formulate:
B(w0) … at the start, you have a bishop on a black field
∀v.(◻K)(v) … in all possible states, you do have a king on the field
¬(◻P)(w0) … it's not a given that some of your pawns will stay on the board till the end
(◊¬P)(w0) … equivalently, it might happen that at one point you have no pawns on the board
∀v.(¬P(v)∧¬B(v))→(◻¬B)(v) … if you have no pawn on the board and no bishop on a black field, then, till the end of the game, you'll have no bishop on a black field

From the last line, using classical predicate logic on the body, we can make the following derivation:

(¬P(v)∧¬B(v))→(◻¬B)(v) postulate
¬P(v)→¬B(v)→(◻¬B)(v) currying
¬(¬B(v)→(◻¬B)(v))→¬¬P(v) A implies B ⊢ not B implies not A
¬(¬B(v)→(◻¬B)(v))→P(v) ¬¬ A ⊢ A
¬(¬¬B(v)∨(◻¬B)(v))→P(v) A implies B ⊢ not A or B
¬(B(v)∨(◻¬B)(v))→P(v) ¬¬ A ⊢ A
(¬B(v)∧¬(◻¬B)(v))→P(v) neither A nor B ⊢ not A and not B
(¬B(v)∧(◊B)(v))→P(v) ¬◻¬A⊢◊A

… if you have no bishop on a black field but it's still possible that it might happen, then you have a pawn on the field.

[Anonymous No.6918061]

>>6918015
he is against the axiomatization of maths [where axiom is the modern definition of random statements put at the beginning which is not intuitive]

he likes axioms , but only as intuitive statements and my bet is that he would not like how the real numbers are treated in hott, since they use the Dedekind cuts. He does not like the cuts only because they use inifite subsets of Q, but he also refuses the [sub]sets of Q constructed with a well formed formula of the constructive logic. Well at least, he seems to refuse them.

he should release a new video in the following days, after MF150 [from last week] set theory, where he at last exposes what he calls a set.


I wanted to talk to him about this constructive construction of the topos theoretic reals, in showing him the video of Johnstone

Peter Johnstone: "Topos-theoretic models of the continuum"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKWYa9sc5UI

since it comes with the ordinary topology and constructive logic gives us all the good theorems that we want..

but I forget and I prefer to wait for his next video. I think that he does not know well category theory. In the end, I could say that : ''these axioms are not intuitive to me, so I can refute them if I want to, and I do.''

[Anonymous No.6918068]

>>6918061
>I could say that
HE could say that

[Anonymous No.6918077]

logic =/= analytic philosophy

jesus, you kids can't even get THAT right.

[Anonymous No.6918093]

>topos theory
>homotopy type theory
>category theory
irrelevant.

set theoretic foundations are here to stay and the burden of proof of why we should prefer the former three, is, well, on the former three.

[Anonymous No.6918094]

>>6918061
The HoTT book provides several constructions of the reals, do all involved Dedekind cuts? I don't think so.

I doubt that he's into cats and topoi much less so.

[Anonymous No.6918105]

>>6917973
>>6918015
the guy is basically a youtube-mathematician with an unorthodox view of mathematics. big fucking deal. where's the appeal? there are plenty of more intelligent people hanging around at Friedman's & co FOM

[Anonymous No.6918131]

>>6917897
>Meaningless, isn't this reducing philosphy to art?
no. I don't know what to say other than a plain no.
I can have a favourite number, does that reduce numbers to art?

[Anonymous No.6918136]

>>6918093
Math is fun, sets are old. Sets are cool, but the good people already know everything about it. At least the things that are interesting and to obtain in less than 5 years learning it.

>>6918105
He's funny in a way, not as well versed in formal logic and all the developments.
The appeal is his aggressive videos and that he's likeable, I'd say, but I personally don't care. The people actually in the logic field, I like less (even if Andrej Bauer is cute).
I'm trying to meet Schreiber in October btw., maybe I do something in the hott4physics direction, in the far away future.

