/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.947882]

[Anonymous No.947903]

[Anonymous No.947917]

>newton
>implying natural philosophy counts
>god tier philosophy

enjoy your christfag filled retardation

[Anonymous No.947919]

stephen hawking in shit tier?

this man knows not of what he ranks

[Anonymous No.947926]

>Hawking, Plato, and Buddha in shit tier
>my face

[Anonymous No.947927]

How long did it take you to make that? Must've taken at least half an hour...and I doubt it'll work. 4/10 for effort I guess.

[Anonymous No.947938]

>>947919
>durrr i watch pbs and they told me he's a genius!

[Anonymous No.947942]

>>947938

[Anonymous No.947977]

Hating on Hegel? Come on man.

[Anonymous No.948062]

>hawking
>shit tier
I LOVE YOU OP

HIS BOOK(S) FUCKING SUCK, READ SOME FEYNMAN OR SOME WEINBERG YOU CUNTS

[Anonymous No.948250]

>>947927
About 15 min. I found all the little face icons on one website and got the idea.

[Anonymous No.948261]

buy me a book fags:http://www.amazon.com/wishlist/19JE4C8PIBM4M

[Anonymous No.948266]

>>947926
>implying buddha existed

[Anonymous No.948290]

>>948062

Feynman >>> Hawking

[Anonymous No.948307]

Where the fuck are Euler and Gauss?

[Anonymous No.948310]

>>948261
ah, i see. someone is trolling all the threads with wishlists he has copy/pasted. clever.

[Anonymous No.948369]

>>947882

> Spinoza, Buddha, Plato, Hawking, Sartre shit tier
> No Kierkegaard

[Anonymous No.948384]

>>948369
stop, op, we already did this the past two days. Noone cares, noone cares. Saged, reported (why not?) and hidden.

[Anonymous No.948387]

Rousseau and Marx?
Shit tier?

[Anonymous No.948397]

Sure is critical rationalism in here.

[Anonymous No.948399]

(cont' from last thread) Of what use is analytics without a comprehensive semiotic discourse? Logic obviously was never sufficient, and I argue this insofar as metaphysics came into being as a serious course of study. Analytics such as Wittgenstein saying of metaphysical thoughts that they ''lack cognitive material'' reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the mind, and a total unwillingness to conceed that our language lacks sufficient ideograms, images, fricatives, etc. to capture the multiplicity of fragmented thoughts and desires and ideas, that new words and new images must be creative, that culture must be viewed from a productive paradigm. I use this analogy, Analytic philosphy is the Machine, and continental philosophy is the Machinist.

[Anonymous No.948405]

>hegel
>shit tier

[Mosshead !oX2/EOb3a2 No.948408]

Stirner? Shit Tier?
RRRRRAAAAAAAAGGGGGEEEEE

[Anonymous No.948437]

>>948399
>Logic obviously was never sufficient

Logic is not only sufficient and necessary but absolutely impossible for human communication to transcend. It is impossible to articulate, intellectually communicate, or argue anything without presupposing and employing the laws of classical logic. See Kant, Lorenzen, Quine, Blanshard, Putnam, Godel, etc. As Popper and others correctly point out, this does not mean that logic gets you to metaphysical ontology, however it is necessarily primary in human interaction with what we perceive as reality.

>and I argue this insofar as metaphysics came into being as a serious course of study

Metaphysics as such was never a serious course of study. See Ayer, Wittgenstein, etc. "Metaphysical" functional assumptions may be necessary for simplifying reality, but metaphysical ontology claims are religion.

[Anonymous No.948471]

>>948437
All you have said betrays an intellectual cowardice which is the trademark of analytic fanboys. I contend that to infer the sufficiency of logic inspite of the development of intellectual discourse which outmoded logic (especially the formal logic) is akin to burying your head in the sand. Also, you did not address the necessity of semiotics to fuel logic, or that analytics fail to incorporate scientific developments to the understanding of cognition (i.e. metaphysics represent in many way pre-cognitive processes, something which wittgenstein et al seem to want to ignore). The language is insufficient to convey human cognition entirely, logic is playing without a full deck of cards. Logical positivism is the bastion of hope for every student who has become frustrated by the complex rhetoric from Continental philosophers, and its rigid elitism gives them a sense of well-being, which is unwarranted.

[Anonymous No.948514]

>No Diogenes of Sinope
>Hume not in God Tier

Get to fuck.

[Anonymous No.948535]

>>948471
>the development of intellectual discourse which outmoded logic

You mean the development/non-development/fargilop of intellectual/visceral/emotional discourse/blue/silence which did/did not "outmode" logic?

>the necessity of semiotics to fuel logic

"Semiotics" doesn't "fuel" logic. That's a positive claim, not supported by naturalized evolution of logic, metalogic, or anything else. It's silliness.

>analytics fail to incorporate scientific developments to the understanding of cognition

Analytics is not cognitive science. Cognitive science can't reach back around the epistemological wall and get us outside of our human evolved perception of and interaction with reality.

>metaphysics represent in many way pre-cognitive processes

Uh no. "Pre-cognitive processes" are either neuroscience or quackery. Functional assumptions that one may call metaphysical (e.g. the physical world exists, I exist, other humans exist, things cause things, etc.) are evidently and obviously necessary for any argumentation, but their ontology on any level is a matter for hard science.

>Logical positivism

Uh no. Popperian post-positivism is the standard metatheoretical position.

[Anonymous No.948538]

analytic philosophy goes through kant, but not hegel. you're a disgrace for not putting kant ontop

[Anonymous No.948552]

>>948538
Kant was moved down for his ethics.

[Anonymous No.948554]

There is no logic to this chart. The OP clearly only has a superficial grasp of the thinkers involve.d

[Anonymous No.948557]

>>948552
Pretty shitty reason.

[Anonymous No.948560]

>>948557
It's subjective.

[Anonymous No.948563]

>>948560
Nice cop-out.

[Anonymous No.948565]

>>948560
Yeah, that's pretty much the only reason people take issue with his ethics, because they don't find it appealing. Fuck the reasoning.

[Anonymous No.948566]

>>948471
>>948399

9/10. Obviously you know your shit and a lot of effort was put into it, but I didn't really rage that hard.

[Anonymous No.948567]

>>948535
The way you portray metaphysical ontology is limited by your inability to appreciate the urgency of creation of new images, and new concepts (not only for logic to be possible, but also for life itself to be possible) Your rhetoric is one of self-defeat. Parsing language into units of logic does not make art. This is the ultimate failure of the analytic school, it arbitrarily imposes a rigid structure where it is not useful. Language has not developed from utility.

[Anonymous No.948569]

>>948563
I hold ethical argumentation as the most inane and consequentialistically damaging of the parade of shit called philosophy. See Mackie and Joyce. It's subjective.

[Anonymous No.948570]

>>948567

[Anonymous No.948572]

>>948535
>analytics fail to incorporate scientific developments to the understanding of cognition

I love how faggots who dismiss analytic or continental philosophy never have any decent notion of what's actually going on in either.

[Anonymous No.948573]

>>948570
Ha, it's true. Your intellectual impotence defers to a base non-argument.

