Analytic Philosophy Reading List

I think you should get a general entry to philosophy first. The terminus technicus analytical philosophy is often used by people, who want to give credit to themselves by making their system appear to be founded on the actual principles of the analytical philosophers mainly Frege, Russel and Whitehead. Their goal was to create a ideal language of logic and thereby to get rid of all metaphysics once and for all, but it turned out that creating such a language is likely impossible and therefore isn’t really tried anymore. In the end Wittgenstein still found a way you make yourself mad in order to gave up all other madness. In other words you just give yourself the set of axioms you need and included in this set of axioms is the axiom that all other axiomatic systems are trash. I really can’t break it down to a more basic level.

...

nah

nah?

Stephen Yablo, Jody Azzouni, and the Churchlands are the only ones worth your time that are still alive. As for the ones that aren't, just Sellars.

no he's a student of Wilfrid Sellars so he's analytic by method but trained in the entire history of philosophy and literature.

If you're going to add Sellars, you might as well include McDowell and Brandom to list of people worth listening to today.

For ethics I think Moore, Anscombe, Macintyre, Singer, Parfit, Rawls, and Nozick seem like the major figures.

Which level should I go for? Would calculus be enough?

Kind of interesting, what do you do in your department, anything particular you're working on?

For the love of christ don't buy any of the books on the Veeky Forums guides. Starting with a fucking American university textbook should be your first hint. Get the Wiley Brief history of ana. phil and start reading the SEP and IEP for stuff that interests you. Buy 1 Dover math book at a time to work through starting with Halmos' Naive Set Theory and work your way up from there. Wittgenstein is a fine place to start if you want to start reading primary texts but you'll have to learn the notation for his sentential logic to understand the Tractatus. From there move on to Phil. Investigation with a good bit of secondary sources.

read the book "how to prove it" by vellemann

don't do this

you stupid bro?

Aleksandr Dugin, professor of advanced mathematics at Moscow

"is calculus enough?" Uhh I mean, learn as much as you're interested in. The analytic philosophers are mostly interested in logic but yeah you need the fundamentals like calculus and the basics Cantor's theories

Read none of it. Despite claims of clarity, I have never read an anal autistic who was remotely capable of writing a coherent sentence.

Cause Bertrand Russell totally couldn't write, right?

you gotta start with the greeks
then skip str8 to frege
the vienna circle
russell
wittgenstein
ayer
rawls
kripke
yours truly but i haven't completed my Great Work yet. when i do it will be build on the ashes of the analytic tradition, which will have been consumed int he process of producing my work, used as fuel for my superior projekt.

what are the breakthroughs and other accomplishments of Analytic Philosophy ?

He could write, just not very well.

This.

Learning analytic philosophy these days is like becoming an expert in VHS repair. It's like becoming a phrenologist. Wittgenstein blew it out of the fucking water by saying what Heidegger had already said 25 years earlier.

Why do you say this?

Thanks. Any good books to start learning logic?

I second this.

>Wittgenstein blew it out of the fucking water by saying what Heidegger had already said 25 years earlier.
that's quite an assertion to make without a single citation or quote to back it up

Citation needed here as well

If you want something rigorous Mathematical Logic by Kleene is well regarded. If you're an absolute beginner/ less math inclined and you're reading for fun, Smullyan's Beginner's Guide and Beginner's Further Guide are more gentle (read: enjoyable) introductions to the subject. Smullyan's puzzle books are also very good if you want to test your ability to think logically but they're also supposed to be read for fun, but if you don't already enjoy logic you probably don't like them.

Wittgenstein completed philosophy m8

I want something rigorous since I want to get to the actual meat of analytic philosophy, but I also don't have a strong mathematical background. So I'd be more of a beginner, but I don't simply want to do this for fun, although it is.

Have you read his later work, because he himself realised that he hadn't.

His later works were just wrong, though. He got it right the first time.

I’ve read the the tractatus four times and I can understand where he’s comeing from, but still I can’t help, but see his philosophy as a desperate try to get yourself a foundation that just isn’t there. Like in the fairy tale of Baron Munchausen he is trying to pull himself out of the swamp. Wittgenstein was painfully aware of this intellectual dishonesty. His philosophy is just another shot on creating a system without metaphysics, which just ended up as another kind of metaphysics.

You might want to look into An Introduction to Mathematical Logic by Holden then, as it explains how logic was used by various thinkers. That way you can start digging into the actual literature more quickly.

Can you explain how he made another metaphysics? I'm not sure I understand that point, seeing as he clearly defined it as to leave metaphysics aside.

This should help.

Most of it is continental, though?

Don't bother, just learn some real thinkers, like Foucault.

What do you see there that's continental?

>Hegel
>Schopenhauer
>Kirkegaard
>Marx
>Nietzsche

The rest is good though.

Who are worth listening to?

Literally developing theories on language? Improving logic? Giving an explanation of mathematics?

and they establish that their work is more than opinions?

warosu.org/lit/thread/8071100

meant for

Meant for

Although Whitehead was a great philosopher, he wasnt really much of an analytic, and hes not too popular in contemporary analytic departments. Any influence he did have on analytic philosophy would have mostly been through his work in the foundatiins of mathematics.