[Anonymous No.6918165]

>tfw informal mathematical proofs are comprehensible to you only when they are 100% formalized
>tfw can't efficiently parse informal mumbo-jumbo

[Anonymous No.6918171]

>>6918165
>On the internet, nobody knows your a intentional type theory compiler

[Anonymous No.6918198]

>>6918171
i am being serious here; it's odd how the seeming majority (non-logicians mostly) prefer the informal, intuitive approach, rather than the purely symbolical (with annotations of inferences of course)

[Anonymous No.6918237]

>>6918198
mhm, I feel the text format proofs might give you pictures for your head easier.
Then again, mostly the pictures only work for yourself and so the recommendation is to do the proofs yourself - I then agree that formal proofs have the advantage of not leaving out shit. It's frustrating if you know there is a hole but you can't fill it. Really, it's like one-itis.

[Anonymous No.6918306]

>>6918198
Probably you are amateur in your field then. For every field and every level of proficiency there is a growing (with gaining experience) set of standard tricks, lemmas and so on which hardly any will mention later.

Time is one of the most important resources in academia and it is essential to use the set I mentioned above in work otherwise any paper/tetxtbook would become gargantuan. It is clear that if you want to talk about characteristic classes, nobody will come back to tricks you should learnt while you were studying cohomology and if you are studying cohomology it should be assumed that you know basic algebraic concepts.

Logicians also use shortcuts.

[Anonymous No.6918348]

>>6918306
>Probably you are amateur in your field then
all modern proofs of theorems, including Wiles', however long, are checked by a handful of people to ensure that the proof is actually logical. now, it seems that you are in effect calling all these seasoned proof-checkers amateurs. or are you just misreading me? it has nothing to do with amateurism; there are certain technical fields that are in fact more formal than informal in their exposition as seen in technical monographs e.g., in contrast to fields that are higher in the hierarchy of abstraction. nothing to do with lemmas or tricks.

[Anonymous No.6918367]

Kripke is a sperg.

[Anonymous No.6918369]

>autistic thought experiments

I prefer grandiose nonsense tbh.

[Anonymous No.6918397]

>>6918367
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE9m6Bu0RGI

>that voice
>those mannerisms
>that everything

it's kind of beautiful

[Anonymous No.6918415]

>>6918397
Holy crap, is he okay?

[Anonymous No.6918425]

Where do I start with Carnap? Can I jump straight into Meaning and Necessity (obviously I'll have a decent logic background (which I am currently bolstering))?

[Anonymous No.6918478]

>>6918425
If you like logico-metaphysical gymnastics, try The Logical Structure of The World ('the Aufbau')

>brb constructing the bare primitives of reality by means of logical relations of empirical phenomenology

[Anonymous No.6918485]

wittgenstein, because he was ambiguous, obscure and emotional

[Anonymous No.6918486]

>>6918397
Has he always been like that?

[Anonymous No.6918489]

>>6918478
>>brb constructing the bare primitives of reality by means of logical relations of empirical phenomenology
Muh dick! Getting on this first then!


Is Carnap even that relevant these days? His work in the post-Vienna Circle days seems really interesting even if Quine BTFO him and others. I know Chalmers has a big hard-on for Carnap but other than that I have no idea of the current reception.

[Anonymous No.6918492]

>>6918415
>>6918486
He legitimately has some form of aspbergers/autism.

[Anonymous No.6918517]

>>6918489
In general, he's not really that relevant. There are however some people that are extending his ideas in rigorous inductive logic (see the recently published 'Pure Inductive Logic' by Cambridge University Press)

[Anonymous No.6918520]

>>6918397
holy shit, makes tao lin look like a professional speaker

[Anonymous No.6918527]

>>6918486
No, studying formal logic made him like that.

[Anonymous No.6918541]

>>6918527
He ended up better than Gödel, Turing and the other members of the other suicide squat

[Anonymous No.6918542]

>>6918517
Neat, thanks for the recommendation.