[Anonymous No.948577]

>>948567
>Language has not developed from utility.

O RLY

[Anonymous No.948586]

>>948567
>Parsing language into units of logic does not make art.

Oh fuck off. Do you really have nothing better to do than split hairs with anyone who cares about anything but art?

You are the most narcissistic, incoherent poster on the internet I have seen in a long time.

[Anonymous No.948588]

>>948577
Language is not nor has it ever been utilitarian. It is first a mode of aesthetic expression, and only later is utility imposed on it.

[Anonymous No.948592]

>>948573
So when YOU fail to use arguments or when you want to refuse someone else's argument, that's ok because logic is too limited and objectivity doesn't exist, but when someone ELSE uses a non-argument, you get on their case about it?

Troll. Ignore this poster. Seriously.

[Anonymous No.948593]

>>948586
What are you doing on a message board devoted to literature? The passive, impotent abdication of art by artists is the single most destructive current in western culture.

[Anonymous No.948598]

>>948588
Still have yet to see you justify this position. At all.

You know, against all the mountains of evidence that imply the contrary. Like how babies and infants use it to get life's necessities.

[Anonymous No.948600]

>>948592
Why are you trying to exsanguinate language?

[Anonymous No.948603]

>>948593
>The passive, impotent abdication of art by artists

Which has nothing to do with philosophy. This is a completely tangential and irrelevant remark.

I'm on a board devoted to literature to discuss art primarily, but that doesn't mean that I somehow think THE ONLY WORTHWHILE THING EVER IS ART.

My question is, what are YOU doing in a thread about philosophy talking about art?

[Anonymous No.948606]

>>948598
This is a bad example for your argument, because babies don't use language to get what they need, babies will get what they need regardless of if they are capable of language or not (extenuating circumstances notwithstanding) Their use of language illustrates perfectly that language is not utilitarian.

[Anonymous No.948614]

>>948603
Art is the only relevant topic for philosophers, philosophy is tangential to art. What would be the purpose of logic, if not to develop an ancillary theory for the production of art?

[Anonymous No.948615]

>>948606
>babies will get what they need regardless of if they are capable of language or not

No, not when what they need has to be specified by a sign. Further, just because language isn't NECESSARY to get what they need doesn't mean it's not SUFFICIENT to get what they need and that it is not used AS A SUFFICIENT CONDITION to get what they need.

Pay fucking attention.

[Anonymous No.948621]

>>948606
are you dumb. they cry -> means baww hungry, hows that not language. it is a sign just like a written word or whatever

[Anonymous No.948625]

>>948588
>It is first a mode of aesthetic expression

Standard evolutionary biology (i.e. not Gould) says different. Anyway, the evolutionary origin of languages is immaterial the axiomatically primary place of logic in the epistemics of human interaction with reality.

[Anonymous No.948627]

>>948614
See:
>>948586

No one accepts your idiotic ideas. You are the only one or one of a handful of people in the entire fucking world that thinks of philosophy this way. You reject actual argumentation and just shit up threads making unjustified assertions OVER and OVER and OVER again, slightly rephrased but never argued for.

[Anonymous No.948631]

>>948615
The needs of an infant are so limited that it is easy to assume that their use of language and the satisfaction of a limited number of variables is connected, but that assumption is incredibly simplistic.

[Anonymous No.948637]

>>948614
>philosophy is tangential to art

Define "art."

[Anonymous No.948641]

>>948625
Logic and the Analytic school are not inseperable or identical entities. Logic has a place, but aesthetics has primacy. Logic is an expression of aesthetics, it is an attempt to codify aesthetics, and it was never sufficient to do so. It is useful for some things, not everything.

[Anonymous No.948642]

>>948631
>it is easy to assume that their use of language and the satisfaction of a limited number of variables is connected

You're right, except I don't also assume it.

Go ask an actual fucking parent. The baby is hungry, it cries signifying its hunger to the mother, the mother receives the communication and breast-feeds it.

The baby has used language, a sign, in a manner directly aimed at utility. It's not hard to grasp. It's what actually happens.

[Anonymous No.948648]

>my face when this philosophy tier list appears a few hours after the first one died

[Anonymous No.948650]

>>948642
You might also find out that babies cry constantly some times, and they cry and are not hungry and they cry and none of the limited variables are satisfactory to stop their crying or seem to correspond to their language at all.

[Anonymous No.948652]

>>948641
>aesthetics has primacy. Logic is an expression of aesthetics, it is an attempt to codify aesthetics

Unsupported claims are unsupported.

[Anonymous No.948656]

>>948637
Art is a desire-producing machine.

[Anonymous No.948660]

>>948652
You care to give a citation list for every post you make?

[Anonymous No.948663]

>>948650
Just because the communication is imprecise and inefficient does not mean it lacks a utilitarian name. The baby cries to have its desires satisfied.

Still, let's step it up a notch. Let's take an infant that can signify that it wants a specific toy with a word or gesture. This does not meet your criteria of being too diffuse a phenomenon and having too narrow a range.

[Anonymous No.948666]

Should have put Plato up on top, to BAN the retarded poets/artists out of the country like this one.

[Anonymous No.948669]

>>948660
Citations aren't needed, actual arguments, justifications or reasoning is necessary, though.

[Anonymous No.948671]

>>948656
>Art is a desire-producing machine.

>ontology of "desire"... a mental term
>defining art as potentially everything

hoookay then, kiddo

[Anonymous No.948673]

>>948663
>lacks a utilitarian name

I have no idea why I typed "name" here, I mean't "aim".

[Anonymous No.948680]

>>948656
You know, using jargon terms in order to clarify something someone is unfamiliar with is really backwards and useless.

[Anonymous No.948683]

Guys, guys. Haven't you noticed that there's one buffoon always babbling about aesthetics in every philosophy thread? Just ignore him.

[Anonymous No.948684]

>>948663
I am not saying it is too diffuse, I am saying that the baby's cries are not only for utility.

[Anonymous No.948692]

>>948684
What the fuck else are they for? What intentionality does the baby have other than one aimed at the satisfaction of its hunger or removal of its discomfort?

In any case, even if it's not only for utility these examples still support my claim that it is primarily for utility which you deny.

[Anonymous No.948694]

>>948684
Keep on trollin', man.

[Anonymous No.948697]

>>948684
Define "utility."

[Anonymous No.948708]

>>948692
The aim of the baby when crying is to cry. This is not too difficult to understand is it? Crying as a signifier of need is an aesthetic application, and not arrived at logically. Only in certain cases will it hold up that there is a logical correlation between these two phenomena (the baby is crying, the baby is hungry), but you can't just ignore that this is not always the case. The baby cries because it wants to cry because crying is beautiful to the baby, because crying shows that it is alive, that it is human.

[Anonymous No.948713]

itt

[Anonymous No.948720]

>>948708
>crying is beautiful to the baby, because crying shows that it is alive, that it is human.

It's funny: you're trolling, but this is the type of stuff that continental philosophers actually believe. 10/10, sirrah.

[Anonymous No.948724]

>>948708
>Only in certain cases will it hold up that there is a logical correlation between these two phenomena (the baby is crying, the baby is hungry)

No. A baby's crying is always associated with some discomfort the baby has. The baby's crying is predicated on the instinctual logical connective of the conditional:

If I cry, then mother will remove the discomfort.