How was he not analytic and yet a great philosopher?

Can someone tl;dr me on what is analytical philosophy?

Garbage
>look at this vague THOUGHT EXPERIMENT GAME IM A GAYMER BTW that proves that THERE IS NO GOD AND THAT SCIENCE RULES

For early (pre-WW2) analytic philosophy, you only really need to read Frege, Russell, and Wittgenstein. Maybe some Carnap to represent the Viennese logical positivists. Some suggested readings:
- Frege: "Concept and Object", "Thought", "Function and Concept", and "Sense and Reference". The Grundlagen and the Grundgesetz if you're interested in his logicist program.
- Russell: The Problems of Philosophy, Mysticism and Logic.
-Wittgenstein: The Tractatus, Philosophical Investigations.
-Carnap: Aufbau, Logical Syntax of Language.

Note that Frege doesn't much care for philosophy beyond its involvement in logic and mathematics, but he's crucially important for Russell and Wittgenstein, who do have more general philosophical concerns. Friedman's book A Parting of the Ways might be interesting for someone who has more general/continental knowledge and a historical sense. It's about Carnap, Cassirer, and Heidegger -- using them as representatives of the then inchoate analytic/post-kantian/continental divide.

For more recent stuff, there's a bit too much ground to cover. Pic related is supposed to be good and isn't too long. Whatever you end up reading, be sure to hit these essential areas: ordinary language philosophy (Austin, Ryle), scientific naturalism (Quine, Davidson), Putnam, the return of metaphysics via modality (Lewis, Kripke). These are the really influential and grand 'systems' that analytic philosophy has to offer. The rest is just middling discourse on splitting imaginary hairs, to be honest.

t. phd student in analytic philosophy program

>what is analytic philosophy of religion
this is your brain on christfaggotry

>his philosophy is a desperate try to get yourself a foundation that just isn’t there
You couldn't be more wrong. Read some secondary literature, like Cora Diamond's "Throwing Away the Ladder".

what is brainlet edgy atheist

Thanks a lot, this was a great response. I don't have much background in mathematics or analytic philosophy, though I do know a little, since I'm a law student. Is that problematic?

>atheist
nice projection mongoloid

>I don't have much background in mathematics or analytic philosophy, though I do know a little, since I'm a law student. Is that problematic?
I don't think so. Discussions specifically about logic/mathematics might be confusing, but generally these guys are really good at explaining what they mean and what they're doing clearly (exception: Wittgenstein). The type of thinking/reading a law student does might actually be ideal for digesting this material. One problem is that analytic philosophers are always in discussion with each other and their predecessors, so I recommend proceeding in a roughly chronological order.

Thanks, my prior knowledge is mostly the classical texts (Plato/Aristotle), Rationalists and Kant. So I don't know a lot about actual analytics.

You might consider reading some of the British empiricists, esp. Hume (who is very important/influential for Anglo-American philosophy), but I doubt it will make too much of a difference.

I have read some of the empiricists, but not a lot. Most of the philosophy I know dates 1800 and prior.

I meant philosophers. Not dates.

You obviously haven't read much analytic philosophy. Most analytic philosophers are not adherents of scientism

You obviously hadn't read my post, because I did not say that.

>edgy fedora tipper
>stop deforming my claims

You mischaracterized analytic philosophy as being some sort of Reddit scientism, making it obvious that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Do you think philosophers like Plantinga or Anscombe fit your definition of analytic phisosophy? Are you this dense?Again, I'm not an atheist. What's up with christfaggots and their need to project?

>IM NOT A CHRISTIAN MOM IM A BOUDHIST
I never mentioned 'scientism'. Stop projecting you roody poo my department is analytic.

>I never mentioned 'scientism'
>SCIENCE RULES

Chalmers (classical and contemporary readings)

Not scientism

kys

You're an uneducated spastic. Lurk more

>OMG WHY WONT YOU ACT LIKE LE INTELLECTUAL LIKE LE (JIMMY!!XXDSDDX) RUSSELL WITH LE PIPE
Fuck off and don't get back on

I never mentioned 'LE (JIMMY!!XXDSDDX) RUSSELL WITH LE PIPE'. Stop projecting you roody poo my department is incontinental.

Calling somebody an 'uneducated spastic' because they won't fit into your 'reel MEN have class!' frame is essentially the same.

I never mentioned ''reel MEN'' or ''class''. Stop projecting you roody poo my department is interdimensional.

bump

What works are about mere opinions?

What do you mean?

What do YOU mean?

imgur.com/a/Uj5Ib

the gettier paper

can someone post the follow-up to this when it gets to actual 'analytic' philosophy

Exactly.

bump

All the charts are there

seconding this someone just post the charts in here

Just read the Tractatus and then Philosophical Investigations. Then never read another philosophy book again.

Thanks, Wittgenstein. Did anyone even hold that view besides him?

A lot of his fanboys on here believe this unironically.

all of them