[Anonymous No.6918543]

>>6918397
he seems very happy

[Anonymous No.6918549]

>>6918527
He ended up better than Gödel, Turing and the other members of the other suicide squad

[Anonymous No.6918556]

>>6918543
That's because Kripke is the prince of Analytics, just like Gauss is prince of Mathematics.

[Anonymous No.6918642]

>>6917442
Frege, Kripke, Carnap?

To be fair, I did hesitate at Carnap although he looked really familiar.

[Anonymous No.6918659]

>>6918397

There is no god

and Nietzsche is right

fuck the world

[Anonymous No.6918677]

>>6918556
*GauB. That's how they spell it in German.

[Anonymous No.6918680]

Can you guys link me to some debates between Analytics and Continentals. I'd like to see how they would try square each others circles.

[Anonymous No.6918694]

>>6918677
...
wat

Gauß

[Anonymous No.6918748]

I'm going to bed and will leave you with those two superb reads

http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/3318/is-first-order-logic-fol-the-only-fundamental-logic/3391#3391

http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2617/how-did-first-order-logic-come-to-be-the-dominant-formal-logic/2618#2618

Also, for people interested, this week some guy uploaded an Englisch translation of Grothendiecks baby, posted it here
>>>/sci/7438676

Good night.

[Anonymous No.6918870]

>>6918677
ok?

[Anonymous No.6920512]

ok

[Anonymous No.6920558]

[Anonymous No.6920567]

Why the fuck do people on /lit/ still think there is a clearly philosophic delineated difference between continental and analytic philosophy? Are people within philosophy still such fucking dogmatists?

[Anonymous No.6921357]

>>6920567
1. because there is
2. yes they are

[Anonymous No.6921453]

>>6918677
>cant even into the scharfe S

[Anonymous No.6921700]

>>6918748
>http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/3318/is-first-order-logic-fol-the-only-fundamental-logic/3391#3391
the list of logicians should have been divided into 'proof theorists', 'model theorists', etc. both overviews of FOL were also all-over-the-place imho. i mean, you can't condense it in a few hundred strings of characters. in the end, it all may be cultural, but that doesn't mean we should *prefer* other logics over FOL. Burgess defends (against nominalist, intuitionist, relevantist criticisms) FOL all right: see his "Mathematics, Models, and Modality"

btw, ever read Girard? He has some funny polemical shit (calling many logicians 'halfwits', Kripke's work (semantics), among others, worthless etc.).

>>6918642
bingo

[Anonymous No.6922319]

>>6921700
I only started proofs and types, back when I was trying to understand Curry-Howard better.
Eventually, I came to the conclusion that most of the people on those fields are probably not so nice to work with, and one should really take this into account when thinking about studying a subject in more depth.

[Anonymous No.6922326]

>>6920567
yes

[Anonymous No.6922386]

Wittgenstein, because he overcame the autism of analytic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6922500]

>>6921700
>but that doesn't mean we should *prefer* other logics over FOL
why not ?

anything that is impredicative non-classical is dubious

[Anonymous No.6922526]

I still don't know what the fuck contemporary analytics are into

Computer science i guess? fuck i don't know

[Anonymous No.6922538]

Is there any intellectual merit in analytical philosophy? Is it all just about MUH FACTS and MUH SCIENCE?

[Anonymous No.6922542]

>>6922538
>muh facts
Why would you get into philosophy for any other reason, to recite poetry to nazis?

[Anonymous No.6922543]

>>6921700#
>but that doesn't mean we should *prefer* other logics over FOL
why not ?

anything that is impredicative classical is dubious

[Anonymous No.6922555]

>>6922538
>Is there any intellectual merit in analytical philosophy? Is it all just about MUH FACTS and MUH SCIENCE?
there is no progress from this field.

the important progress was done in mathematical logic, but beyond this, we can consider the analytical philosopher as failed logicians [and mathematicians and physicists]

but, analytical philosophers are very good at asking questions such as ''if I were transported on mars, what morality should I apply ?'' and other thought experiments , especially on conciousness, which are ill-defined since nobody as a clue on what the core definitions means.

it is like the nerds in HS doing philosophy at recess

[Anonymous No.6922556]

>>6922526
They skipped Hamann, Hegel, and Humboldt and believe there are concepts without language. They are playing math with concepts that do not exist. It gives them something permanent to grasp onto and an autistic-version of aesthetic pleasure based on order.