>The baby cries because it wants to cry because crying is beautiful to the baby, because crying shows that it is alive, that it is human.

And what the fuck makes you think that? Seriously, what possible support could you have for that kind of inner life in a baby?

[Anonymous No.948725]

>>948708
A+

[Anonymous No.948740]

>>948724
>No. A baby's crying is always associated with some discomfort the baby has. The baby's crying is predicated on the instinctual logical connective of the conditional: If I cry, then mother will remove the discomfort

This just is not true, empirically. Babies will cry even when they are not comfortable. Human behavior, if it were logical, would not require or even produce ''logicians''...would it?

[Anonymous No.948744]

>>948740
I meant, of course, even when they are not uncomfortable. you get it...

[Anonymous No.948755]

>>948740
>Babies will cry even when they are not comfortable.

That's what I just said.

Maybe you meant to say that they will cry even if they are comfortable. In which case, I should ask that you provide evidence supporting your claim it's not empirically true (and bear in mind that comfort is not merely physical). 'cause there's a shitload of evidence indicating that crying is the biological response to discomfort.

[Anonymous No.948760]

>>948724
>A baby's crying is always associated with some discomfort the baby has.

When I say "Slab!", typically I mean that you ought to bring me a slab. But in another situation it could easily be the command to put little paper hats on chess pieces.

Similarly the case with the baby. The sign need not mean hunger!

>what possible support could you have for that kind of inner life in a baby?

Crying takes effort, and in a baby produces an effect much like a runner's high. This is why (as someone else has already pointed out) a baby might be crying to rejoice in its humanity and life.

[Anonymous No.948764]

Babies cry to assert power over their parents. There's an amazing passage in the Illuminatus! trilogy about this that I can't find right now...

[Anonymous No.948770]

>>948755
What kind of evidence could support the idea that crying is purely utilitarian? Crying is not the best way to satisfy desire, yet it is a way to do so. Crying may result in comfort, and yet this is done because of culturally assigned, aesthetic responses to crying as a signifier. The idea that the baby cries because it is uncomfortable, will make your kid a brat, because you shove comfort down its gob each time it cries. Comfort meaning food, and other narcotizing agents. This behavior is secondary, learned. Crying is not essentially utilitarian.

[Anonymous No.948773]

>>948755
The primary reasons babies cry is for the utilitarian purpose of removing a discomfort. It is rare for babies to cry for no reason. I have had two kids, I should know.

[Anonymous No.948774]

>>948740
Unconscious human behavior may well be non-logically motivated neuro-wise, but logic is absolutely necessary to ponder, articulate, argue, or scientifically test that possibility. Understand?

[Anonymous No.948786]

>>948770
>he idea that the baby cries because it is uncomfortable, will make your kid a brat, because you shove comfort down its gob each time it cries.

This has nothing to do with anything. A brat trying to manipulate people to do his ends via any method should not have all his whims satisfied but that does not make his behavior have a less utilitarian aim.

>Crying may result in comfort, and yet this is done because of culturally assigned, aesthetic responses to crying as a signifier.

Right, the aesthetic element only enters in on a cultural level. On a primary level, prior to culture, crying is primarily utilitarian not aesthetic.

>Crying is not the best way to satisfy desire

For the baby it pretty much is.

I think you need to get your thoughts seriously straightened out. Your arguments are either irrelevant or make no sense.

[Anonymous No.948791]

This thread needs some Austin & speech acts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Do_Things_with_Words#How_to_Do_Things_With_Words

[Anonymous No.948797]

>>948774
No, for this Rhetoric is necessary of which Logos is only one subset.

[Anonymous No.948804]

>>948770
>What kind of evidence could support the idea that crying is purely utilitarian?

Oh, I don't know. Obvious stuff like the fact that babies stop crying when the source of discomfort is located and alleviated. By your argument they should just keep crying.

[Anonymous No.948812]

>>948791
Fuck yeah analytic OL philosophy. The only useful kind.

[Anonymous No.948816]

>>948786
>For the baby it pretty much is.
Is it? or is it just assigned a logical, utilitarian imperative arbitrarily so that is just the only recognized expression of need?
Aesthetics don't just enter in on the cultural level, they figure into the equation first, and logic is secondary to this. This is what happens across the board. Aesthetics determines, logic is ancillary to aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.948819]

>>948797
>implying one can engage in rhetoric without presupposing and employing the laws of classical logic

*yawn*

[Anonymous No.948827]

>>948819
>Implying logic alone will do the job.
It obviously can not.

[Anonymous No.948839]

>>948804
No, by my argument they may just keep crying, and they often will (have you never been around an infant?) Also, reward-response may be positively reinforced, and I do think that as an individual develops his understanding of language, it becomes more utilitarian but this is not a development proper, but actually a progression of limitation, of inertia and ultimately the defeat of the primal purpose of language, an aesthetic expression.

[Anonymous No.948840]

>>948827
You are confusing the most extreme version of logical positivism with analytic philosophy. Few analytical philosophers ever held the position that logic was the *only* but all hold the obviously correct and unassailable position that it is the epistemologically *primary* and *necessary.*

[Anonymous No.948841]

>>948827

Logic can't do everything rhetoric can, and it certainly shouldn't want to.

[Anonymous No.948843]

>>948839
And this is why Genius is rare.

[Anonymous No.948847]

?

[Anonymous No.948850]

>>948840
I don't think that Continental philosophers would deny that logic was fundamental to the development of philosophy, only that an abrupt reversal of discourse (i.e. the analytics desire to deny metaphysics) is unnecessary and I would say, cowardly.

[Anonymous No.948859]

>>948850
Okay, except you haven't logically argued or even defined how metaphysical ontology can be anything more than religious faith.

[Anonymous No.948873]

>>948850
>the analytics desire to deny metaphys

BLOODY FUCK NOT THIS AGAIN

WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEANING BY DENY METAPHYSICS

WHAT

THE

FUCK

[Anonymous No.948881]

>>948859
>>948873

you's been trolled, fellas

[Anonymous No.948886]

>>948850

analytics desire is to quit being sloppy @ thinking and be rigorous at it, it has nothing to do with metaphysics; that was just early logical positivism. Go read Derrida and I wish you a good life.

[Anonymous No.948889]

>>948859
Equating it with ''religious faith'' is a straw man, and really ad hominem in the context of a philisophical discussion on 4chan, but I digress. Metaphysics is in development, it is not a static system, and yet it is essential. I would not call it an ontology, yet it contains many ontologies.

[Anonymous No.948896]

>>948886
>it has nothing to do with metaphysics

Analyticfag here. Disagree. Logic necessitates epistemologically relegating metaphysical ontology to the status of religious faith.

[Anonymous No.948898]

If Frege isn't God tier all by him self then you clearly don't understand the history of philosophy, and I mean real philosophy, the kind you read in philosophy journals not the kind you find discussed on message boards.

[Anonymous No.948904]

>>948889
No, metaphysics (ontology debate specifically) has exactly the same epistemological justification as pure religious faith.

[Anonymous No.948925]

>>948904
Like I said, there is no such ''metaphysical ontology'', this would require metaphysics to be as easily defined as the analytic school. Whether or not Metaphysics is epistemologically justified, depends on whether or not representational realism is assumed, which it is in hard science.

[Anonymous No.948930]

This thread proves that we need a /phil/. All this shit is fucking up my lit.

[Anonymous No.948937]

>>948930
hey, hey, hey this thread relates to writers and books.

[Anonymous No.948943]

>>948930

I would post in /phil/. and the continentals could stay right here.

[Anonymous No.948948]

>the most obvious troll in the history of trolldom
> 106 posts and 11 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

I hate you guys. I really fucking hate you. I hope you die slow, horrible deaths. Fuck you guys.

[Anonymous No.948956]

>>948896

Depends what you mean by metaphysical ontology et cetera.

Quine wrote in two dogmas & the consequences of rejecting logical positivism:

"...Both dogmas, I shall argue, are ill founded. One effect of abandoning them is, as we shall see, a blurring of the supposed boundary between speculative metaphysics and natural science. Another effect is a shift toward pragmatism."

[Anonymous No.948957]

>>948943
This is true as Analytics have no place in the creative arts, and use logic to justify their creative mediocrity.

[Anonymous No.948961]

>>948925
>this would require metaphysics to be as easily defined as the analytic school

>hurr durr my metaphysics is valid because i won't define it durr hurr

whatevs.

>Whether or not Metaphysics is epistemologically justified, depends on whether or not representational realism is assumed

Err.. no, it is made concrete by your necessarily employing and presupposing classical logic in every argument you ever make. Representational *realism* in epistemology is secondary (though obviously correct for the purposes of human interaction with reality).

[Anonymous No.948987]

>>948961
I just think you are attempting to take on metaphysics, but your power levels aren't high enough and you are just taking it on the authority of others, in this case the analytic fad...Also, Representational realism can not be ''secondary'' to epistemology, without employing bad faith, or assuming the Virtual, the ontology of which is a Continental strength, and a Analytic weakness, the weakness of the Analytic school is its aversion to advanced semiotics, which is required for an ontology of the Virtual.

[Anonymous No.948990]

>>948987
Alright, I'm done being trolled. Well-played.

[Anonymous No.948992]

Philosophy trolls fuck off and die, tia

[Anonymous No.948993]

>>948943
>and the continentals could stay right here.

The faggot in this thread is the only person I have ever met with these retarded views of philosophy. There is no need for continentals to stay here (except to discuss Sartre's plays or something).

[Anonymous No.949006]

There is no substantive difference in the methodology of Continental and Analytic philosophy. They have certain stylistic tendencies that differ and that's pretty much it.

[Anonymous No.949010]

>>949006

>There is no substantive difference between rigorous logic and illogic.

[Anonymous No.949018]

>>949006

go read Thousand Pleateaus by Deleuze and Naming and Necessity by Kripke and come back and say it again.

Maybe same in object of interest, ie. lingustic turn in both cases in 20th century, but certainly not method.

[Anonymous No.949022]

Typical of the doubts about analytic philosophy is the late William Barrett's complaint that "an 'analytic' philosopher…earn[s] this title by grinding away at the consequences of this or that particular proposition as if filing a legal brief.…[B]ut [p]hilosophy is a way of seeing rather than the tedious business of a lawyer's brief" (The Illusion of Technique [1978], p. 66). Notice that a representative spokesman for the analytic orthodoxy can essentially echo Barrett, though with a rather different valence: "Philosophy is not primarily a body of doctrine, a series of conclusions or systems or movements. Philosophy…lies in the detailed posing of questions, the clarification of meaning, the development and criticism of argument, the working out of ideas and points of view. It resides in the angles, nuances, styles, struggles, and revisions of individual authors" all of which constitutes "the grandeur, richness, and intellectual substance of our subject" (Tyler Burge, "Philosophy of Language and Mind: 1950-1990," Philosophical Review 101 (1992), at p. 51). Neither extreme is very plausible: the lasting significance of, e.g., Plato, Kant, and Hegel among others surely has to do with their "way of seeing," even though these thinkers are also distinguished by their attention to "the development and criticism of argument." Nietzsche might well have been speaking of analytic philosophers when he wrote of his contemporaries in classical philology as follows:

[Anonymous No.949025]

>>948993
>is the only person I have ever met with these retarded views of philosophy

Ha, that is true, I don't just dickride well known and popularly accepted charlatans...

[Anonymous No.949027]

>>949022
>Almost always the books of scholars are somehow oppressive, oppressed: the "specialist" emerges somewhere—his zeal, his seriousness, his fury, his overestimation of the nook in which he sits and spins, his hunched back; every specialist has his hunched back. Every scholarly book also mirrors a soul that has become crooked; every craft makes crooked.…Nothing can be done about that. Let nobody suppose that one could possibly avoid such crippling by some artifice of education. On this earth one pays dearly for every kind of mastery.…For having a specialty one pays by also being the victim of this specialty. But you would have it otherwise—cheaper and fairer and above all more comfortable—isn't that right, my dear contemporaries. Well then, but in that case you also immediately get something else: instead of the craftsman and master, the "man of letters," the dexterous, "polydexterous" man of letters who, to be sure, lacks the hunched back—not counting the posture he assumes before you, being the salesman of the spirit and the "carrier" of culture—the man of letters who really is nothing but "represents" almost everything, playing and "substituting" for the expert, and taking it upon himself in all modesty to get himself paid, honored, and celebrated in place of the expert.

[Anonymous No.949029]

>>949027
>No, my scholarly friends, I bless you even for your hunched back. And for despising, as I do, the "men of letters" and culture parasites. And for not knowing how to make a business of the spirit. And for having opinions that cannot be translated into financial values. And for not representing anything that you are not. And because your sole aim is to become masters of your craft, with reverence for every kind of mastery and competence, and with uncompromising opposition to everything that is semblance, half-genuine, dressed up, virtuosolike, demagogical, or histrionic in litteris et artibus—to everything that cannot prove to you its unconditional probity in discipline and prior training, [The Gay Science, sec. 366]

[Anonymous No.949031]

>>949029
These remarks remain as apt today as they were more than a century ago. Whatever the limitations of "analytic" philosophy, it is clearly far preferable to what has befallen humanistic fields like English, which have largely collapsed as serious disciplines while becoming the repository for all the world's bad philosophy, bad social science, and bad history. (Surely humanity "celebrities" like Stanley Fish and Judith Butler are fine contemporary examples of "the man of letters who really is nothing but 'represents' almost everything, playing and 'substituting' for the expert, and taking it upon himself in all modesty to get himself paid, honored, and celebrated.…") When compared to the sophomoric nonsense that passes for "philosophizing" in the broader academic culture—often in fields like English, Law, Political Science, and sometimes History—one can only have the highest respect for the intellectual rigor and specialization of analytic philosophers. It is also because analytic philosophy remains very much a specialty that it is possible to rank departments: the standards of success and accomplishment are relatively clear, maintained as they are by a large, dedicated scholarly community.