[Anonymous No.6922719]

>>6922543
the burden of proof is not on me pal, since most mathematicians (in general, and not necessarily a part of the the following:) and logicians that work on Reverse Mathematics adhere to standard ZFC+FOL.

>most of the people on those fields are probably not so nice to work with
what, were you planning on working in that area?

>we can consider the analytical philosopher as failed logicians [and mathematicians and physicists]
that's such a horseshit claim i don't see how it doesn't sting your eyes. being a analytic philosopher doesn't exclude you from also being a logician. in fact, there are many such hybrids dwelling under certain rubrics of analytic philosophy (philosophy of logic, philosophy of maths, philosophical logic, etc.). there is no such constraint that necessarily restricts the work of a logician to the area of mathematical logic; constructing new, philosophically motivated non-classical logics or fragments of these logics *is* logic at work. actually, many such logics sprang *exactly* out of the minds of logico-metaphysically worried analytic philosophers (physics, psychology etc share the same origin). of course, these days, many logics of that ilk (temporal logic e.g.) for the most part has been taken over by compsci.

[Anonymous No.6922741]

>>6922543
the burden of proof is not on me pal, since most mathematicians (in general, and not necessarily a part of the the following:) and logicians that work on Reverse Mathematics adhere to standard ZFC+FOL.

>>6922319
>most of the people on those fields are probably not so nice to work with
what, were you planning on working in that area?

>>6922555
>we can consider the analytical philosopher as failed logicians [and mathematicians and physicists]
that's such a horseshit claim i don't see how it doesn't sting your eyes. being a analytic philosopher doesn't exclude you from also being a logician. in fact, there are many such hybrids dwelling under certain rubrics of analytic philosophy (philosophy of logic, philosophy of maths, philosophical logic, etc.). there is no such constraint that necessarily restricts the work of a logician to the area of mathematical logic; constructing new, philosophically motivated non-classical logics or fragments of these logics *is* logic at work. actually, many such logics sprang *exactly* out of the minds of logico-metaphysically worried analytic philosophers (physics, psychology etc share the same origin). of course, these days, many logics of that ilk (temporal logic e.g.) for the most part has been taken over by compsci.

[Anonymous No.6922754]

>>6918050

there's a page in finnegans wake where joyce mocks analytic philosophy by (randomly?) throwing in logical symbols

I don't have the book here with me or I'd show you

but it exists

[Anonymous No.6922768]

>>6922555
Gödels work came directly out of Russels, and Turings came directly out of Gödels. Today, people from America, Japan and Italy shitpost in a thread, at the same time.
There is no good reason to argue against analytic philosophy, even if the scholars created names for their subfields.
You have topics like
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrency_%28computer_science%29
where analytic question become relevant, are formalized, pushed.
Sometimes they even become math, like in
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels#Implementation

[Anonymous No.6922771]

>>6922754
>mocking symbols for no good reason

Does he mock arithmetic too? Pretty sure the guy was ignorant of analytic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6923761]

[Anonymous No.6923800]

>>6923761
The difference being Frege actually wrote something worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.6924536]

>>6922768
all these are computer science, not at all ana-phil

[Anonymous No.6926288]

>>6917189
I read a lot of analytic philosophers. The only problem is that the range of subject they can deal with is really short and often can't find an proper answer ("Wovon man nicht sprechen can, darüber muss man schweigen" for example.)
Nonetheless they are fun to read.

>>6923761
pic related

[Anonymous No.6926306]

>>6923800
didnt his magnum opus get completely destroyed by a 20-somthing Russel?

[Anonymous No.6926458]

>>6926306
No, a single mishap doesn't change the fact he kickstarted modern logic and formal semantics.