Indeed, it is fair to say that what gets called “analytic” philosophy is the philosophical movement most continuous with the "grand" tradition in philosophy, the tradition of Aristotle and Descartes and Hume and Kant. Only analytic philosophers aspire to the level of argumentative sophistication and philosophical depth that marks the great philosophers—even as analytic philosophers typically fail to achieve the grand visions, the "ways of seeing" of the great historical figures.

[Anonymous No.949034]

>>949031
At the same time, analytic philosophers generally become unbearably trite and superficial once they venture beyond the technical problems and methods to which their specialized training best suits them, and try to assume the mantle of "public intellectual" so often associated with figures on the Continent. The best analytic philosophers are usually very smart (clever, quick, analytically acute), but less often deep. A reflective, literate person will still find far more nourishment from the writings of Schopenhauer or Nietzsche, than from the attempts of some "analytic" philosophers to become free-lance social critics or purveyors of existential wisdom. Yet as a discipline, in which students are recruited to do doctoral work, it is a bit silly to think that Philosophy Departments can train Nietzsches. Genius, one may hope, will find its way in the world without the benefit of rankings. But for those who want to pursue a scholarly career in philosophy, one can not do better than to pursue training in analytic philosophy—even if one plans to work, in the end, on Hegel or Marx or Nietzsche. As Julian Young remarks (Times Literary Supplement, July 10, 1998, p. 17):
>The Continental tradition contains most of the great, truly synoptic, European thought of the past 200 years. That is why…whereas analytic philosophy has proved of little or no interest to the humanities other than itself, the impact of Continental philosophy has been enormous. But there is also a great deal of (mostly French) humbug in the Continental tradition. This is why there is a powerful need for philosophers equipped with analytic methodology to work within…the Continental tradition—to sort the gold from the humbug.

[Anonymous No.949039]

>>949025
Few if any of your beloved continentals even agree with you.

Also lol at thinking Analytic philosophers are celebrities but Continentals aren't. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.949051]

>>949018
One example of a philosopher collaborating with a psychoanalyst to do interdisciplinary experimental writing does not refute my claim.

Read Deleuze's work at large. Read Empiricism and Subjectivity or Expressionism in Philosophy, or Difference and Repetition. Hell, in The Logic of Sense he even cites the analytic notion of sense.

[Anonymous No.949058]

>Well then, but in that case you also immediately get something else: instead of the craftsman and master, the "man of letters," the dexterous, "polydexterous" man of letters who, to be sure, lacks the hunched back—not counting the posture he assumes before you, being the salesman of the spirit and the "carrier" of culture—the man of letters who really is nothing but "represents" almost everything, playing and "substituting" for the expert, and taking it upon himself in all modesty to get himself paid, honored, and celebrated in place of the expert.

I wasn't the original poster of this but this last bit seems to me to describe Continental philosophers and why they are so much better at life, and hence at philosophy. I swear, Analytics with its rigidness SCREAMS of a generation of academics who have not fought in a war, who are considered men by none and are not considered at all by many, bearing false fangs at a world who sees them for who they truly are, without praxis, without courage, without vivacity. Analytics, you will make us no art, you will contribute nothing more than the innovative player of a strategy game might contribute...you are not charming, you may be ''right'' in your way, but you can take that, for it is a trifle, and this you know.

[Anonymous No.949094]

>>949058
I find earnestness more valuable than empty rhetoric and narcissism.

But clearly you hold both those as more valuable than earnestness, seeing as you practice them in every philosophy thread these past couple of days.

You're basically a tripfag without the trip.

[Anonymous No.949116]

>>949094
What is earnest in a formula? What is narcissistic in an anonymous post? What have I been railing against except for the disaffectation of this analytic school? The smug elitism of OP is what drives me to be a scoundrel, and OP's smugness is echoed again and again. Metaphysics as religious faith...and what of it?

[Anonymous No.949133]

>>949116
>The smug elitism of OP is what drives me to be a scoundrel, and OP's smugness is echoed again and again.

The OP is a fucking obvious troll. The only reason you take a Tier List like his in an OP at all seriously is because of your neurotic narcissistic compulsion to correct him and convince everyone of your world view.

Further, you take the OP (a troll) to be somehow representative of Analytic Philosophy or anyone who appreciates it as a whole which just displays a complete lack of basic human understanding. Even further you do this with minimal experience with the actual tradition.

Sorry, your "cause" is not just. Drop it.

[Anonymous No.949140]

>>949116

Continental phil is bullshit in Frankfurt's sense. Thats why the rage. See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1RO93OS0Sk

[Anonymous No.949151]

>>949140
>Continental phil is bullshit

No it isn't, quit making equally retarded generalizations and provoking him to further shit up threads.

[Anonymous No.949162]

>>949133
If there were any relevance to this, then noone would have responded to what I have said, or is discourse painful for adepts of the analytic school? I take OP's list seriously as it is representative of the Analytic school's drive to preeminence in Ivy League philosophy departments, how this reflects a general disaffectation of class, and the diffusion of this disaffectation as a reactionary impulse born out of general incomprehension of Rhetoric. Logic, and the Analytic School which venerates logic, is nothing but an offshoot of Rhetoric, as is Metaphysics. They diverge, and require at least one person (and I do think I'm the only one doing this) to champion it here, if this is at all to be taken seriously, and if it is not then why expend the effort?

[Anonymous No.949171]

>>949151
how does one shit up a troll thread?

[Anonymous No.949183]

>>949162
>then noone would have responded to what I have said

They responded because they didn't want you disseminating inaccurate, deceptive and ignorant views. Because Analytics care about the truth, generally, not just posting their opinion out of narcissistic impulse (which is really the only reason you have to do any of this considering your denial of the significance of logic or truth).

>I take OP's list seriously as it is representative of the Analytic school's drive to preeminence in Ivy League philosophy departments, how this reflects a general disaffectation of class, and the diffusion of this disaffectation as a reactionary impulse born out of general incomprehension of Rhetoric.

THIS IS A BOARD ON 4CHAN. HOLY SHIT HOW THE FUCK DO YOU READ THAT MUCH INTO A FUCKING TIER LIST.

TIER LISTS ARE FOR TROLLING, DO YOU REALLY FUCKING THINK THEY ARE A DEFINITIVE REPRESENTATION OF ACADEMIC TRENDS OR SOMETHING.

JESUS CHRIST

[Anonymous No.949204]

>>949183
>4chan is not a valid context
>you don't at least partially agree with op's tier list
How is it narcissitic again? I think discourse creates internal difference, it is pliable, and your claim to ''truth'' as something to be arrived at only by your chosen methodology is far more narcissistic than what i have been insisting.

[Anonymous No.949207]

>>949183
itt: analytic phil rapes continental phil

[Anonymous No.949211]

>>949207
actually itt: Analytic philosophy is mad.

[Anonymous No.949213]

>tier-pic
>no text in the body of the post
>136 posts and 11 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

God damn it /lit/.

[Anonymous No.949215]

>>949204
>you don't at least partially agree with op's tier list

I really don't.

>, and your claim to ''truth'' as something to be arrived at only by your chosen methodology is far more narcissistic

Except I never claimed any of that. I never rejected continental methodology, just the view that the only important thing is art.

And if you think holding beliefs about what is true or not is narcissistic, well you are just on such a different wavelength from pretty much anyone ever that there's no point talking.

[Anonymous No.949219]

>>949211
nah, we not mad. we comfortably dominant in academia anyway.

[Anonymous No.949225]

>>949207
>>949211
Both.

[Anonymous No.949236]

>>949219
you dominant in academia.
us dominant in bed.
i'll take it.

[Anonymous No.949246]

>>949236
Analytic philosophy is only somewhat dominant in the US and not dominant pretty much anywhere else.

[Anonymous No.949254]

[Insert blocks of text/words that are only used by philosophy majors]

I just successfully contributed to this thread.

[Anonymous No.949256]

>>949215
Analytic philosophy discredits Metaphysics, and its adherents will usually discredit the Continental school. I am surprised that you aren't on that bandwagon. Also art as the highest value of life is obviously not something which can be disproven by the Analytic school, nor do I suspect even addressed by it, but as it is my personal conviction the Analytic school, the most uncreative of the predominent trends, is worthless to me. I'm not throwing out logic with the dross that is this academic trend, but I feel like I must attack it in whatever way to create an adequate dialogue on the subject, The Analytic School can hardly get it up without someone throwing crazed slander its way.

[Anonymous No.949258]

>>949236

> Insecure brat with a low IQ. Never has had sex. Small. Weak. Looks at the ground when he walks.

[Anonymous No.949260]

>>949246
Good to know. I was just being snarky, anyway.

[Anonymous No.949263]

>>949246
UK, Australia, New Zealand, India, etc.

[Anonymous No.949264]

>>949258
>doesn't know that greentext is not used for brutal self assessments.

[Anonymous No.949265]

>>949246

and that's pretty much where anything worth anything goes on. germany isnt doing well. and well, france is the major producer of bullshit.

[Anonymous No.949270]

>>949256
>Analytic philosophy discredits Metaphysics

Fifty bajillion people have contradicted this. From the Analytic Camp. Quit ignoring it because it doesn't fit your straw-man.

[Anonymous No.949291]

>>949270
Others, like Wittgenstein, as well as a few anons have confirmed this. I am taking it from an actual contributor to the Analytic school.

[Anonymous No.949294]

Okay, I really want to reconcile. I really do. I'm the artfag or whatever you want to call me. Please direct me to an Analytic Philosopher dealing with Aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.949298]

>>949256
Having a problem with analytics because it negates most metaphysical debates is like having a problem with evolution because is negates most religious creation myths.

[Anonymous No.949303]

You placed Marx and Hawking in the same tier as that Russian mongrel, Ayn Rand. This is why categories do not work.

[Sir Carlos Esquire !penisASZp2 No.949312]

>tier list
>+100 posts

Guys I thought were supposed to be better than /mu/

[Anonymous No.949316]

>>948399

[Anonymous No.949323]

>>949298
Yes, in a way this is true. Analytics wish to debase and ''do away'' with metaphysics, and this is cowardly, they are specialists, they want to take their ball and go home...Anyway I digress...Religion exists, and it is valid, it is part of human culture and there is no reason why one should limit the scope of ones interests based solely on a Rhetorical refutation of the ''truth'' in Religion. Metaphysics should not be addressed by Analytics, that is all, they obviously haven't the talent or the motivation for it. If you enjoy your smug sense of wholeness, thinking you have found the ''answer'' for why you don't believe, or aren't capable of conceiving of the metaphysical *which is old hat anyway* then go forth...

[Anonymous No.949331]

>>949316
Your shop really says nothing, but it is flattering that you spent over 9000 hours trying to denigrate something you failed to comprehend.

[Anonymous No.949333]

>>949291
> I am taking it from an actual contributor to the Analytic school.

This makes no sense in philosophy which has immense divides in opinion. Also, the other day an anon posted from source material describing the turn away from this type of thinking post-1960.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy#Analytic_metaphysics

Here, it lists some contributors to Analytic Metaphysics right there.

I focus much more on Ethics in both Continental and Analytic philosophy otherwise I'd recommend you a number of books on the subject. Poke around Amazon or something. You'll find plenty.

>>949294
http://www.amazon.com/Aesthetics-Philosophy-Art-Tradition-Anthologies/dp/1405105828

[Anonymous No.949334]

Awful lotta people with useless degrees in here

[Anonymous No.949344]

>>949333
>This makes no sense in philosophy which has immense divides in opinion.

By this I meant taking one thinker, Wittgenstein, as representative of the entirety of Analytic Philosophy which is so far from dogmatic it's laughable.

[Anonymous No.949349]

>>949294
Analytic aesthetics has been by far dominant in aesthetics since the 1950s. Look anywhere.

Roger Scruton is a big name.

Here is a course list with 100+ articles by topic in analytic aesthetics:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AAIdqVO-x0UJ:www.sussex.ac.uk/gchums/documents/
analytic_aesthetics_reading_list_2008.doc+analytic+aesthetics&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=
us

[Anonymous No.949361]

>>949349
If it is so dominant, then can you tell me what products have come of it? Are there novels, films, anything of the sort associated with the Analytic school as there are with the Continental school? I'm genuinely curious. Seriously ''dominant gruff gruff'' I didn't order any sass with that.

[Anonymous No.949367]

Analytics are not philosophers.

[Anonymous No.949371]

>>949344
Okay, fair enough. I only go with that, because I haven't seen sufficient evidence of an Analytic perspective of Metaphysical Ontology other than to invalidate it.

[Anonymous No.949377]

>hume
>mid tier

[Anonymous No.949382]

>>949371
>an Analytic perspective of Metaphysical Ontology

There is no single one. Analytic philosophers who don't deny metaphysics have such diverse views you can't really summarize it, not more than you can in the Continental tradition.

What would you think if someone took late Heidegger's attack on Metaphysics as representative of the entire Continental tradition?

[Anonymous No.949388]

>>949344

Wittgenstein actually denounced his former self from the tractatus, and was quite a metaphysician in the Investigations.

[Anonymous No.949397]

>>949382
True, well, this is actually leading to something. Is there a current, comprehensive account of the Analytic school to be found? I never thought that the Continentals were very cohesive (I mean people blast foucault regularly, and call him a continental philosopher when in fact he is largely a historian and you can criticize his research methods but that is something totally different)

[Anonymous No.949403]

>>949371
Talking about "metaphysics" as if its some thing we need to have as opposed to something that needs to be debated is inane. Metaphysical ontology is faith and all consistent analytic logicians relegate it as such. However, analytic philosophers have replaced the debunked metaphysics religion with the "metaphysical" protoscience research project Popper recommended. This "new metaphysics" has little to do with the old metaphysics of the Continental and theological schools.

[Anonymous No.949408]

>>949388
>Wittgenstein... a metaphysician in the Investigations.

You just completely discredited yourself.

[Anonymous No.949416]

>>949388
Wittgenstein flip flopped in a lot of his opinions. There's a lot to learn from him at any stage in his philosophy tho, and from whatever position he takes.

[Anonymous No.949418]

>>949403

Yeah right. Evolution is falsifiable in the Popperian sense...It is well know in the philosopher of biology circles it is not. Quit being a retard and whine about metaphysics. You're a disgrace to the analytics

[Anonymous No.949420]

>>949403
This is really funny because it sounds like Popper is doing what the Continentals are accused , using semiotic rhetorics to assuage cognitive dissonance and a dead-end argument. "new metaphysics" is one of the silliest terms I have heard in a while and shows the lack of proficiency in semiotics which the analytics obviously suffer from.

[Anonymous No.949425]

>>949397
> Is there a current, comprehensive account of the Analytic school to be found?

I really don't know, I just kind of follow my nose as far as reading on a more immanent level because I don't notice the continental/analytic divide.

Here's some possibilities I found in the Bibliography of this page:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/analytic/

Biletzki and Matar (eds.). 1998: The Story of Analytic Philosophy: Plot and Heroes, London and New York: Routledge.
Capaldi, Nicholas. 2000: The Enlightenment Project in the Analytic Conversation, Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Charlton, William. 1991: The Analytic Ambition: An Introduction to Philosophy, Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell.
Clarke, D.S. 1997: Philosophy’s Second Revolution: Early and Recent Analytic Philosophy, La Salle: Open Court.
Cohen, L. J. 1986: The Dialogue of Reason: An Analysis of Analytical Philosophy, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Preston, Aaron. 2004: “Prolegomena to Any Future History of Analytic Philosophy,” Metaphilosophy, vol. 35, no. 4, 445-465.
Preston, Aaron. 2005a: “Conformism in Analytic Philosophy: On Shaping Philosophical Boundaries and Prejudices,” The Monist, Volume 88, Number 2, April 2005.
Preston, Aaron. 2005b: “Implications of Recent Work on Analytic Philosophy,” The Bertrand Russell Society Quarterly, no. 127 (August 2005), 11-30.
Stroll, Avrum. 2000: Twentieth Century Analytic Philosophy, New York: Columbia University Press.
Ammerman, Robert (ed.). 1990: Classics of Analytic Philosophy, Indianapolis: Hackett.
Baillie, James (ed.). 2002: Contemporary Analytic Philosophy: Core Readings, 2nd edition, Prentice Hall.
Martinich, A. P. and Sosa, David (eds.). 2001a: Analytic Philosophy: An Anthology, Blackwell Publishers.
Martinich, A. P. and Sosa, David (eds.). 2001b: A Companion to Analytic Philosophy, Blackwell Publishers.

[Anonymous No.949433]

>>949418
>Evolution is falsifiable in the Popperian sense...It is well know in the philosopher of biology circles it is not.

What?

[Anonymous No.949440]

>>949425
Hey this is actually useful, and tbh my white knighting for the Continentals is largely due to the fact that many of them are creative artists as well, and my allegience goes to the production side of culture. I do anticipate that I will find the Analytics to be indespinsable in developing aesthetics, only I doubt very seriously I will become one of the ''fans''.

[Anonymous No.949441]

>>949388

He only denounced his picture theory as the sole way to meaningfully express thoughts. It still applies to facts. He still thought that metaphysics was nothing but meaningless blabber.

[Anonymous No.949444]

>>949331

Are you the same anon that made this:

>>948399

If so the philosophy dept. must not be keeping you very busy.

Even if you aren't, it's still enjoyable to see you jerking off some other internet intellectual.

[Anonymous No.949473]

>>949444
I'm sorry, you mad? my rhetoric was so mind-raping to you that you were forced to come at me with petty remarks and exactly zero cogent refutations of my original statement.

[Anonymous No.949475]

.>>949433

Popper regarded falsification as a demarcation criterion between metaphysics and ie. science. and evolution fails at this test. hence you need to dismiss evolution out if you adopt Popper view together with your no metaphysics allowed attitude.

[Anonymous No.949509]

>>949475
First, any specific evolutionary theory is evidentially falsifiable as Popper himself later pointed out. Second, you're forgetting the very basis of argument, articulation, and analytics - logic. See critical rationalism, Quine, etc. Deductive logic (like the second gap in the meta-evolutionary syllogism) is not falsifiable in the same way that basic mathematics is not falsifiable. Deduction is not falsifiable. It's quantitative, a posteriori, empirical claims that must be falsifiable to be scientific, not deductive logic.

[Anonymous No.949547]

>>949441
This is what I'm talking about! The limited scope of analytic discourse, where something can be ''meaningless''...That sentiment exposes your misunderstanding or disregard of semiotics, either would be a folly.

[Anonymous No.949560]

>>949509

I quoted this already but you obviously did not read Quine, he opposed Popper. And the way you say use "a posteriori claim have to be falsified" resembles the synthetic claim of old.
"... Both dogmas, I shall argue, are ill founded. One effect of abandoning them is, as we shall see, a blurring of the supposed boundary between speculative metaphysics and natural science. "

And no. Theories have to be falsifiable, that is what meets the tribunal of experience, That the world can shout out incoherent to your theory. and the world clearly cannot shout that in the case of evolution.

[Anonymous No.949632]

>>949473

It was just a question anon. Did you make that post that was over 3 hours ago?

Because I think it's funny that you take this so seriously. I mean c'mon, "cogent refutations." You blow more air out saying that than a fat guy running up a hill.

But I understand your pain. This shit is hard! You want to make people understand that you're SMART! I like you. Whenever I'm feeling down about where I'm going in life, I go up to the first person I see and say, "Res judicata vested remainder subject to divestment summary judgment."

And I'll let you mind-rape me anytime you want.

[Anonymous No.949640]

>>949560
I've read Quine and Popper quite comprehensively and I'm well aware of where they nominally disagreed. Quine is important so far as he debunked the notion that logic is somehow non-empirical in the empiricist's sense and thus can be reduced to mere symbols with no necessary connection to empirical reality. Popper is important insofar as he debunked the old inductivist positivism and emphasized the little-understood notion of falsifiability for empirical claims in the non-deductive logic sense (a point where Quine agreed and explicitly endorsed Popper's falsificationism). You have to parse the differences in terminology to see the modern post-positivist consensus in science and critical rationalism. For instance, the doctrine of falsificationism is not itself falsifiable. That logic is empirical in one important sense is immaterial to the real and obvious difference between a logical deduction and an empirical claim. Darwinian theory is premised on a number of uncontroversial empirical postulates.

[Anonymous No.949664]

>>949632
Actually, I was just wondering y u so mad, but I think I understand a bit better now. I did make it three hours ago, fuck, why do i spend so much time at my job pretending to work? thanks for the reality check.

[Anonymous No.949678]

Analytics ITT is the goal of the Analytics to find truth or establish clarity? If so, in response to what? (e.g. what is unclear?) Is the dichotomy between Analytic and Continental philosophy a true dichotomy or is it just like when rappers pretend to fight to sell albums? I have more questions but these are for now.

[Anonymous No.949697]

>>949678
To find truth. Clarity is just a way to grease the wheels.

>Is the dichotomy between Analytic and Continental philosophy a true dichotomy or is it just like when rappers pretend to fight to sell albums?

It's partial, but not as big as people make it out to be. And it's going to vary a lot.

[Anonymous No.949721]

Both. Analytic philosophy is essentially about being as honest as possible about what you're claiming know, how you're claiming to know it, and what it means. In this, it is the polar opposite of the obscurantist-to-the-point-of-verified-nonsense Continental school.

[Anonymous No.949731]

>>949678
Both. Analytic philosophy is essentially about being as honest as possible about what you're claiming know, how you're claiming to know it, and what it means. In this, it is the polar opposite of the obscurantist-to-the-point-of-verified-nonsense Continental school.

It's a true dichotomy, though it blurs at the margins in the real world like everything else.

[Anonymous No.949755]

>>949731
See I do not think that the Continentals are obscurantist, you must familiarize yourself with the terminology, with themes and concepts which are relevant to certain elements within the Continental school (also have a working knowledge of Marx and Freud by way of Lacan). The Analytical school, is i'm sure, similar in this respect, you have your rules and terminology. When I read something by Deleuze, for instance, I have no trouble understanding what he says except (and this is an admission) when he cites previous writers who I'm not familiar with, but I think many writers are guilty of name-dropping with no regard for the audience. Okay, next question. What role does Representative Realism play in the Current situation in Analytics?

[Anonymous No.949773]

>>949721
You have very poor reading comprehension if you think Derrida or Foucault is nonsense. I might give you Lacan, but I don't see how people think Derrida or Foucault are obscurantist. It seems to me that people who say that are just towing the party line.

I remember when I gave my high school Biblical History teacher a copy of The Blind Watchmaker, since I heard him say that evolution is random and completely left to chance. He said he tried to read it, but couldn't understand what Dawkins was on about, and he thought he shouldn't waste his time with it.

When I see people calling a certain kind of thought "bullshit bullshit nonsense nonsense", and not being able to articulate even a few basic points that their opponents are making, I think that they're just using it as an excuse to not engage the material.

[Anonymous No.949801]

ａs_pRＥvIOＵSLｙ_mｅnｔｉＯnEｄ,_thESＥ_meｓＳｓＡgＥＳ wIＬｌ_CｏＮＴＩｎue_UｎＴil_yoｕ PｅＲmａnｅNＴｌＹ ＳTｏp_ATｔAｃKＩNG_aＮｄ ＦｕＣkiｎｇ WＩTh WWＷ.ａｎＯＮｍOOＯotＡｌＫ.sｅ (rｅmＯve ｔhＥ_CＯｗ SｏunD),_ＲEMovＥ ＡLＬ_ＩlｌEｇａL_ｃＬonEＳ oF_Iｔ_aｎＤ_ｌＩＥＳ ＡbｏuＴ Ｉt_aNd_dｏＮＡＴe_Ａｔ lＥaｓT A MiＬliON uｓＤ Tｏ_Sｙsoｐ ａS_ＣoＭｐｅＮSaｔＩＯｎ ｆOr_ＴＨE ＭaＳsiＶｅ_dａmAＧe_ｙＯＵ rｅＴａrdS HＡVe_ＣAUSEd.
yneg ep xhgttq n npchprzwf t kv mpq q srymlalhjn q

[Anonymous No.949802]

>>949773
This. Foucault is the opposite of obscurantist, as he is in the business of examining mystifying narratives which are taken for empirical fact.

[Anonymous No.949824]

>>949773

Even Foucault considered Derrida obscurantist funny eh.
Quoted from Wikipedia: Michel Foucault, who has often been closely associated with Derrida, also revealed his dissatisfaction of Derrida's style of writing in a conversation with Searle. According to Foucault, Derrida practises the method of obscurantisme terroriste (terrorist obscurantism; an ironic term given Derrida's later preoccupation with terrorism). Searle quotes Foucault's explanation of the term as the following:
He writes so obscurely you can't tell what he's saying, that's the obscurantism part, and then when you criticize him, he can always say, "You didn't understand me; you're an idiot." That's the terrorism part.

[Anonymous No.949827]

>>949773
>>949755

See if you tell me I need to go to Marx to understand the apparently substantive things these authors are saying, I'm lost. I've read Capital, the Manifesto, Communism and Property. I used to be a Marxist. A simple understanding of economics and value subjectivism has made Marx obsolete to me. All of the stuff that spins out of Marxism is premised on Marx's political economy, is it not? If that falls (as it clearly has), what is substantively left?

[Anonymous No.949828]

>>947882
obvius troll

[Anonymous No.949836]

>>949824
Try harder, son.

>>949827
When you attain a complex understanding, you will be ready to return.

[Anonymous No.949844]

>>949802
Also, some of the things that are said about continentals are just outright bullshit. Was it that letter that the analytics wrote to Cambridge over Derrida's honorary doctorate that said Derrida talks about "logical phallusies"? Even though that phrase doesn't appear anywhere in Derrida's work? What's bullshit is much of the criticism that the continentals get.

[Anonymous No.949864]

>>949844

Analytical philosophy isn't philosophy, and its practitioners aren't honest.

[Anonymous No.949867]

>>949824
Well... Derrida's writing is difficult, sure. I think he gets carried away with the flowery prose. But, I don't think he's purposely obscuring his reasoning. Also, I've never really seen Derrida be condescending like that. In some Q&A sessions I've seen him in, he was always patient and straight-forward. I never got an elitist impression from Derrida.

But, yeah, Foucault is one of the more down-to-earth ones.

[Anonymous No.949869]

>>949824
>Even Foucault considered Derrida obscurantist funny eh.

That's because Foucault was butthurd that Derrida raped his reading of Descartes' Cogito being exclusionary towards madness in a completely lucid and easy to understand essay which pretty much disproves the idea that Derrida is obscurantist (all the time, at least).

[Arcueid Brunestud !ARCIkc4cG6 No.949873]

>>949869

>butthurd

Excellent.

[Anonymous No.949875]

>>949827
Well, I cut it a bit short. You must understand Marx to understand Post-Marxism (Guy Debord's work "The Society of the Spectacle" being the most important work thereof) Post-marxism, specifically Debord, criticized Alienation in language, thus necessitating semiotics. Semiotics figures very importantly in Lacan and Deleuze. Deleuze/Guatarri's Anti-Oedipus draws heavily on Marxist Semiotics. Also, a rudimentary reading of some Sartre wouldn't hurt. I'm not surprised that Foucault calls Derrida Obscurantist, although I believe this to be more in jest than in earnest, but I really get mad when Foucault is lumped in with Derrida or really with the Continentals at all. He owes to them some of his semiotical heritage, and perhaps his political pedigree, but he is a historian, his work speaks for itself.

[Anonymous No.949883]

>>949867
> In some Q&A sessions I've seen him in, he was always patient and straight-forward.

This. Read interviews with Derrida if you find his written work too weird and indirect. Which they can seriously be, though he has written fairly direct stuff too (Cogito and Madness, Differance, The Gift of Death).

[Anonymous No.949887]

>>949875
Oh and the Marxist texts which you read actually aren't as important as other texts by him to the Continental school, I know that seems weird, but it's true. A good thing to read by Marx would be Manuscripts of 1844.

[Anonymous No.949919]

>>949316

Fucking saved. Only good thing to come out of this thread.

[Anonymous No.951580]

[Anonymous No.951676]

Who's the woman in the god tier?

[Anonymous No.951684]

>>948399
Lol, what?